Is being straight or gay genetic and fixed?

Jan 2015
5,065
Ontario, Canada
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
Okay but we need to get some things out of the way. No syllogisms or formal fallacy stuff required... non sequitur or not, the statement is still true. You're trying to think this through logically or something when all you need are simple facts. I never claimed anything about preference. I refer only to biology and anatomy, preference is the result of that.

In so far as scientific evidence is considered one needs no more evidence than basic facts.
Sex is reproductive in nature. The purpose of which can only be accomplished with two different genitalia. There really isn't any other way to perform intercourse. To that end you need a male and a female. Simple enough, right?

If Humans were meant to be what we might describe as "pansexual" why would there be two different types of Humans with different genitalia? So clearly Jung is wrong. The strange psychological application of "dualism" is incorrect, since the mind is a product of the body. Preference has no bearing on what is biological fact. Society has no bearing on what is biological fact. However, the inverse is completely true since the mind is the product of a physical organ.
 
Last edited:

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,386
Seattle
I found this article interesting

A new study offers a glimpse into the genetics of same-sex attraction - STAT

Here is what I found interesting. "...researchers found four variants that were linked to people who had self-reported same-sex encounters. When those variants showed up in heterosexual men, those men tended to have a larger number of lifetime sexual partners and — and, though researchers didn’t say who did the judging — to be more physically attractive."

So, these men, carrying genes for gayness, but straight, are in the "majority" group, sexually, and yet within this "mainstream" group, their behavior is still outside the norm (more sexual partners).

I am wondering if we, humans, should stop viewing "gayness" as something "off", and just accept "end of normal Bell curve" approach to non-heterosexual behaviors?

Given that the world is so overpopulated, I tend to view eight or more kids of ultra-orthodox religious people of many different confessions as something way more off - and dangerous - than gay behavior. People who want to lead gay lifestyle or belong to transgender movement are much less scary than these irresponsible human-making machines.
 
Last edited:

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,386
Seattle
BTW, is there a correlation between someone's intelligence and having many children?
@hollow, I have no such knowledge. I suspect there might be none because birth control by pills is something very new in human history. And also, I have no studies on IQ's of ultra-conservative religious people. I personally suspect that people stay within a religion due to fear, hope and peer pressure, but not because they are smart or not.

Having many children was rational and even necessary in old times because of high childhood mortality. "in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died". Even in 1960, child mortality world-wide was 18.2%.

Today, world-wide, it is 4.3%. In developed countries, it is less than 1%. Also, raising longevity means, the world will have to hold more and more people. Resource-wide, we are not ready.

I know some gay families who adopt or have own kids, but I yet have to see a gay family with five or seven.

Transgenders willingly take themselves out of childbearing pool. Usually.

Here is the data about religious practices and birth control.

What Are Religious Views on Birth Control?

Only Hinduism and Buddhism show some normalcy regarding contraception. Of course, it depends on the person.

It is interesting that Hinduism has somewhat normal views on homosexuality, too.

I should look up the number of kids per religion, views on contraception and views on homosexuality. Maybe make a table. I suspect there is a correlation.
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
BTW, is there a correlation between someone's intelligence and having many children?
I think stats show that highly intelligent people tend to have fewer children. I guess that's why such people only amount to about 10% of the population.. if they were fierce breeders, our society might have a much higher mean IQ. The existing mean of 100 would need to be raised. For all I know that has happened over time already, and may continue as our species continues to evolve.
This is just musing,I can't prove it, nor do I intend to try. Such discussions tend to become entangled with the discredited theory/practice of eugenics.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2016
3,929
Japan
I suspect a biological reason exists.
But hereditary I doubt it. It would have died out.
If it was hereditary it could not be passed down.
So I suspect it might be down to exposure to testerone/oestrogen while in the womb.
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
I suspect a biological reason exists.
But hereditary I doubt it. It would have died out.
If it was hereditary it could not be passed down.
So I suspect it might be down to exposure to testerone/oestrogen while in the womb.

I'm reasonably sure intelligence is inherited, but not in any predictable way. Bright people tend to have bright kids, less intelligent people tend to hav less intelligent kids. The discredited science of Eugenics was accepted world wide for much of the twentieth century. it was widely accepted that superior human being could simply be bred from superior parents.

The topic is hotly debated over nature /nurture There seems to be some consensus on at least some intelligence being inherited, but not on how much . Behaviourist scientists have argued that a great deal of final intelligence s inherited. I only know of one serious study; It was done by the famous behaviourist B F Skinner; he reared his own children on strictly behaviourist principles. The experiment is succeeded only in producing some pretty stuffed up kids.

