Is Gayness a Disease or a Normal Variation of Human Behavior?

[Philocrat]

On the issue of replacing future populations by the supposedly 'NORMAL WAY' of using women to reproduce, well, with the current pace of technological developments in biological science, especially in the genetic engineering discipline, this may very well become obsolete, if not aleady is. Women themselves, who are also increasingly turning to homosexualism, may very soon find new roles to play. Nothing rules out a Conveyer-belt reproductive model subsequently emerging from this discipline. Disease or no disease, Let's just wait and see.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you people are blaming the gay people for something that is entire Nature's. No one controls what they turn out to be as far as reproduction is concerned.

No one here has said anything of the sort. Yes, I know: gays don't choose to be gay - everything I (and others) have said has been about natural causes. You cannot turn this into a gay-bashing thread because no one is doing it.

That said, given a choice ahead of time, how many pregnant women would choose to have gay children? Straight children? Given a choice, how many gays would be straight? Straights gay?

It is impossible to call being gay a disease unless you are willing to show us the evidence. For there is nothing which logically rules out being straight also being a disease.

Well, there is a difference, which I pointed out: reproductive problems.

This problem that people have is when it comes to defining the notion of 'NORMALITY'.

In this context, I define "normal" as feelings and behaviors which lead to reproduction: Ie heterosexual desires leading to heterosexual sex leading to procreation. Homosexual feelings lead to homosexual sex, which does not lead to procreation.

 

[Philocrat]

No one here has said anything of the sort. Yes, I know: gays don't choose to be gay - everything I (and others) have said has been about natural causes. You cannot turn this into a gay-bashing thread because no one is doing it.

That said, given a choice ahead of time, how many pregnant women would choose to have gay children? Straight children? Given a choice, how many gays would be straight? Straights gay? Well, there is a difference, which I pointed out: reproductive problems. In this context, I define "normal" as feelings and behaviors which lead to reproduction: Ie heterosexual desires leading to heterosexual sex leading to procreation. Homosexual feelings lead to homosexual sex, which does not lead to procreation.

I think you should read my next posting on what I think about reproduction. On my first posting, I am merely stating the philosophical implications of what the whole argument is up against.

 

[cyfin]

Homosexuallity is a social group. It can be influenced by peer preasure. In china, Male children were more desireable than female children for economic reasons and you were limited in the number of offspring you could have. With modern science, parents soon were able to choose the sex of their childern. Obviously, males were chosen over females. This resulted in a large increase in males. With this, you saw a direct increase in the number of homosexual males. Simply put, there were not enough women to go around so they turned to each other.

If homosexualitiy were genetic, the parents must have all contracted the disease in order to spread it to their childern. Another posibility is that somehow genetic mutations occurred throughout a large group of people with nothing in common. Both of these are highly unlikely.

In America, it seems the more we see of homosexuals, the more people become homosexuals. People waking up in the morining after watching "Queer Eye For the Stright Guy" and realizing they were gay all their life, but never knew it until the TV told them.

It is my predection that once the shock value of homosexuallity subsides, and they realize its not much diffrent emotionally than heterosexuallity, then you will se a decline in the number of homosexuals.

Heterosexuallity is a very compedative thing. Men fighting for women. women fighting for men. If you are not able to keep up compedatively, its understandable that you might give up. Homosexuals are more sympathetic toward other homosexuals simply because there are so few of them they feel compelled to help each other. This is a common social event. In school, the "geeks" will always group together usually not becuase they have something in common, but because they are seen by the rest as diffrent. In my high school, there were only a handful of African American students. All of them grouped together as friends. Their interests probably would have placed them in other groups, but because tey were a minority, they choose each other instead.

As for the comments about nature. There is nothing natrual about it. As humans we have instincts and logic. Instint tells us to have sex. Logic tells us to have sex with the opposite sex. Its a lot easier to override our logic than to override our instinct.

A good question is why women do not have as large an increase in homosexuallity as men do? I think this is because women, in general, do not have as great of sex drive as men do. And likewise are not as compedative. Also, homosexuallity in women is not at shunned as homosexuallity in men. Therefore there is sense of pressure behind choosing a sexual preference. A man with a low sex drive might be easily preasured into homosexuality simply because he does not compete as other men do. Something like a self-realizing prophecy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If homosexualitiy were genetic, the parents must have all contracted the disease in order to spread it to their childern. Another posibility is that somehow genetic mutations occurred throughout a large group of people with nothing in common. Both of these are highly unlikely.

This does not agree with what is known about genetics. First, genes are not "caught" like a cold. Second a gene doesn't need widespread simultaneous mutation to spread through a population, mating and meiosis will do it. However it is true that a gene will not maintain itself in a population without confering some advantage some way. Sickle-cell anemia, for example confers some resistance to malaria on those who have one copy of the gene and is only fatal to those with two copies. Rather a brutal advantage, but of course nature doesn't care.

So what would be the advantage of a hypothetical gay gene? I can't help but note the high concentration of gay individuals in the arts. Does gayness confer creativity? Or just a culturally mediated off center imagination? That the mechanism factors through culture wouldn't contradict a genetic source; the advantage just has to work out.

 

[Zantra]

Sigh.. I don't know people. Are we scientists here or just faking it? Look at the evidence objectively and it tells you that it's not a genetic predisposition.
If it is genetic, why is it just now becoming an issue? Why were there no gay people 1000 years ago? Why is it that so many people now "discover" they are gay, when it wasn't the case even 100 yeares ago? It's a social issue, not a genetic one. A lot of gay people try to insist that it's a genetic problem. Show me the research identifying the "Gay gene". Sure someone can have unsually high levels of estrogen or whatever, but It's a social choice. Even heterosexuality is a choice. Granted we are gentically predisposed to it for procreation needs, but it is still a social choice.

 

[Aquamarine]

Homosexuality as one end of a bisexual continuum
Some people who are in general heterosexual may have mild or occasional interest in members of their own sex. They are often referred to as bi-curious. Conversely, many people who identify themselves as homosexual, or who might prefer homosexual activities or relationships, have engaged in heterosexual activities or even have long-term heterosexual relationships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

Bisexuality could be a very advantageous trait. Maybe bisexuals more easily understand what the opposite sex finds attractive. And maybe they get more opportunities to get skilled in the reproductive game. Then bisexuality would be like one copy of the sickle-cell gene, pure homosexuality would be like two copies.

 

[chroot]

Why were there no gay people 1000 years ago?

There have been gay people since antiquity. The ancient Greeks, for example, were quite openly fond of "man-boy" relationships. History is full of accounts of homosexual people, including military leaders and even royalty.

Why is it that so many people now "discover" they are gay, when it wasn't the case even 100 yeares ago?

Neither homosexuality itself nor its prevalence have changed much over those hundred years. Our society's acceptance of it, on the other hand, has changed remarkably. In the past, homosexuals were so firmly ostracised for their sexuality that some, like von Neumann, even took to suicide as the alternative. It is most certainly not entirely a social issue, and it is incredibly ignorant of you to assert that it is one. There are certainly social ramifications of sexual preference -- for example, legions of teenaged American girls have recently pierced their navels and declared themselves bisexual for probably no reasons deeper than peer pressure and social status -- but there are plenty of people who are homosexual despite every desire they might have to be heterosexual. The girls who smear on strawberry lip gloss and kiss other girls in nightclubs in front of cheering men are a recent phenomonon, and are almost certainly not homosexual.

Show me the research identifying the "Gay gene". Sure someone can have unsually high levels of estrogen or whatever, but It's a social choice. Even heterosexuality is a choice.

You apparently are not familiar with the research conducted in the last decade. As it happens, heterosexual and homosexual brains are actually measurably different -- if I recall correctly, the hippocampi differ enough in morphology that a heterosexual brain and a homosexual brain are distinguishable on an MRI. While these brain differences may be either the cause or the effect of homosexuality, it certainly highlights the truth that homosexuality is not a choice.

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

here's one for you homophobes: I've heard this statistic on many occassions: that supposedly we all have bisexual tendencies in us, to one degree or another. Call it "curiosity". But maybe that's just another urban legend.

 

[arildno]

Please, also note:
Do you CHOOSE feeling attraction to a girl?
Do you weigh pro's and con's before DECIDING whether to fall in love with her?
Don't post silly ideas about choice.
Homosexual (or heterosexual) emotions are NOT choices, practices are.

 

[chroot]

here's one for you homophobes: I've heard this statistic on many occassions: that supposedly we all have bisexual tendencies in us, to one degree or another. Call it "curiosity". But maybe that's just another urban legend.

Actually, it's a generally-recognized fact of human psychology.

I'm confused, though Zanta, because your previous post actually led me to believe that you are a homophobe.

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

There have been gay people since antiquity. The ancient Greeks, for example, were quite openly fond of "man-boy" relationships. History is full of accounts of homosexual people, including military leaders and even royalty.

pointed noted.

Neither homosexuality itself nor its prevalence have changed much over those hundred years. Our society's acceptance of it, on the other hand, has changed remarkably. In the past, homosexuals were so firmly ostracised for their sexuality that some, like von Neumann, even took to suicide as the alternative. It is most certainly not entirely a social issue, and it is incredibly ignorant of you to assert that it is one. There are certainly social ramifications of sexual preference -- for example, legions of teenaged American girls have recently pierced their navels and declared themselves bisexual for probably no reasons deeper than peer pressure and social status -- but there are plenty of people who are homosexual despite every desire they might have to be heterosexual. The girls who smear on strawberry lip gloss and kiss other girls in nightclubs in front of cheering men are a recent phenomonon, and are almost certainly not homosexual.

Nor is it entirely an issue of gentics, as it is an issue steeped within social traditions and conceptions. There are tons of documented cases of people who were openly straight for long periods of time and suddenly "switched" there are tons of documented cases of people who were traumatized by people of the opposite sex who "became" gay after the those intial experiences. So then you have separate gay people into 2 categories- those who claim they were "born that way" and those who were initially straight, and "became gay" due to traumatic circumstances or environmental influence. Research into this area is sketchy at best, and I'd like to scrutinize ANY supposedly scientific studies that show this to be a gentic influence.

I'll say it again- show me the gay gene, or acknowledge that you have no SOLID proof. Studies are very easily influenced, as has been shown on this board many times over.[/QUOTE]

You apparently are not familiar with the research conducted in the last decade. As it happens, heterosexual and homosexual brains are actually measurably different -- if I recall correctly, the hippocampi differ enough in morphology that a heterosexual brain and a homosexual brain are distinguishable on an MRI. While these brain differences may be either the cause or the effect of homosexuality, it certainly highlights the truth that homosexuality is not a choice.

- Warren

equating some variations on an MRI with homosexuality is akin to saying that someone saw a meteor heading in the general direction of earth, so the world is going to end. There could be many many reasons for the differences. Someone is tainting the results to show what they want them to, not to be objective.

 

[olde drunk]

Sigh.. I don't know people. Are we scientists here or just faking it? Look at the evidence objectively and it tells you that it's not a genetic predisposition.
If it is genetic, why is it just now becoming an issue? Why were there no gay people 1000 years ago? Why is it that so many people now "discover" they are gay, when it wasn't the case even 100 yeares ago? It's a social issue, not a genetic one. A lot of gay people try to insist that it's a genetic problem. Show me the research identifying the "Gay gene". Sure someone can have unsually high levels of estrogen or whatever, but It's a social choice. Even heterosexuality is a choice. Granted we are gentically predisposed to it for procreation needs, but it is still a social choice.

ARE YOU SERIOUS! EVER READ A HISTORY BOOK ABOUT THE LEADERS THAT WANTED YOUNG BOYS?? - I believe several ceasars were homos.

gimme a break. wish i was gay so that i would have a list of all the historical people that were gay.

you call yourself a scientist? turn in your slide rule!

olde drunk

 

[Zantra]

Actually, it's a generally-recognized fact of human psychology.

I'm confused, though Zanta, because your previous post actually led me to believe that you are a homophobe.

- Warren

warren you can be an ass but I'll just be one right back to you. read my last post and show me the facts- I want documented PROOF that there exists a gene that makes you gay. Anything else is pure speculation.

