Homosexual Gene?

[Dak]

Please get your history right.

In the Greek world there were no homosexuals. The only person closest to a homosexual was known as a catamite. A feminine character who exclusively sought passive anal intercourse as an assertion of his femaleness.

'someone who is feminin and exclusively seeks passive anal sex as an assertion of his femaleness' is not a very representative definition of a homosexual.

[Buddha]

'someone who is feminin and exclusively seeks passive anal sex as an assertion of his femaleness' is not a very representative definition of a homosexual.

 

You are looking at the whole issue from a man living in modern western heterosexual society. A heterosexual society is an artificial phenomena and it seeks to isolate and then throw sexual behaviour between straight (meaning masculine not heterosexual) men into a category (today called homosexual) that was reserved only for third gender in the ancient world.

 

And why the ancient world. Go to any traditional society, including my own country India. We still have that third gender category alive. We don't see people as homosexual and heterosexual.

 

People have tried to introduce the homosexual identity here but the only vernacular men to take it have been the third gender variety.

 

Traditionally, most men in India have had sex with another man sometime in their life, though they don't talk about these things. Even masculine men who openly seek sex with other men, don't identify themselves as 'homosexuals'.

[Sayonara]

Traditionally, most men in India have had sex with another man sometime in their life, though they don't talk about these things. Even masculine men who openly seek sex with other men, don't identify themselves as 'homosexuals'.

I think you'll find that's by no means unique to India. If the UK is anything to go by, it's highly prevalent in Western cultures too.

[Dak]

Traditionally, most men in India have had sex with another man sometime in their life, though they don't talk about these things.

iv always wondered about that. iv heard of studies that reveal that many women experiment with homosexuality, but iv never heard the same about men. iv heard it claimed, but not by a reliable study.

 

hmm... i feel a pole coming on.

[Sayonara]

i feel a pole coming on.

Please tell me that was a deliberate spelling mistake...

[Dak]

it was entirely unintentional; however i did notice it after i'd typed it, but descided it was funny enough to leave

 

i resisted the urge to plonk in a few comments such as it being an interesting pole which is bound to get a lot of attention, possibly ending up as one of the biggest poles on this forum etc. etc. etc.

[Sayonara]

Such a pole is bound to attract all kinds of attention.

[mmalluck]

Sexual preference is a sliding scale. While you can have a tendancy towards one gender or the other, it almost never is a totally exclusive thing.

 

Human nature is too quick to classify things into catagories. We hate gray areas.

 

Is homosexuality learned or in-born. I'd have to say in-born. Here's some more evidence of this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/homosexual_brains

[Dak]

Such a pole is bound to attract all kinds of attention.

is that the best you can do? id have expected a more enthusiastic application of your clever toung to 'my pole'

Sexual preference is a sliding scale. While you can have a tendancy towards one gender or the other' date=' it almost never is a totally exclusive thing.

 

Human nature is too quick to classify things into catagories. We hate gray areas.[/quote']yeah, the difficulties of defining a persons sexuality confuses questions such as these: apparently quite a few men have sex with other men and classify themselves as heterosexual, which iv never understood

 

i think its probably a combination of lots of factors -- genetic, socialogical, developmental, psycological etc.

[Buddha]

Sexual preference is a sliding scale. While you can have a tendancy towards one gender or the other' date=' it almost never is a totally exclusive thing.

 

[/quote']

 

 

This is why the idea of a 'gay' gene is absurd.

When every man has that quality in him, how can it be decided by one particular gene.

If at all, there could be a gene which stops sexual attraction either towards other men or towards women.

[Dak]

can you back up your claim that every man has that quality.

 

anyway, every man has the ability to transport oxygen around their blood, and that quality is certainly genetic, despite the fact that every man posesses it.

[Buddha]

Is homosexuality learned or in-born. I'd have to say in-born. Here's some more evidence of this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/homosexual_brains

 

This study is a western heterosexual propaganda like all the earlier studies of its kind. They are carried on by vested interests --- either by women, or homosexual (third gender) males or by men who are truly heterosexual.

