Gay Marriage - A Gathering Storm

[Charismatic]

Of course, at one time I was like you man.

I used to not believe in God and all that, shit I was gay too.
But then I got baptized in the name of the lord and man, my life is so much better and I love women now, they love me too.

Being gay is just wrong brah and I can't support it.

[Vuitton]

Of course, at one time I was like you man.

I used to not believe in God and all that, shit I was gay too.
But then I got baptized in the name of the lord and man, my life is so much better and I love women now, they love me too.

Being gay is just wrong brah and I can't support it.

<3 this post. Full of all sorts of win.

[Kuya]

Honestly, these assertions that there is a biological cause for homosexuality (note the assumption over heterosexuality!) need to die already. I won't attack Firas's claims because they are born out of moral judgements based on an understanding of gender that is typical for someone from the ME. I will however, once again, hammer down the point that most biological explanations for homosexuality are essentially, dead in the water.

Meridian Magazine :Born That Way? Facts and Fiction

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerned Women for America - New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

Biological Determination Of Sexuality Heating Up As A Research Field

LeVay conducted a post-mortem examination focusing on a particular cluster of cells in the hypothalamus known as the INAH-3. He reported that he had found "subtle but significant differences" between the brains of homosexual men and the heterosexual men. LeVay's research had a number of important limitations. He had very little information about the sexual histories of the research participants. Some of the subjects died of AIDS. Although there were differences between experimental and control groups, some presumed heterosexual men had small brain nuclei in the critical area, and some homosexual men had nuclei large enough to be within the normal heterosexual range. Activists proclaimed that the biological roots of homosexuality had been established. Listen to LeVay's interpretation of his research.

Further, LeVay summarized his research results in the following way:

It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior...Since I looked at adult brains we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.4

Commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a scientist as the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states, "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case--that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences is sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain.5

Later, in his book Queer Science, LeVay offered additional clarification regarding biology and homosexuality:

Although there are significant differences between the attitudes of lesbians and gay men it is clear that both groups are far more inclined to consider their sexual orientation a biological given than is the general population....Should we take these assertions seriously? Not entirely, of course. No one even remembers being born, let alone being born gay or straight. When a gay man, for example, says he was born gay he generally means that he felt different from other boys at the earliest age he can remember. Sometimes the difference involved sexual feelings, but more commonly it involved some kind of gender nonconformist or sex atypical traits-disliking rough and tumble play for example, that were not explicitly sexual. These differences, which have been verified in a number of ways suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by factors operating very early in life, but these factors could still consist of environmental factors such as parental treatment in the early postnatal period.6

The next study was conducted by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings. In their sample, they had 56 sets of identical twins and 54 sets of non-identical twins. They found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about 1 in 5 twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother also. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2%. Interesting enough, Bailey and Pillard found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%.

The most fascinating question, however, is that if there is something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment? Neil Whitehead provided some comparative data on twin studies. The concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%. From the Bailey and Pillard study one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality.8

The third study, and perhaps the most sensationalized of the three studies since it emerged at the time of the controversy surrounding gays in the military during the Clinton era, was conducted by Hamer et al. Dean Hamer was a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute. Hamer and his group attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. In Hamer's study, he examined 40 pairs of non-identical gay brothers and asserted that 33 pairs--a number significantly higher than the 20 pairs that chance would dictate--had inherited the same X-linked genetic markers from their mothers.9

Criticism of Hamer's research came from a surprising source: George Risch, the scientist at Yale University School of Medicine who invented the method used by Hamer. Risch commented, "Hamer et al suggest that their results are consistent with X-linkage because maternal uncles have a higher rate of homosexual orientation than paternal uncles, and cousins related through a maternal aunt have a higher rate than other types of cousins. However, neither of these results are statistically significant."10

In summarizing the biological studies on homosexuality Byne and Parsons offer the following summary, "Recent studies postulate biologic factors as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from a dissatisfaction with the current status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieus as the individual's sexuality emerges. Because such traits may be heritable or developmentally influenced by hormones, the model predicts an apparent non-zero heritability for homosexuality without requiring that either genes or hormones directly influence sexual orientation per se."15

Independently, Friedman and Downey noted that credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality.16 They conclude that "human sexual orientation is complex and diversely experienced and that a biopsychosocial model best fits the current state of knowledge in the field."17

The developmental biologist form Brown University, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a self-identified lesbian, offers some interesting insight. Referring to the "born that way" argument, she states:

It provides a legal argument that is, at this moment, actually having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question.

But whatever the biological basis of sexual orientation, the research-and the results-can be politically charged. Explains Byne, "My work has been taken up by the political and religious right, . . . claiming that by debunking the biology I was showing that homosexuality was a matter of choice, and a poor choice that could be changed." In fact, Byne has learned that one group, the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, went so far as to set up a toll-free telephone number to distribute reprints of one of Byne's articles, something Byne says they did without his permission.

CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCH: Dean Hamer, left, and J. Michael Bailey converse at the May conference.

