-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?
- Thread starter invest07
- Start date
- Status
Werbung:
steveox
Well-Known Member
Its a Behavoral problem. The reason why Men comit those faggot acts cause theyre so damn frustrated dealing with women. Women do it cause theyre to god damn lazy finding a good man instead of taking whats offered to them.So i dont think Gay or Lersbian Marrage should be legal. I think Insurance companies should deny anyone whos gay or lesbian health insurance. And if you file an job application if the employer finds out youre gay or lesbian you dont get the job. If you turn gay or lesbian your boss finds out he has the right to fire you!
vyo476
Well-Known Member
It can be either, in my experience. I've known people who were certainly homosexuals despite every wish that they had to be otherwise. I've also known people who got so fed up with the opposite sex that they decided to "go gay."
As an example of the first type, one of my cousins spent all of high school attempting to deny to himself and those around him that he was gay. He had a girlfriend and continued to attend the Catholic services he'd been going to with his family since he was born. By the time he was out of high school he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. His friends in college eventually got him to admit that he was gay and he's been a lot happier with himself ever since. Did he choose to be gay? He spent four years trying as hard as possible to not be gay and in the end it didn't work.
As for the other type, I could tell the stories of a few of my ex's who all decided guys weren't worth the trouble after we broke up. At least one of them is still saying it years later and still only dates other women. She chose to be gay initially, but I wonder if it continues to be a choice today.
As an example of the first type, one of my cousins spent all of high school attempting to deny to himself and those around him that he was gay. He had a girlfriend and continued to attend the Catholic services he'd been going to with his family since he was born. By the time he was out of high school he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. His friends in college eventually got him to admit that he was gay and he's been a lot happier with himself ever since. Did he choose to be gay? He spent four years trying as hard as possible to not be gay and in the end it didn't work.
As for the other type, I could tell the stories of a few of my ex's who all decided guys weren't worth the trouble after we broke up. At least one of them is still saying it years later and still only dates other women. She chose to be gay initially, but I wonder if it continues to be a choice today.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is necessarily genetic in the sense that there is a single gene out there we can label the "gay gene". I also do not think it is merely a choice.
Genetics is usually complicated and many traits are poly-genetic, or the only show up under certain environmental conditions.
Consider the following:
Among those considered "gay" are really quite a diverse group of people. Heterosexuals, experimenting. Bi-sexuals. Homosexuals. Only a very small proportion of the population is totally 100% homosexual. I would think that there are equally diverse reasons leading to those sexual orientations from choice to biology.
Given that - I think it's also reasonable to assume there is a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality in some of that group.
Opponents of the idea that there might be a biological reason cite supposed "successes" of such groups as the "Ex Gay ministry" - yet, researchers interviewing those in the program and those who have left the program and found that the only thing that changed was the superficial behavior - not the sexual orientation. The attraction to the same sex remained intact.
Another reason I tend to disagree with the "it's a choice" side is simple behavioral science. Being gay in our culture, until recently has often been a pretty horrendous experience exposing the person to hatred, stigma, ridicule, personal danger, murder, loss of a job, loss of friends, loss of family. If some one had a "choice" - why would they choose to subject themselves to that?
And in the end - if it's merely a choice - who cares? Who does it hurt? No one.
Genetics is usually complicated and many traits are poly-genetic, or the only show up under certain environmental conditions.
Consider the following:
Among those considered "gay" are really quite a diverse group of people. Heterosexuals, experimenting. Bi-sexuals. Homosexuals. Only a very small proportion of the population is totally 100% homosexual. I would think that there are equally diverse reasons leading to those sexual orientations from choice to biology.
Given that - I think it's also reasonable to assume there is a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality in some of that group.
Opponents of the idea that there might be a biological reason cite supposed "successes" of such groups as the "Ex Gay ministry" - yet, researchers interviewing those in the program and those who have left the program and found that the only thing that changed was the superficial behavior - not the sexual orientation. The attraction to the same sex remained intact.
Another reason I tend to disagree with the "it's a choice" side is simple behavioral science. Being gay in our culture, until recently has often been a pretty horrendous experience exposing the person to hatred, stigma, ridicule, personal danger, murder, loss of a job, loss of friends, loss of family. If some one had a "choice" - why would they choose to subject themselves to that?
And in the end - if it's merely a choice - who cares? Who does it hurt? No one.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
My belief is that there is no gay gene or any combination of genes that creates a gay tendency.
My reasons are based on science:
1. Gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights. If there were a gay gene (or combination of genes) then the percentage of gays in society would decline with each succeeding generation. As an example, assume gays constitute 10% of generation 1. If gays reproduce at half the rate of the general population, the gay percentage of generation 2 would be 5%. And 2.5% for generation 3 and 1.25% for generation 4. Within 10 generation there are very few gays. This is not happening today, as the gay percentage is holding constant at 3-5% (depending on whose numbers you chose to use).
There are historical reports of gays including Sodam and Gomorrah (circa 2000 BC) and several of the Ceasars. So if there were a gay gene, it would have effectively been eliminated from the gene pool by now.
2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.
3. Genetic drift. I'm not an expert in this but the basic premise is that the frequency of competing genes may vary from generation to generation but one gene will emerge and the other competing gene will be eliminated over time. This has not happened and this is additional evidence there is no gay gene.
4. Homosexuality is more common in prison that in the general population. Many enter prison straight and leave gay.
It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.
No one has to chose to be straight. But those who are gay have chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to pursue a gay lifestyle.
My reasons are based on science:
1. Gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights. If there were a gay gene (or combination of genes) then the percentage of gays in society would decline with each succeeding generation. As an example, assume gays constitute 10% of generation 1. If gays reproduce at half the rate of the general population, the gay percentage of generation 2 would be 5%. And 2.5% for generation 3 and 1.25% for generation 4. Within 10 generation there are very few gays. This is not happening today, as the gay percentage is holding constant at 3-5% (depending on whose numbers you chose to use).
There are historical reports of gays including Sodam and Gomorrah (circa 2000 BC) and several of the Ceasars. So if there were a gay gene, it would have effectively been eliminated from the gene pool by now.
2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.
3. Genetic drift. I'm not an expert in this but the basic premise is that the frequency of competing genes may vary from generation to generation but one gene will emerge and the other competing gene will be eliminated over time. This has not happened and this is additional evidence there is no gay gene.
4. Homosexuality is more common in prison that in the general population. Many enter prison straight and leave gay.
It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.
No one has to chose to be straight. But those who are gay have chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to pursue a gay lifestyle.
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
Ouch.
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
That's actually a really good point.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
That is, if you ignore recessive traits. Or the fact that many homosexuals from throughout history had to hide what they were to avoid prosecution and in doing so wound up having children.
Just because homosexuals prefer homosexual relations doesn't mean that historically they've abstained from heterosexual relations. Prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960s Western society discriminated heavily against homosexuals. How do you tell someone is gay? They have to act it. So if someone who is gay and possesses a "gay gene," as you put it, wishes to get away from discrimination, he does not act as he would naturally wish to do so - instead he acts straight, and probably has kids. The only reason homosexuality would be a liability and therefore eliminated by natural selection would be the lower reproductive rates and yet here we see why homosexuals have historically reproduced.
Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about.
Many people enter prison straight and leave deeply traumatized. This has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Survival of the species in a low-birth environment, yes. But overpopulation has been an issue for centuries now and a latent homosexual gene would do wonders for keeping burgeoning excess population in check, were homosexuality allowed by society (as it is becoming now). Just think - homosexuals could save civilization.
You're right, homosexuals do choose to live a homosexual lifestyle - because it is what is natural for them. Heterosexuals choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle because it is what is natural for them. I don't see a difference.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
As are mine...
Genetics don't quite work that way.
For example - some genetic mutations seem to crop up frequently - without being inherited. Sometimes this is due to a weak spot on a particular sequence that is more prone to damange or breaking, or maybe other matters. Cystic fibrosis is one such disease. Hence - despite the fact that (until recently) most patients did not survive into adulthood or reproductive age - the disease still kept showing up spontaneiously.
Second - not genes follow a mode of strict dominance/recessive patterns. If you have a polygenetic trait - the trait may not be expressed until a couple who happens to have all the necessary genes comes together and produces an individual that expresses the trait. That individual may not breed, but all the related individuals who do not express the trait might, thus keeping the genes in the gene pool. If you add environment to that - it further complicates things. All those traits may come together but - unless certain environmental factors (such as say, something in the pre-natal environment) trigger the expression - you might never know it.
Third - why do some genetic traits, seemingly destructive - continue to crop up? Maybe because they actually, at one time had a survival mechanism. For example cycle cell anemia. In a homozygous form, it is almost always eventually lethal. In a heterozygous form it offers protection against the malaria parasite thus conferring a survival benifit in those countries rife with malaria.
Fourth - group survival over individual survivial. In a cooperative species it might be beneficial to have a small number of non-breeding individual adults to take care of the young while other adults forage. In many highly organized cooperative species there is only one, or a few breeding pairs while the rest cooperate to raise the young. In that sort of situation there might be a survivial advantage to be gained by a small degree of homosexuality to reduce sexual tensions within the group. Who knows? The thing is though - it is not as simple as survivial and reproductive success of each individual or a straight dominant/recessive heredity.
See above. In a cooperative social species survival of the group becomes more important than reproductive success of each individual.
I'm not sure I understand how genetic drift would apply here. My understanding of the term is that it is the random change of the occurance of a particular gene in a population and it is thought to be one cause of speciation when a group is separated from its parent population.
Homosexual behavior maybe more common but I bet you once they leave, they go right back to being straight.
I think a species reproductive success is more complicated then simply an individual's chances of reproducing.
One could say that one chooses, unconciously, to pursue a straight lifestyle.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
steveox
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you got a woman problem...
I dont go around holding a mans hand or kissing him or sticking my penis in his ass.I jack off on internet porn instead.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Got to watch that - leads to carpal tunnel you know.
steveox
Well-Known Member
How? Its better then putting your penis in a another mans asshole and get Aids.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
- Status
