Epigenetics May Be a Critical Factor Contributing to Homosexuality

Considering that homosexuality has been around as long as the written word, and likely long before, I'd hardly argue dietary change can cause variations in sexuality. Not to the extent of changing sexual orientation anyway.

And what would you say of the homosexual animals in zoos, being kept on strict diets yet still being homosexual?

reply to post by halfoldman


I appreciate your honesty halfoldman.
Now for a little of my own.

Finally, I wonder if the "cure" works in reverse?
That is, would some heterosexuals like to be "cured" of being straight because they find it unsatisfactory and depressing for whatever reason?

IMHO the answer to this would be no. As a heterosexual male I will admit that I can not even stand to think of being with someone of the same sex. It makes my skin crawl.
I often wonder if Gay men feel that way towards the idea of being with a woman.

I hope this post does not offend. I just wanted to share my perspective and I understand that mine is not the only perspective.
Quad

What I get out of the science is what I knew all along: Homosexuals are born that way. It is not a choice to be "sinful" (re: Christian fundamentalists). We all can only be the way we were meant to be. Although it is interesting to know the reasons why certain people go one way or the other, I don't see it as an abberation that needs to be corrected.

Every gay person I have ever known has said that they knew since they were little that they preferred their same sex. Does it really matter to the rest of us what sexual partner another chooses?

This is a non-issue to me. Be who you are born to be, and to hell with the haters.

reply to post by Quadrivium


The things that really stood out is using the term "less fit" and claiming that its makes these children more or less feminine or masculine.

I dont see that these statements fit with reality. Then when you look at their evidence all they have is custom mathmatical models and their opinion......

Cant wait till all this is all understood... even if its a learned behavior.. more ladies for me.

I just hope no one makes a gay virus...... lol

reply to post by dorkfish87

I like to see the funny angle of things, but thematically I was quite serious.

I'd say what could be homoerotic to me may not be so for straight males, and I simply don't know how they see it.
So I don't mean to say that sports, for example, are experienced consciously as homoerotic by straight males, or that enjoying them implies some latent form of homosexuality.
Men could like them for different reasons, concieveably for fitness or tactical reasons, to attract the opposite sex, gaining status, as a form of tribalism and bonding, or the occasional escapism from the constraints of gender mixing.
I'm just wondering for myself how my enjoyment may alter or change in this range of possibilities.
It is a topic that invites empathy for another position, or walking in the shoes of another, which is probably quite strange from either position.

It all started when John Wayne died.

Every time information like this comes out, I can't help but scrutinize it for who benefits, and how it can be used for less than ethical purposes, and to further someones agenda.

Advancements like this in our technology, and our understanding is great. But in the wrong hands, they become no less deadly than the proverbial "weapons of mass destruction".

reply to post by Quadrivium


I can honestly say I have never had even a passing interest in women. I accidently went to a straight porn site once and quite literally became Ill.

I think it's all in what you like. I can tell that Halle berry is a very beautiful woman. But there are thoughts that run through my mind seeing a pic of Hugh jackman as wolverine that woman will never inspire in me

reply to post by tothetenthpower


My thoughts.
Karma is a bitch.
Those same people with a bone to pick will have gay children.

my 2 cents

Every time I see this thread I keep mistakenly reading Epigenetics as "Eugenics" for some reason. I dont know what that means, my eyes playing tricks on me I guess.

reply to post by December21st2012


Eugenics is the study of perfecting the human race.

reply to post by Quadrivium

No offence taken.

I won't say that physical contact with women makes my skin crawl, and we dance together quite happily.
And, uhh, dancing these days can be pretty bump and grind after a few drinks.
Although, I have had nightmares about certain things.
I'll leave it at that, but mostly it just leaves me cold.

However, there are straight men who sometimes come to gay-friendly spaces with their girlfriends and they are not repulsed, but they're not interested (in men) either.
So I'd identify with them in how I'd see women: not repulsed with a respect for personal boundaries, but not interested or reactive in a physical way either.

So being straight does not necessarily mean being repulsed by gay people, and men do touch and kiss in sports (of course here the context is non-sexual or romantic).
Then of course many straight men like the idea of two women.

