Poll: Is homosexuality genetic?
- Thread starter JokerCrowe
- Start date
99% of all diseases with a genetic background cannot be explained by the Mendelian genetics (i.e. one gene with several alleles accounts for the phenotype).
Alzheime's, Chron's, more and more types of cancer have all been shown to have a genetic predisposition which requires ''activation'' by environmental factors.
It is quite possible that the phenotype ''gay'' is the result of over/underexpression of the function of the product of several genes combined, but can only become gay when there's a certain ''Nurture'' involved. Therefore, experiments like those with homozygotous twins aren't particularly helpful. Also, the current technical advancement and scientific prowess are inadequate to unravel all the individual genes, their relative importance and function in detail, so population-genetics (pure and simple family-studies) are all we have to go on. So, a genetic background? Probably. Does it exclude the possibility of a kid turning out straight with an otherwise genotype ideally suited to become gay? no.
Alzheime's, Chron's, more and more types of cancer have all been shown to have a genetic predisposition which requires ''activation'' by environmental factors.
It is quite possible that the phenotype ''gay'' is the result of over/underexpression of the function of the product of several genes combined, but can only become gay when there's a certain ''Nurture'' involved. Therefore, experiments like those with homozygotous twins aren't particularly helpful. Also, the current technical advancement and scientific prowess are inadequate to unravel all the individual genes, their relative importance and function in detail, so population-genetics (pure and simple family-studies) are all we have to go on. So, a genetic background? Probably. Does it exclude the possibility of a kid turning out straight with an otherwise genotype ideally suited to become gay? no.
Yes or at least significantly influenced by genetics and/or prenatal conditions. My girlfriend is a possible case of genetic homosexuality because her father is a closeted homosexual. I am not just making a baseless accusation about her dad, she told me herself they found evidence that if he is not gay would at least indicate that he is bisexual.
I think that like alcoholism and other addictions, (not saying being gay is an addiction) there are genes that make it more likely that someone might turn out gay, but studies have shown that there's a bigger correlation between being raised by single, overbearing mothers and going gay than any genetic markers. Just like alcoholism and violent behavior, though, certain decisions have to be reached to actually act on behavior, or to even allow such behaviors and thoughts to stay with you.
Just to add a second layer to this discussion, and before I say this-no, I am not a homophobe, nor do I think gays are inferior to straight people, but wouldn't arguing the existence of a gay gene be arguing the genetic inferiority of homosexuals? Since natural selection doesn't work on people anymore-for example, disease/natural predators aren't as big a deal-to preserve the gene pool, evolution would have to force a mutation to prevent mating. I know it sounds harsh, but it's logically sound, unless I've somehow missed how evolution works. Just food for thought.
As for the homosexuality in nature argument, I don't think that is TRUE homosexuality. It seems to be more of a dominance thing. For example, when one male dog humps another male dog, pleasure centers of the brain are NOT activated, similar to (most) men in prison, it's a way to show dominance, not attraction.
Just to add a second layer to this discussion, and before I say this-no, I am not a homophobe, nor do I think gays are inferior to straight people, but wouldn't arguing the existence of a gay gene be arguing the genetic inferiority of homosexuals? Since natural selection doesn't work on people anymore-for example, disease/natural predators aren't as big a deal-to preserve the gene pool, evolution would have to force a mutation to prevent mating. I know it sounds harsh, but it's logically sound, unless I've somehow missed how evolution works. Just food for thought.
As for the homosexuality in nature argument, I don't think that is TRUE homosexuality. It seems to be more of a dominance thing. For example, when one male dog humps another male dog, pleasure centers of the brain are NOT activated, similar to (most) men in prison, it's a way to show dominance, not attraction.
I don't know if you're serious about this, but I saw other comments like it so I just grabbed the closest one. Anyway this in no way proof for there being no "gay" gene.GiantRedButton said:How would a gene for not having sex with the opposite sex pass on?
Just think about it
A. Recessive alleles
B. Multiple alleles-what dictates that there are only two versions of the gene of sexual orientation?
C. Multifactorial trait- most traits in humans don't operate under the influence of just one gene. Two people that have different mutations might form a combination that creates a homosexual orientation.
Like most things in human biology it's most likely some combination of environment and genetics. Also just because a women might not want to conceive with a male partner doesn't mean that she can't get the necessary genetic material from a sperm bank and other types of fertilization.
I highly doubt that homosexuality is intentionally genetic. However it may very well be a... is it a recessive gene? That pops up occasionally.
...I haven't done genetics yet.
I probably do judge homosexuals. They're free to make their own choices, though.
...I haven't done genetics yet.
I probably do judge homosexuals. They're free to make their own choices, though.
I like how this very sensible post is right at the start, yet everyone ignores it...Nickolai77 said:
I think it was less "female gets male hormones" etc because you're exposed partially to both, what's crucial is the stage of development and quantities. I heard that TOO MUCH testosterone (for a male foetus) at the wrong stage in foetal development also seemed to show odd effects.
I don't see the problem with gay people anyway, or why people have a problem with them. If hardcore anti-gays are worried about "the human race becoming gay" and dying out, then they might need to work on making it CONTAGIOUS first, they didn't CHOOSE to be straight, so why would people CHOOSE to be gay, and as far as religious sides go, if people are taking 2-5000 year old knowledge written by HUMANS literally, then they need to go out and experience the world.
I believe there is a genetic predisposition to be so, but it's also heavily environmentally influenced. If my father were not abusive, I may not be a lesbian, but he's also a closet homo (I'd refer you to his journals, but we no longer have them) and that reinforces the idea of genetics having some role to play. A mix of nature and nurture, one might say.
If I'm correct, you're...close. Homosexuals don't have a part of there brain missing, they have a section of the brain (The Amygdala) whose structure more closely resembles a straight member of the opposite sex. In other words, brain structure A is found in Straight males and Lesbians, and brain structure B is found in Straight females and Gay men. Implying, of course, that brain formation causes attraction to a particular sex, regardless of your gender. However, I'm pretty sure that those studies hypothesized that the cause of this brain structure is womb conditions, NOT genetics. It's interesting, because it is surprising the number of things people have as part of there nature which is NOT in there genes. You can certainly be born with a trait that is not in your genes.SteveBurger said:
The other major theory is also worth a look, and also right up the Psychology research alley. Basically, it appears that gay men have sisters who are more fertile. In theory, the same hypothesized gene that makes someone gay also makes there sibling have more kids. That means that this gene DOES, paradoxically, increase a genes odds of survival and procreation. Sort of like how Sickle Cell Anemia is still prevalent in places because having a recessive sickle cell trait makes you resistant to Malaria. Of course, this theory hasn't really looked into female homosexuality, but its still one of 2 solid scientific hypotheses.
Well if I were to take Family Guy seriously, then I do believe that there is something called the "Gay-Gene". But it's only temporary, so don't worry people! No one is gay forever!
But in all seriousness, I think that it's a combination of an individual's enviroment and genetics. Maybe. I'm not sure. I haven't studied the subject in detail at all. So I'll just stick with Family Guy's explanation for now.
But in all seriousness, I think that it's a combination of an individual's enviroment and genetics. Maybe. I'm not sure. I haven't studied the subject in detail at all. So I'll just stick with Family Guy's explanation for now.