Is being gay/bi/whatever proven to be a genetic...

PHB

I was just wondering, perhaps somebody could tell me, is being gay/bi/whatever proven to be a genetic thing?

Its thrown around a lot and I was wondering where it came from?

claire h

Originally posted by PHB
I was just wondering, perhaps somebody could tell me, is being gay/bi/whatever proven to be a genetic thing?

Its thrown around a lot and I was wondering where it came from?

As far as I know, it hasn't been proven either way - whether it's genetic or whether it's to do with your upbringing. It's one of those nature-vs-nurture arguments that keeps going on...

I've heard a lot of people say that they were "born gay" and that "they've always known...", but it's not that way for everyone, so I think the jury's still out on this one.

PHB

Its just that people say it with such confidence, I was wondering where they get it from?

ixoy

Originally posted by PHB
Its just that people say it with such confidence, I was wondering where they get it from?

Well I can't see, from my perspective, how it could be a taught thing. How do you ge taught to be gay? Why do two brothers not both become gay, raised in the same circumstances?

Most likely, it's genetic but it's the nature element that influences how you deal with it.

PHB

By that logic personality isn't thought, its just something you are born with.

You can't get indentical circumstances.

Stark

There was some evidence of it being linked to a gene on the X-chromosome, but like most theories it's not fully conclusive.

ixoy

Originally posted by PHB
By that logic personality isn't thought, its just something you are born with.

You can't get indentical circumstances.

So if it's circumstancial, and not hard wired at a genetic level, doesn't that raise the possiblity of more fluid sexuality? More people should be crossing boundaries...

claire h

Originally posted by ixoy
So if it's circumstancial, and not hard wired at a genetic level, doesn't that raise the possiblity of more fluid sexuality? More people should be crossing boundaries...

They should be, yeah, and I wish they would. *grin*

Wolfie

Whew... just came out of a long debate on this subject recently... but I will reiterate my key points from the debate as to why it is *not* genetic.

Genetic evolution and survival occurs through natural selection, whereby strong genes or genes which are beneficial to the survival of the species/DNA are passed on through reproduction. Weak genes, or genes which cannot compete against the stronger mutations eventually die out (that is, they are wiped out by the stronger ones). A gene that promotes exclusive homosexuality could not have survived millions of years of evolution/natural selection. Its not likely. Bi-sexuality could be different of course.. but I cant see the benefit this has to survival... apart from fostering more bonds within a stone age community??

Its possible that exclusive homosexuality could be a genetic mutation however, which is not going to be successful, but is still present.. but the fact that homosexuality has always been around goes against this. So, personally, with Darwins theories behind me, I'd say it isnt genetic - but more likely caused by chemical means or behavioural influence. The chemical means could happen in the womb, meaning men or women are still born gay, but it shouldnt possibly be hard wired into their genes.

I'm not condemning anyone here or anything, dont get me wrong, everyone should have the freedom to live how they want, as long as it harms nobody else. I just dont think its genetic guys..

ixoy

OK, Wolfie what about all the negative genes - the debiliating diseases, etc. - that get passed on through families? They're not beneficial in any sense yet they still continue on as a legacy? Surely you could argue that this is just another gene in the body.

Now obviously most gay people will not be in a situation to pass on their gene, but that doesn't preclude the possiblity the gene exists, does it? It could be dormant in generations, or activated by two particular people coming together. Of course the problem is that, if it is genetic, then a future bout of eugenics might pave the way for bad things. "Gattaca" is all too plausible at times.

seamus

Wolfie, you're also missing the point that up until recently, most gay men would have been married and had kids anyway.

Anyway, I wouldn't beleive that it's directly genetic in that a gay man has gay kids, or a sex-dependent gene exists on the chromosome.
Tests on rats have shown that the orientation of an individual is largely dependent on the amount of testosterone received at a critical point in gestation. the development of the 'sex centre' of the brain seems to be directly related to this dose of testosterone. Restricting or increasing the dose decreases or increases the size of this centre, feminising or masculinising the individual, respectively.

http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/sexualorientation.html (Not a very reputable looking url, but it does have references.)

Interesting read, and it also refutes the points it (and I) makes, which is all the better.

It hasn't been proven. Plain and simple. It's similar to the abortion debate. Everyone has their opinion, and you can go round and round forever.
I would think it's hardwired for two reasons: 1)I can't see how I could possibly be anything but heterosexual (i.e. boys play war), 2) It's been a constant. The incidence of homosexuality is the same as the incidence of red hair and freckles. If it was nurture based, there would be disparity across races, cultures, etc.

But of course, that's my opinion.

Wolfie

Originally posted by ixoy
OK, Wolfie what about all the negative genes - the debiliating diseases, etc. - that get passed on through families? They're not beneficial in any sense yet they still continue on as a legacy? Surely you could argue that this is just another gene in the body.

Now obviously most gay people will not be in a situation to pass on their gene, but that doesn't preclude the possiblity the gene exists, does it? It could be dormant in generations, or activated by two particular people coming together. Of course the problem is that, if it is genetic, then a future bout of eugenics might pave the way for bad things. "Gattaca" is all too plausible at times.

I take your point that non-beneficial genes do get passed on, and I concur that it may possibly be a gene, or more likely the interaction of many genes... It's possible of course, yes. Exclusively gay tendencies are much more common than genetically fatal diseases however, which would mean that a larger number of the theoretical 'gay-gene' would have to be spread. Possible though, I admit that.

You're right that Eugenics is a dangerous pseudo-science, and Gattaca may very well happen in the near future, though we can also use genetic engineering to ensure better lives free from disease for many many people. I guess science is a tool, its not evil, it depends how we use it.

