Sake, one of the good things about being a sentient species is that we can base our ethical decisions on something other than biological determinism. Sentience is fun. I suggest you try it.
Thanks for rubbing it in, matt!
I’d love to give sentience a whirl, but the good doctor hasn’t fitted me with the emotion chip just yet. It’s still sitting in the glass jar on the shelf right next to my tolerance for condescending canadians.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
On the issue of genetic causes of lesbianism, all I know is what I’ve seen. A few years back, I had occasion to meet a large chunk of my county’s lesbian population up close and personal. To a woman, they stated they became lesbian only after having been abused by men to the point where they could no longer stand the touch of a man. They basically found lesbianism preferable to going solo. That doesn’t speak very well of today’s men.
Also, the majority of them were quite promiscuous, not at all like the numbers bandied by GLA groups. But that is definitely learned behavior anyway, so off topic.
TNTruth:
So tell me, Mr. Just registered today and lacking anything in the profile, where did you come into contact with so many lesbians, all of which were so open to tell their views?
Yer pal,
Satan
Satan,
I spent 2-1/2 years sharing an apartment with three of them. I’m straight, but they welcomed me into their group of friends and lovers. It’s not very hard to get people to open up if you treat them respectfully.
BTW, What’s this Mr. stuff? Are there lots of guys in He** named Ruth?
Hello, Ruth! I think what Satan is trying to say is that moving in with three lesbians (and meeting their friends) is hardly akin to meeting
Perhaps we can probe this a bit deeper. Precisely how many woman told you they became lesbian only after being abused by men?
This has not been my general experience with lesbians (well, I have known two women who were raped by men before coming out - that adds to your theory). The lesbians I know are the way they are because they are really turned on by women and feel no sexual attraction toward men. I once had sex with a lesbian for no other reason than a stupid party dare (in front of a room full of people) only to have her say, “That was fantastic and all, but it would’ve been much better if she (gorgeous straight woman sitting across the room) had jumped in!” The wind was taken right out of my sails. It’s not treatment or pleasure or equipment - it’s inherent orientation and brain chemistry.
And please, I am far more promiscuous than ANY lesbian I have ever met.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
Sake,
Thanks for the reply. I hope you’ve recovered from your party days. Let me put it this way. I live in a small county, about 50,000 people. That’s 25,000 women, and around 5,000 between the ages of 18 and 35. If 10% of them are lesbian, that’s 500. I talked to at least 100 of them and that’s a large chunk. The only one who didn’t “go lesbian” because she was sick of men was a hermaphrodite, so she had her own reasons.
I found the whole experience very enlightening and exciting. I met a lot of wonderful people I’ll never see again now that I’m married. Anyway, that’s my experience. I’m sorry if yours has led you to different conclusions.
sans evidence I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be inherently different to the point of enduring prejudice their entire life. I have to go with genetics.
I don’t recall the specifics of the “alcoholism gene” scenario, but what you’re saying about the soi disant “gay gene” is inaccurate. Dean Hamer, who conducted the original research, did not claim to find a “gay gene.” Hamer’s team, after determining patterns of increased incidence of male homosexuality on the mother’s side of the family. If a mother had a gay brother, it was more likely that she would have a gay son. He found no similar patterns through the father’s side. This led him to conclude that homosexuality had a genetic component and that it had to be located on the X chromosome, since male children get their only X chromosome from their mothers. His team examined 40 pairs of gay brothers who did not have any known gay relatives on their father’s side. They checked 22 different genetic markers on the X chromosome and found that in 33 of the 40 pairs there was concordance in a region of the chromosome called Xq28. This was an 83% sharing, which is significantly higher than the 50% which would be expected if there were no connection to sexual orientation. The study was repeated with another set of 32 pairs of gay brothers, and a 67% concordance was found. No specific gene was identified, only the apparent existence of a genetic marker. To date, no study has fully refuted these results. A 1995 study found only a 41% concordance, but many of the families studied had gay uncles on the father’s side so the samples were not equivalent. Again, no reputable researcher of whom I’m aware has ever argued that there is a single gene which determines sexual orientation.
Source: Hamer, Dean and Peter Copeland. “Living With Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think.” Doubleday 1998. The same book has a section on the “alcoholic gene” but I dodn’t feel like reviewing it for this response.
Does that mean that Judaism is genetic?
-Ben
Otto, That’s interesting. I’ll go back and see if I can find where I read that. Again it was no more that a few sentences and probably from my college biology text.
Please summarize the “alcoholism gene” section, too.
No, it’s a choice, so you must be denied all civil rights because of your deviant lifestyle. 
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Temporary hijack to ask a question:
Who INVENTED the term homophobia, I mean it was obviously someone homosexual, using it to make others feel as though they are “sick” if they dont accept homosexuality.
What I am asking is who is credited with the invention of this “illness”? I dont see it listed in the DSM, which I think makes its use invalid, but its so mainstream now, that it almost falls in the UL (urban legend) category.
But I want to be proved wrong, or shown evidence. Please help me on this.
