Are homosexuals a race of the human species?

[jayleew]

Are there distinct physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals? If so, is the issue no longer a morality issue?

There have been studies that indicate that there is a difference in many physical areas:
The Inner Ear
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303064433.htm
Genetics
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9510/homos...ene/index.html
Left Handedness
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0710071931.htm

What about the fact that 95% or more males that you meet that are homosexual have higher pitched nasal voices and a feminine demeanor?

What about the social pressures between homosexuals? Are their family units similar in structure and ideas?

Are homosexuals born that way, or bred that way? We don't have any evidence for homosexuality or heterosexuality in nature, so what conclusions can we come to?
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46957

[john smith]

What about the fact that 95% or more males that you meet that are homosexual have higher pitched nasal voices and a feminine demeanor?

This is of course to get noticed, many are not happy with themselves and feel the need to be extrovert and act weirdly.

[c7ityi_]

When humans are born, they have no sexuality. Since males learn to live as males and females as females, they feel that they lack the other side and think of it as their complementary half.

Sexuality comes from the mind. It's like magnetism, and the poles can be changed. Usually people don't change them with free will, but it changes because of the environment, experiences, relations etc.

The body can only be one-sided, but the mind is neither. But because we identify ourselves with our body, the mind follows and reflects it.

The difference between males and females is that the males are hard and the females are soft. In the mind, we can be both soft and hard.

We don't have any evidence for homosexuality or heterosexuality in nature, so what conclusions can we come to?

Except for humans, there is also homosexuality in animals.

[guthrie]

No sexuality, c7ityi_ ???
Do you mean in a philosophical, physical, religious, scientific or what sense?
After all, you cant deny that the basic equipment is there, nor that due to the differeing chromosomes, each body will be shaped by different amounts of different hormones.

Anyway, the simple fact is that we have plenty of evidence for homosexual and heterosexual behaviour in nature. Many seabirds pair for life with members of the opposite sex. Or some monkeys engage in sexual behaviour wth members of the same sex. Go read some natural history books.

[Scott Myers]

jayleew:

"Are there distinct physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals? If so, is the issue no longer a morality issue?"

Morality and ethics, in most circles, is not based on observing nature. For instance, turf wars among insects or baboon tribes; is war moral because it can be observed in nature? What of cannibalism? Also, if using examples in nature is a moral compass, are we not also nature, so that anything man devises is neither moral nor immoral? There could be no distinction.

So either there are ethics, or there are not. They may be human creations serving human interests (naturally) or they are transcended; but in either case they are specifically human, or there is no such animal to discuss. We do not usually partake in judging the character of animals in nature, we automatically grant that it is survival that compels them, or it is their nature, or whatever it is… we never see them as unkind truly; the way we are able to see weakness in each other. We make no attempt to change the ‘immoral’ behavior of wild creatures. Because... if natural desire is the ethic then there is no discussion. Whatever I am compelled to do I would do and it would be naturally moral.

What takes place in nature, or what is my nature; does not play a role in ethics; they are two separate subjects entirely and cannot be bridged.

Are homosexuals born that way, or bred that way?

I know you mean ‘Nature or Nurture?’, but I can say for certain they were not “bred” in any sense of the term; and answer the topic question “are they a race?” with the obvious no. If they are a race they are doomed for extinction in this generation.

Actually I don’t believe in ‘races’. For instance; when applying for a job I refuse to answer the race question when it arises. Different genetic features are simply that and are unworthy of category. They are merely physical traits.

As it concerns this subject; physically (as in genitals) one is male, female or both; in rare circumstance. I suppose some would be neither, but to be more specific everyone has the ‘Y’ chromosome, or not. That is the nature of things. The behavior of things is an entirely different question; if there are in fact ethics at all.

[Hapsburg]

What about the fact that 95% or more males that you meet that are homosexual have higher pitched nasal voices and a feminine demeanor?

Chemical anomaly, and imbalance of estrogen to testosterone. by "imbalance", I mean 'a helluva lot more estrogen than testosterone'.

[Quantum Quack]

When humans are born, they have no sexuality. Since males learn to live as males and females as females, they feel that they lack the other side and think of it as their complementary half.

