Homosexuality-> Genetics, Choice, or Both?

[Acriku]

Actually there are people who have converted from heterosexuality to homosexuality and vice versa.  There is a website called "Queers by Choice"  and they get very upset if you claim their homosexuality is genetic... they emphatically state that their sexuality was chosen.  Chuck Norris also chose his sexuality.  Chuck only sleeps with men once he has run out of women.

Yours truly,

Chuck Norris.

Wouldn't  you classify those as bisexuals?

[Acriku]

Interesting debate between Jon Stewart and Bill Bennett (tv/radio host, author). Jon takes the stance that homosexuality is part of the human condition and Bill opposes.

Hell, if Jon says it then it's gotta be valid. And hilarious. Hilariously valid.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/75987/Jon_Stewart_Debates_Bill_Bennett_Gay_Marriage.html

[Darth Kwisatz]

Most of this thread is bullshit.

Do you like it or not? It's as simple as that. Meat pies or sausage rolls?

Fundamentalist conservatives need not fear as most same-sex-oriented people don't breed (which kills the idea of genetic imperfection as the trait would have been bred out by now). Get over it. Move on.

[VigilVirus]

(which kills the idea of genetic imperfection as the trait would have been bred out by now)

That actually isn't even close to being true. Humanity doesn't function according to principles of natural selection anymore, because of comparatively low mortality rates in developed countries due to improvement in medicine, habitat, etc. Even lethal genetic traits, such as cystic fibrosis aren't breeding out, as you put it, but flourishing with the improvements in treatment. Though improvement in medicine does not have anything directly to do with this particular case.

But the point is, if traits do breed out of humanity, it would be on an evolutionary scale, due to the fact that a large percentage of genetic data is passed on by carriers that do not necessarily express the trait.

As for it being genetic or not - there are few traits, if any, that do not have contributing genetic influences and I strongly doubt that sexual orientation is one of them. But there are also very few traits that are pure genetics. So, I guess the argument is whether nature or nurture is a greater influence. But why does that even matter? Just like genetics is not a choice, most of the times, nurture isn't either.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Improvements in medicine are a recent thing. Two-thirds of Europe was wiped out by black death, and isolated native peoples by diseases introduced by colonists. We know that same-sex relations were around during ancient times. The only possibility of a gay gene resides in being a common benign mutation or through bisexuality. 

We now selectively breed weakness into the human gene pool through life-prolonging medical treatment, but oppose genetic manipulation to eliminate traits. Personally I think that's pretty stupid, though I'll admit that having idiots determine what traits are fashionable or desirable or lucrative is equally silly.

Silliest of all is the notion that we are somehow separate from nature and ordained by divinity to have "dominion over the earth" and all creatures. Genetics makes a mockery of those ideas.

The whole controversy surrounding same-sex pairings is ludicrous because they are essentially personal, private and completely harmless. Provoking aggressive gay activism by attacking them is equally stupid. Not extending the same rights of property succession to them through discriminatory marriage law, by invoking religious mythology is just plain cruel.

Who cares, why, and why would someone consciously try to stop one person loving another? Just another case of religion and family financial interests attempting to protect themselves at the expense of freedom.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Who cares, why, and why would someone consciously try to stop one person loving another? Just another case of religion and family financial interests attempting to protect themselves at the expense of freedom.

Why? I'm sure there's plenty of good reasons and I'm sure your intelligent enough to think of them.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So, I guess the argument is whether nature or nurture is a greater influence. But why does that even matter? Just like genetics is not a choice, most of the times, nurture isn't either.

Yes i do believe that it is a question of which is greater nature or nurture.... and yes i agree you cant choose your nurture.  If someone is molested as a child they cant choose not to be molested and they cant choose not to be emotionally scarred.  I agree on this.  But we cannot say that because someone didnt choose initial conditions that they have zero responsibility for their current situation as an adult or that they made no decisions or choices in their life.  I mean you can have a pre-disposition to being alcoholic and have the genes for that...and even have the nurture for that as your dad was an abusive alcoholic..... but that doesnt mean that we should say.... "ok you didnt choose your alcoholic genes and your alcoholic dad environment as a child so you now have permission to be an alcoholic for the rest of your life."

[VigilVirus]

Yes i do believe that it is a question of which is greater nature or nurture.... and yes i agree you cant choose your nurture.  If someone is molested as a child they cant choose not to be molested and they cant choose not to be emotionally scarred.  I agree on this.  But we cannot say that because someone didnt choose initial conditions that they have zero responsibility for their current situation as an adult or that they made no decisions or choices in their life.  I mean you can have a pre-disposition to being alcoholic and have the genes for that...and even have the nurture for that as your dad was an abusive alcoholic..... but that doesnt mean that we should say.... "ok you didnt choose your alcoholic genes and your alcoholic dad environment as a child so you now have permission to be an alcoholic for the rest of your life."

Well, I'm sure you've read about examples of homosexuals who choose to deny their predisposition. Most of them are miserable, violent and self destructive people. This is different from being predisposed to alcohol, because in order to be an alcoholic, you still require that physical addiction as a part of it. With sexual orientation, I'd expect it's mostly psychological.

I mean, it's clear how one would go about fighting alcoholism, but homosexuality? There's really no particular treatment or cure that I've heard of.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well, I'm sure you've read about examples of homosexuals who choose to deny their predisposition. Most of them are miserable, violent and self destructive people. This is different from being predisposed to alcohol, because in order to be an alcoholic, you still require that physical addiction as a part of it. With sexual orientation, I'd expect it's mostly psychological.

I mean, it's clear how one would go about fighting alcoholism, but homosexuality? There's really no particular treatment or cure that I've heard of.

Alcoholics that deny themselves alcohol are miserable too, and its quite psychological (just like cigarettes).  With sexual orientation its also physical/psycho.  I doubt you merely think about sex, Devil's Advocate.  I'm sure you like to engage in it.  And quite frequently.   

Gene Study may undermine gay gene theory.

http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=128

Altho the above article is interesting, i dont like people separating the argument into gentic vs choice.... because i think just because something is in your genetics it doesnt mean its 100% uncontrollable. i believe something can be genetic and still be a choice.  I mean genetically you have the desire to eat but you choose what to eat.  You have the desire to have sex and experience love.. but you choose with whom.  Blacks are black because of their genetics and they cannot control that.  SO the real question is not whether homosexuality is genetic... but rather is it something that is genetic that is controllable or uncontrollable?

Here's a comprehensive summary of Gay theories:

There are many psychologists and scientists who have theories about why some people feel affection and sexual attraction for their own sex.  However, many of the theories are contradictory and the truth is, it is very hard to be sure why any given person feels same sex attraction.  There are several theories that you have probably heard about.

One popular theory is that people are born gay. The theory says there are genes that control the surfacing and direction of sexual feelings.  People who consider themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual are being who they are and should not try to live in conflict with their sexual feelings, kind of like people who are left handed should not try to become right handed.

Second, a variation of the idea that people are born gay is that hormones control sexual attractions.  Some people believe that these chemicals affect the brains of people while developing pre-birth.  The effect is to make the brains of some people more likely to feel same sex attraction.

A third view is that sexual attractions are learned through many different kinds of experiences while one is growing up.  Early sexual experiences, being abused physically or sexually or being exposed to same sex pornography at an early age are examples of some types of shaping experiences.

A fourth popular view is that family environment and experiences shape sexual attractions.  For instance, some former gay and lesbians believe that their emotional needs for a loving and close same sex parent drove them to look for love in a sexual manner from other people of their same sex.

And there is also a 5th popular view... that it is merely a cognitive choice as advocated by  http://www.queerbychoice.com/

Last, many psychologists and scientists believe that some combination of these previous theories might be true for many people and not true for others. 

Let me repeat.  Science or psychology has not proven any of these theories completely true or completely false.  No gay gene has been discovered nor are there certain kinds of families that are always responsible for same sex attractions. For different people with same sex attraction, there may be some truth in each of these theories. For instance, as you read the theories, did you feel any of them were closer to your experience?  All we really can say now is that it appears that the influences leading to feelings of same sex attraction are different for different people.

Whatever the reasons that influence the feelings you have, you are so much more than your sexual feelings.  These feelings are only a part of your life and you are free to limit them by your beliefs if that is what you choose to do.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

I mean, it's clear how one would go about fighting alcoholism, but homosexuality? There's really no particular treatment or cure that I've heard of.

There's no particular treatment or cure you've heard of because we've all been brainwashed by liberal media from the time we were little children to believe every politically correct thing we've ever heard.

