The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Denur]

Not very useful evidence when you're talking about homosexuality being of exclusively genetic basis - unless you happen to be a researcher in the field of the genetic basis of homosexuality and all your evidence is of that. In which case, get it published and make a fortune.

Well observed, not scientific at all and can therefore completely dismissed (I do have a university degree and am well aware of what good scientific research is all about).

Fact is, there is no known genetic "cause" of homosexuality. That's not the same thing as there not being a genetic cause for homosexuality, just that all attempts to define one to date have failed. Science modifies its position when new information arises, rather than deciding a position and not changing it despite all attempts to confirm it failing.

Research among identical and non-identical twins suggest the opposite (as I posted before). While some of those researches are clearly based on wishful thinking, others seem to be trustworthy.

For it to not be a choice at all, it has to be wholly genetic in origin - and as my "educational" post pointed out, there is no evidence for that (the "gay gene", which applies only to men and apparently not to lesbians, was debunked in the mid-90s). The fact that it can be conditioned out too - however abhorrent you may find that - would point to it being a choice even if it's genetic in origin and not a conscious one. Note the earlier example of left-handedness which has both genetic and environmental (and societally environmental) components - and people were conditioned out of that too.

Why has it to be wholly genetic, for it not to be a choice? I believe those environmental components play a crucial role (as Swaab pointed out).

This would also mean that being heterosexual is a choice that the individual may not have any control over. Would you suggest this is also offensive? Amusingly I have encountered many who'd suggest that it is - and also some people of varying sexual orientation who believe it offensive that sexuality is akin to an inherited disease. Go figure.

To me it is a birth defect. No, defect is not the correct term. Nature made the choice that it was best for the species that the unborn child should prefer men over woman (or vice versa).

I suspect you're also mixing up being gay (sexually attracted to the same gender) and "acting gay" (a perjorative based on exaggerated mannerisms, such as those demonstrated earlier in the thread by Louis Spence). Being gay - or straight - is a choice over which you may not have control. Subconscious even, if you will. "Acting gay" - or straight - is a choice over which you do have control.

Read my previous posts please. I pointed out what you write here.

I feel a little silly going into a discussion with you, never having you seen giving in in any discussion or not going for the last word in the discussion.

 

[Blank_Redge]

I have absolutely no problem with homsexuality, unless it is jammed down my throat

Giggity.

 

[Famine]

Research among identical and non-identical twins suggest the opposite (as I posted before). While some of those researches are clearly based on wishful thinking, others seem to be trustworthy.

The research links you posted earlier were all flawed in one (or more) of the three typical ways these types of papers are flawed:

*Ignoring female homosexuality
*Ignoring bisexuality
*Ascertainment bias (deliberately choosing participants to fit the preconceived notion).

Why has it to be wholly genetic, for it not to be a choice? I believe those environmental components play a crucial role (as Swaab pointed out).

Do you have a choice to get sickle cell anaemia - no, it's genetic. Do you have a choice to get malaria - yes, it's environmental.

Prenatal environmental influence - which has been posited, as it has in left-handedness, but not proven - would qualify as non-choice. Anything after that is merely influence.

As I said, a choice but one which you may not be consciously aware of.

To me it is a birth defect. No, defect is not the correct term. Nature made the choice that it was best for the species that the unborn child should prefer men over woman (or vice versa).

And yet some gay people would find that an absolutely appalling thing to say.

With what we know so far, it seems that homosexuality has a genetic component but early cognitive development has a significant influence too, in both directions. You might be gay because it's in your genes to be and it hasn't been conditioned out of you, or because you have been conditioned into it. Either way, if you're genuinely happy about it, you shouldn't care and neither should anyone else.

 

[birksy82]

One would imagine it'd be hard for the "bullies" to know about things like artificial insemination, etc. FYI, a friend was a test tube baby, and he told people about it at school, meant nowt to anyone other than what it is.

As for it not being natures way, nor is contraception, etc, they still serve a purpose. A large part of our medical system is against natures way. Again, how far do you extend it with such logic? Is it right to pick and choose what circumstances are acceptable? Who can decide on such issues? I'm not saying it's wrong to have that opinion, but I think the argument of it not being natural is weak, because so much of our health/maternal system is very un-natural, but that's a good thing.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to be a surrogate, or choose to do IVF, whatever your circumstances, you should always have the choice.

Also, what Duke said.

That's a fair point. Natural wasn't the best word to use, originally I was saying that a gay couple can't have children in the same way as a straight couple can. They can achieve this in a similar way but it's not the same as only one of them can be the biological parent. It's a pointless thing to say tbh as there really is no issue with it, I'll hold my hands up I was talking nonsense .

