FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Homosexuality and Darwin's awesome idea.

Jump to newest
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby

I'm totally sold on evolution..to my mind it is the only sensible way to explain our existence. (This is not a dig at those of faith...each to their own..blah blah )

I'm totally cool with homosexuality too...and this post is in no way homophobic

(Each to their own blah blah)

So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

(Please,please,please..no misplaced indignation..this is a serious question which I figured might be interesting for people to chew on)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Strange that innit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby

Innit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

We used to have a homosexual cat.

The issue is that unlike other animals we don't have sex just to procreate. We aren't limited to a panda-type season for procreation either.

Going all evolution, it might be that the evolution is that some are purely homosexual in order to limit our numbers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"We used to have a homosexual cat.

The issue is that unlike other animals we don't have sex just to procreate. We aren't limited to a panda-type season for procreation either.

Going all evolution, it might be that the evolution is that some are purely homosexual in order to limit our numbers.

"

Interesting...yeah..my personal theory is that homosexual members of a social group (not necessarily human) contribute indirectly to the ability of their brothers and sisters to breed successfully.

Or something.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also."

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

perhaps the demise of the population has been hidden by the fact that people are having more children who successfully reach adulthood than they would have in previous lifetimes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not into science so the concept of a gay gene is interesting to me. I've done no research so these may seem like stupid considerations, but......

What does that mean for those who are bi sexual, or claim to be sexually fluid?

If we are genetically pre-disposed to being attracted to members of the same sex, can we be genetically drawn to other characteristics such as race/skin colour, hair colour etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on. "

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Not into science so the concept of a gay gene is interesting to me. I've done no research so these may seem like stupid considerations, but......

What does that mean for those who are bi sexual, or claim to be sexually fluid?

Well i guess it is more complicated than a single gay gene...rather a large variation of traits that result in a spectrum

If we are genetically pre-disposed to being attracted to members of the same sex, can we be genetically drawn to other characteristics such as race/skin colour, hair colour etc"

Well I would think that it is more than just a single gay gene...rather a multitude of genes that give us the spectrum from male to female that we see within our population. Men vary greatly in all sorts of features that we associate with masculinity while women vary greatly in the features that we associate with femininity.

There is a huge variation naturally amongst us. Complicating that is the fact that our brains which have evolved too are biasing our choice of partners too in line with our own feelings and the culture we find ourselves in. So many factors..and so many types of people that may benifit the social group overall.

It does seem that we tend to favour partners that are genetically different from ourselves...ie to stop inbreeding.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'."

Yeah agree on the single gene thing and the numpties who reckon they can "cure" gayness. It's as much a part of the variation of human traits as anything else is..and evidently not a mistake as it somehow benifits our existance.

Agree that it perhaps waters down our reproduction to a point but to say that it's purpose is to stem overpupulation is to give evolution intentionality..which is a contradiction.

We probably will go extinct after blowing our planets resources after a few thousand years!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

"

I have posed the question before and it's a conundrum.

Many gay people tell me that they were 'born' that way, or that they knew from an early age.

Given that gay people are less likely to reproduce, why does the 'mutation' (if I can put it in such crude terms) persist?

Or is it also down to cultural/environmental factors?

Buggered if I know

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

I have posed the question before and it's a conundrum.

Many gay people tell me that they were 'born' that way, or that they knew from an early age.

Given that gay people are less likely to reproduce, why does the 'mutation' (if I can put it in such crude terms) persist?

Or is it also down to cultural/environmental factors?

Buggered if I know "

Let's turn the question on its head:

What if HETEROSEXUALITY is, in fact, a construct and sexuality is far more fluid than we're led to believe?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Yeah agree on the single gene thing and the numpties who reckon they can "cure" gayness. It's as much a part of the variation of human traits as anything else is..and evidently not a mistake as it somehow benifits our existance.

Agree that it perhaps waters down our reproduction to a point but to say that it's purpose is to stem overpupulation is to give evolution intentionality..which is a contradiction.

We probably will go extinct after blowing our planets resources after a few thousand years! "

it's just a theory, there's no evidence we would need a gay gene really, and you said a lot of other things that make sense which would affect how people choose to live their life.

chromosomes might affect it though? there are more variations than xx and xy and geneticists have been looking into this. they're looking more to see if there's any genetic reason why some people feel they are of a certain gender when their birth outward appearance is not of that gender.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

Also.....more and more gay couples are chosing to have babies either through surrogacy or just by closing their eyes and thinking of blighty as they do it with someone of the opposite sex.

Being gay does not mean unable to reproduce.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

I have posed the question before and it's a conundrum.

Many gay people tell me that they were 'born' that way, or that they knew from an early age.

Given that gay people are less likely to reproduce, why does the 'mutation' (if I can put it in such crude terms) persist?

Or is it also down to cultural/environmental factors?

Buggered if I know "

Pun intended?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Thread needs less supposition by straight people and more input by geneticists.

imo

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

I have posed the question before and it's a conundrum.

Many gay people tell me that they were 'born' that way, or that they knew from an early age.

Given that gay people are less likely to reproduce, why does the 'mutation' (if I can put it in such crude terms) persist?

Or is it also down to cultural/environmental factors?

Buggered if I know

Pun intended? "

*doffs bowler*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Thread needs less supposition by straight people and more input by geneticists.

imo"

i am sure fab is teeming with them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"Thread needs less supposition by straight people and more input by geneticists.

imo

i am sure fab is teeming with them"

Law of averages?

You'd expect one or two...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Yeah agree on the single gene thing and the numpties who reckon they can "cure" gayness. It's as much a part of the variation of human traits as anything else is..and evidently not a mistake as it somehow benifits our existance.

Agree that it perhaps waters down our reproduction to a point but to say that it's purpose is to stem overpupulation is to give evolution intentionality..which is a contradiction.

We probably will go extinct after blowing our planets resources after a few thousand years!

it's just a theory, there's no evidence we would need a gay gene really, and you said a lot of other things that make sense which would affect how people choose to live their life.

chromosomes might affect it though? there are more variations than xx and xy and geneticists have been looking into this. they're looking more to see if there's any genetic reason why some people feel they are of a certain gender when their birth outward appearance is not of that gender."

