Is Homosexuality Genetic?
 

Today I watched the episode of Family Guy where Peter gets a Gay Gene. That got me wondering. Is Gayness Genetic?

Honestly, I think it is a choice. If a person is born gay and it is a gene, the gene wouldn't be able to be passed because of the inability to reproduce and pass down the gene. Think about it. If a Homosexual is born with a gay gene, and falls in love with another Homosexual, how are they going to carry a baby? They aren't able to. So I believe Gayness is chosen be it at a young age, high school, mid 50's, whenever it shall be.

Personally, I don't at all consider homosexuality a choice. The way you are describing it genetically makes it comparable to having a certain color of eyes or hair. Naturally, though, it is far more complex than that, because researches still haven't been able to find conclusive evidence on what truly causes homosexuality.

To call it a choice, though, seems a little loose and debatable. Sexuality is very complex and certainly isn't something that you can simply switch one way. I certainly can't imagine suddenly being attracted to men simply by willing it, and I am certain that many individuals struggling with their sexuality can't just remedy the situation by choosing to be straight. Suggesting that homosexuality is a choice goes both ways, implying that one can simply decide to become heterosexual, which certainly would have been convenient for all of the homosexuals facing rejection from family and friends, especially those that were driven to suicide.

A bit of a bleak point, yes, but considering how much anxiety can come from those struggling with their sexual identity, I think it shows that how homosexuality is programmed is very complex and can't yet be summed up as being a choice.

You can research it to death, it doesn't matter. Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Pansexuality, and Asexuality are all -- as far as the norm is concerned (certainly one can go against any of these and choose to be heterosexual, and the reverse is also true, but doing so serves no gain when you're born whatever way you're born) -- something you are born as. It doesn't change when you hit puberty. It doesn't change because you go to some freakish Mr. Bachman Anti-Gay clinic. It doesn't change because it's who you are (you're free to go against what you are, but why do that?).

That aside, strictly speaking it's hard to say its genetic because there simply isn't any one gene that can cause it -- even identical twins seem the case here. Thus, you have two things: environment factors, which also have been ruled out (and a very long time ago at that), and something that is bourne in the womb. The latter has some consensus.

'Course, it really doesn't matter what people think when something is an entirely scientific issue. There is a truth. The earth /isn't/ flat, but you are free to think it is.

And, if you (whoever you are) are still reading but still think it's a choice, realize a number of animals also have shown homosexuality. 'Course, I also believe most animals also have free will (but have no evidence to prove this -- nor so with humans), but many people would disagree.

IMO, its both a choice, and not a choice at the same time. One could find the same answer by researching what makes women attractive to men. In a sense, I guess what I'm trying to say is that its a natural choice your body decides for you.

If you think about it, none of us ever ASKED to be attracted to any gender, but yet, nature takes its course and decides for us. I'm straight, I never ASKED to be attracted to women, but yet, here I am. Similarly, if I was gay, I wouldn't have asked to be attracted to men, but yet again, the homosexuality would draw me towards members of my own sex.

I guess if you look at an obscure enough point of view, you could narrow homosexuality down to a different brain thinking pattern. Under that viewpoint, I guess one could probably link it to a genetic cause. If that homosexual person had offspring of their own, there is a chance that the child might inherit that same brain chemistry/pattern.

Yeah, the whole thing is a really complicated subject to explain. Most of the Homosexuality I see around isn't really that, but since I'm in early High school there are a lot of girls being curious with their sexuality, and I'm really not sure which ones will stick. I actually see this sort of thing quite a bit... heck, my girlfriend was bisexual.

So, if I had a theory, it wold be the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" thing. There might be some sort of odd DNA expression that codes for it, or it might have something to do with the theory that people that you spend a lot of time with from an early age (Like parents, siblings, childhood friends, etc.) are genetically wired to not find them sexually attractive. Ergo, if someone spent a lot of time with members of the opposite gender from an early age, they tend to not be sexually attractive, which leads members of the same gender as a default to be attractive.

Like, if a guy spent most of his time with a lot of girls, the girls would be less attractive to him due to the same naturey thingy that makes him not want to marry his sister, so the guy would be drawn to other guys instead. That's my theory, and it has some holes, but I think it works.

I think while you are born with tendencies to lean in one direction, it's mostly your choice as whether or not to follow those tendencies, because they aren't totally instinct.

I think it's neither genetically inherited nor a choice.

It's a defect that can develop in an embryo.

