Queer News

Talk Nerdy To Me: Richard Dawkins And The Evolution Of Homosexuality (VIDEO)

This is an extremely fascinating talk. Talk nerdy to me is refreshing because it is a civil conversation. The topic of bisexuality come up and the ‘gay gene.’ Ricahard Dawkins, “…homosexuality has a strong genetic basis, based on multiple studies that point to heritability of LGBT identification and behavior.” Breast feeding leads to homosexuality?

via www.huffingtonpost.com

My last post, The Gay Brain, really got some of you talking. The central thesis of the video was that even though scientists have yet to identify the “gay gene,” the vast consensus in the scientific community is that homosexuality has a strong genetic basis, based on multiple studies that point to heritability of LGBT identification and behavior. Many scientists believe that there is not just one gay gene, but in fact a multitude of genetic markers that are either switched on or off by a complex dance of epigenetic and environmental factors. Either way, it cannot be denied that being gay is rooted in one’s biology.

At the end of the post, I asked what all of this means from an evolutionary perspective. Chosenfew79 left a comment that summarizes the questions that were raised by many of you:


2 thoughts on “Talk Nerdy To Me: Richard Dawkins And The Evolution Of Homosexuality (VIDEO)

  1. Hmm, interesting, I don’t care for these theories really. The third probably comes the closest, but if I may be so bold as to school Richard Dawkins on this one (in all humility, as he’s awesome), I would put this idea forth:

    There is evidence of “homosexual” behavior all over the animal kingdom, especially in mammals. This can means dude on dude or lady on lady lovin is not a strictly human thing, but is commonplace in a small percentage of many different creatures on the planet. Trying to then track down a single, or even a group, of genes becomes difficult, since you would then have to assume that some common ancestor of ALL these homo animals had the gay gene(s) and passed it/them on. That’s silly I think, and smells of desperately trying to justify homos through a simple “it’s a gay gene” argument.

    What if instead homosexuality is in fact a combination of both genetic predispositions, (of who knows what kinds, at least at this point as it would almost certainly be a complex web of genes seeing as so many different functions are involved and so many different expressions of sexuality fall under the umbrella of “homo”) and environmental conditions (again, who knows, it would certainly be very complex) that leads to an expression of sexuality toward to the same sex instead of the opposite. In this case homosexuality is simply an expression of sexuality deviating from the “norm”, that is by all accounts unchangeable, but doesn’t at the end of the day cause any problems for whatever organism, as a group, that turns out some gays. Raccoons are not going to go extinct because 10% of them are homos, and neither are humans (we seem to be doing fine on the breeding front…). Could sexuality merely be a bit of a genetic/environmental game of roulette, where a complex network of factors play together to produce the varied sexual drives and desires that all animals on the planet exhibit? I think it’s quite possible eh?

    And, as I always feel the need to point out in these discussions, and I still think needs to be pointed out as often as possible, to as many people as possible, especially those who spend so much time trying to fuck with our lives, whatever the reason some of us turn out as nelly dick sucking queens or butch mullet wearing dykes, THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY. We get along quite well with each other, and even with straights when they’re not trying to fuck with our lives. I think the entire gay rights discussion, of which trying to figure out “where we come from” is part of it, would be better off if every discussion began and ended with a reminder that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. Maybe at some point it will sink into everyone’s mind.

  2. I feel that to have any type of real conversation about humans potential/predilection for any type of sexuality is a useless scientific conversation because of the cultural/societal rules that have lived in for few thousand years. Bi-sexuality is less common in males because males are culturized not to be gay. If sexual pleasure was acceptable, really, even much more then it is today, we would see more bi-sexuality and more different types of relationships.

    Maybe go back before Christianity and then we could talk.