Is gayness a birth defect?

[Lursa]

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. (Masters degree in biology here.) As it concerns homosexual men, they have located the most likely cause, which is epigenetic, and occurs in utero through immune-hormone triggers initiated by the mother. There is no "gene" for homosexuality, but fetal development can be influenced neurohormonally. Homosexual men have narrow corpus collosums in the brain, above average spatial sense and linguistic ability, etc. Because the CC forms around week 11, it suggests that homosexual predisposition will occur then as well. This implies that homosexuality, at least in males, is deeply hardwired and not a product of "nurture". Nurture is culture, and as we know from culture, there are lots of homosexuals masquerading as heterosexuals, even getting married and having kids with women. Males who are high in conscientiousness (one of the Big Five in psychology) tend to perform according to cultural duty. They will fulfill family duty even if it's at odds to their sexuality.

Maybe he'll listen to you

We have known for a long time that homosexual human males have distinguishing physiological features in a statistically significant way. It turns out that the more male offspring a woman tends to have, the higher the chances she will produce a homosexual male, particularly in women of high fecundity (fertility). Because a homosexual male in nature is less likely to have children, he will provide an altruistic, competitive fitness advantage to his siblings, increasing their survival rate, and in turn ensure survival of the fittest. In other words, homosexual men drive familial population fitness forward by being less likely to reproduce.

"Kinship selection, gay uncle theory, etc"

 

[grip]

I've never believed that people are born gay. I think they have a propensity or natural inclination towards same-sex but don't aren't forced.

I know many males and females are prison gay but revert once freed. It's not a defect, just part of natural selection and evolution.

 

[Lursa]

I've never believed that people are born gay. I think they have a propensity or natural inclination towards same-sex but don't aren't forced.

Care to explain that distinction?

I know many males and females are prison gay but revert once freed. It's not a defect, just part of natural selection and evolution.

Sooooo then it IS inborn? Otherwise, how does evolution and natural selection play a part?

 

[maquiscat]

That is not where the science leads. I kind of like facts, critical thinking skills, and the scientific method is to be respected.

Nor is the science leading away from there either. We're seeing clues for genetics, epigenetics, environmental, even some odd combination thereof. There have been multiple articles posted here on all of these. The only thing that has been dismissed by science is choice. Genetics are not out of the running yet, either by itself (not a single gene but genetics in general), or in combination. Hell at this point we can't even say if there is a single cause or multiple causes.

 

[maquiscat]

I've never believed that people are born gay. I think they have a propensity or natural inclination towards same-sex but don't aren't forced.

I know many males and females are prison gay but revert once freed. It's not a defect, just part of natural selection and evolution.

This isn't an indicator of what their orientation is, i.e. what sexually attracts them. Willingness to engage with sex with someone does not require that you be sexually attracted to them. Porn stars do this all the time, and it is common within prisons as a sexual release and/or a power play.

 

[The Baron]

Not sure how you can keep insisting on that after I put up so many articles with the latest developments in the field.

New investigations do not equal new discoveries.

That's just odd. What possible reference could I give that you would not dismiss as "scientists make mistakes" or "they cover up their mistakes", or other such excuses?

When they can turn the homosexual orientation "on and off" then they will have found something critical. That would definitely get my--and the world's--attention.

What do YOU think is the "root cause"? Based on what?

Oh, I've no idea and in time--it may prove to be genetic. But since they haven't found anything in utero at this point I'd like to see more work done on the factors that occur after the birth of the child.

Summary: we have found so far that it is a polygenic inheritance pattern with environmental influences. Somethings are multifactorial- especially something as complex as human behavior/sexuality.

Why does that necessarily have to change public policy?

My comments were with respect to what was happening prior to the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage. Getting same-sex marriage had been the goal. Now with that goal attained, I don't know that a new discovery would necessarily lead to any policy changes. The homosexual community appears to have won all the legal battles at this point.

I suspect any new discoveries showing a genetic cause in homosexuality would only be further used as "evidence" to further push homosexuality as a "normal" or even a desired part of society.

Some facts are just facts. What do YOU suggest we do about those facts?

Communicate them. Educate people. Etc.

 

[ataraxia]

New investigations do not equal new discoveries.

When they can turn the homosexual orientation "on and off" then they will have found something critical. That would definitely get my--and the world's--attention.

Oh, I've no idea and in time--it may prove to be genetic. But since they haven't found anything in utero at this point I'd like to see more work done on the factors that occur after the birth of the child.

My comments were with respect to what was happening prior to the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage. Getting same-sex marriage had been the goal. Now with that goal attained, I don't know that a new discovery would necessarily lead to any policy changes. The homosexual community appears to have won all the legal battles at this point.

I suspect any new discoveries showing a genetic cause in homosexuality would only be further used as "evidence" to further push homosexuality as a "normal" or even a desired part of society.


Communicate them. Educate people. Etc.

You say all this like it’s a bad thing. Why? Who is it hurting that makes it a problem?

 

[The Baron]

You say all this like it’s a bad thing. Why? Who is it hurting that makes it a problem?

I say it like "what" is a bad thing? Research?

 

[ataraxia]

I say it like "what" is a bad thing? Research?

No, this:” I suspect any new discoveries showing a genetic cause in homosexuality would only be further used as "evidence" to further push homosexuality as a "normal" or even a desired part of society.”

It sounds like you are convinced though that this is somehow “not normal” and is somehow in reality hurtful to society, but is just being pushed artificially anyway.

Who do you think it’s really hurting in society? What are your criteria for defining “normal”?

