A new study by Canadian researchers adds weight to the theory that the evolutionary role of gay men may be to serve as “super uncles” who help close family members survive.
Paul Vasey, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Lethbridge, sought to address an entrenched scientific riddle: If homosexuality appears to be inherited, how have gay men, who are less likely to reproduce, continued to pass on their genes without becoming extinct?
According to The Gazette of Montreal, one long-running theory argues that gay men serve the evolutionary role of acting as “super uncles” who assist close relatives and indirectly increase the chances of passing on their genes.
“The idea is that homosexuals are helping their close relatives reproduce more successfully and at a higher rate by being helpful: babysitting more, tutoring their nieces and nephews in art and music, and helping out financially with things like medical care and education,” reports The Gazette.
Vasey and his colleague Doug VanderLaan tested the theory on the Pacific island of Samoa, where they studied women, straight men, and the fa’afafine, men who prefer other men as sexual partners and are accepted within the culture as a distinct third gender category.
“Vasey found that the fa’afafine said they were significantly more willing to help kin, yet much less interested in helping children who aren’t family — providing the first evidence to support the ‘kin selection hypothesis,'” reports The Gazette.
“Maybe it’s in this way that they’re indirectly passing on at least some of the genes that they’re sharing with their kin,” said Vasey.
The findings are published online this week in the journal Psychological Science.
Researchers are now exploring whether the fa’afafine actually follow through on their stated willingness to help family members by giving more money to relatives.
the article is stating 2 nonsense ideas (as in, ideas that make no sense if you spend a second thinking about it)
Sure, people are influenced by one another as time goes on, but that has nothing to do with genes. Pure nonsense
Just because there isn’t a gay gene doesn’t mean genetic factors don’t affect sexuality. It’s believed to be a combination of genetic factors, conditions in the uterus (which are affected by the genes of the mother as well) and other factors.
Siblings share a lot of genetic similarities. A gay uncle who supports their siblings at raising children will improve the probability that those shared genes are passed on.
The main issue with any of that is wishy washy unproved and unconfirmed. Some published papers say genetics may influence 32 percent of gay individuals, but then you have people who have all the genetic history and patterns that are supposed to be a match for same-sex inclinations but have none whatsoever, and vice-versa.
There’s no ‘gene’ and no ‘genes’ that determine a person’s sexuality, and much like how a person may be raised by gay parents, doesn’t mean that they themselves will be gay.
Raising a person does not give them genes, does not pass genetic material down or any nonsense like that. If you raise someone, they will be influenced as an individual by the way you treat them. If you expose a person to new ideas, this will influence the way they understand the world. You aren’t giving them or ‘activating’ genes.
You think kids raised by parents in the Westboro Baptist Church have some sort of ‘hateful gene’ because of how they were raised? Plenty have left and don’t practice that lifestyle. You can’t just give someone new genetic material by being around them or helping raise them into adulthood. Quite frankly, it’s a very dumb suggestion.
Sure, but it’s not relevant. It’s unlikely that genetics plays no role whatsoever, and impossible that it is completely determined by genetics.
Yes, I know. That’s not what the article is suggesting at all. The gay uncle supports his siblings in raising children. Those children share genes with the uncle, therefore the “gay” genes get passed on.