Homosexuality - Is it a gene or a choice? - General

[QUOTE=zerothefallen;35413028]I don't think it's a choice. Back in August, I got curious in some futanari things. I was very guilty about it and kept telling myself I don't like gay shit and stuff like that. I really couldn't stop it, I liked it a lot even though I kept telling myself I hated it. I ended up becoming bisexual. There is no way its genetic[/QUOTE] To be honest, it's more likely you were bi all along and just denied it.

[QUOTE=Ruzza;35426772]Choice, its been proven not to be a "gene".[/QUOTE] Maybe not a gene, but something biological for sure. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mastahamma;35427822]I still think it's psychology. I've started noticing patterns in how peoples' parents' behaviors, and the people themselves. I believe the whole personality of someone usually boils down to how they were treated in their childhood.[/QUOTE] With that logic, I present this question: How did homosexuality even start? Did a person spontaneously start fucking a person of the same sex? I doubt that.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35425997] 2. Nurture (environmental factors): I believe that kids at a young age can "learn" to be homosexual. Now this doesn't mean that someone is teaching this kid to be gay, it's obviously unintentional. Another thing to keep in mind is that parents aren't the only environmental factor. There are other environmental factors such as friends, television, etc. Some of them may not make that big of a difference as others. Parents are just a big one due to the fact they raise you and you're probably around them a lot. Let me give you an example of how this might work. - Let's say your parents are gay and they adopt you at a very young age (maybe 0-4 years of age for example) and you don't watch a lot of television, you don't have a lot of friends, etc. and you've been around your parents for the good majority of your life, theoretically, you should be gay. Why? Because you've seen love in a homosexual way for almost all of your life. Had you have had straight parents, this would never have happened. Now lets say you were adopted at the same age and had gay parents. This time, let's change the circumstances. You have seen television, you have a lot of friends, and you are not around your parents very much (maybe a daycare?). Now theoretically, you should be straight. Why? Because you have not seen very much homosexual love and have in fact seen more straight love. These are just examples, it all depends on the circumstances.[/QUOTE] You have no basis for your belief that children pick up on sexuality via exposure levels. It is insulting to children that you say they cannot discern the difference between and understand hetero/homosexual love. Most homosexual children grow up in environments that are extremely heteronormative or even homophobic, with straight parents. You can not conveniently say that only these children became gay through biologic means. Content around the individual by no means alters sexuality, you can not and have not supported that claim. [QUOTE=deaded38;35425997]I'll restate my belief, just to get things going.[/quote] The purpose of threads in mass debate is not to bring up the same already exhausted arguments for the sake of arguing.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35425997]I'll restate my belief, just to get things going. - Let's say your parents are gay and they adopt you at a very young age (maybe 0-4 years of age for example) and you don't watch a lot of television, you don't have a lot of friends, etc. and you've been around your parents for the good majority of your life, theoretically, you should be gay. Why? Because you've seen love in a homosexual way for almost all of your life. Had you have had straight parents, this would never have happened. Now lets say you were adopted at the same age and had gay parents. This time, let's change the circumstances. You have seen television, you have a lot of friends, and you are not around your parents very much (maybe a daycare?). Now theoretically, you should be straight. Why? Because you have not seen very much homosexual love and have in fact seen more straight love. These are just examples, it all depends on the circumstances.[/QUOTE] I went to a C of E Primary school and was raised by straight laced religious (religious for the UK, anyway) parents. I was deprived books in case I read about homosexuality; we were supposed to write a report on someone famous and I wanted to do Oscar Wilde (I was a weird 10 year old) but my parents wouldn't let me in case I found out some of "the bad things" that Oscar Wilde had done. I had literally no concept of homosexuality. I found a guy in my class attractive. I didn't understand it at all, because boys like girls. So I got very confused. Nevertheless, I found him attractive. It was only a few years down the line that I learned about homosexuality and it all clicked into place. What you're describing is a sort of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis for sexual behaviour and is complete pseudoscience. I don't think you can successfully condition someone into homosexual attraction or heterosexual attraction. There's no evidence to back this up and it goes against what evidence we already have. This part of your post is just a poorly considered thought experiment. [quote]Theoretically, you should be gay. Why? Because you've seen love in a homosexual way for almost all of your life.[/quote] Theoretically is completely incorrect here. There's not a theory at play here. You've basically said a bunch of stuff and invented a conclusion. I can do this. If you grew up in a white room and the only coloured items you ever saw were rigidly controlled so that you never got to see the colour blue, theoretically you'd never be capable of perceiving the colour blue. That's complete nonsense. So is that part of your post. I'd argue nurture comes into the development of sexuality. It's been long established that different levels of hormonal exposure, different nutritional intake etc etc all affect gene expression, so it's feasible that some different environmental factors would change how genes affecting homosexuality are expressed. But your little thought experiment makes no sense.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35431146]You have no basis for your belief that children pick up on sexuality via exposure levels. It is insulting to children that you say they cannot discern the difference between and understand hetero/homosexual love. Most homosexual children grow up in environments that are extremely heteronormative or even homophobic, with straight parents. [B]You can not conveniently say that only these children became gay through biologic means.[/B] Content around the individual by no means alters sexuality, you can not and have not supported that claim. The purpose of threads in mass debate is not to bring up the same already exhausted arguments for the sake of arguing.[/QUOTE] Why not? It makes sense when you think about it. Prove me wrong. You're right, I can't support that claim. You know why? Because there probably aren't any shitty sources that are talking about the same thing I am. All of them would be about JUST the parents and nothing else, which is dumb. I can support my claim with common sense, but that's about it. I'm truly sorry I don't have an ABC News article regarding my logical theory. Also, no shit that's not the point of mass debate. My point hasn't even been exhausted. I said that because almost everyone in this thread has agreed with each other. I'm not arguing anything, just restating my point. [editline]4th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35431636]Words.[/QUOTE] I don't see what evidence you have that goes against what I said. Sure, you can link a source that says somethings about gay parents and how they almost rarely raise gay children. I'm not arguing with that. I completely agree that gay parents almost rarely raise gay children. But it happens. Also, your story leads me to believe you weren't conditioned gay, but you were actually born gay.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35433025] I don't see what evidence you have that goes against what I said. Sure, you can link a source that says somethings about gay parents and how they almost rarely raise gay children. I'm not arguing with that. I completely agree that gay parents almost rarely raise gay children. But it happens. Also, your story leads me to believe you weren't conditioned gay, but you were actually born gay.[/QUOTE] You're the one making the wild claim; you're the one with the burden of proof.

