Why homosexuality is not genetic

Well maybe I didn't say it right. What I mean is it is geneticaly posible for all humans to be gay, it is in us all. Maybe you've never heard of the "low down" straight men who seek sex with other straight men, often anonamously, and many are x-convicts who started doing it in prison.
I think that's where the term came from in the first place.
These guys are NOT gay, many are married. They are not closet jobs either.
Point is even butch straight men in the right cercumstances will practice and enjoy same gender sex...

Gay sex is common in nature between primates for example. Do they make a "choice", if you think so then we have to re-think how we think animals think, no? Or is it natural to seek out pleasure?
We DO seek out what pleasures us right? Is that a choice, or is pleasure genetic? How many ppl have sex to procreate, compared with how many have sex for pleasure? I think pleasure wins out.
I mean why are Homosexuals called "Gay"...The gay friends I've had have been more comfortable and happy with themselves than my straight friends.

Point is IMO the taboo in our society against same gender sex was created by society (for whatever eason) and not by natural desires.

homosexuality is a MENTAL ILLNESS.

Good post..!
But is pleasure and sexuality really the same thing. As you said, many straight men would have sex with other men because it's easy to come by, cheap and simple. And they do it for the sexual pleasure of it, for no other reason.
But when you look at sexuality it's the gender you are attracted to, right? Not the amount of pleasure they can give you. The question is now, what is attraction? Is it the longing to procreate with another person or the longing to "have fun" (pleasure) with the person. It's most definitely not about the pleasure. Attraction can be emotional, physical, etc.
Because I am attracted to men does not mean I want to have sex with them. Nor am I attracted to all men. Just as little as you are attracted to all women.

The same question can be asked. Is heterosexuality a gene? No? It's nature/natural?
What causes you to be attracted to someone? Is it a gene? Does a gene make you fall in love? Does a gene make you feel attracted to the same sex, another sex, both sex or no people?
What is that attraction?


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Gemwolf]

Good points Gemwolf...

Attraction is a strange thing indeed. Human "tastes" change. At one time overweight was an attraction. At one time bi/homosexuality was common and excepted in society (Greece as mentioned earlier, but other places also).
So is our attraction natural or shaped by society?

Personally I think we are naturaly attracted to pleasure, in this case sex, what atracts us to fullfill that pleasure is shaped by society, the media, our peers etc...

Yes a big misconception is that if you're Gay then you are atracted to all men/women, obviously not true. I myself am more attracted to women BUT I have been attracted to men, although the attraction is different. Hard to explain the difference, but I guess it's more "animal" sexual....lol Obviously purely pleasure driven, but then I guess even that is a form of attraction, right?
I think more men would admit to themselves that they are also attracted to other men, if we didn't live in such a homophobic fear driven society.

[edit on 16/11/2005 by ANOK]

The twin studies indicate that indeed there is a genetical factor to homosexuality - since there is a far larger correlation between identical twins than with fraternal twins - but that it is not the only factor since otherwise correlation would be about 100%. The original post is pretty ignorant as one example in which the twins have different sexuality has no statistic relevance at all.

Well my male cat regularly humps other male cats, I doubt that he is making a choice to be ‘gay’; I mean a cat can't make that kind of complicated decision.

I think that if it was a choice then everyone would choose (at least on the surface) to be straight.
It's about attractiveness, which is an innate subconscious decision. Do you consciously 'choose' what kind of car you find good looking? Do you 'choose' what kind of hotdog toppings that tastes good to you? Do you ‘choose’ what kind of music you think sounds good? For that matter if you are straight do you ‘choose’ what type of woman/man you find attractive? The phrase that we use “Find attractive” itself shows that we just know what we like, it’s not a decision. If we did choose our attractions we would probably say something like “I’ve decided to be attracted to her” rather than “I find her attractive”. I personally prefer voluptuous brunettes; skinny blonds just don’t do it for me. It’s not a choice; it’s just what I like, I have no reasoning; maybe it’s genetic, maybe it’s because my mom was a brunette or some other physiological reason, but I didn’t sit down one day and say “hey I’m going to be attracted to voluptuous brunettes because ….”.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Partly true, but you have to admit that choice has a lot to do with your attraction. We prosecute and criminalize men who are attracted to little girls and boys and follow through with their intentions. Is attraction alone a justifiable defense? Hardly. We hold people accountable for their actions.
I know, we're not talking about criminal action here, but how do you explain this attraction?

