Homosexuality is in the Genes?

[BeaStKid]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/1...de7&ei=5070

 

Several advances in the last decade have underlined the bizarre fact that the brain is a full-fledged sexual organ, in that the two sexes have profoundly different versions of it.

Wow...no wonder we can never figure each other out!!

 

The most direct evidence comes from a handful of cases, some of them circumcision accidents, in which boy babies have lost their penises and been reared as female.

OUCH!!

 

In experiments in which subjects are shown photographs of desirable men or women, straight men are aroused by women, gay men by men.

DUH!!

 

Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian,

[Razor]

I'm still not buying that sexuality is determined entirely by genetic makeup or prenatal environment. When they shove definitive evidence in my face, then I'll accept it. Until then, I'm prescribing to the combo of factors explanation.

 

And let's face it, the bottom line was laid down in that article. Homosexual genes are maladaptive. Evolution does NOT favor homosexuality. How is it that homosexuality persists if the gene for it is not favored? That makes me lean extraordinarily heavily in the opposite direction.

 

You get your biological makeup from genes, yeah. They control a lot of things, and they give you the raw material. I still do not think that they determine sexual orientation definitively, though. It's just not a logical idea given the most apparent and concrete facts.

 

And that whole fraternal birth order effect seems like utter bullshit to me. That entire statistical phenomenon could be attributed to the fact that in general, boys' brains are indeed wired to be more aggressive (and don't say they're not, boys have consistently shown to have different behavioral patterns than girls, when looking at the majority of males versus the majority of females), thereby increasing the chance of a myriad of interactions and events happening that would NOT happen if there was not another male of similar status present in a boy's life. That, to me, lends credence to the idea that psychology is the determining factor. Interaction and experimentation with boys that a boy found pleasurable and exciting for whatever reason seems to be a very common factor. Brothers, especially those close in age which is usually the case, tend to experiment (not all, but there definitely seems to be a greater likelihood of boys experimenting than never having it cross their minds). I'm not trying to introduce a universal theory here.

 

I happen to think that psychology affects sexuality in many, many different ways. I think that several different situations and processes can contribute to it, and there is no one trump card that determines if you're queer, straight, or bisexual, or transgendered, or even asexual (yeah, some people do claim to not be attracted to anyone, explain that one).

 

Prenatal environment? Ummm... "though no such antibodies have yet been detected". Yeah, not supported by concrete evidence.

 

So... until they show a specific process, hormone, gene, or situation that determines sexuality, I just ain't gonna buy it.

[Conner]

The behaviouralists of the world will hold you in high esteem, Razor-dude.

 

You're right to be skeptical, of course. Hair whorls, ring finger size, birth order, the size of some gland in the brain...it's all overwhelming...and these are only physical manifestations. They do not prove genetic/biological cause and effect. They simply hint at it.

 

We are also products of our environment...parenting, culture, nutrition, childhood trauma, education, social interactions....that list goes on too.

 

One question, though, how do behaviouralists explain the existance of homosexuality in some 500 different species of animals?

 

Conner

[BeaStKid]

One question, though, how do behaviouralists explain the existance of homosexuality in some 500 different species of animals?

Conner

Including homo sapiens's closest neighbour - the apes!!

 

The BeaStKid

[Matthew]

Yeah, not supported by concrete evidence.

 

So... until they show a specific process, hormone, gene, or situation that determines sexuality, I just ain't gonna buy it.

 

 

If scientists waited to publish articles until they actually knew something, we'd probably need only one, thin, journal for the entirety of the scientific community.

[BeaStKid]

If scientists waited to publish articles until they actually knew something, we'd probably need only one, thin, journal for the entirety of the scientific community.

Further, there would be no advancement in anything. History proves it that the advancement in nuclear physics came with many theories, many of which were rejected later on. The biggest example would be the theories for the structure of atom. The quantum model, as we know it today, came after about three failed theories from known scientists like Rutherford, Bohr etc.

