Genetic Causation of Homosexuality

[usregimechange]

I am seeking advise on how to respond to the following argument:

Since homosexuals can not reproduce they can not pass on genetic information specific to homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality is purely choice.

[Bunny]

1. Huh?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously.

[usregimechange]

4. Well

If you think about this natural selection does tend to weed out unsucessful genetic traits. If homosexuality is genetic there would be genetic information specific to homosexuals. If they can not reproduce how would such a trait get passed along to offspring? Just playing devils advocate.

[Deja Q]

12. Apart from my other messages where gays boink straights anyway

A genetic malfunction?

It's not like there's no such thing as genetics gone wrong.

Or genetic experimentation. I fear society would take every opportunity to say "Fuck off and die, God!" the moment humankind gets the opportunity to alter itself at its very core. Ostensibly done in the name of "improving the species", it eliminates what makes a human HUMAN in the process: Tolerance and acceptance of the world as being God's creation, not out playtoy to fucking tinker with. And we're very near that point. So if Dumbass* is against genetic engineering for moral concerns, well hell - so am I. Call it significant the day I agree with him* on anything, but for genetic engineering to alter or reinvent the species to somebody else's (such as corporate america's) liking, I'm damn well against it. How can I make my unbridled anger any more obvious?

On edit: I apologize to practitioners of organized religion. I believe in God, but I would not call myself a Christian. And my controversial line is what the scientists are saying every time they come up with something as significant.

Remember, God comes back to haunt us by giving us Mad Cow Disease, the "Pig AIDS", even human AIDS, and so on. And, yes, there are scientific explanations there too. But the most obvious and duh-inducing one is "Why the hell do we continue when all we do in return is cause newer, deadlier things to appear which do far more damage to the whole planet, the one we can't escape from?" Humanity has got to stop itself before it's too late!

[usregimechange]

16. I think

the man was referring to natural selection not social darwinism. In other words, he did not understand how homosexuality could be genetic.

[Deja Q]

31. At times, I'm not so sure either

If I'm gay, how come I've been attracted to women's breasts (of all things) recently? (And trust me, I'm not "switching sides".)

I think there's a predominance of either heterosexuality or homosexuality which is likely genetic (I have a blood-relative who is a lesbian and I know homosexuality recurs in the animal kingdom), but I think environment plays a role as well. That or I'm bi and I haven't properly realized it yet. But, again, why should I care what the cause of homosexuality is? Unlike the Kennedy assassination of 1963, homosexuality is not an issue that needs to be answered. Indeed, if it is answered, society will find ways to make it not happen because they are uncomfortable with it and would rather choose NOT to be comfortable with the idea. Very stupid for a so-called "intelligent" species, but what the hey. But that is the day that acceptance and tolerance of ALL human beings AS human beings (or to the level we have it right now) ends and the day of "custom made offspring" begins, and that's an immorality the Bible's writers could never have envisaged yet alone imagined. And people like to think that people who don't have or want kids are selfish, people customizing their kids' physical and mental attributes is far, far, far, far, one thousand million times far worse.

As there are plenty of aspects of our environment that the repukes won't want to change (because it costs too much, naturally), they likely won't change this joke of a status quo in a silly attempt to rid the world of homosexuals.

Sorry to digress the thread into something that transcends homosexuality, but it is a hot button issue. Human beings are just that. Anyone who wants to "improve" on the model or remove what THEY think is a deficiency or mistake is inhuman, WORTHY OF HITLER HIMSELF. Are scientists the new Nazis? Quite probably.

[usregimechange]

38. I wouldn't blame scientists

The APA for example has came out for equal rights, although that wasn't always the case. It is the uneducated repukes that we need to worry about. I assure they are not likely to be scientists.

[Sparky McGruff]

79. Natural selection

does a really job of weeding out multiple gene and/or recessive traits, even when they are really destructive.

Example of a recessive trait: cystic fibrosis. Not exactly a good one for reproduction, especially before modern medicine. The genes are passed down from generation to generation, by unaffected "carriers". A carrier has one good copy, one bad copy of the gene, and one is sufficient for them to be healthy. Only when two carriers have children, can a child get two bad copies. That's why it's called a "recessive trait". It seemingly "pops up" out of nowhere.

Cystic fibrosis doesn't go away. Selective pressure doesn't apply, because the carriers are fine.

A similar set of arguments apply if a trait involves multiple genes.

So, the argument is BS. Tell the guy to take genetics 101.

On the bigger question, is homosexuality genetic? I haven't got a clue. I suspect, like most things, it involves a few dozen genes, and a bunch of enviromental factors. That describes pretty much everything in life, though, from how well you play basketball, to whether you're going to have schizophrenia. Or, perhaps, whether you're a pathological liar, like George W. Bush.

