There is no evidence of an individual being "born" that way. This is why the APA revised their statement on the cause of homosexuality. Gay activists try and assert that the "gay gene" theory is in essence "settled." Gay activists also try and infer that homosexuality occurs quite often in "nature" and therefore it's normal behavior. There's a problem with this deduction. First, Filicide, Coprophagia, Incest, and Cannibalism also span across many various species in nature. I would hardly categorize those elements as being "normal." A "homosexual" animal under Darwin's rules would cease to exist. Wither it's animals or humans, the function of "sex" in nature is in order to "procreate." We are to procreate and to have progeny that will go forth and keep our bloodlines alive. Finally, animals lack reason (i.e. a means of expressing affective states). Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They borrow various manifestations of their reproductive instincts and channel them into a sign of dominance and aggression. This act does not mean the animal in question is homosexual. "Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters. Rather many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. Animals dont do sexual identity. They just do sex, says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England." Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sexual-species Many homosexual activists have tried to assert that homosexual scientist, Dr. Simon Levay, concluded that a clusters of cells in the hypothalamus, INAH-3, could explain homosexuality. So, in 1993, Dr. Levay was forced to clarify the record. Dr. Levay stated, "To many people, finding a difference in brain structure between gay and straight men is equivalent to proving that gay men are "born that way." Time and again I have been described as someone who "proved that homosexuality is genetic," or some such thing. I did not. My observations were made only on adults who had been sexually active for a considerable period of time. It is not possible, purely on the basis of my observations, to say whether the structural differences were present at birth, and later influenced the men to become gay or straight, or whether they arose in adult life, perhaps as a result of the men's sexual behavior." Source: Simon Levay, The Sexual Brain, (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1993) p. 12 Simon LeVay went on to write, "Although homosexual behavior seems common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity." Source: Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996) p. 207-209. Continuing on with the "gay gene" theory - there is absolutely no evidence of such a gene. Particularly, at Xq28. Dean H. Hamer affirmed the lack of a gay gene. His research focused on the X chrom at Xq28. He analyzed approximately 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and concluded that the marker was present in approximately 83% of them but noted, "The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants." Another respected doctor and academic, Dr. George Rice, replicated the experiment and deduced the following, "Our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28." Source(s): Dean H. Hamer, The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior, Hammer and Copeland p.104 Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28, Science, Vol. 284, p. 667
I think some gays are born that way, and some choose. But assuming all that you linked is correct, are we to shun gays because of their sexual choices? Why? I don't see us shunning anyone else for their sexual choices, at least not to the degree that we hold gays accountable to Biblical text. We aren't denying prostitutes or known adulterers marriage licenses. As far as I know, millions of dollars aren't being spent in DC lobbying to make laws that effect adulterers or oral sex participants. Many of us just don't get it. Why oppose anything a gay person is doing? Prostitution was also repeatedly mentioned as a sexual perversion in the Bible, but Jesus obviously didn't advocate disassociation with prostitutes.
Figure 1. The Sexual Dimorphism Signaling Pathway Rice et al. hypothesize that heritable epigenetic markers play a role leading to homosexuality (Rice et al., 2012). They build off of the prenatal androgen paradigm, which attributes sexual development to fetal testosterone concentrations, and add the ammendment that specific epi-marks affect fetal testosterone sensitivity (Figure 1). Usually, these epi-marks are not heritable. However, occasionally they do get passed down to the next generation. The Rice et al. model predicts that testosterone sensitizing epi-marks originate from the father, while testosterone desensitizing epi-marks originate from the mother. With increased testosterone sensitivity, an XX fetus goes through masculinization (the degree depending on multiple epi-marks and other factors). Similarly, with decreased testosterone sensitivity, an XY fetus goes through feminization to some extent. Depending on the degree of feminization of masculinization, homosexuality can theoretically result (Figure 2). Figure 2. SA-Epi-Marks and Homosexuality It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications (“epi-marks” originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-thanaverage de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonadtrait discordances in opposite-sex descendants. http://www.ebc.uu.se/digitalAssets/141/141808_rice-et-al-2012-qrb.pdf
Actually, what is generally accept is that most homosexuals are born homosexual. But not necessarily genetic. The example I use is 'handedness'- humans are born innately oriented towards being right handed or left handed- but we have found no gene that makes such a determination. But more importantly- why do you care? As a happily married heterosexual father- I don't care why my gay friends are 'gay'- they are. I no more question that than I question why my straight friends are straight, or why someone prefers a blond over a brunette. Anyway- the most interesting current theory has to do with 'epigenetics' http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/ Researchers looking for a genetic signature of homosexuality have been barking up the wrong tree, according to a trio of researchers in the United States and Sweden. Instead, the scientists posit, epigenetic influences acting on androgen signaling in the brain may underlie sexual orientation. In a paper published last week (December 11) in The Quarterly Review of Biology, they propose a model describing how epigenetic markers that steer sexual development in males could promote homosexual orientation in females, and vice versa. The scientists offer their model to explain both the tendency of homosexuality to run in families, and the fact that so far no “homosexual gene” has been identified. “It’s a very provocative, very interesting new twist that is plausible,” said Margaret McCarthy, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland who studies how hormones influence brain development and was not involved in producing the model. But, she cautioned, so far the theory “is not supported by any data.” Indeed, Andrea Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova, thinks that a variety of factors, including genes and epigenetics, influence sexual orientation. “It’s a little bit vain to think we’ll find the answer to homosexuality as a whole.” The model was developed by William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara; Sergey Gavrilets, a mathematician at the University of Tennessee; and Urban Friberg, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Uppsala. The notion that epigenetics, rather than genetics, is the primary force promoting homosexuality sprang from several observations, explained Rice. First, evidence shows that homosexuality can run in families. Still, only 20 percent of identical twins are both gay, said Rice. Furthermore, linkage studies looking for a genetic underpinning to sexual orientation have not turned up any “major” homosexual genes, Rice noted. “This made us suspicious that something besides genes produces heritability that isn’t genetic.” Epigenetics fits the bill. The model focuses on the role of epigenetics in shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, an important determinant of gonad development. The researchers suggest that androgens are also important factors in molding sexual orientation, and that various genes involved in mediating androgen signaling are regulated by epigenetic modifications. These epigenetic marks, they argue, can be passed on between generations.
