Homosexuality and Biology

[Giancarlo]

Che this is insulting to some people.... especially this quote... you cannot generalize people into a group by the way they look, that my friend is the biggest mistake you can make.

It isn't that all gay men look this way, but all men who look this way are gay. I know it when I see it, MrFun has this look.

Does my picture (http://glomar.net/photos/fotog.jpg) have this face structure?

I think being gay or bisexual all has to do with the environment the person is subjected to. That genetic argument is baseless.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Back on topic:

I took Biology in high school - 2 years of it. And (to this point, anyway), I'm not homosexual. It would appear there is no link.


The problem with this debate - genetic vs environmental - is that if we can conclusively show it's one or the other, the consequences could be unpleasant.

Examples...

Genetic: How many narrow minded people would be terminating pregnancies if they knew the child-to-be would be gay (the way pregnancies are terminated in certain countries if the child-to-be is female)?

Environmental: The same hypothetical narrow minded people, if they found out sexual preference was due to environment, would then try to 'reprogram' the homosexual child by changing their environment.

Moral of the story: Some things we are better off not knowing.

[Giancarlo]

Moral of the story: Some things we are better off not knowing.

And you got a point there....

But I will continue pushing my question to Che and ask do I have that face structure?

[Lorizael]

That's only a problem if people are homophobic. If we can actually get everyone to agree that everyone is equal, this wouldn't be a problem, genetic or environmental. But that's for another thread. Sure are a lot of these recently... though I did start two. Anyways, I've got nothing else to say... think I'll press the submit button... this wasn't a very useful post...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Frogger


It would get rid of it, albeit rather slowly. Unless there is a positive benefit from getting gene from one parent but not both (e.g. sickle-cell gene) there is notheing to counteract downward trend.

No it would not. Only one fourth of the progeny would be homozygous and be unable to reproduce. The three quarters who were heterozygous and the one quarter who lacked the gene entirely would be unaffected. The heterozygous would pass the gene on ad infinitum.

[Boris Godunov]

Who you callin' a homozygous?!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


No it would not. Only one fourth of the progeny would be homozygous and be unable to reproduce. The three quarters who were heterozygous and the one quarter who lacked the gene entirely would be unaffected. The heterozygous would pass the gene on ad infinitum.

Only if you assume average population growth rate of greater than or equal to 33% per generation.

[KrazyHorse]

The point is that two "gay-gene" parents only have 3 children, whereas two "normal" parents have 4. This means that a union of two "gay-genes" produces less viable offspring, cutting down their share of the next generation, and if the general population doesn't grow fast enough then you end up with a decline in the absolute number as well.

As percentage of gay-gene carriers drops, however, the efect is lessened, since a union of two of them becomes less likely with lower occurence. Without countervailing positive effect of heterozygousness, however, there is no stable point above zero.

[Boris Godunov]

But this neglects the fact that many, many homosexuals have sired children.

[KrazyHorse]

If we want to deal in concrete numbers, assume that we have prevalence of gene among non-gay population of p (non-gays are either heterozygotes or non-carriers).

The prevalence of unions among 2 non-carriers would be (1-p)^2. The prevalence of unions among 2 carriers would be p^2. The prevalence of unions among one carrier and one non-carrier would be 2p(1-p).

In the next generation, the prevalence of gene among viable population (non-gay), assuming independence of all other traits from gay gene will be: p(1-p) (half of children of carrier-noncarrier union will carry gene, all will be viable) + 1/2p^2 (only half of offspring from double carrier union will both be viable and carry gene) = p-p^2+1/2p^2 = p-1/2p^2.

EDIT: this is slightly off. Should be p(1-1/2p)/(1-1/4p^2) = p/(1+1/2p) since we're asking about prevalence among viable population...

Note that this is < p...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But this neglects the fact that many, many homosexuals have sired children.

Of course. That needs to be added in as extra propability, but this is secondary effect. Unless gays have more children than heterosexuals, the prevalence of a gay rexessive gene will always decrease, unless there is some sort of benefit to being a gay-gene heterozygote (again, see the example of sickle-cell anemia among blacks in Africa). If there is such a benefit, the prevalence of gay gene will find natural equilibrium point.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Chegitz, usually you provide intelligent insight on a variety of topics and issues.

But for once, this statement of yours is simply wrong.

That's not much of an argument, MrFun. I'm sorry this contradicts liberal teaching that you can't tell a gay person by looking at them, but in some cases you can. Leaving aside the whole concept of gaydar (which straights can have also, especially after seventeen years of having gay friends and occasionally living in almost totally gay environments), there is a facial structure that some gay men have that I've never seen on a straight person. It's not body language. Part of it is higher and more prominent cheek bones. There are other aspects of it also. Had we never discussed you sexuality, the moment I saw your picture, I would have known.

Does that mean all gay people have that look? No, not at all. Fez (whatever he is) doesn't have it, but most gay men don't. My uncle doesn't. My best friend doesn't. Two of Bunnygrrl's close gay friends do (out of a pack of about six or seven).

Does this mean that all gay people look alike. No. Does this mean tht you can tell a gay person just by looking at him, only sometimes. I knew one guy that I never would have guessed he was gay. He was a "regular guy," neighborhood bar type. I was shocked he slipped past my gaydar.

[Giancarlo]

Chegitz, that is misleading at best. Face structure does nothing to determine sexuality.

BTW, my nickname here is Fez (my real name is Giancarlo), sorry if that caused any confusion, Che.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not much of an argument, MrFun. I'm sorry this contradicts liberal teaching that you can't tell a gay person by looking at them, but in some cases you can. Leaving aside the whole concept of gaydar (which straights can have also, especially after seventeen years of having gay friends and occasionally living in almost totally gay environments), there is a facial structure that some gay men have that I've never seen on a straight person. It's not body language. Part of it is higher and more prominent cheek bones. There are other aspects of it also. Had we never discussed you sexuality, the moment I saw your picture, I would have known.

Does that mean all gay people have that look? No, not at all. Fez (whatever he is) doesn't have it, but most gay men don't. My uncle doesn't. My best friend doesn't. Two of Bunnygrrl's close gay friends do (out of a pack of about six or seven).

Does this mean that all gay people look alike. No. Does this mean tht you can tell a gay person just by looking at him, only sometimes. I knew one guy that I never would have guessed he was gay. He was a "regular guy," neighborhood bar type. I was shocked he slipped past my gaydar.

This is not about "liberal agenda" or "liberal teaching" or extreme PC -- it's about the fact that there are some parts of a person's identity that you cannot determine merely through physical appearance.

Even though you qualified your opinion with exceptions, it still sounds like you believe that you can rely on physical appearance too much, to determine a person's sexual orientation.

[Drake Tungsten]

If sexual preference is caused by hormone levels in the body, then it is completely plausible that you could recognize some people as gay by their facial structure. Facial structure is largely determined by hormones; a man with low levels of testosterone will have a smaller chin and higher cheekbones than a man with higher testosterone levels. If a low testosterone level is one of the causes of homosexuality (which no one knows for sure), then Che's belief that you can tell some men are gay just by the way they look is certainly possible. I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea.