Is being straight or gay genetic and fixed?

Jul 2016
7,322
USA
Dunno what you're talking about... what ideology? Oh, you mean any idea that is different from yours. Cherry picking evidence... bruv if 23andMe was able to do this, other people are doing this research as we speak. So according to you evolution is correlation as well then.

How cute, is this also your argument for why evolution isn't real? Except that the correlation here does show a link with homosexuality, you would have gotten away with it had the sample size been 30 people or 500 people but they used hundreds of thousands of people. When it comes to genetics correlation usually does equal causation, you're treating this like it were philosophy or something. It is not always a deterministic factor but the influence is obviously there. Now does this mean everyone who is homosexual has these exact genes? No, some people may have other genes. Some people may not have any of the genes and it is entirely environmental. But that aside your claim that it is completely environmental is wrong. There is no reason why you can't isolate genes for homosexual behaviour and it will be done. This is a first step but clearly it will get done. More importantly nothing in that article contradicts what I said.

If insults were arguments... but they're not. The most important thing to consider is, boi you wrong. ;)
Here is the awesome thing about my side of this ridiculous discussion. I don't have to prove a damn thing because I'm not the one trying to prove homosexuality is genetics. You are. And you haven't done it because nobody has done it. 23andme hasn't done it. The individuals who wrote the paper you sourced and didn't read, they didn't do it. Nobody has done it.

"There is no reason why you can't isolate genes for homosexual behaviour and it will be done" = "There is no reason that pigs can't fly and it will be done."

Well, got on and make it happen, Dr. Scientist. :lol:
 
Jan 2015
5,065
Ontario, Canada
Here is the awesome thing about my side of this ridiculous discussion. I don't have to prove a damn thing because I'm not the one trying to prove homosexuality is genetics. You are. And you haven't done it because nobody has done it. 23andme hasn't done it. The individuals who wrote the paper you sourced and didn't read, they didn't do it. Nobody has done it.

"There is no reason why you can't isolate genes for homosexual behaviour and it will be done" = "There is no reason that pigs can't fly and it will be done."

Well, got on and make it happen, Dr. Scientist. :lol:
So you obviously don't understand what I'm saying. If they have isolated some SNPs then someone else is doing it as well. If 23andMe has managed to do this then someone else will do it and confirm at least a portion of their study. I'm not saying that 23andMe has proven the epigenetic factors of these SNPs but chances are this is exactly true and it will be proven. Even then it will only be a portion of the overall research.

For starters everything is genetic, your very existence is determined by genetics, without certain genes you wouldn't have eyes, hands etc. Genes can and do affect behaviour, no exceptions. So the fact that you're saying "homosexuality isn't genetic" is proof enough that you are nowhere near as knowledgeable on the subject of genetics or biology as you claim. Now I will take the time to applaud how you snuck out of this one with some cheap onus probandi fallacy. You made a claim and you should prove it, you can in fact prove a negative, so go ahead and prove that genes have no bearing. No you can't point to environmental examples, you actually have to prove that the genes don't do what is claimed they do.

Yes I did post the Abstract because that is all I expect people to read. Not only that but THE PAPER HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET. Yet somehow you are already misrepresenting the paper because they did not look solely at whether one identifies as homosexual. They took into account the prevalence of the genes themselves and many other things as it was a long survey for the DNA donors (such as whether they had same sex sexual contact). What you mean by proven and what I mean are two different things. What you want is 100% evidence, such a thing might not be possible, but this study points to one direction and that direction is that it is true.

What I think you mean (if I throw you a bone) is whether it is hereditary in some way and can be detected and to what degree it affects the outcome of making someone homosexual. As I said previously it is estimated to be up to a 40% influencing factor. We don't know for certain to what extent these SNPs are expressed as homosexual behaviour within the people that have them. However given the prevalence of the genes in their sample the only possible conclusion is that these genes made people more likely to be homosexual or influenced their decision making. That doesn't necessarily mean that people have no control but in different cases it very well could.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
5,065
Ontario, Canada
"Everything is biological, genetic, chemistry."