 

All these studies attempt to show that male sexual desire for other men is feminine ("...their brain structures are similar to women's"). And they assume that straight men are essentially heterosexual.

 

The biggest drawback of these studies are that they take the term 'gay' to be a natural 'biological' group. They must first define what they mean by gay. That is the first thing that you would expect from a study that claims to be scientific. You cannot conduct biological studies on socially and politically defined groups. You can't just assume that the members of such groups will have any biological similarity with each other.

 

E.g. you cannot study chinese men and conclude (e.g.) that Asian me are short. For 'Asia' is human defined and is otherwise a wide continent with a wide variety of people in it. You have caucasians, negroids, mongloids and all sorts of combinations living here.

 

The Group 'gay' consists of too many variety of people in it. It's true that most men who join the 'gay' wagon even in the west are transgendered, but then lots of straight men --- who are in fact macho --- join it too. All the studies trying to show 'gay' men as different and "being like women" --- whether in their brian size or otherwise --- have been conducted either by these transgendered people or women. Women incidentally are the ultimate people to gain from a notion that men who have sexual desire for other men are feminine.

 

Now if you select transgendered (or even meterosexual) people and study them, you are going to come up with data that will show similarities with women. Since these transgendered males had 'gay' label, it is fairly easy -- but wrong -- to extrapolate that to the entire 'gay' identity.

 

You can still do that, but then you have to separate straight-gay men from the 'gay' label first.

 

Any project which seeks to study the causes of sexual orientation of people without accounting for the 'gender' of its sample size is going to be highly misleading. For its results are more likely to be because of the 'gender' of their subjects rather than their sexual orientation (or the two may actually be combined in the individuals: e.g. the sexual desire for men in a third gender male may be an integral part of his feminine gender, while in a straight man his sexual desire for men may be part of his masculine gender.).

 

In all probability, if these researchers had chosen transgendered heterosexual people they would have found the same results as in the so-called 'homosexual' people that they studied.

 

I repeat it's a part of the larger heterosexual conspiracy to propagate a man's sexual desire for another man as feminine.

[Buddha]

the difficulties of defining a persons sexuality confuses questions such as these: apparently quite a few men have sex with other men and classify themselves as heterosexual' date=' which iv never understood

[/quote']

 

Well I'm one of those men.

 

I too struggled with the question of who I was. From what I had seen of the 'gay' world I was damn sure I was not one. I never felt different from other straight men. And I lived in a society where sexual desire for another man was not suppressed as fiercely as in the west. It was hidden but not persecuted or suppressed. There was no need for me to take on a gay identity because of the fact that I liked men.

 

10 years of work on the issue has convinced me that men are supposed to be attracted to both the sexes. And that it's men's gender that make them different from each other and not sexuality.

 

In my country there is no concept of 'sexual orientation' or even 'sexuality'.

[Buddha]

If at all they should study how on earth do men become 'heterosexual' when they are supposed to be attracted to both the sexes.

[Dak]

All these studies attempt to show that male sexual desire for other men is feminine ("...their brain structures are similar to women's"). And they assume that straight men are essentially heterosexual.

i'v only ever heard it sujjested that in some homosexuals there is a similarity in brain structure/activity, and that posessing a feminine brain could be a cause of homosexuality.

 

I repeat it's a part of the larger heterosexual conspiracy to propagate a man's sexual desire for another man as feminine.

in my personal experience, the scientific comunity is the most tolerant towards sexual differenses, so i cant envisage any 'conspiracy' against gays.

 

If at all they should study how on earth do men become 'heterosexual' when they are supposed to be attracted to both the sexes.

as this is a non-standard hypothesys, i believe the burden of proof lies with you, ie you should provide some proof/citations/referenses to back up your claim.

 

I too struggled with the question of who I was. From what I had seen of the 'gay' world I was damn sure I was not one. I never felt different from other straight men

maybe what you saw of the 'gay' world was, infact, merely the 'obviously-gay' world. for every obviously gay mincer that youv seen, you may have seen a homosexual who was entirely like a strait person, but as he was entirely like a strait person you didnt know that he was gay, thus your oppinion of homosexuals could be based upon just the obviously-gay ones... which will unvarably lead to incorrect conclusions (such as 'all gay people are obviously gay', which is patently not true)

 

gay does not nessesaraly equate to 'poofy', even if you read 'gay' as 'a man who is attracted to men'.

 

no offence intended towards anyone who is 'poofy' (strait or otherwize)

[Savier]

I developed my homosexuallity, so I really doubt that there is any kind of gene.

[Mokele]

I developed my homosexuallity, so I really doubt that there is any kind of gene.

 

Could you clarify? I developed my segmented vertebral body plan, but that doesn't disprove the existence of the HOX genes. Just because it develops doesn't mean it doesn't have a genetic root.

 

Even mutable behavior can be geneticly based. For instance, a single allele causes fruit fly larvae to express one of two types of foraging behavior. But one form can switch to the other depending upon food availability. Yet we know that there a genetic basis for these behavioral strategies, even the conditional strategy.

 

Mokele

[Buddha]

gay does not nessesaraly equate to 'poofy'' date=' even if you read 'gay' as 'a man who is attracted to men'.

 

no offence intended towards anyone who is 'poofy' (strait or otherwize)[/quote']

 

I beg your pardon, but it does equate to poofy.

 

You are known by the company you keep. And if you share your basic identity with 'poofies' you will be known as such.

 

Look at the 'gay' culture and look at all the explanations of what is 'gay'. Look at all the representations of 'gay' people in your 'gay-sympathetic' media in the west.

 

no offence intended towards anyone who is 'poofy'.

 

The question is: is 'gender' a valid point for social identity or is it 'sexual orientation'. Sexual orientation does not make a person different from another but gender orientation does. Gender is a major difference between people. A 'poofy' is a different species altogether. A heterosexual society, to further its own nefarious agenda, insists on sexual orientation as being a valid basis of social classification. Fortunately most of the world does not live in heterosexual societies. It's a modern western phenomenon.

 

All ancient societies living close to nature divided their societies on the basis of 'gander'. Their identities also corresponded to gender. Traditional societies to this day work that way. The western society is so stupid, it tries to do away with the gender division (by mixing the genders in all spheres of life) and then bringing in this new phenomenon of 'sexual orientation' to divide its people.

 

Unfortunately, US is forcing that classification on the rest of the world.

[Buddha]

in my personal experience' date=' the scientific comunity is the most tolerant towards sexual differenses, so i cant envisage any 'conspiracy' against gays.

[/quote']

The scientific community in your society is surely tolerant and indulgent towards gays and women. But there is definitely a consipracy against straight men.

 

Homosexuals fit in very well with the larger 'heterosexual' agenda. Homosexuals and heterosexuals compliment each other and are hand-in-hand. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have divided the society between themselves. While heterosexuals have forcefully occupied the 'straight' arena, homosexuals have been gladly given the jurisdiction over male-male bonds.

 

In all probability, the real heterosexuals and homosexuals shared a common 'third gender' or 'two-spirit' identity in the ancient world. (By heterosexual I do not mean 'straight' or most men who take the 'heterosexual' identity because of the prevailing social pressures or brainwashing)

 

I suggest that for once you forget the western-standard definitions and look at things for what they really are. At least don't assume the western definitions to be automatically correct. The western society has been shaped by a couple of thousands of years of 'unnatural' Christian doctrines.

 

i'v only ever heard it sujjested that in some homosexuals there is a similarity in brain structure/activity' date='

[/quote']

If some homosexuals are different from other so-called 'homosexuals', on what basis are they classified as one people. More importantly --- on what 'motive'.

