gay or lesbian DNA or sexuality DNA ?

[spice756]

So if one is gay or lesbian it is part of your DNA not learned behavior? May be all sexuality and sex-drive is part of your DNA.

We really do not understand this?Why should this be immoral ? People can do want they like .Hak if you want group sex go for it or have strong sex-drive fo for it.


Typical fox news no sexuality fun under god only to have kids.:(:(


----------------------------------------------

CHICAGO — Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers who are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican ancestry. They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay.

The Cabreras hope the findings will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.

If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color, said Julio, a student at DePaul University in Chicago.
Adds his brother, "I think it would help a lot of folks understand us better."
The federally funded study, led by Chicago-area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. Parents and straight brothers also are being recruited.


More at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302066,00.html

While initial results aren't expected until next year — and won't provide a final answer — skeptics are already attacking the methods and disputing the presumed results.

[Oneironaut]

So if one is gay or lesbian it is part of your DNA not learned behavior? May be all sexuality and sex-drive is part of your DNA.

We really do not understand this?Why should this be immoral ? People can do want they like .Hak if you want group sex go for it or have strong sex-drive fo for it.

I would hope everyone in this forum would never condemn homosexuality. There are mountains of evidence for homosexuality being a product of genes. Even with this aside, i agree entirely with you that people should be as sexually active as they want (whether its same sex, hetero-sex, or some sweet sex that I don't know about). Socialist nations in the past that condemned homosexuality were merely a product of the times... there wasn't much evidence to support the hypothesis that it is a product of genes.

[Labor Shall Rule]

There is no evidence to support that homosexuality is trulybiological. It's provable that gay males have identical alleles - but that's not a genetic code that regulates human sexual orientation. It might be a neuro-mechanism that tightens the elasticity of human sexual preferences to a single sex, but it clearly is not a determinant factor. The changeability of your pejoratives in sex is questionable though. As TC wrote in another thread, "you choose your sexuality in the same way that you choose your favorite ice-cream."

[spice756]

There is no evidence to support that homosexuality is trulybiological. It's provable that gay males have identical alleles - but that's not a genetic code that regulates human sexual orientation. It might be a neuro-mechanism that tightens the elasticity of human sexual preferences to a single sex,


sorry how does identical alleles tightens preferences to a same sex?



but it clearly is not a determinant factor. The changeability of your pejoratives in sex is questionable though. As TC wrote in another thread, "you choose your sexuality in the same way that you choose your favorite ice-cream."


So it is not a learn behavior or anything like DNA?




The Freudian and Christian ecclesial view of homoerotic feelings is that they are "arrests" of a child's development, where they learn a "variation of sexual function".


Ya the Christian nut jobs just say that you sexuality is how you parents teach you.

But than where does sexual fetishes come from is it learn behavior or part of your DNA?

What are Freudian and what do they say about sexuality ?



The context in each's interpertation is different, with Freud considering it as "healthy", but their conclusions could truly be misconstrued to pursuit the 'healing' of homosexual behavior.



So having sexual fetishes or group sex is misconstrued pursuit ? I thought sexuality is never eding and always finding new ways for pleasure?

[progressive_lefty]

I think that even if homosexuality is a choice, it proves nothing. Who cares at the end of the day? Except for the ignorant and extremists, they need to realise that whether it is part of DNA or not, the right for people to determine their own sexuality, is non-comprisable (is there such a word?).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that one's sexuality is decided by conditions at the developmental stage - I'm not one of those people who think that everything about us is decided by genes.

Sexuality is like left or right handedness - both are just as deep-set, none is worse than the other, and there is no real point changing it.

[Oneironaut]

I think that one's sexuality is decided by conditions at the developmental stage - I'm not one of those people who think that everything about us is decided by genes.

Nor am I. But I do believe that homosexuality has some tie to genetics.

"Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a 52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and Pillards by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a persons sexual orientation (8) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#8)."

I just pulled this off http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

[BobKKKindle$]

Homosexuality can't be the result of DNA, because if that were true you would expect to find hardly any homosexuals, because the vast majority of homosexuals never get the chance to pass on their DNA due in an inability to mate with members of their own sex, especially before the advent of modern technology such as IVF etc. However, there are still large numbers of homosexuals and evidence suggests that the proportion of homosexuals relative to the number of heterosexuals is roughly the same throughout the world, which invalidates the suggestion that homosexuality can be "explained" in terms of DNA. This does not rule out the possibility that DNA is connected with genetics, because DNA is only one component of genetics.

[Oneironaut]

Homosexuality can't be the result of DNA, because if that were true you would expect to find hardly any homosexuals, because the vast majority of homosexuals never get the chance to pass on their DNA due in an inability to mate with members of their own sex, especially before the advent of modern technology such as IVF etc. However, there are still large numbers of homosexuals and evidence suggests that the proportion of homosexuals relative to the number of heterosexuals is roughly the same throughout the world, which invalidates the suggestion that homosexuality can be "explained" in terms of DNA. This does not rule out the possibility that DNA is connected with genetics, because DNA is only one component of genetics.

It is the case that many homosexuals do pass on their DNA. I know multiple homosexuals who are so closeted that they even have wives and families. This is not uncommon whatsoever. If homosexuals still do this in our "liberal" society, imagine how it has been up to this point! I can not cite any statistical evidence for this behavior, but I will continue looking. I, however, personally know over 10 homosexuals who have passed on their DNA to children.