Yeah it's a very diverse and interesting subject genetics...and what is not so well known too is that the expression of a set of chromosomes and the subsequent development of the foetus is affected both by local environmental factors and factors relating to the way that the environment has affected parents and grandparents too. A small timescale feedback system. (It's called epigenetics for those who care). Which means that even a given set of genes/chromosomes can express in different ways. Illustrated by identical twins occurring where one is gay and one not!

Mind blowing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Also.....more and more gay couples are chosing to have babies either through surrogacy or just by closing their eyes and thinking of blighty as they do it with someone of the opposite sex.

Being gay does not mean unable to reproduce."

True...but this is a recent phenomenon and doesn't account for the present percentage of gayers (sorry..got bored being so PC! only joking) in both humans and animals.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Thread needs less supposition by straight people and more input by geneticists.

imo

i am sure fab is teeming with them

Law of averages?

You'd expect one or two..."

will you accept supposition by straight geneticists?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Yeah agree on the single gene thing and the numpties who reckon they can "cure" gayness. It's as much a part of the variation of human traits as anything else is..and evidently not a mistake as it somehow benifits our existance.

Agree that it perhaps waters down our reproduction to a point but to say that it's purpose is to stem overpupulation is to give evolution intentionality..which is a contradiction.

We probably will go extinct after blowing our planets resources after a few thousand years!

it's just a theory, there's no evidence we would need a gay gene really, and you said a lot of other things that make sense which would affect how people choose to live their life.

chromosomes might affect it though? there are more variations than xx and xy and geneticists have been looking into this. they're looking more to see if there's any genetic reason why some people feel they are of a certain gender when their birth outward appearance is not of that gender.

Yeah it's a very diverse and interesting subject genetics...and what is not so well known too is that the expression of a set of chromosomes and the subsequent development of the foetus is affected both by local environmental factors and factors relating to the way that the environment has affected parents and grandparents too. A small timescale feedback system. (It's called epigenetics for those who care). Which means that even a given set of genes/chromosomes can express in different ways. Illustrated by identical twins occurring where one is gay and one not!

Mind blowing "

i only learned the basics but yeah i did know about epigenetics (was learning about mental health).

science forums are good for discussing this stuff, there's always at least one person who knows loads.

i'd love to learn about this stuff properly, once i've got my memory sorted and can remember terminologies, right now that's what i have trouble with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Also.....more and more gay couples are chosing to have babies either through surrogacy or just by closing their eyes and thinking of blighty as they do it with someone of the opposite sex.

Being gay does not mean unable to reproduce.

True...but this is a recent phenomenon and doesn't account for the present percentage of gayers (sorry..got bored being so PC! only joking) in both humans and animals.

"

not necessarily.....for many many years being gay was something people hid and so they did the conventional thing and married and had children.

perhaps the answr doesnt lie in biology and genetics, perhaps it lies in social sciences and peoples changing attitudes towards sexuality

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Yeah agree on the single gene thing and the numpties who reckon they can "cure" gayness. It's as much a part of the variation of human traits as anything else is..and evidently not a mistake as it somehow benifits our existance.

Agree that it perhaps waters down our reproduction to a point but to say that it's purpose is to stem overpupulation is to give evolution intentionality..which is a contradiction.

We probably will go extinct after blowing our planets resources after a few thousand years!

it's just a theory, there's no evidence we would need a gay gene really, and you said a lot of other things that make sense which would affect how people choose to live their life.

chromosomes might affect it though? there are more variations than xx and xy and geneticists have been looking into this. they're looking more to see if there's any genetic reason why some people feel they are of a certain gender when their birth outward appearance is not of that gender.

Yeah it's a very diverse and interesting subject genetics...and what is not so well known too is that the expression of a set of chromosomes and the subsequent development of the foetus is affected both by local environmental factors and factors relating to the way that the environment has affected parents and grandparents too. A small timescale feedback system. (It's called epigenetics for those who care). Which means that even a given set of genes/chromosomes can express in different ways. Illustrated by identical twins occurring where one is gay and one not!

Mind blowing "

It seems that the frequency of homosexuality between monozygotic twins is 52% (ie, a roughly even chance that if one twin is gay, so will the other), whereas the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population is only about 1-2%.

Over an age-range from 16 to 74, 1% of women and 1.5% of men consider themselves gay/lesbian, and 1.4% of women and 1% of men think of themselves as bisexual. But there is a clear gradient with age, with a much higher proportion in younger people, particularly in younger women: the percentage for women between 16 and 24 jumps nearly fourfold.

.

Ergo, a genetic link in homosexuality is highly likely but does not explain out conundrum.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport

I blame all the straight people, after all they are the ones having all the gay kids.

Jenny xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"

I blame all the straight people, after all they are the ones having all the gay kids.

Jenny xxx"

Fuck 'em

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

I have posed the question before and it's a conundrum.

Many gay people tell me that they were 'born' that way, or that they knew from an early age.

Given that gay people are less likely to reproduce, why does the 'mutation' (if I can put it in such crude terms) persist?

Or is it also down to cultural/environmental factors?

Buggered if I know "

I did see some research somewhere that stated that rather than being genetic it was a direct result of 'imprinting'at a very early age from both male and female role models (parents). If I remember correctly it also said that the apparent rise in percentage of 'non binary' and homosexuality could be due to the change in family structures so if one of the strong imprints (usually male) was absent at an early stage then it created an imbalance which later manifested as non heterosexual.

Not sure how much credence the study had but I thought it was an interesting line of thought. Of course it could also be down to food additives eaten during pregnancy haha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby

As interesting and relevant now as present cultural views are it is important to note that nature has had the sexual system of reproduction in place for hundreds of millions of years and selection has been made on viability alone for most of this time. Our development of self and cultural awareness has only recently in evolutionary terms allowed us to have the concept of homosexuality or sexual fluidity etc. These are cultural concepts based on a naturally varying physicality which already existed. Because it could.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'."