However others have pushed that media suppression aside to try to understand the issue more clearly. Interestingly, even chinese researchers believe its curable. Its already common knowledge that some american researchers believe that.  The "cure" seems to be something called "gender- affirmative therapy" ... Altho i'm sure there are several other types of therapy. (and NO i dont mean the barbaric ones like electro-shock, I'm talking about caring therapy for those who want it)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-10/08/content_269765.htm

http://www.narth.com/docs/byrd.html'>http://www.narth.com/docs/byrd.html

http://www.narth.com/

http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Is_Change_Possible.htm

[Edric O]

There's no particular treatment or cure you've heard of because we've all been brainwashed by liberal media from the time we were little children to believe every politically correct thing we've ever heard.

I believe the reasons are far more economic than that. You must remember that, under capitalism, a cure will be developed for something if (and only if) medical companies can gain a large enough profit from it. Malaria is quite possibly the single greatest cause of human death in all history, and yet there is very little money being invested in finding new drugs against malaria. Why? Because most of the people killed by malaria are too poor to afford any medicine.

Going back on topic, there is no sexual orientation therapy (or, at least, there is no highly effective or easily available therapy) because few people would be willing to pay good money for such a therapy. No potential profits -> no research -> no cure. To the extent that culture and the media have a role in this, their role has been to convince homosexual people that they don't need a cure, which is one of the reasons they wouldn't pay for a cure, which is why there is no cure.

Yes i do believe that it is a question of which is greater nature or nurture.... and yes i agree you cant choose your nurture.  If someone is molested as a child they cant choose not to be molested and they cant choose not to be emotionally scarred.  I agree on this.  But we cannot say that because someone didnt choose initial conditions that they have zero responsibility for their current situation as an adult or that they made no decisions or choices in their life.  I mean you can have a pre-disposition to being alcoholic and have the genes for that...and even have the nurture for that as your dad was an abusive alcoholic..... but that doesnt mean that we should say.... "ok you didnt choose your alcoholic genes and your alcoholic dad environment as a child so you now have permission to be an alcoholic for the rest of your life."

Responsibility is not a black and white issue. A person with a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism and an alcoholic dad is certainly less responsible for being an alcoholic than a person who has no pre-disposition and had perfectly normal parents but became an alcoholic anyway.

Improvements in medicine are a recent thing. Two-thirds of Europe was wiped out by black death, and isolated native peoples by diseases introduced by colonists. We know that same-sex relations were around during ancient times. The only possibility of a gay gene resides in being a common benign mutation or through bisexuality.

That is an important point: If homosexuality is genetic, then at least one of the parents of each homosexual child must be a carrier of the "gay gene". But if the gay gene makes you unable to reproduce, why didn't natural selection get rid of it long ago?

It is true that natural selection no longer works in human beings, but this is a recent development. It is a side effect of human civilization. Natural selection will only improve an aspect of your species if:

1. That aspect is a genetically inherited trait.

2. The individuals who have that gene are more likely to reproduce than the individuals who don't.

When talking about natural selection, people often forget about condition #2. Natural selection is not really about survival of the fittest, it's about reproduction of the fittest. It is possible for natural selection to sabotage your species, if there is a certain trait that increases your chances to reproduce but lowers your chances to survive. In such a case, natural selection will support that trait and thus weaken your species. Think peacock tails. They are utterly useless and a major handicap to male peacocks, but natural selection favours them because they make the males more attractive to the females.

Now, the reason why natural selection doesn't work in human beings is because we rely less and less on our genes to survive. Nearly all of our survival skills are learned from our parents, educators and peers, rather than being coded in our genes. Knowing how to make fire, knowing how to build the wheel - these are elementary things that we have been relying on for thousands of years, but they are not coded in our genes. Human civilization is built on non-genetic foundations, so human civilization casts natural selection aside.

We now selectively breed weakness into the human gene pool through life-prolonging medical treatment, but oppose genetic manipulation to eliminate traits.

What is "weakness"? By definition, "weakness" is anything that lowers your chances to survive, but whether a given trait makes you "weak" or not depends on the environment you live in. A fast running animal that can't climb would be weak in a forest environment but strong in the wide open fields. It is not a sign of "weakness" to get rid of things you no longer need. If our medicine can cure a genetic disease, then that disease no longer represents a disability, so there is no harm in allowing it into the gene pool.