I remember how relieved mother was when they began to talk about a biological reason for people to be gay. I think until that point she thought it was something she might have done.

Have not read much on this thread, but noticed that this article was not included - From Time Magazine

What the Gay Brain Looks Like

What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.

Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

Just what these brain differences mean is still not clear. Ever since 1991, when Simon LeVay first documented differences in the hypothalamus of gay and straight men, researchers have been struggling to understand what causes these differences to occur. Until now, the brain regions that scientists have come to believe play a role in sexual orientation have been related to either reproduction or sexuality. The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. "The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests," says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, "then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males."

Vilain, who studies the genetic factors behind sexuality and sexual orientation, notes that it may turn out that the brains of gay men possess only some 'feminized' structures, while retaining some masculine ones, and this is reflected in how they act on their sexuality. "We know from studies that men, regardless of their sexual orientation, retain masculine characteristics when it comes to their sexual behavior," he says. Both gay and straight men, for example, tend to prefer younger partners, in contrast to women, who gravitate toward older partners. Most men are also more likely than women to engage in casual sex, and to be aroused by visual stimuli. "So I expect that some regions of the brain will remain masculine even in gay men," says Vilain. For something as complex as sexual orientation, it's no surprise that everything from genes to gender to environment may play a role in ultimately determining your perfect partner.

What the Gay Brain Looks Like (http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 38,00.html)

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:41 pm The stereotype was true during the late 70's - early 80's from a statistical standpoint. Of course, the studies were not controlled for those respondents who may have been in the closet, so to speak.

Yup, i know. i grew up in the 70's and 80's (born'63: gen-X'er here) and was exposed to much of the 'Gay' culture and stereotypes of the time. Fortunately for me i was too shy to be promiscuous, which i believe saved me from getting AIDS, which thanks to Regan's indifference to a bunch of faggots let AIDS run rampant for over a decade before anything was done, and then only because it started to enter the straight community via drug users. i think Regan's original comments were along the lines of who cares about queers, let them die! i lost several friends to AIDS, watching them get sick, end up in an isolation ward at the hospital because doctors didn't understand anything about it, and eventually saw them waste away and die. We've come a long way since then and AIDS is no longer the death sentence it once was.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:41 pm Judging frm the statistics borne out by the AIDS epidemic, HIV seemed to spread quicker among Gay men than in any other population segment. Possibly due to the the promiscuity of the Gay community in theat era.

Promiscuity among a small segment of a community doesn't mean that the entire community condones or participates in said activity. A lot of misconception about gay promiscuity comes from gay haters trying to build up enough reasons against us to support their own agendas. True, gay culture is more out and in-your-face, but that mainly came about due to centuries of closeted activity because being out and gay usually meant prison or death at the hands of the State.

For those who think only gays are promiscuous, i'd like to remind you of the straight swingers clubs/groups that have existed for longer than gay promiscuity. Seems like a

IbPervert (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:46 am greater argument can be made about straight promiscuity based just on locker room chat among guys!

What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question,

but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.......

Think i'll have to do more reading on these studies. i kinda gave up years ago, partly due to lack of time and too much to read, but also because the first studies relied on cadaver examinations of gay men who died from AIDS. One of the most blatant omissions in those studies was that the brains of those that died of AIDS were not good examples due to the disease altering the brain during the various stages it went through ultimately leading to death.

Another factor was that anyone who died of AIDS was automatically assumed to be gay... haemophiliacs and drug users often found themselves trying to convince people that they were not gay and that they didn't get AIDS via sex with other guys, which further confused the studies.

i'd be more willing to give modern studies a closer look if they rely on blind tests of DNA and other collected data from participants.

snoopy

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:51 pm What does gay look like?

Science keeps trying to figure that out

Finding common biological traits -- things like hair growth patterns, penis size, family makeup -- might one day shed light on the origins of sexual orientation.

leading to some feminine characteristics.

First comment I have is that I and other gay men that I know have NO feminine characteristics, whereas I have at least 2 friends that are straight and are considered gay because of this type of stereotyping. Isn't such stereotyping "great" fun?

Second, this 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.

This is not science. This like any religious sect that is convinced that anyone not like them is wrong. Why aren't they (heterosexual scientists) focused on why heterosexuals are heterosexual?

It is is not a disease that needs to be identified and cured.

If is is identified as nurture, then it is some "fault" of the parents ("bad" parenting). If it is nature, then it is some "bad" gene that be be "repaired" and, thus, this "error" can be eliminated.

Why is there even any need for this type of "research?" (I.E. the NAZI eugenics program.) There isn't.

-YC

YankeeClipper sums up a point that i forgot to include in my reply. What is the "real" reason for these studies?

Do i really care if there's a gay gene? No. Why should i. Not like it's going to change anything in my life, except give the evil scientists a potential means to eliminate future gay humans via covert eugenics.

Will it make the religious fanatics stop persecuting homosexuals. Of course not. Hatred is too deeply ingrained... now there's a study that should really be done... is hatred and bigotry a nature or nurture thing?