Wolfie

Originally posted by seamus
Wolfie, you're also missing the point that up until recently, most gay men would have been married and had kids anyway.

Hi Seamus, yes its true that society forced many gay men to have families throughout the last few hundred years (thousand or so perhaps), but that time span is insignificant when compared to the millions of years modern man has been evolving, and when we truly done most of our brutal natural selection (on the African savannahs).

Originally posted by seamus
Anyway, I wouldn't beleive that it's directly genetic in that a gay man has gay kids, or a sex-dependent gene exists on the chromosome.
Tests on rats have shown that the orientation of an individual is largely dependent on the amount of testosterone received at a critical point in gestation. the development of the 'sex centre' of the brain seems to be directly related to this dose of testosterone. Restricting or increasing the dose decreases or increases the size of this centre, feminising or masculinising the individual, respectively.

http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/sexualorientation.html (Not a very reputable looking url, but it does have references.)

Interesting read, and it also refutes the points it (and I) makes, which is all the better.

It hasn't been proven. Plain and simple. It's similar to the abortion debate. Everyone has their opinion, and you can go round and round forever.
I would think it's hardwired for two reasons: 1)I can't see how I could possibly be anything but heterosexual (i.e. boys play war), 2) It's been a constant. The incidence of homosexuality is the same as the incidence of red hair and freckles. If it was nurture based, there would be disparity across races, cultures, etc.

But of course, that's my opinion.

Yeah I agree that it hasnt been proven yet, and also that you point to the hormonal and chemical factors - which I personally subscribe to. You say that it is hardwired, however, and you need to understand what you are saying there, very little of what makes us who we are is actually 'hardwired' into our make up/personality. There are genetic (hardwired) factors which affect our personalities, but these genetic traits almost all have a net positive impact on our survival rates. Being exclusively gay is not healthy for a gene-set, as that set of genes will not propogate.

As mentioned in my previous post though, it is possible that there are a number of genetic factors which influence each other to 'cause' homosexuality, but it is more likely to be caused by chemical (womb chemistry/hormonal changes) means and also by nurture. The chemicals our host mothers are subjected to while pregnant, effect us all, and if not for genetic mutations then we wouldnt evolve at all, but it would be a little suspect to have such a widespread mutation as homosexuality.

Thats what I think at any rate! But I will think more on the subject at any rate.

Stark

Wolfe is just trying to make an argument regarding genetics using a below even leaving cert level knowledge of the subject. Ever hear of recessive genes/carrier genes?

There's no reason that homosexuality should be detrimental to a population either. God knows the existence of homosexuality in humans certainly isn't going to drive the human race into extinction any time soon.

PHB

I'd heard people argue that genetically homesexuality is man attempting to control population, however I dont know how much fate I have in that

ixoy

Originally posted by PHB
I'd heard people argue that genetically homesexuality is man attempting to control population, however I dont know how much fate I have in that

My first genuine laugh this morning

Wolfie

Originally posted by k.oriordan
Wolfe is just trying to make an argument regarding genetics using a below even leaving cert level knowledge of the subject. Ever hear of recessive genes/carrier genes?

There's no reason that homosexuality should be detrimental to a population either. God knows the existence of homosexuality in humans certainly isn't going to drive the human race into extinction any time soon.

Ahh, intellectual snobbery, does that technique really build up your self-esteem and make you feel at all superior? Anyhow, FYI, I did study Biology in my leaving cert, and have heard of recessive genes, however can recessive genes ensure the survival of an exclusively gay gene (which by definition would not be directly passed on.. ever) over millions of years of evolution? Unlikely was my answer.

Also, FYI most presumptuous one, I arrived at my view on the gay gene having also read Richard Dawkins' excellent book "The Selfish Gene" and also "Human Instinct" by Robert Winston, both of which detail the process of gene-selection (natural selection applied to genes), and both of which also state that an exclusively gay gene would be very unlikely to have survived. I'm sure that you are more of an expert and more well read on the subject of genetics than me though... (or the two authors)

Also, I never said that homosexuality was 'detrimental' to the population.. I said if there was a gene it would not be beneficial to mankind, and thus, if one subscribes to darwinism, would not have been passed on successively and survived millions of years of gene culling. If you want to attempt to insult someone, and treat them like an idiot, you should at least be clear in your mind as to what they have said.....

Chemical/nurture mix would be my answer chaps.

tendofan

I believe that you may be assuming a 1-to-1 correlation between the presence of a gene and the eventual expression of a feature, which in fairness, neither Dawkins nor Winston do. My understanding is that current research has mostly shown that having gene A increases the likelihood of disease/symptom/feature B, but has been far less successful in concluding that the presence of gene A will _always_ lead to result B. I know that isn't the case with illnesses like Huntingtons, but seems to be the case with breast cancer for example.

I believe that it is most likely that homosexuality will be shown to arise from a combination of factors, ranging from bio-chemical/environmental conditions to upbringing to societal factors.

As an aside, if it is shown that homosexuality is largely down to variations in testosterone received during foetal development, what happens if it's shown to be because of a genetic tendency toward that in the mother?
Will that be used that to knock coming-out rows on the head? I can see it now: "Yeah, well, tough, it's all your and your dodgy womb's fault anyway!"

Tendofan.

Syth

Its just that people say it with such confidence

The reason people say it is because it helps the gay rights movement. If something is 'learnt' then it can be unlearnt, or you can change the environment so that one doesn't learn it. However if it's genetic then one can turn around and say "I'm gay and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it, so lets try to get along, cause I'm always going to be here."

I think that a stupid reason to base gay rights on, because what if tomorrow someone proves that it's not genetic, then there is no argument to base gay rights on. Never, ever base an ethical argument on biology.