Is homosexuality heriditary or a choice?

[Rage]

I asked this question at during one of my schools sex ed classes, and the counselor doing the class said that she was not allowed to give her opinion on this (or talk about birth control or abortion...). I think the answer to this question can say a lot about who you are (the republicans say "its a choice and a bad one", democrats say "its natural" and I know of libertarians who say "its a choice, but not a wrong one").

I do not have an opinion on the matter and I want to see what some people here think.

edit: I my self am not strictly a heterosexual and I agree with goatse who made a post saying "sexuality isn't black and white, and that you're not either hetrosexual or homosexual."


I know lots of people might think that this is bogus and I don't know what I am talking about but: my feelings towards women feel more hereditary and my feelings towards men seem more like an environmental thing, but I really can't describe it accurately.

/,,/
Rock on!

[which doctor]

I think a better question to be asked is what is choice but something predetermined by our genetics and environment?

[RHIZOMES]

I believe it's hereditary. I have a feeling if anyone here says it's a choice they'll most likely get restricted :P.

[Module]

Does it have to be one or the other?
I'd say it was most probably a mixture of biological and environmental factors.
I'd doubt it if there was some 'homosexual' gene some people have, especially given that only a minority of people I know are 100% either way, myself included.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The most widely accepted theory is that homosexuality is the result from a combination of several genes, not just one.

Mapping the human genome has found that old schools of "single gene" thought are pretty much obsolete.

For instance, it was found that eye colour is is the result of several genetic factors, not simply one; like was previously thought for generations.

Now the debate rages on if these genetic anomalies should should be considered to be "genetic disorders" since they are so confined; I personally don't like the implications of such an idea.

I say that because not only is homosexuality completely harmless, the social ramifications would be disastrous if such an idea became commonplace.

[Sentinel]

Most likely genetic, perhaps affected by childhood environment, but definitely not a choice. That's a myth stemming from religious 'free will' bullshit, which of course plays directly into the hands of homophobes: 'those people choose to be different and it's their own fault that they're discriminated upon'.

That it isn't voluntary should be obvious even to those who don't 'take our word for it'; for example, if it was a choice, it'd of course most likely be non-existant in countries where it's punished with death -- but it isn't, far from it, even though (understandably) less are open about it, many seek asylum abroad etc.

[ZeroPain]

Choice is not the right word for the environmental aspect to homosexuality...

Taste is...

You can't chose to not like your favorite food nor can you chose to like eating something you hate. You may refuse/force yourself to eat it but the desire is still there.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:29 pm
Choice is not the right word for the environmental aspect to homosexuality...

Taste is...

You can't chose to not like your favorite food nor can you chose to like eating something you hate. You may refuse/force yourself to eat it but the desire is still there.
Good post...I was gonna ask why cant it be both ? What cant it be neither for some people ? Why does 'homsexuality' have to be ONE thing ?

[Tower of Bebel]

Indeed, I must agree with ZeroPain, as you can compare it to taste. It is, I guess, not as genetical as the eye or hair colour, or like the way your body is built. But it must be something with genetics. This does not mean external elements like environment have nothing to do with it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:25 pm
It is, I guess, not as genetical as the eye or hair colour, or like the way your body is built. But it must be something with genetics.
This doesn't really make sense. the genes that control eye colour and the genes that control certain personality traits are both comprised of DNA.

The only difference would be the sequencing of the nucleotides that form specific protein building amino acids.

One thing simply can't be "more genetic than another".

For example, there are many quantitative genetic traits that are altered by environmental factors and are no less genetic than any other genotype.

[spartan]

if it is genetic then if a bunch of homophobes get in power they could use gene therapy to eradicate it. therefore i think it is more of a choice determined by certain things/sexual experiences earlier in life which affected your sexual outcome later on with maybe a bit of genetics involved.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:24 pm
if it is genetic then if a bunch of homophobes get in power they could use gene therapy to eradicate it. therefore i think it is more of a choice determined by certain things/sexual experiences earlier in life which affected your sexual outcome later on with maybe a bit of genetics involved.
The conclusion does not follow the premise. The fact that it could theoretically be eradicated through gene therapy (like nearly every genetic trait) does not mean it is a choice, don't be absurd.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:24 pm
if it is genetic then if a bunch of homophobes get in power they could use gene therapy to eradicate it. therefore i think it is more of a choice determined by certain things/sexual experiences earlier in life which affected your sexual outcome later on with maybe a bit of genetics involved.
I understand you feelings on the subject but science has already discovered genetic proof of sexuality.

