Serious Scientific ??? Re: Genetics and Homosexuality.(serious responses only plz)

[Hunty]

Oh, you're right. But the homos' will never die down! We'll start building city's, and having parades.

Oh, wait. Already done. *Rubs hands together.*

 

[King Of Crows]

Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce."

Actually it might be the opposite. There is a theory that due to overpopulation, or a large increase, that the gene would become more commonplace for the sole purpose of not being able to produce offspring. Nature is all about balance and adaptability, overpopulation can easily ruin a species just as much as being under populated.

 

[Aim64C]

You see. This is just terrible for people to think. My choice is not to be gay, I didn't want this. Religion, and sexuality are two different things. You can't compare them.

There are multiple factors involved.

To say that homosexuality is entirely genetic is to, by extension, assign many elements of our society a purely genetic pretext that simply doesn't fit. What does this say about phobias? Fetishes (the man-boy love association would be quick to jump on that one)? Alcoholism? Domestic violence/abuse? The list of problem-subjects with assigning behavioral cause to genetics is very, very long.

However, to downplay the role of genetics is a mistake. I, myself, am an example of this. Both of my parents were quite intelligent people. My grandparents were all intelligent (though not necessarily educated). Predictably, I'm quite intelligent, as are my younger brothers (with my youngest brother potentially sitting atop the most raw potential of us all).

But that's only a portion of the story. I learn quickly, yes - but it is that my parents were constantly participating in my life and willing to teach me things which allowed me (and my brothers) to learn as much as we did.

Further, and even darker - is that I am very observant and capable of being extremely manipulative. I can see how to get into someone's head and implant thoughts, ideas, etc into their head. It is my culture and upbringing that keeps me from relying upon this. Which is a good thing - because my mentality and behavior are much more suceptible to breeding serial killers and other such monstrosities.

To reduce the issue to making it a "choice," as if one has picked from a menu; or to making it "born this way," as if one has no free will apart from their genetics... is just silly.

I didn't wake up one day and say: "Wow, I really like girls!" It's something that developed, and a development I have been in agreement with.

To hold homosexuality to a different standard is wrong. People, for various reasons, develop a sense of being homosexual and find themselves in agreement or conflict with it. Just like heterosexuals do.

There's no 'problem' unless someone feels they want to make a change in their life. Should that be the case, it's perfectly fine for them to take steps and to seek council to bring about the change they feel is appropriate.

 

[thesurvivor]

Oh, you're right. But the homos' will never die down! We'll start building city's, and having parades.

Oh, wait. We have done all that already.

i dont think you got wht i was trying to say umm if there was a gay gene it would have died off a long time ago.

 

[Hunty]

There are multiple factors involved.

To say that homosexuality is entirely genetic is to, by extension, assign many elements of our society a purely genetic pretext that simply doesn't fit. What does this say about phobias? Fetishes (the man-boy love association would be quick to jump on that one)? Alcoholism? Domestic violence/abuse? The list of problem-subjects with assigning behavioral cause to genetics is very, very long.

However, to downplay the role of genetics is a mistake. I, myself, am an example of this. Both of my parents were quite intelligent people. My grandparents were all intelligent (though not necessarily educated). Predictably, I'm quite intelligent, as are my younger brothers (with my youngest brother potentially sitting atop the most raw potential of us all).

But that's only a portion of the story. I learn quickly, yes - but it is that my parents were constantly participating in my life and willing to teach me things which allowed me (and my brothers) to learn as much as we did.

Further, and even darker - is that I am very observant and capable of being extremely manipulative. I can see how to get into someone's head and implant thoughts, ideas, etc into their head. It is my culture and upbringing that keeps me from relying upon this. Which is a good thing - because my mentality and behavior are much more suceptible to breeding serial killers and other such monstrosities.

To reduce the issue to making it a "choice," as if one has picked from a menu; or to making it "born this way," as if one has no free will apart from their genetics... is just silly.

I didn't wake up one day and say: "Wow, I really like girls!" It's something that developed, and a development I have been in agreement with.

To hold homosexuality to a different standard is wrong. People, for various reasons, develop a sense of being homosexual and find themselves in agreement or conflict with it. Just like heterosexuals do.

