question about homosexuality

[gcbvol]

I'll let you Google it. The Xq28 gene on the X chromosome (which means it is sex-linked) comes to mind.

I guess I should post a disclaimer:

There isn't a single, smoking gun, "gay" gene. But that is to be expected. There are very few things that have a single gene. Most phenotypes are very complex involving anywhere from a few different genes to possibly thousands of genes.

In short, scientists have shown that it is genetically based. They have found a few genes that are statistically linked to being homosexual through twins (both fraternal and identical) who were separated at birth.

I am by no means an expert on this topic, but from the research I have done this is in line with my understanding. Research shows that homosexuality is likely a combination of genetics and other random environmental factors, including fetal hormonal exposure. Not a simple single 'gay gene' answer.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I am by no means an expert on this topic, but from the research I have done this is in line with my understanding. Research shows that homosexuality is likely a combination of genetics and other random environmental factors, including fetal hormonal exposure. Not a simple single 'gay gene' answer.

It's hard to fathom that if there were such a gene, that less than .5% of the households in the US alone are same-sex households. If it were genetics, one could probably safely assume that that number would be a lot higher honestly.

 

[gcbvol]

So, are you trying to insinuate possible double agents here?? Also, why would a gay activist, who is gay, want to even suggest there is not such a thing as a gay gene?? Your not making any sense here.

A little off-topic, but related. Some in the gay community are concerned about putting everything in the 'scientifically born this way' bucket. Who knows when or if this will be conclusively proved. The feel it doesn't really matter why someone is gay...they still should have equal rights, treatment, etc.

I can't say exactly why I am gay, but I know I did not make a choice. In fact I tried very hard to be attracted to women - I just never have been. Not even close.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

A little off-topic, but related. Some in the gay community are concerned about putting everything in the 'scientifically born this way' bucket. Who knows when or if this will be conclusively proved. The feel it doesn't really matter why someone is gay...they still should have equal rights, treatment, etc.

I can't say exactly why I am gay, but I know I did not make a choice. In fact I tried very hard to be attracted to women - I just never have been. Not even close.

Technically, you did. Just sayin'.

 

[gcbvol]

It's hard to fathom that if there were such a gene, that less than .5% of the households in the US alone are same-sex households. If it were genetics, one could probably safely assume that that number would be a lot higher honestly.

See, I disagree a bit here. I don't think anyone will dispute that homosexuality is deviant to biological reproductive order. As such, I would expect the occurrence to be quite low. Why does it exist? I have no idea - perhaps some sort of natural means of population control? I don't have the answer, but if it is a combination of genetics and other environmental factors that may help explain the small percentage of population - the 'mix' has to be just right.

And for the record I don't trust a lot of those population studies, regardless of who runs them. I think the number, as typical, falls somewhere in the middle of the high and low studies. I also think there are folks who are not honest or simply have not accepted who they are - I would have been in that group several years ago.

 

[gcbvol]

Technically, you did. Just sayin'.

I should clarify - I made a choice to enter into a homosexual relationship; I did not choose the sex I have always been attracted to. I promise you that attraction to a woman is just as foreign to me as attraction to a man is to you. I tried mightily to develop attraction to women, but it has never been there. Ever.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Genetics may have some to do with it, but as you have said in a previous post, it's not the only thing. There are too many factors to account for to just link it to genetics, and too many people crossing the lines back and forth to not say it isn't a choice either. I've read several studies over time, and people who are "truly" homosexual, and have never been with the other sex, is a very low number, and is lower than most think in the US.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am by no means an expert on this topic, but from the research I have done this is in line with my understanding. Research shows that homosexuality is likely a combination of genetics and other random environmental factors, including fetal hormonal exposure. Not a simple single 'gay gene' answer.

All the studies that I have read involved tracking down pairs of twins (both fraternal and identical) years after they had been split up for adoption. This was to help eliminate the environment in which the children were raised (identical twins). It also was suppose to somewhat streamline the fetal environment of the fetus (fraternal twins). Through both cases they found irrefutable statistical data which showed that homosexuality is genetically based.

