MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is homosexuality a genetic glitch?

Is homosexuality a genetic glitch?

posted 5 years ago by MovieBuff224 (5053)
88 replies | jump to latest

Sorry if this offends anyone but I’ve thought about this long and hard for a while. Now that we’ve acknowledged that homosexuality is not a choice I think it’s time to examine its origins/cause to better understand it.

Let’s start with the basics - sexuality, sexual intercourse and sexual attraction all exist for one purpose and one purpose only: procreation; to ensure the survival of a species. This is no different in humans than it is in fish or birds. We can then conclude from this that any deviation from heterosexual attraction, be it homosexuality, bisexuality, or even asexuality, is not natural as none of them can produce an offspring. People saying that sexual reproduction is NOT the only purpose of sexual intercourse, who then proceed to rattle off all of the social and emotional health benefits of sexuality are wrong.

It doesn’t matter that homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time, or that it is pervasive across all different families in the animal kingdom, naturally occurring glitches that appear consistently on the evolutionary timeline does not make them “natural” in the sense of being intended.

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 5 years ago

natures way of cutting down population

[–] froggyandtoadie (835) 5 years ago

exactly what I was thinking

[–] twinA (4921) 5 years ago

It would not be that much then since gay people are a small minority and can still decide to have children if they really want to should the society they live in are okay with it.

~~/o/

[–] Eric56 (4580) 5 years ago

But there's lots of gays who have children.

[–] brux (14724) 5 years ago

I think it is people getting their wires crossed by experiences that set their preferences for what turns them on. That is, whatever gets them sexually excited for the first time in their lives tends to take up residence in their perceptions, and reinforcement will solidify and build on what is already there.

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

Yeah probably a combination of a congenital hormonal imbalance and influences during early childhood/adolescence.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14382) 5 years ago

Let's put it this way: if homosexuality was genetic, the genes would eventually disappear from any one animal/human population, because those with the active gene wouldn't reproduce at all and keep the gene going. That, and if the entire human race all went gay, we would be extinct in less than 50 years. There's a reason it's super-rare, even among animals.

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

I respectfully disagree. Just because something is genetic it does not mean that it's hereditary. Genetic mutations, anomalies, or disorders are not necessarily hereditary. I'm not saying that this is what homosexuality is, as I don't know all the research on it.

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

I’ve thought about that but as the poster above said I don’t think it’s necessarily hereditary, but rather a hormonal imbalance influenced by some sort of congenital disposition. I think it’s so pervasive because animals and primates in general are hypersexual and so for a different mix to come out here and there consistently is expected.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14382) 5 years ago

There was a famous experiment done some decades ago where a scientist dissected the brains of straight and homosexual male cadavers. He discovered that the hypothalamus in the gay men was smaller than in the straight men, which was odd. In fact, it was the same proportions as what you would find in a straight female brain.

The problem is, this scientist was working with a limited number of specimens, and never looked at the brains of homosexual female cadavers, or even bisexual cadavers. So there's no way to know how the correlation fits in. Plus, I'm not sure how the hypothalamus could fit in with sexual orientation.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 5 years ago

You seem to be obsessed with homosexuals. Is there something we should know about?

[–] Knish (1721) 5 years ago

Moviebuff is too busy to reply, he's gobbling on something right now.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 5 years ago

Indeed. This is the 2nd thread he's posted about it (maybe more that I don't know about).

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

ouch

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

Lol I’m not obsessed the last thread made me think of this one

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

First you ask if lisping homos piss you off and now this, forgive me if I see an agenda forming. Always preceded with "No offence to homos BUT" which as we all know, is a precursor to something that's bound to offend someone.

Do you know any gay people? Maybe direct your questions to them.

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

You seem offended, are you gay? If so my apologies, I’m by no means obsessively targeting homosexuals, I just get on information kicks and want to absorb and analyze as much as possible.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

No I'm not offended and I don't see how my sexuality is relevant, unless you're trying to hit on me. You don't need to be gay to dislike seeing gay people hassled. Think about it, I'm not drawing the longest bow ever, both of your questions were framed negatively - does the way gay people talk annoy you, is it a glitch? Just seems a little incessant and begs the questions, why do you care?

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 5 years ago

Nothing is "intended" in natural selection. Everything in nature is the consequence of this blind evolutionary process. Whatever works in the business of passing on the genes ( or at least doesn't get in the way of it too badly ) is what survives.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Nature is random. So everything that happen by itself in nature is natural. Cancer is natural, gene mutation is natural, homosexuality is natural, etc.

Unnatural (or synthetic) are things that can only happen because of human intervention. Most dog breeds are unnatural, tattoos are unnatural, GMO is unnatural, etc.

Probably you meant "normal?"

In that case sure, globally homosexuality is not normal.

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

I thought I sidestepped the semantics discussion with the preface of distinguishing ”natural” from naturally occurring. I think it’s obvious that it’s not “normal” as in a global majority but I was also saying it is not natural as in it is not how sexuality evolved and is supposed to work.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Have you ever read a book about evolution? Like for example Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene?

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

No would love to though

[–] uraharakisuke (85) 5 years ago

Wow what a homophobic thread. We've just had pride month and you're doing this now?!?

Also how do you know you're not gay OP? I mean your thread's pretty gay so maybe you like the penis? Bet you would huh gayboy.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[–] BillHicksFan (10562) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14382) 5 years ago

Awww, isn't this cute? It's an Alphabet person showing how tolerant they truly are. Don't y'all just love it when they run out of stuff to argue with like adults and start attacking the OP personally?

[–] uraharakisuke (85) 5 years ago

How dare you. Go finish your rubiks cube you racist.

[–] kspkap (13555) 5 years ago

Racism? What does racism have to do with the OP’s subject matter? Could you possibly be a troll throwing out ad hominem attacks? 🤔 This usually occurs when one cannot discuss a subject with intellect.

[–] uraharakisuke (85) 5 years ago

Wow kspkap comes in defending racism AGAIN! And dont call me a hominem, I'm not into men unlike you kspkap.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[–] kspkap (13555) 5 years ago

I’ll let this poster’s reply speak for itself.🤦‍♀️ 🙇‍♀️ Not worth my time.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

Calling homosexuality a 'glitch' is sort of like calling a hurricane or earthquake or Siamese twins 'bad' or 'evil'. It might help to describe our human experience of the catastrophe or unusual occurrence but it has no meaning beyond that. All things in nature are intrinsically neither good nor bad. It might be better to say, this hurricane caused massive disruption for mankind; or the earthquake killed thousands or being born a Siamese twin is an unbearable burden; or being born homosexual will make your life harder in most countries today.

The value judgement that words like 'glitch' or 'unnatural' or 'anomalies' suggests implies you have the secret formula that governs the universe, and that homosexuality isn't part of the plan. I don't think any of us are even close to being that knowledgeable...yet

"This universe is under no obligation to explain itself to ...you" Neil deGrass Tyson

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

Actually we can factually prove it isn’t part of the “plan” whatever that is.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

"Actually we can factually prove it isn’t part of the “plan” whatever that is."

Waiting for your " factual proof" Mr Universe

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 5 years ago

Yes we can. Procreation is the only reason for sex, that is obvious to anyone with a brain.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

It is "unnatural" insomuch as homosexuals can´t procreate. The topic is interesting to me too as there are gay people in my family. Always wondered about nature v nurture etc.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

So BillySlater, something is 'unnatural' when it does not lead to possible procreation? That would make infertile people unnatural. That would make ANYTHING you do to conceive ( outside of straight penal/vaginal intercourse) 'unnatural' Perhaps you believe the sex act is ONLY for procreation, which would make any other type of reproduction 'unnatural'.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Well infertility in women that are supposed to be fertile is abnormal. It´s only natural for women that are at the age where they are supposed to be infertile. That´s why women that are infertile are treated for it if they want to have kids. Anything where humans have to intervene to get something to work, is unnatural. Is IVF natural? Clearly it isn´t. That said, I don´t have a problem with things that are "unnatural". Medical treatment in and of itself is unnatural, doesn´t mean that I have a problem with it.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

Your definition of 'unnatural' is flexible, moving and therefore not scientific!

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

I think what I said was fairly consistent. I am curious to know about so called types of reproduction outside of sex that is considered "natural" though.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

"A little learning is a dangerous thing...drink deep or taste not of the Pierian spring..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Cheers!

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Oh cool, had no idea humans were asexual, thanks for that.

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

You:

"I think what I said was fairly consistent. I am curious to know about so called types of reproduction outside of sex that is considered "natural" though."

Unless you think humans are the ONLY things in nature...you know where the word "unnatural" comes from.

Drink deep!

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Asexual reproduction isn´t natural in humans, the argument we made against homosexuality being "natural" isn´t because its not observable in nature its because it doesn´t lead to procreation. We already established this. Ergo, asexual reproduction has no relevance to this argument. Sounds like you need to drink deep from the fountain of logic or reading comprehension...

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

MovieBuff224 said:
"Let’s start with the basics - sexuality, sexual intercourse and sexual attraction all exist for one purpose and one purpose only: procreation; to ensure the survival of a species. This is no different in humans than it is in fish or birds. "

Billy,

Go read the OP again. After some long and hard thought, MovieBuff224 was making rather declarative statements about homosexuality and NATURE, not humans Billy, NATURE. If you want to limit your defense of his/her position you should make it clear you are ONLY referring to HUMANS.

While sexual reproduction (involving opposite sexes) is common among animals, asexual reproduction also sometimes occurs. My point is simply this: The OP is wrong in trying to make the point that 'everything in nature' involves reproduction of the kind that necessitates opposite sexes...therefore homosexuality is unnatural' meaning 'it does not occur in nature'. It does!

Speaking strictly about humans, if you too thought 'long and hard' about this issue, you will realize that the mere condition of being 'hetero' or 'homosexual' has little to do with reproduction. More correctly what you want to say is that 'anal sex' is unlikely to cause reproduction in humans. I will agree with this. However having 'anal sex' is not a necessary condition of being homosexual and MORE IMPORTANTLY, having 'vaginal sex' is not a necessary condition of being heterosexual.

Drink Deep, my friend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction#Examples_in_animals