Poll: The 'why' in Sexuality

[BiscuitTrouser]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

 

[Leodiensian]

You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

I get that you're not attacking gay people, and I don't want this to seem like me launching a counter-offensive, but I do disagree with some of your statements. I think you're over-simplifying a pretty complex issue rather drastically. I'm not trying to call you a homophobe or anything like that, but I do think you could do with reading around the topic a bit more before weighing in with such wide sweeping comments as "sexuality is all in your head". Obviously a component of sexual behaviour is cognitive - one can learn and develop preferences through experience - but the behavioural aspects are the tip on a physiological iceberg.

First, you seem to be saying that the only way someone can be "born with" something is to have it be a genetic factor directly inherited, unaltered, from the parents, which is obviously not the case, otherwise evolution simply couldn't happen. Leaving aside the fact that you're wholesale ignoring the concept of genetic mutation, there's a lot of weight to the theory that male homosexuality has to do with fetal developmental variations. For example, a second child is more likely to be gay than a first, and a third etc etc. One cited possibility for this is that subsequent fetuses are exposed to greater quantities of female hormones. Obviously this is just for male same-sex behaviour, but let's move on to another point.

Second, neurochemistry: brain imaging has found that a gay male's brain 'fires' in response to sexual pheromone-based stimuli in a manner that more closely resembles a straight woman's than a straight male. Similary, lesbian brains respond more like straight men than straight women. This is a chemical, physical and unconcious reaction displaying a clear and categorical distinction between different 'sexualities' on a physiological level.

Now, let's move on to more social arguments.

If homosexuality is 'all in your head' and not something you are born with, as you assert, it is therefore a learned behaviour, right? Then the question becomes why would same-sex behaviour still occur in cultures that prescribe heavily against it? Many Middle Eastern states, for example, have the death penalty against male same-sex activities - but funnily enough those gays still keep cropping up. All that the death penalty ensures is that they either resort to extreme subterfuge in order to pursue same-sex activities or have to leave the country in order to live in a way that feels proper to them without the threat of death. Why haven't they been 'scared straight'?

Next, if it is something one is not born with, but 'learned', then the question becomes where does one learn that from? Would a boy in a bubble not be gay in spite of everything else that might otherwise 'make' him gay? Consider the numerous twin studies that founded the idea of a genetic factor to homosexuality; that is, if one twin is gay, the other is statistically overwhelmingly going to be gay as well, no matter the distance the two are apart, nor the amount of time they have been seperate. Do you believe that if we identified two potentially gay twins and isolated one of them, while let the other one go off to become as flaming a ****** as he liked, the boy in the bubble would be a red-blooded heterosexual?

Next, if homosexuality is a purely cognitive aspect of a person, then so-called 'reparative therapy' would work in the same way that one could go to therapy to give up smoking, get over a fear or cope with depression. It doesn't. Even the staunchest of 'ex-gay' advocates have admitted that there has never been a single truly 'cured' homosexual in the history of the ex-gay movement. In fact, reparative therapy is so incredibly psychological destructive that there exists a (pro-gay) "ex-gay survivor" movement campaigning against reparative therapy. I really recommend the writings of Wayne Besen on this topic; Anything But Straight especially clearly documents the failings of the ex-gay movement.

Like I say, I'm not trying to attack you yourself, but I think your arguments speak from a lack of information.

Oh, and one last aside. Your comment on how Ancient Greece used to think homosexuality was okay? Not quite. Again, you're majorly over-simplifying the matter. Several pre-modern societies were (sort of, usually) okay with same-sex activity. Note: not the same thing as exclusive homosexuality. But this was not even something the entirely of Greece could agree on, and even only then with some pretty major caveats attached. First, in those societies the institution of marriage and the practice of childbirth was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than it is today. Like, getting married while a teen and being explicitly told that the function of such a marriage is to make babies. If your wife doesn't start showing a tummy-bulge within a year of your wedlock, you are a failure of a man. Enjoy! Same-sex activity was in some societies seen as an acceptable form of sex for pleasure - just for pleasure, remember, not as a romantic relationship as we'd concieve of it in modern terms - but mostly due to fucked up pre-modern gender politics where women still weren't entirely seen as human fucking beings, or simply like fucked-up inferior versions of men at best, so of course they could only be used to make more men.