I think it's funny you saying that, because I have friends and relatives who are gay, and I support them all the way. Explain to me in your esteemed OBJECTIVE manner how you equate my view on why people are gay with homophobia. Still waiting for that proof you claim to have buddy.. take your time.

 

[olde drunk]

Ok, so it is an harmonal imbalance. what triggered the imbalance within the body? everything goes back to our genes. a pre-disposition, in my opinion, is not the same as being genetically male or female. to me a predisposion is more of a tendency. much like being suseptible to alchohol. some drink and walk away, some want to drink and never stop.

sorry for my prior outburst. one of my best friends is gay and i have seen the burden he carries. it is a shame that society is unwilling to accept homosexuality as natural.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[chroot]

Nor is it entirely an issue of gentics, as it is an issue steeped within social traditions and conceptions.

There's no need to make this point again; I already agreed the first time. There are certainly plenty of people who are not "really" gay yet claim to be. You can show me as many cases of this as you'd like, but it doesn't prove your argument (that homosexuality is societal). All I need to do is show you one person who is "really" homosexual yet claims not to be to prove my argument (that homosexuality is not entirely societal). There are many such people, and your argument is therefore falsified by contradiction. Be careful with your sweeping qualifiers.

Research into this area is sketchy at best, and I'd like to scrutinize ANY supposedly scientific studies that show this to be a gentic influence.

I suppose you're free to have your own definition of "sketchy," but there have been a wide variety of quite reputable studies of homosexuality which indicate that it has far deeper origins than social interaction.

I'll say it again- show me the gay gene, or acknowledge that you have no SOLID proof. Studies are very easily influenced, as has been shown on this board many times over.

I never said I had solid proof that it's genetic. And why are you demanding solid proof (in capitals, no less!) for my (presumed) arguments, when you do not (and indeed cannot) provide solid proof for your own?

equating some variations on an MRI with homosexuality is akin to saying that someone saw a meteor heading in the general direction of earth, so the world is going to end.

This seems to just be a non-sequitor. I have no idea how one might actually compare asteroid-impact studies with sexual-orientation studies, so I'm not really going to try. This seems to be an argument by assertion -- another logical fallacy.

There could be many many reasons for the differences. Someone is tainting the results to show what they want them to, not to be objective.

As I explicitly stated, no one is sure whether the brain differences are the cause or the effect. A scientific theory such as homosexuality is a characterisable neurological phenomenon cannot by its nature ever be absolutely proven, but it seems there is mounting evidence in its support.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

warren you can be an ass but I'll just be one right back to you. read my last post and show me the facts- I want documented PROOF that there exists a gene that makes you gay. Anything else is pure speculation.

Why are you demanding such proof? You are the one making the silly unqualified assertions here.

I'll turn it back on you: I want documented PROOF that a gay gene does NOT exist. Anything else you say is pure speculation.

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

Ok I've acknowledge the historical context, which isn't even the point of my post, so let's move past that.

The botom line is that there isn't any irrefutable proof EITHER WAY. Only speculation. THat means it's still open to debate. Saying I'm homophobic just because I don't agree with your POV isn't constructive. So let's move past that.

 

[chroot]

There is certainly a great deal of evidence that it is not purely societal, and that was my only point.

The rigor of the word "proof" precludes its use in this context, and you should refrain from using it. Proofs exist in systems with well-defined axioms, like mathematics. Proofs don't exist in social science, or, for that matter, in any science. Let's restrict our attention to the mountain of evidence and which side of the fence it's on.

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

There's no need to make this point again; I already agreed the first time. There are certainly plenty of people who are not "really" gay yet claim to be. You can show me as many cases of this as you'd like, but it doesn't prove your argument (that homosexuality is societal). All I need to do is show you one person who is "really" homosexual yet claims not to be to prove my argument (that homosexuality is not entirely societal). There are many such people, and your argument is therefore falsified by contradiction. Be careful with your sweeping qualifiers.

So now you're presuming to tell someone they are gay, weather they believe it or not? Interesting. I may be gay, and not even know it! Maybe we're all gay and just in denial? There I go "sweeping" again.. hehe

I suppose you're free to have your own definition of "sketchy," but there have been a wide variety of quite reputable studies of homosexuality which indicate that it has far deeper origins than social interaction.

