/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4615584]

I have some questions about homosexuality, from a scientific stand point.
So, I've heard it said a lot, usually by gay advocate groups, that the gay brain is "different", that it is shaped a certainw ay and that is why you are gay. transgenders often make a similiar argument. i guess there's some rudimentary studies that have been done to support this thesis.
But this doesn't seem logical to me. Wouldn't being a homosexual be the equivalent of a dead end gene , a defect? I mean from the point of view of passing itself on to the next generation.
I've heard some psychiatrists say that a lot of homosexual men are actually just childhood trauma victims reenacting their molestation. That Tv shrink guy Dr. Drew caught a lot of criticism for saying this publicly in the media, and also for pointing out that years of anal sex is bad for your sphincter.The second statement seems self evident to me, but whatever, I guess it's hate speech now.Anyways, this seems like a valid hypothesis to me.It would explain why, despite not having offspring, there seem to be more and more gay men every generation.
yes, young uns, your generation is gayer than mine, that's a fucking fact.
tl dr If being gay is a matter of nature and not nurture, how is the gay gene passing itself along?They don't reproduce.Can you be turned gay?

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615600]

There is no gay gene, not a single gene at least (it would never be passed to the next generation and would go extinct)
It will be a variety of genes working together to produce the effect, and the environment will have a large effect on this as well.

>Can you be turned gay?
Yes, the military was even considering working on a weapon to induce this.

Here is an example of a person who turned gay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2058921/Chris-Birch-stroke-Rugby-player-wakes-gay-freak-gy
m-accident.html

[Anonymous No.4615611]

I turned gay because I got sick of women bitching.

[Anonymous No.4615613]

Because it doesn't fucking work this way. There's no such thing as a gene which when present makes you gay. Homosexuality is the result of many factors, most of which operate in the womb.

[Anonymous No.4615622]

Homosexuality in primates is usually practiced by beta males who cannot get their mating urges satisifed with a female. They practice fucking each other till they get a chance to sneak inot a pussy when the alpha is not watching.
inb4 bonobos, those guys are just sluts and chronic fappers.

[Anonymous No.4615625]

>>4615584
>But this doesn't seem logical to me. Wouldn't being a homosexual be the equivalent of a dead end gene , a defect?
If so, then how does it not make sense in regards to the claim that homosexual brains are different? If homosexuality is a birth defect, then a physical deficiency/abnormality wouldn't contradict this theory.

>tl dr If being gay is a matter of nature and not nurture
"Nature" is not synonymous with "genetic". It could very well be something like a hormonal dysfunction of the mother affecting her prenatal child, and still be a "birth defect" rather than a psychological issue.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615627]

>>4615611
You can not choose your sexuality; it is beyond your control.

[Anonymous No.4615628]

>>4615613
This is not what gay advocates say, why is that?
Why do homosexuals so violently reject the idea of being gay as a choice?

[Anonymous No.4615633]

>>4615628
He didn't say anything about it being a choice, you dumb fuck. Just that there's most likely not a single, clearly identifiable genetic cause.

[Anonymous No.4615634]

>>4615628
Because then we wouldn't have to recognise their rights to distort values and establishments every single decent American holds true.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615637]

>>4615628
Because if something is your choice, you can be blamed for it and held accountable for your actions.
If it is not a choice, they should be free from negative judgement.

[Anonymous No.4615639]

>>4615625
It doesnt make sense in the fact that a defect which prohibits you from fucking females also prevents you from having babies. Ergo, being gay should be a genetic dead end, which means there should be less and less of them with each generation, not more and more.
Oh and for future reference anything of a biological origin would fall under "nature" rather than "nurture". Prenatal hormones would fall under nature. Also, could youy summarize this prenatal hormone theory for me?

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615649]

>>4615639
Gay couples can still use a surrogate and undergo IVF with their own sperm.
They will genetically be the father; gay men can reproduce.

[Anonymous No.4615653]

>>4615633
>ad hominems
Ohhh touched a nerve I see. so, if there's no readily identifiable genetic way to determine homosexuality, then it must be learned behaviour and not an inborn trait, right?
But I guess it's hard to claim to be an oppressed minority if you are choosing to be one, rather than being born one.

[Anonymous No.4615652]

>>4615628
Because it usually comes along with stupid christian arguments why gays are bad. If it stands alone, it doesn't really matter.
I might have sounded agressive, I didn't want that. I apologize for that.

[Anonymous No.4615655]

>>4615637
I'm gay now, and I think it was a choice because I chose to do it. I've been married twice. I chose to be gay after because it's just bullshit being married.

[Anonymous No.4615664]

>>4615649
Well science can create all sorts of things now that weren't possible before. Im saying, genetically speaking, if being gay was purely an inborn trait, it should have dwindled out almost completely by now.
Honestly I think a lot of them are just molestation survivors .What do you think about the "Dracula" theory of repeating sexual abuse over generations?

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615670]

>>4615655
You must be bisexual, and you have always been; straight men would not be able to make the choice to magically find other men attractive just by willpower.

>>4615664
I said it was not a specific gene, but multiple genes do affect this.

>Honestly I think a lot of them are just molestation survivors
There are no scientific studies that show being molested is more likely to make one homosexual.

>What do you think about the "Dracula" theory of repeating sexual abuse over generations?
I am not aware of it.
I will check.

[Anonymous No.4615673]

>>4615664
Saying that homosexuality stems from negative sexual experience is probably worse than saying it's a choice. Go to a local gay bar and ask how many of them have been raped.
It might be one of the causes, but it certainly isn't the main cause.

[Anonymous No.4615678]

>>4615639
>Ergo, being gay should be a genetic dead end, which means there should be less and less of them with each generation, not more and more.
Yeah, and I just told you that your error in reasoning is this false dichotomy of homosexuality being either purely psychological or dominantly genetic. There are all kinds of birth defects and congenital disorders that are not related to genetics at all.

>Also, could youy summarize this prenatal hormone theory for me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

If the wiki shit's too pleb for you, just scroll right down to the proper studies.

[Anonymous No.4615679]

>>4615664
Do you understand you inherit an x Chromosome from the mother? Do you understand you live in her for 9 months? and that all babies are female template (a cheap analogy with template deal with it) in the womb for a few weeks or months?

Heres the thing about the whole dead end gene shit, It's just that.
The female body is always fighting with the foetus.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615691]

>>4615679
>The female body is always fighting with the foetus.
What is that supposed to mean? The female body sustains the foetus.

[Anonymous No.4615694]

>>4615664

>if being gay was purely an inborn trait, it should have dwindled out almost completely by now.

This question is asked at least once a month. Try Google.

>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-hom
osexuality.html

>One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).

Similar to the evolution of altruism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations

>if there's no readily identifiable genetic way to determine homosexuality, then it must be learned behaviour and not an inborn trait, right?

No, complex diseases, disorders, and traits are hard to identify. That doesn't mean they are learned. It may mean there is an environmental factor that influences their existence though.

[Anonymous No.4615696]

>>4615653
>Ohhh touched a nerve I see.
No, you supremely retarded dickbag. It was an insult followed by me pointing out why you were wrong.

[Anonymous No.4615708]

>>4615584
>there seem to be more and more gay men every generation.
You don't think society becoming more accepting of gay people has anything to do with this ? Of course you're going to see less of them if being gay is seen as "wrong".
Anyway people ITT seem to think that a gay man will never, ever, under any circumstances, marry a woman and/or have children. Being gay makes you attracted to dudes, not infertile, if there was a "gay gene", it could certainly be passed on this way.

[Anonymous No.4615706]

>>4615696
I don't see how a brief , sourceless statement laced with ad hominem insults "proves" anything besides some unflattering traits of your personality.

[Anonymous No.4615712]

>>4615691
Yes but they are both struggling for the nutrients etc.. It fights over size of the baby too big would kill the mother for example there's more examples I'm trying to remember the book I read it in.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615714]

>>4615708
Correct.
Their has always been homosexuality in humans (and in animals as well) but until the modern age it has never been a good idea to reveal it.

[Anonymous No.4615724]

>>4615706
>sourceless statement
My "statement" was that you misunderstood the post you responded to. What kind of source or further elaboration do you require, exactly?

Also, stop using the term ad hominem. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You shitclown.

[Anonymous No.4615725]

>>4615691

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy

A fetus is 50% foreign DNA/proteins. Occasionally the mother's immune system will react to remove it.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_kinship_theory_of_genomic_imprinting

The fetus/male DNA will call for the mother to exhaust all of her "resources" in bringing to term only his child. The mother's body/DNA will call for distributed resources to the fetus to allow her to survive/have more children in the future/allow any siblings in a group (assuming multiple fetuses at once) to come to term.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615728]

>>4615712
There is no struggle for nutrients; the mothers hunger pangs compel her to provide enough for them both. (There is also no way this 'fight' could occur, as their bloodstreams are inextricably bound, and they are both withdrawing from the same 'pool of nutrients')

The foetus does not grow continually, its size is predetermined by the genes.

[Anonymous No.4615736]

>>4615732
Shitclown.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615732]

>>4615724
Stop insulting him in every post you make; post like a mature adult.

[Anonymous No.4615747]

>>4615728
read

>>4615725

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4615750]

>>4615747
I am.
Sorry, I posted before I read that.

[Anonymous No.4615753]

The main reason gays reject their sexuality as being learned or conditioned into them is because of the uncomfortable links that immediately become obvious between pedophilia and homosexuality.

[Filosofer scientist linguist No.4615756]

The documentary series Hjernevask, covers homosexuality in one of them. It is pretty decent.

http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/
It is in norwegian but it has english subs, so np. The password is "hjernevask". (This word means brain washing in norwegian/danish.)

[Anonymous No.4615796]

>But this doesn't seem logical to me. Wouldn't being a homosexual be the equivalent of a dead end gene , a defect?

This is a common fundmanetal misunderstanding about behavioral genetics that many people have. Genes cannot "make" you have sex, but they can create in our brains a euphoria for sex that makes us pursue it. Genes are not hard-wired computers that dictate every aspect of our behavior, but replicators that play a lottery game that do everything they can to stack the odds in their favor.

I think the problem is people are introduced to "bean bag" genetics where we're all just a big bucket of genes and each one codes for something - one for eye color, one for fur color, etc. The greatest lie you're told in intro to bio is that evolution is about genes mutations either being selected for or culled, when evolution is about populations. It is not genes that are selected, but traits that are selected, which are the product of many, many networks of plastic genes. Pleiotrophy is the rule, not the exception.

That the "gay gene" notion still exists is somewhat amusing, I imagine it's like the same struggle neuroscientists go through when they have to explain to people that networks of neurons, and not individual neurons, are responsible for the actions of the nervous system and there is no "grandma neuron" that singularly stores an imagine of your grandma somewhere in your "memory area".

[Anonymous No.4615807]

ITT: A bunch of homophobes and bigots have a circlejerk

[Anonymous No.4615816]

>>4615807
/thread

[Anonymous No.4615844]

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

Educate yourselves you stupid shits. It's not a choice.

[Anonymous No.4615848]

>>4615807
>homophobe
See that's a political term, it has no scientific validity.Discussions on /sci/ should be based on science. not your desire to support the gay agenda through control of the debate.
The term homophobia isn't even linguistically correct. using it just makes you seem stupid.

[Anonymous No.4615851]

>>4615844
Animal behaviorism does not and never has been used as a direct corollary for human psychology.
Also, that's all from a single study, done by a man whose initial thesis is that anti gay sentiment has somehow warped observation of animal behavior. he went into the research with a point of view to spread, one not entirely scientific.

[Anonymous No.4615853]

>>4615848

>implying that linguistics determine language

Literally, irregardless, and I could care less would like a word with you.

[Anonymous No.4615862]

>>4615853
> irregardless

[Anonymous No.4615867]

The notion that someone could 'choose' their preferences about anything is pretty stupid to begin with. Even dualist trolls like Harriet are smarter than that.

[Anonymous No.4615869]

>>4615637

One thing that has confused me for ages:

How is being a homosexual any different from having a fetish? (And no, before paedophiles leap on this, I'm not specifically referring to that. Any fetish.)

[Anonymous No.4615872]

>>4615853
Right, that's my point entirely, it's colloquial nonsense. It's also an attempt to portraty people who have ethical issues with the homosex lifestyle, or just plain find it disgusting, as having a mental disorder. Which is false.
Not to mention it'd be the same as calling someone who doesn't like black people a "niggerphobe". Literally speaking Homophobia would be fear of humans.
So using it, much like saying could care less or irregardless, makes you look like a moron.
Presumably, a gay moron.

[Anonymous No.4615875]

>>4615872

The point is that if it's a term universally understood to have a certain meaning, regardless of the actual meaning, the perceived meaning is the "correct" one. And that means the people in this thread are homophobes.