If people are really born gay..

[Jello]

Just let them ****.

[joe]

my guess is that terms of the social traits of a human being, nature almost always trumps nurture.

I would really appreciate one of the posters that think sexuality is determined by genetics to help me wrap my head around this-

if a gay gene existed, it would always be declining in frequency relative to the straight gene. the reason that gene frequency changes in a population is beneficial genes increase the probability or viability of an organism to reproduce. anybody with a gay gene would be reproductively disadvantaged compared to individuals with straight genes.

people say things like "homos are against what nature intended!". if the laws of nature are actually opposed to gay individuals, the genes involved would be eradicating themselves over time without without any help from us.

One possible theory is it has to do with testosterone exposure in the womb. Males are usually exposed to X amount of testosterone at different times, whereas females get a lesser amount. But they've found that some males for whatever reason are given less. Somehow that leads to homosexuality. Google it I don't remember it fully..

[Psileas]

Imo, nature sets your limits, while nurture sets your placement within these limits.

Oh, and silly OP, btw.

[nightprowler10]

Imo, nature sets your limits, while nurture sets your placement within these limits.

Nailed it.

[chosen_one6]

OP is an idiot

[miller-time]

The number of gay men does not influence the number lesbians. Two independent counts.

They might be mutually exclusive, and the percentages might not line up exactly but the point is that there won't be AS many straight females left over because of gay males due to the fact that there will be some lesbians.

[ace23]

They might be mutually exclusive, and the percentages might not line up exactly but the point is that there won't be AS many straight females left over because of gay males due to the fact that there will be some lesbians.

You're assuming that I believed there to be no lesbians in existence with this statement. Of course there are lesbians, but that has nothing to do with the number of gay males. More gay males = less competition, plain and simple

This is a stupid argument.

[-p.tiddy-]

Also the entire nature vs nurture argument doesn't boil down to:
Nature - people are born gay or straight and nothing that happens after birth has any impact on one's sexuality.
Nurture - people have 100% control over their sexuality and can flip flop at will.

The argument is more of a weighting issue, which factor contributes more and which factor contributes less, rather than a this-or-that. There is a lot of research that indicates early childhood has an impact on sexuality. There is a lot of evidence that supports genetics playing a big role also.

right but he is saying it is 85-15 in favor of nurture and I am saying it is the opposite...neither of us are saying it is 100% all together although many examples may be 100%.

and I am saying my theories are just theories...so is he I beleive

[-p.tiddy-]

my guess is that terms of the social traits of a human being, nature almost always trumps nurture.

I would really appreciate one of the posters that think sexuality is determined by genetics to help me wrap my head around this-

if a gay gene existed, it would always be declining in frequency relative to the straight gene. the reason that gene frequency changes in a population is beneficial genes increase the probability or viability of an organism to reproduce. anybody with a gay gene would be reproductively disadvantaged compared to individuals with straight genes.

people say things like "homos are against what nature intended!". if the laws of nature are actually opposed to gay individuals, the genes involved would be eradicating themselves over time without without any help from us.

there are plenty of genetic disorders that follow gene pools who don't reproduce...down syndrome is genetic...autism is actually on the rise...I am betting neither of those groups reproduce a great deal

also, there is nothing wrong with people siting examples that we have come across in real life...the two examples I sited are common ones that I am sure many in here have come across


now Nanners, if you could help me wrap my head around this-

If there was no gay gene, then how is it that gay men and women have different shaped brains then their straight counterparts? Does our childhood influence the shape of our brain?

[-p.tiddy-]

One possible theory is it has to do with testosterone exposure in the womb. Males are usually exposed to X amount of testosterone at different times, whereas females get a lesser amount. But they've found that some males for whatever reason are given less. Somehow that leads to homosexuality. Google it I don't remember it fully..

right...I remember reading an article where scientists showed they believe homosexuality was all determined in the womb...I remember them siting identical twins a lot because twins do have the same DNA but there are examples of identical twins where on is gay and the other is straight, but their experiences together in the womb were not the same.

made sense to me...i'll try to dig it up

edit:

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...w=1492&bih=801

yeah tons of articles on this

[Hoodlum Science]

Hes trying to say that the people that flip from homosexual to heterosexual are really one or the other and not really both. People will follow their heart not what choice they are supposed to make or do make at the certain time. Im sure there are bi people, but bi isnt exactly straight up gay.

You have grown ass men with familes wives and lives finally wake up one day and say "Holy shit, Im focking gay! And have been my whole life." People will hide and go on living their unhappy lives because of what is supposed to be right.

How can someone other then an actual gay person tell you whether or not they where born that way? The entire gay community tells us how they are born that way and love who they love. Which in return is why its wrong to judge them for being BORN a certain way.

So it's your stance that you're either born 100% gay or 100% straight? You're saying one's social environment plays no role whatsoever? You're saying life experiences (particularly at a young age) play no role? It's just as simple as born gay or born straight, period. At this point none of us (which includes genetic scientists who have been studying this exact subject for years) know the entire scientific truth behind how one arrives at their sexual preference.

As science advances itself, we'll get closer and closer to the actual truth. We're only beginning to scratch the surface of human genome studies. Geneticists, even as intelligent as they are, and growing in numbers, have a huge uphill battle if we wish to unlock and discover the secrets within DNA. Picture how the study of biology has changed/advanced/evolved in just the past hundred years - now picture a hundreds years from today, I'd like to believe we'd have uncovered many of its hidden secrets, but entirely? Highly doubtful.

I'm confident in the next 20-25 years - scientifically - we'll be somewhere in the 99% range of knowing concretely if an individual is truly and purely "born" gay and/or we'll have a better understanding of splitting/sharing ratios. I doubt we'll get it down to an exact science, but we'll have the undeniable data and knowledge to help us be 99% confident in the scientific/factual determination of one's sexual preference.

I think at that time (many years into the future) it'll still be commonly considered to some degree, social environment and life experiences play some role. PT, maybe you're right, my 85/15 theory will be flipped on its head, and be more like the 85/15 you subscribe to (meaning you believe it's primarily hereditary with a little wiggle room for S.E. and L.E.'s). Would I be surprised if the hard data in the future tells us it's 100% one way or the other - no middle ground? Yes, very surprised. It wouldn't shock me though, if it were overwhelmingly genetic (85) and slightly S.E. / L.E. (15).

I don't believe any man (or woman) is 100% straight or 100% gay. It's also my opinion there's a cap. For example, no man can be born more than 20% (just using a random number) homosexual. Let's say some men are born in the 1-5% range, then 5-10%, and so on. A man born 18% homosexual prone, is way more likely to arrive at a same-sex sexual preference, whereas a man born 2% homosexual prone, a much less likelihood of being gay. Say you have a high probability (but still capped) subject, and you combine that with youthful life experiences that make one more prone to being a homosexual when they're older, then that individual is way more likely to turn out gay than a 3% who lives a typical normal life of a young male.

I realize many believe the numbers should be the exact opposite, and hey, maybe you're right. Maybe my "cap" theory is silly as hell. Maybe there are those who have the chance to be born upwards of 90-99% gay, and their S.E. has little to no impact whatsoever. Maybe some fall right into that 50/50 split range, and they end up either bi or pick a side. Maybe this said individual is personally conflicted and perplexed their entire life b/c there's no majority sexual preference pool.

Another thing that comes to mind is people who are more prone to be "born" gay, genetics being the overwhelming or only factor, then wouldn't that mean that individual's family tree is more gay than someone else's? If it's all or very high genetics, heredity must be a specific determining source. Just as they link depression, etc. to family history, I would assume it'd be no different than homosexuality, right? Maybe a young man at the age of 17 anxiously and fearfully announces at their annual family Christmas party he's gay. He's upset, crying or whatever. Some other family members drop their jaw. Meanwhile his grandpa's and dad's hearts stop. A chill runs through their bodies, because deep inside they feel or knew their entire lives they were gay, but were afraid and ashamed to admit, so they faked a marriage to fit into what society expected of them.