It's now not a matter of is it genetic, it's a matter of how many genes does it take to form a specific sexuality and is homosexuality a mutation of one or more of these genes or a rare genetic combination of normal genes.

If it were a case of genetic mutation then sure, you could possibly correct the mutation through genetic manipulation but why would you want to?

And would we let something like that happen?

No chance!

[Dr Mindbender]

i think its partly emotional upbringing and partly chemical balances in the body (oestrogen vs testosterone). The genetic theory doesnt make sense to me because the vast proportion of gay people ive met have had parents who are as straight as an arrow.

[Demogorgon]

I am not the best person to describe this. due to knowing little about biology, but as I understand it many researchers think that sexuality may come about due to the manner in which foetuses receive flushes of testosterone while they are in the womb. It is quite complicated but as I understand it, those who are going to be male receive heavier flushes of testosterone than those going to be female and it comes in two sperate flushes, one which will determine the body and one which determines the brain. If it goes normally your brain and body will match up, but sometimes they don't, hence people are born with the wrong body for their gender and have to transition.

At any rate as I understand it homosexuality may come down to slight variations in the way the brain receives the testosterone and the way the part of your brain that deals with sexual attraction reacts to it.

I have no doubt deeply mangled the theory, but hoefully I got the jist of it. At any rate it is certainly natural.

[Black Flag Rising]

As far as I know, it is determined by a balance of testosterone versus estrogen, and the process to determine qualities of body and qualities of mind (as described by Demogorgon), as well as random emotional agreements and disagreements upon one's upbringing.

The only heriditary symptom I can think of is how the genes of the parents determine if the child is boy or girl by body and boy or girl by mind, and how they match up. I'll do some digging on it tommorow, as it is now time for me to drink Tea and go to sleep.

[Vinny Rafarino]

i think its partly emotional upbringing and partly chemical balances in the body (oestrogen vs testosterone).the genetic theory doesnt make sense to me because the vast proportion of gay people ive met have had parents who are as straight as an arrow.

How exactly do you think that your hormone levels are naturally regulated? Nucleotides produce specific amino acids that produce the proteins that program how these hormones are regulated (in a nutshell of course).

[redflagfires]

I don't think it is hereditary.
I personally am bisexual, my parents are both straight.
Nor was it necessarily my "choice" to be attracted to people of the same sex, i merely realized that i was, and my choice was to succumb if you will to something that was already existent.

[Comrade Rage]

It's definitely genetic. If it was a choice it would be one many would not stick to, given the rage and bile leveled against these people. Gays today are arguably more oppressed than traditionally oppressed groups. For instance, no one in the government can be openly racist and survive electorally, however homophobia is not only tolerated in government, but championed.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by redflagfires+August 30, 2007 03:37 pm--> (redflagfires @ August 30, 2007 03:37 pm) I don't think it is hereditary.
I personally am bisexual, my parents are both straight.
Nor was it necessarily my "choice" to be attracted to people of the same sex, i merely realized that i was, and my choice was to succumb if you will to something that was already existent. [/b]

RFF
I don't think it is hereditary.

Everything concerning your body is hereditary. You receive half of your genetic coding from your mother and half from your father.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vinnie:


Everything concerning your body is hereditary. You receive half of your genetic coding from your mother and half from your father.

Not so: I have a scar on my chin. Neither of my parents (nor any of my grandparents) had such a scar.

Do you think that my scar has anything to do with a car accident I was in?

If so, not everything to do with my body is hereditary.

And if you do not like that, think about people who have lost limbs, eyes, teeth and a kidney.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa
Not so: I have a scar on my chin. Neither of my parents (nor any of my grandparents) had such a scar.

Do you think that my scar has anything to do with a car accident I was in?



Of course not.

It's assumed that an individual reading my statement would actually understand how the word "everything" applies to the subject under discussion.

In other words I would have assumed that the individuals here would be smart enough comprehend the word "everything" as it has been applied here without the bother of saying something like "everything except for such things that would be deemed impossible, illogical or irrational.

I realise that you probably already knew this but merely wanted to break my balls for some reason only known to yourself.

Why is that? Do you not like me for some reason?

