I would be more inclined to find this as reasoning that it is genetic and not some phenomenon. Think about it, if homosexuals can’t have children then it could never have been passed down through a family because the family wouldn’t really exist. So I do believe it is some sort of genetic mutation.
I can see how gay people in the past would have had sex with the opposite gender just like they do now, but still, people that are really gay don’t do that because it just doesn’t work like that. Women don’t turn gay men on, so they can’t really have sex with them.
I’m sure they could manage to have sex with a woman. Most gay men prior to the ‘Gay revolution’ in the 70s and 80s probably got married and had families. Keep in mind that really all the way before the ‘political correctness’ of the 90s, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. A lot of gay men(but not most) probably still get married and have kids.
Something I read about recently is that scientists found that gay men have a significanly slower eyeblink reaction than straight men, and gay women have a faster one than straight women. But it wasn’t established if they were born with different eyeblink reactions, or they were born normal and being gay over the course of their lives actually caused the change.
Anyway, even if most homosexuality is due to mutations in the womb, it still puts to rest the contention that gays ‘choose to be gay’, as if its some kind of lifestyle choice instead of something they’re born with.
The thing a lot of people seem to be missing is the link between genetics and the actual biological development. The genes are just a blueprint, and various complex systems of various chemicals follow that blueprint. Just because a builder follows a blueprint for a building doesn’t mean that the blueprint will be followed exactly, especially if the blueprints are very complicated.
The illusion of choice does not only apply to sexuality, but to many other things in life as well. How many people here actually believe that a conscious decision got them to where they are today. The different branches of religion also provide the said illusion of choice. In that case, however, if, according to most mainstream branches of Christianity, someone “chooses” to be a homosexual, then in turn they “choose” to sin and go to hell. But if we were judged according to the bible, no matter what lifestyle choice each of us as a person would happen to live, we would all go to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Which is just one of the many reasons why I don’t believe in organized religion.
But in the theory that being gay is in fact not a choice, but a chemical imbalance or a genetic matter, it compares homosexuality to other problems people have no control over, like post-partum depression or mental retardation. Both of which are related to chemical imbalances, either brought on by family history or drugs.
My take is this. Some people may in fact choose to be gay to get attention. I know a few guys and girls who are like that. But others were born that way, in theory, for example the cousin you had who everyone thought was gay even as little kids when you all wanted to play tackle football, and he wanted to jump rope. That is case in theory of gaiety as a genetic or chemical disorder. There are differences(and similarities) between gaiety as a chemical or genetic disorder, but my lack of scientific knowledge makes it hard for me to separate the two. I think that Sinistral or someone else well versed in science can(and did) explain this better than me.
I just wanted to add a slacker’s POV to the conversation. And it may be hard for some people to understand.
I like to believe in free will. As for the topic of this thread, I think that by the time a person realizes what their sexuality is, its too late. So people don’t choose to be homosexual.
Big Dizzy IS right that some people talk about being “gay” for attention, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think the point is to focus on the “real” gay people.
I’ve always subscribed to the theory that everything is under some sort of genetic control, and that specific instances of ‘abnormality’ (bad term, that) are nothing more than questions of what outside influence is triggering what gene(s).
As for how homosexuality could endure in the species if it doesn’t result in procreation, you need to open your mind a bit. It’s reasonable to assume homosexuality is a recessive trait, and thus many people could be carriers. I can think of several other ways in which it could propogate, but this isn’t a rigorous scientific discussion so I’ll try to rein myself in.
And lastly, this nonsense about choice - there are lots of things in life we have to put up with that we didn’t choose and that we cannot change. The real choice you have is to accept who you are and make the best of it, rather than whining about how you have no control. Err… that sounds harsher than I meant it to sound, but I’m not changing it as it gets the point across.
Well, people need to be held responsible for their actions, regardless of what causes those actions. The real question here is: is homosexuality a bad thing? Because if it is, homosexuals probably should be treated as if they made a bad choice, just as we must punish criminals even though their behavior may be caused by their genetic makeup or environmental history. But if its not, it doesn’t matter how much choice the gays had.
determining whether homosexuality is or is not the result of choice should be inconsequential; it should be accepted either way. personally, im quite certain that one does not choose to be homosexual anymore than one chooses if he likes to eat pancakes or waffles in the morning or both.
Wait, what the hell are you saying Sil? I’m reading that last bit as saying “people have no choice in what kind of food they like, and it’s the same for their sexual preference.” Am I interpreting correctly?
Well, to be precise, people only choose to an extent what foods they like. Most people tend to eat what their parents eat and grow up with it. Once one acquires cooking skills, then the person’s choices broaden a bit. Said person can go with either cooking something one hasn’t eaten before, or said person can also cook something one eats while growing up that has become a favorite of said person.
My point is that during the early years of a human’s lifecycle, it adapts to the environment. And whatever the parents cook or buy from a restaraunt will be what the human as a child will acquire a taste for. As a human ages and develops its intelligence, it can make more conscious desicions on what food to eat. My favorite foods weren’t really chosen, but more adaptive. People who are genetically/chemically linked to being homosexual adapt to gaiety, much in the same manner that one adapts to favorite foods.
And this concludes a Layman’s terms of human biology and self-sustenance. And its relation to the current subject.
Edit: One of my friends told me something interesting about homosexuality that was in a psychology book called The Third Force. I forget who wrote it and this is off of memory, so it may not be 100 percent accurate or understandable.
Well, here goes.
Somewhere in this book it stated that every single human being has the gene/chemical that carries gaiety. Whether someone actually becomes gay is dependent upon environment. Environment is half what one is exposed to and half of what one makes of it.
Fuck, my brain is fried. Too much debating and analyzing for today. I think I’ll go play Skies of Arcadia Legends and relax. I’ll continue this tomorrow after I refresh myself on this theory. Maybe someone will know what I’m trying to analyze and explain it better than me. I wouldn’t put it past some people here.
Yea, I agree with the environment is part of it. It goes with the earlier statement of it’s how we’ve come this far. But for the “gay parents will raise gay kids” argument, I think that’s bullshit. True in some cases, but I think that the kids would just be more tolerant of homosexuality.