Causes for homosexuality?

[Mr Rayon]

What causes homesexuality?

Is it genetic (i.e. if someone is then it is likely that one of their ancestors were too)?

[StringJunky]

What causes homesexuality?

Is it genetic (i.e. if someone is then it is likely that one of their ancestors were too)?

 

 

Scroll down to 'Etiology':

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

[Anilkumar]

Hi there,

 

Can I post a few questions regarding this subject?

 

I have some uncertainties regarding the homosexual act. It has been found in all animals too. About which there is an exhaustive article on Wikipedia. Moreover, I would like to make it clear that, I respect every being's approach to life and her/his sexual orientation. The purpose of these questions is purely "understanding one of the significant and remarkable acts of life."

1] In heterosexuals, usually the male is the active or dominant partner [considering the heterosexual postural variations as pleasure additives]. In heterosexuals, the whole play from the beginning of courtship to the sexual act, the male does the task. He is the one who plays the dominant role and does the 'work'. The male in all animals is dominant by nature. And the female enjoys being passive, or "being the focus of attention". The female in all animals play the submissive role. Who plays which role in the homosexual act? Do both the partners play both the roles, taking turns? [i do not mean to be explicit.] To make things clear, in heterosexuals one is playing the passive role, the other is playing the active role, and they both can reach orgasm at the same time playing those same roles. However, in case of male homosexuals only the partner who is playing the active role can reach the climax while playing that role. Then the partner who was playing the passive role has to switch his role from passive to the active one, to reach his orgasm. How are they able to play both roles? Does the person who is dominant by nature switch his nature, play the submissive role, and vice versa? Nevertheless, for the female homosexuals, it is possible to reach orgasm playing any one role, and simultaneously too.

 

2] How does a male homosexual who is penetrated, derive physical pleasure? To be more clear- The heterosexual female partners have organs i.e. the Vulva [the labia etc] that is richly innervated and functions to give pleasure when penetrated. [Again, here considering the anal penetration in heterosexuals as a pleasure additive. Moreover, the option of vaginal penetration to reach orgasm is always present, there.] However, a male homosexual whose anus is penetrated does not have those corresponding parts that can give the same pleasure as the Vulva of the heterosexual female partner, when penetrated. Does he feel pleasure and if so is his pleasure purely mentally derived? Alternatively, does he wait patiently without feeling any pleasure, caring for and respecting the other partner's urge, and allowing him satiate first. Even though this question does not arise in the female homosexual act, however, there too, who is the focus of attention and who is attending, considering the fact that it is in the female nature to be submissive, and derives pleasure in "being the focus of attention". So how does the partner playing the "attending" role enjoy it when it is in her nature to enjoy "being the focus of attention".

 

3] A heterosexual female/male is attracted towards the physical structure and contours of the opposite sex. In what way homosexuals feel the attraction towards their partners of their same kind or sex?

 

If someone could throw light on these matters, it would be enlightening.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards

Edited December 8, 2010 by Anilkumar

[Ringer]

1] In heterosexuals, usually the male is the active or dominant partner [considering the heterosexual postural variations as pleasure additives]. In heterosexuals, the whole play from the beginning of courtship to the sexual act, the male does the task. He is the one who plays the dominant role and does the 'work'. The male in all animals is dominant by nature. And the female enjoys being passive, or "being the focus of attention". The female in all animals play the submissive role. Who plays which role in the homosexual act? Do both the partners play both the roles, taking turns? [i do not mean to be explicit.] To make things clear, in heterosexuals one is playing the passive role, the other is playing the active role, and they both can reach orgasm at the same time playing those same roles. However, in case of male homosexuals only the partner who is playing the active role can reach the climax while playing that role. Then the partner who was playing the passive role has to switch his role from passive to the active one, to reach his orgasm. How are they able to play both roles? Does the person who is dominant by nature switch his nature, play the submissive role, and vice versa? Nevertheless, for the female homosexuals, it is possible to reach orgasm playing any one role, and simultaneously too.

This is just wrong. I assume you mean dominant to be that the males pursue females and females take care of offspring, but there are many animals where the male has more paternal investment. In these animals the females tend to be larger, more aggressive, etc. Although you could mean purely in sexual acts the woman is passive, but again this is just wrong. There are large amounts of heterosexual males who are passive and females who are dominant.

