Why I believe homosexuality has no genetic basis.

[ModernLogic]

If homosexuality is of genetic origins (that is, there is a gay gene which determines your sexual preference) then natural selection would have eliminated this gay gene a long time ago. The cave man who preferred other cave men would not have passed on these "gay genes" down since we all know two men can't have kids. (At least without the assistance of modern test-tube baby production)

However, there is the argument that human society has forced homosexuals to procreate with those of the opposite sex against their will. Like that gay prince from Braveheart (Yes, he was gay) or that gay military father from American Beauty. Both these men were homosexuals but they still married to fathered children as means of conformity. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no connection between homosexual children and homosexual parents.

[AngryABCGirl]

If so, then why do people continue to pass on genes predisposed to cancer, heart disease, etc. if they should have all died out?

[SunWuKong]

If homosexuality is of genetic origins (that is, there is a gay gene which determines your sexual preference) then natural selection would have eliminated this gay gene a long time ago. The cave man who preferred other cave men would not have passed on these "gay genes" down since we all know two men can't have kids. (At least without the assistance of modern test-tube baby production)

However, there is the argument that human society has forced homosexuals to procreate with those of the opposite sex against their will. Like that gay prince from Braveheart (Yes, he was gay) or that gay military father from American Beauty. Both these men were homosexuals but they still married to fathered children as means of conformity. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no connection between homosexual children and homosexual parents.


i don't get it. if you agree that gay men and women had been reproducing in the past, doesn't it support the theory that homosexuality is a genetic trait?

[Emperor_Mike]

There are social issues that may induce homosexual men and women to reproduce and there's also the possibility of genes that "activate" on the roll of a cosmic die. Much like how genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome can afflict children of "normal" parents, a homosexual gene can have the same effect, I think. I don't have a degree in genetics, but it's certainly not difficult to come to the conclusion that nothing is certain when you're confronting a topic that deals largely in chance.

[Faithless]

If so, then why do people continue to pass on genes predisposed to cancer, heart disease, etc. if they should have all died out?

Good point. Natural selection doesn't work that way. If it did the undertall and the ugly would also be illiminated long ago. :(

Aren't people on all ends of the spectrum of the sexuality range? You have the effeminite to the masculine. You have the oversexed to the couldn't-give-a-shit about sex.

You have heteros who prefer all sorts of mates in shape, body type, hairyness, etc.

Why is it so hard to believe that there could be a preference for something like the same sex?

[angel nympho]

How do you explain homosexual behavior in animals then? If it's not something that occurs naturally then...?

[SunWuKong]

and isn't there a possibility that the "gay gene" can be dormant?

[deez nuts]

there was a study awhile ago in JAMA on a gay gene or a genetic disposition towards homosexuality. to say the etiology of homosexuality is solely due to genetics or the environment is kinda ballsy. no geneticist is gonna lay claim to homosexuality being purely a genetic code in the near future.

ain't nobody gonna have the genetic sequence for homosexuality mapped out anytime soon and nobody is gonna pinpoint the exact external/environmental factor that causes homosexuality.

it's like which came first? the chicken or the egg?

[etcj]

If homosexuality is of genetic origins (that is, there is a gay gene which determines your sexual preference) then natural selection would have eliminated this gay gene a long time ago. The cave man who preferred other cave men would not have passed on these "gay genes" down since we all know two men can't have kids. (At least without the assistance of modern test-tube baby production)

However, there is the argument that human society has forced homosexuals to procreate with those of the opposite sex against their will. Like that gay prince from Braveheart (Yes, he was gay) or that gay military father from American Beauty. Both these men were homosexuals but they still married to fathered children as means of conformity. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no connection between homosexual children and homosexual parents.

Well I'm glad that you apparently rely so much on Hollywood films to base your theory around being gay. I certainly have no idea how you developed this theory, but it seems like you pieced it together from various high school science textbooks. As much as folks would like to connect being gay with science, I don't think you can link it with natural selection. Why not? Because you're most likely implying that being non-heterosexual is a (genetic) defect.

[Tao]

Well I'm glad that you apparently rely so much on Hollywood films to base your theory around being gay. I certainly have no idea how you developed this theory, but it seems like you pieced it together from various high school science textbooks. As much as folks would like to connect being gay with science, I don't think you can link it with natural selection. Why not? Because you're most likely implying that being non-heterosexual is a (genetic) defect.

i don't think he's ssaying that it's a defect, just that being gay wou;dn't allow you to create offspring and pass on your supposed "gay gene" or something.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Good point. Natural selection doesn't work that way. If it did the undertall and the ugly would also be illiminated long ago. :(

As far as I know, being tall or taller than average isn't exactly proven to be evolutionarily beneficial (despite the fact that people may prefer taller mates or friends). It might actually be detrimental if you were born in an environment, with, say, low-flying mutant man-eating bumblebees. And beauty (hot or ugly) is subjective and based upon both personal preference and socially-created standards, except for perhaps obvious traits like smooth, clean, skin and body over buckteeth, and dirty, pimply, greasy-ass skin.

