A quick internet search will end up finding numerous articles that claim a 'gay gene' proves that homosexuality is a genetic construct. In reality this is dreadful reporting, and the extravagant headline is made to overlook the actual scientific basis of the study that can in reality only make tenuous links. I understand that reporting like this would follow the biased agenda of these news outlets, making homosexuality justifiable in the eyes of many, but when you actually delve into the biological aspects of the argument it's not something so simple as identifying a single gene. The most commonly referenced study is one that involves the study of chromosomal linking between homosexuals. However the problem with this study is that there were just 40 participants, and from this small sample the scientists hypothesised that the gene responsible was 'xq28' due to similar alleles being expressed at higher frequencies than initially predicted. The reason that this study cannot be used as conclusive evidence is because it only finds a correlation, and a correlation that doesn't take into account external factors or explain how this single gene would be inheritable. The study never explained why this gene couldn't be expressed for bravery or femininity that you would logically assume were traits related to homosexuals. Even then the study only concluded that this gene was suspected to have an influence on homosexuality, but whether the cause is even genetic at all is still unknown. However to say that genetics are unlikely to have any effect on sexual orientation is also unlikely considering that scientists have successfully changed the preference of mice by simply manipulating their genetics, and as per most studies with live samples there is almost certainly a connection. In reality however you could write pages on the contradictory evidence flying around the internet, but currently there is no conclusive evidence that genetics are the primary cause of sexual orientation.
Well I'm glad you think you were born that way love. I'm probably going to ask scientists though, as they might actually know.
Once you get passed the genetic arguments and on to evolutionary proof it soon becomes illogical to suggest that a 'gay gene' would stay in the human gene pool if it didn't provide a benefit to the fitness of certain individuals. There have been studies, and I say that word tenuously, that suggest that this 'gay gene' may actually have an indirect benefit to heterosexuals, explaining why the gene has remained in the human population. This may only be a hypothesis but it does provide a logical explanation as to why homosexuality could bypass the effects it has on reproductive success and still be prevalent in many individuals. This may also explain why homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species, the origins of which are also mostly unexplained. In some species there has been an explanation as to the evolutionary benefits of this behaviour, with the most famous probably being the flour beetle that has sex with other male flour beetles to clear out any unfit sperm. Obviously a clear explanation like that has not been found in human society, but its commonplace in nature suggests there is nothing unnatural or unique about homosexuality in humans.
Have you heard of a man named Charles Darwin? I think you would benefit from reading his work if you think this is a valid line of argument to this dilemma.
Whilst there is certainly no conclusive evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is genetic, there is still no reason why cynics would use this as a justifiable reason to spurt their archaic prejudices even if being gay is a choice. I don't understand why liking men means being subjected to a torrent of abuse, unless maybe your story about coming out is amusing or cringeworthy. I just don't understand the idea that some people think that all of a sudden a homosexual would make a conscious decision in their life to like men at a random stage. I'm not gay myself so I don't claim to know, but from what I've heard people don't just weigh up the options before choosing, otherwise that would be like they were changing outfits for the day or something equally insignificant. A heterosexual can't just decide to be gay one day; unless of course they're an attention seeking liar with no self respect. I also aim this point to the members of the LGBTQ societies who feel their sexual feelings are more valid than others because they've identified themselves as gay for as long as they can remember, subsequently alienating a proportion of adolescents in the same way that a cult would.
You only 'believe' that nobody is born gay. Well that's very conclusive isn't it?
To conclude we don't actually have an answer to what causes people to be gay, so sorry for wasting your time. Being gay is certainly a natural process in both humans and numerous other species, but that's all the biological evidence we have to go on. We haven't yet discovered if being gay is determined by genetics, the environment or social surroundings, but the likelihood is that it's a combination of nature and nurture. Identifying yourself as a homosexual is certainly a choice, but my bigger question is why does this matter? Why should people's sexuality be determined by what nature intended?
No comments:
Post a Comment