Homosexual immutability?

Elle Collins

Someone recently posed the question 'Is it wrong to be gay?' over on the LGBT board and in responses was asked 'Is it wrong to be black?'

This got me thinking of the issue of homosexual immutability. Clearly a persons race is an immutable and unalterable fact, and clearly some homosexuals consider their sexuality to be immutable also, but what I'm wondering is, has that ever been proven? Is there any evidence for homosexual immutability?

It'd be interesting to read any links to the results of studies related to this issue, regardless what side of the fence their findings come down on (immutability vs behaviour based)

Kooli

I don't know of any studies, but I'm fairly sure that there are a lot of gay people out there who would have chosen to 'undo' their homosexuality if they had the choice, but I just don't believe that it's possible.

liah

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%2522Ivanka+Savic%2522&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation. We addressed this issue by studying hemispheric asymmetry and functional connectivity, two parameters that in previous publications have shown specific sex differences. Ninety subjects [25 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW), and 20 homosexual men (HoM) and women (HoW)] were investigated with magnetic resonance volumetry of cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres. Fifty of them also participated in PET measurements of cerebral blood flow, used for analyses of functional connections from the right and left amygdalae. HeM and HoW showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. No cerebellar asymmetries were found. Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In HoM, as in HeW, the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala; in HoW and HeM, on the other hand, from the right amygdala. Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate, in HeM and HoW with the caudate, putamen, and the prefrontal cortex. The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.

All it takes is a quick google to find loads of studies on this topic.

I sincerely doubt choice comes into it at all whatsoever (other than, perhaps, the choice to try and pretend it's not there), unless suddenly we have the ability to change how our brains physically function.

Blikes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY

seamus

Elle Collins wrote: »

clearly some homosexuals consider their sexuality to be immutable also

Sorry, I've no specific studies, but I'd like you to consider the above statement.

Presumably you're heterosexual. Do you consider your heterosexuality to be immutable?

I would posit that almost all people consider their sexuality to be immutable, whatever their preference. I really have difficulty understanding the concept that some people choose a different sexuality, when I know for a fact that this is something I am limited by nature from choosing.
I cannot choose to be homosexual. I find women attractive, therefore I'm heterosexual, and I didn't choose that either.

prinz

I don't think most people choose to be gay per se as a deliberate mature decision, but I do feel there is definitely an argument for people being nurtured a certain way in childhood.. and some people who view their sexuality in a certain way because of past experiences (particularly sexual abuse).

Dades

Interesting article here by Steven Pinker on the "gay gene"...

Steven Pinker wrote:

The difference in the brain responses of gay and straight men does not, by itself, prove that homosexuality is innate; after all, learned inclinations, like innate ones, must reside somewhere in the brain. But in this case nature probably does trump nurture. Gay men generally report that their homosexual attractions began as soon as they felt sexual stirrings before adolescence. And homosexuality is more concordant in identical than in fraternal twins, suggesting that their shared genes play a role.

Even if it is shown that your genes are not the only factor in being gay (e.g. that environment can play a part) - it's still doesn't follow that some people choose to be gay.

That conclusion is disingenuous and almost always comes from a source with a vested interest in that suggestion being true.

Nevyn

Blikes wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY

I tougth that was good right up until the end when it disrespects bisexuality.:mad:

efb

prinz wrote: »

I don't think most people choose to be gay per se as a deliberate mature decision, but I do feel there is definitely an argument for people being nurtured a certain way in childhood.. and some people who view their sexuality in a certain way because of past experiences (particularly sexual abuse).

Any sources to back up your arguments prinz?

Dr. Baltar

I don't think most people choose to be gay per se as a deliberate mature decision, but I do feel there is definitely an argument for people being nurtured a certain way in childhood.. and some people who view their sexuality in a certain way because of past experiences (particularly sexual abuse).

As someone who is not straight, I think if you are not straight that yes, you are born that way. But I also believe that the world in which you grow up will influence how open you are about that sexuality.

For example, I was born into a loving, liberal family, so when it came to coming out, there was very little problem about the whole thing.
However, if I were gay and raised in a conservative, God-Fearing family (like a number of my friends) I think I would have had the futile struggle against my own sexuality for a lot longer than I did. If I were born this way in Iran, I don't think I ever would have come out.