Surely it's the opposite? If being gay is genetic, then it cannot be "cured", or certainly not with any great ease. On the other hand, if it was found to be environmental, surely that would add more fuel to the homophobes fires?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thread needs less supposition by straight people and more input by geneticists.

imo"

ok I'm here,,eh,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Evolution and natural selection predisposes a population that is subject to variation to perpetuate those variations that confer advantages. This is especially so when the population is subject to environmental changes around it.

We don't know at the moment whether all variants of sexual orientation are acquired from genetic means. There are arguments for and against this being the case. It may be a case of a mix of genetic and environmental influences that help sexuality to develop, or just be from environmental influences: this could include pre-birth, as well as post birth or part of individual development.

Modern humans appear to be the result of genetic changes that have occured over many generations, resulting in distinct species coexisting at some points and thus behaviour and culture can have been passed along. As homosexuality can be thought of as in inbuilt individual trait, its expression - having sex with others - we can think of the sex as behavioural.

We know that homosexuality has been more or less in vogue/acceptable at some points in our culture than at others. What we don't have are great records of relationships and sex that predate periods such as the Bronze or Iron Age periods: there's an awful lot of our history that is without much record. So we've got a lot of guesswork and speculation involved.

Sexuality isn't split as either gay or straight, we've also got bisexuality and other forms of it - it's diverse. Just focusing on the one extreme - homosexuality - ignores why people have diverse sexualities.

What benefits might homosexuality have conferred to people over our history? It's possible that, like many other animals, the dominant alpha male would have had his pick of females for sex. This could have meant that other males would have had little or no sex, where subject to such dominance from another. It seems feasible that guys could have benefited from having a sexual outlet with others and thus there could have been a benefit from having gays amongst us. I'm sure that there could have been other advantages of homosexuality from our distant past, whether it helped formed group cohesiveness - a major bonus, where we were safer when not isolated.

Natural selection favours advantageous traits being reproduced, potentially at the expense of other traits that aren't. But it doesn't mean that all instances of a trait are removed from the gene pool: that would be a misunderstanding of genetics. We may continue to 'hold' the genetic material for something, either in isolated pools or where it's not beneficial in all instances, because life may need certain conditions to exist before it's expressed as a trait. And mutation may mean that genetic material is reintroduced to populations, such that a trait doesn't just disappear.

In any event, we do know that bisexuals who also have sex with the same gender of course, do actually reproduce and have children. Whether bisexuality has some/all of the same origins as gayness, is another matter. But it does show how sexuality variation could be passed on very succesfully, if its cause is genetic. Gay people have also had sex and reproduced within mixed gender encounters: such as when homosexuality has been frowned upon, and people chose to hide their orientation, for their own safety/survival etc.

Overall, genetics isn't a really simple subject. The genes for our eye colour are controlled by several genes, so it's likely - if genetic - IMO that sexuality won't just be influenced or determined by one gene. Any of those genes may also be advantageous for other parts of human life, so could be fairly essential for us to perpetuate.

I've not read what others have expressed on this yet, so it'll be a good read.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

if you read some of darwins lesser known note on the subject he mentions as he termed it "fabstraight"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Surely it's the opposite? If being gay is genetic, then it cannot be "cured", or certainly not with any great ease. On the other hand, if it was found to be environmental, surely that would add more fuel to the homophobes fires?"

You can alter DNA.

Like i said i feel it's more promoted to give people the impression that being gay can be cured. Judging off the people who promote their findings and are doing the research in the first place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"So bearing in mind that evolution favours traits in individuals that get their DNA passed on ie that which allows them to breed one would expect as a consequence that homesexuality would be rare as those individuals who choose same sex partners would simply not have children!

This is evidently not the case.

Discuss!

I have posed the question before and it's a conundrum.

Many gay people tell me that they were 'born' that way, or that they knew from an early age.

Given that gay people are less likely to reproduce, why does the 'mutation' (if I can put it in such crude terms) persist?

Or is it also down to cultural/environmental factors?

Buggered if I know

I did see some research somewhere that stated that rather than being genetic it was a direct result of 'imprinting'at a very early age from both male and female role models (parents). If I remember correctly it also said that the apparent rise in percentage of 'non binary' and homosexuality could be due to the change in family structures so if one of the strong imprints (usually male) was absent at an early stage then it created an imbalance which later manifested as non heterosexual.

Not sure how much credence the study had but I thought it was an interesting line of thought. Of course it could also be down to food additives eaten during pregnancy haha"

Yeah...have heard similar myself and no doubt "imprinting" and cultural norms do play a part in our sexuality but there are many cases as a previous poster said of people just knowing that they are gay from a young age. And of course homosexuality doesn't die out when it is oppressed by society.

That study is very much biased by the ideals of the persob carrying it out.

The whole question of Nuture versus Nurture is flawed in that it implies that there is either one or the other. In almost all cases both nature and nuture is at play and there is a circularity to many of the factors involved.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"if you read some of darwins lesser known note on the subject he mentions as he termed it "fabstraight" "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"As interesting and relevant now as present cultural views are it is important to note that nature has had the sexual system of reproduction in place for hundreds of millions of years and selection has been made on viability alone for most of this time. Our development of self and cultural awareness has only recently in evolutionary terms allowed us to have the concept of homosexuality or sexual fluidity etc. These are cultural concepts based on a naturally varying physicality which already existed. Because it could.

"

there is a lot of research based on how animals, including humans, choose a mate. One experiment i remember seeing was how scent included clues as to what diseases a mate was immune to and that the mates that were chosen were immune to diseases different to the chooser, therefore giving the offspring the biggest chance of survival as it would have a superior immune system. Perhaps sexuality is not seen as a viability issue at base sexual compatability level?

As i said before, being gay does not mean unable to reproduce and there are many many stories both present day and throughout history i am sure where gay people have had children.

Homosexuality in animals seems to be more restricted to conflict resolution (bonobo's for example) or simple horniness (we may as well speak about the bonobo's again lol).

