Doesn't gay marriage guarantee the extinction of homosexuality?

Yes. It would assume so.

If we accept that it is a given that homosexuality only occurs in people who are born gay, or genetically gay, then it still does not mean the gene will die out. Let’s say it’s a recessive trait, then two people who are straight, but both have the recessive gene, would have a 25% chance with each child that the baby will be gay. That would be if the gay recessive gene is a very simple straight forward gene.

Moreover, gay people make babies all the time. They get a surrogate woman to carry the babies or sperm donation of whatever they need to do to make the baby while still using their own genetic material also.

I think people are gay for a lot of reasons. I think some people are born gay and others are gay for other reasons.

I know this is in General, and I promise I’m not intending to be difficult, but could you elaborate on the last few steps of your question? I feel like I’m missing a few steps here or something.

In particular, where does marriage come into this equation other than in the question title? And are you suggesting that homosexual partners do not have biological children? And since heterosexuals are the ones who give birth to homosexuals…what is the question?

There is nothing that prevents homosexuals from procreating. Many do actually. I know one gay man who has three children (all are straight, incidentally). Most gays are brought up by straight people.

I’m confused about what marriage has to do with it, what if two gay people are just in a long term relationship and live together?

If I follow the train of thought, or maybe off a block, there is a gay gene (which I am still waiting for someone to point out) then gay parents cannot indoctrinate their children to be gay. However, if there is no gay gene and homosexual parents have children that are gay then it had to be the influence of the gay parents (the same argument made of people of faith and why their children are believers, the polite way of saying brainwashed). I am not certain how marriage would play on the genetics. However, if there is a gay gene and it can be isolated, then the parents have the option of maybe switching the gene off; if not today if the ability is not there, but maybe soon. If it is a gay gene, I am not sure how it can make babies born gay if it doesn’t work in the parents, unless it has some pretty random activation and works nothing like hair or eye color, hair texture, dwarfism, etc. It is a good question to get to the bottom of as to if it is really a choice or innate and genetic.

No. It is what it is.

@Darth_Algar
Correct. There is nothing that prevents homosexuals from procreating.
Having established that fact, it is unlikely that heterosexuals would avoid procreation by engaging in sexual relationships with a partner of the same sex. It would seem foreign to them.
On the other hand, if a homosexual engaged in sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex for no other reason than procreation, it would be for a practical reason, not because they were driven by the genes to do it. If they were genetically motivated, it would seem like a compromise. Not that we do not compromise, but compromise is a a decision, not a genetic imperive.

@josie

You seem to be making the assumption that if homosexuality is genetic than only homosexual people will carry the genetic trait. Don’t assume that. That’s not how it works for most other genetic factors, so there’s no reason to believe that’s how it works for homosexuality*.

(*Plus, again, most gays have straight parents.)

@josie: “Having established that fact, it is unlikely that heterosexuals would avoid procreation by engaging in sexual relationships with a partner of the same sex. It would seem foreign to them.”

First of all, gay marriage is hardly new. It’s been legal here (Massachusetts) for 11 years. And before that gay couples were “married” but just not recognized by the state. What are you suggesting is changing here that will somehow affect what gay couples do regarding children? The gay couples I know who are considering having children want biological children.

@josie: “On the other hand, if a homosexual engaged in sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex for no other reason than procreation, it would be for a practical reason, not because they were driven by the genes to do it. If they were genetically motivated, it would seem like a compromise. Not that we do not compromise, but compromise is a a decision, not a genetic imperive.”

What does this mean?

Let’s try this:

1. Heterosexuals birth homosexuals.
2. Gay marriage has been a thing for a really long time.
3. Gay couples have biological children.

We have the same reproductive mechanisms with legalized gay marriage that we do today. I repeat – the same thing that is going on now will continue once the rest of the states recognize gay marriage.

So, what exactly are you suggesting changes that will result in…whatever it is that you think is about to happen?

Most gay people are born to straight parents. Many gay people have heterosexual biological children.

What’s so hard to understand.

Nope, the heterosexual siblings will pass the genes on.

@hominid
I am suggesting nothing. Just asking.

One of my daughter’s close female friends is married to another woman. They were both impregnated by the same guy, and each had a child. Their son and daughter are half-sisters and each carry the gene of their mother.

So, sterile straight people are extinct, as they are unable to procreate with anyone?

Personally, I’m not convinced that 100% of gays are born gay. I think there is a variety of factors that may be at play. For example, I seriously doubt that the similarities in twins separated at birth are entirely due to genetics. It only makes sense that genetics, prenatal environment (stimuli) and growing up can all effect sexuality. Or anything not hardwired.

Pursuing that train of thought is tangled up with my own pro-choice view.

