i never could understand why someone would think there was a gay gene. If being gay was a gene then wouldn't it have bred itself out? i mean if you are having sex with the same sex then you aren't reproducing thus not carrying it on.
[quote name='"HookedonPhonics"']Maybe the gay gene is natures' way of counteracting booming population growth?[/quote] Woah, you may have come across something.
I don't think so? I think a mutation, if it can happen, is going to happen in x out of x cases. It makes sense that not everybody would be 100% straight, because the brain is so complex that sexuality probably works more on a sliding scale.
Homosexuality isn't just confined to humans though, also; don't you think for a specific mutation it occurs a lot without seemingly any hereditary dependency?
How do you quantify something like that? Take population from 1900 and compare it with population of 2000 and then cross-check that against the reported homosexual population? That wouldn't work. People weren't as open about being gay back then. We'll never know how many people were truly homosexual. That's like trying to figure out how many people have mental illnesses in some societies - it isn't reported or diagnosed with each case, so the only number you can go off of is how many people are actually open about it. The only trend that would show, statistically, is an increase in openess about homosexuality. IDK, I think it would be impossible to properly conduct a study like that. Not enough data.
Yes, but it's not that specific of a mutation. There is Gay --------------------------- Asexual ------------------------------- Straight (it should really be a triangle, not a line) So there are three ways you can place and then there are varying degrees in between that. Depending on how your brain is wired, you will lean towards a specific sexual preference (taking into account individuals who are bisexual as well). So really, it's not something that is determined by heredity, but by individual brain formation in the fetus stage. But honestly, I'm just talking out of my ass here. This is just what makes sense to me. I have no evidence and no credentials to even be talking about this, lol (I'm not gay either).
[quote name='"*ColtClassic*"'] How do you quantify something like that? Take population from 1900 and compare it with population of 2000 and then cross-check that against the reported homosexual population? That wouldn't work. People weren't as open about being gay back then. We'll never know how many people were truly homosexual. That's like trying to figure out how many people have mental illnesses in some societies - it isn't reported or diagnosed with each case, so the only number you can go off of is how many people are actually open about it. The only trend that would show, statistically, is an increase in openess about homosexuality. IDK, I think it would be impossible to properly conduct a study like that. Not enough data.[/quote] Nice response. I didn't think of that. I guess it's a mystery.
Sexuality is not as simple as a triangle between Gay - Straight and Asexual... What about people that are attracted to animals, inanimate objects, intangible ideas etc.. Sexuality is a very nurtured thing in my opinion. There are plenty of scientific examples where a young teenage boy would masturbate for the first time, happen to be wearing gloves or holding his ear lobe, and for the rest of his life associate those objects, or that feeling with an orgasm - So much so that he might not be able to reproduce a natural orgasm without the aid of a glove or rubbing his ear lobe (or any other combination of random idiosyncrasies) This shows how fickle sexual preferences and attractiveness can be. However, it seems that homosexuality is a gene configuration rather than a transitional phase. As you've said this is a mutation, i've just always found it hard to believe that a mutation could repeat in a dominate fashion throughout a species with no definite cause.
I look at it like this, males are naturally attracted to females, and vise versa. And how some men can be born with feminine features, and vice versa. Things get switched from time to time. I think a person's what-they're-attracted-to can get switched as well. It's not a gene to be passed on, its just someone who's genes work a lil different. I guess that could be passed on though.. Either way, its just what they want, what their brain wants. Homosexuality was around and prevalent before religion said it was a no-no. I think it took a hit but now that people are becoming more aware of reality vs religion, it'll make a come back.
I read somewhere that in ancient times alot of kings or people in power were homosexuals and they believed it was more masculine to have sex with another man and that there was nothing wrong with it, but i'm not sure, i don't even remember where i read it.
ive thought about this before im actually a little surprised someone brought it up pretty interesting though
But overpopulation wouldn't have anything to do with it. It was MORE prevalent when we had LESS people. Nature isn't fate, it's not some mystical force that controls those things.
That's pretty bad ass But seriously though, I believe it could be a gene. A brain gene, if those even exist (bare with me here I'm running off gr.11 biology) Thats about all I have to say.. dont really have a theory of it because it is a mystery
Why does it suggest any controlling force? it's just a mutation that has developed that has been successful in controlling populations; there's no suggestion of any omnipotence, it is as successful as other mutations are.
In my experience, homosexuality is a phenomenon found in most species, including some fish (List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I do not believe homosexuality becomes part of the gene pool to limit population growth, since under nearly all circumstances, any given species will gladly reproduce ad infinitum, provided its voyage isn't cut short by catastrophe. Within the scientific community, many credible theories have been advanced which explain the presence of homosexuality in humans, and potentially mammals. Other species are being looked into, but oftentimes the researchers seem to be reverting to Freud's idea of "innate bisexuality". Nevertheless, some of the better researchers are attempting to study the physiology of sexuality. From wikipedia, And this would just be sad, as it would confirm that the stereotypical gay high schooler who hangs out mainly with girls might have a higher chance of getting laid than the football captain: Then you have sources like this which try to argue that there ISN'T a gay gene: The Evolutionary Unlikelihood of a "Gay Gene". In 20 years, they will feel like cruel assholes if there turns out to be a gay gene. For the theories about the physiology of sexuality, there's the main school of thought which claims that it's a product of hormonal imbalances originating in the womb upon all of your organ systems, but see this (1.2 to 1.7): Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This an interesting and tough subject...i've come to the conclusion (after considerable discussion/research) that i doubt there is a gay gene so much as just a regular ol' sex drive gene...i'm thinkin to some extent it may control libido or something but not necessarily orientation. I've come to this conclusion after an anthropology course opened my eyes to the vast diversity and breadth of human culture...i doubt very much that bi-sexuality is at all unusual and is infact essential to several cultures on our planet. So, its not that this gene makes billy gay its just that this gene makes billy sexual...your preferences are simply your preferences, be they societal or wholly personal, ya dig? ultimately its our societal norms and prejudices that force these preferences into strictly separate and distinct lifestyles...and in turn label it "unusual" just do you!