Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggest

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests

www.huffingtonpost.com

Put differently, why haven't gay man genes driven themselves extinct?

This longstanding question is finally being answered by new and ongoing research. For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

The theory holds that the same

(visit the link for the full news article)

I knew it - it's all the fault of women!!

however what is even more interesting is -

While no one knows which genes, exactly, these might be, at least one of them appears to be located on the X chromosome, according to genetic modeling by Camperio Ciani and his colleagues. Males inherit only one X chromosome — the one from their mother — and if it includes the gene that promotes gayness in males and fecundity in females, he is likely to be gay while his mom and her female relatives are likely to have lots of kids.

so.......women who tend to have gay offspring also tend to have bigger families........now I'm thinking that a lot of fundies of all persuasions like to think they can breed their way to world domination - but the corollary seems to be that that will also result in them having more gay offspring.

If it is true then the irony is quite delicious!!

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So, if it is genetic and they can find the gene, they can turn that gene off in everybody thus ending homosexuality altogether. Something to think about as TPTB play with our genes. That being said, I believe that it is a choice, whether made consciously or unconsciously.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Or they could turn it on - thus making everyone gay........including all the fundies.....now that might actually be worth turning gay to see!!

Of course we are nowhere near being able to turn individual genes on or off yet....but it's still worth a giggle

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Or they could turn it on - thus making everyone gay........including all the fundies.....now that might actually be worth turning gay to see!!

Of course we are nowhere near being able to turn individual genes on or off yet....but it's still worth a giggle

That certainly would make agenda 21 easier to bring about.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Lol. I don't understand how sexuality can be a choice. Did you choose to like women? I sure didn't, but they are what I'm attracted to because my biology as a man demands it. In the same sense, then, how can you possible conclude that homosexuality is a choice? Sure, partaking in homosexual acts is a choice, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same gender.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

If we are only animals acting out our genetic demands this may be true...
...but is that all we are?

I thought gay men didn't reproduce and therefore, didn't have families per se who could benefit from their genes.

reply to post by TheCorporateBeast


You might find it illuminating to read the article then...

reply to post by TheCorporateBeast


That's the point, gay men's mothers carry a gene which allows for them to bear many children, including daughters, who will bear more children. The men, in this case, don't need to reproduce with women because the women who carry the gene are very fertile and make up for the men in terms of population sustainability.

There are also cases in which gay men will pretend to be straight their entire lives, and this includes getting married and having children.

They have known about this in theory for a long time. I remember taking this in sociology a good decade or so ago, that gay men tend to come from large families, usually with a large number of sisters.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I always wondered if you had a gay offspring your offspring would have a higher chance of having a child that was born gay. Or would it skip a generation?

I read somewhere a while back that mothers that pump out male children have a drop off in their rate of testosterone as each consecutive boy is created. So with each new boy that is born, he inherits less testosterone than his older brothers. Anyone else heard this one?

reply to post by DarthMuerte

I believe that it is a choice, whether made consciously or unconsciously.

Just like how you chose to be straight?

Saying that homosexuality is a "choice" is a mental gymnastic so as to not feel guilt for discriminating. By saying homosexuality is a choice, it makes one self feel justified in discriminating by simply saying the discrimination can stop if the homosexual would simply choose to stop being gay, therefore homosexuals bring the hate on themselves.

Tis a free country though, so by all means, whatever you have to tell yourself to justify discrimination

What's this? We carry the bald gene and now the gay gene, too?

Very interesting article! I believe that if being gay is genetic (which I think it is) there's probably a very valid reason that ties in with our species regarding the balance of the population. Imagine being anti-gay, when all gay people are doing is naturally controlling our population so we don't all die out!

Love it! S&F

reply to post by ZombieJesus


I believe it is a choice in the sense that it goes against the human biology. This can be caused by one's own willpower or an imbalance in their body chemistry. Either way it is natural to be gay, but it is a negative trait in the sense that it goes against the entire purpose of the human body, to reproduce and continue the circle of life.

EDIT: But in a grander scheme, with a bell curve as an example... outliers exist in nature, perhaps nature must throw in a few defunkt specimens to keep the curve in proper shape and order? AKA: perhaps a gay man's life purpose is to inspire someone, not to pass on his gene and continue his seed.

Originally posted by chadderson
I believe it is a choice in the sense that it goes against the human biology.

How do you know it's against human biology? If you read the article, you'd see that the premise is that it actually assists human reproduction, population control and propagation of the species... That would be right in line with human biology.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Two males can not create life. A male can inspire another male to start a family. I believe i outlined this in my post but perhaps i was not clear. It is only 'against' biology when two guys are having a sexual relationship, as it is a completely selfish act, as it produces nothing but momentary pleasure.

reply to post by chadderson


Unchecked reproduction would not benefit the circle of life so much as destroy it.

My personal belief is that homosexuality is natures way of balancing a population from reproducing itself to extinction by overpopulation.