Homosexuality is not a genetic issue

[Holocene]

homosexuality is not a "genetic" issue

Is it safe to say that homosexuality is NOT a "genetic" issue, given the fact that such a gene would never be "passed on", and hence would not survive natural selection?

 

[mgb_phys]

Not necessarily.
In many species only one dominant male gets to mate and pass on their genes, it doesn't mean that this behaviour isn't genetically determined.
In the same way people living longer than reproductive age isn't directly passed on to their offspring but might have benefits for the gene pool at large.
Genes are cunning little devils - they always have an angle somewhere!

 

[Pythagorean]

Also, genes can be passed on but not expressed. I believe most (if not all) of us have genes that might never be expressed before we die, but we will pass them on and perhaps under the right stressful conditions our offspring will express those genes.

 

[Moonbear]

The only way a gene is prevented from being passed on is if it's lethal prior to reproductive maturity even in an individual heterozygous for that allele. So, no, that's not a safe assumption.

 

[waht]

If you start with a healthy group of people with "good genes," and let them reproduce, then generations down the line random mutations should occur producing people with all sorts of traits different than those of the initial group.

 

[wasteofo2]

Is it safe to say that homosexuality is NOT a "genetic" issue, given the fact that such a gene would never be "passed on", and hence would not survive natural selection?

Besides what's already been said, there are 2 more reasons why homosexuality could be attributed to genes.

1. Homosexuals, due to social pressure, often do engage in heterosexual relationships.

2. Homosexuality, if genetic, is likely not just the result of 1 particular gene that you either have or don't have. It's more likely that it's a combination of many genes together, genes which on their own may only vaguely influence the functions of 1 part of your body.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Is it safe to say that homosexuality is NOT a "genetic" issue, given the fact that such a gene would never be "passed on", and hence would not survive natural selection?

I don't think any sort of behavior- use of tools, affinity to form social groups, migration, eating candy corn color-by-color, etc. has been shown to have a genetic origin in higher mammals. At best, some behavior has been linked to specific regions in the brain.

I had similar (and too short) conversation with a colleague regarding wild vs. domesticated dogs. She discussed "acquired traits" that don't nessessarily have a purely genetic origin.

 

[Monique]

I've spoken to a director of a neuroscience institute, it is thought among some researchers that homosexuality might be associated with increased fertility, ensuring survival of the trait in a population. I think it will be hard to prove for such complex traits.Andy, you don't think that any kind of behavior has been shown to have a genetic origin, that doesn't mean it is not genetic. Currently we do not have adequate tools to find those genes, it is just too complex.

There are strong indications that behavior is inherited, genetically and epigenetically.

 

[faitswulff]

Don't forget about kin selection.

*EDIT* that was vague, let me clarify -

my reasoning is that since siblings share genes, a homosexual, non-reproductive sibling might contribute to the spread of shared genes by kin-selection - that is, by focusing more energy on the survival of his/her relatives than if the individual were to be focusing on the survival of said individual's own children.

 

[Borek]

In the same way people living longer than reproductive age isn't directly passed on to their offspring but might have benefits for the gene pool at large.

That was researched based on Swedish (?) records from 19th century. In families where not only mother, but also grandmother were present at home, number of kids reaching maturity was higher. So long living grandma had higher chances of passing her genes to the next generations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think any sort of behavior- use of tools, affinity to form social groups, migration, eating candy corn color-by-color, etc. has been shown to have a genetic origin in higher mammals. At best, some behavior has been linked to specific regions in the brain.

I had similar (and too short) conversation with a colleague regarding wild vs. domesticated dogs. She discussed "acquired traits" that don't nessessarily have a purely genetic origin.

So then heterosexuality would not be genetic either?

 

[vociferous]

Sickle Cell anemia and plenty of other genetic diseases still exist despite natural selection.

Most of the research into homosexuality that I have read about lately points to it as most likely due to natal conditions, not genes of the homosexuality. Hormones help key the development of features specific to males and it seems that if too much estrogen is present at the wrong time or there is some other hormone problem, the child may fully develop male sexual features, but the brain may be altered in such a way that the child is more likely to be a homosexual.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sickle Cell anemia and plenty of other genetic diseases still exist despite natural selection.

