Political Crossfire Forums

[yETII90]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: 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.

Have you ever heard of groups such as NARTH and PFOX that try to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals?

I don't agree with their practices, but here is a testimony I have picked up from their sites http://www.narth.com/docs/domahearing.html

As for people putting focus on the sex thing, it's because all people care about in this culture is sex (popular music, curse words, etc) so that is probably the thing they are going to pick up on and focus on the most.

[F'losrix]

yETII90 wrote: Have you ever heard of groups such as NARTH and PFOX that try to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals?
And I would trust anything coming from a group whose whole agenda is the conversion of homosexuals as being objective on the matter, why?

What's their 'success' rate? Has it been independently verified?

Always more to the story...

[The Perplexed One]

I read in TIME Canada that homosexual men picked up the feramones of men in the same region of the brain as women do. When hetero-men were exposed to male feramones, that region of the brain did not respond, thus no attraction. They haven't done a lesbian-straight woman experiment yet, but i'm sure it will turn up the same.

that experiment does support the argument that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. I disagree with the argument that homosexuality is genetic, it's not like you can pass it on to your kid.

it doesn't appear homosexuality is manually motivated.

[F'losrix]

:lol: I think you mean consciously motivated. 'Manually motivated' conjures up some amusing images.

Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

Edit: I think if there is a genetic component, it's more likely the coincidental combination of several genes that interact to produce a predisposition - not a trait that either parent acting as a carrier passes on.

[Prole]

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.

I do see your premise; that homosexuality is, from a stictly evolutionary perspective, undesirable. Skeptical Mystic is right to point out how homosexuals can and do procreate, even without "artificial" assistance. But I can agree that, at the very least, being attracted to the same rather than opposite gender would make one less likely to procreate with the opposite sex, resulting in offspring.

*Long post warning*

Evolution is not simply about having viable offspring of one's own, but about furthering one's genes. This is a subtle but hugely important difference. In relation to sexuality/reproduction, it means that even if one does not reproduce and pass on their genes directly, a characteristic which helps those with genes similar to their own does effectively the same thing.

In many if not most insect colonies, we see that the vast majority of individuals do not reproduce themselves. Yet they do benefit their society, and in doing so protect their own genes. In ant colonies, very few individuals get to have sex with the queen, thus very few have their own genes directly passed on. But ants are among the most successful and prolific species on the planet. They easily outnumber humans a million to one.

How does this pertain to humans, though? Ants show that a trait can exist (namely, to be less likely or completely unlikely to reproduce personally), but it may be difficult to see why exactly this is so. Furthermore, human society and evolution is and has been quite different from that of ants in many respects. How can we explain that homosexuality may have a genetic cause, if it does apparently make the individuals less likely to reproduce?

I point you to an idea affectionately known as the "gay uncle theory". (I don't know where I picked this up, and it is probably a colloquialism, but oh well).

Humans being able to protect and raise young with plentiful resources is, from an evolutionary perspective, a very recent occurance. Thus most of our evolution has taken place in a time which people often did not have enough to eat, and could not devote as much time and attention to their offspring as they wanted to, but still went and had offspring anyway. The child mortality rate was certainly pretty high, a factor aggragated by the fact that they had often less time and resources to devote to their offspring than would have been optimal, but the high birth rate overcame this. Still, having additional care for the offpsring would be a huge evolutionary advantage.

Enter the "gay uncle." (Or aunt, but for the sake of simplicity let us presuppose that he is a man). He, as a homosexual, does not, or is less likely, to have his own offspring to care about. He can therefore devote his time to other people's offspring. His nieces and nephews will therefore benefit hugely. When offspring of other individuals may die out during famine, those of kinfolk may survive with his additional care. Whereas a seven-year-old who loses his/her parents and chief providers would almost certainly die, the uncle is available to step in as a provider.

A gay uncle is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a net provider to the society in which he lives. He will never have offspring which will be a burden on him or others, so whatever instictive altruism he possesses is directed towards other people, and other offspring with genes similar to his own. Not as similar as his own offspring's genes would have been, but his net benefit causing and increased likeliness of survival can outweight this. The offspring that survive will have genes less similar to his own than would have been had he had his own, but they will have a much higher likeliness of survival. His genes can easily be furthered, albeit in a less through a greater number of offspring with genes less similar to his own per individual.

"But the kids don't have same same sexual orientation genes as him, so that gene would be lost," could be a typical response to this. But homosexuality, if it is genetic (which I believe it is, in part) is likely caused by a combination of genes, and is likely a recessive gene. Consider blood type, where the "A" and "B" genes are both dominant, and the "O" gene is negative. A pairing of "A" and "A" genes produces one who is "A" positive, as does a pairing of "A" and "O" genes; the same is true for "B". A pairing of "A" and "B" genes produces an AB (positive?) blood type, and a pairing of two "O" genes produces one who is double O negative.

Assuming that there is no innate advantage to any of the blood types (which AFAIK there is not), A and B blood types are much more likely to be the exhibited trait than an O blood type, but that does not mean that the O blood type gene does is less likely to exhist, just to be exhibited. There are likely several recessive genes at work just like blood type which determine sexuality, which could easily and even likely be present in offspring with similar genes to the "gay uncle."

So, there ya go. Homosexuals may be less likely to further their genes directly, but more likely to further their genes indirectly. The presence of this gene may make it equally or more likely for offspring possessing it to further that gene, meaning that homosexuality is, from a evolutionary perspective, conceivably a desirable trait to have in some individuals, and a perfectly feasible gene for a genetically fit individual to have.

[Wifezilla]

I do not believe that people choose to be gay any more than I chose to be straight. I mean really, do YOU remember waking up one day and saying "Gee, that young man and that young woman are both equally attractive to me. Which one should I choose?"

Nope...you either started putting Farah Faucett posters on your wall or suddenly developed an interest in David Cassidy. (Damn I am showing my age!)


Is homosexuality genetically based? Not necessarily, but I do believe it is BIOLOGICALLY based.


http://www.ohsu.edu/news/2004/030504sheep.html

[connermt]

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 think that when most people think or say 'genetic' they are thinking more towards the 'born that way' train of thought. Being that there is something that happens (genetic {with the genes} or not {chemical}) in the babies developement that tends towards homosexuality & its traits.

[connermt]

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.

Also, as previously stated, gay people can reproduce with the opposite sex if they so choose. Just because you like the same sex doesn't mean you can't or won't reproduce. There are many gay people who are 'fighting it' that are in hetero- coupling & producing children. IF it IS genetic, it could still be passed down.