It's just like Down Syndrome: you don't get it by having the gene for it passed on by your parents, and you certainly can't choose to have Down Syndrome, but instead you get it because of something that happens inside the womb; in the case of Down Syndrome, it's caused by deterioration of the eggs that occurs as the mother gets older.

As for the biological factor that causes homosexuality, I don't know exactly, but there's a correlation between the number of older brothers a male has and how likely that male is to be gay.

It's explained in a very cool documentary on homosexuality called "The Making of Me". I recommend watching the whole thing, as it's not only enlightening but funny and entertaining as well, but this clip is just the final part where they reveal the most likely the cause of this guy's homosexuality.
Skip to 2:45

embedding not enabled :roll:

I know it's not a choice. A person is either attracted to one sex or the other, or to both. You can't make choose what you find attractive. It's like choosing which foods you like or don't like. There are some foods that you hate. You can't just turn around one day and say " *vegetable* is delicious!" If you could choose, I bet everyone here would choose to like every food. It would make eating healthier a lot easier. The same goes for sexualities. People would choose to be straight because that is the social norm. It would be easier to fit in to society without being harassed or anything.

However, coming to accept your sexuality is a choice. No one can choose which gender they are attracted to (or which vegetables they like). But, they can lead a happy, stress-free life if they come to accept the fact that they are *sexuality* and they can't do anything about it.

Personally, I think being homosexual is not genetic at all. A male with feminine tendencies isn't gay, though that's where a genetic thing could come in. Being gay is a lifestyle choice, not a gene.

Yes, but everyone starts their statements out with "I think", which is really annoying.

Also, PRS said the same thing I did... The problem it seems is that people think genetics are the do-all end-all. Genetics make up only a very, very, very small percentage of what a person is. Also, as far as I know, the children of gay men are no more likely to be gay than those of straight men (and/or women).

It's not a choice, and it's not genetic. Ask any gay person you know, and they'll say it's most definitely not a choice. And as for genetics, that's just a ridiculous question, as evidenced by just about everything around us. Plenty of homosexuals have biological children, and they're no more likely to be gay than anyone around them, nor are the children of heterosexuals any less likely to be gay. Now what actually causes it... I don't think that's been found. If it has, I'd be very curious to know about it, but as far as I know, no one knows what it really is.

I'm sorry, did you ever take genetics or learn them in Biology?

In genetics a gene can pass a complete generation, even more than one. If a gene is in any gene pool of any person, it can be passed down to their offspring, their offspring's offspring, and so forth. Ergo, if there is a gene, which can be hidden in DNA, it can be seen in certain offspring and not others. This is true for a lot of things, including dwarfism among a multitude of other things. There's also the psychology that can go into it, which can depend on a variation of different factors.

Further, if it is a choice, then I'd like to meet the guy who's yelling at his dong to be attracted to other males, or the chick who does the same, but for females. I'd like to meet the people who really would chose something like this, honestly, they'd have to be a pretty large mental, and/or physical, masochist.

There Are plenty of homosexuals who have no previous history of homosexuality in their family, and there are plenty of lines of families that do, and then it hasn't shown up for dozens of generations. If it's genetic, it's pretty damned deep in the DNA. Too deep to believe, really. Recessive genetics don't slip past many more than a few generations, much less past the entire family history.

Well I think gayness isn't a gene at all because
1, You wouldn't be alive really.
2, we can choose if we wanna become gay
3, gayness is a choice
Those are the reasons gayness isn't a gene
Also, homos sing is a rainbow. why is that?

Not that I really feel like contributing to the overall debate at the moment, but for the record, #1 makes no sense. Even if homosexuality was caused due to a specific gene, you would still be alive. Otherwise there would be no homosexuals to begin with, and the idea of it being due to a gene would have been completely refuted ages ago. In addition, you can't "choose" if you want to become homosexual. Everyone has a natural attraction towards (a) specific gender(s), regardless of how much they try to pursue an attraction for the other gender (assuming they don't have an equal attraction to both by nature already), it's merely a facade created by their own attempts; an act, if you will. Thirdly, following on what I said in regards to #2, homosexuality isn't a choice. It's a sexual orientation, which in itself isn't a choice. Not to mention that, assuming you yourself are not homosexual and can somehow use that to support #3, there isn't much evidence to even suggest it can be a choice, with much more evidence existing against it.

On a final note, "homo" is a derogatory slang term for homosexuals that you should avoid. Even if it is basically an abbreviation, the negative connotation associated with it isn't really suitable for use in a non-offensive debate such as this one, or at all, for that matter.

Finally, you may want to clarify on what you mean by them singing "Is a Rainbow", as there isn't any song by that name to my knowledge.

...WTF?!

(...AK seems to not lose his composure when replying to that, so I'll just go "what he said")

Meh, so many fricken fallacies...

Only thing to say is you can over-ride any natural tendency. E.g. if you are physically weak you can usually still, with great practice (and/or steroids) become strong (also, the reverse).



...Yeah, I dunno why I replied here. This logic has gone to the dogs.

Should this thread be closed?
 

1. It could pry into peoples private lives (I'm not gay)
2. It's just too contraversal.
3. Religious freaks would have a fun time trying to preach that homosexuality is a sin (Which I find ridiclous, The Bible says, Don't judge people, but they do it anyway!)
It's up to the moderators to close this thread!

The intention of having debates tagged as being Serious is to provide a more mature discussion of topics, controversial or otherwise. Thankfully, just about everyone who has posted in this thread had been both level-headed and generally pretty respectful of each others' opinions, so until things get noticeably out of hand keeping the thread open seems logical.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


The version of the bible that I have even states afterwards that those who do so shall be put to death for their life is forfeit.

There are so many things mentioned in the Bible. Lots of the rules and passages from when it was written have become obsolete. Such as:

Leviticus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (Slavery is okay)

1 Timothy 2:11-12 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (Man is grater than Woman)

I believe that the verse banning homosexuality is becoming more and more obsolete. But there may still be some "restrictions." Just because homosexuality is becomig more and more accepted, it doesn't mean a straight, but maybe curious, man can go around sleeping with other guys. If God made you straight, stay that way. If God made you gay, it's okay, stay that way.

(This coming from a Catholic)

Being gay is genetic. Its not a choice, iit was a choice then there would be a lot less gay people. Being straight isnt a choice either. Your sexuality is based on ur genetic code

So you're implying nobody wants to be gay?

Lol I am being LEGIT when I say this, My cousin was on my account and I told him sure, express your feelings, and he typed it. So, it wasn't me honestly, because I didn't agree with him at all. I think gayness, could be both, and If it is genetically, The gene only makes them want to be. It wouldn't make them gay, but choose to be. So I think It could be both, or choice

Homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose to be straight, either. If you chose to have sex with someone of your same gender, it wouldn't be at all the same experience. (Unless of course there's something about yourself you haven't discovered, yet.)

JUST a moment!

When you bring Bible verses into this, PLEASE be careful what you use.
For example, the book of Leviticus. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy have many laws that are horribly misinterpreted, but none of them are untrue. SOME of them have been altered by the coming and death of Jesus, such as the yearly process of atoning for one's sins-- Jesus' sacrifice eliminates the need to sacrifice a "perfect" lamb, because a perfect soul has already sacrificed himself for ALL sins.
Before I get too into that argument and chase rabbits all over the place, I'll focus on the one at hand by explaining the verses that were recently referenced...

Leviticus 18:22 is as it says. Homosexuality is a sin, and sin is a choice, not a trait. Homosexuality is a sin, and this is not a logical fallacy of any sort.

Leviticus 25:44 essentially claims slavery to be permissible. It is in this day and age unlawful, but our view of the concept of "slavery" is different. We see slavery as a gross mistreatment of an individual, forcing them to do our work. In those days, slavery was conditionally lawful. The book of Proverbs tells slaves to obey their masters, but also commands that the masters be kind to the slaves. If they mistreat them, THAT is a sin.

^^^^^That was my responding to everything I could of the past few replies. Just to make sure my case is established I'll put my position statement here: Homosexuality is a choice, not a trait, and it's a sinful one at that.

(mobile) i know theres nothing to worry about right now but i just want to point out that if we begin any out of context religious debates/ attacks I'll be locking the thread (esp. in regards to homosexuality being a sin)

Ever heard of genetic mutations or marriage? Yeah those things tend to happen. In one family someone may carry the gene and not know or not tell of it, thus, the gene can get passed on.

^Are you implying that homosexuality is a mutation? In that case, yes, it would be genetic, but it wouldn't be passed on by a gene. I guess that's plausible, but I don't know how likely it is.

@SyracuvatTenlii I'm not going to get into a debate of religious accounts with you, but you can't honestly believe what the Bible says word-for-word, can you? It's taken dozens of translations to get into English, and has dozens of contradictions within itself. Using a quote from the Bible to explain what causes homosexuality is like watching Futurama and believing that that's what the world will be like 1000 years from now. Ask ANY gay person anywhere, and they'll tell you that it most certainly is not a choice; whether it's genetic or not, it's determined unconsciously.

Guys I'm with lite on this one. Stop arguing the bible. The bible does not say anywhere what causes homosexuality, only talks about how "bad" it is. This debate is not about how "bad" or "good" homosexuals are, only the cause. But even then, this is something for scientists to debate on, not a bunch of children in a pokemon forum. You can continue arguing the bible if you want, but either lite or I will lock it if you do.

Homosexuality depends on the person. It is definitely not a part of your genetic make-up. It is a make-up of your personality. I believe that there are two types of homosexuals, the kind who picked to be homosexual and the kind that are born homosexual.

Some people were straight for a long time until they were intrigued by homosexuality. Then they become homosexuals, and usually stick with it. These would be the people who picked to be homosexual.

Some people were born homosexual. They've always felt homosexual all their life. They didn't choose to be that way. They feel it would be wrong to be straight and such.

In conclusion, gayness is not genetic because there is no scientific proof. And Family Guy is not a good sourse to get your information from. I'm not homosexual, nor do I want to be. This is just my say in the matter.

I was just about to request it to be changed. It sounded so incorrect.

Good Idea Lite (y)

Anyways, I think it could be both ways, genetic or choice as i said.

I wouldn't use the term genetic really. More of a chemical imbalance. You can't have a gay uncle, and then, maybe your kids could be gay. A woman has only so much testosterone, and that more kids she has, the less testosterone the each kid gets going down the line. This is why younger sisters tend to be a little more "attractive" if you will (fuller lips, larger breasts, etc.). For example, the youngest son out of three boys will have less testosterone, and therefore has a higher chance of being homosexual. Note that this is NOT a guarantee that the youngest boy from the example will be gay, just that he has a higher chance of being gay.

Baby we were BORN THIS WAY. Lady Gaga says in her lyrics "A different lover is not a sin" and I totally agree with that <3. Idk if it is genetic but it is definitely not a choice. Like someone above compared it with taste buds, you can't choose to just like a food or a person. There have been some times when people have "turned" bi or gay but, that is not the case. They just believed that they were straight because that's how our parents raise us. No one wants to choose to be made fun of, discriminated, or bullied.
By the way, I like that episode of Family Guy.

I don't think it's genetic. I wouldn't say it's a choice on the homosexual person's part either. You know how heterosexual people find certain people of the other gender attractive and others not? It works the same way for homosexual people.

I think a better example would be types of music you like. You like certain genres of music over others, but you can't really explain it. You may say "it sounds good" if you like it, but say "it sounds bad" for music you don't like, while someone may say the opposite to what you think (they like what you don't like and don't like what you like). You like that type of music, but you don't exactly know why.

I think that's how sexuality works - you like a certain gender, but can't exactly say why you do.

It turns out that pharmaceutical chemicals are added to our drinking water that causes gender confusion.

Link? Proof? It'd be quite nice to see where you found this.

I think this deals more with psychology. The sexuality of a person might be affected, at early age, but whatever the person has seen from his surroundings. Even though unnoticed, yet environment must be what is contributing to it. But again, this all might be false. Sexuality is as complex as love itself, where neither can be explained biologically.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8361863.stm

That's just one of many articles about it.

Homosexuality can be brought on by an experience as well. For example I had a friend who got involved with this guy. The guy took advantage of her, beat her, and eventually raped her. She refused to date another guy again. Currently she's dating my friend Mindy. Her homosexuality was geared toward a painful experience, and now she has a good relationship.

I wonder if the scientists who did the research also took other variables into account, such as which parent the child spent more time with, the people the child is around daily, and possibly even the shows the child is watching.

Also, shame on the scientists for stereotyping small boys. Because he's not playing with cars and toy guns means he's gender confused? What if the boy isn't interested in those kind of things? Does that make me gender confused cause I don't like cars or guns?

I'm not sure, but with one of my neighbors her son is homosexual and her brother is homosexual so it might be genetic, personally I don't have anything against them, because I go both ways.

Personally i don't think its Genetic, i mean if it was were did the gene come from? plus for it to be genetic that mean's that the parent's would be gay, but before today's medical technology their was no way for gay couple's to have kids, that's why i think its not Genetic.