It is also important to remember that while all adult animals may be able to reproduce, not all sexually mature animals have the chance, animals in herds/family groups etc so it is not important for all adults to reproduce to ensure the continuation of a species.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There is also the subject of cultural homosexuality out of necessity. In many countries with a dowry system (yes it's still a thing) if a family has for example 5 sons, then they may only be able to afford to marry off number one son. That could leave 4 men who are forbidden from contact with any females outside immediate family. Ever. That's a lot of frustrated young men with no outlet but each other...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Evolution and natural selection predisposes a population that is subject to variation to perpetuate those variations that confer advantages. This is especially so when the population is subject to environmental changes around it.

We don't know at the moment whether all variants of sexual orientation are acquired from genetic means. There are arguments for and against this being the case. It may be a case of a mix of genetic and environmental influences that help sexuality to develop, or just be from environmental influences: this could include pre-birth, as well as post birth or part of individual development.

Modern humans appear to be the result of genetic changes that have occured over many generations, resulting in distinct species coexisting at some points and thus behaviour and culture can have been passed along. As homosexuality can be thought of as in inbuilt individual trait, its expression - having sex with others - we can think of the sex as behavioural.

We know that homosexuality has been more or less in vogue/acceptable at some points in our culture than at others. What we don't have are great records of relationships and sex that predate periods such as the Bronze or Iron Age periods: there's an awful lot of our history that is without much record. So we've got a lot of guesswork and speculation involved.

Sexuality isn't split as either gay or straight, we've also got bisexuality and other forms of it - it's diverse. Just focusing on the one extreme - homosexuality - ignores why people have diverse sexualities.

What benefits might homosexuality have conferred to people over our history? It's possible that, like many other animals, the dominant alpha male would have had his pick of females for sex. This could have meant that other males would have had little or no sex, where subject to such dominance from another. It seems feasible that guys could have benefited from having a sexual outlet with others and thus there could have been a benefit from having gays amongst us. I'm sure that there could have been other advantages of homosexuality from our distant past, whether it helped formed group cohesiveness - a major bonus, where we were safer when not isolated.

Natural selection favours advantageous traits being reproduced, potentially at the expense of other traits that aren't. But it doesn't mean that all instances of a trait are removed from the gene pool: that would be a misunderstanding of genetics. We may continue to 'hold' the genetic material for something, either in isolated pools or where it's not beneficial in all instances, because life may need certain conditions to exist before it's expressed as a trait. And mutation may mean that genetic material is reintroduced to populations, such that a trait doesn't just disappear.

In any event, we do know that bisexuals who also have sex with the same gender of course, do actually reproduce and have children. Whether bisexuality has some/all of the same origins as gayness, is another matter. But it does show how sexuality variation could be passed on very succesfully, if its cause is genetic. Gay people have also had sex and reproduced within mixed gender encounters: such as when homosexuality has been frowned upon, and people chose to hide their orientation, for their own safety/survival etc.

Overall, genetics isn't a really simple subject. The genes for our eye colour are controlled by several genes, so it's likely - if genetic - IMO that sexuality won't just be influenced or determined by one gene. Any of those genes may also be advantageous for other parts of human life, so could be fairly essential for us to perpetuate.

I've not read what others have expressed on this yet, so it'll be a good read.

"

Excellent very well written...agree with the majority of what you've said..well balanced answer..

Evolution did pretty well with your brain!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"As interesting and relevant now as present cultural views are it is important to note that nature has had the sexual system of reproduction in place for hundreds of millions of years and selection has been made on viability alone for most of this time. Our development of self and cultural awareness has only recently in evolutionary terms allowed us to have the concept of homosexuality or sexual fluidity etc. These are cultural concepts based on a naturally varying physicality which already existed. Because it could.

there is a lot of research based on how animals, including humans, choose a mate. One experiment i remember seeing was how scent included clues as to what diseases a mate was immune to and that the mates that were chosen were immune to diseases different to the chooser, therefore giving the offspring the biggest chance of survival as it would have a superior immune system. Perhaps sexuality is not seen as a viability issue at base sexual compatability level?

As i said before, being gay does not mean unable to reproduce and there are many many stories both present day and throughout history i am sure where gay people have had children.

Homosexuality in animals seems to be more restricted to conflict resolution (bonobo's for example) or simple horniness (we may as well speak about the bonobo's again lol).

It is also important to remember that while all adult animals may be able to reproduce, not all sexually mature animals have the chance, animals in herds/family groups etc so it is not important for all adults to reproduce to ensure the continuation of a species."

Yes very good point on the fact that often only the somehow privalaged members get to mate...and that the characteristics of the others in that group which allow the group to prosper are vitally important. Which is exactly the situation where a melting pot of attitudes and orientations would benifit the survival of the group/species.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason "

If evolution was all knowing it would be a God thing. And hence incapable of evolving. We are kinda taking evolution as a given for the purposes of this thread. Sorry about that. Theology tomorrow I promise!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 28/07/16 22:31:45]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because he sais so, doesn't make it so, darwin is an atheist, so that explains a lot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Surely it's the opposite? If being gay is genetic, then it cannot be "cured", or certainly not with any great ease. On the other hand, if it was found to be environmental, surely that would add more fuel to the homophobes fires?

You can alter DNA.

Like i said i feel it's more promoted to give people the impression that being gay can be cured. Judging off the people who promote their findings and are doing the research in the first place."

Yeah this is just plain human bias on the part of that scientist.

It is beyond question that homosexuality as with any other human/animal trait is anything other than a combination of our genes and their expression within the environment.

If you take it down to the lowest level..all bs and opinion aside...homosexuality...and in fact the whole sexual spectrum evolved along side every other aspect of our being. And the very fact that it evolved kinda means it aint a mistake!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Just because he sais so, doesn't make it so, darwin is an atheist, so that explains a lot."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *cared and curiousCouple
over a year ago

Jarrow

My feeling is we are all just sexual... That's it. Some are sexual with there own sex. Some are sexual with the opposite sex.. Some are sexual with both sexes.