I think it is part genetic, part exposure/experience, and part choice. Some people are more likely to throw temper tantrums, others are more likely to obsess about their weight. In the end it's sort of like the fire pyramid where it takes all 3 parts (fuel, heat, oxygen) to start a blaze. You have genes, experiences(how you were raised), and choice. If you let your choice be swayed by your genes and experiences then you could say that it was not a choice. As we know, a person's choice is more powerful than genes or experiences in this area, so that is the determining factor.

In the end it is your decision that counts. This is the very reason that racism is frowned upon. You are saying that a persons genes over-rides their personal choices.

Ok, first off...
this has been debated before... anyone who starts a new thread ought to be points punished.

the facts are simple... it is neither all genetic or all envirnmental/situational.

psycologists even say that there are degrees of homosexuality... about 5 if i remember correct... 1 is strictly straight, 2 is straight, but given reason, could switch...3 is "bi" and 4 is mostly homo, but could go straight if wanted to.
and 5 is totally a flamer...

and as to whether gay is genetic... well lets ask mother nature, shall we?

yep... birds do it
yep bees do it...
yep, even the trees do it...
there is a plethura of natures examples that show homosexuality is as common among animals as it is among humans...
so unless there is a squad of gay critters holding gay raves to inlist new members... then it is part of the way gods creations are designed...

Hold on dbates,
There’s a line in the sand, and that line is the harm, physical or emotional, of others. What happens between two consenting adults is there own business and does no harm to others or society. You cannot compare the apple of racism or child abuse to the orange of consenting homosexuality. Child abuse is not a consenting relationship; this child is either to young to make that kind of decision or is being forced. If you read an old post of mine www.abovetopsecret.com...' you’ll see I am a fervent proponent of the importance of personal responsibility and our obligation to make and act upon choices, but again the line where a legal action should come in is when harm will/could come to others.
You need not curb your attraction when it is not harmful. To deny your attraction in such a case is to cause yourself undue frustration and unhappiness. So it is not the determining factor because it should not be required by society to curb it. I do not see why for instance that I should be ‘forced’ to date/marry a skinny blond because that is the most popular picture of female beauty, when I am more attracted to voluptuous brunettes. Yes genes do over-ride personal choice when the only factor that should affect that decision is you attraction. Unless you would like us to go back to pre-arranged marriages.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Halfofone]

1% of females and 2% of males have homosexual inclinations.
It can't be genetic. That would require reproduction and
natural selection says that homosexuality being genetic is
impossible.

That is in fact the strongest argument against homosexuality being genetic. I'm afraid though it is dismissed by people saying that homosexuals would seek out mates of the opposite sex for reproduction. Still you get them either way. If this were true then homosexual acts are simply about personal satisfaction, and if they mate with the opposite sex are they really homosexual by defenition? Now go bother some other thread. Your thoughts are too logical for this discussion.

FlyersFan 2-5% of the population is red haired.

I have red hair, neither of my parent have red hair. I guess I just chose to have red hair eh?

genes can be dorment, gay people are just as capable of procreating as you are I. My gay cousin has a straight son. I guess the years of religious supression, and the shame that was impossed upon gays. The multitude of closet gays and bi-sexuals that have had children do not contriubute to the continuation of the gene? (if there is one)



[edit on 16-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Just speaking from a biological standpoint, without the science we humans have to breed offspring in a lab or through artificial semination if homosexuality were commonplace we would be an extinct species. We have different reproductive organs for a reason people. However in saying that I am well aware of chromosome imbalances and the human strive to please ourselves by any means.

But what about the millions of years that went by as humans developed? There was no religion, no shame. Shoot, people didn't even wear clothes back then. How did this gene survive if the primates that are our ancestors had no worry of "coming out of the closet"? They could have been as openly gay as they wished and never touched a female if that was what they desired. I guess even back then since there was no religion, there was no need of marriage, no right or wrong. How did the homosexual gene survive then?

If this gene survived when some of our homosexual ancestors decided to mate with females, this again proves that homosexuality is purely about pleasure. When you quit candy-coating the subject with cute terms like homosexual, and gay it becomes very obvious what the focus of this gene would be. A man putting his reproductive organ in another's digestive tract (food intake on one side, feces elimination on the other) has no biological purpose and does not ensure survival of the species.

So millions of years ago the men who enjoyed sexual intercourse with women would tend to pass on their genes through offspring. Men who preferred digestive intercourse with other men would not pass on their genes since there were no offspring created. Men who preferred both would slowly but surely be eliminated because part of the time he should have been competing for females he spent competing for other men's affections.

How would it be possible for the homosexual gene to survive?

[edit on 16-11-2005 by dbates]

Well if its not genetic (and im not saying it is.. im just asking) then how come straight men are attracted to women and vice versa? Why does it occur? What rational reason does this happen if same sex attraction is unnatural? Couldn't it be REMOTELY possible that durring the growth of a baby SOMETHING gets out of sync and makes a man attracted to a man or woman to woman? No... no that couldn't be possible at all.... what was i thinking..

And the whole 1% to 2% statement... its good.. but who in their right mind could possibly say that they were able to audit EVERY SINGLE homosexual on the planet and say that only 1 to 2% are gay.



[edit on 16-11-2005 by DerekJR321]

Being attracted to the same sex does not mean that they would not have had sex with the opposite sex. Sodomy is different from homosexuality; I know bi-sexuals that find anal sex disgusting.
We do not know the situation that our ancestors lived in but judging from our desire to have multiple partners, the pleasure we derive from sex, and our tendency to cheat on monogamous partners, I would propose that a human before religion would have had sex with many individuals in their ‘clan, it is a bonding act, a comforting act, and something that they may have done for pure pleasure It didn’t matter what orifice you were using.

edit
and if you want to talk about evolution, a close tight knit clan, bonding better through sexual acts would have survived over a clan that did not..
end edit

Also I propose the EVERY person has the ‘gene’ in them it’s just how that gene manifests itself. I do not want you to think that I believe that it is all in the gene, because as you say there are three factors that can effect it, but you have to admit that attraction is not something that you control.

I'm not talking about an orifice prefrence gene, I'm talking about the part of us that tells us what we like, what we are attracted to...



[edit on 16-11-2005 by Halfofone]

nah... those numbers only exist in fairyland...(excuse the pun)
show a link to support that contention, and i can show you a very homophobic website...

it is much closer to 5-10% for both... and add in the current lesbian craze, pump it up to about 25%...

and regarding the genetic factor...
it is probably not one gene, but several that have to line up, to get "gay"
mutations and variations occur in every generation of offspring... not to mention a little thing known as recessive gene trait carrier...
meaning... anything that has been anywhere in the line (whether expressed or not) can pop out again in a decending generation. So genetic gays (not all of them) could find an ancestor that had some non expressed trait.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Almost all human behaviour is going to have a genetic and a non-genetic component. Homosexual behaviour is going to be no different. Heterosexual behaviour is also not going to be any different.


I can see what the original poster is saying tho, the fact that there are identical twins, ie genetic copies, with one gay and the other not, refutes the idea that homosexual and heterosexual behaviour is completely controlled by genes. Doesn't mean that there is no genetic control at all though.

Nygdan

Homosexuality could have a genetic component and still have one twin be gay and one not. They're twins, not clones.





The male pattern baldness gene is passed down through women. You don't have to HAVE the condition of a gene to pass it down. In other words, if your argument is that only gay people could pass on the 'gay' gene (if there is one), that is an incorrect assumption.

Homosexuality is no more 'a choice' than heterosexuality. Therefore if someone who says they were once gay is now living a heterosexual life, either:
- They weren't really gay in the first place, but just experimenting.
- They have successfully forsaken their own sexuality and are now living a lie.
- They are just back in the closet. "Pretending" to be straight and maybe even fooling themselves.



Similar to the Intelligent Design or Geocentrist 'scientists' being Christian? Please!



FYI, your cat is not gay, but simply telling the other cats that he wishes to be top cat. My one female dog (the non-alpha dog) humps her sister all that time. She's saying she'd like to challenge the authority of the alpha. Humping is different than actually having sex in animals.

Acting on reproductive impulses as opposed to doing things that bring you pleasure are two completely different things. Humans and Dolphins are the only mammals I am aware of that have intercourse for pleasure. Dogs humping other male dogs, pillows or legs is more of a sexual nature than it is a show for dominance although this does occur. However male dogs humping other male dogs doesn’t signify that they’re gay, it’s mainly instinctive and/or a lesson not learned in social behavior as a puppy.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]