So far as I know, there has yet to be any "gay gene" discovered. About a year ago there was some study that seemed to lend some credence to the idea that sexual orientation could be influenced and/or determined by genetics, but it did not make a case for a so-called gay gene. I think we can all agree that there cannot yet be concluded that there is a "gay gene." With that said, I have two questions related to this issue: 1) Do you think there will one day be a strong scientific case made for sexual orientation being determined (at least mostly) by genetics? 2) Is this topic offensive? Not trying to be a smartass here; I genuinely do not know if homosexual or antihomosexuals would find this discussion offensive. I could think of ways in which this topic would offend almost everyone, but I don't know if that's how it actually is. (Disclaimer: personally, gay or straight or in-between, I don't care. Be who you are; be happy; be kind. Also I've been told it's more a spectrum than anything so a gay/straight split isn't the best way to look at it, but for simplicity's sake we will.)
Jarron Collins supposedly is not gay, so there can't be a gay gene unless he's lying. I base my view on this entirely on those terrible NBA players.
1) I imagine there will be studies conducted, like there has been in the past, and homophobes and gay rights activists alike will cherry pick. AFIK, the science itself is much more certain about it mostly being an environmental factor. The cultural debate is over among young people. I don't think they will find a specific gene that causes homosexuaility, though - like you've been told it's more of a spectrum. 2) I don't personally find it offensive, if you stick to the science, but I'm not gay. I have some gay friends and they're all very proud and have heard all this crap before. I've found that if your respectful upfront people will open up about anything.
Bonobos are fully bisexual and they are one of our closest genetic relatives. Bisexuality and homosexuality seems to be extremely common among mammals. I don't think there can be any argument about same sex relations being unnatural. People just try to define it as unnatural and immoral because of our religious/social values. People also try to solely define homosexual behavior as only a genetic issue for some reason even though there clearly is a social component to it as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior Bisexuality, homosexuality, and gender neutrality/fluidity are generally more accepted in females so in general they are less repressed with their sexual behavior. I tend to think a better spectrum of male human sexuality is displayed by our p*rn search habits which are extremely different from what men would publicly admit to liking. That's my hot take from Starbucks right now.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a gay gene. But I do know there is such a thing as a gay thread.
Gay gene is the wrong term and I think the logic is backwards. Homo Sapiens obviously have a heterogene and perhaps in gay people this may be missing or mutated.
FWIW this topic is offensive. It is like you are trying to find a root cause for someone being gay. The next step with this knowledge would be how to fix the root cause, which is also very offensive.
It comes down to whether you believe people are born gay or not. I happen to believe that. Therefore the possibility of a "gay gene" would make sense.
Not offensive because to me it's no different than people with different eye colors. All eyes are technically "colorless" but folks with hazel, green, gray, blue, etc.. eyes have lower levels of melanin in their eyes so their eyeball scatters light differently giving an appearance of color. the lower the melanin the closer to greens and blues and the higher the melanin the closer to browns. Brown eye, green eye, blue eye folks don't offend other folks. point being, nobody picks their eye color so to me the same thing. we're all human but genes are different making us different but because of human inventions and labels some differences offend while others do not. so what is really offensive is all of the human constructs that force or allow people to discriminate based on these uncontrollable differences. that's what is truly offensive.
Got a niece that's gay. She's 21 now. She said she's always liked girls since Barbie and Ken dolls. Her words. She always preferred the Barbie doll. She never had a boyfriend once. Never had an interest. Always liked girls but never came out until she was I think 16 or 17 and she trusted me first to tell me because I'm the only non-practicing Catholic in my family. Had to speak up for her to her parents (my sister and bro-in law) that she was gay and at first they were really disheartened. I think they had it in their head she was going to have all these lesbian orgies and become hedonistic. Instead she's pretty vanilla by gay or straight standards. Same partner for going on 3 years with no signs of that changing. Top 1% in her classes at UT working on her way to become a veterinarian while working full time. I think eventually she's going to transfer to A&M since their Vet program is one of the best in the nation. Her parents have come around and realized she's still the same top student, animal lover and all around sweet girl they raised. She just likes women. Big deal. So does half the human population. Point is, I've never once heard her mention being confused over her sexual identity. She was never abused. Never any psychological trauma or anything. She just likes women. I can only imagine very similarly to the way most hetero men just like women. I mean sure you can point out why you like them but I can remember even as a little kid in elementary school liking girls or preferring the hot teacher over other teachers. Why is it such a difficult concept to think that there's at least some of the gay population that just likes what they like just because?
I'm assuming you're hetero. Even as a kid did you have to spend a lot of time pondering why you liked girls in your class growing up? Did you have to take a human anatomy class and learn about DNA and RNA to understand why you like women? Of course not. You just did. Why is it such a tough concept to think that there's a gay population out there that was just born and innately had a preference for the same sex over the other? You like what you like.
The first thing to understand is that it is far more likely that a spectrum of genes contribute towards sexuality than a single gene (as is the case for the overwhelming majority of other traits.) In other words, you're out of luck if you're looking for a "switch" to flip. I believe we will eventually elucidate the entire human genome, but it will likely happen towards the end of most of our lifetimes. This is because it requires a tremendous amount of basic science research behind every miniscule step forward. I don't believe it is offensive to ask, but there is certainly an offensive (and wrong) way to approach the topic. And I believe the subject of editing such a complex and entangled trait like sexuality won't be able to be approached in our lifetimes.
Probably a combination of multiple genetic factors as well as environment. I don't think it's so simple that it can be pinned down to a single trait.
I don't really want to speculate, but I found studies of the birth order effect pretty interesting. Adds a third option to the nature-vs-nurture false binary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation
I don't think the science itself is offensive, I think it's more like what people would do with the results of said science.
