This topic is full of crazy bias, "facts" that people just come up with, and unempirical evidence.
Some emperical evidence from the human genome project: There are only 33 genes that can be turned on and off, showing that a substantial amount of human behavior is up to enviromental factors. Another interesting fact is that genes are turned on and off through enviromental factors and that learning can be simplified to just these genes being turned on and off. Enviromental factors can change when genes are activated and mutations in the enzymes that turn on these genes can affect when and how long genes are activated. A section of the Hox gene ( I believe it is called the Hox4 gene) attributes to where and how long the torso is. This information can show that certian mutations in gene activators (I can't remember the scientific name for them) attribute to behavioral issues -- even touchy ones such as homosexuality.
So, this debate should really focus on showing empirical evidence on whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture issue.
It is my personal opinion that homosexuality is due to "nurture", and that the idea of an alternative lifestyle being passed down from generation to generation is absurd and ridiculous. They might as well start declaring genes for all the other infinite lifestyles, favorite foods/colors, personal beliefs/morals, etc. Come on people. Seriously now?
None.
Well, the fact that you are attracted to females sexually is probably encoded. Things like the release of testosterone for males and estrogen for women, your actual sex, are dependant on chromosomes. Mutations can be passed down generation to generation as well, so you shouldn't be too hasty to write off genetics from this. Of course, nurture might have something to do with it too.
Come on people. Seriously now?
Seriously. *solemn nod*
None.
Well, the fact that you are attracted to females sexually is probably encoded. Things like the release of testosterone for males and estrogen for women, your actual sex, are dependant on chromosomes.
I wouldn't say the fact that you are attracted to females is encoded, but rather the fact that you have a sex drive. Sure this could be attributed to genes through things like release of testosterone and estrogen, but neither of these affect our sexual orientation. If it did, we would be gay/bi until puperty, be super straight, and as we reached old age lean towards gay/bi again. I'm very open to the idea of our sex drive being gene related, but I would have to say to which sex we direct this drive is determined by "nurture".
None.
Attraction to the opposite sex, as well as many other biological workings are genetic traits that evolved along side of the ability to reproduce sexually. All sexually reproductive species have some traits that have been evolved to get them to reproduce with a partner of the opposite sex. If such things didn't exist, the species would die out for lack of further generations. Think about the following:
Why does sex feel good?
Why are men and women attracted to eachother?
Why do the muscles in the vagina work to pull in sperm?
Why is sperm mobile?
The answer is that our biology promotes reproduction. Anything going against this (Homosexuality) can either be a genetic mutation, OR an unnatural learned behavior similar to a human's value toward money or dates... education... technology... ect.
None.
It is my personal opinion that homosexuality is due to "nurture", and that the idea of an alternative lifestyle being passed down from generation to generation is absurd and ridiculous.
Second sons are more prone to being homosexual because there is more estrogen in the womb for second borns. That destroys your whole arguement.
They might as well start declaring genes for all the other infinite lifestyles, favorite foods/colors, personal beliefs/morals, etc. Come on people. Seriously now?
Not possible with only 33 genes that can encode this information. But, 33 genes is enough to make each person unique, so it's still up for debate.
Because Triggr_Happy asked: This is from the Human Genome Project.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 15 2009, 1:23 am by A_of-s_t.
Well, actually I was refering to when you said:
Second sons are more prone to being homosexual because there is more estrogen in the womb for second borns. That destroys your whole arguement.
Would you happen to have a citation for this?
Just looking out for:
"facts" that people just come up with, and unempirical evidence.
None.
It comes from the "Human Genome Project." I'm going to link you, google it.
It comes from the "Human Genome Project." I'm going to link you, google it.
No research has been conducted as part of the Human Genome Project concerning a greater chance of 2nd sons being homosexuals due to more estrogen in the womb. If I am mistaken, please make the small effort to post the source.
Google it? You should pay a visit to the serious discussion rules. Even moderators should be held to the responsibility to provide evidence, sources, and references to their claims. "Google it" is not a proper citation. I would hope Vrael enforces the discussion rules as strictly for everyone in this particular thread.
None.
Close the topic, everything that needs to be said is said here. I doubt any more intellegent conversation can occur after reading this link that doesn't reiterate something previously stated there or any of the citations used in that report.
3. Sources and Evidence. If something is beyond the scope of "common knowledge", please provide sufficent evidence, sources and references to back up your claim. If you are unsure of whether or not what you posting is common knowledge, err on the side of caution and provide them anyway.
Too bad it says all I need is a "reference", in which case stating "the Human Genome Project" would be enough.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 16 2009, 10:46 pm by A_of-s_t.
Second sons are more prone to being homosexual because there is more estrogen in the womb for second borns. That destroys your whole arguement.
Perhaps some people are more
prone to accepting it, but that does not affect whether or not someone chooses to go completely over, it's how they are nurtured that finally tips the balance.
None.
Second sons are more prone to being homosexual because there is more estrogen in the womb for second borns. That destroys your whole arguement.
Perhaps some people are more
prone to accepting it, but that does not affect whether or not someone chooses to go completely over, it's how they are nurtured that finally tips the balance.
