Genetics are linked to same-sex behaviour, but there is no "gay gene"

Enoch07 said:

Yes and longer than that, always I dare say. I suspect one of the triggers lies in a certain combination of traits that effect the immune system. Not that the immune system is weak mind you. Just the immune system effects the pheromones that are excreted which creates our BO (in part). It is this smell that attracts or repels people of the opposite sex. Someone who enjoys the smell of your BO (as is common with lovers), means that the immune systems complement each other (ones immune system is strong where the other ones is weak and vice versa). Of course this is just theory, I'm not stating any of this as fact. I very well could be wrong.

Click to expand...

I've seen a study where people find the BO of the people they're sexually attracted to more appealing, eg gay men find other gay men's BO more appealing than anyone else's, straight women find straight men's BO more appealing, etc. I don't know what any of that has to do with gays being a sign of impending extinction though?

Left Coast said:

I've seen a study where people find the BO of the people they're sexually attracted to more appealing, eg gay men find other gay men's BO more appealing than anyone else's, straight women find straight men's BO more appealing, etc. I don't know what any of that has to do with gays being a sign of impending extinction though?

Click to expand...

Just means the immune systems are compatible.

It's not always a sign. I encourage you to study the behavioral sink I cited above. Homosexuality along with other signs is a sign of extinction. I see these other signs, i.e. the males/females of the species begin to resent each other and push away/attack each other. Young male/female rats committing horrible acts of violence/suicide.

I see most if not all of the signs of extinction that the rats displayed in their Utopia shortly before they all killed each other/themselves.

Mass shooting by angry young men.
The rise in number of LGBT.
The rise of radical feminism/anti-feminism.
Hoarding of resources= preppers.
Females start having higher fatality rates of infants. At the end of his experiment infant mortality rate was at 96%.

Again we are comparing rats to humans here so its not set in stone or a certainty. But you do have to acknowledge the similarities. And before anyone jumps my p00p. The answer is not to "cure the gay". We need to strike at the root of the problems here. There always has been, and always will be LGBT folk.

Perhaps this 'gay genetics' thing could be linked to our very evolution (yes, I used the *E* word), and it's simply nature's way of promoting or suppressing certain genetic strains in humans.

Enoch07 said:

Just means the immune systems are compatible.

It's not always a sign. I encourage you to study the behavioral sink I cited above. Homosexuality along with other signs is a sign of extinction. I see these other signs, i.e. the males/females of the species begin to resent each other and push away/attack each other. Young male/female rats committing horrible acts of violence/suicide.

I see most if not all of the signs of extinction that the rats displayed in their Utopia shortly before they all killed each other/themselves.

Mass shooting by angry young men.
The rise in number of LGBT.
The rise of radical feminism/anti-feminism.
Hoarding of resources= preppers.
Females start having higher fatality rates of infants. At the end of his experiment infant mortality rate was at 96%.

Again we are comparing rats to humans here so its not set in stone or a certainty. But you do have to acknowledge the similarities. And before anyone jumps my p00p. The answer is not to "cure the gay". We need to strike at the root of the problems here. There always has been, and always will be LGBT folk.

Click to expand...

It's an open question whether there are actually more LGBT folks in the world, or if there are just more of us who are out about it because of increased social acceptance. My bet is on the latter.

The rest of the list is too much of a rabbit trail for this thread but yea, not buying it. Maybe the concept would make an interesting thread of its own?

Left Coast said:

Before everyone piles on with their promotion or dismissal of this study, I think everyone regardless of their view needs to step back a minute. What is at stake in this debate is not what many people think is at stake. Even if we had no evidence that sexual orientation were genetic, that would not indicate that 1) sexual orientation is choice, 2) sexual orientation can be changed, or 3) same sex sexual behavior is immoral. Sexual orientation could be entirely environmental and it wouldn't establish any of the above.

Please bear this in mind before posting.

Click to expand...

Quite correct. It needs to be remembered that "environmental" rather than "genetic" could just as easily mean "within the mother's womb." And that is certainly proposed in the case of gay men with older brothers, because of the likelihood of the mother's immune system being altered in carrying the first child.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, no single overpowering gay gene. But several possible genes and combinations of genes that increase the odds that one is gay.

So the good news is that there is no a gene that people could test for and possibly abort their fetuses as a result. The bad news for literalists is that there does not appear to be a choice in sexuality.

Click to expand...

AND, what if environmental influences play a role? There was lots of speculation that certain drugs that were widely used in the 20th Century were causative of cross gender feelings? My own experience with males at a very early age until I left home, caused me to fear and hate males in general. And how are Intersex folk classified?

Then, of course there is Leviticus 18?

The only thing I can do is to regulate my own life according to what I believe.

Left Coast said:

It's an open question whether there are actually more LGBT folks in the world, or if there are just more of us who are out about it because of increased social acceptance. My bet is on the latter.

Click to expand...

You could be right.

But the other signs are still there so it's not a big issue regardless, and definitely the most benign of all the signs.

Left Coast said:

The rest of the list is too much of a rabbit trail for this thread but yea, not buying it. Maybe the concept would make an interesting thread of its own?

Click to expand...

I've got a thread on it here somewhere, probably a couple of years old by now. But regardless if it's true or not I find it fascinating. And the solutions needed cant hurt us anyways. Male/Female relations could definitely be better, this is part of what's causing frustrated young men to go on mass shootings. Improving healthcare for women and their unborn children. This would also include taking better care of the environment. It's almost a silver bullet that would solve a lot of problems.

Ellen Brown said:

So FAR, no gay gene.

Click to expand...

But I think it's important to remember that the human genome is actually rather small -- something around only 20,000-25,000 actual genes -- which is a surprisingly low number for such complex critters as us. What that almost certainly means is that heritable traits are almost certain to be the result of multiple genes, or environmentally sensitive cascading gene expression. Which still leaves the strong potential for, if not "a [single] gay gene," a genetic predisposition to gayness.

leov said:

Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia or "women for children, boys for pleasure" of Islam.

Click to expand...

You are discussing culture, not genetics. Please stay on point.

Unveiled Artist said:

It's hard to read most of the study. My question though is, are they wondering why our bodies react to one sex over another?

How does the object of attraction affect genetics?

Click to expand...

That's the whole point, and you've got it backwards. The object of attraction doesn't affect genetics, genetics (and epi-genetics) determines what becomes the object of attraction.

InChrist said:

Genetics may well be connected to same-sex attraction. Various studies have indicated people may be biologically predisposed to any number of things. My perspective is that since we live in a fallen world impacted by sin so not all of these genetic influences are beneficial or healthy. Yet, the scriptures reveal that one can be born again to new life, identity, and freedom in Christ.

Click to expand...

Why not try to find out if there's a gene for religion?

Enoch07 said:

Just means the immune systems are compatible.

It's not always a sign. I encourage you to study the behavioral sink I cited above. Homosexuality along with other signs is a sign of extinction. I see these other signs, i.e. the males/females of the species begin to resent each other and push away/attack each other. Young male/female rats committing horrible acts of violence/suicide.

I see most if not all of the signs of extinction that the rats displayed in their Utopia shortly before they all killed each other/themselves.

Mass shooting by angry young men.
The rise in number of LGBT.
The rise of radical feminism/anti-feminism.
Hoarding of resources= preppers.
Females start having higher fatality rates of infants. At the end of his experiment infant mortality rate was at 96%.

Again we are comparing rats to humans here so its not set in stone or a certainty. But you do have to acknowledge the similarities. And before anyone jumps my p00p. The answer is not to "cure the gay". We need to strike at the root of the problems here. There always has been, and always will be LGBT folk.

Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks today's feminism is more radical than previous waves needs to read a history book. (Like..first waves bombed places and stabbed people. The hatpin society was literally about concealing a blade in one hat to stab harassers with) Lack of radicalism is part of the problem, it's so nuanced that there's no real conformity of ideas. Hence no organization.

But anyway, violence of young (straight white) men always goes up following civil rights battles.
It isn't anyone's fault but those insecure enough to believe that others gaining civil rights is bad for them.
Anyone who blames women for incel violence. for example, is a moron.
And there hasn't been a rise of LGBT that we can tell, only a rise in public admission of it.
Hoarders and preppers have existed in every era under various terms. Turns out anti-social folk get paranoid about people and wish to get as independently self-sustainable as possible.

And infant mortality only goes up in places that have the lowest science education and highest poverty. Currently mortality is still going down in most first world locations.

Ellen Brown said:

AND, what if environmental influences play a role? There was lots of speculation that certain drugs that were widely used in the 20th Century were causative of cross gender feelings? My own experience with males at a very early age until I left home, caused me to fear and hate males in general. And how are Intersex folk classified?

Then, of course there is Leviticus 18?

The only thing I can do is to regulate my own life according to what I believe.

Click to expand...

I agree. It is likely to be more than just genetics. The point is that far too many Christians demand a "gay gene" to think that being gay is not a choice. The evidence keeps coming in that sexuality is not a choice.

