Turn on thread page Beta

If being gay is not a choice, is it therefore genetic? watch

    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    Most of us now agree that homosexuality is something you are born with, rather than it being an individual's choice.

    So, based on that fact, could sexuality be genetic. Is someone more likely to be gay if someone in their family was/is gay too?

    Some twins like Jedward for example are both gay, so surely that must mean that sexuality is genetic right?

    No one in family was/is gay, neither am I ... so it must be genetic!
    • #2
    #2

    i cant help but think if being gay was "natural" then why dont we have the organs to accommodate.

    why cant men give birth?

    as far as genetics are concerned..no
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    50% of it has direct genetic link because some studies showed that you can have genetically identical twins with different sexual orientations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    i cant help but think if being gay was "natural" then why dont we have the organs to accommodate.

    why cant men give birth?

    as far as genetics are concerned..no
    Homosexuality is natural though - what is natural is determined by what is associated with nature and nature has many examples of homosexuality, no examples of homophobia apart from humans. There is a proven genetic link, by the way.
    • #3
    #3

    I find there are some studies that show a certain influence of genetics, that's quite interesting actually
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would recommend looking at studies comparing sexualities of identical twins with non-identical twins for this. If identical twins have a higher homosexuality rate than homosexual non-identical twins then it's probably genetic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Most of us now agree that homosexuality is something you are born with, rather than it being an individual's choice.

    So, based on that fact, could sexuality be genetic. Is someone more likely to be gay if someone in their family was/is gay too?

    Some twins like Jedward for example are both gay, so surely that must mean that sexuality is genetic right?

    No one in family was/is gay, neither am I ... so it must be genetic!
    Firstly, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that just because two twins are homosexual, it means that homosexuality is genetic. I am one of two male children - I am homosexual. There are no known homosexuals in my extended family apart from one distant cousin of my mother's. Inheritance and genetics are not exactly the same thing.

    There are many theories as to what induces/causes homosexuality to occur:

    1. Choice (wrong - lol);
    2. Subconscious choice;
    3. Genetics;
    4. Mother's antibodies attacking the male foetus during pregnancy as the body sees it as a foreign object that must be destroyed;
    5. Mental disorder.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Sexual desire, and all human desire is governed by hormones. You may be genetically predisposed to generate certain hormones at a certain time in your life which leads to a sequence of evens which makes you more likely to be gay. But nothing is set in stone like that.

    The guy who counter-claims homosexuality is unnatural would probably be interested in reading the various documented cases of observable homosexual behaviour in other mammals.

    This leads me on to my next point which is that if homosexuality is indeed completely genetic, then it would be impossible for mammals to reproduce and therefore such traits would have become extinct. The very existence of homosexuality proves that it cannot be genetic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This is a false dichtomoty - the possibilties aren't at all limited to only genetic or choice. It doesn't have to be purely genetic to be 'natural'. Nor do I expect us to ever pinpoint the genes that are involved if it is indeed genetic. There could be a variety of genes that interplay to affect development. There could be an epigenetic phenomenon involved that has nothing to do with changes in base sequence. There could be developmental factors inside the uterus. There are so many things it could be, and it is likely to involve many of these factors. What is patently absurd is the suggestion that it is a choice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EverybodyHz)
    Sexual desire, and all human desire is governed by hormones. You may be genetically predisposed to generate certain hormones at a certain time in your life which leads to a sequence of evens which makes you more likely to be gay. But nothing is set in stone like that.

    The guy who counter-claims homosexuality is unnatural would probably be interested in reading the various documented cases of observable homosexual behaviour in other mammals.

    This leads me on to my next point which is that if homosexuality is indeed completely genetic, then it would be impossible for mammals to reproduce and therefore such traits would have become extinct. The very existence of homosexuality proves that it cannot be genetic.
    If the hormone argument is at all accurate, how comes hormone therapy didn't work?

    Not really though, pal, because animals aren't the same as humans? Many homosexuals have and did have, sex with women to produce offspring or to have a 'normal' life and be closeted due to fear of oppression. It's not exactly a million-dollar question. Just because homosexuality is observed in nature, it doesn't mean that said animals didn't have sex with women at all. It''s a complex thing and it isn't as black and white as that. If it were, we'd have had the answer to all this presented to us an awfully long time ago.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    If the hormone argument is at all accurate, how comes hormone therapy didn't work?

