NationStates Jolt Archive

The field of Genetics has the possibilty of opening a whole can of worms soon.
For example, if or when they find the gene (or whatever it would be, I ain't a geneticist) for homosexuality and they have developed the ability to turn off or on different genes what will be the cultural result.
A heck of a lot of parents, when informed their baby has a good chance of being homosexual, will opt to turn off the gene. A few might turn it on, but many more off because of the difficulties that child might face in the future or simply because they don't want a homosexual child.
So what would be done about this? Would gay and lesbian activists attempt to make changing that gene illegal to prevent a decrease in their percentage of population? How would we legislate what could or could not be changed?

homosexuality is genetic, or at least according to the results of the large majority of experiments conducted in that field. end of story.

Personally I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I feel it's brought upon by feelings, environment, attitudes, or personal expieriences. That's just my opinion.

Personally I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I feel it's brought upon by feelings, environment, attitudes, or personal expieriences. That's just my opinion.

do some research.

Personally I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I feel it's brought upon by feelings, environment, attitudes, or personal expieriences. That's just my opinion.

You would be exactly correct(at least that is what I remember from my bio course). No part of your DNA/genes causes homosexuality. Even if it did, altering DNA would be far to dangerous to risk just to make a person heterosexual.

Actually, there is research that indicates that a child's sexuality may be influenced by the homones produced by his or her mom while in the womb.

They haven't found a homosexuality gene yet, so you can't outright deny other plausible theories.

homosexuality is genetic, or at least according to the results of the large majority of experiments conducted in that field. end of story.

I did some research, and found this...


This week, gay scientists at the University of Newcastle have discovered the Christian gene, giving hope to thousands of parents who have children afflicted with christianity.

Professor Simpson says, '...in this hamster, we have removed the Christian gene, thus totally eliminating the possibility of him turning into a Christian'.

Parents Max and Janet Oliver say, '...when our daughter became a Christian, we thought it was something that we had done wrong. Now that this new research has revealed the truth of Christianity, we feel much better and can accept our daughter now.'

But active Christians in the community are desputing the evidence, stating that Christianity is a lifestyle and not genetically predetermined.

However, Professor Simpson says, 'The evidence for the Christian gene is very strong and by selective genetic engineering, we think we can eliminate this social ailment by 2025, thus making the world a Christian-free one.'

CNNNN.

Akkid Originally posted by
do some research.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of these studies.
It's just reading up on homosexuality doesn't interest me.

umm, but "if" it is and if it can be changed how will this effect the whole use of and field of genetics?

I did some research, and found this...
ROFFLE!!!

Actually, there is research that indicates that a child's sexuality may be influenced by the homones produced by his or her mom while in the womb.

They haven't found a homosexuality gene yet, so you can't outright deny other plausible theories.

Hormones aren't genes. DNA forms genes. If hormones affected sexuality all gays would have breasts...its actually true, hormones affect sex, not sexuality.

homosexuality is genetic, or at least according to the results of the large majority of experiments conducted in that field. end of story.


Please give us some links as to where to find the results of said experiments?
Beginning of story.

Genes aren't nearly that simple. You won't be able to change personality so definitively by altering a gene or two.

I read of a so-called "eyeless" gene in some insect...when they supressed it, the damn thing grew eyes all over its body - on it's legs, abdomen, head, etc. They were non-functional, but looked just like eyes.

If you tried to supress or turn on the "homo" gene, you might wind up creating something even worse: like a republican, for example.

But seriously, I don't think that we'll ever understand how the 40k or so alleles interact to produce all the variations of our species.

If you want to get rid of homsexuality, just keep voting republican! (Oops, there I go again...)

Hormones aren't genes. DNA forms genes. If hormones affected sexuality all gays would have breasts...its actually true, hormones affect sex, not sexuality.


How do you make a hormone??

Don't pay her.

(It HAD to be said.)

If hormones affected sexuality all gays would have breasts...its actually true, hormones affect sex, not sexuality.
You misinterpreted. Recent studies have shown that there may be a tie between hormones in the mother's womb and homosexuality. Not the hormones of the homosexuals themselves, but the hormones of the mother that have an effect on the development of the foetus.

Hormones aren't genes. DNA forms genes. If hormones affected sexuality all gays would have breasts...its actually true, hormones affect sex, not sexuality.
er...hormones in the womb would make a gay male grow breasts at puberty?

erm...you need to read into these things...

i personally think it comes from hormone levels in the womb

How do you make a hormone??

Don't pay her.

(It HAD to be said.)

Actually the answer is to punch her in the throat.

If you look at the literature that exists on the determinants of sexuality in humans, you will find support for a wide-range of opinions. At this point, it is safe to say that there is no one theory (genetic, environmental, etc.) that is thoroughly convincing. There are many studies giving support to the genetic explanantion, but they are quite incomplete. And for anyone who says that genetics are solely responsible, I would encourage you to look at twin studies, where one twin becomes homosexual and the other does not. These studies alone rule out a single genetic explanantion. I am of the opinion, and I think most researchers today would agree, that sexuality in any form is a result of a wide-range of influences, and while genetics can play a large role, one can never discount the influence of environment on the development of the individual, as well as the choices we make. I think advocates of equality of rights for all people (of which I am one), should focus less on the determinants of sexuality as an argument, and more on the humanity and equality of all people, regardless of arbitrary distinctions.

I think the reason why people are gay is the level of hormones. Gay guys have a low level of testosterone, and lesbians have a low level of estrogen.

Possibly, there is enough female/male hormones to make it so the person doesn't become a hermaphordite, but the other half is large enough to make a difference when it comes to loving a guy/girl.

