Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The theory with gay children is that the hormone mix isn’t quite right. This might possibly be enough by itself, or it could interact with certain genes, to produce homosexuality.

Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

Interesting. One answer would appear to be that the "gay gene" wouldn't be selected out if it had effects that promote reproduction in women.

That's a fun one to try to google for without feeling like Hitler. "why don't gay people die out.." Er... No, how about "why aren't gay people out of the gene pool..." Ugh...

Phryxis wrote:
Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

That's where epigenetics comes in. Non-genetic effects on the expression of genes do not actually change the genes themselves. As such, you can have a set of genes that is expressed differently due to a certain set of hormonal conditions, while maintaining the original genetic code; meaning that literally every person on the planet could have the potential to become homosexual had the set of non-genetic conditions that leads to homosexuality been satisfied at the right time.

Phryxis wrote:Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

Except that the mix of hormones introduced might not be related to the mother at all. Diet would likely play a bigger role.

Then there's this whole epigenetics thing dogma is talking about, which describes a bunch of ideas I knew about somewhat, without ever knowing they all had such a nice sounding name.

In "Legacy of the Force" SW book series they mention a jedi on the council being a lesbian and in the newest book there is a gay mandolorian couple.

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

That's where epigenetics comes in. Non-genetic effects on the expression of genes do not actually change the genes themselves. As such, you can have a set of genes that is expressed differently due to a certain set of hormonal conditions, while maintaining the original genetic code; meaning that literally every person on the planet could have the potential to become homosexual had the set of non-genetic conditions that leads to homosexuality been satisfied at the right time.

It's only in recent years that people have been able to be openly gay, for many years people had to get married and have children regardless of their feelings, a lot of the time people were expected to marry for a load of reasons other than love or sexual attraction. Even in ancient states that accepted homosexuality to a degree, people were expected to produce children. Even if a heterosexual man and women got married they weren't necessarily attracted towards each other, but they still got on with it, this is particularly the case with the upper classes and royalty where marriage is largely about land and financial arrangements. So the idea that "gay men don't pass on their genes" doesn't hold up across history.

From a more distant evolutionary view...if there are gay genes then they are likely to be shared by siblings and other close relatives in which case being altruistic is beneficial. By being a supportive member of a family group you can ensure that your group succeed and those you are genetically similar to will survive. Selfish gene theory explains altruistic behaviour, because the wider survival of a species does not depend upon individuals focussing solely upon procreation. There is the argument that homosexuality plays a role in social cohesion and that's party why it's expressed today. Things that are well established in large populations don't die out easily even if they are not immediately advantageous. Just because a gay person doesn't have children doesn't mean their heterosexual siblings will not, yet they will share a lot of the same genetic material.

People saying "homosexuality stops you breeding, thus the gay gene would die out" are taking a very basic one dimensional view of genetics taken from highschool. Population and evolutionary genetics simply don't work that way, there's a much larger complex system at work especially when you draw in epigenetic and mass of variables that act upon even seemingly disadvantageous traits.

Anyway, some theories described here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0&feature=player_embedded#!

Phryxis wrote:Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

Vague misunderstandings of genetics aside, this isn't actually necessarily true. If, in fact, there is a "homosexual gene", then let's assume it's recessive. That means that, depending on how many other genes tie into it (For something so powerful as psychology, probably quite a few), it could be that the vast majority of humans are carriers for this gene, but it isn't expressed except in a rare few. Which means that many people who aren't gay are still passing on the "homosexual gene".

If, in fact, that is how it works. The gene might be identified, but that doesn't mean it is the only factor, nor does it mean that it is the only gene that ties into it.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Even if this is true, it would stand to reason that the traits that lead to that sort of hormonal mix would be bred out. Even if it was a trait of the mother, her offspring would still be less likely to (want to) procreate.

That's where epigenetics comes in. Non-genetic effects on the expression of genes do not actually change the genes themselves. As such, you can have a set of genes that is expressed differently due to a certain set of hormonal conditions, while maintaining the original genetic code; meaning that literally every person on the planet could have the potential to become homosexual had the set of non-genetic conditions that leads to homosexuality been satisfied at the right time.

It's only in recent years that people have been able to be openly gay, for many years people had to get married and have children regardless of their feelings, a lot of the time people were expected to marry for a load of reasons other than love or sexual attraction. Even in ancient states that accepted homosexuality to a degree, people were expected to produce children. Even if a heterosexual man and women got married they weren't necessarily attracted towards each other, but they still got on with it, this is particularly the case with the upper classes and royalty where marriage is largely about land and financial arrangements. So the idea that "gay men don't pass on their genes" doesn't hold up across history.

