Homosexuality Can Be Genetically Turned On & Off

I don't believe primary sexual preferences are a choice, but I'm not certain this will pose much of a problem to those who think it is.First of all humans aren't fruit flies. It probably goes beyond simple smell effects to get homosexual activity popping for us.Second, even if it is chemical based, humans have the ability to choose to restrain their activity. For example if someone showed that they could get animals (flies or whatever) to rape each other based on chemical changes, I doubt the "rape is a choice" crowd will change their mind. If something is viewed as "wrong" or "aberrant" the choice is in expressing it, regardless of a drive to do it. Humans have an arguably better ability to analyze and change their own behavior than fruit flies.Third, as Jar seems to be suggesting, they'll likely embrace this kind of study. It is easy to transform this study into a statement that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior, a malfunction as it were, and one that may very well be correctable.I'm not taking it this way, but I'd bet they will.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Good point. Some distinguish between whether it is "natural" and whether it is found in nature. But for those claiming it isn't found in nature this would SEEM to be a problem. Then again, if repeated denials of the obvious are already occurring, the trend is likely to continue.If male dogs humping male dogs are simply two dogs humping random dogs, how does that not count for humans?Or was the point exclusivity?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yeah, that was the point.Crank down the condescension a few notches, I was explaining how they would likely react. Taz just added a point I hadn't thought of... outright denial. Yeah, I used to help my ex prep them for her lab. I'm aware of their utility and extensive use.That said, humans do have a much more complex brain and sophisticated behavior system than flies. While we may share similar conditional inputs (for example reactions to pheromones), that does not necessarily effect us as dramatically (directly) as flies. Pheromone studies with humans show just that.I think "gay gene" is a misnomer, arising with modern hysteria over sexuality. There are genes which as part of their activity, result in predispositions for homosexual behavior. Its "purpose" is not to make people gay.If we are addressing my own position, I believe that developmental environments during gestation effect sexuality more than genetics. And social situations can also effect how one's sexual feelings are manifested. No, and that would not be the anti-gay crowd's point either. Whether you are attracted to the same sex or not, you do have the ability to stop yourself from acting on those feelings. Flies generally don't have much self-awareness, analysis, or control. Humans have great amounts of self control.That is what the rape analogy is supposed to highlight. Whether people are predisposed to wanting to rape, they do have the "choice" not to. They aren't aberrant to me in the sense that the anti-gay crowd would use it. Remember, I'm just saying how they would dismiss the study.Let me see if I can Devil Advocate for them a little further on this point. Green eyes may be a variant, but humans are capable of determining which variations are harmful, or in some sense a malfunction of their actual purpose, and green eyes are clearly not that. That is color of eye does not change the function of the eye.Color-blindness, or blindness itself on the other hand would be a malfunction, and detrimental. Thus it is not simply a variant, but aberrant. In such cases humans rightly try to correct those problems.The purpose of sexuality is to reproduce, hence any condition (genetic or other) which directly effects an ability to reproduce according to their physical gender would be a malfunction, and hence aberrant. Why wouldn't it be important to fix that just the same?Clearly according to the fruit fly model, humans wouldn't care once they were switched... and it would make everyone happy.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... sweet.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I believe switching sex is an environmental conditional reaction. While set within the gene, it is not that one is born to change into what will be needed. Rather one is born and can change as needed.I'm not sure about the limited repro thing, but that would seem the same.And on this thread's topic, I think it could be argued that this study is not showing a genetic change based on fly population necessity. It appears to be a "defect" in sexual function which can be inherited.Unfortunately appealing to population issues as a reason for homosexuality in humans is also problematic. As you note, humans don't seem to be overtly threatened, and gays have been around for quite some time. What's more, they have had children and there is a growing desire in the gay community for them to have children. There goes their benefit to society.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard