Homosexual Gene?

[Buddha]

I never stated a position, I have nothing to defend nor run away from.

 

My opposition is not to you guys personally. I'm confronting a very powerful culture which is subverting our society and disempowering us.

 

I guess, when we come here to discuss 'gay gene' and 'homosexuality' we already come with certain positions -- stated or not. Even if the positions are so acceptable and 'normal' in our society that we take them for granted.

 

 

 

I don't necessarily dissagree with you, but rather with you methods of arguing.

Well, I wouldn't want to make enemies on this board. Opposition is good because it generates discussion. Hostility is not good. And I can see some of that here. This is probably because I'm challenging accepted positions which people on this board --- on both sides of the argument --- strongly relate to, and they derive social and political power out of these accepted positions, concepts and values.

 

But there may be (inadvertently) flaws in my method of arguing too. If you or anyone can point that out -- I can try to change that.

 

Western culture does make me angry, when I see it generating so much misery around me -- in my far off country. Heterosexual and homosexual haughtiness also makes me angry. I guess my anger shows in my posts making some of you angry. But for those of you who are sincerely seeking knowledge such an exchange of views may not be bad.

 

I guess, my 'insulting' comments are directed only to those who make remarks downgrading others. And there are plenty of them here. A lot of those 'heterosexual' remarks (e.g. "I find sex between lesbians sexy but between men bad") are nothing but hot air balloons deriving their power from accepted standard western positions. And it's too tempting not to burst those balloons when you know you have the knowledge to do that. Such statements assert a powerful position, without actually saying so. If you don't burst their balloon they will continue to oppress.

[Buddha]

It's fine to say 'this is a product of western culture', but that doesn't prove it wrong.

You haven't invalidated it yet.

Still waiting for the evidence.

Another statement with no evidence backing it, as far as I can see.

 

I have been posting long posts with a number of 'arguments' to support my case. A number of them are established facts now, and even have accredited papers and books published on them. Many of them are available on the net. I've not attached links or quotes everywhere, but that is because I wanted people to discuss them first, and I can do it if it is required.

 

Other arguments include things which are common knowledge. Still others include things that I have learnt during my work.

 

Unfortunately, people have chosen to ignore the 'facts' that I have provided. Choosing not to comment on them. I'm still waiting for people to show me that I am wrong --- not by bashing me nor by throwing the accepted positions at me, but taking up my points (especially the main points) one by one and showing me how my conclusions are wrong.

[Buddha]

Whoopdy-****ing-doo for them. they could call themselves teapots for all i care, it wouldnt change the fact that they are NOT[/i'] teapots, anymore than they are female.

 

They know they are not females. But they know they are not males either. They consider themselves the third gender. Actually they are males from the outside but not 'men', because they are female from the inside. Male is an incomplete description of a human being.

 

For me, this statement shows 'homosexual' haughtiness. You are rejecting their deepest feelings as invalid. What you consider them to be is more important than what they consider themselves to be.

 

Isn't this how heterosexual people treated you in the beginning? Even now. Rejecting your deepest experiences as invalid. How is your statement not different from an obstinate assertion (from a position of power) that your sexual attraction for men is bullshit? It is a choice that you have made. A disease that you acquired because your father was distant?

 

So why do you think transgendered men think of themselves as females. Are they nuts? mentally sick? misguided people? Just making a choice?

 

By the way, in my analysis, gay men are some degrees up than transgendered males in terms of masculinity. They don't feel they are women, but they don't feel quite men either (more like meterosexuals). It is this feeling different genderwise from 'men' that prompts them to seek a different identity -- which they have found (ironically) in a sexual identity, which the heterosexual society was only too willing to give --- as it suited its agenda. Remember, all gay men feel different from other boys right from their childhood, even when their sexuality hasn't taken shape. This gender difference they easily confuse with sexual preference (sic) --- in a heterosexual society -- for as individuals our gender is strongly tied to our sexual preference and other parts of personality.

 

The 'gay' space gives enormous powers to...well....gay men. Even if for this they have to accept the insubordination of 'heterosexuality'. Without this gay space they were just people with no space and lots of oppression. Now both homosexuals and heterosexuals are complimentary to each other, inspite of being in a minority. Even when gay men fight heterosexuals for more rights within this arrangement. The majority, which is straight men on both side of the divide are disempowered mute victims.

 

And gay men vigorously defend this space, even with hostility, from transgendered 'heterosexuals' who felt 'one' with them, and wanted to be a part of them. Few people know that the stonewall riots that sparked off the 'gay' movement was started by transgendered heterosexuals. transgendered heterosexuals were so dejected by 'homosexual's that they were then forced to establish another identity --- 'transgendered'.

