Poll: Is homosexuality genetic?

[Kimjira19]

"Do you think there is a "gay-gene"?
Yes

23.2% (63)
23.2% (63)"

These numbers are scary.
It has been proven that there are no such thing as a 'gay-gene'.

Really? where is your source?

 

[Kimjira19]

I think that like alcoholism and other addictions, (not saying being gay is an addiction) there are genes that make it more likely that someone might turn out gay, but studies have shown that there's a bigger correlation between being raised by single, overbearing mothers and going gay than any genetic markers . Just like alcoholism and violent behavior, though, certain decisions have to be reached to actually act on behavior, or to even allow such behaviors and thoughts to stay with you.

Just to add a second layer to this discussion, and before I say this-no, I am not a homophobe, nor do I think gays are inferior to straight people, but wouldn't arguing the existence of a gay gene be arguing the genetic inferiority of homosexuals? Since natural selection doesn't work on people anymore-for example, disease/natural predators aren't as big a deal-to preserve the gene pool, evolution would have to force a mutation to prevent mating. I know it sounds harsh, but it's logically sound, unless I've somehow missed how evolution works. Just food for thought.

As for the homosexuality in nature argument, I don't think that is TRUE homosexuality. It seems to be more of a dominance thing. For example, when one male dog humps another male dog, pleasure centers of the brain are NOT activated, similar to (most) men in prison, it's a way to show dominance, not attraction.

Really? Because I am pretty sure that was a Freudian idea and Freud is not exactly the best source for modern arguments. But if it is not from Freud please feel free to produce these studies you speak of.

 

[goldenjester]

I think that like alcoholism and other addictions, (not saying being gay is an addiction) there are genes that make it more likely that someone might turn out gay, but studies have shown that there's a bigger correlation between being raised by single, overbearing mothers and going gay than any genetic markers . Just like alcoholism and violent behavior, though, certain decisions have to be reached to actually act on behavior, or to even allow such behaviors and thoughts to stay with you.

Just to add a second layer to this discussion, and before I say this-no, I am not a homophobe, nor do I think gays are inferior to straight people, but wouldn't arguing the existence of a gay gene be arguing the genetic inferiority of homosexuals? Since natural selection doesn't work on people anymore-for example, disease/natural predators aren't as big a deal-to preserve the gene pool, evolution would have to force a mutation to prevent mating. I know it sounds harsh, but it's logically sound, unless I've somehow missed how evolution works. Just food for thought.

As for the homosexuality in nature argument, I don't think that is TRUE homosexuality. It seems to be more of a dominance thing. For example, when one male dog humps another male dog, pleasure centers of the brain are NOT activated, similar to (most) men in prison, it's a way to show dominance, not attraction.

Really? Because I am pretty sure that was a Freudian idea and Freud is not exactly the best source for modern arguments. But if it is not from Freud please feel free to produce these studies you speak of.

Actually, Freud was of the mind that everyone was bisexual naturally. I'm looking for the study still-I have to re-run some old google searches to find the report I found-but in the interim, I haven't found anything suggesting Freud was the one who came up with the over-bearing mother theory.

 

[Jovlo]

There have been studies on identical twins who were separated at birth.
If one twin was gay, chances that the other one was as well were about 80%.
This was quite strong evidence for it being mostly genetic.

 

[Kimjira19]

Thats behavioural you halfwit. I suggest you learn what a word means before getting all sandy in your bisexual vagina.

Behavioural pyschology relates to biological and psychological response from stimuli. In this case since your bisexual anything with a hole. In homosexuality it would be to feel connection and attraction to a member of the same sex.

I know what behavioral means. I take offense that you call it an "issue" thus implying something is wrong. It is simply different, not wrong. What I also said was that I can no more "will" myself to be bisexual than you can to be straight. And as vehement as my response was, I did not insult you or your intelligence and I think you owe me an apology for responding in an uncivilized manner. Good day.

 

[Kimjira19]

... Look it f***ing up yourself.
Really, the whole belief of there being any so-called "gay-gene" comes from people who are insecure about their own sexuality.

What's next?
A Transexual-gene? A Nerd-gene? Why not a mainstreem-gene while we're at it!

Nice civility. Anyway, genes are much more complex than you realize. With sexuality it is more probable that there are multiple genes that influence sexuality, not just one. Also I do think that it is not purely genetic, that a combination of genes, pre-natal conditions, and early life experiences all heavily influence a persons sexual orientation. And also, if you make such a absolutist claim the burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

[Kimjira19]

So your butthurt I used the word 'issue'. I highly recommend you buy a good solid dictionary. I recommend the Oxford English since anything else is written by morons.

