Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud

[MrJonno]

We do not know exactly what makes someone gay, but despite lots of research, there is no evidence it is imprinting

We don't know what makes people straight either, probably a combination of biology and environmenet like most other things in human nature

[mistermack]

We do not know exactly what makes someone gay, but despite lots of research, there is no evidence it is imprinting.

Actually there's a fair amount of evidence that imprinting and similar environmental effects are involved. For example:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-01742-006

I wouldn't describe that babble as "a fair amount of evidence". "no evidence whatsoever" would be closer to the mark.

They try to claim that nobody is born gay or straight, but they are born with a genetic tendency to BECOME gay or straight.
That would still mean that orientation is genetically determined.
I'm not sure that there is anything new at all in what they claim. If you are born with a tendency that is sure to make you gay, then you might as well say that you were born gay. Your gayness is still caused by your genes.

[Warren Dew]

If you are born with a tendency that is sure to make you gay, then you might as well say that you were born gay.

Any genetic tendency there is not "sure" to make you anything, as evidenced by the studies on identical twins where one twin was gay and the other straight.

[mistermack]

If you are born with a tendency that is sure to make you gay, then you might as well say that you were born gay.

Any genetic tendency there is not "sure" to make you anything, as evidenced by the studies on identical twins where one twin was gay and the other straight.

That doesn't actually prove anything. The genetic tendency to become gay or straight is unlikely to be an on/off switch, more likely shades of grey, with all stages in between. So you will get some people who are genetically sure to be gay, some who are sure to be straight, and various shades of grey between those two.
Identical twins who are right in the middle of that mix are of course likely to flip either way. That doesn't disprove the genetic disposition at all.

Also, self-reporting can't be a scientifically accurate means of identifying who is gay. As many people can kid themselves for years, and others are happily bisexual.

[Blind groper]

Here is a reference to the two mechanisms I mentioned earlier about why men become gay.
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

That is : a gene that increases fertility in women, but makes men gay. Second cause : hormone problems due to being a late son after several earlier sons are born from the same mother.

Both mechanisms are imposed upon the gay man, meaning it is not a matter of choice. It is something that they cannot avoid being.

[JimC]

Here is a reference to the two mechanisms I mentioned earlier about why men become gay.
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

That is : a gene that increases fertility in women, but makes men gay. Second cause : hormone problems due to being a late son after several earlier sons are born from the same mother.

Both mechanisms are imposed upon the gay man, meaning it is not a matter of choice. It is something that they cannot avoid being.

I think that most posters in this thread would agree with this sentiment, even if there is some disagreement about the responsible mechanisms...

[mistermack]

If I was going to try to find out the explanation for homosexuality persisting despite the obvious reproductive disadvantage, I wouldn't start by studying humans. They are far too complicated.

I would start on much simpler animals, and work my way up, once some culture-free patterns had emerged.
If a stag is homosexual, you could probably conclude that it was born that way, not a choice it made.

[JimC]

If I was going to try to find out the explanation for homosexuality persisting despite the obvious reproductive disadvantage, I wouldn't start by studying humans. They are far too complicated.

I would start on much simpler animals, and work my way up, once some culture-free patterns had emerged.
If a stag is homosexual, you could probably conclude that it was born that way, not a choice it made.

It is possible that homosexuality, as a genetic condition that is not removed by selective pressure, can only be maintained in a species with sufficiently complex social groupings. This may mean that it would be rare and sporadic in non-human animals. (Another thread dealt with that, but I would be very surprised if another mammalian species had anywhere near the extent and frequency of homosexuality as we see in humans; bonobos seem multi-sexual rather than many being exclusively gay...)

[mistermack]

If I was going to try to find out the explanation for homosexuality persisting despite the obvious reproductive disadvantage, I wouldn't start by studying humans. They are far too complicated.

I would start on much simpler animals, and work my way up, once some culture-free patterns had emerged.
If a stag is homosexual, you could probably conclude that it was born that way, not a choice it made.

It is possible that homosexuality, as a genetic condition that is not removed by selective pressure, can only be maintained in a species with sufficiently complex social groupings. This may mean that it would be rare and sporadic in non-human animals. (Another thread dealt with that, but I would be very surprised if another mammalian species had anywhere near the extent and frequency of homosexuality as we see in humans; bonobos seem multi-sexual rather than many being exclusively gay...)

Domesticated sheep are a well-known case of common homosexual behaviour. It's a known problem in the farming industry, with about 10% of males refusing to mate with females, but willing to mate with males.
It's harder to study truly wild animals, as they are so elusive.

I wouldn't be surprised about humans having a high incidence, because we lack a strong sense of smell, which is the trigger for many animals, and women don't go 'on heat' like many female mammals.
Maybe humans are unique, because of our social structures. Women live on long after they lose fertility, and it may be that their help in raising their grandchildren is a reason. It may be that gays were of similar value to the families of our ancestors, so that their genes were not disadvantaged as much as you would expect.

