/sci/ - Science & Math

Genetics

>>3037115
It literally can't be genetics.

>>3037120
Epigenetics

>>3037120

> it is

I think that if it could be conditioned from childhood that there would be a lot less greeks. What with their condoning of anal sex with men as long as you didn't receive.

Genetics seems more likely, or at least some sort of stress during gestation.

>>3037127
Then why aren't their families of gay people?

>>3037133
I doubt it, seems like most human behavior is conditioned.

>>3037132

well, look at it this way. maybe there is a sliding scale from 0 to 1 on how much you prefer a certain type of sex. 0 being exclusively heterosexual, 1 being exclusively homosex. If the father is .2 than he might find, say, traps attractive. The mother may be .5, and be essentially open to either sex, but marries a man because it is just easier and expected.

The children could hypothetically be anywhere from 0 to .7, depending on the relative number of genes they received.

the .7 kid would like the cock.

It's a really simplified explanation with no backing evidence, but it makes sense and deserves to be tested.

>>3037152

not really.

I get off to insects fucking people. Am I the product of genetics which provides me greater susceptibility to sexual targeting imprinting? or am I the product of conditioning through being fucked by bugs?

>>3037158
Interesting theory although I disagree. But hey, no one knows.

The more older brothers you have, the more you probably like being fisted while a faggot felches in your mouth. Has do do with hormones or something.

>>3037168
Your sexual paraphilia isn't merely comparable to homosexuality. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are comparable, but not a gay and a furry, for instance.

Sexual orientations =/= sexual deviance

I believe people are born having no sexual preference, and grow a sexuality through personal experiences and their upbringing.

There's no definite factor on how someone will end up down the road, because you can never tell what will happen next.

>>3037182

Maybe it has to do with the age of the woman.

I would if that study corrected for that. Woman who give birth later on have kids with more developmental defects. could be a factor in homosex.

interesting fact though, from my personal life: my friends father was gay, but stayed in the closet for his life and had three kids. then moved off to become a gay barber, but the youngest son is flamboyantly gay, my friend however likes chicks with dicks, I know because I looked up some porn with him, and he was looking through some crazy ass futa/milking porn. The daughter of the family is very boyish, but still dates guys.

It seems like some shit went down genetically.

>rare biological trait
>rare

>>3037194

I think the only thing differing sexual orientation and sexual deviance is definition.

Really it amounts to basically the same thing in failure of reproductive ability.

Demonic possession. A well-groomed demon who likes ABBA.

>>3037204
Are you stupid?

it is the hormones they get in utero

>>3037206
You can have an heterosexual with a certain paraphilia (let's say sadism), so even from this point of view, it isn't merely a question of definition since one can "complete" the other one.

Furthermore, the deviances are abnormals behaviours (sometimes both from a social and a psychological point of view) and acquired, developped or conditionned (to a certain extent). A zoophile doesn't born with a desire to other animals no more than someone borns with the desire of corpses.

Also, people usually have a preference from birth to either men or women, not trees, bugs, fire or whatever.

>>3037200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation

Kids just learn from tv to be gay, from celebrities like Elton John and whatnot.

Blame MTV.

>>3037233

I always got off on my paraphilia from a young age.

even before I was capable of masturbating

>>3037230
That's my preferred explanatory model as well, to be honest. I'm not really persuaded by any of the genetic arguments, but I do believe that homosexual predispositions develop prenatally, and that subsequent cultural and environmental factors play only a minor contributing role.

it's brainwashing by the media, same reason trannies exist

>>3037107

No one is gay. Real homosexuality is a myth.

The fact is that most people are bi-sexual with a sexual preference for a specific types.

The vast majority of people prefer the opposite sex and because they are not that interested in same sex coupling and because society disapproves of homos so strongly they don't bother to act out any homo tendencies they have.

A smaller percentage of people prefer same sex coupling over the opposite sex but this isn't any different from preferring blondes or Asians.

No one would claim their is a gene that makes certain guys prefer Asian women... so why the fuck do people think there is a gene which makes guys like to suck cock?

Think of how many gay people come out after having been married or even had children... there is obviously some sexual desire towards the opposite sex even though they may prefer same sex coupling.

>>3037297
Data?

>>3037255
So you got off before any hormonal factors kicked in? That's interesting, but not surprising.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals, from a young age, are attracted to either same or opposite sex, but usually (citation needed) they don't "get off" until puberty kicks in or they are initiated to sexuals practices at a very young age. So, you being sexually aroused to bugs in early childhood could be a environmental factor for you should feel sexually aroused at a very young age.

Take paedophiles. Some, at a very young age, feel sexual attirance to younger than them. Sexual play, early sexual deviance or natural sexual orientation? The latter seems less plausible taken in account the researches (never heard of a society where they were commonly fucking corpses; paraphilias are considered not inherent).

Then again, just writing for writing.

By the way, how prevalent is homosexuality in the human race?

Also, why is no one considering homosexuality a sickness? I mean, it's something that doesn't work as expected to the body, not fatal but still a sickness.

>>3037324
>By the way, how prevalent is homosexuality in the human race?

>In the modern West, according to major studies, 2% to 13% of the population are homosexual. A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although relatively few participants in the study identified themselves as homosexual.

>>3037316

I'm of the opinion that there is a set of genes which makes people more open to imprinting of a certain kind.

It makes sense evolutionarily. 2 guys are incapable of finding mates, they are inferior to the alpha male. the alpha male doesn't want a certain woman because she doesn't match his standards, maybe she is hideous. one of those guys has the ability to get off on something other than her looks, like say: her feet. he proceeds to fuck her with the help of his desire for her feet, the other guy can't fuck her enjoyably because she is hideous, and the relationship doesn't work out for anything worthwhile towards reproduction.

homosex is likely controlled by some other set of genes.

>>3037324

Basically, it is not a mental illness until it posesses distress or disability for the person itself or possess a distress or potential danger for others (pedophilia, psychopaths).

I have a mutation in a gene for metabolism of billirubin (Gilberts syndrome), rendering the enzyme insufficient. There are no proven negative effects, quite the opposite, it protects against cardiovascular diseases. But still, it does not work as expected in normal body. Is it an illness?

>>3037345
This example is innapropriate in my opinion for it is not accurate to the situation.

It would be hard to say evolution has something to do with it. First, we have to find if it's really a gene mutation. Then, we have to find the prevalence troughout history of man kind (has it lowered up or is it higher).

>>3037324

well, if you consider it a sickness, that implies that there is a cure, or a treatment. Even if it doesn't exist there will be misguided people who will attempt to fix that sickness without knowing anything about how it works.

That leads to some really bad shit. like Turing. the government position with homosexuality in Turings time was that it was a sickness that could be treated. So they gave him a bunch of hormones that made him grow boobs and lose the ability to get an erection. So he killed himself.

You should find the cause of something before you go about trying to fix it, or declare it a sickness. Otherwise you can cause more harm than good.

I read something about a team of scientist that removed or added a gene to/from a goat, turning to homosex.
It's a few years ago and I don't know shit about biology

preached on everyday, become a religionfag
lived among wolves, become a wolfboy
science all day, become an atheist
get stupid a day, become a fag

>>3037324
If the only criterion for something being a sickness is that it's not expected, then even things considered positive (like strength or intelligence) would be sicknesses.

>>3037383
>If the only criterion for something being a sickness is that it's not expected
I don't know where you got this from, but that's neither a literal, nor a medical definition.

>>3037386
Explains why there are no fags in fag-hating communities.

>>3037120
>>3037120
Gays care more for the family and their nephews and nieces than straight siblings.
Hence the gay gene is a good recessive trait because it ensures that your genes live on through your siblings.

That is also the reason why many gay guys have older, straight brothers.

>>3037132
See
>>3037244

/thread

>>3037297
I tend to agree with this. I don't think I've known a single guy that hasn't had some level of sexual attraction to another guy, subtle or not. Plenty of "straight" guys that are perfectly willing to get into gay sex as well.

Women are even more obvious about it because it's socially acceptable.

>>3037400

>implying ted haggard is gay and wasn't tricked by the devil

I LOVE this topic, OP!

I have a gay cousin, I love him so very much, like an older brother. But I've always been curious as to why he was born gay. I once read/heard about a theory saying that women who go through trauma during their pregnancy have some sort of hormonal dysfunction that affects the child. My aunt is a bit insane and I heard she did some fucked up shit, but I highly doubt that she went through trauma.

I dunno, I like to think that we are all born bisexual (I think girls are gorgeous, but would I fuck a ho? Nah, I'll stick to dicks and balls, thank you), but that society has conditioned (here we go) us to certain stereotypes of the sexes.

For example, I spend a summer with my little cousins (we come from a strong Latin background) and I asked them if they wanted to watch Iron Man (that or fucking High School Musical) the three of them looked at me and said,"Ew no, that's a boy's movie!" "It's too violent and there's blood everywhere!"
My fucking face was pure disbelief, I grew up seeing animals getting slaughtered and rough housing with boys, but when I got to high school, that's where I noticed girls were fucking caked up and dressing more feminine than me. I think it was the competition, or more so the pressure, to give in and dress the same as my sex caused me to cave in and become more feminine.

With gays though, I'm really proud of those who are openly gay, whether they are butch or not, to not conform to the norms of society (shit damn, can you imagine for those living in repressive societies that encourage machismo?).

...I have no answer OP, but those are my thoughts. :)

>>3037297
hey thar freud, how goes it?

>>3037459
Does your gay cousin have an older brother?

@ Everyone watch this BBC documentary. It is with/partially about John Barrowman but bear with me it explains a POSSIBLE BUT VERY COHERENT theory on the reasons for homosexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxZ7f0NRFmE&feature=related

It seems most likely to me that different homosexuals can have different "reasons" for being that way, and that for each one, a number of different factors lead up to it. Both genetics and environment certainly being among those factors (For the development of your personal identity, it's rarely ever just one or the other, so I don't see why people seem to think it would be for this).

I even think that some few could be gay as a choice without condemning them all ones who have chosen homosexuality.

"nature" via "nurture."

QED

Faggot here. I've been gay, and known so (that I was interested in boys, rather than that I was gay), since around the age of three. if it IS conditioned, then it's something that gets learnt extremely early. I suspect it's more to do with prenatal interaction with a mother's immune system, rather than to do with a definite genetic cause. There's no scientific consensus though.

why does there have to be ONE path to a trait/behavior?

Humans are complicated, I'm sure there's more than one "thing" that makes people gay.

Ok fags.
Listen.

Its not genes or social conditioning.
Its a bit of both with some twist.

First big mistake all people make is to assume certain things.

The 100% Straight Male is a pure social conditioning.
There is no 100%.
Actually there is no %.

This isn't how biology works.

Gawdd, am to bored to write this again, i probably should save everytime i write long posts.

Main thing is that you are all following a wrong path.
For someone to deduce something they must induce another first.
And your inductions are purely wrong and half -if not zero- minded.

Homosexuality is evil


Pic related it's magnets
+- = OKAY
++ = NO
-- = NO

>>3038027
>>3038027
this documentary looks awesome.

Thx!

Humans find humans attractive, film at 11.

>>3038027
i'm watching it now, looks good but everytime he gets embarrassed and giggles and jumps around it makes me uncomfortable. probably because inside i do that, but dont' show it it. i try very very hard to remain cool and calm and still all the time.

i'm not gay though, i just think vaginas are awful. love tits and hips though.

>>3038138
John Barrowman is a good actor but kinda annoying in real life.