While this would be plausible ( but not likely ) in an asexual reproduction system, the binary gender reproduction ( haploid ) system introduces billions and billions of possible variations due to the way DNA is transcribed and chromosomes come from two origins. When an organism reproduces, there are variations which occur. Alleles that arise can lead to a variety of different effects on the structure of proteins. If variation does not arise in a population, it is at a much higher risk of extinction due to lack of genetic diversity ( be it by environmental factors, genetic failings, or disease ). Additionally if these variations never occurred, everyone would be carbon copies of one another. This is most certainly not the case.

This article does not mention homosexuality. If you are trying to suggest estrogen or femininity in development lead to a person growing up gay, you might want to try correlating that.

If it was a gene, it'd have to be passed down. And if you're a homosexual couple, then there's no passing down of anything. And both my parents are perfectly heterosexual, but I just chose to be bisexual, just cause I wanted options.
The way I see it, it's just a personal preference based on who you are, your surroundings, and who your friends are. If you're open-minded and don't like the girls surrounded by you, but find the guys around you to be nicer looking, then you'd choose to be homosexual most likely.

Well obviously determining where homosexuality actually comes from is very complicated, and it will take some time before we can even determine much about it, because of how much can go into becoming homosexual. But personally, I think it's more of a choice than anything else. While there can be biological factors that add into it, I think one can choose whatever they feel, and should be able to. For example, say a person is born one sexuality, but because of the way they are raised, or maybe because of they think that they aren't that sexuality, they switch to something else. The same can go with music. While usually, people know what kinds of music they like, someone may tire of one genre of music, or become a fan of another genre. I don't think sexuality should be forced, especially when one is not forced to pick what TV shows or music they like, or even usually what type of person they want to be.

My views...

Homosexuality is a choice. There is no gene for homosexuality (at least, no one has found one, and they probably never will). Not to sound biased, though, I will say that guys can be born a bit more feminine than other guys, and vice-versa for gals. Attraction to the same sex simply isn't natural.

This is not how genetics function or how transcription occurs. There will be random variations in a population.

Sexuality is really how someone's mind sees one gender over another. Turt is correct - if it were genetic, it would have to be passed down (with possible mutations from various sources).

When you look at some genetic disorders, such as dwarfism and albinism, you'll notice the people with the disorders have had the disorder since birth. Saying homosexuality is genetic is also like saying people's sexualities are determined upon birth, when in reality, people don't truly take an attraction to genders until puberty.

If you say homosexuality is genetic, then you would also say dwarfism, albinism, and other genetic disorders don't take affect until a person hits puberty.

I'm finding a very disappointing lack of knowledge concerning biology, so I'll try to explain DNA, RNA, transcription and how these function in diploidy to result in potentially billions and billions of variations which can occur. Genetics do not function like a paint bucket. If the model I keep seeing repeated here were true, species would not exist.

Humans are eukaryatic being with sexual reproduction. We have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. The males' haploid cells already have a immense population ( ~250 million+ ) where competition must occur to fertilize an ova. This alone introduces a lot of variation. The transcription process which occurs for that ~250 million+ is not exact and mutations occur. This alone is not the source of most of the variation.

In sexual reproduction, it will mix between two organisms' genetic information. A random collection of half of the genes ( 23 chromosomes ) from the father and mother will mix. Each of the chromosomes is a densely packed string of millions of base pairs. Alleles ( versions of genes which could be thousands of base pairs ) can arise which give different traits. Alleles could affect a wide variety of things, phenotypically or nothing at all. Genotypically, genes can be present which are not active.

From each parent, there is a possible 2^23 ( 8,388,608 ) possible combinations. That's 2^46 ( 7.03687442 * 10^13 ) possible combinations. This is 12,000 times more than the number of human beings on Earth.

The resulting possibility is literally trillions of results ( this is only in terms of chromosomes, the diversity in terms of base pairs is even greater ), producing much diversity and not simply a copy of the mother and father in the resulting child. The variations of mutations do not always result in harmless results and a child could be born with harmful conditions that are not necessarily from neither parent ( cancer for example ). These traits can also be inherited, but variation definitely throws a wrench into the mix. If this never occured, natural selection would be a lot less possible. Diploidy speeds up the process in which diversity can be introduced to the population.

In short, not everything ( but most ) is going to be inherited from either parent. Variation occurs during transcription ( replication of DNA ). Reproduction with two genders ramps up the resulting diversity exponentially. Not every inherited gene will be active ( that is to say the parent can also be in possession of a gene but is it not phenotypical ). Traits can appear inherited from neither parent. Alleles can also be recessive.

Using the same flawed ( lack of ) logic, albinos and dwarves do not exist if their parents are not albinos or dwarves.