 

The BeaStKid

[Matthew]

Further, there would be no advancement in anything. History proves it that the advancement in nuclear physics came with many theories, many of which were rejected later on. The biggest example would be the theories for the structure of atom. The quantum model, as we know it today, came after about three failed theories from known scientists like Rutherford, Bohr etc.

 

The BeaStKid

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say there wouldn't be any advancement in anything. I also think it's important to remember that while publishing may be important, it's also not usually a good idea to not base our view of the world on a single study's results which may tend to indicate something. I'm not saying this is the case here, but the study of the nature and causes of orientations is still very much in its infancy, IMHO.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Matthew

[Graeme]

And let's face it, the bottom line was laid down in that article. Homosexual genes are maladaptive. Evolution does NOT favor homosexuality. How is it that homosexuality persists if the gene for it is not favored? That makes me lean extraordinarily heavily in the opposite direction.

As the debate is not settled, I'm happy for some people to believe it is primarily environment -- they may prove to be right, though the weight of the evidence to date leans the other way.

 

However, the point above needs to be commented on because it is the primary argument against homosexuality having a genetic basis.

 

The answer is, of course, that evolution CAN favour homosexuality, if it is the byproduct of something that enhances survivability of the species as a whole. Nature is extremely wasteful with individuals -- as long as the species survives and prospers.

 

There is research that suggests a link between male homosexuality and female fertility. In other words, the genes that increase female fertility also increase the percentage of homosexual male offspring. This is a perfectly acceptable trade-off from an evolutionary point of view because it is female fertility that constrains the population, not male sexual activity. A single male can produce fifty offspring a year for example (assuming he's promiscuous), while a female can only produce one (on average). Thus female fertility constrains the population. If female were more fertile, then there would be more offspring -- and if some of the male offspring no longer contribute to the gene pool, then that doesn't matter because there will be an overall increase in population anyway, and males are less important from a breeding point of view.

 

This is, by the way, why most commercial cattle herds have only a few bulls and a very large number of heifers -- and why they want their heifers to be as fertile as possible. Female offspring are worth a lot more than male offspring in the cattle business

 

So, male homosexuality CAN have a genetic basis that is supported and promoted by evolution.

[Conner]

...

This is, by the way, why most commercial cattle herds have only a few bulls and a very large number of heifers -- and why they want their heifers to be as fertile as possible. Female offspring are worth a lot more than male offspring in the cattle business

...

 

No wonder my steak is always tough. It's all bull!

 

Conner

[BeaStKid]

No wonder my steak is always tough. It's all bull!

 

Conner

[jfalkon]

The nature VS nurture argument is not as clear as it might seem. There is a relatively new area of study called epigenetics. It seems to sujest that genes depend on input from the invironment to be activated. Basicly the genes function like a computer program. They are full of conditional statements and feedback loops that govern the expresion of genes. The environment sets the conditions. Some genes are triggered by the same stimulus. That might explain linked characteristics like length of fingers, sexual orientation, and anotomical gender.

[Graeme]

The nature VS nurture argument is not as clear as it might seem. There is a relatively new area of study called epigenetics. It seems to sujest that genes depend on input from the invironment to be activated. Basicly the genes function like a computer program. They are full of conditional statements and feedback loops that govern the expresion of genes. The environment sets the conditions. Some genes are triggered by the same stimulus. That might explain linked characteristics like length of fingers, sexual orientation, and anotomical gender.

I didn't think this was a new area. I've always understood that some genes need to be triggered/activated before they take effect. This is the whole basis about all the reports about genetic predilection for certain cancers. The genes don't guarantee that the person will have cancer, but that they have an increased risk of getting cancer. If those genes get triggered, they'll have cancer.

 

I suspect homosexuality will fall into this category -- the genes will be present, but need to be triggered by an environmental event. This explains why identical twins have a significantly increased probability of having the same sexual orientation (because they share the same genes) but it is not 100% (because the genes aren't triggered in both twins).

[JamesSavik]

>> Homosexuality is in the Genes?

 

 

Naw... for me, it's in my boxers.

