Homosexuality - Choice? or Genetic?

[Enhance]

Enhance, I'd still love to see your answer to my question as far as gays and genetics go. If it is purely genetic, as you are suggesting that homosexuals feel, we eventually should see a strong, strong decline in homosexuality as we move on and homosexuality gains more acceptance.

 

As far as the religion goes, I'm Catholic, I practice, and I said other. I definitely don't think it's a choice, but I don't think there is that special 'gay gene' that makes someone gay or not gay. Maybe that's partly because of my age (22), but I don't really allow the Church's stance on things overly influence my views.

I haven't said one way or another whether it's purely genetic. That's why I voted 'other' in this pole, because I just don't know the exact correct answer.

 

All I know is that homosexual people are vehemently against the idea that they choose to be gay, and it isn't who they are. Given they're homosexual, and I'm not, I trust their judgment to a far greater extent than a couple of homosexual critics on Huskerboard.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

HuskerShark, numerous people have asked you what bad you think comes from being homosexual? Yet still no answer.

[Hoosker]

Somehow I'm not surprised that HuskerShark doesn't approve of homosexuals.

 

Just an observation..

[Ratt Mhule]

Ha! It's the same exact thing and it's directly related. It's no different than Enhance's left-handed, right-handed example.

 

Did you even watch the videos? You honestly think a seven year old...a seven year old! chooses to cross dress and think of himself as a girl? Oh and if you watched the second video, Id hardly say she has bad parents.

[carlfense]

Somehow I'm not surprised that HuskerShark doesn't approve of homosexuals.

I hope for his mental health that he doesn't fall into the George Rekers side of homophobes. I can't imagine how self-destructive that must be.

[Omaha-Husker]

Well that post didn't work.

[AR Husker Fan]

Maybe I just don't get it, but how is eye color a disposition?

 

1.

the predominant or prevailing tendency of one's spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude: a girl with a pleasant disposition.

2.

state of mind regarding something; inclination: a disposition to gamble.

3.

physical inclination or tendency: the disposition of ice to melt when heated.

 

Eye color doesn't fit there for me.

In biological terms, genetic disposition has two meanings. One is "tendency", as in a genetic disposition to, say, a disease. The other is a trait that is the result of the genetic mix and is expressed physically. In other words, it doesn't necessarily refer to a "tendency".

 

Can you provide some sort of link to some sort of hard evidence on this? The only things I've seen, even with genetic disposition, points towards a tendency. It talks about the potential environmental things causing the disposition to either occur or stay suppressed..

Been decades since I had the textbooks from which I got that, so no, I don't. But if it helps the discussion along, I'm happy to say that the term "disposition", in common usage, equates to "tendancy" or equivelant term, and as such I could have used a better term of art . Regardless, there are genenic conditions that are not easily altered, or are unalterable, by normal environmental conditions, such as physical factors. There are conditions that are, such as emotional disposition.

[AR Husker Fan]

AR, you're not assuming that things are either one way or the other, are you? Like either something is purely genetic and unalterable by the environment or is purely the result of the environment? If so, then you are telling a half-truth; you're right with your example (blue eyes being purely genetic), but the majority of behaviors (sexual orientation included) are a combination of genes interacting with an environment to produce a result. Genes only encode for atendency, at least as far as behaviors are concerned. Here's an example:

 

Genes code for either a high activity form of the enzyme MAOA or a low activity form of the enzyme MAOA. A study done examined kids with high MAOA activity who lived in stressful vs non-stressful environments and kids with low MAOA activity in stressful vs non-stressful environments. The low activity MAOA gene(s) have been linked to aggression and criminality but only if the child was raised in a stressful environment. The high activity MAOA gene(s) have no link to aggression and criminality even if the child was raised in a stressful environment.

 

So rarely (as far as behaviors go) is it ever just one or the other. Both genes and the environment are here for a reason, otherwise, why have them if they aren't effecting anything?

 

And here's something else for those of you who think it is purely genetic, a study done on homosexual men showed that a majority of them shared a gene, but that not all of them did.

No, I'm not making that assumption. I said that there are genetic results that are either unalterable or not easily altered by normal environmental conditions, such as physical traits like eye color, the number of digits on your hand, etc., and those that are susceptible to environmental conditions, such as emotional predilictions. I can't tell from your post if you are equating homosexuality to behaviors, but if so, that doesn't really address the issue - it merely restates it. That is, the issue of whether homosexuality is genetic (in the sense that a person is born homosexual) or a choice (a behavior, susceptible to environmental conditions).

