Homosexuality is an issue that has sparked tumultuous debate in the United States, and has been brought to the forefront in the last fifty to sixty years. While the legal and social implications has captured the attention of the media, the lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order. While few have come to a conclusive answer, important progress has been made since the time homosexuality was merely considered a mental disorder that could be cured.
In the March 2004, Health and Medicine Week, research findings from the study of homosexuality in rams was published. Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine had looked at the biological foundations of a male sheep's homosexuality. They used the animals since they had been consistently and thoroughly studied in the past, and provided for a controllable experiment. They studied the oSDN, "an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain." The hypothalamus is an important part of the brain that regulates body temperature, blood pressure, as well as sexual behavior. Researchers found that the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN) was larger and contained more neurons in male- oriented rams (1). This information is important in several different ways. While it is solely a study on ram behavior, it is believed that homosexuality can be found in many different species, not limited to humans. This is also important because it is the first study to show a relationship between variations in sexual partner preference and brain structure in an animal, which could provide insight into how humans are studied and what should be looked for in humans to unlock the clues of biological causes of homosexuality.
While the rams are an interesting case study, there are also research findings directly relating to humans. The prenatal hormone theory is a provocative explanation of the link between biology and homosexual tendencies. It is based on the idea that hormones can affect a fetus in the womb and can influence brain development. Studies on the neuroendocrine function in homosexuality has shown that while levels of testosterone and estrogen do not typically vary along the lines of homo and heterosexuality, it is one's response mechanisms to these hormones that can play a role in sexual orientation. It is far too basic to attribute homosexuality with a lack of testosterone in males and a lack of estrogen in women, and many studies have negated this idea. However, the central nervous system, which mediates behavior and physiological responses, can be heavily affected by the level of hormones present (2).
It is also believed that birth order has a direct relation to whether or not one is gay. It is possible that a woman's fetus builds up certain antibodies in her first pregnancy, if it is with a male, to male antibodies, and these affect the development of male fetuses in subsequent pregnancies (4). For each older brother, humans are believed to be approximately 33% more likely to be homosexual. In other studies, it has been found that homosexuals are 39% more likely to be left- handed than heterosexuals (3).
Biological study of sexual orientation is not without its flaw. It has been criticized in the scientific world for reducing the subject to simplistic sides of homo and hetero sexual behavior. Simon LeVay is a scientist who has published extensive research on the difference in biology between homo and heterosexuals. In Science magazine in1991, Thomas A. Schoenfeld writes about his work and the faults he finds with LeVays work. Schoenfeld states that biology cannot always be viewed as something that runs against social environment and upbringing, "It is all too common to see early experience, social learning, or choice pitted against biology, but these are false dichotomies" (5). Rather it is the genetic and biological traits that lead to predisposition towards certain behavior characteristics. This approach allows for the biological factors in homosexuality, without limiting the subject to exclusively culture or biology.
All of the research that has surfaced in the past century reflects an interesting pattern of social acceptability of homosexuality. What was once thought of as a negative and controllable defect, is now recognized and embraced by many. While society is far from fully accepting homosexuality as a cultural norm, it has entered the public sphere as a subject worthy of discourse, rather than feared and ignored. It is in this sense that scientists are able to invest more of their time and money into researching homosexuality. In addition, the study of homosexuality itself both in its cultural causes and social effects, such as AIDS, depression, gender roles, marriage laws, has gained world wide attention. The research presented is far from conclusive, and generally generates more questions than it answers. It is uncertain whether or not humans will truly understand the relationship between nature and nurture and the intricate balance of biological or genetic effects and learned cultural behavior. After seeing some of the evidence about biological theories of homosexuality, I am not completely convinced of researchers conclusions. However, I do believe that it presents the interesting point that one cannot consider homosexuality to be a purely psychological or behavioral characteristic, completely disregarding any evidence of biological or genetic influence. After all, in our society, where in some places homosexuals are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one choose to be gay?
Works Cited
1) "Biology is Behind Homosexuality in Sheep, Study Confirms." Health and Medicine Week (2004): 422. ProQuest. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 25 Sept. 2006 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=588863761&Fm t=3&clientId= 42764&RQT=309&VName=PQD>. [2]
2) Diamant, Louis. Male and Femal Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches. Cambridge: Hemisphere Corporation, 1987. 129-153.
3) Kristof, Nicholas D. "Gay At Birth?" New York Times (2003): a19. ProQuest. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 24 Sept. 2006 <http://proquest. umi.com /pqdweb ?did=430686171&Fmt=2&clientId=42764&RQT=309&V Name=PQD [3]
4) Levay, Simon. "The Biology of Sexual Orientation." Homepage of Simon LeVay. Feb. 2006. 25 Sept.2006 <http://members.aol.com/slevay /page22.html#_Brain _stud ies%97function> [4].
