Political Crossfire Forums

[yETII90]

Do you believe that one's sexual orientation is based on genetics or other means.

(I deeply apologize in advance to the people I am about to offend)

I personally don't believe that it's genetic, since I feel that it goes against evolution (for anybody that thinks I am an evangelical nut)

If sexual orientation was genetic, how can homosexuality exist since there is no way that a homosexual couple can possible pass a homosexual trait (since homosexual couples can't reproduce children through natural means). The homosexual gene would have been wiped out a long time ago.

Since I have eliminated one of the sexual orientations from being genetic there is no way that the other orientations can be genetic as well.

PS. I am still for gay marriages, and I know some non-heterosexuals that are great people.

[Valdimar]

Homosexuals can still procreate. I plan to use surrogancy to have children in the future. Neither of my parents are gay nor any of my grandparents. If they are, they are damn good at hiding it. I tried to fight it for years. It just didn't work that way.

It makes sense either way to me. My mother says she knew I'd be gay when I was as young as four years old. My dad says jokingly "you've been crossing your legs since you were two".

[00timh]

Personally, having known some of the gay people I have I'd think both are possible. In one instance, ther is a guy who was the oldest brother of 4. He grew up in a very conservative family. His father was a fireman. All of his brothers are straight and are all macho types of guys. What would make this one gay? To me it would have to be genetic.

One of my ex sister in laws girlfriends has stated to me that she was not born gay but repeated abuse by her father and then later her husband made her gay. She had just became so turned off by men that she could not fathom having sex with one. Now, maybe there is or was a part of her that was always a lesbian, who knows. I have heard a rumor that after breaking up with my ex sister in law she was dating a guy.

I do think it is possible that traumatic experiences could alter ones sexuality.

[F'losrix]

yETII90 wrote: I personally don't believe that it's genetic, since I feel that it goes against evolution (for anybody that thinks I am an evangelical nut)

If sexual orientation was genetic, how can homosexuality exist since there is no way that a homosexual couple can possible pass a homosexual trait (since homosexual couples can't reproduce children through natural means). The homosexual gene would have been wiped out a long time ago.
You're making a lot of false assumptions, here.

1) You're assuming that a person can't be merely a carrier of the gene. Who says heterosexuals couldn't pass on a 'gay gene'? Think hemophilia or a host of other genetic diseases. The trait doesn't have to be expressed in either parent for it to be passed on.

2) A trait doesn't necessarily have to be involved in reproduction to provide other survival benefits to the species as a whole. Some traits may have no discernable influence on either one. Think eye color - which one contributes most to the survival of the species? Why don't we all have the same color eyes?

3) Homosexual couples can't reproduce together, but homosexuals can and do reproduce by other means.

Now all of that said, here is what I believe: Homosexuality is not caused by a single gene. This I believe has been established as a matter of scientific fact. It may however, arise from the complex interaction of a number of genetic factors - a theory that will require many more scientific studies to conclusively prove or refute. Studies of identical twins are perhaps the best refutation to date of it being purely genetic in origin. I believe there may in fact be some genetic factors that create a predisposition to homosexuality but that they are not fully causal. Ultimately, I think it's a complex interaction of genetics, hormones and unknown environmental influences - both in the womb and during early childhood. I also believe we may never fully understand or be able to pinpoint the causes, let alone be able to develop a successful method of counteracting them to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. For all of the science we have compiled to date and the increasing rapidity of new discoveries, we're still a very long way from positive proofs of the many theories surrounding the formation of gender identity and sexual orientation.

[F'losrix]

Let me add this: I think when all is said and done, we'll probably find out that the causes of male homosexuality and lesbianism are very different, and that there may be more than one cause for both.

[Valdimar]

I want to add that I have nearly convinced myself that sexuality can be self-inflicted as well. Growing up and even as an adult, I've always taken the role of and always have been identified as the "stubborn outsider". I've always been the minority of the minority. I'm not sure if I am expressing this correctly, but really: I've never followed trends, never set trends, been rebellious, and even go against my own beliefs when others agree with me. I tend to prefer to go against the status quo.

Not sure if that makes sense or if I need to more carefully think this out.

[F'losrix]

As a counterpoint to what Valdimar has stated, I was the opposite growing up. I always felt that I was different from everyone else and desperately wished that I wasn't - that I could conform and not stand out. I've since figured out that my sexual orientation actually has little to do with it - my personality traits set me apart even among gay peers.

So, I've learned to accept my 'weirdness' as part of who I am and to surround myself with people who can appreciate my uniqueness in the world for what it is. No time for critics who don't 'get' me.

Edit: I should clarify - I don't stand out on sight. Only when you talk to me does it become clear that I'm not your average anything.

[yETII90]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: yETII90 wrote: I personally don't believe that it's genetic, since I feel that it goes against evolution (for anybody that thinks I am an evangelical nut)

If sexual orientation was genetic, how can homosexuality exist since there is no way that a homosexual couple can possible pass a homosexual trait (since homosexual couples can't reproduce children through natural means). The homosexual gene would have been wiped out a long time ago.
You're making a lot of false assumptions, here.

1) You're assuming that a person can't be merely a carrier of the gene. Who says heterosexuals couldn't pass on a 'gay gene'? Think hemophilia or a host of other genetic diseases. The trait doesn't have to be expressed in either parent for it to be passed on.

Are you saying homosexuality is a disease?

2) A trait doesn't necessarily have to be involved in reproduction to provide other survival benefits to the species as a whole. Some traits may have no discernable influence on either one. Think eye color - which one contributes most to the survival of the species? Why don't we all have the same color eyes?

True, but don't you think who we have intercourse with, is a matter that has some consequences on survival?

3) Homosexual couples can't reproduce together, but homosexuals can and do reproduce by other means.

Man + Woman = Baby

That's the only natural way I've known of making babies

Please enlighten me on how homosexuals can reproduce.

Now all of that said, here is what I believe: Homosexuality is not caused by a single gene. This I believe has been established as a matter of scientific fact. It may however, arise from the complex interaction of a number of genetic factors - a theory that will require many more scientific studies to conclusively prove or refute. Studies of identical twins are perhaps the best refutation to date of it being purely genetic in origin. I believe there may in fact be some genetic factors that create a predisposition to homosexuality but that they are not fully causal. Ultimately, I think it's a complex interaction of genetics, hormones and unknown environmental influences - both in the womb and during early childhood. I also believe we may never fully understand or be able to pinpoint the causes, let alone be able to develop a successful method of counteracting them to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. For all of the science we have compiled to date and the increasing rapidity of new discoveries, we're still a very long way from positive proofs of the many theories surrounding the formation of gender identity and sexual orientation.

[F'losrix]

yETII90 wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: 1) You're assuming that a person can't be merely a carrier of the gene. Who says heterosexuals couldn't pass on a 'gay gene'? Think hemophilia or a host of other genetic diseases. The trait doesn't have to be expressed in either parent for it to be passed on.

Are you saying homosexuality is a disease?
No, that was probably a poor choice for me to use as an example. All I'm saying is that a trait doesn't have to be fully manifested in the parent in order to be passed down.

Quote: Quote: 2) A trait doesn't necessarily have to be involved in reproduction to provide other survival benefits to the species as a whole. Some traits may have no discernable influence on either one. Think eye color - which one contributes most to the survival of the species? Why don't we all have the same color eyes?

True, but don't you think who we have intercourse with, is a matter that has some consequences on survival?
Sorry, I don't see how this remark relates to anything that I said above. Please clarify.

Quote: Quote: 3) Homosexual couples can't reproduce together, but homosexuals can and do reproduce by other means.

Man + Woman = Baby

That's the only natural way I've known of making babies

Please enlighten me on how homosexuals can reproduce.
Artificial insemination, surrogacy. Not to mention the number of men & women who enter into heterosexual marriages and produce children the old fashioned way before fully coming to terms with their difference of sexual orientation.

Edit: Consider this example: I knew a man in his late 60's who had married and had three children. He says that he always knew he was homosexual, even before getting married. But in that era, the pressure to get married and raise a family was tremendous. By the time his wife passed away, times had changed and he 'came out'.

So if you want to know how homosexuality could possibly survive as a genetic trait, there's one possible answer.

[The Grandmaster]

Am I to understand the question is asking "Is homosexuality a choice, or is it intrinsic from birth, a genetic predisposition aside of choice?"

Is that what in effect is being asked?

[F'losrix]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Am I to understand the question is asking "Is homosexuality a choice, or is it intrinsic from birth, a genetic predisposition aside of choice?"

Is that what in effect is being asked?
The absence of proof that homosexuality is genetic or genetically influenced does NOT prove the premise that sexual orientation is a matter of conscious choice. Far from it.

Not saying this is where you were necessarily headed, Grandmaster1. Just trying to 'head 'em off at the pass', so to speak.

[The Grandmaster]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Am I to understand the question is asking "Is homosexuality a choice, or is it intrinsic from birth, a genetic predisposition aside of choice?"