 

And while gay men defend their space from transgendered heterosexuals who are their natural ally, they do not want to leave their jurisdiction on straight men (who don't really have a space in the heavily gender-bender gay community, and are called 'straight-acting' signifying that the gay community does not take their straightness seriously). Giving up on straight men or including queer heterosexuals will signify the invalidity of 'sexual orientation' that gives the gay community its existence and power base.

 

I have to confirm this, but probably, in the beginning the gay identity was forwarded not as a biological identity but more as a socio-political identity, which is now being hijacked to make it seem like a biological identity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Since you apparently don't agree with my conclusions I will end this line of argument here. I can point out other drawbacks in the 'sexual orientation' concept. Though I will continue to raise the above issue, not as a part of this argument.

 

and unless you have any evidence to back it up, quit claiming that all men are inherantly attracted to one another.

 

Well, fair enough. I know gay men find it impossible to believe.

 

I will not use it as an argument to support my point. I'll give the evidence when we are through with the discussion on the validity of 'sexual orientation'.

 

But, when you are so used to seeing it all around you, it is not possible not to reflect it in your analysis. After all, everything is interrelated.

 

Your post sounds as if you are beginning to loose your temper here? Why, it's only a discussion.

[Buddha]

This thread makes me so very glad I started using my Ignore list. Mokele

 

It's best that I ignore you too.

[Buddha]

Can Dak and everybody else please tell me,

 

THAT IF THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS SO NATURAL, AND GENDER ORIENTATION IS IMMATERIAL, WHY DON'T THE HETEROSEXUAL/ STRAIGHT (SIC) COMMUNITY INCLUDE TRANSGENDERED HETEROSEXUALS AMIDST IT'S FOLD. WHY ARE THEY FORCED TO SEEK ANOTHER IDENTITY -- ONE THAT IS BASED ON THEIR GENDER?

 

Here's my analysis (but do give me yours!): It is so, so that the heterosexual society can showcase itself as masculine, which would be impossible with transgendered men amidst themselves. It's the same reason why straight men are not acknowledged amongst the 'gay' community. And no one talks about straight-gays when they talk about homosexuality -- so that homosexuality can be show-cased as queer.

[atinymonkey]

Can Dak and everybody else please tell me' date='

 

THAT IF THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS SO NATURAL, AND GENDER ORIENTATION IS IMMATERIAL, WHY DON'T THE HETEROSEXUAL/ STRAIGHT (SIC) COMMUNITY INCLUDE TRANSGENDERED HETEROSEXUALS AMIDST IT'S FOLD. WHY ARE THEY FORCED TO SEEK ANOTHER IDENTITY -- ONE THAT IS BASED ON THEIR GENDER?

 

Here's my analysis (but do give me yours!): It is so, so that the heterosexual society can showcase itself as masculine, which would be impossible with transgendered men amidst themselves. It's the same reason why straight men are not acknowledged amongst the 'gay' community. And no one talks about straight-gays when they talk about homosexuality -- so that homosexuality can be show-cased as queer.[/quote']

 

The basic drive of all members of the human race is to find a mate. Clarifying gender orientation is important when picking a mate. It's not some insidious homophobic plot.

 

I don't see what your issue is with this. I would rather know at some point in a relationship if my chosen partner is attacted to the opposite sex, it would save a great deal of time if I knew at the outset.

[Buddha]

The basic drive of all members of the human race is to find a mate. Clarifying gender orientation is important when picking a mate. It's not some insidious homophobic plot.

I don't see what your issue is with this. I would rather know at some point in a relationship if my chosen partner is attacted to the opposite sex' date=' it would save a great deal of time if I knew at the outset.[/quote']

 

I think you mean sexual orientation not 'gender orientation'. You guys have so many labels you get confused.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the very concept of 'sexual orientation' is invalid. If I'm right, and this is what I want to discuss, then such labels are actually confusing the whole 'mating' process not simplifying it.

 

Therefore I'd like to get back to the original questions that I have raised. Once we are through with that the answer to your question will itself emerge.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case, the present system of sexual orienation only works for some for whom the fixed equations of gender and sexual orientations match. Where do the rest go? Why are you guys insisting that sexual orientation is extremely important while gender orientation is useless?

 

I'm still waiting for answer to my previous question.

[Buddha]

It's not some insidious homophobic plot.

 

It's not a homophobic plot. Not at all.

 

The plot is against men. Straight men to be more precise. The whole thing is meant to control straight male behaviour. Queer heterosexuals although are one of the worst victims.

 

But even if you guys are not going to concede the motive that I've ascribed, you should answer the important points that I've raised.

[Buddha]

Clarifying gender orientation is important when picking a mate. It's not some insidious homophobic plot.

Let me add......

 

It's not that the given sexual labels represent the true likes and dislikes of people.

 

When the sexual categories are so mismatched as to cater to the real sexual and gender needs of people, and when there are such power inequations, and social hostilities attached, then the labels that people keep have more to do with reasons other than their real sexual drive.

