As far as I know, it has never been generally accepted that homosexuality is genetic, mainly because it’s is nearly impossible to examine human beings from birth to death and isolate specific causes. There simply isn’t enough evidence to agree on much of anything at the moment.
There is, however, a growing acceptance of the idea of homosexuality not being a willy-nilly choice, but scientists are divided as to whether it’s genetic, biological, or envirmental, or a complex combination of all three.
So tell your friend that there are other compelling studies s well. For example, there have been interesting revelations about hermaphrodites and gender identity, that may tie into gay studies. Essentially, the hypothesis is that certain types of hormonal washes in the womb cause the fetus’s brain to develop pathways, that determine later gender identities and orientations.
Which, of course, should have been your first clue…
There is no such study.
As beaker said, there have been some studies that seem to imply genetic references (or, perhaps, that a “gay gene” might make one person more “susceptible” to becoming homosexual), but no such study has ever “proven” that homosexuality is solely genetic in nature. The prevailing scientific theory is that sexual orientation - homo-, hetero-, bi- and asexual - is determined by such a complex combination of genetics, environment, physiology, psychology, etc., ad nauseum that it will likely never be understood.
Of course, the bottom line is - who cares? I wasn’t aware that it being genetic or it being a choice somehow made it more acceptable or not acceptable. Remind your friend we live in a free society that not only gives me the right to pursue a relationship with whomever I choose, but also gives him the right to pursue whatever religion he may choose.
That might be a bit stilted - AFAIK, Gore is sticking with Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell,” despite its many problems. And I’d be very surprised if Bush were even for that.
Status quo takes a long time to change - I wouldn’t hold my breath, sadly.
Interesting, perhaps, but hardly revolutionary - many other countries have done it for quite some time with no ill effects.
Hmmm… Doobieous makes a pass at Esprix
At 10:16am Esprix answers him with "Ahhhhh, that’s more like it…
Then, just a scant 7 minutes later (at 10:26am) , Esprix is back at his keyboard posting.
I’d like to respectfully propose that these “Ask the Gay Guy” threads be honorably retired.
I feel like they’ve served their original purpose admirably, but are in danger of becoming something of an obstacle to clear dialog and understanding. I don’t believe any of us would think it appropriate to segregate all gay issues to their own board, but that is largely the effect these threads are beginning to have: they provide a kind of ghetto within SDMB for gay-themed threads to clump and entangle together, making it very difficult to follow–let alone participate in–such topics of discussion or debate.
I’m not suggesting they be “outlawed” by moderators; I only mean to ask Esprix to consider these things before he rolls III over into IV.
Oh, yeah. The story about that cruise ship that couldn’t dock on Lesbos reminded me of a story on The Daily Show a while back. The was a gay cruise that planned to go to the Caymen Islands. When the authorities in the Caymen Islands found out it was a gay cruise, the wouldn’t let them dock. A place known for laundering drug money can’t afford to sully their image, I guess. Any way some other place (I forget where) let them dock. And The Daily Show reported that the destination island quickly had hundreds of pastel t-shirts printed saying “Caymen, my ass”
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree - as long as people are posting, it serves its purpose. And there will always be new people on the board to ask new questions. Plus, if you’re having trouble participating, any topic here could readily be spun off into its own thread (the moderators would neither ban such a thread nor ban this one, if either one was started or part IV were started).
Perhaps I ought to take a poll to see if there should be a part IV. Without input, there is no ATGG.
Sorry, Esprix; I honestly didn’t mean to convey the tone you seem to be reacting to.
IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, etc.
I just feel like the ATGG threads provide a convenient pigeonhole for topics that would benefit from a bit more air. And it’s true that, without closing the thread (which I’m not suggesting), it might well keep on growing on its own. But if you agreed with me, you might discourage the further lumping together of so many disparate topics under a single pink umbrella. I’m sure most participants would take such a discouragement to heart.
I only mean to air my views here, not to launch a campaign to shut this thread down or anything like that (far, far from it: this is in the spirit of achieving more communication, not less). I will continue to participate in it when I can, but I feel that the ATGG thread essentially hides each headerless topic in a gargantuan, chaotic knot of threads and presents obstacles to participation that are not present for other, “un-clumped” threads.
I do understand, Esprix, the spirit in which the ATGG threads were begun, and I applaud your willingness to offer yourself in the capacity of Spokesperson to the Unenlightened but Curious. But I think that ATGG has outgrown its original intent and is in danger of becoming a closet within the SDMB house.
Again, I see your point, but, again, I disagree. I’ve seen no evidence that any topic of discussion import has been “relegated” to ATGG alone - there are currently threads running on Mormonism, Dr. Laura, “Will & Grace,” hate crimes/special rights, The Great Pumpkin, Asian men… (oops, that last one was just for me ;)) If it’s important and people want to expand on a single idea, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that people aren’t afraid to just start a new thread.
As I said, if people keep posting, I’m all for ATGG continuing.
My friend was in no way trying to say that there was anything bad or unacceptable, the topic came up as an example of an instance of an idea being supported on incorrect science. He also mentioned how the theory of evolution has many holes in it, although he did concede that it was still the best explanation. I figure that although he’s a smart guy, his sources are pretty biased.
As far as my comment on gays in the military, I meant interesting in more of a personal way. You know, one day, BAM, a whole bunch of the people you’re on a ship in the middle of the ocean with are openly gay. But upon looking into it, it seems that Bush is in favor of keeping the current policy, while Gore has indicated that he might go for allowing gays to serve openly. Nutjobs Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer made some stupid comments about the horrors of that sort of “liberal social engineering.”
I’m going to look into the issue a bit more. My interest is definately piqued.
Lissener has a point. When a topic dealt with in ATGG begins to generate a lot of interest and several (say ten or so) posts in response, it might be worthwhile for someone (the person posing the question, Esprix, or a moderator) to open a new thread and quote the things posted to date in ATGG on the subject. That way the “gay ghetto” problem Lissener identified is obviated.
And, having read Lissener’s post and recollecting that I asked a question above which made reference to an incident he and I were on opposite sides of, may I ask respectfully of you, Lissener, if my post had aught to do with your request – and if so, to (a) offer my humble apologies, and (b) ask David or Gaudere to edit out the account of the Pit thread from my post above, which will probably stand quite well without the gory details? I sincerely did not mean to offend you in recalling the situation, and hope we’re on good terms now.
I was reading a National Geographic story about Alexander the Great. In that time, homosexuals were accepted in the military. AAMOF, they were desired as the men could take their lovers on the campaigns and were not distracted worrying about thier loved ones at home.
One of the funniest cartoons I’ve seen in some time had a red-faced modern general declaring that gays were bad for military morale and didn’t make good soldiers. Standing around him were about ten great gay or bi military leaders – I remember Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Richard the Lionhearted in particular – with one of them saying, “You want to clarify that?”
Then you have Harmodius and Aristogeiton, revered as the founders of democracy in one of the Greek cities, I think Athens, who ended up as such because they were lovers, and the son of the Tyrant hit on one of them, the other took revenge, and the thing snowballed, ending up as a full-scale revolution.
Or perhaps Thebes’s unconquerable Sacred Band, which was composed entirely of same-sex couples, and won every battle they fought until the last, against the Macedonians, led IIRC by Alexander.
Ironically enough, my request was related to why my answer to your question is No.
I proposed retiring ATGG because, having been away from my computer for a few days, I returned to SMDB to find that ATGGIII had suddenly grown to five pages. I skimmed it (missing the post you refer to), but of course if I were to read it post by post, it’d be at six or seven pages before I caught up. If its topics had been posted individually, of course, I could have skimmed the thread titles, or at the very least I’d have been more able to skim each topic separately, rather than trying to comb through the braided and knotted subthreads of ATGGIII.
Having said all that, I should point out that there’s a certain unstructured-conversational, group-therapy thing going on in the ATGG threads that would probably be absent if they were completely fragmented. So allow me to rescind my suggestion that they be retired, and instead suggest (as Polycarp has) that when a subthread grows legs, we send it out on its own. This may help to keep the ATGG threads to a more manageable scale, and it may serve to bring other people into the discussions than just those willing to stay caught up with ATGG.
I’m more than willing to take growing threads and send them out on their own.
So anyone who is thinking of posting here, if you think it might actually be a Great Debate (as opposed to a General Question, which fits more here than it would on that board), then go ahead and post it in its own thread rather than posting it here.
I read a book yesterday called Same Sex Partnerships by a John Stott. He’s apparently a christian, and I thought maybe he’d get into prejudices and all.
He started off saying most of the passages in the Bible used against gays meant something else entirely.
But in the middle, he explains that homosexulaity is a violation of “:natural laws”; meaning God created male and female bodies to fit together sexually (well, they DO).
Therefore, homosexual intercourse is against nature and against God’s plan for a married couple, a coming together of compliments as it were.
What of all the things that happen that don’t fit together? meaning theres abberations in all of nature, with homosexual activites amongst animals, even transgenderism among them.
He also says that the nature of gay relationships is NOT monogamous and challenges anyone to find a statistically significant percent of gay couples who have been together and faithful for more than 10 years.
As a test case for the proposal afloat: If the above question is, as it appears to be, intended to elicit responses from more people than just the OP–is intended in fact to inspire a discussion or debate on the topic it proposes–should we open it up in GD?
I know a great many gay and lesbian couples. My experience has been that they come in all flavors, from the lesbian couple who took me under their wing in Kansas City and who were together for the better part of 40 years all the way to a couple of guys who had one night of fun with each other. I don’t see that this differs dramatically from the straight couples I know.
I would be tremendously interested in seeing any study which has been done in re: gay/lesbian relationships, let alone coming up with the conclusions he did. I’d be suprised if such a beast exists.
For myself, I’m a monogamy junkie. For me, sex is all about intimacy and love. As I am wont to blurt at inoppertune moments, “If I just wanted to get off, I could do that myself and not have to clean my room or cook breakfast.”