 

There are non-physical aspects of humans that are purely genetic. The sense of self is one, as is the sense of gender. Transgender individuals, from the earliest age, identify themselves as being the opposite gender from their actual physical gender. That's something that is hardwired at birth, and does not change through environment. As far as I can tell, that is also the case for homosexuality. It isn't a choice, susceptible to environment. Environment may make you tolerant or intolerant of a person's sexual preference - it may make you more willing to consider or reject the thought of sexual experimentation with the same gender - but as with transgenders, homosexuals maintain that they do not make a choice. They don't wake up one day attracted to the opposite sex and the next day wake up and say, "Hey, I think I'll be gay." They are, from the time they first feel sexual attraction, attracted to their own gender. Given that gays are most often the result of heterosexual matings, raised in environments identical to those who are straight (cases of two siblings in raised in the same household, going to the same school, etc.), and yet they never feel an attraction to the opposite sex while their siblings does is very stong evidence (albeit not conclusive proof) that it is genetic and not subject to environment.

[AR Husker Fan]

Maybe I just don't get it, but how is eye color a disposition?

 

1.

the predominant or prevailing tendency of one's spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude: a girl with a pleasant disposition.

2.

state of mind regarding something; inclination: a disposition to gamble.

3.

physical inclination or tendency: the disposition of ice to melt when heated.

 

Eye color doesn't fit there for me.

In biological terms, genetic disposition has two meanings. One is "tendency", as in a genetic disposition to, say, a disease. The other is a trait that is the result of the genetic mix and is expressed physically. In other words, it doesn't necessarily refer to a "tendency".

 

Can you provide some sort of link to some sort of hard evidence on this? The only things I've seen, even with genetic disposition, points towards a tendency. It talks about the potential environmental things causing the disposition to either occur or stay suppressed..

Wouldn't blue eyes be more of a genetic mutation than a genetic disposition?

When the trait of blue eyes first appeared, it would be a mutation. A mutation is a deviation from the accepted standard or standards. When it becomes part of the standard - mostly through recurrance or what some mistakeningly call "breeding true" - then it's no longer a mutation. Using a couple of physical traits as examples, there are people that are born with hands/feet with six digits. Is that a mutation? Yes, because it is outside the standard. What makes that different from blue eyes, of course, is the rarity.

 

Of course, in the broadest sense of the term "mutation", every individual is the result of mutation. Since every few conditions are the result of a single gene, and a child gets genetic code from each birth parent which is combined in a unique fashion, there is always something different about the child as compared to the parents, whether that is emotional, behavioral, mental, or physical.

[HSKR]

Since we are talking about science of it, I've wondered what is the scientific reasoning or evolutionary purpose of homosexuality? I know it happens with other species other then humans but I don't think I have ever read why and how it benefits said species. Well I guess we wouldn't have Bravo without it.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Since we are talking about science of it, I've wondered what is the scientific reasoning or evolutionary purpose of homosexuality? I know it happens with other species other then humans but I don't think I have ever read why and how it benefits said species. Well I guess we wouldn't have Bravo without it.

 

You know this is an interesting question, and there has been and is a lot of research devoted to answering this question: since homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, then in what ways is it evolutionary beneficial?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

AR, you're not assuming that things are either one way or the other, are you? Like either something is purely genetic and unalterable by the environment or is purely the result of the environment? If so, then you are telling a half-truth; you're right with your example (blue eyes being purely genetic), but the majority of behaviors (sexual orientation included) are a combination of genes interacting with an environment to produce a result. Genes only encode for atendency, at least as far as behaviors are concerned. Here's an example:

 

Genes code for either a high activity form of the enzyme MAOA or a low activity form of the enzyme MAOA. A study done examined kids with high MAOA activity who lived in stressful vs non-stressful environments and kids with low MAOA activity in stressful vs non-stressful environments. The low activity MAOA gene(s) have been linked to aggression and criminality but only if the child was raised in a stressful environment. The high activity MAOA gene(s) have no link to aggression and criminality even if the child was raised in a stressful environment.

 

So rarely (as far as behaviors go) is it ever just one or the other. Both genes and the environment are here for a reason, otherwise, why have them if they aren't effecting anything?

 

And here's something else for those of you who think it is purely genetic, a study done on homosexual men showed that a majority of them shared a gene, but that not all of them did.

No, I'm not making that assumption. I said that there are genetic results that are either unalterable or not easily altered by normal environmental conditions, such as physical traits like eye color, the number of digits on your hand, etc., and those that are susceptible to environmental conditions, such as emotional predilictions. I can't tell from your post if you are equating homosexuality to behaviors, but if so, that doesn't really address the issue - it merely restates it. That is, the issue of whether homosexuality is genetic (in the sense that a person is born homosexual) or a choice (a behavior, susceptible to environmental conditions).

 

There are non-physical aspects of humans that are purely genetic. The sense of self is one, as is the sense of gender. Transgender individuals, from the earliest age, identify themselves as being the opposite gender from their actual physical gender. That's something that is hardwired at birth, and does not change through environment. As far as I can tell, that is also the case for homosexuality. It isn't a choice, susceptible to environment. Environment may make you tolerant or intolerant of a person's sexual preference - it may make you more willing to consider or reject the thought of sexual experimentation with the same gender - but as with transgenders, homosexuals maintain that they do not make a choice. They don't wake up one day attracted to the opposite sex and the next day wake up and say, "Hey, I think I'll be gay." They are, from the time they first feel sexual attraction, attracted to their own gender. Given that gays are most often the result of heterosexual matings, raised in environments identical to those who are straight (cases of two siblings in raised in the same household, going to the same school, etc.), and yet they never feel an attraction to the opposite sex while their siblings does is very stong evidence (albeit not conclusive proof) that it is genetic and not subject to environment.

