D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Would not the “gay gene” been weeded out via evolution millions of years ago?
why or why not?
why or why not?
- Status
M
masterjedi747
Guest
headdesk
…you do realize this thread is going to go WAY off topic in every possible direction very, very quickly?
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a “gay gene” (which I sincerely doubt), what are you looking for here? It might be best just to skip to the main point.
…you do realize this thread is going to go WAY off topic in every possible direction very, very quickly?
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a “gay gene” (which I sincerely doubt), what are you looking for here? It might be best just to skip to the main point.
D
Dale_M
Guest
First, there probably is not one “gay gene”, human sexuality is far too complex to be controlled by only one gene.
As for your question, I don’t think gay genes would be weeded out if they were neutral in terms of species survival.
K
kristie_m
Guest
But if the “gay gene” were dominant, how would the species survive? We can’t all do IVF. Propogation of the species and all that…
N
Naztakuan
Guest
There is a theory that SSA may have to do with hormone balances. There was a woman who throught her whole life felt like she was a man inside a woman’s body. So she got a sex change to be a “man” After she became a man she suddenly was no longer attracted to women but to men. The only explanation could be that the hormone treatements had shifted her hormones. She had gone from a lesbian woman to a “gay” “male”. So technically she was straight. Kind of a “Mister Garrison” situation
C
Caesar517
Guest
That’s a very interesting idea, but I don’t think there is one “gay gene.”
I think gayness is a mental disorder, possibly caused by some odd combination of genes and/or hormones.
As you point out, we can determine that gayness is not a dominant genetic condition. Other than that, we don’t seem to know much about what causes it.
C
Carolinagirl411
Guest
Homosexuality (officially) is no longer considered a mental disorder in the DSM-IV TR…trust me I know, I have to teach it.
Also…a lot of pro-homosexuality people try to say that it is biological and it can’t be helped or changed and that there might just be a gay gene to fight against anti-gay individuals who feel it is a choice and they should stop
I think it is a hormonal imbalance and a bunch of learned behavior
different people have different experiences. Some women become lesbians b/c they were abused by men, etc.
BUT if there was a gay gene…I would think it would no longer be in the pool due to the rules of evolution, unless it was a gene passed by everyone and only triggered by certain environmental influences…haha interesting
Also…a lot of pro-homosexuality people try to say that it is biological and it can’t be helped or changed and that there might just be a gay gene to fight against anti-gay individuals who feel it is a choice and they should stop
I think it is a hormonal imbalance and a bunch of learned behavior
different people have different experiences. Some women become lesbians b/c they were abused by men, etc.
BUT if there was a gay gene…I would think it would no longer be in the pool due to the rules of evolution, unless it was a gene passed by everyone and only triggered by certain environmental influences…haha interesting
C
catholicbuckeye
Guest
Is it considered a deviant behavior? Just wondering. I would think a behavior that deviates from the norm would be by definition deviant, but with PC the way it is today, sometimes terms get “new definitions” based on how they make people feel.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perhaps it’s devolution. Epigenetics shows that lifestyle and environment can mess up the “software” instructions DNA uses to do its thing.
That’s a very interesting idea, but I don’t think there is one “gay gene.”
I think gayness is a mental disorder, possibly caused by some odd combination of genes and/or hormones.
As you point out, we can determine that gayness is not a dominant genetic condition. Other than that, we don’t seem to know much about what causes it.
C
Carolinagirl411
Guest
It is no longer even considered deviant from normal behavior which is one of the requirements to be placed in the DSM-IV TR and yes it was due to social pressure…well their official reasoning was that it was so common it was no longer considered abnormal in society.
They do consider transgendered individuals and transsexuals to be abnormal still…that may change too
They do consider transgendered individuals and transsexuals to be abnormal still…that may change too
B
buffalo
Guest
Based on the lie that 10% of the pop is homosexual. It’s more like 2%.
C
Carolinagirl411
Guest
Lol well that is something you will have to take up with the American Psychological Association…
but yeah i know what you mean
but yeah i know what you mean
K
KES
Guest
There are a lot more people that are LGBT than you think.
K
KES
Guest
I guess I missed your sources that say “it is more like 2%”?? Is your comment not just a number you pulled out of the air, an opinion, not an educated comment? I was responding with my thoughts on that. However, my sources say 10%. It seems to me that you have may have already seen some of the same sources, you just dont want to believe them. People tht are GLB are not abnormal, they are not defective. That is why it was removed from the DSM.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I agree. I also feel that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
That’s a very interesting idea, but I don’t think there is one “gay gene.”
I think gayness is a mental disorder, possibly caused by some odd combination of genes and/or hormones.
As you point out, we can determine that gayness is not a dominant genetic condition. Other than that, we don’t seem to know much about what causes it.
B
buffalo
Guest
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
It would make sense that it would. Genetic traits are passed on by sexual reproduction, and that’s the only way that they survive. However we don’t know if the “gay gene” existed in the first humans or not.
But, if the gay gene was introduced into the gene pool at a time when the institution of marriage was already firmly in place, the gay gene probably would have passed on.
That is, of course, if there were a gay gene.
K
KES
Guest
No thanks, I will do some more research and see where your numbers are coming from. I am well aware of the complexity of why homoesexuality was even in the DSM and why it was removed. I double majored in Psychology and Women/Gender Studies. Yes, you could say it was removed more for political/societal reasons. However, extensive research leads us to to view homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. If you want sources you can go to any psych database and find many of these.
This is a question for everyone, would you be more understanding and accepting if there was a scientific reason for homosexuality?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
I think you are confusing a few things here…
Scientifically, I’m a guy and I’m into women. However, that doesn’t automatically make it right for me to go practice unchaste, unhealthly behaviour or other acts of pervsion with them, and expect everyone to accept my behaviour as “normal.”
We accept people with SSA, and realize that they have their own unique cross to bear. He love the sinner but hate the sin. This goes for people who practice fornication or adultery with people of the opposite sex as well. There is no double standard.
- Status