So what guys are you sexually attracted to? Clearly since being gay is just a choice there must be men out there that you would have sex with but don't because you choose not to. Personally I'm messed up in the head and don't find men attractive, only women.
the problem with all that it doesn't explain bi-sexuality, And gays becoming straight and straight becoming gay reality points to choice or a curable or changeable mental condition
No there isn't it is the default mode anything that deviates from that mode is an abnormality caused by either a choice or a mental defect Science has shown that mercury poisoning has caused homosexuality in birds. mercury poisoning also cause other abnormal mental conditions
I doubt that there is one gay gene, but "scientists have not yet found X, therefore X does not exist" is a fallacious, grammar school type of argument.
And that is the same argument that atheist use to dismiss the existents of a God Look they have been hunting for this so called Gay gene for over 30 years if one existed they would have found it by now. hell they can determine if you are prone to certain kinds of cancer by your genes. they can trace you linage back over 5 thousand years by your genes don't you think they would have fond the so called gay gene if it existed by now.
So where is the gene for handedness? Is being left handed a choice or a mental defect in your opinion?
Seriously? You really believe this nonsense? " if one existed they would have found it by now." We are still in the infancy of DNA investigations. There is a huge amount of information about genes that we do not know about. Unlike God though....we do know that homosexuals exist.
And who are you to say if a homosexual becomes straight he was either not a homosexual to begin with or he is suppressing his homosexuality to become straight or if someone straight becomes a homosexual he was one from the beginning and he was just suppressing his homosexuality How are you to tell some ones feeling are real or not
If it's epigenetic, as in the examples above, then it may not involve genes so much as control of those genes. I don't personally care if there is a gay gene or not, but I'm pretty sure that gay people are born gay, just as straight people are born straight. This would explain why gay conversion therapy has been a colossal failure.
i always ask gay haters this question too - if being gay is a choice, prove it by having sex with a man and enjoying it. the fact they can't and won't kinda proves being gay is not a choice for 99% of homosexuals
Ya, homosexuality isn't a choice. Nobody has the willpower to do the complete opposite of what millions of years of evolutionary biology wills you to do.
You have an amusingly ironic point: And who are you to tell all the homosexuals who say that they have always been gay that they are wrong? You are the one starting a thread declaring that homosexuality is wrong and a mental order Who are you to say that any homosexual is wrong or mentally ill?
I hate the entire argument. I don't care why someone is gay- I know enough homosexuals to know that they just are. I think that there is a wide range of sexuality- and that is why individual exceptions will never prove the issue.
if it was in our genes wouldn't both identical (monozygotic) twins be homosexual if one was? they share the same DNA there for the same genes but there is only about 11% chance that both are homosexual just above the rate of homosexuality is in the general public and the few percentages above the general population it is can be contributed with them both being raised in the same environment
because of logic and science tells us it is a mental disorder Natural selection tells us it is not genetic because the so called gay gene would not have been passed on from generation to generation because homosexuals don't reproduce there for it is a mental defect either caused by a chemical imbalance or some other condition that causes the wrong signals in the brain. homosexuality serves no purpose in a species and can be determent to a species if in to greater numbers more proof homosexuality is not genetic because if it was both identical twins would both be homosexual if one was. there for it must be equated to another source that cause homosexuality or by choice. and when an out side source effects the workings of the brain and cause abnormal behavior it is listed as a mental disorder
First of all- that is quite the switch in topics there- from DNA to twin studies- but okay...... That is the claim of one study Of course that is not the consensus A number of studies have looked at homosexuality in twins, all with similar results. For example, in one study, if one identical twin was gay, the other was also gay 50% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were both gay 22% of the time. And if one was adopted, the chances fell to 11%. Now these numbers are from one study. Other studies have different percentages but the same trend -- identical twins are more likely to both be gay as compared to fraternal twins. This strongly suggests that there is a genetic component -- there is something in their genes that makes them more likely to be gay. Genetics, though, isn't everything. If it were, then identical twins would both be gay 100% of the time. And this clearly isn't the case. And if it were all environment, then identical twins would both be gay as often as fraternal twins. Again, this isn't the situation. http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask155 - - - Updated - - - No those are your conclusions- not logic- and not science and going back to your point And who are you to tell all the homosexuals who say that they have always been gay that they are wrong? You are the one starting a thread declaring that homosexuality is wrong and a mental order Who are you to say that any homosexual is wrong or mentally ill?
They mapped the whole genome you know. Like mapping the world, and not finding Atlantis and then saying "well just because we didnt find it doesnt mean it doesnt exist" is a child's logic as well. Seems to me it is a birth defect. That is why one twin can be straight, the other gay. It also happens do to trauma in life, sexually abused kids are more likely to be gay etc.. - - - Updated - - - This is a better argument.
