I’ve never understood why we need to find a gene to explain people’s gender sexual preference. No one looks for a gene to determine why some men like short women with big butts and other men like skinny women.
Because if homosexual behavior is genetically-determined (or inalterably biologically determined) the gays can argue that they are being discriminated for what they ARE, rather than for what they CHOSE to be. There's a large number of laws which prohibit voluntary behavior of one sort or another even if there are no direct victims (drug use would be one example) so the proponents of restricting homosexuality would have it easier to argue that there's an overriding societal concern which justifies this voluntary behavior. (The existence of laws creating "victimless crimes" is an accepted part of modern legal systems, sadly, but no one other than hard-core libertarians actually oppose the concept.)
If we use that as a reason, shouldn’t we study why some people are attracted to people of another race since there are many religious people who still think interracial marriage is wrong and it was illegal in certain states as late as the 60s.
We decided as a society to ignore those people because they were wrong. We shouldn’t need “studies” to get the hell out of people’s bedroom. Slowly we are changing as society. But studies won’t convince people who believe that not only are “the gays” going to hell but they are the cause of all of society’s ills and natural disasters.
Well, once there's a concept that a society should have laws restricting behaviors which don't actively hurt other people or their property (drug laws, morality laws like anti-gay, hate speech laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc) in the "interests of the society" (as defined by the politically more powerful groups), then it's very hard to argue against this kind of laws being applied against some minority groups (after all, democracy is the rule of majority).
The only logically consistent way to deal with these issues is to drop the whole concept of victimless crimes, and accept that (negative) individual rights are more important than whatever (positive) vision of social good is prevalent.
But, of course, both sides of mainstream political spectrum in US are hell-bent on using the legal bludgeon to force the other side to conform to their idea of utopia. I'm wondering what happened to "live and let live".
Why did we need to know what it's like to send a human to the moon?
This is science and science is asking questions about the reality we live in. That is there are a set of people who deviate from the norm in that they are interested in other people of the same sex. This also deviates from the theory of evolution in that natural selection would supposedly eliminated this trait eons ago, yet it is quite prevalent today.
It is worth asking this question and it is worth asking the question why some men like fat women and some men like skinny and what are the biological implications of it? Yes it is.
A bigger question is why in the world would you question this research into a gay gene over the billions of dollars spent on getting the man to the moon (with little economic results to show for it).
I think I have an answer. Because our society has become so politically correct and so afraid of racial inequality that ANYTHING even remotely suggesting things are unequal is attacked. The truth of the matter is, we are all unequal and we are all different. That is a reality that is staring us in our faces yet we choose to ignore it because we have become afraid of inequality under all circumstances. Life is unequal. And it is worth studying the differences. A counterpoint to your analogy: we study why men have penises and why women have vaginas, or in other words sexual dimorphisms... why not study sexual preference?
Because our society has become so politically correct and so afraid of racial inequality that ANYTHING even remotely suggesting things are unequal is attacked.
It’s just the opposite. People have been arguing that being gay “is not a choice” so society shouldn’t discriminate against gay people just like they shouldn’t discriminate against short people.
I’m saying that it shouldn’t matter whether it is “a choice” or not. Just treat everyone equally. I’m also saying that they could find a whole bunch of gay genes and it wouldn’t matter to religious conservatives who think it is a “sin”. It wouldn’t change their belief system. If they still “don’t believe in” evolution and think the earth is only 7000 years old as well studied as evolution is, why do people think they will accept a gay gene and change such deeply held beliefs in how wrong it is?
Just like we ignored them and struck down laws against miscegenation. We should continue to ignore them and treat everyone equally regardless of sexual preference.
A simple Darwinian analysis would indicate that since homosexuals don't produce offspring, the trait should disappear, but instead it persists across generations. We don't know why this is the case.
The question of why homosexuality is a stable trait of our species is inherently interesting.
The idea is that if your sexuality is not innate, then it can be changed. There's long been a desire to prove that homosexuality is genetic in order to counter the claim of bigots that they can turn people straight through shame and abuse.
It's frustrating on several levels. One, there is an element of the naturalistic fallacy; many people feel that homosexuality being "natural" (e.g. occurring in many animal species or being immutably determined by genes) is a strong defence of it (as opposed to the preferable argument of "it's not hurting you, so you have absolutely zero grounds to object to it"). Two, many people want to be able to point to a single gene as the causative factor, when genetics is rarely so simple, and other prenatal factors may contribute (e.g. something that happens during gestation).
Just because something is not determined by genes does not automatically mean it is not innate. Some traits are determined by hormones and there might be many other mechanisms that determine our physical and behavioral traits.
Opinion Warning: I'm no scientist; this is just my opinion.
I know several people who are gay and what's very interesting is most of the people I know, is there are people in their family, sisters/brothers/uncles/etc. That are also homosexuals. I suspect there might not be "one gene" that makes a person a homosexual, but a collection of genes that increase the odds of someone being homosexual.
That being said, I feel like search for such a gene is to combat religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong.
I'm still confused with why so many people are obsessed with the sexual orientation of another person?
I remember one time, I attended a meetup that was focused on LGBT startups. In the elevator, there were four people; two other men, a woman and me.
One guy who was apparently by himself and didn't read the agenda of the meetup asked the "couple" next to him how difficult it was to start a company and be in a relationship. The man replied "We're not a couple, I'm gay." then the women laughed and said, "I'm also gay, and this meetup is the LGBT community raising capital for their company."
The guy then turned to me and asked: "Are you also gay?" I replied: "No, but that headband you're wearing might be." Everyone but he laughed, and I thought that would ease the mood. This guy seemed very concerned about being a straight man in a gay meetup. I told him to relax and explained I was there to join a couple of friends who were speaking at the meetup.
I understand that some people feel uncomfortable being around people they are not used to being around; sexual orientation, race, income status, etc. They just haven't had that experience. Hopefully, that guy was able to feel more comfortable around none heterosexuals. They make amazing wing men and women :)
I agree - what I find terribly concerning in this day and age, we're not letting the actions of people to define a person. MLK talked about that and it's simply ignored. I guess it requires more energy to look at each person you meet and now they treat you vs. just saying "All gays are...", "all whites are...", "all blacks are...", "al women are..", "all men are..", etc..
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It all seems so childish and intellectually lazy. At least it gives people something to argue about endlessly on social media lol
You're probably right on the multigenic origin of homosexuality. One theory goes around that it exists because of some relationship to other、 evolutionarily beneficial factors. Twin studies also imply the possibility of epigenetic impact here as well, though I haven't read much of the literature there.
> I suspect there might not be "one gene" that makes a person a homosexual, but a collection of genes that increase the odds of someone being homosexual.
One theory I've heard is that having lots of boys in the home, increases the likelihood that the next baby born will be gay (from Professor Adam Grant of the Give & Take fame). Somehow, all that testosterone in the home seeps through the womb and flips a switch on the unborn male baby.
> I know several people who are gay and what's very interesting is most of the people I know, is there are people in their family, sisters/brothers/uncles/etc. That are also homosexuals. I suspect there might not be "one gene" that makes a person a homosexual, but a collection of genes that increase the odds of someone being homosexual.
Easily explained away by that such people see their family members engaging in homosexual activity, and are accepting of it, so they also in turn engage in the same behavior. Practically nurture in effect.
If I remember the study correctly, the scientists actually stated that it is clear that there is not one single "gay gene", but that (like many other traits) instead there are likely a number of genes that work in concert to produce sexuality outcomes.
28 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 76.6 ms ] threadWe decided as a society to ignore those people because they were wrong. We shouldn’t need “studies” to get the hell out of people’s bedroom. Slowly we are changing as society. But studies won’t convince people who believe that not only are “the gays” going to hell but they are the cause of all of society’s ills and natural disasters.
The only logically consistent way to deal with these issues is to drop the whole concept of victimless crimes, and accept that (negative) individual rights are more important than whatever (positive) vision of social good is prevalent.
But, of course, both sides of mainstream political spectrum in US are hell-bent on using the legal bludgeon to force the other side to conform to their idea of utopia. I'm wondering what happened to "live and let live".
