Poll: The 'why' in Sexuality

[verdant monkai]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

Ok I lied this is a discussion now
And you know what you forced my hand, COWER FROM MY TRUE BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, THOU SHALT PAY FOR THY HUBRIS.
Ahem....
yes the first "gay" could have been as a mutation to give rise to a person with a recessive gene for the gay. while the person themselves would be straight. but their children (if had with another mutant, which wouldn't be common, due to the rarity of mutation) would have a 1 in 2 chance of also being a carrier. then one fo those carriers would have to breed with another carrier to produce 2 in 4 carriers, 1 in 4 fully gays, who wouldnt breed and produce none. and 1 in 4 fully straight

and the chances are 1/4 gay 1/4 straight 2/4 carrier for each child.

(stage 2) when you add this to competition of other species the chance of this gene getting a large foothold enough to produce viable population for many people today to be unwitting carriers of the gay gene, the gay carriers have no biological advantage over the other normal people. meaning they have just as much chance of having children, 1/2 chance of producing gay carriers. and if those carriers had a child witha normal person there wouold be a 1/4 chance of producing a carrier and a 3/4 chance of noraml straights.

the rate of dilution is so fast the gene will become redundant and die out over the course of millions of years.

that is assuming a gay carrier mutant actually happened to find another gay carrier mutant in the first place. if they only found anormal person

 

[Vamantha]

I'm straight. :3

Guys have always been interesting to me so it could be that. They seem relaxed, mellow, calm, but fun. Where as women I don't have as nice a mental picture.

It could just very well be that people come to term with their sexuality through all those. Maybe some people are just born, it happens for others, or life shapes it for the last group. I wouldn't be surprised. I'm unsure of how mine came around.

I haven't felt sexually attracted to the same sex. Yay! Lack of input! :/

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

To be honest, I'm unsure. I find myself attracted to women for the most part, but occasionally some dazzling fellow will rear his head and I won't be so certain anymore. Conflicted boy am I.

 

[Chefodeath]

I've long ago abandoned any attempt to find any kind of logic or consistency in sexuality. Things that would have turned me on a few years ago disgust me today and vice versa. It is for this reason that I have taken up a sexual asceticism of sorts. I refuse to make something which can change so easily a cornerstone of my personality, for it is a fool who builds his home on the shifting sands.

So ya, if forced to label my sexuality, I'd call it undefined, and frankly, unimportant.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, I've always been straight. I heard most guys go through a "gay phase" but that seems to have passed me by (thank God). I guess if I had to explain why I'm straight I'd probably say because of... well...

Spoiler: ...this hot dame...

Spoiler: ...or maybe this dazzlin' broad...

Spoiler: ...or even this attractive young lady...

...but if I had to pick one reason?

Spoiler: I'd pick this reason every time

God damn, women are hot.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Love the mounting entheusiasm!

Yep it would get pretty dilute. However THEN we factor in the other things i talked about where we have gay people having children with straight people. Not to mention we have the extremely complex interactions of different genes to consider. Perhaps the "gay gene" is a repressor gene for another gene that causes attraction in a certain way. Perhaps its an incredibly complex combination possible from anyone in the population but with a very small chance of the combination being viable.

That is to say we all have the genetics and alleles for attraction, say about 90% of your gametes will contain the correct sequence to give straight attraction while ther other 10% contain the correct sequence of genes and repressor genes and other parts to lead to a "gay" person if in combination with others. All stemming from genetics that are essential to attraction that we all have but a unique combination therein. Im perfectly willing to accept the gay gene doesnt exist. However its a perfectly valid theory and it needs me research into it.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

This however throws a spanner in my ideas. It should be 100%. Its higher than usual. But its also not 100%. This leads me to think that genetics may make a person more... accepting to becoming gay depending on how their brain develops after birth. But the factor isnt described entirely by genetics. Ill concede that.

 

[Chefodeath]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

Ok I lied this is a discussion now
And you know what you forced my hand, COWER FROM MY TRUE BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, THOU SHALT PAY FOR THY HUBRIS.
Ahem....
yes the first "gay" could have been as a mutation to give rise to a person with a recessive gene for the gay. while the person themselves would be straight. but their children (if had with another mutant, which wouldn't be common, due to the rarity of mutation) would have a 1 in 2 chance of also being a carrier. then one fo those carriers would have to breed with another carrier to produce 2 in 4 carriers, 1 in 4 fully gays, who wouldnt breed and produce none. and 1 in 4 fully straight

and the chances are 1/4 gay 1/4 straight 2/4 carrier for each child.

(stage 2) when you add this to competition of other species the chance of this gene getting a large foothold enough to produce viable population for many people today to be unwitting carriers of the gay gene, the gay carriers have no biological advantage over the other normal people. meaning they have just as much chance of having children, 1/2 chance of producing gay carriers. and if those carriers had a child witha normal person there wouold be a 1/4 chance of producing a carrier and a 3/4 chance of noraml straights.

the rate of dilution is so fast the gene will become redundant and die out over the course of millions of years.

that is assuming a gay carrier mutant actually happened to find another gay carrier mutant in the first place. if they only found anormal person

Both of you should probably stop talking. I think the factors that feed into homosexuality, genetic and otherwise, are far more nuanced and varied than a single "gay gene", and all your sophomoric comprehension of biology is doing is getting you nowhere.

 

[BeerTent]

[...]
Whats your sexuality?
Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual?

Also my grammer and Puncuation is very bad im sorry about that.

You and you alone can define what orientation you are, and those are shaped through your own experiences. I don't believe it's a choice, no... But we can't tear apart your brain to see how your wired, so the only other way to find out is by testing it.

Personally, I'm a pretty straight Tent. In my experiences, I feel in the mood around women, and when a man comes onto me, I feel nothing. As to why? Just how I was fabricated.

 

[Elate]

I'm gay because I like it da' butt, men are far easier to relate to, share more interests and generally make actual sense, also vajayjay isn't my cup of tea.

 

[verdant monkai]

SNIP

Love the mounting entheusiasm!

Yep it would get pretty dilute. However THEN we factor in the other things i talked about where we have gay people having children with straight people. Not to mention we have the extremely complex interactions of different genes to consider. Perhaps the "gay gene" is a repressor gene for another gene that causes attraction in a certain way. Perhaps its an incredibly complex combination possible from anyone in the population but with a very small chance of the combination being viable.

That is to say we all have the genetics and alleles for attraction, say about 90% of your gametes will contain the correct sequence to give straight attraction while ther other 10% contain the correct sequence of genes and repressor genes and other parts to lead to a "gay" person if in combination with others. All stemming from genetics that are essential to attraction that we all have but a unique combination therein. Im perfectly willing to accept the gay gene doesnt exist. However its a perfectly valid theory and it needs me research into it.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

This however throws a spanner in my ideas. It should be 100%. Its higher than usual. But its also not 100%. This leads me to think that genetics may make a person more... accepting to becoming gay depending on how their brain develops after birth. But the factor isnt described entirely by genetics. Ill concede that.

The enthusiasm is due to that new word "fallacious" (I will never forget you for that)

Some people have said I have made a big mistake when I said "Gays cant have kids" they are right. I should have said Gays don't normally have kids.

You make a very valid genetic point, but at the end of the day. Actual scientists have studied this matter deeply and found no evidence or trace of a gay gene. The points I offered are just my view on the matter, which you didn't disprove.

Oh and also I know you did not say so but using words like Zygote and monozygotic (pretty standard GCSE stuff really) does not make your biological knowledge superior in anyway to mine. If anything we seem to be on the same level of understanding from what I can see.

 

[Chefodeath]

What is Demi-sexual? And how does Pan-sexuality differ from bisexuality?

Pansexuality is where you're attracted to literally anyone, no matter who they are.

Bisexuality is just male/female

Tell me of these other mythical genders.

The implication being that there is no distinction to be had between a pansexual and a bisexual if there are only two genders. Say I have two people and offer each of them to pick from a bag of jellybeans.

The first person says "Oh, thank you, but I only like the red and blue jellybeans."

The second person says "Fuck ya! Jellybeans!"

Now as it turns out, the bag contains only red and blue jellybeans, so both people share a common pool of compatible jellybeans. The distinction between them comes in the fact that person 1 likes the jellybeans because they are either red or blue, person 2 likes the jellybeans because they are jellybeans.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

now i was playing Burnout Paradise [its where idea's happen] and i was thinking about Sexuality.

anyway im Pansexual, so i started thinking, i read earlier on a different site that 'Your Experiences define your sexuality'. i wasn't 100% sold on this however, because i didn't have a great time with Male or Female people, at all. i looked into the subject even more and i got a different response

'your just born that way' [also i don't listen to most modern music so i was unaware of the Lady Gaga song'] i wasn't sold on this either, because if you have certain experiences with a gender you might end up hating that gender. As far as i know people aren't born with hate, so i was really against the wall trying to figure it out.

as i zoomed around another corner and off a jump, i had a realization, 'I have Absolutely no idea'.

i couldn't figure out why i was pansexual because it didn't really make sense too me, i was always treated badly by the Sexes and wouldn't that negatively impact on what i think of them sexually?

but i was Straight only 4 years ago, i found gay stuff and by that i mean like 'Erotica' kind of 'unappealing' if you get me. I did and still do believe in Gay rights and stuff i just didn't really wanna see Erotica in action.

maybe it was that scene in FF7 but i never found that stuff exciting in any case.

