Gay gene?

[gela]

Its been argued alot in other threads, but rarely from a scientific viewpoint.

Is homosexuality a choice? is it a result of environment? is it purely genetic? Is it a mixutre of all three?


Note: This is a scientific debate. Not religious.

Things to consider:

+ true story:
A 19 year old girl was kidnapped by a group of men and sexualy assulted by them for three days before she escaped.
After this, she became a lesbian; while before it she was hetrosexual.

+ List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

+ The number of homosexual people seems to have risen as it has became more socialy acceptable
[I have no proof for this statement, only a personal observation. Im happy for anyone to either prove or disprove this statement]

[Domino]

I know that I have no choice but to be heterosexual, therefore I can accept that some homosexuals may not have a choice.

To everyone that says it's a choice: you're gay, and in denial. At the least, you're bi.

[Tycoon]

Most people consider heterosexuality to be "normal" or "natural", but in reality it's probably just a difference in the brain.

I used my example about six fingers from a religious perspective in a different thread, but it works scientifically as well. Having six fingers is in fact the dominant gene - but the gene pool is predominately five fingered. Some people might react in disgust upon seeing somebody with six fingers, but it's no less natural than five.

[Chaossaber314]

In this sense it would make sense that homosexuality would become much more prevalent as a population explodes like we're currently seeing. I believe it's a natural means of population control. The gene has always been in existence but has become much more common as there are more people to pass said gene on.

[Muckraker]

I'm amazed that so many of the posters in the "gay" threads here are constantly skipping over one wrench in all the arguments:

The Bisexuals.

There are, after all, people who enjoy having sex with, and are sexually attracted to, members of both genders. I can't say their existence favors either side of the argument though.

Who you are sexually attracted to is not a choice. It may have some genetic influence but it definitely has cultural influences and environmental influences that I would say overshadow any genetic influences.

Is it genetic that many men of our modern culture are sexually attracted to large breasted blondes or is it just that our culture throws them in our faces all the time?

Why is is that American men are often not sexually attracted to women that don't shave their legs and armpits but many men in other countries are?

The prime driver of sexual attraction, in my opinion, is culture. Environment also plays a big role in the many cases of abuse, molestation, rape, as well as availability of sexual stimuli in a given environment.

While I don't think you have a choice regarding who you are sexually attracted to, everyone certainly has a choice about who they have sex with.

Being attracted to a member of the same sex is not a choice. Having sex with a member of the same sex is definitely a choice. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Our current culture supports people choosing to have sex with people they are sexually attracted to, as opposed to living their lives for the status quo and sacrificing happiness to do so. And as long as the person you are sexually attracted to is a willing participant and of legal age then there certainly isn't anything wrong with that either.

As people make those choices, statistics sway. Just like the perception that the divorce rate has gone up so much since the 1950's. With women's rights came women exercising their right to get out of any unhappy marriage. With cultural acceptance of homosexuality we will have a larger percentage of the population choosing to actually have sex with the people they are sexually attracted to.

Lastly, we have the people that are actually having sex with people they are NOT attracted to, be it a spouse or a prison bunkmate. What is the greater travesty; not having sex with someone you are sexually attracted to or having sex with someone you are not sexually attracted to? (The prior assumes, of course, that the person you are attracted to would also like to have sex with you It's not a travesty that I'm not having sex with Jessica Alba right now.)

[Tycoon]

Is homosexuality a choice? is it a result of environment? is it purely genetic? Is it a mixutre of all three?

It was mentioned, nobody had gotten around to discussing it yet, that's all. You're just the first to talk about that in particular.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Muckraker Is it genetic that many men of our modern culture are sexually attracted to large breasted blondes or is it just that our culture throws them in our faces all the time?

Actually there's a biological reason for that as well. Large breasts biologically imply that as a mother this woman would be much more capable in providing nourishment to our children.

There are, after all, people who enjoy having sex, and are sexually attracted to members of both genders. I can't say their existence favors either side of the argument though.

Why does it mean that because someone is bisexual that they must be a nympho like you seem to be implying. I've known plenty of bisexuals who have been in monogamous relationships based on more than sex.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: gela Is homosexuality a choice? is it a result of environment? is it purely genetic? Is it a mixutre of all three?

Since I'm in class screwing around, I can't give a source, but I have seen on wikipedia at the very least that both the AMA and American psychological association (?) agree that it is a mix and that it hard to pinpoint exactly what.