 

For people, their gender orientation is much more important than their alleged 'sexual orienation'. And if they have to make a choice (as the mismatched sexual orientation system forces them to) they will opt for an identity that reflects their true gender orientation, even if does not fully respresent their sexual feelings.

 

Again, sexual drives are not so fixed and binary as the theory of sexual orientation suggests. To start with, there are more than just the male and female categories as far as sexual preference is concerned. There is at least a third dimension.

 

I would rather know at some point in a relationship if my chosen partner is attacted to the opposite sex, it would save a great deal of time if I knew at the outset.

 

If you're saying that it is not possible to talk about sexual feelings without attaching the socio-political identities to them, then you're sadly mistaken.

In fact one can talk better about their individual sexual feelings without reference to these sexual identities. For one thing, these identities have so many other baggages and stereotypes attached to them --- that they may give a completely different picture than the reality.

 

I mean, if a man says he's straight (here = heterosexual), but still wants to make out with you, and you too are interested, what difference does it make.

 

In my workshops (with straight men = by 'straight' I mean 'normal'/ general men, there is no straight or gay category in my society), if I raise the issue of male-male sexuality by talking about 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' identities they will all become tight lipped or say a couple of negative things.

 

When I raise the issue without attaching labels they all come out with their own such feelings and experiences.

 

Such is the negative effect of 'sexual orientation' on straight men.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual orientation seems to work for many people, but only in an artificially created environment --- like that has been created in the west. Most people find ways to adjust themselves into this system even if they are inconvenienced. But in order to create that artificial world, you loose out on so many important things. Just like you ruin nature to build factories.

 

There are so many unhealthy, even unnatural practices going on in the west -- of which 'sexual orientation' is a part. But that is a differen story.

[Buddha]

Clarifying gender orientation is important when picking a mate.

 

The use of the words 'gay' or 'homo' to refer to a particular taste in sex or a particular sex act is although technically wrong, is not harmful.

 

But to use it as an idenitity -- that too a biological identity is completely absurd.

 

These words -- although coined as a reference to a 'disease' --- were used by earlier men to refer to particular tastes in sex, that made men no different from each other than did a taste in let's say food.

 

As the western society became mixed-gender (heterosexual) and the heat on male-male bonds increased, different kinds of men were invited to come under the 'gay' banner as a political refuge. What made the people come together was their social oppression, i.e., a common enemy --- not a common biological trait. Some of them were biologically so different as chalk from cheese.

 

As this identity became politically extremely strong, those who really fit well in this order --- the gay men referred above --- in order to consolidate their power are now trying to make the 'gay' identity look natural and biological. And they would stop at nothing to prove this --- by hook or by crook. Misusing science to achieve this end is fairly easy. They are even reinventing a 'gay' history where they are claiming varied expressions of even mainstream gender and sexuality in the past as 'gay'.

 

But this is all a manipulation of truth. And it affects a majority of people negatively who are condemned to suffer in silence.

[aswokei]

In my psychology book from a couple of years ago, they described an identical twin analyses which suggested a gay gene(s).

 

Using statistical analyses they found this among identical twins: if one of the twins is gay, there is a fifty percent chance that the other twin is gay.

 

Clearly, genetics are a factor. If they weren't, the probabilty of a gay twin having a gay sibling would be around 6 percent, not 50.

 

However, if genes were the only factor in determining a person's sexuality, they would have found that the probability of a gay twin having a gay sibling would be 100 percent.

 

Studies have identified the other major factor: prenatal development. If the fetus (boy) doesn't get enough testosterone or androgen, he will be more likely to develop into a homosexual. If the fetus (girl) gets too much of those hormones, then she will be more likely to exhibit homosexual tendencies.

 

This has been found to be true in other studies. I forget exactly why this happens, but if a mother produces 2 sons and then produces another one, the last one won't get as much of those male hormones as the others; therefore, if you are a third boy in a family, the probability of you being gay is higher than normal.

 

Actually, I am the third male child in my family but I'm not gay. However, I'm not quite as manly as my brothers. They are ripped and always have women around them. I'm pretty big, but not so much like them. My brothers are more masculine than the average male, and I would say I'm about normal.

 

An interesting side note: a homosexual man is more likely to show more natural female skills (communication of emotions, verbal skills, reading subtle cues like body language and facial expressions). The same is true for lesbians.

 

So I'm going to go with the scientists. My answer is that homosexua orientation is primarily determined by genes and prenatal development.

[alt_f13]

LOL, did the title of this thread strike anyone else as *slightly* paradoxical?

[Dak]

LOL, did the title of this thread strike anyone else as *slightly* paradoxical?

if your talking about how a gay gene could be inherited, then that issue has already been addressed within this thread.

 

 

 

the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay¹, which seems to indicate that homosexuality is, at least, not purely genetic/not genetic in the classical mendelian sence.