"The fact of the matter is that this biological issue should not figure in gay rights," maintains Byne. "Gays have to premise their rights on principles of equality, justice, and liberty, just as any minority does. Any set of rights that was premised on the assumption of genetic or biological immutability would be impoverished at best." Robert Finn, a freelance science writer based in Long Beach Calif., is online at [email protected].

It is pretty much accepted within the academic community that any claim that homosexuality is biological is pretty much a "troll" statement.

[Vuitton]

Honestly, these assertions that there is a biological cause for homosexuality (note the assumption over heterosexuality!) need to die already. I won't attack Firas's claims because they are born out of moral judgements based on an understanding of gender that is typical for someone from the ME. I will however, once again, hammer down the point that most biological explanations for homosexuality are essentially, dead in the water.

Meridian Magazine :Born That Way? Facts and Fiction

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerned Women for America - New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

Biological Determination Of Sexuality Heating Up As A Research Field

It is pretty much accepted within the academic community that any claim that homosexuality is biological is pretty much a "troll" statement.

(IMO)

I view sexuality as a spectrum, and current society forces individuals to assume an either/or sexuality. You are either straight, or you are gay. So, what about the individuals who fall along the middle of the spectrum? They either accept that they are sexually attracted to both sexes, or they let society force them to choose the side they are more closely aligned with.

That is a really simplified explanation, I think, but covers the core concepts.

[Kuya]

Also, i like this statement by Daryl J. Bem:

I also believe that it is short-sighted of those who seek to bring sexual orientation under the protection of civil rights statutes to argue for the biological basis of homosexuality as a way of strengthening the rationale for treating sexual orientation like race and sex. Most civil rights statutes protect against discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, and sex. But if race, color, and sex are protected because they are based in biology--and, hence, not freely --then what is the rationale for including creed? Surely Jews, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Mormons--to mention some who have historically sought protection under this provision--have never had to argue that their religious beliefs were biologically determined before earning the right to be protected against arbitrary discrimination. And surely there must be a nobler and more militant call for justice than "it isn't my fault." It is also dangerous to base arguments for equal rights on empirical evidence of causality because the evidence might change. Surely the moral argument should not.

Gays should argue for their rights as a culturally differentiated social group, not some biological substrata, because the latter will slam them into a wall rather soon.

[Charismatic]

That's not true, you can change your preference.
I'm living proof brah.

[Vuitton]

That's not true, you can change your preference.
I'm living proof brah.

Nah brah you've just been pushed back into da closet. I'd come in 'der with ya brah but I prefer to have sex in open spaces brah.

[Charismatic]

Nah, I ain't in da closet son... after I realized what wuz^ I stopped being attracted to men.
Bet dat

[Vuitton]

Nah, I ain't in da closet son... after I realized what wuz^ I stopped being attracted to men.
Bet dat

To each their own! ... brah

[GeneJackit]

Eeww, no way. I'd have to... go near those cavernous maws.

Now, I really dont care at all...but don't you think refering to a vagina as a cavernous maw is kinda sexist, borderline mysoginist? This isnt an original thought of mine, I think I read it in a Savage Love column...where Dan Savage referred to a vagina as like a split ham, and a buncha female readers excoriated him for it.



another thought I've heard bandied about that interested me was this:

If scientists discovered a gay gene...and found it in a fetus in utero, would you (general question...not to anyone specific) approve parents aborting their kids b/c they didnt want them to be gay?




On gay marriage...I am completely apathetical on the subject....get married, or dont...i dont care. Call it a civil union, or call it marriage...I dont care....what homosexuals do in their private life is none of my concern. However, if people (like in CA) vote to ban gay marriage thru voting then that decision should be respected.



EDIT: Charismatic's last few posts reek of some serious wooshness....either that or some sort of expression of parody

[Charismatic]

Yeh man, its all abour ur mindset.
Ya gotta get ur mind right, den you won't be thinkging about sticking your dong in a mans ass.

You already admittied you like dem asian bitches, y not pick up a few and see how shit goes from there? Trust me dawg, pussy feels a lot better than a asshole

[Andarvi]

Firas broke my troll meter and I can't tell if Charismatic is trumping even Firas' trolling...

As far as the cause of homosexuality, I find it hard to believe, regardless of the studies you posted kuya. I feel like we are clearly in the infancy stages of coming to a conclusion on its origins. For every source of one saying it is no biological or may not be i can find one of the contrary, just good search it and you will get a bunch in .5 seconds. Finding the basis of homosexuality is also a field of study that will be hard to find non-biased scientists to conduct the study and report the data. Given the same empirical data, two scientists based on their own notions and personalities may interpret it completely differently.

I think when its origin is found beyond the shadow of a doubt it will in fact reside in largely biological foundations. Homosexuality exists in all cultures across the world, I feel it appearing more prevalent in one culture than another is largely dependent on the level of taboo it is within that setting. Homosexuals often describe feeling different at a very young age, an age when they are not really mature enough to consciously "choose" a sexual orientation (not saying they are claiming to know they were gay at 6 years old, but they feel as if they are different.) Lastly, why would a person choose to be oppressed? It is along the same lines of a person being able to choose to be white or black in the south 50 years ago. Why would someone choose to be something in an environment they knew they would be persecuted, condemned, and often times unsafe in? It seems counter-intuitive.

