For many years, an incongruity has existed between evolution and a genetic explanation for homosexuality. If, as many argue, homosexuality is genetically determined then how does that fit into an evolutionary system that only rewards reproduction?
Wouldn’t evolution have weeded out what would certainly be a “flaw” in that evolution only rewards reproduction? The difficulty highlights the difficulty between the theory that homosexuality is genetic or that evolution explains everything.
But what do liberals do when science and ideology collide? They either ignore the science or they make up pretend science. (Remember “Hide the decline”?) Scientists have essentially ignored how unrelenting nature could find some evolutionary benefit to homosexuals who would seemingly be a genetic dead end, until now.
One scientist is resurrecting an old discredited theory by saying natural selection keeps the “gay gene” around because gay people make great uncles and aunts. Seriously. The ol’ ‘Uncle Bruce sings showtunes to Tommy and makes us all a happier family’ scientific theory. Yeah, that sounds scientific.
Scienceline reports:
The kin selection hypothesis, introduced in the 1970s, proposed a possible advantage homosexuality would have for humans. The hypothesis says that while homosexual individuals do not directly pass on their genes to successive generations by having children, they indirectly spread their genes through their families.
By devoting their energy to raise their nieces and nephews instead of having children of their own, homosexuals would allow their siblings to have more children and ensure that these offspring live to have children of their own. Thus, homosexual individuals would promote greater reproductive and survival rates of the relatives who share many identical genes with them — including those that may contribute to homosexuality — guaranteeing these genes are passed on to future family members.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people tell me they were only going to have two kids until their brother came out of the closet so they had six instead. That’s happened to everyone, right?
Now, many 20th century studies have shown this not to be true. But this one “scientist” went over to Samoa and lived with them for many months each year and he discovered that while Western civilization may be getting away from homosexuals spending more time and nephews and nieces, perhaps it used to be true as he says it is in the more traditional Samoan culture.
So while it’s not true anymore it used to be true and that solves that dilemma. Whew.
And surprise surprise the man who performed the study is gay but insists that doesn’t color his studies which will appear in Psychological Science next month.
Here’s the thing. Liberals have a few givens that they can’t abandon no matter what happens. Evolution and homosexuality having a genetic explanation are two of the biggies. So when the two prove incongruent, liberals will believe or pretend to believe anything as long as their presumptions go unquestioned.
January 18, 2010 at 7:48 pm
More to the point, Homosexuality, if genetic, has to be largely a mutation occurring in each new generation, since Gays do not pass on their genes. So liberals, who are all for aborting babies who have the genetic mutation of Down Syndrome, might have to live in a world of their own making where a baby is aborted because it is born with the genetic mutation of homosexuality.
January 18, 2010 at 8:22 pm
And how does this research impact public policy concerning the decision by some same sex couples to procreate through technological means? Is it better/worse/same/different as the blind couple who screens for blindness in their IVF offspring? After all, Nature has "decreed" that they not pass on their genes…and yet, here they are, denying their natural abilities to be good aunts and uncles…
(*rolls eyes*)
What a silly bunch we are.
Anon-e-mouse
January 18, 2010 at 9:24 pm
If God (or nature, as humanists like to say) intended for homosexuality to be a norm, you'd think there would have been some evolutionary change over the millenniums that would allow homosexuals to reproduce without the assistance of IVF and surrogate "mothers".
I get annoyed whenever pseudo-scientists get so much attention as opposed to real scientists who actually *do* work that is beneficial for society (ie, cancer and diabetes researchers).
Humbug!
January 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I could actually follow through with this theory, in fact if there were larger families people would be more tolerant of homosexuals. yet in larger families, homosexuals who were accepted by their siblings would understand the value of the natural family, with a mom and a dad.
There's gay and people who have had homosexual activity. As human there is no requirement to marry and reproduce, are only requirement is to respect human sexuality.
January 19, 2010 at 2:08 am
Saying that evolution could in no way EVER allow for a "gay gene" to be transmitted shows a misunderstanding of biology, and specifically genetics. At first glance, it seems like a genetic factor that predisposes someone to avoid procreational activities would be quickly "weeded out," but genetics is not that simple. The same gene can have a different effect in males versus females, or can have effects which depend on the remainder of a person's genetic makeup.
I did see a reasonable scientific theory posited a while back that could support the "gay gene" theory, at least for male homosexuals. Essentially, the theorized gene would be a sexually antagonistic one. In the theory, the same gene would basically cause "increased attraction to men;" the expression of such a gene in men would be genetically disadvantageous, but the same gene being expressed in females would actually predispose her to have MORE children.
"It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes—-and is passed down through—-high rates of procreation among gay men's mothers, sisters, and aunts."
http://bit.ly/7jQNUX
http://bit.ly/7tM85i
Whether such a gene really exists is not yet determined or ruled out. However, the idea of a gene which predisposes a man to being attracted to other men is NOT entirely unreasonable.
I'm sure no one would object to the idea of genes predisposing someone to having depression, or bipolar disorder, or being sociopathic, any other mental illness. So, don't rule out the idea of a gene influencing behavior–with regard to sexual attraction–too quickly either.
(As a disclaimer, I do believe that homosexual acts are unnatural, ….but just like someone can struggle with depression and thoughts of self-worthlessness his or her entire life, so can someone struggle with homosexual tendencies throughout his or her life. Controlling one's thoughts–or the "purity" thereof–is a struggle for all of us … depressed or not, gay or not. We are called to show compassion and love toward everyone, though there are some actions of which we cannot approve. Love the sinner, hate the sin….)
January 19, 2010 at 4:05 am
". . .they indirectly spread their genes through their families." Typical liberals. They also believe in indirect charity–tax the productive to support the lifestyle choices of the unproductive then call it our Christian duty.
And their method and terminology smack more of sociological wishful thinking rather than actual science. How could we test for this theory? To be valid, you'd have to be able to specifically identify the "gay gene."
To Genevieve: Your explanation hardly accounts for why lesbians far outnumber homosexual men. If a woman had an ingrained attraction to other women, by the same reasoning, that proclivity would necessarily die by the same mechanism which perpetuated male homosexuality. It's kind of a Catch-22.
January 19, 2010 at 4:56 am
WingletDriver, I've never heard of lesbians outnumbering gay men; in fact I've usually heard the opposite.
Anyway, my point was not to argue that the theory I referenced was valid; my point was to show that it is scientifically unreasonable to say that evolution could NEVER allow for a genetic predisposition to homosexual attraction. My example was that a hypothetical gene could possibly predispose a man to same-sex attraction (not saying anything about lesbian women in this theory.)
It is quite possible that the "reason" (whether upbringing-related, genetic, or some combination of factors) that gay men experience same-sex attraction may be very different than the "reason" lesbians are attracted to women. It is POSSIBLE that the "cause" of homosexuality in men is more genetically based than in women, or vice versa.
Just on an intuitive level, to me it seems like male-male homosexual relationships are very different from female-female homosexual relationships in their essence. Who says both have to have the same cause, or "triggering factor"?
January 19, 2010 at 2:21 pm
What a load of hooey. I was a "fag hag" in the 80s. It was cool then, before AIDS and all. All, and I mean all, my male friends were homosexual. All of them, yes all, had either weak or absent fathers. Some had mothers who coddled them too much. Others had been marred by sexual abuse of sicko uncles, cousins, grandfathers, or stepfathers. Why don't we start talking about that for a change? Then maybe these poor souls could get some comfort and healing from all the years of emotional and physical abuse they endured. Oh yea, I forgot. Liberals are really interested in HELPING people. They are just interested in pushing their own personal agendas. Sick.
January 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Genevieve,
With respect, despite the scientific wrapper you've placed on your points, they are nothing but sociological excuses for a behavior. The original article was in Scienceline, but where's the science? I.e., where are the experiments to verify the theory? Where are the replicable data? Without any science, your left with an opinion, which is O.K. But it isn't science.
August 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm
great post