Although I'm not well-versed in genetics, if this were true, wouldn't it be a paradox? Given that homosexual persons usually don't procreate, the gene wouldn't be passed on! When I think about it that way, I can't understand how the theory even came into existence.
I think it is not just one gene that is transferred from parent to child. Rather it is a gene that is being expressed that is usually isn't suppose to be (no offense to gays, 90% of the population are straight, thus the norm).
Also I read somewhere that gays help with population control. If the population is too great then there is a chance that resources will diminish to the point the population suffers and starts to die off. So have a few gays in the mix will help slow population growth.
Homosexuality is a social behavior. It has nothing to do with genetic heritage.
I believe the theory is that homosexuality is supposedly a genetic advantage within tribal groups, as homosexual couples reduce the competition for food (by not having children themselves) and assist in caring for others' children. Thus it could still be selected for.
I believe homosexuality is psychological, just like any sexual preference. Say for instance a straight man has a fetish for women with hairy armpits. He's not born loving women with hairy armpits, but due to various psychological factors during his development, it ends up being something he's attracted to, and there's really nothing he can do about it.
>>1,6
I don't think it's "just genetics", as little as it's "just a matter of environment". I think the body works pretty much as an enabler for someone to be able to have certain gender preferences, whether it's hetero/homo/bi sexuality.
>>4
I've read about this at numerous places, and it makes a great deal sense. Well, I haven't really read that it's some sort of genetical advantage, but that it did have a place in several societes like that.
>>2 that's a reasonable theory (that homosexuality is a "genetic disease") and it could help with pop. control,
>>4 and as long as it was recessive this theory might work too,
>>1 and if individuals were forced to procreate, or it were passed by the opposite sex (i.e. male homosexuality by females and vice versa) it could still get around.
however, there is a glaring problem with the idea that homosexuality is genetic: most traits are not caused by a single gene, and something as complex as sexual attraction would be linked to a host of different genes. there have been many studies done to study genetic similarities between homosexuals, and they have found no real correlation between more than a handful of individuals. also, they have tested sets of identical twins, one homosexual and one heterosexual and there has not been any credible differentiation between their genes.
basically, if homosexuality was genetic, it would have been proved by now. some people might still say that "you're just born with it." but if they can't find any evidence... it is definitely a psychological disorder. the only reason all psychologists don't agree about this is because they are trying to be politically correct.
>>9
"Disorder" lulz. I disagree, but I'm weird. :-D
The "it would have been proved by now" attitude seems rather like a big fallacy. Though it is very true that we know a great deal, there still are many things we don't grasp or barely grasp, such as the cocktail effect of a large number of various toxic elements in our bodies, each substance individually being in a low enough amount but the substances amplifying certain qualities of each other. I don't see how it's farfetched to assume that it means that we probably won't get well enough how a large number of natural substances and genes in us function together, yet.
I don't subscribe to the idea that it's purely genetical or mental.
Another thing... Thoughts do have physical effects (stress being one of the most mainstream examples - higher bloodpressure, lowering the immune-system, etc), so psychological stuff never is "just" thoughts. Emotional pain, for instance, has been shown to register the same way in the brain as physical pain. Just in case anyone had/was going to forget about that.
>>10
read Oxford University human genetics professor Bryan Sykes' book "The Curse of Adam". it's about the destruction of the male Y chromosome and the eventual extinction of males, as well as other topics related to male genetics. in it he discusses male homosexuality and whether or not it is genetic.
i am not saying that we clearly understand the effects of all the different genes in the human body (it's quite the opposite, even if there are far fewer active ones then we originally thought.) what i mean is that it has become more and more obvious which groups of genes do what - even though we may not understand what each individual one does, as a group, their function is clearer. also, many genes are active only at certain times, which can help to pin down their function (i.e. genes only active in puberty are probably related to sexual development rather than hair color... it makes sense.) Thus, its pretty reasonable to believe that there would be some indication as to where a gene or set of genes for as complex a trait as homosexuality would be. we know the general locations in the human genome that code for hair color and eye color.
also, many genes that lead to psychological problems either prevent the production of a specific hormone or make too much of it. it's hard to believe that one or two hormones could really cause so complex of a trait as homosexuality. on the other hand, complex psychological disorders like phobias are tied to experiences rather than a random chemical.
i think that quite often people are trying to find easy answers for difficult problems that would make them admit that they are at fault, or that they have a responsibility to someone. in the past, many of those who were insane where said to have a demon inside them - and then they were locked in jail. today we say that homosexuality is "natural" - and then do nothing to actually correct or help prevent it. we say that we "accept" homosexuals, but really we are only looking to ignore treatment.
all people are on a scale of homosexuality and heterosexuality, according to most psychoanalyst and psychologists no one is really "gay" or "straight" but somewhere in between.
just as some people argue that homosexuality is inherit, some people still argue that the theory of evolution is incorrect, and some that aliens exist, and even as more and more evidence piles up, they still maintain their position.
