Thread: The myth of the gay gene.

Nature or nurture

Norms of reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record I take no position on either, but find the debate fascinating...

Originally Posted by Porras

My basis in this has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather my own experience with gynecomatia. This is a biological (and even sexual though not in the same sense) condition that has no genetic cause. A couple signals got crossed during puberty, my body produced more estrogen than it should have, and it resulted in me having a small amount of breast tissue.

All human males possess mammary glands and the ability to lactate with sufficient hormones.

If this can happen, why can't the hormones, or brain chemistry, or whatever that control sexual attraction get a little mixed up and cause homosexuality?

It's just as disingenuous to say conclusively that there isn't a gay gene as it is to say there is. Just because the human genome is mapped, it does not mean we know what all genes do.

I know my sexual orientation was ingrained from a very young age. It was not taught to me or influenced by any environment that was particularly different than my gay peers.

The only evidence pointing to genetic expression is in the concordance of homosexuality in identical twins, which is much higher than in fraternal twins. That can only mean that homosexuality is potentially genetic, but the norms of reaction are different as Bubble Gun has already said.

It's worth mentioning that many people carry genes for susceptibility to cancer but will never have it

Originally Posted by LetFreedomRing

It's just as disingenuous to say conclusively that there isn't a gay gene as it is to say there is. Just because the human genome is mapped, it does not mean we know what all genes do.

Oh, I agree. My argument is with those people who say that if it's genetic, the trait would automatically make itself obsolete due to lack of reproduction. I'm pointing out that while I believe it is a biological trait rather than a choice, it's not as simple as a genetic on/off switch.

Originally Posted by Porras

it's not as simple as a genetic on/off switch.

Maybe the clue can be found in what makes one sexually attracted to another. I don't think anyone is sexually attracted to 100% of the opposite sex.

I have never thought of being sexually attracted to the same sex, but I have seen transsexuals that are good looking enough that have pulled it off, that I could be sexually attracted to.

I saw a talk show that had transsexuals that did a good enough job that the audience members found them sexually attractive if they were only the gender they were trying to represented. But, there were others that just the thought of them being transsexuals was a turn off.

Either one digs a man's dangle or vomits at the sight of it. I know both men and women who do both. Whether its a choice or not, meh. Who cares.
If you like it, good. If not, good. I am n ot going to hit you oin the head with a club because I disagree with your sexual preference. Genetics? I personally doubt it. I think much comes from our environment and personal tastes of what we find colorful or attractive.

Originally Posted by Doc Marten

Either one digs a man's dangle or vomits at the sight of it. I know both men and women who do both. Whether its a choice or not, meh. Who cares.
If you like it, good. If not, good. I am n ot going to hit you oin the head with a club because I disagree with your sexual preference. Genetics? I personally doubt it. I think much comes from our environment and personal tastes of what we find colorful or attractive.

Emphasis mine.

But these personal tastes probably stems from genes, hormones, something biological, right?

I don´t think it´s a choice or an environmental thing at all. No one here woke up one day and decided whether to like girls or guys and no matter what environment you find yourself in, you´re not gonna turn gay if it isn´t your thing, just to be "colorful" as you put it.

Originally Posted by Porras

Oh, I agree. My argument is with those people who say that if it's genetic, the trait would automatically make itself obsolete due to lack of reproduction. I'm pointing out that while I believe it is a biological trait rather than a choice, it's not as simple as a genetic on/off switch.

It could still be recessive. And being gay probably doesn't make one immune to the weird compulsion to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Maddox

Emphasis mine.

But these personal tastes probably stems from genes, hormones, something biological, right?

Could be. Could not be. It could be something we observe as babies while under stimulation, hence why I used the word 'colorful'. No one knows. I doubt there is a gene though only for the sake of principle being that I believe life consists of multiple choices we directly make and choices we have based on our ideals we inherit through empirical means, tabula rasa, etc.

Originally Posted by Maddox

I don´t think it´s a choice or an environmental thing at all. No one here woke up one day and decided whether to like girls or guys and no matter what environment you find yourself in, you´re not gonna turn gay if it isn´t your thing, just to be "colorful" as you put it.

Emphasis mine.

Thats just it. Its a choice you have to believe it is regardless of what insubstantial evidence points. There is an opinion you have which gives you optimism that such a gene may exist to explain the phenomena of homosexuality/lesbian tendency. its the same thing that I believe it is not a genetic trait. We made the choice ourselves based on limited evidence which is inconclusive and chose our own direction on the matter based on our own evaluation which has been biased through our environment and experiences.

Good post by the way. At least we are not barking about morality as I have often found many other places. Your posting is one of the reasons I like it here. Thanks.

In some countries - Afghanistan for example - the men say "women are for babies, boys are for pleasure".
Thats not genetics or biology. Thats culture. Whatever is considered normal thats what people will do.

I think homosexual activity has more than one cause.

Originally Posted by Brexx

In some countries - Afghanistan for example - the men say "women are for babies, boys are for pleasure".
Thats not genetics or biology. Thats culture. Whatever is considered normal thats what people will do.

I think homosexual activity has more than one cause.

I don´t think we have more or less gay people in the Western world, than say in the Middle East. Culture does indeed play a role in how open people are about it, but out of the closet or not... a person is still just as much gay or not.

The first problem I see here is that people are assuming that sexuality is some sort of polar existance - you're either straight or gay. Sexuality seems to be more of a spectrum than anything. As such, it's unlikely that there is a single gene for homosexuality, but instead is the result of the interaction of any number of genes with local environment

Originally Posted by Maddox

I don´t think we have more or less gay people in the Western world, than say in the Middle East. Culture does indeed play a role in how open people are about it, but out of the closet or not... a person is still just as much gay or not.

The men I am referring to would not consider themselves to be "gay".
They like women. They marry and have families.
But pederasty is common in their culture so they do it.