G
Gertabelle
Guest
I hear they have recently discovered the gene which causes people to think everything is caused by genes
Awesome. :clapping:
- Status
Awesome. :clapping:
T
thistle
Guest
It is not correct.
By the way if anyone makes a claim it is up to them to provide documentary evidence to support their claim which can then be discussed. It is not up to you to refute a baseless claim.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Homosexuality is a spiritual disorder that is beyond the personâs control. Itâs not genetic.
R
rossum
Guest
âCausedâ, no, probably not. There are likely a number of influences, some genetic, some epigenetic and some from nurture.
There are certainly some genetic influences that have been found, see Why Gays Donât Go Extinct:
Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasnât already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
Because the genes increase the average number of children in female relatives of gay men, they can persist in the population. Call them âPhwoar! Heâs hunky!â genes, which have the obvious effect on both males and females.
Other non-genetic effects are also known. The more older brothers, from the same mother, a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. Older sisters do not have this effect.
There are multiple influences in play here. It is not as simple as a âgay geneâ.
rossum
D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
Seems reasonable. I remember my biology teacher years ago telling me that the research indicated that for men who were gay it was much more solidly ingrained, that there was no choice in the matter and that they appeared to be born that way, whereas homosexuality in females was, according to the science, much more fluid. Makes sense to me (Iâm a woman), and my girl friends, who morality aside, donât find the idea of being with another woman so bad, in fact somewhat (again, morality considerations aside) appealing. But our straight male friends (even if they are not opposed to it morally) find the idea of being with a man repugnant. Not from a place of hate, but just referring to their own sexuality- they have no attraction whatsoever to males. Gay guy friends on the other hand have that same reaction to females- no attraction whatsoever. (And the few lesbian friends Iâve had donât have that strong reaction against males)⌠Just anecdotal stuff. But it does seem to coincide with what youâve just said about biology and with what my biology teacher has told me.âCausedâ, no, probably not. There are likely a number of influences, some genetic, some epigenetic and some from nurture.
There are certainly some genetic influences that have been found, see Why Gays Donât Go Extinct:
Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasnât already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
Because the genes increase the average number of children in female relatives of gay men, they can persist in the population. Call them âPhwoar! Heâs hunky!â genes, which have the obvious effect on both males and females.
Other non-genetic effects are also known. The more older brothers, from the same mother, a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. Older sisters do not have this effect.
There are multiple influences in play here. It is not as simple as a âgay geneâ.
rossum
E
ericc
Guest
I donâ t understand this. If they have no ability to procreate, they have no ability to pass down the gay genes, if any. Am I missing something?
R
rossum
Guest
Yes. See the reference in my post #43 in this thread. There are genes that tend to make the carrier more attracted to men. Women with the genes tend to have more babies while men with the genes tend to be gay. The âmore babiesâ part ensures that the genes persist in the population.
rossum
Mark121359
Well-known member
Just like with global warming, the âgay geneâ will become gospel. And just as those who are skeptical about MMGW find themselves constantly ostracized and hated by the left, being called deniers and what have youâŚthose who deny the âgay geneâ will be treated in much the same wayâŚand probably worse.
Peace, Mark
Peace, Mark
E
ericc
Guest
Interesting. Now what is needed is to determine whether fecundity is a cause of homosexuality rather than association. It would be interesting to see if a fecunditious maternal population could predict a higher than average incidence of homosexuality vs heterosexuality. That is, you donât work backwards from a known homosexual population. You work with 2 populations, fecunditious and non-fucunditious and see whether they have predictability power in identifying homosexual and non-homosexuals.
Secondly, whether these results can be reproduced elsewhere, different racial groups, different continents, different diets and lifestyles could be contributors as well. Perhaps a combination of factors rather than a single indicator may have better predictability.
And the benefit of knowing all these is to find better ways of treatment. That is assuming if there is availability of treatment, this community will go for it. Wonât they?
R
Rau
Guest
Unfortunate genetic outcomes can crop up throughout time, so even one that severely reduces the likelihood of procreation does not ensure those affected will die out, never to appear again.
R
Rau
Guest
Actually, I think far less have an in-principle objection to the idea that the homosexual inclination arises very early in the personâs life, than you might perceive. The bulk simply agree that they donât know the cause (which is still the most accurate charterisation of the state of scientific knowledge).
Whether there is an influence in genetics, epigenetics or foetal development has little to do with the morality of homosexual acts. Reason tells us 2 men engaging in a unitive, emotionally binding act that by its inherent nature exchanges gametes, does not make sense. It is thus hardly surprising that the condition will often be very distressing for persons affected.
The âstrongestâ pro-genetics evidence Iâve seen suggests that a particular gene(s) seems to have correlation with SSA, but that it could at most be a small part of the explanation. I believe we are quite far from understanding the aetiology of sexual attraction.
E
epostle
Guest
No, this is not correct. Yes, itâs nurture. âProofâ amounts to cultural conditioning, not facts.
Note there is no cultural obsession with other amoral activity that bear consequences no less serious.
Here is a recent article citing medical scientists:
Are gays âborn that wayâ? Most Americans now say yes, but science says no
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
There are so many problems with that siteâs assessment of the academic literature (and their underlying assumptions about biology) that I donât even know where to begin critiquing it.
Is there a reason youâre consulting a semi-religious, social advocacy website for answers to scientific questions?
- Status