I’m heterosexual and so are all my friends but I’ve worked closely with many gay people. I could never bring myself to ask them if the reason they are gay is because “they were born that way”? I’m personally tired of watching talk shows with homosexuals who say, “I wasn’t given a choice when I was born. This is just the way I am.”
So my question is, have there been any anatomical similarities within the gay community that straight people don’t have or is there no such thing as the “gay gene”?
The link above is a start. You might also want to check out the links in my sig line.
So sayeth the Gay Guy.
Esprix
While I cannot say there is a gay gene, I can say that many of us did not choose being gay anymore than a straight person chooses to be heterosexual. While the origins of what shapes sexuality is no where near definitive, it is fairly obvious that it is not something actively chosen. The only thing I have seen that is chosen is whether to stay in the closet or not. Mind you, this is my personal experience backed by talking with MANY other gay men and lesbians.
oh, I thought this was another thread about pants and gay people.
I’m not a religious freak and think that people should be able to do what they want, but it’s obvious that nature didn’t intend same sex relationships. So by saying that gay people were born gay is like saying nature screwed up- If that’s true, it’s hard to believe it screwed up everytime someone accepts they are gay. That’s a lot of screw ups!
**
Obvious? To whom? What evidence makes this obvious to you? Other animals have homosexual encounters, for just one example why I would say that this is FAR from “obvious.”
A lot more people get cancer than are homosexual. That’s a lot of screw ups, and a large percentage of these screw-ups have no known causes!
Sorry that the answer - that we don’t have any definite answers yet but tht many indicators point to dsome kind of genetic link involved in secual orientation - didn’t make you comfortable, but to quote the master, we don’t vote on the facts here.
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, two days, 18 hours, 31 minutes and 22 seconds.
7990 cigarettes not smoked, saving $998.86.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 50 minutes.
I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*
Actually I saw on National Geographic explorer that gay dolphins make a formidable force. They team up, feed, have sex with each other. Occasionally they’ll kidnap a female and force her to bear children, abandoning her after she reproduces.
I think some bachelor lions and walruses, and monkees exhibit similar behavior. A bonded male pair makes a powerful force with real advantages in nature.
And where do you come up with the conclusion that nature didn’t intend same sex relationships? Did you and nature have a coffee klatsch and nature shared this with you?
We’re screw-ups? How dare you presume to judge a section of humanity as mistakes. You nor I have definitive answers and for you to say that shows your prejudice. People claimed that mixed race relationships were not intended by God or nature. If this were the case, there would be no mixed race children because black and white people wouldn’t be able to procrate because they’d be genetically incompatible.
I find it appalling that in every century, people and their poorly veiled fears and bigotry, use what they consider a ruler to judge everyone who is different and then claim they come up short. Ooooh… I wish this was in the Pit.
Satan,
What’s obvious is man and female genitalia.
What’s a screw up is that with male and female genitalia there are hormones that are produced for reproduction. Sex is an instinct in us for reproduction. Same sex relationship can’t reproduce so it’s actually going against nature.
By using cancer as an example, you categorizing a disease with homosexuality. Not a good comparison if your trying to prove it’s “natural”
Homosexuality occurs across all species. Just becuase many of us do not reproduce does not mean we are screw-ups. Have you ever had the thought that gay people help keep the population down and that it may be an adaptation for that very reason? There are more than enough people on this planet having children. To presume that because all gay people aren’t having children that they are mistakes is fallacious and nasty. Looks like it could very well be natural to me. But I’m not going to presume to speak for nature as you do.
**Rook wrote:
What’s a screw up is that with male and female genitalia there are hormones that are produced for reproduction. Sex is an instinct in us for reproduction. Same sex relationship can’t reproduce so it’s actually going against nature.**
Okay, if that’s the way you want to define it…
How many children do you have Rook? By your defintion of sex, every incident of intercourse must conceive a child or you’re not “doing it right” and “going against nature.”
Do you masturbate, Rook? You better not be, because according to your definition, you’re not “doing it right” since you’re using sex for pleasure instead of procreation.
{SIGH}
Thanks to Satan for trying.
From Merriam-Webster:
OK, so let’s look at a few of these definitions:
[ul][li]Right & wrong - totally a societal distinction; only you and I can decide if it’s “right” or “wrong,” on a personal scale, and we, as a society, can do the same.[/li]
[li]Determined by nature - well, there is ample evidence of it occurring among all higher primates; anecdotal evidence of gay men and women themselves (nobody chooses to be gay); and significant research suggests a genetic component to homosexuality. All these seem to indicate some determination by nature.[/li]
[li]Inborn - see “determined by nature.”[/li]
[li]Higher qualities of human nature - Well, really, who am I to say? ;)[/li]
[li]Growing without human care/not cultivated - Since society teaches us from a very early age that sexual “deviancy” is wrong, it is logical to conclude that one would not willingly, at least during the early stages of discovery, cultivate such societally-disapproved behavior; yet, ones sexual orientation continues unabated, regardless of one’s efforts to the contrary, or, in fact, society’s efforts to the contrary. It grows uncultivated without human care.[/li]
[li]Neither flats nor sharps - except, of course, one’s wit.[/li]
[li]Off-white or beige - honey, those colors do not suit you; you’re more of a spring, I think…[/ul][/li]
Homosexuality is not natural for you, but Nature herself would disagree that it’s not natural for human beings as a species.
Esprix
Well, homosexuality and same sex attraction are natural in that they are found in nature. While homosexuality probably doesn’t maximize reproductive success, (even though Scylla’s post is interesting in that regard), to say that nature “screwed up”, is at best, use of the pathetic fallacy…giving unhuman things human motives or emotions.
That being said, there seems to be some evidence that there’s some genetic link with sexuality (I don’t have the studies on me right now, but could find them if you wanted). Twin studies seem to suggest that, if one twin has a particular sexual orientation, the other one is more likely to have the same one. There are other studies that seem to suggest that, in males, at least, there is a hormonal factor. Fetuses who were exposed to high levels of testosterone seem more likely to be homosexual. The obvious answer is, of course, we don’t know why people are attracted to the people they’re attracted to, and, while it’s interesting, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make any difference.
Oh dear - are you asking if ‘gayness’ is hereditary?
With DNA, it might seem in retrospect that something was inevitable - that cancer might develop due to abnormal cell growth, for instance - and yet, to the organism itself, the process that begins from a single cell division is merely an UNFOLDING of events, each with infinite possiblities…
Is asking if a person’s emotional/sexual preferences stem from their cell makeup like asking whether hair colour is indicative of a person’s I.Q?..
Hastur:
I wasn’t saying your screw-ups. I was saying that nature screwed up if someone was born with “the gay gene”. A world of homosexuals would die off fairly quickly. Does that sound like the way life was intended, or even like a section that hopes to exist more then one generation? One of the defining features of a living organism is the ability to reproduce. Believing homosexuality is natural and something you’re born with would shoot that to hell.
And once again an example that has no credible reason to be used in this debate was brought up. Interracial couples can still reproduce. The anatomical difference between race is so minute compared to the anatomical differences between sexes. Try another example if you want to prove your point more effectively
Just for a quick note, personifying “Nature” and discussing what it “intends” is probably far more objectionable than identifying the ukases of an omnipotent but at least personality-possessing God. To quote Stephen Jay Gould, “Nature doesn’t intend anything.”
And if sex were solely for reproduction, you as a male would instinctually be so conditioned as to have no (sexual/romantic) instinct in women until/unless you encountered one who was fertile at the moment. Her pheronomes would then condition you to immediately mate with her, remain with her during that period when she was bearing your child and for sufficient time thereafter, human babies being altricial, that she could devote herself to child care. All this would be instinctual with no conscious decision attached, in the same sense that you defecate when your colon tells you it’s time. No marriage would exist other than this short period of union for the sake of the offspring; women past menopause would never be of interest. (Naturally, similar instinctual behavior would occur in the women.)
Human sex is for reproduction, granted, but it is also a powerful pair-bonding mechanism with amazing overtones of something we refer to as love and attribute metaphysical properties. And there is very little doubt in my mind that many people with same-sex attraction do in fact pair-bond and feel love for each other.
If you mean God, then say so. But “what nature intended” is a very bogus question.
To deal with the original posted question, I suspect strongly that the right answer involves a genetic component potentiated by environmental factors.
The one gay person that I have known since his childhood has a nephew with strong resemblances both in physique and in personality to him. The nephew is now four. Ask me in nine years and I’ll let you know.
You may not see it that way, but if you say someone is genetically screwed-up, you are personally criticizing them.
This is not a world of homosexuals. We only make up 5 to 15 % of the population. Thus, I think that your point does not hold water. This does keep down the population, and it does exist across the line in all species. It does not shoot nature all to hell, but it does shoot holes through your arguments.
It is a completely credible example as it shows how people have claimed things were not natural in the past. Just as interracial couples can reproduce and are natural, so are gay men and lesbians. What you fail to recognize is that you are falling into the same line of thought that said that interracial couples were not natural. Ignoring the truth does not make it a lie.
Back to the OP, I do recall a study being done in which it was found that gay men tended to have larger penises. And no, I’m not making that up.
Also, there was a recent study done measuring the middle and index fingers of lesbians and straight women, and it was found that there were similarities amongst the lesbians (something having to do with a greater differential between the measurements of the two fingers for one group over another - I don’t recall the exact results).
The conclusions were rather complicated, and beyond my complete understanding, but it was basically theorized that lesbians had been exposed to a higher amount of some hormone prenatally, which caused the difference in the growth of their digits.
It was also within that same article that it mentioned (and this is what I found interesting) the more children a woman had, the more different the pre-natal hormones were (some hormone was higher or lower or something) and so each successive child was more likely to be gay. Like, the 7th child in a family is more likely to be gay than the first. Which is sort of interesting and leads to support for the reasoning of why gayness may be a evoluntionary adaptation to guard against overpopulation.
I don’t have the sources for all of this, but I’m not gonna try looking anything up unless that Rook kid comes back and responds to the first set of posts. Whenever you have one of those “it’s going against nature” people who manages to disregard the existance of (non-human) gay animals simply because they haven’t seen on the Discovery channel, it’s generally a lost cause, dontcha think?
It must be sad living in a world where one’s main goal is to reproduce…
Freyr:
THE ABILITY TO REPRODUCE are the key words here. Not the sexual act itself. We have instincts to have sex just like every mammal in nature. The reason for those instincts? TO REPRODUCE. So how can you explain the instinct for homosexual sex?