Human (and Animal) Same-Sex Attraction (I think this falls under psychology)

[JohnDBarrow]

My maternal grandfather once said that men were attracted to women and that women were attracted to men. He also said that genes were responsible for homosexuality. I have heard a number of claims, including from one chemist, that homosexuality was "not natural". Granted, humans do many things that don't seem natural like travel in automobiles, have plastic surgery, type here on science forums, put on messy makeup and wear clothes. 

I personally think many more living humans on earth are inherently attracted to others of the same sex (or perceived same sex) than many people dare realize. Modern man, often under monotheistic religious influence, has made this kind of attraction "taboo" and man-made government in some jurisdictions has even imposed the death penalty for certain homosexual practices in extreme cases. 

What have various scientific disciplines, including psychology and biology, said about same-sex attraction? It has certainly been observed with animals, has it not? How much of our sexual attraction is nature and how much is nurture? I think my mother once tried to nurture me with "heteronormativity" as a little boy by telling me that I would someday find a nice girl and marry her. However, I've been a bachelor all my life and consider myself bisexual since before puberty. "Heteronormativity" (heavy social pressure "not to be gay") is something Mother Culture seems to have screamed out loud in my 1964-born baby-boomer ears since elementary school. 

If homosexuality is genetic, if it supposedly runs in the genes, then how did homosexuals inherit this sexual orientation from their male and female parents who conceived them heterosexually, quite obviously?

 

[MigL]

Oh my.
You sure are picking to discuss all the topics that will get you in trouble.

[JohnDBarrow]

Get in trouble even here in First Amendement America?  Boy! I'm hopelessly shivering in my sandals with socks! 

My overpopulation thread was not such a big hit here. Might have offended the "be fruitful and multiply" crowd which might also be homophobic. 

However, Mig (as in Soviet jet?), you failed to answer any of my questions.  

Edited June 1 by JohnDBarrow

[CharonY]

Almost all our behaviour is a combination of a genetic basis, that kind of forms a certain baseline, but, especially when the brain is involved, environmental exposures, learning and other feedback modulates the outcome (after all, the brain requires input to develop). So the question of nature vs nurture is, based on what we now know, mostly nonsensical. There is no versus, there is an end. The only part that is often unknown is how much. Also note that many of these non-genetic exposures can happen before birth- exposure to hormones but also chemicals in the womb affect early neuronal development.

And yes, homosexuality has been observed in at least 1,500 species, suggesting that it is a common, low-frequency outcome of how sexuality is wired https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7.

There have been quite a lot hypotheses why it may arise, and why genes favouring homosexuality persist. Note that genetics is not a 1:1 carbon copy of traits. Combination of genes can result in a wide diversity of traits which can be quite different from the parent. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any benefit to sexual reproduction and we would more likely continue to procreate e.g. via parthenogenesis.

What seems to be the case in humans is that the foundation of sexual orientation is laid early in childhood and, once developed, it is fairly stable. I think it is not yet known if and how much flexibility there  is in the developmental path to sexual (and other) identity. There are suggestions that events in early fetal development already could be an important factor. One clue is the fact at least in men, the birth order sees to have a highly reproducible impact. Across many groups men with same-sex attraction have a greater number of older brothers, than heterosexual men. One hypothesis is that had a male child have some sort of immune response that creates antibodies specific to protein involved in male brain development. These antibodies increase with each male fetus and somehow increase the likelihood of developing same-sex preferences. There is some vague support for that (mostly the enrichment of antibodies against certain fetal proteins in mothers with multiple male children), but evidence remains at the correlation stage. 

So in short, it is complicated and not resolved yet.

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

If homosexuality is genetic, if it supposedly runs in the genes, then how did homosexuals inherit this sexual orientation from their male and female parents who conceived them heterosexually, quite obviously?

Genetic does not necessarily mean inherited - mutations happen

Inherited genetics can be recessive traits. There could be multiple alleles, and it could be that it’s not just one gene responsible.

edit: xpost with CharonY

57 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Get in trouble even here in First Amendement America?

This is an internet forum; it’s international. You might be posting from the US but others are not. As far as the first amendment is concerned, SFN is not an arm of the US government, so it does not apply. You need to follow the rules.

Quote

My overpopulation thread was not such a big hit here.

It would behoove you to understand why

[JohnDBarrow]

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Almost all our behaviour is a combination of a genetic basis, that kind of forms a certain baseline, but, especially when the brain is involved, environmental exposures, learning and other feedback modulates the outcome (after all, the brain requires input to develop). So the question of nature vs nurture is, based on what we now know, mostly nonsensical. There is no versus, there is an end. The only part that is often unknown is how much. Also note that many of these non-genetic exposures can happen before birth- exposure to hormones but also chemicals in the womb affect early neuronal development.

And yes, homosexuality has been observed in at least 1,500 species, suggesting that it is a common, low-frequency outcome of how sexuality is wired https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7.

There have been quite a lot hypotheses why it may arise, and why genes favouring homosexuality persist. Note that genetics is not a 1:1 carbon copy of traits. Combination of genes can result in a wide diversity of traits which can be quite different from the parent. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any benefit to sexual reproduction and we would more likely continue to procreate e.g. via parthenogenesis.