After all we've been through..... :(

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Rage
Is homosexuality heriditary or a choice?, what is your opinion

The same as it would be if the question was, "Is heterosexuality heriditary or a choice?"... any heterosexual here wanna field that question for me? ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


In other words I would have assumed that the individuals here would be smart enough comprehend the word "everything" as it has been applied here without the bother of saying something like "everything except for such things that would be deemed impossible, illogical or irrational.

I realise that you probably already knew this but merely wanted to break my balls for some reason only known to yourself.

Not so; you must know (I hope!!) that apart from my relatively trivial examples (above), there is a stong current of opinion among left-wing biologists that not everything to do with our bodies is down to DNA, genes and the rest.


Why is that? Do you not like me for some reason?

In fact, I despise 'comrades' who have avatars that sterotype muslims, and who constantly post cartoons to that effect.

But, that dislike is independent of my earlier objection.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Not so; you must know (I hope!!) that apart from my relatively trivial examples (above), there is a stong current of opinion among left-wing biologists that not everything to do with our bodies is down to DNA, genes and the rest.


I suppose that, in your opinion, being a left wing biologist somehow makes them know more about genetics that a geneticist?

I'm sorry but our entire bodies, save for that which would be deemed impossible, irrational or illogical such as scar tissue derived from a cut, is genetic. and is therefore derived from genetic material obtained from the parents.

That means it would be subsequently considered "hereditary".

There simply is no way around it.


In fact, I despise 'comrades' who have avatars that sterotype muslims, and who constantly post cartoons to that effect.

Oh well.

Luckily enough for me Lenninists change their tune often enough for me to see you coming back around the bend.

In addition, there's no reason for you to place the word "comrade" in quotations; we both know that were are certainly not "comrades".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You have obviously not read much work by left wing biologists then.


Luckily enough for me Lenninists change their tune often enough for me to see you coming back around the bend.

In addition, there's no reason for you to place the word "comrade" in quotations; we both know that were are certainly not "comrades".

Well, I put the word "comrades" is 'scare' quotes to get round that one, if you noticed.

And, your comment about Leninists is rather obscure. Whatever 99.9% of them think, I will not be changing my mind.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa
You have obviously not read much work by left wing biologists then.


"Left wing biologists" have a terrible tendency to politicize the reporting their work to fit within their ideologues.

Even if the results in distributing misinformation; like in this case here.


And, your comment about Leninists is rather obscure. Whatever 99.9% of them think, I will not be changing my mind.

Fair enough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


"Left wing biologists" have a terrible tendency to politicize the reporting their work to fit within their ideologues.

Same with right-wing biologists with respect to genes.

Now, what would a 'supposed' RevLefter be doing agreeing with those reactionaries, I wonder?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31, 2007 11:48 am
V:


"Left wing biologists" have a terrible tendency to politicize the reporting their work to fit within their ideologues.

Same with right-wing biologists with respect to genes.

Now, what would a 'supposed' RevLefter be doing agreeing with those reactionaries, I wonder?


Are you saying that all geneticists are "right wingers"? If so, please explain your logic behind that conclusion and where I myself agreed that geneticists were all right wingers.

Then show me where I agreed to lay my tent in that camp.

Don't bother; you can't.

You barking up the wrong tree here Rosa. I thought you were were brighter than the other cats trying this crap.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Are you saying that all geneticists are "right wingers"? If so, please explain your logic behind that conclusion and where I myself agreed that geneticists were all right wingers.

No, just the ones who seem to have your ear.


Then show me where I agreed to lay my tent in that camp.

Don't bother; you can't.

You barking up the wrong tree here Rosa. I thought you were were brighter than the other cats trying this crap.

Tent?? :blink:

Cats, barking, trees??? :blink: :blink:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31, 2007 02:19 pm
No, just the ones who seem to have your ear.




That's just silly.

I would say that the massive majority of anthropologists are not "leftist".

Does that mean that evolution is a "right wing theory"?

I would also venture to say that the massive majority of neurosurgeons are not "leftists".

Does that mean that brain surgery is just a "right wing practice"?

The truth is that you are picking and choosing what science you believe based merely on your political views and have cast the rest off as being "right wing".

What a crock.



Tent?? :blink:

Cats, barking, trees??? :blink: :blink:

I assumed that since you like to use baseball sayings that you would understand other yanqui figures of speech:

Cats- 70s Harlem, New York jive meaning a male person.

Barking up the wrong tree - A yanqui expression meaning you're wasting your time because what you are expecting to find is not there.

Tent - A reference to placing your loyalties with a specific party or organisation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



What a crock.