[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35433129]You're the one making the wild claim; you're the one with the burden of proof.[/QUOTE] Wild claim? I can say the same thing about your claim.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35433666]Wild claim? I can say the same thing about your claim.[/QUOTE]His claim is backed up by e.g. the American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [url]http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf[/url] [quote]Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.[/quote] [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] American Academy of Pediatrics [url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full[/url] [quote]A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. The high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the clustering of homosexuality in family pedigrees support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal androgen exposure influences development of sexual orientation, but postnatal sex steroid concentrations do not vary with sexual orientation. The reported association in males between homosexual orientation and loci on the X chromosome remains to be replicated. Some research has shown neuroanatomic differences between homosexual and heterosexual persons in sexually dimorphic regions of the brain. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[/quote] [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mastahamma;35427822]I still think it's psychology. I've started noticing patterns in how peoples' parents' behaviors, and the people themselves. I believe the whole personality of someone usually boils down to how they were treated in their childhood.[/QUOTE]That specifically has been rejected by every psychiatric institution with regards to the causes of homosexuality. They don't all agree on the specific genetic, biological or environmental factors and their prevalence, but they're practically unanimous that beating little Timmy isn't going to make him a queer, nor will his dad dressing up in tutus.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;35437358]His claim is backed up by e.g. the American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.[/QUOTE] A child forges a good part of their personality, behavior, etc. at a young age, which (believe it or not) is based on the people/things they are around. I guess I can kind of see how sexual orientation might be purely biological, but that would go against what we currently know about human behavior. Your sources may say it isn't possible for a child to be gay based on childhood experiences, but with that logic, EVERYTHING would be biological - our personality, our behavior, everything. That to me sounds pretty ridiculous.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35440832]A child forges a good part of their personality, behavior, etc. at a young age, which (believe it or not) is based on the people/things they are around. I guess I can kind of see how sexual orientation might be purely biological, but that would go against what we currently know about human behavior. Your sources may say it isn't possible for a child to be gay based on childhood experiences, but with that logic, EVERYTHING would be biological - our personality, our behavior, everything. That to me sounds pretty ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Well it might sound ridiculous to you, but you're not exactly an accredited psychologist with a degree in child development, so I'm more inclined to listen to what the American Paediatric Association has to say on the matter rather than what some randomer on the internet thinks. Child development is an incredibly complicated issue. Many "higher order" functions on the brain don't come online until later on in childhood - just look at some videos about Piaget's theories to do with cognition [video=youtube;GLj0IZFLKvg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLj0IZFLKvg[/video] A lot of Piaget has been consigned to the past; child psychologists mainly discuss post-Piaget. But the fact is sometimes up to the age of seven, kids are unable to grasp the concept of conservation of mass. Did you know about this before? You probably didn't. I certainly didn't realise this until my friend started showing me this stuff a couple of months ago. I don't think you can reasonably claim to understand the issue better than child psychologists. Now I'm aware this might come across as an appeal to authority, but given people who study child development for a living (and have, therefore, spent their working lives studying how children develop) all seem to think that you can't be conditioned through shoddy parenting into being gay, do you really think you have more handle on this subject? It might sound pretty ridiculous. So might the idea that a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat]man could mistake his wife for a hat[/url], but that doesn't mean it's untrue. Your argument this far has basically been "This is what I think, because this seems like common sense to me. DISPROVE ME." but psychiatry and "common sense" thinking frequently do not mix.

