Can homosexuality be inherited?

I don’t think it’s been even remotely proven or dis-proven.

It’s a big, complicated question, and rather than try to simplify it, I would just say start reading.

Biology and sexual orientation- Wikipedia

I’m straight and my brother is gay, and this question makes me realize, that I have never given a moment’s thought to “why”. It’s merely one fact about him – he’s about six feet tall, gay, has dark hair, he likes dogs, etc. I wouldn’t wonder why he’s gay any more than I would try to figure out why he’s right-handed.

I’m not criticizing the question, I am just adding a small personal anecdote.

No Homosexualality is not inherited. It is created and accepted by immoral people and society. Basically it’s a choice.

@Elissa ummm, sure, most gay people choose the condemnation of ignorant members of society.

I have nothing nice to say so I’ll end there.

@Elissa That is quite the load of crap.

I wouldn’t say it’s inherited, in the way that gay parents would produce gay children. Every gay person I’ve ever known had two straight parents.

There certainly does seem to be a biological basis to homosexuality, but what it is, exactly, has yet to be determined.

@Elissa seriously? On what authority are you saying homosexuality is immoral?

I do not think that homosexuality is inherited. As @Augustlan mentioned, it does seem to be genetic. In other words it isn’t a choice anymore than heterosexuality.

@Elissa Who in the world do you think you are to pass judgement on people’s morality? You are wrong, and beyond rude!

@Elissa Think what you want, but you are in absolutely no place to call anything immoral, unless you are absolutely perfect. I swear, if this wasn’t general I would rip you a new one…

Homosexuality just happens. I don’t think it can be inherited. there are many things that cause sexuality choices.

Inherited in the sense that it is genetic, maybe, but not in the sense that gayness creates more gayness. Not like cleft chins, or blue eyes or whatever.
I don’t gayness rubs off on people, if your parents are both gay it doesn’t mean you are, duh. I don’t think that gay people “convert” straight people either.

Inherited in the sense that it is genetic…Not like cleft chins, or blue eyes

??

Cleft chins and blue eyes are genetic.

As in not a dominant gene. Not a Mendelian trait. ^ @jaytkay
Mendelian gayness? Come on. Dominant gay gene? I don’t think so.

I do think there is a biological component to it, just like there’s a biological component to heterosexuality. But I don’t think it is inherited, like blue eyes or red hair. There is most likely a hormonal influence in the mother’s womb before birth that makes one homosexual. Hence the biological component. The roadmap is there to begin with, and the environment just serves to build its bridges and highways, so to speak. How that gay person chooses to travel, is unique to him or her.

As in not a dominant gene. Not a Mendelian trait

So genetic influence, not absolute genetic rule. Is that what you mean?

@jaytkay “Inherited in the sense that it is genetic, maybe”...

I don’t believe it can be but I’m sure that’s next…

We don’t know.

A common argument against the idea that homosexuality is genetic is the idea that such a trait would evolve away very quickly. After all, not wanting to have sex with the opposite gender is a surefire way to not have offspring to pass the gene onto.

However, there is some evidence that while there may not be a “gay” gene, there may exist an “I like men” gene which produces gay men or straight women when it is passed on. The straight women who have it continue the existence of the gene.

I think it’s all in the inner workings of the mind. Not really inherited like genetics. My BFF is gay no one else in his family is. I always ask my BFF he never gives me good answers anyway.

Ok, my stance can be very ambiguous if one reads it with the wrong mindset. I have no prejudice against any sexual orientation. However, I believe that it is impossible for this trait to be inherited. This is because anyone who has this hypothetical genotype will by definition not be able to “pass it on” so to speak (if they stay true with their sexual orientation). Furthermore, since homosexuals are not able to reproduce in the traditional sense, there in no benefit to the species, so by natural selection, it would have been tossed out of the gene pool.

@Elissa the best argument I have ever heard against gayness being a choice is the simple fact that one could not choose to be gay if they were straight. Think about it. Let’s assume you are correct that gayness is immoral (I’m pretty certain it’s not, but for sake of argument assume it is), I can choose to commit an immoral act such as stealing, but I could never choose to be gay. I’m straight, and the idea of sex with a man is revolting to me, I could never willfully choose to do it. Therefore choice is not a component in someone’s sexual orientation.

Now one could still argue that someone may be gay, but ought not to act on their natural orientation, but this argument also fails. I would argue that living-a-lie and faking love with the opposite sex just to comply with some arbitrary notion of morality, is itself an immoral act. It would be a betrayal of their true nature, and a very cruel deception to involve on another partner of the opposite sex.

@Neophyte there are some selective advantages of homosexuality, which involve survival of the tribe and therefore the success of your more distant relatives at the expense of passing on your own genes. This is a decent article on the myth of natural selection excluding homosexuality. I used to think the same way as you do about it, but I realized that my understanding of natural selection was very limited, and as I learned more about it, I realized I was wrong.

I think that with many aspects of the human behavior and personality, it is partially from nature and partially from nuture. However, it’s being worked on in labs but nonetheless I believe they may at most find genetics that show a positive correlation, but no direct cause.

And about dear miss @Elissa, I’m going to assume you’re a strongly devout Christian. I respect that though I am not (nihilist). However there are a few things I do like from the bible, especially the part that goes something like “may he without sin cast the first stone.” I doubt you’re amongst the sinless. “Man is concieved in sin, born in corruption, he passes from the stinky of the diddy to the stench of the shroud. There is always something.” (okay, that was from All the King’s Men, but still relevant)

@everephebe You don’t really know what genetic and inherited mean, do you?

I have never read anything claiming that there is an inherited aspect to homosexuality.

@Meego If your questions are about why he is gay or “what caused it”, that’s probably because he doesn’t know why. Most gay people don’t know why they’re gay; they just are.

@Elissa Yeah, I’m sure you have loads of evidence that it’s a choice. And no, quoting Leviticus 20:13 isn’t evidence. In before “you’re taking away my freedom of speech!”

@perspicacious If you feel that somehow I have shown in my previous posts that I clearly do not understand what genetic and inherited mean you should educate me since you seem to know this terms so much more than I do. “The study of heredity in biology is called genetics[.]” Jimmy Wales.

@Elissa

Since you state with such certainty that it’s a choice, I would be really interested in how you account for gay children. (I’m referring to children far too young to have yet had sex with anybody, 8–9 yrs. old for instance)

And please give me an answer to the obvious question which arises from that:

What child in their right mind would purposely CHOOSE to be the most despised kid on the playground ? What child in their right mind would be eager to volunteer for having their childhood (and adult years) being the almost constant target of epithets and hatred ?

And kindly don’t tell me that there is no such thing as a gay child. You’d have to be REALLY oblivious to think that unless you’ve never spent any time observing kids on the playground. Please.

It is genetic…no clergy are are anyone else can convince me otherwise.

@Roby I would argue that it is genetics among other factors. I would say it’s some combination of genetics and environment, as pretty much everything about who we are is.

As far as it being inherited…. They’ve yet to find the “gay gene” in science. There is some speculation (speculation) that it homosexuality could be a result of over-expression of sexual hormones to the point where the sex of the counterpart no longer matters. Homosexuality is seen in a long list of animal species as well, so that theory (or some genetic theory) could be supported by that. But I think environment plays a big roll too. I could agree that someone raised by homosexual parents is probably more likely to be homosexual themselves, but I don’t think that has anything to do with it being “inherited.” I would argue it has more to do with they are simply more accepting of that sexuality and less afraid to embrace their own feelings that may go against norms in society.

@Neophyte Read my response above about the theory you are talking about and a theory that goes against it.

I fully believe that it is either genetic or caused by some other factor outside of the person’s control (such as womb conditions) because, as others said, few people would choose it if it were a choice. Look at all the kids in the news who have committed suicide because of bullying…why would they have chosen that?

Regarding the idea that a gay gene would disappear from the population, because the carriers are less likely to breed:

Maybe having gay uncles and aunts increases kids’ chances of reproducing. Without kids of their own, they have the time to teach and protect their nieces and nephews.

The nieces and nephews pass on genes they have in common with their gay family members.

@jaytkay There was an entire thread on this a few months ago. I can tell you that following basic genetics, if homosexuality was purely a genetic trait (as in there was a gene that just caused you to be gay), it would trend towards zero/extinction eventually. It may take several thousand years, or more even… but eventually it would cease to exist. The reason is when you’re looking at it from a strict reproductive “fitness” stand point, homosexuality could never continue. Pure homosexual’s can’t pass their genes on, and even though their relatives may carry them, they’re clearly recessive and unexpressed, and would eventually cease to be carried at all (or be locked away in our genetic catacombs while never being expressed).

The idea that “the” gay gene would disappear is based on the assumption that there is one single defining gay gene, rather than multiple traits. Also that the gene is sufficient to make someone gay. I guess I implied that in my scenario, but it’s not what I had in mind.

The idea also depends on gay people never, ever breeding. Which isn’t remotely true.

@jaytkay If they’re breeding, then they don’t have a pure gay trait (assuming it’s caused by multiple genes). So right off the bat they are “diluted” and passing on incomplete gay genes, let alone the fact their partner may have none of those genes.

There is no way around it, it’s basic genetics.. the stuff you’d learn in the first week of Genetics 101… if homosexuality is caused by genes, and only genes… it will eventually trend to zero.

Think of it with a different trait. The albino gene in squirrels. It’s not an exact example because albino squirrels can/do still breed, but it’s close. These squirrels are extremely easy to spot by predators, and as a result they don’t tend to survive long enough to pass on genes. They still have family, relatives who were born non-albino who pass along those same genes… But it’s recessive, and unexpressed. Their children are extremely unlikely to be albino, and their grandchildren are unlikely to even carry the gene. \

You have to take your feelings and personal views out of it and just look at the science of it. And going by the science, it trends to zero inevitably.

@tedd Your argument ignores that perhaps the trait increases fitness for the family members, and therefore gives that family/tribe a competitive advantage over families/tribes without those genes.

@gorillapaws You could make that argument. But a pure homosexual trait (expressed by one or more genes) would be unable to pass itself on, even if it being carried by that individual or his/her relatives would be beneficial in some manner towards fitness. A purely homosexual individual cannot pass on their genes, and their family would carry an incomplete set of homosexual genes (or not the singular gene if that were the method it’s carried). It may take thousands upon thousands of years, and may not even take full effect until the next species in our evolution… but eventually the trait would trend to zero. Increased fitness towards survival is a moot point if you can’t pass your genes on.

Considering how many gay people have been hiding their homosexuality for thousands of years, pretending to be straight and often having kids, it’s not surprising to me that the trait would be able to continue even if it’s genetic. Ironically, the social movement trending towards allowing gays to live openly might eventually wipe them out.

And I’ll say it again: there’s some evidence that there is not in fact a “gay” gene but there might be an “I like men” gene which gets passed on by the straight women who inherit it. There is evidence that the straight sisters of gay men tend to have more children than average and therefore could be passing on the “I like men” gene which produces gay men.

I personally think that homosexuality is probably caused by genetics, and environment. So in some manner it’s an influenced choice. But honestly who cares if it is a choice? If god or whatever deity you believe in really didn’t want gay people, he’d probably just stop making them.

@tedd People care because telling gay people they chose to be gay when they didn’t trivializes their sexuality and leaves open the door “well, if they chose it, they can choose to not be and they should do that right away”. And how do genetics and environment combine to make it a “choice”?

@DominicX It doesn’t trivialize it to me. I chose to be an Ohio State fan. I chose my career path. I chose to get a dog. I chose my g/f and a whole other list of things. Those decisions may have been influenced by my environment to a heavy detail, but so what? What on earth does someone else’s choice have anything to do with me? Even if it was as simple as saying “I want to be a homosexual from now on” (which isn’t what I’m implying by choosing), what makes that so wrong?

I guess what I’m saying is I fail to see the need for homosexuals to try and “hide” (if you will) behind some kind of scientific explanation for their homosexuality. So they’re homosexuals.. BFD, wanna fight about it? lol ... I say embrace it. Let hate-mongers whine and live their trivial lives… don’t give them the joy of thinking they may actually be getting to you.

Like I said, if “God” really had a problem with it, maybe he should stop making homosexuals.

Look, I agree with your basic principle. I agree that people shouldn’t have an issue with people’s choices that don’t hurt anybody, I agree that people should embrace it and not let hate-mongers get to them. But I don’t agree that comparing homosexuality to a career choice is valid; it simply isn’t because being gay is not a choice. And it doesn’t matter if people shouldn’t care if it is or if it isn’t, many people do and you have to deal with that as it is. Many people would say to your last statement “God doesn’t make homosexuals; people choose it.” And that would be false.

And to me, as a gay person, saying it’s a choice does trivialize it. You can tell me it shouldn’t all you want but the fact is that it does. It makes it seem as though my homosexuality isn’t serious, it’s a whim, it’s a choice, it’s a game, it’s not real and it’s not legitimate in comparison to non-chosen heterosexuality. So no, I’m not going to just be okay with people falsely spreading the idea that it’s a “choice”.

@DominicX Meh… The way I see it, do what you’re going to do and let other people think and say whatever they want. In the end it’s their lives they’re wasting, not yours.

@tedd

The issue is not gay attitudes about heritability.

The issue is conservatives deny the possibility of heritability so they can persecute people for their “wrong” free-will choice of sexual orientation.

Also, heritability undermines the profitable gay “cure” industry and “ex-gay” ministries. People like Michelle Bachmann’s husband make a lot of money off that quackery.

@jaytkay Oh well you’re not going to get any argument from me about conservatives and their crazy agenda. I was merely pointing out the science behind the genetics theory. The genetics “heritability” theory doesn’t even necessarily mean that people can’t currently be genetically homosexual… all it says is that it would eventually trend to zero.

Since homosexuality isn’t 100% accepted and tolerated, gays and lesbians are sometimes bound to have cultures to themselves. Like in Montréal, there’s a gay neighborhood. I do think that’s pretty cool, but I do wish gays didn’t have to gather in some place like that. Now anyone can go in there, gay or not, but it’s obviously intended for homosexuals. And of course, no gays are forced to go there.
This little example to say that, the closest thing I can think to answer this with would be social influence. But that certainly isn’t inheritance, and such ’‘social influence’’ won’t adhere to anyone that isn’t gay. (unless one is confused or curious) I don’t think it’s a choice, I’m pretty sure you’re just born that way, but even so, I really don’t think it’s something you inherit.

I mean if it was, that would mean that most people from a family line would be a homosexual or a lesbian, and if so, how the hell would the family line even go on?

I hope I’m not pissing off or offending anyone, I’m not trying to be funny here, and am answering this with respect towards anyone of whatever sexual orientation they are. But these subjects are so damn touchy. You know, just my disclaimer here.

@Mariah That explanation does have some validity, but it does not explain female homosexuals.

@gorillapaws The “kin selection” point is very interesting, I’m having a little trouble wrapping my head around it, but it seems like a very good explanation (from what I can tell). Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

@Neophyte it’s just one hypothesis, I’ve no doubt that the ultimate answer will be pretty complex and involve many different variables. It’s certainly not conclusive by any means, but it seems plausible at least, and is interesting to think about.

@Neophyte I know. Perhaps there is an equivalent “I like women” gene. I am trying to recall what the book that I got the original statement from said. I believe it said that female homosexuality is a little bit less well understood and it is not known why it occurs… yet.

My main point is that people shouldn’t assume that genetic homosexuality would certainly tend to zero because, by thinking outside the box a bit, one can find solutions for that kind of thing. Maybe we simply haven’t figured it out yet.

@Mariah I’m sorry, I know where you’re coming from and you’re seeing this as some kind of assault on homosexuality…. it’s not I promise.