You sure about that?

The Ancient Greeks, the modern Pashtun, and the Sambia tribe were or are all sexually attracted to children. Cartagena men are apparently sexually attracted to female donkeys.

What are the genetic markers for this behavior?
Yes I am sure that everything is genetic. You are very confused (but seemingly in the right thread), what you are asking is if everything is due to genetic expression.
You're not disproving genetic influence whatsoever. Since you need to actually look at the genes.

For all you know there are various genes. Again, that doesn't mean it is purely genetic in every single case. But without Ancient Greek DNA samples we couldn't know.
In the case of the north eastern Colombian donkey sex, you are making the assumption that there is a specific gene that makes a human attracted to a donkey. It could be various genes, it could be one gene that makes them very promiscuous and what they choose to do with it is up to them.

By the way this is a really stupid exercise. Find the gene is basically just find the missing link.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,683
Sydney
in all societies from paleolithic onward there has been homosexual ,
usually those societies disapprove of an open lifestyle with a wide variation of consequences

is it "genetic", is it circunstances .... who know ?
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
Interesting topic.

I think it was Carl Jung who claimed that the labels of sexuality we use are meaningless. He argued that human beings are simply sexual, with most having a definite preference.

I'm wary of providing simple answers to complex societal questions.. Certainly, for many if not most, sexual orientation seems hard wired. However, I also think sexual preference can probably be acquired in some cases. I think it's simplistic to reduce this topic to a nature/nurture dichotomy.

It's also true that sexual mores differ between cultures as well as historically,. The ancient Greeks idealised homosexual love as superior to heterosexual love. It was pretty much expected that an adolescent boy would find an older male as a mentor. It was taken for granted that the relationship would be sexual.

How do I explain X, Y or Z? I don't. I don't need to explain anything; I make no truth claim. I will say that in situation specific homosexual behaviour "one swallow does not make a spring" as far as I can tell.
 
Jan 2015
5,065
Ontario, Canada
Interesting topic.

I think it was Carl Jung who claimed that the labels of sexuality we use are meaningless. He argued that human beings are simply sexual, with most having a definite preference.

I'm wary of providing simple answers to complex societal questions.. Certainly, for many if not most, sexual orientation seems hard wired. However, I also think sexual preference can probably be acquired in some cases. I think it's simplistic to reduce this topic to a nature/nurture dichotomy.

It's also true that sexual mores differ between cultures as well as historically,. The ancient Greeks idealised homosexual love as superior to heterosexual love. It was pretty much expected that an adolescent boy would find an older male as a mentor. It was taken for granted that the relationship would be sexual.

How do I explain X, Y or Z? I don't. I don't need to explain anything; I make no truth claim. I will say that in situation specific homosexual behaviour "one swallow does not make a spring" as far as I can tell.
Carl Jung can't be correct because his theory wouldn't explain sexual dimorphism and anatomy. If what he says were true then everyone would have unisex genitalia.
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
If what he says were true then everyone would have unisex genitalia.

Pardon my ignorance; I don't understand how you reached that conclusion. I'm most interested in seeing the evidence on which you base your claim.
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
Sure here is my evidence:
What is the purpose of genitalia?
What two different types of genitalia do you need to procreate?

I asked for scientific evidence I still don't understand your logic. ; your claim is a non sequitor. I don't understand how you got from a notion that people are simply sexual by nature BUT usually have a specific preference to a conclusion about sexual anatomy. Such a situation would have no effect on reproduction.

The best example I can think of from history is ancient Greece. In that society, homosexual love was considered superior to heterosexual. It was common for an adult male to mentor an adolescent male. The relationship was sexual. Marriage was for procreation. There was no conflict between the two ideas.

I mentioned Jung in response to the nature/nurture argument about sexual preferences. I don't claim to know, but Jung's notion makes a great deal of sense to me.

I'd like to make a suggestion ; Perhaps do some research into some evolutionary biology. That might help you prove our claim.


I have nothing further to say to you on this matter