Why Gays Don't Go Extinct

[TechBear_Seattle]

Why Gays Don't Go Extinct

Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

...

Camperio-Ciani and his team hypothesize that the genes they modeled may cause people of both sexes to be extremely attracted to men, which would lead men with the genes to pursue relationships with other men, while causing women with the genes to have more sexual partners, and become pregnant slightly more often than an average woman.

The rest of the article can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080618/sc_livescience/whygaysdontgoextinct

[mainegreen]

1. Here's another one for you.

Gay men would probably be more likely to help raise their siblings children, also increasing the survival rate of those carrying a significant portion of his genes.

It's kinda a 'no duh' thing to realize that one does not need to have children oneself to increase the odds of ones own genes propagating successfully.

/silly on

I will say the idea of women with 'the gay genes' being more sexually active is interesting. Does that mean a man should try to make friends with gay men, so he can ask out their sisters?

/silly off

[DarkTirade]

3. Hmm... that might be worth investigating.

I'll need a grant for the scientific experiment. :P

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. That info has been around for decades

You see this in a number of primates and other animals, where gay members of the group will adopt and raise young that have been orphaned. Same-sex mated pairs of ducks and geese have been documented as taking over nests that have been abandoned, incubating the eggs and raising the chicks to maturity. The evolutionary advantage is clear: having adults available with no vested interest in their own young who are free to invest in young that otherwise would die.

As for your silly part... :thumbsup:

[dbackjon]

8. One of my sisters choose me to be the guardians of her kids

Should something happen to her (thankfully, it didn't) for those reasons.

A good portion of her reasoning (other than her kids love Uncle Jon) is that since I don't have any kids of my own, they would be number one. My brother and other sister also had kids, and that could get awkward mixing families, intentional or not.


It has turned out that my nephew is gay as well...

[DarkTirade]

2. Not to mention that gays since gays tend to have no children of their own

their amassed money over the years often ends up going to support those many children made by close relatives and helping them get ahead in life.

I know I wouldn't have been able to afford to go to college had it not been for my great-uncle.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. also heterosexuals are very adept at having gay children

not so much at raising them.

[xchrom]

6. where does the notion that gays don't reproduce come from?

before this era -- plenty if not most gay folk married and reproduced.

we aren't all the odd aunt or uncle whose bachelor status was ignored.

more -- gay folk still get married and reproduce.

and this makes me wonder where do bi-folk come from then?

that it's hereditary i have no doubt -- but this seems a little silly.

[bigscott]

7. thank you for yur post

I was about to go home and demand a DNA test on my 16 year old son:hippie:

[xchrom]

9. lol -- put the swab down and back away...

yeah there are a lot of stupid myths about us -- we even buy into them ourselves.

[Duncan Grant]

10. Thank you for saying so.

If we lived in a culture that included a broader range of sexual expression (and affection) then this compulsion to explain "homosexuality" may not exist.

If I lived in a different place (or different time) there's every possibility that I would be both a father and a man who experienced same-sex attraction. I really don't understand the need to find an infallible explanation for "homosexuality" -- especially a biological one.

Why can't we just pathologize the contempt for homosexuality instead of those who experience same-sex attraction? :hi:

[xchrom]

11. since it was modern medical science staring in the 19th century

who created the demonizing of gays -- we should always be cautious when medical science is trying to find our origins.