@ibstubro
If all straight people were sterile, I would say extinction was a real possibillity.
Unless fertile homosexuals engaged in heterosexual relations.
In which case they would willfully suspend their nature.
In which case we could argue it is thus not their nature.

Your question completely ignores the fact that bisexual people exist.

When you state that gay people proceeating with the opposite sex is “contrary to their nature” you are reducing something as complex as human sexuality to a simple black and white dichotomy. Real life contains many shades of gray.

Nowadays, I think there is a lot of pressure exerted by the politically active gay community against the whole idea of bisexuality. They want people to declare themselves as gay rather than being “fence sitters”.

This ignores the fact that, historically, when there weren’t convenient labels, people loved whom they loved and sometimes that involved (for some people) both genders.

I think the Kinsey scale and research accompanying it is ample illustration of this point. I see no reason why that will not continue, regardless of what politically motivated parties on either end think.

People will continue to love and have sex with whomever they’re attracted to regardless of labels. And I don’t see how legally recognized gay marriage will change this anymore than hetero marriage has. Why would it?

Secondly, I seriously doubt that sexual orientation will ever be linked to one gene (where it would be inevitable that its presence automatically ensures that a child will grow up to be gay.)

There are many other contributing factors as to why a child ends up gay (hormonal influences in the womb being just one example.)

Even tho I do believe that being gay is not a “choice” but rather innate, I don’t think that necessarily means genetic.

To answer your Q specifically, I don’t see how a legal piece of paper changes anything at all.

Since the overwhelming majority of gay people are born to and raised by heterosexuals, that will undoubtedly continue.

Whether or not gay partnerships are granted legal status also changes nothing. For centuries, many gay people have been forming longterm partnerships (the same as heteros) even tho not legally recognized as marriage.

With legalization, that number will probably increase, but I don’t see how that would possibly lead to the extinction of homosexuality. The very same hetero relationships which produce so many gay people now will undoubtedly continue unabated, so how does what they do as adults (marrying legally or not) have anything to do with the issue?

I honestly don’t understand where the premise of your question has any relationship to historical precedent or even common sense. Sorry. I just don’t get it.

Computer game theory modelling shows that groups with small numbers of gay men and bisexual women outperform strictly heterosexual groups. It’s suspected that this is because they “soak up” the excess during periods of temporary gender imbalance without incurring inefficiency through competition. Since communities which harbour genes which tend to produce homosexual or bisexual behaviour are therefore more likely to survive than strictly heterosexual ones, the genes survive even though homosexual partnerships don’t produce offspring, which also helps explain why homosexuality and bisexuality are so common in other animal species at well.

@josie “If all straight people were sterile, I would say extinction was a real possibillity.
Unless fertile homosexuals engaged in heterosexual relations.
In which case they would willfully suspend their nature.
In which case we could argue it is thus not their nature.”

If only modern medical technology offered some means by which a person might conceive that did not involve sexual intercourse….

One theory about male homosexuality is not that it is caused by a gene that says “I am attracted to the same gender” but a gene that says “I am very attracted to men.” This is supported by evidence that shows that the female sisters of gay men statistically have more children than the average for women overall. Thus it is these sisters who are propagating the gene, and homosexuality does not die out.

The study only referenced male homosexuality; I’m sure it could be a similar mechanism in females.

If you are right homosexuality would die out in a generation. It isn’t going to happen. I don’t see that marriage makes any difference.

@ibstubro Personally, I’m not convinced that 100% of gays are born gay. I think there is a variety of factors that may be at play.
Like what type of factors? All the gay people I have known in the past would swear on their life they were gay from jump, no cultural influences, parental upbringing etc. made them gay. They believed they were 101% gay from the start. What factors are there who made whatever percent of people that was not gay from the womb, end up gay? Some gay people seemed to have missed that memo.

@Buttonstc Even tho I do believe that being gay is not a “choice” but rather innate, I don’t think that necessarily means genetic.
Then where would it comes from?

I can see where you are coming from but no, homosexuals do not birth homosexuals.

Homosexuality would not be a problem if straight people would quit having gay children.

This does not negate the premise that homosexuality is not a choice. Red hair is not a choice but redheads are born to families of blondes and brunettes. Homosexuals do not, and have not, with any regularity, passed on their genetic makeup up to this point, those forced to marry and have children to carry on some kind of pretext notwithstanding. I cannot see why being able to marry would have any discernible effect on their individual ability (or inability) for procreation.

What it might do is reduce the genetically induced bigotry when the marriages of those heterosexuals whose marriages are not strong enough to endure homosexual marriage crater and they no longer have bigoted children but that is a chance society will have to take.

It’s pretty basic knowledge that homosexuality gene, if there is one, can be activated by heterosexual parents. Do you think only homosexual parents can have homosexual kids?

Besides, LGBT people can still have their biological children by surrogacy. I still think surrogacy and gay marriage are both right, or more advanced ways, I would say. It’s just not every country or legion on this planet is advanced enough themselves to apply that.

Recessive genes can lurk for a long time. And if it’s a side-effect of interaction of other genes, it may be impossible.

For illustration, suppose for simplicity’s sake that all blue-eyed blondes were homosexual but only those who had both traits. Any time any dark-eyed blonde or blue-eyed non-blonde had a kid, they’d pass along “the gay gene” despite being heterosexual. So long as both blonde hair and blue eyes exist, homosexuality would too.

If is a recessive gene, and who is to say it isn’t at this stage, it will still be carried by non-homosexuals and they could, in theory, marry a person carrying the same recessive gene and end up with a gay child. Like CF. So, no… of course it wouldn’t stop gay people being born. Also, the surrogacy practice is real.

I don’t want us to all be the same. I want diversity in my world. Love from a child with Downs. The brilliant perspective from a child with Autism and my awesome relatives who happen to be gay… Their absence from my life would impoverish it.

Straight people have gay kids.

All it takes is two parents that carry a gene to produce offspring with both copies of a gene. It’s even more complicated than that because the presence of one gene can affect the expression of another, two genes can have a synergistic effect or cancel each other out…etc. Even if the specific genes are identified and you test for them that’s no guarantee that they are being expressed… In other words there is no gay/not gay test that can be done….yet. Statistically though having specifically identified genes can make it either highly likely or unlikely. I do believe it’s basically all in the genetics though. I suspect there are many genes at play here which would explain bisexuality and also asexuality.

Whether there is one gay gene, or whether homosexuality is the outcome of a synergistic interaction between two or (more likely) more genes is clouding the issue. The real question should be whether being gay, bi, trans or ace is a result of nature or nurture. In human development genetics merely provide the framework for the developing fetus; the intra-uterine environment completes the process.

So, in addition to looking at the existence of predisposing genetic factors we need to also take into account finishing developments imparted in the womb. Thing is, every human being begins developing a female body plan. Then, at a certain point in development, the release of specific hormonal molecules in the womb somehow induce some fetuses to shift and develop as males instead. When those molecular signals either fail to manifest, or are misread by the target tissues, genetics-independent mistakes can, and do happen. On this point, I speak from experience because it happened to me in utero, but it is a long story.

So to circle back to the OQ (great question, by the way), gay marriage will not lead to the extinction of homosexuality any more than it would bisexuality, transsexuality or asexuality. All of these orientations will be a part of the human community as long as humans exist. Hence, conversely, banning gay marriage will not eliminate these orientations either, no matter what the lunatic Christian Right seemingly believes.

Considering the majority of your personality and behavior traits are defined at the developmental ages of 0–3 years, I’d imagine this is also when sexual orientation is defined.

Not to say there aren’t specific genes that could determine sexual orientation, but since sexual preference is very related to ones personality (which you also don’t have a choice in), I’d imagine they develop similarly.

But to keep on track with the question, I don’t think gay marriage alone would cause extinction of homosexuality. Sexual preference is a continuum anyway, it’s not as simple as “Yes, No, Sometimes”... it’s everywhere in between. Therefore there could be an infinite number of gene variables to produce what people would refer to socially as “gay.”

“So, sterile straight people are extinct, as they are unable to procreate with anyone?”

Not ”@josie “If all straight people were sterile, I would say extinction was a real possibility.” @josie.
And in that circumstance, how would extinction not be a certainty?

And if we grant that homosexuality is not genetic, then the entire question is moot.

As I said above and @Buttonstc and @sahID reaffirmed, there’s no evidence that homosexuality is purely genetically based.

Every gay person I’ve ever met is so friendly and nice…

Why should these good people be subjected to the hell that is marriage?

We should protect them from this form of bondage by not allowing it.

The gay lifestyle is supposed to be free and happy!

What was the question again?

Oh, I have a short answer…

No, not really.

#Divorced #NotBitterAtAll

I feel ya, @DWW25921

@ibstubro the article linked is just like climate change denial except that I’m more inclined not to believe we are responsible for climate change than believe sexuality is a “learned” behavior and not almost entirely genetic.

I honestly don’t understand why BOTH sides of the “born that way” dichotomy keep yammering on completely ignoring the fact that, statistically speaking, there are far fewer people who are exclusively gay or straight in terms of both their desires and actions. They fall on a continuum (as the Kinsey scale illustrated years ago.)

Yes, there are people who self identify as a perfect Kinsey 6 (exclusively homosexual) and many of my gay friends have described themselves as precisely that.

So, for someone like that, who knew from a very very young age (4–5) that they were “different”, realize at puberty that they’re gay and have never had a single hetero experience or desire to proclaim that they were born that way is certainly understandable.

