Is being gay a choice or a genetic trait?

[just1more]

Here's a hint: If you want to have the opposite sexuality, you probably already do

I was trying to make it the most politically correct possible while still making sense, but I guess it didn't work. 

I guess what I meant to say was, if you're really confused and don't know what sexual orientation you are and have a lack of identity, hormones would probably make sense. Obviously if you KNOW you're gay or lesbian or straight or whatever, nothing's really ever going to change your orientation. But if you're confused, you don't know what you are, who you are, etc.

[hotlikesauce.]

I was trying to make it the most politically correct possible while still making sense, but I guess it didn't work. 

I guess what I meant to say was, if you're really confused and don't know what sexual orientation you are and have a lack of identity, hormones would probably make sense. Obviously if you KNOW you're gay or lesbian or straight or whatever, nothing's really ever going to change your orientation. But if you're confused, you don't know what you are, who you are, etc.

Well I'm Nathan.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

case studies:

it's exceedingly unlikely that the ancient romans and greeks were somehow genetically inclined, in a 'born that way' sense, to value equally, if not outright prefer male romantic partnership

sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Overview

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#Ancient_Greece

nor is it remotely likely that thai kathoey culture is the result of some mysterious, scientifically unverified, yet somehow highly prevalent and, stranger still, thai-exclusive """gay gene"""

sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

2. boyah's own resident ladyboy experts famy and david

similarly, see:

Before the modern era, Islamic nations were not so opposed to same-sex relations. For example, a ruler in Persia in the 11th-century advised his son “to alternate his partners seasonally: young men in the summer and women in the winter.”

The modern rejection and criminalization of “homosexuality in Islam gained momentum through the exogenous effects of European colonialism. . . . ” European thought at the time treated homosexuality as “against nature.”[87]

once again, genes from birth are exceedingly unlikely to be (solely) responsible for either current or past general attitudes regarding homosexuality in islam

in all aforementioned cases, it's overwhelmingly culture, not genes, that determined the respective society's prevalence and (non)acceptance of homosexuality (sources: ibid.; literally just ctrl-f "culture" or "social"/"society" in any of the four aforementioned articles)


empirical studies:

it's exceedingly likely that genetics, and especially gene expression, affect how susceptible one might be to the gay menace, however

and here is my proof of that claim, in the form of a Fun Fact™:

Sigh... I wasn't implying water changes sexuality i was merely saying chemicals can mess with genes with prolonged exposure over generations and generations

chemicals and other environmental stimuli can affect gene expression even within one single lifespan

or even within one event

by means of a well-documented but poorly understood biological phenomenon called epigenetics

sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Contemporary
2.

Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime; however, these epigenetic changes can be transmitted to the organism's offspring through a process called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Moreover, if gene inactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, this epigenetic modification may also be transferred to the next generation.[23]

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
4.

[spoiler][pdf]http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Rice-et-al.-2012.pdf[/pdf][/spoiler]

tl;dr it is almost certainly a combination of both inherent human nature (genetics) and nurture (epigenetics) that determine individual sexuality and the sexuality demographics of any given population

tl;dr human sexuality is quite fluid and one can indeed be conditioned via exposure to like one thing or another

that does not imply choice in any sense

[Hiro]

tl;dr it is almost certainly a combination of both inherent human nature (genetics) and nurture (epigenetics) that determine individual sexuality and the sexuality demographics of any given population

tl;dr human sexuality is quite fluid and one can indeed be conditioned via exposure to like one thing or another

that does not imply choice in any sense

yeah that sounds about right
though i mean someone could still choose to be gay (like straight men that do gay porn because it pays well) it's just unlikely

[Kalahari Inkantation]

tl;dr it is almost certainly a combination of both inherent human nature (genetics) and nurture (epigenetics) that determine individual sexuality and the sexuality demographics of any given population

tl;dr human sexuality is quite fluid and one can indeed be conditioned via exposure to like one thing or another

that does not imply choice in any sense

yeah that sounds about right

i feel like it should be more obvious than it is

especially considering there's plenty of science backing it, unlike every other gay theory

though i mean someone could still choose to be gay (like straight men that do gay porn because it pays well) it's just unlikely

i wouldn't really call this "choosing to be gay"

it's more like taking a somewhat awkward job

...although i feel like you'd have to be pretty receptive to the idea of taking another man's somewhat awkward job to even willingly end up receiving that job in the first place (i.e. at least somewhat gay already)

in either case, not really what i'd call a choice at all

[Hiro]

I mean you can choose not to do gay porn, and I'd say doing gay porn is p. gay, and typically-straight people choose to do gay porn, so I would say that you can choose to be gay, but that doesn't mean it's really a choice to be gay or not, if that makes any sense.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

i think what you're telling me is that you can choose not to behave gay

which gay people everywhere already do all the time lol, very often out of necessity

and i have to be honest,

typically-straight people choose to do gay porn

i simply don't believe this for a second

[YPrrrr]

I think more straight women tend to do lesbian porn than straight men with gay porn

Also if sexual preference is just based on environmental factors etcetera then doesn't that justify the existence of pray away the gay camps

[Hiro]

Also if sexual preference is just based on environmental factors etcetera then doesn't that justify the existence of pray away the gay camps

first of all, no, not at all
and secondly we said that's one element to it, certainly not the only thing

[YPrrrr]

Well if it's not something that you're born as then their thought process that they can change someone's preference doesn't seem incorrect necessarily

I'm not saying they're "good" or whatever

[silvertone]

are boners a choice

[6M69I69B9]

i use my dick as a compass for the right path

its a gy path

haha

[silvertone]

the enviromental factor is a hot daddy, the genetic factor is being born with a benis

[Kalahari Inkantation]

I think more straight women tend to do lesbian porn than straight men with gay porn

because as we all know, it's much more socially acceptable for women to behave gay

Also if sexual preference is just based on environmental factors etcetera then doesn't that justify the existence of pray away the gay camps

Well if it's not something that you're born as then their thought process that they can change someone's preference doesn't seem incorrect necessarily

if human sexuality really is as massively affected by epigenetics as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it is: once a gene expresses itself a certain way, it's extremely difficult to unexpress it

an unfortunate analogy would be cancer, which is the result of a gene inadvertently expressing itself in a particularly detrimental way

and the only effective way to undo cancer is to outright kill it

in the distant future, it might be possible to literally cure a person of non-heterosexuality by using something like viral gene therapy to reprogram genes and turn certain expressions on or off

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectors_in_gene_therapy#Viruses

that same method would be useful in treating cancer

but we treat cancer because its effects are often fatal, or at the very least, quite devastating

but non-heterosexuality isn't actually devastating in and of itself, so 'curing' it that way would ultimately be a waste of resources lol

so that's why praying the gay away simply wouldn't work: it's not an effective means of changing the way genes are expressed once epigenetic events have been triggered

[Himu]

I always thought the choice argument was just plain stupid period. I never understood why anyone would consciously choose to be gay if being straight was an option. I mean, people get kicked out of their homes, bullied, and even kill themselves over their sexuality. Hell, some people say they knew they were gay when they were very young, before they even really understood societal norms in relation to themselves and their own sexual identity. So yeah, I don't really understand the choice explanation, unless you're deeply religious and also decide to forgo reason as well I guess.

Still, I don't believe there is a simple gay gene that makes you "born" gay. There's been much evidence that usually show it's more complicated and likely based on a combination of environment, epigenetic factors, blah blah etc.

I always found the twin studies to be pretty interesting, because for a while people assumed that twins would either both be gay or both be straight, which would be the logical assumption if a gay gene were to be the primary reason. Although if I recall in the cases where one twin was gay, there was only like a 15 or 20% chance that the other one would be as well. So it implicated that while they may share the same DNA, it doesn't necessarily mean that they'd have the same sexuality as previously thought.

Sadly, evidence or reason doesn't seem to go very far these days when it comes to a hotly debated topic such as this one.