As well, don't forget that there are those who don't discover/realize that they're gay until later in life, many after a heterosexual marriage that has produced offspring.

In addition, current medical advances have led us to a point where sex may be removed from the equation of producing genetic offspring all together.

Except that the mix of hormones introduced might not be related to the mother at all. Diet would likely play a bigger role.

Sure, but the way that food is metabolized still has a relationship to genetics. A given person might be less likely to turn rice into estrogen than another...

Certainly this would diminish the impact of genetics, but I don't see how it could ever be eliminated.

By being a supportive member of a family group you can ensure that your group succeed and those you are genetically similar to will survive.

While I don't necessarily buy the idea that gay people are "more nurturing" I did once read a study that suggested that the more male children a women had, the more likely each successive one was to be gay. This was even true if the children didn't live together, almost as if the woman's uterus had some sort of "memory."

It might stand to reason that if you have too many heterosexual siblings running around, they might start fighting over the available ladies and kill one another, which would have negative implications for survival.

People saying "homosexuality stops you breeding, thus the gay gene would die out" are taking a very basic one dimensional view of genetics taken from highschool.

I disagree. I realize that there are a lot of complexities to genetics, but to identify a first order evolutionary pressure as being more relevant than a second order evolutionary pressure is not "simplistic" it's accurate.

If an animal is born capable of procreation, but averse to pursue the activity, that's extremely relevant. It certainly COULD be offset by their other contributions to the family unit, but those are indirect contributions. The best thing you can do to spread your genes is make babies. Assisting your cousin to make babies helps, but it's not the same impact.

Which means that many people who aren't gay are still passing on the "homosexual gene".

Right, but there still would be a negative pressure on the gene. Let's assume that 5% of people are gay, and of those people 50% elect not to procreate. While that's certainly not stoping procreation of the vast majority of the carriers of the gene, it is still selecting it out of the population.

For me it keeps coming back to the idea that there has to be some sort of corresponding benefit. Either the "nurturing" angle that Howard A Treesong mentions, or what I think is more likely which is the idea from the link I posted, perhaps it leads to more fertile women when present in a female.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
People saying "homosexuality stops you breeding, thus the gay gene would die out" are taking a very basic one dimensional view of genetics taken from highschool. Population and evolutionary genetics simply don't work that way, there's a much larger complex system at work especially when you draw in epigenetic and mass of variables that act upon even seemingly disadvantageous traits.

We also have to factor in the reality that many people with homosexual tendencies are not actually homosexual. The hard division between hetero and homosexuality is very misleading.

Interestingly, this seems to be primarily the result of heterosexual people reacting aggressively to the acceptance of homosexuality. The "I could never do anything gay!" argument.

Given my observation of partying women (and fraternity brothers) in undergrad, this doesn't seem to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Right, but there still would be a negative pressure on the gene.

Not if its simply the gene that controls sexuality.

The "I could never do anything gay!" argument.

Well, "never" is a pretty strong word, especially for James Bond, but I think that this is pretty true for a lot of people.

I'm not sure where it comes from, I tend to assume it was taught to me by society, but I have a visceral aversion to male homosexual imagery. It's especially pronounced around real shows of affection, like kissing or hand holding, which suggests to me that I've been conditioned that men should not be physically affectionate to each other.

I try not to let that color my opinion of actual human beings, but it's always lurking there, sorta like a fear of heights. If I look at two gay guys interacting, there's a chance it might make my brain feel a little panicky.

So, anyway, point being that I think that many men are conditioned to a point at which they're viscerally, subconsciously phobic of homosexual interactions. It makes it very unlikely that they would ever "do anything gay."

Women are not conditioned nearly as aggressively in this way.

Oh, and yes, fraternities are COMPLETELY gay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not if its simply the gene that controls sexuality.

Well, right, you don't breed a gene out of existance, so much as a manifestation of a gene.

Phryxis wrote:
Well, "never" is a pretty strong word, especially for James Bond, but I think that this is pretty true for a lot of people.

Most people also say that they'll never hook up with unattractive members of the opposite sex, but it definitely happens.

In fact, I don't see a meaningful distinction between sleeping with a man (who you find unattractive by category) and an unattractive woman. Well, unless we consider categorical distinctions to be emotively special. That's certainly the case intellectually, but I've never considered sexuality to be particularly intellectual.