What seems to be the case in humans is that the foundation of sexual orientation is laid early in childhood and, once developed, it is fairly stable. I think it is not yet known if and how much flexibility there  is in the developmental path to sexual (and other) identity. There are suggestions that events in early fetal development already could be an important factor. One clue is the fact at least in men, the birth order sees to have a highly reproducible impact. Across many groups men with same-sex attraction have a greater number of older brothers, than heterosexual men. One hypothesis is that had a male child have some sort of immune response that creates antibodies specific to protein involved in male brain development. These antibodies increase with each male fetus and somehow increase the likelihood of developing same-sex preferences. There is some vague support for that (mostly the enrichment of antibodies against certain fetal proteins in mothers with multiple male children), but evidence remains at the correlation stage. 

So in short, it is complicated and not resolved yet.

 

Surely, there are even some male only-child homosexuals or bisexuals.  There is a gay young man on some chat room claiming to have two older sisters and no brothers. The gene thing might just be part of the equation. The protein thing might be another part. Children are also a product of their environment. Sons abused by mothers in childhood may feel uncomfortable around women. Life experiences may play some part. Sometimes a same-sex partner is just a matter of what is available or handy at the time. I think humans, not inhibited by any social taboos, are largely naturally attracted to whatever looks good to their own eyes or sounds good to their own ears like, for instance, a nice face, sexy hair, pretty white teeth, tan skin, puppy-dog eyes, a smooth, soft voice and a slender body. Most humans, male, female, straight, bi or gay, are averse to the sight of obese or old people. 

Edited June 1 by JohnDBarrow

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Surely, there are even some male only-child homosexuals or bisexuals.

Do you understand the concept of likelihood? 

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

The gene thing might just be part of the equation. The protein thing might be another part.

Uh, I suggest you take a look at how proteins are formed...

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Most humans, male, female, straight, bi or gay, are averse to the sight of obese or old people. 

Uh, nope.

[MigL]

4 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

However, Mig (as in Soviet jet?), you failed to answer any of my questions.

MiG is currently a division of United Aircraft Corporation, also including Sukhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and others.
It was originally known as the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau after the engineers who founded it during the first stages of WW2, Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich.
Both have been deceased for over 50 years, and design duties passed on to be succeeded by R Belyakov ( I believe ).

Over the years they have produced iconic interceptor/fighter jets which have sold in great numbers because of low cost and 'simplicity' of operation, including MiG-15 ( Korean war ), MiG-19-21 ( Vietnam war), and MiG-25 ( Iraq, and V Belenko's famous defection in 1976, with vacuum tubes in the radar ).

As with your other thread, I can't take this one seriously either.

Edited June 2 by MigL

[dimreepr]

Come on guy's, it's way past it's bedtime, time to stop feeding it sugar treats and let it crash...

[swansont]

13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Surely, there are even some male only-child homosexuals or bisexuals.  There is a gay young man on some chat room claiming to have two older sisters and no brothers. The gene thing might just be part of the equation. The protein thing might be another part. Children are also a product of their environment. Sons abused by mothers in childhood may feel uncomfortable around women. Life experiences may play some part. Sometimes a same-sex partner is just a matter of what is available or handy at the time. I think humans, not inhibited by any social taboos, are largely naturally attracted to whatever looks good to their own eyes or sounds good to their own ears like, for instance, a nice face, sexy hair, pretty white teeth, tan skin, puppy-dog eyes, a smooth, soft voice and a slender body. Most humans, male, female, straight, bi or gay, are averse to the sight of obese or old people. 

Rather than just posting such guesswork, one could search for actual scientific studies on the topic. We’re a science discussion site; it’s what we expect. 

[JohnDBarrow]

I think I might need to just take this to some dedicated psychology forum where I might actually receive some respect on this matter. The bottom line is, nobody here, including myself, knows why we are attracted to, or repelled by other persons. I seem to be unattractive to others here possibly due to my face which is in the form of some Canis lupus familiaris. 

Better yet, all people in this world should just stop being ignorant and hate nobody on the basis of sexual orientation regardless of any causes, natural or manmade, known or unknown, of such orientations. I've even heard an angry woman once call her male dog the male homosexual F word for mounting another male dog on a public beach. 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I seem to be unattractive to others here possibly due to my face

Nah, it’s due to your words and the way you describe others. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I think I might need to just take this to some dedicated psychology forum where I might actually receive some respect on this matter.

I would hope that they, too, would urge you to look at the literature 

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

The bottom line is, nobody here, including myself, knows why we are attracted to, or repelled by other persons.

I expect that this has been studied, and you could find things out if you actually looked for answers.

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I seem to be unattractive to others here possibly due to my face which is in the form of some Canis lupus familiaris. 

Yeah, that’s not it.

[Ken Fabian]

I think humans evolved without clear biological triggers and rutting times for mating, with a strong anytime sex drive that isn't precisely aimed in their place. Sexual attraction can get linked to a wide variety of potential turn-on's as sexuality develops. Humans can get aroused by a variety of triggers, all the way to nothing more than imagination. Seems to be a lot of bisexuality and a lot of people who preference their own sex are still capable of hetero sex and lots do have children. And want to have children. And appear happy to have children, male or female.

Survival for humans is all about survival of the group and sexual competition gone to extremes, especially amongst males who can get their way by force and can claim many mates can be very damaging to the group; a strong sex drive when not everyone gets a mate can lead to benefits to the group from those who miss out having access to other kinds of sex, ie less fights. For females missing out too, because they are one out of several and denied outside opportunities by possessive males, as well as males missing out by polygamy.

Members of the group don't have to be parents to be engaged in activities that help the group's survival and feed and protect the group's children.

Edited June 3 by Ken Fabian