If you look at the literature that exists on the determinants of sexuality in humans, you will find support for a wide-range of opinions. At this point, it is safe to say that there is no one theory (genetic, environmental, etc.) that is thoroughly convincing. There are many studies giving support to the genetic explanantion, but they are quite incomplete. And for anyone who says that genetics are solely responsible, I would encourage you to look at twin studies, where one twin becomes homosexual and the other does not. These studies alone rule out a single genetic explanantion. I am of the opinion, and I think most researchers today would agree, that sexuality in any form is a result of a wide-range of influences, and while genetics can play a large role, one can never discount the influence of environment on the development of the individual, as well as the choices we make. I think advocates of equality of rights for all people (of which I am one), should focus less on the determinants of sexuality as an argument, and more on the humanity and equality of all people, regardless of arbitrary distinctions.

My opinion on how gays come to be is that it is environmental. If you put a boy in the YMCA locker room showers enough times, he's going to be a gay.

I think the reason why people are gay is the level of hormones. Gay guys have a low level of testosterone, and lesbians have a low level of estrogen.
I don't know, but I thought that someone had brought up this theory and tested it once and it wasn't true. I'm not sure though.

You know what would be gross? Gay incestual twins.

Unless they were female, of course.



You know...there's a lot of "naturally" gay and otherwise odd behavior in animals. Male on male. Female on male. The least common is female on female. (And that's a cruel shame.)

My opinion on how gays come to be is that it is environmental. If you put a boy in the YMCA locker room showers enough times, he's going to be a gay.
which is the most ignorant thing ive ever read...

hang on, ill see if i can dig something up that will sho that engaging in homosexual activity while growing up =/= gay adult

homosexuality is genetic, or at least according to the results of the large majority of experiments conducted in that field. end of story.If homosexuality is genetic, how come homosexuality isn't on the decline?

I'd think that gay people are less likely to have children and actually propagate those genes.

You know what would be gross? Gay incestual twins.

Unless they were female, of course.



You know...there's a lot of "naturally" gay and otherwise odd behavior in animals. Male on male. Female on male. The least common is female on female. (And that's a cruel shame.)

Yeah and I'm sure those "gay" dolphins really comprehend just how "gay" they are. Besides where is the leatherman in all of this?

i agree with stubbs, nearly everything about a person is down to both genetic and enviromental factors. i also agree with the point about hormones in the womb, etc. just what your mother ate while she was pregnant could have an effect! i guess the issue with genetics is, could we turn this one off and slice that 1 in 10, to 1 in 50... or maybe even further, but then that would be venturing into the good and bad issue. i would have to rule against such an action purely on my belief for letting evolution take it's course.

If homosexuality is genetic, how come homosexuality isn't on the decline?

I'd think that gay people are less likely to have children and actually propagate those genes.

Because Homosexuality isn't supposed to happen. Theres a defect in the genes. This also happens with animals. And yes, gay male animals do take it up the butt.

Its like, why do we have autistic children?

which is the most ignorant thing ive ever read...




Hang on, I'll give ya another one.


Most men who sexually abuse boys are actually gay, but don't admit it.

How do you make a hormone??

Don't pay her.

(It HAD to be said.)

What are you talking about? Hormones can't be synthesised.

If homosexuality is genetic, how come homosexuality isn't on the decline?

I'd think that gay people are less likely to have children and actually propagate those genes.

Knowing a little about evolution, this point always confused me. "Genetic Drift" might prevent homosexuality from being wiped out completely, but any "condition" that tends to produce fewer children would naturally tend to dissapate in society.

This makes me think it cannot possibly have a purely genetic answer.

You know, they have found protein-encoding genetic material OUTSIDE the cell nucleus...i.e. not genetically transfered, and subject to environmental factors! In other words, we barely understand the whole genetics world.

Maybe it's viral. Ewww, cooties...get them off me!

i think its both...

Because Homosexuality isn't supposed to happen. Theres a defect in the genes. This also happens with animals. And yes, gay male animals do take it up the butt.

Its like, why do we have autistic children?Monogamous gay animals only exist in domestication, gay behaviour however, is seen in animals all the time, bonobos wanking each other off to sooth over arguments etc.

I don't see how either could be described as a defect when it's an effect of domestication or, in the case of behaviour natural and wide-spread among healthy animals.

Which means humanity is domesticated, makes complete sense actually.

If homosexuality is genetic, how come homosexuality isn't on the decline?

I'd think that gay people are less likely to have children and actually propagate those genes.

We'll technically if there were a gay gene and one gay family member had a child with someone of the opposite sex it could skip several generations before it resurfaced. I could see that happening to as homosexuality was not socially acceptable around the time our grandparents were young.

antithia, many diseases like echemza, asthma, hayfever, cystic? fibrosis?, angina, etc etc etc are all genetic. they are still around because they are *recessive*, lot's of people without these diseases have the genes that cause them, but don't have the disease. look into it if you wish to know why. And another point would be, most homosexual people have children anyway. marriage of convience, or plain using of another individual outside of the relationship with their partner. some people even have children before they realise they are gay. that is why the number of people who are gay isn't declining. one last point, when the numbers or proportion of something doesn't change, it usually implies that it *is* genetic. i.e 1 in 30 people are colour blind, doesn't mean they all don't see the red light at junctions and die in horrible car crashes before they have children

aaaaarg. . . *whining* nobody is discussing my original question. . . oh well, I guess it happens to a lot of threads. Is this what they call hijacking or is that when somebody comes onto a thread and states that they are changing the topic of a thread?

