Gunny
Gold Member
... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?
No offense, but that sentence should be taken out and shot.... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?
There have been a few scientific studies that explain the supposed paradox between 'homosexuality genes' and Darwin's theories. See here for an article about one study and here for the Proceedings of the Royal Society article on that study.... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?
Those articles are all fine and dandy, but you have to keep in mind homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic.There have been a few scientific studies that explain the supposed paradox between 'homosexuality genes' and Darwin's theories. See here for an article about one study and here for the Proceedings of the Royal Society article on that study.
Of course, if you read either article it specifically states that the genetic effect only accounts for a small percentage of homosexuality and more study is needed in order to better determine the role that genetics plays in determining if a person will become homosexual or not.
I hope that answers your immediate question.
Even if it's not genetic, it might be a psychological result of certain circumstances that form the individual. And they may not be able to control their feelings. Every gay I know says it was always present in them. The idea that gays choose that lifestyle to be wacky or rebellious doesn't make a lot of sense to me based on my personal observations.
In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.Some obviously don't choose it as a lifestyle. But some do. They choose being gay just like they choose to be vegetarians, animal rights activists, or any other "cause" they find appealling.
I agree. I am doing my own personal study. I know two boys who I suspect will end up being gay. One is 3 and the other is 8. Later on I will find out if my instincts are correct. Too late for this thread though!I will say, more obvious for males than females, it's pretty easy to spot the genetic predestined in k-1, than heteros. Some that seem hetero, may take one by surprise, rarely those that seem homosexual.
I think you are right. I'd also venture to guess, no more than that, that there are more genetically inclined homosexuals than lesbians. I've no clue why, but will say that at very tender ages one can see this in some boys; much more rare in girls.In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.
I already know the answer to the question.There have been a few scientific studies that explain the supposed paradox between 'homosexuality genes' and Darwin's theories. See here for an article about one study and here for the Proceedings of the Royal Society article on that study.
Of course, if you read either article it specifically states that the genetic effect only accounts for a small percentage of homosexuality and more study is needed in order to better determine the role that genetics plays in determining if a person will become homosexual or not.
I hope that answers your immediate question.
Sure, if you put it within the parameters of conscious choice. It has been my observation that young people; especially teenagers, don't apply a whole lot of logic to their choices and even less consideration to the possible consequences resulting from them.Even if it's not genetic, it might be a psychological result of certain circumstances that form the individual. And they may not be able to control their feelings. Every gay I know says it was always present in them. The idea that gays choose that lifestyle to be wacky or rebellious doesn't make a lot of sense to me based on my personal observations.
Exactly my point. Those who argue the pro-homo side make absolute statements when there is no evidence to support them.Those articles are all fine and dandy, but you have to keep in mind homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic.
I think that's Gunny's point.
Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.I already know the answer to the question.
So these studies not only claim homosexuality is hereditary, but because it does not die out through natural selection that it is also a "special" hereditary gene. Guess that about covers it, huh?:scratch:
No you DIDN'T just call me on a rhetorical question then use the word "irregardless." :rotflmao:Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.
According to that theory, if you controlled the conditions while the child was in gestation, you could 'control' whether or not they were 'predisposed' towards homosexuality / bi-sexuality.
'More fertile'? Hello? Where is this coming from? New one here. That's not 'genetics' btw, but endocrineology. Hello????Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. Irregardless, I don't believe that is what the articles are getting at - it isn't, if I am reading the articles correctly, strictly genetic in nature. If the female parent is more fertile when producing offspring, it is more likely that said offspring will be homosexual, so it has something to do with the hormones that are produced by the mother while the child is in gestation.
According to that theory, if you controlled the conditions while the child was in gestation, you could 'control' whether or not they were 'predisposed' towards homosexuality / bi-sexuality.
Well I guess I must be one of the "pro-homo faction" because I lack that charming virulent hatred and abhorrence of gays due to knowing gays and having gay friends.What I DON'T see, are any of the board's usual suspects
(pro-homo faction) rushing in to defend genetic stance.
I was merely trying to interpret the article and help further the discussion. The article was referring to women who are more fertile than others, and the effect that had on whether the offspring was homosexual.'More fertile'? Hello? Where is this coming from? New one here. That's not 'genetics' btw, but endocrineology. Hello????