Born homosexual? Hmm...

I don't see how homosexuality could be a natural trait. I think it has to be chosen.

Of course, there is the possibility of pheromones. The initial thing that draws a man to a woman is a hormonal attraction, regardless of what you feel about true love...

Maybe there is a hormone imbalance as to where a male picks up on another male's pheromones...

Predatorr wrote: So disclaimer, i dont hate homosexuals, but i was talking with a friend of mine's brother who claims he was born homosexual.  So im wondering if anybody has enough experience with biology to prove this either right or wrong.  Again, i dont hate homos, anything like that, im just trying to prove that it was his choice rather than he was born that way. So im talking with my friend's brother and he claims that he was born homosexual.  I think that he's using that as an excuse.  So i shoot back at him with this.  Being born homosexual would mean that there has to be a "ghey" gene.  Now if this is true, it would have to be a recessive trait, if you were using something like a punnent square.  And if a homosexual man/woman had sex with a member of the opposite sex, then child would be heterozygous for the ghey gene (one dominant and one recessive allele).  But that would be impossible as said parent wouldn't be homosexual if he or she was having a child with a member of the opposite sex.  Possible? Discuss.

well, by your logic, then your friend and his brother both carry the "ghey" gene, but your friend's "str8" gene is dominant over the recessive "ghey" gene, while your friend's brother has two recessive "ghey" genes, which is why he is homosexual(remember, when you have a dominant gene and recessive gene, the dominant gene always shows). now, perhaps your friend marries a woman who also has a dominant "str8" gene and a recessive "ghey" gene. then, if they have 4 children, one will be homosexual. see how it can be passed down?

it's similar to this scenerio:
i work at a pet store where we have two burmese pythons. one is normal, and the other is albino. when we breed them, ALL the offspring come out looking normal, because the normal gene is dominant over the albino gene, but yet, all of the offspring carry the albino gene. so if any of the offspring breed with an albino, or breed with another burmese python that carries the albino gene, a portion of those offspring will display the albino gene.

Wouldn't that be, I dunno, contradictive?

I don't think it's the actual "OMG GHEY!!1!" gene, but maybe a gene that causes a hormone imbalance, making members of one sex pick up on the pheromones of the same sex. As I said earlier.

Of course, there is the chance that it is a choice and they are looking for an excuse...

Hmm. You speak a good point sir. What if homosexuality is different than bisexuality. Perhaps homosexuality is genetic, but bisexuality is emotional. Maybe said bi is okay with the opposite sex, but found something appealing in the same sex.

I'm straight, so I can't venture into the mind of a homosexual or a bisexual, so I'm running on only possibilities.

Edit: Where's Clark?

Then, according to Brihard, I was right. It is a hormonal imbalance.

Cool. I feel smart.

And your argument is...?

How did you formulate that opinion?

But this isn't an argument of opinions, we're debating possible facts. Namecalling and slander do not help points. Let's keep it civil.

(You too Bri...)

Dirty pool, right there Brihard. Playing technicalities ain't cool.

I deliberately said "possible facts" simply because there has not been a consentual agreement.

Fact: There were dinosaurs.

Possible Fact: Dinosaurs died because of a meteor.

It's not opinion, but it's not completely fact yet either, so it's a possible fact.

Hormonal imbalence.

I win.

Kinda, its already been said.

We win.

Hmm...   Lots of fodder in this thread, but I am going to bed.

But I will summarize my understanding of the current science, for now.  Much of this has been said already, but perhaps a summation is useful.

1.  "Born ghey" =/= "ghey gene".  There are plenty of non-genetic influences in utero that impact various physiological and psychological features of the baby.  Particularly interesting here, perhaps, is the recent study that indicated that having older brothers changed the utero environment such that homosexuality became more likely, at least in males.

2.  If there is a "ghey gene", there is no particular reason to believe that it would/should have been evolved away.  Plenty of apparently disadvantagrous genes/traits (bleeder genes, altruisitic traits) survive, for good reason.  Evolution is not that simple.

3.  There is some evidence to support a biological foundation of homosexuality.  Twin studies and the brother study mentioned have definitely laid the foundation for a biological claim.  But I am not aware of a scientific consensus that there is a biological foundation.

4.  There is clear evidence that various environmental influences can affect sexuality.  I believe the consensus is pretty clear on this.  The power of various influences, and the interaction with any underlying biological foundations, is less clear.

5.  Environmental influences =/= "choice".  I don't like celery.  Most likely that has some foundation in my early interactions with celery, but I certainly never "chose" to not like celery.  If I can't even choose to like a particular vegetable, how on Earth can I choose not to like girls?

6.  Biological influences don't end at birth.  If you get lung cancer at 60, you probably didn't "choose" to get cancer, even though you don't have a "cancer gene".  Those 50,000 cigarettes you smoked might have something to do with it, though.  We interact with our world biologically and psychologically throughout our entire lives.  To create an artificial distinction between "born with it" or "chose it" as the only two options is goofy.

More later.

Linus wrote: I dont believe its something they are born with because there are too many instances of men / women choosing to go homosexual after bad experiences with the oppisite sex, like a woman getting raped.

A.  Please provide some data on this prodigious number of people "going ghey" after "a bad experience".  This is a massive urban legend.

B.  You are confusing homosexual behavior with homosexual feelings.  There is a disproportionate amount of homosexual activities in prison, on ships, Alaska, and other places where there are not enough women.  This does not make these men truly homosexual.  Many folks experiment in college, perhaps after a bad breakup, but this also does not make them ghey.

Again, to me, its chosen.

Based on... what?  Are you just going to ignore the science out there?

It isnt supposed to be natural for one reaon: The (main) purpose of sex is reproduction, thats how a species lives on. But if you have sex with the same sex, its impossible to reproduce.

And that has what to do with choice?

Very random post, Linus.

Following along that line -

If we accept for the moment that being ghey is a conscious choice - where is the evidence that we are born straight?  Isn't it just as likely that we are born homosexual, but most people just choose to be straight at some point?

Just because most people go that way doesn't mean it's hardwired.  Most people in the world like soccer, for instance, but there isn't (TMK) a soccer gene, so they must have chosen to like it.  For all we know we are all born not liking soccer, but people in most of the world are pressured into liking soccer by society.  Here in the US, of course, we are immune to that.

Thus my question - if being ghey/straight is a choice, who's to say which is the default state? 

Maybe we shouldn't be looking for a "ghey gene" but a "straight gene"?

Then how do you explain the continued popularity of soccer?

Hmm?

Clark Kent wrote: Seriously, Dune - I am usually very much an oatmeal & raisin kind of gal, but every so often I've gotta have some chocolate chunk.

I agree. Splurging every once in a while and spoiling yourself should be your dirty little secret.

Linus wrote: "Please provide some data on this prodigious number of people "going ghey"" when there is a lack of women, or for experimenting. That too is a urban legend.

I didn't say "prodigous" - I said "disproportionate".

And it isn't an urban legend, it is a well-documented phenomenon called "situational homosexuality".  There are countless studies on the subject.  Check google or wiki, or a library. 

There is "proof" pointing BOTH ways Clark. You know that. SO, are YOU just going to ignore the http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel025 - science out there?

That study isn't "proof" of anything - it is merely a study that failed to find evidence of a particular genetic link.  It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

But you didn't read my posts carefully enough, anyway - I am not saying that a genetic link has been proven.  Rather the opposite, actually.

Shall I clarify for you? It isnt natural, therefore its chosen / learned.

Please define natural for me.

Linus wrote: [natural=] "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature"

That's a bit of a circular definition, but ok...

So is left-handedness "natural"? 

Lou Gehrig's disease?

Einstein-like genius?

A preference for blondes over brunettes?

Enjoying soccer?

Computers?

And what exactly is "nature"?

uuugh this gives me a headache.

Anyway, who knows if all Homosexual people are Homosexual because they think the sex is great and are attracted that way, or if they accually do love the person.

Theres a difference between wanting someone for sex and love. You may think you love them but you might really not. I would be curious to see what the world would be like if everyone didnt produce kids but rather if they were just given to them by god or the stork or something. I know that sounds retarded, but im serious. If NOBODY ever had sexual feelings would anyone ever love each other? And if they did would there be Ghays? Or would everyone be bisexual? Or would EVERYONE be ghay? We will never know.......