Does a "Gay Gene" exist?
- Thread starter IntoxicatingToxin
- Start date
Gillette
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Posts
- 6,214
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 95
- Points
- 268
- Age
- 53
- Location
- Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
article said:
Interesting but not duplicated.
article said:
This actually lines up with a University of Toronto study from 2002 and recently duplicated at Brock_University which linked homosexuality to fraternal birth order. Twins would have been in the womb at the same time (d'uh) and non twin brothers would not have been.
It will be interesting to see if it turns out that prenatal development is truly the key and if factors during gestation have an influence on how a particular gene is expressed. Even if so that won't make homosexuality a genetic trait per se as it's not determined by heredity but by development.
I just had an idea to duplicate these studies here. Please report your birth order.
http://www.lpsg.org/65291-homosexuality-fraternal-birth-order.html
http://www.lpsg.org/65290-bisexuality-fraternal-birth-order.html *If you are not truly attracted to men but are willing to let them suck you off please report to the Heterosexuality Poll.*
http://www.lpsg.org/65287-heterosexuality-fraternal-birth-order.html
I don't think we know yet, but I firmly believe the genetic component of sexuality will be conclusively proven in this century, given the rapid advances in that branch of science. I can only speak from my experience (and that of the hundreds of gay men I have known in my life) - the overwhelming majority of us agree we were born gay, with many understanding the difference fairly early on. I knew I was different when I was 4 or 5, and I understood at a subconscious level that I was gay by the time I was 8. The choice stuff is just a bunch of religious obfuscation authored by the fear filled. However, sexuality seems more fluid for females in my experience.
Same gender attractions have been with us for centuries in both humans and animals. The evidence continues to mount that there are very few environmental factors in sexual orientation determination. Being gay or lesbian is just as natural as having brown eyes - it just occurs less frequently than heterosexual orientation, for whatever reason. I am thankful I had parents with a good appreciation for science, instead of intolerant religious paranoia.
Same gender attractions have been with us for centuries in both humans and animals. The evidence continues to mount that there are very few environmental factors in sexual orientation determination. Being gay or lesbian is just as natural as having brown eyes - it just occurs less frequently than heterosexual orientation, for whatever reason. I am thankful I had parents with a good appreciation for science, instead of intolerant religious paranoia.
Blue eyes are only recessive outside of Scandinavia.
I don't know if homosexuality is genetic, or due to environmental conditions later, but I don't think it's by choice. I don't think people chose to be gay or straight. One day science may learn the answer to this, and other questions about the complex human psyche.
Gillette
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Posts
- 6,214
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 95
- Points
- 268
- Age
- 53
- Location
- Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Saying it is a choice doesn't fit in with millions of men and women who never knew they had a choice.
It's the Right Wing Christian idea that it's a "choice". This way, they have a scapegoat, since the Bible has a few bits in it about same sex sexuality.
There are six comments about homosexuality in the Bible. And 362 for Hetrosexuals. It is not that God doesn't love them, it is just they need additional supervision.
It's the Right Wing Christian idea that it's a "choice". This way, they have a scapegoat, since the Bible has a few bits in it about same sex sexuality.
There are six comments about homosexuality in the Bible. And 362 for Hetrosexuals. It is not that God doesn't love them, it is just they need additional supervision.
A trait is either dominant or recessive according to the genetic structure. A recessive trait does not turn into a dominant one no matter where in the world you are. You seem to be under a misunderstanding about what the word "recessive" means.
Yes, here is a photograph of it.
gwr1349
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Posts
- 462
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 11
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
its a choice that person is an addicted.
i don't think a person can choose what is sexually attractive to them.
D_Mansworthy Meatwrench III
Experimental Member
I agree, sucking a knob has nothing to do with genetics any more than me ass-banging a cruise missile will mean I am a genetically defective Astronaut in hiding.
Nice try though. The real explanation is:
You decided to. People with no choice are people not smart enough to see they have any, so that won't work either. There is ALWAYS a choice.
Whether you choose to see it or not doesn't mean it is not there.
Nice try though. The real explanation is:
You decided to. People with no choice are people not smart enough to see they have any, so that won't work either. There is ALWAYS a choice.
Whether you choose to see it or not doesn't mean it is not there.
D_Mansworthy Meatwrench III
Experimental Member
And if you want Science, let's bust off the Natural Selection theory and go a step further with it.
If you don't procreate, you die. Pretty simple concept. In fact, the only Genus to not exhibit that to some degree is: HUMANS
Every OTHER species is self-correcting in that area.
