Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I've seen dozens of these kinds of threads and all the arguments are the same--pro and con. My question is: Why bother?

Why not stop the discrimination, the persecution, the hate, the religous bigotry, and all the endless debate which is really little more than mental masturbation? Except for people with a religous axe to grind there is no one honestly putting forth any peer-reviewed articles with evidence showing that homosexual people are different than heterosexual people in any substantive way. There was a terrible argument about black people being able to be full citizens at one time, but after all the fire and fury died down we discovered that there was no real issue--it was all made up. This issue is the same.

There is a huge amount of energy on both sides of this argument--and to what purpose? It's like the long discussions that were had about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. For some reason that was an important issue at one time in human history, but where is it now? Homosexuality will be the same way shortly so why don't we evolve consciously past this pebble in the road and move on to one of the real problems facing humanity?

 

[DrWho]

I don't think it is necessarily genetic in the sense that there is a single gene out there we can label the "gay gene". I also do not think it is merely a choice.

Genetics is usually complicated and many traits are poly-genetic, or the only show up under certain environmental conditions.

Consider the following:


Among those considered "gay" are really quite a diverse group of people. Heterosexuals, experimenting. Bi-sexuals. Homosexuals. Only a very small proportion of the population is totally 100% homosexual. I would think that there are equally diverse reasons leading to those sexual orientations from choice to biology.

Given that - I think it's also reasonable to assume there is a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality in some of that group.

Opponents of the idea that there might be a biological reason cite supposed "successes" of such groups as the "Ex Gay ministry" - yet, researchers interviewing those in the program and those who have left the program and found that the only thing that changed was the superficial behavior - not the sexual orientation. The attraction to the same sex remained intact.

Another reason I tend to disagree with the "it's a choice" side is simple behavioral science. Being gay in our culture, until recently has often been a pretty horrendous experience exposing the person to hatred, stigma, ridicule, personal danger, murder, loss of a job, loss of friends, loss of family. If some one had a "choice" - why would they choose to subject themselves to that?

And in the end - if it's merely a choice - who cares? Who does it hurt? No one.

I agree with you that there are many diverse people within the group that is labeled homosexual. Surely there are as many reasons. Surely, the evidence indicates that there is a genetic component to all sorts of human behavior and sexuality is probably no exception. Fortunately as humans we have the choice to over-ride our behavioral genetic components most of the time. I do it all the time when I choose to be faithful to one woman.

But people choose to do all sorts of things that they know will subject to them hurt and I am not going to say that people do not choose to be prostitutes, atheists, communists, Christians, etc, when the environment is hostile to these.

 

[Coyote]

I agree with you that there are many diverse people within the group that is labeled homosexual. Surely there are as many reasons. Surely, the evidence indicates that there is a genetic component to all sorts of human behavior and sexuality is probably no exception. Fortunately as humans we have the choice to over-ride our behavioral genetic components most of the time. I do it all the time when I choose to be faithful to one woman.

But people choose to do all sorts of things that they know will subject to them hurt and I am not going to say that people do not choose to be prostitutes, atheists, communists, Christians, etc, when the environment is hostile to these.

Why would they want to overide something as inate as sexual orientation? Would you want to overide your heterosexuality and become homosexual?

 

[invest07]

vyo476

Concerning recessive genes, so long as a recesssive gene does not affect birth rates, it will continue to be passed on to each generation with the same frequency.

Example: my father has wavy hair, which is a recessive trait for Anglo origin. Wavy hair also has nothing to do with reproduction rates and this recessive trait continues to be passed on at about the same frequency from generation to generation.