    Not really though, pal, because animals aren't the same as humans? Many homosexuals have and did have, sex with women to produce offspring or to have a 'normal' life and be closeted due to fear of oppression. It's not exactly a million-dollar question. Just because homosexuality is observed in nature, it doesn't mean that said animals didn't have sex with women at all. It''s a complex thing and it isn't as black and white as that. If it were, we'd have had the answer to all this presented to us an awfully long time ago.
    I was careful to imply that I meant the presence of hormones at a particular crucial point in one's life. Corrective hormone therapy is like trying to re-write the past, which is impossible.

    You're right though, it isn't entirely black and white and I am probably guilty of oversimplifying the issue. However, if there was a significant correlation between genetics and homosexuality then despite individual couples successfully reproducing occasionally, the trait would have been powerless against millions of years worth of willing competing couples through evolution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EverybodyHz)
    I was careful to imply that I meant the presence of hormones at a particular crucial point in one's life. Corrective hormone therapy is like trying to re-write the past, which is impossible.

    You're right though, it isn't entirely black and white and I am probably guilty of oversimplifying the issue. However, if there was a significant correlation between genetics and homosexuality then despite individual couples successfully reproducing occasionally, the trait would have been powerless against millions of years worth of willing competing couples through evolution.
    But the trait doesn't exactly make any member of a species weaker and thus wouldn't need to be cancelled out, though? I don't think I can agree with you here - I think if it was as simple as saying that, then, like I said before, we would have had the answer to this million-dollar question years back. Years.
    • #4
    #4

    So let's assume homosexuality was a "choice", would that make a homosexuality wrong?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    So let's assume homosexuality was a "choice", would that make a homosexuality wrong?
    No because the gender of the person someone else chooses to f*ck is not up to me nor you nor anyone else.

    Furthermore, that is kind of not possible anyway - if we all lived in a world where that were a thing then all sexual orientations would be optional including heterosexuality, except heterosexuality would just more than likely be the popular choice.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Firstly, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that just because two twins are homosexual, it means that homosexuality is genetic. I am one of two male children - I am homosexual. There are no known homosexuals in my extended family apart from one distant cousin of my mother's. Inheritance and genetics are not exactly the same thing.

    There are many theories as to what induces/causes homosexuality to occur:

    1. Choice (wrong - lol);
    2. Subconscious choice;
    3. Genetics;
    4. Mother's antibodies attacking the male foetus during pregnancy as the body sees it as a foreign object that must be destroyed;
    5. Mental disorder.
    3/4/5 can all be kept under the same roof: Genetics.

    There's already scientific proof of the presence of a "gay gene", I guess I meant there is enough proof that being gay is somewhat genetic.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    But the trait doesn't exactly make any member of a species weaker and thus wouldn't need to be cancelled out, though? I don't think I can agree with you here - I think if it was as simple as saying that, then, like I said before, we would have had the answer to this million-dollar question years back. Years.
    Well it's my belief that homosexuality cropping up every so often is a strong trait as it maximizes the available social support for human offspring as resources are spread less thinly. There are many who believe that humans should not be considered as reproducing individuals but as a reproducing colony. In which case a high parent to offspring ratio is desirable, since we are so reliant on early development.

    The implication of the OP though is that it is strongly genetically related, passed from father to son. This is impossible as it would lead to the trait's extinction. I believe that it is a weak trait and all humans have some capability to wield it.

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    So let's assume homosexuality was a "choice", would that make a homosexuality wrong?
    No. If it is a choice for someone then it is a noble one which hurts no-one and provides support for two people.
    • #3
    #3

    There is a genetic link but it works more like a variation, like how we have different eye/hair/skin colours, it's not a weakness so the trait continues to be passed and that's it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    3/4/5 can all be kept under the same roof: Genetics.

    There's already scientific proof of the presence of a "gay gene", I guess I meant there is enough proof that being gay is somewhat genetic.
    I really don't see how you can replace the issue of pregnancy and mental disorder under the same roof as genetics but okay.

    Fair enough.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I really don't see how you can replace the issue of pregnancy and mental disorder under the same roof as genetics but okay.

    Fair enough.

    You can easily deduce why if you know about biology, which I assume you do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EverybodyHz)
    Well it's my belief that homosexuality cropping up every so often is a strong trait as it maximizes the available social support for human offspring as resources are spread less thinly. There are many who believe that humans should not be considered as reproducing individuals but as a reproducing colony. In which case a high parent to offspring ratio is desirable, since we are so reliant on early development.

    The implication of the OP though is that it is strongly genetically related, passed from father to son. This is impossible as it would lead to the trait's extinction. I believe that it is a weak trait and all humans have some capability to wield it.



    No. If it is a choice for someone then it is a noble one which hurts no-one and provides support for two people.
    Hmm. Fair enough, I don't agree but you present a decent enough argument so I'll just say agree to disagree here.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 10, 2015
Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.