Whats your belief about gay gene theory?

Question

There have been countless conflicts between "trolls" and us just on yahoo alone about whether being gay is induced by nature or nuture. I just wanna hear some of everyone's theories. So what do you think makes gay people gay and why? I don't have a theory although I personally feel I was born gay because I found out when i was 5 - but I don't believe that all gay people are born gay just because of my situation. So what are your ideas on this? even more imporntantly - if it was proven in some crazy scientific way that its actually a choice then would you still choose to be gay? Me? I wouldn't change myself even if society put bounty on my head for it. What about you?

Answer 1

I believe that there are as many human sexes as their are people.

I have no idea about the "gay gene" theory and I don't necessarily want someone to find a "gay gene" because next thing ya know people will be aborting "gay babies" like they have been aborting babies for having non xx and xy sex chromosome patterns, the ones they don't abort are usually subjected to "normalizing" surgeries or Intersex Genital Mutiliation (IGM)... I guess we are getting desperate to 'prove' that there are only two sexes..

See, we can explore the body, and exploit the body. We will eventually make it so we can see what we want to see. ^_~

it is like discussing "brain sex" when we've already figured out that gendered activities change the brain over a life time. If we changed the social expectation for the activities, we would see different brain patterns ^_~

And the differences between brains at birth, are generalized to stuff them into the notion of a two sex society anyway.

I also believe that equality should be about justice, not pathology. ^_~

Answer 2

I don't believe that the gay gene theory is sound. If homosexuality was caused by genetics, then it would have to be hereditary right? And if so, the parents of gay and lesbian people would have also had to be gay right? This strikes me as highly unlikely, because there is no such thing as homosexual reproduction. Unless a gay person went against their sexual orientation to have kids, there would be no way for the gene to be passed on. Also, the theory of natural selection maintains that if a genetic characteristic in any organism proves counter-productive, it will be filtered out, meaning that homosexuality would not exist today. Also, there have been several studies to suggest that homosexuality is not genetic, for example a pair of identical twins (who have exactly the same genes) may have different sexual orientations.

However, I don't believe that being gay is a choice either. I'm bi, and I can tell you right now I had no choice in the matter. I only discovered I was bi when I was fourteen, but now, on reflection, I think it started long before that, I think when I was maybe around four, though I didn't recognise it at the time. I think it's possible that people are born gay, but I don't think it's due to genetics. No one really knows for sure what causes homosexuality, we can only speculate. I don't believe that it is caused by one's upbringing either, as I am bi and my sister is straight, and we were brought up in the same house by the same parents under the same conditions. I certainly wouldn't change my sexuality, even if I could. I'm happy with who I am.

I don't think it's necessarily all that important to figure out what causes homosexuality. Generally, when people put this much effort into researching the cause of something, it's because they believe there is some sort of problem with it, and they think that if they can find what's causing it, they can solve it. I don't think that homosexuality is a problem, and I don't think it needs to be solved. The only problem related to homosexuality is homophobia, and that DOES need to be solved.

Answer 3

The idea of a "gay gene" is both problematic and emblematic at the same time. Think about it. If it does exist, it must be an extremely recessive gene, otherwise it would kill itself out (because of the obvious reason of homosexuuals not producing children) (as an aside, I'm the first redhead in our family in four generations...so it could be like that only even MORE recessive).
It's emblematic becuase people want an "easy" answer to the "nature vs. nuture" debate.
Of all the millions of things encoded in our DNA's, I think it's probably a safe bet to consider that something about sexuality is coded into people's genetic material. The questions are what it is--how much of it is important--and how do all the various factors of living trigger it/not trigger it.
In the end..ALMOST all things are a choice. Some may have a lot tougher consequences than others... but all things people do are chosen. Their bodies may lean a particular way (homosexuality/alcoholism/smoking/heart conditions/being left handed even--I'm a lefty!) It's achoice. My mother wanted me to use my right hand but I rebelled... A choice! again, in the end..it's achoice, and even though it might be gentically encoded, people are making a choice WHO they sleep with. (or not sleep!)
I think to say "I'm a victim of my genes" undermines human freedom.

Answer 4

Scientific researchers have shown that being gay is based on biological and genetic factors. Studies have shown that women who have gay children are more fertile and usually have more children than women who do not have gay children. Due to the rise in fertility, the gay genetic factors would be naturally desirable.

If it were proven in some crazy scientific way that its actually a choice, I would question the scientific methodology of the survey. I am gay and never given the choice to be gay; I only made the choice to not live a lie and accept my sexual attraction.

Even the ultra conservative president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has said that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality & "I am absolutely confident that a large number of homosexuals are telling the truth when they say they did not choose that orientation."

