Startling Study Says People May Be Born Gay

Yahoo! News ^ | October 6, 2003 | Amanda Gardner

[lizma]

There may be a genetic basis for homosexuality which is not limited by the "The Law of Natural Selection"; i.e. the genetic trait for male homosexuality falls on the X chromosome which is solely inherited from the female.

Maybe. But wouldn't the females who bear this chromosome not reproduce by definition? Wouldn't the homosexuality gene, being part of their genes makeup, effect them also? I've never heard of a genetic trait that dominates when the Y chromosome is present but takes back seat with the X.

Or are there male and female homosexuality genes??

Bottom line, until science can prove different, I believe homosexually is an aberrant behavior by choice. If any trait is inherited or nurtured, it's narcissism. That seems to be their strength.

[Coeur de Lion]

My argument was that it doesn't really matter. If the cause was identified to be completely of genetic origins it makes no difference. The whole idea that my "genes made me do it" is an absurdity with respect to moral law.

As for the genetic's case we may be speaking of a case of both recessive and dominant characteristics, similar to what one finds in the case of eye color, whereby if both parents have brown eyes but have the recessive gene for blue eyes there is a .25% probability they will have a blue eyed child. My only point about it showing up on the X chromosome was that no principle of natural selection would remove it from the gene pool.

I wish folks would get beyond the myth that because one might be "born that way" that should be accepted as an argument for the acceptability of their behavior, let alone its normalcy.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

There may be some biological basis such as

Just out of curiosity, what would be the darwinian/evolutionary reason for homosexuality?

[Just mythoughts]

Wonder what else they will claim "born that way".

A clinton gene?

[kingu]

This disease, whether learned or congenital can still be cured through treatment.

Since when is a social choice a disease? There's no cure needed for gay people because they're not sick, they're just participating in a what has become a near cult-like counter-culture. It's always bothered me when people trot out those who have been 'cured' - I had thought that we had moved beyond such fakes.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, nothing more. Describing it as an illness, a disease, or as these fakers are doing - a genetic defect only gives homosexuals a justification for their lifestyle. Ghads, next you know they'll be doing their lawsuits under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

[LPStar]

I'm not saying I agree, but what some scientists says is that there is an advantage to some members of the clan not breeding. Then all of their resources are diverted to help their nieces and nephews, thus increasing their survival rate. If everyone was a "breeder," all of their offspring would be in conflict for scarce resources.

As a possibly relevant aside, in a wolf pack, only the alphas have offspring.

[Coeur de Lion]

A Darwinian/Evolutionary purpose for homosexuality exists. Amongst animal groups where one finds evidence of overpopulation, one also finds a rise in homosexual behavior. One also see incidences of mothers eating their young or not feeding them so they starve. All of this done so they don't out-resource their ecological niche and end up driving themselves into extinction. So what! The argument was that natural selection doesn't prevent the rise of "homosexual genes", not that there didn't exist a Darwinian/Evolutionary purpose for it.

Ultimately, the argument was that it didn't matter one iota. Animal's may eat their young or starve them to death and that's perfectly acceptable, natural and no one's going to take them to court or indict them for it. Humans fall under moral law and that makes a vast difference.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Amongst animal groups where one finds evidence of overpopulation, one also finds a rise in homosexual behavior.

Are you postulating this or claiming evidence of it? Why would homosexual behavior, which (almost by definition) does nothing to promote perpetuation of itself, be more helpful than any number of other traits which do.

I can imagine that there might be random instances of homosexuality helping in such a situation, but it seems to be too, uh, counter productive.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I'm not saying I agree, but what some scientists says is that there is an advantage to some members of the clan not breeding.

Along those lines, I have not read this book, but Unto Others is supposed to be an argument for something similiar.

[DooDahhhh]

You are probably closer to the answer than most on this thread. However, I have personal knowledge that it is hereditary, or at least sure seems so. But maybe designated to be non breedable theory might work also. I do not think that this is a choice at all. Most gays knew that they were gay at age 11 or 12. What kind of choices do you make at that age?

[xzins]

An alternate thread of the same title.

For some odd reason they haven't pulled it as a duplicate.

They need to see your data from the other thread.

[scripter]

They need to see your data from the other thread.

Hmm. How about this? Please read this link for additional information on this issue.

[Coeur de Lion]

Why would homosexual behavior, which (almost by definition) does nothing to promote perpetuation of itself, be more helpful than any number of other traits which do.

You're making the point exactly.

Homosexual's have been fond of making the argument that homosexuality exist in nature, so how can it be considered as "un-natural."

The actual observation in nature was that those species of animals who were described as being homosexual in their mating habits were practicing a survival strategy. This strategy was a response to the environmental stresses on their ecological niches due to overpopulation. This particular strategy results in a reduction of population, and so promotes their survival; because they will not overtax the system and end up all starving themselves to death. Other species have similar survival strategies such as eating or starving their young.

Once the environmental stresses are removed these species revert to their previous mating habits. And those that practice the other survival strategies no longer eat their young or starve them.

Using the same logic that homosexuals employ, there ought to be nothing considered un-natural in either eating one's children or starving them to death. Especially, when there're too many mouths to feed!

[lizma]

My only point about it showing up on the X chromosome was that no principle of natural selection would remove it from the gene pool.

I don't understand that. If X recessive, it would lead to a higher percentage of males affected but why wouldn't any trait that leads to not reproducing (and clearly by definition, that is something they usually don't do) continue? It would die out no matter the genetic linkages.

All in all, "the genes made me do it" argument, doesn't pan out. It's absurd.

[Coeur de Lion]

I guess I should go back to your original question:

Maybe. But wouldn't the females who bear this chromosome not reproduce by definition? Wouldn't the homosexuality gene, being part of their genes makeup, effect them also?

No! Why who anybody assume that its presence on the Y chromosome in a female would predispose her to lesbianism? This would indicate that what ever function or role it plays in the female is the exact opposite of how it operates in a male. Sorry even genetic defects don't work in this fashion.

Or are there male and female homosexuality genes??

No, I don't believe there exist a genetic predisposition for lesbianism, nor a mechanism for it that wouldn't violate the laws of natural selection.

And from your last post:

All in all, "the genes made me do it" argument, doesn't pan out. It's absurd.

Ah! Something we might agree on. It was the final conclusion I made in my original post, though I don't think your reasoning was even similar to mine or that you even read the arguments I made.

[lizma]

Why who anybody assume that its presence on the Y chromosome in a female would predispose her to lesbianism?

Dear one, females can't have a Y. They are always XX. XXs are the definition of a girl, XYs are guys.

(except in Klinefelter's Syndrome which is XXY and they're pretty much "femalish" but don't reproduce.) (And then there is Turner's syndrome which is an XO female and they don't even have ovaries.) But I might be missing something but I can't remember any female syndrome with a Y.

[Coeur de Lion]

I meant X