Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/22/2006 7:50:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:14:31 AM EDT by 95thFoot]
Here we go again....


Moms' Genetics Might Help Produce Gay Sons
By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter
Tue Feb 21, 11:52 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060222/hl_hsn/momsgeneticsmighthelpproducegaysons




TUESDAY, Feb. 21 (HealthDay News) -- New research adds a twist to the debate on the origins of sexual orientation, suggesting that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women.

Scientists found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways -- half go one way, half go the other.

The research "confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved," said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The link between genetics and sexual orientation has been a hot topic for more than a decade as a few scientists have tried to find genes that might make people gay or straight. In the new study, Bocklandt and colleagues examined a phenomenon called "X-chromosome inactivation."

While females have two X chromosomes, they actually require only one and routinely inactivate the other, Bocklandt said. "That way, both men and women have basically one functional X chromosome," he added. Men have both an X and Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome plays a much smaller role, he said.

Women typically inactivate one of their two X chromosomes at random. "It's like flipping a coin," Bocklandt said. "If you look at a woman in any given (bodily) tissue, you'd expect about half of the cells to inactivate one X, and half would inactivate the other."

In the new study, researchers looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. The findings appear in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics.

"When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked," Bocklandt said. "That's extremely unusual."

Forty-four of the women had more than one gay son.

In contrast, 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons activated the chromosome and 13 percent of those with just one gay son did.

The phenomenon of being more likely to inactivate one X chromosome -- known as "extreme skewing" -- is typically seen only in families that have major genetic irregularities, Bocklandt said.

What does this all mean? The researchers aren't sure, but Bocklandt thinks he and his colleagues are moving closer to understanding the origins of sexual orientation.

"What's really remarkable and very novel about this is that you see something in the bodies of women that is linked to a behavioral trait in their sons," he said. "That's new, that's unheard of."

Still, there are caveats. Dr. Ionel Sandovici, a genetics researcher at The Babraham Institute in Cambridge, England, pointed out that most of the mothers of multiple gay sons didn't share the unusual X-chromosome trait. And the study itself is small, which means more research will need to be done to confirm its findings, Sandovici said.

Ultimately, Sandovici added, the origins of sexual orientation remain "rather a complicated biological puzzle."

And this line of research does have its critics. Some have worried that, in the future, manipulation of a "gay gene" or genes might be used as a method of preventing homosexuality in utero, or perhaps even after. But Bocklandt said these kinds of fears shouldn't stand in the way of legitimate scientific research.

"We're trying to understand one of the most critical human traits: the ability to love and be attracted to others. Without sexual reproduction we would not exist, and sexual selection played an essential role in evolution," he said. "Yet, we have no idea how it works, and that's what we're trying to find out. As with any research, the knowledge you acquire could be used for benefit or harm. But if [scientists] would have avoided research because we were afraid of what we were going to find, then we would still be living in the stone age."

More information

Learn about the debate over a "gay gene" from the PBS' Frontline.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:53:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:59:07 AM EDT
so I can leap to the conclusion from this that it is because of society's suppression of gayness, which coerces gay men into hetero relationships and allowing them to reproduce has perpetuated the gay gene, which would have died out long ago if we were to just let queers be queers, right?

And if my wife produces gay kids, can I leave her?

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:02:13 AM EDT
we get blamed for everything.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:04:55 AM EDT
Giving in to sexual perversion produces homosexuals...
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:05:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:28:25 AM EDT


being a faggot is your own choice



love the sinner. hate the sin
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:33:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 8:37:25 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By cruze5:


being a faggot is your own choice



love the sinner. hate the sin




Only a man who was gay to start with could CHOOSE to be attracted to other men.

The thought of two men doing it personally makes me nauseated, because I'm not wired that way. . If you could imagine "choosing" it, then your brain is wired VERY differently from mine.

There is no doubt in my mind that who or what you are sexually attracted to is pretyt much beyond someone's control.

Whether they ACT on it is a choice, absolutely - and at some point that may become a semantic difference.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:37:35 AM EDT
If it's genetic then maybe they can come up with a cure for fagosexuality.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:43:00 AM EDT
I've always loved blue jeans. I can't explain it. I mean, I didn't wake up one day and say "Today, I choose to wear blue jeans over slacks". I think it's genetic. My brother wears blue jeans. So does my sister. Come to think of it, I don't think my dad prefers to wear anything BUT blue jeans. Genetics is the only reasonable conclusion. My environment has nothing to do with it. I was born this way.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:43:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
If it's genetic then maybe they can come up with a cure for fagosexuality.





I believe there is some evidence that it may partly be influenced by hormonal levels during pregnancy.


The BIGGEST IRONY in all of this is that IF homosexuality has a genetic component, then all the people that are "opposed" to homosexuality should (if they were clever) wholeheartedly embrace support for homosexuals, to encourage every one of them to "come out of the closet"

Think about it - if male homosexuality is genetic in nature, then the only reason that homosexual men still exist is that some of them are "choosing" to live as straight men, despite their intrinsic sexual orientation towards other men, and by living as straight men, they are impregnating women (often as married men), thus passing on their homosexual genetics.

If ALL homosexual men came out of the closet, none of them would have any reason to impregnate women (other than rare cases of artifical insemination in surrogate mothers, I suppose) and the genetic trait would die off.

That, however is a big IF - I've never seen much evidence that suggests that homosexuality runs in families (across generations), but that might be hard to estimate if lost of homosexuals are still in the closet.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:45:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Think about it - if male homosexuality is genetic in nature, then the only reason that homosexual men still exist is that some of them are "choosing" to live as straight men,




It sounds like the butt-rammer gene is coming from the women.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:46:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 8:50:14 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:48:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
If it's genetic then maybe they can come up with a cure for fagosexuality.




Well shit... if we wipe out the gays, who is going to figure skate after that? Who will host those make-over TV shows? Who will design our clothing? Who will buy Glocks?

This is actually a very controversial issue (and a priority for some) in this kind of research. Many pro-gay groups, as I've heard, actually don't want to prove there is a gay gene out of fear of future gays being wiped out via selective breeding.


- BG
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:49:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 8:51:36 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Think about it - if male homosexuality is genetic in nature, then the only reason that homosexual men still exist is that some of them are "choosing" to live as straight men,




It sounds like the butt-rammer gene is coming from the women.




Yeah - but if it is genetically passed on, then surely the man has to have some genetic contribution as well, doesn't he? As in, some kind of interactive effect?

Or, is the argument that perhaps this supposed "gay gene" in women controls things like pre-natal hormone levels that might then affect the fetus' developing sexual orientation?


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:49:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
so I can leap to the conclusion from this that it is because of society's suppression of gayness, which coerces gay men into hetero relationships and allowing them to reproduce has perpetuated the gay gene, which would have died out long ago if we were to just let queers be queers, right?

And if my wife produces gay kids, can I leave her?




Evel Knevel his very self would not be capable of the leap required to get to that conclusion
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:52:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
.



Why did you edit that out? I thought it was funny.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:54:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
.



Why did you edit that out? I thought it was funny.




1. Because I am the king of bad analogies myself, and really shouldn't be throwing rocks from inside my glass house

2. I also acknowledge that I don't really know too much about genetics myself, so I shouldn't be criticising others.


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:58:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
.



Why did you edit that out? I thought it was funny.




1. Because I am the king of bad analogies myself, and really shouldn't be throwing rocks from inside my glass house

2. I also acknowledge that I don't really know too much about genetics myself, so I shouldn't be criticising others.





No problem. Mine was more of a lame-ass attempt at humor, than a precursor to serious discussion.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:58:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:59:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BerlinVet:

Giving in to sexual perversion produces homosexuals...



That's a perfect example of circular reasoning.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:59:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:03:07 AM EDT by Admiral_Crunch]
If they ever do single out "the gay gene", it's going to cause a shitstorm. Parents who can afford it and who don't want homosexual kids are going to start testing for it in their fetuses and some will want to abort if they find it. That's going to unite the anti-abortion Christian conservatives and the homosexual advocates in a way that no one thought possible before.

ETA: Or it's at least going to create some mighty mixed emotions in some people who are anti-gay and also anti-abortion.

Interesting to say the least.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:00:34 AM EDT
Maybe "practicing poor early childhood parenting by the mother produces gay sons".

Every gay man I have ever known has possessed some twisted psychology relating to their mother and even their sisters.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:00:42 AM EDT
Good comment, Admiral_Crunch.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:04:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Good comment, Admiral_Crunch.



I'm told I express a coherent thought on occasion.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:04:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:

Originally Posted By BerlinVet:

Giving in to sexual perversion produces homosexuals...



That's a perfect example of circular reasoning.



Actually, a better example of circular reasoning would be "Giving in to homesexual urges produces homosexuals".

If one defines "sexual perversion" as getting a blow job from your wife, then the argument "Giving in to blow jobs from your wife produces homosexuals" could be considered non sequitur.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:09:32 AM EDT
If it is genetic, then it could be considered as a GENETIC DEFECT, and then the pro abortion left would be in a big bind.
They like to rant that it's the woman's choice, and if she doesn't want to have a homosexula child, then she could chose to have an abortion, thus terminating the life of a homosexual. Of course, if that were the case, the left would want legislation to outlaw selective aboritions that would allow the abortion of a gay baby......And that would mean that thay only support the abortion of healthy babies......


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:20:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:
If it is genetic, then it could be considered as a GENETIC DEFECT, and then the pro abortion left would be in a big bind.



No one in the media or any public figure would dare call it a genetic defect. Their career would immediately be over. The PC police would see to that. Maybe a shock jock could get away with it, but that's about it.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:23:28 AM EDT
Fag haters take note: you're probably gay. Think American Beauty - yeah...thats you...

From Wikipedia:
A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of homophobic males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited homophobic traits and 29 who did not. Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.

The researchers reported that 24 % of the nonhomophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54 % of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66 % of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20 % of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Still, researchers disagree about whether the homophobic males were stimulated by genuine latent homosexuality or negative emotions such as anxiety.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:25:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:25:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
If they ever do single out "the gay gene", it's going to cause a shitstorm. Parents who can afford it and who don't want homosexual kids are going to start testing for it in their fetuses and some will want to abort if they find it. That's going to unite the anti-abortion Christian conservatives and the homosexual advocates in a way that no one thought possible before.

ETA: Or it's at least going to create some mighty mixed emotions in some people who are anti-gay and also anti-abortion.

Interesting to say the least.




I'm sure if they identified the gene a fertility clinic could help you select sperm and egg that wouldn't have the defect. So you could be assured of a butt-spelunker gene free baby without resorting to abortion.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:25:54 AM EDT
Actually the "LACK OF JEANS" on mom produce ALL sons and daughters for that matter!!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:26:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:28:29 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Hydguy:
If it is genetic, then it could be considered as a GENETIC DEFECT, and then the pro abortion left would be in a big bind.



No one in the media or any public figure would dare call it a genetic defect. Their career would immediately be over. The PC police would see to that. Maybe a shock jock could get away with it, but that's about it.




Personally, I consider it a defect, regardless of the explanation or cause.

This isn't intended in a judgmental or pejorative way towards homosexual people (whom I know a number of, and have nothing against), but more from a biological perspectice.

After all, the design PURPOSE of animals is ultimately to reproduce. Someone who is not wired to want to have sex with the oppositive gender is by definition "defective" in the same way that a human born without legs is defective.

Not defective as in intrinsically worth less than others in terms of human value, personality, morality, etc - but defective as in not a properly functioning human being.


My bad eyesight, that has required me to wear glasses sicne I was five is a defect as well, and in that sense, I was a slightly defective human (until laser surgery fixed my defect) - but the desire to pass on one's DNA is the fundamental purpose of animals, and thus homosexuality is one of the mose severe defects possible in a human being.

I wonder if that makes any sense at all.



ETA: However, severe as that defect is, it doesn't bother me at all, since there are enough human beings already being bred, and there is no shortage, so society can handle this particular defect, just like it can handle small numbers of blind, deaf, paraplegic, etc people.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:28:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Think about it - if male homosexuality is genetic in nature, then the only reason that homosexual men still exist is that some of them are "choosing" to live as straight men,




It sounds like the butt-rammer gene is coming from the women.




Yeah - but if it is genetically passed on, then surely the man has to have some genetic contribution as well, doesn't he? As in, some kind of interactive effect?



I don't know anything about genetics really.

But ... IIRC there are genetic defects that can come from just one parent.

So, e.g. it could be possible that mom has a fudge-packer gene that will produce ass-mining desires in her male children withotu regard to what set of genes come from daddy.


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:30:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
After all, the design PURPOSE of animals is ultimately to reproduce.



By animals you mean people, right?
You might run into some arguement from people in the philosophy or religeon departments on that one.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:31:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:33:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
we get blamed for everything.



My initial thought as well....

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:36:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
After all, the design PURPOSE of animals is ultimately to reproduce.



By animals you mean people, right?



Right - jsut pointing out that ALL animals are designed for that one purpose, including humans.



You might run into some arguement from people in the philosophy or religeon departments on that one.



Yeah, I've discovered that people in philosophy departments don't always enjoy the logical argument that all of our culture, literature, mathematics, civilization, etc - is an accidental byproduct of a larger brain that allowed primitive humans to survive better than competitors with smaller brains, and the hardwired psychological mechanicms that allow us to sucessfully cooperate and coordinate in bands.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:36:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By cruze5:


being a faggot is your own choice



love the sinner. hate the sin




Only a man who was gay to start with could CHOOSE to be attracted to other men.

The thought of two men doing it personally makes me nauseated, because I'm not wired that way. . If you could imagine "choosing" it, then your brain is wired VERY differently from mine.

There is no doubt in my mind that who or what you are sexually attracted to is pretyt much beyond someone's control.

Whether they ACT on it is a choice, absolutely - and at some point that may become a semantic difference.



And thank you.

Those who think homosexuality is a CHOICE are basically admitting they could DECIDE to be gay if they wanted to. I could NO MORE decide to be attracted to men and want them sexually than I could decide I wanted to be taller and have red hair.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:42:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:49:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Thus proving Darwin. The basic idea being that people with this genetic abnormality are programmed not to reproduce at some point along the genetic line.



If it was proof of Darwin's theory, there would be no homosexuals, because the gene would have died off.

It's a defect, or a choice.

Either way, it isn't right.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:12:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:13:59 AM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:12:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Thus proving Darwin. The basic idea being that people with this genetic abnormality are programmed not to reproduce at some point along the genetic line.



If it was proof of Darwin's theory, there would be no homosexuals, because the gene would have died off.

It's a defect, or a choice.

Either way, it isn't right.




Were you listing to the dude’s story?

The mother has the gene, and thus it can be passed on regardless of her gay male offspring.

This is the land of the free, by the way, so how about you worry about yourself.

Worry about the tax money that's being stolen from you, or say, children dieing all over the world of hideous starvation.

You gotta ask yourself why you are preoccupied with gay sex?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:14:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Maybe "practicing poor early childhood parenting by the mother produces gay sons".

Every gay man I have ever known has possessed some twisted psychology relating to their mother and even their sisters.



Every gay man I knew was used as a sperm receptacle by some older guy. Some of them have convinced themselves that they are attracted to old, bald, freaks that wear leather, saying that they knew it from an early age that they were different, but I find it difficult to comprehend myself. Others admit to abuse, but cannot re-wire themselves.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:15:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
Soooooooooooo, I guess all the men in prison who turned to homosexuality were born that way?

The lack of understanding on this topic amazes me sometimes.

If there is one thing I have learned in life is there is no abosolutes when it comes to human behaviour. Just like most behaviour related issues from anger to mental illness some of it may be genetic and some of may be enviromental but all of it envolves choice.

If behaviour truly was genetic wouldn't we wish someone would find the trait for criminality?

Besides in the scheme of things except in public relations it matters not. Though genetics and the need for a specis to reproduce the desire for sex is in all animals but then the choice to have sex is ours and ours alone. This holds true for many behaviour traits including anger for we all have it but it doesn't justify for example murder or rudeness.

If someone truly has a genetic incability to telling right from wrong then they are insane. It is therefore in the definition of right or wrong that is the real barrier homosexuality faces in public acceptance.

If you study history as it relates to homosexuality you will two trends. Societies with high standard of living or dominately male enviroments, segragation, had high degrees of homosexuality. Inversely those with harsh enviroments and rigid moral codes did not. What's the difference? Choice.

Fredoom is all about choice. I will never accept the lifestyle personaly but I have no problem accepting the choice by others for I value freedom above social standards that have little direct or no direct impact on my life. I don't need a scientific study to tell me who I am for I chose to be who I am no more than I need one to justify who someone else is for they chose who they are as well.

Tj




+1

Hooray for people that understand liberty.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:19:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lennster:
Fag haters take note: you're probably gay. Think American Beauty - yeah...thats you...

From Wikipedia:
A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of homophobic males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited homophobic traits and 29 who did not. Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.

The researchers reported that 24 % of the nonhomophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54 % of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66 % of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20 % of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Still, researchers disagree about whether the homophobic males were stimulated by genuine latent homosexuality or negative emotions such as anxiety.




Was that in English? Jeez, I've been through grad school and have read some impenetrable prose in at least four languages, but this....WTF, over?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:21:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:21:59 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
Soooooooooooo, I guess all the men in prison who turned to homosexuality were born that way?

The lack of understanding on this topic amazes me sometimes.

If there is one thing I have learned in life is there is no abosolutes when it comes to human behaviour. Just like most behaviour related issues from anger to mental illness some of it may be genetic and some of may be enviromental but all of it envolves choice.

If behaviour truly was genetic wouldn't we wish someone would find the trait for criminality?

Besides in the scheme of things except in public relations it matters not. Though genetics and the need for a specis to reproduce the desire for sex is in all animals but then the choice to have sex is ours and ours alone. This holds true for many behaviour traits including anger for we all have it but it doesn't justify for example murder or rudeness.

If someone truly has a genetic incability to telling right from wrong then they are insane. It is therefore in the definition of right or wrong that is the real barrier homosexuality faces in public acceptance.

If you study history as it relates to homosexuality you will two trends. Societies with high standard of living or dominately male enviroments, segragation, had high degrees of homosexuality. Inversely those with harsh enviroments and rigid moral codes did not. What's the difference? Choice.

Fredoom is all about choice. I will never accept the lifestyle personaly but I have no problem accepting the choice by others for I value freedom above social standards that have little direct or no direct impact on my life. I don't need a scientific study to tell me who I am for I chose to be who I am no more than I need one to justify who someone else is for they chose who they are as well.

Tj




I don't think anyone woudl argue that BEHAVIOR is genetic. If they did, they would be insane. (Personality is only partially determined by genetics, and estiamte vary wildly, and personality is not a particularly good predictor of behavior)



What people are saying is that sexual orientation is not likely to be a choice - i.e. who or what you are attracted to.

Whether or not people ACT on their drives and urges is completely 100% choice. That I think we all agree on.

But I firmly believe that human beings that have urges to have sex with members of the same sex, or animals, or children, are hard-wired to do so. Some guys are attracted to really skinny women, whereas others find that repuslive - others really like rubenesque women. Can they choose to have sex with other women? Sure - but they cannot chose what they find erotic or titilating, and I certianly don't believe that people can choose what gender they feel sexual attraction for.

It might be partially genetic, it might be partially pre-natal hormonal, it might be early childhood experience? Who knows? But I completely believe that it is determined long before anyone makes a consious choice.

To me, the matter of choice is precisely that - people get to choose whether or not to act on the urge, but they cannot choose whether or not to experience the urge.



Which is why I think in part many of us are talking about a semnatic issue. It is impossible to tlak about homosexual BEHAVIOR without inherently talking about a CHOICE. However, I believe it is incorrect to talk about the attraction, orientation or urge as being one of choice.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:23:15 AM EDT


Originally Posted By pattymcn:
we get blamed for everything.



It's your turn today. That's where the spin of the "Big Wheel of Blame" landed. Most days it lands on either "white, gun-owning heterosexual American males" or George W. Bush.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:23:58 AM EDT
I'm not going to comment on where those urges come from, but acting on those urges is always a choice, so don't give me that bullshit about how gay people "can't help it."
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:26:00 AM EDT
Gotta disagree with some of you.

Most fags are fags from birth. They act wierd from the start. The people who turned out gay in my school were not a shock to anyone.

Now - there are some people who are bisexual or gay by choice. But that is a small percentage. I think women "gays" are more likely to be experimental and try it out.

I have a gay uncle - and it something he struggles with all the time. Hes even Catholic. He would give his left nut to be straight. You cant deny who you are. He takes drugs(anti-depressents) and drinks like a fish because of his depression from being basically a hated fag.

Sure, I guess one could abstain, but its easier said than done. Lets see one of you abstain for your whole life. Everyone needs love.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:26:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:26:23 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
we get blamed for everything.



It's your turn today. That's where the spin of the "Big Wheel of Blame" landed. Most days it lands on either "white, gun-owning heterosexual American males" or George W. Bush.





Yeah - last week it was the Danes' fault

tag - you're it!!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top