Discussion about the "gay gene" is still happening. The health section of the Los Angeles Times recently published an article that tries to account for the existence of male homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. According to the article, the gay gene survives, because gay men perform an important social function: they "make great uncles." Well intentioned, the author is trying to debunk a popular conservative view that explains homosexuality as a lifestyle, a choice, or a sin. She writes,

And if you don't believe in evolution--or that homosexuality in men may have biological roots, but is rather a lifestyle chosen to affront--well then, this study won't help explain anything for you. Good luck finding an alternative.

I appreciate the author's confrontation of right-wing and Creationist perspectives. Still, I have been wary of biological explanations of homosexuality ever since I read David Halperin's book Saint Foucault. In the first place, the "pink gene" theory is scientifically specious. In the second place, it's kind of offensive/heteronormative to argue that gay people should be allowed to exist because they're good babysitters. As much as I look forward to being an uncle, I have trouble imagining that my genes made me gay so that I can be a "helper in the nest." Third, the attempt to establish certain forms of sexual desire as "natural" implies that other forms of desire are "unnatural." People cannot so easily be divided into the categories "homo-" and "heterosexual." Some of us identify as bisexual; some of us prefer to sleep with transgender individuals; some of us prefer cross-generational intimacy; some of us get our kicks by licking black leather boots. Although these kinds of desire cannot be traced back to a gene, they're still legit.

Thanks to Lady Bartlett for the link.