There's no 'problem' unless someone feels they want to make a change in their life. Should that be the case, it's perfectly fine for them to take steps and to seek council to bring about the change they feel is appropriate.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. No one wakes up and goes: "I really like boys/girls!" It's something you're born with..

 

[King Of Crows]

There are multiple factors involved.

To say that homosexuality is entirely genetic is to, by extension, assign many elements of our society a purely genetic pretext that simply doesn't fit. What does this say about phobias? Fetishes (the man-boy love association would be quick to jump on that one)? Alcoholism? Domestic violence/abuse? The list of problem-subjects with assigning behavioral cause to genetics is very, very long.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on that one. The elements you perceive as purely genetic pretext, by the extension that homosexuality is, tend to be more psychological that genetic. Psychological and genetic factors are chasms apart from one another.

I'm sorry, I stopped after reading the first sentence. Okay, are you for, or against gays?

It's quite the interesting read. I encourage you to go for it yourself xP

 

[Hunty]

i dont think you got wht i was trying to say umm if there was a gay gene it would have died off a long time ago.

Oh, sorry. I couldn't make out what you were saying at first, I get it now.

 

[Aim64C]

Actually it might be the opposite. There is a theory that due to overpopulation, or a large increase, that the gene would become more commonplace for the sole purpose of not being able to produce offspring. Nature is all about balance and adaptability, overpopulation can easily ruin a species just as much as being under populated.

That theory doesn't work.

A species doesn't evolve. Individuals do.

But, The Red Queen must be served... and so she is:

You must be registered for see links

Red Queen dynamics can explain the genetic bias for male homosexuality.

Although female homosexuality shows no discernable genetic trend (though there were some hormone studies done that indicate hormone levels during fetus development can bias sexual orientation) - there doesn't necessarily have to be a genetic grounds for all behavior. The fact that many women who engage in homosexual behavior tend to be bisexual on the whole points more toward social factors than genetic.

 

[Aim64C]

I'm sorry, I stopped after reading the first sentence. Okay, are you for, or against gays?

Why do you expect me to treat you with respect when you don't read my comment?

I believe you will find that I have already answered your question.

 

[thesurvivor]

That theory doesn't work.

A species doesn't evolve. Individuals do.

But, The Red Queen must be served... and so she is:

You must be registered for see links

Red Queen dynamics can explain the genetic bias for male homosexuality.

Although female homosexuality shows no discernable genetic trend (though there were some hormone studies done that indicate hormone levels during fetus development can bias sexual orientation) - there doesn't necessarily have to be a genetic grounds for all behavior. The fact that many women who engage in homosexual behavior tend to be bisexual on the whole points more toward social factors than genetic.

hey is that you in your ava?

 

[King Of Crows]

That theory doesn't work.

A species doesn't evolve. Individuals do.

But, The Red Queen must be served... and so she is:

You must be registered for see links

Red Queen dynamics can explain the genetic bias for male homosexuality.

Although female homosexuality shows no discernable genetic trend (though there were some hormone studies done that indicate hormone levels during fetus development can bias sexual orientation) - there doesn't necessarily have to be a genetic grounds for all behavior. The fact that many women who engage in homosexual behavior tend to be bisexual on the whole points more toward social factors than genetic.

Oh, I was saying it might be the opposite and merely told the theory. I hold no ground to it being true, but I do find multiple theories on this matter scintillating.

I know a species does not evolve, I should have specified my point across more clearly and I apologise for not doing so and filling you with false implications as to what my beliefs are on the matter :/

 

[Hunty]

That theory doesn't work.

A species doesn't evolve. Individuals do.

But, The Red Queen must be served... and so she is:

You must be registered for see links

Red Queen dynamics can explain the genetic bias for male homosexuality.

Although female homosexuality shows no discernable genetic trend (though there were some hormone studies done that indicate hormone levels during fetus development can bias sexual orientation) - there doesn't necessarily have to be a genetic grounds for all behavior. The fact that many women who engage in homosexual behavior tend to be bisexual on the whole points more toward social factors than genetic.

Species evolve all the time. We adapt to are surroundings, making changes within the self, no matter physically or mentally changed.