Answer 5

It isn't your "situation" that makes a behavior, it is the response. There are circumstancial indicators, just like with tobacco use--the incidence of certain diseases is demonstratably higher with users than with those who don't use, which only proves a tendency and risk, not that cigarettes "caused" it. Another demonstrated phenomenon is that people have preprogrammed cancer and other disabling disease genes, so some of the myriad carcinogens in tobacco or its smoke appear to flip those genetic switches in some people and a malady results.

There are two problems with the genetic notion as cause for homosexuality. First, while genes for various cancers and such have been seen, the data on any behavioral quirk or tendency is exceedingly rare. Today's geneticists are merely confirming what behavioralists have long known, except for a small window shortly after birth, humans have or retain very, very little inate behavior. Beyond babies propensity to swim as early infants and rooting for a nipple and knowing to suck when something resembling it is found, human behavior is learned--or invented. In an oval around two focii, between and around Freud and Skinner, the evidence is clear for people making choices that define their behavior. The stages are in general clear, although the labels are not uniform and the lines and their counts are fuzzy.

If you believe in evolution, then you are really behind the eight-ball, because if there is a selfish gene, as Dawkins so noisily proclaims, then the homosexual gene short-circuits it--it cannot reproduce when expressing the behavioral programing of homosexual DNA. Darwin then comes to haunt with his notion of 'survival of the fittest'--you may be strong and smart, but unless you engage in heterosexual behavior somewhere, you will not perpetuate yourself.

Believe what you want, but as for the gene, you might as well also believe in the tooth fairy.

Answer 6

I think it is primarily genetic somehow. Studies have shown, for example, that males that are predominantly sexually attracted to other males are more likely to be the youngest of the litter, usually the youngest son in a family-with older siblings not usually homosexual. To me this says that mother nature is working behind the scenes to reduce population growth when there are multiple births, so that the later children are less likely to reproduce. Sounds good, anyway. Could be a change in genes or just a biochemical marker that makes the difference.

Answer 7

This is almost like trying to answer "What's the meaning of life?" ... You're going to get 50,000 (give or take a few) different answers. My personal experience as a gay male is that I knew from as far back as I can remember. I also have a mother that is a lesbian, of course I didn't find that out until I was 18. So, in my situation, it turned out to be genetic. It seems that in every generation there is one, maybe two that are gay or lesbian.

Answer 8

What do civil rights and evolution have to do with each other? Marriage, in the US anyway, is a government sanctioned relationship. Evolution is a natural process. Anyone paying the slightest attention to what passes for government these days understands that it has little to do with either natural law or continuation of the species. You could make the same argument about modern medicine. It allows other than the genetically most fit to survive and thrive. I still don't consider things like surgery, vaccines, etc. as anti-Darwinian or a detriment to the species.

Answer 9

Experience tells me that most people (gay or straight) discover their orientation long before the age of reason (about 8 yrs.) or any conscious sexual awareness. Personally, I had a thing for both Betty Boop and Blondie (Dagwood Bumstead's wife) long before I knew anything about sex. This suggests to me a genetic or biological origin.

Considering masculinity and femininity objectively, they seem to be less of a polarity (like black and white) and more like a spectrum (shades of gray), crossing all kinds of boundaries including sex, age, race, religion, education, income, etc.

A lot of interesting or major figures in history were homosexuals: Socrates, Leonardo DaVinci, Alexander The Great, Mehmet II, Sir Francis Bacon, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Tchaikovsky, Greta Garbo, Rock Hudson, and on and on ...

Think about it ~ who would consciously choose and commit to a "lifestyle" that is almost guaranteed to regularly expose one to hatred, bigotry and violence?

I grew up in a tradition where gays commonly ridiculed, adn so were those who resisted the tradition. It took some time and effort for me to find my own conclusions and conduct myself accordingly, but I've done it - hopefully - to a greater extent than I have failed to do it.

As far as I can tell, homophobia is based on religious tenets. I think, for the purposes of community and culture, we should all set aside our religious beliefs - since they can't be proven scientifically anyway - and focus on establishing reason as the basis of for all public discourse, laws, ethics and morals.

Answer 10

Theories aside here's what the truth says.
Nobody was born gay. It is a choice and it is not normal.

Romans 1:24-27
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with me working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Better yet read the first chapter of Romans
Lev. 18:22
Lev. 20:13
1 Cor. 6:9-10
1 Tim. 1:10
After you read all that (You'll love this)
Read:
Luke 19:10
JOhn 3:16
Ephesians 2:4,5
Eph. 2: 8-9
2 Cor. 5:17
And Don't worry
Romans 3:23-24
God Bless You! (Dig in)