In order to reproduce there needs to be "sex" and I say that in inverted comers for a reason. But is that sexual pleasure?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Just because he sais so, doesn't make it so, darwin is an atheist, so that explains a lot."

Darwin wasn't an athiest and so was conflicted. He didn't invent evolution...more sort of noticed it. And it was the first real alternative to a creation scenario.

And theological debate is beyond this thread..sorry and all that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just because he sais so, doesn't make it so, darwin is an atheist, so that explains a lot.

Darwin wasn't an athiest and so was conflicted. He didn't invent evolution...more sort of noticed it. And it was the first real alternative to a creation scenario.

And theological debate is beyond this thread..sorry and all that."
I see, his first name is charles aint it? Here is a quote from him "I never gave up on christianity until I was forty years of age".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby

Wow! This has been an actual enjoyable debate with some very good points raised.

Loved it

Must resist the temptation to answer every thread and just let you guys thrash it out.

Besides...it's my bedtime.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Basic genetics.

Some genes only express themselves when combined with others. Thus 2 heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring (assuming it's genetic homosexuality).

Some homosexuals do have heterosexual sex and produce offspring also.

Of course...nothing new stated there...I'm wondering why such a relatively large proportion of the population carries these genes in the first place. If they were as detrimental as you might expect you would think then those genes would simply not be passed on.

Maybe to stop over population of the planet? After all once we've used up resources the whole race died off.

I don't think there is a gay gene personally. I think the 'scientists' who promote this theory are trying to prove they can 'cure the ghey'.

Surely it's the opposite? If being gay is genetic, then it cannot be "cured", or certainly not with any great ease. On the other hand, if it was found to be environmental, surely that would add more fuel to the homophobes fires?

You can alter DNA.

Like i said i feel it's more promoted to give people the impression that being gay can be cured. Judging off the people who promote their findings and are doing the research in the first place.

Yeah this is just plain human bias on the part of that scientist.

It is beyond question that homosexuality as with any other human/animal trait is anything other than a combination of our genes and their expression within the environment.

If you take it down to the lowest level..all bs and opinion aside...homosexuality...and in fact the whole sexual spectrum evolved along side every other aspect of our being. And the very fact that it evolved kinda means it aint a mistake! "

If you think about it it's unlikely there is a gene for homosexuality anyway. You'#d have to be at least bisexual to be able to pass any genes on?

Although, as a straight person, sexuality does confuse me sometimes so i might not be thinking deep enough about this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Your assuming though that homosexuality is genetic. As far as I know, that is yet to be proven. There could be many, many complex factors that govern sexuality other than genes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Just because he sais so, doesn't make it so, darwin is an atheist, so that explains a lot.

Darwin wasn't an athiest and so was conflicted. He didn't invent evolution...more sort of noticed it. And it was the first real alternative to a creation scenario.

And theological debate is beyond this thread..sorry and all that.I see, his first name is charles aint it? Here is a quote from him "I never gave up on christianity until I was forty years of age"."

Well exactly..took a lot of time and guts to suggest anything beyond the culturally accepted norm of his peers.

Please don't sully my thread with religious talk

It's not the time, the place, or my chosen subject.

Thank you kindly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Your assuming though that homosexuality is genetic. As far as I know, that is yet to be proven. There could be many, many complex factors that govern sexuality other than genes."

The point is that all of those complex factors are ultimately created by genetics. So it's a circular argument. There is unlikely to be a single "gay" gene. But genetics defines everything we are..including our sexuality.

So it kinda is proven.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason

If evolution was all knowing it would be a God thing. And hence incapable of evolving. We are kinda taking evolution as a given for the purposes of this thread. Sorry about that. Theology tomorrow I promise! "

Things can evolve the same at the same time on opposite sides of the planet, to me that is a kind of knowing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"Your assuming though that homosexuality is genetic. As far as I know, that is yet to be proven. There could be many, many complex factors that govern sexuality other than genes.

The point is that all of those complex factors are ultimately created by genetics. So it's a circular argument. There is unlikely to be a single "gay" gene. But genetics defines everything we are..including our sexuality.

So it kinda is proven. "

*coffs*

See me previous posts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Gee, I did a long post

In short - genetics is complex and doesn't mean that variation just gets lost, particularly when it's part of such complexity and traits aren't say just on one allele/gene variant but are the sum of a complex set of genetic material, possibly in conjunction with environmental factors. It's possible that homosexuality and our sexuality spectrum are just much too important to be lost from our culture up to now. And the reasons for this may be not as simple as some would like.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

And we don't know that it's genetics that is relevant to sexual orientation, as others state.

There doesn't appear to be evidence pinpointing any one specific thing at present. We've largely posed responses based on the supposition that a genetic cause may exist and how it may have been perpetuated this way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just because he sais so, doesn't make it so, darwin is an atheist, so that explains a lot.

Darwin wasn't an athiest and so was conflicted. He didn't invent evolution...more sort of noticed it. And it was the first real alternative to a creation scenario.

And theological debate is beyond this thread..sorry and all that.I see, his first name is charles aint it? Here is a quote from him "I never gave up on christianity until I was forty years of age".

Well exactly..took a lot of time and guts to suggest anything beyond the culturally accepted norm of his peers.

Please don't sully my thread with religious talk

It's not the time, the place, or my chosen subject.

Thank you kindly."
That is right and yeah. I was just googling him there about his views.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason

If evolution was all knowing it would be a God thing. And hence incapable of evolving. We are kinda taking evolution as a given for the purposes of this thread. Sorry about that. Theology tomorrow I promise!

Things can evolve the same at the same time on opposite sides of the planet, to me that is a kind of knowing"

Well yes it is a kind of knowing if you personify evolution and say that it has the same set of rules that it applies in every situation.

