Origins of Homosexuality

[ApolloSeek]

Sex-linked genes are known, but the reason studies are sexist is because they make no effort to even examine females. The medical establishment still focuses all studies on male subjects, then generalize and make assumptions about the rest of the population. Only studies specific to women will make any attempt to draw in women to study. Judging studies by their reality instead of ideology is all well and good, but if a study is carried out in a sexist manner, would that not mean that the theories are missing parts and are therefore flawed?

Please cite evidence of biased samples. One reason why men end up in

studies of sex-linked (more specifically X chromosome-linked) genetic

disease is because males are much more likely to be affected by X-linked

genetic disease. I have explained why in a previous post.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Is it possible that you feel that homosexuality is sexlinked rather than autosomal because the studies have involved men? A sexlinked homosexuality gene would result in far fewer gay women than men.

[ApolloSeek]

Sex-linked genes are known, but the reason studies are sexist is because they make no effort to even examine females. The medical establishment still focuses all studies on male subjects, then generalize and make assumptions about the rest of the population. Only studies specific to women will make any attempt to draw in women to study. Judging studies by their reality instead of ideology is all well and good, but if a study is carried out in a sexist manner, would that not mean that the theories are missing parts and are therefore flawed?

This is just another symptom that this study is not just flawed but also a product of the gay lobbists.

Excuse me, Narthgothic, but can we please not make accusations without

proof? If you think there is gay lobby influence, please cite your evidence.

I have explained in a previous post why males are more subject to

X chromosome linked genetic disease.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I think the main problem is that we can't distinguish cause from effect, that we can't tell if men are studied because the 'gene' is sexlinked or if we think the 'gene' is sexlinked because only men are studied.

[joski]

A couple of young gay Mormon men didn't ignore their church's teachings, they committed suicide because of it. Stuart Matis killed himself in front of the local Mormon headquarters a few days before Proposition 22 (California initiative prohibiting gay marriages) passed in California. His friend killed himself a few weeks later.

Having once been mormon, and being gay, this disturbs me.

[ApolloSeek]

Is it possible that you feel that homosexuality is sexlinked rather than autosomal because the studies

have involved men? A sexlinked homosexuality gene would result in far

fewer gay women than men.

Yes, a sexlinked homosexuality gene could account for fewer gay women

than men, assuming that genetics is the only or dominant factor. It

is quite possible to have X-linked inheritance of homosexuality genes

and have N(gay males) < or = N(gay females) if nuture influences

supressed the phenotypic expression of homosexuality genes.

The problem is that we don't know how to measure nuture effects,

compensate for them, or both. We also need more good research.

Until we have both of the above, I hold no opinion at all.

The point is these theories do not have enough evidence for or

against them to reach a conclusion. Therefore calling them

sexist, influenced by the gay lobby, resulting from a Republican influence,

Democrat influence, Communist plot, <insert preferred group or ideology>

influence or conspiracy, is stupid. The intellectualy honest action is hold

to no opinion, come to no conclusion, until there is enough evidence.

Note: By = or < means to significance level of .05 or better

[Silly Green Monkey]

I am not calling the theories themselves sexist, I call the researchers and their information-gathering methods sexist. But, as you say, I have no proof that they actually are. It just seems logical when it is considered that the medical industry has historically ignored females when studying humans.

[joski]

I am not calling the theories themselves sexist, I call the researchers and their information-gathering methods sexist. But, as you say, I have no proof that they actually are. It just seems logical when it is considered that the medical industry has historically ignored females when studying humans.

There is also the little issue of profile. As gay men are inferred to have feminine traits (as if sexual preference somehow determines gender identity as well) they are the most noticable, at least if they are of the "flaming" variety. Women having sex with women, partly because there is no penile penetrative action involved, is not seen as quite as significant. Also, since the female is generally viewed as the more spectacular gender (sort of quoting one of Judith Butlers parentheticals here) a male that is seen as in any way performing a female gender role is going to garner more attention. Also, because there is inherently more privilege associated with the hetero male gender identity, it is more noticable (perhaps more depraved?) when a male digresses from his hetero-normative role.

There also seems to be a societal perception that while a gay man might be "lost" at some point every lesbian still needs "a little deep dickin'" to quote Kevin Smith in Chasing Amy. There is just this persistent notion that every woman needs a man and that every man needs to fish. So a man being gay is seen as taking the easy way towards sexual satisfaction, ditching the 'complex' female while still achieving sexual satisfaction and getting to hang out with the guys. A gay woman on the other hand, well she must have been scared away from boys at an early age, but really, deep down inside she needs a penis in her to make her complete. The idea being that she, like all women, wants to have a family. So goes the perception anyway.

Thus I think there may be inherent sexism in the research as the most spectacular homosexuality is that of the male. That and deviant behavior on the part of a woman is seen as something she will grow out of as soon as she realizes she needs a man for fulfillment.

[Davey]

The 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianism, Islamism) believe Man is responsible/guilty for whichever characteristics or actions he takes. All these religions not only preach that homosexuality is an abomination, but also that it is a choice from the individual. Considering that these religions have +1/3 of Earth's population as followers, let's not be naive to say that religion has nothing to do with the belief that homosexuality is a choice. Unfortunately, many homosexuals are members from these religions and prefer to close their eyes to the open homophobia these religions preach.

That's true, but does it mean anything, scientifically? Of course not. It's just everyday intolerance, brought to you by fear and viewers like you. The only thing that proves it that homophobia has been around far too long.

--davidey

[Rabger]

Humans are about halfway between; we haven't reached our carrying capacity yet (which is probably about 40,000,000,000) so we are currently behaving as an r-selected species.

I've heard a number of capacity numbers, but to me that seems too high. I think that we're damn close to the breaking point right now at 6.5 billion. There are different theories and such for numbers though.

[O'Really]

Excuse me, Nargothic, but can we please not make accusations without

proof? If you think there is gay lobby influence, please cite your evidence.

Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but an American author (who I'm still looking for his name) who is a political critic said the AIDS statistics which says heterosexuals are just as contaminated as homosexuals is a product of the gay lobby; he said that in fact homosexual males were the majority among those with AIDS, but that was too unfavorable for the gay lobby to publicize.

If the gay lobby is strong enough for this, it would be no surprise to have a flawed research just to justify homosexuality in a society where many believe sexuality is a choice.

[joski]

No one disputes that a large majority of AIDS patients in the United States and western Europe are gay. That has to do with the ease of spreading the disease via anal intercourse and the fact that people forget to use protection and engage in risky behavior. I actually know someone who was told by a sex partner AFTER intercourse that he had AIDS. Luckily he didn't get it, but this is the kind of thing that makes this disease the public health disaster it is. Another annoying thing is that if homosexuals are ashamed of their orientation they are not likely to use protection or practice safe sex. Bear in mind, however, that AIDS is spreading the fastest amongst the hetero population, especially in the US where the emphasis on protection amongst the gay population has somewhat slowed (but not reversed) the growth rate.

But don't forget that these statistics are for the United States and Western Europe, they do not apply to Latin America or Africa. In fact in Africa the majority of AIDS patients are hetero, and the main reason it spreads so rampantly there is that there is no social construct against inter generational sex like we have. Thus it is assured that the disease is spread to the young population by the older males. That and they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure your AIDS. Fucking brilliant.

[ApolloSeek]

Excuse me, Nargothic, but can we please not make accusations without

proof? If you think there is gay lobby influence, please cite your evidence.

Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but an American author (who I'm still looking for his name) who is a political critic said the AIDS statistics which says heterosexuals are just as contaminated as homosexuals is a product of the gay lobby; he said that in fact homosexual males were the majority among those with AIDS, but that was too unfavorable for the gay lobby to publicize.

If the gay lobby is strong enough for this, it would be no surprise to have a flawed research just to justify homosexuality in a society where many believe sexuality is a choice.

The fact is that most AIDS cases in the US are gay males. And that is well known. Therefore the gay lobby publicizing or not publicizing this fact makes no difference. Because of this, I'm more inclined to believe that

the gay lobby didn't publicize that gay males were the majority of AIDS

cases because it was known already. No point in stating the obivious.

As for research being flawed, you still have to point out which research

is flawed and in what manner. Just stating "research could be flawed" is

not enough. Furthermore, there will always be those who cannot be

bought or subverted.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Those who cannot be bought or subverted can be silenced. Their funding gets pulled, and they have nothing more to do.

[joski]

Another reason not to publisize that most AIDS patients are gay is that heterosexual people then become complacent about their own level of risk, which is still quite significant.

[Rabger]

The fact is that most AIDS cases in the US are gay males. And that is well known.

Actually, we talked about this in my Soc class and I was told a gov statistic from an AIDS treatment clinic that says that heterosexuals are more infected with HIV and AIDS than homosexual males are. Though I can't remember who among the heteros was more infected. I think it may have been african american women, but I can't be sure.

[Des]

Ah, good ol' tainted research.

Well, it's apparent that there's no point in making a religious discussion out of this, so I'm going to attempt to do this the easy way.

PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE WITH THIS

I'm trying to state something in order to explain something else, so whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.

I still think homosexuality is wrong. Well, sort of. The bible forbids people of the same gender to have sex. It doesn't put any limits on any non-sexual relationship thay may have. However, the bible also forbids sex between ANYONE except the person you're married to.

Both of these points are considered out-of-date now. The same people who say if two straight people want to have sex outside of marriage its their business say that the bible forbids gay people from having sex period. I'm not going to live by half the scripture, therefore I continue to abide by Jesus's teaching that the greatest commandement is to love the Lord with all my heart, all my soul, and all my mind, and the second greatest is to love my neighbors as myselves. So whether you are straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, I don't care. That's beteen you and God (and your significant other if you have one). I love you all.

NOW, ARGUE WITH THIS PART

Whether there is a gay gene or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

Just because you are born a certain way, just because something is in your genes, and just because the genotype is expressed doesn't mean you have to live with it. Of course, it's your choice, but can't we all choose our own sexuality if we want to?

[Jayann]

Just because you are born a certain way, just because something is in your genes, and just because the genotype is expressed doesn't mean you have to live with it. Of course, it's your choice, but can't we all choose our own sexuality if we want to?

I'm not going to say whether I believe anyone is born a "certain way." I think it's the result of a lot of things, but that's not the point. The point is that you ARE a certain way. Things may change in one's life, and the way you feel about things may change, because everything is a great big spectrum that people may or may not move across in their lifetimes. But whatever happens, at this current moment, regardless of past and future feelings, you ARE a certain way.

So, even if you ARE a certain way, you can choose to behave differently than how whatever innate desires you have urge you to behave. Behavior is a choice. But feelings and desires are not; they are just part of who you are. Sexuality has nothing to do with behavior, I would argue, and everything to do with how one feels.

If one feels asexual, but has no name for it and feels like they are broken, and has sex to try and "fix" themselves, would you say about their sexuality? Is being asexual or sexual really a choice? Or is being sexually active the choice?

[Rabger]

Of course, it's your choice, but can't we all choose our own sexuality if we want to?

Hmm... no. I know a lot of people that tried to be straight. They tried and prayed and dated and had sex and everything they could think of to make themselves straight, and it just didn't work. You can choose what sexuality you want to follow (whether or not it really makes you happy), but you can't chose your actual sexuality. All you can decide is if you want to be happy with yourself or force yourself into something you don't really want.

