Study seeks genetic roots of homosexuality

[Aileron]

And it is also historically known that many of the "Renaissance Men" like Michelangelo were gay, and apparently Michelangelo was not hunted down and killed before he was commissioned to paint a famous church. Generally I'd assume that being dead would be a great hinderance to one's painting ability. I mean, I could be wrong. There very well could be lots of undead artists in the world...they seem to be voting once in a while. However, if I'm right either the "gay-hunters" missed a famous person that we know the private details about 400 years later or they ~gasp~ didn't care back then either!! Believe it or not, there is a passage in the Bible about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.", and as long as the sinner isn't hurting anyone else, Christians throughout history usually stuck to it. And Michelangelo is not an exception to the rule; There were lots of homosexual artists and nobles in Christian Europe who weren't hunted down and eliminated. De Vinci is suspected. Heck, Queen Elizabeth almost married one, but called it off for that reason (note that the man wasn't killed after being found out).

 

Generally, the only case in history of people hunting down homosexuals and killing them was when somebody took Darwin's ideas and tried to evolve humankind into a more "evolved" race.

 

 

You are citing the existance of homosexuality in many places and times, but you didn't make a move towards claiming that it was generally accepted. Pros!@#$%^&*ution, for example, is the "world's oldest profession". It was never accepted in any culture, but it existed. There are countless examples of !@#$%^&*houses and red light districts in every civilization in history, and plenty of powerfull leaders, powerfull enough to literally get away with murder, who would set up harams. However, in NONE of those cases was pros!@#$%^&*ution regarded as a virtue among the populace. Either it was turned a blind eye to, ignored, or the participants were powerfull enough to be beyond reproach.

 

Homosexuality was the same way. It was practiced, sure. However, it was never encouraged, and certainly never was a subs!@#$%^&*ution for heterosexual relations, not even among the Greeks or Romans...because at the end of the day, the Emperors needed to produce an heir, and homosexuality can't do that. That's a biolgical fact that was constant throughout every culture, so thus no culture could have put homosexuality one the same pedestal liberals want it to be on today.

 

As for a gay gene, I'll actually use evolution for this one so you can't argue about it. If there was a gene for pure homosexuality and the obvious genes for heterosexuality, over time the species would evolve towards heterosexuals because the homosexuals would spend less time searching for a mate that would produce offspring. Now a pure Darwinist would claim that the "gay gene" would be some relic of single sex creatures...however, according to even the most modest estimates, that would have been a LONG time ago and any genetic relic from that time would be long gone.

[JDS]

hmm, you guys are confusing my fragile mind. Are you saying its ok to 'do' a guy, as long as its for fun only

[ThunderJam]

Mmm good stuff sever. I knew some of those cases, such as Nero and other isolated instances made somewhat infamous but didn't know about those cultural ones.

 

I still think that if it was "natural" though, we should see it in animals... beyond just a male dog humping anything in sight lol.

Edited October 20, 2007 by ThunderJam

[SeVeR]

TJ:

I still think that if it was "natural" though, we should see it in animals...

The first question to ask is: If homosexuality is unnatural, does this make it wrong?

 

Is putting your penis into another man any more unnatural than masturbating? To put it blunty, it'd be like masturbating into another person. Would it be natural if the man replaced the unlucky rectum with a vacuum cleaner hose? There is nothing unnatural about the act of homosexual sex if we can get over the "nastiness" that we're conditioned by our parents to feel for the purpose of fitting into society. If we reduce sex to it's natural purpose, to populate the human race, we can ask more logical questions on homosexuality.

 

From a Darwinian perspective it stops one from reproducing, and if prevalent enough could wipe out the species. However, a homosexual man could still reproduce by donating sperm and a lesbian could reproduce by accepting it. This does happen. We know from the stories all over the media that the desire to reproduce is not taken away by homosexuality. So the darwinian argument cannot be used as there is no desire to stop reproducing.

 

Finally there is the simple anthropic argument that homosexuality does exist, has existed for millenia, and is therefore natural. That might not be convincing to some, but why would we choose to !@#$%^&* members of our own sex if some of us didn't desire it... and those desires are natural aren't they?

 

Sorry to take so long to get to your question. There is one problem with comparing human beings to animals and that is: we are an extreme case. We are the most intelligent animal known on Earth. Any inconsistencies in our behaviour cannot be labelled as unnatural without suitable boundary conditions (a more intelligent species). I tried to rationalise religion as being unnatural many years ago and came to the conclusion that it's futile for this reason. We share the same basic survival and reproductive instincts of any other species, but our methods of achieving those goals are unique and incomparable to any other species on Earth. The quest to rationalise our behaviour in terms of our basic animal instincts has to be the most interesting field of research imaginable.