Most of the research into homosexuality that I have read about lately points to it as most likely due to natal conditions, not genes of the homosexuality. Hormones help key the development of features specific to males and it seems that if too much estrogen is present at the wrong time or there is some other hormone problem, the child may fully develop male sexual features, but the brain may be altered in such a way that the child is more likely to be a homosexual.

Let's not forget though that homosexuality occurs in nature too.

 

[vociferous]

Let's not forget though that homosexuality occurs in nature too.

I think that this has been well-documented. It is pretty absurd, in my opinion, for people to argue that homosexuals do not posses the same kind of innate lusts as heterosexuals. Yet there are plenty of people trying to "cure" them. If there is a "cure" for homosexuality, I can guarantee that it will be fabricated in a laboratory, not a church.

 

[NoTime]

Sickle Cell anemia and plenty of other genetic diseases still exist despite natural selection.

IIRC the Sickle Cell trait has a positive survival benefit in areas with Malaria present.

 

[Monique]

There are also cases known where cross-species mating (which results in reduced offspring) actually results in better survival: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4SC1DBG-3&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236081%232008%23999769993%23690168%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6081&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4824434a4f2a05b082abb7a337220969".

Nature sometimes follows counter-intuitive logic.

 

[shamrock5585]

i think it would be very hard to prove homosexuality is genitic or not because the obvious way to research it is to tell whether homosexuality could be passed down through reproduction... but if the parents are homosexuals and have a child artificially and raise the child... i would think the child would have higher chances of being a homosexual themselves.

my argument is that homosexual is not genetic because it wouldn't be passed down... where would it originate? but like was said before... it could be a mutation of other genes...

I believe like freud said that a lot of our personality traits and behavior as an adult is based on events that occur to us as a child... an excellent example is in the movie "as good as it gets" where jack nicholsons neighbor saw his mom naked a lot as a child and was around her a lot and he became a homosexual... seems pretty logical to me

 

[Monique]

my argument is that homosexual is not genetic because it wouldn't be passed down... where would it originate? but like was said before... it could be a mutation of other genes...

You are assuming that the genetic trait would be dominant, which it clearly is not.

I believe like freud said that a lot of our personality traits and behavior as an adult is based on events that occur to us as a child... an excellent example is in the movie "as good as it gets" where jack nicholsons neighbor saw his mom naked a lot as a child and was around her a lot and he became a homosexual... seems pretty logical to me

Where do you think your gender-preference comes from? Why do most people/animals choose the opposite sex as their mate? You think it is entirely formed by the environment? I don't think so.

 

[Moridin]

I think it is very important to consider that the genome can be though of as a recipe, rather than a blueprint. Buildings are built using a blueprint, which means that we can look at the blueprint for a specific section, and then look at the building to see the specific place. When it comes to the genome, it is different. There is no one-gene-one-trait relationship, but it is often the case that one gene influences several traits or that one trait is influences by several genes, or both. A recipe for chocolate cake can say that you need 1 melted chocolate bar, but in the cake, you cannot point to the chocolate bar in the same way you can point to something on a blueprint.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So then heterosexuality would not be genetic either?

A legitimate question. *Reproduction* is clearly the goal of every living thing. Methods of reproduction clearly evolved, but I would not claim there is a gene that governs reproduction . There are genes that control the cell cycle, tho.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I've spoken to a director of a neuroscience institute, it is thought among some researchers that homosexuality might be associated with increased fertility, ensuring survival of the trait in a population. I think it will be hard to prove for such complex traits.


Andy, you don't think that any kind of behavior has been shown to have a genetic origin, that doesn't mean it is not genetic. Currently we do not have adequate tools to find those genes, it is just too complex.

There are strong indications that behavior is inherited, genetically and epigenetically.

I hear what you are saying, but I caution you that the reductionist point of view is ultimately sterile, and my overwhelming evidence for this is the current state of theoretical "unification" physics. There is nothing wrong with an integral point of view, and it can in fact be very powerful.

