Study of gay brothers seeking genetic clues

Sounds pretty gay

I have almost no doubt in my mind that there is, at the very least, a genetic component to homosexuality. What I don't quite understand why that component would not have been entirely selected out of existence.

i don't believe gays come from ancestor gene. It just another sickness society had to offer.

i don't believe gays come from ancestor gene. It just another sickness society had to offer.

I don't think all those lambs, dogs, and sheep are succumbing to peer pressure.

Uh. Your saying that there are lambs, dogs, and sheep that simply will not have sex with females of the same species in heat and spread right in front of them but instead take 4 steps to the left and stick their little doggy dicks in another dogs butt. Links please.

Uh. Your saying that there are lambs, dogs, and sheep that simply will not have sex with females of the same species in heat and spread right in front of them. Links please.

I'm saying that homosexual tendencies are exhibited in more than just humans. Bisexuality, at the very least, has been observed in a bunch of species. Again, I said a component of homosexuality is tied to genetics, not entirely.

I'm saying that homosexual tendencies are exhibited in more than just humans. Bisexuality, at the very least, has been observed in a bunch of species.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and back you up on this for Kaneda's benefit, it's been noticed and documented for years. I remember even seeing some kind of show that had a little side-blurb about this on Discovery or The Learning Channel ages ago.

I have almost no doubt in my mind that there is, at the very least, a genetic component to homosexuality. What I don't quite understand why that component would not have been entirely selected out of existence.

Well, if bisexuality is related to this, you could have carriers still passing it on. It could also be a recessive gene. /shrug

Well, if bisexuality is related to this, you could have carriers still passing it on. It could also be a recessive gene. /shrug

Even so, I would expect nature to strongly select against it. If the case is that it is a recessive allele then selection should play a part on it as it does for every other recessive allele. If we're dealing with genes that code for bisexuality rather than homosexuality altogether, I would speculate that it is still a deleterious gene. Only half of those genes should be passed relative to genes for heterosexuality. If the gene had not been eliminated, you should expect to see some sort of decline. The fact that we fail to see any is an enigma to me.

I have almost no doubt in my mind that there is, at the very least, a genetic component to homosexuality. What I don't quite understand why that component would not have been entirely selected out of existence.

Could the same not be said for stuff like Autism?

I mean, I'm in no way suggesting that homosexuality is a form of retardation, but perhaps it's similar. I think there are a lot of things that seriously hinder the ability to reproduce but those things are still around.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, it's late and I'm not feeling very eloquent.