5) Schoenfeld, Thomas A. "Biology and Homosexuality." Science 254 (1991): 630. JStor. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 25 Sept. 2006 <http://links.js tor.org/sici?sici= 0036-8075%2819911101%2 93%3A254%3A503 2%3C630%3ABAH %3E2.0.CO%3B2-9>. [5]
Comments
Thank you all for contribution...! [6]
I dearly thank all for the contribution. I am an african student of Anthropology in one of the farmous faculties in Brasil. For me, a homosexuality as it is, I believe is not something one is born with, it is not inert. When one is born, the environment shapes him or her to be what he/she is. I am doing a research over the subject as my final thesis, and fortunately I met some friends of mine who are gays and some told me that at a certain age of maturity they had wet dreams over the opposite sex...! It is a prove for me that it is something one gets after birth- no matter the age that one acquires this.
Also there are some men born with some "defects" in their physical sex organs- like having small penis or without "balls" ...etc. this could be another cause for one to like the same sex to satisfy what he is missing!
All in all we have to accept the presence of the "special" people in our societies... they make a part of us. If I am a gay, I dont ask for food in your doorway, why should you become harsh against me? There is no reason ... leave me alone ...stop harrassing other people... they owe nothing to your account!!!
why? [7]
I am also left handed adn i also see many left handed pepole around, but i dont think that it can be true.
What It's About [8]
I chose to write with my left hand because it feels natural to me. I feel a little jealous of right handed people sometimes because no one bothers them or really pays much attention to them. Everyone pretty much leaves them alone. But my writing looks just as good as any right-handed person.I don't remember when I ever decided that I was left-haned, or even if there was even ever a choice to begin with. I really don't think science should be wasting their time trying to find out why it is I write with my left-hand. It seems like a load of folly to me. Is it because most people are right-handed and they think it's some kind of psychological, behavioral, birth-problem behind it? That's SO stupid!
My grandpa use to tell me about when he was teased and punished terribly by the religious people for being left-handed. He hated being left-handed so he tried and tried and tried to change. Eventually he figured out how to get by with writing with his right hand. Eventually he was print somewhat legibly and pass as a right-hander. And you just can't win because people then teased him about his bad handwriting. It wasn't natural for him and everyone knew it, yet he continued because he did not want to feel shame.
Homosexuality is a kind of left-handedness. It's too bad Heterosexuals believe that homosexuals can write with their right hand if they chose to. That if they could it would be more "natural" for them.
I've only known two people who could write well with both hands. I think it's the coolest thing. Very rare.
gay marriage [9]
I dont support gay marriage for any reason whatsoever
Gay Marraige [10]
It is nobody place to say what's right and wrong for we have all messed up somewhere somehow!!! And for you to say that you do not support gay, they cannot choose to be gay any more they you can chose to be straight. Everyone deserves love. As long as they're happy! Why do you care? I support gay marriage!!!!!!!
Begging for hatred? [11]
In no way do I plead for your ignorant mind to study a reason behind your comments and it's desperate attempt for negative attention. Nor do I feel any form of hatred or resentment towards you. All that I ask is for you to not be afraid to show your name when hiding behind ridiculously uneducated comments that could possibly invoke fear in young gay minds searching for an answer as to why they are the way they are in a society that finds it difficult to accept them. If its because of religion that you feel this way, I suggest you focus your energy on searching for the answers to the questions your nobel leaders (whoever they/it/he is/are) choose to steer you from by suggesting for example that science is merely a test put there to challenge your faith. Knowledge can be a powerful tool for a growing mind no matter how far along their development has progressed. Please try and open your mind to a world of realistic possibilities, including the one that your insecurities can be effecting you and your peers in an enormous way whether you mean to or not. Whether people are born gay or not, It's the way they are. Change is possible for many aspects of life, it's difficult to say if its true for a human to change their sexual preference, especially under the pressure of a life without their own society recognising the FACT that homosexuality is real and if you believe that your no more important or better in any way, than another human being on earth, which should be the case, than you should have no reason to disagree that marriage between a man and a woman is no different that two of the same sex. In no way possible can the marriage of a gay couple interfere with your life on any level.
Love itself? [12]
I had an epifany! How are we supposed to discover what causes homosexuality when nobody is absolutly certain what love is? I'm not talking about hormonal urges. I'm talking 'stare into your muddy brown eyes all eternity and be happy' sort of love. Can somebody tell why I feel like my heart is going to blow up when a loved one hurts me? Don't say its all in my head, if you do then tell me this; What part of my brain causes my heart to feel like it is literally dieing? Being gay bi lesbian staight pansexual trans etc is just a bunch of discription words for love, I think. Don't hate. Worse than drugs.
Get used to it society!!! [13]
I have noticed that the responce to homosexuality is much like the responce america had to african americans post civil war. Marriage rights were limited, shunned by many churches, called hateful names etc. Now most people look back at what we did and think "That is dispicable! How could we do such a thing? ITS NOT FAIR!!!" But look at homosexualiy, pansexuality, bisexuality etc and think "Ew." Why? I see people turn away as if it is indecent when same sex couples kiss, but find it sweet or cute when opposite sex couples do. I can only hope in a few years rather than decades people will understand that it makes no difference... they are normal people too. Sometimes opposites attract, other times not. The world won't always fit that perfect picture you may have in your mind.
