Why Gays Jump on the ‘Gay Gene’ Bandwagon

I believe that the majority of people lobbying society into a belief that a gene exists which has resulted in ones homosexuality, or in other words; ‘a gene which has direct influence to the outcome of ones sexual attraction’, are doing so because of socialistic norms, negative stereotypes, and ideas which have been superimposed upon homosexuality by society. I will elaborate and clarify on that idea below, but before I continue I would like to give a disclaimer, that when using the word homosexual, or homosexuality in this article, I am strictly referring to the attraction to the sex organs which are the same that one possesses themself. It has no emotional or psychological attraction associated with it in my writing. I am doing so because when discerning between any of an almost infinite number of sexualities, there is no general consensus or definitive description as to what it means to be ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘pansexual’, etc., and it is often an opinionated answer that varies from each person of whom you are asking. Most people refer to being homosexual as having both sexual attraction, and emotional attraction to the same sex. There are people who exist whose emotional attractions differ from their sexual attractions, and I believe these are separate entities within a being that could be determined by different factors; either biologically or psychologically. So for the purpose of this article, I am stating that what is being discussed when referencing ‘homosexuality’ is the sexual attraction alone.

If it were concluded that homosexuality be biologically determined, the effects on society would be vastly dramatic. The implications would affect religion, politics, and rattle the stigmas and predispositions about homosexuality that millions of people hold across the world. In the United States, there are laws that protect people who have immutable characteristics, such as race, from discrimination. If homosexuality were proven to be an immutable characteristic, then the laws would then be changed. The effects would be far reaching, nonetheless. When thinking about the things that would result from a ‘gay gene’ having been proved to exist, or things that would result from merely convincing people that a ‘gay gene’ exist whether true or not, the consequences are almost entirely positive. I think that these ‘positive outcomes’ are what motivate and perhaps subconsciously urge homosexuals and others to spread the ideology that the ‘gay genes’ existence is truth.  However unscientific, or scientific, I don’t believe that the positive outcomes of claiming and believing in the ‘gay gene’ justifies the acceptance of this ideology into ones beliefs as truth. I think that the number of people who believe that being gay is a choice is still very significant. Because if it were not a choice, no one would be able to justify treating them any differently than their heterosexual counterpart.

The majority of homosexuals fail to realize that the idea that it’s not a choice, and the idea that it is not determined or influenced by genetics can co-exist. Just because someone is gay and didn’t make the choice to be gay, does not have to imply that their homosexual attractions were the result of genetics. It is argued because it is fact that no one has control over their own genetics. If homosexuality was proven to be genetically related or determined, it would then mean that they did not actively make the choice to be gay, a concept which happens to be an important part of the gay agenda. Why is so much effort being spent on proving that a gay gene exists as opposed to a pedophile gene, or a serial rapist gene? Is it that some of us have so little pride in who we are that we feel the need to justify or excuse the way in which we live with a ‘biological destiny for which we have no control over’. One can have no control over their sexual attraction while it still being completely unaccredited to genetics. I believe that our sexuality is shaped strictly by external influence beginning at an early age for some, and possibly later for others.

If you believe as I do, that homosexuality has no genetic relation, then depending on what criteria you let dictate what it means to ‘choose’ something, it could be argued that gay people did choose to be gay, but just not actively or consciously choose to, or chose without knowing the implications of that choice. Allow me to explain what I mean by ‘not actively choosing’, because ‘actively choosing’ something is an important facet of what many deem necessary to classify something as ‘choice’. Let’s say that a deaf man is on a walk with his five year old granddaughter. They walk casually down the street towards the local park and come upon a set of railroad tracks that they must cross. The deaf grandfather, being senile, does not look for a train before crossing, nor does he hear one. You, an innocent bystander who is located several thousand feet away, notice a train barreling down the tracks only seconds from crushing the blind man and his young granddaughter. You are located too far away to push or scoop away the blind man or his granddaughter. But, you are conveniently located right beside the railroad switch plate. You can pull the lever and send the train veering left onto the left siding of the track and off of an incomplete bridge completely missing the blind man and his granddaughter. Or you can let the train continue onward and crush the blind man and his granddaughter. In a rush you chose to flip the switch and send the engineer and his conductor to their deaths in order save the blind man and his young granddaughter crossing the tracks. It later turns out that the train was carrying 300 passengers who are now all deceased. Regarding what dictates a choice, would you walk away from that situation admitting that you chose to kill to 300 people? Was it still a choice since you didn’t know the implications of the choice? If someone has offered you a piece of strawberry cake, and a piece of chocolate, and you chose to eat the chocolate cake and it’s revealed that the chocolate cake had poison in it but the strawberry did not, and you then die from ingesting the poison. Did you choose death? Or did you just make a decision unknowingly that resulted in your death?

