Repression/Propagation: How Gay Genes Might be Passed
In this op-ed piece in the New York Times [reg. req.] , Nicholas D. Kristoff discusses various theories about the genetic basis of homosexuality. While the great majority of gays and lesbians know that they did not choose their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals choose their sexual orientation, from a genetic standpoint it is hard to understand how genes that predispose individuals to nonreproductive behavior can be propagated in the gene pool. Theories abound:
Scientists have offered a range of theories. One is that gays might not have been fecund baby-producers, but that they guarded their nephews and nieces from saber-toothed tigers and thus helped ensure the survival of closely related genes.
Another theory is that gays have unusually strong sex drives, and that while most of this energy has been wasted on nonreproductive flings, enough goes toward male-female pairings that the genes are passed on. Both theories have largely been discounted.
One clue to a more subtle theory is that other primates, including close relatives like the bonobos, often engage in homosexual behavior, apparently as a way of forming alliances. Bonobos curry favor by performing oral sex on others of the same gender, even though they also seize every opportunity to mate with those of the opposite sex.
As a person who majored in biology with some emphasis on genetics and evolution, the topic has always fascinated me. I’m sure that sexual preference has very complex origins, but I would like to add my own theory to the mix addressing only the question of why “gay genes” survive in the gene pool.
The Gibbons Repression/Propagation Theory: How Genes for Homosexuality Remain in the Gene Pool
I theorize that homosexuality is passed on genetically at a much higher rate in cultures and subcultures that actively repress homosexualityand discourage homosexual relationships. It sounds paradoxical at first but read on:
In a culture that denies full citizenship to homosexuals, there will be many incentives to “pass” as a heterosexual. History has shown us repeatedly that gays can live in the closet, and can remain in unhappy marriages while producing plenty of children when society forces them to do it at the point of a gun. I hypothesize that the more deterrents that a culture provides to homosexuality, the more gays and lesbians who live the lives of heterosexuals just to survive. The more powerful their homosexual desires, the more they will feel a need to overcompensate for those desires by over-heterosexualizing their behavior. This will cause them to reproduce at a higher rate than real, genetic heterosexuals who do not feel the same need to “prove” their heterosexuality.
Taking this theory one step further: Fundamentalist Catholics, Mormons, Christians and Muslims feel a passionate need to condemn homosexuality and are also having huge families. These are the people who have something to prove to everybody else. They continually insist that sexual orientation is a choice because, in fact, they made the choice to repress their homosexual urges in order to please their God and their peers. It is not a choice that gays with self-esteem make, but religous closet cases make it all the time. But the genetic basis of their urges cannot be repressed; nobody can choose their genes. The closeted gay men and lesbians are the people who are keeping homosexuality alive in the gene pool and they exist only in environments that are hostile to gays.
This also explains why churches are constantly fighting homosexuality and why they are so full of closeted homosexuals. Closeted homosexuals will attempt to pass as heterosexuals and one measure of how well they pass is how many children they have. How many times have you heard somebody say, “He can’t be gay. He has five children!”
To summarize: The bigger and darker the closet, the more homosexuals who will reproduce and pass along their gay genes. The more homosexuals are required to act like heterosexuals in order to survive, they more they will breed and the more their genes will be passed along.
Homosexuality is good for the species in many ways. It exists in hundreds of animal populations as well as the human population. It would not exist in the gene pool if it did not have some survival value. This theory does not propose that homosexuality could be or should be eliminated from the gene pool; it only postulates that gay genes will be propagated at higher rates in cultures that are hostile to homosexuals.
[Just a note to all you Nobel Prize hungry scientists out there; don’t use my theory without giving me credit. If somebody else has published this theory first, tell me who they are. I’ve never seen it in print before.]
Buy yourself a better brain with fun, useful and unique items at The Binary Circumstance Online Store .
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts
March 5th, 2004 at 12:59 am
That is a very intersting theory
September 20th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Wow, someone else caught onto the same idea that I had — that is, social pressure to reproduce would have the effect of propagating genetic traits that might otherwise be weeded out of the gene pool. …This theory might work presuming homosexuality does indeed have a genetic basis (the jury might be out on that one).
Another idea along similar lines would be the notion that strong attraction to the opposite sex is what is genetically governed. But, like a wild animal population with traits that atrophy if not needed (e.g. the dodo, which lost its “fear instinct” and ability to fly, due to lack of predators), if another factor (e.g. social pressure) supercedes “strong attraction to the opposite sex” in terms of a reproductive strategy, then that trait might eventually atrophy and become less pronounced over the course of generations.
September 20th, 2005 at 8:57 am
I like your idea, too.
If you have guns and the law pointed at you and/or great social pressure to marry and reproduce, then there is little need for a natural, biological attraction between the opposite sexes.
You won’t have a population of heterosexuals, you’ll have a population prone to being submissive and dishonest (in cases where a person’s biology conflicts with what is socially acceptable).