Is there a such thing a the "gay gene"?

[matt]

Rook said:

"I do agree with you on your points. Genes which increase same-sex cooperation may be an advantage. But I feel same sex cooperation between males exists without the “gay gene” in a non-intimate form."

I gave a horribly simple example, which failed to make my point.

I don’t believe in a “gay gene.” I can accept that there may be a number of genes which affect behaviour, and that there may be a correlation between some of these genes and homosexuality. But that’s not the same thing as a “gay gene.”

If we go back to my “sprinter” example - a good sprinter will have a number of physical characteristics. For instance:

Overall size
A high proportion of anaerobic, “fast twitch muscles”
Low body fat percentage
High tibia-to-femur length ratio
Favourable tendon and muscle anchorages

All these characteristics are governed by our genes to some extent, and most of them are the result of the interactions of several (perhaps hundreds) of genes.

If you do a genetic study of sprinters, you will probably find correlations. Let’s suppose you find that 80% of world-class sprinters share a particular gene. Does that make it a “sprinter gene”? Not at all. Having that gene may make you more likely to be a good sprinter, but THAT IS NOT THE “PURPOSE” OF THE GENE. The gene may simply code for a protein which improves anaerobic metabolism, or something equally low level and exotic.

Getting back to homosexuality -
There may be genes which affect elements of behaviour and brain function.
There MAY be a particular combination of these genes which makes homosexuality likely.
You may be able find a correlation between the presence of certain genes and homosexuality.

BUT it would be a huge mistake to regard such a gene as a “toggle switch” for homosexuality, and therefore a disadvantageous mutation. The genes may in fact be extremely advantageous to an individual and/or population, even though particular combinations of them sometimes produce individuals who are less likely to breed. A persistent 5-10% incidence of homosexuals among humans would seem to support this.

As to your OP question of whether homosexuals are born that way, I don’t know. Maybe some of them. Human behaviour is so complex and flexible that I’m reluctant to accept this absolutely. But as I said before, I don’t think it matters.
Zen101

I haven’t read “The Blind Watchmaker”, but I have read “River out of Eden” and I saw Dawkins’ Christmas lectures at the Royal Insitution on TV several years ago. The clarity of his ideas and the economy with which he communicates them are fantastic. Makes me jealous as hell, to be honest!

[Esprix]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Rook

If the anus, which is penetrated during many gay sexual acts, is not designed for sexual intercourse and the vagina is, doesn’t that mean nature suggests heterosexual sex?

No, it means you have limited your definition of human sexuality - a vast, complex animal if ever there was one - to “Tab A and Slot B.” Furthermore, anal penetration is not the end-all/be-all of homosexual sex - I know plenty of people who think it’s icky. Similarly, vaginal penetration isn’t the end-all/be-all of heterosexual sex, and if you think it is, I feel very sorry for whoever you’re dating.

But the fact is the anus of every and all creature isn’t designed for sexual penetration as is the vagina. Thus I conclude the human anatomy suggests heterosexual activities.

“Suggests” does not mean “limited to.” Again, you’re ignoring the entire spectrum of what human sexuality is.

I believe what’s happening to you, my friend, is a defensive reaction to being told the human body isn’t designed for homosexual penetration. Especially since it feels so natural to you and you boyfriend/husband.

I believe what’s happening to you, “my friend,” is a willful ignorance to a subject most eloquently expounded on these pages by people more learned than you. Furthermore, “friend,” I don’t engage in anal intercourse, if you must know. And, finally, “friend,” I’m currently single. You’re quite good at jumping to conclusions and making some pretty wild assumptions, both in this discussion and about me - I suggest you reign it in.

If that is the truth, why are there so many homosexuals “coming out of the closet” if they were gay to begin with? The quote I sent with that link below supports my view of choosing you sexuality. The link I sent above proves that many others things might have attributed to homosexuality, such as your enviornment, past sexual experiences and parental guidance.

Oh, yes - society up until now has been soooo very supportive of homosexuality that people have been completely free to express themselves right from the start of their sexual awareness.

OK, now let’s return to Earth, shall we?

Obviously you know naught about the coming out process, or you wouldn’t make such ignorant comments. Allow me to enlighten you.

The vast majority of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals will tell you that they’ve known they were “different” in some way from as far back as prepubescence. During adolescence they realized they were attracted to members of the same (or both) sexes. High school is usually hell, even if they appear perfectly happy on the outside. Some people have the fortitude of character to admit to themselves and/or admit publicly that yes, they are not heterosexual - this can happen in high school, college, after college, after they get married and try to “be straight,” etc. My friend Al didn’t come out until he was 65 - does that mean he wasn’t gay unti he was 65? Nope - he was gay all along. But his upbringing was that he was supposed to be heterosexual, and that was so strong on him that he tried desperately to be so, even though he always knew he wasn’t. He married and had three children - but that didn’t make him straight. His orientation was always homosexual; his behavior, however, was outwardly heterosexual. We have control over the latter, but not over the former.

Exactly my point! The anus doesn’t have a natural lubricant so unnatural lubricants are necessary to simulate vaginal intercourse or “grease the wheels”. Which again proves the fact that anal sex wasn’t in the original design for humans.

Um, hello? Who do you think lubrication was designed for? Women. It’s called “vaginal lubricant” for a reason. Go pick up a tube of KY and check it out for yourself.

“Some individuals have homosexual experiences but marry people of the other sex and have children”

Yup. Too bad sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two entirely different subjects - otherwise, you might have had a point. Furthermore, there’s this wonderful part of sexuality that’s called “bisexuality.” Look into it sometime.

“Some homosexual behavior results from unavailability of the other sex. For example, people in prison who spend long periods separated from the other sex may turn to same-sex partners. Such homosexual interest may not continue once other partners become available.”

This is called “transient homosexuality,” and comparing prison inmates to a lifelong loving commitment between two men is disingenious and fraudulent.

This proves there is a choice of attraction to a point

Really? Tell me, do you choose to be attracted to blondes? Or brunettes? Or redheads? Or tall women? Or blue eyes? Or Asians? Or women with large breasts? Or small breasts? You can’t help what you’re attracted to, but you can, for better or for worse, contrary or in sync, control your behavior.

Having a penis greatly attributed to you heterosexuality.

How asinine is this statement? Having a penis greatly attributes to your being a man - sexuality is another matter entirely.

And once again, please - sexual orientation is determined by a combination of nature and environment (the key word being combination).

Sorry to inform you, I’m not gay and never had an attraction for men. If you looking for a “partner” I can spread the word here at work.

What an ignoramous. If homosexuals choose to be gay, then, by your own logic, heterosexuals choose to be straight. So when, exactly, did you choose to be straight?

Esprix

[vanilla]

It does start at a young age. A friend of mine said he saw pictures of male bodies around age 5 and just became interested in them.
I don’t believe, however, that pornography can “turn you gay” as someone says.
If you show a porn magazine of nekkid men to most boys, they wouldn’t be interested. The interest had to be there first.
I think you are confusing, rook, naturalness with goodness. Poisonous plants are “natural”, however, you may want to avoid them.

[Polycarp]

At the risk of bringing religion into an already touchy thread, let me quote Jesus:

Neither this man nor his parents sinned, that he was born blind. But woe to those who have eyes, and yet will not see.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by matt

Good point! Although I’ve never actually heard a homophobe voice this idea.

Oh, I have. It’s scary.

I have however heard the much publicised “gay gene” invoked in several TV and radio debates to make the “we were born gay” point. I’ve gained the impression that in the U.K at least, the gay community wants to believe in genetic homosexuality.

Some do, some don’t. Frankly, as a wise person once said to me, looking for genetic validation is a great way for us to say, “Waah, it’s not our fault, pity us.” I’m satisfied that we’ll never understand human sexuality. Isn’t that better anyway?

Genes which increase the tendency for individuals to be homosexual seem on the face of it to be at a disadvantage.

And yet homosexuality still appears consistently among all higher primates, and has for as long as there have been higher primates - fancy that.

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Gaudere

If I am a mutant for liking unnatural things like message boards, maybe I can call dibs on my fellow mutant Wolverine. Esprix, you like Cyclops?! ::shudder:: I’m sorry, that’s just really going against nature.

Um, ew? Wolverine is a little vicious hairy beast with a bad attitude. Cyclops, on the other hand (or at least the way he’s portrayed, and notably the actor who played him in the movie) - yum! I’ll take a jocky type over animal man any day.

Of course, now, if he were Asian…

Oh, and by the way - isn’t it unnatural for man to fly? After all, they need to use some kind of external implement (a plane, much like the homosexual needs lubrication for anal intercourse) - just doesn’t seem “natural” to me.

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Rook

Quote from Polycarp:
“In a non-confrontational atmosphere, most of them will admit that whether to practice any given sexual activity is in fact a choice. But the orientation, what and whom is desired and why, is not.”

Polycarp seems to think there’s a choice.

Uh, no. Once again, please - sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two different subjects. Repeat as many times as necessary. I am homosexual, but if pressed could function sexually with a woman - I would still be homosexual.

However, the practice of homosexuality in jail, does prove it is possible to change what you are attracted to under the right circumstances.

No, it proves that, when pressed, you take what you can get. A person’s innate sexual orientation remains unchanged even if their behavior doesn’t.

I’m sure you’ve met gay men who have been married, and who were very much attracted to there wives but later on in life, found out they were gay. If they were gay the entire time, I don’t know. But the fact that at one time they WERE attracted to the opposite gender shows that they were not born with one single attraction toward men

Wrong-o, boy-o. It’s called repression. They were gay the whole time, and I’d bet you dollars to donuts they’ll tell you that.

Also, you failed to reply about human anatomy. Why would humans be designed for heterosexual sex if homosexuality is as natural as male and female sex? Why wouldn’t the anus produce natural lubrication? Why is it designed for defecation?

Here’s a better question - why are you so hung up on anal intercourse? Answer that and we may have an answer to even bigger questions… :rolleyes:

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by beakerxf

I wouldn’t know. I’m a lesbian who has never had anal sex. Have you even pondered lesbians in your theories? You seem to argue against male/male couplings only.

{sigh} My poor beaker, left out in the cold again. Well, if no one else does, I’ll always love you.

Besides, tounges seem to fit quite naturally into… NEVER MIND!!! :eek:

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Rook

But the act of sex itself generally needs some “help” to simulate heterosexual intercourse.

Thankfully, few people seem to agree with you on this.

You sincerely have my pity, and pity for those whom you date.

Esprix

[Typo_Negative]

I keep asking this and no one answers me. (I guess it’s a stupid question.) But how can something that occurs in nature, in several different species, be unnatural?

Just what does unnatural mean?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Rook

That was an extreme example at the least but, some inmates leave prison and become active in the gay community. And how do you know that men haven’t found true love in jail? Just because you’ve heard horror stories of rape and sodomy doesn’t mean every situation was like that. There have been instances of sailor choosing a gay lifestyle after long venture at sea. What about experimentation? Basically to see what it’s like without making a positive choice. I’m sure some have chosen homosexuality after an enjoyable gay experience

All of the above is pure, unadulterated, ignorant bull.

You said it, you back it up - I defy you to find one example of anything you said above.

“True love in jail.” You crack me up!

Esprix

[DavisMcDavis]

Shouldn’t this discussion have ended back on the second page of this thread?
**Question:

*Originally posted by Rook *
Is tbere such a thing as a “gay gene”?
**

Answer:

*Originally posted by zen101 *
** For years some of the brightest minds in the world of psychology have worked with biologists to find out if there is a gay gene to explain it. They have done so (sequence Xq28), and that work has justified work done for well over a hundred years by sociologists to explain why something like homosexuality does exist and why it will continue to exist. **

Isn’t that the end of it? I realize Rook obviously didn’t read that whole post except to excerpt a portion which he then mistakenly thought supported his position, but hey…

No one answered Hastur’s poll back in there, either (althought I believe the proper place for polling is IMHO, IMHO, but anyway, I’ve never had bleeding from any of the numerous hours of anal sex that I’ve been lucky enough to participate in.

Oh, and I thought it was interesting that Rook uses his penis for reproduction - I pee with mine! To each his own, I guess.

My dog used to hump my leg - what reproductive instinct is that? I don’t have a “vigina” in my leg.

[aside] Hastur - I’m glad you’re flattered. Somehow what you said seems to apply to everything I end up posting about, so I made it my sig.
[/aside]

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Rook

I believe that humans were designed for a specific purpose but also given the freedom to veer off in different directions.

Great. So why are you still making this stupid argument?

And you still haven’t explained, if your theory on what is and isn’t natural is true, why homosexuality consistently appears in all higher primates. Wouldn’t that therefore fit your definition of “natural?”

Esprix

[Esprix]

{I know, I know, I should have put all this into one post, but hey, I’m a weirdo, give me a break!}

Originally posted by Rook

Human anatomy suggests heteorsexual sex.

Yes, it does. It suggests. It doesn’t define. Your absolutes are fraudulent.

Esprix

[Polycarp]

Polycarp: In a non-confrontational atmosphere, most of them will admit that whether to practice any given sexual activity is in fact a choice. But the orientation, what and whom is desired and why, is not.

Rook: Polycarp seems to think there’s a choice.

** Esprix**: Uh, no. Once again, please - sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two different subjects. Repeat as many times as necessary. I am homosexual, but if pressed could function sexually with a woman - I would still be homosexual.

And Gaudere said precisely the same thng, in different words. Formal request: if “Polycarp said it’s a choice” comes up again as an assertion (not a quote for the purposes of intelligent discussion) anywhere in this thread, would a moderator be so kind as to delete the paragraph above, substituting for it a short note that I requested a misinterpreted remark be deleted, since some people cannot apparently read with any degree of clarity.

Hmmm…“unnatural.” Offhand, I can think of only three definitions for natural: “All that which God created.” (obviously good only for monotheists with a creator God. “All that exists; the Universe.” By either of these definitions anything that occurs is, by definition, “natural.” The third option is, “that which exists in ‘the state of nature’ as opposed to by human creation, manufacture, or action.” Which makes nothing that humans do “natural.”

Or perhaps we take Ug and Oog, two cavemen out on a multi-day hunt. They stop for the night and, neither having indulged himself with his wife, are horny. They see each other’s hairy bodies – which are sexually stimulating to them – both adhering to the bear totem, of course – and pursue gaining mutual pleasure. Are they “unnatural?”

Hmmm, what about oral sex? Suckling is a natural instinct, and having one’s penis orally stimulated is pleasurable. Hence both parties are doing something that might be considered “natural.” The use of the tongue to lick food from a flat surface is quite natural – small children do it all the time without guidance – so is cunnilingus natural?

For that matter, if the penis is “made for the vagina” then why is not sex without any social consent, as by marriage, “natural”? This line of argument makes for some awfully antisocial conclusions. If sex is for reproduction, then why limit teenagers from having it? Shouldn’t they be having babies as quickly as possible?

I’m afraid we’re going to have to bury “unnatural.” It seems to be meaningless.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Rook

So homosexuals are people who know they’re gay from early childhood?

Yes.

What about those who marry, have children, then come out the closet later on in life? Are they considered Bi because they were once attracted to a women?

{SIGH}

Human sexuality is not black and white, hetero and homo - it runs on a bell curve, which means the two minorities are people who are exclusively one or the other. In actuality, the vast majority of human beings are, to greater or lesser degrees, attracted to members of both sexes. So, yes, someone who marries a woman might be attracted to her, but still might be predominantly homosexual.

Furthermore, as has been stated and re-stated and re-re-stated, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two different things. If I were raised with a strong enough influence that getting married and having kids was the “right” way to live my life, it’s entirely possible for me, as a homosexual, to have married and sired children. Still wouldn’t have made me heterosexual. Period.

So are Bi-Sexuals a whole different story?

Different story regarding what? They’re simply another aspect of human sexuality. Are you scared because they don’t fit your theories? Just relax, have a nice cup of cocoa, and wait for your mother to get home - no doubt she’ll explain it all for you.

Esprix

[vanilla]

So, Polycarp, you’re saying it is a choice?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Rook

the fact is without, lubrication anal sex can cause damage.

The fact is also that with many women vaginal intercourse without lubrication can cause damage (lots of women do not secrete enough fluids). Are such women “unnatural” in your learned opinion?

Just look at it in a logical sense.

Might I suggest you read up on some people who are, dare I say, more educated than you on these subjects, and get their logical deductions? Perhaps, knowing a little more about human sexuality, biology, etc., they may have a better indication of what is and is not “logical.”

There’s an instinct that occurs in with every animal in nature to reproduce.

Which, again, completely disregards the fact that homosexuality occurs among all higher primates.

Esprix

[DavisMcDavis]

*Originally posted by Rook *
**
A quote from DavisMcDavis
“So I ask you - at what point did you decide to repress your homosexual desires and make the conscious choice to be attracted to just the opposite sex?”

Sorry to inform you, I’m not gay and never had an attraction for men. If you looking for a “partner” I can spread the word here at work.**

Please, don’t do that. It’s not that I have anything against fast food workers, it’s just that I’m a vegetarian, and I don’t like men who smell of cooked meat.

My point, which you completely missed, was that if homosexuality is, as you believe, a choice, it follows that heterosexuality is also a choice. If everyone felt heterosexual desires AND homosexual desires, then they would have a choice between them, right? Otherwise, there is no choice. WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT? Please think about your answer carefully before responding. I’m curious.

[Esprix]

Too good to pass up:

Originally posted by milroyj

This has to be a record for the most ignorant statement ever made on the SDMB. Oral genital stimulation of children, by their parents, no less? Wouldn’t that be criminal sexual child abuse? And the use of the word “usually” implies “more often than not” which means most parents are sex offenders and most of us were ourselves abused in our childhood. NOT! Or is that where the OP is coming from?

Agreed - I’m fairly sure most mothers don’t jerk off their sons.

However, our learned colleague writes:

Originally posted by Rook

uhhh…i’m pretty sure they meant spoken words

“Oh, yeah - talk dirty to me, daddy!” :rolleyes:

Esprix