I know this isn't what you are talking about, but my cousin and her wife are in the final stages of being accepted into the foster to adopt program. They will be parents and will experience that.

On to scientific advancements being natural. I have a small piece of teflon tubing in my heart attached to tissue from a donated human aorta from someone that dies 20+ years ago. Before that was in there it was a valve from a pig's heart. That is far from natural, I would guess, but it has kept me alive about 25 years longer than nature would have given me if left to her own fancy. And now I am waiting to replace the whole mechanism with a heart donated from someone who died within a few hours of my receiving it. Seeing as nature didn't find it fitting to give us the ability to just pass the Matrix of Life back and forth this is clearly not a natural process either.

I am willing to take a wild guess you wouldn't have any problem with these procedures.

And further touching on that, my wife and I were having trouble conceiving a child and it required surgery on her to make it work. Not natural. And while we didn't have to go that far I know the same process used by homosexuals to have a child are used by heterosexuals to have children in case of infertility. Do you have a problem with these scenarios for heterosexual couples?


.

Your wild guess is correct, there's no way I would be against the procedures you have described, I might even need them myself one day. I have seen the error of my ways in posting something which is frankly irrelevant in such a serious topic which can be confused with something else (see above).

 

[Denur]

The research links you posted earlier were all flawed in one (or more) of the three typical ways these types of papers are flawed:

*Ignoring female homosexuality
*Ignoring bisexuality
*Ascertainment bias (deliberately choosing participants to fit the preconceived notion).

I agree on the last one, but not the first two. Yes, those two types are missed, but not enough to dismiss the research on male gays by itself. In my opinion, that absence says a lot about the science community and what they are (not) interested in: Lesbians is 'not sexy', except in porn and bisexuals...maybe that is just hitting too close for some researchers (I know what you did in high school, blah blah).

As I said, a choice but one which you may not be consciously aware of.

That is food for thought! Are you talking about conditioning (reading your last paragraph, you are)?

And yet some gay people would find that an absolutely appalling thing to say.

I know. We used to have semi-political movement in The Netherlands (pink triangle) that was promoting that being gay is a completely conscience choice. Their slogan was "dirty is nice" and they were handing out folders at pre-schools.

With what we know so far, it seems that homosexuality has a genetic component but early cognitive development has a significant influence too, in both directions.

👍

 

[Famine]

Whoops. I just hit "Edit" instead of "Quote". Restored now

I agree on the last one, but not the first two. Yes, those two types are missed, but not enough to dismiss the research on male gays by itself. In my opinion, that absence says a lot about the science community and what they are (not) interested in: Lesbians is 'not sexy', except in porn and bisexuals...maybe that is just hitting too close for some researchers (I know what you did in high school, blah blah).

I know several scientists who'd give their left arm to study lesbians. Not me though. I'm left-handed...

 

[Sureboss]

Famine, is there any relevance to human homosexuality with the vast amount of evidence for homosexuality within various other species at a genetic level?

I know it's been recorded in hundreds of species, is this just "animal behaviour" or is it more genetic, or again, is it somewhere in between?

 

[Famine]

I'm not familiar with any genetic research into homosexuality in animals. But then one look at what Bonobos get up to would be enough for a molecular biologist to throw the towel in completely - they're all bisexual paedophiles. Good luck tracking the gene for that when there's a 100% population saturation of it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not familiar with any genetic research into homosexuality in animals.

This actually surprises me. Is the topic in general just too controversial to be tackled so they don't even bother with looking into animals too or just that there isn't enough interest in expanding the research beyond just humans?

But then one look at what Bonobos get up to would be enough for a molecular biologist to throw the towel in completely - they're all bisexual paedophiles.

I was going to get an image of a young bonobo and make a joke. Image searching Bonobos, even with safe search on moderate, is not a good idea. What has been seen cannot be unseen. And apparently they like themselves quite a bit too.

 

[Famine]

It might just be that I'm not familiar with it. I used to be a human geneticist

I'm aware of lots of behavioural research into animal sexuality, just not any genetic research.

 

[FoolKiller]

It might just be that I'm not familiar with it. I used to be a human geneticist

I'm aware of lots of behavioural research into animal sexuality, just not any genetic research.

You could become Famine Ventura: Pet Geneticist.

Behavioral psychologists love to play with animals. The only other scientists I see messing with them tend to work for drug and cosmetic companies. Or Yum! Foods. KFC probably took all the good animal geneticists to make their boneless chickens.

 

[Touring Mars]

Is the topic in general just too controversial to be tackled so they don't even bother with looking into animals too or just that there isn't enough interest in expanding the research beyond just humans?

I think there are many reasons why there is little in the way of genetic research into homosexuality in animals, but among them would likely be a) human genetic research is higher priority b) genetic links to homosexuality may be very tenuous and extremely difficult to find and c) funding for such research may be limited by moral or political views, esp. in certain countries. But, perhaps the main reason for their being little genetic research is that, while there may be a genetic component to homosexuality (or indeed, there may be different 'types' or causes of homosexuality to begin with), there are equally important factors, such as psychology, that are much more readily studied in humans than in animals, and so genetic research in animals may simply not be the most effective way of getting the answers we want.

Although I too am no expert on the scientific understanding of homosexuality, I guess I will always have a problem with the concept of homosexuality being a simple matter of choice. There is ample evidence to suggest that environment (including pre-birth), life experiences (e.g. during early childhood) , psychology, as well as genetic factors, all play a role in making that choice for you (i.e. sexuality is just one aspect of one's person that is a result of a number of complex factors). In many regards, it depends on how you define what a choice is. I certainly wouldn't call my heterosexuality 'chosen', and nor would many homosexual people call their sexuality a choice either...

 

[kikie]

Has this been posted?

A French court is set to award substantial damages to a 47-year-old father-of-two with Parkinson's disease who was ruled to have been turned into a gambler and thief, with compulsive homosexual urges, by the drugs he was being treated with.Didier Jambart, a French defence ministry employee, has been suing for damages of €400,000 after being prescribed with dopamine agonist drugs in a case that is being closely studied by lawyers representing Parkinson's sufferers in Britain, the US and Canada. Like Jambart, they claim that they were provided with minimal information about the disturbing side effects, estimated to affect up to 15 per cent of those taking the drugs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/france.health

 

[Small_Fryz]

I certainly wouldn't call my heterosexuality 'chosen', and nor would many homosexual people call their sexuality a choice either...

Great phrase 👍

I also believe its not as simple as a "choice" as if its like deciding whether to wear a red or a green shirt tomorrow.

 

[Famine]

Every time my mum picked up a writing implement, she did it with her right hand. I doubt, if you'd asked her, she'd have considered it a choice to do so - but she was a left-hander who had been conditioned out of left-handedness, quite savagely.

A lot of our choices depend on our conditioning - parents, peers, those in positions of power all condition us to think certain ways and act accordingly - but they are still our choices. Despite a strong genetic components for left-handedness you can defy the genes and make a lefty choose to write right-handed - which implies that handedness is a non-conscious choice with genetic underpinnings. I'd make the same case for sexuality (after all, people have been savagely conditioned out of homosexual tendencies up until really quite recently), even though there hasn't ever been satisfactory evidence for a gene or group of genes that "cause" your sexual desire.


In terms of defining choice vs. non-choice, I'd class anything physiological as non-choice and anything psychological as choice. Your genetics, your pre-natal development, any physiological insult (chemical, biological, radiological exposure) all class as physiological. Your life experiences, learning and conditioning all class as physiological.

At the risk of invoking OG Wretch, however you class homo/heterosexuality, you'd need to class paedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism and, in fact, every sexual tendency you care to think of (or don't care to think of) similarly. If we're going to argue that sexuality is not a choice and wholly genetic, we must argue that paedophiles are not criminals but sufferers of a genetic illness - and research should be done to genetically test for paedophilia and subsequent gene therapy to treat their disorder... Lest this be thought outlandish I recall there being similar arguments made for homosexuality too...


I have very little issue with the concept that what I fancy is due to my physiology and who I fancy is due to my psychology - that my brain was put together in the womb to lean one way and that subsequent structuring have either reinforced or hidden this natural leaning. For all I know, I might have a gay brain (well... I am left-handed ) but my education and conditioning has masked it - I'm married to someone of the other gender, but that doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think the key word here is "wholly". I seriously doubt that any sexual preferences or proclivities are wholly genetic. I also don't think that all sexual activities are necessarily equivalent, and that it is likely that while some may have both physiological and psychological roots, others (such as paedophilia) might not. It may be that one's genetic make-up has very little influence on one's sexual preferences (or simply not enough of an influence that it cannot be over-ridden by other, less quantifiable (or even identifiable) factors), but the possibility remains that some sexual preferences are purely psychological when others (such as homo/heterosexuality) are not.

On the matter of choice, I'm not sure I'd agree that "anything psychological (is) choice". I reckon that people can easily be conditioned by parents, peers etc. to an extent well beyond what I'd describe as a 'free choice' of that individual, such that certain people cannot fairly be held responsible for their own beliefs or actions. Religion is a good example of something that is very often not chosen, but thrust upon you (and in some countries, quite literally) and sometimes with horrible consequences.