This isn't the first argument on this topic, and I believe in the past, the majority of studies presented turned out to be funded by right wing fundamentalist groups or organizations with religious affilations... hardly what I'd call objective- so if that's you're evidence, then just paint me a hardcore skeptic.

I never said I had solid proof that it's genetic. And why are you demanding solid proof (in capitals, no less!) for my (presumed) arguments, when you do not (and indeed cannot) provide solid proof for your own?

So it would seem then, that your position isn't on much firmer ground than mine is. I'd assume you'd require equally stringent proof from my that it's a social behavior, so I expect no less. At this point it's all a matter of opinion. IF it isn't, then by all means let's move this topic to the biology forums where it belongs.

This seems to just be a non-sequitor. I have no idea how one might actually compare asteroid-impact studies with sexual-orientation studies, so I'm not really going to try. This seems to be an argument by assertion -- another logical fallacy.

ok let's pretend you didn't get my analogy. Bottom line is that MRI's can be miread, or interpreted in many different ways, and it would be a small task for someone to say "oh it means this".

As I explicitly stated, no one is sure whether the brain differences are the cause or the effect. A scientific theory such as homosexuality is a characterisable neurological phenomenon cannot by its nature ever be absolutely proven, but it seems there is mounting evidence in its support.

- Warren

There's mounting support for M theory too, but no one's rewritten physics books just yet. That is why it's a working theory. I"m just trying to explore alternative explanations. I didn't the topic was already set in stone.

 

[Zantra]

Ok, so it is an harmonal imbalance. what triggered the imbalance within the body? everything goes back to our genes. a pre-disposition, in my opinion, is not the same as being genetically male or female. to me a predisposion is more of a tendency. much like being suseptible to alchohol. some drink and walk away, some want to drink and never stop.

sorry for my prior outburst. one of my best friends is gay and i have seen the burden he carries. it is a shame that society is unwilling to accept homosexuality as natural.

love&peace,
olde drunk

An imbalance in estrogen or testosterone is a pefectly valid theory which I'm willing to entertain. However you can't discount the social impact that comes with being gay. Or the traumatic experiences of people who didn't consider themselves gay prior to those experiences. It may be that it's a combination of variables, or that there are gentically gay people AND socially gay people. The jury's still out last I checked.

I would also want to point out a misconception that you seem to have. Just because I believe that being gay comes from social influences, doesn't mean that I'm homophobic, or against homosexuality. I think that's a stigma that's attached to anyone who thinks homosexuality isn't genetic. It may or may not be a correct assumption, but in my case, it's not. If it is a social behavior, it doesn't mean that it's a wrong behavior. We as human being set the bar for right and wrong. Right and wrong is only a matter of perception.

 

[arildno]

Zantra:
Do you think that it is necessarily TRAUMATIC experiences which causes "social gayness"?

 

[chroot]

So now you're presuming to tell someone they are gay, weather they believe it or not? Interesting. I may be gay, and not even know it! Maybe we're all gay and just in denial? There I go "sweeping" again.. hehe

No. I meant that there are many people who feel internally that they are homosexual, yet suppress it and behave as ("claim to be") heterosexuals.

I believe in the past, the majority of studies presented turned out to be funded by right wing fundamentalist groups or organizations with religious affilations... hardly what I'd call objective- so if that's you're evidence, then just paint me a hardcore skeptic.

This might be true, but I don't know. I'll be the first to admit that I am not a social scientist, and I do not know who funded which papers. I think you're offering it just as an attempt to discredit all such studies, since they seem to uniformly disagree with you.

All I said is that the studies I know, such as the brain-morphology study, indicate that there is at least some kind of physiological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It seems logical (though not certain) that social interactions do not change brain morphology. If this evidence is valid, it would indicate that homosexuality is not entirely societal, which was your initial assertion to which I objected.

'd assume you'd require equally stringent proof from my that it's a social behavior, so I expect no less.

I don't believe there is such thing as "stringent proof" in social science. Please refrain from assuming what I mean, and then attacking strawmen.

Bottom line is that MRI's can be miread, or interpreted in many different ways, and it would be a small task for someone to say "oh it means this".