So im confused.

ANYWAAYYYYYYYY

Whats your sexuality?
Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual?

Also my grammer and Puncuation is very bad im sorry about that.

*Straight.

*I don't think why is ever a consideration for most, it just is. If you're looking for an answer you look to biology (or bio-chemistry?) and neurology since attraction is hardwired into us from birth both mentally and physically. It's all in your head (hur hur)

*I believe we are born with a predisposition towards one sex or another (or both or none... or everything?) but external influences can condition towards certain preferences. I don't think the fetishes of the world are inherent or mutational... I think they are adapted to our lives based on experiences, both good and bad. There may be something inherent about preferences towards certain physical features, but I think that's a stretch.

*I can see how someone of the same sex is attractive (as in, personal preference, not common opinion), but not feel a stirring for that person. I find certain male traits appealing in a "I think that looks good on him" rather then a "I find that arousing" kind of way. Certain types of beards and how the beards are kept, certain hairstyles, something in the eyes, how the lips are formed, their physical build, posture and personality and even style. I look at these things in both an impersonal analytical sense (what is masculine and how do they represent the male persuasion) and a very personal artistic sense (I draw a wide variety of things, and I find certain physical nuances endearing or full of unspoken character when it comes to drawing men and women).

 

[targren]

I think there are plenty of people who hate women and yet still consider themselves heterosexual. Most (but certainly not all) of the misogynists I've met have been heterosexual men.

Well, yeah. There's a world of difference between sexual attraction and liking someone as a human being.

 

[verdant monkai]

Both of you should probably stop talking. I think the factors that feed into homosexuality, genetic and otherwise, are far more nuanced and varied than a single "gay gene", and all your sophomoric comprehension of biology is doing is getting you nowhere.

Point taken

Sophomoric another new word for me.

I thought our genetic understanding was quite reasonable actually.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Love the mounting entheusiasm!

Yep it would get pretty dilute. However THEN we factor in the other things i talked about where we have gay people having children with straight people. Not to mention we have the extremely complex interactions of different genes to consider. Perhaps the "gay gene" is a repressor gene for another gene that causes attraction in a certain way. Perhaps its an incredibly complex combination possible from anyone in the population but with a very small chance of the combination being viable.

That is to say we all have the genetics and alleles for attraction, say about 90% of your gametes will contain the correct sequence to give straight attraction while ther other 10% contain the correct sequence of genes and repressor genes and other parts to lead to a "gay" person if in combination with others. All stemming from genetics that are essential to attraction that we all have but a unique combination therein. Im perfectly willing to accept the gay gene doesnt exist. However its a perfectly valid theory and it needs me research into it.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

This however throws a spanner in my ideas. It should be 100%. Its higher than usual. But its also not 100%. This leads me to think that genetics may make a person more... accepting to becoming gay depending on how their brain develops after birth. But the factor isnt described entirely by genetics. Ill concede that.

The enthusiasm is due to that new word "fallacious" (I will never forget you for that)

Some people have said I have made a big mistake when I said "Gays cant have kids" they are right. I should have said Gays don't normally have kids.

You make a very valid genetic point, but at the end of the day. Actual scientists have studied this matter deeply and found no evidence or trace of a gay gene. The points I offered are just my view on the matter, which you didn't disprove.

Oh and also I know you did not say so but using words like Zygote and monozygotic (pretty standard GCSE stuff really) does not make your biological knowledge superior in anyway to mine. If anything we seem to be on the same level of understanding from what I can see.

Those are the appropriate key words. Their level is irrelivant to be honest. I used the words to describe what i meant. I do A level biology and i finish next week. Its hardly like i was pitched an examination on genetics. We discussed a topic and i pointed out that carriers can propegate a disease since some diseases cause sterility or kill before people can reproduce. I also pointed out mutation can cause carriers to arise rather than "sufferers" as the first incidence. I also pointed out that things can be "recessive" by being covered by many other genes both dominant and co dominant.

However ive changed my view on seeing twins arnt 100% gay when one is gay. This definately points toward the idea it isnt genetic. Defnately something to do with the development of personality and neural pathways after conception/childhood/life. Cant really comment. Very interesting though. Id like to see more studies done.