Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

Why are none of the studies cited from after 1985? Physiological psychology, behavioral genetics and genetics in general are all fields that have exploded starting in the 90s. For that matter the number of studies focused on homosexuality have seen a massive increase since the 80s. So why didn't your link source any articles that incorporate these modern developments?

Probably because that was about the latest in time that homosexuality could be talked about in other than glowing terms. The control of the media and of the educational systems in the West is nearly complete now. It wasn't back then.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


Allow me to translate: "Modern studies don't support my preconceived conclusions so I'm going to go ahead and just say they're wrong."

When you're a kid, a child ...there is no "Gay" or need for "sex"....

I remember being a kid, free from everything. Just aware and happy, playing, enjoying, investigating the backyard, bugs, bushes, etc....

...then somewhere down the line, puberty began to happen and I started wondering, "What is this thing in front of my legs and why do I feel so weird? And where is this need to "release" coming from? This is so weird!!! And why am I looking at girls differently now than I used to? First they were just friends, .....and now it seems like will help with "release" ...what the heck is going on?"

I know a gay dude and he hates it. He was molested by an uncle as a kid, so gay sex is all he knows, and he hates himself and his lifestyle, but says he can't help himself and has tried everything.

When I met him, he was just like all the other guys, into the same music, cars, beers, etc ......I didn't know he was gay and became friends with him like everyone else was.

It was later when I found it. We talked. HE said he wished he can like girls and be normal like all the other guys in our crew, but in him was some sort of schism that was created when he got touched as a kid.....

Some hate it, some embrace it .....I think it's relative.....

Anita Bryant said onetime:

Homosexuals cannot reproduce
so they have to recruit.

Recruiting is UNNATURAL

They have the government and media
helping them as the media has
always had a larger percent of
homosexual than the general population.

The government and media help is UNNATURAL

Of course homosexuals have to adamantly profess that they
were born that way, otherwise how could they jump on
the bandwagon of womens rights and
minorities rights campaign coattails?

UNNATURAL
A woman does not have a choice to be a woman any more then
a black man has a choice to be black.
NATURAL EITHER FEMALE OR BLACK
Homosexual on the other hand is
a behavior choice.
UNNATURAL

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pyramid head

 

No I am not discussing dominant or recessive traits or the basics of Mendelian genetics. What I'm discussing the basics of behavior genetics. Now I'm hardly arguing that homosexuality is 100% determined by genetics. Knowing how genetics influence behavior that would be a ridiculous statement to make. However it is just as ridiculous to claim that genetics plays no role in homosexuality. Somewhere between 5-10% of the world's population is thought to be homosexual. Familial studies show that if one identical twin is gay then in about 50% of cases the other twin is also gay. If genetics did not play a factor one would expect this number to match the global average of 5-10%. Following from these studies we can look at the extended family. These studies show that homosexuality is more prevalent on the mother's side (at least with homosexual males) than the father's side. This would indicate that the genetic markers for homosexuality are carried on the X chromosome. In fact scientists have identified the XQ28 region of the X chromosome as being a likely location for some of the genes influence sexual behavior.

We can also look at other commonalities among homosexuals that could only be explained by a genetic influence. For example the amygdala in homosexual males bears more similarities to that of a heterosexual female than a heterosexual male. And vice versa. The same goes for the INAH3 region of the brain. Homosexuals also tend to show higher rates of left handedness than global population as a whole. There are numerous physical commonalities in homosexuals that clearly indicate genetics are playing a role.

Once again though nowhere am I saying that only genetics matter. Anyone who has spent time researching behavior genetics will tell you that it is very rare to see a heritability coefficient anywhere near 1.00. Human behavior is very much determined by both nature and nurture. If one has more genes that predispose them to a behavior then they will require a smaller environmental stimuli for those behaviors to manifest. It is very possible for someone to have some of the genes for homosexuality (or even a lot of them for that matter) but never manifest the behavior because they never receive the proper environmental stimuli. That is how the genes for homosexuality have been consistently passed on throughout human history.

Human sexuality is much more complex than an all or nothing proposition. It is based on numerous genes and countless environmental factors. It exists on a spectrum with a lot of gray area between the two extremes.

edit on 7/1/2013 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

The same thing is said for those with antisocial personality disorder which is detectable and requires additional environmental stimuli . Genes are detectable. Even when influenced by environmental stimuli, if it is truly genetic. As far as sexuality and genes go, there is one problem with the information you cherry picked, no addressing of hormones. Sexuality and hormones are linked, this is why it would be genetically detectable. Ever notice why kids are not sexual at a young age? That is because of that magic age of puberty, then all of the sudden they become sexually aware.

Again if this were truly genetic it would have been bred out by our ancestors, unless it is a genetic defect, which again, would be detectable. The more logical answer is that homosexuality is a mental disorder. For some reason there is a lot of stigma associated with this but it is the more likely causative answer. It is more reasonable that environmental factors in child upbringing such as lack of father figure, divorce, molestation, other forms of abuse, in general, things that detrimentally affect the nuclear family is the reason. Not some "undetectable" genetics.

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by pyramid head

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pyramid head

 

It's also not included in the DSM because it doesn't fit with the other paraphilias at all. The DSM IV-TR defines a paraphilia as:

...recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months

Homosexuals are human, consenting adults that don't require suffering or humiliation to become aroused. It simply does not meet the qualifications to be a paraphilia.

For someone who works in science your knowledge of behavioral genetics is lacking. With rare exceptions like Huntington's chorea genetics is never an all or nothing thing. Behavior is the confluence of genetics and environment. The more genetically predisposed one is to a behavior the less environmental stimuli is required for the behavior to emerge. So it's possible for a person to have some of the genes for homosexuality but never have the behavior emerge. Thus they pass on the genes to the next generation. Plus there are many of cases of people who have hid their homosexuality until after they had a family. I have to say it's quote ridiculous to think that something as complex as sexuality would be found on a single gene. As far as I know we have not found all of the genes that contribute to any complex behavior. So why are you surprised we haven't found the genes that contribute to homosexuality?

Then we come to your claims regarding the paraphilias. The difference between homosexuals and rapists or sadists is that rapists and sadists are generally seeking power over their victim. These paraphilias are natural because they are products of the brain. However, what makes them disorders is the fact that they are behaviors that cause suffering in others. There is no victim in homosexuality. There is very much a victim in rape. No one may choose to be a pedophile but at the same time most pedophiles will recognize what they're doing is wrong.

Please dont insult my intelligence, you have no idea what you are talking about and sound very ignorant. What you were attempting to explain is known as recessive traits, I'm not doing to give you a class on genetics, its not something you can just copy and paste from wiki. You also didnt fully read or understand the sentence addressing social construct in relation to passing on genetics. Sexual genetics effect some usual markers, mainly hormones;look, there would be alot to explain has far as genetic arguments, but that argument would be very one-sided so there is no point.

I figured someone would respond and compare the morality of different sexual behaviors in an attempt to invalidate my argument. Again, if you finished reading the sentence that aspect was addressed. Morality is not the issue, the behaviors are sexual in nature, and abnormal. That is their relationship. If your are going to justify one behavior has being natural and something you are born with, logically other sexual behaviors that are abnormal would then have to wonder if they are of the same origin. Why cant one argue their abnormal sexual behaviors are inherent in their DNA, and thus a result of being born? Reasoning that because one is morally superior to the other and using said reasoning to justify it being biological over the other is non-sense and illogical.

"Copy and paste" from Wiki? Please! There is no evidence ANY of your BS is true about homosexuality and genetics. You are hilarious!

Interesting, genetics expert.....since this is sooo funny you really have to explain to my feeble mind how are ancestors who did not have sex with each other passed on a genetic trait. My comments are based on an understanding of basic genetic principles which you seem to have more knowledge of

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

Allow me to translate: "Modern studies don't support my preconceived conclusions so I'm going to go ahead and just say they're wrong."

Perhaps you are only willing to accept studies approved by the current homosexual approving "research" groups?? There are two groups about which nothing bad may be said in today's Higher Education Systems--and publishing any such opinions or study results has not been allowed for decades.

reply to post by pyramid head


Except when studies have been done that investigate those factors you list, only a small number of homosexuals have experienced them. At the same time, as I have mentioned a number of times, there are a number of commonalities between homosexuals that could only be explained by genetics such as the size and shape of the amygdala.

