Homosexuality and Genetics

[Sake_Samurai]

We seem to have strayed far away from the “letting gays go to the school dance” thread and our debate is about to get buried under two or three pages, so I’ve opened this one to ensure that this matter receives proper attention. I am, by no means, an expert in the areas of genetics or cultural anthropology, so everything I state is nothing but opinion and may be flat out incorrect, downright misleading and tragically dangerous and misguided.

I am not claiming that all of sexuality is controlled by a single gene. What I am saying is that human behavior has a biological basis and it is currently unknown what the determinant is in homosexuality. Some studies have shown it to be heritable, but this doesn’t mean it’s inherited. The most recent studies I’ve read debunk the research of Hamer, who claimed he’d found proof of inheritance a couple of years ago. So the genetic proof we had was not proof at all.

It is clear that it is variant behavior (present in less than 6-10% of any given population), but it is also clear that it is found in all sexual species. The question is why? Is it a normal sexual variant, a dangerous sexual deviance, or is it genetically beneficial somehow?

Normal Sexual Variance
Most observations by homosexuals indicate that their feelings and emotions are completely natural and what is unnatural is repressing those emotions. Most homosexuals have normal, healthy sexual relationships (well, as normal and health as the rest of us) and are aware of their sexual proclivity very young in life. All across the animal kingdom we see same sex relationships,
regardless of cultural tolerance.

Dangerous Sexual Deviance
Although it exists regardless of cultural tolerance, it is clear that society’s acceptance of homosexuals greatly effects the rate of incidence. As Jeffre Satinover, MD has said:

Where people endorse and encourage homosexuality, the incidence increases; where they reject it, it decreases. These factors have nothing to do with its genetics.

Such fluctuations indicate that the rate of homosexuality in a culture can be controlled, and therefore largely based on cultural factors.

If homosexuality can be controlled and homosexuals do not pass their genes on, it would seem that rejection of homosexual behavior would be beneficial to the gene pool. The same would hold true for the celibate. Any behavior which deviates from finding the best possible mate(s) and reproducing is harmful to the species. Birth control and abstaining until some future time do not fall into this category as both may enable an individual to reproduce only when it is desired and with a desired mate. And of course, neither carries the high risk of disease.

I realize that in a purely genetic model, there is nothing wrong with rape and incest (quite the opposite)- so clearly one can take this model only so far.

The above average proportion of high risk sexual behavior among gay men leads to an above average rate of STDs and HIV infection. Gay men are still one of the leading groups of new infections:

Data from 25 states that have had integrated HIV and AIDS reporting systems for at least four years, combined with a variety of other prevalence and incidence surveys, suggest
that the majority of these new infections are occurring among African Americans, especially young gay men and heterosexual women. - NIAID

&

The San Francisco Department of Public Health, the AIDS Health Project at the
University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), and the Blood Centers of the Pacific at UCSF and CDC conducted a collaborative study on San Francisco. The project, led by William McFarland, MD, PhD identified a recent increase in new HIV infections among gay men seeking anonymous testing in San Francisco. The incidence rate more than doubled from a low of 1% in the second half of 1997 to a high of 2.8% in the first half of 1999. “After years of progress in preventing HIV, transmission may be increasing in the San Francisco Bay Area,” said Dr. McFarland. “These findings are particularly worrisome in light of recent increases in gonorrhea and high-risk sexual behavior from other studies in the city,” he said. “The data presented today on new HIV infections is a source of great concern,” said Dr. Gayle of the CDC. “It shows how quickly the epidemic can re-emerge when people become complacent about the need for HIV prevention.” - NIAID

Male to male sexual transmission is still one of the top spreaders of the deadly virus.

Genetically Beneficial
Male homosexuality has been viewed on occasion as being beneficial to miliary conquest, thereby infusing new geographical areas with fresh genes. The argument being that gay men form strong relationships in military units and will fight side by side with great fury. The Greeks documented this and actively stocked their fighting forces with homosexuals. When the army wins the battle, the theory goes, the straight warriors are free to rape and seduce the sexy foreign babes and nine months later - presto - lots of fresh genetic stock. I don’t know, smells like bullshit to me.