>>and then do nothing to actually correct or help prevent it.
We should not correct it. If anything they will save us from a too servere case of overpopulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones
6 billion in 1999, 8 billion in 2025. Do you really think the world's resources can adjust quickly enough? If we keep this up, we're totally going to deplete every single resource we have.
I don't care if it's genetical or whatever. People need to stop thinking having homsexual in societies is an undesirable thing. 100% or near 100% of either homosexuality or heterosexuality is really bad. A good mix is not.
Unfortunately, being homosexual is not a guarantee for that they'll decide to not have kids. But does lower the chance, thank God.
There fortunately are heterosexual couples who decide not to reproduce but adopt instead. Or they simply can't/won't reproduce.
umm, a few homosexuals are not enough to reduce population growth. in fact unless they accounted for a large chunk of the pop (maybe 20% or more) we would barely feel the dent.
in addition, industrialized countries have a NEGATIVE population growth (except for the US, because of high rates of immigration.) the countries with high pop growth are the industrializing nations (like India and China) but as they become fully industrialized, this will drop off and go negative. In fact, in Japan they have a problem because there are too FEW babies born - there are entire elementary schools slowly emptying because there are no longer any children in their city!
so basically, although the theory is somewhat reasonable, it does not work in practice AT ALL.
Back to the OP...
There could be a genetic mechanism for mothers having homosexual children. It (obviously) wouldn't be a single allele making someone gay, but bear with me for a long-winded explanation...
Imagine in a tribal society, a man marries a woman, moves into his own house, and starts having children with her. Each child has 50% of his genes, and is raised using only his own and his wife's resources. Under this scenario the family manages to get n kids to adulthood.
Now imagine he stayed home with his extended family instead of moving out, and his brother who owns too many pairs of sandals volunteers to help with the kids because it's not like he's busy saving up a brideprice or anything. Each child has roughly 25% of the genes of Uncle Softie, is raised using the resources of three people, and no one had to go buy a brand-new house to shelter them. If under this scenario the odd crowd get 2n+1 children to adulthood, the rose tribesman will be more successful genetically than if he hadn't been a friend of Dorothy, and he still gets to be the confidant of all the girls around the village.
You might notice that this strategy is only viable if you have siblings, and a family with one son checking out the ladies and another three checking out fashion magazines is going to get diminishing returns. But interestingly, a trend among humans has been noticed where homosexual men are more likely to have several older brothers, and when you apply some serious statistics to this trend, it turns out that the more sons a woman has, the more likely her next one is going to be a tad bit lavender. Note that if there really is a genetic cause to this, it would be a trait for which the sons are carriers, and it's only actually expressed in mothers while they have buns in their ovens.
So in the end, no simple gay gene, but we have evidence something inheritable can cause homosexuality.
Homosexuality is part genetic, part behavioral.
Children who will later grow up to be gay are a bit different from other children, from the moment they start showing behavior.
Like retardation and genius, it's something that's different all along.
Nope, homosexuality is not genetic. That's 100% BS.
>>15
Although a mother being a carrier for male homosexuality is the only theory with any plausibility, there are a few serious problems with it.
In "tribal society" (i.e. hunter-gatherer) individuals always lived with their extended family, unless they switched over to a different tribe through marriage (in the past people bred much more closely than they do today, so this was uncommon.) In other words, you were closely related to everyone in your tribe, and your brother was almost always your neighbor anyway.
If you are speaking of more settled societies (i.e. horticultural societies) that practiced gardening, they still lived in a commune-like setup with the same close family ties.
There was no extra expense in starting your own home. Resources were abundant at that time and only retrieval was a problem (game and fertile land were available, but the process of hunting, gathering and gardening are time consuming and difficult.) In addition, people of that period had little or nothing in the way of material possessions - the only asset an individual had was their capacity to labor.