[Tyrannical]

Maybe humans are unique, because of our social structures. Women live on long after they lose fertility, and it may be that their help in raising their grandchildren is a reason. It may be that gays were of similar value to the families of our ancestors, so that their genes were not disadvantaged as much as you would expect.

There is no gay gene. It's probably epigenetic and caused by "something" during pregnancy. Though certain genes may increase the likelihood.

[Blind groper]

There is no gay gene. It's probably epigenetic and caused by "something" during pregnancy. Though certain genes may increase the likelihood.

There is clear cut research showing inheritance of a gene that, in women, increases fertility, and in men increases the chance of homosexuality.

[Warren Dew]

There is no gay gene. It's probably epigenetic and caused by "something" during pregnancy. Though certain genes may increase the likelihood.

There is clear cut research showing inheritance of a gene that, in women, increases fertility, and in men increases the chance of homosexuality.

If you're talking about the article you linked to, it doesn't show that at all. Those researchers only showed that a gene like that could, if it existed, explain their findings; they didn't identify any actual gene that worked that way.

Their data could just as easily be explained by big families causing homosexuality in the children.

[JimC]

If I was going to try to find out the explanation for homosexuality persisting despite the obvious reproductive disadvantage, I wouldn't start by studying humans. They are far too complicated.

I would start on much simpler animals, and work my way up, once some culture-free patterns had emerged.
If a stag is homosexual, you could probably conclude that it was born that way, not a choice it made.

It is possible that homosexuality, as a genetic condition that is not removed by selective pressure, can only be maintained in a species with sufficiently complex social groupings. This may mean that it would be rare and sporadic in non-human animals. (Another thread dealt with that, but I would be very surprised if another mammalian species had anywhere near the extent and frequency of homosexuality as we see in humans; bonobos seem multi-sexual rather than many being exclusively gay...)

Domesticated sheep are a well-known case of common homosexual behaviour. It's a known problem in the farming industry, with about 10% of males refusing to mate with females, but willing to mate with males.
It's harder to study truly wild animals, as they are so elusive.

I wouldn't be surprised about humans having a high incidence, because we lack a strong sense of smell, which is the trigger for many animals, and women don't go 'on heat' like many female mammals.
Maybe humans are unique, because of our social structures. Women live on long after they lose fertility, and it may be that their help in raising their grandchildren is a reason. It may be that gays were of similar value to the families of our ancestors, so that their genes were not disadvantaged as much as you would expect.

The bit I colourised (in a particularly fetching puce) was the sort of thing I was considering. In mammals in general, sporadic examples of homosexuality may occur, but may only persist at a consistently high level in creatures like us. It need not be a single gene, it may be a combination of several, with or without developmental triggers. The critical point is the extent of selection against such genetic combinations - if some positive benefits occur to related kin, then any direct effect of reduced numbers of offspring may be countered.

Gay uncles rock!

[mistermack]

Maybe humans are unique, because of our social structures. Women live on long after they lose fertility, and it may be that their help in raising their grandchildren is a reason. It may be that gays were of similar value to the families of our ancestors, so that their genes were not disadvantaged as much as you would expect.

The bit I colourised (in a particularly fetching puce) was the sort of thing I was considering. In mammals in general, sporadic examples of homosexuality may occur, but may only persist at a consistently high level in creatures like us. It need not be a single gene, it may be a combination of several, with or without developmental triggers. The critical point is the extent of selection against such genetic combinations - if some positive benefits occur to related kin, then any direct effect of reduced numbers of offspring may be countered.

Gay uncles rock!

Yeh. This is especially relevant to humans, because we are unique in the length of time that our children are relatively defenceless. No other animal comes anywhere near. So gay uncles ( or aunts ) can really make a difference to the survival of their own genes by protecting the kids of their brothers and sisters.

[Tyrannical]

There is no gay gene. It's probably epigenetic and caused by "something" during pregnancy. Though certain genes may increase the likelihood.

There is clear cut research showing inheritance of a gene that, in women, increases fertility, and in men increases the chance of homosexuality.

If you're talking about the article you linked to, it doesn't show that at all. Those researchers only showed that a gene like that could, if it existed, explain their findings; they didn't identify any actual gene that worked that way.

Their data could just as easily be explained by big families causing homosexuality in the children.

And that "gene" they are talking about is only found in a small percentage of homosexuals, and the large majority of men that have it aren't gay.
Women that are more fertile, and would have more offspring, have less need to properly regulate the sexual orientation of their offspring because a few mistakes (homosexuals) would have less impact on them than a less fecund woman. If they were not more fertile, their ancestors would have gone extinct long before they were born.