-snoopy

YankeeClipper (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:57 am First comment I have is that I and other gay men that I know have NO feminine characteristics, whereas I have at least 2 friends that are straight and are considered gay because of this type of stereotyping. Isn't such stereotyping "great" fun?

Second, this 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.

This is not science. This like any religious sect that is convinced that anyone not like them is wrong. Why aren't they (heterosexual scientists) focused on why heterosexuals are heterosexual?

It is is not a disease that needs to be identified and cured.

If is is identified as nurture, then it is some "fault" of the parents ("bad" parenting). If it is nature, then it is some "bad" gene that be be "repaired" and, thus, this "error" can be eliminated.

Why is there even any need for this type of "research?" (I.E. the NAZI eugenics program.) There isn't.

-YC

Glad to see there is someone who agrees with me

Contrary to popular belief, finding a biological cause of homosexuality, or any specific cause, is NOT in the best interests of the gay community.

Once any specific cause is found, the inevitable next step will be finding a way to remove the cause and thus have a "cure" for homosexuality.

Our best bet would be to not find any particular cause, but instead to learn to love and respect gays the same way we love and respect any other human being.

I can guarantee you that as technology improves, there will be a strong revival of eugenics. Once they can actually practice eugenics rather than just talk about it, who knows what will happen?

tugon (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:01 pm I remember how relieved mother was when they began to talk about a biological reason for people to be gay. I think until that point she thought it was something she might have done.

This is exactly what is wrong with this society looking at being gay or lesbian in such a negative light; that parents see themselves as bad parents because their son or daughter was/is not heterosexual.

Of course, some parents do recognize that homosexuality is just part of what makes up the person as a whole that way, and do not cast homosexuality in a negative light, though not enough do. All too often, that parents feel that they could have done better to raise their children to be heterosexual.

Such thinking is what is wrong with this and other societies. It should not matter if it is of either nature or nurture or some both, but the prejudices of society as whole, that causes parents to think that that were bad parents. For the scientific (heterosexual) community to be even "researching" this is disgusting.

What comes next? Bisexuals and transsexuals? This type of either (heterosexual) /or (homosexual) thinking ignores that basic premise that sexual orientation is not polar but or even two dimensional, but is that it is multi-dimensional.

-YC

Snoopy (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:00 am YankeeClipper sums up a point that i forgot to include in my reply. What is the "real" reason for these studies?

Do i really care if there's a gay gene? No. Why should i. Not like it's going to change anything in my life, except give the evil scientists a potential means to eliminate future gay humans via covert eugenics.

Will it make the religious fanatics stop persecuting homosexuals. Of course not. Hatred is too deeply ingrained... now there's a study that should really be done... is hatred and bigotry a nature or nurture thing?

-snoopy

Well, from projects like the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other similar groups, nurture is a very strong component when it comes to hate. Parents that belong to hate groups often raise their children to hold the same hatreds as they do, often bringing their children to hate group functions.

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.

Lets put the money they are using to fund these "research" programs, and put it into groups that are working against hate and hate groups.

Hate in families and in hate groups is in contrast to the fact that Gays and Lesbians are commonly the only non-heterosexual member of the family.

Do the math..

-YC

BTW - I knew by age six, though i did not know the term, that i was drawn to males, and females were something beyond dis-interest [no, not revulsion], my siblings were and are heterosexual, and the three of us were raised in similar manners. So where does that put nurture in my case? Out to lunch?

This all begets the question, why this "research?" I'm sort of assuming that, since my parents had three children, they are likely to be heterosexual, so would they be raising me in a unique way so that I ended up gay? But if they are heterosexual, why am I gay? For me the question is mute: Nature, nurture, some of both, and to to what degree of each of these. There simply can never be one single answer.

I am Gay, that is a part of me just as much as any other. Why should it matter to others that why some people are simply Gay or Lesbian and other not lucky enough to be?

I've also gotten beyond the point of simple anger with the connotation that someone who is gay must have a feminine component to them, and the converse. (And of course the opposite for lesbians.)

-YC

plix (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:30 pm Glad to see there is someone who agrees with me

I can guarantee you that as technology improves, there will be a strong revival of eugenics. Once they can actually practice eugenics rather than just talk about it, who knows what will happen?

The REAL danger is the once they can practice eugenics, they WILL, not try, they will.

Also, homosexual children are commonly born of heterosexual parents, a recessive gene maybe?

There has to be recognition in society that sexuality is not a simple polar abstract. If it not nature, thus some "defective" gene, do we tell parents that there is some exact formula that they must adhere to so as to insure that all children become heterosexual adults?

Any "research" along this line is just so complex that it will not likely be reduced to single answer. "Researching" to find a cause is both, because of this, and the resulting answer, if ever found, resulting in the eugenics that would certainly follow, is bad "science," or worse, unethical.

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

-YC

Snoopy (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:00 am YankeeClipper sums up a point that i forgot to include in my reply. What is the "real" reason for these studies?

Do i really care if there's a gay gene? No. Why should i. Not like it's going to change anything in my life, except give the evil scientists a potential means to eliminate future gay humans via covert eugenics.