In general, an individual hunter-gatherer or gardener is capable of producing just enough food to support themselves and a tiny surplus. A gardener is, in the long term, capable of producing slightly more surplus than a gatherer and they gain the advantage of being settled in one place for most of the year. Naturally, this surplus goes to feed children. A pair of hunter-gatherers or gardeners is generally capable of supporting about one child at a time. (Let us say that one individual could support about half a child.)
The main source of nourishment for an infant in such a society is its mother’s milk. However, due to problems with consistent food supply, in the past infants and young children were breast-fed as a significant portion of their diet for several years, often 2 to 3 (very different from today, when we wean children early.) A woman will usually continue to lactate as long as she has sufficient body fat and a child at the breast. In addition, as long as a woman is still lactating, her ovulations cease and she is essentially incapable of having more children.
Thus, a hunter-gatherer couple’s capacity to produce children is limited primarily by their access to a consistent food supply (so that the female can stop lactating.) As can be seen by analyzing the populations of such societies, their population grew with the introduction of different methods of food production (i.e. farming) that required large numbers of individuals working together in a collective.
A homosexual individual (or any other individual that did not successfully produce children) would not provide a significant boost in stability to the food supply of a small group because so much of their production would go to their own survival. The increase in birth rate would be marginal. Thus, the function 2n+1 is totally illogical.
Also, if the function 2n+1 is to be believed, the increase would be constant.
If homosexuality tends to appear more in males with older male siblings, it is likely that the trait would be psychological in nature, considering that genes cannot be affected by the order in which children are born. It would probably be similar to the psychological characteristics shared by many older or younger children.
If males were only carriers for a gene it would not be expressed in them. Instead, it would have to be passed on to their female children to be expressed. Even before birth, if the were carriers, they would not manifest any gene.
Also, if a mother were to manifest something that caused her sons to become homosexual or activated a gene in them, she should have a gene or set of genes that would be easily identifiable.
Ultimately, there is no truth to this theory.
All things are genetic, not in that genetics predetermine what will be, but that genetic predetermine what can and cannot be. However, that only means that humans who can be homosexual do not carry genetics that forbid homosexuality. A parallel is that a cat can't do calculus because genetically it lacks the facilities to learn calculus. Note that actually learning the calculus is still environmental were it genetically capable of doing so. In so far as this, homosexuality is environmental - or at least the genetic predisposition accounts for a relatively negligible portion of the sum. There may be men and women who do not carry genetic combinations that allow them to, environmental situations aside, develop homosexuality, but statistically speaking, most people will carry the genes. It's the same with many psychological 'disorders' which are the result of genetic predispositions filtered and shaped by events the human is not most suited for. Many of these disorders are then the result of being forced to not respond to something in the most natural way. (They do however, occur much stronger in people with certain hormonal conditions or brain chemistries.)Furthermore, many of these 'disorders' are symptomatic of necessary adaptation or more often the attempt to adapt and failing to do so. Homosexuality might be the first, a healthy release adaptation to cope with an unhealthy situation.
Rather than looking at it from a psychological perspective, I've also considered homosexuality historically. Even religious texts give some indication about where it occurs that most. That is this, homosexuality seems to be recorded most prolific in not small tribes, but large crowded cultures, particularly among the upper class, and as the religious like to point out, particularly prior to decline. That does not, however, mean that homosexuality is a cause of decline as some of the more frothing-at-the-mouth religious leaders like to suggest before humbly piling on some more wood to fuel the gentle flames of soul cleansing fire. In fact, it's more reasonable to suggest that some of the same social conditions that exist in a society at those stages prior to collapse are such the homosexual lifestyles help to cope with with the problem. Perhaps only on an individual basis, but equally possibly on a social basis.
Why? There are tons of possibilities, but it comes to mind that in a stagnant society, population growth encourages upset and potentially, revolution or collapse. All the contributing and related details to this are far too much to go into, but taken as a whole it impresses upon me that homosexuality is one of many social adaptations that can contribute to stability. Other common adaptations are smaller families on the same scale, and imperialistic tendencies on a large scale. The first is a most common occurance, especially among upper classes which reduces growth. (Upper class families in Western culture tend toward having 2 children which is zero pop growth.) Imperialism expands borders and can relieve, even prevent, stagnation while aggresively pursued.
Of course, it's possible that homosexuality is just a psychological aberration, but I prescribe to the thought that it occurs for a reason, probably a valid reason, and that correcting the reason is important, whereas directly 'correcting' homosexuality may in fact, simply be replacing a good (or at least mostly harmless) social adaptation with a bad, perhaps dangerous one.
