How can someone be 'born gay'?

yes

my daughter was left handed but is now right handed.

 

Noone can be born gay , because its not genetic , if its genetic how could be transferred from generation to generation with gay parents , completely nonsense.

 

sexual orientation is part of you from birth if not conception...being gay is no different than inheriting any other trait...

 

...it's found in nature and contrary to popular belief it's beneficial to species survival by ensuring offspring have a greater chance to reach reproductive age...so in a round about way homosexuality increases reproduction...

in geese some males will pair off as a couple then include a female, the resulting offspring have a much greater chance of survival with three parents rather than two...

in some cultures a gay relative because they have no children acquire greater wealth and become the benefactor/additional father/mother for their siblings children, just as the geese do... the nieces and nephews then have survival advantages and opportunities over children without a gay relative...it ensures greater reproduction success for their heterosexual siblings, so while the gay uncle/aunt may not have children their shared DNA is passed on through their siblings..

 

Interesting. Do you have a source so I can read further?

 

gay people (it may be difficult to grasp this) they have children as well...
you don't understand genetics at all...DNA is shared in families, my brothers and sisters all share DNA from our grandparents they don't disappear, I(or my wife) could carry some genetic disposition from a grandparent it can pass us right by and not even reveal itself until again our grandchildren are born...so I could have a homosexual brother who has no children but I'll carry the gay gene there is for it as well even though I'm not gay, and that gene will be passed on to a son or daughter or maybe not surface until a grandchild...

 

no sorry, both examples came from two separate television documentaries...the human culture example was Philippine group, I don't know which...I believe the goose may have been the Snow goose...it shouldn't be too difficult to find on the web using the right search words

in nature mutations are random and if they're of no benefit to a species survival the mutation will disappear back into the gene pool, for a behaviour to be constantly repeated it must offer some benefit to the species survival even though it may not be apparent to us...so what we see as abnormal behaviour is actually a normal occurrence that repeats at a rate far greater than would be expected in a random DNA mutation...

 

and then there are fish that can change sex when required...

and another fish where the male fuses himself permanently to a larger female killing himself in the process, this way she fertilizes herself...nature has a zillion ways to ensure survival of a species some are too weird to believe...

 

Ya, people don't often understand how genetics work. They think it's all like an "on-off" switch, you either have blue eyes or brown eyes, all or nothing easily determined by a specific gene that is passed on. Some characteristics are like that, others are not. Some can be carried silently and passed to the next generation. Some only matter when combined with other combinations of genes. Sometimes it's a matter of TIMING and ACTIVATION... just because you have a gene, that doesn't mean the gene will become active at the right time, with other factors influencing whether or not it is active, when it becomes active, and how potent it will be. Potency of a gene can be determined by how much of a protein it produces, and by how effectively receptors receive and use the product of the genetically mapped material. Some products of genetics can be synergistic with other factors, additive, or cancel each other out.

For example, one theory is that during pregnancy, during about the 8th week of pregnancy (often before many women know they are pregnant), a mother under stress can produce hormones which use the same receptor sites as Testosterone. Although they use the same receptors, they are less potent than testosterone, so their effect will be smaller. The 8th week of pregnancy is when sexually dimorphic parts of the brain start to develop, so the theory goes that a male's brain can be feminized by a lack of exposure to testosterone, but that the rest of the development of the male will continue as a normal male. Depending on the timing and quantity, the exact effects could be diverse. It's just a theory, of course, and it can't be tested due to ethical concerns - but it has had some affirmation from tests done on lab animals. So is this "genetic" or "environmental"? Sometimes this is a gray area, because genes themselves don't do anything, they are completely dependent on external factors in order for those genetics to be expressed. But it is the effects of genetics that are being felt, based on the gene expression of Testosterone. But it's not enough to say that it's only a matter of having a gene or not having it, gene expression is very complex and dependent on many factors.

 

Is she ambidextrous or only right handed now? Was it nature or nurture or a combination that lead to this?

 

Except as you know, it's about who you're attracted to, not who you diddle

 

that does make sense...a bit like how incubation temp of crocodile eggs determine if they become male or female, temperature being the trigger but genetics makes it possible, for whatever environmental reason the sex selection/temp have proved to be beneficial to the crocodiles survival...an organisms genetics is shaped by it's environment, those mutations that are beneficial in are kept those that of no benefit or a detriment disappear...

 

I think people make to much of this "attraction" thing, it's not about attraction it's how we identify ourselves...from very early we see ourselves as girls or boys but some boys identify as girls and girls as boys I don't see the mystery in this...from a very young age children make sexual related choices in toys and clothing on their own...

and then this is a little trickier to get your head around, some people are not gay but born with the incorrect body...I know man who wanted sex change surgery because he wasn't gay, he was a woman born in a mans body!...that took me a while to figure that out but it also makes sense...gay people are satisfied with their bodies sexual parts they have, the incorrectly gendered are not satisfied with their bodies...if anyone doubts that is possible there are hermaphrodites born with both sexual genders,so it's not a big step to go from having both genders in one body to a single incorrect gender... nature does screw up and get it wrong...