I think we will find in the end that there is no absolute gene like for eye color, but rather a gene like there is one for skin cancer (I hate the analogy, but until I can think of a widely known medical equivalent...), you don't get skin cancer if you have the gene (like I do) you just have a higher chance. Behavior, like spending time in the sun, will affect the chances as well. It really isn't a choice though.

Quote by: gela + true story: A 19 year old girl was kidnapped by a group of men and sexualy assulted by them for three days before she escaped. After this, she became a lesbian; while before it she was hetrosexual.

Not unlikely. However it wasn't a choice probably so much as a behaver association that would be neigh impossible to overcome.

Quote by: gela + The number of homosexual people seems to have risen as it has became more socialy acceptable [I have no proof for this statement, only a personal observation. Im happy for anyone to either prove or disprove this statement]

I think it would be more correct to say there have been more openly gay people. Yet you just look at certain sections of history to know it was still around and sometimes much more flamboyant (male dancers in Persia and check out Sparta for some real homosexual behavior). Even the Bible talks about rampant sodomy in some old testament cities.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: gela + The number of homosexual people seems to have risen as it has became more socialy acceptable

It's much more likely the case that the number of people willing to admit their homosexual feelings has increased as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable.

It's pretty self evident that attraction is not a choice. We don't know the causes of homosexuality, but it's likely to be a mix of biological and environmental factors. Not a lot of point in speculating beyond that.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Actually there's a biological reason for that as well. Large breasts biologically imply that as a mother this woman would be much more capable in providing nourishment to our children.

I agree that there could be a case for the biological logic behind liking large breasts but if our culture flipflopped the exposure then more men would favor small breasts. Culture plays more of a role in sexual attraction than biological aspects ever could in my opinion.

Why does it mean that because someone is bisexual that they must be a nympho like you seem to be implying. I've known plenty of bisexuals who have been in monogamous relationships based on more than sex.

My mistake here. I missed the word "with" before the comma. I am correcting it now. Sentence should read:

There are, after all, people who enjoy having sex with, and are sexually attracted to, members of both genders. I can't say their existence favors either side of the argument though.

Instead of:

There are, after all, people who enjoy having sex, and are sexually attracted to members of both genders. I can't say their existence favors either side of the argument though.

[gela]

Is it genetic that many men of our modern culture are sexually attracted to large breasted blondes or is it just that our culture throws them in our faces all the time? Why is is that American men are often not sexually attracted to women that don't shave their legs and armpits but many men in other countries are?

Men are attrackted to young women more because they are more likely to produce healthy kids.
Blonde is associated with youth. Like said before, big breasts also help in raising children.

Feeling revolted by hairy armpits is probably just because its not socialy acceptable.
It doesn't mean that men in other contries are attracted to hairy arm pits.
It just means they are use to it, while we are not.

(male dancers in Persia and check out Sparta for some real homosexual behavior). Even the Bible talks about rampant sodomy in some old testament cities.

I fogot all about Sparta! I actualy studied sparta in a fair bit of depth.

All spartan boys were taken away from home at the age of 7. They were brought to boarding school/training camp. Here, Homosexual behaviour was the norm.

They stayed there until they were about 30 I think.. when they left they were required to marry and produce some children.

Im not just being a smartass and giving you a history lesson, I have a point.

All male spartans were homosexual - or at least bisexual. It was done deliberatly so that they would have a close army.

They were requried to marry women as a duty to their state. They had to produce children for their country (their country ment everything to spartans..).
It was custom for women to dress up as men on the wedding night so the husband would be more comfortable.

Even once married, the men would spend their time training together, and would eat together. They would only come home to sleep.

So.. according to the spartans, anyone can be Bisexual.

[Heather]

I think it’s clear that any sexual preference, from homosexuality, to simple sexual and attraction preferences such as big girls/skinny girls, breasts size, facial hair on men, (the list goes on, we all know what this could all include), all of these are influenced by genes and environmental upbringing and encounters.

In the end, we all have a choice of whether to act upon them or not.

I have known people who have had a bad sexual experience and have avoided the factors that were involved in it afterwards (as in your example of a heterosexual rape victim now feeling more comfortable being homosexual). And they are perfectly happy with themselves and who they now are.

I have also known people who’s first “look” at something sexual was perhaps different than the norm, let’s say for example larger women, and that became what they like best.

However, these things couldn’t happen unless there was something ingrained, or genetically triggered to enjoy those things. Not every rape victim is going to turn gay, not every boy who’s first look at a naked woman is a larger woman is going to grow to be attracted to that. There has to be something predispositioned that is triggered.

That’s my take on it.

[Derach]

Ahh ... the ol' Gay Gene thread ...

Personally, I always suspected Gene was gay ... going to hairdressing school and all.

OOOH....

seriously ... I think there would be genetic differences associated to sexual preference if you looked at an old man who had spent his life strictly 'heterosexual' and a old man who had lived his life strictly 'homosexual'. I don't think sexual preference is as important as the level of one's sexual drive and the purpose (conscious or otherwise) it serves in their lives. Men who have sex to exert power (culmiinating in rapists) serve a different purpose than (for instance) women who submit to sex in exchange for material things (culminating in prostitutes). Like sexual preference, those behaviors exist within a broad range of sexual expression. Speaking as a monogomous married heterosexual man, I usually have sex because it feels damned good (and partly because it gives me a slight adrenaline rush ... top of the world, type euphoric feeling). My wife says she has sex usually because it is her way of expressing her physical love for me (and partly because it feels damned good). I think when your propensity for sexual promiscuity is higher than normal, you start getting into the fringes of sexual behavior (like an otherwise strait man having sex in jail (by choice or not) ... or a college girl 'experimenting' with bi-sexuality. I think it's important to note that gay people and strait people have the same propensities for sexual behavior covering the same ranges as heterosexual people do.

There was a point made earlier that it is very socially acceptable now to come out as gay ... and I think that has lent to 2 interesting things hapenning ... 1. Gay men and women have an outlet to express behavior they would normally have to supress. and 2. Men and women who have no natural strong sexual urges toward the opposite sex 'experiment' within the gay 'community' and find acceptance (it's very vogue to be gay today) and enjoy the socio-political attention they get as much or more than they crave the sexual attention from a same-sex partner.

[Baconup]

If there is a Gay Gene then why can't scientists find it?

They can locate other genes why not this one.

I'm no biologist so I'm not sure how they locate genes but I would like to know if it's possible to find this gene.

[Winter wind]

They can locate other genes why not this one.

Ha

They can't locate personality genes easily because brain genes are a pain in the ass to separate. I'm the neurologist wannabe, so trust me when I say brain genes are so complex, that most genes found are "possible" and "could be".

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Heather However, these things couldn’t happen unless there was something ingrained, or genetically triggered to enjoy those things. Not every rape victim is going to turn gay, not every boy who’s first look at a naked woman is a larger woman is going to grow to be attracted to that. There has to be something predispositioned that is triggered.

That opens up a pretty big can of worms though.

If someone is genetically predispositioned to have a particular "taste," then it should be possible for a parent to pay for eugenics therapy to ensure that their baby will come out liking hard rock music, cotton candy, and the color green.

While genetics certainly play a role in determining who we are I still think culture and environment play a much bigger role.

Here is a really interesting introduction to a Biology unit on Biological Determinism at University of Texas:

Biological Correlates of being Gay - Biological Determinism?

It's a great read for anyone interested in this thread.

[Tycoon]

Here's a study from Twin studies and homosexuality

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

A 52% rate in identical twins and 22% rate in fraternal twins obviously shows that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality.

It also shows that there are other factors, most likely enivornmental or otherwise. If there weren't there would have been a 100% rate in identical twins and maybe something along the lines of 33% to 50% in fraternal twins.

Any thoughts on this?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: tycoon A 52% rate in identical twins and 22% rate in fraternal twins obviously shows that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. It also shows that there are other factors, most likely enivornmental or otherwise. If there weren't there would have been a 100% rate in identical twins and maybe something along the lines of 33% to 50% in fraternal twins. Any thoughts on this?

It also proves that it isn't solely genetic, other wise it would be like eye color, there would be no difference.

Again, I don't think it is choice, but behavior.

[gela]

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Well, it shows that homosexuality doesn't need a 'gay gene' to exist, because the adoptive brothers are still homosexual.
But it also shows that genes still play a part, through the twins thing.

That basicly answeres it. Genes can help homosexuality along. But you don't need the gay gene to be gay.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: gela Well, it shows that homosexuality doesn't need a 'gay gene' to exist, because the adoptive brothers are still homosexual. But it also shows that genes still play a part, through the twins thing. That basicly answeres it. Genes can help homosexuality along. But you don't need the gay gene to be gay.

How about this one from the outline I linked earlier in the thread? Very interesting stuff.

Fraternal birth order. The probability that a man has homosexual preference increases with the number of older brothers he has. Each older brother increases the odds by 1/3 – 1/2. This effect cannot have a genetic basis. Speculations for this effect focus on the mother progressively building antibodies against an unknown male protein, more so with each son.