You should stop asserting such things then.


I assumed that since you like to use baseball sayings that you would understand other yanqui figures of speech:

Cats- 70s Harlem, New York jive meaning a male person.

Barking up the wrong tree - A yanqui expression meaning you're wasting your time because what you are expecting to find is not there.

Tent - A reference to placing your loyalties with a specific party or organisation.

Are you on something?

Double the dose then.

[MarxSchmarx]

You know Vinny and Rosa, with all due respect this comes across as a real pissing match.

As a serious student of biology, Vinny, I sincerely appreciate you genuinely taking the time to learn some of the great insights arrived at lately on these questions. That is more than 98% of the world does.

Having said this, I think you are very careless when you use terms that can be misconstrued, quite fairly, as equating reproduction with development, or when you make claims like:



One thing simply can't be "more genetic than another".

when in fact this is what heritability (http://www.answers.com/topic/heritability-estimates?cat=health) and the science of phenotypic evolution is all about.

And in all fairness, Rosa, I don't get the sense that Vinny takes seriously the cranks that assert genetic determinism. I don't think it's left-wing anymore that solely assert the central role of phenotypic plasticity in all things biology. If anything is an unassailable dogma in biology, it is the concept that nothing is purely genetic or purely environmental. Any biologist asserting otherwise gets laughed out the door. I know you don't need to hear this from me, but I think Vinny exaggerated when s/he carelessly asserted "everything is genetic" and when your counter-example was characterized as trivial.

It was careless, but the fact that Vinny agrees with (but minimizes) your counter-examples implies no one's endorsing a naive view of genetic determinism.

I realize this post probably makes enemies of you both. But the direction this thread has taken is upsetting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MS, thanks for those comments; I find there is little in them with which I disagree.

Except perhaps a minor niggle: since the vast majority of scientific thories have now been rejected as false (with more biting the dust every generation or so), experience tells us to distrust anyone who attaches too much faith in any randomly selected scientific theory, including those found in genetics.

[syndicat]

well, the genetic code is merely the design plan. there was recently reported a study that suggests that number of siblings and birth order has some relationship to likelihood that one will develop the tendency to be attracted to one's own sex. The report said this was because the hormonal balance a woman's body provides changes as she has more children. but the report said this isn't a perfect correlation (i.e. it merely affects probability), so that suggests it is just one factor.

in any event, i can't ever recall any time i "chose" to be attracted to someone. it happens or it doesn't. i'm hetero, and i assume it works the same way if one is bisexual or gay. the bogus idea that one "chooses" to be gay was concocted to justify bigotry and conservative Christian ideology. in reality variations in sexual attraction patterns (variations of gayness or straightness) are a normal biological variation, like variations in eye color. less than 1% of the world's population have blue eyes but they're not regarded as dangerous deviants.

there are also plausible accounts of how homosexuality is adaptive for humans. in the bleak conditions of hunter/gatherer bands, increasing the ratio of adults to offspring somewhat would help the band's chances of survival. one's genes are also transmitted by one's siblings and cousins.

[Freigemachten]

Bit of evidence for the whole genetic idea. (http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm)

summary: Fruitflies are great for genetic research because you can have a whole new mature generation in a matter of weeks. Geneticists produced an entire generation of male homosexual fruitflies. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation. Another bit of research suggests that homosexuality is connected to the X chromosome in males and that there are most probably other genetic links.

this shows that in the lexicon of DNA and genetics, there is at least the possibility for it in the genomes of certain animals. Whether or not this applies to humans could be another question I suppose, but I don't see how.

seems pretty clear that it's not a choice if you ask me. I say nature on this one.

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:16 pm
there was recently reported a study that suggests that number of siblings and birth order has some relationship to likelihood that one will develop the tendency to be attracted to one's own sex. The report said this was because the hormonal balance a woman's body provides changes as she has more children. but the report said this isn't a perfect correlation (i.e. it merely affects probability), so that suggests it is just one factor.

I don't have a link here but I also remember hearing about the sibling theory. As I recall though, what I read was that the more older brothers a male child had, the more likely he was to be homosexual. What this suggests is a matter of debate clearly, but it does suggest something.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa+--> (Rosa)You should stop asserting such things then.[/b]

Just to adhere to your occasionally warped sense of reality?

No thanks.


Are you on something?

A heavy dose of reality.

You should try some.


Marx Shmarx
but I think Vinny exaggerated when s/he carelessly asserted "everything is genetic" and when your counter-example was characterized as trivial.