 

for every obviously gay mincer that youv seen' date=' you may have seen a homosexual who was entirely like a strait person, but as he was entirely like a strait person you didnt know that he was gay,

[/quote']

 

Once again, if some gay men are more akin to straight men and not at all like your western standard 'gay' men, then what is the validity of putting them in a group apart from other straight men, together with 'gay' men. Can't you see that something is wrong here.

 

By the way, in my experience, at least in a setting like India, I have not seen a person who identifies himself as 'gay' but claims to be 'straight-acting' -- who is not 'different' from straight men --- even if the difference is mild. I have seen western men who may be 'straight' but count themselvs as 'gay', but that is because of the social oppression of sexuality between males in the west.

 

In any case in my society the so-called 'gay-men-more-akin-to-straight-men' do not define themselves as 'gay'. Neither does the traditional society see them as gays.

 

My experience says, that even when people see their contradictions they stick to social myths if it suits them fine. Gay people defend their space fiercely and refuse to listen to reason. But the fact is they have no right to claim all sexuality between men as their domain.

 

maybe what you saw of the 'gay' world was' date=' infact, merely the 'obviously-gay' world.

[/quote']

Well, my observations are not of a lay man who believes in what he sees superficially. Like I said I have worked for a number of years on the issues of male gender and sexual. I have worked directly with people --- of all sorts, including gay people. I have researched and analysed things and discussed them for hours with other intellectuals. I have written books and taken hundreds of workshops with men. I have counselled thousands of men on gender and sexual health issues.

 

So it will be difficult to brush my observations aside even if they fall right in the face of accepted western standards.

[Buddha]

Just because it develops doesn't mean it doesn't have a genetic root. Mokele

 

Can you or any one else elaborate so eloquently on what causes so-called 'heterosexuality'?

 

Is it also genetic?

 

What about so-called 'bisexuality'?

[admiral_ju00]

Can you or any one else elaborate so eloquently on what causes so-called 'heterosexuality'?

 

Is it also genetic?

 

 

It may be genetic, but more than likely it's the mostly of natural selection and therefore evolution.

 

Sexual reproduction produces new phenotipycal and morphological traits, also the organism that undergoes a sexual reproduction has a better chance at evolving and adapting to it's environment.

 

So there are far more advantages to it than asexual reproduction.

[Dak]

buddah: what is your definition of 'gay'?

[Savier]

You are right mokele (sp?). I am no expert on genetics, although it does interest me. What I was trying to point out is that saying that someone was "born" homosexual sounds kinda silly doesn't it. I think that it is more based on your environment, your experiences, and your upbringing, but who knows. It is indeed plausable that there could be a gene that makes men attracted to other men. I don't know.

[Buddha]

It may be genetic' date=' but more than likely it's the mostly of natural selection and therefore evolution.

[/quote']

 

My knowledge of genetic science is limited. But are you saying that evolution is not genetic.

 

You have to pin point a plausible evolution process (that makes men heterosexual) and the biological components of that evolution.

 

For that you first have to define what is 'heterosexuality'. And also very very clearly define who is a 'heterosexual'.

 

If you are saying that 'heterosexuality' is just there --- as the 'normal' thing and so-called 'homosexuality' is an anomaly, then what is the basis for that assumption. You also have to define 'homosexuality' for that matter. And a 'homosexual'.

 

 

the organism that undergoes a sexual reproduction has a better chance at evolving and adapting to it's environment.

So there are far more advantages to it than asexual reproduction

 

a. (i) I do not know on what basis you say that animals are superior to plants. At least how does sexual reproduction make animals more 'adapting' to their environment.

 

(ii) Plants are much more useful to nature than animals. Why would nature prefer animals over plants.

 

b. Surely' date=' nature does not need heterosexual partners to reproduce. There are species where females alone can reproduce. Other species are hermaphrodites and can perform both the functions that in humans are divided between males and females.

 

c. Even if what you are saying is correct, how does it prove that 'heterosexual' people -- as defined by the western society -- are needed to procreate sexually.

 

All you need is a little, periodical sexual interest in females which is limited to mating for reproduction purposes, and any sexual interest in females evaporates soon after that --- not to return before next year or maybe a few years.

 

Isn't that what happens in the nature?

 

And why do females in the wild want sex with males only when they want a baby. The rest of time they chase males away.

 

d. If animals (including humans) were nreally heterosexual, and your evolution theory was also correct, it will follow naturally that evolution will also make sure that males live with females and raise children and not live in male only and female only groups. Which is not the case.

 

Amongst humans it takes a lot of social maneuvering to bring about a mixed gender heterosexual society and a cumbersome marriage institution to bring man and woman together in the rest of the societies. The whole unnatural process creates a lot of waste products in terms of generalised human stress and unhappiness as well as in terms of human beings who are rendered useless --- those who completely fall out of this system.

 

e. If nature indeed evolved to make men heterosexual, why did it not complete that evolution by removing the enormous differences between males and females, that makes it almost impossible for the two to live together.

 

f. How does sexual reproduction preclude using sex for other purposes than procreaton, where the 'other' purposes may be more important for the individual than reproduction.

 

Isn't it possible that sexual desire was already there serving purposes like bonding between same-sex (which in the nature are supposed to live together), and nature chose to piggy back it in order to use it ALSO for procreation?

 

Amongst a particular fish that does not reproduce sexually, they still indulge in sex, and its only with the same-sex.

 

g) Do you think nature would be so stupid as to let human beings multiply like insects and harm nature, by making all of them 'heterosexual' all of the time? Don't you know that overpopulation is as much disastrous for a species as is underpopulation?

 

Is it possible that sexual interest for the same-sex is the basic sexual desire of human beings, -- being a part of human evolution that everyone is born with, and there is a gene which causes 'heterosexuality' (perhaps it makes men secrete a feminising hormone) in people in order to temporarily make them interested in women --- when there is a need to procreate. Seems quite plausible. And this gene becomes abnormal in a few people and overpowers their basic sexual drive. Or may be being exclusively heterosexual is also a normal part of the whole spectrum. For in nature, some males are needed to join in the 'raising of chidren' together with the females, and they need to be exempt from the masculine rough life of the male world.

 

h) Why is sex between men so common -- even preferred over sex with the females in the wild animals, as well as in societies that do not persecute sex between men. (refer to the latest researches on wild animals, including those by Bagemihl)

 

i) If sexual desire for men is only a minor aberration, why is there such a strong persecution of a minority which can't really do much harm. Why do older people worry that even talking favourably about sex between men will make every man want to indulge in it and abandon sexual relations with women.

 

j.) It is quite possible that nature has designed men like other animals where the majority of males do not participate in the mating process regularly. Many males (including alpha males) mate only a few times in their life, and others don't mate at all. At least the oldest surviving human tribes do still behave that way (papa new guinea/ tribes in Andaman and Nicobar islands) -- and they have survived longer than most of the civilised cultures which depend on male-female marriage.

 

k) The only wild animals that show year long bonding needs for females are the 'third gender' ones who actually don't live in the male herds but live with the females as one of them. (refer to the research by Joann roughgarden).

 

[b']CONCLUSION:[/b]

The problem is that your 'heterosexual' society deliberately uses a confusing 'sexual orientation' phenomenon whereby you confuse male-female sex with the heterosexual identity. And then assume that biologically sex for reproduction will not take place without heterosexuals.

 

Nature has given men only that much sexual interest for women that can create a balanced human population. Humans have occupied the whole of our planet by disturbing this balance and forcing 'heterosexuality' upon humans.

[Buddha]

... And another thing don't you think that 'bisexuality' rather than 'heterosexuality' has the best evolutionary benefits for the human species.