This is what I'm not sure about after having the "cure".
Is the repulsion a natural part of being a straight male which can be unconditioned with exposure, or will my theoretical knowledge on this all make me a gay-friendly straight male, and I can keep some friends and old haunts?
It really raises a lot of questions.

Yay! One more piece of evidence for real truth, not lies! So instead of reaching for that bible and parroting its homosexual-abomination nonsense, take a long look in that mirror and remember the teachings of your 'Savior'! (wags finger)

The real truth is, humans fear what we don't understand. If it isn't like us, isn't 'normal', it becomes some abnormality. Depression also has a genetic link. Is it natural then? So many cans of worms to be opened, eh?

reply to post by Gemwolf


No. People who suddenly changed their culture by societies getting rich throughout history seem to have started to eat new foods that were not from their area. This practice screws up our balance of chemistry in the body because the body has not evolved to eat the foods. Epigenetics is the study of the junk DNA. Nutrigenomics is the study of food relative to our evolution as tied to our genetics. Our problem with disease and altered perception in society is not so much to do with chemicals added to food as to eating food we have not developed the genetic knowledge to process correctly in the body. Many foods we eat are mildly toxic to us but if our bodies know how to take them apart properly than they can utilize them with little unneeded enzymes being created which leads to screwed up chemistry because the enzymes need to be detoxified from the body.

This has nothing really to do with the mind either. reactions happen by stored knowledge in our genetics without the mind being involved much. Our inherited information contains everything to grow a body, if the brain doesn't develop the body still grows. The mind is only a small part of an animals intellect, every cell in the body possesses intelligence of some sort.

Changing diet either way can cause problems, removing tyramines from the diet or adding more effects our nature. Everyone has different amounts of tyromines they can work with to maintain normal perception, this is relevant to copper and mineral levels in the body. Tyromines in food can make people happy and carefree or they can make a person cranky if they have too much. Same with coconut oil, it makes people happy but overindulging in it can have effects that are negative. Here is an article that pretty well checks out as correct from my studies, it is easy to understand. I am getting overeducated in this field and loosing a little ability to make things simple and put them into laymans terms. www.naturalpedia.com...

There are many other things than this I have been studying, tying something directly to why someone would develop an oposite sexuality is hard. Too much change too fast is the problem when a society gains wealth. The chemicals added to foods are not always put there for preservation or what they are said to do. Most chosen food additives use a chemistry that lowers metabolism or alters liver function here in America. They could use iodine instead of bromide to preserve flour but they don't. I understand that chemically keeping society calm is a necessity but I don't like their chosen methods. Every society does this, most use traditional foods.

Originally posted by December21st2012
Every time I see this thread I keep mistakenly reading Epigenetics as "Eugenics" for some reason. I dont know what that means, my eyes playing tricks on me I guess.

Actually you could easily use Epigenetics to establish Eugenics.

Originally posted by dorkfish87
My pleasure, of course I don't speak for all homosexuals. I'm sure there are some gay people that would jump at the chance to live a "normal" life.

However I don't see how being gay, even if its genetic, would make one inferior. I'd be interested in hearing someone argue the case

I am not going to argue whether one is inferior as a human being but from an economic interest the LGBT community seems to be lacking. Poor communities also experience increases in crime according to statistics. This is just what the census and polling data shows and does not account for individuals but for population samples.

A little article about the economics of the matter.
scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu...

In one case, the double-edged quality of a seemingly benign or even positive claim-that LGB people are relatively affluenthas been noted in a variety of contexts to caution against using the image or myth of affluence for fear of heightening resentment against the gay community or for inflating the economic and political power of gay people.6 The most persuasive argument against those empirical claims, in my view, is not political utility or disutility but the mounting evidence from a variety of data sources and authors that LGB people are simply not more affluent than heterosexual people.
. . .
To the contrary, these studies showed that gay men earn significantly less than do heterosexual men who have similar characteristics. The wage gap is sizable in some studies and ranges from 13% to 32% lower earnings for gay men after controlling for other influences on wages. 15 For instance, men in gay couples earn $43,117 on average, or 13% less than married men's average earnings of $49,777 in Census 2000.16 The picture is less clear-cut for lesbians, though. Lesbian and bisexual women earn more than heterosexual women in the studies reviewed, with 17 the difference reaching as high as a 31% income advantage for lesbians. Some, but not all, of that difference results from higher hours and weeks worked by lesbians. 18 The other reasons for the higher earnings remain unclear, 19 but could result from lesbians' greater attachment to and experience in the paid labor force. 20 But that apparent advantage disappears when comparing a lesbian couple to a heterosexual couple. 21 Two women's incomes are significantly less than the incomes of heterosexual couples (and gay male couples, for that matter).22 Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that lesbians' economic resources appear to be shaped more directly by their gender than their sexual orientation. 3

