[Turambar]

many things could cause homosexuality. my guesses would be either a combination of genetics and with an environmental or social trigger (similar to certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia), or a complex interaction of several genes. it could also be a chemical trigger or a commonly recurring mutation. it could even be something completely unrelated to genetics. i very much doubt its a single "gay gene" that causes it, because that would have been bred out. one must also consider that there were points in history where homosexuals was tolerated and was very common, as well as homosexuality observed in animals. seems like nature has had plenty of opportunities to breed it out.

I heard my cue! =)

The "gay gene" theory has been thoroughly debunked.  Best theories at present deal with a combination of behavioural genetics (including one or more of the three types of gene-environment interactions) and androgen/estrogen balances during early development.  Physical sex characteristics are only loosely linked to sexual attraction cues, and sexual attraction cues and gender identity are strongly tied to hormone dosage, while physical sex characteristics are entirely genetic.

There is a strong argument to be made for some sort of multi-gene recessive characteristic (with potential for an epigenetic mechanism in place) being at least partially responsible for homosexuality, because it seems to be an evolutionary trait that has development in virtually all mammals and has significant benefits for large social groups of individuals of the species.

So it's natural and good, just like sex.  No wonder the religious folks hate it.

[BloodEagle]

many things could cause homosexuality. my guesses would be either a combination of genetics and with an environmental or social trigger (similar to certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia), or a complex interaction of several genes. it could also be a chemical trigger or a commonly recurring mutation. it could even be something completely unrelated to genetics. i very much doubt its a single "gay gene" that causes it, because that would have been bred out. one must also consider that there were points in history where homosexuals was tolerated and was very common, as well as homosexuality observed in animals. seems like nature has had plenty of opportunities to breed it out.

I heard my cue! =)

The "gay gene" theory has been thoroughly debunked.  Best theories at present deal with a combination of behavioural genetics (including one or more of the three types of gene-environment interactions) and androgen/estrogen balances during early development.  Physical sex characteristics are only loosely linked to sexual attraction cues, and sexual attraction cues and gender identity are strongly tied to hormone dosage, while physical sex characteristics are entirely genetic.

There is a strong argument to be made for some sort of multi-gene recessive characteristic (with potential for an epigenetic mechanism in place) being at least partially responsible for homosexuality, because it seems to be an evolutionary trait that has development in virtually all mammals and has significant benefits for large social groups of individuals of the species.

So it's natural and good, just like sex.  No wonder the religious folks hate it.

<insert picture of Picard beheading himself due to the force of that... duh-double facepalm (heavy echo) here>

[el_magnifico]

GODDAMMIT!

I see what you did there. 

Taking the lords name in vain. Or am i?

Oh! Keep doing it. It will be a long stay in hell, so I don't want to be alone.

GODDAMNIT is hardly taking anything in vain compared to those who commit genocide claiming to be doing god's work. I've certainly GODDAMNED myself this time

Bah', don't worry, I was joking. Even if you did took the name of the lord in vain, we aren't supposed to judge others. We're supposed to be too busy with our own souls.
Besides, the definition of what constitutes "taking the name of the Lord in vain" is one of those things nobody has agreed on so far.

satan is my lord and id never take his name in vain goddamnit!

Really, as long as you respect other people's right, you can worship whatever you want.

[General Battuta]

To add to MP-Ryan's point:

Homosexuality would never evolve itself out of existence.

Homosexuality is an extremely important trait for the survival of a species, and if it ever vanished - perhaps due to extermination of everyone carrying the heritable components of the trait - it would rapidly mutate back into existence and spread through the population again.

As nuke pointed out, there have also been times throughout history when most people engaged in homosexual behavior of one kind or another. Odds are that almost everyone reading this post would have happily had sex with a man or boy if raised in the appropriate society.

[el_magnifico]

To add to MP-Ryan's point:

Homosexuality would never evolve itself out of existence.

Homosexuality is an extremely important trait for the survival of a species, and if it ever vanished - perhaps due to extermination of everyone carrying the heritable components of the trait - it would rapidly mutate back into existence and spread through the population again.

You know, I still don't understand why is it an important trait for the survival of a species. Maybe someone can explain that to me please.

As nuke pointed out, there have also been times throughout history when most people engaged in homosexual behavior of one kind or another. Odds are that almost everyone reading this post would have happily had sex with a man or boy if raised in the appropriate society.

Yes, I've always suspected that.

[General Battuta]

There are a few mechanisms as to why homosexuality is so important, and why it has evolved in so many thousands of species.

1) Sexually antagonistic selection. A trait may boost reproductive fitness in the females of a species. But both males and females get almost the entire genome, so males receive the trait too. If the trait boosts fitness in females, but causes males to be homosexual, and the net fitness gain is positive, the trait will be selected for and homosexuality will evolve.

2) Inclusive fitness. In a large family, it may be useful to have a few gay men or women who do not have children of their own. Instead of reproducing, they can use their resources to help their siblings reproduce by feeding and defending their offspring. Their genes are indirectly passed on because they share much (50%) of their genome with their siblings, who do reproduce. This is the same principle that allows ant colonies to work. However, it's not clear that this mechanism is still in effect, or whether it necessarily ever has been in humans. More evidence needed.

3) Social bonding. Bisexual behavior allows intrasexual social sexual activity. American Bison and Bighorn sheep have social systems in which male-male mating accounts for nearly half of all sexual activity. Female bonobos, about the same. Homosexuality occurs in thousands of other species as well, to varying degrees.

4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.

[iamzack]

Do gay people that do actually have biological kids have more gay kids? What about if they have kids with an opposite sex person is is ALSO gay?

can we do a 'speriment?

[General Battuta]

Do gay people that do actually have biological kids have more gay kids? What about if they have kids with an opposite sex person is is ALSO gay?

can we do a 'speriment?

I don't have any data to that effect, but currently the evidence suggests that the straight siblings of gay men have sex more and younger, which favors the Johnny Depp hypothesis.

[el_magnifico]

There are a few mechanisms as to why homosexuality is so important.

1) Sexually antagonistic selection. A trait may boost reproductive fitness in the females of a species. But both males and females get almost the entire genome, so males receive the trait too. If the trait boosts fitness in females, but causes males to be homosexual, and the net fitness gain is positive, the trait will be selected for and homosexuality will evolve.

2) Inclusive fitness. In a large family, it may be useful to have a few gay men or women who do not have children of their own. Instead of reproducing, they can use their resources to help their siblings reproduce by feeding and defending their offspring. Their genes are indirectly passed on because they share much (50%) of their genome with their siblings, who do reproduce. This is the same principle that allows ant colonies to work. However, it's not clear that this mechanism is still in effect, or whether it necessarily ever has been in humans. More evidence needed.

3) Social bonding. Bisexual behavior allows intrasexual social sexual activity. American Bison and Bighorn sheep have social systems in which male-male mating accounts for nearly half of all sexual activity. Female bonobos, about the same. Homosexuality occurs in thousands of other species as well, to varying degrees.

4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.

Thank you.

[Snail]

4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.

Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive?

I dont understand please elaborate.

[General Battuta]

4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.

Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive?

I dont understand please elaborate.

The hypothesis suggests that there is truth to the commonly held stereotype that women love gay men.

[iamzack]

What about gay women? (Actually gay, obviously, not Katy Perry gay)

[General Battuta]

What about gay women? (Actually gay, obviously, not Katy Perry gay)

You know, I'm hesitant to say that everything that holds for gay men also holds for gay women, though it might be as simple as that.

But there's some evidence that female sexuality and, in particular, female homosexuality work differently than male sexuality and homosexuality. So I want to wait until I know more on the topic.

[iamzack]

Why is all the research done on men first? Seems like it would make more sense to study female biology first.

[Flipside]

It seems to be like most laws passed these days, an idea presented as a positive thing, but with a pile of deliberately concealed curtailments on freedom inside them. Not surprised, I doubt the US Fundamentalists had to do much coaxing.

Male homosexuality is investigated first because it's not only a homophobic world, it's a misogynistic one too, women having sex isn't threatening male sexuality as much, at least from the perception of the ignorant. Those who actually stop and think will realise that Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is, but there you go

[Scotty]

Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is, but there you go

Lesbianism is homosexuality.  *ducks*

[General Battuta]

Why is all the research done on men first? Seems like it would make more sense to study female biology first.

It's not. But my immediate sources referenced gay men. I just may not have read research on female homosexuality recently.

[Flipside]

Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is, but there you go

Lesbianism is homosexuality.  *ducks*

I know, I'm just sticking to convention here of Homosexuals and Lesbians to represent gender, since most words for representing homosexuality tend to be appliucable to either gender, which makes a kind of poetic sense

Edit: I will add that neither of the Lesbians I know are particularly fond of 'Homosexual' or even 'Lesbian', and prefer to be called Gay if their sexuality is to be referred to

[Snail]

4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.

Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive?

I dont understand please elaborate.

The hypothesis suggests that there is truth to the commonly held stereotype that women love gay men.

Okay, wait. I have a gay friend, and he is not sexually attractive in any way shape or form (being straight I'm not exactly the best judge of this, but I can tell you he's as dead sexeh as the sexeh Scotsman, and indeed looks quite a lot like him).

[el_magnifico]

Those who actually stop and think will realise that Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is

Yes, but lesbianism is hot... at least in theory.