Cocerning gay reproduction rates, I can't believe you are really asserting gays reproduce at the same rate as straights. Gays certainly do reproduce and have in every human generation. But they have made a choice to gravitate towards same gender relationships which do not produce new births. Certainly some gays reproduce, with both straights and other gays of different gender but the overall rate is lower than for straights and has been so since the beginning of the human race.

coyote
Concerning the rate of disease that you mentioned, I understand that genetics is a complicated matter. I have studied animal genetics but plant genetics are a total mystery to me. I do not think genetic material ever completely disappears except by species extinction. A recesssive trait, such as the mythical gay gene, would diminish over time to a low frequency but would likely never disappear. After 150 human generations (or thousands in the case of your belief) the frequency would be very low but likely at some level of maintenance.

The examples you cited seem to have behaved precisely as I predicted the mythical gay gene would have behaved. It would diminish over generations to finally reach a low frequency, maintenace level. The mythical gay gene should have reached this low frequency, maintenance level, within 40-50 generations (thousands of years ago)

As to whether or not 3-6% (or 3-10% depending on whose number you chose to beleive) is rare, consider this example:

My street has nine houses and a human population of about 30. Statistically, using 3-10% as a gay frequency, there should be at least 1 and maybe as many as 3 gays living on my small street.

With a US population over 300M+, the absolute count of gays would be 9M+ to 30M+. Not rare in my estimation. And not rare to politicians.

I understand that the Political Correct position is that a "Gay" gene must exist. I maintain that a "Gay" gene can't be defended genetically. Since PC is driven solely by social considerations, and not by reality or science, many of the positions supported by PC do not represent reality.

There is no "gay" gene or any combination of traits that produce a predisposition to be gay. Gay is a choice.

The most visible example of this choice is homosexuality in prison. Straights go into prison, engage in homosexual behavior, and may or may not continue this behavior after release. Choice, choice, choice.

 

[vyo476]

Concerning recessive genes, so long as a recesssive gene does not affect birth rates, it will continue to be passed on to each generation with the same frequency.

Example: my father has wavy hair, which is a recessive trait for Anglo origin. Wavy hair also has nothing to do with reproduction rates and this recessive trait continues to be passed on at about the same frequency from generation to generation.

Cocerning gay reproduction rates, I can't believe you are really asserting gays reproduce at the same rate as straights. Gays certainly do reproduce and have in every human generation. But they have made a choice to gravitate towards same gender relationships which do not produce new births. Certainly some gays reproduce, with both straights and other gays of different gender but the overall rate is lower than for straights and has been so since the beginning of the human race.

Homosexuality has been persecuted a lot over the last millennium (and wasn't too popular for a few centuries before that even). Would not a homosexual (in possession of a hypothetical "gay" gene) then be encouraged to do what was necessary to give the appearance of heterosexuality? Would not breeding be a good way of convincing society that he is not, in fact, gay? This is how homosexual reproduction rates have kept up with heterosexual reproduction rates.

In that way the recessive trait also would not have affected birth rates. Homosexuals are fully capable of reproducing. If you believe that homosexuals are incapable of engaging in intercourse with the opposite sex, or would not do so to avoid persecution, or even that in doing so they could no longer be considered homosexuals, than your view of homosexuality is limited indeed.

 

[Napoleon]

There is no "gay" gene or any combination of traits that produce a predisposition to be gay.

There have been MANY studies which prove that assertion to be incorrect.

The most visible example of this choice is homosexuality in prison. Straights go into prison, engage in homosexual behavior, and may or may not continue this behavior after release. Choice, choice, choice.

There is a clear difference between behavior and a state of being. You can go to a zoo and behave like a monkey. That doesn't mean that you are a monkey.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

There have been MANY studies which prove that assertion to be incorrect.

Once upon a time, there were many 'studies' that said the Earth was flat. Science is not flawless.

 

[Coyote]

Once upon a time, there were many 'studies' that said the Earth was flat. Science is not flawless.

Science over time has been pointing the way towards the idea that at least some homosexual traits have a biological basis - this is seen in the endocrine system, brain chemistry and make up, and a host of other things. To ignore it and fall back on an opinion that is primarily based on a subjective sense of morality is to ignore science. Of course, that is your choice.

 

[Coyote]

There have been MANY studies which prove that assertion to be incorrect.



