Do you think homosexuality is athe trendy thing to be or a genetic thing?
437728
Did you choose to be *straight* because it's trendy?
483967
We are born who we are.I see your point of view however, i disagree somewhat. Based on your  premise isn't being straight also a psychological disorder?Gays,Lesbians etc. are born from straight persons.These variations exist throughout nature.Take  a look at some of our other animal brethren to see it.Former anything can change by choosing to. Once this country was populated by child brides.It was considered a good thing to give your daughter to a well established male.Over time,we have come  to understand that such unions placed the girls at an unfair advantage. We have now enacted laws to protect our young from this.To allow pedophilia breaks said laws. Thanks for sharing your opinion.Respectfully,Will
244285
As a biologist I must weigh in.\n\nThe terminology and methodology of you stance is a bit off.   As we populate and compete for resources that are scarce, there will be increased competition. Problem is that the way the world works, that has little bearing on the real world. In Africa kids starve daily. In America kids are obese. There is no natural selection taking place.  As the population expands, there will be groups of HAVEs and groups of HAVE NOTS. But the HAVES will have few external influences on their mating.\n\nHomesexuality has been around a long time. It is seen in animals, and people. Throughout history at times it was commonplace and accpeted. Regardless of what you may read, no one can say for sure the causes of homsexuality. It is probably a complex set of genetic variations, behaviors and experiences. It could be genetic, as some familes have high incidences of homosexual members, but it is probably more spontaneous.  \n\nAs an aside, it is patently FALSE that states which have gay unions have a falling birth rate. You quote the need for references, put your money where yuor mouth is. Lets look at those few states and look at the birth rates and all the variables and see the true facts.\n\nback to the question. No, as a species we are not evolving towards gay. If population is a true evoluntionary problem, people will become less fertile, as many animal models ahve shown. Numerous species where competition is tough have fewer young and would be less likly to produce offspring regularly. That is how mother nature operates.\n\nif anything, the evolutionof our species will ultimately end in parthogensis where women can self fertilize making males obsolete. If we were to model the human species against animals we would see similarities in population dynamics and this could be the future in MANY thousands of centuries.
123683
I believe you are born with it.  My cousin is gay, and I swear by the time he was two years old you could tell he was going to be gay.  Before you say it was influence or whatever, let me tell you he was brought up in a perfectly average household, with a loving mom and dad, and a macho big brother.  We are born the way we are born.
24502
The beauty myth applies to all of us, gay or not, and why it can't be shattered is probably a result of our saturation from media sources that a certain body type is "better", coupled with our genetic predisposition to desire the "best" possible mate for producing high-quality offspring.
74505
Evolutionary arguments have been offered for male homosexuality. For example, Symons (1979) argues that homosexuality results from a meme that takes advantage of the inborn male propensity to find sexual variety interesting. Normally this propensity would be adaptive because it would encourage males to attempt sexual relations with many women, which would result in more offspring. But a meme could parasitize this propensity, redirecting sexual interest to non-adaptive objects, as in fetishism or homosexuality. \n\nEpigenetic arguments have been inspired by work on pre-natal hormones. Dîrner and his colleagues (cited in LeVay 1994) link stress during pregnancy to hormonal effects on the fetus that would lead to homosexuality. This could be part of a mother's adaptive reproductive strategy. That is, in times of stress, when it is difficult to raise children, it may be adaptive to have some homosexual children who could help their siblings raise offspring instead of having offspring of their own.\n\nMemic and epigenetic arguments may explain some aspects of homosexuality, such as the cultural variations in practices or identities, or specific behaviors of homosexuals (femininity for example). However, the biological studies of homosexuality, together with the extraordinary cross-cultural similarities of exclusive homosexuals (Whitam 1983) suggest that some aspects of homosexuality (e.g. orientation) are at least partly determined by genes.