Phryxis wrote:
I'm not sure where it comes from, I tend to assume it was taught to me by society, but I have a visceral aversion to male homosexual imagery. It's especially pronounced around real shows of affection, like kissing or hand holding, which suggests to me that I've been conditioned that men should not be physically affectionate to each other.

Yeah, I could see that. Interestingly I have the same reaction to male homosexual behavior as female, which sounds homosexual until you are informed that I don't find female homosexual behavior attractive. I'm essentially neutral to both.

Phryxis wrote:
Well, right, you don't breed a gene out of existance, so much as a manifestation of a gene.

The point of epigenetics is that characteristics like homosexuality can't be bred out. There are two schools of thought at work here, one focused on complex interactivity between genes producing chaotic iterations of behavior, and one that presumes a high degree of environmental effect on the expression of genes. In both cases a highly successful set of genes can produce negative results given a large enough number of cases.

I think one of the Death Star gunners might have been gay. The way he pulled down on that lever to destroy Alderaan with his pinky up was just a bit 3 dollar bill-ish.

Yeah, and Frats are totally gay.

Grakmar wrote:
Many homosexuals describe their sexuality as being innate, saying things like "I was born this way." If that is true, there has to be a genetic reason behind a person's sexuality.

(snip)

Star Trek however is not meant to be a realistic future, it's here to entertain (and to some extent stir debate) for us 20th C/21st C folks.

The original series was actually pretty daring putting blacks, whites, Asians and aliens as peers, they even had a filthy, dirty, lying, Russkie!

Shame they lost their nerve and now behind the times.

The crystalline entity was pretty metro.

I don't care who she may have slept with. Tasha Yar was pretty butch.

Phryxis wrote:Sure, but the way that food is metabolized still has a relationship to genetics. A given person might be less likely to turn rice into estrogen than another...

Certainly this would diminish the impact of genetics, but I don't see how it could ever be eliminated.

Sure, but once you start talking about a gene that would lead to a negative trait in only some circumstances, and consider that in other circumstances that gene might produce positive characteristics, the case for that gene disappearing from the genepool disappears very quickly.

This makes some level of intuitive sense, given that the genetic tendency towards homosexuality hasn't disappeared from the genepool.

Phryxis wrote:Well, "never" is a pretty strong word, especially for James Bond, but I think that this is pretty true for a lot of people.

I'm not sure where it comes from, I tend to assume it was taught to me by society, but I have a visceral aversion to male homosexual imagery. It's especially pronounced around real shows of affection, like kissing or hand holding, which suggests to me that I've been conditioned that men should not be physically affectionate to each other.

I try not to let that color my opinion of actual human beings, but it's always lurking there, sorta like a fear of heights. If I look at two gay guys interacting, there's a chance it might make my brain feel a little panicky.

What's really odd is that reaction, which I've had myself when seeing some more heavy make out sessions from gay dudes, is likely completely cultural. If you've been overseas to non-Western parts of the world, you will see guys walking about holding hands. It's just a gesture of friendship, and while it's hilarious for us to see Bush holding hands with that Saudi dude, for them it's just a regular part of friendship between two hetero dudes.

I saw it a fair bit in India, and that's a country with a considerable amount of hostility towards homosexuality.

I saw it a fair bit in India, and that's a country with a considerable amount of hostility towards homosexuality.

Yeah, I've seen it in China, and, again, I think they're fairly down on homosexuality.

It's actually sorta horrid to think about, and I risk getting graphic by saying this, but I think the aversion to kissing and handholding is that it's a sign of real affection. If you see two men having sex, there's an element of "oh, that one guy is just DOMINATING that other guy..." So it's actually LESS upsetting than when they're kissing. Because kissing is pretty much just affection.

So that's pretty horrid, but that's how I'm programmed. I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

Phryxis wrote:I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

...I don't really agree with you there.

That's weird.

Albatross wrote:That's weird.

Yeah, I guess for some strange, culturally linked, reason I'm more comfortable with this...



...rather than this.

[Picture not available due to fear of banning]

Phryxis wrote:It's actually sorta horrid to think about, and I risk getting graphic by saying this, but I think the aversion to kissing and handholding is that it's a sign of real affection. If you see two men having sex, there's an element of "oh, that one guy is just DOMINATING that other guy..." So it's actually LESS upsetting than when they're kissing. Because kissing is pretty much just affection.

