Thread: The "Gay" Gene.

A choice determined by some genetic factors, environmental factors, as well as possible others. I suppose it's possible that there is a "gay" gene, but I don't think there is.

Idk if there is a gene, but I think some people are just gay and it's not really a choice...

no

These threads pop up all the time. You can probably just use the search function for in depth responses already posted by members of this forum. A better alternative may be to use a search engine like Google or yahoo, or any other common search engine.

I don't take a specific stance, but based on my own experiences I favor the idea that sexuality has a physiological cause, and it isn't as simple as being capable to choose whatever you want. Is it genetic? I don't know. I doubt it is as simple as that since there are cases of identical twins where one twin is gay while the other is straight.

I must conclude then, based on what I already know about sexuality, that homosexuality is not a choice and it is not genetic. This leaves only one viable option for me to select from the three, that it is physiological. Until a fourth option is presented that seems to have more evidence for it I must continue to believe that something physical is the cause, though it need not be a genetic cause.

Of course, I should point out, the fourth option to consider is that it is something that is caused by experiences. For example, covering the eye of a monkey for an extended amount of time, while young, will diminish his or her eye's ability to see for the rest of their life. Perhaps there are events which are opposite to stunting development (like the eye) and instead progress development which causes the sexuality of the person to be one way rather than another. Notice this isn't the same as saying we are born straight but become gay, or gay and then become straight, but rather we are born no way and shortly after our sexuality is determined. In some cases sexuality is not determined until late adulthood even.

If it were genetic, a common question posed is then "why don't homosexuals go extinct?" The common answer to this would be that this is not how evolution works. It may be the case that if homosexuality were a gene, it would be in the heterosexual offspring that are created that house the genetic code which is capable of giving birth to homosexuals.

There is no gene.

My guess is that it's mainly environmental. From all the gay people I know, this seems like it'd be the case.

There are probably genes that make people's sexual orientations more likely to be gay, but I'll bet environment has a lot to do with it. There seem to be less gay people in places that are a little more socially backwards.

All preferences are somewhat attributed to environment, but it's certainly not a choice.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There are probably genes that make people's sexual orientations more likely to be gay, but I'll bet environment has a lot to do with it. There seem to be less gay people in places that are a little more socially backwards.

All preferences are somewhat attributed to environment, but it's certainly not a choice.

No, there seem to be less people open about being gay in places that are a little more socially backwards.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There are probably genes that make people's sexual orientations more likely to be gay, but I'll bet environment has a lot to do with it. There seem to be less gay people in places that are a little more socially backwards.

All preferences are somewhat attributed to environment, but it's certainly not a choice.

It may be that those socially backwards places have gay people, but they are hiding their homosexuality from that society. It is very hard to really estimate this sort of thing.

Nvm, exobyte said it before me.

Is it really nature vs nurture, or are they more the same thing?
Our environment is a reflection of us, and we are a reflection of it.
Minds are as much nature as anything, the only realistic division is between 'me' and 'them', 'you' and 'I', and even that is impossible to determine. Nature is everything, but we can say 'except me'.
The idea of choice is an illusion, undecidable.

Maybe someday we'll find genes for people who don't like brussel sprouts, or cereal, or even political parties.
For and against, attraction and aversion, cap'n crunch and wheat bricks. Human concepts.
Political orientation, cuisine preference, sexual orientation.
Some species just fuck each other, regardless of gender.

Sex is an instinctual drive, and it feels good, yes, but instinctively don't we fight and kill too, and doesn't it feel good, and eat and eat because food is so delicious and sustaining.

I do not see the difference between one preference and another. It's all just attraction and aversion, the only big deal with sexuality seems to stem from bullshit religion.

No, I do not think that some nut will ever find a gene for a specific preference of sexuality, at least not without mass exceptions.

It's not a choice per se, but it's environmental. Genetic? Obviously not. Gay people don't even pass on their genes (at least, not naturally, not without some sort of egg donor or sperm donor or whatever clusterfuck.)

The only way it's a choice is the choice to come out of the closet or not. Which isn't saying much.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Maybe someday we'll find genes for people who don't like brussel sprouts, or cereal, or even political parties.
For and against, attraction and aversion, cap'n crunch and wheat bricks. Human concepts.
Political orientation, cuisine preference, sexual orientation.
Some species just fuck each other, regardless of gender.

