There is no such thing as a gay gene

Dustin · January 24, 2015, 09:16:57 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Alternative Facts · January 24, 2015, 09:48:32 PM

Gay gene? Probably not.

But there have been several studies (Some focusing on child development in the womb, if I recall) that speculate how the mother's body interacts with the developing embryo could lead to a higher chance of homosexuality. There's plenty of others on different aspects that have been researched, and will continue to be researched.

To say that the environment alone is the leading factor in every case of homosexuality is just a ridiculous though.

aREALgod · January 24, 2015, 09:48:43 PM

If course there isn't a gene, it's all a choice. They're just looking for a scape goat/excuse to distract people from the fact they're choosing to be gay.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · January 24, 2015, 09:52:37 PM

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that homosexuality is hormonal and neurological with a healthy amount of environmental influences. To say that genetics don't influence a person's sexual conduct would be absurd, but it's [key word] unlikely that genetics influence sexual orientation.

challengerX · January 25, 2015, 04:15:34 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Sprungli · January 25, 2015, 05:48:42 AM

It's entirely possible that there is a 'gay gene', your reckoning is that if those with a dominant gay gene don't breed it can't be passed on, however; it's entirely possible that it's a recessive gene. This would explain the relatively low number of gays but it's prevalence throughout history and across the world. If you think of it as a genetic disease like Cystic Fibrosis the chances are many of us are carriers of the gene but due to the fact you'd have to be recessive homozygous there would simply be a significantly smaller number of people that are actually gay (think CF still).

velox · January 25, 2015, 07:59:13 AM

No gay gene =/= homosexuality not being natural. Why would one exclude the other?

Homosexuality has been recorded in hundreds of animal species, therefore it is in fact natural.

Spoiler

Hah, my phone corrected 'animal' to 'anal'

Mordo · January 25, 2015, 08:44:22 AM

No, there isn't.

But all evidence definitely points to the fact that biological factors have more of an impact than social factors do.