Do genes make you gay?

[Lauren]

As far as science tells us, no one is 100% straight or gay. You can be at the most straight end of the scale as you can possibly be and believe you are so, but the chances are you will still respond on some level to sexual material involving another man. It's just the way we are built!

[be cause]

Speak for yourselves - I'm 100% straight.

so obviously is President Putin

[knocker]

In a society that still has a strong homophobic thread running through it still produces some very humorous moments. In a recent international match, the ref. Nigel Owens who is gay, blew for a crooked line out feed and commented even I'm straighter than that. In the same match he was subject to some vile abuse.

But I digress.

 

I must admit to puzzling over this for quite a while.

 

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

 

In the last two decades, dozens of scientific papers have been published on the biological origins of homosexuality - another announcement was made last week. It's becoming scientific orthodoxy. But how does it fit with Darwin's theory of evolution?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486

 

Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved

Edited December 1, 2014 by knocker

[Lauren]

As far as science tells us, no one is 100% straight or gay. You can be at the most straight end of the scale as you can possibly be and believe you are so, but the chances are you will still respond on some level to sexual material involving another man. It's just the way we are built!

 

To add to this, the second sentence may actually be down to evolution. If you are a lone male or travelling in a pack of males and somewhere there was a female in season. How do you think we might be able to tell this if we cannot tell ourselves? In the animal kingdom it's quite common for males to become aroused at the scent or idea that females in season might be around. Therefore it's advantageous for other males to also become aroused (if they cannot themselves tell a female is in season) so they have a chance of mating, thus it is believed that seeing a man sexually aroused or even so much as appearing more 'macho' automatically makes your body in some way respond so that you may also be prepared to mate.

In a society that still has a strong homophobic thread running through it still produces some very humorous moments. In a recent international match, the ref. Nigel Owens who is gay, blew for a crooked line out feed and commented even I'm straighter than that. In the same match he was subject to some vile abuse.

But I digress.

 

I must admit to puzzling over this for quite a while.

 

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486

 

Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved

 

If sexuality is a sliding scale, then it would make sense that at some point a gay person may have sex with someone of the opposite sex (and indeed many gay people do in the pursuit of working out who they are). Furthermore gay people marrying and being able to have a sex life is not unheard of either.

 

My SIL Mum is gay (now happily married to another woman) and I know when she was younger she questioned herself thinking that she should be have some sort of gay leaning, but she doesn't at all and neither do her siblings.

[East_England_Stormchaser91]

Absolutely not. Its all in ones mind. However, its each to their own.

[knocker]

If we are talking about the animal kingdom then with many species of spider the female eats the male after sex. A very good reason I would have thought for the evolution a homosexual gene. Survival and population control.

[Lauren]

I wonder then as being gay becomes more acceptable and less sham relationships happen, if it will end up killing itself off. Or will it continue through surrogates and such?

 

Can you blame the spiders, it's hungry work!

[knocker]

In that case it's the male who should be a tad peckish!

Edited December 1, 2014 by knocker

[laserguy]

As far as science tells us, no one is 100% straight or gay. You can be at the most straight end of the scale as you can possibly be and believe you are so, but the chances are you will still respond on some level to sexual material involving another man. It's just the way we are built!

 

Um,no, I really don't think so. The exact opposite in fact. Trust those pesky scientists, again.

[Jax]

Having been "accused" of being gay simply because I am single and hate football lends me to think many do not understand it fully.

 

I am not by the way.

[laserguy]

Having been "accused" of being gay simply because I am single and hate football lends me to think many do not understand it fully.

 

I am not by the way.

 

I despise football too, don't follow the traditional 'manly' pursuits, shun crowds and prefer my own company or that of family and close friends, but as far as I know I've never been thought of as gay to any degree whatsoever.

[Methuselah]

Um,no, I really don't think so. The exact opposite in fact. Trust those pesky scientists, again.

I respectfully suggest that Lauren is right enough, LG...There is certainly a multitude of variations in human - and animal - sexuality. If there wasn't, natural selection would have nothing on which to act??

[laserguy]

I respectfully suggest that Lauren is right enough, LG...There is certainly a multitude of variations in human - and animal - sexuality. If there wasn't, natural selection would have nothing on which to act??

 

It would seem that I'm one of the few remaining great hairy-chested creatures of our age! Maybe most folk do sit somewhere on the so-called spectrum but for better or worse I'm 100% hetero, no ifs,buts or maybes. Where would natural selection/survival of the fittest etc come into it anyway?  By definition a 'homesexual gene' cannot gain dominance, and a repressive one would see it eventually become extinct. Is it therefore implied that homosexual people are less likely to reproduce because of some simultaneous 'defect' that shouldn't be passed on?

[Dami]

I totally  agree on what being said, but as far as my chemical balance theory, maybe people haven't looked in to ways to 'treat it' I think having a on/off switch for someone's sexuality  would cause more trouble then it's worth. A gene however wouldn't explain why my friend started having feelings for the same sex when she had been 'straight' until then. But hey.

A bit off topic, if it is all down to genes, is it a gene that makes people believe they have been born in the wrong body?

[Lauren]

It's very likely not solely down to genes. If it were the population of gay people would be much larger.

[Methuselah]

It would seem that I'm one of the few remaining great hairy-chested creatures of our age! Maybe most folk do sit somewhere on the so-called spectrum but for better or worse I'm 100% hetero, no ifs,buts or maybes. Where would natural selection/survival of the fittest etc come into it anyway?  By definition a 'homesexual gene' cannot gain dominance, and a repressive one would see it eventually become extinct. Is it therefore implied that homosexual people are less likely to reproduce because of some simultaneous 'defect' that shouldn't be passed on?

Because any gene, whether dominant or recessive, can only ever be the subject of natural/sexual selection once it manifests...Let's face it, we still carry genes for umpteen lethal syndromes...

[Lauren]

Not to mention how rogue genes can suddenly show themselves years down the line e.g a black child being born to a white couple, because somehow the recessive gene has become dominant from a black relative from a few generations back.

 

We have a 'ginger' gene in our family that shows up once in a while even though the last ginger parent was some good 6 generations ago.

 

Laserguy, you have to remember stuff happens in your brain and body that you won't even be aware of. You could be watching gay porn and not feel a thing, but it doesn't mean your brain is not responding to it positively.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

A potential minefield this one, if you accept that homosexuality is 'hard-wired' i.e. not a learnt behaviour, surely you should extend that to include all other 'exceptional' behaviours, including homicidal maniacs, megalomaniacs, paedophiles etc etc ??? And please believe me, I'm not trying to equate homosexuality with any of those behaviours whatsoever, and equally I'm not saying any of those behaviours should ever be considered socailly acceptable, I'm just pointing out where the nature vs. nurture, or free will vs. determinism arguments, can logically end up, (not so much the social acceptability, more the approach to punishment - if the behaviour is hard-wired, what is the personal culpability for them ?)

[Lauren]

It's a good argument Penine.

 

Very few things are 100% genetically hard wired. Most things are a case of nature and nurture. It is widely believed that paedophilia too, has a large genetic component and indeed many do feel they were born that way, others come to be that way through stuff like abuse etc.

 

The difference is, one is not acceptable and the other is. Despite how we are born we have to learn to take responsibility for our actions and if I were born a psychopath, then that might not be my fault, but my actions ARE my responsibility. I don't think it's anyone's fault they are a paedophile, but it is their fault if they act on those urges.

 

To me the best thing we can do is identify psychopaths, paedophiles etc early on in life so that we can go about treating them or at least teaching them appropriate ways to act. The problem is with the stigma of sufferers being able to seek treatment and that is often why they undetected until it's too late.

[knocker]

But a sociopath, by definition, is incapable of recognising the moral bounds within society, thus making taking responsibility irrelevant.

[Lauren]

But a sociopath, by definition, is incapable of recognising the moral bounds within society, thus making taking responsibility irrelevant.

 

They recognise them, they just don't feel them. They know that killing someone isn't morally OK, but they don't feel bad or remorse for doing it. They are well aware (as adults anyway) that their actions are not acceptable.

[knocker]

True, which is why they cannot use diminished responsibility as a defense. Heading towards the quicksands here. Are there two types of sociopaths? Those who are incapable of empathy through a faulty genome and those like Franz Stangl, commandant of Treblinka, who before and after the war was a perfectly 'normal' family man. I realise that sociopaths are normal in all other respects but there are many examples of the latter variety. Essentially it boils down to can we construct sociopathic behaviour within society? The answer presumably is yes.

[Lauren]

Again this is where nature vs nurture comes in. Going on the socio/psychopaths I have worked with and the research on the area, we know that some people seem to born this way (the reason is not clear). Sometimes psychopathic behaviour can be observed from just a couple of years old such as trying to kill pets, torturing siblings etc. In some cases (and in fact if you read about most people who are on death row for example) it seems to be a result of nurture. Lot's of childhood abuse, both physical and sexual, neglect etc. Obviously it's impossible to tell whether they would have gone on to be a psychopath regardless, but it certainly suggests they have been conditioned to be so. Sometimes brain injury, especially to the frontal lobe can produce psychopathic behaviour and people who have had significant damage to the area can be left with complete personality changes and no empathy.

[Steve C]

Again this is where nature vs nurture comes in. Going on the socio/psychopaths I have worked with and the research on the area, we know that some people seem to born this way (the reason is not clear). Sometimes psychopathic behaviour can be observed from just a couple of years old such as trying to kill pets, torturing siblings etc. In some cases (and in fact if you read about most people who are on death row for example) it seems to be a result of nurture. Lot's of childhood abuse, both physical and sexual, neglect etc. Obviously it's impossible to tell whether they would have gone on to be a psychopath regardless, but it certainly suggests they have been conditioned to be so. Sometimes brain injury, especially to the frontal lobe can produce psychopathic behaviour and people who have had significant damage to the area can be left with complete personality changes and no empathy.

 

Yes, I've read this before. I'm pretty sure Fred West was one such person.

[knocker]

Again this is where nature vs nurture comes in. Going on the socio/psychopaths I have worked with and the research on the area, we know that some people seem to born this way (the reason is not clear). Sometimes psychopathic behaviour can be observed from just a couple of years old such as trying to kill pets, torturing siblings etc. In some cases (and in fact if you read about most people who are on death row for example) it seems to be a result of nurture. Lot's of childhood abuse, both physical and sexual, neglect etc. Obviously it's impossible to tell whether they would have gone on to be a psychopath regardless, but it certainly suggests they have been conditioned to be so. Sometimes brain injury, especially to the frontal lobe can produce psychopathic behaviour and people who have had significant damage to the area can be left with complete personality changes and no empathy.

 

I understand what you are saying Lauren. What I cannot get my head around, and I've read a couple books on the subject, is how a perfectly normal family man like Stangl, could supervise the mass murder of 800.000 men, women and children, and during the process go home and eat luch with his family. And after the war normal service was resumed. There are countless others one could use as examples of course.

 

Libby Purves wrote a good article in the Times yesterday on the subject of paedophiliia.