[BeTheReds]

i don't think he's ssaying that it's a defect, just that being gay wou;dn't allow you to create offspring and pass on your supposed "gay gene" or something.


Yes, it would. All that requires for passing it on is for sperms to come in contact with eggs. Even most gay dudes have had sex with a woman at least once.

[SunWuKong]

Yes, it would. All that requires for passing it on is for sperms to come in contact with eggs. Even most gay dudes have had sex with a woman at least once.


thus the weakness of his argument. :p

[ModernLogic]

Well I'm glad that you apparently rely so much on Hollywood films to base your theory around being gay. I certainly have no idea how you developed this theory, but it seems like you pieced it together from various high school science textbooks. As much as folks would like to connect being gay with science, I don't think you can link it with natural selection. Why not? Because you're most likely implying that being non-heterosexual is a (genetic) defect.

Films are visual representations of human society... glamorized and truncated but still representations nonetheless. The point I was making is that social pressures can often coerce homosexuals to pro-create.

You're the one who's saying homosexuality is a "defect." You've made a judgment call, not me. I was strictly speaking from an objective and scientific perspective.

[ModernLogic]

i don't get it. if you agree that gay men and women had been reproducing in the past, doesn't it support the theory that homosexuality is a genetic trait?

Right. I was providing a counter-argument to my own thesis just for balance. Maybe I should have named the thread: "Does homosexuality have a genetic basis?"

I just personally don't think so.

[AngryABCGirl]

Right. I was providing a counter-argument to my own thesis just for balance. Maybe I should have named the thread: "Does homosexuality have a genetic basis?"

I just personally don't think so.

Let's say homosexuality has no genetic basis, then why would anyone be homosexual? It's certaintly not socially accepted to be gay in today's society, so why would anyone be gay if they could choose?

Because they like something more isn't really a valid answer, nobody likes anything that much if they're going to get shunned unless they *have* to like it.

[SunWuKong]

Let's say homosexuality has no genetic basis, then why would anyone be homosexual? It's certaintly not socially accepted to be gay in today's society, so why would anyone be gay if they could choose?

Because they like something more isn't really a valid answer, nobody likes anything that much if they're going to get shunned unless they *have* to like it.


well to play the devil's advocate here, saying that society shuns it, and therefore nobody would choose to be gay, is oversimplifying the myriad complexity of the human psyche.

[deez nuts]

passing on the legacy a la turkey baster and/or surrogate mother.

where there's a will. there's a way.

[Faithless]

As far as I know, being tall or taller than average isn't exactly proven to be evolutionarily beneficial (despite the fact that people may prefer taller mates or friends). It might actually be detrimental if you were born in an environment, with, say, low-flying mutant man-eating bumblebees. And beauty (hot or ugly) is subjective and based upon both personal preference and socially-created standards, except for perhaps obvious traits like smooth, clean, skin and body over buckteeth, and dirty, pimply, greasy-ass skin.

Which is an interesting point on the difference between natural selection and choice (or preference). Do we choose certain characteristics based on natural selection or choice?

[Emperor_Mike]

Which is an interesting point on the difference between natural selection and choice (or preference). Do we choose certain characteristics based on natural selection or choice?

On a purely physiological basis, I don't think we have much say in what we wish ourselves to be/look like (barring plastic surgery.) Otherwise, I would have to say that much of what society prizes as good traits to possess (e.g. good looks, perfect teeth, etc.) are purely issues concocted by people. Our standards now are vastly different from those harboured by, let's say, the Ptolemaic Egyptians of Cleopatra's time. Apparently, the Cleopatra's attractiveness by modern "rules of beauty" would make her quite homely in our age. Supposedly she was short, dark, and stocky.

[Faithless]

On a purely physiological basis, I don't think we have much say in what we wish ourselves to be/look like (barring plastic surgery.) Otherwise, I would have to say that much of what society prizes as good traits to possess (e.g. good looks, perfect teeth, etc.) are purely issues concocted by people. Our standards now are vastly different from those harboured by, let's say, the Ptolemaic Egyptians of Cleopatra's time. Apparently, the Cleopatra's attractiveness by modern "rules of beauty" would make her quite homely in our age. Supposedly she was short, dark, and stocky.

Choice (or preference) is so societal and the times, then, isn't it?

Looking back on what attractiveness was considered as in early America, before Weight Watchers and tread mills, full figured chicks, I think, were considered hot. Now days, they hardly get a look. :(

So, whatever natural selection is, it isn't concrete.

[Emperor_Mike]

Choice (or preference) is so societal and the times, then, isn't it?

Looking back on what attractiveness was considered as in early America, before Weight Watchers and tread mills, full figured chicks, I think, were considered hot. Now days, they hardly get a look. :(

So, whatever natural selection is, it isn't concrete.


Of course preferences are dictated mostly by society. If this was not the case we wouldn't have ongoing problems like bullimia and anorexia nervosa. It's sad that people have to suffer to satisfy society's ever changing tastes. However, this has been the case for God knows how long.

In any case, as far as natural selection is concerned, that has more to do with biology than it has to do with society. Society plays a role too, I suppose, in "selecting" what physiological traits wrought by biology ought to be deemed as "acceptable" and "attractive."