 

[Andy Resnick]

IIRC the Sickle Cell trait has a positive survival benefit in areas with Malaria present.

Cystic Fibrosis also has (had?) a positive survival benefit in terms of cholera epidemics.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I think it is very important to consider that the genome can be though of as a recipe, rather than a blueprint. Buildings are built using a blueprint, which means that we can look at the blueprint for a specific section, and then look at the building to see the specific place. When it comes to the genome, it is different. There is no one-gene-one-trait relationship, but it is often the case that one gene influences several traits or that one trait is influences by several genes, or both. A recipe for chocolate cake can say that you need 1 melted chocolate bar, but in the cake, you cannot point to the chocolate bar in the same way you can point to something on a blueprint.

You are absolutely correct- and this is a point that is not always appreciated. Also, many genes have alternate splicings that result in different mRNA being exported. Then there's post-translational modifications of proteins... all kinds of stuff.

I read that if the genome is the dictionary, the proteome is the encyclopedia.

 

[shamrock5585]

You are assuming that the genetic trait would be dominant, which it clearly is not.

Where do you think your gender-preference comes from? Why do most people/animals choose the opposite sex as their mate? You think it is entirely formed by the environment? I don't think so.

well do you believe that a person that is not born with this so called homosexual gene could be brought up in an environement which would cause them to become a homosexual or bisexual? does your genetic make up change when you sleep with the same sex? i don't think so...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

well do you believe that a person that is not born with this so called homosexual gene could be brought up in an environement which would cause them to become a homosexual or bisexual? does your genetic make up change when you sleep with the same sex? i don't think so...

I've met people who grew up around homosexuals and had homosexual parents. Some of them were gay and some were not. In one case two sisters whose father was gay turned out with one being straight and the other being lesbian. I've met people who were molested as a child. Some went one way and others the other route. It may only be anecdotal evidence but I have never seen any reason to believe that environment is the prime mechanism at work.

 

[shamrock5585]

still no answer to my question... do you believe that a person that is not born with this so called homosexual gene could be brought up in an environement which would cause them to become a homosexual or bisexual?

In your explanation you talk about kids that have been molested turn gay in certain circumstances. Do you think that all the ones that turned gay had a recessive "homosexual gene" and it was activated by the environment or that homosexuality could be a personality trait that was influenced by environment?

I am no expert on this by any means but i suggest that environment would be the prime mechanism at work in some circumstances but your bodies genetic recipe for producing hormones would also have a large play but not necessarily determine as much as your environment as a child. a female that produces more than usual testosterone may be nudged more towards being a lesbian than an average woman. But this extra testosterone is also more likely to put that woman in an environment of sports or things of competetive "manly" nature which would also nudge the woman into lesbian nature.

id have to say i lean more towards homosexuality being a product of environment more than genetics, but i also feel that genetics can play a role in what environment this person tends to find themselves in.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

still no answer to my question... do you believe that a person that is not born with this so called homosexual gene could be brought up in an environement which would cause them to become a homosexual or bisexual?

In your explanation you talk about kids that have been molested turn gay in certain circumstances. Do you think that all the ones that turned gay had a recessive "homosexual gene" and it was activated by the environment or that homosexuality could be a personality trait that was influenced by environment?

I am no expert on this by any means but i suggest that environment would be the prime mechanism at work in some circumstances but your bodies genetic recipe for producing hormones would also have a large play but not necessarily determine as much as your environment as a child. a female that produces more than usual testosterone may be nudged more towards being a lesbian than an average woman. But this extra testosterone is also more likely to put that woman in an environment of sports or things of competetive "manly" nature which would also nudge the woman into lesbian nature.

id have to say i lean more towards homosexuality being a product of environment more than genetics, but i also feel that genetics can play a role in what environment this person tends to find themselves in.

