I don't understand why gays exist
Saved
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I don't get why homosexuals exist in nature. People say it's genetic but I don't understand how homosexuals pass on their homosexual gene if they can't have kids. so how could someone be born gay? It has to be something they choose.
but what would make someone choose to be gay, and why are there so many more gays today?
but what would make someone choose to be gay, and why are there so many more gays today?
Saved on
0
Posts
Google recessive genes. And that's just the simplistic answer.
Which is to say that you have an assumed understanding of some "nature" to nature and so find homosexuality to be in conflict with that understanding.
Who says it is genetic?
If the only possible options are "genetic" and "choice" then maybe. But I do not think that the only options are "genetic" and "choice".
What would make someone choose to be straight?
I blame repopulation.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Give him the benefit of the doubt.
But what if he is Bill O'Rielly and he's fishing for answers to display on his new segment "The Atheist Internet is Ruining America"
And there are gays who like to say they are born gay like its a condition they were born with, but I don't see how that could be the case if being homosexual isnt genetic.
Don't use animals as a point, as it can be disproven.
Maybe the genes that cause homosexuality only do so in specific combinations, but in other combinations they produce heterosexual children with higher sex drives or other selective advantages.
Perhaps the genes that cause homosexuality are only triggered by certain environmental stimuli during pregnancy.
Maybe homosexuality is biological, but not caused by genes at all (or are caused by the mother's genes) but is instead caused by certain in utero hormone exposure.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, see, that's actually the opposite of how the world works. You are viewing reality as some sort of elaborate clockwork set up by an original creator to function towards some end goal or purpose. And that's not how reality works. So in order to understand homosexuality you have to abandon your current understanding of reality and embrace an accurate one.
Reality exists. Things exist. And the end goals to which we see things driving are our own interpretations read into their actions. So there is no some end goal "procreation" for which sex occurs but rather sex occurs and we, in our flawed, flawed way, see this and so fabricate some "purpose" for the act.
You're starting at the end and working backwards. When in reality we start at the beginning and move forwards. Sometimes people put penises in vaginas. Sometimes people put penises in butts. Sometimes people rub vaginas against vaginas. All sorts of crazy crap happens. But if there is to be a "purpose" seen it any of it we have to look at the act as it occurs and not fabricate some universal "end goal" for all acts of some category and then judge the acts.
First it's not a "condition".
Our only options for the conversation are not "genetic" and "choice". There are other factors involved.
I saw this first hand at the Sundowner in Niagara Falls, Ontario last week.
Interestingly, these girls weren't gay. They just really liked money.
thats actually really interesting - is there a term used for that condition?
Also would being gay be considered a genetic abberation then? Considering the recent pushes in genetic engineering and manipulation, it almost sounds like homosexuality could be filtered out in the womb by fearful parents, the way some are already talking about filtering out sickle cell anemia.
You can completely prevent a child from being gay.
You can also completely prevent a child from being straight. But that would be inhumane.
What condition? Homosexuality?
Yeah: "homosexuality."
No. It's perfectly normal to be gay.
If there were a genetic test for it, sure, it could be possible for somebody to test their fetus or embryo in utero and then abort it if they were to discover it had gay genes.
But we don't yet have a genetic test for it and I'm sure you'll agree that aborting a child simply because they were gay would be a really, really dickish thing to do.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
That's wonderful.
Let me just stock up on food and water and crawl into my fallout shelter before people start seriously trying to scientifically solve the problem of humanity's preoccupation with trying to fuck itself in the ass.
What kind of environmental stimuli, and what causes them?
Nobody can figure out the duck—billed platypus, either, but it still exists.
People say it's genetic but I don't understand how homosexuals pass on their homosexual gene if they can't have kids. so how could someone be born gay?
First, as others have pointed out, study recessive genes. There's not much point in thinking about genetics if you're not first doing basic research into the subject.
Second, plenty of gay people get married and have kids, often either because they're in denial about being gay, or simply have not figured out that they even are gay in the first place. In most of the world there are no safe places to talk to anyone about being gay; even in western Europe and the United States it isn't safe for many children or teenagers to discuss it as they fact consequences ranging from being ostracized by family to imprisonment in anti-gay concentration camps run by religious extremists. So it's not uncommon to simply not figure it out until far into adulthood.
Third, most people aren't exclusively gay or straight, people generally fall somewhere in the middle; read up on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale">Kinsey Scale. There's no shortage of children with a committed gay parent who got drunk and screwed around with straight sex after a party.
If you really want to understand homosexuality, put down the Bible, the books by Dobson, or wherever you're getting your ideas on the subject from and go talk to some gay people. Come to DC and I'll take you to the gay steak house next door or the drag bar outside my bedroom window and I think you'll be able to get all of your questions answered.[/i]
Frankly, once we reached that level of genetic engineering and we were willing as a society to design people in that way, wouldn't universal bisexuality be more likely?
What he said.
"Choice" and "genetic" are not the only two options and the OP conveniently has ignored all other options since creating this topic.
Bailey and Pillard's results, which if you check the link have been duplicated, suggest that there is a significant genetic component. The genetic component is more than likely to be polygenic, that is to say that that it is result of the interaction of several individual genes and isn't simply the result of the dominant or recessive inheritance of a single gene.
If there's any evidence that being gay is genetic, it's news to me.
If one ram in ten is actually homosexual, my gut feeling would be that there is a distinct advantage in having gay individuals in the population, but the litterature seems to say that there is no support for this.
Anyone have any references on this? Like I said, it is an interesting subject and I would like to read up on it.
Okay, as a mostly gay dude, I have to say that if what they're saying is true and they're doing this research to try to determine the cause of homosexuality, NOT to eradicate homosexuality, then I fully support it. People fear what they don't understand, and while I recognize that homophobic groups and regimes could abuse this research will terrible consequences, the only way we'll be able to stop homophobes from "eradicating" homosexuality is by educating the populace with cold, hard, scientific facts.
Please, think of the children.
See the bottom of the last page.
Yeah, uh, should I even begin to say what's wrong with using this as evidence that there's a genetic component? Because this kind of... you know... completely ignores that upbringing may be an influential factor.
but what would make someone choose to be a dungeons and dragons fan, and why are there so many more dungeons and dragons fans today?
The only way to stop homophobes from "eradicating" homosexuality is to allow the scientific research which would perfect the process by which homosexuality could be eradicated.
Brilliant.
Oops. I was thinking of something more along the lines of a "gay gene" more similar to what the OP is thinking of. I mean, if it were just a genetic on/off thing, the numbers would be much higher for identical twins who share the exact same genes, right?
D&D fans are allowed to breed now.
...
We're doomed.
So are gay people
Allowed and able to sucessfully find a mate are two different matters entirely.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Because you touch yourself at night. "Why" is a rather broad question. If you mean how do they come to be, as several people have pointed out, we aren't really certain. If there is a genetic component, it is not the dominant trait, so heterosexual individuals could have such a gene. A hormonal or social component would be influenced by environment and culture .
If you want to know why they exist in the terms of how they came to be in the first place, you really have to look no further than San Francisco or similar areas with large homosexual populations. Have you ever noticed that they tend to be rather nice, high rent districts? There is a reason for that: two incomes, no kids. In an evolutionary sense, it meant an extra pair of adult hands without extra juvenile mouths to feed, which during a significant portion of human history would have been a significant advantage.
- John Stuart Mill
Umm... ok
Not quite sure that I wrote anything to imply that homosexuals couldn't have offspring. After all they have the equipment, and probably many still want to breed. They may just find the act, as it is, distasteful to them.
Yeah, since only about 50% of monozygotic twins are both gay, it would suggest that the gentic component is roughly 50% with the rest probably being determined by environmental factors (either uterine or otherwise).