I'm an atheist, so obviously the bible means absolutely nothing to me. Though I think people should believe in whatever the hell they want, my main thing is don't try to force your beliefs down my throat and I won't prove you wrong in 101 ways. Not that I'm saying thats what youe doing at all. I'm babbling a bit but there is a point. I think homosexuality and asexuality and any sexuality is completely natural, there is no wrong or immoral. And if people think it is wrong, well thats just fine. What bugs me is when assholes like Bush try to make what they believe law, and say "You have to do what I think is right, whether or not you agree with my beliefs, so HA!"

Still babbling, I realize. Hmm... the point is finding a "gay" gene is to prove that homosexuality is natural (although I find that pointless since the thousands of cases in nature prove that anyway) and that it is NOT a choice. However, by doing this it opens up the gates further for gene tampering. You know, there are places that are trying to make it possible for parents to pick charactistics, like hair and eye color. If a gay gene is found, it is likely that the right wing and other anti-gay people will go out of their way to remove the gene from offpsring, therefore getting rid of homosexuals.

I find it pointless to continue looking into this stuff. Look at all places in the world, all species, and its there. That means natural. People should just accept it and leave it at that.

[O'Really]

If someone points a gun towards my head and tells me to do something, I will do it. Did I choose to do it? -- No.

Do I have the freedom to jump out of the window from the 30th level? Supposedly yes, but if I jump, I'll die, so I won't do it. Did I "choose" it? -- No.

Everything we do is conditionalized. If someone is born on the worst conditions, is raised by the worst parents, in an insalubrious society and then becomes a criminal, it is debatable that he had the choice to become what he is. He is a criminal because he couldn't be something else. It is disadvantageous to be a marginal, he became a criminal because he had no other hope.

If a natural homosexual "chooses" to live heterosexually, is he doing a choice? Absolutely not. The whole stigma attached to homosexuality is the gun pointed to their heads. "Oh, you have a choice to be a heterosexual, but if you don't be....

...

- If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

...

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

... "

[underminethewalls]

Check this out: An evolutionary biologist arguing for the evolutionary fitness of homosexuality. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18437. She also argues that for most higher animal forms the act of sex evolved for primarily social purposes, as pure reproduction could be accomplished more efficiently by other means.

[joski]

I did not choose this!!!!!!!! If I could change I would but I cannot change myself. I tried for years and it was not an option. I finally had to come to terms with it. Why the hell would I go through the process of coming out to all my friends and all this mental pain and anguish over a choice? I would choose not to go through this thank you.

Ahhh, what the hell, here's something I wrote that should help you understand how much of a choice this really is.

Yesterday I went skiing

It didn’t make me feel better

I felt worse

I went home at 2:00, the lifts close at 3:30

I stopped because I had started to not care

I was skiing down Palmer, fast

It was whiteout

Navigating by fog markers I sped recklessly

I didn’t care

I felt like shit

I still don’t feel good

If I hadn’t stopped I’d be dead

Skiing is supposed to make me feel better

It always makes me feel better

This pain wont go away

Why wont this go away?

Why me?

Why cant I just notice girls like every other normal guy?

I wasn’t supposed to be gay

I was supposed to be the open and accepting hetero

Not the one in need of acceptance

If there is a god, god has no ethics

I can cope with anything

Nothing hurts me

Except this

It cuts to the quick

That’s why it is the truth I have run from

Tried to explain it away

But no amount of explanation changes this

Nothing can make this less a reality

I’m attracted to men and I can’t change that

I wish I could

I can’t

I wish people could accept this

I wish they knew that I really did not choose this

How can they call this sinful?

If this is sinful then god really has no ethics

Id rather go to hell then

I wish people could see what I’m going through

I mean, people who aren’t gay

If they could understand how this is not ‘convenient’

I hate those people who say “my life would be so much easier if I were gay”

As if not being accepted and not being able to tell your father was easy

As if coming out to all my friends was easy

As if never ever quite being accepted (or believed) is easy

As if going through all this pain and hell is easy

As if being forever seen as an AIDS carrying nympho is easy

As if being asked by people if you cross dress is easy

I don’t cross dress

I’m still very much male, a man

I’m not a girl in a man’s body, that’s another thing entirely

I don’t think of myself as feminine

There is nothing feminine about broad shoulders and a penis

I am a man who likes men

That doesn’t make me a neurotic, girlish boy

I want to escape

I tried to ski away

But it followed me up the ski lift and back down the hill

I can go for a hike

I can drive All night

But it follows me, it catches up

At least I have identified the monster

It was a part of me

I’ve been running from me

No matter where I go, there I am

And there it is

At least when I am moving I feel no pain

I love to drive because when I am in transit I forget,

Everything

But as soon as I get out of the car, it’s back

Bad memories, Bad memories

Who am I?

No, who am I really?

Who am I?

Am I an engineer?

An English teacher?

A musician?

What?

Just a washed up faggot that didn’t find himself in time?

Ever?

[O'Really]

Joski, the bible is an insult to intelligence, you should not even pay attention to what christians say about it.

[merlinda]

Personally, I believe that the Bible and all holy books were written by humans, and should be subject to very open interpretation (and should be absolutely questioned by its followers on an individual basis before they choose what to accept and what is unacceptable.) I think there are lots of biases to be found in them... but I really don't mean to offend anyone, if they believe otherwise.

At any rate, I've heard several different religious studes students say that homosexuality - like in that quote from Leviticus (I don't think I spelled that right) - in Biblical times referred to prostitution, not to people liking members of the same sex. Apparently in the bible it says that prostitution among women is wrong, and then it also says that prostitution among men is wrong too. Only the word for it back then was "homosexuality." Or else that's how it got translated.

And I think we should just view it as a misunderstanding and stop hating people for things that we can't control! Like Joski, if I had been able to choose how I feel, I doubt that I would have chosen to be a sexual minority. I'm happy about it now since I am asexual, and that's all I've ever known, but I think that if I had ever been presented with a choice, I wouldn't have chosen something that society refuses to believe or accept.

Actually, I don't really care if I offend anyone now: I think that if you're a Christian, it's your duty to disregard these "homosexuality is a sin" perceptions and accept all sexual interpretations... it's just not right to discriminate via your religion. If there is a God, I don't think that that's what s/he meant.

Joski...that's sad... :( Just think, society doesn't always know what it's talking about.

[Des]

Actually, I don't really care if I offend anyone now: I think that if you're a Christian, it's your duty to disregard these "homosexuality is a sin" perceptions and accept all sexual interpretations... it's just not right to discriminate via your religion. If there is a God, I don't think that that's what s/he meant.

yas... see my beliefs under the 'do not argue with this please' section

I think you're all calling me out over something where we're on the same side.

[Jayann]

Nuh uh. I chose not to argue with you on religion. *points to her own argument*

[PlatonicPimp]

The problem is not in the research. Apolloseek has been trying to point this out for a while now. The problem is that people are jumping to conclusions without adequete data. Our Media establishment is eager to report Anything controversial, and people an all sides of the issue will take what they've been given and use what fits their Ideology. The experiments themselves have not been through the rigourous process required by the scientific method before we can presumptively call it's conclusions fact. ANY theory drawn from this data is, at best, incomplete.

[merlinda]

Oh no! I'm sorry if I sounded like I was actually arguing with someone. Koro, I was just in my ranting to the world thing. I wasn't directing my argument to anyone at all. I do that with my friends, even when they agree with me or disagree. It's just my way of arbitrarily getting out something that's frustrating me right at that moment... but it never comes out the way I mean it to. It never comes off well at all...

I came off sounding like I was really offending everyone and being intolerant; I'm really sorry.

:(

[Des]

gaaah! I give up!

[Jayann]

Um. What's the problem?