 

If homosexuality was purely genetic, then how come concordance rates among mono-zygotic twins is only ~50%? Albeit, it's a strong concordance rate, but considering MZ twins share 100% of their genetic material, if one twin was homosexual, wouldn't the other twin be homosexual as well? What explains the other 50% not being homosexual? Genetics?

[AR Husker Fan]

Since we are talking about science of it, I've wondered what is the scientific reasoning or evolutionary purpose of homosexuality? I know it happens with other species other then humans but I don't think I have ever read why and how it benefits said species. Well I guess we wouldn't have Bravo without it.

 

You know this is an interesting question, and there has been and is a lot of research devoted to answering this question: since homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, then in what ways is it evolutionary beneficial?

Not all traits are tied to an evolutionary benefit. Eye color, hair color, other physical traits have no particular evolutionary (or survival) benefit. There's no evolutionary benefit of finger or toe nails at this stage, but they haven't disappeared. There are genetic conditions other than homosexuality that make reproduction impossible - some people are even born sterile. Some conditions just "are".

[AR Husker Fan]

AR, you're not assuming that things are either one way or the other, are you? Like either something is purely genetic and unalterable by the environment or is purely the result of the environment? If so, then you are telling a half-truth; you're right with your example (blue eyes being purely genetic), but the majority of behaviors (sexual orientation included) are a combination of genes interacting with an environment to produce a result. Genes only encode for atendency, at least as far as behaviors are concerned. Here's an example:

 

Genes code for either a high activity form of the enzyme MAOA or a low activity form of the enzyme MAOA. A study done examined kids with high MAOA activity who lived in stressful vs non-stressful environments and kids with low MAOA activity in stressful vs non-stressful environments. The low activity MAOA gene(s) have been linked to aggression and criminality but only if the child was raised in a stressful environment. The high activity MAOA gene(s) have no link to aggression and criminality even if the child was raised in a stressful environment.

 

So rarely (as far as behaviors go) is it ever just one or the other. Both genes and the environment are here for a reason, otherwise, why have them if they aren't effecting anything?

 

And here's something else for those of you who think it is purely genetic, a study done on homosexual men showed that a majority of them shared a gene, but that not all of them did.

No, I'm not making that assumption. I said that there are genetic results that are either unalterable or not easily altered by normal environmental conditions, such as physical traits like eye color, the number of digits on your hand, etc., and those that are susceptible to environmental conditions, such as emotional predilictions. I can't tell from your post if you are equating homosexuality to behaviors, but if so, that doesn't really address the issue - it merely restates it. That is, the issue of whether homosexuality is genetic (in the sense that a person is born homosexual) or a choice (a behavior, susceptible to environmental conditions).

 

There are non-physical aspects of humans that are purely genetic. The sense of self is one, as is the sense of gender. Transgender individuals, from the earliest age, identify themselves as being the opposite gender from their actual physical gender. That's something that is hardwired at birth, and does not change through environment. As far as I can tell, that is also the case for homosexuality. It isn't a choice, susceptible to environment. Environment may make you tolerant or intolerant of a person's sexual preference - it may make you more willing to consider or reject the thought of sexual experimentation with the same gender - but as with transgenders, homosexuals maintain that they do not make a choice. They don't wake up one day attracted to the opposite sex and the next day wake up and say, "Hey, I think I'll be gay." They are, from the time they first feel sexual attraction, attracted to their own gender. Given that gays are most often the result of heterosexual matings, raised in environments identical to those who are straight (cases of two siblings in raised in the same household, going to the same school, etc.), and yet they never feel an attraction to the opposite sex while their siblings does is very stong evidence (albeit not conclusive proof) that it is genetic and not subject to environment.

 

If homosexuality was purely genetic, then how come concordance rates among mono-zygotic twins is only ~50%? Albeit, it's a strong concordance rate, but considering MZ twins share 100% of their genetic material, if one twin was homosexual, wouldn't the other twin be homosexual as well? What explains the other 50% not being homosexual? Genetics?

Yes, genetics. While twins have the same genetic material, it isn't 100% identical in terms of the way it is mixed. The reality is that twins are never 100% identical. Compare any set of twins closely enough, and there will be differences - emotional or physical. One twin has two freckles on her nose - one has only one. It's the way the genes combine and form that cause the differences, even if the source material is identical. While identical twins have the same genotype, or DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways. That's why twins have different fingerprints.

[tschu]

There is some seriously awful biology in this thread.

 

Really bad