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.
Your concern hits directly at the "nature vs. nurture" question: "Is being gay a choice?" Ex-gay preachers and social constructionists believe that being gay is a choice or at a minimum it is defined by society or the individual. Biological essentialists believe that sexual orientation is hardwired in either at birth or very early in the development of an animal. Many people believe discrimination against a "gay lifestyle choice" should be legal. Some believe that such discrimination against gay people will be outlawed if it can be proved that sexual orientation is immutable as the color of your skin. However, others believe the "nature or nurture" question is irrelevant because even race is a social construction and they point out that religious discrimination is illegal despite the fact that you can choose your own religion.
In my opinion, social constructions AND biological or developmental genetic factors are both useful to explain being gay. To reject one or the other puts one at risk of rejecting good science (either social science or biological science).
Race is a good example. Yes, genetics can explain the color of somebody's skin, but it won't explain the cultural fact that many people do not see President Obama as being "black." Being "black" is a social construction that only has a loose connection with genetics.
Scott, I'm with you 100% on this one. Plus, aren't uncles, gay or straight, suppose to be helpful to their nieces and nephews? Until they get their own kids of course--which in the case of the gay ones may not happen for a while.
Saying that nature created you to be a babysitter seems pretty far fetched especially once you take into consideration that for much of human history in particular pre-Christianity were homosexuality, or to be more specific men having sex with men, was openly tolerated we haven't seen any substantial evidence to support these "super uncles".
And while you have the fa'afafine in Samoa, who are embraced, you similarly have the Hijra in India, except unlike the fa'afafine they are marginalized and often kicked out the family. Which of course makes them incapable of being well sought after babysitters.