I really wish homosexuality is genetic, that way we could get rid of that gene and problem solved for future generations. No more conflicts.

But I highly doubt it, every gay I have interviewed have at least one traumatic, but very important, childhood event that subconsciously eliminates/disapproves the oposite gender for sexual partnership.

I've been checking ovid's website looking for genetic updates, but they keep focusing on psychological studies.

At 5/15/09 07:15 PM, Fierce-Deity wrote: Nobody is sure how it happens, but I do have a theory. At the moment of conception, all humans are female.

Um, not quite. I know what you're getting at here: in human physiology (as with most 'X-Y' sex determined species) the 'default' setting is female. However, that doesn't mean that everyone is female at the moment of conception to roughly six weeks afterwards when the external genitalia differentiate. Up until that time the gender is ambiguous from a physical perspective (it's impossible to tell the gender of a foetus during that time without chromosomal screening). A male is concieved as a male, and so is a female, however their initial external gender is neither male or female (it's halfway in-between the two).

During this process, I believe that something can get mixed up, causing a homosexual male to be born. In this way, males can be homosexual by biological reasons or by choice, while females can be only be homosexual by choice, not due to biological reasons. Homosexuality is a mutation of sorts, whether is be psychological or biological, meaning something has to go wrong somewhere for people to be homosexuals.

.....That's a pretty vague theory you've got there. "Something can get mixed up"? Well, okay: everyone agrees that something goes "wrong" at some point. The hard part is agreeing on what that 'something' is.

I don't know where you got the idea that females can only be homosexual by choice, either. It might have been said at some point, I haven't really checked, but ultimately, until the holes in our understanding of what actually makes someone homosexual are filled, statements about gender differences and/or underlying technical details, such as the 'biological to choice' ratio for each gender, will be largely impossible to prove.

At 5/15/09 05:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If you notice, they aren't posting in this thread anymore ;)

We tend to pounce on that kind of crap.

I did notice one got himself banned for his display of closed-mindedness, and I'm well aware of the other's legendary stupidity, so kudos for stopping this thread from getting derailed.
Those two were easy examples, but I generally don't come here often simply because most of the threads revolve around what are effectively glorified opinion wars. There's also the fact that, due to me not being American, the majority of the threads have little to do with me either. And I know better than to argue over stuff that is of no relevance to me regardless of who "wins".

Still, it's nice to see the occasional thread I can post in (Hopefully without making an idiot of myself).

There's no consensus among scientists- though psychological tests have shown that most people experience little or no choice in sexual orientation- this article makes it pretty clear.

I think it's rather obvious that there is ;little to no choice in sexual orientation.

No, who we are attracted to sexually, although not purely, is based upon post-birth experience. What we are taught, what we experiences, what we choose and how those decisions play out all play a role. For example, If I am into shemale porn, then was I born with it? That'd be impossible, for shemales are not created in the wild, and could not have evolved into our genome. Same can be said about furries, or rule 34 porn.

People are sexually attracted to a lot of things, things that our DNA could not have possible known had existed, or even preprogram our brain chemically to prefer. It's just not plausible. If I like small tits, I was not born to like small tits. If I like femininity, I was not born attracted to it, I was told thats how things are supposed to go, and I gained an attraction over time. Certain people grow up prefering masculinity, despite them being men, these people become homosexuals.

Not only this, but If there was a "gay gene", then what does it make them prefer? Dominant men? Skinny men? Girly men? Dead men? Live men? Each individual, gay or not, has specific preferences that they gained over time, and they each have specific tastes. Society just ignorantly catagorizes them together, as if they are same. In all actuality, there is not difference between a gay man and a straight, as much as there is a difference between a straight man who likes big boobs and one who likes small boobs.

At 5/15/09 04:43 PM, Victory wrote:

At 5/15/09 04:22 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: I am a Catholic, but I think that you should be open minded to other theories. Why not? Do you have any proof that the Bible is true? No. You do not. For all we know, the Bible could just be a practical joke that got WAY out of hand. Or it could be the word of God. No one knows, so don't be an ass.

Why are you a Catholic if you have no knowledge one way or the other?

That religion makes the most sense to me. Though I am very open minded towards other theories.

If homosexuality is genetic, how can it be passed down? True homosexuals don't produce offspring, so it simply can't be passed down. Or is it a disorder that eventually peaks its head?

At 5/16/09 11:42 AM, Ericho wrote: If homosexuality is genetic, how can it be passed down? True homosexuals don't produce offspring, so it simply can't be passed down.

SadisticMonkey, or someone else of equal evolutionary knowledge, will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it can be passed down because a homosexual can use a surrogate to have children. This is of course assuming it's genetic.

Or is it a disorder that eventually peaks its head?

That hasn't been established.

Pure is the wrong word- 'open' would be better. Be cause there are many closeted homosexual people who still get heterosexually married and have children- allowing for perpetuation of the gene.

At 5/16/09 11:42 AM, Ericho wrote: If homosexuality is genetic, how can it be passed down? True homosexuals don't produce offspring, so it simply can't be passed down. Or is it a disorder that eventually peaks its head?

Reposted from an earlier post of mine in this thread:

If Homosexuality is genetic, and for the sake of this example is monogenic (controlled by a single gene), then it would most definitely be recessive (Characterisitcs of gene are only present when two copies of the gene are present), and heterosexuality would be dominant (only one copy of the gene needs to be present).

Let's take a hypothetical family. (Here when I say gene I mean copy of a gene, because genes have multiple forms, in this case heterosexual and homosexual, but are actually still the same gene.)

Both the mother and father carry one "gay gene" and one "straight gene".
When they have children, some will have two straight genes, making them straight, some will have one gay gene and one straight gene, making them straight, and some will have two gay genes, making them gay.
The first type of kid will not pass on any gay genes because he/she doesn't have any. The gay kid will not pass on gay genes because he/she will likely not reproduce. The second kid, however, will pass on his/her copy of the gay gene to their kids, and if it's with a partner of one gay and one straight gene, the process repeats.

And there you have it.

However, if homosexuality is infact genetic, then it's nearly certainly not monogenic, but rather, is the result of very complex interactions of multiple genes, in which case the whole 'evolution getting rid of it' is not so simple and doesn't really apply in the same way.

I dunno if behaviour is nature or nurture. I just say that's it's a combination.

As in:
(example)
You are a male and you grew up with female friends, that will probably have influence.
Yet I think some behaviour, might be genetic

At 5/13/09 11:25 PM, EmoNarc wrote: I don't claim to know much about politics. Neither do I claim knowledge of science. And it certainly beats me how a scientific question became political. But the following is a fallacy I've been thinking about for quite some time that -- while I don't claim it to be profound -- has been bothering me: If homosexuality is genetic, then why does homosexuality exist? I mean, those who are homosexual have a huge disadvantage in passing their gay genes to the next generation, so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

It is a weak assumption that homosexuality is genetic. Fact of the matter is that we don't know why we are gay, we simply are. As much as no one knows where heterosexuality resides in the body, we are in the dark about homosexuality. There probably is no gay gene.

Homosexuality does involve some genetics, as shown by the twin-studies, but there is no particular gene that would cause someone to be gay. What is established is that it has a prenatal cause and that it is unchangeable - which is really all I need to know.

How about this:
We don't know what causes homosexuality. We make assumptions but we have no proof.
So does it really matter what causes it? Would having homosexuality be a choice really matter?

At 5/22/09 08:35 PM, aninjaman wrote: Would having homosexuality be a choice really matter?

Yes because homosexuality is UNNATURAL.

At 5/22/09 09:24 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Yes because homosexuality is UNNATURAL.

I know you're deviling that point, but you do know that if something exists, its by default natural.

Because it exists. Unnatural would be like, you exploding for no reason, or god coming down from the sky.

people really think that your interests in sexual orientations is genetic?

thats just utterly ignorant imo. what makes it genetic? i mean really? If it was genetic, there really wouldnt be gay people, as you have mentioned, good luck passing on those gay genes guys. and gals.

I mean i suppose they could thru surrogate mothers and whatnot...but really, if that were the case, the percentage of gay people would be severly less. People ask too much of science, and will take anything it could seem to explain to them.

Its a debate that has been going on for as long as anyone can remember. "is who you are determined by genetics, or enviroment?" There is no proven right or wrong, but in todays world, its considered a happy medium between the two.

I really dislike people who take the words "i was born gay" and interpret it as "yea, as soon as i popped out of that womb, i knew those werent right for me, and went straight for the dick, because, somewhere in my family, i have the genetic makeup for that."

IMHO, ENVIROMENT, plays a much more influential role in "why people are gay"

Genetics is a great science, and can explain and help you understand many things, but i seriously doubt it holds the answer as to "why people are gay"

*note* Politics is always a very heated discussion between 2 different minds, dont be upset when someone vehemently rejects your ideals when it comes to politics and the likes, otherwise you will walk around sad and angry everytime you want to have a discussion.

At 5/22/09 09:54 PM, LaForge wrote: At 5/22/09 09:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:.

That's the same argument that supporters of legal marijuana use in their defense.

Also an argument that makes perfect sense and one that I agree with.

Well you should be careful with that argument because lightning is also natural but its not good if you get hit with it.

At 5/22/09 10:20 PM, darkangelrayne wrote: people really think that your interests in sexual orientations is genetic?

thats just utterly ignorant imo. what makes it genetic? i mean really? If it was genetic, there really wouldnt be gay people, as you have mentioned, good luck passing on those gay genes guys. and gals.

Hey man. You know that thing called a recessive gene.

Yeah. Everything is genes. Your interaction with reality? Genes. The progression of your thoughts? Genes.

Genes are what your brain is made of. Its what forms your organs, its what makes it possible for you to take a shit and smile.

They make you who you are COMPLETELY. To say otherwise is just so fucking stupid I really don't want to go in to detail but I guess I will have to if you don't understand.

There is an element of nature vs. nurture, but this is NOT a genetic dichotomy. This is an instinct vs. intellect argument. BOTH of which form their basis thanks to genetic evolution. That's how animals exist.

It's really just the way things are. To say otherwise is to say that water, for instance, is not wet because it wants to be.

At 5/22/09 10:26 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/22/09 10:20 PM, darkangelrayne wrote: people really think that your interests in sexual orientations is genetic?

thats just utterly ignorant imo. what makes it genetic? i mean really? If it was genetic, there really wouldnt be gay people, as you have mentioned, good luck passing on those gay genes guys. and gals.

Hey man. You know that thing called a recessive gene.

Yeah. Everything is genes. Your interaction with reality? Genes. The progression of your thoughts? Genes.

Genes are what your brain is made of. Its what forms your organs, its what makes it possible for you to take a shit and smile.

They make you who you are COMPLETELY. To say otherwise is just so fucking stupid I really don't want to go in to detail but I guess I will have to if you don't understand.

There is an element of nature vs. nurture, but this is NOT a genetic dichotomy. This is an instinct vs. intellect argument. BOTH of which form their basis thanks to genetic evolution. That's how animals exist.

It's really just the way things are. To say otherwise is to say that water, for instance, is not wet because it wants to be.

So basically, your saying, my parents gave me my name because theyre genetics dictated that?

Your saying i do what i do and think how i think because i was born with that, that i would say, think, do, and feel the same things if i was in a COMPLETLY different situation in life? that i would be gay if i grew up in a world of ONLY females and i am male because my genes are like that? Enviroment plays no part?

Lets get something straight here, I am married to my wife, simply because, the genetic makeup of my body already predetermined that i would? and if i lived in canada, and not the USA, and never went to the USA, that i would still marry the same person?

Genes make me who i am completly? So genes make me choose what i do for a living?

Who you are is determined by whats around you, AS WELL as genes, the reason i am on this computer, is because of the enviroment around me, genes dont tell me to. SO, adolf hitlter killed jews because his genes predermined that when he was born.

Maybe i took what you said all wrong, and you mean something completly different, but if you truly belive your genes are the only thing that make you who you are, thats stupid. i dont speak english because of my genes, i speak english because i was born in america and everyone around me speaks english.

genes = how you interact with that environment

environment influence is limited to the variables it presents you with

i guess i just dont udnerstand lol.

I just dont see how "because this happened, my genes determine i will react this way" should the past experiences you have had with similar variables in enviroment depict a large percent of how you will react? I.E. A man walks into a coffee shop with a gun and kills everyone but you and walks out. The next day, you see him again at the local Gas station. Wouldnt you run like a bat out of hell because of what happened previously? I understand genes will affect the reaction, but they cant be the sole basis for it.

Nah you do understand man it is just affection, obviously the molecules of matter deciding your space will play too. I.e. a car hit you you're gonna die.

But really, wouldn't you awareness play into that as well, which is dependent on genes? Wouldn't the guy in the other car's awareness play too, which is genes? If you take into account exactly how much of your environment is produced by people you will being to realize that a shocking amount of your life is entirely dependent on genes/the patterns of people.

At 5/22/09 10:26 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yeah. Everything is genes. Your interaction with reality? Genes. The progression of your thoughts? Genes.

Um, no? Genes are things that determine physical characteristics, what ailments you may or may not be prone to. These other things are more down to experience and what you learn through the process of living (which would be your interaction with reality). You're giving genes far too much credit here.

Genes are what your brain is made of. Its what forms your organs, its what makes it possible for you to take a shit and smile.

Along with all the various other processes that go into it, but I see you're point, genes are the starting line from which the more complicated processes get put together.

They make you who you are COMPLETELY. To say otherwise is just so fucking stupid I really don't want to go in to detail but I guess I will have to if you don't understand.

Yes, you really will, because it is YOU who doesn't understand what you're talking about and you're giving genes far more credit then they deserve in terms of the makeup of an individual. The mere fact that life experience can change how people view the world around them PROVES that it is not all down to what you're genes tell you at birth.

There is an element of nature vs. nurture, but this is NOT a genetic dichotomy. This is an instinct vs. intellect argument. BOTH of which form their basis thanks to genetic evolution. That's how animals exist.

It's really just the way things are. To say otherwise is to say that water, for instance, is not wet because it wants to be.

I think I'm beginning to grasp what you're saying here, that because genes are the starting point everything therefore must come from genes by default but this is really an oversimplification of very complicated processes and the way the human animal and indeed other creatures on the planet develop.

At 5/22/09 09:54 PM, LaForge wrote: That's the same argument that supporters of legal marijuana use in their defense.

Not quite.

Do people claim marijuana should be illegal because it's unnatural?

At 5/13/09 11:25 PM, EmoNarc wrote: I don't claim to know much about politics. Neither do I claim knowledge of science. And it certainly beats me how a scientific question became political. But the following is a fallacy I've been thinking about for quite some time that -- while I don't claim it to be profound -- has been bothering me: If homosexuality is genetic, then why does homosexuality exist? I mean, those who are homosexual have a huge disadvantage in passing their gay genes to the next generation, so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

If homosexuality is in fact genetic, then we should start seeing less and less of them in several generations as they withdraw themselves from the gene pool. In the past, Homosexuals have been shunned upon and many of them have in fact reproduced and lead heterosexual lives (due to societal pressure); maybe they have passed on the gay gene to their children generation after generation... Now that gays are 'allowed' to be gay, maybe they will stop reproducing and this the homosexual gene will be phased out of existence.

I can see how homosexuality could be genetic; a lot of gays have a certain appearance and a certain attitude and voice... They can't fake that. Personally I think it's ok to be Gay regardless of whether or not it is genetic.

Ultimately, though, it's quite obvious that nature itself does not 'like' homosexuals; by the laws of natural selection I guess you could say that they are 'unfit' because they are seriously disadvantaged when it comes to reproduction.

Yeah. Everything is genes. Your interaction with reality? Genes. The progression of your thoughts? Genes.

Um, no? Genes are things that determine physical characteristics, what ailments you may or may not be prone to. These other things are more down to experience and what you learn through the process of living (which would be your interaction with reality). You're giving genes far too much credit here.

Genes are what your brain is made of. Its what forms your organs, its what makes it possible for you to take a shit and smile.

Along with all the various other processes that go into it, but I see you're point, genes are the starting line from which the more complicated processes get put together.

They make you who you are COMPLETELY. To say otherwise is just so fucking stupid I really don't want to go in to detail but I guess I will have to if you don't understand.

Yes, you really will, because it is YOU who doesn't understand what you're talking about and you're giving genes far more credit then they deserve in terms of the makeup of an individual. The mere fact that life experience can change how people view the world around them PROVES that it is not all down to what you're genes tell you at birth.

There is an element of nature vs. nurture, but this is NOT a genetic dichotomy. This is an instinct vs. intellect argument. BOTH of which form their basis thanks to genetic evolution. That's how animals exist.

It's really just the way things are. To say otherwise is to say that water, for instance, is not wet because it wants to be.

I think I'm beginning to grasp what you're saying here, that because genes are the starting point everything therefore must come from genes by default but this is really an oversimplification of very complicated processes and the way the human animal and indeed other creatures on the planet develop.

This is really hard to understand If you don't know whose saying what, but I think aviewaskewed makes some good points. And although genes DO do a lot, experience also has just as much (if not more) to do with who you are.

Also, I think that homosexuality is a gene (IF it is a gene) that is passed down through everyone, not just homosexuals. AND depending on whatever OTHER genes that person has, the gay gene may affect them drastically or may have no effect at all. This is all due to a combination of genes, of course.

Though this is all hypothetical since not a goddamned person in this thread knows if the gay gene is real or not!

The way evolution works, genes are usually eliminated after atleast 1000 generations. It's a slow process.And yes, they have found a gay gene.

At 5/25/09 03:45 PM, camobch0 wrote: The way evolution works, genes are usually eliminated after atleast 1000 generations. It's a slow process.And yes, they have found a gay gene.

Proof? Sources? Scientific discoveries to back of claim?

Kthxbye

I personally think homosexuality is not genetic. I believe it all has to do in the environment you grew up in. Either that or it's a choice thing.

At 5/25/09 05:21 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I personally think homosexuality is not genetic. I believe it all has to do in the environment you grew up in. Either that or it's a choice thing.

But how you interpret your environment and the choices you make are affected by your genes.
So isn't it both?

Gays can still reproduce. They have all there working parts so its not a threat to the body so evolution wouldnt change it. And same sex coulpes do still have children so they are producing kids so why does the gene need to be destroyed?