Thread: The "Gay" Gene.

I remember someone saying that everyone was bisexual on this forum. Ties into some shamanistic beliefs if I remember correctly...I could see it being true.

I don't think there is a gay gene, but there are environmental, and psychological factors that could make one more predisposed to it than others. That seems to be the general consensus in this thread...

Homosexuality is not a choice. You cannot choose who you are attracted to, but you can change overtime and become attracted to one sex over the other.

Anyway... it's interesting how random people on a random forum pretend to know something about this.

In my opinion it's a combination of nature and nurture. Whatever the "cause" of gay people is, I think it's exactly the same as the "cause" of straight people.

Am I straight by choice or was I born that way? Bah, fuck if I know. But I guess it's a combination of the two.

I believe that twin studies show that there is no correlation; i.e. there is no gay gene.

Therefore being gay is due to environmental factors. That doesn't make it a choice though; you don't choose your environment, at least as a child. Maybe some people do choose it, consciously or subconsciously, but I'd imagine most don't.

The enigma really is why homosexuality hasn't been weeded out of the population by natural selection; not wanting to mate with the opposite sex is extremely detrimental to one's genes' chances of being passed on.

I found a 1992 review of the literature on twin studies of homosexuality.
Twin Studies of Homosexuality
The author's conclusions are summed up in the following passage:

The use of twin studies provides us, in theory, with a method of investigating the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors in the genesis of homosexuality. Three notable twin studies in this area have been conducted to date, by Kallman (1952), Heston and Shields (1968) and Bailey and Pillard (1991). However, the former pair of studies were based on highly biased samples so that their findings cannot be generalized to a larger population. Bailey and Pillard's results suggested that homosexuality has a high component of heritability. Many smaller studies of the sexual orientation of twins have also been reported, which, while not widely generalizable, often give insights of differences in the rearing environment experienced by members of a twin pair which can lead to divergent orientation in adulthood. Eckert et al. (1986) studied sexual orientation in identical twins reared apart, and found concordance in a male pair, but discordance in three female pairs. However, many methodological problems are associated with such investigations.
...
From the data reviewed in this report, it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn. Little can be said of the origins of female homosexuality.

A guarded conclusion to say the least, but evidence nonetheless that it's an interplay between nature and nurture, as one would reasonably expect.

Originally Posted by Xei

The enigma really is why homosexuality hasn't been weeded out of the population by natural selection; not wanting to mate with the opposite sex is extremely detrimental to one's genes' chances of being passed on.

The article above actually has some information on this very point:
Current Theories of the Genesis of Homosexuality: Genetic theories

The two most popular hypotheses in this field are those of balanced superior heterozygote fitness and of kin selection for altruistic behaviour.

Briefly, the former hypothesis supposes that phenotypic homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive 'homosexual' genes. If a heterozygote, possessing one 'homosexual' genetic allele and one 'heterosexual' allele, is phenotypically heterosexual, and more reproductive than an individual who is homozygotic for the 'heterosexual' alleles, then the heterozygotic combination will be preferentially selected in future generations. In this way, the 'homosexual' genes are preserved. This explanation may seem implausible; for one thing, it hardly seems likely that only a single, major gene is involved in determining sexual preference However, various genetic concepts (incomplete penetrance, epistasis, etc.) may be utilised to expand the hypothesis (e.g. Klintworth 1962, Fuller & Thompson 1978).

The key to the kin selection hypothesis is that it does not matter how one's genes are passed to the next generation, as long as they are. Siblings share, on average, 50% of their genes. Therefore, if an individual shows altruistic behaviour towards its siblings which results in an increased likelihood of the siblings leaving or raising offspring, then that individual is, in effect, favouring its own success. Although it is hard to see how such a process could operate in modern society, sociobiology concerns itself with how behavioural traits have evolved and been selected from primitive societies to the present day. It has been suggested that, in primitive societies, homosexuals may have formed a 'sterile caste' which could devote itself to helping mothers to rear their young

There's no gene for sexuality preference. It's a product of one's decisions that is effected by certain environmental factors. Everyone is born with natural instincts. A natural instinct for human sexuality is to pair up with the opposite sex to breed. That's what sex was originally for. To make babies. Pass on your genes. I guarantee if humans didn't take pleasure in having sex, everyone would be straight.

There's no gene for sexuality preference. It's a product of one's decisions that is effected by certain environmental factors. Everyone is born with natural instincts. A natural instinct for human sexuality is to pair up with the opposite sex to breed. That's what sex was originally for. To make babies. Pass on your genes. I guarantee if humans didn't take pleasure in having sex, everyone would be straight.

I don't think anybody would argue that a single gene causes homosexuality, but I think it should be pointed out that one's sexuality is ultimately down to your genetic code. We are naturally sexually attracted to people, it's not a nurtured thing.

The article above actually has some information on this very point:

Very interesting... I think the second is quite credible actually.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Homosexuality is nature, not nurture. It is seen in animals outside of humans as well. It has been around since sexuality and complex organisms have existed. It may not be a gene, per se, but hormones, testosterone, estrogen. etc. This is why it primarily takes effect come puberty.

