ModernArtist25 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 What's your opinion on this? And why do you feel that way? Provide facts if you can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 What's your opinion on this? And why do you feel that way? Provide facts if you can Probably better to say " Is being gay genetically or environmentally initiated or both?" I don't think there's much evidence for it being a simple choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Why would it be one or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I sometimes wonder if people who think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice are themselves attracted to members of the same sex and think that everyone else has the same feelings and are just choosing not to act on them. I can't see how that idea would make sense to anyone just on a personally intuitive level otherwise. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) I sometimes wonder if people who think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice are themselves attracted to members of the same sex and think that everyone else has the same feelings and are just choosing not to act on them. Yes, I see what you mean: they have made the choice to hold back on their homosexuality. Personally, I have not held back on the idea but don't feel drawn to express myself sexually with men and don't think that way despite opening myself to the idea; it's just not there. From this I assume I'm not gay. I don't think it's a choice fundamentally what one feels although one can choose to suppress it and outwardly appear to be hetero'. Edited July 29, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 What's your opinion on this? And why do you feel that way? Provide facts if you can The "traditional" answer to this is "When did you decide to be straight?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernArtist25 Posted July 29, 2016 Author Share Posted July 29, 2016 In terms of evolution, aren't humans meant to be straight so they can reproduce and that is why we still exist today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 In terms of evolution, aren't humans meant to be straight so they can reproduce and that is why we still exist today? What's to stop a gay person reproducing; it's not all or nothing. My niece is a lesbian but she has a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 In terms of evolution, aren't humans meant to be straight so they can reproduce and that is why we still exist today? Evolution does not have a conscious so there is no ''meant''. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 There are also plenty of people who are simply sterile. Biology is far too complex and messy to try to define how people are 'meant' to be from an evolutionary perspective and then expect that to be followed in the population with any kind of consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 In terms of evolution, aren't humans meant to be straight so they can reproduce and that is why we still exist today? Beyond the biology of sexuality, there are perhaps stronger evolved psychological forces and factors that strengthens the intimate bond and social adhesion partners share. These forces and factors promote survival and are not gender specific or exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernArtist25 Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 Says here, there are some genetic markers that can determine if someone is gay with 70 percent accuracy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3265248/Homosexuality-imprinted-genes-Scientists-predict-gay-70-cent-accuracy.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Says here, there are some genetic markers that can determine if someone is gay with 70 percent accuracy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3265248/Homosexuality-imprinted-genes-Scientists-predict-gay-70-cent-accuracy.html Seriously? You just cited the Daily Mail as evidence? Wow! And even they have the decency to say "But the claim sexual behaviour can be predicted by such a high degree was described as 'bold' by British scientists." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernArtist25 Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 This one too: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Beyond the biology of sexuality, there are perhaps stronger evolved psychological forces and factors that strengthens the intimate bond and social adhesion partners share. These forces and factors promote survival and are not gender specific or exclusive. In order to reproduce, it was my understanding you required a person of each sex.Homosexual couples can't have children, unless there's a third person carrying the child, or providing fertilization. Did I miss the point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 In order to reproduce, it was my understanding you required a person of each sex. Homosexual couples can't have children, unless there's a third person carrying the child, or providing fertilization. Did I miss the point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else? What's to stop a gay person reproducing; it's not all or nothing. My niece is a lesbian but she has a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 In order to reproduce, it was my understanding you required a person of each sex. Homosexual couples can't have children, unless there's a third person carrying the child, or providing fertilization. Did I miss the point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else? Yes, obviously you did. Monogamy is at least in part a cultural choice, not a constraint of nature, and orientation is not the same as physiology. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 (edited) In order to reproduce, it was my understanding you required a person of each sex. Homosexual couples can't have children, unless there's a third person carrying the child, or providing fertilization. Did I miss the point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else? Although reproduction may insure the future of a group, a group also requires social cohesion to survive and ways to reinforce that cohesion. Sexual congress has also evolved as a way to reinforces the psychological bonds, social cohesion, and, in some cases, social status among a group's membership in the absence of offspring. In the absence of offspring, sex isn't about orientation; it's about the neurochemistry that compels and strengthening the psychological ties between partners whether or not they are of the same sex. Clearly, a group with strong psychological ties has a significant survival advantage above those that do not. Edited July 30, 2016 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 In order to reproduce, it was my understanding you required a person of each sex. Homosexual couples can't have children, unless there's a third person carrying the child, or providing fertilization. Did I miss the point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else? I don't think you missed the " point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else?" What you seem to have missed is that fact that humans are good at cooperating- at least as long as their prejudices don't get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 (edited) Relatives carry copies of your genes as well. Don't have to reproduce to ensure your genes continue. We are approaching the point where male eggs and female sperm are possible. Soon gender(of partners) won't be a limitation to their reproduction. Edited July 30, 2016 by Endy0816 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) Unless you carry a unique (and situationally beneficial) mutation that you'd like to pass on, but that's incredibly rare. Only then could you say that you're passing on "your" genes. Usually you're just passing on your parents genes. For most people, nieces and nephews are sufficient for carrying on the family line. I have two nieces and one nephew, so that's good enough. Edited July 31, 2016 by Daecon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 In terms of evolution, aren't humans meant to be straight so they can reproduce and that is why we still exist today? In terms of evolution, humans are meant to be healthy so they can reproduce. But there are many very serious diseases that have evolved (sickle cell disease, for example). Things are not that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 The OP wasn't asking if its a choice or predetermined. It may be 'fashionable' but I don't think anyone would choose to put themselves through the hell that most gay people have to endure. The OP asked whether it was genetically determined. Genetics aren't the only variable. Hormone changes while in the womb probably have as much to do with who we end up being. And upbringing, along with life experiences certainly shape who we are and what we think. All these and possibly other factors, to varying degrees. When it comes to human behavior, things are seldom simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seiryuu Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 An article from 2012 posits that the incidence of homosexuality may arise from epigenetic factors. Anyone know of any more recent papers that's relevant to that branch of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memammal Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world. Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages. (http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality) Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals. [snip] The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.There are two or more ways this might happen. One possibility is that the allele confers a psychological trait that makes straight men more attractive to women, or straight women more attractive to men. "We know that women tend to like more feminine behavioural features and facial features in their men, and that might be associated with things like good parenting skills or greater empathy," says Qazi Rahman, co-author of Born Gay; The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. Therefore, the theory goes, a low "dose" of these alleles enhances the carrier's chances of reproductive success. Every now and then a family member receives a larger dose that affects his or her sexual orientation, but the allele still has an overall reproductive advantage. Another way a "gay allele" might be able to compensate for a reproductive deficit is by having the converse effect in the opposite sex. For example, an allele which makes the bearer attracted to men has an obvious reproductive advantage to women. If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit. There is some evidence for this second theory. Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men. These results haven't been replicated in some ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean they are wrong with regards to the Italian population in Camperio-Ciani's study.(http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486) Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally." That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8. [snip] The study detailed an in-depth analysis of blood and saliva samples taken from 409 pairs of openly gay brothers, including non-identical twins, from 384 families. The only common characteristic shared by all 818 men was being gay. Knowing this, the researchers theorized that any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) consistently found among these men would have something to do with sexual orientation. Interestingly, five uniquely presented SNPs did indeed stand out, expressed in two portions of the human genome. [snip] Now the same team is working to compare these gene variants to heterosexual males, expecting that it will not be a common find among "straight" men. Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born. (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now