The Nazis put the theory into practice; they murdered thousands of mentally and physically handicapped people, considering them "not worthy of life 'and "useless mouths" This was called Aktion T4.They also had a breeding programme, where ideal Aryans, from the ranks of the SS, were encouraged to produce as many offspring as possible from as many suitable women as possible this was called Lebensborn.. There were special homes for those offspring.. The programme was a complete failure. I think probably at least partly because relatively little was known about genetics compared with DNA knowledge today.

It is already technically possible to clone a human being, but forbidden world wide on ethical grounds. That means it is virtually certain that it will become common at some time in the future, and that cloned humans probably exist already.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4


Lebensborn - Wikipedia

Heritability of IQ - Wikipedia


B. F. Skinner - Wikipedia
 
Feb 2016
3,929
Japan
Intelligence can be inherited.

But if sexuality was inherited.
Homosexuality amongst males would have died out long before civilisation found ways to foster it.
As primitive males would have not had the urge to mate.

The most plausible explanation I read was (in males) explained that as a fetus you are sometimes exposed to varying amounts of testosterone, in two phases. One phase will decide on how masculine you are. The other will decide on your level of attraction to females. Receive an average to high dose both times and you come out a regular man attracted to women. The variation of testosterone then is the reason why you get variation in heterosexual men too, average masculinity with low, average and high levels of attraction, high masculinity but low, average and high levels of attraction.

Then you get cases where these waves of testosterone are either deficient or mismatched. So you get, less often but still existent, a feminine or low masculinity man, but he still attracted to women to a degree.
Or the other way around masculine men who have no attraction to men.

If a girl fetus is exposed to a male level of testosterone at the wrong stage she might have female genitals but masculine features and interests, a tomboy. Exposed to it at the other stage she might develop as a femine woman with an attraction to females. At both stages accounts for butch lesbians.
 
Oct 2018
106
Adelaide south Australia
I'm unconvinced that sexual preference is inherited, although I accept it can be 'hardwired".The two are not the same. The attempt at a biological explanation seems a bit of a stretch. Be fascinated to see some supporting studies. I have a gay sister, so have been in contact with gays of both sexes all of my adult life. Some of them have been married and had children, some have only ever been in a gay relationship, and also have children. As far as I know none have gay children. Yep, anecdotal evidence.

My dad had a lifelong friendships with half a dozen war buddies.,all quite overt Aussie heterosexual, which is pretty macho. All married with children. Of those six guys, three had one gay child. I'm aware this is more anecdotal evidence, so feel free to disregard. Have no idea what this proves, if anything. I add this because I've always found it interesting and a possible indicator that at least some gays are so through circumstances..

No on knows the percentage of gays in any society. Estimates range from 3% to in excess of 10%

Homosexuality in this country is like being an indigenous Australian ; if you identify and are accepted as one, then you are. Homosexual activity is not a reliable indicator, any more than being married proves one is not gay. Take rape, male or female. There is a consensus among some scientist that rape is about power, not sex. So the gender of the rapist is irrelevant. I don't accept this as a sole motivator, but I do accept it as a significant one.

There seems be a vast disparity between those who are actively gay and those who who are actually gay .That reality is called 'repressed'" or 'latent' homosexuality.. In a society in which homosexuality is reviled, or punished, or simply considered 'wrong' an individual may hide their sexuality, even denying it to themselves. I'm thinking of Most Jewish, Christian and Muslim sects. Homosexual activity also remains illegal in many countries. There are TEN countries in which homosexuals are actually killed, by law.

Sexual Assault Myths – Sexual Assault/Rape – For Survivors – Violence Awareness & Response Program – – Minnesota State University, Mankato

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.21be4c75b3b2

Latent homosexuality - Wikipedia
 
May 2017
66
Monterrey
But if sexuality was inherited.
Homosexuality amongst males would have died out long before civilisation found ways to foster it.
As primitive males would have not had the urge to mate.
Preferring to have sex with men does not mean you cannot have sex with women or create offspring. Not to mention that people can be bisexual. Or that it can be a repressed gene/whatever. Or that the fact that you cannot be openly homosexual means that you have to mate with women. Or the fact that marrying for love might be quite a recent ideal. Or that having children for the vast majority of history was more important than your feelings about your sexuality. We still have plenty of cultures where women are nothing more than property whose job is to take care of the house and pop out children. You place way too much emphasis on sexuality as the guiding light of man.

Today, but not everywhere, it is possible to be openly homosexual. You can have that lifestyle. In the past, that was for the most part simply not possible; or even something that existed as a "lifestyle". Not a consideration, just like marriages for love weren't.
 
Likes: bboomer