Don't know where else to post this...

[drawkcab]

Hey, I wasn't sure where to post this. Ideally, it would suit a sociology forum I suppose. I recently posted it on a philosophy forum but alas, the discussion quickly degenerated into a debate about the ethics of homosexualism. So I thought I'd repost it here in the hope of a more meaningful discussion. However, in the light of some of the more pertinent posts on the other forum, I'll ammend some parts for lucidity, and others for accuracy...

 

While the following idea may apply to all gender diversions from the polar hetero-homo extremes, for the sake of brevity, I'll just concentrate on male homosexuals.

 

I want also to stress that this is centered around the idea that the genetic inheritance or mutation of genetic materials plays an integral role in the incidence of homosexuality. I am aware that there is to date no absolute proof that this is the case, and also that social conditioning also plays an integral role, but again, for the sake of brevity, I ignore this element.

 

Hypothesis:

Homophobia increases the incidence of homosexuality within a community by a degree which is proportionate to the extent toward which the homophobia is prevalent.

 

If society encourages the repression of homosexual instincts by those genetically predisposed to homosexuality, then that person, having repressed their urge to couple with their own sex, may strive to fill a more acceptable social role by coupling with their biological opposites. This may result in conception, and the passing on of their homosexual gene. If the average family has 2.4 children, it is easy to see how the proliferation of homosexuality would spread throughout the community after a few generations. (The spread would not, of course, be at a straight rate of 2.4. various other factors would come into play, such as recessive genetics, the likelihood that some would refrain from coupling altogether, and others may be infertile, while others still may have many more children than the proverbial 2.4).

 

On the other hand, if a society accepted homosexuality, the gay people would feel free to couple with whom they chose (presumably most would choose from amongst their own sex), and fewer children would carry their seed as a consequence. Therefore, the incidence of homosexuality would decrease to a steady state (perhaps dependent upon the number of natural or man induced mutations that resulted in homosexuality).

 

Basically then, the more a community hates homosexuals, the quicker their numbers will multiply, and the more accepting a community, the less homosexuals. Unfortunately, this scenario has all of the hallmarks of a cyclical flow: when numbers of homosexuals are low, the community exposure is proportionately low, therefore, ignorance and fear of the unknown breed homophobia, which stifles the gay community and promotes self-repression which allows their number to increase unnoticed over time. If the homophobia is sufficiently powerful, it may even be that 100% of the community carry and suppress a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. As the numbers increase, so too does the community exposure and subsequent acceptance. As gay people are accepted, they try less to fill communal roles contrary to their nature, and so they bear less offspring, numbers drop… and so on. It is conceivable that a steady state somewhere in the middle could be attained, but the fluctuations may always remain.

 

Please tell me what you think of this. If any geneticists read this, could you verify if, in the event that a gay gene did exist, it would actually spread in these circumstances, or if it would simply remain a constant percentage of the populous due to recession etc. Thanks