Is homosexuality genetic?

[McHrozni]

Not quite. Natural Selection is not the entirety of evolution. Consider: Down's Syndrome and sickle-cell anemia both have notably deleterious effects, yet they persist. Why? Because our genetic code is subject to damage, replication error, and other forms of mutation.

I know - I accounted for such relatively simple* mutations in the paragraph just below the one you quoted

*simple in this case means it only few (or just one) errors in replication for the trait to be present. This is meant to be in contrast with traits that require multiple errors to occur, like with cancerous cells, for example

McHrozni

 

[Shadowdweller]

I know - I accounted for such relatively simple* mutations in the paragraph just below the one you quoted

*simple in this case means it only few (or just one) errors in replication for the trait to be present. This is meant to be in contrast with traits that require multiple errors to occur, like with cancerous cells, for example

McHrozni

So you did. That's what I get for skimming. Apologies, I mainly brought that up because it's a misconception several posters in this thread seem to be falling prey to.

 

[Drewbot]

As before, I'm at a loss to understand this idea.
Natural selection works in the opposite way.
It has to be expressed for it to be evolved out

I think the reasoning is, that if HomS is a thing that forces people into the closet, then they will try to hide their HomS, by portraying a HetS, thus passing on their trait in larger numbers than they would if they were liberated, and did not find it necessary to portray a front.

 

[McHrozni]

With all due respect, I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning.
It is only when latent is actualised, that it will be bred out.
If homosexuality is banned, then it will just remain latent, and won't then die out

That would depend a lot on how much of it is genetic. If all homosexuals were executed on the spot for many generations, and if homosexuality is primarily caused by a gene that is not a relatively simply damaged normal gene, homosexuality could be bred out eventually. If either of the two is not true, it couldn't be weeded out even if homosexuals were executed for thousands of generations.

Since we don't know if it's genetic or not, we can't tell if it would be possible or not.

The best way to understand natural selection, is to think of it in statistical terms. It takes only a slight loss of reproductive capacity and the trait will become evolved out.

Eventually, and if the slight loss remains a constant loss in about all conditions (which isn't always the case), and if the same mutation is not readily occurring in a breeding population anyway - I called such mutations simple mutations in an earlier post.

That sub-section of the population which contains the latent homosexuality, which becomes expressed only under certain conditions, and as long as those conditions are sometimes fullfilled, will inevitably cause a shrinking of tha sub-section.

If, and only if, it would also result in lower number of offspring in each generation, compared to individuals without the gene. Since we're talking about latent homosexuality, this is very difficult to establish, but you're taking it for granted.

Secondly, you're also talking about a large number of generations. In an infinite time such breeding out would work, if conditions were constant. In tens of thousands of years, however, it might not - even if conditions were constant.

Thirdly, post #2 of this thread would be an interesting read for you.

As before, I'm at a loss to understand this idea.
Natural selection works in the opposite way.
It has to be expressed for it to be evolved out

I think I need to explain this part further. I was assuming that homosexuality will occur in any population, regardless of the policies in place. If it's primarily genetic, as we're assuming for this debate, this isn't an unreasonable assumption.
Even if all people exhibiting homosexuality are killed on the spot, it would still take dozens of generations, or hundreds of years, to weed out the damaged genes. Furthermore, if the "gay gene" is a product of a relatively simple mutation, it will not be possible to eliminate the gene even that way, as it the mistake will simply reoccur in a few generations at most.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

So you did. That's what I get for skimming. Apologies, I mainly brought that up because it's a misconception several posters in this thread seem to be falling prey to.

No biggie, it happened to me more than once

You might have actually helped the debate by giving this quite important point some spotlight

McHrozni

 

[Tatyana]

I thought I'd answered that.
What was only latent two generations ago, is now being expressed more - and presumeably might now begin to be bred out

It wasn't latent two generations ago, people are not 'conditioned' to become homosexual, nor can they overcome their conditioning.


I am starting to get really annoyed with some of the things that are being said as I think they could easily be taken as being quite bigoted.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Basically, I agree with everything anyone has said on this thread.

Human behavior, particularly sexual behavior, is so complex that it is very unlikely that there is any one cause of homosexuality. I'll bet that there a number of different physical, psychological, and social factors that can combine in a number of different ways to produce homosexuality.

The more interesting question for me is why do people have any exclusive sexual perferance at all. It seems to me that the ability to form both hetero and homosexual relations at different points in the maturing process, or even at the same time, would have any number of evolutionary advantages. Indeed, if I'm remembering correctly, many higher primates do just that.

 

[Speed of Light]

That would depend a lot on how much of it is genetic.

There's got to be a latent component hasn't there?
Some factor which causes more susceptibility for some people rather than others - Whatever aspect of personality this is.
Individual differences must have a lot to do with it (?)

I wasn't that interested in quantifying the two factors to see which is stronger, if it were possible - Environment or genetic

I was just talking simply about the 'latent' part

If all homosexuals were executed on the spot for many generations, and if homosexuality is primarily caused by a gene that is not a relatively simply damaged normal gene, homosexuality could be bred out eventually. If either of the two is not true, it couldn't be weeded out even if homosexuals were executed for thousands of generations.

Since we don't know if it's genetic or not, we can't tell if it would be possible or not.

I don't really think it matters.
There's got to be some 'latent' there, this can be seen most clearly, only when the right conditions prevail in their society.
I would be very surpised if it was possible to eliminate the trait artificially

 

[AdinDraco]

Ok, stupid question : some (not all) causes for sterility is genetic isn't it? Yet this pops up from time to time....doesn't it?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Ok, stupid question : some (not all) causes for sterility is genetic isn't it? Yet this pops up from time to time....doesn't it?

Hardly a stupid question. Some of evolution is really rather counterintuitive.

A common misconception about evolution is that only attributes that directly promote the passing on of genes are selected. In reality, attributes that promote the survival of your kin are also selected. That's why some monkeys scream when seeing a snake, despite this lowering their individual chance of survival, and some bats regurgitate blood to members of their flock that have failed to feed. These acts improve the overall fitness of the group.

There are some examples in nature where sterility of some members improves the fitness of the group; most notably, worker ants and bees are all sterile. It's possible some similar selection has resulted in genes that sometimes make humans sterile.

Also, the genome is fairly susceptible to damage. As pointed out above, Down syndrome certainly isn't advantageous, yet it persists because it is caused by a small error in copying the genome. Some similar genetic defects result in sterility.

 

[McHrozni]

There's got to be a latent component hasn't there?

Not necessarily - it's quite possible there is no genetic basis to homosexuality at all, and that it is entirely due to the effects of environment and random chance.

McHrozni

 

[Speed of Light]

It wasn't latent two generations ago, people are not 'conditioned' to become homosexual, nor can they overcome their conditioning.

Three unsubstatiated statements, without any back up, indicating perhaps a degree of impatience or, dare I say it - intolerance.
Comes across as opinionated I'm afraid!

My policy has always been to explain my understanding as concisely and honestly as possible - and to analyse things unemotionally, perhaps in what might be called, a scientific, or a logical way.

Some people cannot handle others with different points of view, but one of the purposes of a forum, is to exchange ideas in an intelligent manner.

I am starting to get really annoyed with some of the things that are being said as I think they could easily be taken as being quite bigoted.

Yes! That's the right word that comes to mind!
Sorry - have to be honest!

utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Let's take them one at a time -

It wasn't latent two generations ago,

The word 'latent' means 'Potential, but not yet expressed'
Well! Homosexual relationships would not have increased in the last two generations, if the potential had not been there in the first place.
Or to put it in another way, if there had not been any potential for these types of behaviour, then it would have been impossible to have occured!

So I cannot understand this statement - and you haven't explained it.

people are not 'conditioned' to become homosexual,

This comes over as such an opinionated and unsubstantiated statement of fact, that I get the impression that you're not really open to any kind of discussion.

I think that it has been established that we are all conditioned from birth.
Most of our behaviour is due to conditioning.
I mentioned it because in post 36, someone made an unsupported statement about themselves and their own conditioning. My feeling was that it was based on a lack of insight into the possibilities.
In fact, I don't feel that I was dogmatic in my reply to them. I just put forward a view which they didn't seem able to face.
But my explanation of conditioning was based on sound psychological principles, and it is not as clear cut as your statement implies.
Perhaps you do not understand the relevance of conditioning.

nor can they overcome their conditioning.

This was a general statement I made about conditioning in post 36.
Anyone who has been involved in self development or occupations such as counselling, knows how hard it is to overcome conditioning, and how powerful conditioning is, and how unconscious most people are, of its effects.
I say this from experience of spending years in trying to overcome conditioning in many aspects, and sometimes helping others too.
So I have to say that I found your statement entirely meaningless - unless you wish to enlighten me on what it is you are trying to say!

 

[McHrozni]

Ok, stupid question : some (not all) causes for sterility is genetic isn't it? Yet this pops up from time to time....doesn't it?

Yes. And?

McHrozni

 

[Mirrorglass]

Three unsubstatiated statements, without any back up, indicating perhaps a degree of impatience or, dare I say it - intolerance.
Comes across as opinionated I'm afraid!

My policy has always been to explain my understanding as concisely and honestly as possible - and to analyse things unemotionally, perhaps in what might be called, a scientific, or a logical way.

Some people cannot handle others with different points of view, but one of the purposes of a forum, is to exchange ideas in an intelligent manner.



Yes! That's the right word that comes to mind!
Sorry - have to be honest!

utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Let's take them one at a time -



The word 'latent' means 'Potential, but not yet expressed'
Well! Homosexual relationships would not have increased in the last two generations, if the potential had not been there in the first place.
Or to put it in another way, if there had not been any potential for these types of behaviour, then it would have been impossible to have occured!

So I cannot understand this statement - and you haven't explained it.



This comes over as such an opinionated and unsubstantiated statement of fact, that I get the impression that you're not really open to any kind of discussion.

I think that it has been established that we are all conditioned from birth.
Most of our behaviour is due to conditioning.
I mentioned it because in post 36, someone made an unsupported statement about themselves and their own conditioning. My feeling was that it was based on a lack of insight into the possibilities.
In fact, I don't feel that I was dogmatic in my reply to them. I just put forward a view which they didn't seem able to face.
But my explanation of conditioning was based on sound psychological principles, and it is not as clear cut as your statement implies.
Perhaps you do not understand the relevance of conditioning.



This was a general statement I made about conditioning in post 36.
Anyone who has been involved in self development or occupations such as counselling, knows how hard it is to overcome conditioning, and how powerful conditioning is, and how unconscious most people are, of its effects.
I say this from experience of spending years in trying to overcome conditioning in many aspects, and sometimes helping others too.
So I have to say that I found your statement entirely meaningless - unless you wish to enlighten me on what it is you are trying to say!

SoL, take it easy, would you? You're hardly under attack here, so I recommend you refrain from addressing the arguer so much. It won't help your case, and may get you in trouble.

Anyway, the thing about homosexuality being "latent". What's your basis for this claim? Do you believe there were no homosexuals two generations ago? If so, then you are mistaken. Do you believe the number of homosexuals has drastically increased within the last two generations? That is an unsubstantiated, and in my opinion an unlikely claim. You've been told homosexuality has been prevalent in nearly all cultures throughout history. If you're interested in finding out more, here is a fairly good place to start.

If you just want the summary, well, there have always been gays, everywhere. Sometimes they were discriminated, but that only resulted in homosexual activities being performed secretly. In the western world, homosexuality has long been considered sinful because of abrahamic influences, but it has always been present. Heck, if it hadn't been, why would there have been all that talk about it? In the last few decades, people have finally started to accept homosexuality as a normal human tendency. As a result, homosexual behaviour has become more public, resulting in the illusion that there are now more gays. There's no real evidence for that conclusion though; more likely, there are as many gays as ever, and they're simply coming out of the closet more often than fifty years ago.

 

[Speed of Light]

There's got to be a latent component hasn't there?

Not necessarily - it's quite possible there is no genetic basis to homosexuality at all, and that it is entirely due to the effects of environment and random chance.

McHrozni

I do not understand this statement.

There are men, who, whatever their environmental influences, could never ever feel attracted to other men.
There are other men, perhaps who are a little effeminate, who might, given the right circumstances, be attracted to other men.
There are all shades in between.
These are just normal personality differences - we are all different in many ways.It is inevitable that some personality types would find it easier than others to be attracted to men.
Just like. although heart disease might not be genetic, there are definitely some types of people who have a type of personality which is prone to suffer from it - or diabetes, or any other trait or occupatiion.
The way a person ends up, is intimately related to the way they are, and of course their influences.
I'm not too bothered in analysing the types of personality who might more easily become homosexual - just that there are differences.

To put it another way, the personality that might, given the right combination of circumstances become homosexual, I have descibed as 'latent'.

 

[Mark6]

I would suggest you read some ancient Greek, Roman and Persian history.

Actually, investigate any other world history beyond the modern Western view.

I have -- and it actually supports Speed of Light's point.

Ancient Greeks actively condoned homosexual behavior, but took rather dim view of exclusive homosexuality. Actually having children was considered very important. Same with Romans, Persians and for that matter Chinese -- Confucius had nothing against what men do for their own pleasure, but considered marrying and having children a duty to the state.

I am not aware of any pre-modern culture which was okay with gays being JUST gays.

 

[McHrozni]

There are men, who, whatever their environmental influences, could never ever feel attracted to other men.

These men already had environmental influences working on them throughout their lives. True, current environmental influences might not do, but that was never the argument. You need to look at the entirety of someones' life.

Just like. although heart disease might not be genetic, there are definitely some types of people who have a type of personality which is prone to suffer from it - or diabetes, or any other trait or occupatiion.

This is irrelevant - some traits are genetic, but that doesn't mean all are.

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

That would depend a lot on how much of it is genetic. If all homosexuals were executed on the spot for many generations, and if homosexuality is primarily caused by a gene that is not a relatively simply damaged normal gene, homosexuality could be bred out eventually. If either of the two is not true, it couldn't be weeded out even if homosexuals were executed for thousands of generations.

Since we don't know if it's genetic or not, we can't tell if it would be possible or not.

Except that we do know that it is not so simple as a single gene, and it is clearly not as simple as having the Fabulous Gene makes you gay.(hey if there can be a Sonic the Hedgehog Gene why not a Fabulous Gene?)

There might be a genetic component but it is likely not a simple single gene that does it, but a confluence of factors genetic and environmental.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ok, stupid question : some (not all) causes for sterility is genetic isn't it? Yet this pops up from time to time....doesn't it?

Well remember evolution is survival of the least bad not survival of the best. And then there is the issue of things like single gene mutations that cause Achondroplasia the most common form of dwarfism. Most people with this did not get it from a parent but rather a mutation. Now some people might have genes that are more likely to mutate in these ways than others, but the issue is do these genes have an advantage, and is the odd non breeding individual enough of a problem that it gets weeded out of the gene pool.

 

[Tatyana]

Three unsubstatiated statements, without any back up, indicating perhaps a degree of impatience or, dare I say it - intolerance.
Comes across as opinionated I'm afraid!

My policy has always been to explain my understanding as concisely and honestly as possible - and to analyse things unemotionally, perhaps in what might be called, a scientific, or a logical way.

Some people cannot handle others with different points of view, but one of the purposes of a forum, is to exchange ideas in an intelligent manner.



Yes! That's the right word that comes to mind!
Sorry - have to be honest!

utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Let's take them one at a time -



The word 'latent' means 'Potential, but not yet expressed'
Well! Homosexual relationships would not have increased in the last two generations, if the potential had not been there in the first place.
Or to put it in another way, if there had not been any potential for these types of behaviour, then it would have been impossible to have occured!

So I cannot understand this statement - and you haven't explained it.



This comes over as such an opinionated and unsubstantiated statement of fact, that I get the impression that you're not really open to any kind of discussion.

I think that it has been established that we are all conditioned from birth.
Most of our behaviour is due to conditioning.
I mentioned it because in post 36, someone made an unsupported statement about themselves and their own conditioning. My feeling was that it was based on a lack of insight into the possibilities.
In fact, I don't feel that I was dogmatic in my reply to them. I just put forward a view which they didn't seem able to face.
But my explanation of conditioning was based on sound psychological principles, and it is not as clear cut as your statement implies.
Perhaps you do not understand the relevance of conditioning.



This was a general statement I made about conditioning in post 36.
Anyone who has been involved in self development or occupations such as counselling, knows how hard it is to overcome conditioning, and how powerful conditioning is, and how unconscious most people are, of its effects.
I say this from experience of spending years in trying to overcome conditioning in many aspects, and sometimes helping others too.
So I have to say that I found your statement entirely meaningless - unless you wish to enlighten me on what it is you are trying to say!

I am fairly positive I can provide far more evidence for the genetic basis of sexual orientation and the lack of free will than the evidence for 'conditioning'.

This has nothing to do with counselling or 'conditioning'.

This is inherent biological wiring, and so imply that people who are gay can overcome their 'conditioning' (unless you mean something like feelings of guilt), smacks of the religious right trying to 'cure gay homosexuals'.