Now, that does not mean that fetal environments (like you opined) or raising a child in a certain environment doesn't have an impact. They almost certainly do. You can read through some posts and see a wide range of reactions to homosexuality. I believe a lot of that is the environment in which they are raised. I think it is most helpful to think of it as a sliding scale. Much the same way that Huntington's disease works. There are extremes at both ends and a wide range in the middle. I believe that would explain all the different variations of homosexuality. So in a sense, you can be "more" or "less" of a homosexual, if that makes sense. Just complete speculation on my side, I think the relative "extreme" heterosexuality could do with people who are naturally more promiscuous.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I should clarify - I made a choice to enter into a homosexual relationship; I did not choose the sex I have always been attracted to. I promise you that attraction to a woman is just as foreign to me as attraction to a man is to you. I tried mightily to develop attraction to women, but it has never been there. Ever.

Just asking a question....

Do you think you were trying to attract or be attracted to the wrong type of women?? There are a lot of men who have become homosexual, only to meet a woman later and go back. Same thing with women as well.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, are you trying to insinuate possible double agents here?? Also, why would a gay activist, who is gay, want to even suggest there is not such a thing as a gay gene?? Your not making any sense here.

Haha. Where did you get that? My point was that most funding in genetics originates at the federal level. The funding for this project declined in the early 2000's. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. Same with stem cell research.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It's hard to fathom that if there were such a gene, that less than .5% of the households in the US alone are same-sex households. If it were genetics, one could probably safely assume that that number would be a lot higher honestly.

The "gay" genetics could be normally lethal. Those that survive could be abnormal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Haha. Where did you get that? My point was that most funding in genetics originates at the federal level. The funding for this project declined in the early 2000's. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. Same with stem cell research.

Here's something from the human genome mapping project you might find interesting....

The human X and Y chromosomes (the two “sex” chromosomes) have been completely sequenced. Thanks to work carried out by labs all across the globe, we know that the X chromosome contains 153 million base pairs, and harbors a total of 1168 genes (see NCBI, 2004). The National Center for Biotechnology Information reports that the Y chromosome—which is much smaller—contains “only” 50 million base pairs, and is estimated to contain a mere 251 genes. Educational institutions such as Baylor University, the Max Planck Institute, the Sanger Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, and others have spent countless hours and millions of research dollars analyzing these unique chromosomes. As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project. And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”

Here's a link to the full article....

Science vs. the "Gay Gene"

Doctors wrote this article, and since they are smarter than me, if you want to argue with it, give them a call, not me.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

The "gay" genetics could be normally lethal. Those that survive could be abnormal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

:crazy:

What???

 

[gcbvol]

All the studies that I have read involved tracking down pairs of twins (both fraternal and identical) years after they had been split up for adoption. This was to help eliminate the environment in which the children were raised (identical twins). It also was suppose to somewhat streamline the fetal environment of the fetus (fraternal twins). Through both cases they found irrefutable statistical data which showed that homosexuality is genetically based.

Now, that does not mean that fetal environments (like you opined) or raising a child in a certain environment doesn't have an impact. They almost certainly do. You can read through some posts and see a wide range of reactions to homosexuality. I believe a lot of that is the environment in which they are raised. I think it is most helpful to think of it as a sliding scale. Much the same way that Huntington's disease works. There are extremes at both ends and a wide range in the middle. I believe that would explain all the different variations of homosexuality. So in a sense, you can be "more" or "less" of a homosexual, if that makes sense. Just complete speculation on my side, I think the relative "extreme" heterosexuality could do with people who are naturally more promiscuous.

Thanks for this, and I agree with you. I also want to clarify what I meant by 'environmental' factors. I do not think in any way that the environment in which one grew up (outside the womb) has significant impact on homosexuality. I was speaking strictly in terms of fetal environment. The whole domineering mother stuff and the like was rightly tossed out years ago.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Here's something from the human genome mapping project you might find interesting....



Here's a link to the full article....

Science vs. the "Gay Gene"

Doctors wrote this article, and since they are smarter than me, if you want to argue with it, give them a call, not me.

I addressed it before. There isn't a single gene. There are genes that are statistically linked to homosexuality and one was on the X chromosome.

 

[PKT_VOL]

:crazy:

What???

Homosexuality could be naturally lethal. We don't know.

 

[gcbvol]

Just asking a question....

Do you think you were trying to attract or be attracted to the wrong type of women?? There are a lot of men who have become homosexual, only to meet a woman later and go back. Same thing with women as well.

All I can tell you is that there is no sexual spark whatsoever. And not to be crude, but I find v's a bit repulsive.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Thanks for this, and I agree with you. I also want to clarify what I meant by 'environmental' factors. I do not think in any way that the environment in which one grew up (outside the womb) has significant impact on homosexuality. I was speaking strictly in terms of fetal environment. The whole domineering mother stuff and the like was rightly tossed out years ago.

Your welcome.

I think the fetal environment could effect the expression of genes which is a concern. The environment in which the child is raised has a large impact on how one deals with their natural desires both heterosexually and homosexually. Deals being the key word in the later sentence. I have a couple homosexual friends. The way they deal with their homosexuality in society is greatly impacted by the environment in which they grew up. I believe those that mentioned homosexuals that originally married straight would reflect this.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Homosexuality could be naturally lethal. We don't know.

So, it seems like this conversation has come back to, genetics of not, choice or not, possibly a little of both or not. Am I wrong??

This conversation will likely never be "won", one way or another. People's faith and teachings tell them that it's wrong, and I'm in that camp, and it tells me that most everything in life is a choice. Therefore, I fall in the choice camp, but do understand that hormonal levels and environment factor in to the choice or possible mind predisposition of what sex someone could be attracted to.

Also, if there were a "gay" gene, could they not develop gene therapy to help someone be heterosexual, if they were truly born like that?? Seems to me though, most gays or bi's, wouldn't trade their lifestyle, for what is normal sexual behavior in the biological world, especially if it effected their direct happiness.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

All I can tell you is that there is no sexual spark whatsoever. And not to be crude, but I find v's a bit repulsive.

:lol:

I couldn't help but chuckle at that, no offense.

 

[gcbvol]

Your welcome.

I think the fetal environment could effect the expression of genes which is a concern. The environment in which the child is raised has a large impact on how one deals with their natural desires both heterosexually and homosexually. Deals being the key word in the later sentence. I have a couple homosexual friends. The way they deal with their homosexuality in society is greatly impacted by the environment in which they grew up. I believe those that mentioned homosexuals that originally married straight would reflect this.

A good point about dealing. I was very close to making the decision to date and marry as a last resort to 'defeat' the homosexuality - fully knowing there was no sexual attraction and simply praying that it would develop. Ultimately I decided that I could not do that to a woman. How cruel and unfair to her would that be? I do understand why others do it...I just could not bring myself to do it, and I'm glad I didn't.

 

[gcbvol]

:lol:

I couldn't help but chuckle at that, no offense.

None taken...just glad it didn't offend you in any way.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

None taken...just glad it didn't offend you in any way.

It didn't at all. :hi:

 

[gcbvol]

So, it seems like this conversation has come back to, genetics of not, choice or not, possibly a little of both or not. Am I wrong??

This conversation will likely never be "won", one way or another. People's faith and teachings tell them that it's wrong, and I'm in that camp, and it tells me that most everything in life is a choice. Therefore, I fall in the choice camp, but do understand that hormonal levels and environment factor in to the choice or possible mind predisposition of what sex someone could be attracted to.

Also, if there were a "gay" gene, could they not develop gene therapy to help someone be heterosexual, if they were truly born like that?? Seems to me though, most gays or bi's, wouldn't trade their lifestyle, for what is normal sexual behavior in the biological world, especially if it effected their direct happiness.

Interesting point here. At this time, no. I have spent too much time working to accept who I am, and have a partner of 19 years who I love very much. Several years ago when I was still fighting it would have likely been a different story.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, it seems like this conversation has come back to, genetics of not, choice or not, possibly a little of both or not. Am I wrong??

I think so; at least from my posts. I believe I have argued fairly clearly that sexuality is determined by genetics. How one deals with it, however, is choice.

This conversation will likely never be "won", one way or another.

I believe you are mistaken. It will be determined one way or the other. I believe the "why?" has been answered and the more we research genetics the answer to "how?" will be illuminated as well.

People's faith and teachings tell them that it's wrong, and I'm in that camp, and it tells me that most everything in life is a choice. Therefore, I fall in the choice camp, but do understand that hormonal levels and environment factor in to the choice or possible mind predisposition of what sex someone could be attracted to.

On a moral/ethical level, I find this disturbing.

Also, if there were a "gay" gene, could they not develop gene therapy to help someone be heterosexual, if they were truly born like that??

It depends. If it is just a matter of gene expression, then that is entirely possible. However, if it is the genetic code itself, it won't be possible unless it's done in the embryo. Then again, that opens up can of worms on the moral front.

Seems to me though, most gays or bi's, wouldn't trade their lifestyle, for what is normal sexual behavior in the biological world, especially if it effected their direct happiness.

I am sure they would too. They, like most all humans, engage in Epicurus's morality which is based upon pursuing one's happiness as long as it is not at the detriment of someone else.