The Gay Gene on 20/20

facepollution

acoustic guy wrote:

I was a little worried about tsarting this thread last night.
I am glad we all can have a mature conversation once in a while
I am also glad to see that most of us are all on the same page with this topic.

I guess I'm not quite on the same page. Can I ask why you are so adament that there must be a gay gene?

reeferchief

facepollution wrote:

I guess I'm not quite on the same page. Can I ask why you are so adament that there must be a gay gene?

What about the possability that some people just find someone they love and it just so happens to be that they are the same sex, love is blind it sees no sexuality.

Wilds

One of my best friends is gay. He was the captain of our H.S. Football team, studied Sports Management, works for a baseball team.

He is on the surface your typical beer drinking, caveman, intelligent, "regular" guy.

His sister raised in the same environment is straight.

When this discussion comes up with him or any of my other gay friends they all say the same thing. It is genetic.

I'm no expert and I certainly don't think it is insulting to anyone to think this, but it seems to be the most common theory put out by gay people and most people who are not blinded by religion or other groups of judgmental people.

I think the school of thought that it is a choice is put out there because people who think it is an abomination want to "change", or "fix" gay people.

Now with all that said, I would guess some people do make a choice, and there probably is something to the well thought out argument that people can be sub conscientiously influenced.

However I firmly believe that the overwhelming factor is some type of biochemistry that happens in the womb.

facepollution

Wilds wrote:

His sister raised in the same environment is straight.

That means nothing though. I was raised in the same environment as my sisters, that doesn't mean we had the exact same experiences. Like I said before, even the tiniest seemingly insignificant experiences can have a profound effect on our behaviour in later life.

I think the black and white nature of this argument is quite ridiculous. By commiting to the idea of a gay gene without considering any alternative, you are being just as narrow minded and ignorant as the religious nuts who blindly believe it's a conscious choice and therefore an abomination. The people who are rallying for the gay gene theory, almost seem desperate to prove religious people wrong that these people 'can't help how they are' as if it's some sort of affliction. Nobody chooses what they are attracted to.

facepollution

reeferchief wrote:

What about the possability that some people just find someone they love and it just so happens to be that they are the same sex, love is blind it sees no sexuality.

I don't know, that's an interesting one. I have friends that I love in a friendship sort of way, but I'm not about to turn gay for them! I think you would need some sexual attraction too, I'm not sure love alone would change that. Of course I believe anything is possible in theory.

reeferchief

facepollution wrote:

I don't know, that's an interesting one. I have friends that I love in a friendship sort of way, but I'm not about to turn gay for them! I think you would need some sexual attraction too, I'm not sure love alone would change that. Of course I believe anything is possible in theory.

Totally, I agree, I find it impossible to think of myself being with another man, I dont like penises, I find them ugly so the thought of touching or going near someonelse's is like a nightmare to me.:)

I just think for some people though that is how it comes about, the long and short of it all though is things happen for many reasons, like my friend who I mentioned who was happily married with child and is now gay, I have no doubt in my mind he was not born gay as they say, most definitely turned.

Brain of J.Lo

facepollution wrote:

That means nothing though. I was raised in the same environment as my sisters, that doesn't mean we had the exact same experiences. Like I said before, even the tiniest seemingly insignificant experiences can have a profound effect on our behaviour in later life.

I think the black and white nature of this argument is quite ridiculous. By commiting to the idea of a gay gene without considering any alternative, you are being just as narrow minded and ignorant as the religious nuts who blindly believe it's a conscious choice and therefore an abomination. The people who are rallying for the gay gene theory, almost seem desperate to prove religious people wrong that these people 'can't help how they are' as if it's some sort of affliction. Nobody chooses what they are attracted to.

The idea of a possible "gay gene" *is* the alternative. The idea that you can become homosexual due to environmental factors is the old school of thought.

I believe that sexuality is fluid, but at the root of it all is our genetic makeup.

Brain of J.Lo

reeferchief wrote:

T I find them ugly so the thought of touching or going near someonelse's is like a nightmare to me.:)

Well, they aren't cute or anything but they sure are fun to play with.

Just try it, and you might turn gay.

facepollution

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

The idea of a possible "gay gene" *is* the alternative. The idea that you can become homosexual due to environmental factors is the old school of thought.

I believe that sexuality is fluid, but at the root of it all is our genetic makeup.

No actually that's not entirely true, because people equate the nurture idea and the notion of 'choosing' sexuality as being the same thing. They are entirely different, and this is the point I'm trying to make. I think both the traditional nurture and the current 'gay gene' ideas are both equally ignorant. People are trying to simplify a very complex idea, so that they can justify their political or moral view on the subject of homosexuality. Never mind the psychological or scientific evidence that might be involved. Believers in the gay gene will automatically side with the scientific argument, despite there not being any definitive proof; and conservative types who believe homosexuality is wrong, will ignore any possible scientifc evidence because it doesn't suit their moral indignation.

What I'm proposing is something in the middle, and probably a more accurate answer to the debate. I think it's possible that somebody could be pre-disposed to same sex attraction, but I think it would be ridiculous to ignore the influence of environmental factors. Can you say exactly why your favourite colour is your favourite colour? Was I geneticaly predisposed to blue being my favourite colour? I think not, chances are that a link was made between something pleasing and the colour blue when I was a baby, and that connection has stuck ever since.

DOSW

Right on facepollution. You are absolutely correct IMO.

Just because someone doesn't agree that genetics is solely responsible for homosexuality doesn't mean that they believe its a choice.

Homosexuality is a product of external factors, which may or may not have a genetic component as well.

Think of it this way. If our culture was constructed in a way that it's taught since childhood that men should love men and women should love women, homosexuality rates would be through the roof. There are small cultures in remote parts of the world where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexual sex is only used to reproduce.

Homosexuality is not a choice at all, but to say it's all genetics is just ignorant.

facepollution

DOSW wrote:

Right on facepollution. You are absolutely correct IMO.

Just because someone doesn't agree that genetics is solely responsible for homosexuality doesn't mean that they believe its a choice.

Homosexuality is a product of external factors, which may or may not have a genetic component as well.

Think of it this way. If our culture was constructed in a way that it's taught since childhood that men should love men and women should love women, homosexuality rates would be through the roof. There are small cultures in remote parts of the world where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexual sex is only used to reproduce.

Homosexuality is not a choice at all, but to say it's all genetics is just ignorant.

Exactly, during the Roman Empire homsexuality and bi-sexuality was often the norm. It just makes me laugh that all these people that think they are liberals, who accept gay people, are ultimately indulging the right-wing fascists by even engaging in the this black and white debate. Because ultimately you are all accepting that it is something that needs excusing. The only possible reason I think anyone can say it is 'wrong', is in terms of our primary reason for being on the planet - to reproduce. However, personally I think the world is over populated with arse holes as it is, so if a few people don't want to reproduce, I'm more than happy to agree!

Brain of J.Lo

facepollution wrote:

Exactly, during the Roman Empire homsexuality and bi-sexuality was often the norm. It just makes me laugh that all these people that think they are liberals, who accept gay people, are ultimately indulging the right-wing fascists by even engaging in the this black and white debate. Because ultimately you are all accepting that it is something that needs excusing. The only possible reason I think anyone can say it is 'wrong', is in terms of our primary reason for being on the planet - to reproduce. However, personally I think the world is over populated with arse holes as it is, so if a few people don't want to reproduce, I'm more than happy to agree!

I don't think it's a black and white issue. As I said before, I think sexuality is fluid. I also believe that people are born with an inherent ability to be attracted to whatever they are attracted to. How those attractions manifest themselves can change throughout a person's lifespan, but that ultimately our preferences/orientation/romantic feelings are driven by our brain chemistry and genetics. I also think that our tastes in food, colors and everything else is just as deeply rooted in brain chemistry. Outside influences can have an impact on the way we allow our preferences to manifest themselves, but the the ability to want and desire something is inherent.

I also don't see the study of this as an admission that homosexuality is wrong and therefore must be excused. We study all kinds of things for all different reasons, and I think it's reasonable to ask why homosexuality exists when it appears that our bodies (and all other animals' bodies) are basically just designed to fuck, reproduce ourselves and then die. I think it's fascinating.

facepollution

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I don't think it's a black and white issue. As I said before, I think sexuality is fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by that, because you seem to say on the one hand it is fluid, but then follow it up by saying you think it is genetically pre-determined. The two ideas seem quite disparate within the context of your argument.

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I also believe that people are born with an inherent ability to be attracted to whatever they are attracted to. How those attractions manifest themselves can change throughout a person's lifespan, but that ultimately our preferences/orientation/romantic feelings are driven by our brain chemistry and genetics. I also think that our tastes in food, colors and everything else is just as deeply rooted in brain chemistry. Outside influences can have an impact on the way we allow our preferences to manifest themselves, but the the ability to want and desire something is inherent.

What are you basing that on though? I don't mean that to sound disrespectful, but what basis is there for that? I totally disagree about the tastes in food issue. I was brought up eating a fairly wide range of foods, whereas my parents were brought up on a very meat and two veg kind of diet. I have a fair few friends who have very bland diets, and when I ask them what sort of foods their parents eat, quite predictably they ate the same bland foods and weren't keen to try new things. Similarly, my sister's kids eat virtually anything she puts in front of them, because she got them trying different types of foods from a very young age.

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I also don't see the study of this as an admission that homosexuality is wrong and therefore must be excused. We study all kinds of things for all different reasons, and I think it's reasonable to ask why homosexuality exists when it appears that our bodies (and all other animals' bodies) are basically just designed to fuck, reproduces ourselves and then die. I think it's fascinating.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear by what I meant. I've read a lot of people's opinions on the subject, and most people don't seem to be able to seperate their moral take on it, from the factual evidence. Considering that none of the scientific evidence (at least from what I've read) 100% proves the existence of a gay gene, I wonder why so many people place so much stock in that theory? Why do people feel the need to have a definitive answer in their head? My take on it at the moment, is that we just don't know - and I'm happy with that. I think the bigger question here is why does it matter either way?

By deciding to side either way with the traditional nature/nurture debate, without any concrete evidence (which NOBODY HAS), I think there has to be a moralistic reason as to why people want to conform to that particular belief - even if that reason is entirely on a sub-conscious level, which I think it is for a lot of people. I agree it's an interesting subject to study, and I have no isse with that, but I don't see how anybody can be 100% sure in their mind when there isn't the evidence there to support it.

sponger

facepollution wrote:

You're thinking about it in a far too logical manner. If something effects you on a subconscious level, that means you are oblivious, so it IS NOT A CHOICE. I'll give an example. My mum is a child minder, and used to look after a boy from the age of about 6, it was quite apparent that he was very feminine, and people always said "I bet when he's older he'll be gay", sure enough at age 18 he came out. He was not raised in a 'homosexual' environment or one that was a particularly 'accepting' environment. His mother was incredibly overbearing, not helped by the fact that she suffered severe digestive disorders, and nearly died a number of times. His father chose to distance himself from them both, so there was complete absence of a father figure.

People shouldn't underestimate the influence their parents have on them. They are our role models at a very young age, and even the tinest and seemingly insignificant events can have a profound effect on our behaviour in later life. You even admitted that you think paedophiles are a product of their environements, so if that sexual persuasion can be formed under certain circumstances, then why not homosexuality?

To the person who asked about bi-sexuality, I don't think sexuality is a static thing, as much as people might protest it is. I think it's entirely possible that sexual confusion can be set in at a very early age. Or are you proposing a bi-sexual gene too? What about a gene for people who are sexualy attracted to animals? Or people who are attracted to children? Or people who get off on pain?

Let me give an analogy, are you born with your musical tastes? Can you help the fact that dance music, or country music might drive you mad, yet you love rock music? You don't choose not to like them, you choose not to listen to them. Nobody can make you like those genres. When we are younger we have no frame of reference, we soak up experiences and react to environments with reference to the lessons we learn.

I almost find the idea of a gay gene offensive to be honest. Not in that I don't think it's possible, but in the fact that people hang all their beliefs on it, because the only other option is that people 'choose' to be gay. It's like they are saying "they can't help it" as if there is something wrong with it.

Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.

You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.

If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.

If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.

It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.

It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.

Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.

Try to look at the big picture.

Kilgore_Trout

DEJammer649 wrote:

I'm going to try to be easy without trying to sound sarcastic....

So, if you are bi-sexual? How does that come from your childhood? It would lead me to believe that someone is confused about their sexuality- but a few of my friends don't seem to be confused. Any thoughts?

people that claim to be "bi-sexual" (and i mean this as nicely as possible) are full of shit and are setting the gay agenda back years... its totally making it look like a choice which i do not believe it is... bi-sexuality strikes me as indecision and insincerity... i have nothing against homosexuals but have a big problem with this idea of bi... does that make me a horrible person?

Kilgore_Trout

DOSW wrote:

There are small cultures in remote parts of the world where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexual sex is only used to reproduce.

wrigleyville?

DOSW

sponger wrote:

Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.

You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.

If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.

If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.

It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.

It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.

Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.

Try to look at the big picture.

Just because a singular environmental experience hasn't yet been identified that causes homosexuality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, you ask, if it hasn't been identified, then why do I think it exists? Because, like almost all aspects of human lifestyle (including sexuality), the environment is a gigantic factor in shaping or causing it. There is no reason why homosexuality should be any different. None.

Like facepollution's color metaphor... favorite color is no doubt caused by the environment... you're not genetically predispositioned to a favorite color. But have we identified what specific environmental experiences cause our favorite colors? No.

What you're saying is that our color preference must come from our genes because we can't specifically identify social or environmental factors that cause a favorite color. And that makes no sense.

[EDIT] Also, it's important to note that I don't believe the environment is solely responsible for sexual preference... I believe it's a mix, just like most things. But you can NOT discount the enormous impact of the environment on almost everything we do.

DOSW

sgossard3 wrote:

people that claim to be "bi-sexual" (and i mean this as nicely as possible) are full of shit and are setting the gay agenda back years... its totally making it look like a choice which i do not believe it is... bi-sexuality strikes me as indecision and insincerity... i have nothing against homosexuals but have a big problem with this idea of bi... does that make me a horrible person?

"Indecision" is not the right word at all. That implies sexual preference is a choice, which it isn't.

Some people (perhaps most people who claim to be bisexual? I'm not sure) use bisexuality as a way to get attention. And yeah, that's idiotic. But there are some people who are "honestly" bisexual, which I have no problem with. Just like homosexuality, its not their choice.

Kilgore_Trout

DOSW wrote:

"Indecision" is not the right word at all. That implies sexual preference is a choice, which it isn't.

Some people (perhaps most people who claim to be bisexual? I'm not sure) use bisexuality as a way to get attention. And yeah, that's idiotic. But there are some people who are "honestly" bisexual, which I have no problem with. Just like homosexuality, its not their choice.

youre right... bad word choice... my feeling is that most of those people are probably homosexuals but because of social stigmas or simply for a greater availability of sexual partners they choose to keep their options open... it just doesnt feel to me like those people are being honest with themselves or their partners... thats my only problem with it... not a moral thing or anything like that

facepollution

sponger wrote:

Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.

You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.

If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.

Actually you needed to read what I wrote a little more carefully. What I actually said was that there are tiny seemingly insignificant events and circumstances that can have profound effects. Since these happen on a sub-conscious level, there wouldn't be any obvious pattern or commonality.

The examples I gave were of extreme behaviour, and there are no doubt a lot more issues involved. But in your acceptance that environmental factors in the case of a paedophile, can and do effect their sexual orientation, how can you possibly deny that a different set of circumstances could result in another type of sexual orientation. Considering the fact that there have been many cases of married straight men coming out, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many that remain happily married. Being predisposed to something doesn;t mean you willl automatically become something. In the same way that somebody genetically predisposed to a certain type of cancer, won't necessarily develop that cancer.

sponger wrote:

If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.

It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.

It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.

Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.

I do recall hearing about that study, and like I said, I think it's entirely possible for somebody to be predisposed. A couple of questions though, what if the gay son is a first born? Also did they find the same thing in girls?

sponger wrote:

Try to look at the big picture.

Ok that I find a little bit harsh. My opinion seems to take in both sides of the argument, and yet you're accusing me of being narrow-minded. I lean towards one side of the argument, because there is much evidence that supports the idea that behaviours are learned. But I'm entirely open to any scientific evidence. By the way, I studied this subject at Uni as part of my Psychology degree, so these aren't just random ideas I've come up with.