According to http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/dictionary.html, “homophobia” was coined by George Weinberg in Society and the Healthy Homosexual, evidently sometime around 1969 according to the M-W entry.
From www.religioustolerance.org:
I honestly could not find the proper etymology of the word, but I’m sure its out there.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
While researching some info on the Pit topic currently runningon gay issues, I posted the following, from the American Psychological Association July 1998 (www.apa.com):
I also ran across a book called “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity,” by Bruce Bagemihl, who spent 10 years scouring biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals. Sounds like good reading.
Much of the medical research reading I’ve done on the past several days likens sexual orientation to left-handedness - surprising similarities between the two - and that seems to be how most professionals treat it. It’s not a choice, but some people are while some people aren’t.
Thoughts? Feel free to jump into the rather lively and surprisingly lucid (for the Pit) discussion over in the Pit.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
My opinion …not genetics. If it were genetics, seems it would stick in certain familys. Are Nuns also born genetically.
However, whether it is genetics or not, I do not think it is right to judge or to be mean to anyone.
---------------------------------------------Well, that’s your take on it. It seems to me that it’s more a matter of geography than genetics. One gravitates toward others of like mind. Which is why there are areas in the US known for their homosexual populations. It seems to me that it has less to do with cultural control than simply wanting to be among one’s own.
There are also places known for drugs, gambling, KKK, ect. Do you think that about those places too.
Hey, I didn’t even know this discussion was going on over here. Well, here I am, 'Sprix.
Because Marvin brought up the “homophobia” thing here, I will adress it here as well (for all of you who saw this show already in the Pit, sit tight for a minute):
Only two “phobias” are mentioned specifically in the DSM-IV. Claustrophobia is not mentioned, but it is valid. On the other hand, they do also have an entry for “Specific Phobia,” in leiu of trying to diagnose every kind of fear known to man. In the other thread, I broke down the DSM-IV’s qualifications for a “specific phobia,” and found that most of them don’t apply to “homophobia,” at least not to all those to which the term has been applied. Agreed, there are people who display all the phobic qualities listed in response to homosexuals, and they may rightly be called “homophobes,” but the term is grossly misued today. Now on to the real topic:
I don’t think there have been any studies that have shown conclusively that homosexuality is 100% genetic. I agree that there are genes that will predispose you to becoming homosexual, but there are certain environmental factors that ultimately make the decision. Sexual orientation, just like any complex behavior, is most likely a combination of nature and nurture, that is, the genetic material throws the pitch, but the environment knocks it out of the park. Like other behaviors, it is learned and implanted during the early stages of development, so by the time the person becomes self-actualized enough to start thinking about relationships, it is already pretty much determined. It’s the same as being a type-A or a type-B personality.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
Rousseau, welcome to the discussion. You are right about the lack of studies showing 100% genetic roots. I also agree with the importance of environmental factors. As for “homophobia” - in a very mild way, I think it is inherent in our species.
To be different is very dangerous. It guarantees prejudice, inconvenience and humiliation. Most who are different do nothing which warrants this abuse. But some who are different DO deserve it, as they flaunt their “difference” every single day, often wearing printed Tshirts and driving around town in cars with stupid bumper stickers and drinking out of coffee mugs with cute little phrases: I’m talking about those insufferable southpaws, of course.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
You sinistraphobic bigot! 
Seriously, since an analogy between sexual preference and handedness has been made several times, I thought perhaps one of the more recent theories on the genetic basis of handedness might be worth considering in regard to sexual preference also. This theory proposes that there is no “gene for lefthandedness”; what their is however is a gene which causes righthandedness. All who have a functioning copy of it develop hardwiring of the brain resulting in a righthanded preference. If the gene is absent or nonfunctioning the brain will still usually hardwire for a hand preference, but will do so essentially at random, and thus about half will become lefties. This is pure conjecture, but might not sexual preference be similarly determined? No “gay gene”, but rather the absence of a “straight gene”, and the brain hardwiring for sexual preference at random? I seem to recall reading once that if an identical twin were gay the odds were about 50% the other twin would be also. While that observation certainly doesn’t prove the theory, it is at least consistent with it.
Sorry to be jumping in at such a late point…
A note in the “Where’s the gene?” discussion
Just because something is not genetically determined does not mean that it is not biologically determined. If I administer a course of testosterone into a genetically
female fetus (XX), she will develop a penis. It is different than her genetic sex, but it is still a biological determination.
If I administer Thalidomide during prenatal development, the child may not develop
arms and/or legs. The genetic code requested arms and legs, but the drug interfered
with that request.
I favor the research that supports the contention that prenatal hormone levels are responsible for determining the sex of the brain. This research would suggest that the homosexual (male) brain is sex-typed as male, except for the portion that determines sexual orientation [default condition of all brains - desire males, add testosterone - desire female]. Female homosexuals would have a female brain except for the sexual orientation portion which would have received an hormonal instruction to switch to ‘desire females’.
Regardless of my selection of relevant research, just because there is not a genetic component does not mean that there is not a biological component.