Is that what in effect is being asked?
The absence of proof that homosexuality is genetic or genetically influenced does NOT prove the premise that sexual orientation is a matter of conscious choice. Far from it.

Not saying this is where you were necessarily headed, Grandmaster1. Just trying to 'head 'em off at the pass', so to speak.

And a good idea it was to do so. Indeed, I didn’t mean to imply it was a choice at all. I mean to say people might try to claim it is a choice. I think it is not, and I don’t think they can prove it is. I didn’t choose to be heterosexual; I was born this way, the same as you didn’t choose to be gay, you were born that way.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

yETII90 wrote: Do you believe that one's sexual orientation is based on genetics or other means.

(I deeply apologize in advance to the people I am about to offend)

I personally don't believe that it's genetic, since I feel that it goes against evolution (for anybody that thinks I am an evangelical nut)

If sexual orientation was genetic, how can homosexuality exist since there is no way that a homosexual couple can possible pass a homosexual trait (since homosexual couples can't reproduce children through natural means). The homosexual gene would have been wiped out a long time ago.

Since I have eliminated one of the sexual orientations from being genetic there is no way that the other orientations can be genetic as well.

PS. I am still for gay marriages, and I know some non-heterosexuals that are great people.

I have but one question.

Why is it then, that a heterosexual couple can create a baby that is born with both sex organs?

And in many cases, a decision is made (normally during infancy) by the parents of the child, as to which "sex" the baby shall become.

Is there not something chemically that happens that would better determine the natural sex of the child - then just the outward appearance of sexual organs?

[00timh]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: yETII90 wrote: Do you believe that one's sexual orientation is based on genetics or other means.

(I deeply apologize in advance to the people I am about to offend)

I personally don't believe that it's genetic, since I feel that it goes against evolution (for anybody that thinks I am an evangelical nut)

If sexual orientation was genetic, how can homosexuality exist since there is no way that a homosexual couple can possible pass a homosexual trait (since homosexual couples can't reproduce children through natural means). The homosexual gene would have been wiped out a long time ago.

Since I have eliminated one of the sexual orientations from being genetic there is no way that the other orientations can be genetic as well.

PS. I am still for gay marriages, and I know some non-heterosexuals that are great people.

I have but one question.

Why is it then, that a heterosexual couple can create a baby that is born with both sex organs?

And in many cases, a decision is made (normally during infancy) by the parents of the child, as to which "sex" the baby shall become.

Is there not something chemically that happens that would better determine the natural sex of the child - then just the outward appearance of sexual organs? Leave up to you GND to come up with throwing a hermahrodite into the mix :lol:

In the case where a child is born with both sexes they make the determination based on how many x chromosomes vs. Y and also they use the determination of how developed the sexual organs are. In any case, most of the time these people never feel comfortable with their sexuality and have often been known to have sex changes later on.

[yETII90]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: yETII90 wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: 1) You're assuming that a person can't be merely a carrier of the gene. Who says heterosexuals couldn't pass on a 'gay gene'? Think hemophilia or a host of other genetic diseases. The trait doesn't have to be expressed in either parent for it to be passed on.

Are you saying homosexuality is a disease?
No, that was probably a poor choice for me to use as an example. All I'm saying is that a trait doesn't have to be fully manifested in the parent in order to be passed down.

Quote: Quote: 2) A trait doesn't necessarily have to be involved in reproduction to provide other survival benefits to the species as a whole. Some traits may have no discernable influence on either one. Think eye color - which one contributes most to the survival of the species? Why don't we all have the same color eyes?

True, but don't you think who we have intercourse with, is a matter that has some consequences on survival?
Sorry, I don't see how this remark relates to anything that I said above. Please clarify.

You were saying that sexual orientation is not involved in reproduction, which I think is incorrect

Quote: Quote: 3) Homosexual couples can't reproduce together, but homosexuals can and do reproduce by other means.

Man + Woman = Baby

That's the only natural way I've known of making babies

Please enlighten me on how homosexuals can reproduce.
Artificial insemination, surrogacy. Not to mention the number of men & women who enter into heterosexual marriages and produce children the old fashioned way before fully coming to terms with their difference of sexual orientation.

These are recent things, I mean do you think our predecesors from millions and millions years ago knew how to do this. As for your second point look bellow

Edit: Consider this example: I knew a man in his late 60's who had married and had three children. He says that he always knew he was homosexual, even before getting married. But in that era, the pressure to get married and raise a family was tremendous. By the time his wife passed away, times had changed and he 'came out'.

But consider back to our beginings as a species, they probably were just concerned with finding an attractive mate, and since homosexuals are attracted to those of their own gender, they would have been trying to get a mate out of one of their own gender. They probably didn't know much else anyway to have these kinds of concerns any way.

So if you want to know how homosexuality could possibly survive as a genetic trait, there's one possible answer. [/b]

[F'losrix]

yETII90 wrote: You were saying that sexual orientation is not involved in reproduction, which I think is incorrect
You are mistaken in your thought, in that case, and I've already shown why.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Please enlighten me on how homosexuals can reproduce. [/b]
Artificial insemination, surrogacy. Not to mention the number of men & women who enter into heterosexual marriages and produce children the old fashioned way before fully coming to terms with their difference of sexual orientation.

These are recent things, I mean do you think our predecesors from millions and millions years ago knew how to do this. As for your second point look bellow
The last of these is not recent - it was the way of things for centuries, if not millennia.

Quote: Quote: Consider this example: I knew a man in his late 60's who had married and had three children. He says that he always knew he was homosexual, even before getting married. But in that era, the pressure to get married and raise a family was tremendous. By the time his wife passed away, times had changed and he 'came out'.

But consider back to our beginings as a species, they probably were just concerned with finding an attractive mate, and since homosexuals are attracted to those of their own gender, they would have been trying to get a mate out of one of their own gender. They probably didn't know much else anyway to have these kinds of concerns any way.
You're back to ignoring the idea that heterosexual couples could be carriers of the genetic combination required to produce a homosexual, if that is indeed the cause. If it is a genetic variation within the species, the first occurance would still have been the offspring of a heterosexual couple. You're hung up on the idea of it being a genetic trait passed on by homosexuals themselves, and there is no evidence to support this. The children of homosexual parents are most often heterosexual. Homosexuals are usually the product of heterosexual parents and often have heterosexual siblings. That is not evidence that it cannot be a genetic trait; it merely suggests the possibility that if genetic, it is not a dominant trait.

The bottom line is that we don't have definitive proof either way of whether or not homosexuality has a genetic cause. We do have a number of studies whose results suggest that there could be a genetic component, however. Genetics is a complex science and the answers we find there usually just lead to more questions - it rarely gives us the kind of definitive black and white answers you're trying to extract from it.

Oversimplification is one of the chief pitfalls of trying to construct logical arguments. Here's what you're trying to give us:

Traits that aren't genetic must be choices.

There is no solid proof that homosexuality is genetic.

Therefore, homosexuality must be a choice.

The troubles with that line of reasoning are as follows:

1) Your initial premise is false. Just because a trait isn't genetic, that doesn't mean conscious decision making is necessary to its development.

2) The second premise uses a negative statement to disguise the fact that there is still doubt. While it is true that there is no solid proof that homosexuality is genetic, there is also no solid proof that genetics have no influence upon its development whatsoever.

You cannot come to a logical conclusion about anything by using a false premise as the foundation and then building upon it with a second premise that fails to eliminate doubt.

And thus, your argument fails.

[LDA]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Let me add this: I think when all is said and done, we'll probably find out that the causes of male homosexuality and lesbianism are very different, and that there may be more than one cause for both.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I only actually know (personally) four lesbians. Strangely, they were all straight, and ended up in a bad heterosexual relationship, then became gay. Not saying this is always the case or usually the case, I'm just saying it has been the case.

[F'losrix]

LDA wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Let me add this: I think when all is said and done, we'll probably find out that the causes of male homosexuality and lesbianism are very different, and that there may be more than one cause for both.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I only actually know (personally) four lesbians. Strangely, they were all straight, and ended up in a bad heterosexual relationship, then became gay. Not saying this is always the case or usually the case, I'm just saying it has been the case.
I've known all kinds - those who were firmly and always lesbian, those who came to the realization after failed heterosexual relationships, those who were really more bisexual and tended to alternate between relationships with men and other women.

One thing I have personally observed - bisexuality seems more common in women than men. Whether that holds true beyond the scope of my personal experience I can't say. Where most gay men will tell you they never felt they had any choice about their sexual orientation, I have known a number of women in lesbian relationships who said they could go either way but ultimately chose women because they could relate to them better.

[yETII90]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: yETII90 wrote: You were saying that sexual orientation is not involved in reproduction, which I think is incorrect
You are mistaken in your thought, in that case, and I've already shown why.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Please enlighten me on how homosexuals can reproduce. [/b]
Artificial insemination, surrogacy. Not to mention the number of men & women who enter into heterosexual marriages and produce children the old fashioned way before fully coming to terms with their difference of sexual orientation.

These are recent things, I mean do you think our predecesors from millions and millions years ago knew how to do this. As for your second point look bellow
The last of these is not recent - it was the way of things for centuries, if not millennia.

Quote: Quote: Consider this example: I knew a man in his late 60's who had married and had three children. He says that he always knew he was homosexual, even before getting married. But in that era, the pressure to get married and raise a family was tremendous. By the time his wife passed away, times had changed and he 'came out'.

But consider back to our beginings as a species, they probably were just concerned with finding an attractive mate, and since homosexuals are attracted to those of their own gender, they would have been trying to get a mate out of one of their own gender. They probably didn't know much else anyway to have these kinds of concerns any way.
You're back to ignoring the idea that heterosexual couples could be carriers of the genetic combination required to produce a homosexual, if that is indeed the cause. If it is a genetic variation within the species, the first occurance would still have been the offspring of a heterosexual couple. You're hung up on the idea of it being a genetic trait passed on by homosexuals themselves, and there is no evidence to support this. The children of homosexual parents are most often heterosexual. Homosexuals are usually the product of heterosexual parents and often have heterosexual siblings. That is not evidence that it cannot be a genetic trait; it merely suggests the possibility that if genetic, it is not a dominant trait.

The bottom line is that we don't have definitive proof either way of whether or not homosexuality has a genetic cause. We do have a number of studies whose results suggest that there could be a genetic component, however. Genetics is a complex science and the answers we find there usually just lead to more questions - it rarely gives us the kind of definitive black and white answers you're trying to extract from it.

Oversimplification is one of the chief pitfalls of trying to construct logical arguments. Here's what you're trying to give us:

Traits that aren't genetic must be choices.

There is no solid proof that homosexuality is genetic.

Therefore, homosexuality must be a choice.

The troubles with that line of reasoning are as follows:

1) Your initial premise is false. Just because a trait isn't genetic, that doesn't mean conscious decision making is necessary to its development.

2) The second premise uses a negative statement to disguise the fact that there is still doubt. While it is true that there is no solid proof that homosexuality is genetic, there is also no solid proof that genetics have no influence upon its development whatsoever.

You cannot come to a logical conclusion about anything by using a false premise as the foundation and then building upon it with a second premise that fails to eliminate doubt.

And thus, your argument fails.

Clearly you have been thinking about this one seriously.

However my friend, you are the one now making assumptions.

Where did I ever initiated that it was based on only choice?

You are right in saying that I believe in choice as one of the options but I am also opened to the possibilities that it can also come from an uncontrolled backlash from an experience that causes some sort change in the chemical balance in one's mind. I have heard stories of people coming out of emotional experiences with a changed sexual orientation.

Another argument I would like to bring to the floor is that if it's a genetic trait than how come there are those that are able to change their sexual orientation, true some can change genes based on appearance but how can someone change a gene in which affects one psychologically through natural means. Sure people can try and not show it in public but one can never fully get rid of it.

Please take note that technological procedures have only been available for a short amount of time so there is no way that ancient peoples such as the Neanderthals could perform these procedures.

[F'losrix]

yETII90 wrote: Clearly you have been thinking about this one seriously.
I've had nearly 43 years to do so.

Quote: I have heard stories of people coming out of emotional experiences with a changed sexual orientation.
I have not heard these stories, and I am inclined to doubt their veracity.

Quote: Another argument I would like to bring to the floor is that if it's a genetic trait than how come there are those that are able to change their sexual orientation
I don't subscribe to a belief that they can. One may be alter the behavior, but not the orientation. Many cases that appear to be changes in sexual orientation are only changes in behavior, such as in the case of a gay man who gets married to a woman, either not yet having 'put the pieces together' regarding his orientation, or having gotten married in spite of knowing, perhaps hoping that pursuing heterosexual behavior would change his sexual orientation.

It's very important to this discussion that people understand that behavior and orientation do not always go hand in hand. Being homosexual does not equate to an inability to perform heterosexual sex for most. In fact, I have known gay men who left heterosexual marriages and reported that the sex with their wife was good, but not nearly a strong enough factor to keep them together. Think of how many heterosexual relationships fail because they're based only on good sex with no other foundation.

People put way to much emphasis on the sexual part of being gay, because the orientation is usually manifested through sexual behavior. 'Sexual' orientation is a misnomer; it is more a matter of affection/attraction, including the non-sexual.

Quote: Please take note that technological procedures have only been available for a short amount of time so there is no way that ancient peoples such as the Neanderthals could perform these procedures.
They're frankly irrelevant to the discussion of a possible genetic origin for homosexuality, for the reasons I have already stated in other posts.