Not really.

I just understand that outside of the world of Lois, Gilbert and Poindexter figures of speech are understood.

My assertion itself was hardly careless and entirely accurate.


It was careless, but the fact that Vinny agrees with (but minimizes) your counter-examples implies no one's endorsing a naive view of genetic determinism.

I'm sure there are thousands of folks that would say your views on genetic determinism and most likely evolutionary psychology are themselves naive.

Myself included.

[redflagfires]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 30, 2007 11:13 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 30, 2007 11:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:37 pm
I don't think it is hereditary.
I personally am bisexual, my parents are both straight.
Nor was it necessarily my "choice" to be attracted to people of the same sex, i merely realized that i was, and my choice was to succumb if you will to something that was already existent.

RFF
I don't think it is hereditary.

Everything concerning your body is hereditary. You receive half of your genetic coding from your mother and half from your father. [/b]
While genetically speaking you may be privy to many things from your parents, you're vastly oversimplifying by saying everything concerning your body is hereditary.

[rouchambeau]

What does it matter? If it's a choice, we should be accepting of it. If it's not, we should be accepting of it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:45 am
What does it matter? If it's a choice, we should be accepting of it. If it's not, we should be accepting of it.
Scientific curiosity dumbfuck, just because you're incapable of any kind of inquisitive thought (and, seemingly most other kinds) does not mean we are all similarly afflicted.

[rouchambeau]

Why are you so defensive?

[Black Dagger]

Indeed, that kind of aggressive response was completely uncalled for.

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:45 am
What does it matter? If it's a choice, we should be accepting of it. If it's not, we should be accepting of it.
While it is a valid point, that causation does not at all change the position we must take on this, it should be understood that we, as intellectuals should seek to understand as much as possible about the motivation of humans. One of the most primal motivators in our psyche is sex and attractions, thus, it is important to understand them, regardless of our position on them.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by rouchambeau+September 10, 2007 02:15 am--> (rouchambeau @ September 10, 2007 02:15 am) Why are you so defensive? [/b]

BGM
Indeed, that kind of aggressive response was completely uncalled for.

Wait, I'm confused; was I being aggressive or defensive?


I mainly reacted like that because you, rouchambollocks, post nothing but stupid one liners. Also because it should seem pretty obvious to anyone that the main reason for this kind of speculation is simply scientific inquisitiveness.

[Black Dagger]

He was expressing a legitimate POV - you don't have to agree with it - but this isn't OI, so there's need to be so abrasive.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:59 am
While genetically speaking you may be privy to many things from your parents, you're vastly oversimplifying by saying everything concerning your body is hereditary.
Not really.

You receive half of your genes from one parent the other half from the other. Therefore every function withing your body that can be traced to genes (all of them) can be considered to be hereditary in nature.

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 10, 2007 05:14 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 10, 2007 05:14 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 08:59 am
While genetically speaking you may be privy to many things from your parents, you're vastly oversimplifying by saying everything concerning your body is hereditary.
Not really.

You receive half of your genes from one parent the other half from the other. Therefore every function withing your body that can be traced to genes (all of them) can be considered to be hereditary in nature. [/b]
Perhaps everything but your rationality and cognition. While you may have a genetic basis here the way you learn to use your brain can vary extremely.

For example, neither of my parents were exemplary students. My dad is a working class guy, my mother was a secretary 'til she stopped working. Neither were academic super-stars if you get my meaning. Meanwhile, I was ranked in the top 5% of students taking the ACT nationally last year, I'm a first generation college student. Was this genetically predetermined? I think not, I think I was afforded educational opertunities that allowed me to grow mentally more efficiently than was previously available.

[Vinny Rafarino]

While you may have a genetic basis here the way you learn to use your brain can vary extremely.

Your cognitive abilities and rationalisation abilities and levels thereof are directly related to your genome.

For example, no matter what environment and individual suffering from severe mental retardation is in, their cognitive abilities in addition to their ability to rationalise will remain at a much lower level than a normal person.

The genetic mutation that causes the condition prevents it from being otherwise.


For example, neither of my parents were exemplary students.

You have failed to recognize that even though you got your genetic code directly from your parents, they got theirs from their parents and so on.

Heredity encompasses your entire genetic lineage.

We do know that new genetic mutations can be gained outside of hereditary means (such as ionizing radiation mutations) but these are clear cases of non natural tampering with the genome with widely varied results.