[Duncan Grant]

24. Boy oh boy.

>>If you think about this natural selection does tend to weed out unsucessful genetic traits.<<

If your hypothesis is correct...how do you explain homosexuality as an UNsuccessful genetic trait IF there are so many of us queer folks running around. That's unsuccessful? Really now.

I hate to be bustin' your chops here but your cultural bias against gay people is beginning to show.

edit: toned it down a bit...

[scottxyz]

66. Homosexuality isn't always unsuccessful or maladaptive

To take an example from the animal kingdom (see Bruce Bagemihl's book "Biological Exuberance", as well as some writings by Konrad Lorenz):

Among ducks, who tend to mate for life, there will often be a pair of male ducks who exhibit what we would call homosexual behavior: courting and nesting together.

Of course, biologically they can't reproduce. But in many cases a female with be attracted to one of them, and will wait to run into him sometime, and may manage to get impregnated by him.

These three ducks will then establish a three-parent family. Because the two males are often among the healthier, stronger males in the area, and because it is now a three-parent family including two healthy strong males, they will often end up with some of the better "nesting real estate" and that family will be quite well-fed and protected. This is highly advantageous to the ducklings of course.

This is just one example from the vast array of species exhibiting "homosexual behavior" in nature, and it explodes the myth (essentially misogynist and homophobic in origin) that there is something "maladaptive" in an evolutionary sense about homosexuality.

[cprise]

29. I think there's even more than the other explanations here

Our genes do not favor only selfish/individual survival traits; they strongly select for group survival. Therefore it could be an advantage to pass a recessive trait for homosexuality if, say, gays tend to have less childrearing burdens and spend more time in other roles: defense, discovery, or eccentricities that can occasionaly be crucial to survival.

Of course, relegating a group to these roles would be inappropriate for a modern civilization: We all have the opportunities to do most of these things.

Your friend should also consider bisexuality for discussion, and that homosexuality has a significant presence in the animal kingdom.

[sangha]

56. This is ignorance passing for intelligence

Natural selection doesn't weed out "unsuccessful genetic traits" whatever that opaque phrase means. Natural selection says that genes which contribute to an organisms "fitness" increase in proportion to other genes within the population.

If homosexuality is genetic there would be genetic information specific to homosexuals.

Nope. Did they ever hear of sickle cell anemia?

If they can not reproduce how would such a trait get passed along to offspring?

Ever hear of traits that depend on more than one gene?

Ever hear of traits that require the genes and the environ,ental factors, like certain forms of breast cancer?

[Pale Blue Dot]

65. My wife and I know about 10 gay men

who were married and had kids before they came out of the closet. And frankly, I honestly believe that the most rabid homophobes are gay themselves.

In other words, the genes ARE passed on.

[targetpractice]

69. Simple...

First the obvious, gay people can reproduce. Homosexuality is not a lethal trait.

Second, your genes can be passed to the next generation indirectly. Because you share half of your parents genes with each of your siblings, the net effect of your brother or siser having two children is the same as you having one child.

[Outvoicer]

2. easily debunked logic ...

genetic information is passed on via sperm and egg, INCLUDING genetic information specific to homosexuality.

Homosexual people come from a Mom and Dad, just like everybody else.

It stands to reason that if homosexuality is genetic, the gene for it exists in and is passed on by ... (shock!) heterosexuals.

[usregimechange]

11. so

homosexuals must have been at least bisexual at one point in their lives in order for the genetic information to get passed on in the gene pool. If homosexuals stayed homosexual their whole lives, it is conceivable that homosexuality would decrease and in thousands of years, no longer exist.

[Duncan Grant]

17. I have to hand it to you, you're persistent.

Get rid of the labels already; they're a cultural construct. How about a new arguement? Sexuality can have fluidity.

It's not a black and white world. Thank God for the many grays...

[rucky]

19. Not necessarily...

They can be carried through heterosexual relatives- Recessively. That's why a blonde and a brunette parent can have a kid with red hair. One parent has a recessive gene for red hair - even though the hair's not red - and can carry that on to the offspring. In most cases, both parents need the recessive gene for the child to carry the recessive trait, but that's not always the case, either.

[dflprincess]

60. An excellent example

There had been no red heads in my family since my great-grandfather. Then one of my cousins, four generations later, produced a red headed child. Both her parents have brown hair. The child has often been asked where she got her red hair and her parents taught her to respond "recessive genes".

[Catch22Dem]

27. Hey Devils Advocate

Your rationale can't stand. If a homosexual wants to have children, as many do, then they either artificially inseminate (sp?) or mate with the opposite sex for the explicit purpose of procreation. Doing so doesn't make them un-homosexual.