Poverty in the LGBT Community
www.americanprogress.org...

Gay and Lesbian Demographics
gay_marriage_handsA Research Focus of the Urban Institute
www.urban.org...

Of course this can all be chalked up to discrimination, at least by the LGBT community, however this does not stop any members of the community from starting their own businesses and earning higher incomes.

On another note the LGBT community as far as my own experience is concerned is far more interested cultural phenomena rather than business friendly ventures which could also play a larger role in the matter.


PS

The idea of a vaccination for homosexuality reminds me of one of the X-Men flicks.

So, if I am reading this right it means if a man is gay, he inherited it from his mother. If a woman is gay, she inherited it from her father?
Should be easily testable.

reply to post by rickymouse


Epigenetic markers are not junk DNA that is completely false. Epigenetic markers are a part of the structure that holds the genes (i forget what exactly it is called but it is the stuff chromosomes are mad out of). Also, I think that the concept of junk DNA was used by scientists to cover their asses instead of saying 'we don't know' because they were clueless about what a large chunk of our DNA does. The original definition of Junk DNA was DNA that didn't code for proteins. There probably is DNA that can be classified as junk and noise though. Don't get me started on the principle of the primacy of DNA either.

You are right about how epigenetics can be modified by diet (a study on people in a town in scandinavia where a couple generations back there was a famine found that epigenetics modified by the famine is what caused the current generation to store so much fat) but I think it is definitely not the only thing epigenetics are modified by.

Now I'm going to ponder a bit trying to think of what evolutionary advantage for Homo Sapiens the emergence of homosexuality could bring and I really hope that I don't offend anyone. One idea I came up with is perhaps during events like the extreme shifts in conditions experienced during our evolution in the African rift valley it would be advantageous to have reproduction more highly conserved, i.e. fewer children better taken care of by the whole tribe. Homosexuality could fit in by creating non reproductive members of a hunter-gather society who are able to still have fulfilling relationships without the risk of the tribe making too many babies to sustain. Of course there are unanswered questions with this idea like can epigenetics even respond on a tribal or population level to a food-poor environment in this way?

After looking at the article, the following can be stated:

While it does go to a long way to show that such is present on a genetic level to determine sexual orientation, it should also be reminded that it is just a model to explain the reason for such being present in the population at this time. It is not concrete evidence nor is it fully conclusive.

The study of genetics, the human genome is still realtively new, and even so, science still does not know all of the ins and out of what the human DNA holds, or what all of the genes or the combinations of genes do.

While it is a step to state why a person is attracted to a man or a woman, however, this is not what we should be concerned about.

With ever step forward in medical and science knowledge there lies the greatest achievements for all of humankind and its greatest horrors. While it could serve to help people, think about it the end of say Down syndrom, or any other genetic problem in any number of people. No more family diseases, like sickle cell animia, or cancer, or the traits for heart disease. But with research with this there will be those that will seek to pervert it to use to try to alter their childrens dna, or even seek to come up with a "Cure" for those who are homosexual as they find such abhorrent.

This is what should be tread with very carefully, lest we see something come up that could cause more problems in the long run for all of us.

Originally posted by Klassified
Every time information like this comes out, I can't help but scrutinize it for who benefits, and how it can be used for less than ethical purposes, and to further someones agenda.

Advancements like this in our technology, and our understanding is great. But in the wrong hands, they become no less deadly than the proverbial "weapons of mass destruction".

I have come back to this post and read it a few times now.
Exactly what do you mean?
Are you talking about some kind of "gay bomb"? Once dropped it will turn everyone gay? That would certainly decrease the population.