Some coworker said there was a "gay" gene

[nangiggles]

Genes, maybe not. Hormones and brain chemistry, almost definitely.

There is speculation that exposure to excessive amounts of estrogen in the womb predispose male children to homosexuality. In households where multiple male children have been born, the youngest ones have progressively higher propensities towards homosexuality. Basically, a woman's body treats a male child like a foreign invader and the more sons she has, the stronger the antibody response becomes.

Also, in studying gay guys brains with MRI, they've got structures that more developed in women, less in straight guys.

To me, one of the most telling that it's something genetic (like I said, I'm more of the hormone/brain chemistry school), the percentage of twins raised in separate houses. If one is gay, the other has WELL more than a 50% chance of being gay.

Basically, a gay guy is more like a woman, mentally

Google neurobiology and homosexuality, craploads of articles out there.

^^^ This, I completely agree with MM, hormones, brain chemistry and brain development/usage have a lot to do with it for me, raising and friends/environment have to do with it a bit as well, I dont judge people who get turned on by having sex just with redheads, or just with big breasted women, or just men ....

Also not all "gays" are the same (quotations because thy arent a "group") as Adam Lambert once said "The only thing that is the same about everyone in the gay community is that we're gay"

 

[mrplunkey]

Genes, maybe not. Hormones and brain chemistry, almost definitely.

There is speculation that exposure to excessive amounts of estrogen in the womb predispose male children to homosexuality. In households where multiple male children have been born, the youngest ones have progressively higher propensities towards homosexuality. Basically, a woman's body treats a male child like a foreign invader and the more sons she has, the stronger the antibody response becomes.

Also, in studying gay guys brains with MRI, they've got structures that more developed in women, less in straight guys.

To me, one of the most telling that it's something genetic (like I said, I'm more of the hormone/brain chemistry school), the percentage of twins raised in separate houses. If one is gay, the other has WELL more than a 50% chance of being gay.

Basically, a gay guy is more like a woman, mentally

Google neurobiology and homosexuality, craploads of articles out there.

So estrogen poisoning in the womb prevents the fetus from fully evolving into a male.

This makes sense to me.

 

[redshirt27se]

I don't think it's as cut and dry as having a gene or not, but I do think it is somewhat predetermined. How do you know you're straight? You just do. I remember being a kid and catching wood after seeing one of my friend's moms in a bikini. I didn't know what straight or gay was, I just knew that was what I liked. It wasn't a choice. I just have a hard time believing the gaze purposely like the same sex, especially since it's just now becoming a socially acceptable thing.

 

[PICK3]

5 pages of "gay" gene thread with no mention of PICK3 = Progress



just sayin'

 

[mrplunkey]

5 pages of "gay" gene thread with no mention of PICK3 = Progress



just sayin'

It's a testament to the fact that the debate over your MO-dom is long settled.

Notice how we don't spend much time on the boards arguing that the sun is going to set today either.

Pick3 = definition of MO-dom.

 

[chris302001]

You have the gay gene glad. I saw it on your paternity test. Sorry bout your luck chuck, you'll soon be smoking pole.

 

[SPEKTOR-AAA]

Seems like being "gay" is almost a trend in todays world rather then some genetic b/s.

 

[musclemom]

So estrogen poisoning in the womb prevents the fetus from fully evolving into a male.

This makes sense to me.

Actually you've got it backwards. All creatures begin this life as female, it is the "default" state of all physical bodies (which is why insect colonies, like ants and bees, are fully female, the males serve one purpose only and then are destroyed after having served this purpose). There is no poisoning, that would imply one or the other hormone is more valuable, implying one or the other gender is more valuable.

From a purely theoretical perspective, human parthenogenesis is possible (Biblical literalists love this comment), but only a female could do it, and the resultant offspring would, by necessity, be female. A perfect, natural clone of its mother.

But pragmatically, from a purely biological perspective, sexual procreation is necessary only for the sake of genetic diversity. The useful traits surviving, the traits that foster weakness slowly weeded out.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that encourages inferior human genetics (physically, mentally, intellectually) to not just survive, but thrive and achieve reproductive age and reproduce ... to excessive degrees, in many cases (horrible woman, aren't I? I fully admit, if there is reincarnation, I was a Spartan in a past life).

 

[mrplunkey]

Actually you've got it backwards. All creatures begin this life as female, it is the "default" state of all physical bodies (which is why insect colonies, like ants and bees, are fully female, the males serve one purpose only and then are destroyed after having served this purpose). There is no poisoning, that would imply one or the other hormone is more valuable, implying one or the other gender is more valuable.

I guess it's that testosterone boost that allows us to ratchet-up our degree of evolution one more notch.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that encourages inferior human genetics (physically, mentally, intellectually) to not just survive, but thrive and achieve reproductive age and reproduce ... to excessive degrees, in many cases (horrible woman, aren't I? I fully admit, if there is reincarnation, I was a Spartan in a past life).

It comes down to the simple fact that you always get what you subsidize. In the name of kindness and humanitarianism, we're creating entire generations of government dependents -- wards of the state. To me, our current crop of nanny state people are no better than early missionaries that taught against birth control so the Christians would out-reproduce the non-Christians. I'm sure both groups are equally convinced they are right, but it doesn't make either one of them less wrong.

 

[musclemom]

I guess it's that testosterone boost that allows us to ratchet-up our degree of evolution one more notch.

It depends on what you choose to use as a defining element of civilization/evolution.

The elements of controlled agriculture, language and communication, community cohesiveness and tradition, healing, child rearing, collective decision making, those are the realms of the feminine mind.

IOW, thank women for having the instinct to raise a child to adulthood (unlike men, who would wander off and forget about the little shits), for the ability to extend that maternal instinct to animals, and thereby probably planting the seeds of early animal husbandry and the eventual domestication of animals, which added reliable sources of meat and dairy products to the diet of early humans, to the cultivation of crops (in particular, grain for beer); for figuring out how to weave fibers into cloth (fine motor dexterity), for learning what herbs and plants provided food and medicine and where to find them (attention to detail and memory for location that, in modern times, translates into "shopping"), etc., etc., etc.

I mean, going off for months at a time to start wars with neighboring tribes for some bit of bullshit (imagined or real), impregnating as many females as erections will allow and just as quickly forgetting about those females and their offspring, and having general pissing contests to prove who has the biggest swinging dick have all been so vital to human evolution throughout the ages.