To be honest, I am almost 40 [14]
To be honest, I am almost 40 and NEVER EVER have I witnessed anything but respect and some fear of homosexuals, because, you know, if you say ANYTHING that sounds even close to being "negative" it is you who´s going to get it, and not the homosexuals precisely. And I live in the first world (I have lived in three first world countries to date) and well, the problem does not come when you are homosexual but when you have any oppinion yourself that is not outright praising and positive about them.
I find it weird when I hear continuous complaints and fears from homosexuals in the first world (I am not saying anything about other cultures where conditions are very different) when they have the upper hand!!!
LGBT, please don´t fight violence with greater violence. You´re doing your cause no favour. I am free to think whatever I want about homosexuality, and may have good reason backing it too, but I am not going to treat anyone disrespectfully or discriminate anyone just for being homosexual. So please don´t you do it to me!
homosexuality [15]
chromosome i.e. gene determine everything, everything happen in this world for a reason, if a person is gay / lesbian / straight / bisexual or anything else are determined by gene, if gene determine heterosexuality and if this is normal then i have to say the same in case of homosexuality, diseases are also caused by gene problem and human suffering and get pain and die, if any one think that being a gay is a chromosomal disease then i will say that no body is suffering from physically rather than mentally and which is caused by the socity , if the socity is maintain the quote "live and let live" this type of discussion will never be come and we who r gay r not to be judged by any homophobic socity or religion ..... thanking you..... ratnadeep ghosh, age 29, India.
Its Obvious [16]
I not homosexual but I have seen these people since my childhood. I know they are different. I feel they are genetically mutated somehow because I observed many male homosexual dressed like ladies and walk like ladies... That is not their choice. They are bound to behave like that.....
I think we all should realize that this is not the matter of choice and have never been so. Religion have always been in opposition to these relations but now as all we know that many other animal species also show this tendencies. Those animal behavior prove that this occurs all around the kingdom of nature and is not un-natural.
Religions from Schizophrenic Family() will never understand this simple sign. Its natural, It existed since primitive times and will continue to exist in our future.
Is Homosexuality a choice? [17]
I believe that homosexuality is a very complex topic. I think everyone naturally has thier own view points,various opinions and beliefs. I am a homosexual and believe we are born different.I think one of the best arguements to prove this fact is if it were a choice why would someone choose to be teased,bullied,ridiculed and put through hell just to be honest with the world and themselves about who they are.Some men are just simply attracted to men. I don't know why the world has to complicate something that isn't complicated. Heterosexuals long to be with the opposite sex. Homosexuals are simply the opposite! Case closed.
I agree with you to some [18]
I agree with you to some extent. But I see sexuality as a meter, starting from transgender, to homosexual, to bisexual, to heterosexual. For example, if transgender was 1 and heterosexual was 10 I would probably be an 8, since I've had one relationship with someone of the same sex and the rest with men, plus I'm mainly attracted to men. So, like everything, I believe sexuality is a spectrum, not black and white.
Kinsey scale [19]
Laura, you're actually a 1 or a 2 - according to the Kinsey scale. I am quite impressed with your take on the matter, as your conclusion is consistent with Alfred Kinsey's, probably the most respected scientist in the area, so called "Kinsley scale": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
AGAIN [20]
i have been researching about the reasons behind homosexulaity. it has become a clishe these days. everyone asks why this and why that. when the true question lies in the following" why do we as humans constantly are eager to know about stuff that comingto think about will not change a thing!"
now come and tell me, do u care if X is gay? yes u do! y? it is because u like thes stuff that are not very familiar. we tend to see the wrongs in people when we ourselves are masked with mistakes and wrongs!
i am a homosexual person, and i have been so ever since i remember, i was 4 or 5 and i still remember the 1st time my mom found out me looking at a guy's penis, when he was 6 himself. now tell mehow could that be a choice!!!!
i used to play with barbies! and i hated still do hate guns, i mean toy guns. people used to gaze and say" in arabic= ya 7aram shoofo hayda! ala y3een imo" so what? what will science do 4 me? proove to me y am i a homosexual? well thanks
but before i end up my comment hear this very well and in bold also!!
FEW YEARS AGO, IN AUSTRALIA, THEY HAVE FOUND THE BIRD'S INHABITANT CHANGING AROUND A LOCAL INDUSTRY, AND THEY FOUND THAT THE BIRDS HAVE BEEN ACTING ODDLY!! THEY HAVE OBSERVED, FEMALE-FEMALE BIRDS LYINGIN THE SAME NEST AND YES MALE- MALE BIRDS AS WELL! THIS ODD BEHAIVOR MADE THEM QUESTION Y ARE THE INHABITANTS GOING THROUGH THIS AND THE FACT WAS ASTONISHING!!!
when you are in the mother's womb, every actiona dn situation and any food consumption or atmosphere the mom is in you are affected by! so eating non-healthy food will affect the growth of the fetus and yes in teh case of the birds the egg was shallo and the birds were found out as" GAY!" so based upon that my question rises so what? my mm is the reason behind my sexuality? well i do not know. i have been living in lebanon 4 the past 21 yrs and i am still single and i think i am single because my mom is teh reason behind my gayness and i will change? i used to think abt that but after this article i said who cares!!!! not science not anyone will give me my answer! everything is due to what u choose, to what has happened to millions of things so let us not bother purselves and just live!!
