CORRECTION!!! The previous post was by me, not by TM. Sorry about tat everyone.
I would think that if homosexuality were a trait, inherited from a previous generation, we would see less homosexuals instead of more. I think that it would be obvious that this particular mutant trait would be obliviated with time since homosexuals can’t reproduce.
Although I believe that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, it is interesting that a great majority of homosexuals have shared traits that go beyond their sexual orientation. Just like a person with Down’s Syndrome is recognized be the Asian-like eyes, the large tongue and their unique palm crease, a homosexual can be recognized by the traits that they share. I won’t outline these traits, but we all are aware of the cliches that abound for homosexuals and afterall don’t cliches survive the test of time because they are generally true?
I don’t think though, that this makes any argument for the pro genetic mutation theory. It only shows that, when a person decides they are going to live the gay life, these are the attributes they must have to help define themselves as “Gay”.
If, however, someone does prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait, I would hope that we could find a cure for this.
But, as I have said, if this were actually a genetic trait, natural selection would have taken care of it a long time ago. Remember this in your quest for the answer; A true homosexual relationship DOES NOT produce offspring!
I can only speak for myself. I am bisexual (although I don’t particularly like that label - neither “gay” or “straight” are accurate in my case). I am a believer in the continuum of human sexuality. I think we have total heterosexuality on one extreme end, total homosexuality on the other, and 95% of the human population somewhere between. My opinion is that we can be “officially” whatever we want, but it’s still only a name.
I am married. I’ve been married twice, actually. I have two kids. My husband and I own a house together. These seem like very “straight” lifestyle choices. However, I am just as likely to be attracted to a woman as a man. Just because I will go home tonight to my husband, I am not “officially” straight. Just because I have had many gay experiences, and in fact had sex with another female long before I had sex with a guy, I am not “officially” gay. For me, it’s all shades of gray.
I have many “officially gay” friends who have had, and may continue to have, heterosexual experiences; by the same token, I have friends who “experimented” in their teenage years or in college but would not engage in a gay “relationship”. I think if we have to call it something, for me it comes down to this: Would you have an ongoing relationship with someone of the same sex? Would you take them to your parents’ for Thanksgiving? Would you sign a lease with them? I think that the true test of straightness/gayness is not whom you do “it” with, but whom you do “things” with. If it’s just a sex thing, maybe it’s experimentation, maybe it was just handy at the time. I agree that (nearly) all of us have the capacity for both gay/straight sexual contact, but not everyone could handle a commitment.
Not necessarily. So long as it not detrimental to the species, natural selection won’t eliminate it.
Homosexuality is not limited to mankind. Homosexuality is prevalent in most, if not all, animals. This tends to show that it is inherited. It also tends to uphold my continuum argument, altho some will vehemently deny it, stating that such ideas are repugnant to them. Yet, as I demonstrated in the prior post, any one can get pleasure from an act normally considered a homosexual act, if they are tricked into believing it is a heterosexual act.
Dear God, I haven’t seen anyone in more need of Ask the Gay Guy for a while. Read through these links and come back.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23047
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=24008
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39308
I know I shouldn’t do this, but I gotta ask.
I presume you mean a “cure” for homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a disease, why would there need to be a “cure”?
This oughta be good :rolleyes:
**mojo filter wrote:
Although I believe that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, it is interesting that a great majority of
homosexuals have shared traits that go beyond their sexual orientation. Just like a person with Down’s Syndrome is recognized be the Asian-like eyes, the large tongue and their unique palm crease, a homosexual can be recognized by the traits that they share. I won’t outline these traits, but we all are aware of the cliches that abound for homosexuals and afterall don’t cliches survive the test of time because they are generally true?**
Sorry, Mojo Filter, this is Great Debates, you’re going to have to back this statement up. What do you offer as proof of this assertion?
But, as I have said, if this were actually a genetic trait, natural selection would have taken care of it a long
time ago. Remember this in your quest for the answer; A true homosexual relationship DOES NOT produce offspring!
According to the APA a variety of factors go into making up a persons sexual orientation, not just genetics.
Why do you hinge the idea of procreation to a true homosexual relationship? There are many ways of expressing love; why do you insist on conflating love with with procreation?
**Polycarp wrote:
The celibate priest who has never had sexual relations with another person, but who finds men sexually attractive and women not, is just as gay as the circuit party-animal, from that point of view.**
As an addendum, I’d like to offer the following; there is a difference between being gay and being homosexual.
If one is homosexual, one feels a strong physical/emotional attraction to those of the same sex. This desire is that person’s primary way of expressing physical/emotional closeness.
If one is gay, one feels the same way as a homosexual, yet one is happy and well-adjusted with those desires. Not trying to point fingers or make accusation but as an example, Snark Hunter would be a homosexual whereas I am gay.
That’s my personal opinion; YMMV.
Man…who the fuck cares?!? Labels are totally irrelevant. Do what makes you feel hot.