I must admit, I am biologically prone to certain things, but I do have a choice when it comes down to it. For example, often my stomach begins to feel a bit off and I become more prone to eating food. Sure, I could choose not to eat, but eventually my body wins out. Here's another example: sometimes I tell myself to stop breathing, and it works for a few minutes, up to about two and a half to three minutes if I try hard, but again my biological hard-coding wins out and my lungs expand. Likewise, often enough I feel a pressure in my gut, and I then begin searching for a toilet. If I wait long enough it'll start to hurt a bit, but I suppose I do have the choice there don't I?
My point is that if something is biologically encoded it's very difficult, if not impossible, to ignore it. If every time you look at another human of the same sex you feel a sexual attraction, and every time you look at a member of the opposite sex and feel nothing, chances are you're going to realize you're gay, whether nurtured that way or not. If you admit that some folks are more prone than others to homosexuality before being nurtured, then that implies that a persons biological makeup does have something to do with it, in your opinion. To refuse such a strong impulse, in my opinion, would require an extremely strong force of will or something along the order of psychological trauma or brainwashing. While I am of the opinion that being gay "isn't right" in some way, though in which way I find it particularly difficult to describe, I am even less in favor of forcing individuals in our society to refuse such a non-destructive attribute through vigilant force of will, trauma, or brainwashing. I suppose my point is: it isn't much of a "choice" to be gay if it's in any way biological, and that does affect whether or not someone "chooses" to go "completely over."
It's actually first-borns who are exposed to higher estrogen levels, according to this:
http://articles.maxabout.com/artid0006825/birth_order_theory.aspxhttp://www.mindfood.com/at-order-health-family-sibling-youngest-middle-oldest.seoHowever, later-born males are statistically more likely to be homosexual, according to this:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 20 2009, 10:31 pm by Vrael.
None.
My point is that if something is biologically encoded it's very difficult, if not impossible, to ignore it. If every time you look at another human of the same sex you feel a sexual attraction, and every time you look at a member of the opposite sex and feel nothing, chances are you're going to realize you're gay, whether nurtured that way or not. If you admit that some folks are more prone than others to homosexuality before being nurtured, then that implies that a persons biological makeup does have something to do with it, in your opinion. To refuse such a strong impulse, in my opinion, would require an extremely strong force of will or something along the order of psychological trauma or brainwashing. While I am of the opinion that being gay "isn't right" in some way, though in which way I find it particularly difficult to describe, I am even less in favor of forcing individuals in our society to refuse such a non-destructive attribute through vigilant force of will, trauma, or brainwashing. I suppose my point is: it isn't much of a "choice" to be gay if it's in any way biological, and that does affect whether or not someone "chooses" to go "completely over."
I said more prone, not that they do not have the attraction to women, I think that the natural attraction to sex in general is truly what causes the majority of them to tip, not a heavier attraction to the same sex.
So in other words estrogen levels have nothing to do with it? Or are first-borns nurtured differently?
None.
I said more prone, not that they do not have the attraction to women, I think that the natural attraction to sex in general is truly what causes the majority of them to tip, not a heavier attraction to the same sex.
I don't get what you mean. All humans are genetically attracted to sex, that doesn't mean anything when it comes to homosexuality.
So in other words estrogen levels have nothing to do with it? Or are first-borns nurtured differently?
To be quite honest, I really don't know, I spent a while googling stuff but I couldn't find a conclusive source on the matter.
The Irainc.com source I cited above is pretty in-depth, but it doesn't say anything about the correlation of estrogen levels in the womb and homosexuality. It proposes that homosexuality is the result of a combination of genes that are typically meant to result in more attractive sex partners. One example it uses is that of 5 allels. a or A, b or B, c or C, d or D, and e or E. If a male has all 5 ABCDE he is homosexual. If a male has 4 of the 5, say, ABCDe, then he is more attractive to the opposite sex because he shares certain traits which are more attractive to females. That is the basis of the article's argument that homosexuality is a by-product of producing a larger variation of traits to increase sexual productivity, and that is how a trait which does not directly contribute to reproduction could persist genetically, despite homosexuals having insufficient offspring to perpetuate the gene.
It also does mention that it is strongly believed that the Xq28 gene has someting to do with homosexuality.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 22 2009, 11:42 pm by Vrael. Reason: wrong letter on gene
None.
I don't get what you mean. All humans are genetically attracted to sex, that doesn't mean anything when it comes to homosexuality.
Not homosexuality specifically, but bisexuality could easily be a byproduct of that.
None.
To whomever said people, before puberty, and after old age, would become bisexual because of hormones, I think you misunderstood. The person whom you attempted to defunct said testosterone causes more attraction to females, and the opposite for estrogen. Before puberty and during old age, little hormones are produced; by your argument, you are claiming the opposite that normal hormone would be produced.
None.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was making the point, which you also said, that less testosterone is produced before puberty and durring old age. So if testosterone promoted sexual attraction to women, you would obviously be very straight durring/after puberty. But before puberty and durring old age, when there is less testosterone, you would be less attracted to women and lean towards bisexuality. I in no way meant normal hormones would be produced all the time.
None.
You wouldn't be sexually attracted at all. I wasn't at all.
Testosterone and estrogen create sexual attraction, not direct it.
None.
lol agreed. Thats the point I was trying to make. Hormones promote sexual attraction (sex drive), but don't neccessarily direct it towards women. You should go back and read my posts again lol.
None.
