It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


homosexuality not genetic

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by baseball101
reply to post by HulaAnglers

whoa buddy, i don't know, but i don't think that the majority of gays/lesbians sexual preferences spawned from encounter's with pedophiles at an early age.

Did I say that the majority of...No I said all of my G friends - I do know many - and they all have this in common.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by ghaleon12

Originally posted by Miraj
You make a good point. I always wondered that myself.. If it were caused by genetics, the genetics would be gone pretty quick.

Does not cancer have a genetic component for some poeple? Of course it does. Does that help a person pass on their genes? Of course not. Has cancer died out? Nope. Same with many other genetic diseases.

people are more vulnerable to cancer it a realative within that genome has a cancer malformation in the genes.

no it dosnt help pass on that persons jeans. . . but the cancer patient is not a person engaging in sex with a member of the same sex making conception impossible.

yes i know some people who are gay haev children. . . but alooooot of them do not and alot that dont have children and as species change certain genetic features they become usually a better species.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:50 PM

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by ghaleon12
*sigh* when will people figure this out.

If you have an identical twin, separated at birth, and one is gay, the other is gay 30% of the time. That is only one scientific fact, but I'll leave it at that and save my time. How is that not genetic?

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or if its genetic doesn't matter in the slightest, only to stupid people.

Is liking pizza a choice? Is liking your favorite color a choice? Are the hobbies you have a choice? but honestly, who cares, you don't care where those things you like come from. Yet some want gay people to prove that it isn't a choice that they like guys who cares!

your calling people who are interested in the nuts and bolts are stupid. . . . perhaps we are just curious as to the reasons behind specific behaviors. . . so im sorry friend if your to "stupid" to have a real discussion of of the subject at hand

it matters to me because human behaior is extremely interesting to me....

so take your "stupid" judgemental attitude to people who question elsewhere

I said the debate between choice vs. genes isn't important, only to stupid people, which is true. If you want to talk about science, that's fine. But when free choice in homosexuality means that homosexuality is morally "bad" and when genes in homosexuality means that it is morally "good" or neutral, that is what is stupid and its far from scientific curiousity.

If you wanted an honest disscussion "homosexuality not genetic" is not the best way to start. You're asking all the wrong questions though...seriously though, if you spent any amount of time trying to find the truth, you'd see there are ton of scientific studies done showing a genetic or prenatal component to homosexuality.

Care to explain the twin study that shows that even when separated at birth, if one is gay, the other is gay 30% of the time?

or how about this.

Is liking pizza a choice? Is liking your favorite color a choice? Are the hobbies you have a choice? but honestly, who cares, you don't care where those things you like come from. Yet some want gay people to prove that it isn't a choice that they like guys who cares!

Why does a person like Canadian Bacon on their pizza? Is it a choice? Is it genetic? explain please. Fact is, homosexuality gets placed on such a high pedestal by everyone really, yet people don't even take the time to find out where the things they enjoy come from. Where do they come from? Answer that please. Until people find the answer to that, don't even think about critiquing or criticizing a guy liking another guy. You can't even find your own answers and you stick your nose in other peoples' business.

And please, gene, not jean ! ahhhh.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ghaleon12]

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by mrwupy
To be perfectly honest, It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or a choice. They have a right to live the life they want to live.

It's guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If they decide to be gay, what business is that of yours?

They have a right to live their life the way they choose, regardless of the reason they have chosen to be as they are. (or were born that way.)

I think the world would be a better place if we spent more time trying to make ourselves a better person, and less time trying to tear everyone else down.

If someone is gay, they have a right to be gay.

It's not our place to pass judgement on them.
Just my thoughts,


im not trying to condem gays i just had the thought that if its genetic than surely by now it would be almost fone due to lack of procreation by homosexual individuals

and im not passing judgement im askinga question i dont care if your homo hetero transexual or even a metrosexual "lmao"

the quesiton is if their arent passing on the gene then why should we think it a genetic problem and not a choice

members of a species that have jeans that cuase homosexuality should peter out because they arent pssing on that jean

again im not judging i dont care i support gay rights but this is a scientific question and i have been trying to compile opinions from normal people and i have a chance to speak with a genetisit friday and ill post the entire convorsation in a more comprehensive thread in a week or so

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:55 PM
Perhaps some actual science would be beneficial ...

Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation. We addressed this issue by studying hemispheric asymmetry and functional connectivity, two parameters that in previous publications have shown specific sex differences. Ninety subjects [25 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW), and 20 homosexual men (HoM) and women (HoW)] were investigated with magnetic resonance volumetry of cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres. Fifty of them also participated in PET measurements of cerebral blood flow, used for analyses of functional connections from the right and left amygdalae. HeM and HoW showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. No cerebellar asymmetries were found. Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In HoM, as in HeW, the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala; in HoW and HeM, on the other hand, from the right amygdala. Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate, in HeM and HoW with the caudate, putamen, and the prefrontal cortex. The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.
emphasis mine

PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by constantwonder
members of a species that have jeans that cuase homosexuality should peter out because they arent pssing on that jean.

That is an excellent observation.

I found this paper a while back:

Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’. Furthermore, several studies have pointed out relevant asymmetries in the distribution of both male homosexuality and of female fecundity in the parental lines of homosexual vs. heterosexual males. A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present. We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.

Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality

Here's a thread on this very question that I started back when I first joined ATS that has some useful information scattered between so pretty hateful posts.

Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

[edit on 6 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by constantwonder

of course survival of the fittest is an evolutionary term. . . .

No, it's not. Most evolutionary biologists I've talked to or read papers of do not use this term, especially around people who don't have a good grasp of the subject matter. They use the term Natural Selection. As I said above, this is because the term "fittest" is a mailable word that can have multiple meanings in multiple contexts. If you don't already know the context by which it's used, it is open to personal interpretation. And that is exactly what happen in the public forum, because the layman's general use and identification of the word does not correlate to "Adapted".

You could say this is a behavioral adaptation brought about by Creationists and their spreading of strawmen crap. Such as "Dr." Kent Hovind who states that Evolutionists believe we started off small and we get "bigger, better, stronger, and faster". He is wrong, and a LOT of money and effort is wasted in trying clean up the mess people like him make.

Even here, every day I come across a post (or multiple posts) in which people talk about when human "evolve to the next level" or some such. They have no general concept that evolution does NOT promote their subjective projection of fitness.

The concept of Evolution is 150 years old and even a proper basic understanding of what it actually is and states still hasn't trickled down to the public consciousness. Especially here in America. Hell, even just a few posts above this was a member talking about "De-Evolution". There is no such thing. There is only evolution. Even if a population loses a particular trait it's ancestors possessed, it's still Evolution. Even if it's leads ultimately to extinction.

For example, the higher intelligence we possess is generally seen as a beneficial change. While it has been extremely beneficial to us, we've only been around for a very short time. There's millions of years prior history in which our ancestors were developing that brain we have. Some branches had quite sophisticated brains - such as our Neanderthal cousins. Yet humanity is the ONLY BRANCH LEFT. We are the sole survivors of dozens of different hominid species found in the fossil record. And we're at a point where our technology can cause our extinction is we're not VERY careful.

Now, if it can be substantiated that higher intelligence can be linked to hominid extinction, how successful was higher intelligence to hominids in the big picture? If it does, would that make our intelligence a "de-evolution"?

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:29 AM
reply to post by Canis Lupus

Dear God, whenever somebody doesn't agree with homosexuality they're immediately a homophobe.. what is it with people who support gays???

Don't think i've ever seen a person who supports homosexuals not use one of these words- homophobe, bigot, or close-minded..

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:42 AM
There's also the possibility that if homosexuality is genetic, that it is still passed on, because some homosexuals end up having children anyway. Sometimes it is before they 'figure out' that they are gay, or sometimes they marry straight to hide it. Also, as another poster pointed out, genes are passed down in various combinations, such that a child might or might not possess said hypothetical gay gene. Straight people can have gay siblings, for instance.

I'm not really sure what to think on this issue. I started a thread on this a few years ago somewhere, but I didn't come to any firm conclusions on the issue. I suspect that it's more of a choice than anything else, or perhaps psychological influences in life lead people towards it, although I know a lot of people will disagree with me.