[spice756]

I think that one's sexuality is decided by conditions at the developmental stage - I'm not one of those people who think that everything about us is decided by genes


People sexuality is very complex like why do some like blonde hair and others black hair ? Why do some like tall people and others like short people?

Why do some like boots or leather pants.Some like stocking other like nylon.The thing is sexuality is very complex .There are some people say it is your genes and others say it is learn behavior .

Just like the sexual fetishes like leather pants,feet,barefoot,boots so on.




Homosexuality can't be the result of DNA, because if that were true you would expect to find hardly any homosexuals


May be part of your genes than DNA.:confused:All homosexuality and sexual fetishes have been around for years just a big taboo to talk about it.

There are even homosexuality and sexual fetishes seen in the wildlife is part of nature.The thing is in the pass it was taboo to talk about it so no one talk about it.

People need to come out of the closet and talk about it to remove the stigma.Canada is the most progressive country not like the US other than San Francisco.

There use be laws in US on oral sex and anal sex.Most religion ban this this type of act.Again this just other taboo.

[BobKKKindle$]

I know multiple homosexuals who are so closeted that they even have wives and families. This is not uncommon whatsoever

Of course there are homosexuals who still have children often because they are afraid to be open about their sexuality, or alternatively if they have access to modern reproductive technology such as IVF treatments - but these individuals comprise a minority of all homosexuals, such that, over time, the number of homosexuals in each successive generation would diminish until eventually there would be no homosexuals left at all, or only a very small number. This approach also fails to explain cases where heterosexual parents give birth to children who eventually turn out to be homosexuals.

Ultimately, however, the origin of homosexuality is irrelevant, except as an issue of scientific issue. Even if homosexuality were entirely an individual choice with no relation to innate characteristics, it would still be legitimate and all homophobic attitudes would still be prejudiced and completely irrational.

[Oneironaut]

Ultimately, however, the origin of homosexuality is irrelevant, except as an issue of scientific issue. Even if homosexuality were entirely an individual choice with no relation to innate characteristics, it would still be legitimate and all homophobic attitudes would still be prejudiced and completely irrational.

But homophobes would argue exactly the opposite: homosexuality is completely irrational. How would you be able to successfully debate with a homophobe without reference to scientific data?

[BobKKKindle$]

In my experience homophobes generally argue that homosexuals is wrong because it is allegedly unnatural, not because it's irrational. When faced with this argument, there are two ways you can respond - either attack the premise by showing that homosexuality is actually natural, or attack the link between the premise and the conclusion, by asking the homophobe to explain why the fact that something is unnatural (or the result of a conscious choice) automatically makes that thing wrong. The first response would generally include the use of scientific data (examples of homosexuals in the animal world, adolescent homoerotic experiences, etc.) whereas the second is a political/ethical argument and so would emphasize the importance of individual freedom and personal preferences. Both lines of attack are valid and can even be used in combination as an "even if.." argument, but I generally use the second response because relying solely on the first response can carry the implication that homosexuality would be wrong if it was actually a choice, which undermines the socialist position on other issues which do involve choice - the right of the individual to take drugs without being threatened by the state, other forms of sexual behavior such as BDSM, etc.

[Trystan]

I think that one's sexuality is decided by conditions at the developmental stage - I'm not one of those people who think that everything about us is decided by genes.

Sexuality is like left or right handedness - both are just as deep-set, none is worse than the other, and there is no real point changing it.

I think that it is probably genetic. Unlike other "sexual perversions" it has never been successfully "treated". But maybe it's different for different people.

Whatever . . . it's not like it really matters.

[spice756]

I think that it is probably genetic. Unlike other "sexual perversions" it has never been successfully "treated". But maybe it's different for different people.

So you saying homosexuals is genetic but sexual fetishes are not?

[Module]

Homosexuality can't be the result of DNA, because if that were true you would expect to find hardly any homosexuals, because the vast majority of homosexuals never get the chance to pass on their DNA due in an inability to mate with members of their own sex, especially before the advent of modern technology such as IVF etc. However, there are still large numbers of homosexuals and evidence suggests that the proportion of homosexuals relative to the number of heterosexuals is roughly the same throughout the world, which invalidates the suggestion that homosexuality can be "explained" in terms of DNA. This does not rule out the possibility that DNA is connected with genetics, because DNA is only one component of genetics.
Maybe this is due to a misunderstanding of DNA, specifically, but obviously there are many hereditary 'conditions' that mean a person can't reproduce, so why does gay people being unable to naturally reproduce mean that it is not a "result" of DNA?
"there are still large numbers of homosexuals and evidence suggests that the proportion of homosexuals relative to the number of heterosexuals is roughly the same throughout the world, which invalidates the suggestion that homosexuality can be "explained" in terms of DNA"
Why?


So you saying homosexuals is genetic but sexual fetishes are not?
This is what I get the feeling is true. From how I feel, I mean. I think that there could be (very simply speaking) a sort of 'base' romantic attraction, and an .. I don't know how to phrase this .. erotic attraction, sexual fetish sort of thing, like you said. I feel like the former is probably down to 'genes' whilst the latter socialisation.
Keep in mind I've never personally done any research to back up that opinion. I just have a hunch.

[Trystan]

So you saying homosexuals is genetic but sexual fetishes are not?

Maybe. No, probably.