This is science and science is asking questions about the reality we live in. That is there are a set of people who deviate from the norm in that they are interested in other people of the same sex. This also deviates from the theory of evolution in that natural selection would supposedly eliminated this trait eons ago, yet it is quite prevalent today.
It is worth asking this question and it is worth asking the question why some men like fat women and some men like skinny and what are the biological implications of it? Yes it is.
A bigger question is why in the world would you question this research into a gay gene over the billions of dollars spent on getting the man to the moon (with little economic results to show for it).
I think I have an answer. Because our society has become so politically correct and so afraid of racial inequality that ANYTHING even remotely suggesting things are unequal is attacked. The truth of the matter is, we are all unequal and we are all different. That is a reality that is staring us in our faces yet we choose to ignore it because we have become afraid of inequality under all circumstances. Life is unequal. And it is worth studying the differences. A counterpoint to your analogy: we study why men have penises and why women have vaginas, or in other words sexual dimorphisms... why not study sexual preference?
It’s just the opposite. People have been arguing that being gay “is not a choice” so society shouldn’t discriminate against gay people just like they shouldn’t discriminate against short people.
I’m saying that it shouldn’t matter whether it is “a choice” or not. Just treat everyone equally. I’m also saying that they could find a whole bunch of gay genes and it wouldn’t matter to religious conservatives who think it is a “sin”. It wouldn’t change their belief system. If they still “don’t believe in” evolution and think the earth is only 7000 years old as well studied as evolution is, why do people think they will accept a gay gene and change such deeply held beliefs in how wrong it is?
Just like we ignored them and struck down laws against miscegenation. We should continue to ignore them and treat everyone equally regardless of sexual preference.
The question of why homosexuality is a stable trait of our species is inherently interesting.
It's frustrating on several levels. One, there is an element of the naturalistic fallacy; many people feel that homosexuality being "natural" (e.g. occurring in many animal species or being immutably determined by genes) is a strong defence of it (as opposed to the preferable argument of "it's not hurting you, so you have absolutely zero grounds to object to it"). Two, many people want to be able to point to a single gene as the causative factor, when genetics is rarely so simple, and other prenatal factors may contribute (e.g. something that happens during gestation).
In particular there's evidence for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male...
I know several people who are gay and what's very interesting is most of the people I know, is there are people in their family, sisters/brothers/uncles/etc. That are also homosexuals. I suspect there might not be "one gene" that makes a person a homosexual, but a collection of genes that increase the odds of someone being homosexual.
That being said, I feel like search for such a gene is to combat religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong.
I'm still confused with why so many people are obsessed with the sexual orientation of another person?
I remember one time, I attended a meetup that was focused on LGBT startups. In the elevator, there were four people; two other men, a woman and me.
One guy who was apparently by himself and didn't read the agenda of the meetup asked the "couple" next to him how difficult it was to start a company and be in a relationship. The man replied "We're not a couple, I'm gay." then the women laughed and said, "I'm also gay, and this meetup is the LGBT community raising capital for their company."
The guy then turned to me and asked: "Are you also gay?" I replied: "No, but that headband you're wearing might be." Everyone but he laughed, and I thought that would ease the mood. This guy seemed very concerned about being a straight man in a gay meetup. I told him to relax and explained I was there to join a couple of friends who were speaking at the meetup.
I understand that some people feel uncomfortable being around people they are not used to being around; sexual orientation, race, income status, etc. They just haven't had that experience. Hopefully, that guy was able to feel more comfortable around none heterosexuals. They make amazing wing men and women :)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It all seems so childish and intellectually lazy. At least it gives people something to argue about endlessly on social media lol
One theory I've heard is that having lots of boys in the home, increases the likelihood that the next baby born will be gay (from Professor Adam Grant of the Give & Take fame). Somehow, all that testosterone in the home seeps through the womb and flips a switch on the unborn male baby.
Easily explained away by that such people see their family members engaging in homosexual activity, and are accepting of it, so they also in turn engage in the same behavior. Practically nurture in effect.
This title seems like unethical clickbait.
Human sexuality is a complex interplay of genes and environmental factors