Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Apparently being gay is not genetic?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mint Aero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭Mint Aero


    mikom wrote: »
    Convenient..........

    I don't follow. It's what happened. Are you insinuating he used that episode as an appropriate time to come out?


  • Options
    #33
    NZT73
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 51 ✭✭NZT73


    Icepick wrote: »
    Why shouldn't they be passed.

    Ok has anyone read the article?

    The Epi marks are supposed to ensure a normal healthy hormonal state for the fetus in the case of there being two much or too little testosterone. When Epi marks are passed from mother to son this would mean a male fetus would not absorb enough testosterone, making him gay.

    The article suggests this is not supposed to happen.

    You can carry on attacking me but I didn't write the article.


  • Options
    #34
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,494 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    I hate people who believe homosexuality is caused by environmental factors rather than genetics because in the vast majority of these cases the people pushing the theory are basing it off the pathetic stereotype that gay men act effeminately.


  • Options
    #35
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    is there proof that being straight is genetic?


  • Options
    #36
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    AlanS181824 wrote: »
    Being gay is and always will be something you're born with, it isn't a choice.
    That is exactly what the OP's link states.

    Any minute now, people who originally ridiculed the OP will suddenly change their mind about the research...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    househero
    Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭househero


    Mint Aero wrote: »
    I think the gays shelter themselves

    Probably unintentional, but it would be better to say 'gay people' rather than something you would hear a bigot say... 'The blacks' 'the pakis' sounds unintentionally racist.


  • Options
    #38
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,494 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    is there proof that being straight is genetic?

    I would assume its genetic as it is necessary in order for our species to survive.


  • Options
    #39
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Mint Aero wrote: »
    I don't follow. It's what happened. Are you insinuating he used that episode as an appropriate time to come out?

    He had a stroke and a broken neck, not a head injury.
    And yes I believe he was gay all along.


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    NZT73 wrote: »
    Ok has anyone read the article?

    The Epi marks are supposed to ensure a normal healthy hormonal state for the fetus in the case of there being two much or too little testosterone. When Epi marks are passed from mother to son this would mean a male fetus would not absorb enough testosterone, making him gay.

    The article suggests this is not supposed to happen.

    ...............

    But it does. What s your point?


  • Options
    #41
    NZT73
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 51 ✭✭NZT73


    Nodin wrote: »
    But it does. What s your point?

    What's my point?

    Sharing information about interesting stuff like lots of people do on this forum.

    Everything I've said comes from the article if you don't like it talk to the author.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,494 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Why do people care so much whether its genetic or not? If it turns out its not what will that change? There will still be gay people here regardless or will people feel less bad about themselves if they harass a gay person knowing they chose to be gay rather than being born that way


  • Options
    #43
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    NZT73 wrote: »
    What's my point?

    Sharing information about interesting stuff like lots of people do on this forum.

    Everything I've said comes from the article if you don't like it talk to the author.


    Of course you are. You just happen to post only on the topic of homosexuality and against gay marriage but this is TOTALLY SEPERATE to that agenda, and has no ulterior motive behind it.

    I believe ye.







    Really.


  • Options
    #44
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    AlanS181824 wrote: »
    Being gay is and always will be something you're born with, it isn't a choice.

    Oh and welcome to Boards!
    I disagree that a person is born gay or straight, I think we develop our ways as we grow.

    I'm hetrosexual but my own sexuality has developed over the years. My sexuality hasnt been set in stone once puberty kicked in.
    Why is it any less reasonable to apply that to sexual orientation.

    I always wonder why people get so hung up on demanding people are "born like that". who cares?

    It doesn't make gay people any less of a person if sexuality is developed rather than a given at birth.


  • Options
    #45
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    It wasn't believed to be genetic until very recently. Choice or genetic or epigenetic nobody else's business.


  • Options
    #46
    true567
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭true567


    Heres the things after 3 pages, not a single person has actually addressed the poster. I find it funny that your only arguments against him is defaming him. But anyway...

    Also, I have recently begin to think about this question. So genes are passed on through reproduction, but then how could a gay gene ever be passed realistically throughout time?

    The only way that could occur would be if gays have had kids throughout time at a consistent and continuing rate. It is about as ridiculous as a biblical story if you understand basic genetics. Some may argue it could be a genetic mutation but mutations occur at a much more infrequent rate (i.e. gigantism).