The Science of Homosexuality [21]
I am a Heterosexual male. I have looked at Penises when I was growing up as well. Does that make me a homeosexual? No it does not. I played with both barbies and everything else in between. By playing with them make me a Homepsexual? No it does not. I was sexually abused at the age of 2 and nobody did anythig to stop it. So am I a homessexual? No. Do I still look at a male Penis? Yes I do. Do I long for one? I will admit sometimes, but I am more atractive to the female form. So I am not a homeosexual, Bisexual yes. I also believe that eveybody is to a certian extent bisexual.
I believe that we have a choice to make and that we make the choice at or arround the age of 2. Sometimes we supress that choice but still a choice nontheless. Both men and women go through a time of change and experement on both sexes. To find out who we are. Science has also confirmed that there is no homeosexual gene. So you are not born gay. You see the world and do not like being the sex that you are. Therefore I will agree with you that one choosed the lifestyle and not genes.
Will stop their.
agreed [22]
All sexual orientations are utterly natural, and none of them is a choice... if it was wouldn't people have been able to erase it? But what happened? exactly the opposite, more and more all sexualities are being accepted and treated quite normally, yes there are some communities/societies who are a bit behind due to close-minded religious beliefs that are/should be invalid, because they don't make any effing sense.
You should not blame anyone for your sexuality, because it was no one's decision to make you gay, you just are and that should be perfectly fine.
People are so interested in this topic either wanting to seek truth, or just spread lies, as we humans are a very curious and complex species, we're always driving to either empower others or simply ourselves regardless of any intention that we hold.
Anyhow, it have been proven there are several scientific evidence, the biological differences: gay men and straight women on average have equally proportioned brain hemispheres and the same similarity goes with lesbian women and straight men.
Click this link: to see evidence from the Netherlands Institute of Neuroscience about Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full (remove spaces)
RE: The Science Of Homosexuality - No News Here [23]
Greetings Friends and Fellow Humans;
I must say that I appreciate the painstaking detail you have put into your short dissertation. I am also quite interested to note that at the end of it, your response is the same non-scientific response that supporters of 'gay science' use to push the argument that homosexuality is anything more than behavioral choice.
After more than 60 years of focused study, all really to promote an argument in favor of non-heterosexual behavior as normative in humans, the most scientific statement we can make is 'Why would someone choose to be gay?'. That is unfortunate.
Scientifically speaking, Sherlock Holmes (a fictional scientist), said quite often that after examining all possibilities as to a cause or solution to a puzzle, and finding no reasonable or logical answer, whatever remained, no matter how uncomfortable, illogical, or unreasonable it appear to be, must be the answer.
We keep trying to look to logic and science to justify what is clearly emotional behavior. We've mapped the gene pool, we've studied hormone secretions and malfunctions of all kinds, brainwaves, brain size, brain structure, biological, bio-physical, bio-chemical, and psychiatric stratifications of various kinds. After all that, the best scientific answer we can muster is 'Why would someone choose to be gay?'.
The answer, as uncomfortable as it may seem dear friends, is CHOICE itself. Why do I choose to be a vegetarian when steak and eggs abound? Why do I choose to be Buddhist rather than Muslim? Why do I choose milk over alcohol or drink only water? Even when threatened with torture and death, why do I choose to be a Christian? Some people (even parents) wonder why anyone in their right mind would choose to be a parent?
Seriously now, we can find and illuminate some human proclivities and potential behavioral processes in Science. But there is no gene that makes us alcoholics or kleptomaniacs or Democrats or professional athletes. These are all matters of CHOICE when we are done. No getting it away from it, fellow 'Matrix' fans.
In the absence of tangible evidence, after more than 3000 years of debate, science, philosophy, and religious review, the answer, as uncomfortable and as illogical as it may 'feel', is CHOICE.
I really really really really really really hope that any responses to this are going to be expositions of evidence (All I've heard is theories up to now). I look forward to reading, seeing, and or testing it.
Thanks for listening...and Peace.
The Science of Homosexuality [24]
Thank you for the masterpiece. I have always thought so. People try to justify behavior using science yet there is no scientific evidence. I always wondered why if a man is attracted to a man, what would make the other man attracted to him.
If you want to know why gays are gay...ask them [25]
I am gay, and I know that it's no choice. I tried to fight it for most of my life and finally accepted it, and that was the only choice i made in my sexuality. Choosing to accept it instead of hide it and bury it down. A heterosexual would not understand unless they went through the same thing, but when you are gay, you can't change it. No matter how hard you try. I know this because I tried for 12 years.
Now I'm no scientist, but I'm [26]
Now I'm no scientist, but I'm no ignoramous either (though sometimes I forget how to spell certain words plus I am writing this at 12 pm at night) and I definitely agree with you about freedom of choice. For instance, I choose to be a feminist, a vegetarian and dress in a gothic style. I am harrassed constantly for making those choices but I feel comfortable behaving in the way in which I do and it simply feels right. Therefore, I'm not going to change because how I live my life isn't hurting anyone and I enjoy living this way. "Converting" a homosexual to heterosexuality is like forcing a left-handed person to be right-handed. Sure, they could choose to be right-handed, but why on earth would they do that when using their left-hand feels right? (Unintentional pun)
Evidence [27]
As far as evidence goes, I am waiting for more answers just as you are. What I can tell you and most other gay people would probably tell you is, I do not get sexually aroused by someone of the opposite gender. This IS something that has been studied and is plain evidence. As to the why, that is up for debate. However, your stance and societies stance that we must have an answer as to the "why" this occurs, is simple justification for your biased stance.
The writer asks a valid question to support his theories, "why would you CHOOSE to be gay" especially if you could be executed for doing so. There have been studies performed that demonstrates physiological reactions to images of the opposite or same-sex genders. Clearly, gay people are aroused by same-sex attraction.
Is the why really important? Or are you simply in search of evidence that supports your obvious prejudice. So Serenkip Visotor, do you choose who gives your a hard-on?
Evidence [28]
I am straight, but have defended gays from intolerance in debates. Google the subject, "Is homosexuality inherited or learned?" and you will find a number of studies on the subject. The majority say that homosexuality is inherited -- you are born that way and cannot help but be what you are. I saw only one site that claimed homosexuality was "learned," and that was a Christian site. They are compelled by their religious doctrine to be non-objective.
I do agree, those who want so fervently to believe that homosexuality is learned or willful do so to justify their prejudice and their hostility toward gays.
Hmm... [29]
So, operating on Mr Holmes' (and vicariously, your own) assumption, God doesn't exist? Because that seems illogical. It also seems uncomfortable to admit such a thing. I mean, I am not a follower of any indoctrinated religion, but I am a believer in a higher being or beings. But my belief must be incorrect because it is illogical and uncomfortable to admit?
Please explain?
Reply to Joseph [30]
1) The question "why would someone choose to be gay?" is not scientific. It is philosophic. If one is to argue on the basis of religion, or argue with data that is neither scientifically proven nor disproven (i.e. homosexuality is a CHOICE), then one is arguing philosophically. Thus, it would be remiss to contend that the aforementioned question has no place in a debate of this calibre, as it is hypocritical to say the least.
2) Sherlock Holmes is, as you said, a FICTIONAL scientist. How can that be considered "scientifically speaking"? Of course, I am not saying that the beliefs presented in such literature via the characters are without merit. But are you positive you've applied such a belief correctly in the circumstances? Who's to say that all scientific methods to this "puzzle" have been exhausted? And who's to say that what science HAS found about the disparity between hetero and non-hetero individuals isn't significant? Though these discoveries may not be the solution, they can be considered a step towards the solution can they not?
3) Avoid absolutes. "Clearly emotional behaviour"? That's synonymous with myself declaring that homosexuality is "clearly" genetically determined. This aside, the following comments you made are a clear illustration of hyperbole. The methods you have listed have indeed had their merits in scientifically explaining homosexuality. Some have even been expressed in the main article on this blog. Yet this is all ignored in favour of exaggerating the supposed little progress science has had in providing answers for homosexuality. Exaggeration has no place in a reasoned debate, thus your argument in this respect lacks credibility.
4) You draw faulty parallels between choice. Irrespectively, you contend that people choose to be alcoholics, which is incorrect. Rather, it is an interplay between natural (genetics) and environmental influences. Geneticists have recently isolated a gene that deals with alcoholism. This gene determines who is more susceptible to an addiction to alcohol, and who isn't. It lends credibility to the argument that behaviour is influenced by genetics, thus restricting the argument of choice. As for kleptomania - that is a mental disorder. Those who are kelptomaniacs are just as able choose to be kleptomaniacs as those who are suffering from depression are able to choose their depression.
4) In the absence of tangible evidence for or against the notion of choice in homosexuality, the answer is uncertainty. You ask scientists to prove homosexuality has a scientific basis, I ask you to prove that it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that there are scientific suggestions for the occurrence of homosexuality. Each of these has interesting findings, and all of these findings indicate a scientific answer to the question of homosexuality. They do not provide the answer, merely lay a path for scientists to follow. I suggest you read the article to find these indicators. And whilst they are merely indicators, they are significant and cannot be ignored. The argument from a 'choice' stance, then, is impractical as it ignores them completely.
5) I apologise that this is not an exposition of evidence, merely a rebuttal of your lack thereof. But once again, the best evidence you will find is that which indicates a scientific basis for homosexualty. There is scarcely any that is choice.
Joseph [31]
I think you may be confused on the matter a bit. Let me help you. First of all we haven't learned everything in this world there is to learn. Just because we haven't discovered why people can be homosexual doesn't mean it can't be discovered.
Second is that emotions are apart of science and that is undebatable. Emotions are controlled in our brains and our biological functions. Look in a psychology text book and you will learn all thats needed.
