Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Capntastic]

I'd also like to put forth that 'gay being genetic' be broadened to 'gay being biological', since while genetics are a huge factor in a person's biology, and thus psychology, development during the womb and during formative years is also hugely important.

I'd also like to bring up this, which states that as a woman produces more male offspring, the probability of that child being homosexual increases.  Certainly the cause for this exists beyond the genes of the child being formed, but in a genetic predisposition of the mother to only produce so many 'reproductively viable males'.  It could either be an adaptive trait, or merely the result of some other quirk of biology with regards to hormone production.

[PsyberianHusky]

This is a large can of worms if this thread is unpacked wrong.
Can we agree that understanding if it is natural in animals is different then understanding it in humans?

Because we can understand how normal it is considered a product of cultural ideas, or should we consider culture as a force that inhibits how many people are openly gay?
     I don't know, I have never directly looked into this, but I would like to know if genetics is more of a cause or a disposition.

[Sheb]

Actually wikipedia gives lots of exemple of homosexual species, including insects and lizards. The fact is that many species cannot really be homosexual because they do not directly mate. A salmon might spray its sperm on another salmon's sperm, but that's it. Some other have such strong gender differences that homosexual cannot really exist. Homosexuality is also much more easily observable (and close to human homosexuality) in species that forms long lasting coupe, and in large animals. So it's normal to expect us to discover more exemple of homosexuality in mammals and birds than in protists and crustacean.


Capnastik: Or it could be psychological, and having a guy growing up with loads of brother makes him likes men more.

[Orangebottle]

Evidence its genetic:
Twin studies. Siblings growing up in the same environment, one of whom becomes strongly homosexual. The fact that homosexual people even exist despite the incredible environmental pressures against it. The lack of any evidence to the contrary aside from completely bullshit Evo Psych arguments.

The same environment =/= the same experiences. This evidence is a little flawed. If by twin studies, you mean studies on twins, they may have developed differently. And unless they were next to eachother 24/7, there is no guarantee that they had the same experience. If you mean just siblings, they could be different sexes, which almost guarantees a different experience.

Thing is, I'm not sure why anyone really cares. From my point of view, they're gay. So what? Do they need a reason for being gay? That's a little cruel. I've never seen anyone demand reasons from someone to explain why they're straight.

[Heron TSG]

I really don't think the answer matters. If it's genetic, then they're still people and that's fine. It it's learned, then they're still people and that's fine.

As for the twin topic, I can safely say that my twin and I are completely different from one another, despite spending 75% of our time together from day one.

[Bauglir]

It's interesting from an academic point of view, in the same way that the cause of red hair is interesting from an academic point of view. It's pretty useless for making actual decisions about what to do, and as I posted in the other thread, any answer will inevitably be spun by the listener's preconceptions - and it's those preconceptions that create the problem of not treating other people like actual people.

[penguinofhonor]

It likely has genetic influences, but there are twin studies where one twin is gay and the other is straight. So, not 100% genetic.

And also, you would be able to breed the gay out of families this way. Yeah, not likely to happen since nobody would be intentionally selecting against the invisible recessive gene, but I think there would be families where there just weren't any gays by coincidence and then other families where there were many because a lot of the straight people in the family happened to be carriers. And I don't think the evidence supports this?

[Telgin]

I think Capntastic hit the nail on the head here.  It's an important question, but more important is that homosexuals stop being treated like they are less than human.

Anyway, I think I agree with what most people have said here.  I suspect it's founded in genetics, but that alone isn't enough to cause it.  As was mentioned before, I can't possibly fathom why someone would choose to be gay and then suffer as much as they have for it.  That doesn't preclude environmental factors, of course, but I find it hard to believe that environment alone could reprogram something so instinctive.

Influence it, sure.  Derail it?  I don't think so.

[Eagleon]

This is a large can of worms if this thread is unpacked wrong.
Can we agree that understanding if it is natural in animals is different then understanding it in humans?

No. Doing so implies there's a set of unnatural behaviors in humans, which is an easy dodge for other issues. In particular our awareness of mental health, fear, and violence. Humans are animals and should be understood as such.