Complex problems are not apt to have simple solutions. And let's not forget that many people can swing both ways. I think that many of the rather vehement anti-gay people are likely to belong to that class. For them it is a choice and they seem to think that is the case for everyone. Studies have shown a link between violent homophobia and latent homosexuality. In other words these people are fighting a conflict within themselves. And like many that put away something that is desirable in themselves they react rather strongly against it. As an ex-smoker I really don't like smokers around me. I think that in the same sense a person that has put that part of his nature aside will hate those that participate in it without any guilt.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

Got any evidence to back up that claim , or is it an ad hoc plucked from thin air?

Click to expand...

Well, going off topic a bit (okay, I'm a hypocrite! ) there's certainly evidence that some genetic traits can have both beneficial and harmful effects. Take the gene for sickle-cell anemia, for example, which also provides protection against malaria. When it is expressed in climates where there is no malaria, it has no usefulness, and its harmful effects become prominent.

It wouldn't make sense for there to be a gay gene, anyway. Things like sexual preferences and desires are so nebulous and descend from complex common and uncommon factors that it would be like expecting an 'artist gene.' Even skill at spatial awareness problem solving couldn't boil down to a single gene. So why would something as nuanced as artistry?

But more importantly, people like to unduly separate nature from nurture to have this discussion, as if genetics is the only biological influence on traits or even that genetics aren't changed by nurturing (Genes are turned on and off by environmental circumstances all the time.)

ADigitalArtist said:

Anyone who thinks today's feminism is more radical than previous waves needs to read a history book.

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying all feminist are radicalized. I am quite the fan of some non-radical feminist. But the radical feminist are the loudest, so maybe that why you conflate the two.

ADigitalArtist said:

But anyway, violence of young (straight white) men always goes up following civil rights battles.
It isn't anyone's fault but those insecure enough to believe that others gaining civil rights is bad for them.

Click to expand...

You totally misunderstand the issue if you think that is what's going on. Here is a Guardian article admitting Jordan Peterson was correct about how young men that resort to violence are frustrated because they were excluded and branded as villains even when they themselves personally did no wrong.

After El Paso and Dayton, the left needs to reach out to men, not condemn them | Iman Amrani

ADigitalArtist said:

Anyone who blames women for incel violence. for example, is a moron.

Click to expand...

What like you blame men in the statement above? Self reflection is needed.

ADigitalArtist said:

And infant mortality only goes up in places that have the lowest science education and highest poverty. Currently mortality is still going down in most first world locations.

Click to expand...

Yes but the mothers mortality rate has been increasing across the board. Which is reflective in the behavioral sink as well.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

You are discussing culture, not genetics. Please stay on point.

Click to expand...

not exactly genetics, epigenetics.

Enoch07 said:

Nobody is saying all feminist are radicalized. I am quite the fan of some non-radical feminist. But the radical feminist are the loudest, so maybe that why you conflate the two.

Click to expand...

Which is no more poignant than saying radical conservatives are the loudest. I'm talking about movements, if modern feminism could even be called such, does not have the unified and violent radical political action like previous waves did.

Enoch07 said:

You totally misunderstand the issue if you think that is what's going on. Here is a Guardian article admitting Jordan Peterson was correct about how young men that resort to violence are frustrated because they were excluded and branded as villains even when they themselves personally did no wrong.

After El Paso and Dayton, the left needs to reach out to men, not condemn them | Iman Amrani

Click to expand...

**** Jordan Peterson. He is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, who makes Nostradamus like proclamations in their ambiguity then backpeddles whenever anyone pins him to a point which is how we got the 'lobster hierarchies' nonsense.

Incels got frustrated because they harbored the opinion that women owed them sex if they were nice. When that didn't work, they abandoned the idea that niceties could ever obtain anything and choose instead to isolate and attack the society they are convinced is broken and hopeless because they're ********.

They don't become murderers because they needed to be reached out to by women, they became murderers because they vilified women and any man with a few more centimeters of chin bone than them, which thereby make them pure Adonis lavished with sex. (I don't recommend spending any time in incel subreddits.)

Enoch07 said:

What like you blame men in the statement above? Self reflection is needed.

Click to expand...

I blame incels for being ********. I blame people who shift blame for their behavior onto their victims.

Enoch07 said:

Yes but the mothers mortality rate has been increasing across the board. Which is reflective in the behavioral sink as well.

Click to expand...

Evidence (like from the WHO)? Because, again, I see absolutely no global trend of neonatal fatality on the rise.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

But I think it's important to remember that the human genome is actually rather small -- something around only 20,000-25,000 actual genes -- which is a surprisingly low number for such complex critters as us. What that almost certainly means is that heritable traits are almost certain to be the result of multiple genes, or environmentally sensitive cascading gene expression. Which still leaves the strong potential for, if not "a [single] gay gene," a genetic predisposition to gayness.

Click to expand...

We learn more every day.

leov said:

not exactly genetics, epigenetics.

Click to expand...

If you have a point, why do you not just make it?