In a strict Darwinian theory, shouldn't "gay" gene phase out?

If it is, indeed, genetic, it might be a recessive gene.

Or more probably: It might be caused by many genes, not just one!

Human sexuality is a complicated thing, to say the least..

Besides, genetics might play a part, perhaps.

But who's to say that that is the only cause? Hormones might also have something to do with it. That and early environment. Surroundings. And lots and lots of other things.. We do not know for sure yet.

It doesn't have to be either or.

But anyway, I can promise you for sure that it is NOT a choice. I'm talking from personal experience here, believe me.. If it was a choice, when did YOU choose to be straight? And why is it that so many gay people desperately try to choose heterosexuality, but they fail miserably at it?

See, the only thing that is a choice is the behaviour. One can act according to one's sexual orientation, or one can act disaccordingly. But no matter what, the attractions in themselves are still not going to change! Even if you forced yourself to sleep with hundreds of guys, you would still be straight, right? Because you would still be attracted to women!

It really is that simple.

No, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, it is not entirely genetic, in utero environment plays a major role.

Even if it was, a recessive allele will persist in a population indefinitely. There still are people with cystic fibrosis.

Also, the selection against any given allele is a net result of positive and negative selection. For example, a candidate allele correlated with male homosexuality is also correlated with high fertility in women. The negative selection in men might be compensated by the positive selection in women (think along the lines of sick-cell).

Additionally, most complex traits are actually polygenic, more than one gene controls sexual orientation. You need a particular set of alleles to be homosexual, while each allele individually might have a positive selection.

More importantly, not all traits are completely penetrant, in other words, some individuals will display the phenotype, others won't depending on the environment.

What exactly causes homosexuality is still relatively unknown. We have some data supporting both genetics and in utero environment, but every last scrap of data says it is not a choice.

You perhaps make the mistake of assuming that evolution has a "higher goal".

Why would a gay gene be phased out IF it might aid in survival? In the animal kingdom, homosexuality has been observed when animals are artificially overcrowded in a lab setting. What is going on on earth today? We are overpopulated... So, maybe this gene hasnt disappeared because it helps with survival by making some of the group have no desire to procreate. Thus, helping the ENTIRE group.

No, because heterosexuals carry the same genetics as homosexuals.

A homosexual would be a person where that gene is expressed. The

genetic code "for" homosexuality would still be passed on through the

heterosexual lineage.

There is also an embryonic development aspect to this. Homosexuals

are more likely to be born to mothers who already have multiple children.

This is simply a likelihood, not a given, but research does show some

level of correlation.

The "gay gene" may not necesarily be passed from father to son. There is a theory that suggests homosexuality is hereditary, but not in the male chromosome. The theory goes: the gay gene is carried by females, who give birth to sons who may or may not turn out to be gay, whereas his sister carries the gay gene who will in turn pass it on to any sons or daughters she has.

Thats an incredibly over-simplified explanation of the theory, and I suggest you look into it more.

And I for one do not think it is a choice. The only people who are convinced that it is a choice, are christians, who like to claim all kind of scientific evidence in their favor. What they neglect to mention that all the tests they cite, were conducted by biased christian scientists.

Scientific research publications from October 2004 and June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund" and that their findings offered "a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals."

Well not exactly. A "gay" gene usually is recessive for the guys. For the ladies it actually increases fertility. But recessive genes do surface up from time to time - this is why you have a reasonably stable amount of gays in our society (and probably about the same share as at any point of time in human history).

Not a gene and I agree with most posts above as to why it's not a gene thing. As to being phased out don't you think as many gay men supply the sperm banks as straight at least at some percentage equivolent to that in society.

lol in general to this whole discussion.

You're assuming it's only one gene. Difficult to phase out a trait that involves multiple genes, as they usually map to many other survival-positive functions as well. As the trait still exists after many thousands of generations, one would presume it's not actively survival-negative, so it's likely to hang around. Add in human intelligence, with its ability to compensate (i.e., in vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, etc.), and the likelihood of the loss of a multi-gene trait drops effectively to zero.

In theory, this would be true if there really is a "gay gene." I know many gay men who were married and had a couple of children. So, the gene continues to be passed on. (In theory, of course.)