Probably we all have different motives for posting on this particular thread. Gay issues are a touchy subject, and can cause a lot of heated arguments. Personally, my attitude is that anything we can learn about homosexuality is a good thing, even if we disapprove of it on moral or religious or other grounds. This thread has done all right so far, I just hope we can keep the goal one of tolerance and learning, rather than bashing, since that often happens in such threads, even when well-intentioned to begin with.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:51 AM
The only physical trait which has ever been determined as a maybe for homosexuality is variations in the the size of the cerebral cortex - the connection between the two hemispheres. is has been put forward there maybe tendency for larger connections with make homosexuality and a smaller connection for lesbian..

The normal female brain shows a larger connection which accounts for females utilising both hemispheres in a more empathetic manner where men tend to favour one at a time (left or right, women both).

This would therefore negate any issue of evolutionary benefit.


posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:05 AM
Ive always concluded that homosexuality was a mental condition, much like a rare type of psychosis.

Ive read that the "feeling" heterosexual people get when they are "attracted" to each other is a chemical reaction, and Ive wondered exactly what triggers the chemical reaction. My conclusion was that subconscious and conscious "thoughts" from the mind were responsible for triggering the chemical reaction, which then led me to believe the "thoughts" of homosexuals were opposite of heterosexuals.

This is why I concluded that homosexuality is a mental condition.

Although, I'm a heterosexual, so I wouldn't know for sure.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:19 AM
I always felt(my opinion) that homosexuality was evolution/nature's solution to overpopulation of the planet, and therefor feel that it has to be ingrained into your genetics.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:25 AM
In regards to this idea that there is a "Gay Gene" and that it's recessive and skips a few generations, know that this doesn't make any sense.

Again, don't take this out of context, but let's consider that there is a "Gay Gene" which causes an organism to make exclusively with members of the same sex. It could only be considered deleterious, because even if that particular organism is well adapted to it's environment - or better - it's still not meeting the co-requirement of reproduction and descent (with modification) necessary for evolution.

Now, a disease which can have genetic component, such as Cancer, is not necessarily considered deleterious - because the onset of the Cancer it produces may not manifest until well after the organism has reproduced. Therefore, the genetic component for the Cancer may well be passed down as a recessive trait without being subject for deletion.

Here's the problem. Research consistently tells us that the formation of sexual orientation (and sexual fetishes) occurs while the brain is developing. This means that sexual orientation occurs *BEFORE* the age in which humans reproduce. Therefore, the idea of it being a recessive trait is highly unlikely.

And again - there is absolutely NO positive indication of a "Gay Gene". This doesn't mean it doesn't have a genetic component, because the basis brain development is genetic. However, the actual genes for brain development are FAR simpler than the structure of the brain itself. Think of it in terms of a fractal image. If we were to take, pixel by pixel, the entire arrangement of the fractal image (up to a reasonable resolution, as some can go indefinitely) - we would end up with exponentially more data than the actual equation which generated the fractal in the first place.

Same idea.

The genetic components which may go into determining sexual orientation are likely a manifestation of small (and commonly reoccurring) modifications (what makes up you different) of interactions between beneficial genes which have been, and continue to be, selected for.

And remember, this alone doesn't necessarily determine an organism's orientation. It would only set a disposition towards one, the other, or both. As the brain continues to form prenatally and beyond, modifications can and will modify the end result of the fully mature brain. However, like all exponentials - early modifications will have the largest effect over time.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by constantwonder

of course survival of the fittest is an evolutionary term. . . . i white moth in a green tree stands out a green moth doesnt. The genes of the less suited to the enviroment will die off. . . . the best abd fittest of the species haveing the best dna will be the one procreating

which is exactly what servival of the fittest means and its most definately an evolutionary perameter

You are wrong. Genetic fitness has nothing to do with who has the best genetics, etc. It is simply a matter of whether or not an organism can procreate and, if so, how many offspring it produces.

For crying out loud, you can even google it and get a good definition from wiki.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Lasheic

It could only be considered deleterious,

Judging from your use of that word alone, I would venture to say you have a background in biology or a related field!