  • Options
    #47
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Does it mean that lesbians "inherit their homosexuality" from their father?

    Like if a woman had seven lesbian aunts on her mother's side (and yes, lets assume for these purposes they're hot) she would be no more or less likely to be a lesbian herself. It all depends on her Dad, and how his body reacted to testosterone in the uterus?

    Is that correct?


  • Options
    #48
    Pocoyo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Pocoyo


    Being gay isnt a choice,I dont believe you can choose to get aroused by another man,If you are gay thats swell i just hope all these 'gay' threads end after the vote i wasnt arsed voting in that referendum but now i will vote yes just so i dont have to hear anymore about it.


  • Options
    #49
    HugsiePie
    Registered Users Posts: 11,156 ✭✭✭✭HugsiePie


    Hoosexuality is not 100% genetic anyways, if it was, identical twins would share the same sexuality, no matter what. That doesnt mean its a choice though.


  • Options
    #50
    true567
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭true567


    Pocoyo wrote: »
    Being gay isnt a choice,I dont believe you can choose to get aroused by another man,If you are gay thats swell i just hope all these 'gay' threads end after the vote i wasnt arsed voting in that referendum but now i will vote yes just so i dont have to hear anymore about it.

    They aren't saying it is a choice.

    They are saying people are attracted to their same sex due to the environment and not genetics.


  • Options
    #51
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    I'm interested in the womb hormonal stuff. Don't necessarily believe it, but don't NOT believe it. Just need more information.

    BUT even if it is down to epigenetics, that doesn't matter, it doesn't make someone less gay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Btrippn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Btrippn


    NZT73 wrote: »
    What's my point?

    Sharing information about interesting stuff like lots of people do on this forum.

    Everything I've said comes from the article if you don't like it talk to the author.


    Indeed you have been quoting information from the study directly; however this article was published in 2012, why resurrect it now? Surely you must have an agenda to for posting an outdated article?


  • Options
    #53
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    true567 wrote: »
    Heres the things after 3 pages, not a single person has actually addressed the poster. I find it funny that your only arguments against him is defaming him. But anyway...

    Also, I have recently begin to think about this question. So genes are passed on through reproduction, but then how could a gay gene ever be passed realistically throughout time?

    The only way that could occur would be if gays have had kids throughout time at a consistent and continuing rate. It is about as ridiculous as a biblical story if you understand basic genetics. Some may argue it could be a genetic mutation but mutations occur at a much more infrequent rate (i.e. gigantism).

    I think people would rather believe that there was evil misguided group that the OP is affiliated to or at least try to find one then realise that an independent person is shouting into the wind. I do agree with that it does seem mostly environmental or biological. We have more homosexual people coming out than ever, were they always there or is it just people adapting to the environment that we live that is almost entirely alien to our bodies that were adapted for short lives rustling and tustling on plains, savannahs and tundras. Its been shown in other species that the sexuality often changed based on population and the ratio of male to female interaction.

    Is the whole Hikikomori phenonomen (many becoming asexual in practical terms) in Japan a symptom, tangential effect of this? We've never lived like we've lived in the last 100 years, we won't know until we're at a distance from it. Just some thoughts.


  • Options
    #54
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Adamantium wrote: »
    I do agree with that it does seem mostly environmental or biological. We have more homosexual people coming out than ever, were they always there or is it just people adapting to the environment that we live that is almost entirely alien to our bodies that were adapted for short lives rustling and tustling on plains, savannahs and tundras. Its been shown in other species that the sexuality often changed based on population and the ratio of male to female interaction.
    Just to be clear, when the report says homosexuality is partially environmental, it refers to the hormonal environment within the uterus after conception and before birth. It does not mean that homosexuality sets in after birth.

    Now you'd normally expect gay people to feel vindicated by this, it indicates there is no element of choice or upbringing involved.

    AH on the other hand... no idea what the problem is. They don't like the poster it seems.


  • Options
    #55
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,409 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Just to be clear, when the report says homosexuality is partially environmental, it refers to the hormonal environment within the uterus after conception and before birth. It does not mean that homosexuality sets in after birth.

    Now you'd normally expect gay people to feel vindicated by this, it indicates there is no element of choice or upbringing involved.

    AH on the other hand... no idea what the problem is. They don't like the poster it seems.

