tsquare said something in this thread and I just thought I'd bring it up.

I'd like to argue that the possibility (which I believe is the case) of homosexuality being biological does not require a gay gene.

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.

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?

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Norms of reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress." - Napoleon Bonaparte.

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

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

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

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.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

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.

__________________

"In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around." -John Kenneth Galbraith
"He is not wise to me who is wise in words only, but he who is wise in deeds." - St. Gregory of Nyssa

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.

__________________
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush

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

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.

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 capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around." -John Kenneth Galbraith
"He is not wise to me who is wise in words only, but he who is wise in deeds." - St. Gregory of Nyssa

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.

__________________
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush

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

__________________


Noli arrogantium iniurias pati

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.

Doc Marten:


I think there has been a hapless error made in the decision that there are only two genders, female and male. In a chart going from 1 to 10,..1 being female and 10 being male, there is a plethora of different states of gender.

At the moment of fertilization, the chromosomes leave their unique fingerprint in the cells making up the nucleus of the embryo. I believe it is probable that genders 1 thru 10 are formed ...(with everything in between, ie: 2 thru 9) exactly at the precise moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm.

Society has unfortunately spent it's attention on female gender and male gender with no regard to both stark and subtle differences in gender between these two. Gender is much, much more than having a vagina or a package. That is merely the basic physical premise a doctor looks for when he/she says: "Congratulations, you have a baby girl...or boy!" The doctor should take a test of every infant to ensure his correctness....it would save alot of schit coming down in the course of the infant's life.