Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Gay Are people born gay?

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

Or is it a developmental error produced later in life?

This is a very important and relevant question.

CrinkzPipe

Avatar: 35643 2011-12-11 17:25:30 -0500
8

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 61 Emo Kid

Hi, I'm an adult whos into anime. ALSO male reproductive organS!

What makes you think it’s a “error”?

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

CrinkzPipe Posted:

What makes you think it’s a “error”?

cause 2 people of the same sex cant produce babies

so from an evolutionary point of view that’s bad

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

One theory I’ve heard is that homosexuality is the result of many genes working together, so each gene could individually be evolutionarily beneficial, and stay in the gene pool because of it, despite the fact that their combined effect is likely to prevent procreation.

One gene I think they may have identified had the effect of making the carrier find males more attractive, regardless of their gender. From a Darwinian standpoint that could encourage reproduction enough (when it’s in females) to persist in the gene pool, whilst also contributing to bi/homo-sexuality when it’s pbumed on to a male.

I really doubt there’s going to be any one answer – if there was a “gay gene” then evolution would kick in and remove it from the species, and if it were purely developmental then I think we’d have figured out the common factor by now. Probably a combination of many genes and some developmental stuff working to produce a person’s sexuality.

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

urm when the parents are gay are the children more likely to be gay

Amasius

Avatar: 21158 2014-04-15 12:48:22 -0400
100

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Troll

OMFG! It's in MY bum!

Inertia Posted:

urm when the parents are gay are the children more likely to be gay

So you’ve answered the question of your thread yourself, right?

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

Amasius Posted:

So you’ve answered the question of your thread yourself, right?

that was a question i forgot the question mark

?

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

If the ‘parents’ are gay, there are less likely to be children… but if there’s any genetic component to homosexuality then yes, any children from homosexual parents would have a chance of inheriting that. Would be hard to say exactly how likely without knowing what all the relevant genes are, but simplistically speaking yes.

Then there’s the developmental aspect – whether being raised by gay parents affects the likelihood of a child being gay. Which I honestly don’t know.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

I would say that “combination of genes” does sound likely.

It reminds me of the sickle cell anemia genetic abnormality; when one is merely a carrier for it, i.e. (Ss) heterozygous for the allele, the odd shape of some of the blood cells helps that person have near-immunity to malaria.

In Africa, where sickle cell originates, this is a hugely beneficial trait. The only downside is that if you’re homozygous recessive (ss) then you get sickle-cell anemia and you die. But the beneficial aspects of PART of it are what keep it from dying out of the gene pool.

Jalapeno Boo-
tyhole

MODERATOR
Avatar: 44 2012-11-06 12:31:55 -0500

[Crotch Zombie]

Level 44 Emo Kid

Happy fifth anniversary, Forumwarz! :pumpaul:

Inertia Posted:

Or is it a developmental error produced later in life?

This is a very important and relevant question.

Interesting question, although you won’t find the answer here. The debate has been going for quite a while, and I don’t believe it’s been fully resolved. I would bet that there’s a strong genetic basis to it, but it’s also influenced by culture, upbringing, demographics, etc.

Here’s a good start if you’re interested in reading about the arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

tl;dr They’ve been looking for the “gay gene” for some time now and haven’t quite found it, but they found several biological fingerprints that predict homosexual behavior, such as finger length and scalp-hair whorl rotation.

I’d also say it’s pretty offensive to call it a “developmental error.” There are many compelling evolutionary theories as to why homosexuality exists (in humans and in all species). Besides, not all sexual behavior has to contribute to procreation. If it did, blowjobs would cease to exist, and that’s not the kind of world I want to live in.

Here’s an interesting discussion, but there’s plenty more on the webs: http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-did-homosexuality-evolve.html

Afterthotz

Avatar: 187543 2010-01-24 16:13:10 -0500
28

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Hacker

I lurk much better than I post - and my lurking skills really suck.

Inertia Posted:

cause 2 people of the same sex cant produce babies

so from an evolutionary point of view that’s bad

Hmm, the clbumic nature vs nurture question. And you’re probably gonna get a little bit of flack from the ‘error’ thingy.

As for nature… well, in my opinion we’re getting very close to the breaking point in overpopulation on this planet. Our population keeps increasing exponentially while our food production only increases arithmetically. So… a couple that can’t produce offspring COULD be seen as ‘Nature- working as intended.’

And again, there are MANY different views on the source of attraction to the same sex. Personally, I truly don’t believe it’s a choice, any more than being able to choose who and/or when you fall in love. So I lean more towards the genetic side more than the nurture side.

“I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.”

twelveinch_n-
owblowme

Avatar: Code (Green)

Level 10 Hacker

“Ohacku”

How can you come to the conclusion that there is more than one gene that produces the phenotype homosexuality? Does any of you have a degree in genetics? It could be lots of different factors that produce the trait.

Did you know that your visual cortex is not fully developed when you are born? If you grow up in an environment without lines (as an example no horizontal or vertical lines) or an environment without round objects, you won’t be able to see those lines or round objects in adulthood.

Sickle cell anemia is linked to only one gene (Hb), and I don’t really understand how you can compare homosexuality with a blood disease after stating gayness is linked to multiple genes… I might have misunderstood you here though, hehe.

The human body and its development is more complex than you think.

Now to answer the question: I think that you’re born gay (linked to genetics), or that it at least develops in the very early years of life. I’m gay, and most of my other gay friends agree. I also think that more people are bisexual than what are currently thought (gays and lesbos included!). It’s been shown through surveys that more than 80% of all males would like to have sexual relations with a close friend or someone else as long as they knew it would not get out.

Love me or hate me. (read: Let the flames begin? Log in to see images! twelveinch_nowblowme edited this message on 09/20/2009 3:17PM

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

twelveinch_nowblowme Posted:

How can you come to the conclusion that there is more than one gene that produces the phenotype homosexuality? Does any of you have a degree in genetics? It could be lots of different factors that produce the trait.

I agree that there are almost certainly a lot of factors going into a person’s sexuality, at a guess I would say that several of those ‘factors’ are genes. I don’t think we’re really in disagreement here… as for ‘how can you come to the conclusion’, the evidence for their being multiple genes involved is that we have yet to isolate a specific gay gene, and if there were a single, singular purpose, gay gene (a gene that makes 100% of people gay and does nothing else) then natural selection would remove it from the gene pool. So if there’s a genetic element, which seems very likely, then it would have to involve multiple genes.

twelveinch_nowblowme Posted:

Did you know that your visual cortex is not fully developed when you are born? If you grow up in an environment without lines (as an example no horizontal or vertical lines) or an environment without round objects, you won’t be able to see those lines or round objects in adulthood.

Yes, early experience does a lot to condition your senses, I doubt it’s going to make unfamiliar things invisible (you won’t find that “you won’t be able to see those [things]”.) but it does affect what your senses are attuned to. Over in Asia where tonal languages are common, so pitch is important for the meanings of words, a much larger proportion of people have “perfect pitch”. While all this is interesting I don’t quite see the connection to the subject at hand.

twelveinch_nowblowme Posted:

Sickle cell anemia is linked to only one gene (Hb), and I don’t really understand how you can compare homosexuality with a blood disease after stating gayness is linked to multiple genes… I might have misunderstood you here though, hehe.

The comparison to Sickle Cell Anaemia is relevant to the idea that a gene involved in homosexuality could be selected for by evolution, despite it being detrimental to the odds of a carrier having children. If the gene is beneficial enough in one case, it can outweigh it’s evolutionary downsides in another case and cause the gene, overall, to be selected for. The gene for sickle-cells is beneficial when you have one copy, detrimental if you have 2, but resistance to malaria is a valuable enough trait for the gene to stay in the pool. In the same way, a “find men more attractive” gene would get itself pbumed on more frequently when it’s in a woman, but less frequently when in men, and overall could still be selected for.

twelveinch_nowblowme Posted:

The human body and its development is more complex than you think.

I’m sure it’s highly complex, but that’s no reason to not speculate, and we’re not pretending to know everything about it.

twelveinch_nowblowme Posted:

Now to answer the question: I think that you’re born gay (linked to genetics), or that it at least develops in the very early years of life. I’m gay, and most of my other gay friends agree. I also think that more people are bisexual than what are currently thought (gays and lesbos included!). It’s been shown through surveys that more than 80% of all males would like to have sexual relations with a close friend or someone else as long as they knew it would not get out.

Sexuality’s a complicated thing, doesn’t drop neatly into “straight”, “gay” or “bi”, everyone’s going to be attracted to different things in different ways. Most people are strongly hetero, but even then you might have a weak attraction to some people of the same sex as well.

man-man edited this message on 09/20/2009 3:46PM

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

twelveinch_nowblowme Posted:

Sickle cell anemia is linked to only one gene (Hb), and I don’t really understand how you can compare homosexuality with a blood disease after stating gayness is linked to multiple genes… I might have misunderstood you here though, hehe.

The point of the comparison is that not everything potentially detrimental to procreation gets killed out of the gene pool by evolution. I specifically used a simple comparison involving a single gene for that reason.

As far as my opinion on the whole ordeal, I know for a fact I have been a deviant since earliest memory, so I would lean towards the “You’re born the way you are,” or at LEAST that you’re born pre-disposed to certain activities and interests, and that nurture helps cement that.

However, I also know for a fact that I’ve gotten progressively more deviant over time and gotten interested in things I used to care less about, so I also acknowledge that inclinations change. I would bumume that most exclusively gay men with no hint of attraction to women are born that way, and that most bisexuals are merely open-minded and enjoy experimenting, while not necessarily evolutionarily hardwired into that.

Celerysteve

Avatar: 61989 2011-12-28 11:21:37 -0500
24

[Temple of the Anth-
ropomorphic Majesty
]

Level 35 Troll

Right from the moment when I saw Saw, I laughed.

There’s plenty of evidence on both sides of this because both are possible. Why are people so set on it being one way or another? You can be born gay, or it can develop later in life. It’s like anything else. Any kind of behavior can be learned through exposure and repetition at an early developmental stage in life. For example, some kids learn bad behavior from having neglectful or irresponsible parents. But on he day I was born, the nurses all gathered ‘round and they gazed in wide wonder, at the joy they had found. The head nurse spoke up, and she said leave this one alone. She could tell right away, that I was bad to the bone

elenaratelim-
it

Avatar: 24791 2010-03-21 18:12:06 -0400
17

[Team Shortbus]

Level 44 Troll

chica bonita

What is a homosexual? The conduct? The identity? What components create that identity? Where do bisexuals fall within the scheme? Where do transgendered people fall? Hermaphrodites? People with both chromosomes but externally another? What about civilizations like the Greek one where men had male lovers but also had wives and family, and there was no thing as a ‘homosexual’? Is homosexual a social construction of a specific act or is it also the identity of the person or is it both and where do you draw the line? Read some Foucault he makes good arguments.

The nature v. nurture argument has not been settled in this field. Furthermore statistics show that most people have homosexual thoughts/actions during their entire lifetime, and very few people fall 100% strictly into the heterosexual/homosexual side as it is more like a continuum (Kinsey is a good starting point).

Furthermore does it matter? Religious people choose their religion yet still have rights; black people are born black yet still were discriminated against.

These discussions bother me as they detract from the reality of the issue… what people do in their bedrooms and who they love has no real rhyme or reason, can’t be labeled or put into a box, and it ultimately shouldn’t matter.

elenaratelim-
it

Avatar: 24791 2010-03-21 18:12:06 -0400
17

[Team Shortbus]

Level 44 Troll

chica bonita

Also, as far as the ‘developmental error’ – that is very Freudian of you but also a misrepresentation of the entirety of what he wrote on this. In any case that is symptomatic of the general problem in the discourse for this subject matter; due to it being clbumified as a disorder by the psychiatric community of the past – and although it has been removed since – the stigma has never completely been eradicated.

Cheins Sanch-
ez

Avatar: 64305 2010-01-24 16:17:15 -0500
14

[The Airship]

Level 36 Troll

Rex Sacrorum

Everything can be labeled and categorized. It bothers me when people try to avoid doing it. I agree with people who say that homosexuality can come from both nature and nurture.