Issue refers to the point being discussed. Im sorry your so brittle (meaning weak & easily broken) about your sexuality (meaning your sexual preferences) maybe you should consolidate (to reinforce) your position (where you or your opinions are) and you can be less defensive about it (your sexual orientation). If your so defensive (protective) about such a simple comment (statement) then you are clearly not happy.

p.s. You need to look up will as well. Of course you can will yourself to do anything that isnt autonomic. Sticking your willy/fingers/tongue in another person isnt in the top ten list of physically inviolate actions. Judging by the 6 billion people on the planet Id say it was pretty much nearer the bottom of the things people wouldnt do list. Your confusing personality with biology. Must of the gay men I know have children or have been married. They didnt change their mind half way through they were gay & conformed to hetero sexual society by having kids & doing hetero things. Their experiences invalidate your 'I cant will myself not to be gay' (I wont say bi thats a seperate arguement) arguement.

Have you given thought to the possibility that maybe I am so easily offended is because I live in a country where homosexuals are treated like second class citizens? Or maybe I am on edge because my gf is in the military and has to keep to the closet if she wants to keep her job? And I have known the word "issue" to be used with negative connotations before, like "that guy has serious issues."

 

[Setharoth]

I suppose I can kind of understand why the military would be against having gay people in their forces... similar to why they won't let men into a women's locker room...
Since the next response I'm going to get is "thats discrimitory against gays" then I would respond with "is it sexist to not let a man into a women's locker room? Sometimes there are discriminations for reasons, similar to a situation where if a guy tried to date my hypothetical daughter and he had tatooes covering his body, smoked cigars, and had a long criminal record, I might be a little discrimitory when I said he better stay the fuck away from her..."

 

[MiserableOldGit]

I reckon its a genetic misfire that has proven useful. The only animals that display homosexual tendencies are ones that can get pleasure from sex, and usually engage in some sort of parent/group bonding rituals. It can be useful to have organisms of the same sex engage in these rituals, so the misfiring has endured. Evolution is a process rather than a design.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

... Look it f***ing up yourself.
Really, the whole belief of there being any so-called "gay-gene" comes from people who are insecure about their own sexuality.

What's next?
A Transexual-gene? A Nerd-gene? Why not a mainstreem-gene while we're at it!

Nice civility. Anyway, genes are much more complex than you realize. With sexuality it is more probable that there are multiple genes that influence sexuality, not just one. Also I do think that it is not purely genetic, that a combination of genes, pre-natal conditions, and early life experiences all heavily influence a persons sexual orientation. And also, if you make such a absolutist claim the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Zeithri - I'd be interested to know how you think sexuality is determined-if you don't believe that it is linked to genetics, then you have a conundrum-how would an organism reproduce in the first place? When the first organisms on this planet reached a point of complexity that rendered asexual reproduction unworkable, how did they make that leap to sexual reproduction? What is more likely, that they decided to, or that evolution dictated the move? What reason do you have to believe that homosexuality is not similarly linked? Given that genes are concerned with survival through replication its perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility of the existence of a gene to determine sexuality-indeed, recent work into decoding our genome and identifying specific genes has shown that a great deal of our behaviour is indeed influenced, or perhaps even dictated by genetic considerations. Things have come a long way since Venter started mapping the human genome- 'The extended phenotype' is an interesting text that touches on this subject

 

[MiserableOldGit]

You misunderstood me, when I said "early human history", I mean Early, like paleolithic, not say Victorian or Renaissance periods.

So pre-civilization, it would make perfect sense that homosexuality wouldn't continue. Why pretend to be something that no one cares about? Children were hardly valued in pre-agricultural times so gays wouldn't be pressured to 'add to the clan'. So if there was a "gay gene", it would have died out before the Neolithic revolution, and there hasn't been nearly enough time for such a gene to become so widely spread after the neolithic revolution.

So correlation? Yes. Causation? No.

And that's where I'll stop

Fair enough, although I did mean pre-civilization. As in, the mutation occured more in the years around 4000 B.C.

But your argument that it wouldn't be so widely spread makes sense, too.

Undesirable genes don't necersarily 'die out'- if they did, genetic diseases wouldnt endure beyond four generations or so. If sexuality is determined (Or at least influenced) by genes, it could be that an organism could be a carrier of the gene-it may be recessive in them , but win out in their offspring if they had a child with another carrier.