And third is the "Why would someone choose to be homosexual?" question. Obviously this wasn't a scientific statement. Just added on for thought. And your comparisons aren't very good either. Why would i choose to be vegetarian? I have sympathy for animal suffering and it is healthier. It has nothing to do with the amount of steak and eggs around me because they don't affect my choice. All those comparisons you posted were a bit meaningless and they had nothing to do with the choice expressed by that certain question. Why would I choose to be gay if I new I might get seriously hurt being so or if I new I might get attacked emotionally? I won't get hurt in this world for being vegan, religious, a parent, or a milk drinker.
Do you think a black man one hundred years ago, if given the ability, would choose to be white? I think so and it is because of the suffering brought on by people who believed they were not important enough to have equal rights.
All the things we are come from our biological structure. All things can be explained by science, just not immediately. So try and open your mind and learn something my friend. I hope you respond and give me some feedback as well.
Genetically Predisposed [32]
This is my theory. I believe that people have a genetic disposition (along with environmental factors such as how they were brought up etc) to act certain ways. For example, a person may have a genetic disposition to being an addict (alcohol or otherwise), and some have a genetic disposition to being a serial killer. Does this mean that A) It is okay for them to be an alcoholic or drug addict or serial killer, regardless of not having as "easy" of a choice not to do so? No. Why? Because at some point it will become harmful to other people along with themselves, and because society says it's not good, and often times will go out of their way to help these people with things like AA etc. And B) People can prevent themselves from being any of those things, by getting treatment, and refraining from their desires to do these bad things. Now, why society just decided that being homosexual is okay, despite being medical problems (AIDS), the fact that the majority of society deep down has some problem with it, because they know it's not right, I'm not sure why.
In closing, if people want to be homosexual, regardless of cause, I could care less. But it should not be an encouraged behavior in schools, teachers should not be teaching about homosexuality to 1st graders (or sexuality at all) just to please their own liberal agenda. My son is 5 months old, and my mother in law CONSTANTLY refers to gay behavior if he does anything, like has a doll, or is wearing a tight white onesie or whatever. He's a baby, leave him alone. And he is my baby, and will grow up with my values, and he will be a good person like his father.
I could go on and on, but I don't have time.
oh I can comment, nice, where [33]
oh I can comment,
nice, where are the proves?
And I'm a girl, and not very long I accepted that I love girls more than boys.
Let we tell ya, as a child I've found out, you know I didn't like that thing from the boys, it was disguisting for me (still I do I don't know why) but I didn't tell anyone, no one knew, and no one was be able to see that I was different.
yeah somewhere I knew I was different, when I fell in love for the first time with a girl it felt more different than when I walked behind the boys (but I was to scary so I pushed away, but believe me that made it worser I hoped I marry a Boy, making children that kind of stuf), you know and there was never a relationship, I had always trouble with boys, there was always something that broke up the love, and later I realized it was not really love, I don't know what it was. I always liked girls more, When I was a child I wished I was a boy because they have it so easy, I thought(because look more beautiful than boys how ever there are boys I like, but most of them have something female ) . O.o I don't know why.
But if the science just have theoriës but no proves, I don't know what to think about it. ( I never could imagine a Sexlife with a boy still I don't, I'm 18 years old maybe about 5 years it changes I don't know)
Some people say, it's something that you choose, If I could choose I would love a man, but love is something you can't choose. Whatever. some say it's in the genes, you got born with it, or like there is, you say it's something in the brain or hormones, perhaps it is, in the brains I can believe that, if you left brain stopped working you're right side of your body doesn't move. So it's a prove you need your brains to live normal. But I think Homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same the only differents is you can't make children by your own when you love your own kind.
Of course not, but if everyone could make children I think we had a big problem.
But well, It's important that humans see that people with homosexuality are human being too, and not a kind of monsters or something.
I don't know very much about [34]
I don't know very much about it, but I think it's a mixture of both environment (how you were raised), and genetics. Like, I'm a heterosexual guy. However, I bet if my genes were just slightly different, or if I were raised around peers that weren't prejudice (I strongly regret ever using the term "gay" in a negative manner), I'd be bisexual. Now, I've never dated a guy before, so I could be bisexual. Just 'cause I'm bisexual, doesn't mean that I'd equally like guys and girls. I could be bisexual now, and just not realize it, and it wouldn't come to a surprise to me. It can be seen like a scale between heterosexuality on the right, and homosexuality on the left, with bisexuality in the middle. I'd probably be in between bisexuality and heterosexuality. If I moved the weight just a bit to the left, I'd be bisexual. In other words, I do find certain guys to be slightly attractive, but I prefer girls quite a bit more than guys. If I were raised differently, or my genes were slightly different, then there's a good chance that I'd be more in the middle.
Just an analogy of the way I see it. I could be completely wrong, but it's a convenient way of thinking about it. This is just a partially informed opinion; I don't have a whole lot to back it up with. It may not help with confidence issues, but it'd at least help with answers maybe. However, let's use this example that I saw on a TV show (it's actually really interesting):
Say, I put a candy in one hand, and made a fist with both my hands; a classic chance game where you try to pick the correct hand with the prize. You pick one of the hands, I open it, and there's a candy in it. Now, you'd probably get a feeling of victory, since you picked the correct hand. However, you don't know what's inside the other hand. I open it up, and it turns out that there's actually two candies in the other hand. You may have gotten the least beneficial prize, but you can't really control what prize you'll get in a game of chance.