So that's pretty horrid, but that's how I'm programmed. I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

Yeah, it's just programming. What's interesting is that something that, certainly for me and I'm guessing for you as well, feels instinctive, is probably just cultural programming, given how other cultures really don't have a problem with it.

Being more comfortable with it when it's a show of dominance is pretty odd though, you might be on your own there

sebster wrote:

Phryxis wrote:It's actually sorta horrid to think about, and I risk getting graphic by saying this, but I think the aversion to kissing and handholding is that it's a sign of real affection. If you see two men having sex, there's an element of "oh, that one guy is just DOMINATING that other guy..." So it's actually LESS upsetting than when they're kissing. Because kissing is pretty much just affection.

So that's pretty horrid, but that's how I'm programmed. I'm more comfortable with a guy using sex to dominate another guy than simply being affectionate.

Yeah, it's just programming. What's interesting is that something that, certainly for me and I'm guessing for you as well, feels instinctive, is probably just cultural programming, given how other cultures really don't have a problem with it.

Being more comfortable with it when it's a show of dominance is pretty odd though, you might be on your own there

Fear of spiders is instinctive, fear of men holding hands isn't even close. Most behavioral psychologists and a fair number of neurological studies point to the idea that the vast majority of social interactions and intrinsic social "laws" are learned behaviors that we are instinctually designed to adopt and reciprocate. Learning and obeying such unspoken behaviors is instinct, but the behaviors themselves however aren't hardwired anywhere within the human brain. It's a fairly powerful but very blank slate.

Being more comfortable with it when it's a show of dominance is pretty odd though, you might be on your own there

I feel the same way, though it's unlikely because of any concept of domination. Sexual acts aren't really connected strongly to acts of affection like holding hands, one is a social act the other is a carnal one that is regarded in a much baser way when perceived. They trigger different learned behavioral responses. You've probably seen the cliche of a prostitute who won't kiss because it's how you show affection. There is a serious disconnect between a sexual act and kissing which many behavioral scientists think is a hardwired and instinctual act that shows familial affection for the purpose of exchanging disease immunities.

ShumaGorath wrote:Fear of spiders is instinctive, fear of men holding hands isn't even close.

Nah, the squeamish feeling wasn’t coming from men holding hands, that is from seeing more overtly sexual practice. The holding hands part was mentioned as an example of learned behaviour that feels very important, but is actually something that changes from culture to culture.

I was using the example to argue that the squeamish feeling over seeing homosexual activity would likely be the same.

Most behavioral psychologists and a fair number of neurological studies point to the idea that the vast majority of social interactions and intrinsic social "laws" are learned behaviors that we are instinctually designed to adopt and reciprocate. Learning and obeying such unspoken behaviors is instinct, but the behaviors themselves however aren't hardwired anywhere within the human brain. It's a fairly powerful but very blank slate.

Which is what I was saying with my example of men holding hands. It would be very uncomfortable for most men, and not something they would likely consider could just be learned behaviour. But it is.

Sexual acts aren't really connected strongly to acts of affection like holding hands, one is a social act the other is a carnal one that is regarded in a much baser way when perceived.

I’m not sure the divide is that clean. Holding hands is a form of closeness and intimacy, which leads on to increasingly intimate and sexual things.

I feel the same way, though it's unlikely because of any concept of domination. Sexual acts aren't really connected strongly to acts of affection like holding hands, one is a social act the other is a carnal one that is regarded in a much baser way when perceived. They trigger different learned behavioral responses. You've probably seen the cliche of a prostitute who won't kiss because it's how you show affection. There is a serious disconnect between a sexual act and kissing which many behavioral scientists think is a hardwired and instinctual act that shows familial affection for the purpose of exchanging disease immunities.

Interesting if true, but I'm not convinced. I've seen a whole lot of things started with casual kissing.

Nah, the squeamish feeling wasn’t coming from men holding hands, that is from seeing more overtly sexual practice. The holding hands part was mentioned as an example of learned behaviour that feels very important, but is actually something that changes from culture to culture.

I was speaking more of natural revulsion in this case, it's not 100% but even people and cultures that have never had contact with spiders or similar insects tend to fear them on an instinctual level. Once a brain develops enough to recognize one it seems to key into some sort of genetic predisposition against it.

Which is what I was saying with my example of men holding hands. It would be very uncomfortable for most men, and not something they would likely consider could just be learned behaviour. But it is.

