# Homosexuality - Nature, Nurture or Both?



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2005)

Is Homosexuality something that is determined by genetics (nature), something that is learned (nuture), or a combination of both?

I am interested in what people think.  If you want to comment further on your vote, feel free.

I'm going into lurk mode to see how this poll plays out.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## ginshun (Apr 15, 2005)

Personaly I tend to think that it is genetic.  I can't imagine why anybody would _choose_ to be looked down upon and rideculed by the general public.

 I have a few gay friends, and I don't think any of them made a consious decision to be attracted to people of the same sex.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 15, 2005)

I chose both because we cannot discount tramatic events and culture when some are just obviously berdosh by nature.
Sean


----------



## BrandiJo (Apr 15, 2005)

I think its something genitic. I dont know i just have a hard time beliving people would make such a choice givin the crap they have to face often


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 15, 2005)

I voted "both", because I'm not really sure.  I've heard compelling arguements from both sides of the fence, but nothing to really lean me one way or the other.


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2005)

I think some of what is sexually stimulating to us individually is due to imprinting.  At some important stage in our development we experience something that turns us on or revolts us--and it sticks with us either permenently if reinforced or stamped out by psych extinction.  

I think it also plays a part in fetishes and unusual practices.  

Obviously, imprinting isn't the total determining factor, but it plays a part.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2005)

It seems clear that there's a genetic component (there are separated-by-adoption  sibling studies, for example). But, it also seems clear there's something else (not all identical twins have the same sexuality). I believe that the genetic component is large, but I don't know if it's more than 50% (if that's even meaningful!).


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 15, 2005)

Both.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Apr 15, 2005)

I think it's more genetic, but can be both. I saw something interesting about physical characteristics that relate to your sexual orientation. It had to do with a person's fingers of all things (it was maybe if your index finger was longer than your middle finger you were more likely to be homosexual, don't remember exactly) I'd have to search for the study, but I so think it relates to the amount of hormones in your body determined before birth. I do also think that people can, and do make choices to be in relationships that cross their biologically determined preference.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 15, 2005)

The problem I find with "imprinting" is that there aren't any studies (that I know of) to show that imprinting promotes any form of homosexuality.

Three books I've read in the last two months provide a wealth of information on the topic and give a clear indication that homosexuality...and heterosexuality...are polygenic.  Homosexuality has multiple causal factors, both genetic and environmental. 

Here are the books, for those interested, with a brief review of each:

*Queer Science,* by Simon LeVay.  LeVay conducted a study in 1991 where he studied the third interstitial notch of the sexually dimorphic nucleus in the anterior hypothalmus (say that five times real fast).  This area was _smaller_ in Gay men than in heterosexuals. This caused a firestorm of controversy, which led him to research and write _Queer Science._

In his book he provides not only a history of homosexuality, he also covers all the research up until the book's publication.  He points out the methodological flaws of the research...including his own study...and provides what I consider to be fair and well thought out observations of the social impact of homosexuality and such research.  I recommend this book without reservation to anybody, regardless of political orientation.

A side note:  LeVay makes mention of a groundbreaking study by NIH researchers Dean Hamer and Angela Pattattucci.  I worked in the lab where Angela earned her Ph.D.  She's a wonderful woman.  She and Hamer found that many homosexual men have a significant number of gay male cousins and uncles on their mother's side of the family.  The study showed the odds of this occuring by chance are 100,000 to one.  This work also suggests that homosexuality can be carried along by the mother's X chromosome, which would explain its endurance in being passed on through generations.  Later Hamer and Pattattucci  found a common genetic marker carried by a large number of these men.  When last I saw Angela, she was researching this, taking blood samples in families where homosexuality was clustered.

*Are We Hardwired?:  The roles of genes in human behavior,* by William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein has a chapter on the genetic influence on homosexuality.  The rest of the book explains genetics and its various roles in influencing a number of our behaviors.  Also a well done book and like LeVay's, highly readable and accessible to the lay person who doesn't have a deep background in science.

*
The Sexual Spectrum: exploring human diversity,* by Olive Skene Johnson, Ph.D.  This is an interesting book, but with some flaws.  While Johnson presents some interesting data and talks about research that has been done, she gets some of her facts wrong.  She lists the Netherlands as being the first country to legalize homosexual marriage...it was Denmark.  One gets the impression that some of what she cites she pulls from memory.    Given that she uses no footnotes it becomes difficult to reference her reading list.  That aside, she does get many things right, and it would be a valuable book for the family struggling with a child's homosexuality...or for that person who is conflicted with their own sexual identity.  I'd suggest it...but with those caveats mentioned before.  Its good...but not as carefully written as "Queer Science" and "Are We Hardwired".

I've often argued here that homosexuality is "hardwired," but after reading LeVay I accept that the environment can play a role...the level and lasting impact of environmental influence is unclear.

I do not accept the explanation that homosexuality is a "choice."  In taking this moralistic stance few ever consider that they're suggesting we are all bisexual by nature.  Not too many heterosexual males will willingly admit that they could sexually eroticize a man.  It isn't something they're capable of doing.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The problem I find with "imprinting" is that there aren't any studies (that I know of) to show that imprinting promotes any form of homosexuality.


I also don't know of any studies that promote the imprinting hypothesis.  I put it forward, but am certain it can't be my original idea.  I wonder if it's been researched?  Does the analysis of Dean Hamer and Angela Pattattucci's data rule out imprinting as a possible contributing factor?

In any case, it's just a thought I had.


----------



## ninhito (Apr 15, 2005)

I choose choice.  Every belief that was new was seen by society as retarded, stupid, or evil.  O and in a study i read, dont remember where sorry, male heterosexual male gets eroticized by gay photos.  O and if you paid some heterosexuals they would and could eroticize a gay male.  Its always a choice, whether it be to do this or not to do this, to believe this or not to believe, it is always a choice.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I also don't know of any studies that promote the imprinting hypothesis.  I put it forward, but am certain it can't be my original idea.  I wonder if it's been researched?  Does the analysis of Dean Hamer and Angela Pattattucci's data rule out imprinting as a possible contributing factor?
> 
> In any case, it's just a thought I had.



Here's a review of Hamer/Pattattucci's work...it also mentions LeVay.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/studies.html

Imprinting--and what you're referring to with this term would likely be called something else, I suspect--would be a sociological explanation.  Hamer and Pattattucci are geneticists.  If you'd like a book that covers some of the social theories of homosexuality, LeVay's would be a start.

To be fair to the social theories, here's a site I found on the sociology of human sexuality.  Interesting stuff.  

http://www.ablongman.com/html/henslintour/henslinchapter/index.html

As for Ninhito's observation that "heterosexuals" were found to be excited by gay photos...you are in fact correct.  Some gays lie about their orientation.  Those who were stimulated, in spite of their denials to any homosexual leanings, were found to score highest on homophobia rating scales.  

Gays in that study, however, were not found in that study to be excited by photos of women.  And honestly, I don't recall the study either.  I'll see if I can find it.  Its in Johnson's book...and she doesn't reference anything clearly.

I have to disagree that you could pay a heterosexual man enough money to successfully eroticize another man.  Again, if that were true, then we're all bisexual by nature.  I think some of the conservatives here might be uncomfortable with that suggestion.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## tsdclaflin (Apr 15, 2005)

Please do not confuse "nurture" with "choice".  Environment can influence sexuality without someone "choosing" their sexuality.

This may sound contradictory, but I do not believe homosexuality is genetic and I also do not believe that homosexuals choose to be homosexual (some might, but most do not).  I believe that it usually occurs because of environment but not by conscience choice.

My opinion is based on my experiences with homosexual friends and a former homosexual that I know.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2005)

This is a good point. Environmental doesn't mean there's a choice--indeed, it seems clear that sexual preference is set by around 5 years old, and hence is unlikely to be a conscious choice.

The weight of evidence supporting a genetic component is quite heavy, though.


----------



## ninhito (Apr 15, 2005)

okay so a person feels alittle attraction out of nowhere, not even when he was  younger, towards the same sex and he says well i must be gay if i feel like this, right.  Okay now he just made a choice to accept those feelings, did he not...and most people have an attraction to the same sex but they CHOOSE to accept it or not accept and move on with their life...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2005)

A 'choice' implies a comparison of two options, which doesn't strike me as what's happening in your scenario. If he feels "I must be gay" as you say then he isn't choosing, he's concluding.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Apr 15, 2005)

When I say choice I don't think it's a choice to be homosexual or not, I believe you are or you are not born that way, but I think some homosexual people will succumb to societal pressures to be seemingly straight and suppress their true sexual identities.  I am thinking of several examples of people that I personally know who were married in heterosexual relationships, had children and later could no longer deny their biological sexual orientations and left the marriages to become involved in same sex relationships.  I think these people were not ever confused about who they really were.  I think their younger selves made a choice to deny their true orientation for parental/societal acceptance and then later as mature adults came to accept their genetically predetermined orientation.

And btw how did I get in The Study? :xtrmshock


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2005)

Yes, there's a difference between choosing how one _is_ and how one _acts_. The latter clearly happens all the time; the former, very rarely, I'd imagine.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Apr 16, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, there's a difference between choosing how one _is_ and how one _acts_. The latter clearly happens all the time; the former, very rarely, I'd imagine.


Yes, that's it _exactly _thanks for sharing your economy of words. :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2005)

1. On at least one level--who cares if it's nature or nurture? Ain't nobody's bidness but one's own.

2. On another level--once again, the very question presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal state, the, "zero degree," against which some aberration of either biology or choice is to be measured.

3. On a still 'nother level--once in a while, I'd like to see the question asked: is the swaggering display, cock-of-the-walk arrogance, and narcissism that all too often passes for "normal," masculinity a matter of nature, nurture or both?


----------



## Kane (Apr 16, 2005)

I think for the most part homosexuality is nurture, considering many people even start out straight and turn gay. Some gays that I have seen are actually very masculine when they were young, but later in life become very feminine. There are however some people who feel homosexual at birth. I think there is a way to explain that. I 99% sure it has nothing to do with genes. I think there is a chemical imbalance in the mother's womb that causes some homosexuals to feel attracted to the same gender. There was a case not too long ago that I saw on 20/20 about two identical twin girls that were very different. One was a transgender and the other was a normal girl. The case stunned scientists because identical twins are supposed to act almost exactly alike in a set circumstance. Here is a link to the story by the way;

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=174855&page=1

Anyway, some scientists suggested that this was caused by a chemical imbalance in the womb. The mother was in a car crash and she nearly escaped death from the accident. Surprisingly the twins survived as well but the impact might of raised a chemical imbalance in the brain of the one of the twins, making her think like a guy thus becoming a transgender.

So there it might have to with some activities in the womb, at least for those who say they have felt homosexual their whole life. However most homosexuals I know say they became gay more later in life, and some even say they were straight at a time. Or homosexuality could be a fetish, which millions of people have. Either way homosexuality seems to be mostly nurture, but I think on occasion it can be a chemical imbalance in the womb.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. On at least one level--who cares if it's nature or nurture? Ain't nobody's bidness but one's own.



I understand this sentiment, but nobody is trying to pry into anyones private life.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. On another level--once again, the very question presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal state, the, "zero degree," against which some aberration of either biology or choice is to be measured.



I don't think so.  The question could very well be a fill in the blank question and it could ask the same thing of any orientation.  You may be reading in the intent you suggest.  Oh well.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. On a still 'nother level--once in a while, I'd like to see the question asked: is the swaggering display, cock-of-the-walk arrogance, and narcissism that all too often passes for "normal," masculinity a matter of nature, nurture or both?



Considering that sexual selection pressures are the root of such behaviors, I too would be very interested in that question.  See this thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2005)

Well, those last two posts were a complete distortion of the science.

First off, no, "identical twins raised apart," are NOT supposed, "to act exactly alike." That's mythology, not science. Twin studies suggest that one inherits a certain predisposition, a "talent," if you like, and then environmental questions kick in.

Second, it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that ANY aspect of our evolution and biology is articulated directly in our behavior. Certainly, behaviors as complex as the manifestation of gender roles represent an extraordinary cultural translation of underlying biology.

Third, the remarkable thing is that the last two posters, with very different political persuasions, fundamentally agree. This derives from the nature of the question posed, as I noted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, those last two posts were a complete distortion of the science.
> 
> First off, no, "identical twins raised apart," are NOT supposed, "to act exactly alike." That's mythology, not science. Twin studies suggest that one inherits a certain predisposition, a "talent," if you like, and then environmental questions kick in.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of sexual selection.  This concept can affect morphologic change _and _ behavioral/cultural change.  There is nothing distorted about it.

The statement that it is scientifically inaccurate to claim that ANY aspect of our evolution and biology is articulated directly in our behaviors is woefully ignorant of the theory of evolution as it stand today.  It is pregnant with the latent humanism that distorts the behavioral sciences...preventing any sort of unifying theory from taking hold.  The paradigm shift, in my opinion, is riding with Evolutionary Psychology and as soon as they ditch the gene centered, Ultra-Darwinian, approach they will begin to eat alot of other people's lunches.

What we are looking at is sex decoupled from reproduction.  Sex for its own sake.  Sex to have sex, to control, to trade, to bond, to pacify...an _entire sex life _ separate from reproductive and economic needs.  There are other animals that do this and it really is nothing new.  In species where you have this triangle, guess what?  Homosexuality is common and expected, it is part of a normal and healthy sex life along with heterosexuality and masturbation.  

Orientation, in my opinion, is both nature and nuture.  We do not have sex solely for reproduction.  We have sex for many other reasons and these _other reasons_ evolved just like any other characteristics.  Yet, it is incorrect to say that our sexual practices are uninformed by our culture through the use of mores and taboo.  If a "heterosexual" refuses to have sex with someone of the same sex even though there could be many good economic or sexual reason to have sex with that person, we are seeing the effects of behavior intervening in something biological.  Orientation is the complex interaction of genes and learned behavior.  The simple fact that there are so many exceptions to all one or the other screams that this is so.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Kane (Apr 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, those last two posts were a complete distortion of the science.
> 
> First off, no, "identical twins raised apart," are NOT supposed, "to act exactly alike." That's mythology, not science. Twin studies suggest that one inherits a certain predisposition, a "talent," if you like, and then environmental questions kick in.
> 
> ...


 Actually Rmcrobertson, identical twins are supposed to act almost alike in a given circumstance. Of course there are also factors of environment that effect the situation. However if the two twins similar lives together most likely they will make the right decisions. For example if a teenage identical twin was pressured to take drugs and she does, 95% of the time the identical twin will make the same decision and takes the drug. Of course this as well goes back to the whole nature vs nurture question, as you will find if you search the the topic on google but I think nature does play a role with the similarities of identical twins, which maybe an exception with the nurture vs nature.

 Anyway my point is that there maybe some chemical imbalances during pregnancy that can effect the child. Just like if a mother smokes while she is pregnant the baby might have lung troubles, or in the case of identical twins a sudden impact might have turned one of the twins into a transgender. Similarly there might be an event a mother does while pregnant that effects the way the child thinks. We are only now discovering what happens in the womb.

 But again, this only applies to those very few that have felt gay their whole life. The majority of gays I know become gay later in life and some even turn from straight to gay. So it is probably 80% nurture, but 20% nature for those who have always felt gay. I am almost 100% certain though that it has nothing to do with genetics.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 16, 2005)

As when you try to find any "ROOT" source of any one thing, I don't think the 'reasons' are so cut & dried, black & white.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> As when you try to find any "ROOT" source of any one thing, I don't think the 'reasons' are so cut & dried, black & white.
> 
> Your Brother
> John



I think that our sex lives, being separate from our reproductive and economic lives, can have a broad spectrum of behavior.  We are capable of having sex for a great many reasons and THIS is hardwired into our biology.  Sex is socialized though.  We learn a lot of about sexual behavior through culture.

How does this translate into the concept of orientation?  My thought is that the diversity of the reasons for having sex directly mirror the diversity that can exist in morphology.  Humans do not all look alike nor should be be expected to act alike.  Different people are going to have different tendancies hardwired and these predelictions will inform our reaction towards cultural learning regarding sex.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2005)

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did. 

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Institute of Health in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality. Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified. Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does _suggest_ that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual. In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful. The work is also controversial because of implications to various segments of the population, and some researchers inability to duplicate Hamers results.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a 52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men. These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and Pillards by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a persons sexual orientation. 

It seems to me, being from New York and knowing , growing up with, and continuing to have friendships with a number of homosexuals, as well as having a gay uncle and cousin, and based on conversations with all of them, that they truly always felt different, without any coercion, exposure or molestation incidents, as well as the predominant medical theories, that there *is* a genetic component to sexual inclination. It also seems to me, based on other conversations (not having any experience in this regard myself) that as humans we are capable of overcoming how we are hardwired in terms of sexual orientation, as exemplified by a friend who first became a practicing lesbian after a college pregnancy scare, and is now bi-sexual, or, as I call her, _omnisexual.._ 



Additionally, one _could_ equate, on some level at least, homosexuality and its practice with various and sundry fetishes and kinks. How *does* one come to equate latex, rubber, bondage or _anything_ with sexual excitement. As humans, our sexual behavior is not merely tied to reproduction and genetics, as it appears to be with so many other mammals; we have sex for a variety of reasons, not in the least because of pure desire, and our *minds* find ways to spice it up, whether because of socialization or other experiences-many such idiosyncrasies being associated with early childhood experiences that we may come to equate with being loved, such as the smell of peanut butter, or rubber.say.-these are in some way learned, and thus nurtured behaviors.



So I voted both,which is what I believe, but, being decidedly heterosexual myself......:idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 16, 2005)

I think if it was 100% genetic, we would see a decline in the population of people who are homosexual.

IN THEORY, In the same way that you breed dogs for specific traits, the lower rates of homosexulas reproducing as opposed to heterosexuals, would see the homosexual genetics "bred out" of the population... 

Based on that thinking I have to be inclined to believe its probably more likley to be nurture as opposed to nature.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I think if it was 100% genetic, we would see a decline in the population of people who are homosexual.
> 
> IN THEORY, In the same way that you breed dogs for specific traits, the lower rates of homosexulas reproducing as opposed to heterosexuals, would see the homosexual genetics "bred out" of the population...
> 
> Based on that thinking I have to be inclined to believe its probably more likley to be nurture as opposed to nature.


This common misconception fails to take into account the way recessive genes are passed on; if one applied your same theory to, say, hemophilia, one would think that it too would have been bred out long ago, given that eventually the mortality rate would surpass the gene being passed on, but this is not the case.

Or, that since male pattern baldness is a recessive trait passed on from the mother (i.e., if your mom's dad was bald, you might just wind up that way), it too would eventually die out.*My* mom's dad was bald; I am not, and my brother was bald at 27. My son probably won't be, as his mother's dad wasn't, but that doesn't mean that my _daughter's_ son-should she ever have one-might not be, and ditto for any male children of my female grandchildren, should that occur. The same could well be true-since the data indicate that the theoretical gene arises from the mother-for homosexuality.

See here for a far better explanation of recessive gene inheritance than I'm capable of.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2005)

My goodness. I see that my little comments immediately drove two of very different politics to attempt hyper-intellectualizing their discourse. 

Yes, yes, yes, "woefully ignorant." I suggest you look up Robert Plomin's work. I was one of his students, back about 1978-79. "Elder" describes reality far more accurately, as does BroJo: biology is expressed in human beings only in indirect, circuitous ways. You might also want to go back and read Lacan on the deconstruction of the drives, or Freud's early and indeed premature analysis of the parts instincts play in human life.

There are two problems with the opposed explanations: if you say it's all choice and culture, then WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!. If you say it's all biology, then all we have to do is to find the gay gene, and WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!

For the third time: the problem with these arguments is that they assume heterosexuality to me normative, a pure expression of good biology and decent culture. Well, fahgeddaboutit--for every Michael Jackson, there are fifteen child-molesting, sick and twisted priests and grandpas.


----------



## ninhito (Apr 16, 2005)

*Yes, there's a difference between choosing how one is and how one acts.* 

Have you ever thought when you were young, "I dont like the way i am" and then did something about it. You still made a choice to change, did you not.  Like a person took an oath of silence for a month because he did not like how he liked to hear his own voice. 
Nurture might be a cause because I know someone who turned homosexual after being around nothing but sisters and his mom for his early life.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 16, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> This common misconception fails to take into account the way recessive genes are passed on; if one applied your same theory to, say, hemophilia, one would think that it too would have been bred out long ago, given that eventually the mortality rate would surpass the gene being passed on, but this is not the case.
> 
> Or, that since male pattern baldness is a recessive trait passed on from the mother (i.e., if your mom's dad was bald, you might just wind up that way), it too would eventually die out.*My* mom's dad was bald; I am not, and my brother was bald at 27. My son probably won't be, as his mother's dad wasn't, but that doesn't mean that my _daughter's_ son-should she ever have one-might not be, and ditto for any male children of my female grandchildren, should that occur. The same could well be true-since the data indicate that the theoretical gene arises from the mother-for homosexuality.
> 
> See here for a far better explanation of recessive gene inheritance than I'm capable of.


 Assuming of course that homosexuality is a recessive gene...

 I understand that side of the argument as well, but nature has taught us that selective breeding can produce specific, predictable results.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 16, 2005)

Hommage a billiard-ball causality... in two parts.

part 1: It's the wimmen's fault!

part 2: Meat machines! we're just meat machines!! Alas, to paraphrase Dr. FRANKenstein (long, "a"), hearts and kidneys are TINKERTOYS!! I'm talking about the CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM!! 

Human behaviors are never the direct expression of underlying genetic material; for that matter, behavior isn't the pure expression for what lies beneath in any of the hominids, canines, dolphins or whales.

What really demands interrogation isn't homosexuality, but its "opposite." And opposites attract, we all know from MTV--funny, the obsession of the straight with the bent.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> My goodness. I see that *my little comments * immediately drove two of very different politics to attempt hyper-intellectualizing their discourse.



Or it is possible that I may have done a lot of reading on this subject and wish to discuss some of the ideas that I've been mulling over...I seem to remember someone mentioning the ROOT cause of something not being black and white...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yes, yes, yes, "woefully ignorant." I suggest you look up Robert Plomin's work. I was one of his students, back about 1978-79.



Wow!  That is really cool.  Dr. Plomin's work is fantastic.  Here is a little of his most recent stuff in which I've seen (and hopefully understood  :idunno: )...



> *'Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era' * is edited by Robert Plomin and his colleagues describes where we are and where we are going in genetic research on behaviour in the postgenomic era when all genes and all DNA variations will be known.





> *'Behavioral Genetics' * is the classic textbook in the field. It introduces both quantitative genetic and molecular genetic research designs and findings in the major areas of behavioural research including neurogenetics, cognitive abilities and disabilities, psychopathology, personality, health psychology, ageing, evolution, and the interface between nature and nurture.



One note I would like to make is that Plomin's work is weighted heavily toward the genetic aspects of our behavior.  In a way, he seems to be echoing folks like Richard Dawkins and the Ultra Darwinian chorus.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Elder" describes reality far more accurately, as does BroJo:



I think that Elder makes a good case for genetic basis and he provides some good research that is very interesting.  Yet, Brother John's post is a good observation...one that I happen agree with.  This root isn't black or white.  It's not one or the other.  There is some of both.  Now what does this mean???



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Biology is expressed in human beings *only * in indirect, circuitous ways



This is absolutely false.  In terms of behavior, our biology provides us with the paint.  Our environment dictates how we paint.  I'll use a less controversial example...My wife has mammary glands that swelled with milk after the recent birth of our son (she is nursing him right now like a good mammal).  Her body is attuned to the needs of our son.  As he grows, her milk changes to best provide for his needs.  The bottom line is that her breastmilk is the best food for our son.

We could choose to give our son formula.  We are _homo sapiens _ that happen to live in an area where it is available.  And lots of others make this choice (no matter how disturbingly ignorant).  Yet, if this choice is removed and the environment is changed, her biology will dicate her behavior.  She will follow the piper of her genetics or our son will not survive.

There is absolutely nothing circuitous about this.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You might also want to go back and read Lacan on the deconstruction of the drives, or Freud's early and indeed premature analysis of the parts instincts play in human life.



Psychoanalysis is a dead end.  The more I read and the more I learn about biology, the more firmly convinced I am that Freud and all of his contemporaries will go the way of the pterodactyl.  I don't see language like "Phallocentric Obscurantism" as actually describing anything biologically real.  Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.  It's a fundamental rule in biology and we are fundamentally biologic organisms.  We cannot escape that...as much as humanists would like us to believe.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> There are two problems with the opposed explanations: if you say it's all choice and culture, then WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!. If you say it's all biology, then all we have to do is to find the gay gene, and WE CAN STAMP OUT HOMOSEXUALITY!!



I'm not saying that our sexuality is one OR the other.  I'm saying that it is both.  I'm saying that our biology has decoupled sex from reproduction and the implications of this are staggering.  We have a reproductive life.  We have an economic life.  We have a sex life.  This _sex life _ can take many forms and can include reproduction and economics, but it can also include a lot of other social aspects.  THIS *is * our biology.  Our culture informs this and has the same power that the availability of formula has on child bearing women.  

"Homosexuality" is normal in other species where sex is decoupled from reproduction.  Our perception changes with the environment.  In fact, I believe, that given the right environment (In the same sense as taking away formula), even the most strident "hetero" will submit to the "will" of his or her biology.

You can't "stamp out" "homosexuality".  It can be the result of every human beings sex life, given the right environment for exhibition.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> For the third time: the problem with these arguments is that they assume heterosexuality to me normative, a pure expression of good biology and decent culture. Well, fahgeddaboutit--for every Michael Jackson, there are fifteen child-molesting, sick and twisted priests and grandpas.



I hope you understand where I'm coming from a little better now.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 17, 2005)

In  other words, I'm wrong--but actually, I'm right.

Let me share with you a point that I heard Dr. Plomin make again and again, both in lectures and in personal conversation: our genetics never appear unmediated in our biology. Not only are they transformed by culture, but genes interact in extraordinarily complex fashions. It is a common, simplistic error to think that genes determine our behavior.

Fact is, even something as apparently-obvious as inheriting the genes for red hair is translated, and translated radically, by what "red hair," means in out culture. Your wife's pregnancy, delivery, and subseuqent behavior all comes through our perceptions of women, of motherhood, and an almost-endless list of cultural, historical and lingusitic forces.

Many people think that the psychoanalytic tradition is transcended by their superior knowledge. Mostly, it's people who have done any serious reading in Freud, or in Lacan, his great prankster. it's also people who have a vision of a squeaky-clean future--one in which "heterosexuality," is in no way an anaclisis of very different impulses.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is Homosexuality something that is determined by genetics (nature), something that is learned (nuture), or a combination of both?
> 
> I am interested in what people think. If you want to comment further on your vote, feel free.
> 
> ...


I am going to duck and cover on this one.  Someone tell me when the smoke clears.


----------



## Simon Curran (Apr 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is Homosexuality something that is determined by genetics (nature), something that is learned (nuture), or a combination of both?
> 
> I am interested in what people think. If you want to comment further on your vote, feel free.
> 
> ...


I'm going with nurture and leaving it at that do avoid conflict with the mods


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In  other words, I'm wrong--but actually, I'm right.
> 
> Let me share with you a point that I heard Dr. Plomin make again and again, both in lectures and in personal conversation: our genetics never appear unmediated in our biology. Not only are they transformed by culture, but genes interact in extraordinarily complex fashions. It is a common, simplistic error to think that genes determine our behavior.
> 
> ...



I can see where you are coming from.  I think that you are downplaying the role of biology in our lives, though.  And I think that this undermines a lot of our thinking regarding behavior.  It seems as if we have two extremes.  From a biologic perspective, the Evolutionary Psychology people reflect a Gene centered approach first formulated by folks like Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson.  Then we have a behavioral approach that you have been talking about.  They both talk about nature vs nuture, but they give lip service to the other and focus strongly on one IMO.

I'm trying to point out the nature side, not to advocate it fully, but to balance some of what you are saying.  So, in a way, you are right in pointing out that our behavior is far to complex to be soley determined by genes.  And I am correct in pointing out that our biology and how we evolved influences our behavior also.  We have not transcended our biology, never can and never will.

I haven't studied psychoanalysis as much as you have and I am willing to defer to this difference in experience.  It is entirely possible, that I don't fully understand the things that I have been taught.  However, I can see that the language used by Frued and his contemporaries lacks some of the basic ways that biology views phylogeny and ontogeny.  To me, this comes off as archaic, sort of a throwback to a day when people believed that humans were somehow separate from nature.

Regarding homosexuality, I hope that you can see what I believe from what I write.  I think that *all * sexuality is both and I am willing to say the things that this means and face the music.  I'm curious as to what you believe about this???


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I've often argued here that homosexuality is "hardwired," but after reading LeVay I accept that the environment can play a role...the level and lasting impact of environmental influence is unclear.
> 
> I do not accept the explanation that homosexuality is a "choice."  In taking this moralistic stance few ever consider that they're suggesting we are all bisexual by nature.  Not too many heterosexual males will willingly admit that they could sexually eroticize a man.  It isn't something they're capable of doing.



Thanks for the sources you provided, Steve.  I'm very intrigued by these comments.  I'm going to have to check out some of these sources that specifically address sexuality.

I'm wondering, if given the right environment, could *any * male eroticize another man?  I could seriously care less about the moralistic ramifications of this.  I would tentatively say yes, because I think our sexuality isn't *fully* hardwired in heterosexual or homosexual ways.  I think prisons provide a pretty good anecdotal way of seeing this.  Also, I think that if one were put into an environment where none of this is taboo, much about the way we behave will change.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. On at least one level--who cares if it's nature or nurture? Ain't nobody's bidness but one's own.
> 
> 2. On another level--once again, the very question presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal state, the, "zero degree," against which some aberration of either biology or choice is to be measured.
> 
> 3. On a still 'nother level--once in a while, I'd like to see the question asked: is the swaggering display, cock-of-the-walk arrogance, and narcissism that all too often passes for "normal," masculinity a matter of nature, nurture or both?


Sorry if I'm working backwards here, t's been an odd week!

#1: Fully agreed. It's the individual's issue, what I feel/think/opine about it is relevant only to myself.

#2: I'd have to think that heterosexuality is the "zero-degree". Many things in life could be said to be on a continuum I think, heterosexuality is a 'norm', and I'm basing that opinion purely on biology. Deviation from the norm to one degree or another IS average, deviation to a larger extent (homosexuality for instance) Shakes the social skif...makes waves. Morality? That again is the individuals issue and shouldn't be impinged upon by others, especially not by EITHER church or state or any other 'social' institution.

#3: I think that 'machismo' is common, maybe a 'norm', that....just like homosexuality...is difficult to pin down to just one source, a universal..."Aint nuthin but.....XYZ". It's sort of a gender continuum between the feminine and the masculine...... neither being better or worse than the other and we all fall into this continuum at some point. Is it biological? Yes, to an extent I think it's a natural extention of testosterone, what I heard one semi-philosophical BodyBuilder call "Our Strut reflex". I think that 'masculinity' is GOOD, Machismo I think denotes something that's too far to the "masculinity" side of the continuum. Like with any "Good" thing, when taken TOO FAR...it's bad. Society finds these biological trends and sees them as triggers. When shopping for a car one shouldn't care if they'd seen a particular make & model with a scantily clad woman drapped over it's hood.....so then why do addvertisers use it?? Because they know it's a trigger for the male's attention and then association between that response and the targeted item...the car. So society highlights the natural/biological tendencies and RUNS TOO FAR with it! It could be said that mans greater virtue comes from rising above the animal instinct, but not to the point of some sort of neuter-celebacy. Rather...to transcend the animal instincts by not just bypassing them, but by keeping them in proper perspective. I can enjoy and appreciate the beauty and sexual-sensuality of a beautiful woman's body...but it doesn't "Make" me a man. Neither does denying and avoiding the beauty and sexual-sensuality of the woman's form make me "more human than human"... It's a paralax. A matter of perspective....

OK...
Now I'm preaching. I just hope you see what I'm getting at.
Nature & Nurture?
Chicken or the Egg?
Melody or Harmony?

Yes!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Apr 17, 2005)

I think that the root of the "Nature or Nurture" question is a motivation to validate our own points of view and negate those of others. 

*IF* it's "Nature"...then the homosexual community (mostly just the activist types) has their iron clad validation and shunting the "Morality" arguments of the far right.

*IF* it's "Nurture"...then it can be overcome, it's genesis can be claimed to be nothing further than behavioral...and therefore can be overcome JUST as easily as it can be taken up..... THUS giving the "Moral Majority" types...(mostly just the activist types) their iron clad validation that homosexuality can and must be 'overcome' and shunts the arguments of the homosexual community.

Thing is:
A: Like my brother Robert said, it doesn't matter as it's an individuals issue.
B: Like I've said, the answer just isn't that simple.  Not at all.

Your Brother
John


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 17, 2005)

Let's define "nurture."   In doing so we can not simply say it is the environment that the child is reared in.  The environment encompasses that physical space the fetus and child occupy in progressing towards maturity, and doesn't merely consist of those social factors the child encounters subsequent to birth.  Nurture, let us say, is the social interaction the child has between parents and others in his life.  The word "environment" encompasses both the nature and nurture definitions.  

Let's look at the fetal environment.

The fetus's environment can be assaulted, for example, by the administration of diethylstibestrol.  This non-estradiol hormone was prescribed to pregnant women from 1938-1971, before it was found to cause increased genital abnormalities in male offspring...as well as showing a clear correlation with homosexuality in male children.  It had other complications as well, and was finally yanked from the market.

A mother's antibodies might adversly influence the child's sexual orientation.  Male homosexuals often (more often than is typical of the general population) have male older brothers.  One theory postulates that a mother's antibody response to the first child's androgens subsequently influences the second son's development by binding up his testosterone during key phases of fetal growth.  While the overall "maleness" of the child might not be effected, the sexual orientation of the child might well be.

If we suggest that homosexuality is caused merely by the social influences of society, then we must ask why gay males often have different fingerprint patterns than those of straight males.  Gay male fingerprint patterns more typically match those of heterosexual women.  As fingerprints are formed the 16th week in the womb, this suggests a genetic influence...or possibly an in-utero infuence similar to those described above.

One wonders why gay males tend to be smaller as adults and have a lower birth weight than the typical heterosexual male.  How is this influenced by the nurturance, or lack thereof, of the family?  Currently I teach a nine year old who is extraordinarily effeminate (four out of five such children turn out gay) and he can not do a sit up and is atypically weak and small...weaker in fact than the girls his age.  He is a second son, and his brother is strong and athletic.  

We must also look at the finger length ratios of many lesbians, which differ from heterosexual women and pattern after those of males (both gay and straight), and ask how such physical differences are accounted for by how the lesbian was reared.  Social explanations are not easily forthcoming.

We must ask ourselves why gay males are more often left handed than heterosexuals as a group...and why their anterior commisures in their brains are sized more like those of women, and why their brain patterns mimic those of women.  Why, for instance, do gay men navigate like women, using landmarks rather than the global referencing used by straight males?   Is this attributable to some flaw in rearing?   Or do we consider map reading methodology a correlation of a moral failing?

What of those children born intersexual?  By these I mean they have various forms of noticeable hermaphroditism...they may be genetically female, but have what appears to be a penis and undescended testicles, or they may be genetically male and have what appears to be a vulva, or a penis that is malformed to the point of being somewhere between a vulva and a penis. 

They might be born with an ovary and a testicle...or gonads that are part ovary, part testicle.  How do we raise them?  Do we raise them in accordance with their chromosomal profile?  If so, what then if they're sexual orientation and sexual identity is opposite of that which we've determined?  Can we easily condemn a child for their sexual orientation when it isn't so clear as to what they were in the first place?

We seek simplicity in our increasingly complex world.  Sexually categorizing people is, at first blush, a simple thing to do.  We look to the genitals and therein lies the answer...we think.  Human sexuality, however, is far too complex to so easily pigeonhole our passions.  

Even among those strictly heterosexual we find a diversity of interests that range from strange to the boringly familiar; from the popular to the perverse.  Sexual tastes--particularly in America--are as varied as hair color and skin tone and height.  The simplicity that we seek isn't forthcoming, now matter how we yearn for  it...though we sadly find that condemnation is always readily at hand.  If we can't level the population to our standard, we can cast vitriol.  It is far easier than empathy, and for some, preferable to thinking.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bammx2 (Apr 17, 2005)

a different possibilty all together........

What if REINCARNATION actually exsists?

Some people believe that when you are reborn into a new life,there is this "gender switching" that can take place.
Some say you can try and hold on to to the things that brought you the most happiness in a past life....or the most comfort..??
Could that be a possiblilty?

Like it or not...
there ARE some things science can not explain


----------



## Loki (Apr 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I've often argued here that homosexuality is "hardwired," but after reading LeVay I accept that the environment can play a role...the level and lasting impact of environmental influence is unclear.


I also argued often that it's hardwired by hormones during pregnancy (as is brain sexualization), but any arguments positing a significant environmental influence are new to me. Could you elaborate?

~ Loki


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 18, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I also argued often that it's hardwired by hormones during pregnancy (as is brain sexualization), but any arguments positing a significant environmental influence are new to me. Could you elaborate?
> 
> ~ Loki




52% of identical twins of homosexuals are themselve homosexual.  This suggests that something other than genetics plays a role in influencing homosexuality.  However; that influence might be the pre-natal environment as you suggest and as I've mentioned.  That said, one can not dismiss social influences until that time that stronger biological evidence is presented.   

While I can accept some "nurture" factors, I tend towards the "hardwire" explanation or the in-utero influence of various stressors.

On the other hand, it could be the work of Satan and his seduction of our souls.  But I kind of doubt it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Apr 19, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 52% of identical twins of homosexuals are themselve homosexual.


Steven, I suck at math.  Are you saying that if I pick 100 individuals that happen to be one of a pair of twins, that 52% of those individuals have twin brothers that are homsexual also?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 19, 2005)

Are these identical twins raised together or apart?
Are the results statistically significant?
Has there been an independent review of the research methodology--looking at, for example, what identifies people as homosexual?

Studies like this are extremely susceptible to, well, bad methodology. 

I say again--why would anybody think that there's any such thing as normalcy to measure this against, given what "heterosexuality's" like? I mean, have you ever thought about the implications of the fact that there's a lotta guys who like to get together with their buddies, get off while watching strippers, and watch each other pay for lap dances?

I mean--viewed askew, that is just so gay....


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 19, 2005)

I've heard that you can't tell what a homosexual looks like but now there are studies you can tell by looking at their hands?

What about the lisp thing? Is that another genetic give-away? Or is it more of a nurture thing. I know when I used to hang around with a lot of Polish immigrants I would catch myself picking up an accent back in middle school so maybe that's an aquired thing, along with an eye for interior design.

I can understand that such a persecuted group would look for some biological explanation to justify their behavior but some of this is a stretch. Especially genetics, something we probably shouldn't be medling in anyways.

"We're here, we're queer!" OK, big deal. Now go home cuz I don't really care.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 19, 2005)

If anything proves my point....


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Are these identical twins raised together or apart?
> Are the results statistically significant?
> Has there been an independent review of the research methodology--looking at, for example, what identifies people as homosexual?
> 
> ...



I think we may be saying similar things in this discussion.  The realm of human sexual behavior is vast.  We have sex for many reasons beyond just reproduction.  Where (and why) do we draw these lines regarding "normal" sexual behavior?  People who have sex with those of the same sex, have sex for the same reasons that the people who have sex with the opposite.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 20, 2005)

OK ... here are my two cents, which I was desperately trying to hold on to .... 

Mostly, agreeing with the snippets of rmcrobertson, 'what does it matter'?

Why don't we try a little thought experiment:

If you are straight, after you read this, next time you are in a public place, look about the room, notice the attractiveness of a person of the same gender, the way he (or she) is groomed, dressed, and accessorized. Next imagine you are alone with that person. Imagine an increased the level of intimacy. Imagine touching and kissing that person in a loving sexual manner. Follow this thought experiment as far as you are comfortable, maybe just a bit further than your comfort zone. 

At some point, you may come to the conclusion that being attracted to a person of the same gender may not be a 'choice'.

If you are gay, just follow the above example with a person of the opposite gender.

Enjoy.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Steven, I suck at math.  Are you saying that if I pick 100 individuals that happen to be one of a pair of twins, that 52% of those individuals have twin brothers that are homsexual also?



No.  Out of a population of twins studied wherein one brother identified himself as homosexual, the other also identified himself as homosexual 52% of the time.