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

elenaratelimit Posted:

a bunch ‘o stuff

It’s really much easier than you’re making it – words like homosexual, bisexual, hermaphrodite, they all have fairly clear meanings, it only gets complicated when you try and load them down with more meaning than they ought to have (which leads to confusion when a person only fits half of the elaborate structure of meaning you’ve built).

When you start saying “Is homosexual a social construction of a specific act or is it also the identity of the person or is it both” you’re muddying the water. Homosexual, as a word, means nothing more than sexual attraction to members of the same sex. It’s right there in the word – homo = same, sexual… you figure it out. When you start attaching identity to it you’re inevitably going to find 2 people who both want to **** people of the same sex, but have polar opposites of character/identity in every other conceivable way. No need to complicate things, it’s just a description of what you want to have sex with.

Same goes for hetero or bi – hetero = different, bi = 2. Chromosomal anomalies and intersex/transexual are not sexual orientations with regards what people are attracted to, they refer to the physical or genetic makeup of a person.

Really the only part of what you said that I think is all that useful is about sexuality being a spectrum – some people are clear cut homo- or hetero- sexual, others sit in the middle or have differing amounts of attraction to either sex, and drawing lines between hetero and homo and bi is going to be difficult, but that only matters if you feel the need to clbumify people and want to draw extra meaning from their clbumification than just the bare truth of what the word means; if it really doesn’t matter to you then everyone can just clbumify themselves according to what they feel is right and then we can have done with it

Returning to a point… “what people do in their bedrooms and who they love has no real rhyme or reason, can’t be labeled or put into a box, and it ultimately shouldn’t matter”. What a person is attracted to might change or be inconsistent, but I think more often people know what they like, and then we’re going to need some word to describe common preferences. It’s not putting a person “in a box” to say that they’re heterosexual unless you then start adding all kinds of things to the definition of heterosexual other than the bit about what they’re attracted to. Or I suppose if you said they weren’t allowed to be “mostly hetero but…” then it’d be unnecessary pigeonholing…

Posted:

Everything can be labeled and categorized. It bothers me when people try to avoid doing it.

This. Trying to say we shouldn’t have a word for something just because the definitions aren’t absolute is a cop-out. There are a lot of useful concepts that couldn’t be exhaustively defined in a million years.

man-man edited this message on 09/20/2009 7:56PM

elenaratelim-
it

Avatar: 24791 2010-03-21 18:12:06 -0400
17

[Team Shortbus]

Level 44 Troll

chica bonita

That’s the point man man, if sexuality is a spectrum then really “homosexual” and “heterosexual” and “bisexual” aren’t as clear cut as it seems, and when you actually start to go in deeper the waters ARE muddy. (Not to mention how the power of these simple “labels” affect the life of millions).

All these discussions, all these meanings of the word…filter into the law and into the jurisprudence. As do the stereotypes that come as a consequence from the social construction.

The fact that different societies and throughout history different cultures haven’t all had a word like “homosexual” or “bisexual” to define people based on certain same-sex conduct shows how a large part of it IS a social construction.

And again what is homosexual – is it the act with someone else? If it is just the act, what about people that do the act and don’t consider themselves homosexual? What about people that consider themselves homosexual but have never had any homosexual interaction on a physical level?

What about men that turn themselves into women and date other women but don’t consider themselves homosexual and consider themselves straight? I guess you could be extremist and put everything into categories of categories, but that kind of misses the subtlety of human interaction and thought process.

Sorry man-man but your oversimplifications hold no water and hows your lack of education on the subject. Essentialism in its purest form, just like social construction… is a logical fallacy. Real life falls somewhere in the middle.

Homosexual is not just ‘a word’ describing ‘a sex act’; it is a term laden with meaning. In fact when using the word, most people immediately envision gay males – not lesbians (lesbians and bisexuals are largely ignored in this discourse, especially bisexuals precisely because they represent the uncomfortable truth about labels).

This sums it up pretty well, speaking on Foucault

”... The point of critiquing gay identity was not to disqualify it, or to do away with sexual labels altogether, or to advocate some avant-garde suspension of all sexual meaning and all sexual categories. Rather, the point of critiquing gay identity was to open the way to the formation new multiplicities of gay identities which the insistence on a singular, already established and defined gay identity served to impede.”

elenaratelimit edited this message on 09/20/2009 8:36PM
Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!