Did you mention broccoli before, and then someone told you about the broccoli gene? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0918165721.htm

A comparison between food and sexual orientation isn't invalid anyway though. They are two very different things.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Did you mention broccoli before, and then someone told you about the broccoli gene? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0918165721.htm

A comparison between food and sexual orientation is invalid anyway though. They are two very different things.

That's not a gene for preference.

And please do explain why the attraction or aversion is so different. Is there a different sort of 'preferring' for genital pleasure or taste pleasure? Both are instinctive.

Gay gene? Maybe.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/sci...derblind__9113

Originally Posted by ClouD

That's not a gene for preference.

And please do explain why the attraction or aversion is so different. Is there a different sort of 'preferring' for genital pleasure or taste pleasure? Both are instinctive.

A gene that makes broccoli not desirable isn't a gene for preference of broccoli? Is preference only something that makes things more desirable? The point is that there are indeed genes that can make things less desirable, and there are probably things that make things more desirable. You said maybe they would find a gene for why some people don't prefer certain foods. Well indeed they have. If you have that gene you would prefer not to have that food.

Why are they different ClouD? Because food is food and people are people. There isn't a person or a mind inside of food, ClouD.

I agree that there may be genes that may make things less (generally) desire-able, but that doesn't mean they are going to be desired.
Some people may like bitter vegetables, genes would then be setting the stage to aid them in eating those.

Something may be more or less desire-able, but that interpretation is of the individual. That article was 'supporting evidence', and was speculative. 'Why' is highly speculative.

A definite gay gene is not going to be found without mass exceptions and high variation in affect.

Food is food and people are people, yes, they are different objects, but it's the same attraction and instinctual motivation.

Maybe not a definitive gene, but there's probably one that makes homosexuality more likely, similar to all of the genes proposed to increase vulnerability to specific diseases. Considering gay people don't typically pass on their genes, the gene would have to be a common mutation or a combination of genes found commonly in the general public.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I agree that there may be genes that may make things less (generally) desire-able, but that doesn't mean they are going to be desired.
Some people may like bitter vegetables, genes would then be setting the stage to aid them in eating those.

Something may be more or less desire-able, but that interpretation is of the individual. That article was 'supporting evidence', and was speculative. 'Why' is highly speculative.

A definite gay gene is not going to be found without mass exceptions and high variation in affect.

Food is food and people are people, yes, they are different objects, but it's the same attraction and instinctual motivation.

Right, so a major portion of what makes you like food is their great personality?

For the record, I don't support the idea of a gay gene.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Although it's never been found, or hasn't been found as far as I know. What's your opinion on it? Do you believe people are born with their sexual orientation predetermined? Or do you believe it's a choice determined by some genetic factors, environmental factors, as well as possible others?

I don't hold beliefs (and certainly not strong ones) as to whether there is or is not a gay gene. My personal thoughts? I personally think people choose (consciously and unconsciously) who they are attracted to.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Right, so a major portion of what makes you like food is their great personality?

For the record, I don't support the idea of a gay gene.

Instinctual motivation.
Survival of oneself and the human species, and yes 'gay' people too.

Attraction is attraction, there's no two ways about liking or not liking, there may be different reasons, but the attraction remains the same.

My point really is that it doesn't matter if there's some gene found that supports any desirability, there's so many factors aside that would make it moot, and any percentage *bullshit*.

I don't think people are born "gay." I would say that as they grow up, what they see and hear on TV, books, internet, etc., determines how their mind thinks, same with abuse and other things like that.

All that somehow may factor in to how they like things, be it man or woman.

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.

Who? Gene Simmonds?

Yeah, he's pretty gay, I guess.

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.

The idea that everyone has a "true sexuality" overlooks the complexity and variety of sexual behavior. It's true some people are hard-wired to one sex or the other for life, but it's not true of everyone. For some people, life experience is a big factor, and some people's attractions change over time, even cyclically. Some people are attracted to only certain types of women, or certain types of men, or certain types of human across gender lines; picking out gender/sex as the defining characteristic of their sexuality misses the point or, in some cases, is completely false.