[rucky]

15. Recessive genes...and I'd even wager a guess

that it's carried through the mother's bloodline. At least that's how it is in my family, and most other folks I've talked to with multiple gay relatives.

[Catch22Dem]

3. Why can't they

A gay man has the necessary equipment to reproduce with a woman, thus passing genes on to his offspring. Same with a gay woman.

[Deja Q]

5. Okay

In a society that does more than merely discourage homosexuality (discrimination, taunting, maiming, murdering us in their hatred), it's damn right that gay men are going to marry women, cheat on them, and you know the rest. Many men today would prefer to live a LIE rather than to live truthfully as themselves. This is a gigantic social ill that should have been cured 100 years if not 100 millenia ago.

Especially when our society encourages HETEROSEXUALITY at every turn. WHY does he think it's just a choice?

Ask him why he chose to be heterosexual? That might help.

But when living a lie, they are hurting more people than they realize.

Truth should be respected in this society. Isn't that what the repukes claim?

Who cares if it's genetic or a choice? We're here, we're queer, most of us are good people. So fucking what? Have the idiot get used to it and stop thinking in ridiculous narrow-minded, illogical, half-baked, nonsensical, idiotic terms.

[Catch22Dem]

9. Good post, Hypno!!! (n/t)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Not that I am a big fan of this argument anyway

but ask them how it then occurs in animals such as birds and sea lions.

I am not one to wish to see a gene isolated as A) I doubt it will be real B) it will mean the death of gay people....much like forced strilization n the 50's and 60's.

[DemLikr]

68. Hi there, Nothing!

Hope you're having a nice day!

:hi:

[Duncan Grant]

7. My bad.

Missed the choice arguement...apologies.

[mlawson]

8. That is like saying that since hemophiliacs die young,

they can't procreate, thus the condition becomes extinct.

Well, the Tsar's Romanov line did, but not because of that...

[incapsulated]

10. Homosexuals are Sterile?

Wow. That's news to me! And there is definative proof of a "gay gene" as well? Jeez! What kind of argument is this anyway?

:crazy:

[Cheswick2.0]

13. d'oh

did this person ever hear of resessive genes? Besides who says homosexuals can't reproduce?

[jono]

14. Homosexuals can reproduce

All it takes is a sperm bank or a willing female friend. And when they do, does that mean that if they have straight kids that the kids chose to be heterosexual?

[mlawson]

25. It's true!!! I know several who have....

Really. :D

[Orangepeel]

18. recessive gene?

?

[usregimechange]

20. Here is his entire editorial

Since homosexuals do not reproduce, the condition cannot be an inherited trait. To my knowledge, no scientist has claimed to have discovered a "homosexual gene." It is not caused by a transmissible gene, as dwarfism is, so it must be either a random genetic deviation from the norm or a mental or psychological predisposition, like a bad temper, psychotic tendencies, etc.

If it were caused by a genetic deviation from the norm, such a person would display an abnormal chromosome alignment for his or her sex. An extra chromosome might make a man wish to become a woman or make a woman wish to become a man, but there is no chromosome alignment that would make a man wish to play both male and female parts - but only with another man.

We must conclude, then, that homosexuality is a behavioral abnormality that has no genetic cause. Like a compulsive gambler, an alcoholic, or a psychopath who must kill to satisfy an inner need, homosexuality has no ancestral link.

[Heddi]

34. Why must you equate

homosexuality with "deviant" behaviour?

There are plenty of things that aren't genetically passed along (intelligence, predisposition to excell at a sport, or playing an instrument) that have no genetic cause.

Why do you equate homosexuality with compulsive gambling, alcoholism, psychopathics who kill, etc?

Why can't homosexuality be like intelligence, or instrument playing---Things that are equally learned (a student who studies well and gets a 1599 on the SAT) and equally....natural (children who at 3 years old can fluently speak 3 languages, or who are child prodigies with regards to instruments, arts, etc)?

Just because a genetic code hasn't been linked to homosexuality that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Homosexuality also occurs in animals. Dolphins, chimps, etc, have all been observed practicing homosexual behaviour. Are you suggesting that THEY make the 'decision' to be gay? Or is it just humans that you cast your bigoted aspersions upon?

[Sufi Marmot]

40. Extra sex chromosomes...

If it were caused by a genetic deviation from the norm, such a person would display an abnormal chromosome alignment for his or her sex. An extra chromosome might make a man wish to become a woman or make a woman wish to become a man, but there is no chromosome alignment that would make a man wish to play both male and female parts - but only with another man.

Some people exist with extra X or Y chromosomes, but as far as I know there is no link between extra sex chromosomes and sexual preference. Good summary here. To my knowledge most other polyploidies of single chromosomes aren't often found, with notable execeptions such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) - those that exist tend to lead to birth defects and/or mental retardation.