As I mentioned in my last post, genes contributing to homosexuality appear to be on the X chromosome. If we look at the mother and aunts (who would be more likely to pass on this gene than fathers) of homosexual males we see an interesting thing occur. These women on average are producing more offspring. So while, at least in males, this gene may hinder reproduction, in females it actually promotes it. Therefore one cannot necessarily say that this is a genetic defect since it actually increases the likelihood to reproduce in part of the population.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

As are kindness, thoughtfulness, self sacrifice, etc. What's your point?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pyramid head

 

No I am not discussing dominant or recessive traits or the basics of Mendelian genetics. What I'm discussing the basics of behavior genetics. Now I'm hardly arguing that homosexuality is 100% determined by genetics. Knowing how genetics influence behavior that would be a ridiculous statement to make. However it is just as ridiculous to claim that genetics plays no role in homosexuality. Somewhere between 5-10% of the world's population is thought to be homosexual. Familial studies show that if one identical twin is gay then in about 50% of cases the other twin is also gay. If genetics did not play a factor one would expect this number to match the global average of 5-10%. Following from these studies we can look at the extended family. These studies show that homosexuality is more prevalent on the mother's side (at least with homosexual males) than the father's side. This would indicate that the genetic markers for homosexuality are carried on the X chromosome. In fact scientists have identified the XQ28 region of the X chromosome as being a likely location for some of the genes influence sexual behavior.

We can also look at other commonalities among homosexuals that could only be explained by a genetic influence. For example the amygdala in homosexual males bears more similarities to that of a heterosexual female than a heterosexual male. And vice versa. The same goes for the INAH3 region of the brain. Homosexuals also tend to show higher rates of left handedness than global population as a whole. There are numerous physical commonalities in homosexuals that clearly indicate genetics are playing a role.

Once again though nowhere am I saying that only genetics matter. Anyone who has spent time researching behavior genetics will tell you that it is very rare to see a heritability coefficient anywhere near 1.00. Human behavior is very much determined by both nature and nurture. If one has more genes that predispose them to a behavior then they will require a smaller environmental stimuli for those behaviors to manifest. It is very possible for someone to have some of the genes for homosexuality (or even a lot of them for that matter) but never manifest the behavior because they never receive the proper environmental stimuli. That is how the genes for homosexuality have been consistently passed on throughout human history.

Human sexuality is much more complex than an all or nothing proposition. It is based on numerous genes and countless environmental factors. It exists on a spectrum with a lot of gray area between the two extremes.

edit on 7/1/2013 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

Excellent and well written post.

Genetics obviously plays a part.
In-utero hormonal and chemical exposures almost certainly play a part.
Environment, including lack of male role-model, obviously plays a part.

X-linked inheritance makes a lot of sense. Genes for physical beauty/sexual attractiveness would also likely be located on the X chromosome.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Genetics obviously plays a part.

Nope. My son is the only gay person in both sides of the family.

In-utero hormonal and chemical exposures almost certainly play a part.

I would like to see some stats on that.

Environment, including lack of male roll-model, obviously plays a part.

Nope again. Aside from a couple of years that I had to travel for monetary reasons I've always been in his life. Even was then, by phone though. The only problem I have with him is that he's a typical adult male. Unmotivated and lazy. Oh, and a Raiders fan.

X-linked inheritance makes a lot of sense. Genes for physical beauty/sexual attractiveness would also likely be located on the X chromosome.

Again I would like to see some stats on that.

reply to post by intrepid


Are we allowed to laugh at SuperModerators?

I've already been dinged 2000 points today for "uncivil" posts that were much more civil than those to which I was responding. Withhold the Gong hammer, please.

When were you absent from your son's upbringing? At the ages of 1-5 yo--sometime in there?

How do you know there are not others in the family who are closeted homosexuals with the same X chromosome??--You can't know.

How would you know if your wife was exposed to abnormal hormonal levels or unknown chemicals at any particular point in the pregnancy?? You couldn't.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by intrepid

 

Are we allowed to laugh at SuperModerators?

Sure. I do it all the time. In this instance though you'll probably look silly as my posts are backed by logic.

When were you absent from your son's upbringing? At the ages of 1-5 yo--sometime in there?

No.

How do you know there are not others in the family who are closeted homosexuals with the same X chromosome??--You can't know.

Was this a Freudian slip on your part? Just asking. And no. It's pretty obvious who is gay or not if you are tuned into your family.