But "knowing" in the way you refer to it requires an entity which knows...and to attribute creation to that entity is another circular argument because ultimately you need another "knowing" entity to create that one and so on ad infinitum.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

my god if this is wat u thinking bout u need to get out more.its all theory and speculation.truth is we`ll never know and nor do we want to.you can`t change weather or not a person will be born gay,straight bi

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby

Well thank you for your considered and enlightening opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnaronMan
over a year ago

london


"Innit. "

Upit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason

If evolution was all knowing it would be a God thing. And hence incapable of evolving. We are kinda taking evolution as a given for the purposes of this thread. Sorry about that. Theology tomorrow I promise!

Things can evolve the same at the same time on opposite sides of the planet, to me that is a kind of knowing

Well yes it is a kind of knowing if you personify evolution and say that it has the same set of rules that it applies in every situation.

But "knowing" in the way you refer to it requires an entity which knows...and to attribute creation to that entity is another circular argument because ultimately you need another "knowing" entity to create that one and so on ad infinitum."

Yes I am saying it is an entity but I am not personifying it(a plant is knowing and intelligent but I wouldn't personify it) and there are rules all of nature and evolution follow the same rule of 3.14 that is proven fact

As regards to a knowing entity has to make another I do not agree I belive in the beginning only energy existed and everything we perceive is a manifestation of this energy, your theory would suggest an infinite loop of creation that never started and never ends or that their could be no knowing or intelligence because nothing could of created it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

This is a subject that has always interested me. There is a very good book called 'Born Gay' by two professors who have basically done a meta analysis of all of the research into homosexuality, which is starting to take shape. Sadly there is not much on transgender ism or gender dysphoria.

What they have found is that actually the environmental factors are largely irrelevant. The study of twins has born it out, particularly when they have been separated at birth or when they haven't and have been treated the same and yet have grown up with different sexual orientations.

They draw a distinction between people who consider themselves homosexual and those who consider themselves heterosexual but perform sexual acts with members of genders they are not attracted to usually.

They reported studies where people were tested to see which gender someone is attracted to. The method was to measure the stimulation in penis for men - relatively easy to measure -and vaginal stimulation in women - not so easy to measure when the subjects were shown pictures of men and women. The pictures were often pornographic. They showed pictures of people having sex but only two women or two men having sex with each other. They avoided heterosexual couples on the grounds that a gay man might get aroused by only the man in the picture.

What the found is that almost no-one is genuinely bisexual purely in terms of which gender(s) they are attracted to. From memory the percentage of men who are homosexual is 4-6% while the percentage of women who are lesbian is much lower, at around 1.5-2%. This does chime with the fact that there are a lot more openly gay men than gay women.

This surprised me as I always thought more women, while not being out and out lesbian were more open to bisexuality than men. It turns out, in purely visual arousal by the physical depiction of the same gender, that is not so.

However it is quite clear that while not identifying as lesbian a lot of straight women will be open to the homosexual experience compared to menWe want to build a society where no one & no community is left behind for want of investment, housing or work. Some possible explanations were that culturally we have been a male oriented society were men are accepting, indeed often approving of lesbian tendencies in women whereas homosexuality in other men has been despised.

The other theory was that men are more aroused by visual stimulation whereas women are much more likely to be aroused by emotional stimulation. Men watch porn. Women read erotic fiction. Men can get off on a straight cut to an action scene whereas women are more likely to prefer a storyline or context for the mental stimulation to accompany the visual. This is generalising but true. So the theory is that women will be prepared, even keen sometimes to make love with another woman because they will connect mentally and emotionally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"This is a subject that has always interested me. There is a very good book called 'Born Gay' by two professors who have basically done a meta analysis of all of the research into homosexuality, which is starting to take shape. Sadly there is not much on transgender ism or gender dysphoria.

What they have found is that actually the environmental factors are largely irrelevant. The study of twins has born it out, particularly when they have been separated at birth or when they haven't and have been treated the same and yet have grown up with different sexual orientations.

They draw a distinction between people who consider themselves homosexual and those who consider themselves heterosexual but perform sexual acts with members of genders they are not attracted to usually.

They reported studies where people were tested to see which gender someone is attracted to. The method was to measure the stimulation in penis for men - relatively easy to measure -and vaginal stimulation in women - not so easy to measure when the subjects were shown pictures of men and women. The pictures were often pornographic. They showed pictures of people having sex but only two women or two men having sex with each other. They avoided heterosexual couples on the grounds that a gay man might get aroused by only the man in the picture.

What the found is that almost no-one is genuinely bisexual purely in terms of which gender(s) they are attracted to. From memory the percentage of men who are homosexual is 4-6% while the percentage of women who are lesbian is much lower, at around 1.5-2%. This does chime with the fact that there are a lot more openly gay men than gay women.

This surprised me as I always thought more women, while not being out and out lesbian were more open to bisexuality than men. It turns out, in purely visual arousal by the physical depiction of the same gender, that is not so.

However it is quite clear that while not identifying as lesbian a lot of straight women will be open to the homosexual experience compared to menWe want to build a society where no one & no community is left behind for want of investment, housing or work. Some possible explanations were that culturally we have been a male oriented society were men are accepting, indeed often approving of lesbian tendencies in women whereas homosexuality in other men has been despised.

The other theory was that men are more aroused by visual stimulation whereas women are much more likely to be aroused by emotional stimulation. Men watch porn. Women read erotic fiction. Men can get off on a straight cut to an action scene whereas women are more likely to prefer a storyline or context for the mental stimulation to accompany the visual. This is generalising but true. So the theory is that women will be prepared, even keen sometimes to make love with another woman because they will connect mentally and emotionally.

"

Objection!

On so many levels...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

Having looked at surveys and experiments that suggested that initially we are attracted to one sex only they turned to the other factors that might play a part.

The professors looked at culture. They found that the percentage of homosexual men and women is pretty consistent throughout the world. That is true of societies which are liberal, it is true where homosexuality is a crime.

There is a tribe in Papua New Guinea which has a practice where young boys and men are raised to perform fellation on other men until they reach maturity and marriage. If is a cultural thing. If culture affected sexuality surely this would result in a high number of homosexuals continuing to practice after marriage. In fact the percentage of the tribe that continued to be homosexual after marriage dropped to the 5% level the same as everywhere else.

The professors do make a distinction between what you could call homosexuals who are attracted biologically to members of the same sex and people who are not but are quite prepared to indulge in homosexual acts.

What they say is that there are many imperatives that we have. Many instincts and drivers. We are all unique, all built a little differently.

So for example it is known that there are more than the usual incidents of homosexual activity taking place in prison. Why? Well locked up all that time, for some the sexual imperative is bound to overcome gender preference. For some it is about survival. Boarding schools are quite similar.

Surveys of former boarding school people and prisoners show that on leaving they return to their usual sexual orientation in the same proportions as the rest of society.

Then there are people where just having sex is a bigger driver than who they are having it with. There are those who will have sex with people of the same gender not because they suddenly become more attracted to their own gender but because they are more driven by the stimulus of new things, different things, exciting things, taboo things. Some may need a dom/sub relationship more than they care about the gender it is with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

So to the most interesting part of their meta analysis.

The biogical reasons for homosexuality.

The evidence is quite compelling that environmental factors do not play a part in homosexuality so what is the biological reason or mechanism or explanation?

There is no gay gene. But we are all a product of genes and of evolution. Our parents pass on their genes to us. We take a combination from both parents. We take DNA from both and they form the building blocks and characteristics. They create the physical blueprint for how we are going to turn out. How tall we are, how sporty, how intelligent, the genes are the biggest determinant. We may then build on them in life. If we have a talent for say football that is initially thanks to our genes. But to actually become good at it takes practice. Repetition reinforces neural pathways and muscle memory.

However there is another important factor that our mother has on influencing our development. It isn't just the nurturing and teaching and help after the birth. It isn't the genes she contributes to the embryo. It is also what she does for the foetus and it's development in the womb.

The gender of the baby is determined 99.9% of the time by the sperm that fertileses the egg. A sperm carrying male chromosomes means the baby will be male.

However there is more to foetal development and more to developing a baby than just that. During the pregnancy the mother is feeding and nourishing the baby to help it grow of course. But hormones play a key part. Two hormones in particular when it comes to gender. Testosterone is prevalent in males and oestrogen is prevalent in females. These influence sex organ development but it is thought now that they also influence sexual orientation.

At a certain point in the pregnancy the mother is triggered to shower the foetus with hormones. Both make and female foetuses receive testosterone and oestrogen but males are exposed to significantly more testosterone than females and females significantly more oestrogen than males.

It is therefore clear that the foetus and mother communicate the gender of the baby to each other so that the mother knows whether to produce 7-8 times more testosterone or oestrogen.

Let's think of the genes, the DNA and the physical layout of the embryo as a landscape. The hormones are rainfall.

How much rainfall AND where it falls or pools determines sexual organ development and the development of male/female characteristics in the brain.

The theory is that if for a normal male it requires 80-100 units of testosterone to develop average sex organs and standard sexual orientation for a male as well as perhaps some other masculine male brain and body characteristics if the mother does not quite deliver enough or if it pools in the wrong areas then although the child will be developed physically male, it may not be developed as such in its sexual orientation.

It is possible that gay men are a result of too little testosterone reaching a certain part of the brain while gay women are a result of too much.

Since it is a more likely scenario to find testosterone production interrupted (stress is known to do this in pregnant mothers) rather than over stimulus for its production that would explain why there are significantly more gay men than women.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"

Objection!

On so many levels... "

Please do elaborate.

It is late so I have no doubt not done the authors justice in so brief a post.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A very interesting thread.

My thoughts... I don't like statistics so I disagree with any percentage claims for this or that sexual orientation. In different countries and different times, anything other than heterosexual may be accepted or persecuted. Hence why visible numbers of orientation may change.

Where do asexual people come into all this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There was a very interesting edition of the infinite monkey cage , radio show on BBC radio 4.

It covered the differences between men and women and our genes .

Did you know that Homosexuality does exist in nature and as an interested Welshman

25%of male sheep , rams are homosexual another 25% are bi sexual

So far from some people saying homosexuality is abhorrent and can be cured ( see MP Stephen Crabe) its part of nature

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just want to add that i read the long replies and find them very interesting. I've nothing more to add to the discussion but i enjoyed learning about that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"So to the most interesting part of their meta analysis.

The biogical reasons for homosexuality.

The evidence is quite compelling that environmental factors do not play a part in homosexuality so what is the biological reason or mechanism or explanation?

There is no gay gene. But we are all a product of genes and of evolution. Our parents pass on their genes to us. We take a combination from both parents. We take DNA from both and they form the building blocks and characteristics. They create the physical blueprint for how we are going to turn out. How tall we are, how sporty, how intelligent, the genes are the biggest determinant. We may then build on them in life. If we have a talent for say football that is initially thanks to our genes. But to actually become good at it takes practice. Repetition reinforces neural pathways and muscle memory.

However there is another important factor that our mother has on influencing our development. It isn't just the nurturing and teaching and help after the birth. It isn't the genes she contributes to the embryo. It is also what she does for the foetus and it's development in the womb.

The gender of the baby is determined 99.9% of the time by the sperm that fertileses the egg. A sperm carrying male chromosomes means the baby will be male.

However there is more to foetal development and more to developing a baby than just that. During the pregnancy the mother is feeding and nourishing the baby to help it grow of course. But hormones play a key part. Two hormones in particular when it comes to gender. Testosterone is prevalent in males and oestrogen is prevalent in females. These influence sex organ development but it is thought now that they also influence sexual orientation.

At a certain point in the pregnancy the mother is triggered to shower the foetus with hormones. Both make and female foetuses receive testosterone and oestrogen but males are exposed to significantly more testosterone than females and females significantly more oestrogen than males.

It is therefore clear that the foetus and mother communicate the gender of the baby to each other so that the mother knows whether to produce 7-8 times more testosterone or oestrogen.

Let's think of the genes, the DNA and the physical layout of the embryo as a landscape. The hormones are rainfall.

How much rainfall AND where it falls or pools determines sexual organ development and the development of male/female characteristics in the brain.

The theory is that if for a normal male it requires 80-100 units of testosterone to develop average sex organs and standard sexual orientation for a male as well as perhaps some other masculine male brain and body characteristics if the mother does not quite deliver enough or if it pools in the wrong areas then although the child will be developed physically male, it may not be developed as such in its sexual orientation.

It is possible that gay men are a result of too little testosterone reaching a certain part of the brain while gay women are a result of too much.

Since it is a more likely scenario to find testosterone production interrupted (stress is known to do this in pregnant mothers) rather than over stimulus for its production that would explain why there are significantly more gay men than women. "

Very interesting...yes..and these are partly the environmental factors..in this case the mother's womb that I was alluding to...so much of the actual expression of genes and the differentiation of cells into our complex forms seems to be governed by chemical gradients across the foetus..and I'm just gonna pop round my Mum's and give here a swift kick in the shins for not drizzling by genitals in enough testosterone when she was carrying me. I could have been a porn star!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That's what bi sexual is for.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason

If evolution was all knowing it would be a God thing. And hence incapable of evolving. We are kinda taking evolution as a given for the purposes of this thread. Sorry about that. Theology tomorrow I promise!

Things can evolve the same at the same time on opposite sides of the planet, to me that is a kind of knowing

Well yes it is a kind of knowing if you personify evolution and say that it has the same set of rules that it applies in every situation.

But "knowing" in the way you refer to it requires an entity which knows...and to attribute creation to that entity is another circular argument because ultimately you need another "knowing" entity to create that one and so on ad infinitum.

Yes I am saying it is an entity but I am not personifying it(a plant is knowing and intelligent but I wouldn't personify it) and there are rules all of nature and evolution follow the same rule of 3.14 that is proven fact

As regards to a knowing entity has to make another I do not agree I belive in the beginning only energy existed and everything we perceive is a manifestation of this energy, your theory would suggest an infinite loop of creation that never started and never ends or that their could be no knowing or intelligence because nothing could of created it"

Keeping it short..plant "knowing" agree. Plant intelligent disagree. Rule of Pi..madness.Energy expression of etc Agree. "My theory" was of course just an analogy for the paradox of creation theory. I was not expounding it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"A very interesting thread.

My thoughts... I don't like statistics so I disagree with any percentage claims for this or that sexual orientation. In different countries and different times, anything other than heterosexual may be accepted or persecuted. Hence why visible numbers of orientation may change.

Where do asexual people come into all this?"

Yeah interesting point on asexual people which is a part of the sexual spectrum that is not really discussed much and one which you might imagine would be subject to the same negative selection pressures as same sex sexuality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"There was a very interesting edition of the infinite monkey cage , radio show on BBC radio 4.

It covered the differences between men and women and our genes .

Did you know that Homosexuality does exist in nature and as an interested Welshman

25%of male sheep , rams are homosexual another 25% are bi sexual

So far from some people saying homosexuality is abhorrent and can be cured ( see MP Stephen Crabe) its part of nature "

Been meaning to catch up with that program for a long time..sounds fascinating.

Yes..it really does show how primative we really are as a race...large intellect bypassed by low level often subconcious biases. The level of distrust and hate for something slightly different...in this case..gay people is astonishing.

Interesting stuff about the sheep too. I mean..if I was to act eponymously..would my sexuality be any different if the unfortunate ram I was raiding turned out to be gay?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Really interesting discussion! To be honest I do feel hormones are a big factor (in my non-geneticist, "layman's" opinion). I was first attracted to a boy at age 9, and a girl at age 11. It was my perceived view of society, and a deep desire to "fit in" that led to me not even speaking about my sexuality until I was in my early 20s. I do believe I have "extra" testosterone in my genetic make up, and I struggled with my identity as a female for years and years, again probably largely due to some of society's expectations of what it means to be a "lady". (Or laydee, as I like to refer to myself!! ) A very close female bi friend of mine has a very similar story, and we share many of the same "male" traits....high sex drive, visually sexually stimulated etc. Xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby


"Just want to add that i read the long replies and find them very interesting. I've nothing more to add to the discussion but i enjoyed learning about that."

. It's been a very enjoyable thread. Thank you everyone for your contributions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What if evolution is all knowing, I mean their is alot of orphans maybe natures way of balance.

Or God made gay people for the same reason

If evolution was all knowing it would be a God thing. And hence incapable of evolving. We are kinda taking evolution as a given for the purposes of this thread. Sorry about that. Theology tomorrow I promise!

Things can evolve the same at the same time on opposite sides of the planet, to me that is a kind of knowing

Well yes it is a kind of knowing if you personify evolution and say that it has the same set of rules that it applies in every situation.

But "knowing" in the way you refer to it requires an entity which knows...and to attribute creation to that entity is another circular argument because ultimately you need another "knowing" entity to create that one and so on ad infinitum.

Yes I am saying it is an entity but I am not personifying it(a plant is knowing and intelligent but I wouldn't personify it) and there are rules all of nature and evolution follow the same rule of 3.14 that is proven fact

As regards to a knowing entity has to make another I do not agree I belive in the beginning only energy existed and everything we perceive is a manifestation of this energy, your theory would suggest an infinite loop of creation that never started and never ends or that their could be no knowing or intelligence because nothing could of created it

Keeping it short..plant "knowing" agree. Plant intelligent disagree. Rule of Pi..madness.Energy expression of etc Agree. "My theory" was of course just an analogy for the paradox of creation theory. I was not expounding it."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

The book I referred to is

'Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation'

by

Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman

http://www.peterowenpublishers.com/books/born-gay-the-psychobiology-of-sex-orientation/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am-Raider OP   Man
over a year ago

Corby

Thanks Fille..will check it out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *uddlybear2015Man
over a year ago

BEDFORD


"Thread needs less supposition by straight people and more input by geneticists.

imo"

Speaking as a World reknowned geneticist...Buggered if I know!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top