 

Why are you so obsessed with this topic?

 

I know I could not, just the way I was born I guess

 

Not that anecdotal experience counts for anything, but my nephew still has a house and food on the table for his kids thanks to his childless gay uncle having a little extra money.

 

I wasn't actually challenging the notion, it makes sense. I just wanted to read further into it.

 

it's something that can be extended into other things besides money, valued possessions,property, educational opportunities ...in hunter gatherer societies an extra father/uncle can bring home more food a 2nd mother/aunt assisting with child care...in neolithic societies an extra set of adult hands would be invaluable to a families survival...

 

if we step back and look at the bigger picture of adaptation/evolution and ask why would a random mutation keep reappearing at regular frequency if it wasn't of some advantage to the species survival...the advantages are probably much less apparent today in our highly technical societies than they would be in a primitive society where survival can be a tenuous day to day existence...

 

When people talk about this, about needing to reproduce, they're talking as though humans are insects, that we're in a reproductive race to produce as many offspring as possible, it's about quantity vs quality. In biology, this is often described as r vs K selected models, where insects are the classic "r" model, reproducing fast, with little nurturing, usually with many/most of the offspring dying off. K-selected species usually reproduce less often, but with more nurturing and resources provided to the offspring to improve their ability to compete and survival rates into adulthood. Humans, obviously, fit more closely into that K-selected model. For humans, the extent of nurturing and training is dramatically more important than the sheer quantity of offspring produces.

And all of that is assuming there is actually a problem with gay people reducing fertility rates. Which is false. A single male can impregnate hundreds of females a year, and females rarely are pregnant at every given opportunity. Gay males would have virtually no effect on reproductive rates in an overall population, not to mention the fact that a gay male or female can still reproduce themselves regardless.

 

I wasn't familiar with the r vs K terminology, good to know...

the gay issue is cultural one, as you point out in societies that did not have our restrictive couple sex, males even a single male would have no problem impregnating multiple females so gays not so inclined wouldn't be factor regardless...

it's doubtful the rate of gays being born today is any different than it has been for tens of thousands of years and as we have survived and thrived as a specie... it's safe to say they've had no detrimental effect and the fact that gays, bisexuals make up about 3% of the population would indicate some evolutionary benefit.

 

The concepts of r vs K selection, as well as Group Selection / Kin Selection theory (you can google/wiki any of these for reference) are the theories you are trying to describe to explain how many characteristics, including homosexuality, can be compatible with Natural Selection... even if they don't contribute directly to the reproductive success of the organism displaying the characteristic. Darwin himself even wrote about these ideas in his book "Origin of Species", although the terminology and fleshing-out of the theories didn't come until much later.

Theoretically, my mother and father surviving past their reproductive years would have no impact on their own ability to reproduce. But their survival enhances the survival of their children, as they provide resources, labor and education to their children and society at large. The fact that I, as a male, do not reproduce will have almost no negative effect on reproductive rates, but I can enhance my sister's ability to reproduce and for her children to survive to adulthood. These and many other examples demonstrate how Kin Selection works to pass on your own genetic material in seemingly altruistic ways, without actually passing it on yourself.

If we were to consider how humans existed before modern society, men often died facing war and the elements. I suspect that a few strong and/or lucky males were primarily responsible for breeding in polygamist relationships. Polygamy, therefore, is the most natural form of reproductive unions for humans. Parts of the Bible even prescribe that a man should marry and care for his brother's wife if he were to die. The idea of monogamy only makes sense in the context of a modern society where the ratio of males to females as become more equal.

You are right that our current notions of monogamy and sexual restrictions are unique to our culture and modern conditions. Like you said before, it's hard to apply principles of natural selection to modern humans who's social constructs, technology, and even the control of our own genome have dramatically changed the equation. Arguments about what's natural are almost irrelevant today, ironically invoked by people who fly on airplanes, use modern medicine, wear eye classes, and type up posts on internet forums advocating for their notion of what's "natural".

 

Right. That makes sense.

For example, I knew I was 'wired' differently as a child also. You don't forget what made you 'horny' as a kid... unless your memory is fairly poor. LOL!! How does a boy of 11 have a crush on Will Robinson of "Lost in Space"? I not only wanted to BE that character, I wanted to be WITH that character.

And when you as a boy dream about your HOT 6th grade MALE classmates... there is definitely something different going on. We'd do best to put that out front and deal with it fairly.

This notion that homosexuality is not DEEP within many a person from childhood, is a stupid one. They may not know ALL the mechanics of why/how it gets in there... but I don't think it is something to deny at this point.

 

The best science known to mankind, opposes what you've suggested.

Question: Do you believe that homosexuality is a disease or disorder? (Yes/no or additional explanation will do.)

 

I think that you are dealing with an interlocutor who has been taken by an obsession. That is, there are those who are so anti-gay or homophobic, that they will frequently attempt to ASSOCIATE homosexuality with pedophilia.

Just look for that faulty attempt to associate 'homosexuality' with 'pedophilia'; many homophobes are literally obsessed with trying to accomplish that. I dismiss them OUT OF HAND.