Lesbian behavior is more problematic, but observations of birds have revealed that females will often form relationships to avoid fighting for the same male. A happy bird couple is intruded upon by a new young thing which has her eye on the guy. The resident female won’t give up so easily and challenges the newcomer. The newcomer has a proposition: hot lesbian sex in exchange for mating rights with her husband. The two go at it and the husband gets so revved up watching the whole spectacle that he jumps in and copulates with the outsider. Often all three will raise the young. This occurs in approximately 2% of the general bird population (they say that’s also the rate of lesbianism in humans).

---

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

[CatInHat]

OK, I’ll go first.

Although [homosexuality] exists regardless of cultural tolerance, it is clear that society’s acceptance of homosexuals greatly effects the rate of incidence. As Jeffre Satinover, MD has said:

“Where people endorse and encourage homosexuality, the incidence increases; where they reject it, it decreases. These factors have nothing to do with its genetics.”

Such fluctuations indicate that the rate of homosexuality in a culture can be controlled, and therefore largely based on cultural factors.

No, Sake, the rate of homosexuality doesn’t change. What changes is the percentage of gays who stay in or come out of the closet.

One more time, there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. If I am celibate my entire life (too late now!), what does this sexual behavior say about my sexual orientation? Nothing, that’s what.

---

Never attribute to malice anything that can be attributed to stupidity.
– Unknown

[Sake_Samurai]

You bring up a very good point, but I think you are making the same mistake I did in presuming to reach a conclusion based on nebulous observation.

---

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

[GLWasteful]

Most observations by homosexuals indicate that their feelings and emotions are completely natural and what is unnatural is repressing those emotions. Most homosexuals have normal, healthy sexual relationships (well, as normal and health as the rest of us) and are aware of their sexual proclivity very young in life. All across the animal kingdom we see same sex relationships,
regardless of cultural tolerance.

Which would seem to indicate that it is natural.

Although it exists regardless of cultural tolerance, it is clear that society’s acceptance of homosexuals greatly effects the rate of incidence. As Jeffre Satinover, MD has said, “Where people endorse and encourage homosexuality, the incidence increases; where they reject it, it decreases. These factors have nothing to do with its genetics.” Such fluctuations indicate that the rate of homosexuality in a culture can be controlled, and therefore largely based on cultural factors.

Well, that’s your take on it. It seems to me that it’s more a matter of geography than genetics. One gravitates toward others of like mind. Which is why there are areas in the US known for their homosexual populations. It seems to me that it has less to do with cultural control than simply wanting to be among one’s own.

If homosexuality can be controlled and homosexuals do not pass their genes on, it would seem that rejection of homosexual behavior would be beneficial to the gene pool. The same would hold true for the celibate.

Except that homosexuals do reproduce. They also raise adoptees. There’s more than enough rejection of homosexual behavior without dragging reproductive rights into the mix.

Any behavior which deviates from finding the best possible mate(s) and reproducing is harmful to the species. Birth control and abstaining until some future time do not fall into this category as both may enable an individual to reproduce only when it is desired and with a desired mate.

Except that many folk who use birth control or abstain never reproduce. It seems to me that you are only advocating sexual relations that may, ultimately, contribute a wee bairn to the population. That strikes me as pretty cold.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Ben]

Originally posted by CatInHat:
**
One more time, there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. If I am celibate my entire life (too late now!), what does this sexual behavior say about my sexual orientation? Nothing, that’s what.
**

How do you define the term “sexual orientation”?

-Ben

[Ike_Witt]

Where people endorse and encourage homosexuality, the incidence increases; where they reject it, it decreases. These factors have nothing to do with its genetics.

I have a problem with this. Did this doctor offer up anything to support this? Does alcohol addiction work the same way? How about every other genetic trait?

