The Gay Gene?

There is a new study being conducted looking at gay siblings in an attempt to find a "gay gene." A short piece on this can be found here.

Since what we are talking about is a behavior, let me suggest that no gay gene, per se, will be found. Behavior comes about from a complex interaction between the genes and the environment as mediated by the brain and its structures. Part of this will also be affected by such things as pheromone sensitivity (there is some evidence that there is a connection between male sensitivity to male pheromones rather than female pheromones in gay men). And since only rarely is there a one-to-one correlation between genes and much of anything in the body -- and zero one-to-one correlation between genes and behavior -- there will be no single gene found. This does not mean that the research is pointless, however, as we may find what gene groups are involved in this particular behavior, which may shed insight not only on homosexual behavior, but behavior in general.

There will be those opposed to this, and for two very different, separate reasons. There will be those opposed to this because they think that if we find a gene or set of genes, that that means homosexuals are somehow genetically inferior or are mutants or some such nonsense. This is actually a subset of those who think genes have nothing to do with human behavior. Such people deny the fact that evolution created human beings, including our behaviors. Thus, they are in fundamental agreement with the next group who will be opposed to this: those who think that being gay is a choice, so looking for a gay gene is pointless. I never quite got this argument, as it assumes that people would go out of their way to do something that in many cultures throughout history would get them killed or imprisoned. Even in permissive ancient Athens, Aristophanes made fun of the flamboyant behaviors of several homosexuals. From a tribalist point of view it makes sense to encourage everyone to reproduce, but that is less of a concern today (with over 6 billion people). However, our closest relatives, the bonobos, are behaviorally bisexual, which contributes to strong social bonds and reduced aggression within the troops. It seems that humans evolved with this tension in place: a use of sex to reduce social aggression combined with a recognition that sex is tied to reproduction, and reproduction is tied to tribal survival. Psychologically, this has resulted in a tension between non-reproductive sexual acts and the need to reproduce that resulted in a very high percentage of homosexuals being artists of various kinds. This solved the problem by the person reproducing their minds in a more direct fashion. My guess would be that those of us who are heterosexual and artists have an extremely high reproductive drive that cannot be satisfied by only reproducing ourselves by half.

Those against homosexuality, who think it is a choice, are afraid of there being genetic evidence for it because they mistakenly believe that the natural = the good, and that does not necessarily follow. But they will not be able to make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural any more -- though there is sufficient evidence from bonobos to bighorn sheep that homosexuality is certainly natural. When I point this out, opponents of homosexuality then suggest that we are supposed to be more and better than the animals. The argument goes thus: homosexuality is unnatural, unless it is natural, in which case, we are (and should be) unnatural.

I have also heard the argument that while it may be true that someone may have a tendency, people still have a choice of how to behave. Granted. But if that is true, then why not choose to engage in homosexual behavior if you are a heterosexual? If it's that easy, then you should at least be able to imagine yourself having sex with someone of the same sex if you're heterosexual. If imagining such a thing does nothing for you, perhaps it is because you really don't have that much of a choice of how to behave. Or at least, you will be denying who you, fundamentally, are, and that has been shown to lead people to psychological trouble.

Arguments about pedophiles are, of course, only straw men people put up once they fail at everything else. In the end, we are talking about the willing participation of two adults -- and that is nobody's business.