Let's take Marfan Syndrome for example: A person with Marfan Syndrom has a 50 percent chance of passing the FBN1 gene mutation onto an individual offspring. We know also that only 75 percent of all individuals with this gene mutation have gotten it from their hereditary genetic code; that leaves 25 percent unaccounted for.

This is where folks make the mistake of discounting genetic responsibility due to misunderstanding the nature of how this mutation can freely occur 25 percent of the time.

Is it strictly environmental?

I doubt it.

More than likely the new family cases if FBN1 genetic mutation are caused by specific genetic sequencing in typically non related genes that leave certain individuals with a predisposition to certain mutations under very specific environmental conditions.

Meaning even thought the environment "triggered" the mutation, their genetic code allowed that event to occur.

If this were not the case then every individual under the same circumstances would develop the FBN1 mutation equally; but that's simply not the case.

Another example would be that certain people will have genetic mutations under very specific doses of ionizing radiation while others will not experience these genetic mutations under the same dosage.

Edited for shitty spelling

[rouchambeau]

Wait, I'm confused; was I being aggressive or defensive?
You're all three.



I mainly reacted like that because you, rouchambollocks, post nothing but stupid one liners.
I promise to respond to you in at least two lines if you promise to calm down. Does that sound like something we can work out?


Also because it should seem pretty obvious to anyone that the main reason for this kind of speculation is simply scientific inquisitiveness.
I don't buy that for a second. This question on homosexuality might be motivated by inquisitiveness, but you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that this is anywhere near scientific. You're posting on RevLeft, you know?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:19 am

Wait, I'm confused; was I being aggressive or defensive?
You're all three.
If you want.


I promise to respond to you in at least two lines if you promise to calm down. Does that sound like something we can work out?

Right enough.


I don't buy that for a second. This question on homosexuality might be motivated by inquisitiveness, but you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that this is anywhere near scientific. You're posting on RevLeft, you know?

Right this particular discussion on the subject may not be scientific (something I doubt, but then again I seem to hold the intellect of the average forum goer in more esteem than you do) but the question itself is mainly studied by people who are doing it simply so we have a deeper knowledge of the human genome.

[The Redbear]

first things first, save the insults and sarcasm fore the fascists. the feild of genetics regarding such things as the "gay gene" or the "criminal geane" is a feild of genetics, that should not be toyed with. with our current technology what if for instence, parents could scan a feotus fore this series of genes and then abort if it is proved positive? as unlikly as it sounds we all know that there would be people willing to do so. the ethical considerations are immense

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 12, 2007 09:26 am
first things first, save the insults and sarcasm fore the fascists.
I think you'll find my supply is inexhaustible so there is no need for me to conserve it.


the feild of genetics regarding such things as the "gay gene" or the "criminal geane" is a feild of genetics, that should not be toyed with.

No one is "toying" with genetics, it's too complicated to simply "toy" with.


with our current technology what if for instence, parents could scan a feotus fore this series of genes and then abort if it is proved positive?

Then the parent would be making a choice which, though morally reprehensible, is theirs and theirs alone.


as unlikly as it sounds we all know that there would be people willing to do so. the ethical considerations are immense

Ethics has no place in scientific inquiry. We must strive to know as much as we can and leave postulating on what our knowledge implies to the philosophers.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:08 pm

as unlikly as it sounds we all know that there would be people willing to do so. the ethical considerations are immense

Ethics has no place in scientific inquiry. We must strive to know as much as we can and leave postulating on what our knowledge implies to the philosophers.
Seriously?

You don't think ethics are important when conducting scientific study?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+September 12, 2007 02:39 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ September 12, 2007 02:39 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 09:08 pm

as unlikly as it sounds we all know that there would be people willing to do so. the ethical considerations are immense

Ethics has no place in scientific inquiry. We must strive to know as much as we can and leave postulating on what our knowledge implies to the philosophers.
Seriously?

You don't think ethics are important when conducting scientific study? [/b]
Only to the extent that we should try not to harm human beings in our quest for knowledge. The ethical implications of what could be discovered do not matter a single iota.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by JR
Only to the extent that we should try not to harm human beings in our quest for knowledge.

So in other words you do think that ethics have an important role in scientific inquiry? <_<

Also, what is the difference between &#39;trying&#39; not to harm humans during scientific research, and harming humans? There are many circumstances where harming human beings is a sound, ethical basis for research?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+September 16, 2007 07:08 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ September 16, 2007 07:08 am)
JR
Only to the extent that we should try not to harm human beings in our quest for knowledge.