2] How does a male homosexual who is penetrated, derive physical pleasure? To be more clear- The heterosexual female partners have organs i.e. the Vulva [the labia etc] that is richly innervated and functions to give pleasure when penetrated. [Again, here considering the anal penetration in heterosexuals as a pleasure additive. Moreover, the option of vaginal penetration to reach orgasm is always present, there.] However, a male homosexual whose anus is penetrated does not have those corresponding parts that can give the same pleasure as the Vulva of the heterosexual female partner, when penetrated. Does he feel pleasure and if so is his pleasure purely mentally derived? Alternatively, does he wait patiently without feeling any pleasure, caring for and respecting the other partner's urge, and allowing him satiate first. Even though this question does not arise in the female homosexual act, however, there too, who is the focus of attention and who is attending, considering the fact that it is in the female nature to be submissive, and derives pleasure in "being the focus of attention". So how does the partner playing the "attending" role enjoy it when it is in her nature to enjoy "being the focus of attention".

Most females don't reach orgasm through vaginal penetration but through clitoral stimulation. I knew a homosexual male that said he could orgasm strictly through anal penetration, I'm not so sure how, but hey to each their own.

3] A heterosexual female/male is attracted towards the physical structure and contours of the opposite sex. In what way homosexuals feel the attraction towards their partners of their same kind or sex?

 

 

Well heterosexual people largely disagree about what exactly is the most attractive about the opposite sex, although some things do seem to be universal (e.g. youth). Who's to say what someone else finds attractive or why.

 

But on that note there are a few theories on what causes homosexuality. Some say it's mainly genetic; I think the gene Xq28 is the assumed gene, but there is disagreement. Homosexuality has also been absolutely related to some cultural or situational causes such as in the prison systems. Some societies, such as ancient Greece, promote young males pleasuring older males in homosexual manners.

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

Nevertheless, for the female homosexuals, it is possible to reach orgasm playing any one role, and simultaneously too. [/size]

 

 

Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribadism

[lemur]

I have heard that the prostate can be stimulated via anal penetration, and this seems analogous to me with G-spot stimulation in vaginal intercourse. The mechanics of sex are as flexible (no pun intended) as your imagination, but it is ultimately imagination itself that makes the biggest difference in erotic stimulation. What is the eroticism of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality and what is the relationship between them? If we could discover this, it would be the holy grail of male sexuality (no?) since homosexual contact seems much easier to "get" than the heterosexual variant. Supposedly the term, "gay" comes from the fact that men having sex with men didn't have to worry about pregnancy. Maybe this lack of worry also contributed to the enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Of course now that pregnancy is more controllable and homosexuality is burdened with the stigma of high HIV risk, maybe the roles have reversed. In any case, I don't think it's totally impossible to understand homosexual eroticism and physical pleasure without actually engaging in it. Pain and pleasure have an interesting relationship in various sex acts so once you understand the general connection between the two, it's not a far stretch (again, no pun intended) to imagine how everything from the actual physical pain to the confrontation with homophobic fear/disgust could be exploited for sexual pleasure. The possibilities are probably endless and if you can justify it ethically and otherwise, maybe the best way to really research the topic is to experiment yourself. Saying this, however, I would have to add that sexual experimentation comes with similar or higher risks than experimentation with addictive drugs so your virginity might ultimately be worth more than the knowledge you gain, so think twice before trading it in (I would say the same about heterosexual sex, btw).

[Xittenn]

\o

 

Anal sex, when enjoyed by men, can best be described in two separate actions one of which is shared with females.

 

The first as mentioned involves stimulation via the prostate. If the male prostate is stimulated anally while masturbating, or other, a stronger climax can be achieved. This was well depicted in the movie Roadtrip where E.L. would have the attending nurse at the sperm bank tickle his prostate while masturbating thereby aiding in ejaculation. So you can well imagine how gay couples implement said strategies in their private lives.