Eastern coast america, are you also suggesting that people with white skin, or people with ginger hair also have defect genes? (i'm white myself). these gene's started off as defective, but offered an advantage in certain enviroments. (just as an homosexual gene may do)

Why do we have autistic children???

Could be the flouridated water, actually.

which is the most ignorant thing ive ever read...

hang on, ill see if i can dig something up that will sho that engaging in homosexual activity while growing up =/= gay adult
here we go...

In the New Guinea society of the Sambia, boys aged 7 to 10 are taken from their mothers to a special place outside the village. Here they experience powerful homosexual fellatio activities. For a number of years, they daily fellate, for some years as fellator and then later as reflated. Elders teach that semen is absolutely vital; that it should be consumed daily since it is the basis of biological maleness; and that their very masculinity depends on it! At the same time, they must avoid women who are seen to be contaminating. When they are young men, they are returned to society, where they settle down and marry women. With fatherhood, their homosexuality ceases. But then the cycle starts all over again when the men steer their own young sons into this erotic pattern. 'Homoeroticism is the royal road to Sambia manliness.' This is a ritualised form of homosexuality, and for the Sambia it is absolutely essential that men engage in these fellating activities in order to establish both their masculinity and, ultimately, their heterosexuality. Masculinity, here, is the outcome of a regime of ritualised homosexuality leading into manhood.

Herdt, Gilbert "Guardians of the Flutes: Idioms of Masculinity", (1981), London, McGraw-Hill

If homosexuals can't reproduce, how come there are so many of them?? :p

well 31, you aren't exactly directing the topic. instead of complaining perhaps you'd like to post some more questions, or direct us at a sub topic. *genetic* is very vague.

antithia, many diseases like echemza, asthma, hayfever, cystic? fibrosis?, angina, etc etc etc are all genetic. they are still around because they are *recessive*, lot's of people without these diseases have the genes that cause them, but don't have the disease. blah blah

But if they are never *dominant* how would anyone suffer from the diseases.

If homosexuals can't reproduce, how come there are so many of them?? :p

Have you read any of the recent posts?

Yes. It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

Homosexuality is genetic?....Thats just gay.

Its not genetic, people choose who they are attracted to.

by recieving two recessive genes, then they have no dominant ones. a recessive gene is basically a gene that codes for *nothing*. recessive gene's usually break protein chains, so a protein that would be in an ordinary person isn't. look into albino's if you are interested. the chances of getting two recessive genes are low, and hence a low amount of the population having said condition.

If homosexuals can't reproduce, how come there are so many of them?? :p

Let me tell ya why:Too much MTV, too many visits to the YMCA, and too much love as babies.

antithia, many diseases like echemza, asthma, hayfever, cystic? fibrosis?, angina, etc etc etc are all genetic. they are still around because they are *recessive*, lot's of people without these diseases have the genes that cause them, but don't have the disease. look into it if you wish to know why. And another point would be, most homosexual people have children anyway. marriage of convience, or plain using of another individual outside of the relationship with their partner. some people even have children before they realise they are gay. that is why the number of people who are gay isn't declining. one last point, when the numbers or proportion of something doesn't change, it usually implies that it *is* genetic. i.e 1 in 30 people are colour blind, doesn't mean they all don't see the red light at junctions and die in horrible car crashes before they have childrenThen again, recessive disese genes would last longer and decline slower than homosexuality genes would because having things like asthma and angina and most of your other examples would be less likely to stop you having kids than being gay, surely. Yeah, I know that gay people do have kids, but I'm very doubtful that there wouldn't be a noticible decline in the numbers of gay people over, say, a hundred years.

A simpler and more sensible explanation would be that genetics alone is not responsible, or that genes have nothing to do with it (I'm inclined to go with the former). 1 in 30 people are colour blind, but the same has been true for a very long time, and being colour blind doesn't really mean people die at traffic light, especially since colour blind people can tell a light is on, even if they don't see the colour :-P

Recessive genes don't explain everything.

The things you mentioned weren't "life threatening", i.e. preventing the creation of progeny, and therefore the handing down of that gene.

If you have a genetic condition that completely prevents you from making babies, then your genes, recessive OR dominant are immediately erased from the face of the earth!

Now...homos certainly MAY have children, but it is highly unlikely they do so at the same rate as heteros. This would tend to create a decline in the incidence of homos over time, which I think we might agree hasn't happened.

Homosexuality is a somewhat unique genetic "condition", in that it so directly affects your ability to reproduce.

I don't think color-blindness has the same effect!

Homosexuality is genetic?....Thats just gay.

Its not genetic, people choose who they are attracted to.
thats crap...do you think a person would choose to go through the bigotry, hatred and discrimination gays go through?

do you feel you have any choice in who you are attracted to?

i sure as hell dont

Dangit Antitha...I was just about to say that!

well 31, you aren't exactly directing the topic. instead of complaining perhaps you'd like to post some more questions, or direct us at a sub topic. *genetic* is very vague.

complaining? why do you think I am complaining? I don't use those smily things so I guess it would be difficult to know I am chuckling about the whole thing, not complaining.

I just wanted to know what people think would happen if and when it is possible to change the sexuality of a person. Would it lead to a decrease in the population of homosexuals? I know it might not be possible but this is just hypothetical.

Theta gamma, if i wanted to. i could alter my diet so my skin appeared yellow instead of well, skin colour. i could probably also make it green or blue. through certain diets it's also possible to change the colour of your eyes, instead of them being white. it doesn't mean the colour of your skin or the colour of your eyes aren't genetic.

After reading all the comments on this thread, I realized that a few things need to be cleared up. First, nearly every aspect of who each person is is determined by a complex and unpredictable interaction between that person's genetic makeup and the environment. That being said, there isn't a specific "homosexuality" gene. Instead, there MIGHT be a gene that COULD result in homosexuality IF the right outside stimuli were present, so genetic scientist will never be able to "turn off" a "gay" gene. Additionally, every reputable psychologically study in the past 40 years states that each person's sexuality is determined by the age of six and can't be reversed. Furthermore, some studies a few years ago came to the conclusion that some genes, which are heavily involved in determining homosexuality may actually promote having a lot of children when homosexuality isn't expressed, so the gene would still be passed on thoroughly throughout the next generations. I guess I'm just trying to say that the situation is much more complex than some of the posts are making it out to be.

Let me tell ya why:Too much MTV, too many visits to the YMCA, and too much love as babies.
you completely ignored this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8332197&postcount=38) didnt you?

do you feel you have any choice in who you are attracted to?

i sure as hell dont

Hell, I don't think people even have a choice in who they vote for...else the Republicans would have already gone the way of the Incas.

Perhaps being Republican is also a genetic defect.

You misinterpreted. Recent studies have shown that there may be a tie between hormones in the mother's womb and homosexuality. Not the hormones of the homosexuals themselves, but the hormones of the mother that have an effect on the development of the foetus.
wow, then my mother must have one bipolar hormonal womb. If that's true, it just can't tell male from female so it switched on my sister and I. I don't believe the hormone thing.

thats crap...do you think a person would choose to go through the bigotry, hatred and discrimination gays go through?

do you feel you have any choice in who you are attracted to?

i sure as hell dont


Guess what? If you don't announce your sexuality, you are not discriminated against.

i am sorry 31, i meant no offense or disrespect. i was just asking you to redirect the conversation. at the moment most of the world seems to be against the whole *designer baby* issue. the only time genetics are changed/or would be is to avoid crippling diseases. so the question should be, is homosexuality a socail/genetic disease and does it need to be treated. wether it's a disease or not varies with person to person, but does it need to be treated? at the moment no, and i don't see that changing anytime soon

wow, then my mother must have one bipolar hormonal womb. If that's true, it just can't tell male from female so it switched on my sister and I. I don't believe the hormone thing.

Are you saying your sister is gay?? Post a picture...

wow, then my mother must have one bipolar hormonal womb. If that's true, it just can't tell male from female so it switched on my sister and I. I don't believe the hormone thing.
what do you mean by that?

if you dont mind me asking...

Guess what? If you don't announce your sexuality, you are not discriminated against.
so people shouldnt be open and honest about themselves because of bigots like you?

Hell, I don't think people even have a choice in who they vote for...else the Republicans would have already gone the way of the Incas.

Perhaps being Republican is also a genetic defect.

Actually, the democrats would have gone the way of the Incas. Seriously, you have to be a real loser to vote democrat. Maybe it's genetic?

How can you even ever prove what is in someone's head? Like whether or not they truly are gay??

For instance, I have sex with men all the time, but I'M NOT GAY! So your whole premise is bluey.

Thing is, if homosexualiy was caused by recessive genes, there'd be less gay people, and if it wasn't ... there'd be less gay people now than there used to be.

Its not impossible to be otherwise, but I'd consider it very very unlikely.

so people shouldnt be open and honest about themselves because of bigots like you?

I don't discuss my sexual affairs with others, unless you ask of course. ;) Why should your sexuality even be a topic of discussion? Why do certain gays just have to make their sexuality public?

Yes I'm a bigot. You're Irish right? You're too easy to attack!

It's not genetic in the sense that you turn on or off a gene.

It might be genetic in the sense that there is a predisposition of the mother to have a hormone imbalance during pregnancy. And you probably cannot turn that off either, since it might regulate the breast size of a daughter or the hand shape or the ability to read. Who knows?

Actually, the democrats would have gone the way of the Incas. Seriously, you have to be a real loser to vote democrat. Maybe it's genetic?

I like the way you added the whole "loser" concept. I hadn't thought of that!! Bush must seem smart to you, eh?

i am sorry 31, i meant no offense or disrespect. i was just asking you to redirect the conversation. at the moment most of the world seems to be against the whole *designer baby* issue. the only time genetics are changed/or would be is to avoid crippling diseases. so the question should be, is homosexuality a socail/genetic disease and does it need to be treated. wether it's a disease or not varies with person to person, but does it need to be treated? at the moment no, and i don't see that changing anytime soon

Ah, don't worry about it. I have a habit of not being clear enough.
I hadn't thought about it form the social disease angle. I agree that for now the world as a whole is more against the designer baby thing, but if ever faced with the real possibility of doing it, far too many people would under the justification of giving their child every advantage. But, if then more and more people get those advantages then. . . If everybody is somebody, then noones anybody.

How can you even ever prove what is in someone's head? Like whether or not they truly are gay??

For instance, I have sex with men all the time, but I'M NOT GAY! So your whole premise is bluey.

Sorry quiz-kid, but if you are a man and you insert your penis into another mans' rectum, 99.99% of the time, you are gay. I don't believe in the whole Bi sexuality thing.

I don't discuss my sexual affairs with others, unless you ask of course. ;) Why should your sexuality even be a topic of discussion? Why do certain gays just have to make their sexuality public?
because people will automatically assume theyre straight...and they arent, so maybe theyd rather not be mislabled?

Yes I'm a bigot. You're Irish right? You're too easy to attack![/QUOTE]
and youre american, even easier to attack

I like the way you added the whole "loser" concept. I hadn't thought of that!! Bush must seem smart to you, eh?

