Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Started by dadudemon324 pages

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok, then I will take the cup now and........wait a minute, you didn't pwn me, you didn't address either point. You defined your personal usage of the word, which I said might fit on homosexuality, but that was a) not King's point (the point you were trying to defend) and b) not my reply to him.

I will give you an analogy of what happened so you understand

Random idiot: Bee's live on the north pole
Me: Bee's don't live on the north pole
You: You are wrong Bardock, I define bees as polar bears, now bees do live on the north pole.
Me: Aha

LOL!!!! 😆 😆 😆 You know that your analogy fails horribly. You are really reaching with your arguments now.

You can either chose to accept a fact or you can deny it and pretend I made an incorrect statement. I have already made the point, which is correct, many times. Deal with it. You can refute it all you want but it still stands...regardless if you chose to accept it.

whether or not homosexuality has a genetic origin is another story...that is still up for debate.

You still missed Kings point if you still believe point "b" in your above post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!!! 😆 😆 😆 You know that your analogy fails horribly. You are really reaching with your arguments now.

You can either chose to accept a fact or you can deny it and pretend I made an incorrect statement. I have already made the point, which is correct, many times. Deal with it. You can refute it all you want but it still stands...regardless if you chose to accept it.

whether or not homosexuality has a genetic origin is another story...that is still up for debate.

You still missed Kings point if you still believe point "b" in your above post.

Yeah, well, you are wrong, but you won't realize it, so that will be the final post I address to you on that matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, well, you are wrong, but you won't realize it, so that will be the final post I address to you on that matter.

On a different note...it is nice to see a person approach these things maturely like that. You know, we both think that the other is missing the point. (I know that I am right and you are everything short of clueless...and you feel the same about my position.) You just jumped up 2 points in my respect book...even if you hate "black people".

Originally posted by PiruBlood
i dont believe thatr. if you look at prisoners in jail and they got a wife and kids what makes you think it aint lack of sex? think about it if every prisoner in jail gets slammed in the butt would they turn homosexual? to me hell no. like i stated my older brother is gay i asked him this specific question and he told me specificly that he just knew at a young age.
I don't think you understood my post correctly and I definitely don't understand yours.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

this is a bot like askin

is the preference of sexual positions chosen or genetic
or
is love chosen or genetic

According to the poll, the majority of voters thus far are quite unintelligent and know next to nothing about how genetics work. Homosexuality is NOT genetic. If you believe it is genetic, then you've been grossly lied to and misinformed.

and when did you come to an understanding of the entire human genome?

The moment I became eductaed in genetics.

right right, and you just missed the fact in your education that we do not know of most of the corellations of the genes on the genomes and any physical symptoms, not to mention, the protiens produced and the rolse of much of the garbage part of dna which isnt really garbage at all.

sure.

then how can you pretend to say that homosexuality is not genetic?

I'm not pretending. How can you be so sure that homosexuality is genetic? I simply believe based on pure understanding of genetics thus far and pschycology that homosexality is an act of affection that people choose instead of it being encoded in their genes.

That you believe that is just fine. But othes who are also educated in genetics disagree with you. Without providing a full set of reasoning behind your opinion you have no basis on which to call others unintelligent.

There is little evidence that it is genetic. There is evidence that it is biological and dispositions instead of predetermined.

Originally posted by black-russian
I'm not pretending. How can you be so sure that homosexuality is genetic? I simply believe based on pure understanding of genetics thus far and pschycology that homosexality is an act of affection that people choose instead of it being encoded in their genes.

The best way to prove yourself right is to tell us what you know. If you can, as you've stated, provide some educated insight into the question, then do so. Don't enter a thread, proclaim yourself most qualified to discuss the topic and then provide no support for your own statements.

Originally posted by Nellinator
There is little evidence that it is genetic. There is evidence that it is biological and dispositions instead of predetermined.

See above.

Originally posted by Nellinator
There is little evidence that it is genetic. There is evidence that it is biological and dispositions instead of predetermined.

Ahem.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I actually just read an enlightening article on the idea of homosexuality, written by an informed biologist.

Some years ago, a study came out claiming to have found a specific gene (or gene pattern) for homosexuality. To date, the study hasn't been debunked (nor confirmed by further studies, to be fair). It's reasonable to assume that genetic factors can contribute to homosexuality.

However, we aren't our genes. Genetic tendency is one factor among many. Because of our advanced consciousness/awareness, we constantly perform tasks and have characteristics that not only have nothing to do with our genes, but are often in defiance of our genetic programming. One obvious example is the use of contraception, which has no genetic value at all, and actually damages genes' chances of being successful at procreating.

What we can learn is that there probably are, in fact, genetic factors in homosexuality, but these manifest themselves statistically. They increase a person's chances of being homosexual, but they don't make it a certainty.

It's still, ultimately, chosen by the individual based on a number of factors. Genes might be one of them, possibly even the biggest factor, but they certainly aren't the only one.

....

...if needed, I can site the study I mentioned, as well as particulars of the article.

And since I realize you'll want further proof, here's the specs:

D.H. Hamer et al., "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation", Science, 261 (1993), 321-7

...the study has yet to be refuted on scientific grounds (and, to be fair, has yet to be fully accepted, but only from a lack of continual tests), and has been adopted as a preliminary theory by numerous biologists. There are, of course, other factors involved (which is why I quoted my earlier response), but it is reasonable to assume genes do have something to do with it.

Science 23 April 1999:
Vol. 284. no. 5414, p. 571

Discovery of 'Gay Gene' Questioned
Ingrid Wickelgren

Six years ago, molecular geneticist Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced to great fanfare that they had found a genetic link to male homosexuality. Their work indicated, they said, that an as yet unidentified gene on the X chromosome influences who develops the trait (Science, 16 July 1993, p. 321). Researchers were excited by the possibility of one day learning the biological basis for sexual orientation but also wary, given that initial reports of genetic linkages for other complex traits, such as manic depression and schizophrenia, had fallen apart under further scrutiny. Now the "gay gene" linkage may be suffering a similar fate.

On page 665, clinical neurologists George Rice and George Ebers at the University of Western Ontario in London and their colleagues report failing to find a link between male homosexuality and Xq28, the chromosomal segment implicated by the NCI team's study. In addition, unpublished work from a group led by psychiatrist Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago does not provide strong support for a linkage. Taken together, Rice says, all the results "would suggest that if there is a linkage it's so weak that it's not important." He adds that genetics may still contribute to homosexuality, but researchers should be looking elsewhere for the genes.

Hamer disagrees that the Xq28 linkage is weak, citing possible problems with how Rice's team selected their study subjects. And other observers say that the jury is still out. Elliot Gershon, a psychiatric geneticist at the University of Chicago, calls the Ontario team's finding "interesting and important" but cautions that more data are needed. "Failure to find linkage in this study does not mean it doesn't exist," he says.

That genes may contribute to homosexuality in males became clear in 1991 when psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, found that fully 52% of the identical twins of gay men were also gay, compared to just 22% percent for fraternal twins. Then in 1993, Hamer's team pointed to a place where a putative "gay gene" might reside.

They homed in on the X chromosome, which males inherit only from their mothers, because they noticed a preponderance of gay relatives on the maternal side of the families of the gay men they studied. When the researchers took a closer look at the X chromosomes of 40 pairs of gay brothers from the families with maternal gay relatives, they saw that the brothers were far more likely to share certain DNA signposts, or markers, on the Xq28 region of the chromosome than would be expected by chance. The team confirmed the linkage in a second study of 33 new families with gay brothers, published in Nature Genetics in 1995. In this X chromosome snippet, the researchers concluded, lay a gene that could nudge males toward homosexuality.

Meanwhile, intrigued by the initial report, Rice and Ebers undertook their own study to see if the result would hold up. They recruited families with two or more gay brothers through ads in Canadian gay news magazines. The families responding to the ads included 52 pairs of brothers willing to donate blood, which the researchers examined for the presence of four markers in region Xq28, using methods similar to those employed by Hamer's group.

But the Ontario team found that gay brothers were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. And although a statistical analysis of the data could not rule out the existence of a gene in this region with a small influence on the trait, it could exclude the possibility of any gene in Xq28 with a major genetic influence, say, doubling a male's chances of being gay. Ebers interprets all these results to mean that the X linkage is all but dead. "What is troubling is that there is no hint or trend in the direction of the initial observation," he says.

Hamer, however, thinks that the way the Ontario researchers selected the families would tend to hide the Xq28 contribution. He always said, he points out, that the gene does not influence all cases of male homosexuality but only those that are transmitted maternally. And in contrast to his group, Hamer says, the Ontario team did not select families based on the presence of maternal transmission. "Maybe there was an X chromosomal linkage in some families, but those families weren't analyzed," Hamer says.

Ebers says they didn't select their families based on maternal transmission because they found no convincing evidence for such transmission in the family pedigrees. What's more, even after his group removed two families that might wash out an X chromosome effect because there were signs of the trait in females or in the father, the results remained the same. Nor was the effect evident in a study led by Sanders, which he reported last June at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. His team had found only a weak hint--that wasn't statistically significant--of an Xq28 linkage among 54 gay brother pairs.

A much larger study, using, say, 200 gay brother pairs, could probably resolve the issue, researchers say, but funding for such a project has been hard to obtain. So could any successful efforts to pluck out a gene in Xq28, something Hamer's group is pursuing. But the Ontario team doubts that route will pay off. "We're looking for a link on other chromosomes," Rice says.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5414/571

Perspectives on Psychological Science 2 (2), 142–161.
June 2007

Lisa M. Diamond

A Dynamical Systems Approach to the Development and Expression of Female Same-Sex Sexuality

ABSTRACT—Researchers have documented substantial variability in the development and expression of same-sex sexuality, especially among women, posing challenges to traditional linear developmental models. In this article, I argue for a new approach to conceptualizing the development and expression of female same-sex sexuality over the life course, based in dynamical systems theory. Dynamical systems models seek to explain how complex patterns emerge, stabilize, change, and restabilize over time. Although originally developed by mathematicians and physicists to model complex physical phenomena in the natural world, they have increasingly been applied to social-behavioral phenomena, ranging from motor development to cognition to language. I demonstrate the utility of this approach for modeling change over time in female same-sex sexuality, reviewing extant published research and also introducing data collected from an ongoing, 10-year longitudinal study of young nonheterosexual women. I provide evidence that female same-sex sexuality demonstrates the emblematic features of a dynamical system: nonlinear change over time, spontaneous emergence of novel forms, and periodic reorganizations and phase transitions within the overall system. I highlight the specific contribution of a dynamical systems perspective for understanding such phenomena and suggest directions for future study.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00034.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28female+homosexuality%29

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That you believe that is just fine. But othes who are also educated in genetics disagree with you. Without providing a full set of reasoning behind your opinion you have no basis on which to call others unintelligent.

What this guy said. 😄

I personally see it is a combination of more than just one or two factors.