Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is homosexuality genetic?

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 8:30:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 8:35:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I meant to post this in the other thread, but since I posted this thread up already and no one has brought this up, respond plz.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 10:15:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/13/2009 8:30:22 PM, PoeJoe 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?

There are various possible reasons. For example, some say group selection, other say that there are other advantages of homosexuality (increased bond between the relationships of gay animals)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 11:15:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This would make sense if it was binary-- gene turns ghey on or off. If, however, you view it as a scale--

populations without some degree of homosexuality are more subject to population spikes that make everyone starve.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2009 4:45:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Until recently in the West, and even now in most of the rest of the world, homosexuality is not tolerated.

Therefore gay men and women get married and have kids like everyone else, thus passing on their homosexual genes.

Even now in the West, there are gay men and women that are in self denial about their sexuality and who live "normal" lives*.

In addition, there are also a large number of bi-sexuals who may pass on homosexual genes to their offspring.

* http://www.freewebs.com...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2009 4:40:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/14/2009 4:45:57 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Until recently in the West, and even now in most of the rest of the world, homosexuality is not tolerated.

Therefore gay men and women get married and have kids like everyone else, thus passing on their homosexual genes.

Even now in the West, there are gay men and women that are in self denial about their sexuality and who live "normal" lives*.

In addition, there are also a large number of bi-sexuals who may pass on homosexual genes to their offspring.

* http://www.freewebs.com...

See, having known several gay men and women, I am convinced this is not the case. I don't believe that every homosexual act can be classified as the direct consequence of having an on/off switch tuning a person into a certain type of sexuality. For some people this may be the case. Scientific experiments have been conducted using rats that caused male rats to act like female rats (and vice versa) by manipulating hormone levels related to behavior, but that research couldn't tell us (1) whether or not the female-acting male rat enjoyed intercourse with the male-acting male rat, (2) whether or not the ordinary acting male rat was now engaged in homosexual intercourse (because it was) or heterosexual intercourse (because that's what it thought it was doing), (3) whether or not the male-acting female rat received any or no sexual attention at all and (4) what relevance, if any, this research had on male-acting male/male pairs or any female/female pairs in humans. This is only a simple study of hormones, not a complex study of genetics, and even here the results provide only fuzzy answers. In other words, claiming that all gay people have a defective gene is like claiming that all people with the same general skin tone have the same defective skin pigmentation: it's a gross overgeneralization at best, and hate fuel at worst.

Study at http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2009 9:57:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Assuming that homosexuality is genetic, which it likely is, then the probable reason that it has not died out is because it's recessive. Recessive conditions such as cystic fibrosis kill most of those affected before they have the opportunity to have kids, yet the disease still exists. How so? The trait is recessive, therefore people can carry it in their genotype without presenting symptoms. If one gene is affected and the other is not, then the person is a 'carrier.' This can lead to one having two parents who are carriers (or other configurations) and therefore passing both affected genes to the child, making them affected.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe there is an actual real life demon called Homosexuality. (previous name of Sodomite)
He may even capitalise on certain genetic and enviromental weaknesses or dispositions.
But at the end of the day it is still a stone cold CHOICE.

Romans 1:26-27 (The Message)
26-27Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either—women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.
The Cross.. the Cross.
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2009 5:17:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/13/2009 8:30:22 PM, PoeJoe 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?

I personally believe there is no way homosexuality could be genetic, but if it is, I would think the only way for it survive would be being a recessive gene.
When Reach fell, I came.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2009 9:10:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I believe there is an actual real life demon called Homosexuality. (previous name of Sodomite)

Wow, that demon has the gayest job in the universe. http://www.instantrimshot.com...
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2009 3:46:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/19/2009 9:10:18 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I believe there is an actual real life demon called Homosexuality. (previous name of Sodomite)

Wow, that demon has the gayest job in the universe. http://www.instantrimshot.com...

Gayhappy, gayhomosexual or gaystoopid? Demons are none of these.

2 Corinthians 11:14 (New King James Version)
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

The Cross.. the Cross.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 6:52:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I understand all these possible "fixes" to the fallacy, but the problem is that -- according to Evolution 101 -- genes that negatively affect reproduction rates (and whatever you say, homosexuality is a HUGE deterrent against reproduction) die off. But homosexuality, especially in the United States, seems to be very widespread.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 6:55:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/20/2009 3:46:46 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/19/2009 9:10:18 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I believe there is an actual real life demon called Homosexuality. (previous name of Sodomite)

Wow, that demon has the gayest job in the universe. http://www.instantrimshot.com...

Gayhappy, gayhomosexual or gaystoopid? Demons are none of these.

You just said there is a demon called Homosexuality. He isn't homosexual?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 7:17:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/22/2009 6:55:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/20/2009 3:46:46 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/19/2009 9:10:18 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I believe there is an actual real life demon called Homosexuality. (previous name of Sodomite)

Wow, that demon has the gayest job in the universe. http://www.instantrimshot.com...

Gayhappy, gayhomosexual or gaystoopid? Demons are none of these.

You just said there is a demon called Homosexuality. He isn't homosexual?

He's a apparently a miserable, straight genius intent on making you gay. Basically he's a liberal college professor.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2009 11:56:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They've linked a few genes to a propensity for becoming gay, IIRC. That's not to say that environment and socialization do not still play major roles - not all people with those specific genes will be gay, there is just a higher likelihood than if they didn't have those genes.
Chase_the_Bass
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 11:47:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't believe it is. I've heard of certain traits that are more apparent in homosexuals (like the direction hair spirals) but I am not convinced. What I don't get is why a homosexual would want it to be genetic. I almost see them as seeking an excuse.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 12:05:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/5/2009 11:47:40 PM, Chase_the_Bass wrote:
I don't believe it is. I've heard of certain traits that are more apparent in homosexuals (like the direction hair spirals) but I am not convinced. What I don't get is why a homosexual would want it to be genetic. I almost see them as seeking an excuse.

They want it to be shown to be at least influenced by genetics, because that would (hopefully) stop people from calling homosexuality an unnatural abomination.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2009 3:01:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/6/2009 12:05:14 AM, LB628 wrote:
At 6/5/2009 11:47:40 PM, Chase_the_Bass wrote:
I don't believe it is. I've heard of certain traits that are more apparent in homosexuals (like the direction hair spirals) but I am not convinced. What I don't get is why a homosexual would want it to be genetic. I almost see them as seeking an excuse.

They want it to be shown to be at least influenced by genetics, because that would (hopefully) stop people from calling homosexuality an unnatural abomination.

An observation of the natural world will convince well informed people that it is not unnatural. The key to societal acceptance of homosexuality is to convince less well informed people that it's not wrong, because they are always more numerous than the well informed. That's why people pursue the genetic link issue. It's an easy to grasp concept. The idea that sexual selection involves preference based on personality and that preference may cross the thresholds required by procreation is too difficult for people 'set in their ways' (unable to understand any different choices) to grasp.

Of course, when they find the key to ending homosexuality, they'll probably also find the key to personality, and from there we have to worry about designer babies, which I think could be very, very bad. So I hope this quest goes about as well as another one I might mention ... http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 11:05:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's not genetic...at least not 100% genetic. Studies show it's about 50% genetic and maybe 50% environmental, but there are still many questions unanswered. For women, the percentage is much lower for genetic.

IMHO, I think that it is perhaps 10%/90% (genetic/environment) or 20%/80% at best. As far as it being "natural," I think that it is not natural for humans. Human homosexuality is very different from that which occurs amongst animals. It should go back to being a deviant behavior.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 1:31:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 11:05:10 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
It's not genetic...at least not 100% genetic. Studies show it's about 50% genetic and maybe 50% environmental, but there are still many questions unanswered. For women, the percentage is much lower for genetic.

IMHO, I think that it is perhaps 10%/90% (genetic/environment) or 20%/80% at best. As far as it being "natural," I think that it is not natural for humans. Human homosexuality is very different from that which occurs amongst animals. It should go back to being a deviant behavior.

"Deviant behavior"? It shouldn't be a "deviant behavior" even if it isn't decided by genetics in any way, shape or form. If it is a choice, a pure and utter choice, the government has the duty to protect that choice and provide to those that make the choice every protection and benefit available under law.

I also don't agree with your statement that it isn't "natural" for humans. There may be some differences in terms of 'human homosexuality' and 'animal homosexuality', but that is only dependent upon our deeply complex social interactions. If humans had the social complexity of penguins, homosexuality would still be there, but it would be on the level of homosexual penguins.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 3:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree with Volkov.

Anyway, the short answer to your question, PoeJoe, is that YES homosexuality is genetic... as in they have identified a "gay gene." However, like someone above me has already mentioned, it is not solely about DNA -- environment, or "nurture" in the Nature vs. Nurture debate -- is also relevant. It's both.

Also, there are a plethora of conditions that are unfavorable and yet are still genetic. I wouldn't relate homosexuality a disease or other dysfunction, but nevertheless homosexuality doesn't exactly (naturally) contribute to procreation. So, obviously there are human conditions which are still passed on that do not contribute to the perpetuation of the species.
President of DDO
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 3:40:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not entirely sure that the division of gay/straight isn't simply another false dichotomy. Look at the culture, apparent in the gymnasiums, of Ancient Greece. In the past, I thought that it was a hard-wired genetic trait, but that environment also had to have some influence, as has been said above. That fit very well with my scientific, philosophic, and "liberal" views.

Then, my lesbian friend propositioned me for sex one night. We had already had the genetic vs. environmental conversation, and she had said that for her it was genetic: she had never been attracted to men and was naturally attracted to women. Needless to say, I was taken quite unawares, and my previously coherent view of the matter collapsed. It took me some time to realize that these things - 'gay' and 'straight' - are simply labels; labels that imply a false dichotomy where there is more likely a scale of degree.

That's my take, anyway.
Don't I take care of them all?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 3:43:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

But at the end of the day it is still a stone cold CHOICE.


Finally DATCMOTO is right about something! Yes, it is a choice. There are genes that give people homosexual tendencies (nature) and one's environment (nurture) determines whether or not someone will act on what comes NATURALLY to them. If I were in Palestine, for example, I might not be as willing to say "Yaaay women!" as I would if I were here in the States. But just because someone doesn't act on their gay tendencies doesn't mean that those tendencies don't exist; they're simply suppressed.

Additionally, using god or a religion to explain why those tendencies might be "wrong' in the first place is not only complete BS rooted in manipulation and lies, but also destructive as it is counterproductive to any type of social progression and evolution.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 3:44:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 3:40:14 PM, brittwaller wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that the division of gay/straight isn't simply another false dichotomy. Look at the culture, apparent in the gymnasiums, of Ancient Greece. In the past, I thought that it was a hard-wired genetic trait, but that environment also had to have some influence, as has been said above. That fit very well with my scientific, philosophic, and "liberal" views.

Then, my lesbian friend propositioned me for sex one night. We had already had the genetic vs. environmental conversation, and she had said that for her it was genetic: she had never been attracted to men and was naturally attracted to women. Needless to say, I was taken quite unawares, and my previously coherent view of the matter collapsed. It took me some time to realize that these things - 'gay' and 'straight' - are simply labels; labels that imply a false dichotomy where there is more likely a scale of degree.

That's my take, anyway.

I would have to agree. In a sense, those that say to a degree everyone is bi-sexual are right. I don't think there is anyone, whether they know it or not, that is completely and always utterly attracted to the one gender - they'll always have some attraction to both.

I consider myself straight, but I'm not afraid to say that some guys are attractive. The difference is though, I feel no need to act upon it, nor do I feel sexually aroused by men. It would be the same for a homosexual man - they do find some women attractive, but they don't feel any need to act on that feeling nor do they get sexually aroused.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 5:01:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 3:40:14 PM, brittwaller wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that the division of gay/straight isn't simply another false dichotomy. Look at the culture, apparent in the gymnasiums, of Ancient Greece. In the past, I thought that it was a hard-wired genetic trait, but that environment also had to have some influence, as has been said above. That fit very well with my scientific, philosophic, and "liberal" views.

Then, my lesbian friend propositioned me for sex one night. We had already had the genetic vs. environmental conversation, and she had said that for her it was genetic: she had never been attracted to men and was naturally attracted to women. Needless to say, I was taken quite unawares, and my previously coherent view of the matter collapsed. It took me some time to realize that these things - 'gay' and 'straight' - are simply labels; labels that imply a false dichotomy where there is more likely a scale of degree.

That's my take, anyway.

Never mind "labels" and "false dichotomies", brittwaller, did you do her? And did you do her girlfriend at the same time?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 5:08:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 3:38:13 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I agree with Volkov.

Anyway, the short answer to your question, PoeJoe, is that YES homosexuality is genetic... as in they have identified a "gay gene." However, like someone above me has already mentioned, it is not solely about DNA -- environment, or "nurture" in the Nature vs. Nurture debate -- is also relevant. It's both.

Also, there are a plethora of conditions that are unfavorable and yet are still genetic. I wouldn't relate homosexuality a disease or other dysfunction, but nevertheless homosexuality doesn't exactly (naturally) contribute to procreation. So, obviously there are human conditions which are still passed on that do not contribute to the perpetuation of the species.

It may be possible to "cure" homosexuals by isolating and modifying certain genes, administering aversion therapies and prescribing hormone supplements but do gay men and women really want to become straight?

And if they were all successfully "treated", wouldn't the world be a less diverse and, therefore, more boring place?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 8:09:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. I did - it's available on DVD wherever adult products are sold:) I use the porofessional name "Brett Brando."

2. Watch the movie and all is clear; I mean, really clear, it's HD.

But really, no. Let me say this: there was no attraction for me other than friendship and I had thought up to then that this was obviously a mutual arrangement. We worked together and would discuss who we thought were the most attractive females at our job. And she had no gf at the time:) I had to answer her in the negative, somehow, then and there. Awkward, to say the least - unfortunately.
Don't I take care of them all?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2009 9:38:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/19/2009 5:08:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
It may be possible to "cure" homosexuals by isolating and modifying certain genes, administering aversion therapies and prescribing hormone supplements but do gay men and women really want to become straight?

And if they were all successfully "treated", wouldn't the world be a less diverse and, therefore, more boring place?

I don't think that they really want to become "straight" as long as they are comfortable with themselves. Of course, this isn't really the case, is it? Having an option available to "cure" - literally 'cure', not the religious 'cures' - would be like setting up suicide booths. Its there, and they'll help you stop feeling what you feel.
I could see too many young teens just coming to terms with their homosexuality going for it, or their parents will make their kids go for it. God help us if fanatical Christians grabbed a hold of such devices.

You're right though, it would be a very boring world. It would probably collapse society as well. Apparently, libidos are positively associated with a heterosexual woman's choice in attraction at least regarding the shape of a potential lover's - male or female - face (http://www.sciencedirect.com...). Basically what this means is that in order to stamp out every and all bits of homosexuality, at least in women, you need to destroy their sex drive. If you can't guess, that isn't good.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2009 9:37:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 3:43:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/19/2009 1:05:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

But at the end of the day it is still a stone cold CHOICE.


Finally DATCMOTO is right about something! Yes, it is a choice. There are genes that give people homosexual tendencies (nature) and one's environment (nurture) determines whether or not someone will act on what comes NATURALLY to them. If I were in Palestine, for example, I might not be as willing to say "Yaaay women!" as I would if I were here in the States. But just because someone doesn't act on their gay tendencies doesn't mean that those tendencies don't exist; they're simply suppressed.

Additionally, using god or a religion to explain why those tendencies might be "wrong' in the first place is not only complete BS rooted in manipulation and lies, but also destructive as it is counterproductive to any type of social progression and evolution.

This is exactly backwards: God IS the objective standard, not the explanation.

Is morality subjective or objective?

Proverbs 4:23 (New King James Version)
23 Keep your heart with all diligence,
For out of it spring the issues of life.
The Cross.. the Cross.