However, just because said people don't come out doesn't make them straight.

I can't understand the sexual abuse part of your post, but if you've ever seen "Mysterious Skin" it asks a lot of taboo questions about sexuality and abuse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr. Baltar

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Even so, does someone choose to shift on the Kinsey Scale?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

efb

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are plenty of homosexuals acting hetrosexuals, doesn't make them straight eitherM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strobe

efb wrote: »

Any sources to back up your arguments prinz?

While I wouldn't agree with Prinz' phrasing. I think the possibility that environment plays apart should be taken into consideration, rather than just declaring people are born gay and that's that. There have been studies done on identical twins in this regard and not all identical twins are of the same sexuality. One Australian study of 4000 sets of twins I came across (I'll try and find it) found a concordance of homosexuality to be only 30% for identical twins. This, to me at least, would seem to show an obvious genetic link but also a clear environmental factor. Although I guess there are lots of obvious potential problems with these types of studies so they certainly aren't definitive.

Edit:

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

A number of twin studies have attempted to isolate biological factors in sexual orientation. As Bearman and Bruckner (2002)[3] describe it, early studies concentrated on small, select samples, which showed very high genetic influences; however, they were also criticized for non-representative selection of their subjects.[4] Later studies, performed on increasingly representative samples, showed much lesser concordance among monozygotic (MZ, colloquially "identical") twins, although still significantly larger than among dizygotic (DZ) twins.
For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[5] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[6] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[7] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.
A recent study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[8] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twin may influence the results (see below).
Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0–17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18–39% and the unique environment 61–66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences. [...] In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors.


============================================================================================================

Although none of this would suggest that 'choice' is a factor. In so far as someone would just decide one day, "From now on until next November I am going to stop being sexually attracted to women and will only be attracted to men." That's just stupid.

Crasp

Homosexuality is just another pathology of the mind. I agree that absolutely there is possible a genetic element, we all know people that are just that little bit gay and you suspect it... That queer voice, dress sense, feminine features. So I believe that there is an inborn error in some individuals.

I believe it is likely to be similar to other congenital anomalies of the brain, e.g. addiction (also environmental + genetic), schizophrenia, depression etc. which no cause is yet defined, but multifactorial origins are likely.

Hopefully we can some day figure it out and cure it, or at least manage it like the above disorders.



Then there are some people I think who see it as a culture thing (you know the kind, louis spence or whatever his name is). same as any other social minority. Trying to make a statement or something.



Then again I believe there are some who just don't give a ****, a kind of an "I like what I like" attiude to sexuality and aren't bothered by what is biologically normal. The same goes for heterosexual people who enjoy crazy things (feet, domination and other queer activites). I think this kind of gay is perfectly acceptable. They are doing what feels good for them and don't give a fook that demands a certain respect. They don't shove it in your face and spout on about rights and equality and "genes this" and "race that"

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think what complicates it is the assumption that every person neatly clicks into a grade along this scale. In reality, we would expect the population to be distributed (not evenly) across the scale, so while you will have two distinct groups at either extreme with very defined boundaries, a significant portion of the population resides in the grey area with differing levels of attraction to either/both sexes.

Just because someone who would identify as heterosexual chooses to seek out a bisexual experience, does not indicate that their position on the scale has changed.

This easily explains why the increases in sexual freedom and tolerance would lead to it becoming "chic" for women in 1980's America to seek out bisexual experiences. The door was opened for many women who would have previously thought it taboo, despite having the desire, and you would also have a certain subset of purely heterosexual people who would engage for the sake of fashion.

It certainly wasn't a widespread practice however (i.e. most women didn't engage in it), and it doesn't indicate that anyone's sexual preferences changed, just that they had more freedom to explore it. A purely heterosexual woman having sex with another woman does not make her bi- or homosexual. It's about preference or desire.
I have no doubt that some men and women are able to disengage desire from the act itself and engage in homosexual activity despite not being homosexual themselves.

prinz

efb wrote: »

Any sources to back up your arguments prinz?

Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused(P,.001).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/280/21/1855.full.pdf+html

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

Of the gay and bisexual men in this sample, 33% had a history of childhood physical abuse and 34% had a history of childhood sexual abuse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042584/#R15

Compare a figure of 1 in 3 sexually abused as children in that sample with the overall suggested figure..

Researchers estimate that in our country about 1 out of 6 boys and 1 out of 4 girls are sexually abused.

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp

Disparities in child abuse victimization in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women in the Nurses' Health Study II.RESULTS: Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447763

Children who are sexually abused or raped are three times more likely to grow up to be gay or bisexual, a controversial new Christchurch study shows.

Otago University researcher associate professor Elisabeth Wells has looked at the connection between adverse childhood events and sexuality and found those who experienced trauma were significantly more likely to be non-heterosexual. The study used results from the New Zealand Mental Health Survey, which surveyed almost 13,000 people aged over 16 between 2003 and 2004.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3949087/Abused-more-likely-to-be-gay


Coupled with personal experience. You only need to take a look at the childhood of Oscar Wilde (being dressed and treated as a girl) and wonder whether he was born or conditioned tbh. It's all going to be ignored anyway however.

Edit: I am not saying all homosexuals are 'created' but it's definitely a factor with a lot IMO (too many coincidences to ignore).

Bottle_of_Smoke

What kind of organisation are Christchurch?

prinz

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What kind of organisation are Christchurch?

Christchurch.......city.....in New Zealand.

Apogee

Correlation does not imply causation.

prinz wrote: »

Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused(P,.001).

JAMA wrote:

Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused(P,.001).83,84 No longitudinal studies examined the causal relationship between abuse and gender role or sexual orientation, however. Gender role nonconformity and gay or bisexual identity may precede abuse. For example, males exploring their sexual identity may do so in venues, such as public sex environments, where abuse may happen more frequently.

From the same article:

JAMA wrote:

Large-sample studies reported that 53% to 94% of perpetrators were men, with up to half of female perpetrators being adolescent-aged babysitters. Small-sample studies revealed a similar predominance of male perpetrators. One study noted that 98% of these male perpetrators self-identified as heterosexual.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

If you search further on the above article, you'll see criticism of the sampling methodology employed. One of the authors also has some 'interesting' views:

Psychologist Donald Templer followed with a scathing and hilarious attack on the blindness of his profession. He has been fascinated by group differences ever since he was a child, and this interest has shaped his academic career. He says denying group differences in ability is costly because it puts unqualified blacks in positions of authority. Whites are twenty times more likely than blacks to have IQs of 130 or above, and these are the people who should be decision-makers.

“There are too many psychologists who poison the minds of their students,” said Prof. Templer. By refusing to acknowledge innate intelligence differences, psychologists encourage white guilt that weakens a psychologist’s capacity to deal with the social problems that blacks pose. Also, it is absurd to blame test bias for low IQ scores. “If blacks score low on an intelligence test,” said Prof. Templer, “I would say that constitutes powerful evidence for its validity.” Many psychologists enjoy giving racial sensitivity training, but it would be much more useful if they treated white guilt. Many psychologists recommend psychological therapy for black prisoners, but Prof. Templer disagrees: “They need 60 hours a week of work therapy. That would give them less time for manufacturing alcohol and weapons, trafficking drugs, and giving each other AIDS.”

Prof. Templer was just as scathing about the grievances of blacks against whites. Many claim high incarceration rates are genocide because they prevent blacks from having children. In Prof. Templer’s view, “the reduced procreation of criminals of all colors is a beneficial side effect of incarceration. . . . If imprisoning criminals is genocide, then I am for genocide.” If Americans are serious about deterring crime, they should farm criminals out to Third World and Communist countries “that have real prisons and real punishment.”

prinz wrote:

Of the gay and bisexual men in this sample, 33% had a history of childhood physical abuse and 34% had a history of childhood sexual abuse.

Compare a figure of 1 in 3 sexually abused as children in that sample with the overall suggested figure..

Which can be just as readily interpreted that gay and bisexual youth are more likely targets for physical and sexual abuse.

prinz

Apogee wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation..

Correlation should also not be dismissed out of hand, even if the above is a cute internet meme used to do so.

Apogee wrote: »

One of the authors also has some 'interesting' views:..

What about the rest of them? Only the first paragraph of what you quoted is in any way 'interesting'. Neither does it have any bearing on the work I linked to.

Apogee wrote: »

Which can be just as readily interpreted that gay and bisexual youth are more likely targets for physical and sexual abuse.

Yeah, you can spot a gay/bisexual child a mile off. With regard to older youths it becomes an issue of differentiating between consensual and non-consensual 'abuse'.

Zombrex

Elle Collins wrote: »

Someone recently posed the question 'Is it wrong to be gay?' over on the LGBT board and in responses was asked 'Is it wrong to be black?'

That is a bit of a non-answer, and who ever posted this in the LGBT forum should probably be called to task on this.

Whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong has nothing to do with the issue of how it manifests itself in a human.

The "Its not a choice" response is inheriently stupid in my view.

If homosexuality is moral (which I believe it is) it doesn't matter a fig if it is a choice or not, and saying it is not a choice suggests that if it was a choice people would not choose to do it because it is immoral, which is equally stupid given the manner this response is deployed.

Man, sometimes I think the whole world is crazy but me :pac:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wicknight wrote: »

Whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong has nothing to do with the issue of how it manifests itself in a human.

The "Its not a choice" response is inheriently stupid in my view.

If homosexuality is moral (which I believe it is) it doesn't matter a fig if it is a choice or not, and saying it is not a choice suggests that if it was a choice people would not choose to do it because it is immoral, which is equally stupid given the manner this response is deployed.

I get what you're saying, it shouldn't be used as a defence, as it isn't something that needs to be defended.

I do however think it is worth pointing out. Homophobia is deeply ingrained in society. If the first step toward realising there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts is that the people involved are attracted to people of the same sex and perhaps not attracted to people of the opposite sex even bigots will begin to empathise with them.

If they empathise with them today they might start thinking about the whole issue logically and some of them might realise gays are just normal people with different sexual preferences.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably not. There are other factors involved. One interpretation is that when it became "chic" people "chose" to be bi-sexual as you suggest.

Another however is that these women would have been bi-sexual anyway and that they were suppressing that due to social concerns about it being taboo. It becoming "chic" did not change who they were sexually attracted to, or their choices about what their sexuality actually was, but who they felt it socially acceptable to engage sexually with.

So I do not think an assumption is open to us that these people were "choosing" their sexuality merely because it was "chic" but rather their sexuality was being expressed differently as the environment allowed.

SparkyTech

As per the Kinsley Scale, and my own viewpoint of sexuality, I believe it is possible for one to have varying inclinations twords those of the opposite gender, even if they predominantly identify themselves as gay. I find some women attractive, but I could never see myself being intimate with a woman. Does that mean, therefore that my gayness is a choice if I'm not exclusive to men?

No, because put simply no sexuality is immutable and you can't define someone catagoricaly as a label. Ireland isn't exactly a secular hotbed of inclusivness for the LGBT community and as evidenced from the countless threads on boards and the larger underhand intolerance in society, it takes a lot of courage to openly come out. Anyone who says it's a choice is ignorant of the wider picture, IMO.

Why would I, Or any other gay man/woman CHOOSE a life of prejudice and discrimination in law and society when it would be so much easier to play 'straight man advocate' and settle down to conventionality with the wife and two kids? And more importantly, why are we as a society so concerned with the nature V nurture argument or trying to find a cure? It's time to accept homosexuality as the same heterosexual norm.

Wibbs

SparkyTech wrote: »

Why would I, Or any other gay man/woman CHOOSE a life of prejudice and discrimination in law and society when it would be so much easier to play 'straight man advocate' and settle down to conventionality with the wife and two kids?

This is one of the biggest reasons I never saw it as a choice. If it was a choice and someone chose being gay in the wider society I would label them not far off insane or a masochist. The easy route it is not. Its gotten easier. I wouldnt like to have been gay in 50's Ireland, but it's still no picnic.

And more importantly, why are we as a society so concerned with the nature V nurture argument or trying to find a cure?