I'm with Capntastic and others here. The argument surfaces most often because one group wants to change gays and another seeks to defend them by arguing for whatever the opposite is. It's always boggled me that people viciously defend the position that being gay isn't a choice, when choice is all that matters in life. If it's a choice, it's one that we should be free to make, since it doesn't harm anyone. If it's genetics, the disturbing thought surfaces that in the future we might 'cure' it, as part of standardized genetic modifications which are almost certain to start coming up. No one deserves to be alone. As ever, my argument then will be 'What really are you trying to prove here?' After all, all they're doing at that point is raising their competition by making more straight people - the better choice would be to make themselves bisexual, ha.

[PsyberianHusky]

I would define culture as unique, not unnatural.

[Neonivek]

This is a large can of worms if this thread is unpacked wrong.
Can we agree that understanding if it is natural in animals is different then understanding it in humans?

No. Doing so implies there's a set of unnatural behaviors in humans, which is an easy dodge for other issues. In particular our awareness of mental health, fear, and violence. Humans are animals and should be understood as such.

I'm with Capntastic and others here. The argument surfaces most often because one group wants to change gays and another seeks to defend them by arguing for whatever the opposite is. It's always boggled me that people viciously defend the position that being gay isn't a choice, when choice is all that matters in life. If it's a choice, it's one that we should be free to make, since it doesn't harm anyone. If it's genetics, the disturbing thought surfaces that in the future we might 'cure' it, as part of standardized genetic modifications which are almost certain to start coming up. No one deserves to be alone. As ever, my argument then will be 'What really are you trying to prove here?' After all, all they're doing at that point is raising their competition by making more straight people - the better choice would be to make themselves bisexual, ha.

I think there are a whole host of reasons why the idea that "it is not a choice" 'needs' to be defended by some people in their eyes.

[Truean]

No one should care what causes it, cause there's nothing wrong with it. Genes, prenatal hormones, environment, choice.... Whatever the cause people are going to be assholes about it and that's the problem. Namely the ruining of my life and others' lives....

Same thing with trans. I'm studying in a dress at home and it's not harming anyone while making me feel good and pretty. No one should care what I'm wearing or that I should be female. They certainly shouldn't be able to use this against me professionally in spite of my merit and ability. People demanding that I marry a woman are profoundly stupid and asking both she and I to be miserable for their bigotry.

They don't feel comfortable about it? I've never fucking felt comfortable.... Why doesn't that count, ever?

[Neonivek]

They don't feel comfortable about it? I've never fucking felt comfortable.... Why doesn't that count, ever?

Because people can only be a victim in retrospect.

Though don't worry the pattern is once the history books are written I am sure they will disrespectfully alter the entire thing in an attempt to be politically correct.

[Sheb]

Truean, from a purely academic point of view, it might be interested. Honestly, if someone found a Gay Gene, it could teach us a lot about the way our brain works and the way some traits are selected.

In the meantime this thread is pointless, because we simply don't know. And anyway, it's not for us to find an answer, but for scientists to look for it.

I understand your fear, but the research of knowledge for it's own sakes is a noble endeavor. And knowing what cause gayness (Or learning that gayness has no visible cause and is just something that happens at random) won't change anything anyway, bigots will still be bigots, people that respect you will still respect you.


Edit:And the fact that homosexuality is perfectly okay doesn't mean we cannot be interested in what cause it. There is nothing wrong with magnets and magnetism, scientists still tried to find how they worked.

[nenjin]

I never know what to think on this issue.

Because I've met homosexuals who support both sides of it, and reject both sides of it.

For example. "I'm gay by birth! It's who I am, down to my core! You can't change me!"

Contrasted to:

"I'm gay by choice! I'm a rational individual who is touch with my self, and this is who I am by virtue of the choices I made! There's nothing "wrong" with me!"

So I never really know which position is the one a homosexual would take. Because both seem like totally justified beliefs to me, and I'm not sure finding for either side wouldn't in the end have negative repercussions. If homosexuality is genetic, it's something we can breed or drug out of the population. If homosexuality is a personal choice, it's something that can be counseled away, or in the worst interpretation, it's just a "fad" or a "phase" people can grow out of.

So this is one thing I really think homosexuals need to clarify within their own community, to the rest of the world.