If you believe all gays were born with a gene for sexual preference, than do you also believe all behavior?

Question

.....Is genetic?

This includes anything in the sexual spectrum, from fetishes to criminal deviance and in all behaviors from humanitarianism to violence.

Why or why not is this a special circumstance for genes and where is the scientific evidence to back it up?

And does this new liberal belief replace the old liberal belief that boys and girls are 'reinforced' gender roles through "nurture", having nothing to do with "nature"?

Answer 1

It's not a preference because "preference" implies that they prefer one OPTION over another. For homosexuals, heterosexuality is NOT an option. Sexuality is an orientation, not a preference.

Answer 2

Well, maybe you don't want my answer -- as I learned that much behavior was genetic from my conservative Republican parents many years ago. I am now a liberal however, so you are half right.

Now, it is clear that one of the problems you are having is a basic one that I have seen before. The difference between science and faith is simple.

Science formulates its belief structure based on the best analysis of the information available at a given date. If new information comes forward that indicates that the analysis needs to be revised, changed, even altered to something completely different -- science, which is interested in facts, not ideology, changes what it says. This may take some time as people argue various positions, until the evidence becomes overwhelming, then science changes.

Faith on the other hand, takes a position, whether it matches the facts or not; whether it can be proven, or even if it can be disproven -- and refuses to budge - making it an absolute. Ideology is all, facts are immaterial.

I suspect, considering your statements above, that you are used to "faith" not "science" --

Now then. Briefly -- there are two core sexualities that can be traced throughout history. Homosexuality is one, heterosexuality is the other -- there are also, of course, bisexuals -- which individually have some mix of the two.

Many theories exist -- however, most fail the litmus test of being even possible in reality. For example. I come from a pretty standard farm family Father and mother were always there. I loved both very much. I never remember a time when I did not know that I was attracted to boys however. I knew by age 8. Had my first boyfriend at a late 13 or early 14. *shrug* There was never a choice, never a question, never a concern that maybe I liked a girl -- any girl -- other as a friend. As one friend told the psychologist in a country where it is much more dangerous to be gay than it is here -- I'm gay; the psychogist said -- how can you know? You are 16 and have never had intercourse with a woman. You cannot know. My friend said -- yes, I can. When I am with my male friends I get excited, to touch one of their hands leaves me erect for some time -- when I see a woman, naked or clothed though blooooop -- down it goes. There is no interest.

Beyond that however, there is the science. Rather than try to explain genetic penetrance, and potential combinations. I have linked a group of articles below. I suggest that you read them, and think about them. They only scratch the surface and I don't have access to the journals right at the moment (being home) -- New Scientist has a lot of articles however, if you are interested, email me, I'll send you more links Monday.

Regards,

Reyn
[e-mail]
http://www.rebuff.org

Answer 3

No, and it's not just "a" gene. The studies I've read indicate that there's a difference in the size of the pituitary gland, but I don't know that they've yet linked this to a single gene. SInce the overwhelming majority of genetic traits are coded for by combinations of many genes, it's unlikely a single gene is responsible for homosexuality.

That being said, the way your genes make you is the way they make you. As we learn more about how we humas really work, some things we used to blame people for we'll have to start accepting, and other things we used to accept we'll be able to blame people for.

Answer 4

Behavior and preference are two different things. Behavior can be taught. Something instinctual, such as sexual preference, can't be. The fetishes and deviances you mention are behaviors. They could be behaviors brought on by being forced to repress who one really is. I didn't realize that the nature versus nurture was a "liberal" theory. I thought it was just a theory some behaviorists came up with.

Answer 5

Your main flaw is attempting to equate harmful behaviors with non-harmful behaviors.

Your second flaw is confusting "traits" with "behaviors."


Yes, unfortunately some "behaviors" are indeed actually "traits" but not all.
Yes, I do happen to believe that some harmful traits are genetic, but that doesn't mean we should accept or encourage harmful behavior that act out these traits. Such as murder or rape.

As I said before there's a big difference between harmful and non-harmful behaviors and traits.
We, as a society are much more willing to accept and encourage helpful behaivors and traits. Humanitarianism and compassion are helpful behaviors which society should encourage. Unfortunately society sometimes unwittingly encourages harmful behaviors such as insulting and dehumanizing others. We even encourage those who make others feel afraid by encouraging bullying and spreading misinformation.

Being gay does not harm the individual or others whom that person may come into contact with. Being gay is not simply a behavior as those who are gay are so whether engaged in homosexual activities or not. Just as is handed-ness.

Answer 6

please simplify your thoughts - when you start comparing all kinds of stuff it just confuses your limited grey matter.

Nature vs. nurture is a living theory.
Nothing is certain in science.
It's all based on the best information available.

Perhaps you would best be served reading the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs._nurture

You see it is a balance.

Balance unlike your question which clumsily compares homosexuality to
A.) fetishes
B.) deviance
C.) violence

I believe that sexual preferences is a balance of the two.
A extreme example would be the very rare cases of humans born with both male and female genitals. Very rare but illustrates genetic variance amongst our species.

Social intolerance however, is heavily a learned behavior.

Answer 7

Your supposition is a non-sequitor. You are literally comparing apples to oranges. Homosexuality is not a behaviour, it is a state of being (genetic), a sexual orientation. Behaviour is, for the most part, a choice of action, there is no criminal gene, etc. I give you credit for intellectual contortion, very Cirque Du Soliel, but in the end quite wrong. Why am I not surprised, given your obviousness.

Oh yes, in keeping with the cheap shot tenor of your question, allow me to add, and I quote from the Breakfast Club, Clair is a Fat Girls Name.

Answer 8

Preferences, whether "gene" based or not, are not the same as behaviors, which can be influenced by preferences, but not mandated by them. Men and women can exhibit the same "behaviors" when it comes to breaking rules, acting selfishly or generously, obeying or disobeying moral strictures, lying habitually, etc.

You can't really win an argument or make a valid point by reducing the premises on which it is based to oversimplified and over-confused assumptions of fact.

Answer 9

I've come to think of homosexuality as a dna difference, or breakdown. [Altho there is a study out showing a trend toward trying out lesbianism, among young women, which suggests choice in these cases.] That's an interesting point, about male and female roles and nature vs nurture.

...like to discuss? spend lots of time at it? why not earn a little money for doing so? I've earned $60!

http://www.mylot.com/?ref=flowerchilde

Answer 10

we've proven that things like cleanliness/how anal one is, shyness, optimism/pesimism, ect are all genetic

but we've also proven that environment can shape a person in some ways. this also means that people's genetics influence how they will react and whether or not they will change due to environment and how they will change.

gender roles are a tricky subject. when a boy baby had a circumsision accident and lost most of his penis, he participated in an experiement to be raised as a girl. he was still attracted to females, like his identical twin (uncircumsized) brother, and hated things like wearing dresses. so it can be nature.

but in some cultures women who work are considered non-feminem. yet in american their femininity is not challenged. some cultures expect men to cry loudly when someone dies, others expect a male to never cry.- so its is also nurture.

I don't know what I think about sociopaths- hormonal, genetic, or other.

I think homosexuality is also hormoally based. a brain scan of a gay man looks different than that of a straight man.

Answer 11

Romans a million: 21 - 32 provides an outstanding description of how we Christians trust it really is sin. That being reported, i'd not in any respect decide each person...there 'sin' is not any worse or any extra effective than mine. If I were you, i'd concentration on John 3:16. also, how God not in any respect judged even the adultery. although, he did tell the adulterior to 'not' sin. So definite, I do trust it really is a sin, yet concentration extra on how God loves us a lot, we may be able to even conquer each sin.....even homosexuality