Epigenetics May Be a Critical Factor Contributing to Homosexuality

reply to post by Quadrivium

Are you talking about some kind of "gay bomb"? Once dropped it will turn everyone gay? That would certainly decrease the population.

Not exactly. All I was referring to was the possibilities for misuse. Every discovery brings with it possibilities for evil and good. And those who administrate this world have proven time and again they will use it for evil if there is a way to do so. I might also add, if they have told us this much, what have they not told us?

reply to post by Mkoll


I call them junk DNA because they originally thought that everything but the DNA was just junk. There is another name for them but I like junk better.

reply to post by Quadrivium


I have a belief that homosexuality is not "normal", which is obvious because if everyone were homosexual then humans would cease to produce. Does this mean it is wrong? No, it doesn't. It is just that homosexuality is a variant human behavior.

So to ask if you can "cure" a homosexual person....I would posit that you can no more "cure" them than you could "cure" someone any other behavioral variant. Sure, you can employ methods to alter the behavior. But is that really a "cure"?

My oldest son is gay. In no way is he an abberation, or abnormal. And he is very open with his mother and I. Regardless of my support for him expressing himself freely, I can't help but be aware of the difficulty that his homosexuality can sometimes cause in his life. It gets easier for him as he gets older and learns more and more. But in our world, being a homosexual is a challenge to overcome in and of itself.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I can see where you are coming from. The following part of your post really stuck out to me and got me thinking.

I would posit that you can no more "cure" them than you could "cure" someone any other behavioral variant. Sure, you can employ methods to alter the behavior. But is that really a "cure"?

If they did find a gene or something would this also help those who are pedophiles? They also have a behavioral variant. I have even read of cases where some wanted to be castrated as a cure because they could not stop on their own.

Before anyone flames me, I am not saying homosexuals are pedophiles.
Quad

Growing up gay did in fact bring added stresses to my life, his much is true. But that was more from societal response than my sexuality. I honestly wouldn't change it for anything. Dealing with intolerance allowed me to build character; and an understanding of the intolerance of other groups

Originally posted by grey580
So now we find it's the parents fault.
Great.

Everything passed on genetically is the parents' "Fault"


That said, I'd rather be a flamboyant homosexual than a fundamentalist bigot

Originally posted by Quadrivium

epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.

That doesn`t make any sense, why would the father be having natural hormone variations during fetal development?and how would that even effect fetal development?

The fathers part in fetal development ends when he rolls over and goes to sleep.

reply to post by Tardacus


The father passes on 23 chromosomes and the mother passes on 23.
The article is saying that those epi-markers that help reinforce the fathers masculinity or the mothers femininity are not dropped or erased as they should be and are passed on to the off-spring.
If the epi-markers are passed onto the same sex off spring then there is no change. If they pass on to the opposite sex they may influence sexual orientation.
Quad

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I can see where you are coming from. The following part of your post really stuck out to me and got me thinking.

I would posit that you can no more "cure" them than you could "cure" someone any other behavioral variant. Sure, you can employ methods to alter the behavior. But is that really a "cure"?

If they did find a gene or something would this also help those who are pedophiles? They also have a behavioral variant. I have even read of cases where some wanted to be castrated as a cure because they could not stop on their own.

Before anyone flames me, I am not saying homosexuals are pedophiles.
Quad

The major difference is that homosexuals find an alternate gender to be attractive. Perdophiles, however, find children attractive. They COULD find an older partner of the appropriate gender.

Pedophilia seems to be more akin to a fetish, which is wholly different than homosexuality. And ones inability to control their sexual fetishes is one of the great challenges of many peoples lives.

If homosexuality is a learned behavior then so is heterosexuality.

If there are genetics making men attracted to other men,
then where are the genetics NOT making him attracted to women?

Just because his genes are causing attraction for the same sex, that doesn't mean that the attraction for the opposite is just gone.

If there are genetics making men attracted to women,
then where are the genetics that are making him NOT like other men?

Just because his genes are causing attraction for the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that there is anything cancelling out the attraction for other men.

Maybe genetics cause attraction, but that still doesn't say that there are genetics which cause non-attraction...

Which form of evolution does this research defend.?...Darwinian.?

How do they escape.? how often and for how long have these things occurred.?

...interesting questions.

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
Which form of evolution does this research defend.?...Darwinian.?

How do they escape.? how often and for how long have these things occurred.?

...interesting questions.

edit on 20/12/12 by ironbutterflyrusted because: add

Are you trying to say gay people are an entirely different species?

Originally posted by grey580
So now we find it's the parents fault.
Great.

It's those hetrosexuals who are "at fault" (whatever the hell that means). They're the ones having babies.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I don`t think so...I was interested in the claim that the great mystery of homosexuality, from a Darwinian point of view had been solved but not through their chosen route of inquiry, namely a gene/s. Even though epigenetics carries many definitions I tend to look at the research as a form of Lamarck-ism because of the results defying standard evolutionary theory...Weissman barrier etc...things that were flatly denied. The escape and time issue is regarding the "Epi-marks", I wonder how this transfer is occurring and more importantly for how long this has taken place. Many of the attributes possessed by a species could have passed in this way, if the research is funded more who knows what discoveries could be made, it could make it very difficult for the Darwinian approach to accommodate without backtracking or use of rhetorical slight of hand.

It seems to me that the Darwinian approach has a monopoly on change, good or bad.

...sorry if I came across as being offensive.

reply to post by Quadrivium


A cure for homosexuality? Really?

Judging by your location, I'd say it's a pretty common view of homosexuality as a "disease" that can be "cured".

Originally posted by dorkfish87
You can't cure homosexuality because it isn't a disease. I don't know if this study will pan out or not, nor do I really care as a gay man.
I know I didn't decide to be gay, I know I was either born this way or became as such long before I can remember. What actually caused it is of no concern to me, honestly. You cannot fix that which isn't broken.

Your statement is fair, of course. But I think you might have missed the point with this comment. At this stage in the game, I'm not sure our technology is sufficient enough to play with the genetic markers of a fully grown human. On the other hand, our technology may be sufficient to change this factor in the yet-to-be-born.

I think the "fix homosexuality" notion is less directed toward people such as yourself, and more toward generations to come. And I think it really does open a slippery can of worms. Would it be inherently wrong to change the sexual preference of your unborn child? At that point its not as though it would cause any kind of psychological harm. They end up being born the way they're born, and that's all they know. I think many would see it as no different than trying to influence any other aspect of their child, genetically. I think one of the stronger arguments may come from the notion that homosexuality is still not accepted by a large segment of the population, and to knowingly allow this epigene to pass into their child, when they have the choice to prevent it, could be seen as setting them up for a lifetime of ridicule and abuse.

Of course, some homosexuals seem to overcome this relatively "easily", or are lucky enough to be born in areas where homosexuality is more accepted. However, others end up going as far as killing themselves because they can't handle it.

I'd also still be open to the possibility that either becoming or conceiving a male or a female homosexual could be considered desirable by some.

Perhaps I notice it more as a homosexual, but some upper class women speak of gay men with acceptance - but also a bit like we were pets.

I won't say who, but I can pretty much say that a gay son or brother would be highly desirable for some very rich women.

And who can blame them?
Wheresoever possible gay men do keep lasting bonds with their moms.
Perhaps not in all cases, but it's so pronounced that this was once thought to be the major cause of homosexuality (rather than a common feature).

However, when one hears high-falutin' women say things like: "I love shopping with her, she's like the gay son I never had!", then it becomes clear that to some tastes a gay son would be in order.

Well, there are certain advantages to having a gay child (at least, for now, statistically), depending on what the customer wants.

The question is whether a parent should also have the right to make a child gay, just as much as she could make him straight with such futuristic technology.

Okay, so this can be one way people become homo. Gotcha.

...but there's definitely an increase of people considering their selves gay, bi, and all sorts of oddities as the years pass.

This doesn't explain that.

What does?

more acceptance....pffft, yea maybe like two generations ago.


This certainly does, though:

It’s no surprise that a chemical as potent as methylmercury harms wildlife when it enters an ecosystem in high concentration. In the case of wetland birds, researchers have found, it can even change sexual orientation, causing males to pair off with other males.

Mercury Pollution Can Make Male Birds Homosexual

Now erm....all that mercury that is/was put in vaccines which are increasing as the years roll on....any correlation....anyone...anyone

reply to post by unityemissions


Then how does one explain homosexual roles in a vast amount of historic and anthropological observations?

Perhaps the question here is whether homosexuality is expanding or increasing?

Personally, and unfortunately I'd say no.
Compared to the Victorian Age, actual homosexual activity has probably decreased since 1900.
It has also probably been very confined and compartmentalized by its recognition.

However, I do note something strange sometimes.
The younger Western heterosexuals are marrying less, and having less kids.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Then how does one explain homosexual roles in a vast amount of historic and anthropological observations?

I don't understand how this needs explaining. I talked of one way it may come to be. That's all.

Perhaps the question here is whether homosexuality is expanding or increasing?

Personally, and unfortunately I'd say no.
Compared to the Victorian Age, actual homosexual activity has probably decreased since 1900.
It has also probably been very confined and compartmentalized by its recognition.

However, I do note something strange sometimes.
The younger Western heterosexuals are marrying less, and having less kids.

I think it's obviously increasing, yet compared to when? Compared to just twenty years ago, for sure.

I'm sure there are numerous factors which cause it to increase and decrease over time. Not trying to say the current rate is the highest it's ever been, but do think it's higher in very recent times (passed 20 years or so) than it was in the previous generation or two.

I do think the common link is increased environmental pollution, and vaccinations which contained mercury, aluminum, or god knows what.