I feel that this is the way that gay people are brought up into society. By fate, external influences, opportunity, early experiences, and possibly a few ‘choices’ for which you may have not have known what would result of them, and for which may not have even been related to homosexuality directly at the time. I think that most would conclude that since these choices are not consciously made, that they are not in fact ‘choices’ at all, since the general consensus is that a choice involves an active reasoning, logical process, and an understanding of the consequences.

Among the research showing that sexuality is influenced by or the result of genetics, the unsubstantiated part remains to be if the differences in heterosexual and homosexual brain characteristics form as a result of their sexuality, or if their sexuality is a result of these differences. Additionally, in case studies, the differences are not found prevalent among all or even most homosexuals. There could also be no natural selection for a gay gene because gay persons are not able to reproduce. So with the prohibition of reproduction, wouldn’t it be naturally selected out of the gene pool? So if a gay gene exists, it must have some other naturally desirable function associated with it, otherwise it could not be selected for. Thus, the data appears to be inconsistent enough for anyone to use as a sole justification for their belief.

Regarding the ample amount of research in all directions, that one’s sexuality is A) strictly a result of environmental influence, B) strictly a result of genetics, or C) a result of both environmental and genetic factors, a lack of proof continues to be the case for all. Until proof is provided, it will remain a mystery that I feel is only determined by one’s own personal experience, discussion, and contemplation. Gays are seemingly given more credibility and have more persuasive-power when sharing their opinion regarding this with straight people, and undecided gay people alike. If you are gay person who believes that your homosexuality is the result of genetics, and have come to the realization that the ‘positive outcomes of a gay gene existing’ are the only reasons for your belief, then I highly encourage you to further challenge your ideas. However you see the issue, whether straight or gay, tolerance of someone’s sexuality shouldn’t be dictated by whether or not they were born with it, or whether it developed later in life.

What are your ideas on whether or not you believe a gay gene exists and why. Do you feel as though you have been gay since birth, and whether or not you think it was determined by a source which wasn’t environmental and after your birth, or have you recently come to the realization that you have same-sex sexual or emotional attractions after happily living a heterosexual life? I think the only way to help us understand why we believe as we do is to discuss them with people of differing opinions, to have them challenge your beliefs and to challenge your own for those things that remain unproven.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. its really a tough question that i think even the most knowledgable experts would admit is still quite a mystery. There are so many man made social norms that might form the way someone behaves or thinks. For instance, why is a certain male douchebag a douchebag? its certainly not genetics (although maybe some kind of hormone imbalance over the years has formed mental habits/social point of views that are aggressive)

    I do not think homosexuality or sexual attraction is only defined by genitals. I find most woman to be comforting and approachable and most men to be distant, colder, and slightly more complicated (though the definition of a woman might mean projecting their complications, it seems to me the our social definition of a man has made inherent complications [i.e. there are many different types of women and very few types of men]). I find myself wanting to be friends with women and wanting to get a man to like me. But are men cold and distant because they genetically are or because its way our society has defined them to be? But we cant ignore either the hormonal effects of both testosterone and estrogen, both respectively will make one more aggressive and more emotional, which likely has lead to our social definition of what it is to be a man and woman. So perhaps gay people have had (naturally) more estrogen/certain female oriented hormones from birth, find themselves sympathetic to women and then naturally attracted to men? This is my guess.

    It is important to note, however, that without our intense social definitions of man and woman, perhaps gay people would not actually “learn” or unconsciously “choose” what may lead them to being only attracted to women. However, under my argument’s terms, it is not a choice but a naturally learned and permanent characteristic from a combination of genetic i.e hormonal factors and our social matrix that must be obeyed and ingrained from birth.

    This is similar to the way personalities are formed. And this is completely conjecture as i have dont absolutely not research outside of my day to day experiences as a gay man.

