Is being straight or gay genetic and fixed?

Feb 2016
4,069
Japan
While this is true for a short period of our history, say the last 4000-5000 years. For the first 20-30 000 years of it I doubt there was any social conventions on sexuality. Primitives, and I’m talking about the very earliest groups of humans would have had social groups closer to chimp/ape clans than anything else... so any purely homosexual genes would have died out eventually, there would have been no forced marriage, no need to breed... those who had no desire to breed would not have, those only interested in intercourse with their own gender would have... it would have been a bit rapey in some situations.
So you see while we agree, yes, for the last few thousand years many homosexual men and women still perused hetro relationships, this was done out of religious, cultural or social pressures which I acknowledge.
At the same time I think humanity predates such conventions for far longer and the preceding millennia’s would have seen them extinct if it was hereditary.

So, I still personally believe it can’t be unless it’s a fairly recent mutation?
And the idea that it’s a biological result of hormone exposure makes the most sense to me.
 
May 2017
105
Monterrey
While this is true for a short period of our history, say the last 4000-5000 years. For the first 20-30 000 years of it I doubt there was any social conventions on sexuality. Primitives, and I’m talking about the very earliest groups of humans would have had social groups closer to chimp/ape clans than anything else... so any purely homosexual genes would have died out eventually, there would have been no forced marriage, no need to breed... those who had no desire to breed would not have, those only interested in intercourse with their own gender would have... it would have been a bit rapey in some situations.
So you see while we agree, yes, for the last few thousand years many homosexual men and women still perused hetro relationships, this was done out of religious, cultural or social pressures which I acknowledge.
At the same time I think humanity predates such conventions for far longer and the preceding millennia’s would have seen them extinct if it was hereditary.

So, I still personally believe it can’t be unless it’s a fairly recent mutation?
And the idea that it’s a biological result of hormone exposure makes the most sense to me.
So you are arguing that there would be no social convention on sexuality, yet maintain that homosexuality would somehow been a social convention? How, again, is it impossible for a man to have sex with a woman even if he prefers men? Or for a woman to have sex with a man even is she prefers women? And once you wrap your head around that explain to me why infertility is still a thing. Maybe your view on sexuality is just very limited(you didn't even touch the subject of bisexuals)? What makes you think that a homosexual has no need to breed?
 
Jan 2015
5,181
Ontario, Canada
How can one Oda be so right? :cool:

Claims that people will prove the gay gene within 5 to 10 years... 23andMe finishes their study in less than a year.
Claims that they will try to "cure" HIV and AIDs using gene editing and that this will happen in China first... Chinese people through a lack of ethics create two friggin HIV resistant babies in less than a year.

 
Oct 2013
5,440
Planet Nine, Oregon
I knew this would happen. GMOs were taboo for a long time and now they have escaped, of course, too. We make a lot of noise and someone somewhere does it anyway. Same with AI weapons, engineered communicable diseases. Our days are numbered cuz we aren't intelligent life.
 
Oct 2013
5,440
Planet Nine, Oregon
I think there are physiological reasons based on genetics and hormones (perhaps not all the same in each case) that cause some people to be gay or become gay from an early age; they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Whether or not that is a reaction to an external stimulus, the genetic potential is there for the behavior (it could be configurations of a number of genes, and epigenetics not just one allele). Others are socialized to become gay without any predisposition. Others do it for other reasons, it's probably not black and white. I also am sticking a foot into the genetics thing, but hard no to with the thread title. But no more gentics for me here, now.
 
Jan 2015
5,181
Ontario, Canada
I think there are physiological reasons based on genetics and hormones (perhaps not all the same in each case) that cause some people to be gay or become gay from an early age; they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Whether or not that is a reaction to an external stimulus, the genetic potential is there for the behavior (it could be configurations of a number of genes, and epigenetics not just one allele). Others are socialized to become gay without any predisposition. Others do it for other reasons, it's probably not black and white. I also am sticking a foot into the genetics thing, but hard no to with the thread title. But no more gentics for me here, now.
It could be multiple genes for all we know. 23andMe discovered genes that normally make one attracted to the opposite sex, but present in same sex individuals. But there could be lots of other genes, most of their samples were probably taken from people of European descent. We don't know how it might affect people of African descent or if it does at all. Maybe there is a different gene present in African or Asian people. Maybe some people don't have these genes at all and it is caused by different reasons that are not genetic.
 
Likes: Todd Feinman
Jan 2015
5,181
Ontario, Canada
That might be a too strong allegation. The news I've heard is that firstly, it's a claim made by one person, with no proofs for the moment and that the Chinese government started a (penal/criminal ?) investigation on it.
No clue. The doctor in the video said that it was ethical and he only sought to make babies resistant to HIV. But is it ethical to genetically alter anyone through direct means? Getting weird science fiction vibes from this. It really brings more questions than it answers. Going down the morality or ethics spiral is really annoying so I will spare everyone from that.

But ultimately they altered some embryos to allow someone with HIV to have a child. Should people with HIV have children? Did they only stop the effects of HIV but are the babies still carriers of a dormant HIV? Should we just accept what some technocrats say? Where do we draw the line? Are we now in the realm of Scientism, the religion of Science? What are the long term social ramifications of this? How can there be no consequences as a result of this action?