This premise is flawed because none of those conditions become present after a certain time. Puberty is when it would become more apparent - individuals do not usually have sexual interest earlier than that. Different genetic conditions and cancers do appear at certain ages. Information for breast or prostate cancer could be present in an individual and they do not develop it in their lifetime or until much later. To my understand, children are often going to be born with prostate tumors.

Practically every biological function can be attributed to its underlying chemistry.

Thank you for proving my point.

My point was trying to say that if a person believes that homosexuality truly is genetic, then it would work essentially like genetic disorders and affect a person the moment they are born. Seeing as people are not born with a sexual preference, it's not possible for homosexuality to be genetic.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim? There are contradicting studies that suggest it is both environmental and genetic. Upbringing can play a role, but ignoring the influence of underlying biochemistry is overlooking a chunk of what makes a person who they are. This study suggests 34 - 39% attribution of genetics playing a role in the sexual identity in identical twins.

The studies talk about sexual preference in adults, not in children and newborns. Also, the 34-39% is for men only, whereas it's only about 19% for women. I would love to know what they consider "genetic" in this situation - do they mean they have a suspect of the gene they think is the "sexuality" gene or do they mean relatives (mainly parents) that are homosexual or even bisexual? If it's the latter of the two, that would actually be more environmental then genetic. If not, that would be like saying that someone who started enjoying a certain type of music because his/her friend plays that type all the time is a genetic change in that person.

The study also contradicts arguing for homosexuality being genetic because they study shows sexuality is more environmentally based then anything.
(By the way, both of those links lead to the same study on different websites)

I do not believe children are asked since they are not sexually developed and would not understand the question or concepts involved. One could not really measure this ethically or reasonably.

Twin studies are usually used due to the genetic similarity. Another study ( I was trying to cite this one, but messed up ) found that 52% of identical twins where one was gay, both were. In non-identical twins, it was 22%.

The study of all adult twins in Sweden found that in men, there was more of a correlation to heritable factors and individual factors than upbringing - but it was different in women.

Yes, people can be influenced to certain things but this is also on the level of horomones which are proteins. Protein folding and the structures that are formed for processes like horomones depend on the instructions given by the genes.

It is not contradictory to state both genetics and environmental factors play a role. People could have a genetic predisposition ( like TAS2R38 ) to like or dislike certain foods. Taste could also be acquired.

While I am now opening my eyes to the possibilities of the genetic factors of it, I'm just basing my views off of the basic simplicities, such as TV, movies, life experiences, etc. From what I've seen, the people I've known have just CHOSEN their preference, as they felt it was truly right for them. A related thing in an article, a boy had a sex change to a girl because she felt she was always a girl at heart.

Gay means you cannot have babies.
Nature has the four f's: food, fight, flight, and you all can guess the last one. That's what it uses to ensure a particular species is fit. If it can't do those four things, what happens? Extinction. Now why would our ingrained genetic code give us a suicide clause? If we all had some kinda gay gene, what happens if a nuclear accident or something activates it? We all die. No, there's not enough scientists to give all men wombs. Sorry. It certainly wasn't genetic in my case, but for whatever reason one day I decided I liked both guys and girls, and that was that.

Not to sound cruel, but that's precisely why most of the population is not homosexual. If variations arise that are not beneficial ( from a biological standpoint - allowing survival and reproduction ), the organism either does not survive or pass on its coding. Natural selection doesn't really have opinions on the matter if it's beneficial to the organism or not. There are often random mutations which might kill the organism. These do not arise as much as the information does not get to carry on, but there are many opportunities for the mutations or variations to make their selves evident. In some models, minor differences in genetic information can cause the system to go haywire and kill the host such as cancer; this certainly is not beneficial to the organism or a preferable trait, but carries on none the less. Most of the population is heterosexual and carries on their genetic information so random variations or the opposite haploid theory ( sons could inherit the allele for their mother or daughters, the father ) can explain this.

One's upbringing can play a role, but it is probable both. Things are not always a polarised 'true' or 'false' in such a complicated matter. I still believe one does not always have a say in the person they were born as, but environment can play a role in shaping who they are.

See, you're talking about randomized things that happen to individuals. Things like disease, mutations, etc.(which aren't sexual orientation mind you) happen to every living thing. What I'm saying is, it's not genetic because it wouldn't be beneficial to the race.

I think homosexuality in men could be caused by an excess amount of oestrogen or progesterone in their body, which attracts them to other men. And in women, an excess amount of testosterone. This is just a guess, I don't know if it is actually true or not...