Oh no doubt some are looking for a cure, others are looking for "explanations" for friends or family members who come out, mostly though I'd say it's just human curiosity.

It's time to accept homosexuality as the same heterosexual norm.

That would be welcome, but I doubt it ever will be. Not fully anyway. Basically because homosexuality is in the minority and enough people will always be scared of minorities of any kind. Hope I'm wrong though.

seenitall

SparkyTech wrote: »

As per the Kinsley Scale, and my own viewpoint of sexuality, I believe it is possible for one to have varying inclinations twords those of the opposite gender, even if they predominantly identify themselves as gay. I find some women attractive, but I could never see myself being intimate with a woman. Does that mean, therefore that my gayness is a choice if I'm not exclusive to men?

But you ARE exclusive to men. That's what "I could never see myself being intimate with a woman" means.

The same way I find some women attractive, but another person's va-jay-jay is most definitely not my thang. (Only in my case, it means I'm straight.)

Wibbs

TBH I always though Kinsey a dodgy methodologist at best or a bit of a charlatan at worst. His studies have way too many holes in them.

This notion of a sliding scale is dubious IMHO, or at least the idea that there are more grey people than black and white. I think it was as much to do with the laudable effort to try to normalise gay people, by suggesting that we're all a little gay you know. I dont buy it. Just as I wouldn't buy that most gay men or women are a little straight you know. Indeed that may even cause offence to some for suggesting it. They'd not be far wrong either.

Like seenitall said SparkyTech, no matter how attractive you find a woman, if you cant see yourself being sexually intimate with her then you're not on any sliding scale. You're attracted sexually to men as a pretty exclusive preference.

Elle Collins

Had to go away for a few days so am only getting to visit the thread again now. There have been some interesting responses.

seamus wrote: »

Sorry, I've no specific studies, but I'd like you to consider the above statement.

Presumably you're heterosexual. Do you consider your heterosexuality to be immutable?

Whether or not my heterosexuality is immutable I don't know. While I've never yet been sexually attracted to my own gender, that's not to say I think it would be a total impossibility, though if it did happen nobody would be more surprised than me. As to whether I consider heterosexuality innate to me and to humans generally, I don't think there could be any rational argument to the contrary, since its innate nature is evidenced by the heterosexual biology we all share.

seamus wrote: »

I really have difficulty understanding the concept that some people choose a different sexuality..

Several posters have used the terms 'choose', 'choice' etc. What I wondered about was the geniological theory vs the social influence model, and straightforward 'choice' is not involved in either of these. For example, I know a woman who has three gay adult sons. In her case she says she knew her eldest was gay from he was a young child, but when her second came out in his late teens you could have knocked her over with a feather. She had no indication whatsoever that he might be gay. Now her youngest has come out and she is still as certain as she ever was that her eldest is gay by his innate nature, but she wonders if his influence has had any bearing on the emerging sexuality of his two younger brothers.

For me, explaining away homosexuality in three gay siblings as coincidence is a bit of a stretch, there just isn't any coincidence there, surely. It has got to be either innate or influence driven, nature vs nurture, in other words.

prinz

Elle Collins wrote: »

Several posters have used the terms 'choose', 'choice' etc. What I wondered about was the geniological theory vs the social influence model, and straightforward 'choice' is not involved in either of these..

+1. Using the vocabulary of 'choice' and 'choosing' is misleading.

seamus

Elle Collins wrote: »

For me, explaining away homosexuality in three gay siblings as coincidence is a bit of a stretch, there just isn't any coincidence there, surely. It has got to be either innate or influence driven, nature vs nurture, in other words.

I seriously doubt it's coincidence. In fact I don't believe that homosexuality is "random" by any strech of the imagination.

Studies with various animals' embryos in the womb have shown that testosterone plays a major part in the physical development of mammals in the womb, including the brain. Too much or too little testosterone at precise points in the gestation process can lead to feminised males or masculinised females, or excessively masculinised males and so on.

This would explain why a mother would have 3 homosexual sons if she had a specific "problem" which caused her to have incorrect testosterone levels during pregnancy. This wouldn't necessarily be in conflict with the "gay gene" theory as testosterone levels in the womb may be influenced by the presence of such a "gay gene".