Sexuality comes from the mind. It's like magnetism, and the poles can be changed. Usually people don't change them with free will, but it changes because of the environment, experiences, relations etc.

The body can only be one-sided, but the mind is neither. But because we identify ourselves with our body, the mind follows and reflects it.

The difference between males and females is that the males are hard and the females are soft. In the mind, we can be both soft and hard.



Except for humans, there is also homosexuality in animals.

well said IMO
It is worth considering that like any minority group in society there is pressure to assert your identity.

Do you think that a male child growing up wishes to be the outcast that homosexuality tends to create?
I find the whole issue one that brings great sadness and yet inspiration as to the adaptablility of humans to adversity.

Sadness because i can well imagine the difficulty of finding self esteem and self identity when in the main it is rejected by society and also much cause for ridicule and denigration. Homophobia no doubt being held in mind by homosexuals at most times in their lives.

Are they a different race? Is an absurd question designed to sensationalise homophobic reactions and is also indicative of a sadenning trait of human nature.

Homosexuality is simply an often persecuted minority group that behaves as it does as a reaction to being pressured the way they are.

Society has much to be guilty of for the behaviour it inspires in Gay persons.

[Mystech]

This is of course to get noticed, many are not happy with themselves and feel the need to be extrovert and act weirdly.

I'd have to say this is true - there's a sort of weird sub-culture in place there which this is a part of.

As for the "95%" number I'd have to say that jayleew is completely pulling this out of his ass and quite likely NOT meeting gay people or only counting those people who he sees with these particular traits as gay and not bothering to looking any other way.


As a gay person who spends time meeting other gays and quite a lot of time around gays I can honestly say that the percentage of lisping limp wristed faggots is quite low, they're often looked down upon, but for some reason these are the only type they'll put on the TV, and as such there's this perception that this is just how gay people act - not true. You probably meet and work with a lot more gay people than you really know, but have simply never become alerted to their sexuality.

Also I call into question the very premise of this thread – even were there some simple physical characteristic which differed in homosexuals from heterosexuals how would morality not come into play at all in discussion of homosexuality, the treatment of homosexuals, or just the nature of homosexual relationships? I think you’re stretching pretty hard here.

[Mystech]

Chemical anomaly, and imbalance of estrogen to testosterone. by "imbalance", I mean 'a helluva lot more estrogen than testosterone'.

Flat out lie, please check your facts.

[jayleew]

I'd have to say this is true - there's a sort of weird sub-culture in place there which this is a part of.

As for the "95%" number I'd have to say that jayleew is completely pulling this out of his ass and quite likely NOT meeting gay people or only counting those people who he sees with these particular traits as gay and not bothering to looking any other way.


As a gay person who spends time meeting other gays and quite a lot of time around gays I can honestly say that the percentage of lisping limp wristed faggots is quite low, they're often looked down upon, but for some reason these are the only type they'll put on the TV, and as such there's this perception that this is just how gay people act - not true. You probably meet and work with a lot more gay people than you really know, but have simply never become alerted to their sexuality.

Also I call into question the very premise of this thread – even were there some simple physical characteristic which differed in homosexuals from heterosexuals how would morality not come into play at all in discussion of homosexuality, the treatment of homosexuals, or just the nature of homosexual relationships? I think you’re stretching pretty hard here.

Yes or no would do fine, I just want to know what people think because I've encountered some studies on physical differences. To me, if homosexuals are in fact another "race" as black and white, then we are doing an injustice as a society by not giving equal rights. I am merely exploring the option, so turn off your jets and fume at some anti-gay people elsewhere.

The 95% is an estimate by my figuring. I have encountered 4 proclaimed (yes, I have asked them) homosexuals in the past month. They all have the characteristic. I have encountered countless celebrities who claim they are and have the characteristic. Sure, there are a few that I can recall who did not have the characteristic, but I would estimate that 95% do. At least 95% of those who publicly claim to be. The quiet ones, who knows. It could be that my estimation is warped because there aren't enough with backbone to publicly state they are homosexual.

So, why did TV build this perception anyhow. Surely not because it's true.