 

Aileron:

And it is also historically known that many of the "Renaissance Men" like Michelangelo were gay

If we'd had a renaissance in the first few centuries of Christianity then i would have conceded the point, but it took over a millenium, still required artists to hide their sexuality in all cases (you mentioned Da Vinci), and began a path of decline in Christian influence. I don't think of the scientists Copernicus and Galileo as being in a tolerant world, do you? Do you have a source that the Church knew Michelangelo was gay before they used his art?

 

Da Vinci was acquitted in 1476 of homosexual acts with Jacopo Saltarelli. Michelangelo, while painting the Last Judgment on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, wrote sonnets to Tomm!@#$%^&*o Cavalieri. When the sonnets were found by the Buonarroti family, they were later translated to interpret Michelangelo's love for Tomm!@#$%^&*o to actually be for a female patron.

 

Neither men were open about their homosexuality. If found guilty of homosexuality they would have been executed.

 

Generally, the only case in history of people hunting down homosexuals and killing them was when somebody took Darwin's ideas and tried to evolve humankind into a more "evolved" race.

So you glazed over 1500 years of the Church doing it? You mentioned the renaissance which wasn't even a good example since any proven homosexuality would have resulted in execution, but what about the Christian world before the renaissance? Or even after?

 

If Nazi's were right about Darwinism they wouldn't have been wiped out.

 

You are citing the existance of homosexuality in many places and times, but you didn't make a move towards claiming that it was generally accepted.

Nearly all of my examples show that homosexuality was accepted in those cultures, just read the quotes in my post, or read the pages if you have the time.

 

pros!@#$%^&*ution regarded as a virtue

Who said anything about homosexuality needing to be a virtue? I'm talking about it being legal and acceptable practice in those cultures.

 

Emperors needed to produce an heir, and homosexuality can't do that. That's a biolgical fact that was constant throughout every culture, so thus no culture could have put homosexuality one the same pedestal liberals want it to be on today.

True, i never said it was right, i said it wasn't wrong (for these cultures), and i think that's the correct approach to have. Christianity decided it was wrong and punishable by death, something most cultures in the world didn't do.

 

As for a gay gene, I'll actually use evolution for this one so you can't argue about it. If there was a gene for pure homosexuality and the obvious genes for heterosexuality, over time the species would evolve towards heterosexuals because the homosexuals would spend less time searching for a mate that would produce offspring. Now a pure Darwinist would claim that the "gay gene" would be some relic of single sex creatures...however, according to even the most modest estimates, that would have been a LONG time ago and any genetic relic from that time would be long gone.

I don't know what you're getting at. I agree, and even said so in my last post. That doesn't change our biology from producing cross-overs in the male-female divide as a result of random fluctuations. Do you know what hermaproditism is? Cross-overs don't have to be physical like in hermaphroditism. To back up my case further, you know bisexuals exist right? Obviously there is no gay gene as it would have to be half-on and half-off in this case. There are undoubtedly many factors. So yes, no specific "gay" gene, it would have been wiped out.

 

JDS:

hmm, you guys are confusing my fragile mind. Are you saying its ok to 'do' a guy, as long as its for fun only

Sure, knock yourself out, just use a condom.

[Shia' Tan]

are u gay sever? why cant people just exept that homosexuality is wrong. from what i have read here, there are those who think its not ok, and then there are those who are trying to justify it somehow.

 

Marriage is ment to be between a man and a woman. look at Adam and Eve. God didnt stick Adam down on the earth and say, "Hey, Adam, i'll let you choose. Man or Woman." No, he gave Adam a wife, i think there is probably a reason for that. Secondly, Sodom and Gamora were so wicked that the Lord destroyed them off the face of the earth. They were a bunch of homos.

[ThunderJam]

are u gay sever? why cant people just exept that homosexuality is wrong. from what i have read here, there are those who think its not ok, and then there are those who are trying to justify it somehow.

 

Marriage is ment to be between a man and a woman. look at Adam and Eve. God didnt stick Adam down on the earth and say, "Hey, Adam, i'll let you choose. Man or Woman." No, he gave Adam a wife, i think there is probably a reason for that. Secondly, Sodom and Gamora were so wicked that the Lord destroyed them off the face of the earth. They were a bunch of homos.

Oh boy here we go again. Guys can we try and not turn this one into a religious debate since we have other threads for that.

 

Lol and is sever gay? I too wonder about some of you

[PoLiX]

It is our upbringing that forces us to one side or the other. Case in point in ancient cultures is was not unheard of, and sometimes common place for two men to engage in sexual activity. Now there is such a taboo over it, and we're told from a young age, no matter how "open" your parents are, that for the most part being gay is bad.

You sure? name a few ancient cultures like that. I'm pretty sure we are way way way more accepting of homosexuality now then people have been in the past. Isn't that why you here of famous people from the past keeping their homosexuality a secret? Because it was a bigger deal then.

 

Another thing I've thought of is, if people want homosexuality to be considered natural, why don't we see it happening in nature, meaning animals? Maybe there are some animals that do it that I'm not aware of.

 

Dogs and Wolves. It is thought it is a practice to show dominance there though.

 

Male apes will hump just about anything they can get their hands on when they are truly in the dead of heat (saw this at a zoo as 1 male grabbed another younger one and went to town).

 

Lots of animals do it. Mostly for dominance, nothing gay, but yeah.

[X`terrania]

are u gay sever? why cant people just exept that homosexuality is wrong. from what i have read here, there are those who think its not ok, and then there are those who are trying to justify it somehow.

 

Marriage is ment to be between a man and a woman. look at Adam and Eve. God didnt stick Adam down on the earth and say, "Hey, Adam, i'll let you choose. Man or Woman." No, he gave Adam a wife, i think there is probably a reason for that. Secondly, Sodom and Gamora were so wicked that the Lord destroyed them off the face of the earth. They were a bunch of homos.

 

Dude, that is so !@#$%^&*ing ignorant.

 

summary: The bible is bull!@#$%^&*. Adam and Eve didn't exist. God is a failure. You follow him; therefore you are a failure also.

[Wild Luck]

Ever think that maybe everyone is born bisexual and through raising most people reject people of their own sex, but some people, for reasons mostly determined early on go the opposite way or stay bisexual?

we are not born bisexual, sex is determined by the sperm who fertelizes the ovoonia, and is given in uterus, if its male the testosterone will make the fetus male, if its female the absence of testosterone will make it female.

 

I do agree some people who have genetic anomalies like man who have low testosterone could develop homosexualism but in most cases people who are homosexuals are just corrupted people with no reason to be homosexual.

 

Some people who were raped become homosexuals and some homosexual who were raped become heterosexual.

 

I doubt is genetic cause then one of the parents would have to carry the gay gene, and then if the parent has the gay gene then why is he/she not gay.

 

In the end it wont matter cause if its determined by genes then parents will modify their sons genes infetus so they dont become gay.

[PoLiX]

I doubt is genetic cause then one of the parents would have to carry the gay gene, and then if the parent has the gay gene then why is he/she not gay.

 

Some people have the gene that causes Down Syndrome, some that causes Parkinson's, etc. You have A LOT of dormant gene disorders in you right now. The key is, if both parents have that gene, the risk is higher the gene will activate. Nothing says because your parents have this or that, you will (IE: Dwarfism), it is just all how your DNA develops in the womb, and what takes priority. You'd have a better chance guessing the lottery than guessing what genes a child will develop. They're close to being able to develop the "Perfect" baby, but even those scientists will tell you, there is still a chance something can slip through or go unexpected.

[Samapico]

Ever think that maybe everyone is born bisexual and through raising most people reject people of their own sex, but some people, for reasons mostly determined early on go the opposite way or stay bisexual?

we are not born bisexual, sex is determined by the sperm who fertelizes the ovoonia, and is given in uterus, if its male the testosterone will make the fetus male, if its female the absence of testosterone will make it female.

 

You don't know what bisexual is do you?

 

look it up... you're thinking about hermaphrodism

[Wild Luck]

I doubt is genetic cause then one of the parents would have to carry the gay gene, and then if the parent has the gay gene then why is he/she not gay.

 

Some people have the gene that causes Down Syndrome, some that causes Parkinson's, etc. You have A LOT of dormant gene disorders in you right now. The key is, if both parents have that gene, the risk is higher the gene will activate. Nothing says because your parents have this or that, you will (IE: Dwarfism), it is just all how your DNA develops in the womb, and what takes priority. You'd have a better chance guessing the lottery than guessing what genes a child will develop. They're close to being able to develop the "Perfect" baby, but even those scientists will tell you, there is still a chance something can slip through or go unexpected.

ok so gay genes are not dominant, they are resecive.

 

whatever... If they find the gay gene say goodbye to gay pplz, might not be tomorrow but in the end they will remove gay gene from pplz

 

sorry samapico but english is not my first language

Edited October 26, 2007 by Wild Luck

[Shia' Tan]

I really dont think that there is a "gay" gene. But if there were, im in opinion with Wild. It will be removed.

[JDS]

gay people just want a reason to why they like guys.. there isn't a gay gene ..they just like dudes. Quit looking for answers and embrace the obvious

[Hakaku]

I don't believe that there's only one answer to homosexuality. Some may claim it's in the genes, testosterone, or caused by environmental or parental factors, others may say it's a choice or it's hard-wired in the brain. What if there was no true answer? Besides reproduction, what proof do you have that being straight is not a choice?

 

There's many studies, but no one's really going to find an answer. Scientists have been able to manipulate the sexual mentality of certain animals such as rats, or even the sexual nature of worms (recently featured in Times Online) by altering a gene. However, some animals do perform homosexual behaviour (some species of monkeys are known for all sorts of sexual behaviour, whether straight or homosexual, and whether done just for pleasure or not).

 

I thought that this video (and Part 2) by 60 minutes describes some of the complexity of homosexuality pretty well. It explains concept such as the younger brother tendancy to have more chances of being gay, or identical twins which are the opposite in sexual and mental behaviour since they were able to talk practically.

[Shia' Tan]

gay people just want a reason to why they like guys.. there isn't a gay gene ..they just like dudes. Quit looking for answers and embrace the obvious

Sounds good

[Drake7707]

you might wanna look into this from a different angle: who cares? The only people i think would care are the people who are too !@#$%^&*ed up to know what they are/want. So this whole point of discussion is pointless and a waste of time.

 

Actually those who do care and not for themselves have quite a lack of respect to a lot of people

Edited October 29, 2007 by Drake7707

[SeVeR]

I just want to understand why some people are gay. I don't think that shows any lack of respect. I think it's a very interesting subject as it addresses nature Vs nurture for the development of un-Darwinian sexuality. So for education's sake, i care.

[grazzhoppa]

Biology 101: Genes are tied to evolution. Genes that prevent reproductive activity get weeded out. Genes that promote reproductive activity get more prevalent. Over millions of years, any gay gene would have been weeded out to the point that it would be *much* rarer than things like six-fingered hands (since that doesn't affect reproduction).

to refine this quoted text,

Evolutionary Psychology 204: Genes may be passed on to later generations by indirect reproduction.

In some human social structures, the social benefits* of same-sex partnerships may have produced more reproducing-offspring than investing time & resources for acquiring mates capable of producing healthy offspring that survive to reproduce. But why not have friendship-relationships - why is there "sex" involved in these same-sex partnerships? Homosexuality, in the environment where it evolved, may be exploiting the unique aspect that humans like to have sex just for fun and other evolved behaviors !@#$%^&*ociated with sexual pleasure, like emotional attachment.

This provides a possible answer to "why does homosexuality even exist?".

 

* examples of social benefits: an extra male to protect family members; an extra female to help gather food; an extra person who is investing in your relatives' well-being

 

It also explains why homosexuality has it's roots in advanced social structures (like humans) and hence is not found in all animals.

 

As a side note, mutations (like six-fingered hands) do affect reproduction because mutations may signal a better mate choice, a better chance of your offspring surviving to reproduce. The mutation does not need to directly be involved with reproducing, and it may even not be related to survival of the organism that has the mutation. If it increases the amount of offspring that reproduce, indirectly or directly, it will be favored by natural selection.

 

Homosexuality is only in 1-2% of human populations, correct? That suggests that, in the environments of human ancestors, the genes that contribute to heterosexual mate preference result in more surviving & reproducing offspring than homosexual mate preference. And that is also inline with our intuition.

 

Because homosexuality is such a rarity does not mean that is wrong or bad. The rarity tells us that social environments of our ancestors did not favor homosexual mate preference as much as it did heterosexual mate preference. To determine morality of homosexuality look to religion, philosophy, and your own experience - not biology or evolutionary theory.

Edited December 6, 2007 by grazzhoppa

[SeVeR]

[Bak]

The fact that homosexuality exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

No.

 

The fact that murder exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

The fact that pedophilia exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

The fact that war exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

The fact that whale backbones exist means that there is some genetic benefit.

[SeVeR]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

[Drake7707]

The fact that war exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

 

duh, else the overpopulation was even bigger and overpopulation is bad in general

 

You have to look in these things in an objective matter, no matter how (in)human it is

[Bak]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

 

what's the genetic benefit of whales having backbones?

[ThunderJam]

The fact that murder exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

The fact that pedophilia exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

The fact that war exists means that there is some genetic benefit.

The fact that whale backbones exist means that there is some genetic benefit.

The argument that homosexuality has gentic benefits hinges on the idea that homosexuality is a mutation in human genes or behavior. I believe that claim was meant to be in a survival of the fittest sense, saying like "well if homosexuality put us at a disadvantage, the mutation would ahve died out by now." Murder, pedophilia, war, etc can't be inserted into this argument because they arent genetic or behavioral mutations.

 

Like say people had the idea of war to gain territory, and they failed at war. In this case war would have been a "bad mutation." However 200 years later, a completely separate group of people could have had the same idea (Im talking like cavemen level). The death of one group did not stop the mutation. War, murder, pedophilia are not somethign that would stop if they put the people at a disadvantage. The whole thing about the advantages only applies in genetics because of the hereditary nature of the traits.