gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (05/09/85)
Indeed, the Prevailing View in psychological circles is that
homosexuality is probably not learned (sexual orientation is
determined very early), and certainly not inherited -- they
just don't know why it happens.
Clearly this leaves a very tiny window for when sexual orientation
is determined. One controversial theory is that it has to do
with stress levels of the mother during pregnancy.
Then again, it could be just a random but relatively improbable
occurance.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gamhsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) (05/11/85)
> Indeed, the Prevailing View in psychological circles is that > homosexuality is probably not learned (sexual orientation is > determined very early), and certainly not inherited -- they > just don't know why it happens. > .......... > Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam Why is it so obvious that homosexuality isn't inherited? It could be inherited as a recessive trait or a predisposition, or some combination, or am I wrong? Now, if homosexuals never had children, any inherited trait would, it seems, have left the gene pool. But they do--not that it would require one of one's parents to be homosexual for a predisposition to be inherited. We have no difficulty accepting that heterosexuality is largely inherited (we assume it comes with sex and sexuality, but the link may not be as strong as we once believed). --Henry Friedman
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (05/12/85)
> > Indeed, the Prevailing View in psychological circles is that > > homosexuality is probably not learned (sexual orientation is > > determined very early), and certainly not inherited -- they > > just don't know why it happens. > > .......... > > Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam > > Why is it so obvious that homosexuality isn't inherited? It could be > inherited as a recessive trait or a predisposition, or some combination, > or am I wrong? You are right that some homosexuals do have children, and that if it were inheritable homosexuality could be a recessive trait. But that would mean that the children of homosexuals would have a higher incidence of homosexuality that the population at large. (I have no data there). If there were a gene responsible, it would be eventually driven out because of the relatively few number of homosexuals who reproduce. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam
carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard) (05/13/85)
What happened to the idea that homosexuality was related to population
density stress?
--
Carter Bullard
School of Information and Computer Science
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa
uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carterdesjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/13/85)
I don't get it. How can homosexuality be neither learned nor inherited? As far as I know, there is nothing else. It may not be CONSCIOUSLY learned, but then most learning isn't necessarily conscious. I'm curious to know just what was meant by this... marie desjardins
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/13/85)
> > > > Why is it so obvious that homosexuality isn't inherited? It could be > > inherited as a recessive trait or a predisposition, or some combination, > > or am I wrong? > > You are right that some homosexuals do have children, and that if > it were inheritable homosexuality could be a recessive trait. But > that would mean that the children of homosexuals would have a > higher incidence of homosexuality that the population at large. > (I have no data there). If there were a gene responsible, it > would be eventually driven out because of the relatively few number of > homosexuals who reproduce. All that this requires is that the gene for homosexuality (if such a thing were to exist) would be spontaneously created through mutation at a sufficient level to produce a stable fraction of the population who were homosexual. Alternatively, it might be that having some fraction of homosexuals in the tribe confers a benefit on the tribe. Then tribes with a recessive gene for homosexuality could successfully compete with tribes with purely heterosexual populations. The above is not intended as judgement on the plausibility of genes that fix one's sexual orientation. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (05/13/85)
In article <1499@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: >Then again, it could be just a random but relatively improbable >occurance. Where does the "improbable" in the above sentence come from? It seems to happen frequently (15% of males, for example). Please don't try to give the impression that gay people are few and far between, we are many and close. Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (05/14/85)
> > What happened to the idea that homosexuality was related to population > density stress? > -- > Carter Bullard Probably thrown out once the sociological evidence began to be considered. Though there are a great many gay people to be found in urban settings, many have moved to the city from suburban or rural areas as a consequence the greater opportunities and illusion of tolerance (q.v. Ron Rizzo's article.) Simply put, there don't seem to be more gay people born per capita in, say, New York City than in all of New York state. This "population density stress" theory comes, if I'm not mistaken, from the experimental studies made with rats and overcrowding, where one observed lordosis and copulative behavior between same-sex pairs of rats. Of course, one also noticed cannibalism and other aberrations; why one would choose to link these highly artificial results with the behavior of gay people is an interesting study in the sociology of scientific research. It's worth asking one more time what attitudes lie behind the question "What causes homosexuality?" -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/14/85)
In article <338@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >I don't get it. How can homosexuality be neither learned nor inherited? >As far as I know, there is nothing else. It may not be CONSCIOUSLY learned, >but then most learning isn't necessarily conscious. I'm curious to know >just what was meant by this... There is some evidence that placing pregnant women under stress leads to a higher incidence of homosexuality in their offspring. It seems that there's a higher incidence of homosexuality among people who were born in Germany during WWII when their mothers were exposed to the stress of being on the wrong end of bombing raids. _If_ the above is true, it suggests a chemical/hormonal mechanism rather than a learned response or genetic cause. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/15/85)
How about heterosexuality? is it learned, inherited, etc? who cares? I
really don't see why the questions that are asked about homosexuality are
not asked about heterosexuality. Sex is something that people like doing,
some people like some things, others like other things. I find it more
interesting to wonder why there aren't more homosexuals rather than why
there are so many.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophiehorst@leadsv.UUCP (John Selhorst) (05/16/85)
In article <338@h-sc1.UUCP>, desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: > I don't get it. How can homosexuality be neither learned nor inherited? What I don't understand is why we're just talking about homosexuality. Heterosexuality seems to me to be a much more widespread and pernicious problem. Since I haven't very much experience in this area, maybe I shouldn't talk. John Selhorst {(ucbvax!dual!sun) (ihnp4!qubix)}!sunncal!leadsv!horst {allegra ihnp4 dual}!fortune!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!horst
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (05/19/85)
I have not seen a shred of science in the postings on this topic. How about removing "net.sci" from the list of newsgroups?