Obviously I can't say for sure. I'm not even well versed on literature of this topic. I can give you a personal theory/opinion/guess though. I think that a person can have some level of genetic predisposition that is then influenced by environment. Kinsey I believe suggested that a rather significant portion of the population to some degree or another possessed homosexual tendancies at some point in their life. Since the various biological mechanics involved in sexual response are ruled by (not one but) multiple genes and traits perhaps it is possible that small scale differences can lead to curiosity and experimentation that may or may not lead to the 'choice' of a homosexual lifestyle. It could be something as simple as a difference in genes involving pheromone response.
As for your question of someone with no genetics traits that may lead to homosexuality I do think that such a person may, due to environment, experiment in or even habitually engage in homosexual behavior due to hormonal, environmental, and psychological influences. However I don't think that these influences would "cause them to become" a homosexual (though maybe bisexual). I think that they would still prefer heterosexuality.

Just to repeat, this is only an opinion and not at all based on any sort of expertise.

 

[Monique]

well do you believe that a person that is not born with this so called homosexual gene could be brought up in an environement which would cause them to become a homosexual or bisexual? does your genetic make up change when you sleep with the same sex? i don't think so...

That is not what I asked you. I inquired about the fact that a large majority of people choose the opposite sex as their mate, would that preference be given by birth (genes) or is that a learned trait.

 

[shamrock5585]

That is not what I asked you. I inquired about the fact that a large majority of people choose the opposite sex as their mate, would that preference be given by birth (genes) or is that a learned trait.

so i have to answer you before i can say anything else? why don't you give me an answer since your so inclined to disagree...

the large majority has instinct to reproduce which would make you want to be with the opposite sex... where does the instinct come from to not reproduce and increase your chances of getting aids?

 

[Monique]

so i have to answer you before i can say anything else? why don't you give me an answer since your so inclined to disagree...

the large majority has instinct to reproduce which would make you want to be with the opposite sex... where does the instinct come from to not reproduce and increase your chances of getting aids?

I asked the question to make you (and others) think about the very basics of gender-preference. It is very easy to reply with a question that only confounds matters.

Since there appears to be an instinct to be with the opposite sex, there seems to be something in your genes that tells you what that opposite sex is. Experiments with fruitflies have shown that you can change male courting behavior such that they will court both females and males. Also, by turning a gene on female flies started displaying male courtship behavior.

 

[shamrock5585]

so what turns this gene on? environment?

your brain when you are born is a blank slate with all the tools... maybe it is a gene that affects what sex you are attracted too... but when you are born are you attracted to any sex? I used to think girls were icky haha... i think your environment can activate your body to produce testosterone and be attracted to women and be "manly" or it could work the other way around based on what happens to you as you are being molded as a child.

 

[Monique]

so what turns this gene on? environment?

It does not need to be turned on, humans are special in that they can decide whether to act upon an urge or not.

There is something strange with gender identity, there has been a famous case in the time when doctors and psychiatrists thought that you can mold a child into an identity.

His name was David Reimer, his penis got destroyed in during a circumcision at the age of 8 months. It was decided to raise him completely as a girl, they gave him the appropriate hormones to get him through puberty.

It was an experiment that went terribly wrong, you cannot raise a boy as a girl. The sex was reassigned, after which he married and became a step-father. He ended up commiting suicide.

 

[shamrock5585]

it ever occur to you that this was one case that doesn't determine them all...

heres another...

http://www.noharmm.org/canadianboy.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

it ever occur to you that this was one case that doesn't determine them all...

heres another...

http://www.noharmm.org/canadianboy.htm

I would argue that this person fought and is still fighting their natutral tendency towards maleness. I think it supports Monique's position better than yours. IMO it's evidence for the notion that - while humans are highly adaptable to circumstances placed upon them - they do seem to have a strong gender identity instilled despite those cicumstances.

 

[shamrock5585]

when you are adapting to circumstances that you are now a girl and then you find out that you were in fact a boy... don't you think that you would become extremely confused? this is why it is so hard to get conclusions from these studies.


I am pretty sure you are sucking up information left and right in your early years and as all humans do, we ask the question "what am i?" If we somehow get this mixed up then we become very confused and things develope around this foundation we are built on. of course you will be confused when you realize you may think you are a girl but you are very different than the other girls you are around