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:05 AM

Originally posted by constantwonder

members of a species that have jeans that cuase homosexuality should peter out because they arent pssing on that jean

This makes perfect sense, yes. Now, should I be wearing jeans or not, is the question, and does the brand matter? I have a pair of Levi´s on, now to figure out if that makes me gay or not...

But seriosly, if homosexuality is a choice in some way, how to explain homosexual behaviour in animals, or countries such as Iran, that are so fundementally religious and againt homosexuality (ie. why would anyone in Iran choose to be gay?)

Link to Wiki Homosexualty in animals

Edit: Changed the member name quoted to be accurate.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by intrepid]

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:26 AM
reply to post by yadda333

Thank you, but that's not the case. I'm just working on a degree in computer sciences. I honestly didn't even care for biology in High School... though I think the fact that my teacher's classroom stunk like oily burnt rotted meat. He had a thing for practicing taxidermy after hours, and he'd boil roadkill while teaching class.

I merely have a supreme appreciation for science and the scientists for the work they do and the prosperity it brings us. So I try to absorb as much knowledge as I can from them, and hopefully do what I can to pass it on without too many errors.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:53 AM
I don't think that it's genetic, but I think it's entirely possible that its developmental (either in the womb, or from an early age when the brain is still undergoing massive development). Can someone explain to me why it's preferable to some people for it to be a gene? It's still a medical disorder, regardless of how you look at it.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with homosexuality, and I believe they have the same rights as everyone else; however, from a purely biological viewpoint, a human isn't supposed to be gay, thus making it a disorder, the same way that not liking chocolate could be a disorder (I'm not being facetious here; there are some cases where chocolate is harmful to the body, thus as a survival mechanism the taste buds have an aversion to it).

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:35 AM
Survival of the fittest and evolution doesn't really seem to occur nowadays. Here's a good example... it's been said that our baby toe no longer has much of a use, and that in the future, it is predicted that we will 'evolve' out of it. However, I stand against that opinion, and say that in today's social climate, that is very unlikely to happen.

If someone were to be born without a baby toe, it wouldn't make them a 'fitter' human. If anything, it would make them an outcast, despite the fact that they have 'evolved'.

We no longer can evolve because anything different to what we are now is unfashionable. If one were to be born with 2 extra arms that are fully working, it could be considered very useful, but just as before, they would be seen as something of a monster.

I believe that homosexuality is genetic. I know gay men and women who agree. However, I do not feel it is a weakness, or something that we should evolve out of. If that's what you're suggesting, then surely down syndrome should be viewed in the same or more extreme manner.

It can be argued that those with down syndrome, according to natural selection, should not survive. Is it wrong that they do? Take the Panda for example... according to natural selection, they should be wiped out, but we as humans are trying to help them. They eat Bamboo, even though it doesn't provide much nutrition, they can only mate (I believe) once a year, and because we've destroyed their homes and food supplies, they can rarely meet their requirements.

We are no longer in an age of natural evolution. We can now only evolve through science and intelligence.

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by constantwonder

According to this principle shouldnt a genetic homosexuality be comletely ruled out?
You make the assumption that Homosexuals don't reproduce or engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex, when they do. This would keep the any genetic link in the population.

over the course of human history homosexualtiy has exsisted and there have been alot of generations between the beggining and now. Shouldn't this mean that according to natural selection and the homosexuals inability to create new members of the speciespretty much guarentee that the "gay" jean would have been bred out long before the present?
Homosexuals don't purely run on a HOMOSEXUAL GENE and just that, period. They are humans that have other drives and urges that are both natural and nutured, that may influence a sexual exchange with the opposite sex, regardless of other genetics which may drive them to have sex within that sex. This would also keep any genetic material in the mix.

just a thought

wahts your opinion

It is not just about sex. Just because one may be inclined or desire certain activities, this does not define their entirity. To deconstruct the entire human genome and its survival and propogation to argue entirely about sexual preference is rather silly, because that preference is just one small facet. We are too amzing and complex and it belittles all humans wether you are gay, straight, bi or into being probed by aliens.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in