Will it make the religious fanatics stop persecuting homosexuals. Of course not. Hatred is too deeply ingrained... now there's a study that should really be done... is hatred and bigotry a nature or nurture thing?

-snoopy

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.

Also, while you cannot stereotype a subcultural group by the characteristis of a small minority of its members, we must remember that this information (http://books.google.com/books?id=HO7IKU ... &ct=result) was compiled by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta GA and the researchers were specialists (Epidemiologists) in researching communicable disease for the Government.

The FIRST OUTBREAKS (http://nymag.com/news/features/17158/) of the disease occurred in the Gay community and that is well documented. From this small movement ACT UP (http://www.actupny.org/) was born.

The Civil Disobedience (http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocu ... index.html) practiced by this group followed (and in some cases enhanced) the practices of the Civil Rights Movement (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmheroes1.html) and like that movement the Gay community produced heroes not only in the Gay movement but in the medical fields as well.

Dr. David HO (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/hoa0pro-1) was one such hero and there were MANY others.

Dr. C. Everett Koop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Rl7NDbUPo) who it turned out had enough BALLS to provide everyone in the EA with a set, set the Regan administration straight and FORCED the government to start doing something about AIDS. Remember, the fundamenalist Christian movement helped Reagan in office and he was either loyal to them, scared of them or a little of both.

You see, everybody has a story of AIDS and that era, and the historians are in some cases biased because of their roles in society. However, I was forced to learn as much as I could of this movement to keep up enrollment of students in a medical field which I instructed. It is a sad fact that medical practictioners of ALL sorts were scared at first to care for AIDS patients and shunned contact. Nobody understood what the disease was or how it was being transmitted. The stupid-assed fundamentalists even called it a curse from God. IT was at first called GRID or Gay Related Immune Disease because no one understood that you could get it even if you were not Gay. Then, females started getting it and that is when the FEAR really gripped the medical field.

After learning and then teaching students what was happening, and how the AIDS virus could NOT be caught from toilet seats or sneezes from an infected individual the enrollments in the program I dealt with stablized.

I will not mention the rare individuals who have GENETIC IMMUNITY (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1228541) to HIV and the research that has led to new therapies for sufferers.

Theories of Epidemics (http://www.ddponline.org/epidemics.pdf) aside, an interesting grab for publicity and a feud of sorts between Dr. Robert Gallo of America and Dr. Luc Montaigner of France were both researching retroviruses and their research not only led to the medical understanding of the virus but also led to the breakthroughs that eventually led to the so-called "drug cocktails" that are now putting some HIV sufferers into remission.

Sadly, since around 80% of the individuals who were HIV positive also were positive for hepatitis C, screening the Red Cross blood supply for this virus could have in theory prevented much of the blood transfusion transmissions that decimated the hemophiliac population that uesd Factor 8 to lead semi-normal lives. Since the byproducts of approximately 2000 units of whole blood were used to derive 1 unit of clotting factor 8, virtually ALL of the factor 8 produced for a time infected users with HIV.

The cause of AIDS was known in 1983.

1983

Luc Montaigner and Robert Gallo announce their discovery of the immunodeficiency virus (HIV) believed to cause AIDS.

Gallo, R. C., P. S. Sarin, E. P. Gelmann, M. Robert-Guroff, E. Richardson, V. S. Ka lyanaraman, D. Mann, G. D. Sidhu, and R. E. Stahl. 1983. Isolation of human T-cell leukemia virus in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 220: 865-867.

Montaigner, L., J., L. C. Duquet, C. Axler, S. Chamaret, J. Gruest, M. T. Nugeyre, F. Rey, F. Barne-Sinoussi and J. C. Chermann, 1984. A new type of retrovirus isolated from the patients presenting with lymphadenopathy and acquired immune deficiency syndrome: structural and antigenic relatedness with equine infectious anemia virus. Ann. Virol. (Paris) 135: 119-134.

SOURCE (http://www.bio.hbnu.edu.cn/wdwsw/newind ... s/1977.htm)

THIS ARTICLE (http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/116/lrussell.pdf) documents how Dr. Joseph Bove allowed the blood supply to become contaminated and THIS site (http://www.lef.org/fda/fda-lem-nov95.htm) also has information about this.

ORDER THIS VIDEO (http://www.amazon.com/Frontline-Age-AID ... B000GB75CE) and understand exactly what happened.

Well, that is enough for now. This sort of research has been my hobby off and on for over 10 years and it helped me to both understand and RESPECT the Gay community and its humanity.

Truly, Gay people have a LOT to be proud of in the way the Gay Community responded heroically and unselfishly as a group to the AIDS crisis. In all truth the Gay community HAS SAVED COUNTLESS LIVES BY THEIR UNSELFISH ACTIONS.

I will even go as far as to say they prevented an epidemic in the heterosexual community in America.

In the early 80's in Africa the male to female AIDS ratio was one to one while in America it was 10 males for every female infected. The Gay community prevented through its actions this from happening in America.