    Don't think they need vindication in fairness.

    As regards the OP he did create a link to a video and fail to make a point as to what he thought.


  • Options
    #56
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    kneemos wrote: »
    Don't think they need vindication in fairness.
    No, they don't. But if gay people have to (unfortunately) spend their lives defending their identity, I they must welcome this research, since it seems to remove the need to justify themselves to people who claim homosexuality is a choice or an outcome of parental failure.


  • Options
    #57
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    is there proof that being straight is genetic?
    bb1234567 wrote: »
    I would assume its genetic as it is necessary in order for our species to survive.

    Then why do we keep producing people who attempt to prevent the survival of the species (global warming/war and all that!). Is there a 'not give a flying **** gene' ?


  • Options
    #58
    true567
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭true567


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Then why do we keep producing people who attempt to prevent the survival of the species (global warming/war and all that!). Is there a 'not give a flying **** gene' ?

    Really quick- I find it hilarious that you are a Mod for Teaching & Learning.


  • Options
    #59
    Btrippn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Btrippn


    Adamantium wrote: »
    I think people would rather believe that there was evil misguided group that the OP is affiliated to or at least try to find one then realise that an independent person is shouting into the wind. I do agree with that it does seem mostly environmental or biological. We have more homosexual people coming out than ever, were they always there or is it just people adapting to the environment that we live that is almost entirely alien to our bodies that were adapted for short lives rustling and tustling on plains, savannahs and tundras. Its been shown in other species that the sexuality often changed based on population and the ratio of male to female interaction.

    Is the whole Hikikomori phenonomen (many becoming asexual in practical terms) in Japan a symptom, tangential effect of this? We've never lived like we've lived in the last 100 years, we won't know until we're at a distance from it. Just some thoughts.

    Firstly, referring to Japan for a moment. If you examine stories and artwork dating back from Heian the Period, roughly the 11th century, you’ll identify countless evidence of homosexuals who were prevalent among poets and samurais throughout history. Yet today in Japan there is hostility and misunderstanding towards homosexuality and few people disclose their sexual orientation. Homosexuality has been prevalent throughout the ages from Ancient Greece to modern day society. It has been well documented. The only difference between now and then is that is less accepted today. More people are coming out because the world is changing ever so slightly.

    Which brings me to my next point. This is why people are confused when someone posts an article written 3 years ago and cannot provide a simple explanation as to why. It seems a bit unsettling. Indeed the article is well cited but taking into account the OP's “ I’ll just leave this here” approach it makes us question their intentions. Conorh91 you clearly have a grasp of scientific jargon, but most people do not! Had the OP presented the data better and explained himself in a comprehendible proper manner then it would seem more plausible. However he did not.

    Have you stated your hypothesis that, “they must welcome this research” to Christians and Darwin’s theories? I would like to see their response to your comments. You can't force science upon people and you can’t assume that an entire group of people reject it either. I’m sure that many gay people accept the research on homosexual behaviour but perhaps feel that there are better presented issues that worth discussing and investing time into at this present moment in relation to the gay community in Ireland.


  • Options
    #60
    NegativeCreep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,351 ✭✭✭NegativeCreep


    What happened to me then that I became bi? Is there another epigene for that or did I receive both epigenes or none?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    NZT73 wrote: »
    Ok has anyone read the article?

    The Epi marks are supposed to ensure a normal healthy hormonal state for the fetus in the case of there being two much or too little testosterone. When Epi marks are passed from mother to son this would mean a male fetus would not absorb enough testosterone, making him gay.

    The article suggests this is not supposed to happen.

    You can carry on attacking me but I didn't write the article.

    Women being born barren is not "supposed" to happen either. Being born diabetic is also not "supposed" to happen. Lot's of things that are not supposed to happen biologically, do. Should we tell these people too that they're an accident??:confused:

    And to be honest, considering that this can happen so often does question your statement.

    No matter of whether or not is was "supposed" to happen (and what does that mean? anyways) -- I was still born regardless. I'm still here and I still have as much right as other person to live my life. In this chaotic world, I don't think anything is truly "supposed" to happen, the mechanisms of life are too experimental to guarantee the same outcome each time.

    Our human society is based on more than procreation. We all share vital, important relationships with friends & family who we'll never procreate with but can still work with to create a prospering civilization.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement