|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 14th, 2006 06:33 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
In my opinion most of this isn't a centralized issue, so it's hard to say anything one way or another. Even if insinctual behavior was, "Genetic" it would be the genes effect on the physiology, like the brain. Genes don't directly control what actions you do and how you feel, the thing they do most is dictate your physiology. That study is why I said genetics are statistical in nature ;/ Not that I don't understand the concept of it. |
|
| May 14th, 2006 01:20 AM | ||
| ziggytrix |
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm "The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother." I was probably wrong in saying "it's pretty solid" - actually the field of study is quite in its infancy, but anything accurately called instinctual behavior is due to genetics. I'd bet on it. |
|
| May 13th, 2006 04:32 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"It's pretty solid that genetic factors can cause a predispotistion toward homosexuality" Like what? So how many people are born "Predisposed" towards homosexuality who end up completely straight? What genetic influences are you talking about? Are you talking about intersexed chromosomal disorders or something like that? Usually when people say something is genetic it has to do with statisitcs. "These people had these children and this many of them were like this so I assume this". "Correlation is not causation"? "there's a certain critical period in utero in which an imbalance of chemicals (i.e., too much or too little testosterone) could permenently affect a whole range of personality traits" So you think hormones are responsible for sexual orientation? Children in utero don't have personality traits. Is there a connection between being gay and being autistic? Also, chemical imbalances in utero would be considered enviromental(not that I'm correcting you, just talking). Do you guys really think genes are responsible for behavioralisms, personality traits and social motivations? Where's the Goth gene? |
|
| May 12th, 2006 09:59 PM | ||
| Emu |
I think there's a lot of evidence in favor of the view that while genetics may predispose a child to being gay, there's a certain critical period in utero in which an imbalance of chemicals (i.e., too much or too little testosterone) could permenently affect a whole range of personality traits, from sexual orientation to identity, and may even be responsible for things like autism. Still, the answer to this question may be something we should consider. As a society, would we be willing to accept the possibility of a greater gay population than there currently is? If the population of gay men and women increases, would that create sexual frustration among heterosexuals? (Imagine being single a world in which every other woman you meet is a lesbian.) |
|
| May 12th, 2006 08:47 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
It's pretty solid that genetic factors can cause a predispotistion toward homosexuality, but I'm inclined to believe environment has the greater affect on behavior. Especially in any society where gender identity is as important as it is in American society. Real men will understand what I'm talking about here. |
|
| May 12th, 2006 08:38 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"Is she bisexual because of genetics, or because of her environment. I, personally, think it's more likely to be genetics, since this girl was also raised in a Catholic school setting, and had anti-gay propaganda shoved down her throat all her life." yea seriously enviromental doesn't just mean things that effect in a positive manner. People react differently to situations than just what the situation dictates(duh?). Most things that people associate with genetics are probably more enviromental than anything. |
|
| May 12th, 2006 08:25 PM | ||
| Deadsy |
Quote:
If anything, that might have encouraged her to remain bi-sexual despite them. Just sayin' 
|
|
| May 12th, 2006 08:10 PM | ||
| Girl Drink Drunk |
Quote:
|
|
| May 12th, 2006 08:07 PM | ||
| Immortal Goat |
There he goes, making up words again.  I actually know the perfect example for you, Emu. One of my best friends is bisexual, currently in a relationship with a lesbian. Her mother is a lesbian (the only times she's had sex with a man was when she was innebriated). Now, this girl has had sexual relationships with men before, but now enjoys a rather actively sexual relationship with another girl. I highly doubt she would have been this way had her mother not been a lesbian, but this does bring up another question. Is she bisexual because of genetics, or because of her environment. I, personally, think it's more likely to be genetics, since this girl was also raised in a Catholic school setting, and had anti-gay propaganda shoved down her throat all her life. |
|
| May 12th, 2006 07:31 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Is there actually a theory out there that being gay is genetic? | |
| May 12th, 2006 07:11 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | You are a tool. | |
| May 12th, 2006 06:09 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Traditional, claustrosexual orientations are oppressive. I prefer agorasexualism. | |
| May 12th, 2006 12:18 PM | ||
| Emu | I do know a person who wants gay children. Why? Who knows. She has some kind of weird obsession with homosexuals in spite of not being a homosexual herself. She said she would raise her kids to be gay (which is kind of like trying to raise a boy to be a girl; you can't.) | |
| May 12th, 2006 12:10 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Oh, no doubt, and I certainly have no clue on that. :/ But I guess my point is that it could make things interesting, if it were proven somewhat conclusively that you could essentially make your child gay. |
|
| May 12th, 2006 12:02 PM | ||
| Emu | It's an unfortunately simplified question, though. The genetics of homosexuality is still under a lot of scrutiny and just how homosexual reproduction plays a part in the sexual orientation of the children is still really uncertain. There are a lot of factors here that may nullify that question. For example, if a homosexual woman has a son, will he be gay, or is there a possiblity he could be more heterosexual than his peers? Or will it have no effect at all? What about gay men with daughters? If those questions are answered, it could just mean that even if homosexuality has a strong genetic factor, it would just be something that's as much the luck of the draw as something like, say, autism, which vastly affects more men than women. | |
| May 12th, 2006 11:37 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I think that's a really interesting question. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, or something "you're born with", then you could potentially pass it along. So essentially, if society allows gay men and women to reproduce, then society is not only preserving the rights of homosexuals but giving a stamp of approval to there being more gay people. I guess this comes down to the fundamental divide on the issue. Either homosexuality is perfectly normal and deserving of equal status, or it's unhealthy for society (and sinful, unchristian, yada yada). I think, were the questioned framed in that way Emu, most Americans (even those who are in favor of gay civil rights) would be uncomfortable with the thought. What if your daughter marries a closet case, and they have children? Sure, you're all in favor of homosexuality, but are you okay with your grandkids being gay??? |
|
| May 12th, 2006 11:01 AM | ||
| Emu |
Genetics of Homosexuality vs. Reproductive Rights Let's suppose for a moment that homosexuality has a definitive genetic cause. That said, I mean that if you have two recessive Gay genes, you are vastly more predisposed to being gay than someone who is heterozygous (i.e., a "carrier") or someone who is homozygous for heterosexuality. (I'm making a lot of genetic assumptions, but this is just hypothetical anyway.) Now, I'm not certain of it, but I don't believe there are any restrictions on allowing homosexual women to carry and birth biological children. Going along with our supposition, if homosexual women have biological children, they have passed the gay gene(s) on to those children. The same goes for homosexual men who marry women and have families. (Yes, they do exist, and in greater numbers than you're probably aware.) If it were found that there is a gay gene, how would we as a society deal with that? Is a potential child's sexual orientation important enough to warrant restrictions on the reproductive rights of homosexuals? |
|