On a side note, our closest genetic relative appears to have been recorded practicing female homosexual intercourse, though not male homosexual intercourse. It is quite possible that male and female homosexuality/bisexuality are not the same and should be considered as seperate issues. Perhaps social circumstances and pressures leading to male homosexual interests are very different from the social pressures leading to female homosexual interests.
On the other hand it could just be that the bonobo chimp just hasn't discovered the right lubrication to make a try at it. However, I don't think it should be discounted when considering ourselves.
>>19
According to most psychologists, all humans can be placed on a "scale of sexual orientation" just as they can be placed on a scale of autism or retardation. Some individuals are more homosexual or autistic or retarded than others, but everyone can be scaled somehow.
For example, in the case of autism, an individual that does not understand the emotions of others to the point that they have trouble socializing can be considered to be rather autistic. An individual that does not particularly enjoy socialization and does not respond well to the emotions of others but is still capable of functioning normally is only slightly autistic. Everyone is at least a little bit autistic, but we only think of those who are very autistic as "truly" autistic.
The same idea can be applied to homosexuality. Everyone is at least a little bit "gay" but some people are much more "gay" than others. For example, someone who has a strong desire to perform sexual acts with an individual of their own gender can be called very homosexual. But by the same token, an individual who can see that someone of their own gender is “attractive” but has no desire to mate with that person, is only a small amount homosexual.
It is surprising to some to hear that many of their natural reactions (recognizing that another man is handsome or another woman beautiful) can be defined as homosexual reactions. However, because these reactions do not negatively impact their likelihood of mating, they are not considered a psychological disorder.
We could argue endlessly to what degree an individual’s actions and character are determined by their genetics or environment, but it is a topic that has been discussed for millennia, and it is unlikely that it will be resolved here or now. However, it is a fallacy to say that homosexuality is determined solely by genetics and that an individual is either homosexual or heterosexual.
>Given that homosexual persons usually don't procreate
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
>>25
Some people marry and have kids before realizing (or admitting) that they're gay. Some lesbians reproduce by artificial insemination, perhaps using a relative of the woman who won't be the biological mother. Neither situation is rare, as far as I know.
get in a superliberal thread
>>22 I'm pretty sure there was a reason I said "usually" but I can't remember now!
>>26
people who did anything like that would have to be so tiny a percentage of any population that it wouldn't even register
>>29
I'm not so sure. In our parents' generation, homosexuality was so taboo that I suspect many gays married the opposite sex and had kids just like anyone else. I've also wondered if this might be a reason why it was so taboo.
>>32
Whose family laws? What do you think is wrong with them and why?
>>2
Maybe it's ten percent the norm and the other ninety is defective?
I'm not saying that's my opinion, but don't go stating facts that are opinion-induced.
>>34
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines normal as:
"according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle;
conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern;
occurring naturally;
of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development;
free from mental disorder."
Based on any of those definitions, homosexuals are not "normal". This is not an "opinion-induced" statement. It is a fact.
First troll in an otherwise pretty cool thread.
Although, I must add, the idea that homosexuality is genetic, to me, seems ridiculous. I have no evidence or anything, so I could be wrong, it just seems as though something as ambiguous as sexuality could not be defined by genetics.
Kind of like there is no gene for someone being a racist, or being kind.
I'm sorry but your family laws are really fucked up. I suggest you search for "single parent family crime" on google to get the other side of the story. Wake up.
being fair x is 100% socially conditioned
>>38 complete and total BS, being fair x is completely genetic, don't get a choice
>>39 "being fair x"? confusing
as a general rule, anything that is psychological is socially conditioned. just go talk to a real psychologist when they're not on the record. pretty much all the credible psychologists will admit that things like homosexuality, etc are completely learned behaviors. the only reason that they don't publicly come out and say it is because they don't want all the political flack they would get from all the pro-gay groups.
as a general rule, anything that is on the internet is due to hAX. just go talk to a real HaXX0r when they're not on curse-x. pretty much all the credible HaXX0rs will admit that things like tablecat, etc are completely due to hAX. the only reason that they don't publicly come out and say it is because they don't want all the internet flack they would get from all the pro-tablecat groups.
Homosexuality is an abnormal sexual behaviour, just like wanting to fuck children and animal is.
I was raised by a hetero father, who frequently eyed women and tried to "teach" me how to appeal to them and such. My mother let me do what I want, but there's always going to be that barrier in society where one would not expect another to be LGBTQ. Anyway, I was basically brought up to be a straight young man and such, nothing was forced on me, or anything like that that would change my mindset. I just always liked boys. Even before first grade. No matter how much I denied it or tried to change it, I couldn't. I didn't try because I wasn't proud, but rather because I was scared. Look at society today, it's nothing but a cold heartless monster, out to reap whomever is not like its own. So, in conclusion, I don't really know if homosexuality is genetic, that seems a bit extreme, but I do know that it's not a choice, nor is it wrong or abnormal. Saying homosexuality is abnormal is like me saying that heterosexuality is abnormal, it's immoral and would just lead to a highly vertiginous discussion/debate over who is right.
what gets to me is when people say there is no bi. I can remember liking both way back in grade school before I even knew about bi and gay.
Well, according to the Kinsey scale, hetero people can be slightly homo. As hetero people have sex, those homo feelings could accumulate and become stronger through the generations. But you could also say that the hetero tendencies would also be amplified, and since they were already more abundant to begin with...
Bi is obviously when homo and hetero tendencies are more balanced in the individual.
personally, I think it's most likely that there are two sets of gays. The vast majority are born that way, but some may become gay due to childhood sexual abuse. I don't really care as long as it's consentual, noninjurious and there are no kids involved (in the act).
>>43 homosexuality is not a choice, but it is abnormal. Trying to claim that it is "normal" is like trying to claim that a cancerous cell is "normal". For all intents and purposes, it is not. As for whether or not it is bad... Let's just say that the world would be a better place if there never was such a thing or a homosexual. Life would be simpler and easier.
>>48 most cultures have a tradition of "homosexual-child abuse" where men rape young boys. In fact, a large part of child abuse is homosexual.
>>50
compare the number of people you know who are heterosexual to the number that are not. unless you are seeking out homosexuals, they tend to be few and far between (unless they group together.) the reason for this is because they are an anomaly. people are not intended to homosexual, but occasionally they suffer psychological abnormalities. these abnormalities occur only infrequently (and if they were common, people would have difficulty reproducing. they do not.)
in regards to historical homosexual child abuse, see Greek, Roman, Japanese, European, etc culture. it isn't hard to find. and as far as the modern period, see the recent child abuse scandals about priests and ministers, as well as Micheal Jackson's recent court battles. if you can't see it your BLIND
take your shit ass discussions to http://4-ch.net/politics/kareha.pl/1171879202/ and keep this place clean.
>>49
I never called it normal, and the world would be a lot better without many things, including narrow-minded people.
It has been noted that people with homosexual tendencies have, on average, a relatively greater caring for family and relatives than their heterosexual counterparts. They assist in carrying on their genes, not individually, but through their family members. By being more caring for family members, they increase their intrinsic survival over their darwinian survival. This evolutionary tactic is less effective then what is excepted as being "normal" but it is still effective enough for the trait to be maintained within the species. We must remember that evolution does not strive toward anything, it simply maintains whatever can maintain itself, no matter being "positive" or "negative".
Homosexuality indeed comes in various forms, but one of them is certainly genetic. Not due to one single "gay gene" but to a number of different factors that collaberate into one mutual effect. Either way you look at it, no matter how we think about it, there are people that are gay. They are, no matter what you tell them. I think the most important thing is not to condemn them, or look down on them. They are just people, leave them be.
Homosexuality is definitely not a choice. Gays have among the highest depression/suicide rate in the US...if not the world...don't know the exact figures, though. Nobody would choose to be a member of a group that is so oppressed, either. Gays take, arguably, the most crap out of any group.
I don't know much about genetics, but i agree with >>1-san's theory about homosexual genes not being passed on very easily, because homosexuals don't usually procreate naturally.
I think they're born with it, one way or another. It's hardly a learned behavior, and it certainly can't be "cured." "Sexual re-orientation therapy" is a joke and an insult to the gay community.
By the way, I'm straight. FYI.
>Either way you look at it, no matter how we think about it, there are people that are gay. They are, no matter what you tell them.
Yes. Gay people turn to churches that advertise "sexual re-orientation therapy" as a way to "cure" the "disease" of homosexuality. They pray upon the depression of gay people and further their embarrassment of their own sexuality rather than teaching them to accept who they are. It's psychologically unhealthy.
K, 2 posts in a row, I've talked too much. :X x_x