 

The second, and possibly more gratifying for some, stimulation occurs in the anus cavity walls and entry point themselves. There are a lot of nerves in this area and friction can cause a sensation not quite unlike the icy hot gels that can be applied on sore muscles. The simple act of penetration in the anus can release much in terms of stress and I would presume this is somehow linked to the consequential release of endorphins or what not(require something here!) Anal sex has been said to be more gratifying by some women(again with the something here!)

 

The relevance of top and bottom activity here is a little unclear to me. I think a good portion of gay men, at least the ones I've known, are switch and expect to take turns. I think top and bottom in this case plays out more socially where one tends to be more dominant over the activities of the other .... this is just something I have observed. I would also like to respond to the OP in reiterating a point that has probably been mentioned quite often and that is the answers to this are broad and varied. Some are born as such and some are driven to it by years of bad relationships with the opposite sex. Some are attracted to the lifestyle and still some are confused and acting out as a consequence of mental illness(this can happen and does despite the many who would object to this.) There are good and bad reasons, sensible and unintelligible ones as well but there are no real defining answers. It's kind of like asking why one person believes in a God while the other person believes they will die and that will be the end.

[jcmmanuel]

"Supposedly the term, "gay" comes from the fact that men having sex with men didn't have to worry about pregnancy. Maybe this lack of worry also contributed to the enjoyment of sexual pleasure."

 

Just a small remark: technically the presumption about no worrying about pregnancy is incorrect I think. Or at least it depends what exactly you mean. My argument is from heterosexual relationships though. According to scientific reports that appeared quite some time ago, it seems that the possibility of pregnancy, in heterosexual relationships, adds to the pleasure or 'momentum' in a specific way which relates to the cognitive experience of 'connectedness'. It is a mental experience in a broader way than often thought. This has also been advanced as a psychological explanation for the many pregnancies that could or would easily have been prevented in many cases. In other words, women in normal situations get pregnant not just because they are careless (as was often thought) and also not only because of a intensified pleasure (mostly in the male partner, presumably) but because the sexual experience is, for many couples, not purely physical. While this offers an argument that abortion is not just the result of negligence, I think it also speaks against your suggestion in a certain way.

 

Kind regards.

[lemur]

Just a small remark: technically the presumption about no worrying about pregnancy is incorrect I think. Or at least it depends what exactly you mean. My argument is from heterosexual relationships though. According to scientific reports that appeared quite some time ago, it seems that the possibility of pregnancy, in heterosexual relationships, adds to the pleasure or 'momentum' in a specific way which relates to the cognitive experience of 'connectedness'. It is a mental experience in a broader way than often thought. This has also been advanced as a psychological explanation for the many pregnancies that could or would easily have been prevented in many cases. In other words, women in normal situations get pregnant not just because they are careless (as was often thought) and also not only because of a intensified pleasure (mostly in the male partner, presumably) but because the sexual experience is, for many couples, not purely physical. While this offers an argument that abortion is not just the result of negligence, I think it also speaks against your suggestion in a certain way.

 

Kind regards.

Good point. I just mentioned the explanation I've heard for the term, "gay," and obviously sexual pleasure and relationship pleasure are not mutually exclusive, one-dimensional, or exactly the same for any two individuals or couples.

Edited January 5, 2011 by lemur

[avefrm]

I think it is the abscence of libido (some psychological defect).

[Moontanman]

Hi there,

 

Can I post a few questions regarding this subject?

 

I have some uncertainties regarding the homosexual act. It has been found in all animals too. About which there is an exhaustive article on Wikipedia. Moreover, I would like to make it clear that, I respect every being's approach to life and her/his sexual orientation. The purpose of these questions is purely "understanding one of the significant and remarkable acts of life."

 

No problem, I have some experience with this.

 

1] In heterosexuals, usually the male is the active or dominant partner [considering the heterosexual postural variations as pleasure additives]. In heterosexuals, the whole play from the beginning of courtship to the sexual act, the male does the task. He is the one who plays the dominant role and does the 'work'.

 

You have obviously never experienced a female Dom....

 

The male in all animals is dominant by nature. And the female enjoys being passive, or "being the focus of attention". The female in all animals play the submissive role.

 

This is demostratebly false, not only are species of animals with dominant females quite common it can vary from individual to individual with in the species.

 

Who plays which role in the homosexual act? Do both the partners play both the roles, taking turns? [i do not mean to be explicit.] To make things clear, in heterosexuals one is playing the passive role, the other is playing the active role, and they both can reach orgasm at the same time playing those same roles.

 

Again this is not true, you are making some enormous assumptions here, in heterosexuals either partner can be dominant but in most successful relationships the roles are no where near as clear cut as you seem to think and both partners can play either role.

 

 

However, in case of male homosexuals only the partner who is playing the active role can reach the climax while playing that role. Then the partner who was playing the passive role has to switch his role from passive to the active one, to reach his orgasm. How are they able to play both roles? Does the person who is dominant by nature switch his nature, play the submissive role, and vice versa? Nevertheless, for the female homosexuals, it is possible to reach orgasm playing any one role, and simultaneously too.

 

Ok i am going to be explicit, if you are adverse to the bare facts of sex then stop reading.

 

Most Humans can and and often do achieve orgasm through anal intercourse, both males and females can orgasm from receiving anal intercourse. The anus has similar nerve centers as the penis or vagina and anal stimulation with a penis or a dildo or even fingers can and often does result in orgasm for both men and women. And yes both partners can take turns being bottom or top... Not all relationships, hetero or homo consist of one Dom and one sub, as a matter of fact many consider the idea of D/s to be a perversion. Most people are a combination of both.

 

2] How does a male homosexual who is penetrated, derive physical pleasure? To be more clear- The heterosexual female partners have organs i.e. the Vulva [the labia etc] that is richly innervated and functions to give pleasure when penetrated. [Again, here considering the anal penetration in heterosexuals as a pleasure additive. Moreover, the option of vaginal penetration to reach orgasm is always present, there.] However, a male homosexual whose anus is penetrated does not have those corresponding parts that can give the same pleasure as the Vulva of the heterosexual female partner, when penetrated. Does he feel pleasure and if so is his pleasure purely mentally derived? Alternatively, does he wait patiently without feeling any pleasure, caring for and respecting the other partner's urge, and allowing him satiate first. Even though this question does not arise in the female homosexual act, however, there too, who is the focus of attention and who is attending, considering the fact that it is in the female nature to be submissive, and derives pleasure in "being the focus of attention". So how does the partner playing the "attending" role enjoy it when it is in her nature to enjoy "being the focus of attention".

 

I think i already answered this one.

 

No wait, I missed the lesbian part, this too is something I am familiar with, my first wife was bisexual, if you ever get the chance to ever even watch two women make love (not porn) this question too would be moot. From what I've seen women enjoy sex much more than men can enjoy sex, the lesbian sex act can be very loving and sweet in a way that male female sex seldom is but it can also be every bit as "hold me down and do me like the slut i am as any male/female sex act" Homosexual sex is the same as heterosexual sex and the act can be as different as there are people and imaginations.

 

3] A heterosexual female/male is attracted towards the physical structure and contours of the opposite sex. In what way homosexuals feel the attraction towards their partners of their same kind or sex?

 

In exactly the same way...

 

If someone could throw light on these matters, it would be enlightening.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards

 

I hope I have shed some light on that for you

 

I think it is the abscence of libido (some psychological defect).

 

You are entitled to your opinion but the evidence proves you wrong...

Edited February 16, 2011 by Moontanman

[SamTheSkeptic]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I just wanted to offer a fast reply to the original poster's question: Is homosexuality genetic?

 

The answer is: NO

 

There has never been any conclusive (or even suggestive) scientific evidence to my knowledge that would imply that homosexuality is triggered

by the existence or lack of a specific gene. It is largely an unexplainable phenomenon...but it has everything to do with environmental conditions

and influences and nothing to do with genes.

[Mr Skeptic]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I just wanted to offer a fast reply to the original poster's question: Is homosexuality genetic?

 

The answer is: NO

 

There has never been any conclusive (or even suggestive) scientific evidence to my knowledge that would imply that homosexuality is triggered

by the existence or lack of a specific gene. It is largely an unexplainable phenomenon...but it has everything to do with environmental conditions

and influences and nothing to do with genes.

 

Two things:

1) Since when is "genetic" the same as "a single gene"? By that argument there is no evidence that species membership is genetic.

2) If homosexuality isn't genetic, than how come it in fact is largely genetic? http://www.tim-taylo...es/studies.html

[Ringer]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I just wanted to offer a fast reply to the original poster's question: Is homosexuality genetic?

 

The answer is: NO

 

There has never been any conclusive (or even suggestive) scientific evidence to my knowledge that would imply that homosexuality is triggered

by the existence or lack of a specific gene. It is largely an unexplainable phenomenon...but it has everything to do with environmental conditions

and influences and nothing to do with genes.

 

Although it is debatable, Xq28 is a gene that has been thought to be linked to homosexuality.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I just wanted to offer a fast reply to the original poster's question: Is homosexuality genetic?

 

The answer is: NO

 

There has never been any conclusive (or even suggestive) scientific evidence to my knowledge that would imply that homosexuality is triggered

by the existence or lack of a specific gene. It is largely an unexplainable phenomenon...but it has everything to do with environmental conditions

and influences and nothing to do with genes.

 

Certainly, there are cultural/environmental factors that influence whether a person becomes or is homosexual. However, that is not to say that there is not also a genetic predisposition or that a person's preferred sexual orientation is not a compounded result of the two.

[Marat]

If there are genes for homosexuality, how do they confer a survival benefit, since they would discourage reproduction? Perhaps having a certain percentage of non-productively-mating people in a social group improves social cohesion and reduces social conflict? Perhaps there is some genetic link between genes harmful to the survival of a species with genes which predispose people to homosexual preferences, so that homosexual genes persist since they confer a survival advantage on the species though not on the individuals?

[Xittenn]

If there are genes for homosexuality, how do they confer a survival benefit, since they would discourage reproduction? Perhaps having a certain percentage of non-productively-mating people in a social group improves social cohesion and reduces social conflict? Perhaps there is some genetic link between genes harmful to the survival of a species with genes which predispose people to homosexual preferences, so that homosexual genes persist since they confer a survival advantage on the species though not on the individuals?

 

Would this be the same excuse used to justify the heterosexual non-productively-mating individuals? I mean birth control techniques in their evolved and functional form are rather new on the time line but I'm sure sex addicted non-breeders have existed since the dawn of mankind. I would also put my bets on the traits of these individuals being traced to genetics also. The adage is "survival of the fittest" I don't see where this explicitly states that to be the fittest one must pro-actively breed.

[lemur]

Would this be the same excuse used to justify the heterosexual non-productively-mating individuals? I mean birth control techniques in their evolved and functional form are rather new on the time line but I'm sure sex addicted non-breeders have existed since the dawn of mankind. I would also put my bets on the traits of these individuals being traced to genetics also. The adage is "survival of the fittest" I don't see where this explicitly states that to be the fittest one must pro-actively breed.

Typically what I hear about is males who are as promiscuous as possible. Then, their "mates" sometimes become pregnant and attempt to get them to respect and love them as the mother of their baby. This can work or backfire, depending on how the man feels about the woman. Still, you could say that women who deem their sex partner to be a fitter father and/or gene-donor would be more likely to become pregnant by him and thus that "fitter" men are more likely to reproduce more by more women. They aren't pro-actively breeding, but for their genes to be more likely to survive, it helps to breed more than less (statistically anyway). Also, there seems to be some connection between men being resistant to commitment and women wanting to seduce them into committing somehow. I haven't figured this out completely yet, because it doesn't seem to be purely based on physical or other characteristics. Women seem to have some unexplainable radar for which men are worth getting, and they'll become very desperate for such men, who in turn will reject them generally except for sex. Then, these same women will treat other men the same way, except they will also reject them for sex (though probably not for other things). So, I don't think I've really addressed this issue sufficiently but the topic does deviate from the thread topic, so maybe I should just conclude by saying that pro-active breeding may only be related to survival of the fittest as part of a strategy to attract the fittest males; and anti-reproductive sex may be part of the mechanism that keeps potential breeders sexually active and diversifying until the moment they "fall" to the pro-active breeding urge to control their partner. This may occur in homosexual relationships as well.

[ydoaPs]

If there are genes for homosexuality, how do they confer a survival benefit, since they would discourage reproduction?