This is true of just about every scientific experiment. It does not inherently discredit the value of scientific experiments.

I didn't the topic was already set in stone.

You made a strong statement that indicated you, in fact, did think it was set in stone: "Sigh... It's a social issue, not a genetic one." If you'd like to retract that statement in light of your further consideration, go ahead.

- Warren

 

[Aquamarine]

The "Crime Against Nature"
Sodomy has been stigmatized for century upon century, and in many cultures across the world and through time, mostly seeking to stigmatize relationships between members of the same sex. Almost invariably, when it is criminalized, those who criminalize it (or would do so) refer to it as the "crime against nature" or the "sin against nature." The presumption is that homosexual behavior is a perversion, and a uniquely human perversion, engaged in as the result of what is presumed to be a learned attraction to members of the same sex.
There's only one problem with that assumption: None of it is true.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

 

[Zantra]

Zantra:
Do you think that it is necessarily TRAUMATIC experiences which causes "social gayness"?

I think that it is one of several characterizations that can be used, on a case by case basis. I think there are instances where the subject would characterize their own experience as negative, leading to feelings of resentment and fear of the opposite sex. Is it the rule? no. are there documented cases where "traumatize" is a valid characterization? yes.

 

[Zantra]

I think I've come across in the wrong way, so let me clarify again so there's no misunderstanding. I believe that there's no solid scientific proof that being gay is either hereditary or social. I'm sure that strong arguments can be made from either viewpoint, and I myself could present a case for either argument. However I do think there are certain people here who have already made up their minds on the topic, based on the available evidence.

Some of you approach the debate by attacking every minute fact I present, avoiding the true topic, so for future reference, please try to compile all of your points into a single post so I don't get writers cramp

Yes I concede that homosexuality has a long history. No, I'm not homophobic or antigay. No I don't believe the topic is set in stone, No I don't think it's a "disease" and yes, I do learn towards the social aspects because genetics cannot explain every single case.

I hope that clears it up for everyone. Everyone seems so smug in their certainty that it's a genetic issue. So if it is, fantics will doubtlessly advocate genetic engineering to "eliminate" the gay disposition. So you see, you can put a negative spin on this, weather it's a genetic OR a social issue. It swings both ways.

 

[arildno]

Just to clarify on my part:
Whatever one's view on the etiology of homosexuality, it cannot be denied that
consensual, homosexual practice :
a) Is (/might be) fully consistent with an egalitarian morality
b) Provides warmth, joy and well-being for those wanting to engage in it.
Hence, however one looks at it, finding the "cause of homosexuality" should have no bearing on our MORAL evaluation of the practice.

 

[russ_watters]

Everyone seems so smug in their certainty that it's a genetic issue. So if it is, fantics will doubtlessly advocate genetic engineering to "eliminate" the gay disposition. So you see, you can put a negative spin on this, weather it's a genetic OR a social issue. It swings both ways.

Just to make my position perfectly clear, I was only arguing that "gayness" (as someone else put it) is not a 'normal genetic variation' (ie blue eyes). I wasn't arguing that is anything, with the caveat that if it is harmful in any way (and, it appears clear to me that it is), it can reasonably be considered a "disease". Whether the cause is a common genetic defect, fetal environment, social pressure, or even lack of vitamins remains a very much open question.

 

[Aquamarine]

Just to make my position perfectly clear, I was only arguing that "gayness" (as someone else put it) is not a 'normal genetic variation' (ie blue eyes). I wasn't arguing that is anything, with the caveat that if it is harmful in any way (and, it appears clear to me that it is), it can reasonably be considered a "disease". Whether the cause is a common genetic defect, fetal environment, social pressure, or even lack of vitamins remains a very much open question.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
As this links shows, bi- and homosexuality is very common in other species. This could not be the case if there was no advantage to this spectrum. The most likely explanation is that bisexuality gives a clear advantage in the competition for mates. So it cannot be considered a harmful disease, even if one views it only in terms of "survival of the fittest".

 

[the number 42]

The latest evidence points to homosexuality and bisexuality being the result of exposure to elevated prenatal testosterone levels. Social psychological explanations - valid in other areas - are defunct here.

How we, as society, use this information is another issue entirely.