And I’ve said it before, but…“NATURE VS. NURTURE” IS A TOTALLY IRRELEVANT DEBATE. A genetic basis does not make homosexuality somehow more valid as a lifestyle choice. Homosexual behavior is valid because there are people who like to do it, they find it fulfilling, and they are not hurting anyone by doing it. Attempting to argue that homosexuality is necessarily genetic only serves to further resrict people’s sexuality by making them believe that it is somehow “hardwired” into them. If you are curious about something and want to try it, try it! Forget about whether it is somehow your “natural state.” Homosexuality may or may not be genetic, but I fail to see how it really matters one way or the other.
When you’ve learned your first set of lyrics to a Broadway showtune.
Well, for the sake of this discussion, we could talk about one being homosexual, i.e., having a homosexual orientation, and one being gay, i.e., being open, perhaps even listening to Barbra Streisand once in a while ('tis just a joke, folks - back it up, thank you). Being gay would entail not being in the closet, but one’s behavior has little to do with one’s innate sexual orientation - there are plenty of homosexual men who were never “gay,” married women, had kids, and for all intents and purposes were heterosexual, but just on the outside. It didn’t change their innate sexual orientation one whit.
I trust this has been adequately answered.
The former means you’re a homosexual behaving in a way that is contrary to your sexual orientation. If you never, ever told anyone else this fact, you’d still be homosexual, but everyone would think you were heterosexual. As to the latter, you’re a creep who cheats on your wife, but at least you’re being a little more honest about yourself, even if it is in a self-destructive way. The latter, IMHO, would be more “gay” than the former, by the definitions I set up in this post.
It’s often said that one homosexual encounter doesn’t make one gay, so if some adolescent boy does a little experimenting, it doesn’t mean he’s homosexual. However, as pointed out, sexuality runs on a continuum, not a is/is not scale. I’d say if you are predominantly attracted to members of the same sex, you’re homosexual; predominantly to the opposite sex, you’re heterosexual; predominantly to both sexes (i.e., roughly 50/50), you’re bisexual (and this more than most varies from individual to indivual as to self-identifying labels); and predominantly to neither sex, you’re asexual. For example, even I, the Gay Guy, have professed an undying sexual attraction to Sophia Loren - go fig.
What I want to know is, are you asking for yourself, or just “for a friend?” 
Yes, yes, and yes - as I said, your orientation doesn’t change in regard to your behavior. Are you “gay” (by the definition I set up here)? No, maybe, and yes.
Oh, and mojo filter, get a clue, lad. :rolleyes:
Esprix
I like the gay vs. homosexual distinction.
Many gay guys I know have certain mannerisms, ways of talking, dressing, etc. in common that have nothing to do with sex. If I can tell someone is gay when they have never done or said anything relating to sex or their romantic preferences (and I have many times), it is not strictly a sexual thing. This doesn’t mean that all homosexuals are ‘gay’ by this definition, and I don’t think all of these non-‘gay-acting’ homosexuals have problems with their sexuality. Perhaps even some ‘gay’ people are not homosexual, though probably most are.
As an example, I have two homosexual coworkers (actually quite a few more, but these two are the only ones I know of whose schedules overlap with mine currently). I knew one was gay as soon as I met him. He is not a flamer, but he fits the gay stereotype in many ways, in his mannerisms, the way he talks, etc. I did not know the other guy was homosexual until he mentioned it tonight. I never would have known if I hadn’t overheard him talking about some guy he picked up.
I also like the Gay Vs. Homosexual distinction. It makes sense to me and pretty much clears up the question.
I’m asking for myself of course:)
Actually, I wanted to post this question/op in response to a thread in the pit awhile back where someone was bitching about “butch faggots.” Then Hastur and I had our little run in, and I thought it would be wise to let some time pass before posting it. A discussion I was having about statistics and classifications touched on the issue and I felt enough time had passed to post it.
That is where the “officially” in the title came from. Things like salary, gender and age are nice easy clear dividing lines for categories. We were wondering how someone got classified as black, white, gay, etc… Since I already know the answer to the race question, I figured I would toss out the sexual orientation question.
Mom of a Korean child and former member of the infertility club weighs in on this one…
We’d prefer it if you referred to the “associated facial features” of Down’s syndrome rather than the “Asian eyes” Asian kids have enough problems in our society without this association. Besides, I know my son’s eyes well, as well as the eyes of a friends child with Down’s syndrome…they really aren’t all that much alike.
…
My heterosexual relationship did not produce offspring for many years - any many people I know are forever infertile in heterosexual relationships. Does this invalidate those relationships as well.
I believe the OP was “At what point are you officially gay or lesbian?”
One of the possible answers to this question would be “you are born with a pre-disposition to homosexuality and therefore are gay or a lesbian at birth”.
I don’t think this is true. I don’t think any reputable authority has proven this either. (“Ask the Gay Guy” is far from authoritative.)
When I wrote-
“Although I believe that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, it is interesting that a great majority of homosexuals have shared traits that go beyond their sexual orientation. Just like a person with Down’s Syndrome is recognized be the Asian-like eyes, the large tongue and their unique palm crease, a homosexual can be recognized by the traits that they share. I won’t outline these traits, but we all are aware of the cliches that abound for homosexuals and afterall don’t cliches survive the test of time because they are generally true?”