In the few socially acceptable forms of homosexual behaviour, age was also a factor. See, if you're the boss in those societies, you top and if you're the office worker, you're the bottom. That's the only way they consider it acceptable, because the top is the 'manly = superior' position and the bottom is the 'feminine = inferior' position. Again, gender politics back then were kinda fucked, and this was also before the invention of the power bottom. Age was also a factor, leading to the famed Athenian pederasty; an older teacher would be engaged in a same sex relationship with a young, beardless youth - but again, only with the old man on top and the youth on the bottom was this an acceptable relationship. One of the things that the Roman Emperor Nero's contemporaries disliked about him wasn't that he engaged in same-sex activities with his Egyptian stud-slaves (honestly, who doesn't like the odd Egyptian stud-slave?) but because he was on the bottom when he did. The Emperor does not bottom, especially not to a slave. The Emperor should have always been the top in every instance, because he was the utter head of state and therefore should have been head of the bedroom too.

Returning to the central them of this essay of a post: it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

 

[kickyourass]

That's certainly a unique place for this topic to enter your head.
I'm more or less exclusively straight, but I don't have much of a problem admitting that other men are attractive.

I don't really think sexuality has a why, it just kind of is, but then again I know jack all about any human mind other then my own so I can't say anything definitive really.

I don't really think we're born with our sexuality, I don't think anything involving sexuality really starts to develop until much later (Again I know very little about the human mind). But it's certainly not an environmental thing, if it was we wouldn't have gay people come out of Fundamentalist families. I think it's just one of those things the human mind does that we just can't explain yet.

Yes, I have found other men attractive, it's pretty rare, but it happens.

 

[Lord Siathene]

I'm asexual. Sex just isn't that appealing at all, and I don't find it to be all that great either. I only tend to do it because it's such a prevalent part of the relationship experience, or at least it has been in all of mine. I'm sure that's normal? But my "boredom" of the act, for a lack of a better word, sure puts a strain on my relationships. It's sad, but I've come to accept it.

But if I do find myself with anyone, it's always a women. I'm not sure if that fact changes anything, but I can't find the appeal of being with another man at all.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Thought I was straight.
Then started getting some physical (and minor emotional) attractions to guys, thought 'maybe I'm bisexual'.
Still was more sexually attracted to women so I thought 'maybe I am straight'.
Then started thinking 'maybe I'm half straight or something', or 'does it have to be 50/50 to be bisexual'.
Then realised I really don't care and I'll just take it how it goes. Talking about sexuality seems tedious, especially with all these other categories which honestly don't sound that different to the original four. Sexuality's too fluid (lolgetit?) to fit into strict categories and if you try this is what happens.

Will say though- emotionally I'm definitely more attracted to girls, as far as physical features go I'm more attracted to girls, but I prefer the idea of penises to vaginas.
Go make a new category out of that.

 

[elvor0]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

Aside from the fact that gays can have kids, just because they fancy the same sex, that doesn't make them sterile, not only is there now IVF, but there are plenty of cases of homosexual people getting married and having kids because they're ashamed or closeted, or can't deal with the fact they're homosexual, or they live in a country where homosexuality is illegal, and thus use it as a cover.

And technically in a way it is beneficial, as it keeps the population in check to a certain degree, think about it, we're overpopulated at 7 billion people, imagine if there was no such thing as homosexuality, that's got to increase by like 20%. Granted it's not exactly a physical evolution like opposable thumbs, but you get the idea. Plus, the Appendix, debatably does fuck all, and randomly kills ya.

 

[TehCookie]

I don't fall in any of the terms, where's the one for 90% straight with next to no libido but enjoys romanticism?

 

[Dango]

Whats your sexuality?
Demisexual

Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?
I do not know.

Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
I believe your sexuality is defined by your life as you grow up

Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Yes.

I don't fall in any of the terms, where's the one for 90% straight with next to no libido but enjoys romanticism?

I'm pretty sure that qualifies as aesexual, as in you aren't sexually attracted, but still romantically attracted to people.

 

[guitarsniper]

I'm bisexual, though I was pretty sure I was straight until a few years back when I started seeing duded and being like "yeah, I'd hit that". So I don't know why, but I guess some switch turned in my brain or something...

 

[Robert Ewing]

Straight male here, I've felt incredibly attracted to men, but never acted upon it because more often then not they were straight, so I suppose I guess that makes me bisexual. Hurray for being greedy!

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

I bolded the comments where you are wrong.

Gay people DO have straight sex. Either because they're in the closet, or because they want to have kids.

Gay people DO have kids. They had kids in ancient Greece (because reproduction and sexual satisfaction were considered different things) and they have kids today (sometimes with actual sex, sometimes with artificial insemination.

And I already mentioned the article discussing how bi/homosexuality is a beneficial mutation. Its presence in multiple animal populations, and its duration in the human genome proves that.

 

[Luke3184]

Whats your sexuality? Straight
Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality? Just the way I'm wired
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality? I think it's just the way you're born
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual? Not sexually attracted, but I can look at another man and go 'damn that's a sexy man'
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual? NA

 

[Blow_Pop]

Whats your sexuality?
Do you think there is a why to your Sexuality?
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual?

Pansexual
Because I enjoy people's personalities more than their actual gender/appearance. Physical attraction doesn't play much of a factor into how attracted I am. It has to be there in a small part(by this I mean I've dated people that the only thing I found attractive about them is their eyes outside of their personality)but apart from that, WHO someone is is more important to me attraction wise.
You are born liking a certain type of people. Just like gender. And gender is not defined by what genitals you have. Gender is defined by YOU. Your sex is defined by your genitals.
As to the last two questions, I have been attracted to both men and women. In that I have also been attracted to genderqueer individuals and transgender both pre op and post op(I say pre op because some are in the "I want the operation but have not the financial means for it yet" and others are in the "I don't want it" boats).

 

[verdant monkai]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

Ok I lied this is a discussion now
And you know what you forced my hand, COWER FROM MY TRUE BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, THOU SHALT PAY FOR THY HUBRIS.
Ahem....
yes the first "gay" could have been as a mutation to give rise to a person with a recessive gene for the gay. while the person themselves would be straight. but their children (if had with another mutant, which wouldn't be common, due to the rarity of mutation) would have a 1 in 2 chance of also being a carrier. then one fo those carriers would have to breed with another carrier to produce 2 in 4 carriers, 1 in 4 fully gays, who wouldnt breed and produce none. and 1 in 4 fully straight

and the chances are 1/4 gay 1/4 straight 2/4 carrier for each child.

(stage 2) when you add this to competition of other species the chance of this gene getting a large foothold enough to produce viable population for many people today to be unwitting carriers of the gay gene, the gay carriers have no biological advantage over the other normal people. meaning they have just as much chance of having children, 1/2 chance of producing gay carriers. and if those carriers had a child witha normal person there wouold be a 1/4 chance of producing a carrier and a 3/4 chance of noraml straights.

the rate of dilution is so fast the gene will become redundant and die out over the course of millions of years.

that is assuming a gay carrier mutant actually happened to find another gay carrier mutant in the first place. if they only found anormal person

 

[Vamantha]

I'm straight. :3

Guys have always been interesting to me so it could be that. They seem relaxed, mellow, calm, but fun. Where as women I don't have as nice a mental picture.

It could just very well be that people come to term with their sexuality through all those. Maybe some people are just born, it happens for others, or life shapes it for the last group. I wouldn't be surprised. I'm unsure of how mine came around.

I haven't felt sexually attracted to the same sex. Yay! Lack of input! :/

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

To be honest, I'm unsure. I find myself attracted to women for the most part, but occasionally some dazzling fellow will rear his head and I won't be so certain anymore. Conflicted boy am I.

 

[Chefodeath]

I've long ago abandoned any attempt to find any kind of logic or consistency in sexuality. Things that would have turned me on a few years ago disgust me today and vice versa. It is for this reason that I have taken up a sexual asceticism of sorts. I refuse to make something which can change so easily a cornerstone of my personality, for it is a fool who builds his home on the shifting sands.

So ya, if forced to label my sexuality, I'd call it undefined, and frankly, unimportant.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, I've always been straight. I heard most guys go through a "gay phase" but that seems to have passed me by (thank God). I guess if I had to explain why I'm straight I'd probably say because of... well...

Spoiler: ...this hot dame...

Spoiler: ...or maybe this dazzlin' broad...

Spoiler: ...or even this attractive young lady...

...but if I had to pick one reason?

Spoiler: I'd pick this reason every time

God damn, women are hot.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Love the mounting entheusiasm!

Yep it would get pretty dilute. However THEN we factor in the other things i talked about where we have gay people having children with straight people. Not to mention we have the extremely complex interactions of different genes to consider. Perhaps the "gay gene" is a repressor gene for another gene that causes attraction in a certain way. Perhaps its an incredibly complex combination possible from anyone in the population but with a very small chance of the combination being viable.

That is to say we all have the genetics and alleles for attraction, say about 90% of your gametes will contain the correct sequence to give straight attraction while ther other 10% contain the correct sequence of genes and repressor genes and other parts to lead to a "gay" person if in combination with others. All stemming from genetics that are essential to attraction that we all have but a unique combination therein. Im perfectly willing to accept the gay gene doesnt exist. However its a perfectly valid theory and it needs me research into it.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual

This however throws a spanner in my ideas. It should be 100%. Its higher than usual. But its also not 100%. This leads me to think that genetics may make a person more... accepting to becoming gay depending on how their brain develops after birth. But the factor isnt described entirely by genetics. Ill concede that.

 

[Chefodeath]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

Ok I lied this is a discussion now
And you know what you forced my hand, COWER FROM MY TRUE BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, THOU SHALT PAY FOR THY HUBRIS.
Ahem....
yes the first "gay" could have been as a mutation to give rise to a person with a recessive gene for the gay. while the person themselves would be straight. but their children (if had with another mutant, which wouldn't be common, due to the rarity of mutation) would have a 1 in 2 chance of also being a carrier. then one fo those carriers would have to breed with another carrier to produce 2 in 4 carriers, 1 in 4 fully gays, who wouldnt breed and produce none. and 1 in 4 fully straight

and the chances are 1/4 gay 1/4 straight 2/4 carrier for each child.

(stage 2) when you add this to competition of other species the chance of this gene getting a large foothold enough to produce viable population for many people today to be unwitting carriers of the gay gene, the gay carriers have no biological advantage over the other normal people. meaning they have just as much chance of having children, 1/2 chance of producing gay carriers. and if those carriers had a child witha normal person there wouold be a 1/4 chance of producing a carrier and a 3/4 chance of noraml straights.

the rate of dilution is so fast the gene will become redundant and die out over the course of millions of years.

that is assuming a gay carrier mutant actually happened to find another gay carrier mutant in the first place. if they only found anormal person

Both of you should probably stop talking. I think the factors that feed into homosexuality, genetic and otherwise, are far more nuanced and varied than a single "gay gene", and all your sophomoric comprehension of biology is doing is getting you nowhere.