This is just one mans opinion.

People who are all up in arms against gay marriage need to get back in their time portal and go to the segregation era South and complain about blacks drinking out of their fountains and sitting in their diners.

[Vuitton]

Now, I really dont care at all...but don't you think refering to a vagina as a cavernous maw is kinda sexist, borderline mysoginist? This isnt an original thought of mine, I think I read it in a Savage Love column...where Dan Savage referred to a vagina as like a split ham, and a buncha female readers excoriated him for it.

Yeah, it is sexist and/or mysognistic. I wouldn't refer to it as such in a serious conversation. There are various levels of language use and in the situation where I referred to the vagina as a cavernous maw, the language use was informal and used offensive language for the sake of comedy with like minded people (in this instance, guys).

My language use is dynamic so one should not jump to conclusions when certain words are used. I may have used a sexist and/or mysognistic word but that usage does not make me sexist and/or mysoginistic.

[Vuitton]

Yeh man, its all abour ur mindset.
Ya gotta get ur mind right, den you won't be thinkging about sticking your dong in a mans ass.

You already admittied you like dem asian bitches, y not pick up a few and see how shit goes from there? Trust me dawg, pussy feels a lot better than a asshole

The fleshlight begs to differ! ;D

(Also, I'd prefer the dong in ass situation you refered to reversed. No woman can do that for me.)

[Kuya]

Firas broke my troll meter and I can't tell if Charismatic is trumping even Firas' trolling...

As far as the cause of homosexuality, I find it hard to believe, regardless of the studies you posted kuya. I feel like we are clearly in the infancy stages of coming to a conclusion on For every source of one saying it is no biological or may not be i can find one of the contrary, just good search it and you will get a bunch in .5 seconds. Finding the basis of homosexuality is also a field of study that will be hard to find non-biased scientists to conduct the study and report the data. Given the same empirical data, two scientists based on their own notions and personalities may interpret it completely differently.

I think when its origin is found beyond the shadow of a doubt it will in fact reside in largely biological foundations. Homosexuality exists in all cultures across the world, I feel it appearing more prevalent in one culture than another is largely dependent on the level of taboo it is within that setting. Homosexuals often describe feeling different at a very young age, an age when they are not really mature enough to consciously "choose" a sexual orientation (not saying they are claiming to know they were gay at 6 years old, but they feel as if they are different.) Lastly, why would a person choose to be oppressed? It is along the same lines of a person being able to choose to be white or black in the south 50 years ago. Why would someone choose to be something in an environment they knew they would be persecuted, condemned, and often times unsafe in? It seems counter-intuitive.

This is just one mans opinion.

People who are all up in arms against gay marriage need to get back in their time portal and go to the segregation era South and complain about blacks drinking out of their fountains and sitting in their diners.

Such as Firas is incapable of understanding the point of Westerners, Westerners, specifically Americans are hard pressed to do away with their biological determinism, it really doesn't surprise me nor did i intend to convince anyone.

Also, i'd be careful with what you said, because you just implied that science can make two contradictory claims based not on the way the research is done itself, but on what people's intentions are. Or course, you mellow that out by saying that science will eventually find the truth... which to you is that sexuality is biologically determined.

[Vuitton]

Firas broke my troll meter and I can't tell if Charismatic is trumping even Firas' trolling...

I don't consider it trolling when they're being civil, nonoffensive, provoking intelligent responses, and not frothing at the mouth in response. Sure, Charismatic is being comedic in his writing style, but I don't know if I'd consider it trolling. I am having fun responding to him, and I don't detect anger or conflict.

[thestalkmore]

Mizango isn't even a good troll

[Tristam]

just here to /agree with Andarvi's post.

Work has been done investigating the biological basis of all sexual behavior, certainly some aspects of sexuality are learned and due to the influence of society, but sexuality is a fundamental issue in reproductive biology and evolution and it would be a major, major surprise if there were no (or only a weak) biological component.

I agree with Kuya to the extent that the origins of human sexuality are not deterministic and exclusively genetic. And from all the quotes that he prepared I think most of those people feel the same way. But it's a big leap saying no biological origin.

Fun perspective in Nature for those that can get it about breaking the sensation of "love" into its component parts and how they relate to sexuality, was actually gonna post this when I found it at first but then was all like "naw too dorky":
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...df/457148a.pdf

[Vuitton]

I am off to class! (Apropos, it is conflict resolution and community development, hahaha!)

[Charismatic]

The fleshlight begs to differ! ;D

(Also, I'd prefer the dong in ass situation you refered to reversed. No woman can do that for me.)

just tell her u liek strap-ons, that's gonna turn some women off... but fuckem dawg, plenty of fish in the sea.