[Sake_Samurai]

Scientists have drawn parallels beween alcoholism and homosexuality. It is postulated they are both heritable but not necessarily inherited. That which passes the trait does not necessarily cause the same end result.

---

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

[disreputable_1]

Originally posted by Sake Samurai:
Scientists have drawn parallels beween alcoholism and homosexuality. It is postulated they are both heritable but not necessarily inherited. That which passes the trait does not necessarily cause the same end result.

No argument from me on this one. I just wonder why Melissa Etheridge chose an alcoholic to provide the genetic material for her and her partner’s offspring.

[CatInHat]

Originally posted by Ben:
**
How do you define the term “sexual orientation”?

-Ben**

From the American Psychological Association’s website:

Sexual orientation is one of the four components of sexuality and is distinguished by an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectionate attraction to individuals of a particular gender. The three other components of sexuality are biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and social sex role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Three sexual orientations are commonly recognized: homosexual, attraction to individuals of one’s own gender; heterosexual, attraction to individuals of the other gender; or bisexual, attractions to members of either gender. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

It doesn’t say what the other three components of sexuality are, but IIRC they are biological gender, gender identity and societal gender role. Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, but interesting nonetheless.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Sake Samurai:

Although it exists regardless of cultural tolerance, it is clear that society’s acceptance of homosexuals greatly effects the rate of incidence.

I’m getting the sense that you feel if homosexuality is encouraged, the whole world will turn gay…

Scientists have drawn parallels beween alcoholism and homosexuality.

Ah, this old hoary chestnut. Wonderful weapon for the radical right - “love the sinner, hate the sin - it’s not their fault they’re inferior.”

We’re still talking about a minority of the population, and in the overall, I don’t see a reason to either count it towards the whole, or seek reasons to ferret it out of the gene pool. Again, we’re not wild apes, we’re thinking, reasonable human beings who I like to think are more concerned with treating their fellow man well rather than worrying about what genetics can weed out to help Darwin along. (This assumption of mine gets challenged each and every day, I’m afraid… {sigh})

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[Sake_Samurai]

Esprix, you are obviously having a hard time refraining from incessant cliches and gross generalizations.

I am not the slightest bit homophobic nor am I worried that the whole world will turn gay.

The parallels HAVE been drawn, show me your refutation.

Yes, it’s a minority, but 6-10% of five billion people is quite genetically significant. We’re talking 300M-500M homosexuals. I think that’s worthy of counting it towards the whole.

---

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

[mikan]

Sorry if this is not exactly in the spirit of the present debate, but …

I don’t really get why the nature/nurture question is such a big deal. Or at least, I don’t see why it should be.

Why should gays even have to justify their existence by claiming that their homosexuality is biological, genetic, natural, etc.? Doing so just seems to play into the hands of those who accuse them of being somehow less than fully human, on self-evidently “natural” grounds. What’s to be gained by having the argument on those terms? To me it seems a misplaced appeal to scientific authority when the problem is social/moral in nature.

[Satan]

Here’s what scientists have to say:

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? AS WE HAVE SEEN, scientists must sift for their conclusions through ambiguous results from a disparate group of studies that are excruciatingly difficult to interpret. Yet even at this relatively early date, out of the web of complexities it is becoming ever clearer that biological factors play a role in determining human sexual orientation. Richard Green said to me, “I suspect that at least in your lifetime we will find a gene that contributes substantially to sexual orientation.” Michael Bailey says, “I would – and have – bet my career on homosexuality’s being biologically determined.” The pace of neurobiological and genetic research is only increasing.

This is from a story in *The Atlantic Monthly*, which does a nice job of profiling the history of research into this subject.

Another great link that I found, with a load of citations, is Right here, a research paper entitled: Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Towards a Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of
Homosexuality by Edward M. Miller, PhD.

Aide from many footnotes that would be worth looking into, the paper also tells of the many tests and experiments, many of which do point to the conclusion that sexual orientation might very well be an inherited trait.

Also, I would like to point out that the enemies of this research are not just the usual suspects, but the gay community is also divided on finding the “key” to this puzzle.

