2 minutes ago
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Gene, Is That You?
This is an interesting post, about an interesting study.
Interesting doesn't mean right though.
Basically they are announcing that some people are gay for unknown reasons, although they are fairly sure there is a gay gene, and it is passed maternally.
One point they haven't addressed that I feel has an impact is support. For generations two women could not support themselves, and women who may have had a lesbian tendency got married and had children, where as gay men had no such requirement.
I'm not talking in the last 50 or 75 years, but in the last 1000.
And whose to say exactly what this gene produces; certainly they authors didn't know. Maybe it induces an attraction to males, an attraction that is acceptable with an XX Chromosome; less so with the XY pairing. The alternative to that is an attraction to females that is not properly paired with the more acceptable chromosome pair.
Yes, it sounds strange, that women for generations would basically sell their bodies for food, clothing and shelter to someone they had no attraction to. But in the era of arranged marriages it was a common occurance with out respect to preference anyway. Men and women were paired for political or financial reasons; attraction to one another was never a consideration.
Not marrying and reproducing has become more acceptable in the last 50 years, and as more women find the ability to support themselves well, fewer of the carriers of the gene have reproduced, and as the gay lifestyle becomes more acceptable, even fewer women with a same sex predilection will reproduce.
So; does this mean fewer carriers of the gene, and even fewer practitioners of the variation?
Does this mean that the already small percentage of the human population that is gay will shrink ever smaller?
If Darwin is right, then yes it does.
How will that affect the future of gay politics? How will the gay culture respond?
For years there has been a nature/nurture argument on what causes gay behavior; if, as the gays have asserted, it is nature, and that nature will gradually die out as the gene is no longer reproduced, how will this affect the gays? Will they suddenly determine they need to reproduce, and will need to reproduce with women who carry the 'gay gene'?
Do you think these are frivolous questions?
I don't. The ENTIRE point behind gay marriage is forcing mainstream society to accept gay culture. What happens if gay culture starts to die out because gays themselves are dying out?
What if the gene is identified, and children are aborted because they are found to carry the gay gene?
To me, just the announcement that there maybe an identifiable genetic cause of homosexuality may create a backlash in the gay community.
I could be wrong; after all, all I have done is connect a few random dots and determine what the final picture looks like to me.
But the final drawing is more Rorschach Test than identifiable image.
But it will be very interesting watching the image develop as more and more of the dots are added.