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

The BBQ Pit
101

I dunno, Esprix, the relationship would probably be cut short the first time you gazed lovingly into his eyes. :D)

Rook:

Not to be rude here, but we’ve given you anecdotal evidence about the causes of sexuality, we’ve given you links to scientific evidence about the causes of sexuality, we’ve postulated on various survival advantages homosexuality might give. I guess my question to you is, what more exactly would you like? So far, your argument seems to be, “You can’t have kids having anything other than penile-vaginal intercourse, therefore homosexuality is unnatural”. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, though. I’m working on the assumption, though, that you’re sincere, and really want to talk about this, and, if so, please let us know. If you’re trolling, I do need to give you credit…you really knocked this beehive with a stick.

102

And maybe it’s been said before. (probably)

I just cannot look at homosexuality, or heterosexuality, as a choice. I ask myself “Could I choose to have an attraction to another man?” I always come up with the answer “No”. I cannot, also, choose to be attracted any particular woman. Or choose to be unattracted to any particular woman, and believe me, there have women I wished I wasn’t attracted to. Would have saved me a lot of pain.

So, either sexual attraction is not a choice, or there’s just something wrong with me, personally.

Or both.

103

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into such a long discussion, but:

My impression from my own experiences and memories is that my (hetero)sexuality was influenced, perhaps substantially, by my environment.

When I was 7 or 8 years old, I watched The Little Rascals on TV regularly. This show often portrayed Alfalfa as having a huge crush on Darla, and even the neighborhood bully character, Butch, would occasionally be Alfalfa’s rival for Darla’s affections. I can still vividly recall the episode where Alfalfa first sees Darla, and it shows his heart visibly thumping out of his chest.

After seeing this show often enough, I had a dream in which Darla and I were “together.” We weren’t doing anything beyond holding hands in the dream, but we were boyfriend-and-girlfriend. Darla, you see, was someone that boys were supposed to be interested in, according to The Little Rascals. When I awoke the next morning, I could honestly say that this was when I started “liking” girls.

When my dad first told me what sex was (“putting a man’s penis in a woman’s vagina,” said with all the care and tenderness of dropping a load of bricks), my first reaction was “ewww!”. I would have been equally disgusted had he talked about putting my penis in part of the male anatomy instead of the female anatomy.

I didn’t start noticing girls’ breasts until an episode of SCTV (a low-budget comedy TV show from Canada, from whence came John Candy) made it clear that us males were supposed to look at breasts.

When I first got to third base (touched a vagina), my first reaction was, “Eeeek!”, because nobody told me it was supposed to be damp. I had to convince myself that putting Mr. Happy in there would be pleasurable and not disgusting. (Fortunately, it didn’t take much convincing.)

I now am almost completely heterosexual. I feel a swelling of desire in my gut when I look at a woman, but never when I look at a man. Would I have gravitated toward women if not for these TV shows which portrayed heterosexual desire as “normal”? I honestly don’t know, and I’m too old and set in my ways now to do any controlled experiments on the subject.

104

tracer, I’m surprised you got cause-and-effect from all that. I think it’s safe to say you were heterosexual before you saw The Little Rascals, not after. (According to the APA, sexual orientation is determined long before puberty.) I mean, it’s not like I saw a show called The Puny Rapscallions where Buckwheat and Alfalfa were looking doe-eyed at each other, and I woke up the next day liking boys. Darla was simply the first girl you saw after you were visited by The Puberty Fairy. You even said it didn’t take much for you to convince Mr. Happy to visit Beaverland, after all. Was there ever a time when you liked boys over girls, and you “switched teams” (to coin an oft-used phrase on the SDMB)? I doubt it. And if there was (or is) a point where you found one or two boys attractive, (a) it happens to most men, (b) it’s perfectly natural, and © so you’re not an absolute zero on the Kinsey scale - big deal.

Esprix

105

I suspect he has a point, though. We were all subjected to a variety of social-appropriateness cues when young. For most people, a “socialization” process took place that fitted them to function as independent adult members of society. (I suspect everybody knows somebody where the process didn’t quite “take” right.;))

Probably social expectations vis-a-vis sexuality fitted into that process. I can recall being warned about “strange men who would try to do disgusting things with your body” – this is mixed with speculations of what “disgusting things” they might do, which at that age came out to being to smear molded salad with pineapple over my youthful torso. :slight_smile: Nobody has ever in real life offered to do exactly that! :smiley: My mother also warned me, as I approached my teens, that girls would want me to do bad things. (Amazingly, that one never came true either, much to my dismay!) In short, I was fairly well inhibited in childhod from any sort of potential sexuality.

As I noted on one of these threads (probably up above on this one), I suspect that there are both genetic components and socialization triggers involved, since what makes one sexually respond to whom seems to be a melange of a wide variety of possible causes, with none of the simple “It’s the gay gene” or “It’s caused by a domineering mother” explanations holding water.

And no, I don’t think a mutation was the cause, except in the sense that all genes originated as mutations. It’s been too widespread a phenomenon across humanity over too long a time span to attribute it to that or any other one cause.

106

Ah, genetics vs. environment! Always a big fat can of worms, whether we’re talking IQ, criminality, homosexuality or whatever.

The media is happy to use the analogy of a “blueprint” for our genetic code, which gives the impression that relating our DNA to our physical structure and built-in behaviours is a simple matter. It is not. We can’t find a string of genes and say “that’s the blueprint for your spleen” or “that’s where your musical ability is.” We’re not even close to being able to do that. The relationship between our genes and ourselves is highly non-trivial.

So is there a “gay gene”? I doubt it. There may be genetic components to homosexual behaviour, but that’s not the same as a “gay gene”, any more than the DNA for tallness and explosive power add up to a “sprinting gene.” The genes which have been associated with homosexuality might relate to high IQ, or creativity, or imagination, all of which seem to correlate with homosexuality. Hell, they might relate to larger penises!

Unfortunately this debate involves politics. The “gay gene” is politically popular because homosexuals are a persecuted minority. Saying homosexuality is genetic provides ammunition against the homophobes, particularly those who argue that it’s “unnatural” or “not what God intended.” For this reason the “gay gene” has been given rather more emphasis than it deserves, and is often taken as proven. That’s a pity because it gets away from the more important argument which is that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is genetic, or environmental, or determined in utero, or caused by some imprinting experience in early childhood, or if homosexuals are gay by choice. You shouldn’t have to bring up the “we didn’t choose this” argument to counter the homophobes. The “mind your own damned business, asshole” argument should be fine!

So in answer to the OP - is there a gay gene? - I doubt it. At least, not in the sense that homosexuality is imposed by our genes. There may be genes which make individuals more likely to be homosexual, but these genes probably don’t compel homosexuality. (Willing to be proven wrong by a decent study!) Plus these genes seem quite able to propagate themselves through the generations, which implies that they have some positive survival value.

107

The thread is like a train wreck… can’t help but watch.

Tracer, in response to some of your comments:

Point taken as to how environmental factors can influence sexuality in your case… but I wonder how my environment contributed to making me gay. My parents are heterosexual. I was raised with a basic understanding of homosexuality, but at the same time I was taught that being straight was what I would be. I’m 18, and I don’t remember ever noticing gay influences or positive gay relationships portrayed in the media while growing up. I did have gay neighbors for a time, and I live by an area with a very gay community, but at the same time I wasn’t really exposed to it. Looking at my background, there isn’t anything you can point to that can really be interpreted as causing me to like girls.

My girlfriend, quietgirl, is an even more extreme case: she was raised in a violently homophobic household, is the oldest of 6 children, and has helped raise all of her siblings. She never knew an openly gay person until we became friends. Then we fell in love. Go figure.

I also don’t know what accounts for the fact that my brother is straight and that all of quietgirl’s siblings are also. Heck, when it comes down to it, I don’t think people generally raise their kid to be homosexual.

I would respecfully submit that there does seem to be some genetic basis for homosexuality, but that there is some unexplained environmental factor working there too. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying that heterosexual influences makes someone straight.

In regards to the OP: your manner and stance seem to have grown increasingly bigoted and reactionary. You posted asking for information- I suggest that you read the links provided and consider the information therin carefully before digging yourself in even deeper. As this point you don’t seem to be coming from a position of inquiry, just one of defending irrational statements.

108

According to your theories, homosexuality is a choice. Gays can’t possibly have been born that way, so they must have made the choice to be attracted to just their own gender.

So I ask you - at what point did you decide to repress your homosexual desires and make the concious choice to be attracted to just the opposite sex?

109

Polycarp, what you and tracer described are things that may have happened well after sexual orientation is determined - theories range from in vitro to perhaps two years old, but no later than that. These kind of overt influences would have nil effect.

Esprix

110

**

It also provides ammunition to anti-gay people that if it’s something genetic, it’s something we can detect and fix! And, just as nobody would debate the helpful ramifications of being able to, say, correct a lethal ailment in utero, what about people who would want to correct gayness because that is a “disease?”

You are naive if you think that the homosexual community is en masse hoping that a heredetary link for sexual orientation is found. In fact, many in this community pray one is never found because of these people who would be all for operating on the “deviants.”

In addition, science does not take votes on the facts. Everyone and their cousin Louie could be in favor of something being a scientific fact, but if the evidence does not show this to be true, no amoung of political preening will make it change. (See “Creation Science” for details.)

Are you saying that only genetic mutations and codes with “positive survival value” propagate themselves? This is, of course, wrong.

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, three days, 17 hours, 10 minutes and 55 seconds.
8028 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,003.58.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 0 minutes.

I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*

111

Quote from panache45:
“Did straight people have bad experiences with members of the same sex, and that’s why they “turned” straight?”

I highly doubt that…….

http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm
“In infancy, there is usually manual and oral genital stimulation of children of both sexes by parents as a means of comforting and pacifying them (most frequently between mothers and sons).
In early childhood, masturbation alone and in groups, leads to exploration and experimentation among children of same and opposite gender.
Late childhood (prepubescent) is characterized by heterosexual role modeling and attempted intercourse (girls may begin having regular coitus with older boys).
In pubescence, girls rapidly accelerate into a phase of intense sexual experience, culminating in the acquisition of basic sexual techniques at the adult level. Boys follow a similar pattern, but their learning process is not as rapid or complete because they are usually experimenting with younger girls. Heterosexual patterns replace masturbation and homosexual activities for the majority of both boys and girls.
In adolescence, there is increased sexual activity with peers and adults for both boys and girls; and it is believed that birth control is facilitated by the practice of multiple partners. Marriage is common for late adolescent girls, but boys may delay marriage for economic considerations and continue their adolescent sex patterns for longer periods (Ford and Beach, 1951)”

Quote from beakerxf:
“Homosexuality exists as a natural phenomenon, and you haven’t provided any scientific evidence that would demonstrate that it doesn’t. If you want people to argue on scientific terms with you, bring science into your argument and people will respond in kind”

Now read this…….
a quote from edwino: A Geneticist and a physician student who teaches Human Sexuality
“No matter how good it feels, the anus was not designed for sex. It was designed for defecation.”

So this raises the question. 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?

To evilbeth:
The fact that I feel people should be able to do what they want but that doesn’t answer the question of if homosexuality is natural to the human anatomy. Why do I care? Cause I thought this was a post that you can discuss such topics. Why do you care if I care?

Quote from Polycarp:
“Item: “being gay is a choice.” Well, not on the anecdotal evidence of every gay person who has chosen to address the subject. 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.
Item: “it’s unnatural.” Well, this depends greatly on what your definition of “natural” is. If sex were totally for procreation, you certainly would have a point. I gave some behavioral theory that indicates it is not. You’ve chosen not to address it. If gayness is “unnatural” then nonhuman animals, clearly “natural,” would not indulge in it.
Is it abnormal? Certainly. “Normal” in statistics is behavior engaged in by a majority of the population, and gay people are in a minority. But every one of us is abnormal in some way – we each do some things that the majority does not. (All we males constitute a minority, being 49+% of the population to the 51-% female majority, and I’m sure you can list off a series of things that only males do.)”

I do agree with you. The definition of what’s “natural” has a great deal to do with it. When I used the word “natural” meant it with the meaning of the natural state of the human AND animal anatomy. Whether it feels natural to a homosexual isn’t the subject. I’m sure it does to them or they wouldn’t enjoy it. 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.
Quote from Esprix:
“As the point has already been driven home, several times over and in several different ways, by my esteemed colleagues, I don’t see a reason to rehash it. Obviously you’re not getting it, and, frankly, I feel sorry for you since you seem to have such a limited, stunted view of the wide range of human sexuality”

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.