 

[Famine]

I think the key word here is "wholly". I seriously doubt that any sexual preferences or proclivities are wholly genetic. I also don't think that all sexual activities are necessarily equivalent, and that it is likely that while some may have both physiological and psychological roots, others (such as paedophilia) might not. It may be that one's genetic make-up has very little influence on one's sexual preferences (or simply not enough of an influence that it cannot be over-ridden by other, less quantifiable (or even identifiable) factors), but the possibility remains that some sexual preferences are purely psychological when others (such as homo/heterosexuality) are not.

At it's basest level, sexuality is just the condition of to whom you're attracted. It all ought to be governed by the same set of neurological markers, whether it's the same gender or not, same species or not, same generation or not.

The key word is wholly - and I've been at pains to point out over the last few posts that there is no evidence for a wholly-genetic sexual preference characteristic despite assertions that homosexuality is genetic.

On the matter of choice, I'm not sure I'd agree that "anything psychological (is) choice". I reckon that people can easily be conditioned by parents, peers etc. to an extent well beyond what I'd describe as a 'free choice' of that individual, such that certain people cannot fairly be held responsible for their own beliefs or actions. Religion is a good example of something that is very often not chosen, but thrust upon you (and in some countries, quite literally) and sometimes with horrible consequences.

And the key word there is "free" - a word I never invoked. Almost all (I have to add the caveat "almost", though I can't think of exceptions) of our choices are based on all of our learning and education - and indoctrination - to that point in time. Religion is an excellent example because it does quite nicely mirror the societal impetus to be heterosexual and how it was thrust upon (and beaten into) individuals not so long ago. It can be massively difficult for an individual to choose a different, independant path - or they can choose the easier (societally, though probably not individually) path of conformity. But whether they're free to choose it or not, it is their choice.

My mother was genetically left-handed. Right-handedness was conditioned into her. Every subconscious choice she made after that was one of right-handedness. Was it a free choice? No. But it was choice.


You shouldn't get the message here that I think gay people wake up one morning and think "I know! Today, I'll put it up someone's bottom! That'll be fun.". You should get the message that, yes, there may be genetic underpinnings (which haven't been documented) and, yes, there may be physiological insults which alter it but if it's something that can be conditioned into or out of an individual through violence and societal pressure then whatever genetics there are at play can and do take a back seat (no pun intended) to choice - even if that choice is forced upon you without you realising it. But if your choice makes you happy (and doesn't harm anyone else, without their consent), do it.

Nurture is a powerful weapon and often underplayed - and misused.

 

[FastLad]

On the matter of choice, I'm not sure I'd agree that "anything psychological (is) choice". I reckon that people can easily be conditioned by parents, peers etc. to an extent well beyond what I'd describe as a 'free choice' of that individual, such that certain people cannot fairly be held responsible for their own beliefs or actions. Religion is a good example of something that is very often not chosen, but thrust upon you (and in some countries, quite literally) and sometimes with horrible consequences.

Well if you remove any external influence on developing humans, then religion will cease to exist. However, I would be very surprised if people did not have homosexual interactions. Religion is pure invention and in my opinion homosexuality is natural. It sure looks fun and if I ever try it, I will report back with my findings! I am only referring to the sexual aspects there. Can't see myself shack up with a man long term. I am definately of the heterosexual phenotype.

There is an excellent documentary called "Religulous" by Bill Mayer. He interviews an 'ex-gay' minister who is married to an 'ex-gay'. They have children together. I cannot begin to imagine how those kids will turn out. The minister has very camp attributes to his appearance and personality. In fact, the whole documentary is excellent, go watch it!

 

[Sureboss]

And now, for the best mans speech.

For all I know, I might have a gay brain (well... I am left-handed ) but my education and conditioning has masked it - I'm married to someone of the other gender, but that doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality IMO. If people choose to be that way or are genetically pre disposed so what? As long as it doesn't affect anyone other than those involved, surely it's not a problem. I just wish they wouldn't make such a big deal about it, straight people don't 'come out' to say their straight, why do homosexual people need to either?

 

[Blank_Redge]

...straight people don't 'come out' to say their straight, why do homosexual people need to either?

Because in some families / communities / cultures, that's a HUGE deal. In some instances, it's a deal-breaker (as far as social contracts are concerned.)

Sure, Jim could simply neglect informing his family that he fancies men, but when he brings his boyfriend, Steve, to the next family function, things might take a turn for the worse when he and Steve start doing "couply" things (terms of endearment, hand holding, kissing; that sort of thing.)

 

[FastLad]

Straight people come out as straight all the time. What do you think a bunch of men staring at and commenting on women passing by is?

 

[NFSCARBON1]

Because in some families / communities / cultures, that's a HUGE deal. In some instances, it's a deal-breaker (as far as social contracts are concerned.)

Sure, Jim could simply neglect informing his family that he fancies men, but when he brings his boyfriend, Steve, to the next family function, things might take a turn for the worse when he and Steve start doing "couply" things (terms of endearment, hand holding, kissing; that sort of thing.)

Sorry i should have been clearer. I didn't mean to their families and friends, you'd have to tell them, as you would if you were telling them you had a new girlfriend. Really this is more aimed at sportsmen and celebrities who give stories out to the press saying 'I'm gay, it's such a struggle' etc.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Sorry i should have been clearer. I didn't mean to their families and friends, you'd have to tell them, as you would if you were telling them you had a new girlfriend. Really this is more aimed at sportsmen and celebrities who give stories out to the press saying 'I'm gay, it's such a struggle' etc.

Ah! Right right.

I don't know; I never understood the need of some celebrities to make ALL their personal business public.

On the other hand, I think it can be beneficial to closeted people, having public role models to look up to. Sir Ian McKellen, David Geffen, Ellen DeGeneres, among others.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that people who get angry about anyones sexual preferences/likes/fetishes is spending too much time worrying about what other people do in their bedrooms.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

I think when people are talking about being gay as a choice they are clouding the issue by debating the nature of 'choice'.

Calling homosexuality a choice is more like saying I have long hair as a lifestyle choice than it is saying I just put some bacon under the grill because I'm hungry as a choice.

The hair choice is somewhat contrived and is more about how I want other people to see me. The bacon is just satisfying an urge with something I find palatable.

And that I would say is the crux of it, are gays as such because they want to be gay and all that comes with it as a lifestyle or are they gay because it's deep down what they are and what drives them.

In all honesty I could quite believe there are people who fall into both categories.

 

[Famine]

And that I would say is the crux of it, are gays as such because they want to be gay and all that comes with it as a lifestyle or are they gay because it's deep down what they are and what drives them.

It ought to be relatively clear that it's the latter. What with my repeatedly pointing out that it's the latter. The point is that there is, as yet, no biological reason for it* and with sufficient application of violence it's possible to change it with varying levels of success.


*Caveat: Genetically at least. There's some mileage to be had in terms of differing brain morphologies.

 

[Joel]

Of course the ad at the bottom of this thread is a gay dating site


But I think what Famine explained as far as it being like handedness seems to be the best explanation. Like being left handed, it could be beaten out of someone. Similarly, if you're caught "acting gay" it could also be beaten out of you (giggity).


Bottom line is it doesn't matter whether or not it's a choice. I don't give a flying 🤬 what people do in the bedroom.

 

[Blank_Redge]

I think when people are talking about being gay as a choice they are clouding the issue by debating the nature of 'choice'.

Calling homosexuality a choice is more like saying I have long hair as a lifestyle choice than it is saying I just put some bacon under the grill because I'm hungry as a choice.

The hair choice is somewhat contrived and is more about how I want other people to see me. The bacon is just satisfying an urge with something I find palatable.

And that I would say is the crux of it, are gays as such because they want to be gay and all that comes with it as a lifestyle or are they gay because it's deep down what they are and what drives them.

In all honesty I could quite believe there are people who fall into both categories.

Are you saying that there are people that identify as gay as a fashion choice? or perceived lifestyle choice?

While I wouldn't outright disagree, I'd state that the overwhelming majority of blokes who identify as gay do so because they fancy men, rather than fancying a (perceived) glamorous lifestyle of haute couture and afternoons spent as if they were in a glossy magazine photo shoot.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Are you saying that there are people that identify as gay as a fashion choice? or perceived lifestyle choice?

While I wouldn't outright disagree, I'd state that the overwhelming majority of blokes who identify as gay do so because they fancy men, rather than fancying a (perceived) glamorous lifestyle of haute couture and afternoons spent as if they were in a glossy magazine photo shoot.

Oh god no, I'm not qualified to state so boldly the hows and whys of it I'm just saying that while people are debating if it's a choice they should really clarify the kind of choice it is they hypothesise is being made. Weather it's one of a contrived nature more to do with wanting to be something, like how goth's and punks set them self apart with their fashion and music sense or if it's one more like a political ideal, like how some people fundamentally believe in the left or the right. Both are choices but of a very different nature.