For a long time i thought homosexuality was the result of a skewed childhood or personal choice. But i've read studies that showed alot of homosexual males had a region in the brain that was 10% smaller than a heterosexual male. This region was credited for sex drive and the homosexual male's region was equivalent to that of a women. The study was ongoing and actually conducted by a homosexual doctor. This makes me wonder if homosexuality is a "choice" or perhaps a brain abnormality? :confused:

Personally i think it's psychological but it could be biological. There was a programme not too long ago (in England) about gay animals. What biological need would there be for gayness though?! (homosexuality).

Originally posted by Neville
Personally i think it's psychological but it could be biological. There was a programme not too long ago (in England) about gay animals. What biological need would there be for gayness though?! (homosexuality).

Perhaps no biological need but a biological abnormality, this suggest homosexuality could be cured if it had a biological origin.

Why would you want to cure homosexuality?

has anyone ever viewed the actual brain of a homosexual compared to a so-called "normal" brain? the differences are very interesting.

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
has anyone ever viewed the actual brain of a homosexual compared to a so-called "normal" brain? the differences are very interesting.


Yes, that's exactly what the homosexual doctor was doing (first post). And if i remember correctly he was upset with his results. The homosexual had a region of their brain that was related to sex drive and it was the size of a womens rather than a heterosexual male.

Originally posted by Idle Mind
Why would you want to cure homosexuality?

Personally, peoples perferences tend not to bother me unless their ignorant, but i'm pretty sure their are homo's that would die to be "normal"

Yes, that's exactly what the homosexual doctor was doing (first post). And if i remember correctly he was upset with his results. The homosexual had a region of their brain that was related to sex drive and it was the size of a womens rather than a heterosexual male. but couldn't the stigma of homosexuality mean a decreae in actual sex/sexual activity anyway and so a decrease in sexula behaviour causes a decrease in the corresponding brain area? i.e. pscyhology influences (->) biology.

Originally posted by Neville
but couldn't the stigma of homosexuality mean a decreae in actual sex/sexual activity anyway and so a decrease in sexula behaviour causes a decrease in the corresponding brain area? i.e. pscyhology influences (->) biology.

If i follow you correctly, a child born with a normal bring could somehow be influenced toward homosexuality, thus a shrinkage in his brain region.

Valid logic. ;)

So you are supporting the idea of homosexuality as a choice. Therefore, people don't have to be gay, they choose too.

does anyone know of any animals studies on the subject?

Well there are gay animals spacemanspiff!

I think some gay people choose to be gay, and some seem to be born this way. No facts to back this up, just personal observation. A friend of mine that I went to high school with had his father leave his mother for "another man". What the heck is THAT all about?

I think they are born gay and I don't know how a straight person could argue with that. Did you "choose" to be attracted to females? I didn't and I think if you did you might be repressing something.
Does anyone know of any animal studies on the subject?
Absolutely, I saw an hour long documentary on the subject. It is prevelant with most animals despit the fact we don't hear about it much. Some animals clearly don't take sex too seriously and just bone whatever but there was a pair of leopard seals I found particularly fascinating. A pair of males had formed a life bond and were very affectionate towards eachother. They would litterally chase females away.
The doco' also had lesbian gazelles,pedophilic apes and elephant seals and bisexual ducks among loads of other things.
I found it fascinating, I wonder why you never hear about it? Religious conspiracy? :bugeye:

Refreshing posts Dr Lou Natic! :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
[B]I think they are born gay and I don't know how a straight person could argue with that. Did you "choose" to be attracted to females? I didn't and I think if you did you might be repressing something.

I think it is absouletly possible for some to be "raised" gay. If you were born on an island with only gay men do you think you would still be hetersexual?

I think it is absouletly possible for some to be "raised" gay. If you were born on an island with only gay men do you think you would still be hetersexual? This actually still happens today. A ritual for a tribe, a South American one i believe, is for the father to give his teenage son (teenage being 13) to another man from the tribe and it is his job to 'educate' the young boy in the ways of homosexuality. The boy is 'his' until his 17th birthday (i think) and needless to say that the boy doesnt get much option of what he does or doesnt wish to partake in. It is up to his 'owner'. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Originally posted by Neville
This actually still happens today. A ritual for a tribe, a South American one i believe, is for the father to give his teenage son (teenage being 13) to another man from the tribe and it is his job to 'educate' the young boy in the ways of homosexuality. The boy is 'his' until his 17th birthday (i think) and needless to say that the boy doesnt get much option of what he does or doesnt wish to partake in. It is up to his 'owner'. :eek: :eek: :eek:


I actually heard of this in ancient greek culture. the exact same practice, The older greek male would tutor the younger male hence the word mentor. But are these children subject to this practice going to become "practicing homo's" or perhaps supressed homo's or what?

Well i was going to continue the post Mrhero54 but i thoght i'd wait to see the replies. No i dont think they go on to be 'homo's' (lol). I think they have a female partner arranged for them and they get married as they leave their 'metor' (i think). Apparently, i read, that they believe these years of homosexuality make them great lovers for woemn, though i cant see how! :D Maybe cos they know what a woman must feel like when they have a d*ck up their *** ( :D) and they learn to be more gentle.Who knows!

well, this whole being raised gay goes into the who problem of nature vs nurture in general. why is it that i find certain things sexually atractive? is there something inheritly appealing about a woman with a C cup? or is it cultural. I tend to like women with dark hair. is this because of my genes or was i somehow influenced to do so when i was young?

the better question is sexuality biological or pychological or both?

the better question is sexuality biological or pychological or both? How would a 'homosexual gene' still be active?? It shouldn't still be around (unless it's recessive). I'm sure it's psychological.

Originally posted by Neville
How would a 'homosexual gene' still be active?? It shouldn't still be around (unless it's recessive). I'm sure it's psychological.

If it is psycological at what point will it develop. I knew a nine year old that was one of the most flaming queers i ever met. His mother told me he had been like that since he was real little (don't know how little) Do kids develop a sexuality and know it at nine? I even remeber stories of one gay man staying when he was in first grade he remember a girl saying she liked brian and he realized at that same moment he did too. What does this mean?? :confused:

Is there a difference between preferring a homosexual relationship versus simply getting your rocks off? I used to work with this guy who used to say..."When it gets right down to it...and the lights are off...you don't know who's sucking your ...." His point was...that he didn't want to be with another man in a relationship but could this be separated totally from the pure sexual act? I guess his view would lean more toward the psychological theory....I can see his point but I personally certainly wouldn't want to be in the same dark room with him. :bugeye:

Does anyone have a contray arugement besides the one i originally posted?

Calling all challengers....:p

I guess not. I guess gay people are lying when they say they were "born" that way

Originally posted by Neville
How would a 'homosexual gene' still be active?? It shouldn't still be around (unless it's recessive). I'm sure it's psychological.

you're forgetting that it is still largely frowned upon and a portion of homosexuals have acted straight throughout history, thereby leaving offspring. now there are gay couples who want to raise their own kids.

as for animal models, i can see it having its benefits. it keeps the population down. mosaic drosophila also support it being biological.

Going through this one again...

We can't know for sure which is the bigger cause of homosexuality, genes or the environment, but it makes sense that it's somewhere in between. Scientists think that the reason it has persisted is because the gene does different things in different sexes. In women, the homosexuality gene might make them more fertile or willing to have sex, and in men it makes them attracted to other men.

On the flipside, if homosexuality is caused mostly by the environment, then what is causing them to become homosexual? With no genetic predisposition, why don't more people become homosexual? Is the openly homosexual media and culture influence "converting" many young kids into becoming homosexual? People don't just choose to do something like that if it goes against society and their genes. They would have to be influenced by their environment. So I think we can agree that it is at least heavily affected by genes.

I'd also make a distinction between a homosexual man and a bisexual man. The former honestly doesn't desire women, and the latter just wants the extra pleasure. I don't think prisoners are gay just because they rape their fellow inmates. Any man could do that if they were desperate enough. A true "homosexual" is caused by your genes.

Why would you want to cure homosexuality?

There are many reasons. Homosexuality does not do anything good for society. It creates needless controversy, offends many people, and causes the homosexuals a lifetime of pain and hardship. Its also documented that there are a disproportianite amount of homosexual pedophiles, which is very disturbing. Homosexuals account for about 3% of the U.S. population, yet they also account for 1/3 of the child sex offenses. These are nearly all man/boy cases(look at the the Catholic priests:bugeye: ). These are just the reported cases, too... and I'm sure that these molested adolescents do not like it. http://www.frc.org/get/if02g2.cfm

There is a lot of sympathy for homosexuals, like they're just poor, harmless, discriminated group. They seem rather destructive to me. Their sexually and socially deviant lifestyle often ends in only STDs, heartache, and a looser butthole. :rolleyes:

Would you rescue your kid from a life of discrimination, hardship, and senseless hedonism if you could? I would.

Btw, how do you make your quotes show the original poster?

I honestly think people are born one way or the other. Who they end up having sex with is a different story.
If you were born on an island with only homosexual men do you still think you would be heterosexual?
I think if that were the case and then I was presented with a female I would quickly turn back into a heterosexual. Probably a more hardcore heterosexual than I would have been under normal circumstances.
Its like everything, there are studies that indicate people are born murderers, after studying the possibility I think it is almost definately the case. But just because someone is born a murderer doesn't mean they will definately kill someone. It depends on how they are raised. If their tendencies are encouraged at a young age they will become a murderer but there is a good chance they won't if they are raised well.

Balder,
The word "quote" is located at the bottom of every post. If you want to quote something from a particular post click on it's "quote" link thingy...

Woooo another Homosexual argument, I thought I destroy these all together once and for all!!! It is biological: due to hormone imbalance in fetal development… PROVEN. Also a claim is that there is a region in the medulla theoretically called the Sexual Preference Determining pon (SPD) in a (yet unconfirmed) study the shape of the pon has a correlation with sexual preference: all round SPD only seen in women and gay guys, all peanut shaped found in man and lesbians.

Also here are my killer augment on the subject:
by WellCookedFetus, Thread #17021
Its made by choose you say? Ok then here is a little experiment: Try thinking about your self having lesbo sex with another women, come on try it, thinking it is not a sin. After 5 mins you may notice that nothing is happening (if your strait that is) your not getting turned on by the idea, no matter how hard you try its not going to click, after doing this ask your self how hard it must be for a gay man/women to try to think about making love with a member of the opposite sex?

“ If god did not created Adam and Steve then why did god make Pat??? 1/1500 children is born hermaphroditic or intersexual.”

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Woooo another Homosexual argument, I thought I destroy these all together once and for all!!! It is biological: due to hormone imbalance in fetal development… PROVEN. Also a claim is that there is a region in the medulla theoretically called the Sexual Preference Determining pon (SPD) in a (yet unconfirmed) study the shape of the pon has a correlation with sexual preference: all round SPD only seen in women and gay guys, all peanut shaped found in man and lesbians.


“ If god did not created Adam and Steve then why did god make Pat??? 1/1500 children is born hermaphroditic or intersexual.”

You fell to tell me what this hormone imbalance does. Does it void ones attraction to the opposite sex, and/or make you attracted to the same sex?

If it just voids someones attraction to the other sex, how can you jump to the conclusion it makes them attracted to their same sex?I can easily imagine a young teenage boy that has a bad sexual encounter with a female. This encounter surfaces in the back of his mind before ever sexual encounter he has with a female, causing anxienty, fear, and a lackluster libido. He performs, but poorly and this causes him to dread sexual encounters. He is still attracted to girls but avoids sex at all cost(falls back on religous reasons). Eventually, he begans to belittle sex in relationships and looks for people of like mind. After meeting a girl of similar values he carries on a long term relationship. However, even occassional sex (2-3 times a year when she is horny) is too much and his continual poor performances cause him to question his sexuality. He begans to wonder if perhaps he is gay even though he's never been attracted to men. He begins to feel that he has been supressing his sexuality his whole life and decides to experiment with gay men. He finds the experience strange but more sexually pleasurable and stimulating (because of the lack of fear and anxienty) then when he was with a women. He concludes that he is gay, and lives that lifestyle from then on out. He may never have been intially attracted to men, but became attracted to gays after an pleasureable experience. Born heterosexual but psycological factors turn him to homosexuality.Isn't this scenario possible?:confused:

The SPD would answer this question but you said it's unconfirmed just as the experiment in the first post (if were not talking the same thing) was unconfirmed...

Test on rats and monkey showed that exposure to testosterone during specific time of fetal development masculinize the brain... no matter the sex of the fetus, as a result homosexual activity was observed in female test subjects, the same effect was not seen with estrogen but when testosterone blockers where give at the same fetal time frame the brain was feminized, and the males were gay (not the happy gay).

I disagree with your hypothesis though.

There was an interesting study done with twins. It turned out that if one twin was gay, the second one was gay as well about 48-65% of the time while it was something like 30% for fraternal twins and 8% for adopted children. Also, they studied 40 families which all had twin gay brothers. Quite interestingly, it turned out that about 33 pairs of the brothers shared an area at the end of the X chromosome. They are not saying that this is the part of the chromosome that is responsible for sexuality but it is quite possible that genetics has A LOT to do with it (I think so as well). I am not sure how you can be raised gay by heterosexual parents and as I know by myself, I never really wondered, as it was mentioned before, whether I like boys or girls. I never even thought about who I am attracted to.

I doubt it's biological. If it were biological, I would think that we would have evolved out of it a long time ago.

Thats why it is not genetic... but a hormonal. Identical and metranlal twin studies point towards this as well:

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html

Originally posted by LionHearted
I doubt it's biological. If it were biological, I would think that we would have evolved out of it a long time ago.

no we would not have. homosexuals have been living as heteros since forever. kind of like the military father in american beauty. also consider bisexuals. perhaps your degree of homo- or heterosexuality depends on a threshold value. and what about mosaic flies? could it not also be a mistake causing a woman to develop part of a male's brain? hormonal exposure is biological as well and it would not have anything to do with evolution.

I don't know why so many people expect things to evolve so quickly:confused:
I'll tell you this right now, humans haven't evolved AT ALL from their original state, we have evolved from other things but humans as a species HAVE NOT CHANGED evolutionarily speaking at all yet, if humans survived for another 10 million years or so we might evolve in some minor way but we won't live that long anyway so basically, humans aren't going to genetically change unless we do it ourselves.

Obviously not!

(any more questions for the wise sage? :D )

Your as wise as a pig going to the butcher! It is biological, not psychological read above.

I'll tell you this right now, humans haven't evolved AT ALL from their original state, we have evolved from other things but humans as a species HAVE NOT CHANGED evolutionarily speaking at all yet, if humans survived for another 10 million years or so we might evolve in some minor way but we won't live that long anyway so basically, humans aren't going to genetically change unless we do it ourselves.
So the different skin color is not a genetic evolution?

I've heard that our evolution from homo erectus can be measured in the hundreds of thousands of years, not the millions of years. Neanderthals were around in the past 10,000 years, as well. I don't think we can be sure whether we evolved from them or they're just a dead end.

Those are pretty minor evolutionary traits... We have reached a state right now of total domination and evolution cannot effect us because of the lack of any environmental pressure. Give humans 10 million more year (without counting Cybernetics, Bioengineering, and over pop... ect) and we will still look pretty much the same. Hey wasn’t the issue homosexuality?

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Your as wise as a pig going to the butcher! It is biological, not psychological read above.

RFLMAO... if two homosexual people reproduce they produce... NOTHING.. he he... GET IT?!?!?!?

But, if you want to show me a gay kid who has two parents that are gay then I'd be glad to look. :D

Did I say genetic? Obviously you did not read above. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/bonk.gif

Isn't obvious that a behavior as complex as homosexuality cannot be solely due to one or even a few genes? It is not as simple as eye color and hemophilia, which are due to a single gene (actually a pair in the case of eye color).

Homosexuality must be due to some complex interaction between genetic heritage and environmental influences.

If it were solely due to biology (Id est: heredity), it should be much rarer than hemophilia. It should have been bred out of the human race 50,000 years ago, when a homosexual male had no cultural pressures to have sex with a woman and pass along the gay genes. Saying it is solely due to heredity, it like a person claiming that claiming that infertility runs in his family.

Lesbianism could be largely hereditary. From prehistoric times Lesbian woman in primitive cultures would likely be raped, enabling them to pass on their genes.

I am not sure why the cause, cure, and treatment of gays should be such a big issue. I had a lot of gay friends when I was single. Before I married, I ran with what were called bohemians, later hippies, now ?? Gay behavior did not cause me any problems. Why should I worry about their sexual preferences? I might consider it an issue if gays were constantly trying to hit on me.

If I thought they were likely to convert potentially straight males, it might be a cause for concern. I do not consider it normal or natural. An outrageous epidemic of it might not be a good idea for the human race, but 20-30% gays might help solve our population explosion problem.

Like I said, I heard that the genes that cause it have different effects in different genders, allowing it to be passed on. This is a thought. There are ways that it could be passed on.

If it was entirely environmental, then something in the environment is causing it, and these people could be "cured." Also, that would probably mean that our recent gay movement is influencing the kids into becoming gay... which is disturbing.

Hello its not genetic... it is hormonal, read my posts above!

If homosexuality is biological itmust be genitic, or passsed on from parents to children right?

so if there was a "gay gene" dont you think that evolutionarily it would dieout pretty quickly? not many gay men have children to pass their genes onto. so after a generation or 2, gay children would stop being born.

Originally posted by shadowpuppet
If homosexuality is biological itmust be genitic, or passsed on from parents to children right?
No, normal parents have children with down-syndrome don't they?
How can anyone try and say gay people are "choosing" to be gay? Thats insane! I said it before and I'll say it again, if you "chose" to be attracted to girls you are obviously in denial and are secretly yearning for man meat.
I didn't "choose", I just naturally was attracted to girls, being attracted to men would be so drastically different that one could not possibly simply choose that. They would HAVE to be born that way.

What's causing the hormonol imbalance, Dr Lou Natic? Genes determine hormones, and bad environment can change hormones I suppose. Are these people being exposed to something that changes their hormones?

Also, do you think convicts who rape other guys are gay?

Originally posted by Balder1
What's causing the hormonol imbalance, Dr Lou Natic? Genes determine hormones, and bad environment can change hormones I suppose. Are these people being exposed to something that changes their hormones?
I dunno, I think it varies from homo to homo, its like some of them are girls that happened to be born with a penis and boys born with vaginas, others might have had some incident that swayed them at a very young age, I don't know what, but some aren't as flaming as others and I think this issue is multifaceted.

Also, do you think convicts who rape other guys are gay?
No but if the "other guys" in question enjoy it they are gay. Whats your point?

Balder1,

No read my post above! Anything the mother eats or does will effect hormonal exposure to the fetus so no genes are not the only thing that plays a part in this.

Yes cases of temporary bisexuality is psychological... they would rather rape a women but what the heck any hole will do.

I knew a nine year old that was one of the most flaming queers i ever met. His mother told me he had been like that since he was real little (don't know how little)... Well she would say that wouldn't she. She's his mother and might be seen to be responsible. Maybe she was. :eek: :(

Reading the above posts I would say that Hello its not genetic... it is hormonal. this is most likely.

maybe it is nurture...

I'm sure its genetic in MOST cases, its probably actually been scientifically proven I just couldn't be bothered looking for it. I'm not all that enthusiastic to be honest...

in some cases it is environment...i think it is clear that in male only populations (such as the prison enviroment) the ratio of homosexuals drastically increases.

thats just finding a hole to satisfy a urg... as soon as you let them out they will go right back to women.

There is little or no evidence to substantiate the claim that male homosexuality is due (or partially due) to heredity. There are evolutionary reasons to believe otherwise.

The claim that it is hormonal due to the body chemistry of the mother during pregnancy might have some merit, but is doubtful. It is similar to the claim that it has a genetic basis, since body chemistry is strongly influenced by genetics.

The human digestive system provides a barrier to many chemicals which could influence body chemistry if injected. Most of what we eat is broken down and then used as raw material to build necessary chemicals and proteins. Alcohol and a few other drugs can create havoc over a long period of time or with excessive use. Vitamins and a few minerals are used without modification by the digestive system. The medical establishment has developed drugs that can be taken orally. There are a lot of exceptions, but the general rule is that the digestive system discards what it does not need, and breaks more complex chemicals into simpler building blocks, leaving basic body chemistry as it was established by genetics.

BTW: Are you aware that many (most) of the things we eat would be lethal (at least detrimental) if injected into the blood stream?

I aware of that but unusual hormonal levels have been detected in pregnant women for reasons yet unknown... also most steroids (a class of hormones, most hormones in general) are not digestible and go strait through the digestive track into the blood stream. Many food products are known to have steroids including estrogen.

The evidence for hormones being the cause for homosexuality is very compelling and very complete.

WellCookedFetus: Do you know of any citations for the following?The evidence for hormones being the cause for homosexuality is very compelling and very complete.I have seen such claims many times. I have also seen claims for genetic causes. Never any citiations.

jee look at my posts above... or better yet I can read out of this modern psychology text book I never turned back for money, it say so right here.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
thats just finding a hole to satisfy a urg... as soon as you let them out they will go right back to women.

they had homosexual contact...they were temporary homosexual. they switched environment...they went back to heterosexual...seems like it supports my notion.

Yes heterosexuality was the stable state... Homosexuality was just an act of desperation.

you are a bad scientist for excluding an obvious state of homosexuality because you are homophobic or undeclared homosexual yourself...

someone should spank you

waaahhht!?! How am I a homophobe? Temporary homosexuality out of desperation is not true homosexuality. I put a good bet that most of those prisoners are thinking about a girl when their doing it. I my self am not gay... though I do have a odd fetish: a spanking would be very nice! http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/fouet.gif

an act of homosexual sex remains an act of homosexual sex, even if you dress it up in a blue dress.

I'm sure that there are heterosexual men fantasizing about men when they have sex with their wives...although they might never fulfil this fantasy.

objectivity is usually a good thing in science

If a man desires sex with another man then he is a homosexual (or bi) its not the act that counts its the desire. Primal urge is built in and cannot be changed.

you can't make up the facts before you do science...you observe and then make a hypothesis accordingly

I'm not "making up the facts" this is out a psychology textbook!

you are allowed to think for yourself in science.

That’s true but you are also allowed to analyze the proof and evidence of others and confirm there validity for your self.

apparantly they were full of bullshit.

If a man desires sex with another man then he is a homosexual (or bi) its not the act that counts its the desire. Primal urge is built in and cannot be changed. So your saying that someone who goes through their whole life desiring men but never acts on it, Marry's, has child and then dies, is a homosexual?? They are called homo-sexual's for a reason! They have sexual encounters with the same sex. Not heterosexual encounters.

Originally posted by Charles Fleming
So your saying that someone who goes through their whole life desiring men but never acts on it, Marry's, has child and then dies, is a homosexual??
I absolutely would, thats what they are, homosexuality isn't a "crime" someone commits, it is what someone is, just because they supress what they are doesn't mean they are a hetero-sexual, it just means they are a homosexual who happens to have sex with women.

the question 'Is Homosexuality psycological or biological?' already has a fixed answer in it. It assumes that homosexuality is psychological or biological before there has even been an analysis of in what situations homosexuality occurs. We find out that it is in fact a complex problem and that the question should be reformulated and that by maintaining the question we just chase our own tails.

Originally posted by Charles Fleming
So your saying that someone who goes through their whole life desiring men but never acts on it, Marry's, has child and then dies, is a homosexual??

Thats exactly what I'm saying! From what your saying closet homosexual are not gay but are heterosexuals?

Homosexuality is the desire to have sex with members of the same sex... I don't see what so hard about grasping that concept? lots of validated research has been done that shows that hormone exposure during fetal development causes this. So Homosexuality -- Biological -- Unchangeable pon in medulla -- Not a persons choose or fault!

Yes! They are heterosexuals. Its sad that someone would do that but until sex comes into the equation then it is not an issue of sexuality. There is a sexual part to homo-sexuality.

Studies with Identical twins showed that particular preference (details one likes in a mate) is psychological and socially formed and enforced (psychosocial?). Preference for the sex of a mate is hardwired. All this makes evolutionary sense because psychosocial preference in a mate would be variable to a changing environment and preference for those best suited to it. For example: long ago fat people were beautiful and skinny people were not… but once food was no longer a problem skinny women and muscular men became proffered. Preferences for what KIND of mate needs to be hardwire so that people could actually have kids.

And no there not heterosexuals if they want of screw people of the same sex. If what you say was true then you can not label any virgin with a sexual preference. Also don’t change your post when I was trying to reply to your first question. :mad:

If what you say was true then you can not label any virgin with a sexual preference. Also don’t change your post when I was trying to reply to your first question. Virgins are virgins! That is what they are. Sexual Preference cannot be known because the virgin has tried neither gender. One who has not tried any food does not know what one likes. Only after the tasting does prefer-ence enter the scene. I would say a homosexual is someone who chooses (and prefers) to have sexual encounters with the same sex (hence they are homo-sexuals) than with the opposite sex: hetero-sexuals. Even if some 'trials' (shall we say :D ) have to be completed, one cannot know one's preference until one has tasted the range.

Really so when you were 13 you could not tell anyone what sex you proffered?... unless you were not a virgin then? :p How can any High school virgin not deny s/he is not gay if they have never had sex then? I don’t get these line of thought of your, I surely do remember wanting to screw women before I lost my virginity… I really don’t remember ever wanting to have sex with men. So I think I at lest proffered one sex over the other before trying. Really now it is well know the preference is made years before the sexual act its self.

How can any High school virgin not deny s/he is not gay if they have never had sex then? They can't!! :D They have no sexuality. They are neither homo- or hetero- sexual. I surely do remember wanting to screw women before I lost my virginity Yeah but until you one does gain a sexuality then one has no sexuality. Really now it is well know the preference is made years before the sexual act its self. How is it? How is this 'known'??

Surely sexuality is just a labelling system?! One is either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, which is defined by the subjects behaviour. While one has no sexuality then one cannot be labelled.

Take a Psyc. Class my friend or at the very lest read a psychology textbook. Sexuality is known before one has sex.

Is it?? Do you have any evidence??

Yes In fact may statistically valid studies check Psychology textbook!

textbooks suck, especially when they deal with contraversial issues.

forget about your textbook wellcookedfetus. It is time to bury or burn it.

Originally posted by Charles Fleming

Surely sexuality is just a labelling system?! One is either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, which is defined by the subjects behaviour. While one has no sexuality then one cannot be labelled.

good observation. A physiology textbooks views the issue from a specific angle. The question is if it is the right angle or maybe just a small angle.

charles, dude. even the catholic church has recognized that sexuality is of the being and not in the acts.

gee I ment several text books in fact but still I guess to you nothing is worth learning from.

people, people...


it can be both, cultural and innate...why is it so difficult to accept this.

Yeah but until you one does gain a sexuality then one has no sexuality.

Not so;

From WordNet (r) 1.7 :


sexuality
n : the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of
their reproductive roles; "she didn't want to know the
sex of the foetus"

Aspects of one's sexuality can be noted from early childhood.

it can be both, cultural and innate...why is it so difficult to accept this.

Not so, but the expression of sexuality is often culturally defined.

Originally posted by Xev
Not so;



Aspects of one's sexuality can be noted from early childhood.



Not so, but the expression of sexuality is often culturally defined.

what about the homosexual afghans harassing our godfearing heterosexual soldiers. You think that their homosexuality isn't cultural????

even the catholic church has recognized that sexuality is of the being and not in the acts. What do you mean even the Catholic Church?? I wasn't aware that it was the worlds leading authority on Homosexuality (come to think of it though...! lol) textbooks suck... So you recommend picture books then SpuriousMonkey?? :cool: sexuality
n : the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of
their reproductive roles. Whether this fits in with what you believe is irrelevant because this is just one person, or a group of people's definition. According to this definition, the homo-sexual has no sexuality - given that homosexuals have no reproductive roles!! According to this definition people who cannot conceive have no sexuality, despite what their behaviour may suggest (!!), because they have no reproductive roles. Sexuality is about behaviour! If one has sex with the same sex then one is a homo-sexual, if one has sex with members of the opposite sex then one is a hetero-sexual. How many more times do I have to explain this?? :mad:

i get it...if that is of comfort to you.

Thank you Spuriousmonkey. :D

Homosexuality is about psychology: if one wants to have sex with a member of their sex over members of the opposite sex s/he is a homosexual. There a plenty of Heterosexual men that have hade sex with member of there sex (take most correctional facilities for example)

These people were Homosexuals for a short time then (though I wouldnt say that to their face :D ). If they were having homosexual experiences then they were homosexual. If they now have heterosexual experiences, then they are heterosexual, and so on.

don't bother Charles...fetus has to be right all the time

Dam right! :D

As for sexuality being something caused in one's upbringing, this is just nonses because of the vast variety in backgrounds of homosexuals and bisexuals...

And if sexuality were biological then you wouldn't get people who woke up one morning and said that they were going to be lesbians or gay men, which happens all the time.

Surely if people *chose* to be gay or straight then that would mean that everybody was bisexual - with the ability to be attracted to whoever they want irrespective of gender.

I'm fine with the latter idea, although there are undoubtedly millions of homosexuals and hetersexuals who would argue against me--

To be honest I don't mind - I just wish all the nonsense about homosexuality being immoral would stop. It's the twenty-first century and conflict and contradiction between homosexuality and bisexuality; and fundamentalist Christianity continues is just making human equality impossible.

And if sexuality were biological then you wouldn't get people who woke up one morning and said that they were going to be lesbians or gay men, which happens all the time.

I have never heard of a case were someone just wakes up one morning and decides to be gay!

There are studies that say that homosexuality or lesbeanism *spelling?* is actually heathy in a society? There may be an inverse relationship between violence in a society and how "friendly" the same sexes are toward eachother.

That asking this question almost connotates that there is something wrong with it. A study that I want to do: Why is it that gay men are so creative? We all know it. They are exelent designers, they usually have tremendously good taste in a variety of things. Usually are above average intelligence. There is something to this I'm certain. Seinfeld says: "We are so homophobic because we know deep down we have very weak sales resistence." I think he's right. We (even me sometimes) are threatened sexually by the thought of gay men. I think to feel even a slight threat in this mannor by a male is to inspire a very strong reaction. The fact remains that there is a difference psychology in regard to the homosexual male - everything positive. My inclination: I will use an over used cliche and say that perhaps they are more in touch with their feminine side - as well as their masculine side at the same time.

Why is it that gay men are so creative?

I think it has to do with the left and right side of the brain. Women tend to use the right side more than men use the right side. The left side is for logic , science, whereas the right side is for intuition, creativity, etc.. If a man biologically tends to use his left side more than men, then a homosexuality encouraging society would easily make a homo out of him, needless to say he would be more creative as you ( Shawn34m ) mentioned.

Why is it that gay men are so creative?

I think that’s total BS, Has it been statically proven gay men are more "creative"?

No offense, but you are all simply spouting off opinions as if they were fact. Reference a psychological or medical study to back up your (often strange) claims; otherwise they're pretty meaningless here.

Originally posted by Nasor
No offense, but you are all simply spouting off opinions as if they were fact. Reference a psychological or medical study to back up your (often strange) claims; otherwise they're pretty meaningless here.



haha...it is a fact that medical scientific studies are the worst in the field....

it is not in any textbook, but general knowledge.


My time to try to eduate you all:
anyhoo...if you want to be a scientist throw away your stupid textbooks for god sake. What the hell are you all thinking. That science is about facts? Science is about asking the proper question and they surely can not be found in textbooks, since textbooks deal with 'old' and 'proven' science. Which gets updated every year by the way.
If textbooks were really THE source of information we would still be using the ones that were printed 50 years ago. That says enough I would think.

Now...who said it? It was either Watson or Crick. If you want to do great science you have to ask a great question (or something like this). We all started off with a boring pointless question, which contained the answer already within it. That is not science. That is a school exam. If that gives you a kick, then please continue, but do not pretend it has anything to do with science.

my advice:
Now start thinking about questions and not answers if you are truly interested in science.

Nasor,

Were you talking to me?

Science is about asking question, testing possible answer to ones question and theorizing from the result. I have cited many modern studies that support the hormonal cause homosexuality and the “textbooks” also cite those modern up-to-date studies. hence it is not BS and is legitimate science.

Since the brian has an active feedback component that directly effects brain chemistry (in other words, your thoughts literally physically/chemically change your brain's structure, thusly the way it operates)... is it even possible to separate nature from nurture? Are they not one and the same from both a real time and long term perspective (considering the obvious integrated nature of the beast)?

spuriousmonkey,

I'm sorry but they you don't know what science is about.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
...if you want to be a scientist throw away your stupid textbooks for god sake. What the hell are you all thinking. That science is about facts? Science is about asking the proper question and they surely can not be found in textbooks, since textbooks deal with 'old' and 'proven' science. Which gets updated every year by the way. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was simply saying that people should cite some sources when they spout off bizarre 'facts,' especially when discussing and issue as controversial as this one.

WellCookedFetus: I was talking to everyone.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
spuriousmonkey,

I'm sorry but they you don't know what science is about.

sure...come back when you published something

Originally posted by Nasor
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was simply saying that people should cite some sources when they spout off bizarre 'facts,' especially when discussing and issue as controversial as this one.


wasn't aimed at you. I am just trying to teach something about science, whether someone wants to read it or not. I am just grabbing any opportunity that comes along. In this case you were the innocent victim.

A scientist must be well-grounded in textbook knowledge before he or she can start discovering new things. How are you even going to know what to investigate if you don't know what other people have already done?

there are 2 answers to that question (and possibly more):

1. More things are not done than done

2. you survey the literature (not textbooks, but articles primarily), have guidance from experienced researchers in the field, and observe your 'topic'.


but the chances are high that you will fali to investigate a real big question if you base your research on textbooks. Because textbooks deal with the past and accepted. And if you want to make a brakethrough you have to venture on unknown grounds.

sure...come back when you published something

Give me 2 more weeks :D

spuriousmonkey,

I did cite primary research, yes I also Cited as textbook but that was because I don't want to go back searching for the article my self. We are not talking about how to make breakthrough here, we are talking about the cause of homosexuality, stop with the red haring fallacy!

where are you going to submit it?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
1. More things are not done than doneYou won't even know what the relevant questions are or how to go about investigating them if you don't know the current state of things; this is what you learn for textbooks.2. you survey the literature (not textbooks, but articles primarily), have guidance from experienced researchers in the field, and observe your 'topic'.This is just absurd. Do you think that I could understand a journal article about current organic chemistry research if I hadn't studied up on organic chemistry with a textbook?but the chances are high that you will fali to investigate a real big question if you base your research on textbooks. Because textbooks deal with the past and accepted. And if you want to make a brakethrough you have to venture on unknown grounds. Of course you aren't making any major new discoveries while studying a textbook, but it's very unlikely that you'll ever discover anything if you don't bother to learn about your subject.

spuriousmonkey,

Well first here at the annual SCSU colloquium.

then at the UofM Chemisty colloquim this fall.

then hopefully a primary researcher journal.

Another red harring eh?

red herring
A smoked herring having a reddish color.
Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

which one...you can never be sure with you.

I stick to what ever topic you start but I will warn you when it has no connection to the threads topic… As I have just done repeatedly.

NEED SLEEP!

Why? For this subject I have. There in the post above. Trying to say something is wrong because the nature of the messenger is a Ad humium fallacy.

*Fetus falls over dead from lack of sleep* http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/sleep.gif

everyone bisexual...ability to be attracted People are attracted to members of their own sex all the time! That's why people have friends: because they are attracted to certain members of their own sex, on some level, for whatever reason! By the definition of a friend-ship, two members of the same sex are attracted to each other (otherwise they would not be in such close company) but the sexual relationship only becomes a reality when the boundary is crossed, and that boundary is very clear. It is a physical boundary. A friendship can go into many different levels but the relationship becomes sexual only after the relationship becomes one of physical interest, namely when there is touching for sensation, at a minimum.

It's the twenty-first century and conflict and contradiction between homosexuality... Maybe this is part of the problem?! The original founders and 'finders' (which is not necessarily true but these generations are quite possibly still the dominant members of the country(-ies)) must have been looking for other lands, which could mean that they were outcasts from their original society(-ies). It could be true that the 'founding fathers' of America, and quite possibly the people who 'spread' across Europe (in my understanding) into Britain and Western Europe, could have done so out of a quest to discover and conquer for humanity, but with the religous zeal that must have existed then in their native society(-ies), judging by the religious zeal that is still present today, in the cultures which probably nurtured the roots of human kind, a possible explanation for the spread of humanity across the face of the Earth: beginning in Asia and/or Africa and making it's way West-wards (?), is EXPULSION. Expulsion from the original or primitive societies could explain the spread of people and the erection of 'new societies' with new rules. These are the societies which boast freedom: defiant acts proclaiming their independence from their roots which banished them for some reason or another. It is these societies who could now be avenging their struggle and who now seek revenge on their ancestors for their 'mistake'. However it is the new societies, which i will call 'banished' people without providing any evidence, which promote moral subversion. Anything and everything is encouraged in the name of freedom: abuses of sex are tolerated and indeed encouraged; condoms are freely circulated, homosexuality (which must be the highest form of this kind of abuse) is also tolerated and defended by the governement through Law, and many other forms of 'wrongs' (things which the common sense will recognize as wrong) are condoned: burglars sueing the people whose houses they have broken into etc.

Religion seems highly dependent on dogma which does not encourage change so why would societies which must surely have been more dependent on the idea of (a) Creator(s?) than 'our' society(-ies) encourage travel on this scale??

It seems that the 'new lands' are just declaring their independence by rebelling completely against the basis for the religous-based societies which must contain some of their ancestory.

That was my point. I said I wanted to do a study.

"I think that's total BS, Has it been statically proven gay men are more 'creative"?"

"No offense, but you are all simply spouting off opinions as if they were fact. Reference a psychological or medical study to back up your (often strange) claims; otherwise they're pretty meaningless here."

It is common knowledge why do you think so many of them are artists, and designers? Do you have to do a study to be observant? Besides, it's my theory, and that is why a study would be done to confirm it. Duh

And some people have strong feelings about the nature of homosexuality because of their own insecurities. Perhaps deep down they think they might be homosexual. Is this why some people are so defensive?

I've been listening to this crap-O thon for 2 hours now.

Shawn34m,

A observation is just a observation, if you have statistical proof showing that homosexuals have a higher percentage of artist per population then heterosexuals per population, then you would have something there. Precisely because of the controversial nature of this subject it should be handle with pure raw data as unarguable and as neutral as possible. Opinions are strictly taboo.

in a recent new scientist:

the more brothers you have the more likely the chances are that you are gay....

Homosexuality is not among other animals, if it is there then in all probability they had lost their natural senses. In humans if it is not due to harmone disorder then it is psychological. i think natural selection process could mostly eliminate that physical disorder..(?!) from the gene pool long back.

If the percieved creativity among homosexuals is true then it might be due to their off-the-line thinking. (ranging from pervert loonies to sensual artists). no pun intended. this is what with out any bias i could think of.

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
does anyone know of any animals studies on the subject?
The fabulous kingdom of gay animals (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)

Originally posted by everneo
Homosexuality is not among other animals, if it is there then in all probability they had lost their natural senses. In humans if it is not due to harmone disorder then it is psychological. i think natural selection process could mostly eliminate that physical disorder..(?!) from the gene pool long back.

If the percieved creativity among homosexuals is true then it might be due to their off-the-line thinking. (ranging from pervert loonies to sensual artists). no pun intended. this is what with out any bias i could think of.

Yeah, well you're no friend to Big Gay Al apparently. Hehe. Southpark RULES!

does anyone know of any animals studies on the subject?

Ya read some of my post here in this thread, there are some links but I'm about a lazy as you and I am not going to look back through all this.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Yeah, well you're no friend to Big Gay Al apparently. Hehe. Southpark RULES!
Wes,
remember eminem is on the run now, branded homophobic.. poor guy.. im thinking of supporting him in his crusade..!

I was thinking it might be a result of depression or discrimination. Like they are desperate to love someone so they say that they ar , even though they don't believe it (people lie to themselves) and go on with there life, "pretending" they are, eventually leading themselves to believe they are, becoming happier that way, and staying that way, and eventually finding that they don't want t go back, because of a forgotten fear that they do not want to be dissed. It can be also biological, and that has to do with chromosomesand hormones.


But I do have a question. Why does the opposite sex get turned on when they see two homos together????

Some of you earlier on in the thread seemed hung up about why homosexuality continues to evolutionarily exist if homosexuals don't pass on genes.

Well the following is a theory in response to that thought, created by Edward Wilson (a pretty well known sociobiologist).

First you need to understand an important evolutionary principle called "inclusive fitness". Fitness is the measure of perpetuating your genes. Inclusive fitness on the other hand is an expanded notion of fitness which includes perpetuating your genes by helping family members, because they carry a majority of your genes.

An example of this is kin altruism, which is risking your neck to save members of your family. Prairie dogs can often times be seen doing this. If there is danger one prairie dog will stand straight up out of their hole, risking their life, making him/her a visible target, while the other family members make their escape.

How does all this relate to homosexuality? Humans and most other mammals have very few offspring, so the survival of these offspring are determined by how much protection they receive. If there is a homosexual member in the family, they would be there to help rear, because their time would not be spent raising a family of their own. They would still be perpetuating their genes, because their family members have a majority of the same genes.

- Wilson, E. O. (1994). On Human Nature. New York: Bantam.

This correlates well with the study spuriousmonkey was alluding to: "the more brothers you have the more likely the chances are that you are gay...."

One, if you have a large family, it would be advantageous to have more rearing members. Two, the more brothers, the more competition between the brothers, the more likely the family will split up, the less likely chances for survival.

Make sense?

I think our sexual orientation is biological.

As a heterosexual male I can't help being attracted to women rather than men, nor can I help being attracted to specific women and not being attracted to others.

I don't see why it would be any different for homosexuals.

Xenu: The inclusive fitness concept ala Edward Wilson is an interesting idea. It is reasonable, but seems very difficult to verify or refute, making it an interesting opinion rather than a workable scientific theory.

If the concept was valid, more homosexuality would be expected in primitive cultures with high birth rates and lower standards of living. Homosexuality seems to occur more often in sophisticated cultures among people with comfortable living standards. Modern day American and ancient Greece come to mind as examples. To me, this is a bit of evidence against the concept.

From what I have read, about 2% to 10% of the US population is homosexual. I suspect the high and low figures are due to bias on the part of the those doing the statistics. Even the 2% figure seems high for an exclusively genetic cause. Exclusive homosexuality is undoubtedly worse than hemophilia for preventing passing along genes. This suggests an upper bound to genetically based homosexuality.

The claim for a hormonal basis due to prenatal environment is an interesting concept. This requires analysis of the cause of the alleged prenatal environment, pushing the nature or nurture argument onto a different playing field. How many pregnant women are exposed to some special diet of medication causing the unusual prenatal environment? If the cause is alleged to be genetic, the same arguments against it apply.

It seems reasonable to me to start with the known power of the sex drive, which trails the drive to eat and breathe, but tends to be ahead of everything else at the instinct level. In simple societies, the basic instincts are expected to function as directed by our millions of years of evolutionary development. In complex and moderately affluent cultures, is it so hard to imagine the basic instincts being suppressed and/or redirected?

Homosexuality seem to me to be a harmless abnormality or misdirection of the sex drive brought about by conflicts between our genetically derived instincts and the complex culture in which we live. We are no longer primitive hunter gatherers, although our genetic heritage is almost the same as it was in prehistoric times. We are coping with a modern society using instincts designed for survival in prehistoric times. Is it any wonder that we have all sorts of abnormal behavior?

The homophobes should worry more about the dangerous deviations from normal behavior, rather worrying about the gay community. Go ferret out and pick on the rapists, pediphiles, serial killers, lousy politicians, con men, and other predators.

I understand (and disagree with) the motivations of the religious types who are anti-gay, but do not comprehend the others who are homophobic. In my youth, my lifestyle brought me into contact with a lot of gay men. They never did anything to cause me concern. What is the problem?

I suspect that those who defend the gay life style by claiming that it is genetically caused or normal behavior are looking for a justification, when the right to be left alone is certainly the best argument they have. Behavior that causes no harm to others should surely be allowed.

repeating my self again and again and...

Heterosexuality is genetic pre-implanted instinct. Homosexuality arises when a feti is exposed to unusual hormone levels during the specific time in fetal development. The above theory has been tested and proven in rats and monkeys (cannot be tested on humans because no parent would be willing to subject there unborn baby to such experiments). There for homosexuality is hormonally induced anomaly and not genetic... nor is it psychological!

i know that many of you may not like me saying this, but the governments know exactly what causes our sexual preferences.
there is good evidence that police have used psychotronic weapons to manipulate them to try to take these innocent people of the streets.
there has been many cases throughout the world off police using psychotronic weapons, to stimulate people into becoming paedo's. they undertstand what parts of the brain can be stimulated and they abuse these weapons knowledge to abuse innocent peoples lifes.
so your best bet would be to ask a person who made these weapons for the use, that i described.

but for me the answer is, because i know how these weapons are used, i would have to say that Homosexuality is psycological and not biological.

the security services have and still are abusing this knowledge, and there are many people around the world that are locked up for being paedo's but there really were not, and quite famous people too, but i will not say here.

so with the technology of these psychotronic weapons they can change an average heterosexual man into a full gay man or vise versa. i think this explains all you people need to know, and it should be end of this discussion.

here is another view on it, remember that sex is basically for reproduction, so how would evoultion make a man gay. it would only and can only be psycological. remember that when a gay man has sex with another man it is not for the need of repproduction, it is just his brain fooling him into believing him being gay.

i can guarentee with these weapons that the security forces can make you believe in whatever sexual concept they want you to believe in.

andy1033,

you have any proof of those claims?

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
andy1033,

you have any proof of those claims?

can i never say what i know to be true, and do i always need to have proof of this and that before i said it. i happen to know it first hand, but all you have to do is look on the internet for some info on these weapons and how there are(truefully) abused.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
repeating my self again and again and...

Heterosexuality is genetic pre-implanted instinct. Homosexuality arises when a feti is exposed to unusual hormone levels during the specific time in fetal development. The above theory has been tested and proven in rats and monkeys (cannot be tested on humans because no parent would be willing to subject there unborn baby to such experiments). There for homosexuality is hormonally induced anomaly and not genetic... nor is it psychological!

There is evidence that the level of androgens in a mom may cause a child to be homosexual, but in terms of natural selection the effects of becoming homosexual from a high level of these hormones is a genetic trait. Otherwise you could say that gender is not genetic, because gender is determined the same way.

The hormones may carry out the plan, but the genes determine what those hormones do.

andy1033,

I been lookking but I can't find any homosexuality rayguns you mind helping me out here?

Xenu,

Gender is determine the same way! Genes turn on and produce the necessary steroid (sex hormones) during a specific time in fetal development and that determines sexual preference and identity. Some times outside sources will do the same thing but using the wrong steroid (or simulating the wrong hormone) and cause a child to be born homosexual or with enough dosage and accruing early enough: hermaphroditic.

A homosexuality gene would not be evolutionarily sound because it would greatly reduce the rate of reproduction… then again with homosexuals force to be “in the closet” they could still reproduce well. I would admit to the possibility of a gene or genes that would increase the risk.

Dinosaur,

If the concept was valid, more homosexuality would be expected in primitive cultures with high birth rates and lower standards of living. Homosexuality seems to occur more often in sophisticated cultures among people with comfortable living standards. Modern day American and ancient Greece come to mind as examples. To me, this is a bit of evidence against the concept.

No this wouldn't be evidence against the theory I posted above, because you are assuming that evolution works as fast as modern societies change. On an evolutionary scale, the industrial revolution was just yesterday.

The inclusive fitness concept ala Edward Wilson is an interesting idea. It is reasonable, but seems very difficult to verify or refute, making it an interesting opinion rather than a workable scientific theory.

Very true, that's the problem with a lot of sociobiological theory. I didn't post the theory as a "this is the truth" concept, but as a possibility for those who say homosexuality can't possibly be evolutionary.

Kin Altruism is an observable trait in the world. It seems the only way for Evolutionist can accept this concept is through inclusive fitness which seems to make sense as much as standard evolutionary theory does anyway.

For those of you interested, the psychological evidence found so far show that homosexuality has both biological and environmental factors. As with most things in psychology, it's not an "either/or" issue, but a "both" one.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
[B

Gender is determine the same way! Genes turn on and produce the necessary steroid (sex hormones) during a specific time in fetal development and that determines sexual preference and identity. Some times outside sources will do the same thing but using the wrong steroid (or simulating the wrong hormone) and cause a child to be born homosexual or with enough dosage and accruing early enough: hermaphroditic.
[/B]

In order for the hormone to turn someone gay to work, you have to have a genetic makeup that basically says "when this hormone is at this level, change the brain in this way", right?. If being gay was "against" evolution, the genetic makeup would change and that hormone would no longer be effective in turning people gay.


A homosexuality gene would not be evolutionarily sound because it would greatly reduce the rate of reproduction… then again with homosexuals force to be “in the closet” they could still reproduce well. I would admit to the possibility of a gene or genes that would increase the risk.

I posted a theory above that shows how homosexuality can possibly help in the passing of genes. It's not through increasing rate of production but increasing rate of survival.

In order for the hormone to turn someone gay to work, you have to have a genetic makeup that basically says "when this hormone is at this level, change the brain in this way", right?. If being gay was "against" evolution, the genetic makeup would change and that hormone would no longer be effective in turning people gay.

Aaaah I don't get what your saying here!

Hormones are needed for genes to enforce their instructions, so when a feti gets testosterone exposure during a specific time in fetal development the feti is masculinized... no mater what sex it was genetically! If the hormone could not turn people gay it would also not turn people any sex and we all would be render sterile!

WellcookedFetus: How do the hormones alleged to cause homosexuality get into the bloodstream?

Good question. In the lab rat and monkey experiments the hormones were injected into the mother... so I would guess it naturally would come from the mother somehow.

WellCookedFetus: If the hormones come from the mother, this merely pushes the nature versus nurture argument to another area.

The percentage of homosexuals in the US seems too high for the cause to be prenatal environment, which relates to maternal body chemistry. Body chemistry tends to be genetic in origin.

Xenu: You are correct, our genetic heritage is pretty much the same as it was in prehistoric times.No this wouldn't be evidence against the theory I posted above, because you are assuming that evolution works as fast as modern societies change. On an evolutionary scale, the industrial revolution was just yesterday.Your interpretation of the lack of genetic change since prehistory is faulty. If genes for homosexuality existed in prehistoric times, they should exist in almost all modern cultures. Yet, homosexuality seems to be a behavior found mostly in the US and other affluent technological cultures, not in the third world cultures nor in the really primitive cultures like Australian aborigines.

Application of the Wilson theory to gay behavior seems very suspect to me. If homosexuality occurs more often in certain cultures, that seems to be evidence for an environmental cause rather than a biological cause. Note that kin altruism seems to occur in almost all human cultures, suggesting that Wilson theory might very well be applicable to such behavior.

All posters: Anecdotal evidence is very suspect. I often hear stories about some gay who acted gay from early childhood. Such stories are poor evidence for a biological origin of gay behavior, yet are often told to support the notion of a biological cause.

The percentage of homosexuals in the US seems too high for the cause to be prenatal environment, which relates to maternal body chemistry. Body chemistry tends to be genetic in origin.

On no it does not! what the mother does and eats greatly effects the feti!

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Aaaah I don't get what your saying here!

Hormones are needed for genes to enforce their instructions, so when a feti gets testosterone exposure during a specific time in fetal development the feti is masculinized... no mater what sex it was genetically! If the hormone could not turn people gay it would also not turn people any sex and we all would be render sterile!

We're in agreement of the hormone thing it seems. Yes there is evidence that homosexuality correlates with certain hormones within the mom.

What I'm trying to say however is if homosexuality was a "bad trait" to have in terms of natural selection then it would have been weeded out, even if it was hormonal. Why? Because although hormones may cause the change, it is the genes that allow for such change to happen, because they are the genetic map. Sorry if I was unclear.


Dinosaur,
Your interpretation of the lack of genetic change since prehistory is faulty. If genes for homosexuality existed in prehistoric times, they should exist in almost all modern cultures. Yet, homosexuality seems to be a behavior found mostly in the US and other affluent technological cultures, not in the third world cultures nor in the really primitive cultures like Australian aborigines.

I haven't heard of any evidence that homosexuality exists primarily in "affluent technological cultures". Do you have any Dinosaur?

If this is the case, then I'd ask, is it because homosexuality isn't present or is it that it's socially shunned? For example I did a quick search on the australian aborigines that you mentioned. Although, no major scientific research is being taken place here, I came up with a number or sources that talked about how homosexuality wasn't "culturally acceptable". Here's an example of what I found...

http://members.tripod.com/reconciliation/chhomophobia.htm
http://members.tripod.com/reconciliation/chreligion.htm
(although on the "respected" tripod site, the paper has a number of sources)
http://www.stdservices.on.net/std/social_aspects/aborigines.htm

From reading tidbits here and there, there seems to be a problem with aborigines admitting they have HIV in fear of being branded as gay. Perhaps some of our Australian members could tell what they've heard too.

So perhaps homosexuality is found across the globe, but just not expressed, or made public, in certain societies.

A hormone anomaly cannot be "weeded out" because it is out side interference. The gene may say "should like men" but then from out side a hormone or hormone mimicking chemical comes in and acts out the opposite instruction "should like women" no matter what the gene said there is nothing that can be done.

let me intrude with another question:

is heterosexuality psychological or biological?

spuriousmonkey,

both

WellCookedFetus,
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
A hormone anomaly cannot be "weeded out" because it is out side interference. The gene may say "should like men" but then from out side a hormone or hormone mimicking chemical comes in and acts out the opposite instruction "should like women" no matter what the gene said there is nothing that can be done.

But it is the genes that determine what the hormones do. I'll try to explain this simply. There are variations in the genes that are the map of sexual preference. Some variations need a lower level of the hormone to switch sexual preference. Some variations would need higher. If homosexuality was a evolutionary "bad trait", then the genes with the lower tolerance would be weeded out. So yes hormones control what's going on, but the genes determine tolerance levels to hormones.

You could muck things up with outside chemicals that would push pass even the high tolerance level. I agree with you on this. But keep in mind homosexuality has been around for centuries, at least Greek times, way before we started polluting the planet .

I read about the scientific research conducted on identical male twins where one was homosexual. Interesting results about the size of the hypothalamus differentiation in them would say homosexuality is of genetic origin. There were studies done some time ago in mice. Overcrowding in cages brought out homosexual tendencies in the mice, and this would allude to environmental causes. My theory is that the human race is STILL in the process of evolution, and we do become adapted to our environment. Biologically, genes do play an important role in sexual identity, but so does the environment. The human race is advancing rapidly. We can clone now, so why bother reproducing with the opposite sex (other than it's fun)? Isn't this another side of survival of the fittest? Spiritually, male and female have been separated during evolution to become the hunters and the gatherers. The evolutionary male has always hunted, killed, and cooked his meat? (What man today doesn't want a B-B-Q pit? What man at the dining room table on Thanksgiving doesn't carve the turkey?) Times change, people evolve. On a spiritual level, the male persona and the female persona are blending again. We are still in the last days of creation. Evolution will continue until there is a perfect blending of the human race. Then there will be an androgynous human being of only one color, one race that covers the Earth. Then we will be created in God's image.

Said by Xenu But it is the genes that determine what the hormones do. I'll try to explain this simply. There are variations in the genes that are the map of sexual preference. Some variations need a lower level of the hormone to switch sexual preference. Some variations would need higher. If homosexuality was a evolutionary "bad trait", then the genes with the lower tolerance would be weeded out. So yes hormones control what's going on, but the genes determine tolerance levels to hormones.

You could muck things up with outside chemicals that would push pass even the high tolerance level. I agree with you on this. But keep in mind homosexuality has been around for centuries, at least Greek times, way before we started polluting the planet .

I'll try not to take that as a insult! *wonders if you know that I am a 3 year undergrad of dual majoring Biotech/chem*
I am quite aware that genes do not work in on/off but by varying levels, operons are not the only way to control genes and proteins manufacturing and folding are also control gene expression in a more analog manner. Even so only 2-3% of the population is gay as such evolution has done a good job, and any further increasing in the accuracy of sexual preference setting would have very little pressure on it.

also smonkey its insulted very easily :D and considering s/he is in grad. School you might want to run for your life.

Medicine*Woman,

Studies with identical twins showed that if one twin was gay there was a 52% chance the other was too. This is far above fraternal twins, siblings, and population. This is not near 100% so it is not genetic. the best answer is genetic predisposing and exposure in utero.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Xenu: I have no evidence about the prevalence of homosexuality in any culture. I have heard estimates of between 3-10 percent for the USA. I suspect that the extremes of this range are due to bias. My intuition suggests that 3% is too low and 10% is too high.

I do not remember reading about homosexuality among the American Indians, the Samoans (remember Margaret Meade?), the Hawaiians, Medieval cultures, Modern Hindus, Arabs, orientals, et cetera. et cetera. ancient Egyptians, et cetera. I assumed that the affluent Western European cultures would be similar to the USA, but have not actually seen any data on them. From various history courses and from reading about other cultures, the Greeks, Sodom, and Gomorrah are the only ancient cultures that I have seen mentioned as having homosexual activity. Those cultures were affluent for their era.

Others: Does anybody here have any good statistics for any cultures? In the absence of real data, I can only guess from what I have read.

The hormonal argument seems to me to confuse the issue here. Aside from people who take some type of drugs or live in some strange environment, biochemistry is highly dependent on genetics. A lot of what we eat is broken down into simpler chemicals from which our unique proteins and other organic chemicals are synthesized. Vitamins, NaCl, and a few other compounds are exceptions, but the more complex organic chemicals are almost entirely determined by our genes.

There is controversy over the interpretation and significance of twin studies. The number of twins raised separately from early infancy is very small. The number actually found and studied is even smaller. I do not think that much, if any significance can be assigned to these studies.

As far as I can tell, we are left with very little hard evidence. There are many anecdotes individuals who showed evidence of being gay at a very young age. Anecdotal evidence is not valid. It is based on potentially erroneous and/or biased memories. I dismiss it when used to prove some point about casino gambling, sexual prowess, and most any other subject.

This leaves us with arguments based on what seems reasonable. From my point of view, it seems contrary to species survival. On that basis, it should be relatively rare. 3-10% of the population of the USA seems too high for it to be a natural phenomena. Genetically derived homosexuality should have statistics more like hemophilia, unless you want to claim that our modern gene pool is significantly different from that of 10,000 to 100,000 years ago.

The more important issue is whether there is any basis for gay bashing and other anti-social attitudes toward gay people. I see more reason to be worried about people from whom I can contract typhoid fever, TB, or some other disease. When I can get AIDS from a gay breathing on me, I will become homophobic.

It rare enough that it does not effect breeding in fact many homosexual still have children, actually a better disorder to compare to is hermaphrotisum, one out of 2000 babies born here in the states is sexually ambiguous or has both male and female genital features.

also Romens were gay :D

WellCcookdFetus: You are right. Compare it to hermaphroditism instead of hemophilia. You posted that 1 out of 2000 are hermaphrodites. That is .05% (.0005), which is way less than the 3-10% figures claimed for homosexuality.

I agree with you: Perhaps .05% of the USA population might be gay due to genetics. How do you account for the rest?

I didn't say genetic only now did I?

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Spiritually, male and female have been separated during evolution to become the hunters and the gatherers. The evolutionary male has always hunted, killed, and cooked his meat?
Times change, people evolve. On a spiritual level, the male persona and the female persona are blending again. We are still in the last days of creation. Evolution will continue until there is a perfect blending of the human race. Then there will be an androgynous human being of only one color, one race that covers the Earth. Then we will be created in God's image.

Just because the genders are not partaking in their 'natural' roles of hunting and gathering, doen't mean that the sexes are blending together. How many people do you know that are neither male nor female?

And evolution doesn't just finish when the species reaches a perfect state; the environment is continually changing and so evolution continues to cope with these changes. It's not black and white, the relatioship is very dynamic.

And as for there being 'androgynous human being of only one color, one race that covers the Earth... created in God's image'
.... well that's just being ignorant. And it's thoughts like that that got Hitler in trouble.

And as for homosexuality, the true topic of conversation; I think that the environment definantly plays a part. When a male homosexual couple raises a child (male), the child has a much greater chance of also being homosexual. So obviously the surroundings and influences of the people around him are playing a part. So maybe some people are born with it but others just develop it through life. Just like when males have been in love with a female before but then then 'realise' a while after that they are gay. It does happen. I guess is something we need to research further in order to fully undersatnd it.

Originally posted by Mrhero54
For a long time i thought homosexuality was the result of a skewed childhood or personal choice. But i've read studies that showed alot of homosexual males had a region in the brain that was 10% smaller than a heterosexual male. This region was credited for sex drive and the homosexual male's region was equivalent to that of a women. The study was ongoing and actually conducted by a homosexual doctor. This makes me wonder if homosexuality is a "choice" or perhaps a brain abnormality? :confused:


Why is the question never put to heterosexuality? Why don't we ever hear some bold conservative asking what the *causes* for heterosexuality are? for right-handedness? for reading?

Give yourself a full 10 minutes and browse through the animal kingdom. There are some 400 or so species in which rampant homosexuality has been documented. The world is CHOCK FULL of gaylords- gorillas, mackaques, lizards, gazelles, rams, fish all sorts of birds and reptiles. There's androgyny, transvestitism, incest, transexuality, and pedophelia.

Homosexuality pales when compared to the wild orgies going on in this planet so OF COURSE its natural. It's everywhere, friend.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xenu
[B]We're in agreement of the hormone thing it seems. Yes there is evidence that homosexuality correlates with certain hormones within the mom.

As an experienced midwife and healer, here's what I think. The OCs (oral contraceptives) were put on the market back in 1960. As we know, many, many women have become pregnant while taking the pill. Since there is no menses with the pill, it is quite difficult to know you're pregnant. The side-effects of the pill also give a woman symptoms of pregnancy, nausea, weight gain, etc. So it's hard to tell at the early stages if a pregnancy occurred while taking OCs. Therefore, the embryo has been exposed to massive amounts of estrogen and progesterone. It is in the embryonic stage at about 12 weeks gestation that the hormone levels trigger the sexual development of the fetus. With the addition of the extra estrogen/progesterone that the embryo is exposed to, I believe this can alter its gender.

Secondly, I've read that just about every 30 years, a natural mutation occurs in the human race. So roughly every 30 years (and that may be too long), a new genetic syndrome is discovered.

Thirdly, with the advent of prenatal ultrasound in about 1970, we are seeing rare genetic defects occurring. It has been found even in identical twins where one is normal and the other has defects. Prenatal ultrasound is the most unhealthy and needless thing you could do to a fetus. The sound waves cause the brain to boil, literally. Why would anyone want to do this to their unborn child? Therefore, ultrasound could play some role in gender specific development. I need to study more about this, though.

Sorry I've gotten off track here, but the hormone issue is a serious one, and I wanted to put my two-cents in.

I disagree with the pill because( as you seem very well aware of) sexuality is determined 12 week after conception: by this time the women has long since known she pregnant and has been off the pill.

Also studies of ultra sound show that is has no adverse effects on the baby, it would only sound like a loud high pitch tone, also ultra sound does not “boil” adult organs why would it do that to baby organs?

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
The sound waves cause the brain to boil, literally. Why would anyone want to do this to their unborn child?

I have two highly intelligent young daughters, 3 and 1. Both had two ultra sounds before they were born. How can you explain their intelligence (for instance, random people are kind of shocked at how smart the oldest is because she speaks very very well for someone just shy of 3 years old) if their brains have been boiled? I would guess the risk of a baby's "brain boiling" during an ultrasound is very very low, if not just a figment of your imagination.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I disagree with the pill because( as you seem very well aware of) sexuality is determined 12 week after conception: by this time the women has long since known she pregnant and has been off the pill.

Also studies of ultra sound show that is has no adverse effects on the baby, it would only sound like a loud high pitch tone, also ultra sound does not “boil” adult organs why would it do that to baby organs?

You are right, sexuality is determined about 12 weeks following conception. Believe it or not, some women DON'T know they are pregnant and CONTINUE to take the pill for too long a period after conception. Ideally, a woman would be completely off the pill for at least 6 months to 1 year before planning to conceive. As we all know, sometimes it doesn't happen this well-planned way. The surge of hormones does affect the fetus.

Studies on ultrasound have shown it can cause hearing loss in the fetus. MRI of the brain shows blister-like lesions from ultrasound. Ultrasound is a convenience for the physician. It is not in any way practical, with the exception of a history of high-risk or deformed children, especially considering all the new syndromes that have been discovered in the past 30 years. Unfortunately, prenatal ultrasound is abused by doctors and their patients. Routinely, no more than 2 scans per pregnancy is the standard. Even that is too much. What's more important, a photo scan of the fetus or a healthy one? As a midwife, I look at this as an unnecessary and possibly harmful procedure. Nature's way is best.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I have two highly intelligent young daughters, 3 and 1. Both had two ultra sounds before they were born. How can you explain their intelligence (for instance, random people are kind of shocked at how smart the oldest is because she speaks very very well for someone just shy of 3 years old) if their brains have been boiled? I would guess the risk of a baby's "brain boiling" during an ultrasound is very very low, if not just a figment of your imagination.

I'm happy that you have two healthy children. I am glad that ultrasound didn't cause any harm. I guess I should have stated that it has been known to happen. For example, if the fetal head is closest to the scan device, or the technician zaps it with too much sound, etc. MRI studies have shown where ultrasound causes blisters on the fetal brain. Most doctors are reluctant to scan any more than two times. Many OB/GYNs are leaving the specialty because of high malpractice insurance and lawsuits that have been brought about from brain-damaged babies. I'm not saying that every prenatal ultrasound causes brain-damage. I'm just saying that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Well you really know how to change the topic ....kinda killed the converstaion.

Originally posted by koolmodee
Well you really know how to change the topic ....kinda killed the converstaion.

Please don't assume the topic was killed. The point I was trying to make was that the biology may create the psychology (tendencies, preferences, attractions, etc.). I'm not claiming to be an expert in this as I am a mature heterosexual woman. I've had many gay associates of alternative genders in my life both in and outside my immediate family. I have learned a lot from them. Although I don't understand the their specific attractions, I firmly believe it has to be biologically onset. When they accepted themselves as they are, and I accepted them for who they are and not what their sexual preferences were, the psychological aspect became one at peace with themselves and their worlds. I love them no matter if their eyes are brown or blue, or their hair is purple or green. Who am I to reject someone different than me? They contain the spirit of God just like all humans beings do. It's unfortunate that most religious organizations of Xianity still figuratively 'burns them at the stake,' when they are really more advanced spiritually than the rest of us. In a nutshell, it's biological.

He was talking about your be-littling of Ultra-sound, please provide some proof and evidence that damage has been done. Also consider how often ultra-sound saves lives.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
He was talking about your be-littling of Ultra-sound, please provide some proof and evidence that damage has been done. Also consider how often ultra-sound saves lives.

Sorry I got the topics mixed up. The literature on prenatal ultrasound can be found on the Internet. I have gleaned it from there, but I don't have copies, etc. As a person who has utilized prenatal ultrasound clinically, it is a useful tool for the healthcare providers. Ultrasound scans of other areas is a very important diagnostic tool. My only problem with ultrasound is that it can damage the fetal brain. Since the advent of ultrasound in about 1970 and its common use prenatally at about 1980, is it any wonder why so many children today have ADD and ADHD, speech and hearing problems leading to 'learning disabilities,' and Ritalin and Adderal are prescribed like candy? Defects may not be so obvious even to the trained eye. The problems may come later and affect the child for the rest of his/her life. I attended a conference recently on children with birth defects, and one session was presented on prenatal ultrasound. They showed slides of MRIs of infants and young children where the brain showed lesions that looked like blisters. Later on, these same children ended up with ADD or ADHD, speech defects, learning disabilities, or a wide-range of mental retardation AND other physical defects. If you're looking for cancer, that's one thing; but, if you're a normal, healthy pregnant woman who is just curious to see what the sex is of your baby, or get a print-out of an ultrasound picture, I'd recommend waiting to hear his first cry rather than expose him in utero to an environmental biohazard.

Medicine*Woman

anything can be found on the internet, give me links please.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
anything can be found on the internet, give me links please.

I'm at work right now, so you won't hear from me with the links for a while. There are medical articles that can be found in PubMed or MEDLINE on the subject, but these are written by physicians who base their research on what is convenient for them. I'll find some resources later and let you know.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I attended a conference recently on children with birth defects, and one session was presented on prenatal ultrasound. They showed slides of MRIs of infants and young children where the brain showed lesions that looked like blisters. Later on, these same children ended up with ADD or ADHD, speech defects, learning disabilities, or a wide-range of mental retardation AND other physical defects. If you're looking for cancer, that's one thing; but, if you're a normal, healthy pregnant woman who is just curious to see what the sex is of your baby, or get a print-out of an ultrasound picture, I'd recommend waiting to hear his first cry rather than expose him in utero to an environmental biohazard.

Medicine*Woman

Sure you may be right in that occassionally an ultrasound may cause harm. And sure there is alot of kids with ADD and stuff but there's also many many more people around who have no effect from recieving an ultasound while in the womb. And there's many theories out right now about the causes of ADD; diet, environment.... and there's no reason for me to believe your theory more than anyone else's. Well not until you provide solid evidence anyway.

And this still has nothing to do with the cause of homosexuality. Unless you're saying that homosexuality is the result of the brain being fried during an ultrasound....
....and if you are; then that's a prety big assumption.

iggit,

Don't trust books published online, nothing there was referenced from psychological reports and studies, and personally his explanations seem very vague a dubious to me. Even so my hate for conservative media programs has increased :D

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
iggit,

Don't trust books published online, nothing there was referenced from psychological reports and studies, and personally his explanations seem very vague a dubious to me. Even so my hate for conservative media programs has increased :D

1: I don't either.

2: It helps to comprehend when reading and it a