Another quote from Esprix:
“Actually, I wasn’t referring to your “mutation” comment at all - I was referring to your “most homosexuals choose to be gay” statement. It’s wrong. Flat-out. Completely. Do a little research before making these kinds of spurious statements. As I said, if you’re going to stand by this stance, we here at the SDMB expect some reliable support for it; otherwise, you’re making a fool of yourself.”

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.

Another quote from Esprix:
“Unless you’re doing it raw, there is no more or less tearing of tissue than vaginal intercourse. “

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.

A quote from Captain Amazing
“…working on the assumption that I really want to know about this….”

You are right. I didn’t start this conversation to gay bash. By reading my first comments I thought I made that clear.

A quote from spooje:
Could I choose to have an attraction to another man?"

http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozscience/h/261030.html
“Some individuals have homosexual experiences but marry people of the other sex and have children”
“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 proves there is a choice of attraction to a point……

A quote from tracer:
“My impression from my own experiences and memories is that my (hetero)sexuality was influenced, perhaps substantially, by my environment”

I do agree with that. But not just environment but also your anatomy. Having a penis greatly attributed to you heterosexuality. It’s tough to ignore something hanging between your legs. Also going through Health classes in school which rarely teaches homosexuality. Not to mention from a very young age, children are influenced by comments about playing with army toys (more commonly for boys) or dolls and babies (more common for girls). All of this plays a big part in you sexuality.

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.
Most likely there will be a few bright people who’ll pick up on misspelled words or bad punctuation. I’m sure your understand the meaning it’s trying to crudely to portray to I ask we stick to the discussion more and the English lesson less……

112

I think a citation from 1951 is way too outdated in this area. I mean, as late as the mid '70s, homosexuality was still considered a “disease” among mental health profesionals.

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, three days, 20 hours, 11 minutes and 19 seconds.
8033 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,004.20.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 25 minutes.

Religion + Asshole = FUNDIE*

113

Did you actually VISIT that website Satan? If you had, you see they didn’t feel that way

114

also, the information from 1951 was placed in the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 3, Feb. 1, 2000- which pretty much means it’s still up to date

115

Satan said:

"It also provides ammunition to anti-gay people that if it’s something genetic, it’s something we can detect and fix! And, just as nobody would debate the helpful ramifications of being able to, say, correct a lethal ailment in utero, what about people who would want to correct gayness because that is a "disease?"

Good point! Although I’ve never actually heard a homophobe voice this idea.
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. Admittedly TV and radio debates are poor sources since they attract extremists.
In addition, science does not take votes on the facts. Everyone and their cousin Louie could be in favor of something being a scientific fact, but if the evidence does not show this to be true, no amoung of political preening will make it change. (See “Creation Science” for details.)

Science may not take votes on facts, but political opinion can influence what is studied and what is published.
e.g. if you wanted to perform a study investigating correlation (if any) between differences in IQ test performance and races, you’d be hard pressed to get any support or funding. And however meticulous, rigorous, and well controlled your study, if your results indicated something non-PC, nobody would publish it. (Someone will probably call me racist for even giving such an example, so let me make it clear that I don’t think there would be any correlation at all.)

"Are you saying that only genetic mutations and codes with “positive survival value” propagate themselves? This is, of course, wrong."

Okay, sloppy wording! I’m not saying that.
If we take Dawkins’“selfish genes” view, genes exist to propagate copies of THEMSELVES. Genes which increase the tendency for individuals to be homosexual seem on the face of it to be at a disadvantage. But if such genes increase the competitiveness of a group w.r.t. other groups (e.g. by increasing same-sex co-operation) the net effect may promote propagation of those genes, even if some individual carriers do not reproduce. Just a little argument against the “it’s unnatural” position. I don’t know if it’s valid.

116

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. Examples are how this is a male dominated world. The majority of people in high government positions, in churches, in businesses, etc; are male. In order for one gender to control such a large part of the world’s economy there must already have same sex cooperation that doesn’t necessarily need intimate contact

117

::rubbing chin thoughtfully:: Hum. Interesting juxtaposition there. You did not choose who to be attracted to, but you know most gays did. Despite what they themselves say.