\n\nThe basic problem for genetic explanations of homosexuality is to account for how a gene that does not lead to offspring could survive the pressures of natural selection. One possibility is that a maladaptive gene for homosexuality might re-occur repeatedly in a population if it results from the frequent mutation of a gene that is normally adaptive. However, people with maladaptive genes rarely exceed 1% of the population, while male homosexuality apparently occurs much more frequently (Whitam and Mathy 1986; Gadpaille 1980; Diamond 1993). Another possibility is that a recessive gene for homosexuality might have advantages that allow it to pass on to future generations. For example, homosexuals could directly help their relatives (who share the recessive gene) raise more children. This "kin selection" hypothesis predicts more homosexuality in those societies where homosexuals could most help their relatives (for example, in endogamous societies where homosexuals would live nearby). Nevertheless, cross-cultural research shows that this is not the case (Werner 1979). Another possibility is that a homosexual gene itself, when combined with non-homosexual genes, may provide reproductive advantages. This latter scenario is sometimes known as the "heterozygous" hypothesis, although it is really about any type of gene combination (LeVay 1994; Sommer 1990). \n\nThe heterozygous argument suggests that homosexuality results from genes for submissive behavior. An animal possessing only submissive genes would fail to reproduce for lack of trying. But an animal possessing only genes for dominance would also fail to reproduce because it would get killed for taking too many risks. It is the "heterozygous" males, who would most likely pass on their genes. By the genetic laws of probability, this would leave every generation with a certain percentage of individuals at the extremes. For example, if each of a pair of chromosomes had only one "homosexual" locus with only two possible alleles (one for dominance and one for submissiveness) this would leave a heterozygous couple with 25% of their offspring homozygous for submissiveness, 50% heterozygous, and 25% homozygous for dominance. If, however, homosexuality were the result of the interaction of five gene loci, possibly spread across different chromosomes, then only 3.125% (1/22222) of births would be homozygous for submissiveness. As Wilson (1994) points out, some genetic diversity is valuable to individuals in t
253276
I think it is only partly genetic. There are still many other factors that can cause homosexuality... hormonal imbalance, the people a person associates during his/her lifetime, and many more... People may think that it is passed from parent to child probably because they've seen some homosexual 'traits' on the parent and if the child shows similar traits, they think it is because the child inherited it. I think it is because of the upbringing of the children... I'm not sure about this...
353345
Your simian countenance suggests a heritage rich in species diversity.\n\nor\n\nmay a thousand bedbugs get drunk and dance a jig in your belly button.\n\npoint out that those who are quick to call others gay are often covering up their own latent homosexuality
380300
It is not an abnormality, nor is it a disease. It is a normal, naturally occuring state of existance.Nor is it a mental illness.Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the late '60's.
647576
It may be that conditioning may have a very small part of a person being gay but it would be a very small percentage of gay people that are effected in this way. However, I do think that the majority of gay people are born with this disposition.\n\n'God' doews not make nature perfect. for instance, I am sure that most of you have heard of a condition called hermaphroditism (or the more politically correct term these days is 'intersex') where a person is born with the fully formed genatalia of BOTH sexes. The subject, apart from their genitalia, is physically and mentally sound in every other way.\n\nSometimes, these children are operated on at birth if the doctors decide (guess) that the baby appears to have a female or male inclination and the genitals are modified accordingly. In many cases though, a modified 'girl' grows up with feelings for other women and modified 'boys' grow up feeling something for other men. It seems in these cases, the doctors have made the wrong decision and the psychological makeup of the child was in fact the opposite to the physical modification they performed on the child. So even though, for instance, a child may be brought up as a girl with girls toys etc, the 'nature' side of the brain kicks in at puberty (if not before) and overrides the 'nurture' side.\n\nNow, if nature can produce a visible, physical example of developmental confusion on the outside of the human body, who is to say that there are not processes at work of developmental confusion going on inside the unseen brain of a person ... where there may not be an obvious physical example of gender disorientation externally but internally their brain does not dictate in the way that their external body would suggest to the rest of society.\n\nThere is very strong evidence that sexuality is largely determined by development in the womb. Perhaps, while 'intersex' is firm external physical proof of developmental issues, we ought to consider that perhaps the developmental differences in gay people are more subtle and obviously invisible to the naked eye due to the brain being internal - but that does not mean that the differences are not there.\n\nHomosexuality has been around since the beginning of time and if you research gay history in cultures across the world, the present prejudices seem to stem with the spread of the three major monotheistic religons and it is this prejudice that is ingrained into the psyche of people today. But like racism, for instance, perhaps this prejudice towards gay people will diminish as society recognises that alternative sexuality is actually just a normal part of nature's rich diversity.
847336
It's genetic. Alot of heterosexual people have homosexual relatives and alot of homosexual people have heterosexual relatives....we're born this way as you were born straight..