I still think it's a choice. On the other hand I don't see how a gay gene is possible seeing as gay parents can not reproduce for anyone to carry on the gene.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35440832] I guess I can kind of see how sexual orientation might be purely biological, but that would go against what we currently know about human behavior.[/QUOTE]No it wouldn't. [QUOTE=deaded38;35440832]Your sources may say it isn't possible for a child to be gay based on childhood experiences, but with that logic, EVERYTHING would be biological - our personality, our behavior, everything. That to me sounds pretty ridiculous.[/QUOTE]Err, no? It just means homosexuality isn't a result of childhood experiences. It's not an all or nothing deal. Is it really so absurd to you that not everything about a person is decided by their childhood? [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Gar~;35441577]I still think it's a choice. On the other hand I don't see how a gay gene is possible seeing as gay parents can not reproduce for anyone to carry on the gene.[/QUOTE]Oh for fuck's sake, it's not a "gay gene". It's a combination of genetic factors and biological factors e.g. hormone exposure in the womb. There is no individual gene that, when activated, gives a man a craving for cock, but there are likely many that [I]increase the likelihood[/I] of being gay when other factors are also present. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] Look at it this way, why the hell would people choose to be gay in the first place? In many countries, they're treated as scum. Why would they want that kind of suffering imposed on themselves? And how would someone, who had no exposure to any sort of homosexual idea (like Splurgy), suddenly choose to be gay despite knowing nothing about it?

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;35442127]No it wouldn't. Err, no? It just means homosexuality isn't a result of childhood experiences. It's not an all or nothing deal. Is it really so absurd to you that not everything about a person is decided by their childhood?[/QUOTE] Explain to me how it isn't an all or nothing deal. Does nature really determine even a part of a person's personality? I don't think so.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35443607]Explain to me how it isn't an all or nothing deal. Does nature really determine even a part of a person's personality? I don't think so.[/QUOTE] Yep, there's genes linked to [url=http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v10/n10/abs/4001698a.html]ADHD[/url], it's been proven that it's possible to breed model organisms to display more [url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05974.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=]anxiety and aggression[/url]. The current scientific thinking is that we get a [i]lot[/i] of our personality from genetic and epigenetic factors. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Gar~;35441577]I still think it's a choice. On the other hand I don't see how a gay gene is possible seeing as gay parents can not reproduce for anyone to carry on the gene.[/QUOTE] A behavioural trait is probably polygenetic in origin because it's so complicated. Genes associated with a higher rate of female fertility have been implicated in higher rates of male homosexuality, suggesting an overall reproductive benefit. I could go on, but this video pretty much sums it up: [video=youtube;ncd7oaaYr98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncd7oaaYr98[/video]