Also, I have a nephew who I suspect is a homosexual because he has the characteristics. I do not assume, but the clues are there. Upon cleaning my harddrive I also came across some males showing their maleness. The sites were accessed the same time everyday, the same time that my nephew is usually on it. So, it comes down to the fact that I can profile the characteristic to ascertain sexuality? Everytime I perceive a possible homosexual and find out later that my suspicions were true, I am almost shocked to find the accuracy and consistency of the traits.

[Mystech]

Yes or no would do fine,

Well you could have made a poll for that, but you chose to make a thread instead. Forgive me for actually thinking the matter through and posting commentary.

To me, if homosexuals are in fact another "race" as black and white, then we are doing an injustice as a society by not giving equal rights.

It has occurred to you that blacks are not born to whites nor are Asians born to Mexicans, or Indians born to south sea islanders, yes? On what grounds would some sort of physical difference make homosexuals a separate race? There's simply nothing there that could even begin to justify that sort of thinking. The idea that if there is a distinct physical difference, THEN homosexuals are a separate race simply does not hold, it's a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc (It's a logical fallacy, look it up).

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely on the "give homosexuals equal rights" side of things, but I really don't think that cause is furthered by bogus pseudoscience and logic that is fuzzy at best.

I am merely exploring the option, so turn off your jets and fume at some anti-gay people elsewhere.

Oh I will, but fuming over idiotic nitwits who try to throw out useless chaff into the discussion of a topic which is both quite interesting and important to me also has it's rewards.

The 95% is an estimate by my figuring. I have encountered 4 proclaimed (yes, I have asked them) homosexuals in the past month. They all have the characteristic.

Interesting, and let me guess, you asked them in the first place because they made it rather obvious? How many average Joe-types who were not obviously gay did you find to in fact be gay in those 4 days? How many did you even suspect? Did you even think about this? You're falling victim to circular logic and extreme observer error here.

You're using the criteria which you stigmatize others with as your cue to investigate if this person genuinely is gay as you suspect - this may work well for showing you only those homosexuals who make themselves obvious in that way, but is completely without use for getting a genuine idea of how diverse the homosexual segment of our population really is.

At least 95% of those who publicly claim to be. The quiet ones, who knows. It could be that my estimation is warped because there aren't enough with backbone to publicly state they are homosexual.

So, why did TV build this perception anyhow. Surely not because it's true.

Riiight okay so most gay people you see on TV are real flamers, so clearly this means that it must be true? Like everything else you see on TV? Most Arabs you see on TV are playing terrorists, does this mean that TV has also correctly informed you that most Arabs are terrorists?

Your estimate of 95 percent is simply laughable, I'd be very surprised if anywhere near half of all homosexuals make it particularly obvious, through either a lisp or the general sort of limp wrested frolicking we see on TV. I won't be so silly and presumptuous as to give actual numbers, but I would say that most homosexuals, a vast majority, aside perhaps from the large urban centers of faggotry such as New York and San Francisco where there is perhaps more of a cultural (or sub-cultural) impedes to behave in that manner, are rather low key and probably wouldn't be setting off your gay-dar or whatever it is you're using to take interest and then see if someone is in fact a fag.

[jayleew]

What defines a group of humans as a "race"? Is it not their DNA makeup and their physical appearance? So, if there is evidence that homosexuals have physical differences it is logical that they are another "race" If you disagree, then you disagree with the scientific studies. The purpose of this thread, I had hoped, was to find out if anyone knows any other evidence available to disprove or prove the studies' findings true.

As I said before, if homosexuals are born as they are and have no control of their genes, then we are doing an injustice by not granting equal rights. If, instead, homosexuals are nutured by their enviornment, then we cannot morally grant equal rights unless it is approved and voted by the people of society. Doing so would open the door for other "socially immoral" behavior.

The purpose of this thread is to question if homosexuals are genetically the way they are, or socially engineered. The findings of this thread can greatly impact my and possibly many other's opinions of morality on the homosexual rights issue.

If it can be proven that homosexuals are a "race" I will be convinced of the morality and injustice of the United States upon homosexuals, and support Mystech and other homosexuals in their endevor of equal rights; this is concerning the right to be legally paired with a same-sexed partner which is not physically designed for procreation.

With this evidence of genetic differences, my opinion of the issue is forced into a reevalution of my position.

[c7ityi_]

What defines a group of humans as a "race"?

Nothing.

[jayleew]

What defines a group of humans as a "race"? Nothing.

What metaphysical idea are you conjuring here? Let's assume that by "race" we mean a set of physical characteristics that are common among a group of individuals. My question was rhetorical. My statement is that race is nothing more than a classification of a group of people with a common physical or cultural characteristics. From the perspective I am talking about, your response is cryptic at best.

[Mystech]

What defines a group of humans as a "race"? Is it not their DNA makeup and their physical appearance?

It's generally a variable combination of their common physical characteristics and geographic and cultural heritage, actually. There is little if any DNA evidence which supports any distinction between the races. It's largely a social convention rather than some concrete scientific thing.

So, if there is evidence that homosexuals have physical differences it is logical that they are another "race"

This simply doesn't follow. Homosexuals don't share a common ancestry, and are born to members of all races. Would you be the first to tell a black homosexual that he's not actually black, but in fact just gay? I really don't think you've thought this through very well.

If you disagree, then you disagree with the scientific studies.

Uum what scientific studies about what which came to what conclusions? I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here, please clarify.

If, instead, homosexuals are nutured by their enviornment, then we cannot morally grant equal rights unless it is approved and voted by the people of society. Doing so would open the door for other "socially immoral" behavior.

Oh right, so we'll have to vote on it, just like the majority had to vote to free the slaves, or give women the right to vote, correct? We don't vote on whether or not to adhere to equal protection under the law in the United States.

Also, I have my balls, jackass, which is less than I’ll be able to say for you if you keep behaving in such a condescending manner.

If it can be proven that homosexuals are a "race" I will be convinced of the morality and injustice of the United States upon homosexuals, and support Mystech and other homosexuals in their endevor of equal rights;

What does it matter? In any case it's an ascribed attribute, so why would the destinction even matter? It's a bit like arguing the morality of an individual dependant on whether his hair was always grey or if it just got to be that way with time.

this is concerning the right to be legally paired with a same-sexed partner which is not physically designed for procreation.

Honestly now, in what context could this possibly have relevance in the United States? There is no requirement that a couple be able to produce children in order to marry - barren couples and fertile couples who do not intend to have children, and even couples where one or both of the participants have had their tubes tied (so to speak) intentionally specifically so that they can not have children are all allowed to marry. This is not a justification that needs to be made to pave the way for legal same sex unions - only, perhaps, to justify same-sex unions in the minds of overly religious bigoted weirdoes.

[alain]

"What about the fact that 95% or more males that you meet that are homosexual have higher pitched nasal voices and a feminine demeanor?"

thats what we call a stereotype. It's not true

[Scott Myers]

As I said before, if homosexuals are born as they are and have no control of their genes, then we are doing an injustice by not granting equal rights. If, instead, homosexuals are nutured by their enviornment, then we cannot morally grant equal rights unless it is approved and voted by the people of society. Doing so would open the door for other "socially immoral" behavior.

If it can be proven that homosexuals are a "race" I will be convinced of the morality and injustice of the United States upon homosexuals, and support Mystech and other homosexuals in their endevor of equal rights; this is concerning the right to be legally paired with a same-sexed partner which is not physically designed for procreation.

You are speaking of greater things, implications of what ethics and/or morality are.

If the study is correct and claims something of a 'race' it is confused at best, by its choice of words. Your discussion is a horrible mixture of physical traits and behavior. That is exactly what caused slavery over and over again throughout history. This race does this and that, cause they can't help it, on and on and on!

I know your intent is good, but you need to think your question through a little more. If behavior should be excused, pardoned and or supported by society, it cannot be based on how individuals from a certain 'race' act. Do you understand what I'm saying? What adults do, regardless of the cause, is not a discussion for lawmakers and voters to make if it is based on physical traits alone. That would be the epitome of prejudice to make laws based on racial studies and classifications. Why do you think black leaders across America are upset about equating homosexuality with race? It is specifically because homosexuality is a behavior, or at best a lifestyle, (I said nothing of choice... yet!) it is certainly not a skin color; or definable sub-species, (using female hosts to pass on their genetic material to other generations, as that would be necessary for procreation).

To legitimize this study, is to cause a ‘slippery slope’ into more profound, unfair and unequal treatment of homosexuals, and legitimate ‘races’. If we determine 'Scientifically' that homosexuality is 'racial' than we can keep piling up social characteristics and behaviors that we tend to see in those who hold the 'Gay-Traits'. This is clearly not good for gay people or the rest of society.

Then you bring marriage into this confusing thing. If we are using race to discuss homosexuality, than what does your argument say about 'inter-racial' (I don't believe there is such a thing) marriage? It's a genetic discussion, right? Is there a right or wrong notion that society, or a voting majority, should hold on that issue? Unequivocally NO!

If the study is merely pointing out that there could be genetic differences that tend to cause homosexuality, than that is all it is saying. We do not have the facts of this scientific study, nor have you brought to us the claims it may have made. That would be crucial to discussing this. What you are doing is to ask us if we know of evidence to contest the findings. What findings? What did the study claim was its answer?




If homosexuality is genetically natural; then it is just as 'natural' for society to abuse and make laws discriminating against them. My abusive nature must be a genetic characteristic as well; it’s natural surely, so there should be no ‘abusive’ laws to restrict my assaults of nice old ladies… I can’t help it!

If it is strictly a case of nurture that causes homosexual behavior, the same could be said of society again... 'That I was raised to hate gay people' would be equally justifiable.

Neither is completely true, so to base societies rights or wrongs on one alone is very extreme at best.

Society has to judge right or wrong on it's own reasonable-ness and cannot do so based on skin color, genes, or who our parents were.

Ethics and morality are simply not natural, they are discussions of right and wrong based on what we say, or what we want, right to be as a society. Some use God, some use culture and all have a say as to what is right in wrong in a Democratic society. (by varying levels of representation, granted!)

As we look back on history many of us say that we were wrong then, but if genes are the only defining factor, than I will certainly blame my genes every time I steal your car or rape your wife, husband, partner or whomever you choose to marry.

It is so demeaning to say to a 'race' (even if that is true by your judgment of this study) that they have no such choice; than to be different than your stereotyping, and that they are all the same. That is immoral and unethical, if you believe prejudices and stereotyping is wrong.

[Quantum Quack]

What metaphysical idea are you conjuring here? Let's assume that by "race" we mean a set of physical characteristics that are common among a group of individuals. My question was rhetorical. My statement is that race is nothing more than a classification of a group of people with a common physical or cultural characteristics. From the perspective I am talking about, your response is cryptic at best.

Unfrotunately the word Race in this context is nto a good choice.

Are Downes Syndrome persons a different race?
By your definition they woudl be and this is where it all gets bogged down.
It's a bit like saying people with motor neurons disease are another race.
Do you see my point?

[jayleew]

Unfrotunately the word Race in this context is nto a good choice.

Are Downes Syndrome persons a different race?
By your definition they woudl be and this is where it all gets bogged down.
It's a bit like saying people with motor neurons disease are another race.
Do you see my point?

So, you are saying homosexuality is a syndrome not a race?

You all are missing the point of the thread which is to examine the scientific studies that have been put forth by researchers. That is the primary objective. Read the first post which has the links to the research, if you are interested. The second objective is, if homosexuality is a genetic phenomenon and not the result of conditioning, should homosexual individuals gain all the rights and priveledges as everyone else? People with Downes Syndrome have the right to marry and so should homosexuals if the researchers' findings are true.

If homosexuality is the result of conditioning it is no better than masturbation or beastiality. But, let's dicuss the scientific findings first. I'd like to know what you all think.

[Mystech]

If homosexuality is genetically natural; then it is just as 'natural' for society to abuse and make laws discriminating against them. My abusive nature must be a genetic characteristic as well; it’s natural surely, so there should be no ‘abusive’ laws to restrict my assaults of nice old ladies… I can’t help it!

Uum no, not even close. One is simply a natural attraction of one person to another - it doesn't effect you, the other is merely a justification for your own hateful and malicious behavior and desire to harm others. One is a normal function of a healthy life, the other is a jackass' poorly reasoned excuse to try and hurt people. If you don't see the distinction then I think it would be best to use your same infantile self-serving prattle to say that shooting you in the head and removing you from society is also justified.