A write up on the Baily and Pillard study that found this concordance:

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

To answer Rober's question, I believe they were raised together.  Twin studies have an increasingly difficult time finding twins raised apart due to improved economic conditions.  Twins aren't split up for adoption as often.

Are the results statistically significant...uh...yes.  That would be considered quite significant given that the general homosexual population constitutes 2-4% of the overall population.  We find similar rates of concordance for autism and schizophrenia among monozygotic twins.

Is the methodology flawed?  To a degree, if I recall LeVay's review of it.  It, and other studies point to a significant concordance in any case.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Brother John (Apr 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> No.  Out of a population of twins studied wherein one brother identified himself as homosexual, the other also identified himself as homosexual 52% of the time.
> 
> Are the results statistically significant...uh...yes.  That would be considered quite significant given that the general homosexual population constitutes 2-4% of the overall population.


Steve-
How many people participate in this study? That might make a difference toward determining the 'significance', I'd think.
Your Brother
John


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 20, 2005)

They may indeed point that way. But without a clear description of a study (for example, what exactly did they ask the sibs?), with a flawed methodology, with no presentation of statistical analysis of data, without even a stated number of study participants, I'd be vewy vewy wary.

There've been a lot of these sorts of studies out lately. Remember the, "prayer helps you heal," claptrap from a couple months ago?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 20, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Steve-
> How many people participate in this study? That might make a difference toward determining the 'significance', I'd think.
> Your Brother
> John




110 pairs of male twins were selected by Bailey and Pillard, of which they knew at least one of the twins was gay.  A small sample, indeed...but understandable given that twins are a minority, gays are a minority, and finding the combination of both for a study might be a tad difficult.

The authors acknowledge that one flaw of the methodology is the way they recruited participants--they advertised in Gay magazines.  They feel this might have skewed the results.  They felt that Gays might have first considered whether their twin was Gay or not before electing to join the study.

So Bailey did another study in Australia with a far larger sample of 5,000 twins (apparently they have a huge twin registry down under) and found the concordance more like 20%.  They found that gender non-comformity in childhood is highly heritable...and that, as I've mentioned, has a strong correlation with sexual preference in later years.

So...the 52% figure is not current, as I've just discovered in researching this.   


The link to an informative PDF file is below.  It contains a wealth of current research.  FWIW, the Northwestern search engine seems to yield a bunch of stuff.  You might try typing in a keyword of interest to see what pops up.


http://search.northwestern.edu/cs.h...df&qt=Bailey,+et.+al,+twins&col=nwu&n=2&la=en



Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 20, 2005)

Nice one; thanks.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Apr 20, 2005)

The next question is does the strong social pressure against gay behavior cause twin studies to underestimate the genetic concordance? 

jeff


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 20, 2005)

An article talking about the heritability factor of various behaviors and traits...including sexuality.  I found it while looking up the Bailey studies:

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/personality/897.html

Many of us will be loathe to admit we have much in common with our parents.  As I age, though, I start to make more and more connections between their personalities and mine (and my older sister, to her dismay, is turning into our mother...which I never hesitate to tell her.  I'm such a sadist.)  

That said, we're each our own individual.  Genes influence...they don't always determine to a "T" what we'll be.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Apr 20, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> The next question is does the strong social pressure against gay behavior cause twin studies to underestimate the genetic concordance?


 I was thinking the same. But, it's good to have some data! That 20% figure is pretty impressive to me.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2005)

People are still going on about the nature/nurture thing?? Man, that is _so_ 30 years ago.  :supcool: 

The truth is, that "nature" and "nurture" can't really be rigidly teased apart as easily as both sides' proponents would have you believe. Environment don't do diddely-squat without a biological organism to spill its influences onto. Likewise, genes don't "contain" or "encode" anything without a species-typical environment (even if it is perinatal) to support it.

The system is bi-directional, guys. Flows both ways, in and out. All of our traits, behaviors, qualities, and even sexuality -- without exception --- is a product of "nature" and "nurture" interacting with one another.

Epigenesis, I think its called.

Regarding Mr. Freud, now, he's pretty much not all that looked up to in modern psychology. Virtually all the specifics of his system have been rejected. But, hey, Mr. Erikson's ideas are very well-supported, and he's a neo-Freudian. The psychoanalytic school is, as such, hardly "dead".

I voted "both", by the way.

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> twins are a minority, gays are a minority, and finding the combination of both for a study might be a tad difficult.
> 
> a far larger sample of 5,000 twins (apparently they have a huge twin registry down under) and found the concordance more like 20%.



These two parts seem to contradict one another don't they??? Or at least raise an eyebrow...even further...concerning their methodology.  
110 sets of twins in America who have one of the two being homosexual...
yet in a Smaller country (more conservative country, I think) there are 5,000 twins (or is that 2,500 sets of twins?) with one of the two being homosexual.
Seems sorta fishy. 

PLEASE undestand, though I've had no problems disagreeing w/yall here and there, I'm not really disagreeing here...not wanting to be argumentative (I just don't have a horse in this race), but I just wanted to point out this seeming flaw.

Thoughts?

your Brother
John


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Apr 21, 2005)

Well, even with the twins, who says that they became homosexual from their genes?
 The fact that if they may have been in contact with others, like them and posses the same traits i.e. behaving that way inclined, then it may have influenced them to become gay. 
So you can just say that its nature but then again you can just say that its nurture. Ah, thats badly worded but never mind. 

It may be the culture they have been brought up into. That experiment like others is going to have flaws in it. You cannot apply it universally because who says what works in one culture might not work in another. Cross cultural studies are needed for that. I.e. Germany has more insecure attatchments as children but this may be because they are removed from the parents at an early stage in life and so therefore never make a secure attachment. The fact they are told to taught to be more independant from their parents enforces this result. The finding of that study could not apply across the another culture like that of British culture where children here are more attached to their parents until later life, and generally have more secure attachments.
*Just as an example, that was!* 
But applying that to cross culture, just because you do a study on homosexuality in Kenya or somewhere and its found to sway towards nature more, it doesnt mean that its the same say as in America.

In my view they may have a genetic pre-disposition, as in, they were 'more prone (not saying that its a weakness or something)' if you like to being that way inclined from birth! Not as a genetic defect but something maybe we dont understand yet.

Anyway, not that its revelant but my view is, that if they are gay, let them be, I dont have a problem with them and I hope the world turns that towards that view to. Its not our place to interfere or judge others personal lives. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean that its wrong. But sadly equality has not reached that way yet, and people still resist it because peeple dont like change. But hey Im not here to preach, so please dont take offence!

Its not like its a new subject brought to light either. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong that alot of the Greek society was gay when they had an empire. That women were generally there for the purpose of reproduction.
Anyway I better get back to this geography essay, errggh!

Kind Regards

Nick


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 21, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> The next question is does the strong social pressure against gay behavior cause twin studies to underestimate the genetic concordance?
> 
> jeff




Indeed.  One might conceivably lie about one's homosexuality, even in a study where confidentiality is assured.  I seriously doubt too many say they were gay when they were not.

I was thinking about this thread this morning over coffee at Starbucks.  A young man sat down next to me and I noted he was attractive...yet I wasn't attracted to him.  Each heterosexual male can recognize attractiveness in another male.  This is no doubt a product of our being able to recognize that which we would emulate and that which we by needs must compete with.  I'd think this isn't so much socially ingrained as it is biologically inherent.

But there is a social factor of course.  Had this youngster been dressed in fashions from the seventies, wearing his hair in that way...most people would find it odd and think, "Gee, he'd be a good looking guy if he didn't dress so weird."  We do have a social standard for attractiveness that goes beyond mere features and extends to the realm of fashion.  This is plastic and goes with the age we live in.

That said it seems like a very fine line from recognizing attractiveness and attraction of the sort we'd emulate to sexual attraction.  Heterosexual males bond with attractive heterosexual males...we hang out with them, desire to work for them, employ them, introduce them to our sisters and daughters--but we don't want to have sex with them.  There's the rub.  What is it that makes a gay male eroticize that which we find merely attractive?  By that token, how is it I can eroticize a woman...when another heterosexual woman and a gay male can not?

Sam Kinison asked that question, although in a vulgar fashion.  Dan Savage said it in another way as well in his book "Skipping to Gommorah."  And we ask it here.  I find "choice" an insufficient answer.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Deuce (Apr 21, 2005)

What about a very attractive woman that used to be a man? If physically there was no evidence of ever being a male, do think a guy would pick up on the fact that she used to a man if he spent enough time with him/her? 

What if he knew, and engaged in sexual activities, is it homosexual behavior? Does it make him gay?

Maybe this situation isn't relevant to the current discussion due to the extensive body modifications involved, but I was trying to find away to compare physical and natural preference or tendancies.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> People are still going on about the nature/nurture thing?? Man, that is _so_ 30 years ago. :supcool:
> 
> The truth is, that "nature" and "nurture" can't really be rigidly teased apart as easily as both sides' proponents would have you believe. Environment don't do diddely-squat without a biological organism to spill its influences onto. Likewise, genes don't "contain" or "encode" anything without a species-typical environment (even if it is perinatal) to support it.
> 
> ...


Yo. 

Epigenesis was getting more focus about 5-10 years ago, I think, but with the advent of advanced genetics and molecular biology, sadly, people are being seduced by genetic explanations for all sorts of things.  

Nice comment on the species-typical environments, BTW.  Some reseach has been looking at environmental inheritance - i.e. what offspring inherit from their parents, in terms of their local environment(s).  V. interesting.

Aside from that, I think some of the biggest proponents of the "homosexuality is (most, all, very) genetic" are gay rights fans, who are looking for an explanation that will get fundies off their backs.  I can understand why that would happen.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 21, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> What about a very attractive woman that used to be a man? If physically there was no evidence of ever being a male, do think a guy would pick up on the fact that she used to a man if he spent enough time with him/her?
> 
> What if he knew, and engaged in sexual activities, is it homosexual behavior? Does it make him gay?
> 
> Maybe this situation isn't relevant to the current discussion due to the extensive body modifications involved, but I was trying to find away to compare physical and natural preference or tendancies.





It is relevant because it helps us realize that sexuality isn't merely an issue of what equipment we're packing.

Years ago I saw a woman (once a man) appear on a talk show.  This woman was a model, appeared in a James Bond movie, kissed Roger Moore in the movie, got a Penthouse gig...and was outed sometime after that.  I have to say, she was beautiful and perfectly feminine...and a very sweet person.  I honestly had to ask myself whether I could fall in love with someone like that.  The answer was yes.

Feisty...some gays are VERY against the biological theories concerning homosexuality, feeling more empowered by the "choice" option.  They're odd bedfellows with the Fundies themselves, who also think its an issue of choice.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 21, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> What about a very attractive woman that used to be a man? If physically there was no evidence of ever being a male, do think a guy would pick up on the fact that she used to a man if he spent enough time with him/her?
> 
> What if he knew, and engaged in sexual activities, is it homosexual behavior? Does it make him gay?
> 
> Maybe this situation isn't relevant to the current discussion due to the extensive body modifications involved, but I was trying to find away to compare physical and natural preference or tendancies.


That's an interesting question.  Is it homosexual?  IMO, no.  Does it make the other partner gay?  no.  Would there be an internal struggle in the other partner given the newfound information?  You betcha, especially if the person was not totally open in the beginning with their partner, perhaps feeling a little shame/guilt for their ruse.

Now, would a guy spontaneously know that a girl used to be a guy?  I doubt it as long as there were no outwards signs or mannerisms.  

Hmmm...  Good question.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Yo.



Yo.  :supcool:  



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Epigenesis was getting more focus about 5-10 years ago, I think, but with the advent of advanced genetics and molecular biology, sadly, people are being seduced by genetic explanations for all sorts of things.



Undoubtedly. 

But, y'see, the problem with these "genetics-only" expanations is that if the gene (or genes) in question doesn't have a species-typical environment to "flow" itself into, it will be incapable of producing the trait associated with it.

Look at it this way: gene A only produces effect or trait B when supported by environment C. If, for example, I put gene A in environment D instead, a totally different effect could result --- including no effect at all (i.e., biological death). This is why the results of our particular genetics are explicitly rooted in evolution via natural selection, in which we have developed species-typical adaptations to counter species-typical environments (whether they be prenatal, perinatal, natal, postnatal, or social). That's just the way it is.

Likewise, the opposite is true: the information from environment C will have no significance unless there is gene A for it to "flow" into. If we were to hypothetically replace gene A with, say, gene B while in the same environment (C), a totally different interactionist result could emerge.

As I said before, the system is bi-directional. It flows both ways. 



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Nice comment on the species-typical environments, BTW.  Some reseach has been looking at environmental inheritance - i.e. what offspring inherit from their parents, in terms of their local environment(s).  V. interesting.



Well, that's how the ideas were taught to me. 



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Aside from that, I think some of the biggest proponents of the "homosexuality is (most, all, very) genetic" are gay rights fans, who are looking for an explanation that will get fundies off their backs.  I can understand why that would happen.



This is understandable, of course.

However, as I once said to a friend, people really need to stop trying to collapse the science and morality issues here. They're two pretty damn distinct modes of inquiry (albeit there can be some interesting correlations here or there). 

A particular trait (not even necessarily sexuality) could be 'natural' (as in, predisposed at birth). But, this does not necessarily mean it is 'right' or 'proper' (if you choose to accept such terminology) one way or another. Most forms of schizophrenia, for example, are genetically inherited.

Likewise, a particular trait could be 'nurtured' (as in, the result of environmental and/or social influences). But, this does not necessarily mean it is 'wrong' or 'unnatural', either. Most forms of what we would consider 'compassion', for example, are learned behaviors. Manners, at the very least, are learned behaviors.

So, as I said, the whole science and morality of the issue here don't really coincide at all. People need to stop trying to use science to 'prove' homosexuality is 'right' or 'wrong', either way. Its not what science is for.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 21, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Most forms of what we would consider 'compassion', for example, are learned behaviors.



Not necessarily.  There is currently an argument as to whether such things as compassion are heritable or not.  The opposite of that, sociopathy, seems to have a genetic component to it.  Both could be explained as being biologically advantageous traits.  The one allows the individual to excel in a social group...the other allows an individual to predate upon others in a social group.  Compassion is far more prevalent, yet sociopaths comprise a whopping four percent of the population.

Some believe that group selection and moral yardsticks such as compassion are intertwined, a sort of meta-Darwinism effecting tribes and larger social units.  Others poo-poo this idea.  It is quite a hot topic.

Arguments addressing this are found in Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil."  It is an interesting book...but like Shermer's other books, he interjects himself to much into the text.  Other than that, its worth flipping through.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

Hrmmm... perhaps we should save that discussion for the Evolutionary Psychology thread.  :supcool: 

In any event, the point I was _trying_ to make is that the science of this issue and the morality of this issue are two entirely different (albeit somewhat related) modes of inquiry. Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop using science to "prove" the morality of their position.

Of course, my thoughts are that this attempt to use natural sciences like biology and neurology to "prove" or "endorse" something like intersubjective morals or values is just yet another symptom of the pathological materialism that dominates Western culture.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 21, 2005)

*Hrmmm... perhaps we should save that discussion for the Evolutionary Psychology thread.  *

See if there are any takers...there's a ton of stuff there.
*
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that the science of this issue and the morality of this issue are two entirely different (albeit somewhat related) modes of inquiry. Both sides of the political spectrum need to stop using science to "prove" the morality of their position.*

I'm not sure the Right has tried to use science to any extent in proving their position on this...other than pulling out an occasional physician with no background in research to debunk the studies (like Focus On The Family and NARTH has done).  As for the left who turn to science, they're proposing a null hypothesis for the moral issue.  If homosexuality is naturally derived, it isn't an issue of morality but of biology.

*Of course, my thoughts are that this attempt to use natural sciences like biology and neurology to "prove" or "endorse" something like intersubjective morals or values is just yet another symptom of the pathological materialism that dominates Western culture.*

Then too there is the drive to push back the constraints of propriety of conservatives so that science can be done.  Time and again sex research  studies (not just homosexual) are thwarted by lack of funding due to prudery.  If we can dispense with the issue of morality, maybe we can get down to finding out what the Hell drives us.

Thus liberated of the constraints of morality I want science to tell us certain things.  I for one want to know why men want to be tied up by invective screaming leather-clad women and beaten with rubber hoses.  I want to know if it is harmful.  I want to know if any of the women here on MT have ever done that.  And then I want them to call me.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I for one want to know why men want to be tied up by invective screaming leather-clad women and beaten with rubber hoses. I want to know if it is harmful. I want to know if any of the women here on MT have ever done that. And then I want them to call me.


 I think, as a control, they should also call me.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Thus liberated of the constraints of morality I want science to tell us certain things. I for one want to know why men want to be tied up by invective screaming leather-clad women and beaten with rubber hoses. I want to know if it is harmful. I want to know if any of the women here on MT have ever done that. And then I want them to call me.


  :rofl:  Phone number please?  

 Seriously, it could be argued that partaking in the submissive male role takes a man's power away and thus returns him to boyhood where he had no control and no responsibilities and none of the stressors of "being a man" - it also assigns qualities they may subconsciously assign as masculine to that which he seeks to control, the female, so the onus is no longer on him - relief. The invective screaming and all the violence assigned on that which he thinks is weak allows him to worship and justify his own actions and the whipping with a hose is metaphoric of throwing one's _>ahem<_ *weight* around.

  As to the leather ... it's just plain sexy, darnit!

 Harmful? Depends. I think multiple levels are going on here - worship of the behavior they need relief from, self-justification and assigning punishment for doing what they worship. Is that harmful?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 23, 2005)

And how, ahem, did you learn so much about this, Shesulsa?  Grad school or OJT?

Back to the topic...Dennis Miller was on "The Daily Show" this week and told John Stewart he'd love to see Bush and the Pope back off the homosexuality issue.  Miller said, "Hey, if you're 'fireman calendar on the fridge' Gay, nothing is going to change that, okay?"

There are times I like Dennis Miller.  This was one of them.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And how, ahem, did you learn so much about this, Shesulsa?  Grad school or OJT?


 Another question like that might deserve a whipping. :whip: *pulls on leather and sips coffee*


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I think some of what is sexually stimulating to us individually is due to imprinting. At some important stage in our development we experience something that turns us on or revolts us--and it sticks with us either permenently if reinforced or stamped out by psych extinction.
> 
> I think it also plays a part in fetishes and unusual practices.
> 
> Obviously, imprinting isn't the total determining factor, but it plays a part.


Yeah good post! I thought fetishes could be genetic too, is or that because of the fact that it could be culturally or experiencedly passed on?!


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 4, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> :rofl: Phone number please?
> 
> Seriously, it could be argued that partaking in the submissive male role takes a man's power away and thus returns him to boyhood where he had no control and no responsibilities and none of the stressors of "being a man" - it also assigns qualities they may subconsciously assign as masculine to that which he seeks to control, the female, so the onus is no longer on him - relief. The invective screaming and all the violence assigned on that which he thinks is weak allows him to worship and justify his own actions and the whipping with a hose is metaphoric of throwing one's _>ahem<_ *weight* around.
> 
> ...


Mmmmm I'm beginning to think that Freud has a point somewhere along the line..............


----------



## heretic888 (May 4, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> I thought fetishes could be genetic too, is or that because of the fact that it could be culturally or experiencedly passed on?!



Personally, I'd prefer to see some actual peer-reviewed research on the subject matter (preferably from several sources) before accepting the notion that something like fetishism is "genetic".

But, that's just me.


----------



## elder999 (May 9, 2005)

See the whole story here



> WASHINGTON - Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. *The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone. *"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 10, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd prefer to see some actual peer-reviewed research on the subject matter (preferably from several sources) before accepting the notion that something like fetishism is "genetic".
> 
> But, that's just me.




There might be a genetic tendency towards certain behaviors that is shaped by experience.  A person with genetic OCD might find bondage appealing as a way to "control" a partner.  Someone wired in a certain way might respond to spankings as a child differently than the rest of us, and find the experience stimulates an unnatural release of endorphins...we then get the masochist.

This is speculation on my part.  Still, the OCD route would be worth exploring.  Fetishists take particular delight in specific, rather bizarre rituals and by objectifying specific objects.  Some guys reeeeally get into shoes, others corsets, others fishnet stockings.

This is an extension of sorts of what many of us get turned on by.  Some men are leg men, others focus their desire on breasts, or butts.  (I, of course, am the exception in that I truly respect all women for their mind and seek a deep platonic relationship with a soul mate...with big boobs.)  

But HOW does that attraction extend to fetishes?  Shoes and fishnets might enhance a woman's legs somehow...the fetishist takes it to an extreme.  Corsets give an hourglass figure, a secondary sex characteristic naturally attractive to many males.  A guy with a corset fetish places a far greater focus on the item.  So a biological attractant can be taken to an extreme, perhaps...and some of that inducement to extremity is the environment pushing a natural attraction to the level of what many call deviant, and others call variety.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 11, 2005)

A little more to add to the mix of controversy: a new study shows gay men and straight women are stimulated by male pheromones:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7358



Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (May 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> There might be a genetic tendency towards certain behaviors that is shaped by experience.  A person with genetic OCD might find bondage appealing as a way to "control" a partner.  Someone wired in a certain way might respond to spankings as a child differently than the rest of us, and find the experience stimulates an unnatural release of endorphins...we then get the masochist.



Steve, the key word being "might". 

I didn't say it was implausible. Or, even impossible. All I'm sayin' is that I'd prefer to see some damn good _research_ into the subject before tossing my hat into the ring.

 :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Steve, the key word being "might".
> 
> I didn't say it was implausible. Or, even impossible. All I'm sayin' is that I'd prefer to see some damn good _research_ into the subject before tossing my hat into the ring.
> 
> :asian:




Well, we can use volunteers and start in with that research right now.

Kneel, and be submissive to Shesulsa, Heretic!

(He's been bad, SS.  Verrrry bad.)


I'll take notes.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, we can use volunteers and start in with that research right now.
> 
> Kneel, and be submissive to Shesulsa, Heretic!
> 
> ...


 *Pulls on leather* Hmmm??? Bad, you say??  Slowly turns to Heretic ... :EG:


----------



## donald (May 17, 2005)

I believe that it is ultimitely a choice. The Lord Jesus has given us(humanity)a free will. Its no different than the one who chooses to drink a shot of whiskey, or to smoke a joint for the first time. No one truly knows the eventual outcome of such a choice. Except that if we continue to make choices outside of GOD's word. We put ourselves in peril. Now I am well aware of the fact that there are people on this forum. Who do not believe that the Bible is THE word of GOD. Or that there even is a GOD. Once again it comes down to choice. Once we have made a conscience decision to do something repeatedly. It becomes extremely hard to do an about face. These are just my thoughts on the subject, but admittedly from a Christian perspective.
By GOD's Grace,
Donald 1stJohn 1:9


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2005)

donald said:
			
		

> I believe that it is ultimitely a choice. The Lord Jesus has given us(humanity)a free will. Its no different than the one who chooses to drink a shot of whiskey, or to smoke a joint for the first time. No one truly knows the eventual outcome of such a choice. Except that if we continue to make choices outside of GOD's word. We put ourselves in peril. Now I am well aware of the fact that there are people on this forum. Who do not believe that the Bible is THE word of GOD. Or that there even is a GOD. Once again it comes down to choice. Once we have made a conscience decision to do something repeatedly. It becomes extremely hard to do an about face. These are just my thoughts on the subject, but admittedly from a Christian perspective.
> By GOD's Grace,
> Donald 1stJohn 1:9


 Sorry, Donald, but this is a very protected, very slanted, very ignorant viewpoint.  To say that all sexuality is by choice would indicate that you could freely choose to engage sexually with another human your same gender and have no problems with it whatsoever.  Do you think that would be the case for you?  Most likely not.

 I'm glad you feel you can fall on your faith for all your answers, but this is just not true for most homosexual people. Not all homosexual people make a conscious choice to prefer the same gender, they just _do_ - as you prefer the opposing gender (I assume).  To claim they have another choice would not necessarily be a lie, but would be as disgusting and wrong to them as their preference is to you.

 There's more than free will going on here, sir.  Open your eyes - the truth shall set you free.


----------



## donald (May 17, 2005)

I don't believe anything other than The Lord Jesus created Adam, and Eve. Right there is the intent of design. One couple, not 2... I am sorry that you feel the need to call me ignorant, but the facts are what they are. We(men, and women) have been designed for one another. To go against that is by choice. Some where down the line the person made a choice to try out what was going through their mind. You do something enough, and its going to become second nature. Ask any recovered addict how they began their journey. I am willing to wager that in the begining it was just for kicks, but eventually they were overcome by their choice. Now it seems as if their ability to choose is gone. 
By GOD's Grace,
Donald 1st John 1:9


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2005)

Unfortunately, this is the United States: we're a democracy, not a right-wing theocracy. Oh, and there's the whole science thing...

If your Nobodaddy ("Old Nobodaddy aloft/Farted and belched and coughed/And said, / 'I like hanging and drawing and quartering/ Every bit as much as slaying and slaughtering'") sends people to hell for being gay or for thinking that leaving other people to live their life in peace is a sin, well--to paraphrase Huck Finn's great moral statement--"I'll GO to hell, then."

If you're offended, sir, you may take it that I am deeply offended.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is the United States: we're a democracy, not a right-wing theocracy. Oh, and there's the whole science thing...
> 
> If your Nobodaddy ("Old Nobodaddy aloft/Farted and belched and coughed/And said, / 'I like hanging and drawing and quartering/ Every bit as much as slaying and slaughtering'") sends people to hell for being gay or for thinking that leaving other people to live their life in peace is a sin, well--to paraphrase Huck Finn's great moral statement--"I'll GO to hell, then."
> 
> If you're offended, sir, you may take it that I am deeply offended.


Other than your obvious attempt to turn everything into a political duel, I agree with you on this topic.  

I heard it put best once that leftwingers believe that boys and girls are identical, until they are taught to differentiate between sexes, sex roles are entirely learned....except homosexuality of course (pure drivel).  

(Religious) Rightwingers, on the other hand, believe that all sex behavior is a born trait, girls are born to be girls, boys to be boys, and that we are made that way, it's NOT learned....except homosexuality (more pure drivel).  

You can't have it both ways folks.  Fact is, both these positions are self-serving, AND, contradictory.  I have no doubt that most homosexuals are born homosexual and, therefore, should not be treated as outcasts simply because of the lot they were born to.  Are sex roles learned and not inborn?  I believe that the majority of our sex roles are determined before we are born, then we spend the rest of our lives fine tuning.  

Just my observations, take it for what's it worth.  I do find it telling, however, that most of the homosexuals I know, I could tell they were homosexual for YEARS before they themselves were sure.  It seems pretty convincing to me that it wasn't a choice they woke up one day and made.


----------



## Brother John (May 18, 2005)

I'm a 'religious' person as well. A Christian. I believe that God made us all as well. I believe in 'objective truth'. I don't believe that homosexuality is 'right'. 
BUT:
I believe it's also morally/ethically wrong to try to make "moral" judgements for anyone beyond yourself or those you are fully accountable for. (Like our own children, before the age of accountability)

SO... this whole question of "Where does homosexuality come from" is irrelevent in my eyes. Unless I mean to force a moral judgement on someone else, I've got no use for such a debate. Like I've said before, I think that the 'source of homosexuality' is complex and probably (like the rest of life) a very dynamic rig of action/reaction....etc. Not some black and white "Nothin-but....xyz" cause.
But it just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter..
it just doesn't matter....
it just doesn't matter......

(movie reference anyone?? Hint: Early 80s, Bill Murry)

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Sorry, Donald, but this is a very protected, very slanted, very ignorant viewpoint.



Well, shesulsa, you just have to actually look at what Donald is saying.

He is basically expressing mythic-agrarian values in which it was believed that, no matter what happens to you, it is ultimately your fault (for better or worse). This was tied intimately with the notion of predestination, in which if you were born with a natural handicap, it was because God "knew" what kind of a person you were going to be and is punishing you in advance. Or, possibly, a the sins of the father kind of thing.

This kind of thinking also rationalized the social hiearchies existing in culture at the time. Meaning, your poor because God's punishing you. Or something to that effect. In any event, its ultimately your fault.

Then there came the Enlightenment --- and a lot of people, maybe most people, began to see things very, very differently.


----------



## ed-swckf (May 25, 2005)

The title of this thread should read "sexuality - Nature, Nurture or Both?"


----------



## elder999 (May 26, 2005)

donald said:
			
		

> I don't believe anything other than The Lord Jesus created Adam, and Eve. Right there is the intent of design. One couple, not 2... I am sorry that you feel the need to call me ignorant, but the facts are what they are. We(men, and women) have been designed for one another. To go against that is by choice. Some where down the line the person made a choice to try out what was going through their mind. You do something enough, and its going to become second nature. Ask any recovered addict how they began their journey. I am willing to wager that in the begining it was just for kicks, but eventually they were overcome by their choice. Now it seems as if their ability to choose is gone.
> By GOD's Grace,
> Donald 1st John 1:9


As a heterosexual, reformed Christian who graduated from seminary, I always tell Bible thumpers like yourself that I always follow Jesus's teaching in the New Testament about homosexuality, which is..._precisely nothing._

Closest I can find is _..judge *not.*_

As for the "Old Testament," let's not even go down that road-as someone who has read it in Greek, Hebrew and Syriac(Aramaic) and looked at it through the cultural lens of a warrior/tribal/agrarian society, as well as what are thought to be the practices at the time, I can make a fairly detailed (and *lengthy*) case for the strictures against "not lying with a man in the manner of a woman"  not being against "homosexuality" per se, but against being on the receiving end of certain homosexual acts.


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2005)

It should also be mentioned, at this point, that perhaps the values of a mythic-agrarian society aren't particularly appropriate to an increasingly rational-industrial/informational soceity, neh?

I mean, fer crissakes, these guys thought the planet was flat and the universe was geocentric!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 28, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, shesulsa, you just have to actually look at what Donald is saying.
> 
> He is basically expressing mythic-agrarian values in which it was believed that, no matter what happens to you, it is ultimately your fault (for better or worse). This was tied intimately with the notion of predestination, in which if you were born with a natural handicap, it was because God "knew" what kind of a person you were going to be and is punishing you in advance. Or, possibly, a the sins of the father kind of thing.
> 
> ...


You just might be mixing free will with predestination.  The two are mutually, philosophically exclusive.  You either believe one or the other.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 6, 2005)

New in the news, along with the study showing Gays are attracted to male pheromones, is a study saying that fruit flies can be genetically tweaked so that they're homosexual.


http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/06/04/100wir_flies001.cfm


Fruit flies?  

I'll only be convinced when they replicate the experiment with a more macho sort of fly...like a common house fly.  These latter are far more athletic, manly, and muscular.  They have attitude.  They puke on doody and then eat it.  They're the 1% bikers of the fly world.  If THEY can be made homosexual, then there might be something to it...but I'm withholding judgement on a study on these banana sucking "drosophila."  


Drosophila even sounds gay.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 6, 2005)

Read the pheromone article last month. Explains why I can't stand the odor of other males. I'd prefer if they tweeked the dna of fruitflies to make them extict.


----------



## Shorin-ryu Sensei (Jun 7, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I've heard that you can't tell what a homosexual looks like but now there are studies you can tell by looking at their hands?
> 
> What about the lisp thing? Is that another genetic give-away? Or is it more of a nurture thing. I know when I used to hang around with a lot of Polish immigrants I would catch myself picking up an accent back in middle school so maybe that's an aquired thing, along with an eye for interior design.
> 
> ...



The simplest way to tell the difference is to go to your local mall and watch the people .......... those walking upright are queer ...... those lumbering with a simian gate are straight ..... it's amazing how much this is true.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 7, 2005)

donald said:
			
		

> I don't believe anything other than The Lord Jesus created Adam, and Eve. Right there is the intent of design. One couple, not 2... I am sorry that you feel the need to call me ignorant, but the facts are what they are. We(men, and women) have been designed for one another. To go against that is by choice. Some where down the line the person made a choice to try out what was going through their mind. You do something enough, and its going to become second nature. Ask any recovered addict how they began their journey. I am willing to wager that in the begining it was just for kicks, but eventually they were overcome by their choice. Now it seems as if their ability to choose is gone.




Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, Donald.  Up until last week I was working two jobs, and haven't had time to spend reading every post.

The nature of "choice" as homosexuality goes, insofar as you present it, basically states that we are all bisexual by nature.  I do not feel I am bisexual by nature, nor that I could engage in homosexual behavior for "kicks." I would receive no "kicks" from it, no thrill, no erotic appeal.  I can not become sexually stimulated by the sight of a well built good looking man sporting an erection.  If I read your post correctly, you seem to think you have the innate potential to do so.

We have established (see above post) that in simpler organisms, such as the fruit fly, gender preference is in fact biological.  The fruit fly doesn't make a choice...doesn't model their sexual behavior on other fruit flies...isn't seduced by deviant flies into making an aberrant sexual foray into fruity fruit fly behavior.

Moving up to more complex animals such as mammals we find a study at the university of Oregon showing that a strain of gay sheep has marked differences in the pre-optic nucleus of the hypothalmus...supporting that observation made of gay male men made by NIH researcher Simon LeVay in 1991.  We can arrive at several (sometimes contrary) conclusions in response to this research:


The sheep were wooed into the homosexual lifestyle by other sheep who are following the Homosexual Agenda, or;

The sheep are turning away from God and God's plan and worhipping Baal and doing evil in the sight of the Lord, or;

The sheep had a distant, weak father figure and an overcontrolling ewe of a mother.  Fearing Freudian castration and yearning for the paternal love of their father, they pervert their affection for their fathers by replacing it with erotic desire, or;

The sheep watched too much television and the influence of shows such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Ellen" perverted their sense of right and wrong, or;

That lonely shepard in the hills that they spent too much time with was a tad light in his loafers, or; 

A complex genetic/developmental process, possibly passed down through the X chromosome of the mother, led to the homosexual behavior.


Occam's razor just screams to be used here.



http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008


Now, I note too that you believe in intelligent design of the universe and all its wonders.  Debating that possibility is not an issue for this thread.  However; indulge me in the following hypothetical if you would.

Given that you are a Christian, and given that you state that homosexuality is a choice...were you to choose homosexuality would you then be a Gay Christian who favors _intelligent interior design?
_



Regards,



Steve


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 7, 2005)

reincarnation.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 7, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I'm a 'religious' person as well. A Christian. I believe that God made us all as well. I believe in 'objective truth'. I don't believe that homosexuality is 'right'.
> BUT:
> I believe it's also morally/ethically wrong to try to make "moral" judgements for anyone beyond yourself or those you are fully accountable for. (Like our own children, before the age of accountability)
> 
> ...


 
 MEATBALLS!!!!

 with wudy tha wabbit!


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 12, 2005)

An interesting thought I came up with while I was in high school debating this topic.

IF homosexuality is truly an imbalance of hormones or chemicals in the brain 
and
IF depression is truly and imbalance of chemicals and hormones in the brain
and
depression is a disease that is treatable with chemical balancing drugs
THEN Homosexuality is a disease that can possibly  be treated by a chemical balancing drug if the proper balancing combinaiton could be found.

I understand this is a calloused way of looking at it and that it may offend some people to think of homosexuality as a disease, but it is something that you have to consider if it is truly an affect of nature. I am sure there are extravigant differences between depression and Homosexuality, but it does have a certain correlation.  I don't mean this to be insulting, just thought provoking.

Consider this, if you had a homosexual son or daughter, and there was a pill to make them heterosexual, would you try to get them to take it?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> An interesting thought I came up with while I was in high school debating this topic.
> 
> IF homosexuality is truly an imbalance of hormones or chemicals in the brain
> and
> ...


Since sexual preference is much more complicated than a mere stray hormone, the "cure" would have to be far more radical and involve restructuring parts of the brain.  So the real question is "if there is radical surgery that would "cure" homosexuality, but fundamentally alter the personality of the person, would you opt for it?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 13, 2005)

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> An interesting thought I came up with while I was in high school debating this topic.
> 
> IF homosexuality is truly an imbalance of hormones or chemicals in the brain
> and
> ...




Depression might well be genetic in certain cases, which leads to a chemical imbalance.  Homosexuality might well be genetic, but the expression of it is through specific neural "wiring," and it would not be defined as a disease in that regard.  Prozac and Wellbutrin effect the levels of serotonin and epinephrine...they do not rewire synapses in the hypothalmus.

Homosexuality doesn't qualify as a pathology because homosexuals, as a general rule, do not feel badly about their orientation (they're often very well adjusted).  They feel it is very natural, as we feel our heterosexuality to be very natural.  Were society to accept them unconditionally, there would be no friction.  If we eliminate the stigma of depression, people will still be depressed and unhappy.  If we eliminate the stigma of homosexuality, people will still be homosexual, but nobody would be unhappy.

There is no prozac like-drug for the treatment of homosexuality, given it is very likely largely a function of the ol' hard drive.  However; if my child were homosexual and wanted to be straight, and there were "magic pills" I'd get him the pills.  The choice would have to be his, and he'd have to be of an age of maturity where he'd be able to make an informed decision.  Again...if society didn't malign, discriminate, and censure homosexuals, he'd never have to make that decision.

Were no such magic pill available (and they will not be, assuredly), and an amniocentisis and genetic test showed your child would likely grow up homosexual, would you abort it or put it up for adoption?   


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 13, 2005)

You might also want to remember, HanMi, that institutions and mental hospitals are FULL - overflowing, in fact - with people with chemical disorders that medicine can't help.  Come to think of it, so are the streets.

 If you're into science, I read once that there are over 100 hormones in the human body, only a handful of which medical science has deemed "important."  That is, important enough to pay attention to.  So I have to ask myself how many of these people who aren't being helped on meds have an "unimportant hormone imbalance?"  And why hasn't there been any tests designed to test the levels of these "unimportant hormones?"

 But ... if they are functional, socially responsible, productive individuals who give a positive return to society, then ... I still just don't understand other people's problems with them.


----------



## hwarang (Jun 13, 2005)

Yea i think its a Bit of both because They've proved that homosexual men's brains react in a similar way to womens when they are stimulated "naked dudes" but at the same time their are people that were made like this... Heres somethign that should get you all very angry. did you know that the government pays for sex change operations?
now i dont really care what two people do in their own home but yea thats stupid


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 15, 2005)

OK I get it.... I have not researched this at all, and neither had the other lazy teenagers when I used presented the thought.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2005)

hwarang said:
			
		

> Heres somethign that should get you all very angry. did you know that the government pays for sex change operations?
> now i dont really care what two people do in their own home but yea thats stupid




I'd be upset with that if I thought it were true. 

If there were such a thing, traditionalfamilyvalues.org would surely have jumped on that.  They report that the IRS will give a deduction for the surgery, but don't mention that the government will pay for it.  I "googled" it and couldn't find any indication anywhere that the government pays for that sort of thing.  While absence of evidence doesn't indicate evidence of absence, I'll continue with my skepticism until provided with more compelling evidence.

Consider this, there is a long going battle over funding for abortions by Medicaid.  Abortions are not allowed in military hospitals.  I find it difficult to believe that a Republican administration and a Republican House and Senate are going to allow funding for gender reassignment.

Incidentally, gender dysphoria isn't homosexuality.  It is something far different.  Homosexuals usually prefer the gender they're born with, just as heterosexuals do.  Occasionally a transexual will want gender reassignment to the opposite sex...yet retain their attraction to the sex to which their reassigned.  In other words, a woman might feel she's a gay man trapped in a woman's body.  This is rare, but highlights that gender identity and sexual orientation are at times separate.

Note too that transvestism is typically a heterosexual sexual fetish and not related to gender dysphoria.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 21, 2005)

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> OK I get it.... I have not researched this at all, and neither had the other lazy teenagers when I used presented the thought.



Quite possibly.

Given that you cited no academic or scholastic sources (let alone articles from a peer-reviewed publication), have not evinced an in-deph understanding of human neurology or biopsychology, do not seem to actually understand the criteria by which the APA classifies phenomena as "mental diseases", and all of the intellectual minds you claim to discuss this with most likely lack a full high school education....

Quite possibly.

But, then again, that's not really the issue here, is it? When one's arguments and ideas are debunked on the basis of solid research (which Steve has cited, directly or indirectly), you do not interpret that as an ad hominem against you personally. To do so is to venture into the realm of logical fallacy, plain and simple.

 :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Given that you are a Christian, and given that you state that homosexuality is a choice...were you to choose homosexuality would you then be a Gay Christian who favors _intelligent interior design?
> _



Hah!!  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


----------