And the only Humans that don't truly advance life by making it is: Gays
Natural Selection is just like Confucious, it say, "Hey, sword-fighting make no babies, therefore, no more sword-fighting". And the species continues ALBEIT with some lateral changes here and there in breeding. But, in a MINORITY there will ALWAYS be deviation from the norm. Simple NUMBERS!
So, to keep going with it, if you add in the supposed "environment" and other excuses, you will ACTUALLY find that it is CULTURAL bullshit.
Let's go on down the line and do this: In the old days, you were gay, you got killed (some will still happily do so). In some OLD cultures, bi-sexualism was considered OK, but ONLY in wealthy societies that could support said "gayness" and generally even then only in the hierarchies themselves, never really trickling down into the substrate of everyday society UNTIL........drum roll please......NOW.
This means the empires that said bi-sexualism was OK were actually a FEW people (minority) saying it was OK, NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION!!!! (Rulers always make the rules remember?)
So the "untold millions" is actually "untold bullshit".
Specifically, the last 30 years or so in OUR American society. Because of the so-called "sexual freedom" we have NOW, you see MUCH more gayness, and etc.
But if things changed back, and there were tighter societal and cultural rules with less leeway towards aberrant sexual behaviour (like the churches having more power), you would NOT be gay anymore than you would have been Jewish during WW2. But I can guarantee it was a CHOICE you would have died for THEN, not now.
Debate is open, let's keep it going. Why wait on overpaid Geneticists when all they will say tomorrow is, "Oops, butter IS better than margarine, sorry about that". Hopefully, next week they will tell me that gengineered corn is ok on MY genetics..........
If you don't procreate, you die. Pretty simple concept. In fact, the only Genus to not exhibit that to some degree is: HUMANS
Every OTHER species is self-correcting in that area.
And the only Humans that don't truly advance life by making it is: Gays
Natural Selection is just like Confucious, it say, "Hey, sword-fighting make no babies, therefore, no more sword-fighting". And the species continues ALBEIT with some lateral changes here and there in breeding. But, in a MINORITY there will ALWAYS be deviation from the norm. Simple NUMBERS!
So, to keep going with it, if you add in the supposed "environment" and other excuses, you will ACTUALLY find that it is CULTURAL bullshit.
Let's go on down the line and do this: In the old days, you were gay, you got killed (some will still happily do so). In some OLD cultures, bi-sexualism was considered OK, but ONLY in wealthy societies that could support said "gayness" and generally even then only in the hierarchies themselves, never really trickling down into the substrate of everyday society UNTIL........drum roll please......NOW.
This means the empires that said bi-sexualism was OK were actually a FEW people (minority) saying it was OK, NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION!!!! (Rulers always make the rules remember?)
So the "untold millions" is actually "untold bullshit".
Specifically, the last 30 years or so in OUR American society. Because of the so-called "sexual freedom" we have NOW, you see MUCH more gayness, and etc.
But if things changed back, and there were tighter societal and cultural rules with less leeway towards aberrant sexual behaviour (like the churches having more power), you would NOT be gay anymore than you would have been Jewish during WW2. But I can guarantee it was a CHOICE you would have died for THEN, not now.
Debate is open, let's keep it going. Why wait on overpaid Geneticists when all they will say tomorrow is, "Oops, butter IS better than margarine, sorry about that". Hopefully, next week they will tell me that gengineered corn is ok on MY genetics..........
biaussiesurfer
Experimental Member
i think its prob genetic ...
i fuk both - but am more into guys - sometimes i CHOOSE to fuk chiks - I enjoy it - but it just isnt really me.
If it was as easy to just say right thats it now 100% chiks Id do it tomorrow - would def make my life a lot easier.
As for environmental - ummmm not really a big believer in that - I had and continue to have the biggest / straightest up bringing ...
For those 100% straight guys who say it is choice - can you answer this question - Could you tomorrow say from today onwards I am going to make the CHOICE to only fuk guys? I suspect the answer is NO.
Cheers
N
i fuk both - but am more into guys - sometimes i CHOOSE to fuk chiks - I enjoy it - but it just isnt really me.
If it was as easy to just say right thats it now 100% chiks Id do it tomorrow - would def make my life a lot easier.
As for environmental - ummmm not really a big believer in that - I had and continue to have the biggest / straightest up bringing ...
For those 100% straight guys who say it is choice - can you answer this question - Could you tomorrow say from today onwards I am going to make the CHOICE to only fuk guys? I suspect the answer is NO.
Cheers
N