[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35441302]Words.[/QUOTE] Common sense is the best source I can think of. Sure, I understand that children have different phases of shaping their personality and such. But I know for a fact children aren't "born" with a personality. Anyone who thinks this is disregarding the facts pertaining to human behavior. For example: When a child is raised in an abusive family, that child is generally going to be more violent. Why? Because that's what he has seen in his life. Now, I'm not saying that this child is going to be violent forever and there's nothing he can do about it. He can obviously change if the conditions are right. An example of a right condition might be a significant friend in that child's life. Sexual preference can be the same way.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35443857]Common sense is the best source I can think of. Sure, I understand that children have different phases of shaping their personality and such. But I know for a fact children aren't "born" with a personality. Anyone who thinks this is disregarding the facts pertaining to human behavior. For example: When a child is raised in an abusive family, that child is generally going to be more violent. Why? Because that's what he has seen in his life. Now, I'm not saying that this child is going to be violent forever and there's nothing he can do about it. He can obviously change if the conditions are right. An example of a right condition might be a significant friend in that child's life. Sexual preference can be the same way.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but an abusive family may beget children with a higher chance of being aggressive. Like I just linked you to, there's genes linked with aggression. There's genes linked with psychosis. Twins raised apart are more likely to both be the same sexuality than both be left handed. Watch the video, it should clear that up for you.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35443607]Explain to me how it isn't an all or nothing deal. Does nature really determine even a part of a person's personality? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]Because over 3 decades of research by the most well-respected psychiatric institutions in the world has shown it to be so? That there is not a single piece of scientific evidence supporting the claim that shoddy parenting produces gays? If you're going to ignore evidence from them in favour of your own absurd idea of the overruling factuality of common sense, then there's really no reason for this discussion to continue.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;35444071]Because over 3 decades of research by the most well-respected psychiatric institutions in the world has shown it to be so? That there is not a single piece of scientific evidence supporting the claim that shoddy parenting produces gays? If you're going to ignore evidence from them in favour of your own absurd idea of the overruling factuality of common sense, then there's really no reason for this discussion to continue.[/QUOTE] You are REALLY bad at debating. The only reason it this debate continues is because everyone thinks everything a person does is a choice which is true. Just depending on how far a persons mental influence to do something will make them choose something over something else. Mental influence can be decided by genes and social backgrounds. This is why the debate continues.

Gene or choice, it does not matter; people should leave them alone.

[QUOTE=Secrios;35445753]Gene or choice, it does not matter; people should leave them alone.[/QUOTE] I agree, but this debate doesn't regard that at all and that statement was quite unnecessary.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35433025]You're right, I can't support that claim. I can support my claim with common sense, but that's about it. I'm truly sorry I don't have an ABC News article regarding my logical theory.[/QUOTE] You need to stop calling your ideas common sense and logic; they are only your opinion. [quote=deaded38;35433025] My point hasn't even been exhausted. [/quote] Yes it has. The last time you brought it up, you failed to present a credible source or logic that you get your conclusions from. You brought it up again because you can not accept that your ideas rely on nothing.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35443857]Common sense is the best source I can think of. Sure, I understand that children have different phases of shaping their personality and such. But I know for a fact children aren't "born" with a personality. Anyone who thinks this is disregarding the facts pertaining to human behavior. For example: When a child is raised in an abusive family, that child is generally going to be more violent. Why? Because that's what he has seen in his life. Now, I'm not saying that this child is going to be violent forever and there's nothing he can do about it. He can obviously change if the conditions are right. An example of a right condition might be a significant friend in that child's life. Sexual preference can be the same way.[/QUOTE] I do not think that if a child just grows up in an abusive family that they grow up violent. Especially since there's been many accounts of people growing up in an abusive childhood only to end up being pleasant to be around and even sometimes very successful due to the hardships. It's always going to be different for every child because every child isn't the same when they are born. You can't just remove all other factors from their mental growth such as their instincts, social growth, and experiences when growing up.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;35446907]I do not think that if a child just grows up in an abusive family that they grow up violent. Especially since there's been many accounts of people growing up in an abusive childhood only to end up being pleasant to be around and even sometimes very successful due to the hardships. It's always going to be different for every child because every child isn't the same when they are born. You can't just remove all other factors from their mental growth such as their instincts, social growth, and experiences when growing up.[/QUOTE] And those people had the resources not to be violent. Believe it or not, there are people that don't have the support to be better people. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bletotum;35446399]You need to stop calling your ideas common sense and logic; they are only your opinion. Yes it has. The last time you brought it up, you failed to present a credible source or logic that you get your conclusions from. You brought it up again because you can not accept that your ideas rely on nothing.[/QUOTE] You act like my ideas are based on nothing, when in reality they actually are. Sure, my logic isn't based on science, but rather our current knowledge of human behavior. My logic is fine. It doesn't NEED a source to be logical, believe it or not.

