I'm sure that most of us remember the controversy of the infamous "gay gene." Was it real? Was it possible? Well, moving on...

Some groups argued for it, using it as a crutch to explain their lifestyle; whereas others objected such a claim saying it mocked the foundation of physical and mental genetics.


Links:

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/ (for)

http://www.narth.com/docs/fading.html (against)



Questions for Debate:


1.) Is the "gay gene" a scientific reality or an impossiblity? Explain.

2.) If not a gene, can genetics explain homosexuality? What other alternatives are there to genetics/heredity?

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?

1.) Is the "gay gene" a scientific reality or an impossiblity? Explain.
Neither. It is not a scientific reality because no solid evidence has been produced to substantiate such a claim. It is not an impossibility because genetic factors can influence behavior.

2.) If not a gene, can genetics explain homosexuality? What other alternatives are there to genetics/heredity?
The problem with a genetic factor in homosexuality is that it is not well-suited for propagation in the gene pool. If you don't mate, your genes don't get passed down. Of course, this doesn't block a hypothetical gay gene; it's possible that enough gays could mate to keep the gene in place. It could be like the gene for sickle-cell anemia -- if you inherit two copies of it, you could well die of the disease, but if you get only one copy, you get greater immunity to malaria. For all we know, gays could be the owners of two copies of a gene that makes you a genius when you get only one copy.

The alternative to genetics is environment. It could be some environmental factor. That could include the pre-natal environment. Who knows -- maybe if your mother eats too many grapes during pregnancy, it makes you homosexual. Maybe if your mother has sex during pregnancy, it makes you homosexual. It could be a zillion factors. It probably is a combination of factors.

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?
Nope. Whatever the cause, it is not an act of conscious volition and therefore beyond the reach of social pressure.

1. I don't think that science knows enough to conclude one way or the other on a "gay gene". However, I do believe that gay people are born with those tendencies and that experiences and environment can either reinforce them or minimize them.

2. I think that genetics/heredity is a pretty broad brush. There is also evidence that hormone levels at birth can play a role.

3. No. My opinion would not be changed because I already accept the notion that most gays (except lesbian actors who engage in that activity because it's fashionable and since it could further their career, ala Anne Heche) are "born that way". My personal belief is that gay people should be treated with dignity and should be equal under the law. However, I don't extend that concept into "gay marriage" which is a distortion of a fundamental societal institution in order to fit the whims of a vocal minority (but that's another thread).

Oh I suppose so, should science discover a hetero gene. I'm sure there's one or two in there that control gender features, including sexual attraction. Then tests could be done on how the sexual attraction gene works.

Seems to be a theory out there that sexual attraction has a scale, say from 1 to 100, where 100 would be completely homosexual. Guess the scale could be reversed, where 100 would be completely heterosexual.



There's only one, and that is personal choice. I don't buy it that the mother's nutrition has anything to do with it, although I won't discount that as a far reach for a hypothesis. One of my nephews turned out gay, and the behavior was manifest before adolescence. Same mother, same father, same general diet I will assume -- the father did most of the cooking, genuine Italian. My sister had three boys, only one homosexual. So that's a one out of three thing with the same gene pool, and the same physical sex for the children.

But if the scale idea is used, maybe all the boys are homosexual to some degree. Maybe only one had to work out the sexual attraction disconnect. Or maybe the others don't respond to the attraction? And does this mean the father is somewhat homosexual?

This is really hard stuff to figure out, due to the need for further testing. And we don't accept the use of humans in certain kinds of tests, like selective breeding in a controlled environment.



No, because the Constitution does not mention homosexuals versus heterosexuals. Nor does the Declaration -- just men. Later on, who has rights in this country was adjusted for gender and race. Still no mention of sexual orientation. Guess the issue has become important only recently, and by George, it sure has. He wants to amend the Constitution, sort of.

All men are created equal under the eyes of the law. So are men of color, and so are all women. That's the state of our Constitution today. This means that homosexual men and women are also equal under the eyes of the law.

Now some seem to think they know how God looks upon these creations. It's all warped from what I've read. It's starting to look a lot like projection and denial, where the great critics of homosexuals are also homosexual themselves.

I've studied enough psychology to see this take on things. Projection and denial will certainly result in strange and destructive behaviors, but that's not my profession. All I know is that gay computer people are just as good as heterosexual. Professional psychologists can grapple with the reasons some people feel they must persecute gay people, but for me, I have no such desire. Just why gay people are the way they are doesn't mean anything when it comes to law or my opinions of the people. They are people first, gay second.

As a result, I'm okay with gay marriage, due to this being a legal agreement. Gays should be allowed to enter into the same legal agreements that hetero people do. I suppose a church could refuse to perform the ceremony, but the ceremony isn't the legal agreement, and marriages happen all the time without the pomp and circumstance of a church wedding. On the other hand, a church could perform the ceremony, and I'm okay with that too. It's the church's decision, not mine. I don't have a church, other than the great manifestation.

A lot of Christians get married in The Garden of the Gods. Now *there's* a real church. Funny that nobody has challenged the name -- but I wouldn't be surprised if this happens. Rename it to The Garden of Jesus?