Really? The rest of the article doesn’t seem to: “Most experts think that a number of factors can influence sexual orientation. Some researchers believe that sexual orientation results chiefly from biological factors. One such factor may be the effect of hormones on the developing brain of a fetus before birth. Some scientists also think particular genes (units of heredity) may be involved. Other researchers believe that sexual orientation is determined primarily by social and psychological factors. According to one theory, children learn through pleasurable sexual experiences to become increasingly attracted to one of the sexes or to both sexes.” I don’t see “most homosexuals choose to be gay” in there.

It doesn’t, however, support your theory that homosexual desires are a choice: “The adolescent discovers and defines the elements of sexual attraction, unique and individual to him/herself as an ongoing process of differentiation. The homosexual discovers that s/he is sexually excited by same-sex stimuli in the same way that the heterosexual discovers that s/he is excited by opposite sex stimuli; and within these categories, they both discover even more specific attractants (e.g., body types, body parts, sex acts, positions, odors, words, etc.).” “Discovers.” Nothing about “choosing” which sex to be attracted to. Or: “A few adolescents are totally unaccepting of homosexuality and are repulsed by any same-sex attraction they might feel.” If it was a choice, would they choose to be attracted if it repulsed them? Should you really be citing sources that are antithetical to your ultimate position? :wink: Can you find one reputable, fairly recent scientific sounrce that says the majority of homosexuals are that way by choice?

Changing one pipe doesn’t make you a plumber…

Um, it’s fairly well known that there are people who can have sex with both sexes. A person may still be attracted to men, even if he has sex with women, or a person may be attracted to women, even if he has sex with men. It’s not like human sexual attraction is an on/off switch and just because you can have sex with one gender, it means you can’t be attracted to another. This also does not show that a person attracted to and with access to members of the opposite sex would still choose to become attracted exclusively to the same sex; this is talking about a time with no other sexual outlets, and does not even show that the person remains attracted to men once women are available. Privitation conditions are not terribly good for modelling human sexuality under normal circumstances. I mean, I’ll eat squirming maggots if I’m hungry enough or maybe even if I’ll just face extreme social pressure if I don’t. But without the pressures of desperation or social censure, I’d prefer a nice fois gras.

What exactly are you trying to prove, anyhow? It doesn’t much matter to me if homosexuality is a choice or not, but your continued insistence on it being “unnatural” and a choice in spite of the strong evidence to the contrary makes me uneasy about your motives. Let’s say it is a choice. So what?

For example, I enjoy posting to internet message boards. This is clearly an unnatural act, even more so than homosexuality–after all, animals don’t do it at all. Man was clearly made to communicate by vocal cords, not typing. As evidence that it is unnatural to type, note the fact that people who type are much more likely to get carpal tunnel than people who don’t. I have to admit my wrists sometimes hurt after typing; clearly my love of posting is unnatural. I freely I admit I chose to post on message boards. Why does my love of the unnatural act of typing not inspire you to create a thread about how it “wasn’t meant to be”?

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.

118

Bull. What about The Bell Curve? That was about exactly that, and just a few years ago, too! And that wasn’t even a very good study; or at least, the conclusions he drew were not very warranted.

119

Nope, because even if one accepts your ideas about anal sex (which I don’t), then that doesn’t show that nature did not intend for women to have sex with each other. Or did you forget that there are female homosexuals too?

I think you have some mistaken ideas about what “coming out” means. In order to come out a homosexual must be gay “to begin with”, or at least before they come out, because coming out is simply letting other people know that you are gay.

120

I NEVER said that. Don’t put words into my post that I did not say. I said i thought the primary reason anal sex was risky because HIV can easily pass through the membranes of the rectal wall (however, i now remember it’s irritation that results that is the problem). I NEVER said anal sex doesnt cause bleeding, in fact i’ve seen what too frisky play down there can result in (TMI i know, but i felt it had to be said). I KNOW that bleeding can occur, and any FAQ on anal sex will tell you this.

Oh and your pathetic pleas of “i’m just trying to find scientifical evidence” just fills me with such glee (as does that cute word “scientifical”…like I said, that’s like sooooo 6th grade!). You truly are a wonder to behold, rookie!

At least I can admire you for your iron will to remain ignorant in the sea that is Gread Debates.