Basically, you should accept what circumstances you have right now, and don't fantasize about more "fortunate" life styles. Just enjoy what you have available to you, and don't worry about life styles that you are unable to reach, as it's just a waste of time (like with your situation). And if it's something you can reach, then you could try achieving that goal, rather than fantasizing about it, as you'll just waste more time.
I hope that raises your confidence, it was a really interesting life lesson when I saw it, and can be applied to more than just your situation about self-confidence.
Huh? [35]
So do you think if I was raised my two gay men I would more than likely be gay myself? Well I was and I am not. Try doing some research and you will find that your environment has nothing to do with it.
Not Hate.... Just Love [36]
I believe they are driven by the physiological needs of their bodies... They are bound to do that what they do... They are special people like many other special people with specific disorders.
Lets face it and accept it as reality of our life. Lets Start spreading Love not Hate....
Reply to Chris. [37]
Chris:
I must fist establish that I will not rebut anything that quotes religious doctrine. It seems somewhat crass to refute anything claiming religion declares homosexuality wrong, when one does not need to be religious to enjoy the benefits of equality before the law in today's society. This begs the question then: Why does one need to abide by religious doctrine to enjoy freedom and equality if they are entitled to not be religious?
1. You compare homosexuality to murder, arguing that people choose to murder, thus people choose to be homosexual. This contention is fundamentally flawed. People, by a natural survival instinct, choose things which minimise the risk of harm to themselves (this is, of course, exempting those with mental disorders.) It's something called self-presevation. Whilst I do not totally agree with the maxim "Why would someone choose to be gay in today's society?", I will not totally repudiate it. The fact is, if homosexuality truly were a choice, then it would be a non-issue. It wouldn't exist. People would be disinclined to choose homosexuality because it poses a threat to their health, their safety, and their well-being.
2. With respect to your argument about pedophilia, you are failing to understand current law. Under the current laws in society today, homosexuality isn't illegal. Pedophilia is. Why is this? It is conceived (and rightly so) that those who are over the age of 18 are able to consent to any number of things (notwithstanding the numerous legal rights and obligations attached to this; and sub-laws that apply to older and younger ages.) In the current discussion, sex is the aspect that arises. So, if homosexuality occurs above the age of consent, then what has one done that is illegal? Nothing. However, with pedophilia, the crime is having sex with someone not fully able to grant consent to such acts; or if they do give consent, not to understand the gravity of their decision. To extend this further, rape will be discussed. This is having sex with another without their consent. Homosexuals above the age required for effectual consent can, naturally, agree to have sex. So, it cannot fall within the category of rape either.
3. You argue on the basis of 'right and wrong.' I agree that what you say does have some gravitas to it insofar as rationality is unique to humans. However, I would also add that with humans' ablity of rationality comes ways in which this rationality is determined. What is perceived to be 'right' therefore, differs among cultures and individuals. In some nations, it is conceived that women are subordinate to man (stemmed from the concept of original sin.) In other cultures, it is conceived that women are equal to man. This example clearly illustrates the volatility of the notions 'right' and 'wrong.' In the current situation, homosexuality, according to you, is 'wrong.' This is because of religious influence. Irregardless of whether or not you are religious, being socialised within a religious nation has lasting effects. You believe homosexuality is 'wrong' because this is what religious doctrine dictates.
Finally, I must add this: If you were intending merely to play devil's advocate - as the contradictoriness of your arguments suggests - then I apologise for anything which places you in a negative light.
Regards,
Steven
To SerenDip's reply to Chris: [38]
To SerenDip's reply to Chris: It is NOT true to say if homosexuality was a choice then NO ONE would be gay. This is OUTRAGEOUS. People do totally IRRATIONAL things for love ALL THE TIME. Think about people who die in the name of their so-called God. This is an OBVIOUS threat to "health, safety, and well-being" and from the outside Perspective it’s completely illogical, However, people die in the name of God. People have lost there lives for loving those of the opposite race (mainly speaking of black and white relationships) society tore them apart yet love kept them together. I refute this claim that people would simply "choose" to not be gay by threat of well-being and you cannot discard the theory that homosexuality is a choice. People will "choose" to go against all odds to be with there gay-lover.
And for your second point, Chris was most-likely referring homosexuality to rape/pedophilia because your endocrine and nervous system are regulatory body functions that control things like sexual desire IN GENERAL (including all forms of sex).. maybe suggesting an impaired regulation of hormones that can show a connection between the different forms of sex. I am familiar with this research and this theory suggest that homosexuality is simply a heightened sense of sexual brain activity that skews logical thinking and causes ppl to act on impulse rather than reasoning. This can determine a relationship between behavior characteristics such as homosexuality, pedophilia, and rape if this turns out to be true.
You are correct that “right and wrong” is left up to interpretation but honestly if there is no religion there is no argument about homosexuality. As the famous scholar Freud wrote in his book “Future of Illusion” without religion there are no morals simply because you cannot depend on society to act on rational thinking. This is a man who in fact argued that religion was an illusion however he acknowledged the cause of removing it from the picture. We cannot say relgion has nothing to do with the situation of homosexuality because that is where this argument stems from. Therefore religion in fact defines a “right and wrong” so that it is NOT simply left up to interpretation and it is NOT left up to the hands of imperfect beings to make the wisest decisions.