There is a clear difference between behavior and a state of being. You can go to a zoo and behave like a monkey. That doesn't mean that you are a monkey.

that's a good example

 

[DrWho]

Why would they want to overide something as inate as sexual orientation? Would you want to overide your heterosexuality and become homosexual?

Every individual makes his own choices. If one person wants to steer his ship one way and another person wants to steer his ship another that is his own decision. I believe strongly in making my own destiny and if I wanted to overcome any biological drive I have then I would. By definition, any biologically driven behavior would be just as innate as any other. Is one harder to overcome? And does a person want to?

My sexuality is not the most important thing to me. There are many things in life that are more important. I hope you too have things in your life that are more important too as I would hate to see anyone's life reduced to their drive for sex.

If I were a pedophile I would gladly choose anything that would help me to avoid abusing children. When it comes to homosexuality I don't see many reasons why one would need to make a choice of one thing over another but if it came down to it I hope they would not be stuck deciding to follow their biology. The only reason I can think of is if their religious views were both opposed to homosexuality for themselves and more important than their sexuality. In another culture or another time it might be different - then one might want to steer their ship away from homosexuality in favor of participation in the larger culture. But that is still an individual choice.

 

[Napoleon]

Once upon a time, there were many 'studies' that said the Earth was flat. Science is not flawless.

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth. Such ideas were based on mythology and personal opinion not science. Nevertheless, there are still those who believe that the Earth is flat despite the fact that a spherical Earth has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists for over 2,200 years! See a parallel? I do.

 

[invest07]

Science over time has been pointing the way towards the idea that at least some homosexual traits have a biological basis - this is seen in the endocrine system, brain chemistry and make up, and a host of other things.

Sources for any of this would help support your assertion.

 

[DrWho]

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth. Such ideas were based on mythology and personal opinion not science. Nevertheless, there are still those who believe that the Earth is flat despite the fact that a spherical Earth has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists for over 2,200 years! See a parallel? I do.

Really, have you examined all the scientific studies that were ever made? Was there never a scientist anywhere who looked at a large field/ocean and concluded that to the best of his archaic scientific experience that since the field/ocean appeared flat that the earth was flat. He would have been wrong but it would still have been his primitive scientific understanding.

Here is a quote. I don't know much about the author but it appears to be from a learned person from long ago who is relying on a misinterpretation of the scientific concept of gravity to make his case.

"If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be -- if we could imagine the thing, to be peopled all around-'antipodes:' 'people who,' says the dictionary, 'living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, having their fee [sic] opposite to ours' - people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up? But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards, it follows that the WHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe."

 

[invest07]

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth. Such ideas were based on mythology and personal opinion not science. Nevertheless, there are still those who believe that the Earth is flat despite the fact that a spherical Earth has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists for over 2,200 years! See a parallel? I do.

There are better examples than flat earth.

There were scientific studies that supported the existence of phlogiston. For 200 years, this was accepted.

In spite of mounting scientific evidence, most scientists and doctors rejected the notion of germs, until around 1900, following the work of Walter Reid in Cuba.

30 years ago the scientific community was convinced that global cooling was right around the corner.

A scientist at IBM is quoted as saying no one would could possibly ever need more than 640K of memory.

Around 1900, the head of the US patent office, who was an accomplished scientist, fully expected the office to soon close because everything that could be invented already had.

Science is not always right.

 

[Coyote]

My sexuality is not the most important thing to me. There are many things in life that are more important. I hope you too have things in your life that are more important too as I would hate to see anyone's life reduced to their drive for sex.

But that's exactly what this whole argument is about. Defining someone's entire existance by their sexuality. What difference does it make to anyone but the consenting adults involved? This is not pedophilia. There are no "victims".

Asking them to "choose" to be heterosexual would imply the same as asking you to "choose" to be homosexual. You'd be fighting inate built in biological drives. Could you do it and live a happy fulfilled life?