Gay gene: Real or fictitious?

[Mystic_Banana]

There is no serious suggestion or claim that there is some single gene that acts like a switch between opposite sex attraction and same sex attraction.

The evidence suggests some level of influence by certain genes. But the effect is not definitive and other factors are believed to be as least as influential.

or at least the evidence *could * suggest some level of influence, but it might actually not be as straightforward as that.

Regarding the serious claim regarding a single gay gene, the thing is I seriously remember a prevalent belief that seemed to develop in the 1990s that there had been found (by scientists) a single gay gene, that gay people had, straight people didn’t. I remember serious discussions about whether said on/off gay gene meant bisexuality was an illusion… but this gay gene, as is probably still believed to be, and as is probably that which the OP was thinking of when he posted, appears to be an absolute myth when evidence is sought… you could get away with stuff like that in the 90’s! Actually, you probably still can

 

[Rau]

or at least the evidence *could * suggest some level of influence, but it might actually not be as straightforward as that.

Regarding the serious claim regarding a single gay gene, the thing is I seriously remember a prevalent belief that seemed to develop in the 1990s that there had been found (by scientists) a single gay gene, that gay people had, straight people didn’t. I remember serious discussions about whether said on/off gay gene meant bisexuality was an illusion… but this gay gene, as is probably still believed to be, and as is probably that which the OP was thinking of when he posted, appears to be an absolute myth when evidence is sought… you could get away with stuff like that in the 90’s! Actually, you probably still can

Would it cause you concern were it to be definitively determined that various gene combinations are more likely associated with homosexuality? Other than an interesting scientific discovery, such would have no significance for me.

If you can point to any peer-reviewed scientific paper of the past that claims to have found the single definitive SSA-causing gene, I’ll be fascinated to read it. Otherwise, I take such to have been speculation, rather than a claim, or foggy memory on your part.

 

[whm]

Because gay men started using it?

No, by sex being disconnected from it’s primary biological purpose, reproduction. Sex is now practiced as primarily a pleasure activity. The ‘pill’ was a catalyst to change society’s view of sex. This change set the stage for the explosion of pornography, masturbation, premarital sex, divorce and homosexual sex.

 

[Rau]

No, by sex being disconnected from it’s primary biological purpose, reproduction. Sex is now practiced as primarily a pleasure activity. The ‘pill’ was a catalyst to change society’s view of sex. This change set the stage for the explosion of pornography, masturbation, premarital sex, divorce and homosexual sex.

Certainly, it is likely that contraception has led to more sex.

But was there a time, prior to which, sex was engaged in, essentially just to have children?

 

[whm]

Certainly, it is likely that contraception has led to more sex.

But was there a time, prior to which, sex was engaged in, essentially just to have children?

Well I didn’t say that and was responding to a very specific question. That being said, universally, no. Spouses have not historically engaged in sex solely to produce children. There has never been a requirement that a child result from sex (each individucal act) either. However, it was better understood that sex itself is a biological process to unite an egg with a sperm. It has other aspects, however those aspects are related to the biological process (e.g. bonding between the spouses).

 

[centerbe]

No, by sex being disconnected from it’s primary biological purpose, reproduction. Sex is now practiced as primarily a pleasure activity. The ‘pill’ was a catalyst to change society’s view of sex. This change set the stage for the explosion of pornography, masturbation, premarital sex, divorce and homosexual sex.

All these things existed before the 20th century. There pornographic frescoes found in the ruins of Pompeii. The Kama Sutra dates to 400 BCE to 200 BCE which is both pornographic and portrays sex for pleasure. I am sure that masturbation and homosexuality are as old as the human race is. Promiscuity is not new but the pill made it easier to avoid the consequences of having children out of wedlock.

 

[Rau]

Well I didn’t say that and was responding to a very specific question. That being said, universally, no. Spouses have not historically engaged in sex solely to produce children. There has never been a requirement that a child result from sex (each individucal act) either. However, it was better understood that sex itself is a biological process to unite an egg with a sperm. It has other aspects, however those aspects are related to the biological process (e.g. bonding between the spouses).

I agree. But I suggest that sex is mostly practiced out of desire for closeness and pleasure, and that this has always been the case in those who have freely married. You suggested this was a motivation of recent times only, and I disagree with that.

 

[whm]

I agree. But I suggest that sex is mostly practiced out of desire for closeness and pleasure, and that this has always been the case in those who have freely married.

I don’t disagree with that. However, I am talking about the removing the biological purpose and leaving only pleasure. If it is not for creating children, why get married? If you don’t need to be married, why have one life long partner? If you don’t need a partner, why not pleasure yourself? If you can pleasure yourself, why not get pleasure with your same gender?

 

[whm]

All these things existed before the 20th century. There pornographic frescoes found in the ruins of Pompeii. The Kama Sutra dates to 400 BCE to 200 BCE which is both pornographic and portrays sex for pleasure. I am sure that masturbation and homosexuality are as old as the human race is. Promiscuity is not new but the pill made it easier to avoid the consequences of having children out of wedlock.

Yep, and increase promiscuity significantly.

 

[whm]

You suggested this was a motivation of recent times only, and I disagree with that.

No, I didn’t.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Would it cause you concern were it to be definitively determined that various gene combinations are more likely associated with homosexuality? Other than an interesting scientific discovery, such would have no significance for me.

If you can point to any peer-reviewed scientific paper of the past that claims to have found the single definitive SSA-causing gene, I’ll be fascinated to read it. Otherwise, I take such to have been speculation, rather than a claim, or foggy memory on your part.

Not really. Once you get past the portentious positivism, you end up with something that’s really not very definite, and what you’re suggesting is, at best, what there is. It would bother me if a gene was found which was proven to be a direct cause of homosexuality, because the whole “If gay is so bad, why did God make me gay?” argument has some weight, although not absolutely

It’s no foggy memory, but I think you’re missing the point. The gay gene was discussed, possibly in the media too, as it it’d actually been discovered and proven in peer reviewed journals et. That on subsequent investigation it turns out there was no such discovery irks me, because I do wonder if that myth wasn’t circulated deliberately

 

[Rau]

Not really. Once you get past the portentious positivism, you end up with something that’s really not very definite, and what you’re suggesting is, at best, what there is. It would bother me if a gene was found which was proven to be a direct cause of homosexuality, because the whole “If gay is so bad, why did God make me gay?” argument has some weight, although not absolutely

It’s no foggy memory, but I think you’re missing the point. The gay gene was discussed, possibly in the media too, as it it’d actually been discovered and proven in peer reviewed journals et. That on subsequent investigation it turns out there was no such discovery irks me, because I do wonder if that myth wasn’t circulated deliberately

The media is unscientific. The moment science suggests “genetic influence”, the media headlines sprout “gay gene”. The media needs to be interpreted with due scepticism.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

The media is unscientific. The moment science suggests “genetic influence”, the media headlines sprout “gay gene”. The media needs to be interpreted with due scepticism.

Maybe, but that easily includes popular Scientific Media! I’m looking at you, New Scientist…and as for you, BBC TV show Horizon…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Yep, and increase promiscuity significantly.

advances in medicine also will have had a major impact… cures for killer diseases and brutal VDs will have loosened many a moral fibre…regarding homosexual acts, I suspect the chances of getting something incurably fatal from anal sex prior to antibiotics will have been considerably higher

 

[chris62]

No, by sex being disconnected from it’s primary biological purpose, reproduction. Sex is now practiced as primarily a pleasure activity. The ‘pill’ was a catalyst to change society’s view of sex. This change set the stage for the explosion of pornography, masturbation, premarital sex, divorce and homosexual sex.

I agree with that.