But there are huge numbers on that bell-curve continuum for whom it’s not that black and white. But in spite of that, the politically active gay community exerts a lot of pressure on them to declare themselbes to be a perfect Kinsey 6 in order to put a stop to all the coercive efforts (reparation therapy, shaming, etc.) to get them to change their “choice”.

And likewise on the hetero side loudly proclaiming that it’s totally choice so they can change if they want to.

OBVIOUSLY, it’s a whole lot easier for a bisexual Kinsey 2 or 3 to “choose” to ACT straight than it is for a Kinsey 6. Why is that so difficult for either side to comprehend?

Besides, genetics is not unfailingly destiny. One can be born with the inherited genetics for diabetes and yet never manifest it because they made careful and wise choices regarding diet, weight, and exercise all throughout their life.

Both sides act as if genetics is the be-all and end-all of sexual orientation. But it just isn’t that simple.

The primary reason I stated that being gay or straight isn’t ONLY genetic is because science just has not proven that EITHER WAY.

However, from my years of experience teaching children as well as accounts from gay people too numerous to mention, that sexual attraction is largely INNATE (for whatever reason).

Obviously, you can’t always tell someone is gay just by looking at them. But sometimes it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

I taught 3rd and 4th grades, an age where typically most kids are not yet having sexual matters predominant in their thinking to the degree that it will once puberty begins.

But there were some kids whom I absolutely knew were gay for a thousand reasons having nothing to do with sex.

That’s what I mean by innate. They were just being their natural selves. And that natural self was gay.

It certainly wasn’t a choice they made. What kid in their right mind would willingly choose to be the most despised kid on the playground; the one being taunted and teased etc.?

The answer is obvious. But there were also obviously many more kids for whom it was not that obvious. They’re the ones who grow up “straight-acting” until they realize it’s a futile effort.

So, if it isn’t genetic but yet innate, then what is the cause?Frankly, we just don’t know the definitive answers to that yet but that doesn’t prevent BOTH SIDES from loudly proclaiming their view as the only correct one. Hogwash!

But it makes no difference if gay marriage is legalized or not. These all grew up in heterosexual families and will continue to do so. No extinction anytime soon.

I don’t have a problem with that, @ARE_you_kidding_me.

It was information input for those that care enough to link.
Re-read the link.

@ibstubro

As a matter of fact, it was that link you posted which I read just prior to writing what I did.

Each side is absolutely convinced of the rightness of whatever stance they take while conveniently ignoring the vast majority somewhere in the middle.

Not an extinction, but maybe a reduction due to the high rising rates of suicides and sexual diseases among gay and bisexual men and cancer among lesbians. However, there are advancements in medical science that attempt to combat the consequences of such behaviors.

Genetic engineering might be a significant cause of homosexual extinction or at least a reduction.

”But, if we grant the question that being homosexual is NOT a rational choice but in fact a genetic imperative”

Note that this is a false dilemma. Homosexuality can be biological without being strictly genetic. Indeed, one of the most common theories is that womb chemistry is either the cause of or an important factor in sexual orientation. I mention this only because the wording of your question suggests that you believe it has to be either a choice or genetic. But this is not the case.

If what you wanted was for us to entertain the hypothetical that homosexuality was genetic and answer from there, then you shot yourself in the foot by going overboard with your qualifications and hedging.

“then the homosexual gene can only be transmitted by procreation where at least one of the partners is homosexual.”

This is not how genetics works. Let’s take a (somewhat simplified) parallel case: having red hair. Red hair is a recessive gene, so two parents can both be carriers with neither of them having red hair. In such a case, there is still a 25% chance of them having a red-haired child. If homosexuality were purely genetic, and if it were a recessive gene, then it could easily be carried through families through their heterosexual members.

“But homosexuals cannot transmit the homosexual gene, because they can not procreate.”

Strictly speaking, this is false. Gay people procreate all the time—just not with same-sex partners. This typically happens in one of two ways: someone who is deeply in the closet has a child with an opposite-sex partner, or gay couples find someone who is willing to be a sperm or egg donor in order to help them have a child that is genetically related to a least one of them. Legalizing gay marriage will not immediately eliminate prejudice, so the first case isn’t going away anytime soon. And the second case is becoming all the more common. (Indeed, gay male couples and gay female couples are arranging to swap gametes for exactly this purpose with increasing frequency.)

“So if the Political State grants to homosexuals the legal legitimacy of their commitment, do they not also doom the the genetic line of homosexuality?”

Clearly, the answer is “no.”

“And if the answer is, that homosexuals will indoctrinate their adopted children to the lifestyle, doesn’t that contradict their genetic argument?”

Nobody says this except rabid homophobes. Seriously, did you expect anyone to make this claim?