What does gay look like?

[snoopy (imported)]

now there's a study that should really be done... is hatred and bigotry a nature or nurture thing?

-snoopy

To quote Senator Claghorn from the o

ld Fred Allen radio show, "That was a joke son!"

Which brings up another interesting point. Is it possible that those whose life must be completed by a form of fanatic (read FUNDAMENTAL) religious beliefs have some sort of inherited mental condition that compells them to seek out these sects

for fulfillment?

You see, the sword cuts both ways.

i think my mom once told me not to play with sharp objects, but i never listened which is why i keep cutting myself... LOL... yeah, here i am on the EA talking about sharp knives and getting cut!

But seriously, i'd be more inclined to believe that the impressionable early years of a child, who is brought up by bigoted parents, is more the root cause that shapes future generations of bigots, thus nu

rture prevails.

As for religious fanat

ics, how does "some sort of inherited mental condition" explain the massive drive of the last two generations away from all forms of organized religion? Simple... communication and education... unless they've secretly found a cure for religion and have been contaminating our water supply... could fluoridation have anything to do with curing religion do you think? Each successive generation is exposed to more competing views through exposure to higher education outside of the cloistered small-town single-minded religious fundamentalist views of their primary community role models, thus they become more sceptical of the seemingly disjointed views of what they were taught about "us" and "them". The Internet has also played a major role in educating modern youth making them more informed earlier in life, which has brought about a massive egress of people from religious institutions. Again, sounds to me like nurture prevails.

-snoopy

[curious_guy (imported)]

To further reinforce that hate is of nurture, keep in mind that many members of hate groups are dis-affected troubled white middle-class teen boys that are neglected by both parents, both working full-time and becoming too involved in their own activities to give their children the true affection they need, and these youth find that affection and "family" in these hate groups.

-YC

I think that most haters are lower class or, at most, lower middle class people. (The type of people who are sometimes called "trailer trash")

[twaddler (imported)]

"

We SHOULD be working to stop this "research," not aiding and abetting it.

"

I don't see anyone being able to stop this research. If you can find out why someone is hetero, homo, or whatever-sexual then that would be scientifically fascinating and important. Of course jackasses could use it to talk shit and fuck up some shit, but this kind of research is inevitable.

[curious_guy (imported)]

40 rods to the hogshead is only 0.00200386 miles per gallon. That's dreadful milage.

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

40 rods to the hogshead is only 0.00200386 miles per gallon. That's dreadful milage.

That sounds like a truck I once drove. --FLO--

[snoopy (imported)]

I think that most haters are lower class or, at most, lower middle class people. (The type of people who are sometimes called "trailer trash")

Can't agree with you on that curious_guy. i've met too many from the upper levels of so-called society who either earned their money the old fashion way (not sure where it was hard work or they stole it) and the rich who earned it the new way, from mommy & daddy's estate, and they're just as mean, vindictive, spiteful, and funda-mental-ist as the worst of the trailer park trash out there.

Bigotry has no class distinction. It transcends all classes, races, creeds, religions, sexes, and yes, even sexual orientations.

-snoopy

[snoopy (imported)]

40 rods to the hogshead is only 0.00200386 miles per gallon. That's dreadful milage.

"504 U.S. gallons per mile, or about 1.2 litres per metre. In units more normal for this purpose, it is 0.00198 miles per US gallon (or about 10.48 feet per gallon) or 118,500 L/100 km." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perch_(unit))

i was too curious not to look that one up.

-snoopy

[Waka Gashira (imported)]

My own theory is that homosexuality cannot be defined as genetic or environmental, and that it's a bit of both.

The world is overpopulated, and generation after generation we see more consiquences of our effect on the planet. Even today, one is only considered normal if one marries and has at least 1 child.

When a successful organism is allowed to reproduce out of control without threat of predation in a closed system, their numbers will increase exponentially until their effect on their enviroment is so great that their is not enough food or other essential materials to sustain the population. (eg. fish). At this point, there is a population crash and the vast majority of the population die out.

My theory is that homosexuality has evolved as a partial remedy for overpopulation. I think it's probably a genetic trait that is activated by environmental factors.

This theory exlplains why homosexuality might appear to be on the rise, if it is triggered by the brain percieving overpopulation, although this can also be explained by noting that society is gradually becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals and so fewer hide in the closet.

Whilst I'm an atheist...if someone asked me "why did god create homosexuals?" I would probably suggest that it's an attempt to prevent the world being destroyed by man's over-reproduction, and that god made homosexuals because he felt it was unfair to deny the people who where part of this scheme sexual desire, pleasure and contact with other individuals.

Homosexuality could save the human race!

I dislike this research as it implies homosexuality is some kind of disiese or disorder. I for one hope they never find a root cause, because that'll lead to a "cure" which I don't approve of. (Remeniscent of Xmen3)

[JesusA (imported)]

I’ve read with great interest this fascinating set of thoughts and comments about this article. I’ve got a few comments on the comments and some additional information to add to the mix.

[T]

his type of research (by heterosexual scientists, no less) gets back to the idea that they can identify the causes of homosexuality, and, thus, prevent it. It goes back to the whole concept of heterosexuals trying to define what is correct for everyone, including homosexuals.

Actually, most of the research on the “causes” of homosexuality seems to be done by homosexual scientists. The urge to research any particular question often comes from personal interest in the results. That’s not always true, of course, but I’ve met a number of the researchers on this subject area (and have email contact with others) and it seems to be one of the sources of their interest.

I think that most gay haters justify their hate (to themselves and others) by claiming that gays are either evil sinners who chose to be gay because they are evil, or they are recruited as children by older gays.

If it could be proven that gayness is mostly biological, then they would have a harder time justifying their hate.

This seems to be behind much of the research that I’ve read about. There is, of course, also a concern about a return to “eugenics” to try

to remove this “unproductive trait” from the gene pool, but see the items that I’ve added at the bottom of this post.

The REAL danger is the once they can practic

e eugenics, they WILL, not try, they will…..

We SHOULD be working to stop this "research," not aiding and abetting it.

I don't see anyone being able to stop this research. If you can find out why someone is hetero, homo, or whate

ver-sexual then that would be scientifically fascinating and important. Of course jackasses could use it to talk shit and fuck up some shit, but this kind of research is inevitable.

I’m entirely with Tanglog on this one. The research WILL be carried out, simply because scientists are always curious about potential causation of anything.

If it were up to me, we wouldn't care what causes homosexuality because it wouldn't matter…. Gay people should be treated with no less respect regardless of whether they are born that way, they learn to be that way, or they choose to be that way.

I couldn’t agree more! I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, but I’ve seen a lot of progress in that direction over my 66 years. I’m proud to be

a Californian, resident of a state that has (FINALLY!) recognized the right of gays and lesbians to marry those whom they love. Progress continues to be made, though far

too slowly. This straight old-geezer grandfather plans to be at the San Francisco Pride Celebration to share in the joy.

My theory is that homosexuality has evolved as a partial remedy for overpopulation. I think it's probably a genetic trait that is activated by environmental factors.

Actually, there’s now good evidence for exactly the contrary!

Andrea Camperio Ciani, Paolo Cermelli and Giovanni Zanzotto have just published a fascinating article that is a “meta analysis” of the many studies that have been done on the genetics of male homosexuality. I find their analysis quite compelling. They found that they could account for the available research data if male homosexuality has its origin (though not necessarily its expression) in the conjunction of two genes. One needs to carry BOTH genes for them to work in conjunction to produce a gay child. One of these genes is carried on the X chromosome and the other somewhere else (yet undiscovered) among the human genes.

While the conjunction of the two genes produces a gay male, in a female, they produce a woman who is statistically likely to have more healthy children who live to adulthood and reproduce, carrying the genes into the next generation. This would mean that there is a “Darwinian” selective ADVANTAGE to the genes producing homosexuality!

If a gay male does have children, only the girls would be likely to carry the combination of two genes. Sons of gay male would not carry the gay combination unless they inherited it from their mother. The increased fertility of women who carry the combination is enough to offset the much lower number of offspring that the males produce.

The article is filled with mathematical formulae that make it impossible to post here on the Archive. I’m posting only the abstract, with a link to the actual article for anyone who is interested:

Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality

Andrea Camperio Ciani, Paolo Cermelli, Giovanni Zanzotto

PLoS ONE 3(6): e2282. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002282

Abstract

Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’. Furthermore, several studies have pointed out relevant asymmetries in the distribution of both male homosexuality and of female fecundity in the parental lines of homosexual vs. heterosexual males. A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present. We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0002282

An additional line of research that provides emphasis to this conclusion is the anthropological work of Paul Vasey on the gay male population of Samoa. His long-term research (and several publications) has demonstrated that, in at least this one society, gay males are highly nurturing of their sisters’ children. They provide both economic benefits and a great deal of emotional support. The nieces and nephews of gay men have a strong social and economic advantage over children who do not have a gay uncle.

Maybe, the more we actually learn about the role and functions of gay men in society, the more we will treasure them as valuable contributors to the next generation.

[snoopy (imported)]

My theory is that homosexuality has evolved as a partial remedy for overpopulation. I think it's probably a genetic

trait that is activated by environmental factors.

That wouldn't quite explain why China and India, the two countries that are the most overpopulated, don't have a higher percentage of homosexuals. Even if homosexuality is not tolerated in the East, the level of closeted homosexuals should have had an impact so that at least China wouldn't have had to institute the one child per couple law.

This theory exlplains why homosexuality might appear to be on the rise, if it is triggered by the brain percieving overpopulation, although this can also be explained by noting that society is gradually becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals and so fewer hide in the closet.

Sorry, but we've always been here. Homosexuals are as old as the history of the human race. While it's true that the pendulum of acceptance is starting to swing in our favour again, we have written accounts that date back to ancient Greece when homosexuality was still illegal, but more tolerated. Two more notable affairs were between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, as well as Achilles and Patroclus, as told in Homer's epic poem The Iliad. Socrates' love of Alcibiades was commented upon in several literary pieces as well, including The Symposium.

-snoopy