So in other words you do think that ethics have an important role in scientific inquiry? <_< [/b]
To a limited extent, but ethics have nothing to do with what is being studied.


Also, what is the difference between &#39;trying&#39; not to harm humans during scientific research, and harming humans? There are many circumstances where harming human beings is a sound, ethical basis for research?

There are no ethical reasons to harm humans in research.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:31 pm
To a limited extent, but ethics have nothing to do with what is being studied.

Of course they do; ethics in a broad sense frame what is studied and how this study is carried out - that&#39;s the very function of scientific ethics. If scientific ethics did not affect what is studied or how research is carried out than they would be meaningless.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+September 16, 2007 11:57 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ September 16, 2007 11:57 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:31 pm
To a limited extent, but ethics have nothing to do with what is being studied.

Of course they do; ethics in a broad sense frame what is studied and how this study is carried out - that&#39;s the very function of scientific ethics. If scientific ethics did not affect what is studied or how research is carried out than they would be meaningless. [/b]
How the research is carried out is of course important, but ethics is not in the equation for what is discovered.

[Angry Young Man]

I&#39;m gonna go spoil things and make things nice and sparkling clear, thus ending all debate. I really cannot imagine any other homosexual - and it would have to be homosexuals - disagreeing with this. So here&#39;s where I drop the bomb, everything will be visible and all shrouding will be ripped. Here&#39;s the answer. It is *drumroll* bdrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrr TSSSSS

Neither. It is not hereditary. It is not chosen. It is a biological anomalay among certain individuals. With the "choice camp, I shall refute your argument with "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?&#33;"; and as for the hereditary, I have no gay relatives to my knowledge. Not even the "Obligatory xmas card" relatives. In fact, I&#39;d go far as to say that a paternal uncle is a right-wing old bigot who, when on the grid, asked an Asian worker "Who&#39;s looking after the shop?" I know racism and homophobia are different prejudices, but they always, almost invariably seem to link in the white population

In support of my argument, I shall say that it happens in a relatively random fashion and is proportional among all races - Even people from Staffordshire.

I will hear no contrary argument save by a homosexual.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It is a biological anomalay among certain individuals.

"Biological anomaly" is just another way of saying a "genetic mutation".

A mutation of genes that were inherited from your parents.

[Rainie]

"Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?" was the question posed to presidential candidate Bill Richardson by singer Melissa Etheridge. "It&#39;s a choice," replied the New Mexico governor at the August 9 forum for Democratic candidates. Etheridge then said to Richardson, "Maybe you didn&#39;t understand the question," and she rephrased it. Richardson again said he thought it was a choice.

The next time you hear someone say that homosexuality is a choice, ask them how old they were when they chose to be heterosexual. When they admit that they never made such a conscious choice, thus implying that people don&#39;t choose to be heterosexual, the next question to the person should be: "So only homosexuals choose to be homosexual? But what comes first, being homosexual so you can make the choice, or making the choice and thus becoming homosexual?"

----William Blum, The Anti-Empire Report, September 11, 2007

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer49.htm

[LogicalPimp]

Ever since I can remember, I have always been attracted to both females and males. For some people I would say homosexuality/bisexuality is a choice. This can be seen in girls 14-21 (roughly, in my unscientific thinking) thinking it is a desirable trait to be attracted to other girls. They do this because they think guys will come to them. The hereditary aspect of different sexualities is pretty believable to me from what I have heard/read, and in my own experience about being bi.

[Luís Henrique]

I speak Portuguese - is that a choice, or is it genetic?

Of course this is a case of false dichotomy. Not everything that is not a choice is genetic; not everything that is not genetic is a choice.

Luís Henrique

[Sky]

Homosexuality can be a matter of choice, though one cannot say for certain that this is a rule. Anyone can have sexual relations with the same sex if one chooses. Case in point, it is common for closet homosexuals to be married with a woman and children.

[w0lf]

Aren't all humans born somewhere in the middle of "gay" and "straight" No one is completely gay, nor straight.

[RevMARKSman]

Homosexual can be a matter of choice, though one cannot say for certain that this is a rule. Anyone can have sexual relations with the same sex if one chooses. Case in point, it is common for closet homosexuals to be married with a woman and children.

Being gay is not a behavior. It's an orientation, a preference.