Well, he did beat Kerry.

anithia, the amount of *gay people* has also been expressed as 1 in 10, a very stable figure. i have also expressed that i believe that genetics and the enviroment play a part. you yourself offered this as an option and didn't go for it. since the 1 in 10 isn't changing then yes this does imply a genetic reason and no the numbers of homosexual people shoudn't decline. it's been known for a long time that the ancient greeks also had gay people within their society. it's probably correct that homosexuality has been a part of the human race for a very long time and has reached it's saturation point at 1 in 10.

I think the reason why people are gay is the level of hormones. Gay guys have a low level of testosterone, and lesbians have a low level of estrogen.

Possibly, there is enough female/male hormones to make it so the person doesn't become a hermaphordite, but the other half is large enough to make a difference when it comes to loving a guy/girl.
That's a major stereotype. If you think all gay men are effeminate and all lesbians are boysish, you are horribly wrong. There are many gay men that would be classified quickly as being manly, if they weren't gay. And you cannot say you haven't at least heard the term lipstick lesbian. No, being homosexual does not make you the other sex, or even have their personality. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but I don't think so.

Sorry quiz-kid, but if you are a man and you insert your penis into another mans' rectum, 99.99% of the time, you are gay. I don't believe in the whole Bi sexuality thing.

But they hold me down. It's not my choice!

Though I have considered not going back to that club in the future...

i think this whole gay thing is stupid. i think people are just trying to find a way to be another minority. they are just wanting to shock people when they say "Im a homosexual". People are tired of the norm... so they wanna be different. who you are attracted to is a choice. some people may have a homosexual thought and then decide that since they had that thought they are now gay and have to go that way, which is utterly stupid.

Homosexuallity is a stupid bandwagon.

It has been proved the different levels of hormones (testosterone and estrogens) to be related to a man being gay or a woman being lesbian, but this could be very well caused by the subconscious.

Everyone just goes direct to the body and forgets Freud's wise words about mind, development, subconscious, and sexuality. I think it is a symptom of society, wanting to fix everything with genetics, rather than facing what truly is wrong, I beleive that in most of the cases, homosexuality is a mental condition caused by some kind of personal and familiar problem when the children were getting their subconscious view of "What they are"

That makes sense, when you think that a lot of the Really sick homosexuals (I split them in two categories, the standard and the really sick ones, the sick ones are those that also are perverted in many other ways, and i mean real perversion, not when you call someone a perv) had troubles growing up, and that some just simply want someone of their same sex because it is socially forbidden, thing which makes perfect sense at a subconscious level.

But of course, you english speakers wouldn't know shit about psychology. You did not even translate Subconscious right, it is ment to be Inconscious, but noooo, you changed it.

Bleh.

Sorry quiz-kid, but if you are a man and you insert your penis into another mans' rectum, 99.99% of the time, you are gay. I don't believe in the whole Bi sexuality thing.Do you mean you call bi-sexuals gay because they're attracted to the same sex as well as the other, or bi-sexualsa are gay and aren't attracted to the opposite sex and just pretend to be for a laugh?

You know, I'm sorry but I can't believe that homosexuality is genetic. First of all, to have it be a trait carried down through the blood line, YOU MUST HAVE CHILDREN. Homosexuality would therefore be a genetic trait that would take itself out of the blood line. Simple fact.

Glenorand :sniper:

Meanwhile, I wouldn't know--I WAY too young to be having kids (well, teen pregnancy isn't an option for me :) ), but wouldn't any sort of gay gene fluorish through bisexuality? Or rather, gayness being repressed (it still may be there genetically even if the man/woman tries to have sex with opposite gender) would lead to seemingly straight couples, but an unpleasant surprise down the road.

Let's not forgot guys on the 'down low'.

It's kinda funny. How would you like to find out that your dad ditched you and your mom...for A MAN!!!!

because people will automatically assume theyre straight...and they arent, so maybe theyd rather not be mislabled?

Yes I'm a bigot. You're Irish right? You're too easy to attack!
and youre american, even easier to attack[/QUOTE]

How would they be mislabeled if sex isn't being discussed, ie in the workplace?

Yes I'm an American, but from what heritage? Answer me that one Einstein. If you're not too drunk!

But they hold me down. It's not my choice!

Though I have considered not going back to that club in the future...

Stay away from that porno booth and glory hole off of Interstate 80.

How would they be mislabeled if sex isn't being discussed, ie in the workplace?
people would automatically assume theyre straight..."cor, look at the tits on that!"...the gay person would be like "erm...yea, great"

an uncomfortable situation

Yes I'm an American, but from what heritage? Answer me that one Einstein. If you're not too drunk!
couldnt care less....youre american, its too easy to attack america

It has been proved the different levels of hormones (testosterone and estrogens) to be related to a man being gay or a woman being lesbian, but this could be very well caused by the subconscious.

Everyone just goes direct to the body and forgets Freud's wise words about mind, development, subconscious, and sexuality. I think it is a symptom of society, wanting to fix everything with genetics, rather than facing what truly is wrong, I beleive that in most of the cases, homosexuality is a mental condition caused by some kind of personal and familiar problem when the children were getting their subconscious view of "What they are"

That makes sense, when you think that a lot of the Really sick homosexuals (I split them in two categories, the standard and the really sick ones, the sick ones are those that also are perverted in many other ways, and i mean real perversion, not when you call someone a perv) had troubles growing up, and that some just simply want someone of their same sex because it is socially forbidden, thing which makes perfect sense at a subconscious level.

But of course, you english speakers wouldn't know shit about psychology. You did not even translate Subconscious right, it is ment to be Inconscious, but noooo, you changed it.

Bleh.

Sure, believe a homosexual, cocaine addicted, sissy-boy psychologist.

Do you mean you call bi-sexuals gay because they're attracted to the same sex as well as the other, or bi-sexualsa are gay and aren't attracted to the opposite sex and just pretend to be for a laugh?

They are gay because they do the same sex as they are.

Seriously I've had sex with many chicks whom I had no interest in sexually. It was just for the money and for me to ejaculate.

anithia, the amount of *gay people* has also been expressed as 1 in 10, a very stable figure. i have also expressed that i believe that genetics and the enviroment play a part. you yourself offered this as an option and didn't go for it. since the 1 in 10 isn't changing then yes this does imply a genetic reason and no the numbers of homosexual people shoudn't decline. it's been known for a long time that the ancient greeks also had gay people within their society. it's probably correct that homosexuality has been a part of the human race for a very long time and has reached it's saturation point at 1 in 10.Well, not to me, the theory I go for is that because humanity is domesticated, a set percentage of that humanity will be gay simply because of the domestication and genetics play a part in this, but it's a homosexuality 'probably' gene, not a defect, a recessive gene or a certainty. That way it would make sense that it stays the same amount because the same number of people are gay and the same number of straight people who have the gene and have children (percentage wise, not flat figues).

When I say domesticated I mean the way living in a high population city and still feeling alone.

Its the only theory that makes sense to me and fits in with the rest of the animal kingdom and is, of course, quite natural. Whether its to keep population down or whatever doesn't matter to me.

The only niggle is that there's been no study that I know of which shows good evidence that outside of social structure there is homosexual behaviour, but no gay-only sexuality in humans.

Homosexuality is genetic?....Thats just gay.

Its not genetic, people choose who they are attracted to.
no, no, I'm afraid that more often than not gays do not acutally like the fact that they are gay, hate themselves for not being straight, and they do not choose to like men.

i agree 31, i think most people would probably want to under any justification. many people usually have preset veiws and wont change them for the world. no matter what information you give them. i should probably add at this point however (since people don't seem to understand this) that genetic diseases, or phenotypes even, need not be expressed by just one gene. eye colour for example is coded by many. although i agree that it may be difficult to *turn off* gayness, i do believe with genetic manipulation that 1 in 10 figure could be decreased. the diseases i previously mentioned, like angina, eczema, are indeed genetic, but they have been prooven to be enviromental too. even if someone doesn't have the defective gene they can still get them. i also believe on the other hand, that if the enviroment was more pro-homosexuality, that the 1 in 10 figure may rise slightly. genetics are the end all, but they do effect things. (on a side note, noone really controls what they do, every atom in your body is already in motion and there is nothing you can do to control them, this holds true for the neurons in your brain). so that puts the *i choose my partners* arguement to rest.

what do you mean by that?

if you dont mind me asking...
I mean if hormones make you gay, then my mother's hormones during pregnancy must be crazy. My eldest sister is straight, my other sister is a lesbian, and I am a gay male. Hormones seem unlikely to me, that or it could just be crazy off-balance.

i agree 31, i think most people would probably want to under any justification. many people usually have preset veiws and wont change them for the world. no matter what information you give them. i should probably add at this point however (since people don't seem to understand this) that genetic diseases, or phenotypes even, need not be expressed by just one gene. eye colour for example is coded by many. although i agree that it may be difficult to *turn off* gayness, i do believe with genetic manipulation that 1 in 10 figure could be decreased. the diseases i previously mentioned, like angina, eczema, are indeed genetic, but they have been prooven to be enviromental too. even if someone doesn't have the defective gene they can still get them. i also believe on the other hand, that if the enviroment was more pro-homosexuality, that the 1 in 10 figure may rise slightly. genetics are the end all, but they do effect things. (on a side note, noone really controls what they do, every atom in your body is already in motion and there is nothing you can do to control them, this holds true for the neurons in your brain). so that puts the *i choose my partners* arguement to rest.That's the scary thing about genetics, a certain type of fly had the genes of its eye colour changed and (I think someone mentioned this before, but I don't know where they got eyes growing all over their body from though) while, yes, the eye colour did change, so did the pattern they walked the outside of the jar they were in. Instead of clustering together, they walked around in grouped circles and patterns, which looked, even from an outside observer, entirely different behaviour.

Yet, then again, things like the distance between eyes isn't an indicator of criminalness.

Its a fascinating, yet complex and very very dangerous field.

antithia, i have only used *recessive genes* because 1 in 10 in such a small number. it could well be caused by many genes. i guess you missed the point i was trying to make earlier too, nearly every gene you have, is a *probably* gene. missing a certain gene could give you a crippling deformality, but only if you eat certain foods, if you don't eat them, then nothing happens and like i have said before, i may have white skin... but with a certain diet i could change the colour of my skin (although the diet would probably be unhealthy, also look at michael jackson for an example, genetics + environment). i don't think any *homosexual gene* is defective, if i used the word defective then ignore it. in this case it is *the gene that caused the said condition*

I feel sexuality is malleable.

I'm quite suspicious of anyone who declares to be on either extreme of the spectrum.

I mean if hormones make you gay, then my mother's hormones during pregnancy must be crazy. My eldest sister is straight, my other sister is a lesbian, and I am a gay male. Hormones seem unlikely to me, that or it could just be crazy off-balance.
i dunno...im pretty convinced its hormones, i cant help but think that the only way genetics could explain it is if its a mutation....

it could just be that your mothers womb couldnt quite get the hang of this hormone business...

You don't choose who you are attracted to, you choose which crush you act on.

If a straight girl (in, say, high school) has a crush on someone society views as a total nerd, she won't date him.
If a straight boy is attracted to the prom queen and doesn't stand a chance, he won't ask her out.
If a gay boy is attracted to a boy, but he's in a homophobic enviornment, it doesn't make him not attracted to the boy if he doesn't ask him out.

If it were a choice, after Matthew Shepherd the number of gays would drop as people get scared shitless to be out.

...I'm gonna be lynched one of these days.

antithia, i have only used *recessive genes* because 1 in 10 in such a small number. it could well be caused by many genes. i guess you missed the point i was trying to make earlier too, nearly every gene you have, is a *probably* gene. missing a certain gene could give you a crippling deformality, but only if you eat certain foods, if you don't eat them, then nothing happens and like i have said before, i may have white skin... but with a certain diet i could change the colour of my skin (although the diet would probably be unhealthy, also look at michael jackson for an example, genetics + environment). i don't think any *homosexual gene* is defective, if i used the word defective then ignore it. in this case it is *the gene that caused the said condition*Oh I agreed with what you were saying, if I didn't it was accident. Just going further and saying I didn't agree with the recessive gene thing. Someone else said defective, I was distancing myself from that, not quoting yourself - just to clear up any misunderstanding.

It could well be hormones, the funny thing about hormones is they never stay at a constant level. many things effect them, like your diet for example. if someone was to not have enough iron in their diet, then they would have less hormones that rely on iron. iron is just an example, i'm not saying it's in any hormones ;). another example is boron, if you had no boron in your diet (even though we ingest a tiny fraction) then you may well die because your metabolism depends upon it.

i dunno...im pretty convinced its hormones, i cant help but think that the only way genetics could explain it is if its a mutation....

it could just be that your mothers womb couldnt quite get the hang of this hormone business...
another possibility ^_^

in keeping with the original topic, i wouldnt turn the gene off. except for life-threatening diseases, i am against the whole 'designer baby' and cloning concept. as for the hormone theory, yeah, i would subscribe to that over the genetic theory, because i believe that the hormone levels, those naturally occuring and those influenced from outside, of the mother could affect the baby's development. we have all seen what the hormone use in chickens has done to some girls when they hit puberty. this could also explain bisexuality. i mean, if there was a gene for it, there is no way that there would be half way stop, it would be either on or off.

in keeping with the original topic, i wouldnt turn the gene off. except for life-threatening diseases, i am against the whole 'designer baby' and cloning concept. as for the hormone theory, yeah, i would subscribe to that over the genetic theory, because i believe that the hormone levels, those naturally occuring and those influenced from outside, of the mother could affect the baby's development. we have all seen what the hormone use in chickens has done to some girls when they hit puberty. this could also explain bisexuality. i mean, if there was a gene for it, there is no way that there would be half way stop, it would be either on or off.If they can find how to turn off a life-threatening illness and not change anything else, then I think they should do it, but only in cases of preventable fatal stuff. I don't even think we know enough to even begin to compemplate this in humanity ... yet.

the problem with changing genetics like this, and baring in mind we are against designer babies, is the fact that to change genetics, either a). a plasmid must be used. or b). a modified retrovirus. option a) creates an extra piece of dna outside the usualy chromosomal strucrtures, and option b) add the gene in a different place than usual. you could actually create more mutation's this way. and if you constantly keep treating people like this to cure many diseases, it could well *bloat the dna* i.e somewhere far in the future, someone has 250 genes all preventing the same disease, this could pose huge problems.

the problem with changing genetics like this, and baring in mind we are against designer babies, is the fact that to change genetics, either a). a plasmid must be used. or b). a modified retrovirus. option a) creates an extra piece of dna outside the usualy chromosomal strucrtures, and option b) add the gene in a different place than usual. you could actually create more mutation's this way. and if you constantly keep treating people like this to cure many diseases, it could well *bloat the dna* i.e somewhere far in the future, someone has 250 genes all preventing the same disease, this could pose huge problems.
thus proving why genetic manipulation in any form is a bad thing. we would be opening a variable pandora's box of things that could do the opposite to which they were designed, in the killing of the human species

so we are back to the designer babies question, is it moral. do we impregnant several eggs and kill off the ones we don't want. if your pro-abortion you'll probably agree with this and if your anti-abortion you'll be against it.

in keeping with the original topic, i wouldnt turn the gene off. except for life-threatening diseases, i am against the whole 'designer baby' and cloning concept. as for the hormone theory, yeah, i would subscribe to that over the genetic theory, because i believe that the hormone levels, those naturally occuring and those influenced from outside, of the mother could affect the baby's development. we have all seen what the hormone use in chickens has done to some girls when they hit puberty. this could also explain bisexuality. i mean, if there was a gene for it, there is no way that there would be half way stop, it would be either on or off.