-SM

[Mairead]

61. Actually, the pointer you gave is a poor summary

A better source is www.isna.org

[Sufi Marmot]

63. I was trying to point out that sex chromosome aneuploidies...

...don't have anything to do with sexual preference and I grabbed the first link I could find which explained Turner Syndrome and Klinefelter Syndrome. I understand that there are other genetic mutations (which don't involve entire chromosomes) which can cause intersex phenotypes.

-SM

[paradisiac]

42. the gene studies are inconclusive

More work needs to be done by researchers before it can be said with 100% certainty that there is no genetic propensity for homosexual behavior. IOW, the writer's conclusion is false because the biology of sexual orientation is still a speculative thing.

[Lexingtonian]

49. S/he's definitely clueless about genetics

That is about the most primitive understanding of genetics possible that can be pretended to be meaningful knowledge.

To make a long story short, the data on heredity and male homosexuality points to genetic causations that are "maternal effect". The data on heredity and female homosexuality point to "polygenic" causation.

For the first, where the unusual ("mutated" seems wrong here) genes affect sexuality is IN THE CELLS OF THE MOTHER- e.g. the uterine wall- and only male foeti. Iow, the genes that cause things can be passed on to all female foeti without any effect. Voila- survival of the responsible genes to the next generation!

For the second, it's highly unlikely that any two of the unusual genes are on the same chromosome in the first place, and very few foeti with chromosome configurations other than the usual arrangement of 46 tend to survive to birth, let alone adulthood.

As the old joke goes, conservatives want all behavior to be genetically based except homosexuality and liberals want no behavior based on genetics except homosexuality. Both are wrong, but most homosexuality is going to prove based on genetic factors.

[TheDonkey]

21. Recessive genes

Heterosexuals would be able to pass on homosexual genes that are recessive and not be gay themselves.

Similair to color blindess being hidden in many people who carry the recesive gene.

BUT it still hasn't been found there is a gay gene. The true test to debunk the "homosexuality is a choice" is just to ask, why would anyone want to willingly choose to be discriminated and villianized?

[usregimechange]

23. Good Point

thank you

[Snow]

22. Siblings of homosexuals are known to reporoduce.......

there are damn few genes that have 100% penetrance

[The Magistrate]

33. A Good Point, Ma'am

It is worth remembering that early humans existed in tight kin groups.

If a lack of reproductive activity by some members increased the chance of survival to maturity of other kin's children (and it is easy to think of ways in which it could), such a genetic predisposition could even be selected for in kin groups.

[Dookus]

26. it's a false dichotomy...

It doesn't have to EITHER a choice OR genetic.

It could also be caused by pre-natal exposure to certain hormones. In other words, inborn, but not genetic.

I'm not saying I believe that's the case. Just saying it's a possibility.

[Nevernose]

28. The research gets pretty interesting here

Most of the studies I've seen suggest, at best, a 50/50 nature/nurture ratio.

On the genetic side of the argument, there are anomolies (they were unable to reproduce the results indicating a genetic link in other Western nations, e.g.).

The nature side of the argument has some good proofs, too. For instance, one study I read (not a Fred Phelps one, either), found that homosexuals were SEVEN times as likely to have been molested as children, suggesting an environmental causation, rather than a genetic link.

On an anecdotal level, I've had numerous gay friends and one (maybe two, if you county the one in denial :-) ) gay family members; they assure me in private that they believe that SOME gays are born gay, but for most it was a conscious choice at some point in their lives (and a thousand different reasons for that choice). But like I said, this is purely anecdotal.

One of my gay friends once answered the question "Are gays born gay or choose to be gay?" this way: "There are as many different reasons to be gay as there are gay people; every gay person is unique."

Answer the argument this way: DOES IT MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS HEREDITARY OR CHOSEN? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, AND WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS?

[cprise]

37. My take on nuture

... is that it mainly causes gay people to act straight (stay in the closet).

Also, bisexuality of varying degrees is often expressed or understood by the individual as homosexuality: stigmatization and self-loathing can cause bi's to focus on the homo attraction. When such a one 'converts to ex-gay' they are converting their indentity from gay to straight, but really repressing one side of their sexuality.

(I am 100% gay myself.)

[BlackVelvetElvis]

53. Choice?

On an anecdotal level, I've had numerous gay friends and one (maybe two, if you county the one in denial ) gay family members; they assure me in private that they believe that SOME gays are born gay, but for most it was a conscious choice at some point in their lives (and a thousand different reasons for that choice). But like I said, this is purely anecdotal.