It's fairly easy to observe that it's a learned behavior since children seem to have no aversion to it, though like with many things the act of holding hands itself is representational of a set of urges for closeness in a social group, rather then an instinctual act itself. Holding hands could very well be a very basic and intuitive but still learned act.

I’m not sure the divide is that clean. Holding hands is a form of closeness and intimacy, which leads on to increasingly intimate and sexual things.

It's not very clean in that sexual acts are often representative of emotional attachment, but kissing is not an inherently sexual act. Mothers kissing their children for instance. Our brains are not simplistic though, and their elasticity does often connect disparate acts. Whether kissing is also inherently part of the set of behaviors and acts of sex I can't say. It's probably regarded separately by the brain depending strongly on context (again, like with most things. I hate psychology because the subject is too malleable).

Interesting if true, but I'm not convinced. I've seen a whole lot of things started with casual kissing.

The brain reacts to sexual imagery differently then it does familial imagery, it is likely a learned behavior to attach kissing to the giant field of "things that make you think about sex", but then it's also a fairly intuitive on to put there. The brains a difference engine primarily, and what serves one function early in life can be learned to function another later.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's fairly easy to observe that it's a learned behavior since children seem to have no aversion to it, though like with many things the act of holding hands itself is representational of a set of urges for closeness in a social group, rather then an instinctual act itself. Holding hands could very well be a very basic and intuitive but still learned act.

Yeah, we're agreeing here.

It's not very clean in that sexual acts are often representative of emotional attachment, but kissing is not an inherently sexual act. Mothers kissing their children for instance. Our brains are not simplistic though, and their elasticity does often connect disparate acts. Whether kissing is also inherently part of the set of behaviors and acts of sex I can't say. It's probably regarded separately by the brain depending strongly on context (again, like with most things. I hate psychology because the subject is too malleable).

Yeah, kissing is definitely part of sex. I can say from experience that kissing can kick the brain into gear really quickly.

Sure, we also kiss non-sexual partners, but it is a really, really different kind of kissing.

Holding hands is routine in the western word for parents with their children, and it is also common between partners. It isn't overtly sexual, however it is not part of the normal repertoire of behaviour between adult men.

In Japan, I am not allowed to hold my wife's hand in front of her mother, because it would be too shocking.

Sure, we also kiss non-sexual partners, but it is a really, really different kind of kissing.

I know, thats what I was describing. It is also quite likely that kissing as sex is not hardwired in the way that kissing as affection or kissing as exploration (toddlers will kiss walls and things for no reason). It's either a learned process that adapts the act within the brain for such purposes or it adapts the process of sexual encounter to utilize it. Either could fit given the acts presumed significance as a method for transferring bacteria and virus' as well as immunities within the familial unit.

Either way the point of my initial post was that acts of affection and acts of sexual expression are not directly correlated when perceived, two men holding hands is culturally indicative of a romance and it's handled within portions of the brain that differentiate social situations. Views of intercourse are more likely to drift to either the sexual areas (which under CAT and similar scans are shown to have their own big regions) or new areas of difference making (so that the brain can developed learned responses to the "new" stimuli). Either way, the first path isn't the one that would go directly to the part of the brain determining taboos (Though they get there anyway). At least in my opinion this would explain the difference phryxis describes in his reaction.

I've been known to hug and kiss some of my close male friends, say, if I haven't seen them for a while. I have absolutely no problem at all with two men being affectionate with each other, straight or gay. I'm totally comfortable with it.

I find it very odd that person would be more comfortable witnessing a 'prison-rape'-type scenario....

Shuma, would you be really freaked out if I kissed you? Like, on the cheek?



...and by 'cheek' I mean 'face cheek', before anyone starts...

Melissia wrote:The reason there's no sexuality issues in Star Trek is because in the timeframe it is set in, sexuality is a non-issue anyway. This from a certain Captain Sulu.

although they didn't have any ''gay storylines'' in ST:TOS they did have some other ground breaking stuff, like one of the (if not thee) first inter racial kiss between kirk and uhura, plus having a russian (although with a hammed up accent) on the crew with the second red scare being in recent memory and the cold war still going on.

It is difficult for us to comprehend this now, but in the 50s and 60s it was illegal in most states of the USA to marry someone of a different race.

The last anti-miscegenation law in the USA was not repealed until 1967.

This is the background to the Kirk/Uhura kiss in Star Trek. It genuinely was a challenging thing to do on US TV in the late 60s.