It is of course one of the many hypotheses on the matter, and IMO it's a combination of primarily biological factors determining one's general sexual preference, combined with an upbringing which develops more specific sexual attachments/preferences.

Plautus

Crasp wrote: »

Homosexuality is just another pathology of the mind. I agree that absolutely there is possible a genetic element, we all know people that are just that little bit gay and you suspect it... That queer voice, dress sense, feminine features. So I believe that there is an inborn error in some individuals.

I believe it is likely to be similar to other congenital anomalies of the brain, e.g. addiction (also environmental + genetic), schizophrenia, depression etc. which no cause is yet defined, but multifactorial origins are likely.

Hopefully we can some day figure it out and cure it, or at least manage it like the above disorders.



Then there are some people I think who see it as a culture thing (you know the kind, louis spence or whatever his name is). same as any other social minority. Trying to make a statement or something.



Then again I believe there are some who just don't give a ****, a kind of an "I like what I like" attiude to sexuality and aren't bothered by what is biologically normal. The same goes for heterosexual people who enjoy crazy things (feet, domination and other queer activites). I think this kind of gay is perfectly acceptable. They are doing what feels good for them and don't give a fook that demands a certain respect. They don't shove it in your face and spout on about rights and equality and "genes this" and "race that"

:mad: - it's good to know we have your permission to be 'deviant' so long as we don't rub it in your face. The cheek!

Gay people aren't equal under the law, so excuse us for making a fuss about it. The 'genes this' and 'race that' are just intellectual shorthand to get you to consider there's very little that is consciously chosen by most people in relation to their sexuality. The discussion here is bearing that out.

As for culture - yes, persecuted minorities do develop a shared experience tantamount to a culture. Sorry that this also upsets you.

A 'pathology'? The medical community doesn't use the term anymore. You shouldn't either. Comparisons with Schizophrenia are mind-numbingly ignorant (and as someone who went through the Depression I deeply resent the implication that my sexuality is one in the same.) We don't need curing and I wouldn't take a cure if it was on offer because I have friends and a partner that I love. We don't harm society or anyone else in pure right of our sexuality (whatever people do besides that is on their own heads and the same for heterosexuals.) In fact, the only thing that seems to have you convinced their's a problem here needing fixing is Louie Spence. Unbelievable.

cgcsb

I am a gay man, with a lot of very close gay male friends. I've discussed this with them. The vast majority of them remember having at least a fondness/admiration for certain members of the same sex for as far back as they can remember, including myself. Those feelings would then later be accompanied by sexual impulses from age 11ish onwards.

I do however have a good friend who recalls being exclusively attracted to women up until the age of 16, followed by a gradual change to being exclusively attracted to men. He would be quite the exception to the rule though. Maybe just a late bloomer?

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a good point which many intentionally overlook. In various cultures and times homosexual 'dabbling' was not uncommon. In certain counter and subcultures homosexual acts are a routine aspect of supposed 'sexual liberation'. Raw sexual attraction doesn't seem to come into it. Apparantly homosexuality was regarded as 'le vice anglais' (Homosexuality was relatively common in British public schools and universities for a certain generation of late Victorian gentlemen)

I forget my point, but its basically along the lines of 'You don't have to be gay to be gay'.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

seamus wrote: »

Sorry, I've no specific studies, but I'd like you to consider the above statement.

Presumably you're heterosexual. Do you consider your heterosexuality to be immutable?

Sorry now, I don't think people choose to be gay either but I hate that answer. When people say that people choose to be gay, in my experience they usually mean that everyone is heterosexual really and being gay is either:

a) You just haven't met the right person of the opposite gender
b) You're just engaging in homosexuality because it's cool (:rolleyes:) and somehow are making yourself gay by practicing a lot.

So they think that of course they didn't choose to be straight, because straight isn't a choice, it's everyone's natural state, only non-straight is a choice. I've never met a homophobe who when presented with the argument "Did you choose to be straight" replied "Good point, I believe I will go to that gay marriage rally". I think that line is trotted out a lot for the sake of a snappy one liner and isn't really going to change many people's prejudices.