This family tree thing is very interesting to me. In my family, we have an open lesbian (my cousin, three years younger than me). Everyone is very accepting of her. To her's and everyone's knowledge, we don't know of anyone else in the family who is homosexual but there'd have to be, right? If it's hereditary, genetics, right? Especially if we're talking about you are straight up BORN gay or NOT born gay. There'd have to be a history of homosexuality down the line somewhere, right? This is why I believe it's more S.E. and L.E. > genetics. If the gay gene is prevalent, there should be other homosexuals within that family unit, and vice versa in straight families.

It wouldn't make sense if Family A (sample size of say 20 individuals) had only one truly legit homosexual in their unit. If it's hereditary, there'd have to be more, if we're talking 100% born gay. Maybe not immediate family, but somewhere in their family tree, there'd have to be more homosexuals, and like depression, etc. - it'd have to more than just the one fluke. It seems if genetics are the sole driving factor in one's sexual preference, other members of that family tree would be highly prone to being gay as well - almost like a domino effect.

Now if we're looking at Family B (same sample size), truly no homosexuals... it should stay that way, right? Perhaps mutations could occur, and as we all know this is the very basis of evolution. Once that individual develops a naturally occurring gay gene (from birth) does this greatly increase the chances of this person passing the gay gene to their offspring? Does this son or daughter do the same? The domino effect I'm picturing.

The higher population of homosexuals in any particular family tree, more homosexuals should occur, naturally, right? The higher population of heterosexuals in another family tree, more heterosexuals occur, naturally, right? I apologize for the rambling. If you didn't read all that, I don't blame you; I probably wouldn't have either.

[Nanners]

If there was no gay gene, then how is it that gay men and women have different shaped brains then their straight counterparts? Does our childhood influence the shape of our brain?

there are pretty much endless examples of how gene expression can be influenced by an organisms environment, as you and joe already noted it starts for humans when we are still in the womb. i have never heard that gay men and women have differently shaped brains than their straight counterparts, but it is certainly possible that early life experiences could have an influence in the shape of a persons brain.

[Hoodlum Science]

there are pretty much endless examples of how gene expression can be influenced by an organisms environment, as you and joe already noted it starts for humans when we are still in the womb. i have never heard that gay men and women have differently shaped brains than their straight counterparts, but it is certainly possible that early life experiences could have an influence in the shape of a persons brain.

I had never heard this before either - but doing a quick Google search, results were found.

Gay men and straight women have similar shaped brains

gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

This is a fairly new find in the scientific/biological world or is it (unless I'm missing something; the first source I posted says 2008, so IDK)?



So does this tell us if a male has the same shaped brain as a straight female, the male is unquestionably a homosexual? Are the articles/sources simply making a suggestion? Maybe there's no way to find the deeply hidden gay gene, but we can simply do a CAT-scan on any man, and if his brain mirrors that of a straight woman, BINGO! You're gay! Busted!

[Nanners]

I had never heard this before either - but doing a quick Google search, results were found.

Gay men and straight women have similar shaped brains

gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

This is a fairly new find in the scientific/biological world or is it (unless I'm missing something; the first source I posted says 2008, so IDK)?



So does this tell us if a male has the same shaped brain as a straight female, the male is unquestionably a homosexual? Are the articles/sources simply making a suggestion? Maybe there's no way to find the deeply hidden gay gene, but we can simply do a CAT-scan on any man, and if his brain mirrors that of a straight woman, BINGO! You're gay! Busted!

the study tells us specifically that-

the right side of the brain in heterosexual men was typically 2% larger than the left. Lesbians showed a similar asymmetry, with the right hand side of the brain 1% larger than the left.

typically a difference of 1 or 2%

so no, i dont think the article is suggesting that you can unquestionably identify a homosexual based on their brain shape.

[shlver]

Fetal programming of the brain(through brain macrophages, dendritic synthesis, etc) is tied with hormonal levels and the endocrine system. There also seems to be some genetic contribution as certain brain cells and their quantity are involved in the biosynthesis and upregulation of certain hormones. Prenatal environment also has an effect on hormone balance. Most evidence suggests that hormone levels during sexual differentiation of the brain is the primary influence in the structure of the brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23407936