Not necessarilly. First of all, many traits result from the combined action of several genes. And there are many traits that result from what is called partial expression of genes. Strict on/off binary expression is the rarity, not the norm.

and if you constantly keep treating people like this to cure many diseases, it could well *bloat the dna* i.e somewhere far in the future, someone has 250 genes all preventing the same disease, this could pose huge problems.
Who says we won't learn to remove genes?
(wait, can we do that already?)

to my knowledge, no you can't remove gene's. as this would effectively break up chromosomes. you also have the problems of what do i put in it's place, opps the arm of chromosome #21 just connected to chromosome #22, and also *sorry mate it looks like you needed that on, you have 5 minutes to live*. also most problems are caused by recessive genes, these are gene's that code for nothing, so removing them would have no effect, what you need to do is add the gene that is missing in the first place, they are usually added in different places too.

to my knowledge, no you can't remove gene's. as this would effectively break up chromosomes. you also have the problems of what do i put in it's place, opps the arm of chromosome #21 just connected to chromosome #22, and also *sorry mate it looks like you needed that on, you have 5 minutes to live*. also most problems are caused by recessive genes, these are gene's that code for nothing, so removing them would have no effect, what you need to do is add the gene that is missing in the first place, they are usually added in different places too.
so why cant you just take out the gene and put in a recessive one to plug the gap?

the problem with changing genetics like this, and baring in mind we are against designer babies, is the fact that to change genetics, either a). a plasmid must be used. or b). a modified retrovirus. option a) creates an extra piece of dna outside the usualy chromosomal strucrtures, and option b) add the gene in a different place than usual. you could actually create more mutation's this way. and if you constantly keep treating people like this to cure many diseases, it could well *bloat the dna* i.e somewhere far in the future, someone has 250 genes all preventing the same disease, this could pose huge problems.

Not really. There's co-dominance and partial dominance and things, where multiple genes control the same thing in different ways. For instance, for blood type, if you have only A genes you're an A, only B genes you're a B, A and B is AB, and neither (recessive) is O. Codominance- neither A nor B is dominant, so neither masks the other. There could be a gene for homo- and a gene for heterosexuality, and codominance results in bisexualiy.

I don't know if it's true or not, just possible.

i was talking in a more broader sense then than just a homosexuality gene, and i mean let's face it. if we are going to be changing people's gene's to prevent them being homosexual (or making them homosexual) then we are going to change others. some gene's aren't codominance, and then yet again like i have said. when you use a retrovirus you can never be sure where it will deposit it's gene's into the dna. why is someone with down's syndrome disabled?? because they have twice the amount of certain proteins. if you start changing gene's everywhere your going to have a problem.

as for the hormone theory, yeah, i would subscribe to that over the genetic theory, because i believe that the hormone levels, those naturally occuring and those influenced from outside, of the mother could affect the baby's development. we have all seen what the hormone use in chickens has done to some girls when they hit puberty. this could also explain bisexuality. i mean, if there was a gene for it, there is no way that there would be half way stop, it would be either on or off.


Sorry, I quoted the wrong post, I was replying to Resistancia, not you, Serdica >.< my bad

no, no, I'm afraid that more often than not gays do not acutally like the fact that they are gay, hate themselves for not being straight, and they do not choose to like men.

I think them feeling they have no choice in the matter comes first.

Consider me: I have a genetic disposition towards depression. When I feel it's inevitable to be depressed, I will, conciously or sub-conciously look for reasons to be depressed, and my feeling of inevitability will fulfill itself. There are other times when I've felt sad, recognized I can overcome that sadness, and then I do overcome it. The disposition towards depression has just about complete control over my emotions when I allow it to. When I convince myself I have power over my emotions, however, my disposition towards depression is just another factor in life, rather than an unavoidable end result.

Ok, I fear that wasn't very clear. Here, I think that when you believe you don't have control over something, you don't. But, genetic tendencies can be overcome. Even if there's evidence of a gene that increases the probability of being gay, that doesn't mean that those with that gene are, always will be, and can never change away from being: gay. I don't beleive identity is genetic. I feel that many of the tools you have to build your identity are genetic--but you have the choice to build whatever you want with those starting materials. I don't think people are powerless to emotion or genetics.

If, and I stress IF (I have seen no convincing or conclusive studies that show it is) homosexuality is controlled by genetics, I would still maintain that it is 90% environmental and only 10% genetic (guesstimates, not real figures).

If, and I stress IF (I have seen no convincing or conclusive studies that show it is) homosexuality is controlled by genetics, I would still maintain that it is 90% environmental and only 10% genetic (guesstimates, not real figures).

Things that are included in the environment, and play a very large role in the way genes are expressed include the intra-uterine environment. This is something that CANNOT be controlled.

So how does it make a difference in what proportions that and the genes themselves influence sexuality? It still isn't a choice.

And you realise you just seriously contradicted yourself in your post?

Also, you CANNOT accurately use examples of deviant sexual behaviour in various animals as an analog to human sexual behaviour. Some animals eat dung and eat their own offspring, too - I don't see anyone using this to legitimise this behaviour in humans. Not to mention that the number of EXCLUSIVELY homosexual animals is infintessimally small - the vast majority of animals that engage in homosexual acts are "bisexual", in that they will copulate with any partner without gender preference. Finally, remember that male on male sex or attempted sex in animals can also be about establishing dominance rather than just sexual gratisfaction.

Things that are included in the environment, and play a very large role in the way genes are expressed include the intra-uterine environment. This is something that CANNOT be controlled.

So how does it make a difference in what proportions that and the genes themselves influence sexuality? It still isn't a choice.

And you realise you just seriously contradicted yourself in your post?
Everything in life is a choice - or do you belive that we have no free will, that everything is predistined.
Contradiction? Perhaps I should have said "affected by genetics" rather than "controlled by genetics".

Everything in life is a choice - or do you belive that we have no free will, that everything is predistined.

Way to ignore my statement.

So, let me get this straight, you CHOSE to be attracted to women? It was a conscious decision? You said to yourself, "I will want to have sex with women only." Is that what happened?

And of course I believe in free will, don't put words in my mouth. You CHOOSE whether to act on an attraction. That's where choice come in. I just happen to think people should be free to act on their sexuality. (As long as it's consensual)

I didn't choose to be attracted to girls, so I think that it is genetic or uncontrollable enviromental.