[QUOTE=Rokman]
So you’re saying homosexuality IS a choice? Because if homosexuals can be aroused by the opposite sex, then it is a choice…
[/QUOTE]
I think in some cases it’s situational. Probably for the vast majority of people. I’m thinking of some stuff I read about monkeys where if there were no females then males would exhibit homosexual behavior, whereas if there were females they wouldn’t, and vice versa (i.e. if there were no males then females would exhibit homosexual behavior, etc). I think that most people fall into this camp, i.e. that they might be gay or straight if asked, but really are bi-sexual depending on the situation. I doubt there are very many gay people who are completely incapable of having sex with someone of the opposite sex, or many straight people who, depending on the situation could not (not would not) have sex with members of their own sex.
In that respect I do think that sexual orientation is ‘a choice’ for the majority of humans in the respect that they pick their preference (gay or straight), but that situationally they COULD go the other way. I don’t believe that many people are locked into a single set sexual orientation to the exclusion of any other.
A homosexual man might maintain an erection while having sex with a woman by thinking of a man or men. In such a situation, it would be incorrect to say that he’s aroused by the opposite sex: He’s aroused by the same sex who just happens to not be present.
And there’s also the mother’s immune system to consider; it does react to having male children. Male cells have an immunological marker that female cells don’t, and cells from the fetus end up permanently scattered throughout the mother’s body. And statistically, women who have had sons are more prone to autoimmune diseases. So one speculation for the cause of that increasing number of homosexual male offspring (but not lesbians) is some sort of escalating immune reaction.
Yes, it surely is a huge positive correlation. But it ain’t sickle cell anemia, where if one twin has the trait, the other twin is 99+% likely to have the trait also.
It’s proof that there’s no single gene that if you have it, you’re gay, and if you don’t have it, you’re not gay. It means that some people are likely to become gay for unknown reasons, and people who are very similar to them are very likely but not certain to be gay as well. It means that someone who is genetically identical to Lance Bass is likely to be gay, but might not be.
It’s not the same. A homosexual isn’t aroused by the opposite sex, but many of them are capable of sexual function with the opposite sex. If a gay man offered to give you a blow job, you could probably close your eyes and think of [insert hot female here], and come in his mouth. As long as he made sure to shave really carefully first, nothing punctures the fantasy faster than razor stubble.
Or to put it another way, suppose you had a sister. And she met a guy through her church that had once been a leather-clad Castro district manwhore, until one day he woke up from a drugged stupor after an all night gay orgy in some hotel room, and he opened the desk drawer and found a Bible, and started reading it, and decided to repent of his sins. So he went to Exodus International, or some other gay reparative therapy group, and came out of it convinced the best thing to do was to live like God intended. So he joined your sister’s church, and became friends with her, and proposed marriage to her.
Now, would you advise your sister to marry this man?
Hell, teenage males (gay or straight) can get an erection with just about anything!
Pictures in Sports Illustrated. Words in a written story. A watermelon in the refrigerator. A bouncy ride on the bus. Just about anything under the sun! And often there is no ‘choosing’ involved – it just happens.
I had a friend in high school who had 6 older brothers. So he should have been what, 200% gay? As far as I know he was completely straight. He’s now married, and has 5 or 6 kids of his own. If he’s really gay, he’s covering it really well!
Not quite: It could still be the case that there’s some gene which causes everyone who has it to be gay, so long as there are also other factors that cause homosexuality. All it proves is that sexuality can be determined, at least in part, by non-genetic, non-uterine factors.
Then this brings up a whole different conversation… Is there a difference between being gay genetically and being gay psychologically? Is there a physiological difference between a person who is on the 100% homosexual side of the spectrum and someone who is on the 75% level? Can there possibly be? Maybe there IS a gay gene and those people can’t choose, and the people who don’t have that gene ARE choosing (or bisexual, meaning they’ll take anything that walks). Choosing subconsciously that is, maybe.
It is time for a basic scientific lesson on sexual differentiation. That was my focus in behavioral neuroscience grad school and I worked in labs that manipulated both body and brain sexual orientation in animal models.
Listen up because some of this will make more sense once you understand it. The sex your body and brain displays isn’t controlled directly through genetics. That is the key point that most people get confused on. Sexual differentiation in most aspects is controlled through sex hormones (estrogen and and androgens like testerostone among others) during development.
In normal development, the genes cause the appropriate sex gonads like the testes or ovaries to exist but their job is to produce the right combination of sex hormones at the right times to control the appropriate sexual differentiation. The timing of those sex hormones during development causes the brain and body to differentiate in a sex specific way in carefully timed events called critical periods that are irreversible once they happen.
In the absence of androgen exposure, mammals develop in the female model regardless of their genetic sex. All the males reading here would be females for all intents and purposes if your body didn’t get the correct androgen exposure during development and that happens in the real world in androgen sensitivity disorders. Genetic sex does not always equal prototypical sex. Likewise, genetic females can develop according to the male pattern if they are exposed to male hormones during development.
Critical periods turn off and on in rapid sequence during development and it is quite possible to have something go wrong selectively among them and that can affect brain or body development or both. The best current theories for gay males show that they defaulted to a female pattern during a critical period of brain development that controls sexual preference. That is easy to induce in lab animals and has been done since the 1970’s. Gay human males also have evidence of female brain micro-anatomy in post-mortem studies. See work by Simon Levy and everything since for cites.
Are you with me so far?
Brain and body sex aren’t controlled directly by genes. That opens the door for other controls. Animal models also show a strong influence of the maternal uterine environment on sex development as well. It can also be manipulated in the lab and can affect brain and body sex development. The best theories now say that is why the number of siblings of a given sex an individual has can affect the development of later ones. The early developmental incubating environment in the mother can become altered by prior siblings so that the development of later children are affected by it. Rats and mice are sensitive to birth order as well in terms of sexual behavior.
There is a whole mature subfield of science based on this stuff through decades of work. I sometimes forget that not everyone knows even the most basic parts like phenotypical sex not being controlled directly by genes or that there is such a thing as brain sex but it would be much easier if everyone took that to heart it is as well founded as the theory of gravity in the basic sense.
Yo, they aren’t. That is the point. Do you want more lessons on this or are you just being sarcastic? An individual can have mistimings of sex hormone exposure during development that causes development of opposite sex characteristics, there can be overexposure to sex hormones that are contrary to their genetic sex, or they may lack the receptors to respond to their own sex hormones appropriately. Their genetic sex itself can also be abnormal. There is such a thing as true hermaphrodites as well. If it is possible to screw up sexual differentiation, nature has found a way to do it real people and animals.
It is not a direct relationship. It is indirect and can be altered in the middle by lots of different variables many of which happen in nature.
Please tell me you aren’t serious. I do know what I am talking about so flip comments are not appreciated but I can help if you want to know more. This is a mature field of science that doesn’t filter down that well to the masses.
No I’m completely serious. Other than the random other genetic combinations that decided eye color and hair etc the only thing that is difference between my sister and my genes are the XX and the XY. The presence of that Y chromosome is the reason that the androgen and testosterone is signaled to expose and thats why I am a man and she is not. There are no other and there never will be any other gene or condition that will decide whether or not I will be male or female except for the presence of that Y chromosome.
Since you seem to be confused in biology for some reason let me simplify it for you… Being a male=significant testosterone, androgen etc=presence of Y chromosome
Yea there can be gene mutations and physiological issues that cause a misrelease of hormones, but that all boils down to the individual genetic code of the specific somatic cell, therefore being caused by genetics. ummm suck it.