A conscious choice OR a conscious choice to ACT ON feelings that already exist? Those are two very different things. I chose to ACT ON feelings that had began when I was a preschooler. I remember this clearly as a feeling that came naturally - I had no bad parenting, no traumatic experiences in my life; nothing but love from my family.
All of my friends that are gay share the exact same story: they eventually came to a concrete realization (after puberty) that this is the way they feel and they deserve to be happy in life. Some gays have such guilt laid upon them by family/society that they CHOOSE not to act upon their feelings well after puberty. They didn't suddenly make a drastic choice. Sexuality in our culture is so complicated; much more than the average child and teenager can handle. Only when they gain maturity and self confidence can they tackle the ramifications that being gay means.

[Occulus]

74. Because

if it's chosen the fundies can alienate us.

If it's not chosen, ALL bad treatment of homosexuals by Xtians is a sin in itself, and they can't handle that idea.

[karlschneider]

30. I don't think we yet know if it really is genetic, but it CAN be...

Recessive genes are common. There are many traits that skip generations. You might point out that every homosexual person is a product of HETEROsexual activity (absent the rare in-vitro/surrogate
scenario). I know at least two former high school classmates who married and had children and only many years later were able to admit they are actually gay...and just a couple weeks ago, my sister's husband of 26 years did the same thing (they have 2 grown children.)

Of these 3 examples, none of the children have shown signs of being gay that I can detect.

An interesting thing to do is ask someone such as the one you appear to be in discussion with is "how and when did you decide to be .....sexual?"

I have asked this of a fairly large number of people of various "orientations" and have yet to get anything resembling a truthful and rational answer unless it's "I didn't choose it."

[mlawson]

36. Why would anyone choose it?

Unless some sort of innate predisposition was there, why would anyone choose to be homosexual, and not heterosexual? I happen to be homosexual, but I certainly would not have 'chosen' it, especially considering that I hit puberty in the mid 60s, when it wasn't even cool to be gay. That 'choice' rationale should have been laughed out of public discourse years and years ago; it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever!!

[karlschneider]

39. That's exactly my point!

:D

[incapsulated]

32. Homosexuality is part of the natural world

It has been part of humanity for all of recorded history.

It has been observed in many animal species as well.

It is not going away. So can't we just accept it and get on with our lives?! (I know, stupid rhetorical question).

[usregimechange]

35. I have just written a response with DU's assistance

Homosexuality can have genetic factors even if homosexuals can not reproduce. Siblings of homosexuals, who are mostly heterosexual (although much more likly to be gay if they are twins), can reproduce. The answer is that all of us nasty heterosexuals are passing on their genetic predisposition. Now who is the sinner?

[TomNickell]

45. The other part you need....

Not everything -congenital- (determined at birth) is hereditary. Many traits are just random. They are determined by accidental events during development.

Animals cloned from the same 'parent' are surprisingly different from one another.

[Swede]

41. No one knows what lies in another person's heart

I only know what is in mine. I know that I am attracted to the opposite sex. I know that I have no interest in other men. I know I did not make this choice. It just is. The homophobes of this world say it is a choice,this tells me that they are attracted to other men. This fills them with self-hate which they turn on openly gay people.

[Fridays Child]

43. Flawed premise. Homosexuals can and do reproduce. Furthermore...

Sexuality occurs along a continuum from obligative heterosexuality to obligative homosexuality, with an infinite possible number of points in between. And the biological and environmental influences that determine the cognitive, emotive, and behavioral manifestations of any given individual's sexuality are as unique as his or her fingerprints.

People are pathologically concerned about sex. I think it's that Judeo-Christian mortification of the flesh dogma at work. In my view, as long as sex isn't used to exercise an unfair power differential (as is always the case in sex with children) and it's enjoyed by explicit mutual consent, then God is in Her heaven and all is right with the world.

[ramblin_dave]

44. One possibility: Homosexuality benefits the human species

or perhaps homosexuality is a byproduct when the brain is organized for other traits that benefit the human species as a whole.

Humans are a complex species that needs more than just the basic animal needs. Art, science, entertainment, creativity are examples. It is possible that if a certain small percentage of the population is more dedicated to these needs then the human species as a whole benefits, i.e. becomes more likely to adapt and survive.

[Fridays Child]

47. Yes, it does. Homosexuality is a variation of normal sexuality, and...

...the same is true of heterosexuality. And homosexuality can be seen as an adaptive behavior in a variety of scenarios. Check out Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, a wonderful book that explores the many variations of non-heterosexuality that occur throughout nature.

[DemLikr]

67. I've been reading more about this theory lately. Makes sense.

Seems obvious to me that a higher percentage of gay people than in the general population are gifted creatively.

[Occulus]

75. Suppose

homosexuality is an inherent mechanism of humanity, by which we limit our own population to an extent.

OR-

What if every single gay man or woman ever born did, in fact, reproduce?

How many more people would there be on Earth?