A person who is gay can no more choose who they're attracted to than someone who is straight. I can't choose to be gay, and a gay man can't choose to be straight.

The choice is in the way you act. There are those who refuse to come out, and live a straight life despite their true sexuality. But their true, physical attraction, is not a choice. Its not a byproduct of the media or peers. It is something that exists within them, biologically.

+1

I have always seen it as : why some people prefer color blue instead of yellow? why some people like comedy movies and some other like action ones?

Well, that's what I think, genes or not.

Yes but you don't choose your environmental factors, do you? So really there's nothing in that argument.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I guarantee if humans didn't take pleasure in having sex, everyone would be straight.

I'm not sure I agree with that. there is a lot more to relationships than just sex, pleasuable or not. what about attraction, personality? :\

I mean, were asking to find the gay gene. but have we found the other genes to other sexualities? or do we just naively assume every sexuality has a gene but homosexuality?

sexuality is complex, we need to look at the whole picture

I am an asexual(hetero)-biromantic. I just confuse the hell out of people. I can't limit myself to one word, as neither word by itself describes me

I knew I was different as early as highschool. before highschool, I don't remember feeling different. in my years as an asexual I've been confused with bisexuality and homosexuality. Am glad that I learned about asexuality sooner. There are some bisexuals, who aren't actually bisexual that discover their asexuality in the awkwardness of a bed.

its one thing to come out of the homo-closet

try coming out of the A-closet. most people don't even acknowledge it!!

I think being asexual, I can say, I was born this way. but definately environment affects it. it was highschool that gave it fuel. I can't force myself to want to have sex with someone. I can't force myself to want to have sex with a woman. My female friends they want to tell me about their sex lives and I tell them shut it, becuase I don't even want they were doing with their parts.

however, unlike the average hetero which identifies romance with sexaulity, I don't. I can fall in love with another female. And im just happy to be next to her. I know falling in love can be a platonic feeling, completely having nothing to do with sex. Most people don't beleive me. And think I'm just in the lesbian closet. I think I know which gender I've been sexually attracted to, and thats male.

sexuality, loveality, two different things

you can fall in love with anyone, regardless of gender or age. I think were all biromantic, just afraid of where those feelings will go. homophobia will try to have you think that strong feelings must lead to sex. but thats false. and maybe why this bromance thing is being poked fun of. people are curious, where does bromance go?

since I have had those feelings before, I can say, you can't force sexual attraction.

apparently this happens to 'lesbians' a lot. which probably aren't lesbian but asexual-homoromantic. Theres a movie about this subject matter. A lesbian couple breaks up because the sex never happens, despite all awkward efforts. One of them finally realizes shes not gay at all, but perfectly happy to just be in love with a woman (homoromantic). The other is too confused with this sexless romance, and breaks up the relationship

if people took the time to consider the story of asexuality, they would understand that love is a choice....but sexuality probably has deeper biological roots

There is no gene for sexual orientation, but it doesn't make it a choice. There's no gene that says that i like blue over red, but I do. That's not a choice either. People who say it's a choice are just stupid or ignorant or both.

Didn't mind to read the whole thread.

My point: Human beings aren't born heterosexual (so there's no thing as a gay choice or a gay genetic disease). Human beings aren't born bisexual either. Human beings are born asexual. You don't see a 3yo fapping to straight or gay porn. In fact, children usually dislike when their parents tie them up with a friend of the opposite sex.

My second point. I have enough reasons to believe the only reason why we haven't traced the cause of homosexuality is because there is more than one cause. Firstly, a genetic tendency, and secondly, an environmental happening. I don't have much to explain about the genetic cause, but I do about the environmental one.

I'm greatly in favour of thinking homosexuality may be environmentally caused by a happening in the phallic phase of development. In this phase, e.g. the boy is interested in his own genitalia, and it wouldn't take much for the boy to be curious as to what other boys' genitalia is like (is it bigger or smaller? what will it be like when I grow up? etc etc). This notion is supported by typically homosexual behaviour such as early sexual development (observed statistically), many forms of fixation (observed anecdotally) and whatnot.

But it shouldn't be considered a disease or w/e. Many things associated with sexual developmental phases are considered character traits, not disturbances.

Willing to discuss.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Homosexuality is not a choice. You cannot choose who you are attracted to, but you can change overtime and become attracted to one sex over the other.

Originally Posted by Xei

Therefore being gay is due to environmental factors. That doesn't make it a choice though; you don't choose your environment, at least as a child. Maybe some people do choose it, consciously or subconsciously, but I'd imagine most don't.

The enigma really is why homosexuality hasn't been weeded out of the population by natural selection; not wanting to mate with the opposite sex is extremely detrimental to one's genes' chances of being passed on.

/thread.
I believe that this about sums it up. Your experiences and your environment, mainly the people you interact with, and how your relationship with your mother/father/brotherly/sisterly figures, influences your sexuality. You may be heterosexual at first, but as your relationship with other people, and as your environment and experiences change, so might your sexuality. Also what Xei said, if homosexuality was indeed caused by a gene, it should've been weeded out of the gene pool a long time ago, because we all know that a man and a man cannot have children, and a woman and a woman cannot have children without artificial insemination.

Originally Posted by Fableflame

Also what Xei said, if homosexuality was indeed caused by a gene, it should've been weeded out of the gene pool a long time ago, because we all know that a man and a man cannot have children, and a woman and a woman cannot have children without artificial insemination.

Wrong assumption.

First thing - an individual doesn't necessarily need to have children to spread his genes, as long as the gene is recessive and his co-familiars do have children. With that explained, a gay parent (an uncle, for example) would help in providing for the offspring, augmenting their chances of survival. Many male penguins couple when the group lacks females, and adopt one or two eggs to raise. A gay primitive human would help to collect more food, hunt more or work more. Finally, gay behaviour could help stimulate individuals' sex organs, making them more fit for copulating. In the long wrong, homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage for the population... as long, of course, as its occurrence remains relatively low. Or, to phrase it better: complete extinction of a possible "gay gene" would be an evolutionary disadvantage.

That is why I insist - the reason a cause for homosexuality hasn't been found, is that there is more than one reason, or maybe, a combination of reasons. But I'm terribly sure that the environmental reason has precedence over any other.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Wrong assumption.

First thing - an individual doesn't necessarily need to have children to spread his genes, as long as the gene is recessive and his co-familiars do have children. With that explained, a gay parent (an uncle, for example) would help in providing for the offspring, augmenting their chances of survival. Many male penguins couple when the group lacks females, and adopt one or two eggs to raise. A gay primitive human would help to collect more food, hunt more or work more. Finally, gay behaviour could help stimulate individuals' sex organs, making them more fit for copulating. In the long wrong, homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage for the population... as long, of course, as its occurrence remains relatively low. Or, to phrase it better: complete extinction of a possible "gay gene" would be an evolutionary disadvantage.

That is why I insist - the reason a cause for homosexuality hasn't been found, is that there is more than one reason, or maybe, a combination of reasons. But I'm terribly sure that the environmental reason has precedence over any other.

Two males adopting a child is not homosexuality. If two friends live together as room mates, and one man adopts a child, does that make the two friends gay just because they both look after the adopted child?

Originally Posted by Fableflame

Two males adopting a child is not homosexuality. If two friends live together as room mates, and one man adopts a child, does that make the two friends gay just because they both look after the adopted child?

I get your point, but it depends on the definition of homosexuality (and also if the mentioned penguins take themselves as a couple etc etc)... but I personally think it fits the description. You can't say they were taught wrong lol

Originally Posted by Kromoh

it depends on the definition of homosexuality (and also if the mentioned penguins take themselves as a couple etc etc)

That's normally what people mean by homosexual. Two people of the same gender being a couple, or being attracted to the same gender.

Originally Posted by Fableflame

That's normally what people mean by homosexual. Two people of the same gender being a couple, or being attracted to the same gender.

Well, is homosexual someone who is attracted to the same gender, or who engages in relationship with the same gender? There are many gay people who repress their feelings, get married and have children. There are straight people who go for some fun once in a while. We need rigour when establishing the causes of homosexuality - we have to define it first.

Any psychologists knows that human sexuality if consisted of many variables - the gender you identify yourself as, the gender you are attracted to, the gender you have relations with, etc etc

Well if somebody is interested in the same sex, but marries and has children with the other sex, then isn't that bi-curious? Straight people who go out looking for some "fun" everyonce in awhile could also be called bi-curious I think, or perhaps go so far as to say that they are bi-sexual.
Now that I really think about it, there should be another term for a person who has relations with someone of the same sex, because sexual intercourse doesn't have to be present for a relationship.
The terms are homo and heterosexual after all, and should only refer to the gender that they prefer sexual intercourse with, imo.

Originally Posted by Fableflame

Well if somebody is interested in the same sex, but marries and has children with the other sex, then isn't that bi-curious? Straight people who go out looking for some "fun" everyonce in awhile could also be called bi-curious I think, or perhaps go so far as to say that they are bi-sexual.
Now that I really think about it, there should be another term for a person who has relations with someone of the same sex, because sexual intercourse doesn't have to be present for a relationship.
The terms are homo and heterosexual after all, and should only refer to the gender that they prefer sexual intercourse with, imo.

Nah, not exactly bi-curious. More like, succumbing to the pressure of society - fear that others discover you're gay, etc etc. I've seen many people married and with two children, who revealed they were actually gay and got divorced because they couldn't stand the partner anymore. And I disagree with you about the term to be used. Homo and heterosexual, implies the one you have sex with. Then you would call the one you are attracted to as homo or heteroaffective.

On an incompletely related note, the guy in my sig is hot xD

homo/hetero affective?
I can't say I've ever heard those terms used before.

Originally Posted by Fableflame

homo/hetero affective?
I can't say I've ever heard those terms used before.

It's an ever-growing term among gay groups. Takes out the restrictively sexual connotation and replaces it for a sweeter and less greedy tone. I'm all in favour of it.

so someone that is in a male/female relationship, but has an attraction to the same sex is homoaffective?
just making sure i have to term correct.