    1. its really a tough question that i think even the most knowledgable experts would admit is still quite a mystery. There are so many man made social norms that might form the way someone behaves or thinks. For instance, why is a certain male douchebag a douchebag? its certainly not genetics (although maybe some kind of hormone imbalance over the years has formed mental habits/social point of views that are aggressive)

      I am glad to see that your point of view has evolved from me being “one of the smartest people you know saying one of the dumbest things you’ve ever heard” to it being more of a not so obviously answered “tough question” 🙂 hehe. I agree entirely with your statements in the above quoted paragraph though. I like to think of the human brain born as a dead beat; without ability to live1, without will power, and without the thought that adults utilize, because I believe it to be accurate All behaviors/actions and opinions from that point forward in one’s life are socially and environmentally constructed unto that individual.

      I find most woman to be comforting and approachable and most men to be distant, colder, and slightly more complicated (though the definition of a woman might mean projecting their complications, it seems to me the our social definition of a man has made inherent complications [i.e. there are many different types of women and very few types of men])

      I completely disagree, and find these observations you have made to be stereotypical generalizations of a broad range of completely diverse individuals, which, in this case are men and woman.

      I do not think homosexuality or sexual attraction is only defined by genitals.

      I do not either. I think someone’s sexual orientation is defined by both the sexual and emotional attraction to a specific sex. However, this is just my opinion and I respect different semantics regarding that which dictates terminologies of sexual attraction. However, with our belief, what term do you use to refer to someone who has opposite sex sexual attractions (as defined by the attraction to the opposites sex’s genitalia) but who desires the same sex physically (an attraction to everything but the genitalia) and emotionally?

      I find myself wanting to be friends with women and wanting to get a man to like me

      I believe that this is because you desire men romantically, and by learned nature, people tend to seek friendship from those whom 1) there can be potential romantic interest with due to sexual identity restriction and 2) are interested in individuals who are of the same sex of the sex which they are interested in themselves. I.e. gay men befriending straight women, straight men befriending other straight men.

      But are men cold and distant because they genetically are or because its way our society has defined them to be?

      I don’t want to answer that because it requires to me assume the presumption that men are cold and distant as truth; which I believe to be a stereotypical generalization that puts a large group of diverse people (men) into a small labeled box, but I will answer anyways assuming this as a temporary truth.

      …we cant ignore either the hormonal effects of both testosterone and estrogen, both respectively will make one more aggressive and more emotional, which likely has lead to our social definition of what it is to be a man and woman

      I don’t think we can accredit the testosterone or lack thereof to these observed differences in behavior. I think it’s easy for one to make an observation of these behavioral differences and accredit it to hormonal differences because hormones are one of the many observed differences between men and woman, and when input into the opposite sex have effected their behavior. I think that men and woman are on a level playing field when it comes to these hormonal differences, as the dramatic side effects are only observed when excessive amounts above natural levels of that individual are placed into either sex.
      Regarding evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory (the theory that increased testosterone levels among some mammalian male species is the cause of increased aggressiveness relative to that of females of the same species) what testing has been done has proven inconclusive, which is why it remains a theory. I believe these hormonal differences to be the result of the increased aggressiveness sometimes found amongst some mammals; not that this increased aggressiveness is the result of the hormonal differences. Aggressiveness causing hormonal changes in the body vs. hormonal changes causing aggressiveness. It is a question of causality. The increased aggressiveness among the males could be accredited to any number of environmental and historical factors which are external to the body.

      So perhaps gay people have had (naturally) more estrogen/certain female oriented hormones from birth, find themselves sympathetic to women and then naturally attracted to men? This is my guess.

      I think this a bad guess as no quantity of scientific study has ever indicated this, and those studies that have tested this show that gay men have the same testosterone levels as straight men (both higher than the level in females), although there will always be outliers as with any sample study. An interesting study that I read showed that the global average index of testosterone levels among male humans is dropping each year, with the U.S. in the lead. I believe this is due to the roles and duties of men in society. They are no longer required to be as physically active, to be hunters, to be gatherers, to physically protect their families, to fight for survival with aggressiveness, as they were required to do so historically.

      1 Without ones sole ability alone other than that of random uncommon odds, and without influence from an external being(s’) factors

  2. i meant to expand more on attraction to genitalia. How we define men and woman does have something to do with whats between their legs, therefore there is a connection to the way someone is or behaves and what is between their legs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: