Ya know I asked once in a forum if they've proven that being Gay was genetic and I was shouted down completely and I have yet to find a real answer to that. Seemed like when that Harvard President was kicked out because he dared to ask the question maybe women and men are wired differently as their test scores suggest.

Not really any reason for posting I'd just like an answer if anyone isn't too offended by the question.

^ Gender is not binary but a continuum between male and female extremes in which the majority of humans clearly fall on one side or the other. All behavior is influenced by genetics and environment.

"... to get funding ..."
As usual, that's all it's really about.

Interesting, but I agree that the government should have no part in it.

To my knowledge, there has been no genetic link shown. I know of cases where identical twins have differing sexual preferences, and while it's true that for the most part they would share similar upbringings, their childhood wouldn't be identical, while their DNA is.

@ yogi, I don't have an answer, it would be arrogant to assume anyone does. I believe that the 'homosexual=genetic" idea has no real scientific basis YET. I don't think that it isn't true, or that it's a big consiparcy. I just think that without empirical evidence, people should not just accept this theory. Based on the evidence that supports the theory of genetics=homosexuality, it can simply be refuted with this theory. If homosexuality is genetic, why is it that these genes are not only being passed on, but that these genes seem to be increasing? Logic tells me that if your homosexual, then you are removing yourself from the gene pool, with a few exceptions like the douche in this story. Certianly over thousands of years we would likely see at least a reduction of this charctaristic. We can see a dying off of the red haired and left handed gene, but not the homosexual one? My point is that there isn't enough information to support one argument or the other, and we shouldn't be quick to accept either as being true or false without further scientific understanding. And yes, I have read the studies that suggest the genetic argument, but they are using social sciences as the basis for their research (hair whorlds and left handedness) and not the more scientificlly sound, human genome as evidence.

The woman was right, the language and intent of this law holds negative connotations and assumes that homosexuality is something to be cured, it is shamefull.

Genetics affect how a person responds to environmental stimuli, both psychologically and biochemically. There are identical twins with completely different athletic propensities, for instance. I seem to remember someone finding a physical correlation with homosexuality (brain structure), but it isn't something I've researched heavily.

The real question involves choice. Even if homosexuality isn't genetic, does that mean a person has the ability to select their sexual preference? I personally feel that I have very little control over what I find attractive, but I can't speak for others.

I don't agree with homosexuals being diagnosed as "sick", especially when they are perfectly happy with themselves, but there are also people who would like the ability to change their own sexual preferences. I see nothing wrong with investigating ways of altering unwanted desires, sexual or non-sexual, in voluntary individuals (not a mandate though).

I love how the guy trying to keep it on the books is so adamant about pointing out that he has a wife and kids in his introduction. As if that means shit. That asshole republican who got caught in the men's room soliciting gay sex also had a wife and kids.

Ok sounds good...I'll just have to keep Sigfried here in this cage until he responds to the testing.

Personally, I don't think being gay is genetic. I know that's not what lefties are supposed to say, but I think on some level it's a formative choice, something on par with how you "decide" to be right- or left-handed.

In theory you could "cure" people from being left-handed, but it seems like it would be a somewhat pointless and ultimately self-hating exercise.

Being left handed doesn't hurt anyone, so why should we care which hand they use to write with? It just adds to the color and variety of our society.

I'd like to understand how the formative choice of being gay works. Please explain in detail. How exactly would a scenario for formative choice of homosexuality occur?

I think choice is a poor choice of words, but I do think that sexual orientation can be influenced by environment. Is it a choice that individuals build associations during their early life between good feelings and certain smells? No, it's not something conscious, and yet its a learned response to stimuli. I think homosexuality can be learned in the same way, either as positive or negative responses to stimuli as a response to either positive or negative stimuli.

However, there are also people who simply "feel" same-sex attractions naturally, without stimuli, and those people would suggest that there's also a "gay gene" at work. I don't think there's one formula for sexual orientation. It's more of an analog spectrum, and there's countless variables that push individuals around between male-attracted and female-attracted (regardless of their sex.)

[edit]First paragraph[/edit]

@NetRunner

Lefties aren't supposed to form opinions with little supporting evidence. =)

I'd say that activities between two consenting adults shouldn't concern others, though you can get into the issue of what should be allowed in public, around children, etc.

The formation of desires is still an area of research. Gambling addiction, for instance, is heavily affected by neurotransmitter levels, which are themselves affected by both genetics and environmental factors. Risk aversion and reward response both have a strong genetic correlation, but it wouldn't be correct to say "gambling addiction is genetic". At the same time, it wouldn't be correct to say that it's purely a choice either.

Perhaps we need programmable brains.

"Learned response" isn't much better. With that line of reasoning I'd eventually wind up with some pavlovian homo on my ass after ringing a bell.
Honestly, some people are just gay! There doesn't need to be a reason. The activity of trying to find a reason is a problem in itself. Which is kind of the point of the video.

>> ^burdturgler:

Honestly, some people are just gay! There doesn't need to be a reason. The activity of trying to find a reason is a problem in itself.

I feel like that is very similar to saying "some people are just taller than others, we don't need to understand why".

Finding the underlying causes of something is not a statement about its desirability. There are plenty of gay people who would love to know what determines sexual preference, whether they enjoy being gay or not.

People aren't trying to cure tallness.
There are plenty of gay people who want to just be treated equally and not have their sexuality treated as some sort of scientific anomaly.

>> ^burdturgler:

People aren't trying to cure tallness.
There are plenty of gay people who want to just be treated equally and not have their sexuality treated as some sort of scientific anomaly.


There's nothing inherently wrong with being bald, but there are people trying to "cure" it. There's nothing wrong with eating food, but I would definitely welcome the ability to choose which foods I find appetizing.

I completely agree that homosexuality should not be seen negatively. The origin or effect of sexual desire should not be a factor in respecting others and their rights.

Still, I see nothing wrong with investigating how the human mind works (heck, I want to know how everything works).

Oh you guuuys....

Why is it always framed as being GAY that is or isn't genetic? The genetics of heterosexuality are never questioned. I'm sure what you meant was "I don't think sexuality is genetic." My point is that this topic is always framed in such a way that heterosexuality is the healthy default, and homosexuality the aberration. Instead of people saying "being gay is a choice", they should be saying "all sexuality is a choice." This will never happen, because most of the 'choice' crowd can't think this far ahead to realise their own argument makes all living people constant bisexuals in flux.

Let's not mince (HAH!) words here. I think your definition of "choice" isn't choice at all. It's a collection of environmental experiences that shape behaviour. There is no overarching conscious decision making process across those shaping experiences. The idea that such experiences can impact on sexuality might be controversial but it isn't unthinkable -- however, to call it "choice" is erroneous.

Finally, your own argument about handedness isn't reassuring. Left handers die younger on average, so some 'leftophobes' could argue that we should abolish left-handedness to improve quality of life. What would you say to them?
>> ^NetRunner:

Personally, I don't think being gay is genetic. I know that's not what lefties are supposed to say, but I think on some level it's a formative choice, something on par with how you "decide" to be right- or left-handed.
In theory you could "cure" people from being left-handed, but it seems like it would be a somewhat pointless and ultimately self-hating exercise.
Being left handed doesn't hurt anyone, so why should we care which hand they use to write with? It just adds to the color and variety of our society.

@berticus I would say that next time I'll find a better way of expressing myself.

I agree with everything you said.

BTW, doesn't anyone recognize scare quotes anymore? Yeesh.

@Psychologic yeah, I shouldn't engage in baseless conjecture on the topic. I agree that activities between consenting adults shouldn't concern others, though I'd also say that extends to being free to engage in the same level of public affection we tolerate from any romantic couple, and that if they choose to get married, society should grant them the same rights and privileges that entails.

Mostly my point was, I don't care if it's as much a choice as what you choose to have for lunch, there's no reason for people to get so bent out of shape about same-sex relationships, or try to impose their prejudices and inhibitions about sex on other people.

Hey SHUT UP! I wasn't trying to start an interesting fucking conversation.


...jerks

@Yogi, to address your initial comment, I'm sure it's become apparent to you that the answer is almost never an either/or when it comes to questions of nature versus nurture. In fact, I think the majority of scientists roll their eyes when such a question is raised nowadays. The reality is that the two are largely inseparable and interact with one another. So, there might be:
(a) some biological / genetic markers or differences,
(b) shared and unshared environmental influences,
(c) complex interactions between the two.

From what I remember of the science, a greater number of older brothers is predictive of homosexuality, but only in men. I believe this is supposedly due to varying levels of androgens in the womb. I think a particular pattern of balding and certain finger length ratios were also predictive. I think monozygotic twin studies find higher rates of homosexuality in a twin if the other one is gay, but this is probably confounded because they almost always have shared environmental influences. Examinations of brain anatomy has revealed slight differences too, but the question then becomes one of causation. Anyway, you get the idea, there seems to be evidence for genetic factors - but exercise caution in interpretation - I bet there are great counterarguments to those studies. (Plus I'm reciting from memory and might be completely off track, it's been a while.)

With regard to gender differences, I would reiterate what I have said before on this site. The perceived differences between men and women exceed the actual measured differences. There is greater within-gender variation than there is between-gender variation. I wanted to cite a study here that shreds the common perception of gender differences to pieces, but I am so swamped in papers right now I don't have a hope in hell of finding it. Sorry.

@NetRunner, why you gotta be so nice? Let's just pretend fight for funsies.

Interesting comments.

There was a recent study that concluded the female relatives of male homosexuals produce more offspring... so the idea is that these genes generally produce more offspring, but in rare circumstances produce much less offspring (because the person is homosexual).

That being said, there are also non-genetic biological forces at work in at least some forms of homosexuality. There was a study that concluded higher levels of stress hormones in the womb during certain periods of the fetus' neural development feminize certain parts of its brain.

So something can be largely biologically determined, even if it's not largely genetically determined.

>> ^highdileeho:

@ yogi, I don't have an answer, it would be arrogant to assume anyone does. I believe that the 'homosexual=genetic" idea has no real scientific basis YET. I don't think that it isn't true, or that it's a big consiparcy. I just think that without empirical evidence, people should not just accept this theory. Based on the evidence that supports the theory of genetics=homosexuality, it can simply be refuted with this theory. If homosexuality is genetic, why is it that these genes are not only being passed on, but that these genes seem to be increasing? Logic tells me that if your homosexual, then you are removing yourself from the gene pool, with a few exceptions like the douche in this story. Certianly over thousands of years we would likely see at least a reduction of this charctaristic. We can see a dying off of the red haired and left handed gene, but not the homosexual one? My point is that there isn't enough information to support one argument or the other, and we shouldn't be quick to accept either as being true or false without further scientific understanding. And yes, I have read the studies that suggest the genetic argument, but they are using social sciences as the basis for their research (hair whorlds and left handedness) and not the more scientificlly sound, human genome as evidence.
The woman was right, the language and intent of this law holds negative connotations and assumes that homosexuality is something to be cured, it is shamefull.

re: gender differences, here are some papers:
How Large Are Cognitive Gender Differences?
Gender Differences in Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.
Cognitive gender differences are disappearing.

... and just for fun:
Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

I know @dag is a fan of that last one.