 

[Prime Rib]

people arent born gay, neither do they choose to be gay, its life and how they are brought up, interact how they see things. people misunderstand that if you are born gay then if that is or isnt true then why in the hell do "some" feel that its wrong to be gay and that they do and up going straight. next up women go lesbian they are born it as women do choose this aka bad relationships, bad background etc,

 

[Jin Hayami]

Does anyone really care?
I personally don't give two shits why gays are gay.
Even if you could prove that it was genetic you know what the next step would be?
Some idiot trying to "cure" it. Like how some psychologists are currently trying to do.
The gay community and its supporters would strongly protest such research because to them it is probably grossly offensive.
This is like the big bang debate. Who cares? Some things really just don't matter and this is one of them.

 

[King Of Crows]

Species evolve all the time. We adapt to are surroundings, making changes within the self, no matter physically or mentally changed.

The species as a whole do not. It is the individuals who adapt to the changes whilst those who cannot, die. Which leave the certain individuals to pass on their traits onto the offspring.

 

[Hunty]

people arent born gay, neither do they choose to be gay, its life and how they are brought up, interact how they see things. people misunderstand that if you are born gay then if that is or isnt true then why in the hell do "some" feel that its wrong to be gay and that they do and up going straight. next up women go lesbian they are born it as women do choose this aka bad relationships, bad background etc,

No comment ever created, could describe how wrong you are. :stfu:

 

[Hunty]

The species as a whole do not. It is the individuals who adapt to the changes whilst those who cannot, die. Which leave the certain individuals to pass on their traits onto the offspring.

Actually, I'm going to agree with you here. Sooner or later though, that trait passed on will fade through generations. Concluding..

 

[AP2k]

Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce."

That's not how evolution works. Recessive genes and mutations happen.

 

[Hunty]

An examination of family pedigrees revealed that gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, suggesting a linkage to the X chromosome. Dean Hamer found such an association at region Xq28. If male sexual orientation was influenced by a gene on Xq28, then gay brothers should share more than 50% of their alleles at this region, whereas their heterosexual brothers should share less than 50% of their alleles. In the absence of such an association, then both types of brothers should display 50% allele sharing. An analysis of 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that they shared 82% of their alleles in the Xq28 region, which was much greater than the 50% allele sharing that would be expected by chance. However, a follow-up study by the same research group, using 32 pairs of gay brothers and found only 67% allele sharing, which was much closer to the 50% expected by chance. Attempts by Rice et al. to repeat the Hamer study resulted in only 46% allele sharing, insignificantly different from chance, contradicting the Hamer results. At the same time, an unpublished study by Alan Sanders (University of Chicago) corroborated the Rice results. Ultimately, no gene or gene product from the Xq28 region was ever identified that affected sexual orientation. When Jonathan Marks (an evolutionary biologist) asked Hamer what percentage of homosexuality he thought his results explained, his answer was that he thought it explained 5% of male homosexuality. Marks' response was, "There is no science other than behavioral genetics in which you can leave 97.5% of a phenomenon unexplained and get headlines."

 

[Aim64C]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on that one. The elements you perceive as purely genetic pretext, by the extension that homosexuality is, tend to be more psychological that genetic. Psychological and genetic factors are chasms apart from one another.

You don't quite understand.

Intelligent people are manipulative by nature... because they are smart enough to get by with it where the average person tried, failed, and gave up long ago. Intelligence is heavily linked to genetics.

Yet, genetics do not dictate intelligence.

Most things have a correlation with genetic factors, from the body type you find attractive to the scent of perfume you find most appealing; from the jobs you will enjoy to the pets you keep - but correlation does not imply causation.

There are key links between genetics and psychology. In nonlinear math and the systems constructed as models of real-world environments, there are many 'constants' - many small, even arbitrary, starting principles that you found your model off of. The initial state of these has very radical consequences for the overall function and progress of the model. A minor alteration or deviation here or there in a single factor can completely change the shape and/or function of your model.

Genetics is important, because it sets these baselines - some of which can never be modified. If a chemical receptor in your brain is different because your genetics, for whatever reason, make it differently - the function of the brain is forever altered and will forever affect that person. This is a problem psychiatric therapies run into... not only can people have different topological and logical neurology, but they can also have different anatomical neurology that means their neurons respond differently to the same chemical (including chemicals that the brain produces... and were 'designed' to work with the 'original' neuron design).