[kayell]

46. Some resources

The Natural "Crime Against Nature"
A Brief Survey of Homosexual Behaviors In Animals
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D. link to this book at the article above

Are There Advantages to Being Homosexual?
(Evolutionary advantages)
http://www.times10.org/lorne_1.htm

[Fridays Child]

48. Hi, kayell. What's that saying about...

...great minds? :)

[ursacorwin]

50. all together now!

homosexuality DOES NOT equal reproduction, nor vice versa.

to have a sexual practice is NOT the same as to have a reproductive practice.

to be gay is not to be a biological construct, it is to have a social practice rooted in many, multiple, and various motivations.

queer is a contiuum.

breath, relax, repeat.

[La_Serpiente]

51. ES LA MIERDA DE TORO

I'm Bisexual and I don't buy into that crap. There is a "slight" chance that the whole thing is biological, but I strongly feel it is determined by the surrounding environments.

I like to call myself a product of society....and i'm sure proud of it.

[ComerPerro]

52. I would say just don't bother

Becuase, who the hell cares if it is genetic or a choice? If someone is gay, why do we need to "assign blame". Is it thier choice? Maybe. Is it genetics? Maybe. Are they doing what feels right? Yes. That is all that matters.

BTW, usually wingnuts say that homosexuality is a choice for many reasons: It dehumanizes homosexuals (they chose to be gay, they therefore chose to be ridiculed), it shows them as evil (homosexuality is a sin, so they are choosing to sin, therefore homosexuals are evil), and it helps protray the rights fascination with "Since homosexuals can't reproduce, they recruit the young, your children".

Personally, I don't care if someone is gay by choice or genetics. Hell, at least they had the courage to do what they believed in.

You might mention, with all the phobia and persecution, who the hell would just one day decide that they wanted to be gay?

[Northwind]

54. You seem to be operating under a false impression

Namely, that genetic expression is an either/or binary system.

One does not carry only set of genetic markers for the traits actually expressed in oneself. You might have brown eyes, but if your great-great-great grandmother had blue eyes, you have the genes for blue eyes in your chromosomes.

The traits you physically express are not the only traits you carry or pass on.

Furthermore, the genetic marker for sexual orientation does not have to be one which is expressed in simple Mendellian terms. Sexual orientation is most likely a percentile function hard-coded into the chromosome, and expressed sometime around puberty, or maybe even in the womb, I myself remember being fascinated by girls long before my balls dropped, as it were. In other words, The genetic code for orientation would be a sort of roll of the dice, with approximately 10% of the population expressing the markers for homosexual preference. Every individual would carry the markers for homosexual orientation, and pass it on to their descendants, who would in turn have to take their own "throw of the dice" for their orientation, regardless of the sexual preference of their parent.

More succinctly put, a homosexual population of roughly 10% is hard-coded into the baseline for human genes at large, much as "two legs, two eyes, one nose, etc" is coded into the human gene at large.

[quaker bill]

55. Only to the uninformed

It takes a "selfish gene theory" jerk to come up with logic like this.

Behavior is not either genetic or by choice as a black and white dichotomy.

If behavior is entirely genetic, explain this.

When fully genetic whooping crane chicks are raised by sandhill crane foster parents (this was actually done to establish a new flock in Fla) they turn out strange.

It seems that the whooping cranes grow up normally physically, but when it comes time to mate, they don't know how to get it done.

You see they end up doing this hybrid whooping crane / sandhill crane mating dance. Interestingly niether species finds this attractive, in fact even the male and female foster kids don't find each other attractive. The foster kids are rendered effectively sterile.

If behavior was totally genetic the fully genetic whooping cranes would do the normal whooping crane dance. If behavior was totally learned, the foster kids would do the normal sandhill crane mating dance. If mating was totally by choice it would not matter and the attractive fosters would still get some..

First, nature and nuture are not seperable. Thus justification of behavior on genetic basis alone is a red herring argument that has no relevance to reality.

Second, all acts of living things are based in biochemical processes. Clearly, these processes are genetically moderated. Any argument that leaves out nature as a component has no relevance to reality.

Third, any nature / nuture argument is based on a false dichotomy and does not stand the test of logic.

Finally, such arguments, aside from being pure sophistry of the most banal sort, fail on their face to touch on the human condition which is the only reasonable basis for such discussions.

While being heterosexual and quite happy there, I have observed homosexual relationships that have depth and enduring meaning that exceeds many heterosexual relationships I have encountered, to include my first marriage.

It is simply not my place to sit in judgement.

[Northwind]

57. A nitpick

Homosexual preference is not "behavior."

[quaker bill]

58. Apology

Please excuse the scientific terminology. I agree with your point.

[Mairead]

59. My advice? Don't hang around people who are that stupid!

Stupidity of that magnitude might actually be contagious.

I was going to list out the first twenty or so refutations that came to mind, but I can't be bothered. To ever make such an asinine claim, the person you're talking to must have really worked at staying uninformed. Even thirty years ago, someone could be excused for that level of ignorance, but not today. Today there are single-celled organisms in stagnant ponds that are better informed than that.

Run away while you still can!

[Andy_Stephenson]

62. Have you ever read about Bonobos

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

[scottxyz]

64. Easy

(1) Individuals who are STERILE cannot reproduce. "Homosexuals" (sic) can, and often do, reproduce.

(2) "Homosexuality" is spread throughout the animal kingdom, although "Western" science has been slow to acknowledge this. Check out the giant scholarly zoology book "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD on Amazon.

[janekat]

70. It has to do with the testosterone level and less to do with genetics

http://www.gaynet.com.au/news/archive/STORY-51.HTM

McFadden, from the University of Texas in Austin, is among a growing
band of scientists which believes that hormone levels in the womb, rather than genetic or social factors, determine whether some people become gay or lesbian. Directly measuring the amounts of male and female hormones children are exposed to before birth is not an easy task. Perhaps people's inner ears could provide an indirect gauge, McFadden reasoned a few years ago.

(snip)

A strong genetic basis for homosexuality has never made sense to one
group of scientists ­ those who study evolution. Any genes that are responsible for making people gay or lesbian should have disappeared long ago because homosexual people have fewer children,they argue.

This problem of explaining the evolution of gayness was compounded
last year with the publication of a treatise on homosexuality in the
animal kingdom by an independent American scholar, Bruce Bagemihl.
His book, 'Biological Exuberance, Animal Homosexuality and Natural
Diversity' (St Martin's Press), details a wide range of same-sex activities and couplings by birds, monkeys, walruses, lions, giraffes, ostriches, whales, dolphins, hedgehogs and hundreds of other creatures. Bagemihl's overriding message is that homosexual behaviour is as natural as heterosexual behaviour, and scientists who study animals have been remiss in not fully reporting on the sexual repertoire of their subjects.

Scientists have thought up lots of possible explanations as to how gay genes may have survived and become so widespread. Perhaps they confer some other evolutionary advantage. Women who inherit them might have a higher birth rate. Or heterosexual men with a gay gene or two may have a heightened interest in sex and father more children.

Perhaps, in past millenniums, homosexual men did have lots of children. All this is speculative. And the newly published Australian twin study suggests that if there is any genetic influence on gayness, then it is weak and operates through complex pathways, says Dunne.

Certainly homosexuality runs in families. Plenty of studies have shown that both gay and lesbian people have more than expected gay siblings.

The only way to tease out the influence of genes versus family or
other social factors is to compare identical and non-identical twins, as in the Australian study carried out several years ago, but published last month in the 'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology', by Dunne, Professor Nick Martin, of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, and a leading American in the field, Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, Illinois.

During the 1990s, Bailey consistently found that identical twins were
much more likely to both be gay than non-identical twins, which indicatesa strong genetic basis for homosexuality. But the twins for these studies were recruited through advertisements in gay publications or by word of mouth, which appears to have introduced a bias.

[Snow]

71. We had some of this discussion on our

Friends' Meeting (quaker church) well over 10 years ago - the Meeting had a large number of gay/lesbians, some of whom were looking into marriage within the Society of Friends (quaker trivia: first same sex marriage in quakerdom was in 1981 in the Seattle University Friends' Meeting, & i was there! Margaret Sorrel & Dorsey Greene). Anyway, this whole bit about biologic determination vs choice was a big deal back then, and the reasoning was, that if it was biologically determined then for the conservative churches it could no longer be considered a sin! Well, the response of the g/l Friends in our Meeting could be summed up as "Big Whoop!" The idea that being homosexual was offensive but since it was hard-wired by biology it was no longer sinful was to all of them highly offensive. It said "your behavior is still bad, but since you can't help it you won't go to hell for it." And this guy whom you're quoting in your original post seems to want to go back to being allowed to call it sinful. Well, being a Quaker, I don't give a flying rat's fart what this bird thinks, but he's in no way coming at this with any kind of science - he's just trying to prop up what he thinks of as religion.

[ConsAreLiars]

72. Such a simple-minded understanding of genetics.

The statement you cite consists of a mind-numbingly absurd prekindergarten caricatures of every concept that requires words of more than one single syllable. To wit:

"Homosexuals" are not a separate species, they are just individuals who are grouped together as a socially defined "group." The normal range of human sexual orientations is quite broad and somewhat malleable. If you were to map out these predelictions according to any complex sets of parameters you would find folks with radically distinct types of turn-ons all being given one single group name for no reason other than bias. Even restricting the analysis to a single axis the baseline dimension is better represented as a circle than a straight line with "opposite" ends.

"Can not reproduce" - Of course cross-sexual mating is possible. It is socially and hormonally encouraged, even mandatory in many cultures. Such matings may not be true love and long-term pair-bonding may be difficult, but without contraception reproduction is likely, regardless of preferences. And underlying this is the totally stupid assumption that genetic factors involved in sexual orientation are exclusively carried by those who manifest such orientations. This level of ignorance or deliberate deception should be laughed at by anyone who has ever even heard of genetics.

"Genetic information" - What "genetic information?" Variations in brain structure, or the timing and conditions of changes in hormonal output, variations in whatever biochemistry fosters same sex peer-bonding (something essential to human survival)? Whatever underlies a certain type of courage? Or what?

"Specific to homosexuality" - Assuming that there is some single gene or cluster of genes that is responsible for sexual orientation is just silly. You can get similar physiotypes from a variety of conditions in which different DNA has different effects on different conditions (even in unrelated species) leading nonetheless to a similar trait or characteristic in the end. There is no reason to think all variations in sexual orientation have only one single specific genetic componant.

"Therefore" - As usual they mean "And." Substituting big words aways leads these simpletons into big trouble.

Or maybe:
Therefore "gay genes" promote group survival.
Therefore "gay genes" come from non-gay parents.
Therefore "gay genes" are hereditary.
Therefore the idea of "gay genes" used here is false.
Therefore sexual orientation is unrelated to genetics and heterosexuality is purely choice.

Actually only one: "Therefore, (since sexual orientations in all human (and primate, etc.) societies include a continuum of gay, straight and bi variants) these assumptions and/or this reasoning must be wrong."

And of course, inevitably, there is "purely." That either-or mentality that poses two bogus hypersimplifications and assumes that reality must be "purely" and completely described by one word or another. Developing constructs that adequately correspond to reality is the task of science. Believing that reality must exist in boxes labeled with a few hundred or thousand common nouns is a short step from insanity. In everyday use, such a practice is ignorant, but we're all ignorant about some things. But when elevated to the level of ideology and promoted as "logic," this becomes demagogery of the worst sort.

[Gringo]

73. Why homosexuals would want it to be anything BUT a choice is beyond me.

Unless you are trying to suck up to Xtians with some "God made me like this" crap. Why the hell do you care what Xtians say? It's your body. There is no such thing as sin if it's consensual between 2 people.

It is a choice - and a perfectly good and valid one. It may be a bit more difficult a choice in a homophobic society, but it isn't "worse" than being straight.

Also, when we try to establish that it is genetic, we open the risk of eventually having a society where children are tested for the marker and ; aborted as fetuses, pushed to be gay because of their genetic markers, even though they may not have the desire to do so, putting anyone who tests positive for the "gay gene" in camps or something.

I prefer treating it as a choice, and a good one. Saying that it's not a choice makes it sound like a disease, or something bad.

[Cocoa]

76. pseudoscience

don't bother. This person wants an excuse to judge homosexuals.

If you want to change that, a scientific argument won't do it. You'll have to work on getting him to let go of that need to judge.

[Clark Can WIN]

77. It's a total bunk argument

Almost half of the gay people I know have biological children, conceived the old fashioned way.

Next?

[Clark Can WIN]

78. And here's an even batter one

Under this theory there would BE NO GENETIC DISEASES THAT KILL YOUNG CHILDREN.

Think about it. It would be impossible.

[MrPrax]

80. More Flame tonight

good to see the rules are in place to protect us from multiple threads and candidate bashing...
Yeah sure...choice like abortion

Did I win for figuring out the BUZZword or is this addle minded freeper poll

[diamondsoul]

81. No, because sexuality is not either/or

in all living things. Not all Straight people are completely straight and not all homosexual people are completely homosexual. Sexuality is not black or white, it's more like a spectrum. You'll naturally have people on one end or the other, but there are always those who fall at varying degress in the middle, too.

I'm a straight woman with a slight inclination to be attracted to the occasional woman. That doesn't make me any less a straight woman, nor does it necessarily make me "bisexual", I just happen to fall slightly toward the center from the straight person who never becomes attracted to someone of the same gender. I firmly believe sexual orientation IS entirely genetic, the only variance is where you fall within the spectrum.

Also the thing you have to keep in mind about genetic traits designed to ensure the survival of the species- human beings have surpassed the need to fully take advantage of our reproductive capability. It may well be that homosexuality is nature's method of slowing down human reproduction so that we don't destroy the species by overpopulating the planet. IOW, it's equally likely that homosexuality naturally developed as a genetic trait specifically to PREVENT excessive human population.