Except that "our current knowledge" is your opinion, and multiple major organizations that study this for a living disagree with you. Logic IS science.

I believe people are born homo. But it's just a belief. There's no actual proof of it, like religion. One thing I do know is that being gay is fabulouthhss!

[QUOTE=critein_protein;35449182]I believe people are born homo. But it's just a belief. There's no actual proof of it[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bletotum;35261205] [url]http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html[/url] (twins) [url]http://courses.biology.utah.edu/carrier/3320/sexual%20diff.%20papers/Blanchard%20et%20al%20Interaction%20of%20fraternal%20birth%20order%20and%20handedness%20in%20the%20%0Adevelopment%20of%20male%20homosexuality.pdf[/url] (birth order) [url]http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/33[/url] (birth order and brain differences, cited article) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Studies_of_brain_structure[/url] (brain difference, cited article) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians[/url] (various examples, cited article) [url=http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx]American Psychological Association, and all large related organizations[/url]: "All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings." [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bletotum;35339617]Hormone reception post puberty that demonstrates a biologic link to homosexuality [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6089349[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/21/us/homosexual-study-cites-hormone-link.html[/url] [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.long[/url] Response to sexual stimulus in the brain, displaying non-choice attraction factors [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17636559[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35448806]Except that "our current knowledge" is your opinion, and multiple major organizations that study this for a living disagree with you. Logic IS science.[/QUOTE] Actually logic is math. [QUOTE=critein_protein;35449182]I believe people are born homo. But it's just a belief. There's no actual proof of it, like religion. One thing I do know is that being gay is fabulouthhss![/QUOTE] Your "belief" has no backing therefore not strong in this debate. Neither is your spelling and grammar, but that is another level.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;35444691]You are REALLY bad at debating. The only reason it this debate continues is because everyone thinks everything a person does is a choice which is true. Just depending on how far a persons mental influence to do something will make them choose something over something else. Mental influence can be decided by genes and social backgrounds. This is why the debate continues.[/QUOTE]I posted statements from institutions at the absolute forefront of psychology which stated the fact that parenting has no influence in deciding a child's sexuality. The Royal College of Psychiatrists' paper alone cites over a dozen studies. For it to be simply ignored and have their flawed idea simply restated again is annoying. At the very least i'd want to see a counterargument, not just "lolno". It's just really annoying. I'm more than willing to listen to actual counterarguments, but in my years here i've found them to be a rather rare thing. The closest i've seen to an actual proper evidence vs evidence debate, with proper arguments and counterarguments, was against a bloody 9/11 conspiracy theorist. That's just depressing if that's the best that's been offered so far. [QUOTE=deaded38;35447259]You act like my ideas are based on nothing, when in reality they actually are. [B]Sure, my logic isn't based on science, but rather our current knowledge of human behavior.[/B] My logic is fine. It doesn't NEED a source to be logical, believe it or not.[/QUOTE]Whose current knowledge of human behaviour? What on earth do you think psychology is about, stroking kittens?

I do believe it's a choice. Genes are passed on, and if homosexuals won't reproduce they can't pass on their genes,Therefore the homosexual gene doesn't exist. What it comes down to is choice, personality, and upbringing. And if you want to bring evolution into it rather than personal opinion, don't expect a "It's definitely genetic" answer either.

[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35454174]I do believe it's a choice. Genes are passed on, and if homosexuals won't reproduce they can't pass on their genes,Therefore the homosexual gene doesn't exist. What it comes down to is choice, personality, and upbringing. And if you want to bring evolution into it rather than personal opinion, don't expect a "It's definitely genetic" answer either.[/QUOTE]I take it you haven't bothered to read anything else posted in this thread? Congratulations on a monumentally shit first post. There is no one single gene that, when activated, causes homosexuality. No scientist worth his salt would ever claim that; it's a combination of genetic, biological and environmental (e.g. uterus hormone exposure, or potentially chemical exposure very early in life) [I]risk factors.[/I]