Is homosexuality (H) genetically determined – follow-up question?

Question

If a recessive gene were to determine H (& it would have to be recessive & not dominant, because if it were dominant then any mutation that resulted in H would not be passed on since Hs do not procreate) then one can logically induce that the frequency of H would be constant – and it is not, forcing one to conclude that H is not at all genetic. And, although some cases of H can be biologically induced, because of either a physiological or chemical (e.g. hormonal) deficiency, such cases would not account for the current high frequency of H. This forces the conclusion that H must be overwhelmingly psychologically & sociologically determined. Data which show that a disproportionate number of Hs have older brothers could mean that the older brothers are so dominant they force their younger brother to play the more passive role. The younger brother might be inclined to go along with this because he has found a niche that is not filled in the family for which he gets attention & recognition.

Answer 1

Homosexuality is not genetic. Thousands of research papers have tried to prove it was, but all have failed. Every year, more people try... but every year they all prove otherwise. However, most papers agree that homosexuality is at the most an abnormality.

Science has tried to determine if homosexuality was genetic. What they have proven is that it is definitely not genetic.

Answer 2

Your question seems to pander to the Ralph Reed crowd that would prefer homosexuals be pitched into the sea... observe some of the above homophobic responses. Fact of the matter, recessive or dominant, genetics are a crapsoot no matter what. Blue eyes are caused by a recessive gene as well, but no one argues about the rise or fall of its incidental ratio during a given period of time. Much the same way that no one can predict the sex of a baby before it has been concieved. I personally am a brilliant example of this, the first blue eyed member of my family on either side in 5 generations, recessive on my father's side for the past 150 years. I defy you to come up with a mathematical explanation for that. There's a genetic tango that takes place there we can't explain, and I wouldn't be surprised when homosexuality is linked to this as well.

The major difference here is that its difficult to lie about blue eyes (and even if it weren't, one wouldn't feel inclined to lie about it in research), but homosexuality can effectively be repressed, or fasely exaggerated, which makes it difficult to gather any truly reliable data to draw conclusions. Sociological and psychological reasons aren't really plausible explanations as you'll never find that one common element across the board.

Genetics are about as plausible as any explanation we're going to get, and recent studies and research appears to support that theory.

Answer 3

the question itself is misleading because there is no definition of Homosexual

you can't decide what if any genetic componant there is to being homosexual if you haven't defined it

is a homosexual:

1. someone who has and has only had sexual urges toward the same sex

2. someone who's current urges are only towards the same sex

3. someone for whom most urges are towards the same sex

4. someone who engages in homosexual activities

for definition 4, clearly, genetics cannot be an issue
anyone, regardless of urges could participate in homosexual activies (perhaps for money, or because threatened with gun, or whatever) and anyone, regardless of urges, could abstain from homosexual activities

finally, if we are talking about definitions 1-3, there could be a genetic componant, and your dominant/recessive argument is interesting but specious, because:

homosexuals (by all four definitions) do procreate

complex genetic interactions do not lend themselves to easy calculation of the generation to generation expression of a complex trait

there is no proof that the frequency of homosexuality (by any of the 4 definitions) is or isn't constant generation to generation

Answer 4

I believe that homosexuality is a physical abnormality. Something went haywire in the process which determines a person's gender (X & Y). Homosexuals were born homosexuals with various levels of homosexuality (Ex: Transvestites, bull dykes, prima donnas, etc.)

Answer 5

The simple answer, and most correct answer I might add (with or without the 10 point reward, I might also add) is HELL NO!!!! I like your follow-up, but the answer is still HELL NO, and it needs no elaboration, but your's is good. Oh, and homosexuality doesn't deserve a capital "H". It's barely worth a lower case "h". God Bless you.