This is simple, basic, genetics 101. If an individual or a group of individuals cannot pass on their genes, then any trait that is unique to them will eventually trend to zero.

If it makes you feel any better the same thing is happening with all kinds of non-controversial genetic traits.

I wouldn’t see it as some kind of scientific proof that homosexuality is a choice, because frankly that’s not what it says. It just says that if it’s purely genetic, some day in the future (potentially millions of years away) that trait will trend to extinction. It doesn’t say anything about it not possibly existing, in fact genetic mutations that eventually trend to zero are quite common.

@tedd My argument is not based on emotions or offense at your statements. It is based on the fact that I have read a theory that makes logical sense as to why homosexuality wouldn’t necessarily trend to zero even if it’s purely genetic. Before reading this theory, I too thought the same as you. But the theory is so clever and out-of-the-box that it opened my mind to the idea that maybe there are some possibilities that I hadn’t considered yet.

There is some evidence that the straight sisters of homosexual men tend to be more promiscuous and have more children on average than the general population. The theory is that these women have a gene that gives them an unusually large sex drive towards men. The men who inherit this gene also have an unusally large sex drive towards men – they’re gay. The women who have this gene have a lot of children and pass the gene on, compensating for the men who have it and don’t have children. I like this theory because it makes sense, not because it doesn’t offend my sensibilities.

@Mariah Hmm… It’s a novel idea…. but it is also assuming that homosexuality is a proclivity towards a sexual/intimate desire of males, rather than a sexual/intimate desire towards same-sex individuals. It would fail to explain homosexual females.

@tedd Yes, this theory only pertains to males. Less is known about female homosexuality. Maybe there is an equivalent gene for females, or maybe there is some other novel explanation for females that we haven’t discovered yet. My point is that there do exist ideas that could explain how homosexuality could be genetic without tending towards zero.

I can’t see how being gay is in anyway a choice. I understand that homosexual behavior is found in all species of mammal. Do dogs and cats choose to be gay? They are just the way their genetic make-up specifies, you no more choose to be gay than to be black or have freckles.

Further, while we’re on the subject, I suggest that organizations that try to use psychology or pray away the gay are at best deluded, more typically, they’re just in it for the money.

@Mariah I like the idea, the hypothesis if you will. But it, like most “genetic-gay-research” needs more study or actual scientific research to back it up. It’s a pretty big hole for it to only explain homosexuality in males. BUT, assuming that homosexuality is purely caused by genes, and is caused by separate genes in males and females…. that would be a plausible theory as to how homosexuality could be passed on continuously (via highly active heterosexual sisters of homosexual men). But again, it’s the type of thing that would need more evidence to back it. Going a bit further, one would suspect that nature would eventually phase out this gene in men as well, since it would stop those men from passing their genes along… and nature in the end trends towards survival of the fittest (those that reproduce).

@Ron_C I think a lot of those organizations may think they’re legitimately helping people (by “curing” them of something they think is wrong). The irony being they’re probably doing a lot more damage than good by just further confusing their sexuality.. if not worse. I think some people may actually be in it for more nefarious purposes than the money even.

@tedd ” some people may actually be in it for more nefarious purposes than the money even.” I’ve seen people damaged by this sort of therapy; I never saw anyone actually cured. Mostly they try to be “normal” but they are never really happy. I found it especially troubling that Michelle Bachmann and her husband run such a therapy center and actually get federal support. I didn’t think you were allowed to run for president is you are involved in an on-going criminal enterprise.

@tedd Sure, of course there needs to be a lot more proof. I’m not saying it’s true. It’s just a possibility.

I actually do think it’s inherited, as in there is a gene for it. Therefore it cannot be immoral. I love to think of humans in the wild and have they might have lived in a wild society. I think Gay men in the wild perhaps produce more estrogen, and were probably more tentative to the psychological and emotional aspects of society, or even fashion sense. Contrary to gay men, lebian women perhaps pump out more testateron (sp? haha) than usual and are capable of doing “physical” labor work. Since humans are a social species, we can make room for every kind of person there is on our society to function and live in a harmonious place.