It's not about direct reproduction rate, but rather survival rate indirectly leading to increased reproduction. See the Gay Uncle Hypothesis.

[SamTheSkeptic]

Two things:

1) Since when is "genetic" the same as "a single gene"? By that argument there is no evidence that species membership is genetic.

 

Um, yes it is. If you have brown eyes for example, that means you have the specific "brown eyes" (dominant) gene. The question then follows that if homosexuality is

"genetic" (which it isn't), then homosexual people would possess such a gene. The problem is that homosexuality is a behavior and not a physical trait.

 

 

2) If homosexuality isn't genetic, than how come it in fact is largely genetic? http://www.tim-taylo...es/studies.html

 

Wow, pretty bad science. At best, you have some correlations in these (outdated and limited) studies, but no causation whatsoever. Trust me, if it was discovered that

homosexuality was indeed genetic, everyone would know about it by now!

 

Although it is debatable, Xq28 is a gene that has been thought to be linked to homosexuality.

 

Once again, correlation not causation. And never forget a cardinal rule of science. . "it only takes the sighting of one black swan to know that not all swans are white."

In other words. . .this Xq28 gene you speak of, if there is a single straight person who possesses it, or conversely a single homosexual person who lacks it (which I'm sure there are), then you know that this gene can't possibly be responsible.

[John Cuthber]

"Um, yes it is. If you have brown eyes for example, that means you have the specific "brown eyes" (dominant) gene. The question then follows that if homosexuality is "

There is no "brown eye" gene ( except in elementary level text books).

Even wiki has a better grasp of it than you. The wiki page clearly says "The genetics of eye color are complicated, and color is determined by multiple genes."

 

"Trust me, if it was discovered that homosexuality was indeed genetic, everyone would know about it by now!"

Everybody except one does. You are that one.

 

"Once again, correlation not causation. And never forget a cardinal rule of science. . "it only takes the sighting of one black swan to know that not all swans are white."

By that argument, sex isn't the cause of children.

Not all sex leads to children (and according to some minority views, not all children were caused by sex- but that's another issue).

[farmboy]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I just wanted to offer a fast reply to the original poster's question: Is homosexuality genetic?

 

The answer is: NO

 

There has never been any conclusive (or even suggestive) scientific evidence to my knowledge that would imply that homosexuality is triggered

by the existence or lack of a specific gene. It is largely an unexplainable phenomenon...but it has everything to do with environmental conditions

and influences and nothing to do with genes.

 

Hope you can see the massive contradiction in your argument here dude. It is still entirely plausible that homosexuality has a purely genetic explanation, just one that is too complex for us to understand directly. Sexuality is a spectrum after all so we could be looking at a whole list of differences in genes that takes us from purely homo to purely hetro. The truth is we just don't know, like you say ''it is a largely unexplainable phenomenon'' (at least given what we currently know. So how then do you justify going from sexuality is inexplicable to providing an explanation for it all in a single line then lol.

 

 

Certainly, there are cultural/environmental factors that influence whether a person becomes or is homosexual. However, that is not to say that there is not also a genetic predisposition or that a person's preferred sexual orientation is not a compounded result of the two.

 

I'm not certain I agree with this either, though it dawns on me the simple definition of homosexuality is probably an issue of some confusion here. For example I would consider the term homosexual applicable to anyone who is sexual attracted to another person of the same sex and hetrosexual the opposite (obviously there are degrees of sexuality but I just mean this in simple terms). Now a lot of people would disagree and say that sexuality is determined by what you do more than what you think, and this I cannot agree with. For example is a married man with children who is attracted to young men but never to a woman really a heterosexual because he denies his true nature? On the other side you have people who use same sex intercourse as a currency when perhaps they are in prison or like some porn stars lol. Moving on further still are all humans bisexual (or asexual perhaps lol?).

[hypervalent_iodine]

farmboy, I'm not sure I quite understand what you're attempting to say, so please forgive any misinterpretations. I don't think the definition of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is so-much the issue here. Or at least, the issue does not appear to have been raised within the context of this thread (until now). Can I ask what it is about my previous post that you do not agree with? It wasn't made particularly clear to me where there was disagreement on your part, judging by your post.

[farmboy]

farmboy, I'm not sure I quite understand what you're attempting to say, so please forgive any misinterpretations. I don't think the definition of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is so-much the issue here. Or at least, the issue does not appear to have been raised within the context of this thread (until now). Can I ask what it is about my previous post that you do not agree with? It wasn't made particularly clear to me where there was disagreement on your part, judging by your post.

 

Apologies dude, I don't think that I did disagree with you per se, rather it was your post about the cultural factors which affect the incidences of homosexuality that made me go off on my own tangent lol.

 

Actually reading back, was it even you that mentioned the stuff about prison? It was this more specifically, but the idea of cultural influence overall that I was questioning. Also just for clarity, it wasn't so much the differences between homo- and hetero-sexuality that I was pondering so much as the nature of sexuality overall.

 

What I meant at the end of the day was that we are having a debate over what causes homosexuality, nature or nurture lol, but at least as far as I could see there wasn't even really a consensus as to what homosexuality actually is. For example someone suggested that incidences of homosexuality are higher in jail. Now obviously this would point strongly towards nurture being the major wouldn't causal factor. But then I personally wouldn't consider this to be an actual incidence of homosexuality judged by the same standards as one would use outside. That brought me onto other contentious issues, like a married man attracted to men. Is he actually hetero just because he is married and has sex with a woman?

 

But yeah I was just opening the idea up to consideration more than anything else lol.

[SamTheSkeptic]

There is no "brown eye" gene ( except in elementary level text books).

Even wiki has a better grasp of it than you. The wiki page clearly says "The genetics of eye color are complicated, and color is determined by multiple genes."

 

Flawed argument. Sure, everything about our physical (not behavioral) characteristics are governed by the interaction of multiple genes, not just eye color. But this doesn't change the fact that an individual must possess a specific gene to have a specific feature. If you completely lack the gene(s) for brown eyes, then you will not have brown eyes. This really is a very basic concept, you've even said yourself that it is "elementary textbook" stuff. So I'm surprised that you aren't grasping it then, lol.

 

 

Everybody except one does. You are that one.

 

You mean me and the original poster. Yeah, we must be the only ones in the dark. . .

 

By that argument, sex isn't the cause of children.

Not all sex leads to children (and according to some minority views, not all children were caused by sex- but that's another issue).

 

No.

 

Sure, not all sex leads to babies. But it DOES NOT FOLLOW then that not all babies come from sex! Well maybe test tube babies

 

In fact I'm not even sure what twisted logic you've used to arrive at that preposterous conclusion. . but it is indeed another fallacious argument. The rule I quoted (which every decent scientist is familiar with) is the concept that if you OBSERVE a single black swan then you know that not ALL swans are white. Have you ever OBSERVED (or heard through reliable documented reports) of human babies coming from any source other than human sperm/egg fertilization? Didn't think so.

 

If you did though, that would be your 'black swan.' If you for example witnessed an elephant giving birth to a baby human, it would then be safe to say that not all human babies come from humans. But man, you were way off lol.

 

Hope you can see the massive contradiction in your argument here dude. It is still entirely plausible that homosexuality has a purely genetic explanation, just one that is too complex for us to understand directly. Sexuality is a spectrum after all so we could be looking at a whole list of differences in genes that takes us from purely homo to purely hetro. The truth is we just don't know, like you say ''it is a largely unexplainable phenomenon'' (at least given what we currently know. So how then do you justify going from sexuality is inexplicable to providing an explanation for it all in a single line then lol.

 

There isn't any contradiction in my position at all. The plausibility that homosexuality has any genetic origin at all is about equal to the plausibility that the flying spaghetti monster rules the universe. We don't need any proof for that either. . and it sure is convenient to just say for now that "it is too complex for us to understand directly."

 

Also, sexuality is not a spectrum. .this is just your perception. Sexuality is based on emotions. . .and those emotions change from person to person for different environmental reasons, but they are never genetic. Take a minute to think about the implications of what you are proposing: A behavior (homosexuality) is caused by a gene. If this were true, then it would have to follow that there would be genes for every behavior. . like homicidal genes, kleptomania genes, intelligence genes, etc. It just isn't true. . .

 

From Science, 1994:

 

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."