Poll: Is homosexuality genetic?
- Thread starter JokerCrowe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've always thought it was upbringing, my friends (straight) swear its a choice, but I really don't agree. I doubt its genetic, I could see bisexuality as genetic because that occurs in animals, but pure homosexuality doesn't occur that often, if at all. So, a bisexual person with a triggering upbringing, I can see it, pure genetics, not so much.
It feels like you are the one pushing it too far by comparing it with Down's Syndrome, though you are saying it theoretically, it still is.MelasZepheos said:
I believe you are born with something....that determines whether you are a homosexual or not. Recently my mother and sisters were watching a reality television show about designing a clothing line, and the 2 hosts of the show were twins. They are both male, and both gay. I can't believe that one day they just went and said, "Hey, want to be gay?"
My mom has this weird thing where she can usually tell whether someone is gay or not by their facial structure, she says it's just something about there face, and she is right nearly every time.
Another way may be that you are born with something that through some event in your early life makes you attracted to the same sex.
Ah, if you bring up the whole religion subject, things get very, very complicated. So I won't go into that.
Not my comparison. It came up during a debate I had in philosophy class, which was why I got so worried about the research being done. The person bringing up the idea was a fundamentalist Christian, and an American exchange student hoping to get into politics. He stated it as 'If there is a gene that causes people to not want to reproduce naturally, then that genetic trait should be removed.' He then went on to back up his argument by saying that we offer people whose babies are scanned positive for Down's Syndrome the option to abort, so if we knew they were going to be homosexual, why not abort then as well? (Detail included only so people know the full story, I do not assume he is typical of any group of people)TylerC said:
Designer babies arguments are beginning to have some light shed on them now, and if a group of anti-homosexuals (religious or not, political or not, scientific or not) were able to exert enough pressure, a government could just cave, and we have a very sketchy ethical situation on our hands.
No. : ) but I see how you could think thatmartin said:
I'm curious about that concept: of there being a gay-gene. and I've been thinking about it a lot lately for some reason... (i'm curious about just about everything really) but now I'm only curious about what you think about this matter : )
For everyone saying that the Gay gene would have bred itself out, it's good that you're thinking, but I'm afraid we have that covered: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
Most scientific evidence points to there being a "Gay gene," my opinion is that people are overcompensating for their opinions on the subject due to the sensitivity of the topic. "Gay" is just a hormonal defect that picks up signals sent by men as opposed to signals sent by women. It doesn't matter how flamboyant your dad is or who bullies you in school, you're not getting a hormonal defect from the nurture side, so it really only makes sense for it to be genetic.
Then again, we thought the earth was flat for a while there, so maybe the better part of the scientific community is off-base.
Most scientific evidence points to there being a "Gay gene," my opinion is that people are overcompensating for their opinions on the subject due to the sensitivity of the topic. "Gay" is just a hormonal defect that picks up signals sent by men as opposed to signals sent by women. It doesn't matter how flamboyant your dad is or who bullies you in school, you're not getting a hormonal defect from the nurture side, so it really only makes sense for it to be genetic.
Then again, we thought the earth was flat for a while there, so maybe the better part of the scientific community is off-base.
AWwww And here I thought I was unique. I've actually been thinking a lot about this, so i didn't do this to get attention... (at least not just to get attentionDouk said:
)(but I realize that, that wasn't what you meant
Going from pure logic... no
Logically, it seems impossible that a gene can be passed down from a couple that can not have children naturally. It just doesn't make sense that it is caused by genes when the genes cannot be passed on.
At this point, someone would say "but what about donating sperm? In this case, the children might get the gene...". Unfourtanatly, you have to take into account that gay people have exsisted a lot longer then the idea of sperm donating, and still exsists in countries where there is no such thing.
I suppose to find the acutal cause you would have to compare any and all external factors that might cause it. It would be interesting to do a study and find out where the majority of gay people are born or live, as it might lead to a cause.
Logically, it seems impossible that a gene can be passed down from a couple that can not have children naturally. It just doesn't make sense that it is caused by genes when the genes cannot be passed on.
At this point, someone would say "but what about donating sperm? In this case, the children might get the gene...". Unfourtanatly, you have to take into account that gay people have exsisted a lot longer then the idea of sperm donating, and still exsists in countries where there is no such thing.
I suppose to find the acutal cause you would have to compare any and all external factors that might cause it. It would be interesting to do a study and find out where the majority of gay people are born or live, as it might lead to a cause.
Well there are indeed genetic correlations with being homosexual, but causation? I sort of doubt it. In early human history if you weren't making babies you're "gay gene" wouldn't get passed on, and we probably wouldn't have it today (or it would be very rare)
Yeah, true. Although it could have occured from a mutation later in the history of humans, once civilization had started up and homosexuality had been shunned that the homosexuals would pretend to be heterosexual and reproduce.EClaris said:
I'm undecided, although I voted no. Where would that leave bisexual people? Is it like one of those genes that mix?
You misunderstood me, when I said "early human history", I mean Early, like paleolithic, not say Victorian or Renaissance periods.Sturmdolch said:
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.EClaris said:
But your argument that it wouldn't be so widely spread makes sense, too.
yep, I agree
I do not think yopu can create a baby using two sets of male DNA or two sets of female DNA (not yet anyway) i.e a gay couple with BIOLOGICAL children
If a gay couple uses the DNA of someone other than their partners then the child can only be biological to one person in the couple.
It is natural for couples to want to have children like them with the same genes. Thus I say that the concept of `gay` gene is flawed because gay couple cannot make children representative of their genes
EDIT, there was supposed to be a quote with this...apologies
I do not think yopu can create a baby using two sets of male DNA or two sets of female DNA (not yet anyway) i.e a gay couple with BIOLOGICAL children
If a gay couple uses the DNA of someone other than their partners then the child can only be biological to one person in the couple.
It is natural for couples to want to have children like them with the same genes. Thus I say that the concept of `gay` gene is flawed because gay couple cannot make children representative of their genes
EDIT, there was supposed to be a quote with this...apologies