How would you know if your wife was exposed to abnormal hormonal levels or unknown chemicals at any particular point in the pregnancy?? You couldn't.

Actually I DO know that. Can't discuss it because of the T&C though. My question to that would be why would you assume that homosexuality came from that? As opposed to, oh, say, ADHD?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pyramid head

 

Except when studies have been done that investigate those factors you list, only a small number of homosexuals have experienced them. At the same time, as I have mentioned a number of times, there are a number of commonalities between homosexuals that could only be explained by genetics such as the size and shape of the amygdala.

As I mentioned in my last post, genes contributing to homosexuality appear to be on the X chromosome. If we look at the mother and aunts (who would be more likely to pass on this gene than fathers) of homosexual males we see an interesting thing occur. These women on average are producing more offspring. So while, at least in males, this gene may hinder reproduction, in females it actually promotes it. Therefore one cannot necessarily say that this is a genetic defect since it actually increases the likelihood to reproduce in part of the population.

You are citing studies, and claiming said studies as law. I am currently writing a study on cancer rates in transplant patients, I am very familiar with the process, how they are done, the research that is involved and what usually consists of a good study. I am not going to argue based on a few studies you have pointed out, because then I would have to take your word that the study is quality.

Example, recently loma linda came out with a study on the benefits of being vegetarian over normal eating habits. The conflict of interest being that loma linda is a religious supported institution that teaches being a vegetarian. So they did a study supporting what they already believe in, this is not a great study.

To validate your studies to me, I would have to know if said researchers had a conflict of interest, who supported the study? was their outside money involved? was a third party group involved? what were the limitations of the study? were there enough patients? were they able to reproduce the study? did anyone else reproduce the study? has anyone done any research supporting or corroborating their research? and so on..........

Studies are meant for other researchers and doctors in that particular field not average people such as ourselves.

You are also making genetic claims for homosexuality on the X chromosome, "appear to be", be specific. If it is, then homosexuality can be predicted to a certain degree, or percentage, something I, and many I would assume, are unaware of.

reply to post by spirited75

A woman does not have a choice to be a woman any more then
a black man has a choice to be black.
NATURAL EITHER FEMALE OR BLACK
Homosexual on the other hand is
a behavior choice.
UNNATURAL

Opinions are fun aren't they?

Health organizations throughout the world agree homosexuality is little to zero choice. Fairly sure your bible doesn't make you as qualified as health professionals.

All capital letters isn't going to change that either.

Didn't think it was goin' to be a 20+ page thread, I woulda been getting my posts in. lol

Whatever happened to live and let live? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but the lengths some will go to to oppose and humiliate others who live their lives differently from theirs is ridiculous. Im straight, and I amm all for gay rights! There is not really a valid arguement against it that has any kind of bearing on how I live my life, Mostly because I havent had religious nonsense pounded into my skull....

To be accurate, its a natural variation, but a minority one.

in addition it tends to happen that children who are sexually and ritually abused, often become homosexual or bisexual, so its not all natural, some of it is enduced by the evil doers running this world. (the shadow government are satanic ritualists)

reply to post by Unity_99

in addition it tends to happen that children who are sexually and ritually abused, often become homosexual or bisexual

I've never seen that claim substantiated.

Can you show that beyond reasonable doubt?

My parents are practically saints and I am bisexual.

There are obviously countless cases of heterosexuals who were sexually abused as youngins. How does that fit into this model?

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by intrepid

 

Are we allowed to laugh at SuperModerators?

I've already been dinged 2000 points today for "uncivil" posts that were much more civil than those to which I was responding. Withhold the Gong hammer, please.

When were you absent from your son's upbringing? At the ages of 1-5 yo--sometime in there?

How do you know there are not others in the family who are closeted homosexuals with the same X chromosome??--You can't know.

How would you know if your wife was exposed to abnormal hormonal levels or unknown chemicals at any particular point in the pregnancy?? You couldn't.

edit on 2-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)

1. How does any of that make someone "unnatural". Everything you're talking about is a process that happens over and over again in nature if the theories are valid. Seems pretty natural to me.

2. What does "natural" have to do with it, anyways? Cupcakes aren't natural. Helicopters aren't natural. Churches aren't natural. Hell, you're sitting on a computer posting text to a web forum; probably the furthest thing from natural you could possibly do!