Their rationale is based on the fear that society, once it sees what causes it, would then treat it like a disease, which would only make the plight of homosexuals even more extreme than it is now.

Ultimately, I hope the truth wins out no matter what, but unfortunately, given our society, I understand their trepidations.

---

Yer pal,
Satan

[SqrlCub]

Sake said, “Male to male sexual transmission is still one of the top spreaders of the deadly virus.”

Yes, but according to the Washington Blade and Center for Disease Control, straight, Black Woman are now the fastest growing AIDS population. Putting this in perspective, if you just think along gender lines there are not that many combinations: Male to Male, Female to Female, and Male to Female. So if STDs resulting from male to male sex is “one of the top spreaders of the deadly virus” then by your own wording you imply that it is not the number one spreader. So this makes it probably number two with male to female being higher for the following reasons: a) there are more straight couples, b) CDC has proven that male to male AIDS cases in the US have gone down and the male to female AIDS spread has risen and is now currently above that of male to male, and c) female to female sex has been proven by the CDC to have the lowest transmittal rate of STDs than any other type of sex. So this would make the order as follows: male to female (the reverse could be true, previous research in the subject was not too specific although it is significantly less common for a woman to give a man HIV. This is not the case with all STDS), male to male (unprotected anal sex in general is an extremely efficient way to spread STDs because the rectum absorbs liquid as fast as an IV; however, since the discovery of HIV and the coming out of the gay population in the US gay men have started acting more responsibly…imagine that…that is why the HIV occurence in gay men has gone down), and last female to female (this population is the lowest typically because body fluids are not shared at least not in a place where they can be absorbed quickly and efficiently) (the stomach typically kills all foriegn matter infections).

“Genetically Beneficial
Male homosexuality has been viewed on occasion as being beneficial to miliary conquest, thereby infusing new geographical areas with fresh genes.”

I haven’t heard this statement from this perspective before. I tend to agree with you that has some grain of truth to it but the out-of-the closet homosexual presence in the military basically ended in the middle ages. Socrates (Plato by default…I believe) was the person who said that the “army who sleeps together stays together”. This is probably where you got that thought from. I can see that fighting alongside people that you share intimately personal aspects of eachothers lives would not only boost morale but make the army that much more fierce. This can be cited with the death of Achiles’s lover (insert apropriate name here). Granted, that this myth may not have actually happened eventhough archeologists have recently found Troy. When one Looks at myth from a historical perspective, one usually finds that the myth propogated a common sentiment and thus made the culture more cohesive. This is pretty much true with every society.

The more common version of homosexuality based on genetic propogation is that one is more likely to protect another with more like bloodlines. It makes sense in humans, but more basically you can compare this to African Wild Dogs. They have an alpha male and alpha female. The male mates with the alpha female and produces a litter of around 30 puppies. No other dog is allowed to mate with the alpha female until the current alpha male is disposed of and taken over by another alpha male. Anyway, the species propogates itself because the pack all works together to feed the litter of puppies eventhough only two of the dogs ever mate. If I remember the modicum of what I learned from Human Sexuality (and the short section of comparitive sexuality between species)then the Wild Dog population has a pretty high incident of homosexuality. This can be seen with the affection they show eachother and many of the dogs complacency in not wanting to be the alpha male or female for that matter. (We won’t go into the argument that animals have emotions here…I believe they do from personal experience…but it is not the point. The point is that the dogs have found a place in their pack for gay dogs to thrive, unlike with modern people)

Still from a genetic perspective, it has been found that people with gender disphoria (the people who have sex changes) are exposed to certain hormones in the seventh month of pregnancy. (from the Advocate…and some other poster here who had a scientific source…IIRC) I assume there is something similar in the gay population. Personally, I don’t want to know. If someone can find a cause effect correlation then there will most likely be the “fix-it” mode. I don’t want to be changed or viewed as someone who needs to be “fixed” nor do most people. I am a happy, healthy individual now and changing my nature would do its worst to break my soul. I am with Mikan on the issue. We can all say that sexuality is genetically based…(I think we would all be right) but the real issue is how society views us. It is a problem because or culture at large makes it a problem not because it is something that was bestowed upon us before birth.