Yet scientifically this is the highest BBC standard we are talking about.
it won't give a definitive answer but it gives a good insight on the nature vs. nurture part of this debate.
I urge you to sit through the rather annoying part it is worth it.

>>3038027
part two is blocked but not the others? wat?

My theory is homosexuality developed during the thousands of years humans were hunters and gatherers living in small tribes. The women would stay at "home" and pick berries and watch the kids while the men would go hunt big game animals. This could take days and weeks at a time.

I think the dominant male would pick a more submissive male he was hunting with and fuck him if he wanted to. He was in charge, he would do what he wanted. Over the course of a few thousand years the offspring of the submissive male would join different tribes, take over leadership, take on a more dominant role in different societies, etc.

Now here we are today and the submissive male has evovled right alongside the dominate male and surely reproduced along the way.

I think homosexuality is an evolutionary behavoir some people are more likely to have based on their ancestors.

IE - gentic

If you don't agree with me that's fine. It's my own personal theory. If it's an actualy known theory somewhere then that's fine, too. I think I'm on the right track.

>>3038165
half the parts are blocked and I can't find workign links to every part so i'm just not goign to bother.

>>3037297

Gotta agree. It seems far more likely that most people are bisexual. That would fit the kinsey scale.

>>3038181
>>3038165
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6a035_the-making-of-me-john-barrowman-2-o_shortfilms

I believe the 4th
>bisexual from birth but convince ourselves otherwise as we grow up

>>3038183
While I agree keep in mind that Kinsey used to have bisexual orgies with his students.

So he may have been biased. but further research seemingly proves his point.

>>3038196
i bought a huge biography of Kinsey, I can't wait to read it now...

My hypothesis;

Orientation is like handedness. We have variation as a result of the plasticity of the systems that either control mate mate selection, or manipulation of objects, respectively. And plasticity in these areas is incredibly adaptive. Left handedness and nonstandard orientations are just the outliers on this cline.

Almost like sickle cell and malarial resistance, except of course, that orientation or handedness aren't intrinsically harmful to an individual like the sickle cell.

>>3038183

People still have strong preferences. They can just learn to enjoy those things they once didn't like (if you've ever been to /d/ you know what I mean).

The idea of sexuality as a binary is fairly poisonous, though, and it is supported by both sides. Heteronormative-fags say you're either normal, or you're a freak. Homo-accepting-fags say that it is not even slightly a choice. Obviously both are wrong, but so long as some people hold the former position, it is dangerous for those to give up the latter position.

>>3038027

The way he explained the nurture argument made him sound biased.

I don't quite understand why gay people think its such an insult to say that being homosexual has been a result of their environment. Tour environment and upbringing are just as out of your hands as if it was genetics, which, in my opinion, makes no sense. I'm speaking as a gay person myself.

Oh, and the whole gay culture thing you see nowadays is just stupid and makes me mad. I think, more than anything, the reason gays are prejudiced is because of all the promiscuity and asinine in-your-face attitude.

My own theory is that everyone is bisexual and people just have sexual preferences rather than orientations.

If someone likes blondes we don't think he has a blonde orientation or that the desire for blondness must be a genetic trait we just assume that sexuality is fairly fluid and people get a taste for certain things. A guy who likes blondes will probably also fuck brunettes, they are just not his first choice.

The same thing goes for gays. Most gay guys have probably fucked girls in the past (or wanted to).

The idea that their are only three states of sexuality (straight: only likes girls, bi:like guys and girls equally, gay:only likes guys) is probably wrong.

It's far more likely that most people who are straight have at least some gay thoughts but don't follow through on them because they prefer girls to guys. It's also far more likely that most gays have at least some straight desires but don't follow through on them because they prefer guys to girls.

My own theory is that blah blah I have no data on any of the shit I'm spewing.

>>3038220

>I don't quite understand why gay people think its such an insult to say that being homosexual has been a result of their environment

It's because of the way the gay civil rights movement is formed. Gays argue that sexuality is never a choice and people who dislike gays are the same as racists.

Evidence takes second place to political manoeuvring.

>>3038270
Except that the evidence doesn't actually point to environmental factors as primary causes of homosexuality, so I have no idea why you brought that up.

Evolution conditions us to want to fuck/get sexual release.

Our upbringing helps cement how we try to go about this.

Homosexuality is a normal genetic-environmental occurrence resulting from the domestication of a species.

This is why wild animals don't normally show displays of homosexual activity: homosexual traits are not favorable thanks to natural selection and natural selection doesn't apply as heavily to domesticated species.

Also try not to get homosexual actions confused with dominance actions in wild animals.

Now, the biological premise is thought to be directly linked with the differential expression of androgen receptor related genes in primates. Oversimplified: androgen receptors have 3 factors (A, B, and C) and the code for the androgen receptor. Peripheral tissues express A and B and the Brain expresses B and C. It is shown that homosexuals don't respond to factor C very well.

Also because of know fact of differential expression, responses can be graded and thus homosexuality can be graded as well... see >>3037297


Also remember that the key to homosexuality is that MALES with Aromatase mutations are MALES that look like MALES, behave like MALES and are raised as MALES....but are attracted to MALES. The MALES that behave like FEMALES that are attracted to MALES are actually TRANSGENDER.

For further reading, look up CAH syndrome, Aromatase mutation behaviors and other papers regarding homosexuality.

/neuroscience!

>>3038270

This is in a response to the accusation laid against homosexuality as a moral failing. The gay rights movement did not invent being 'born gay' out of whole cloth. And until people stop caring about who other people fuck, it could be actually dangerous for them to back down from it.

Yes, it's political. But the reason lies with the homophobic position.

>>3038292

Also it is a common theme in biology when two theories with conflicting ideologies both show proof, the actual mechanism both theories are trying to describe is usually some weird fusion of both.

For example, back in the day it was either CHEMICAL synapses or ELECTRICAL synapses. Now we know that is actually an ELECTROCHEMICAL synapse.

>>3038292

Except that every wild animal anybody cares to examine shows signs of homosexuality.

Dominance actions are another thing entirely, and only found in certain animals.

Bonobo's practice homosexuality as readily as heterosexuality, as a form of grooming.

Given that we are closest to Bonobo's, it is likely that sex can (and obvious that it DOES) serve a similar function in humans.

>>3038201
the orgy part is often neglected for whatever reason. point being Kinsey himself was an outed bisexual so you may said he tried to justify his life style scientifically.

>>3038220
John Barrowman is the narrator. He is gay himself but that is the only reason why he was deemed suitable for this documentary. the experts and researchers have good points and show a variety of explanations, that's why I still recommend this film.

Barrowman's logic is that nobody would choose to be a somewhat discriminated minority which is logical.
Yet one of the sure things is that the sexuality is fixed really really early so the influences are subconscious. In the end it rarely matters for adults.

>>3038292

Then you realize gender is a social construct

>>3038330

Well trolled.

>>3038315

>Except that every wild animal anybody cares to examine shows signs of homosexuality.

That was noted and you are correct. Please also note that I said "don't normally display", not "don't display at all". Homosexual actions are more frequent in domesticated animals.

Dominance actions are another thing entirely, and only found in certain animals.

Dominance are very prominent in mammals closely related to us. Also that is duely noted, and I also mention it as to not confuse people. Thank you for repeating me.

Bonobo's practice homosexuality as readily as heterosexuality, as a form of grooming.

But do they replace homosexuality with heterosexuality?

Given that we are closest to Bonobo's, it is likely that sex can (and obvious that it DOES) serve a similar function in humans.

If you say that we their is evidence as sex being used for fun then you are correct. But I am giving a very molecular based example of homosexuality.

>>3038315

>>3038315

>Except that every wild animal anybody cares to examine shows signs of homosexuality.

That was noted and you are correct. Please also note that I said "don't normally display", not "don't display at all". Homosexual actions are more frequent in domesticated animals.

>Dominance actions are another thing entirely, and only found in certain animals.

Dominance are very prominent in mammals closely related to us. Also that is duely noted, and I also mention it as to not confuse people. Thank you for repeating me. Also there are experimental studies showing that comparing non-primates to primates in terms of sexuality can be difficult.

>Bonobo's practice homosexuality as readily as heterosexuality, as a form of grooming.

But do they replace homosexuality with heterosexuality?

>Given that we are closest to Bonobo's, it is likely that sex can (and obvious that it DOES) serve a similar function in humans.

If you say that we their is evidence as sex being used for fun then you are correct. But I am giving a very molecular based example of homosexuality.

Why are people like >>3038330 posting on this board?

I don't see what the confusion is all about.
Guys turn gay because of all the sexy men.

>>3038356
>>3038356
Where the fuck do you get your infos?
Westboro Baptist Church?

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

>>3038356
Giraffes have more gay than straight sex, dud.

>>3038344

>That was noted and you are correct. Please also note that I said "don't normally display", not "don't display at all". Homosexual actions are more frequent in domesticated animals.

It was my understanding that there was no difference. In higher animals (birds and mammals), it's found with roughly the same frequency in all populations.

>Dominance are very prominent in mammals closely related to us. Also that is duely noted, and I also mention it as to not confuse people. Thank you for repeating me.

I understand. It's just that dominance actions also seems to be a motivation for at least some homosexual (and indeed heterosexual) behavior in humans. Some, but far from all. So to imply that any observations of ersatz homosexual behavior in higher animals can be explained away as dominance would be slightly misleading.

>But do they replace homosexuality with heterosexuality?

I assume you mean, do they practice homosexuality to the exclusion of heterosexuality. If this is what you mean, then no. They are incredibly fluid. Literally everyone fucks everyone in almost every way humans do, with only mother-son relations being notably rare. For them sex is no longer dominance, or strongly linked to mating rights, it is a form of grooming, like I say.

>If you say that we their is evidence as sex being used for fun then you are correct. But I am giving a very molecular based example of homosexuality.

Indeed. And I am curious to learn anything about the whole thing.


I just want to be careful not to imply any kind of moral dimension when it comes to homosexuality. Excuse me if I seem sensitive, you can understand that many anti-homosexual arguments start with the reasons it is counter-adaptive, or unnatural, and then grow from there.

>>3038364

Because feminism.

According to feminists gender is a social construct. They also like pushing the idea that humans have the same sexual patterns as Bonobo monkeys as it fits their political ideology.

>>3038411

When it's obvious humans practice a set of mating patterns that we see in any and all of the great apes, and many, many more.

>>3038411
which is what?

>>3038411

If gender is not a social construct the for fuck sakes someone please explain emos

>>3038425
Are you 12? What is this?

>>3038372
>>3038373

I feel that you didn't read what I was saying.

I am explaining a molecular-genetic theory I posted on >>3038292 of homosexuality, not an anti-homosexual argument. I am also explaining that homosexuality has varying normality amongst species as in MORE PREVALENT in higher up mammals and more so in domesticated species.

Overall, behavior can be broken down to the most basic molecular level eventually. There are molecular explanations for SADNESS, to say that homosexuality cannot be explained by a molecular model is absurd...but you guys were not implying that.

As I see it, homosexuality isn't a choice and can be altered on the genetic level by environmental effects post and prenatally. The fact that homosexuality is a genetic difference already implies that it can be a graded difference due to differential gene expression, therefore there is no 100% homosexual person, but one that is 87% or 62% or 50% or 10%... i mean would you consider you unconditional love for your bother homosexual? Also where do you think bromance falls into all this?

Also your westboro comment confuses me extremely.

I'm bisexual and it goes back as far as I can remember.

I've had sex with both men and women and I really don't see the difference between the two (apart from the obvious).