192260
Well, MY OPINION (as there is no scientific proof) would be that it is genetic.\n\nFace it, in a society where homosexuals are RIDICULED, would you choose to be gay?  \n\nAlso, do you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?  Do you CHOOSE to brown eyed? Left handed? 6ft tall?\n\nOh, and if they can prove that alcoholism is genetic (there is proof of this), why can't homosexuality be genetic?
42238
I would say it's a combination of genetic disposition (being born that way) and the environment one grows up in.  But as it is now, there has been minimal research done to prove whether one is born gay or not.  Of all the homosexuals I know personally, none have told me that they "chose" to be gay.
63781
Nobody is born gay because homosexuality is not natural. However, I do think that there biological differences in some gays. Some studies showed for example, physical differences as well in eye to pupil diameter ratios.
751373
This is a very valid question but one which is better addressed to the LGBT community than to those who for whatever reason can not or will not ever understand.\n\nHomosexuality is indeed inborn but it is not a disorder. A question to ask yourself is why nature has created the phenomenon of homosexuality in the first place and why does she seem to like it enough to allow it to continue from generation to generation. Nature seem to want to keep the ratio of gays to straights in humans at a relatively constant 1 to 10, this despite the undeniable reality that many gays and lesbians do not breed. The fount of the gay world is and always has been the straight world. And homosexuality most definitely occurs in many animals.\n\nAnyone who believes in evolution I think would agree that only traits that serve a purpose and benefit the species persist for any length of time. Harmful mutations are not preserved by nature. The individuals that are born with truly dangerous genetic makeups usually die before adulthood and do not contribute to the gene pool of the species. \n\nFrom this perspective it would seem that homosexuality must benefit the species in some as yet undefined way. Nature not only permits but actually promotes homosexuality. Why? Perhaps it is partly because homosexuals contribute so much to various fields of human endeavor (arts, sciences, literature, music, even athletics) that they help propel the human race forward exponentially in its cultural development. Worth considering anyway, wouldn't you say?\n\nBut to address the main question here:\nFace it, there will always be people who try to validate their own choices by questioning you for making different choices. Some you can talk to, some it's best to just ignore because try as you may you will not rescue them from their mental blocks nor squeeze from their mental prisons an ounce of true humanity.
27721
If you cut through all the PC crap, you will eventually come to a single, important truth: sexuality is way too complex to be solely the result of any single magic bullet.  Perhaps more importantly is that children are not born sexually mature, and hence the idea that they are born homosexual is as ridiculoius as the notion that they are born heterosexual.  They are born asexual in that they are not yet sexually mature.\n\nIt is PC to say that there is genetic determinism that makes a person be gay due to hard-wired mental functions from the genes.  This is absurd, because the "hard wires" of the brain aren't really that hard at all.  The brain in a newborn has many, many more synaptic connections than needed.  Throughout life, as we learn and develop more fully, these synapses are reduced in some places and increased in others.  The experiences of life, along with things like diet, make the brain develop as it does in complicated ways.\n\nThe fundamentalist tends to say that the matter is purely a matter of choice.  This is equally absurd.  While it is correct to say that a person is responsible for their actions, the desires, thoughts, and emoptions of the brain are not so easily controlled.  The brain does eventually wire itself in certain ways and it does lose flexibility as time progresses.  But the results are not purely choice.\n\nThe answer is somewhere in between.  There are differences in people's genetic makeup and developmental processes that make some people more strongly predisposed to certain sexaul tendencies, I'd expect.  But the experiences of life will always effect the ways in which the genes are expressed, and this is unavoidable.  Monozygotic twins have the exact same DNA as one another.  If one is a hemophylliac, the other one will also be, with absolute certainty.  The correlations for sexuality, though strong, are not 1:1 like this.  So there ahs to be something more than genes.  No one can positively identify what particular environmental cues or experiences or hormonal cascades are necessary for a given line of developing a particular sexuality, but the fact that we haven't elucidated the path does not in any way mean the path does not exist.
313763
To put a check on population levels.  Seriously.\n\nA link between a mother having high fertility and  her chances of having a gay child has recently been discovered.  This connection resolves the objection that homosexuality should have been bred out of existence if it were hereditary.  The increased fertility of the mother cancels out the lack of offspring of the homosexual child.