It just doesn't sound right.

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?

No. Rights should not be founded solely upon genetic tendencies. What if in our discovery of such a gene we also find out that sexual preference for children is genetic, or a whole host of other conditions? Should we hand out 'rights' in these instances as well?

Rights should be viewed as unalienable and self evident. They should be founded upon inherent principles common to all people.

Can you name another "tendency" potentially genetic in nature that is currently suffering a lack of parity in society but that causes no victimhood in its enactment? Pedophilia creates victims and so on. Homosexuality between consenting adults does not.

I, incidentally, do not see homosexuality as being congenital but I do believe you are born with a sexual setting anywhere in the straight-gay spectrum and from which it is an impossibility to change.

But it could be genetic, just as what age you turn grey could be down to genetics or environmental stress levels. We don't really know and I don't see why it is necessary to know.

If homosexual leanings are not a choice, as any homosexual would testify, and no victims are caused by sensible homosexual consenting relationships, then, other than a 100% unprovable religious perspective (where the religious dictate to the non-religious) what possible argument can there be against rights?

Why is homosexuality always linked to pedophilia? Both heterosexuals and homosexuals commit that heinous act. To make homosexuality analogous with pedophilia is an effort to categorize homosexuality as a deviant behavior.

I agree completely with you lordhelmet. I have always believed that most gay people are born that way. Although recently it has become "in vogue" to be gay or bisexual, I think, with some of the younger generation.

I believe that all people should be treated with respect under the law, but I cannot support that marriage be redefined to include homosexual couples because it changes our most basic societal institution.

I find this fascinating considering your position on same-sex marriage.



One of these statements isn't true. Either you believe that homosexuality is biological or it is choice. Yes, one can choose to engage in homosexual behavior and still be heterosexual... that is choice, but engaging in homosexual behavior, in and of itself, does not make one a homosexual biologically speaking. And vice versa.

So you believe that a section of society should be discriminated against solely because biology dictates their sexual orientation? You also believe that relationships based on this biology should not be considered legally equal to relationships based on heterosexual biology. Fascinating. So, how does one treat homosexuals with respect under the law by discriminating against them using the law? That really doesn't make sense to me. That is, however, a topic for another thread -- a thread that already exists, so if you would like to respond please, please, please, I'd love to hear the rationale behind this in the History of Marriage thread.

I also agree that there is something biological that dictates sexual orientation. There is a new study relating to the biological nature of sexual orientation.

For Gay Men, an Attraction to a Different Kind of Scent

It has also been found, I'll try to track down the article again, that biological distinctions can be created by groups of genes working in concert with one another -- not necessarily being dictated by one gene alone.

entspeak,

Interesting article. Some of the women I've known in the Biblical way have said that they like my natural, unperfumed smell. I think it stinks a little like cheese (eewwww!). That fits in with the research theories.

It was mentioned in the article that we tend to go more by sight than smell, due to a nose organ losing its connection with the brain along the way. I wonder if any studies have been done on the brain's reaction to sights that sexually arouse? I'm pretty sight-oriented, but I also like the natural smell of a woman. Well, the ones I get to know anyway.

The other senses seem to be involved with sexual arousal too. There are a lot of research possibilities here, and since genetics dictate how the body works in all ways, including the production of hormones, it makes a lot of sense to me that true homosexuality is genetic.

The observation about identical twins and sexual orientation makes quite a bit of sense:



Fifty-two percent? Wow. That's strong statistical evidence that sexual orientation is a coin-flipping biological activity directly associated with the genetics of the fertilized egg that fully separates into two identical zygotes. The 22-percent for non-identical twins (two separate fertilized eggs) indicates a dominant/recessive genetic relationship on some kind of sexual orientation gene pair. I think it works like this: Taking hair color as an example, brown could be dominant and blonde recessive (need two blonde genes to have blonde hair). That means that for about 25% of the time, the genes match up for blonde hair (brown-brown, blonde-brown, brown-blonde, blonde-blonde).

Fascinating stuff. Here's a pretty good site for an introduction to genetics:

Genetics Overview

I'm not debating whether homosexuality is a deviant behavior. The point I made was that genetics should not be the sole basis for rights since genetic tendencies could potentially explain the behavior of criminals. Should we allow criminals the right to commit crimes because they were born to be that way? I chose pedophilia as an example because it is a sexual preference which is against the law.

Oh, I get the argument. Well, everyone has equal rights until a crime is committed. Just being homosexual isn't a crime, nor is being a pedophile, or deer hunter, or whatever.

There is effort to bring back the blue laws against sodomy. That's going to make a lot of hetero people criminals too. Between this and the drug users, the prisons are going to hold around 75% of the adult population!

Source of cheap labor able to compete with China

1.) Is the "gay gene" a scientific reality or an impossibility? Explain.

Science hasn't demonstrated it to be a reality. I don't think it can either because I don't think it's a possible reality. I don't because I just don't see a reason to look at genetic dispositions to, I don't know, "matters of the heart". If you're talking about the literal heart, than o.k., but attitudes, mind-sets, emotions and perspectives. Thinking of it in terms of genetic predispositions seems to just trivialize human reality for me. It sounds false. What about choice? O.K. "no one chooses to be gay", I've heard it a thousand times, but that doesn't mean it's not a matter of choice. Nobody chooses to be born poor either, but that doesn't separate the reality of it from human choice. What about the results of the collective choices of society as a whole? Doesn't that effect each individual life? Since we're not talking about a literal heart condition, then I wouldn't look to genes until the most obvious explanation is fully exhausted.

2.) If not a gene, can genetics explain homosexuality? What other alternatives are there to genetics/heredity?

Sort of answered this already.

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?

Firstly my opinion is that everyone has the natural right to same-sex activity and thoughts and feelings. So in the spirit of what I've already indicated, showing a "gay gene" is irrelevant. This is a matter if individual freedom when it comes to sexual choices. Everyone's rights will always be the same in this.
*

1.) Is the "gay gene" a scientific reality or an impossiblity? Explain.

From my understanding, most gays fight their natural tendencys for years. If they are really genetically straight, then theres no reason why their attempts to fight gayness would be unsuccessful.

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?

I'm already completely for their rights, so not really.

1.) Is the "gay gene" a scientific reality or an impossibility? Explain.

How can parents both with brown eyes have a child with blue eyes? The answer is that expression of genes is a lot more complex than one would think. There is information encoded in the genes which may or may not ever be expressed. This information may be inherited but latent over successive generations only to appear unexpectedly. Moreover, "fortuitous" combinations of genes could express a similar phenotype between different family branches.

So, the answer to this question is: "no" on both counts. There is no "gay gene" but there is a "gay phenotype" expressed by various genetic mechanisms.

2.) If not a gene, can genetics explain homosexuality? What other alternatives are there to genetics/heredity?

I don't think I understand this question. Why must there only be a this or that explanation for something which is, from my studies, a tangled hierarchy?

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?

No. Rights and genetics are independent of each other.

TOTD:

Homosexuality IS a deviant behavior, at least according to my dictionary's definition of the word "deviant." Not a cricitism or condemnation of homosexuals or homosexuality, but if there is to be debate and/or discussion, we need to be speaking the same language.

AuthorMusician:

The fact that barely over half of the identical twins are both homosexual actually goes the other way, i.e., it militates against genes being anything close to determinative. The "true" number is probably lower, as the 52% figure is probably skewed by sample bias. I would suggest that we go instead with: (1) Hershberger, SL (1997): A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. J. of Sex Research 34, 212-222, and (2) Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG (2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. J. Pers. Social Psychology 78, 524-536. The latter registry study include 14K+ twins and came up with a rate of 38%, and unlike the usual study, this one only asked about sexual orientation after the fact, so there is likely to be less skewing via just who wanted to volunteer for the study on the possible genetic basis for homosexuality. And what makes matters worse for the "it's the genes" crowd is that an even lower number of female identical twins turns out be lesbians [with our Aussie friends, the rate was 30%]. As Dr. Bailey has himself reported, "There must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins" ["Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, at 46].

I would otherwise not rush out to blame hormones, since if the hormones managed to arrange for each to have the right parts [both have penises], one then wonders how the hormones could not get the remainder right [the sexual orientation part]. And we can add to the mix our fraternal twins, who shared the same prenatal environment.

Lastly, the concordance rate found by Dr. Bailey for non-twin brothers was 9.2%. However, interestingly enough, Dr. Bailey also found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%

Sorry, three more. It has been reported that the concordance rate for religiosity is 50%, for divorce, 52%, and for racial prejudice and bigotry, 58% [see: Neil Whitehead and B. Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1999)].

And then there's Dean Hamer's comment: ""The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hope to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants." See: D. Hamer and P. Copeland, The Science of Desire (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994) at 104.

Lastly, there's always me. The heterosexual me who had a rather strong preference for Caucasian females until around age 25, and next thing I know, if she ain't the proud possessor of the epicanthic fold, well, you get my point. And it's not like I didn't grow up around enough Asian women to either wet my desire or tickle my fancy re the same. And since I don't otherwise think that there was any significant or substantial change in my DNA that can account for the change in taste...

1.) Is the "gay gene" a scientific reality or an impossiblity? Explain.
It's scientifically probable. I don't know that there will be found any specific gene that controls this. I have read studies that suggest an abnormally high level of stress coupled with long-term increases in the mother's body temperature affect the outcome. There are also studies that show that the brains of homosexual men differ on average from heterosexual men.
Ref.

The evolutionary view would probably be something about overcrowding. It would benefit the species to not overpopulate a certain area, so the species has built within it a genetic program that makes some members, shall we say, unwilling to propagate the species. I suppose that reversing the male-female sexual predilection isn't the easiest way for evolution to accomplish this, but human relationships are inherently complicated.

2.) What other alternatives are there to genetics/heredity?
A gay friend of mine once said, "Why in the world would someone want to be gay if they didn't have to be?"

3.) If there is a "gay gene" would its discovery change your opinion on homosexual rights? Why?
I already think that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. I further see no valid non-religious reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.