I was playing Devil’s Advocate. There is no study to back up this assumption and I don’t believe any study would EVER back this up. This is my point. Without some type of evidence to show a shared PHYSICAL trait, one would be hard pressed to prove a ‘homosexual gene’ is causing people to be gay. A genetic profile of a person with Down’s syndrome would give evidence of the ailment, without further observations. We would not have to observe the above mentioned traits to know we were viewing the genes of a person with Down’s. The same cannot be said of homosexuals. Whether you have observed the cliches that abound for homosexuality or not, this, alone, would not be significant evidence for homosexuality be a genetic trait.
Barbitu8 wrote-
“Homosexuality is not limited to mankind. Homosexuality is prevalent in most, if not all, animals. This tends to show that it is inherited.”
It does not. It does prove, however, that sexuality itself is inherited.
Animals have been observed performing homosexual acts. It almost always involves juvenile males of a species. These juveniles have not developed the strength to fight off the larger males, nor have they developed the traits that attract the females. The urge to breed is still there though, and they act on this urge with other juveniles that are in the same predicament. Mature animals have not been observed actually seeking out other mature males to breed with.
Humans can be observed acting on these same instincts while imprisoned. Although no females are available to breed with, a human male still has the instinct to reproduce and thus will act on this instinct with whomever is available, namely other males. And although they are performing homosexual acts, this does not make them homosexual. Or does it? If so, wouldn’t this show that homosexuality can be learned?
alice_in_wonderland wrote- (in response to "Homosexuality is learned behaviour…)
“Wrong. Basic learning theory dictates that if a behaviour can be learned, it can be unlearned. Every emperical study ever conducted on those nifty “Learn to not be gay” seminars conducted by certain churches/conservitive groups, etc has found that THEY DON’T WORK!!! There are many conflicted homosexuals in the world (particularly teens). I think if the possibility of “un-learning” gayness was there, some of those people would do it”
Well, enough homosexuals have unlearned their ‘gayness’ long enough to have a heterosexual relationship to pass on this supposed genetic trait.
I wrote-
“I would think that if homosexuality were a trait, inherited from a previous generation, we would see less homosexuals instead of more. I think that it would be obvious that this particular mutant trait would be obliviated with time since homosexuals can’t reproduce.”
Is this not obvious? Two males or two females in a TRUE homosexual relationship CANNOT reproduce. Only if they unlearn this gayness long enough to have a relation with a member of the opposite sex, will they be able to pass on the gene.
And finally, Dangerosa wrote-
“We’d prefer it if you referred to the “associated facial features” of Down’s syndrome rather than the “Asian eyes” Asian kids have enough problems in our society without this association. Besides, I know my son’s eyes well, as well as the eyes of a friends child with Down’s syndrome…they really aren’t all that much alike”
What I actually said was “Asian-like eyes”. The term used to describe those afflicted with Down’s syndrome was, at one time, “Mongoloid” (this is a term I find offensive and therefore did not use it). The term was used in the past because of the eye shape and the resemblance to the eyes of Asians, Mongolians in particular. I apparently am not the only person that believes that Down’s syndrome produces Asian-like eyes, but you are taking offense where no offense was intended.
Dangerosa also wrote-
My heterosexual relationship did not produce offspring for many years - any many people I know are forever infertile in heterosexual relationships. Does this invalidate those relationships as well?
No, it does not invalidate them in the least. It does however, lead to an observation about genetics. Any genetic traits that your infertile friends may have will stop with their generation. They may have brothers or sisters that can pass on their parents’ traits but the infertile couples, by definition, will not pass on any traits,whether they be good or bad. No dominant genes, no recessive genes. No gene for blue eyes nor brown. No genes at all!
The same is true for a homosexual relationship since it, again by definition, is infertile.
**
Is a fish not a fish just because it thinks it is a bird? This one is a no brainer. If you’re mainly attracted to members of the same sex then you’re a homosexual.
**
While an interesting discussion it is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of people who happen to be homosexual and treating them like human beings.
I happen to think that how one is raised can sometimes be factor.
**
It doesn’t matter. If a straight woman can open her legs “for the sake of England” then a straight male can probably fake it with a woman. An active fantasy life is a wonderful thing.
**
Well a decent number of heterosexual boys had their first sexual experience when a friend gave them a hand job. So I’d probably guess that once you go “gay” you’ll probably still stray. As to the answer to your last question I think I already covered that.
I seriously doubt there are many people who don’t lean one way or another. I’m sure there’s gotta be a few out there but not in enough numbers to worry about.
Marc
**
Well, aren’t they rather odd. Seeing as how the vast majority of the population is heterosexual it seems to me that homosexuality is a bit of an oddity.
[disclaimer] I don’t think homosexuality is morally wrong or unnatural. I believe that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as I am which includes marriage, not getting beaten up, and all sorts of other things. [/disclaimer]
**
I don’t agree with B at all. If I’m primarily having sex with members of the same sex and refuse to go through option B then I’m in denial. But I’d still be a homosexual.
Marc
And straight out of left field we have:
Did I miss something here?
Must… control… Fist… of… Death…
Esprix