[Drewbie]

Hehe, Most times no, but I know it runs in my family

[Bill W]

I personally think homosexuality may be found in a recessive gene, meaning that most, if not all, members of a family may carry it, but it doesn't mean they'll all be gay. I have recently discovered quite a number of relatives that are homosexuals, and a friend's family has a very similar history. Therefore, it may be the case that you need two recessive genes to produce the effect or the gene is triggered or activated by an outside source, such as others have suggested. However, I do believe this biological basis is there and is necessary, and that purely environmental factors cannot solely be responsible for this phenomenon.

[myself_i_must_remake]

i feel like some people, specifically teenagers, may hold to the nurture side because it gives them something to blame.

 

what would millions of angsty homosexual adolescents do if they found out their fathers' neglect wasn't the cause?

and what if they had to think that the fathers' neglect was because of their alternative sexuality, and not the other way around?

 

gasp.

[Razor]

~duct tapes hands so I can't raise fingers.....~

 

Jamessavik, delightful point. Perhaps we should start a campaign to overrule all research and make a proclamation that from now on we will consider homosexuality to be a product of boxer contents? It'll give us an excuse to look in boxers... even if we never really illuminate exactly what we're looking for...

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway Conner, you'd made a good point above. I'd like to make a point as well, though. Just because they're not human doesn't mean they don't have a brain. Pretty much anything that has a brain has some serious inner workings, yeah? We get traumatized animals, animals that react to certain stimuli in predictable ways, so.... why can't we have animals that end up a little inclined to do other boy/girl animals?

[The Reaper]

I havent read anything above my post but i think we should care about where it comes from. Why do you want to know? SO you can change it? So you can "fix" it and "cure" all the gays?

 

Curiosity only goes so far in this world, its a harmless thought but i personally know the power of the question. I think its int he genes somewhere, but i really don't want to look or know. Truth only sparks hate and discrimination.

[Conner]

i feel like some people, specifically teenagers, may hold to the nurture side because it gives them something to blame.

 

what would millions of angsty homosexual adolescents do if they found out their fathers' neglect wasn't the cause?

and what if they had to think that the fathers' neglect was because of their alternative sexuality, and not the other way around?

 

gasp.

 

I have re-read this post several times trying to find some sort of message that could be interpreted as the least bit instructive. I can't find any such message. I do find the post to be callous and insensitive; it treats a complex issue in the most superficial way.

 

Tell me I'm wrong, please.

 

Conner

[The Reaper]

I have re-read this post several times trying to find some sort of message that could be interpreted as the least bit instructive. I can't find any such message. I do find the post to be callous and insensitive; it treats a complex issue in the most superficial way.

 

Tell me I'm wrong, please.

 

Conner

 

 

 

I hate to disappoint, but i think your wrong Conner (noice irish name though) (and yes i said "noice"). People do often look for something to blame rather than to think rationally (i know i do). Its easier to say "hey, your the problem that made me who i am," than to logically say "hey, is someone else the cause of my problem?" Not to say being gay is a problem, but im just saying its easier to blame, and because its easier to blame of course others will take that idea.

 

But honestly, i think it could hold some merrit in the psychological point of "turning" gay. It could be a key to whatever, or it could be a version of the blame game. Either way, i personally dont care that much

Edited July 9, 2007 by The Reaper

[colinian]

...or it could be a version of the blame game. Either way, i personally dont care that much

 

Why does there have to be a blame game? WtF is wrong with being gay? I'm a guy, I'm in love with Doug who's a guy, and he's in love with me. Jeez, there's no one to blame, I'm happy with who I am and how I am and I don't want to change.

 

 

Colin

[Conner]

I hate to disappoint, but i think your wrong Conner (noice irish name though) (and yes i said "noice"). People do often look for something to blame rather than to think rationally (i know i do). Its easier to say "hey, your the problem that made me who i am," than to logically say "hey, is someone else the cause of my problem?" Not to say being gay is a problem, but im just saying its easier to blame, and because its easier to blame of course others will take that idea.

 

But honestly, i think it could hold some merrit in the psychological point of "turning" gay. It could be a key to whatever, or it could be a version of the blame game. Either way, i personally dont care that much

 

What a grand lad you are to compliment my name.

 

Yes, people do have a habit of blaming someone or something when they should be taking a closer look at their own actions. This habit is not by any means restricted to youth, either. A lot of us find the maturity to stop playing that game. Some of us don't. It is these people who invariably become a 'victim' in/of their own lives.

 

Blaming is not my issue. This is what I got from the first part of the post: Some teenagers prefer the 'nurture' argument because it allows them to blame a neglectful father for their sexual orientation. The genetic or biological explanation wouldn't allow such blame (because whatever genes do get 'activated' is often a roll of the dice). As such, they're content to support the nurture argument so that they can continue to blame dad.

 

Is such a scenario possible? I suppose it is. The unaddressed variable here is the neglectful father. Is the father actually neglectful towards his son or is the neglectfulness the teenager's perception of his father.

 

Had the post stopped there, I might have been alright with it, then again, maybe not. I'm not sure. In any event, that's a moot point as the post goes on to say: the teenager holds on to the nurture argument so that he doesn't have to face the possibility that his father's neglest was brought on by his orientation and not vice versa. That's when the bottom fell out, I guess.

 

Conner

[x Trevor x]

Well I really dont know. All I know is that its not a choice like most christians claim it to be.

[Conner]

Why does there have to be a blame game? WtF is wrong with being gay? I'm a guy, I'm in love with Doug who's a guy, and he's in love with me. Jeez, there's no one to blame, I'm happy with who I am and how I am and I don't want to change.

Colin

 

You are definitely a "cool member", Colin. You're right, of course. Keep on truckin', dude!

 

Frankly, I'm envious, if truth be know.

 

Conner

[Benji]

I'm still not buying that sexuality is determined entirely by genetic makeup or prenatal environment. When they shove definitive evidence in my face, then I'll accept it. Until then, I'm prescribing to the combo of factors explanation.

 

And let's face it, the bottom line was laid down in that article. Homosexual genes are maladaptive. Evolution does NOT favor homosexuality. How is it that homosexuality persists if the gene for it is not favored? That makes me lean extraordinarily heavily in the opposite direction.

 

You get your biological makeup from genes, yeah. They control a lot of things, and they give you the raw material. I still do not think that they determine sexual orientation definitively, though. It's just not a logical idea given the most apparent and concrete facts.

 

And that whole fraternal birth order effect seems like utter bullshit to me. That entire statistical phenomenon could be attributed to the fact that in general, boys' brains are indeed wired to be more aggressive (and don't say they're not, boys have consistently shown to have different behavioral patterns than girls, when looking at the majority of males versus the majority of females), thereby increasing the chance of a myriad of interactions and events happening that would NOT happen if there was not another male of similar status present in a boy's life. That, to me, lends credence to the idea that psychology is the determining factor. Interaction and experimentation with boys that a boy found pleasurable and exciting for whatever reason seems to be a very common factor. Brothers, especially those close in age which is usually the case, tend to experiment (not all, but there definitely seems to be a greater likelihood of boys experimenting than never having it cross their minds). I'm not trying to introduce a universal theory here.

 

I happen to think that psychology affects sexuality in many, many different ways. I think that several different situations and processes can contribute to it, and there is no one trump card that determines if you're queer, straight, or bisexual, or transgendered, or even asexual (yeah, some people do claim to not be attracted to anyone, explain that one).

 

Prenatal environment? Ummm... "though no such antibodies have yet been detected". Yeah, not supported by concrete evidence.

 

So... until they show a specific process, hormone, gene, or situation that determines sexuality, I just ain't gonna buy it.

 

 

Humm.. they found a gene that determines a person to be fat right? And mixed-up genes can cause mental retardation....small people, tall people, dark people, albino people. Autism is a disturbance of psychological development which maybe due to enviromental factors, (lead, pesticides etc...) but existed prior to such factors. But homosexuality is based only enviromental upbringing and psychology factors? I tend to think nature is playing your "trump card", I'm sure the great apes didn't become homosexualy inclined because Daddy beat them.