Does homosexuality and genetics matter?

[La_Serpiente]

I am a gay man and I grew up liking guys. I remember the first feelings I ever had toward another man was when I was 12. It was kind of weird, but I just assumed it was normal and went along with the flow.

However, some other people say you choose to like a man or a woman. Speaking from a objective standpoint, I somewhat doubt this because most of the straight men and women I talked to said that they just fell in love with people of the opposite sex.

I don't go around professing that I am homosexual because it is in my genes. In fact, I rarely discuss how I actually became a homosexual. I just "am".

I don't reject the argument that homosexuality is not a result of my genes by the way.

But there is this whole gay marriage thing coming up. Is it even relavent to mention the homosexual genes??? Or does that relate to the other debate of fundies trying to convert homosexuals???

I think this entire debate of homosexuals and gay marriage and homosexuals and genetics is interconnected somehow and I am not sure how they relate to each other.

[davidinalameda]

1. my first crush was on a guy when I was 6

I'm pretty sure that I was born gay

and if not, oh well, I am now!

I think that too many people in the gay community put too much emphasis on the genetic thing

Just remember that great song from La Cage--I Am What I Am

[Selwynn]

2. The only concern I have about "sex in the genes" is this:

I am afraid it will spark a new argument that homsexuality is a "genetic defect" as well as discussions about "correcting" the genes before birth and/or making abortion decisions based on whether your child has the "gay" gene - a lot of weird disturbing complications.

Still, if its a scientific reality, then I want to know about it, because I'm for truth. And, it would at least change the color of the debate a bit - I think a lot of religious folks (not all of course there are the ultra extremists out there) would be seriously compelled to rethink their beliefs about homosexuality. But would that mean it just became an argument where one side says homosexuality is a genetic defect?

I think if I was a gay man, I'm not sure I would be real thrilled to have who I am seem "reduced" to a gene. I mean, I appreciate that science is science, and we can all be reduced to genes. At the same time as a gay man I would think of my sexual life as dealing with love and emotions and relationships and feelings, and I think i would feel that being gay really deserves a fuller and more complete (and positve) description than just to say "well its because of the gay gene."

I think if I was a gay man I would say, "look, I don't want to talk about a gene - I want to be treated as a person. When someone introduces you to someone else, they're not going to mention that you're a heterosexual, and even if they did, you wouldn't be thought of as being a heterosexual because you have the "straight gene." You'd just be thought of as a "normal person." And guess what, that's what I am to... just me - a normal person."

Sometimes I almost worry that reducing homosexuality to a gene could almost be more segregating and estranging... almost dehumanizing.

But I am not gay, so what do I know.

[La_Serpiente]

4. Wow, you explained it better than me

and you're not even gay!!!

I think you somewhat expressed the frustration in my first post. I don't want to be yelling my mouth off that I am gay or I am gay because of my genetics. And I too try to look at all of the evidence of whether homosexuality is genetic or not.

I think you were right on with your post. I think it is limiting for a homosexual to go around defining themselves as gene.

I think it is a whole balancing act that the GLBT community must come to realize.

[Fescue4u]

10. "genetic defect"

There are genetic defects and there are genetic defects.

Genetic mutation (i.e. defects) are the method in which life evolves and has evolved from single cell sea life.

However I suspect that no freeper would be capable of understanding this.

[MojoKrunch]

14. People have been trying to say stuff like that since Darwin.

Social engineering is social engineering, no matter what sort of polite terms we use.

But "genetic defect" is something that causes harm or death...
Saying that homosexuality is a "genetic defect" is like saying having brown eyes and brown hair is a genetic defect... only "defective" if you live in the 3rd Reich, I suppose.

as well as discussions about "correcting" the genes before birth and/or making abortion decisions based on whether your child has the "gay" gene - a lot of weird disturbing complications.
I had this very discussion not recently with a gay Anti-choicer here.
Two things... this countries medical community would have to change a great deal for a prenatal test for homosexuality to exist and be used.
Current prenatal tests are for, typically, birth defects that are incompatible with life or incompatible with life outside of machines to keep you alive.
They're not for being too short or too tall or even being a sexual predator.
I don't believe such a test can ever be developed because I don't believe homosexuality is caused by a single gene.

Thing two.
Defining homosexuality.
Where do you stop?
Sure, men who only love other men is obvious.
What about the not-so-obvious?
How do you develop a test that differentiates between bi-sexuality and homosexuality?
Or men who consider themselves straight but will let other men give them BJs?
Or heck, trans-gender folks?
The spectrum of human sexuality is just too wide for something like a genetic test to take anything meaningful into account.

The social thing.
What sort of people would abort a homosexual fetus?
Homophobes, maybe?
Would you feel comfortable with being raised by homophobes who knew you were gay since conception?

In the end they would still be aborting *their*, perfectly healthy, wanted pregnancy on the future possibility of social stigmatization and their own prejudices.
Icky to contemplate, but IMO, highly unlikely to happen except to virulent homophobes like Fred Phelps.

And, it would at least change the color of the debate a bit - I think a lot of religious folks (not all of course there are the ultra extremists out there) would be seriously compelled to rethink their beliefs about homosexuality. But would that mean it just became an argument where one side says homosexuality is a genetic defect?
Would it make one bit of difference to the Fred Phelpses of the world?
Hate and fear know no logic.

I think if I was a gay man I would say, "look, I don't want to talk about a gene - I want to be treated as a person.
Do you think of the handicapped as people?
Does this society?

Many women get back positive test results for Down Syndrome and yet carry to term.

When someone introduces you to someone else, they're not going to mention that you're a heterosexual, and even if they did, you wouldn't be thought of as being a heterosexual because you have the "straight gene." You'd just be thought of as a "normal person." And guess what, that's what I am to... just me - a normal person."
I concur.
But that has nothing to do with the origin/cause of homosexuality.
That has to do with social mores.

The solution is to change society, not demonize the idea that homosexuality is genetic.

Mojo

[dsc]

23. wow

what bunk.

as well as discussions about "correcting" the genes before birth and/or making abortion decisions based on whether your child has the "gay" gene - a lot of weird disturbing complications.
I had this very discussion not recently with a gay Anti-choicer here.
Two things... this countries medical community would have to change a great deal for a prenatal test for homosexuality to exist and be used.
Current prenatal tests are for, typically, birth defects that are incompatible with life or incompatible with life outside of machines to keep you alive.
They're not for being too short or too tall or even being a sexual predator.


You have an awful lot more faith in our medical community than I do. This would be the same medical community that funds viagra but not birth control, that spends billions researching drugs that grow hair, make you thin, make you tan, or make you erect; but nothing on drugs to cure diseases which kill hundreds of thousands a year. They don't have tests for being short, tall or a sexual preditor since there are no genetic tests for that (or even proof there is a pure genetic cause for any of those). If the technology exists the test will. If the test does some number of people will avail themselves of it. You can make book on that.


I don't believe such a test can ever be developed because I don't believe homosexuality is caused by a single gene.

So we can test for one gene and not two or three or four. And where is your medical or biogenetics degree from again? I don't claim to have one but several people who do have them, including the person who discovered DNA, agree with me on the idea that there may well be a gene for being gay. How many people in 1946 would have said we would be walking on the Moon in 1969? How many people in 1988 would have said there would be an internet that we can use they way we are in 2003? I am sure there were some. I doubt there were many.

[MojoKrunch]

24. Oh hey, it's my buddy DSC!

Long time no see, bud, how's it hanging?
lol

what bunk.
Yea, you were making those same noises a few weeks ago, dude.
And I notice you didn't actually bother to address any of my points, as usual.
Come on DSC, surprise me.

You have an awful lot more faith in our medical community than I do.
Yea, I imagine that possessing ethics is one of those Anti-choice things you're not familiar with.
Spare me the histrionics, ok?

This would be the same medical community that funds viagra but not birth control,
"Funds"?
Sigh... and you wondered why I dogged you about the illogic in your beliefs?
The *government* and *private corporations* FUND the medical community, DSC.
The medical community does the *work*.
Sheesh

but nothing on drugs to cure diseases which kill hundreds of thousands a year.
Histrionics 101.
As usual.
Complain to the drug companies who fund these things, DSC.
Or your "democratically elected" government.

They don't have tests for being short, tall or a sexual preditor since there are no genetic tests for that (or even proof there is a pure genetic cause for any of those).
ROFL
And there is no genetic test for homosexuality, DSC, but this doesn't seem to stop you from believing this informs your Anti-choice position.

If the technology exists the test will.
Wrong.
Pure and simple.
But *even if*(I'm willing to make all sorts of allowances for what *MAY* happen in the future) the test is created and the definition of homosexuality adequately defined, there is little chance that the medical community will adopt such a test for the purpose of prenatal testing in the same manner as current genetic defect tests.
Sorry, but your paranoia isn't sufficiently compelling as an argument.

If the test does some number of people will avail themselves of it. You can make book on that.
Call me in 20 years when the test might exist and I certainly will.

In the meantime will you at least acknowledge that basing your Anti-choice position on the *possibility* of such a thing happening is invalid?
Think about it.

So we can test for one gene and not two or three or four.
Didn't say it couldn't be done, DSC, almost anything is possible with the right application of work and money.
But there has to be a compelling reason to develop such a test and there simply isn't any reason.
It is one thing to locate the cluster of possible genetic markers that exist which *may* lead to homosexuality, however it is defined, but developing an *effective* prenatal test for it is another thing entirely.

And where is your medical or biogenetics degree from again?
And yours?
Cast not stones, o glass housed one.

Please don't pretend, DSC.
I'm not attacking your belief that such a thing might happen, but that you base your *CURRENT BELIEFS* on such a thing possibly happening.
An obvious distinction.

I don't claim to have one but several people who do have them, including the person who discovered DNA, agree with me on the idea that there may well be a gene for being gay.
Sigh... please, do DU a favor and familiarize yourself with the concept of logical fallacies.
Doctors Crick and Watson and indeed pioneers in their field, but they're not omnipotent, DSC.
They're scientists with informed opinions.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Quite obviously there is an ethical issue involved given the homophobia of a significant portion of this society, but that is an entirely different thing from the biology.

How many people in 1946 would have said we would be walking on the Moon in 1969? How many people in 1988 would have said there would be an internet that we can use they way we are in 2003? I am sure there were some. I doubt there were many.
Pointless mutterings serve no purpose, DSC.
Who cares what "many" people believed?

But to address your points, people were dreaming of going to the moon since well before the 19th century, DSC... H.G. Wells?
And the internet was created way back in the late '70's by the military.

As usual your facts are wobbly and your argument hollow.

Glad to see you didn't forget about me.
:D

Mojo

[dsc]

25. tell me when

Wells said we would walk on the moon in 1969? I want a specific site.

when in the 1970's you could use the internet to down load videos to site just one of the multitude of things. I want a specific site.

One last thing. Is there or is there not, as I type, a system of testing to see if a baby is female and aborting said baby in places such as China? Do you really think that can't or won't happen here? Get real.

Oh and drug companies and other such companies are routinely run by people with medical degrees. Certainly their research components are and the governmnet funds well over 1/4 of all medical research.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MojoKrunch]

34. Dagnabbit.

Wells said we would walk on the moon in 1969? I want a specific site.
when in the 1970's you could use the internet to down load videos to site just one of the multitude of things. I want a specific site.
Hold your breath for me.
Too pointless and ridiculous to respond to, as usual.
Let me know when you want to actually discuss the issue.

One last thing. Is there or is there not, as I type, a system of testing to see if a baby is female and aborting said baby in places such as China? Do you really think that can't or won't happen here? Get real.
What is to stop women from aborting for sex selection in the US right now, DSC?
Really.
Infanticide, the primary form of sex selection in China, btw, is illegal in the US.
Did you have a point?

Oh and drug companies and other such companies are routinely run by people with medical degrees. Certainly their research components are and the governmnet funds well over 1/4 of all medical research.
Drug company managers aren't the medical community.
Check your facts before you spout.

Mojo

[Selwynn]

29. No one is deamonizing anything, silly person! :)

I said in my post I wanted to know the truth just like anyone else, however the point is that determining that there is a "homo gene" is not going to SOLVE the problems of homophobia, and discrimination - it will simply change the nature of the debate, in some positive ways perhaps, but also in negative ways.

The point of my post should be understood as this: discovering that homosexuality is genetic is not like some "magic bullet" or trump care for GLBT rights and social equality - so we should consider the matter with care.

[MojoKrunch]

33. Are you saying that with a lisp? :D

And yes they are!
DE-MO-NIZ-ING!

I said in my post I wanted to know the truth just like anyone else,
Yes, but the truth will not set homophobes free.
They will simply find another "truth" to cling to.

however the point is that determining that there is a "homo gene" is not going to SOLVE the problems of homophobia, and discrimination - it will simply change the nature of the debate, in some positive ways perhaps, but also in negative ways.
There is no "debate", Sel, there is only fear, hate and loathing.
Do you honestly believe that the Fred Phelps of the world are going to change their reasoning if homosexuality is genetic?
Hell, they'll just blame it on "original sin" or some such stupidity.

The point of my post should be understood as this: discovering that homosexuality is genetic is not like some "magic bullet" or trump care for GLBT rights and social equality - so we should consider the matter with care.
Agreed.
So why address it from that particular POV?
The issue isn't the "cause" of homosexuality.
As much as it frightens poor DSC, that it might be genetic is moot.
That a prenatal test to detect for it may be developed is moot.
If society cannot operate by rule of law, then there is no point in even pretending.

Mojo

[dsc]

42. It is rude to do what you just did here

You will note I haven't done it even once to you. If you are going to address people at least do it directly to them. Oh and BTW I have no opinion on weather a genetic origin for being gay is good or bad. I just think it is true and can see both good and bad in it. I as sure you will now make up a post to respond to so go ahead. But in the future at least have the integrity to directly talk to people and not go behind their backs.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MojoKrunch]

60. As soon as you develop the integrity to answer my questions.

Have I not been addressing you directly, DSC?
Have you not been studiously and deliberately ignoring every point I make and question I ask?

Mojo

[Selwynn]

44. We keep saying the same thing, then you keep arguing about it :D

[MojoKrunch]

52. Does that mean we're an old married couple?

Oh man... the doctor said the meds would make that stop.

Damn.
:D

Mojo

[RaRa]

41. I think Fescue4u got it right

"But "genetic defect" is something that causes harm or death...
Saying that homosexuality is a "genetic defect" is like saying having brown eyes and brown hair is a genetic defect... only "defective" if you live in the 3rd Reich, I suppose"

I think that's over simplifying it. A genetic defect is really a mutation. Some are good and some are bad.Over time, it's been these mutations that have created major change. They caused early man to stand upright. to eat meat etc. Good. Some mutations give some folks cancer. Bad. I do believe that homosexuality is in 99.9% of the population (hey, I've known lesbian women who said they were so because of rape) by way of nature. So yes, it stands to reason (even in these unreasonable times) that homosexuality should eventually be accepted as a normal variation in life. As far as the defect argument goes, hey it could be one. But, perhaps it's a mutation arising out of the over-population of the earth? Homosexuality occurs in the animal world for that reason, so it stands to reason that it exists in ours too. I don't know, and frankily I don't care. People don't choose to be gay, just like they don't choose to be black, white etc. That's also why I get annoyed with the "I'm proud to BE" stuff. Unless you CHOSE to be blank (say an American like my folks), you can't be proud of it; you had nothing to do with it. Hence I'm not proud to BE an American (sometimes I can be proud OF my country), or to BE straight or to BE a woman....get it?

[MojoKrunch]

54. Real world application.

I think that's over simplifying it. A genetic defect is really a mutation.
Well yes, quite obviously.
And current prenatal tests try to detect those mutations which are incompatible with life.
Not the mutations inherent to sexual reproduction.
Not the mutations that make for brown eyes and brown hair.
Not the mutations that make you susceptible to being lactose intolerant... etc.

Some are good and some are bad.Over time, it's been these mutations that have created major change. They caused early man to stand upright. to eat meat etc. Good. Some mutations give some folks cancer. Bad.
Gah... ok, not really, but close enough for govt work.
Most mutations are driven by outside forces... environmental changes and the like... punctuated equilibrium I believe it is called.
"Random" mutation occurs from simple DNA interaction and the various forms of radiation that exist on the earth.

I do believe that homosexuality is in 99.9% of the population (hey, I've known lesbian women who said they were so because of rape) by way of nature.
When you say "in 99.9%" do you mean genetically or something else?
Since the discussion is genetics, are rape victims really part of the issue here?

So yes, it stands to reason (even in these unreasonable times) that homosexuality should eventually be accepted as a normal variation in life.
And I agree whole-heartedly.
The issue isn't the biology but social mores.
Which is why the point I brought up about having brown eyes and brown hair where in a "Germany rules the world" 3rd Reich world this would be considered a "genetic defect" by those people.
Just as *some* in the US might consider homosexuality a "genetic defect".
Which it clearly is not.
Neither are true except in the context of the people who believe it.
IOW, it is all relative.

For *this* society, genetic defects are typically considered conditions that cause harm or death and have no bearing whatsoever on social mores.

Which is why I find the notion of a prenatal test for homosexuality being used to abort "gay fetuses" absolutely ridiculous.

As I pointed out earlier, and what no one seems to want to address, is how do you then exactly define "homosexuality"?

As far as the defect argument goes, hey it could be one.
It could be bananas, too.
A bad argument is a bad argument.

But, perhaps it's a mutation arising out of the over-population of the earth?
In some sort of karmic, "Gaia fights back" way?
No.
Mutations happen every time two strands of DNA combine.
This is what made sexual reproduction superior to asexual reproduction in most all of the life forms on this planet.
Mutability.

Mutation happens over time based on environmental factors.
So, in that sense, yes, over-population can indeed cause mutation... but over how long a time?
Ecosystem crashes can be relatively quick when compared to changes in DNA.
A group of squirrels separated by an exploding volcano(relatively quick) might take 10s of thousands of years(relatively long) before they can no longer interbreed.

Homosexuality occurs in the animal world for that reason, so it stands to reason that it exists in ours too.
Specifically for over-population problems?
Sources?
I don't agree.
I'm of the opinion that what we call homosexuality is as intrinsic as what we call heterosexuality.
The problem is with our preconceptions.

I don't know, and frankily I don't care.
Well, RaRa, obviously you cared enough to respond... right?
:)

People don't choose to be gay, just like they don't choose to be black, white etc.
I agree completely.
But 200 years ago black people didn't choose to be slaves either.
It took a social revolution to make that change happen.
Now we have laws against slavery.
What changed was *us*, not the fact that black people are black people or that they can be made slaves.

And "homosexual fetuses"(I'm sorry but the very idea still makes me giggle) will remain "homosexual fetuses" regardless.
What matters is how *we* treat them.

And frankly, paranoid "what ifs" don't mean bugger all.

That's also why I get annoyed with the "I'm proud to BE" stuff.
Now why is that?
You do realize that what they are saying is about social mores and not their genetics, right?
I can be "proud to be" something that other people would find disdainful simply because it exists.

Unless you CHOSE to be blank (say an American like my folks), you can't be proud of it; you had nothing to do with it.
Hmm... I'll have to disagree because I don't think pride in belonging is a bad thing.
Yes, pride in your choices should be a good thing as should pride in your accomplishments as well.

Hence I'm not proud to BE an American (sometimes I can be proud OF my country), or to BE straight or to BE a woman....get it?
Got it.
Don't agree... but hey, it's still a semi-free country, right?

But are you sure you're straight?
I see the comfortable shoes you're wearing... and the sensible pants...
:D

Mojo

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Well said.

I'm not gay either but I have had discussions with gay friends along the same lines. Saying that it's genetic seems to be inviting some scientist to come along with a "cure". I have no idea whether it's genetic or not, and couldn't care less. To me, it's a question of human rights. I believe that setting up some sort of genetic rationale is all too likely to lead to a charge of "genetic inferiority". Whether it's "genetic" or a "choice", why should it be of concern to anyone but yourself?

[glarius]

3. Im a straight woman who just happens to be up at this hour

and I say the sooner we stop CARING or WORRYING about why people are straight or gay, the better it will be for all of us!....People are people...Who cares what or why their sexual preference....This is not to chastise you....I understand why you ask, but I just DON'T THINK IT SHOULD MATTER!!!!

[La_Serpiente]

5. I agree with you on that one

the big question is how to jump from a society that considered homosexuals as pariahs to one of full integration for GLBT people.

[glarius]

6. Time is the answer , I guess....

It does seem to be getting better.

[MojoKrunch]

15. Work very hard.

Of course this recent "Queer eye for the straight guy" thing is a fad, and it would not surprise me if some backlash occured, but it is a step in the right direction.
Stereotypical as it may be.

Cultural engineering simply takes time and energy.

Victorian England proved that much.

Mojo

[Selwynn]

7. There is a reason why it does matter....

The reason is: a very big argument about how homosexuality is immoral or something has to do with it being a degenerate, willful, lecivious (sp?) CHOICE. As if someone says, "welp, my life isn't painful and complicated enough, and damn I am just too accepted and I really am just not getting enough discrimination and persecution in my life, so I guess its time to start being gay." The idea is that homosexuality is just some willful choice for a "debaucherous" and "excessive" lifestyle made by "evil" "sinful" men and women who somehow "know" that they should be "good" and choose to be "evil."

Yeah... that was a lot of quotes, but I needed them to qualify all of those words.

...so it becomes seductive then to think, "Ah ha! If we could just show that it was NOT that kind of choice, but rather was simply a biological predispositional fact then that would END that argument." So it is kind of seductive to be able to prove that some people are naturally, normally predispositioned to be gay or straight.

So that's why people think about it - but see my post above for all the problems and concerns with that.

[MojoKrunch]

16. That is just an excuse for homophobia.

People will hear what they need to hear to justify their fears, hates and prejudices.
I simply can't buy into that mindset and accept the validity of that position.

Mojo

[Selwynn]

30. It's not an excuse for it, is the fact of it

You've come in here all cowboy'ed up to defend finding the "homo genes." But you're tilting windmills because I'm not arguing against that. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are exclusively genetic then I want to know that, if for no other reason than the fact that I like to know the truth.

That's not even the point. The point is that fiding the "homo gene" is not somehow going to be the "magic silver bullet" in the fight for GLBT equality and socially acceptance. That's it. The reason why asking questions like this matter is because of social attitudes and homophobia.

We're not even on opposite sides, so stop arguing with me. :D

[MojoKrunch]

32. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You've come in here all cowboy'ed up to defend finding the "homo genes."
Nope.
I agree with the scientists who beleive homosexuality is genetic and not biological, but so what?

But you're tilting windmills because I'm not arguing against that.
Were we arguing?
I wasn't.
I was offering my opinion.

If homosexuality and heterosexuality are exclusively genetic then I want to know that, if for no other reason than the fact that I like to know the truth.
I agree.
So why are you arguing with me?

That's not even the point. The point is that fiding the "homo gene" is not somehow going to be the "magic silver bullet" in the fight for GLBT equality and socially acceptance. That's it. The reason why asking questions like this matter is because of social attitudes and homophobia.
Why are you repeating what I said?
Do you like me that much?
:D

We're not even on opposite sides, so stop arguing with me. :D
You love it and you know it.

Mojo

[Selwynn]

45. LOL - ok so we're arguing just to argue

Hehehe - I hear your qualifiying points and I agree.

[MojoKrunch]

50. We are not.

Are too!
Are not!

Are too!
Oh wait... this is the the room for *contradictory arguments*.
You want the room for "collected series of statements to establish a definite position" arguments.
That's room 14.

Thank you sir for coming in.
Good day.

Hehehe - I hear your qualifiying points and I agree.
See... now that didn't hurt, did it?
:D

Mojo

[chaumont58]

53. About choice or biological predisposition

The fundies have to push the 'choice' argument. If they were to admit or believe that it isn't a choice, they would logically have to admit their own cruelity. Every so often, the fundies will wheel out the 'reformed gays,' who through their love for Jesus, have reestablished their love for tuna.

[MojoKrunch]

56. The only problem with that is that Fundy's aren't logical.

So they'll *never* accept homosexuality.
They'll just find some other excuse for their hatred and fear.

But yes, if they *were* logical, I quite agree.

Every so often, the fundies will wheel out the 'reformed gays,' who through their love for Jesus, have reestablished their love for tuna.
"Love for tuna"?
LOL
Bad Chaumont!

My ex-wifes older sister was married to a gay man for 11 years.
In all that time she *NEVER* suspected a thing.
He *wanted* to be straight.
He *wanted* to be socially acceptable.
Finally it just got to be too much for him and he cheated on her with an employee(they owned a flower shop).
So I've seen the kind of damage that repression can do.
They don't *really* love the tuna, Chaumont, as much as they love the hot dog.
They just learn to suppress their gag reflex.
(BAD Mojo!)

Mojo

[thebaghwan]

8. I think Selwyn made an excellent point.

If it comes down to genes, then the fundamentalists will say it is abnormal. But then again now they say it is a matter of choice. Why can't can't gay marriage just be about love, commitment and caring? Doesn't the bible say "and the greatest of these is love"?

My wife and I can't for the life of us figure out who would be harmed by gay marriage. Any one out these willing to be the devil's advocate for the sake of discussion?

Maybe we should do what I understand they do in Mexico. In Mexico, religious weddings have no standing. Only a civil ceremony is recognized. Now wouldn't that make the fundies happy?

[MojoKrunch]

17. I asked that same question... who gets hurt by gay marriage?

If it comes down to genes, then the fundamentalists will say it is abnormal. But then again now they say it is a matter of choice.
Exactly.
They will, in fact, justify their homophobia any way they can.

My wife and I can't for the life of us figure out who would be harmed by gay marriage. Any one out these willing to be the devil's advocate for the sake of discussion?
I'd do it but I couldn't do it convincingly.
I'm not that self-righteous.
:D

Maybe we should do what I understand they do in Mexico. In Mexico, religious weddings have no standing. Only a civil ceremony is recognized. Now wouldn't that make the fundies happy?
You're kidding, right?
They'll only be "happy" when things are exactly as they want it.
And that is part of the problem.
20% of this country lives in a state of self-induced unhappiness.

Mojo

[Fescue4u]

9. I think its a bit of both..

I think that some homosexuals are the result of the environment, while a larger number are result genetic inheritance or generic mutation.*

In other words, perfectly natural.



* I use that word strictly in a clinic sense. This is the method by which humans have evolved over the millenia.

[proghead]

11. Genes may very well play a role

The jury is still out on how much environment and genes play a role in homosexuality.

Believe it or not, homosexuality may very well be a strategy employed to *increase* reproductive fitness in animal populations. I won't go into a detailed explanation but the story is that inclusive fitness benefits may allow for homosexuality (or asexuality for that matter) to be beneficial in extremely dense populations.

So to say that homosexuality is "not natural" is quite ridiculous.

[MojoKrunch]

18. Yeppers.

Removing competitive mating stress... or perhaps even providing "built in" allo-parents... we may never know.

But I agree that classifying homosexuality as somehow unnatural, when it clearly exists throughout the animal kingdom, is patently absurd.

Mojo

[shimmergal]

12. The theory that sexual preference is genetic has won a lot of acceptance

for gays. It's politically useful, and may even be true in part.
However, even being born gay doesn't _necessarily_ equal a genetic origin. Prenatal environmental factors could also play a part in one's sexual orientation.

Personally, I tend to believe in Kinsey's idea of a continuum--though not necessarily a bell curved one. This would suggest that some people on either end of the continuum are "hard-wired" for their sexual preferences, but those in the middle are more flexible, at least potentially. (Incidentally, this may be one reason the fundies
panic so at gay issues; they're afraid the "mushy middle" will be led
down the garden path, in their eyes.)

But even insofar as sexual preference might be a matter of choice, I don't see what's wrong with that. After all, religion is a matter of of choice--lots of people change their religion! Yet we're as horrified by discrimination based on religion as by racial discrimination.

One other aspect I've never figured out. I'm a heterosexual woman.
I can certainly imagine being sexually attracted to another woman, but I can't imagine falling in love with one. What's the defining point to sexuality? Who you are attracted to? Who you fall in love with? And what about those surface appearance and demeanor things that are used to label people, when they aren't necessarily connected with one's sexual orientation at all?

[Lexingtonian]

13. yes, somewhat

The reactionary types are, despite all their claims to the contrary, badly pained by the fact that they can't account for homosexuality. It has no teleological reason that fits their Darwinian or Divine Providence/Will explanations for (almost) all other things. It's like the sun rising in the west and setting in the east on the days numbered with prime numbers in May for them- a nasty crack in their sense of supposedly superior understanding of (and thus, ability to authoritatively pass judgement on,) the world.

Those of my male friends who are gay all realized it at or by the age they reached puberty. They all had tough times concealing it from classmates and parents particularly. Lesbian attractions supposedly become apparent to women later in life, in the mean in their early twenties in the literature. But I'm not sure about that- many more do seem know it as teens (if the proportion has remained anywhere near constant) and my impression from a distance is that lesbian women are out much earlier now (at least to themselves or their friends), maybe in the mean around age 20.

Conservatives want homosexuality to be clearcut, without ambiguities. Y'are or y'aint. They want it to be either clearly genetic, or clearly nurture/environment. They want to know some hidden indicator(s) so they don't need to ask. Or at least some kind of scientific test so they won't suddenly get hit with their own child turning out to be gay. Preferably the agent would not be biological- genes or environment- because that would point back to themselves. So they've gone back to demonic possession mythology to explain it- a magic force emanating out of things they find intolerable in the social world, e.g. "influences of cultural degeneration" aka Bad TV Shows and Porno Mags and Gay Celebrities and Gay Cultural Influence, yadda yadda yadda.

So there is a need for a scientific explanation because otherwise they will persist in their theories and wrongful violations of other peoples' dignity- it takes an exorcism, in their minds, to "fix" things to their need for orderliness and meet their desire to adapt the world to their simplemindedness. And an exorcism, if truly demonic possession exists, is to them a powerful argument for a utilitarian rationalization for violation of civil rights. Killing the people evidently possessed by demons is also sanctioned in the tradition they obey.

They will continue to insist that homosexuality "is a choice" until that happens. What they mean is not that one day the person looked over the checklist and said "Ok, I think I'll go gay. It's right for me." They claim and suppose that gay people are choosing to not exorcise the Demon of Homosexuality. The theory of organizations like Exodus International is pretty much that enough Bible talk and Jesus talk and willpower guided by Good Christians will eventually do the trick- obviously the movie "The Exorcist" has removed a verb from their public explanation of what they're attempting to do.

So the search for a scientific explanation is also a work of the classical Enlightenment kind, in my opinion.

[Mikimouse]

19. There is some interesting research available

about exactly this issue. If you take a look at the work done by Dr. Simon LeVay (British NeuroBiologist), and his findings regarding three sets of nuclei in the human hypothalamus, you will probably be surprised at the approach. On the otehr hand, his work has not been replicated, and is still being debated. Irrespective of the biological or social influences, I would agree with many of the other posters here that it shouldn't matter to anyone else (but then again, who am I?)

[neebob]

20. If homosexuality was not genetically determined,

there would not be so many men with feminine tendencies and women with masculine tendencies. It must be a physical thing, IMHO. I get so frustrated with my mother and other people who believe it's a choice, like there's a little devil who sits on your shoulder and whispers, "Be gay."

Perhaps there is an element of choice, sometimes. It's normal to experiment with both sexes, and a lot of those who don't experiment have tendencies they either don't recognize or admit to. I'm sure I could go for girls if I'd been raised by more enlightened parents and not programmed by Mormon homophobes.

My personal theory is that gender and sexual preference are each a continuum with totally female on one end and totally male on the other. If you make a graph with one as the x-axis and the other as the y-axis and plot individuals, those who are totally feminine or totally masculine and prefer either male or female exclusively fall at the outer corners.

[9215]

21. Politically it is very important

If it is not genetic then it is learned. If it is learned then this changes the whole debate on such issues on discrimination against homoerotics.

Take for instance the case of homoerotics in the boy scouts, a very sensitive issue. Instead of just being participants in the org as genetically different kids they now become teachers, or potential teachers, of their "craft".

[neebob]

22. And if it's genetic

then most religions would have to rethink their positions and deal with all the spirits who landed in homosexual bodies. I'd love to hear the Mormon explanation of why that happened and what they're supposed to do.

[David__77]

28. The CAUSE of homosexuality is not relevant.

I seriously doubt there is a simple "genetic" reason for people having a certain sexual orientation. Also, individuals probably rarely "choose" to have an attraction toward one gender of the other. But being "gay" or "straight" certainly goes beyond sexual instinct, and is a positive identification with oneself. I'm not homosexual by choice, but I do choose to identify as gay. And that's a good thing! Progressive people need to get over this debate--there's nothing wrong with homosexual relations--period.

[sistersofmercy]

31. No, I do not believe it is pertinent.

It just gives fundies additional ammo IMHO and allows them to frame the debate. At some point, it will be necessary for the gay community to stand up, stop defensive appeasement and tell these ignorant fools to shove off. The position needs to be acceptance by the fundies that people are who they are and if they don't like too fucking bad!

[Silverhair]

35. They think that if they can prove that your homosexuality isn't

genetic, then they have proved that it is a choice, and therefore a morals issue. However, it can still be nongenetic and you can still be born that way. There is another theory than has a good bit of evidence.

First, based on evolution, I don't think there is a gay gene. Evolution would punish that gene and eliminate it from the gene pool, even as a recessive. Therefore, I don't think it is genetic.

There is a theory that if the mother is subjected to a very high level of sustained stress during the 4 & 5 months of the pregnancy, then the baby gets too many of the wrong harmones and develops differently. This has been tested in two ways. We can make gay rats in a laboratory by that method. East Germany, (Back in cold war days.) survey their population and discovered that boys born to women who were PG during the Berlin bombings had a far higher rate of gay children.

If this theory is correct then you were born that way, not a choice.

Side note: Not related directly to homosexuality, but because of the many well known bad effects of sustained high levels of stress, a drug company thinks they have a pill that will maintain the correct levels of the bad stress harmone. If so, then that pill may also prohibit a fetus from developing as a gay. If that happens, and becomes known to do that, what happens then?

[arewethereyet]

38. well, that was interesting

But I think that this (stress) is pretty easily explained away as environmental influence.

I tend to agree with the evolution thing though. I was not impressed with that research when it came out.

Honestly I don't think we're any closer to understanding it now than we were in 1900. The other matter is, do we care ? If so, why ?

So long as it does not interfere with the life liberty or property of another is it anyone's business ?

Don't think so...

[Silverhair]

39. Even if it were purely choice, in a free society then that is

their choice. No problem there as far as I am concerned.

However, it is the nature of science to ask "Why" about nearly everything. You never know when a particular "Why" may lead to an important discovery. So I will support any research that is done by peer reviewed and established methods and ethics. And I will use any discoveries that were made, as long as the information is valid.

It is the nature of humans to be curious.

[arewethereyet]

40. I suppose inquiring minds want to know

but I think I'd rather see research dollars go toward more productive ends. cancer research might be nice for example, a lot of people suffer and die from that at great personal and monitary cost.

[Silverhair]

43. I know it's messy, but we progress more by letting individual

researchers go where their curiousity leads them. You simply can't know where the next major discovery will turn up.

Chaos mathematics developed from an accident in a weather research program, and it has great implications that go far beyond weather forecasting - including in cancer research, and also in heart rythms.

[arewethereyet]

46. I do believe in pure research

but this is not that. that study was specific and pointed.

[Silverhair]

47. In the 70's and 80's there were researchers looking into the

question, "Are there differences between Male & Female brains and do they process information in the same manner." Women's rights activits scream bloody murder that such research would even dare be carried out. They were afraid of the political consequences of such research. Of course we now know that there are genuine differences between the brains, and that women & men do indeed process some information in different manners, and that the typical woman is likely to have a set of abilities that help her be a good mother in a hunter gatherer society, while men are better adepted to hunting and defending the tribe, and posess the software for ease of learning that set of skills.

In understanding those differences we are better able to understand ourselves and those around us.

I can not imagine myself opposing any research done in a competent and ethical manner.

[arewethereyet]

48. good idea, weird example

I could have told you that this was absolute fact ! moreover would ANYONE ever doubt it ?

(just havig a littl fun with this one, sorry !)

[Deja Q]

36. I could care less why. People are people.

If only the blindly religious shit-heads would stop robotically obeying their prehistoric sci-fi and live in reality, things would be different - and better.

If the cause of homosexuality was discovered, you can bet your sweet bippy those who found the cause would try to eradicate the cause. Because playing god is much more important than just accepting what God created in the first place.

[neebob]

59. Very good point

that they would try to eradicate the cause. The only reason I care is I'd like to see what you call prehistoric sci-fi proven wrong and I wish death to the institutionalized belief that one man and one woman are supposed to pair off for life and nothing else is natural. Then again, the shitheads would find a reason to keep believing it.

[no_arbusto]

37. It's evolution baby.

Or so a biology major friend of mine says. The world is overpopulated and homosexuality is a response or something. I don't know all the details, but that's what she thinks.

[Clark Can WIN]

49. Interesting thought La Serpiente

I don't think most conservatives care about the genetic argument where it concerns gay marriage because so few of them accept the evidence to begin with. For them it is a matter of imposing their version of religous values on others, it's about control. So when it comes to science, they're not having any thankyouverymuch.

I am a married Christian hetero family gal. I don't see gay marriage as being inconsistent with Christianity and even if I did I would still not be against it because I am adamant about seperation of church and state and I cannot fathom why the gov should deny anyone civil liberties based on who they love as long as it is an adult consensual relationship that does not involve genetic relatives. I'm uncomfortable with polygamy, but I can't think of a reason to discriminate against it really.

I believe that homosexuality is genetic and that sexuality in general is very seldom black and white. Most people probably have just a little grey area in their sexuality at least some time in their lives. Getting them to admit it is quite another thing.

Why ultimately would someone voluntarily "choose" a "lifestyle" that subjects them to discrimination, ridicule, hardship, contempt and fear for their own safety? This makes sense? I don't think so.

Being genetically predisposed to sexual prefrence is much different than other genetic predispositions. I am genetically predisposed to diabeties, but I can curb my chances by maintaining a healthy diet. You can't alter your affections by eating more lettuce.

How the hell does it hurt my family if our neighbors are a happy gay couple? How is that a "threat" to my family. I don't get it.

[TheRedMan]

55. It is HUGELY important

One of the key factors in discriminations laws is that you cannot discrinate a person on the basis of an innate, immutable characteristic. For instance, a woman cannot realistcally alter her gender, nor can a person alter her race. If homosexuality is genetic, it becomes an immutable characteristic, and suddenly discrimination laws protect. If it is a choice, as many conservatives fervently hope, they can burn you all they want.

[dreissig]

57. Republican Voting Runs in Families

If you ask Republicans how they got that way, most of them will say it happened as they came of age. Clearly, political preference isn't strictly a matter of preference as the word is commonly understood. I mean, really. Can you imagine somebody deliberately choosing to be a Republican? And my gosh ... just the thought of waking up tomorrow and finding George Bush attractive. It makes me want to barf.