 

[The Baron]

No, this:” I suspect any new discoveries showing a genetic cause in homosexuality would only be further used as "evidence" to further push homosexuality as a "normal" or even a desired part of society.”

Oh. Because it is a bad thing,

It sounds like you are convinced though that this is somehow “not normal” and is somehow in reality hurtful to society, but is just being pushed artificially anyway.

Homosexuality, by definition, is not normal.

Who do you think it’s really hurting in society? What are your criteria for defining “normal”?

What is "normal"? Great question. Not sure I have any great answers. But I do prefer a time when men were men and women were proud of it. I'd like to see more of that and far less wimpy-ass, sissy men and butch women.

 

[Lursa]

Oh. Because it is a bad thing,

How so? Please explain.

Homosexuality, by definition, is not normal.

Being 'left-handed' isnt 'normal',' just like being gay it's not 'the norm' because it's less common, but it's still common and natural and does no harm. So...what is your point?

 

[The Baron]

How so? Please explain.

It's a sin.

Being 'left-handed' isnt 'normal',' just like being gay it's not 'the norm' because it's less common, but it's still common and natural and does no harm. So...what is your point?

And it's a sin.

 

[Lursa]

It's a sin.

And it's a sin.

To you. It does no harm, not in the Bible and not in real life. It's an intentional misinterpretation of God's Word by homophobic men of the times. It does not break God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace so it's not a sin...again, it was made up by fallible men.

And since you admitted it's merely some religious taboo, of course there should be no societal discrimination against gays.

 

[ataraxia]

Oh. Because it is a bad thing,

"Bad thing" to me means behavior that's hurting someone. Who is this hurting?

Homosexuality, by definition, is not normal.

Whose definition

What is "normal"? Great question. Not sure I have any great answers. But I do prefer a time when men were men and women were proud of it. I'd like to see more of that and far less wimpy-ass, sissy men and butch women.

I would suggest that "normal" just means the cultural norms you are used to, growing up in the culture you happened to be born into. So for example, to someone born and raised in an Islamic culture, "normal" is that women keep their face covered in public as a sign of modesty and chastity. In some African cultures, it is female genital mutilation. At one point in western culture it was "normal" to burn witches alive at the stake or do trials by ordeal.

But some cultural norms are unnecessary or just highly dysfunctional and hurtful.

 

[ataraxia]

But I do prefer a time when men were men and women were proud of it. I'd like to see more of that and far less wimpy-ass, sissy men and butch women.

These criteria are all highly contingent culturally and historically- not anything set in stone. Up until the 18th century, men with wigs and makeup were considered "normal". If you didn't do it, you would not be deemed fit for society.


The only reason it may not seem "normal" to you now is because you didn't grow up in that kind of culture and so it may weird you out a little. If you went back to their culture dressing the way you do, you would look just as odd. It's like a kid in middle school who wears a sneaker brand that's not considered fashionable in their particular school- they are likely to get ostracized, made fun of, and/or beat up.

Grown ups should be better than that.

 

[gboisjo]

No this does not work at all. Consider that homosexuality has been around in every generation since recorded history and no reason to not think beyond that as well. It has occurred in every civilisation, primitive or advanced. On every continent in all societies. All of that variation in environment and politics yet the one constant is that homosexuality existed in all those environments. One could argue that homosexuality exists despite those barriers not because of them.

And what is your proof that it existed in the same percentages of today,

 

[ataraxia]

And what is your proof that it existed in the same percentages of today,

Why does there have to be some proof? If people aren't hurting you, leave them alone. How is it any of your business?

 

[gboisjo]

Why didn't you answer my question about why it is so important to you that homosexuality be genetic in basis? Are gay people offensive or inferior to heterosexuals, in your opinion?

Your statement comes across as so progressive and political.

I'm not afraid to admit it, I find one man ****ing another man in the ass freakishly offensive.

 

[ataraxia]

Your statement comes across as so progressive and political.

I'm not afraid to admit it, I find one man ****ing another man in the ass freakishly offensive.

So who invited you to look?

Frankly, the idea of you looking at anyone ****ing anyone is offensive. You make it sound like you have some kind of pesonal responsibility to do so. Mind your own business.

 

[gboisjo]

Why does there have to be some proof? If people aren't hurting you, leave them alone. How is it any of your business?

I do leave them alone, however this a topic driven thread, nothing more.

 

[gboisjo]

So who invited you to look?

Frankly, the idea of you looking at anyone ****ing anyone is offensive. You make it sound like you have some kind of responsibility to do so.

Use your imagination, if you've got one, its nasty stuff.

The sex act does nothing to perpetuate the species, what it did perpetuate was the AID's virus through bleeding.

 

[ataraxia]

I do leave them alone, however this a topic driven thread, nothing more.

Do you agree that society should leave people alone if they are not hurting anyone?

 

[ataraxia]

Use your imagination, if you've got one, its nasty stuff.

The sex act does nothing to perpetuate the species, what it did perpetuate was the AID's virus through bleeding.

Do you use your imagination to see old people ****ing each other? Talk about nasty! Should we ban that too?

 

[gboisjo]

Studies have been on-going with nothing new being proved.

Do believe me? Exactly what scientific studies regarding homosexuality have brought us information that we didn't know before and have actually changed public polity

And by "know", I mean we can observe it, test it, all sides agree that this is correct and it was proper to change public policy in light of this new discovery?

Oh, wait!

There is none.

And that's my only point.

Whats driving the issue today regarding homosexuality ..more than science is the progressive politicization of the issue ..obsessed with it.

 

[gboisjo]

Do you agree that society should leave people alone if they are not hurting anyone?

Yes, but I'm entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not.