HUGS!
Sqrl

---

Dear Fascist Bully Boys,
Give me more money, you bastards.
May the seed of your loins prove fruitful in the belly of your woman.
neil

[andros]

Squirrel, you said:

Putting this in perspective, if you just think along gender lines there are not that many combinations: Male to Male, Female to Female, and Male to Female. So if STDs resulting from male to male sex is “one of the top spreaders of the deadly virus” then by your own wording you imply that it is not the number one spreader.

Don’t forget, however, that sexual contact is not the only way the virus is spread. IV drug use is still way up there.

-andros-

[Otto]

Male to male sexual transmission is still one of the top spreaders of the deadly virus.

You do realize that there’s a big wide world outside the United States, right? In Africa you have entire villages being almost literally wiped off the map because of the rate of AIDS deaths, viral transmissions being tracable to male-female sex.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Sake Samurai:

Esprix, you are obviously having a hard time refraining from incessant cliches and gross generalizations.

Um, not sure specifically what you might be referring to, except that I pointed out that using the “it’s like alcoholism” approach may be scientifically a possibility, its socially irresponsible, and often used as an anti-gay argument.

I am not the slightest bit homophobic…

I’m sorry, did I say you were? If I did I apologize.

… nor am I worried that the whole world will turn gay.

Well, you keep bringing up the “if we encourage homosexuality it will grow” argument in conjunction with your “genetic suicide” theory, so I wanted to point out the impression this gives. If it’s not the case, then what is your thinking along these lines?

Yes, it’s a minority, but 6-10% of five billion people is quite genetically significant. We’re talking 300M-500M homosexuals. I think that’s worthy of counting it towards the whole.

Count it, yes, but hardly the end of the species. There will always be healthy, strapping young heterosexuals out there makin’ like rabbits. And even if, somehow, it affected the population, the technology we’ve developed would make it moot anyway - gay men can spooge into cups and lesbians can use it to make babies.

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by mikan:

Why should gays even have to justify their existence by claiming that their homosexuality is biological, genetic, natural, etc.? Doing so just seems to play into the hands of those who accuse them of being somehow less than fully human, on self-evidently “natural” grounds. What’s to be gained by having the argument on those terms? To me it seems a misplaced appeal to scientific authority when the problem is social/moral in nature.

Hear hear! It’s great if we can understand the universe in which we live, but if we’re not ready as a society to handle that information, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Satan:

I would like to point out that the enemies of this research are not just the usual suspects, but the gay community is also divided on finding the “key” to this puzzle. Their rationale is based on the fear that society, once it sees what causes it, would then treat it like a disease, which would only make the plight of homosexuals even more extreme than it is now.

Absolutely - some feel it will justify being gay as natural and not a choice, while others see the problem of genetic manipulation in the future.

Ultimately, I hope the truth wins out no matter what, but unfortunately, given our society, I understand their trepidations.

Once again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by SqrlCub:

… since the discovery of HIV and the coming out of the gay population in the US gay men have started acting more responsibly…imagine that…that is why the HIV occurence in gay men has gone down…

Well, let’s not get too smug here - some areas have seen very slight increases in HIV transmission due to complacency - the longer the disease goes on, the less alert people are about it. Besides today’s 20-somethings born in the 70’s have significantly less friends who have been affected by AIDS because (a) those who contracted the disease in the late 70’s/early 80’s are now dead, (b) prevention measures taken in the 80’s paid off, and © reports that the number of cases has gone down is providing a sense of false assurance. Plus, when you’re 20, you’re immortal, right? There has been a dramatic rise in the younger gay community in “barebacking,” or anal sex without a condom (sometimes with the intent to get the HIV virus, which is something nice and disturbing for another GD, methinks) because of all these reasons.

Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance…

Esprix

---

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.