If one is an unbeliever of religion and its doctrines then I feel no argument can be made of his/her “wrongdoing” so-to-speak but ppl with religious views still have a right to express them against homosexuality. I hope none of this comment is offensive to you or anyone else and will gladly acknowledge rebuttal response
Sir [39]
Religious folks don't view religion as you or I do. They think they are choosing to be loved and to have happiness and crap. Homosexuals know that being gay is not exactly looked kindly at.
Ummm...? [40]
I don't know exactly what you are trying to get at. Are you fine with, or against homosexuality?
hmm [41]
Homosexuality is perfectly fine with me and really should be to everybody else.
Ahh [42]
Ahh, I get you now. :) The only reason I thought you were against was you replied to someone against it, but sounding like you were of the same opinion. :S Sorry.
Reply [43]
1. This is an extremely flawed argument. "People will choose to be gay because they love the same sex" is pretty much the premise this rebuttal rests upon. This is a circular explanation. How does that love arise in the person "choosing" to be gay then? If heterosexualis are not aroused by one of the same sex, how is it then that these heterosexuals become homosexuals? Because they fall in love with someone of the same sex? But isn't it already established that this cannot happen for heterosexuals? As their name implies, they love people of the opposite sex. Thus it seems remiss to even suggest that it's a choice for homosexuals to be homosexual. People can die all they want for love of their God, but that is completely different to people 'choosing' to be subject to an extremely high level intensity of bullying.
2. I am familiar with the endocrine system and it's effects on the human psyche also. Believe me, Chris was not arguing neurologically. He was arguing the immoral status of pedophilia and attempting to compare it to homosexuality. If what he was arguing was indeed the endocrinatic influence on sexuality/sexual pleasures, then it stands to reason heterosexuality falls within the same category as pedophilia. This is extremely unlikely, as already discussed, pedophilia is determined psychologically - by those who enjoy holding a level of power over others. Pedophiles are not attracted to children, they are attracted to the power they have over them.
3. Exactly! There is no argument about homosexuality if there is no religion - or no BELIEF in religion, as it were. Thus, if one is irreligious, they should have a right to enjoy their life with no arbitrary interference by religious nuts, or even religious people. I agree that religious people should have a say about their own life, but they should NEVER have a right to interfere with another's. As for religion shaping morals - I believe the opposite. I believe that morals shaped religion. As religion is a written document, and as it is relatively unchangeable, the morals expressed in religion are also steadfast. Thus, the morals we see throughout religious scripts nowadays are morals of 2,000 years ago. After all, Judeo-Christian religions are quite new, about 2000-5000 years old. Morals have existed since humankind attained rationality.
Thus, it would appear that right and wrong are NOT dictated by religion, but merely recorded in religion for future reference. It would seem that right and wrong change over time - according to human rationality. Once again, this proves that religious doctrine is not fundamental to right and wrong. However, people have made it so by believing in the contradictions the bible presents, thus cementing a belief of right and wrong according to archaic texts. Also, humans may be imperfect, but there are no beings more rational than they.
Finally, you are absolutely crrect in saying that if one is irreligious, then they can do no wrong as dictated by religious docrtrine, merely by the law. Therefore, I call to your common sense - why do religious peoples argue that they are doing wrong? According to you, they aren't as they are irreligious. So who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that what someone (irreligious) is doing is wrong as dictated by the bible? I'm not saying don't express your opinion, I'm saying there's a difference between expressing one's opinion and forcing that opinion onto another. Sadly, most religious people do not see the distinction and thus, both are concurrent.
I must say, you did offend me. Ignorance is offensive to me. It was when you declared homosexuality was a choice. It certainly wasn't for me. I have been shunned by my family and my friends simply for BEING homosexual, not for having a homosexual partner. I do not love anyone (the way you were implying) yet. But I am attracted to the same sex. Therefore, can you argue I CHOSE to be gay for love, even when I don't love anyone? This is ignorance, and it is offensive. Believe what you want to believe with respect to religion, but do not for one second state that what I am is a choice I made.
Action dictates Orientation, not love [44]
In respect to you I will speak no more of religion since you have an obvious distinction b/w it and sexuality and have your own opinions on it as well. However, The argument is NOT "ppl will choose to be gay because they love the same-sex". The argument in question was the fact that people will WILLINGLY go against all odds to be with the one they presumably love *regardless of bullying, societal pressures and so-forth* Is it not true that you in no way kept homosexuality to yourself despite being "shunned" as you say? Using your own terms it seems you were in danger of your "health", "safety", and "well-being" and yet you still pronounce homosexuality on this blog and most likely in life as well.
Please listen carefully I am not saying homosexuals choose to be homosexual in the way you claim I stated it. And neither am I imposing religious doctrines on homosexuals who don't believe, but only pointing out the fact that it’s hypocritical to be support to both homosexuality and religion. Now homosexuals are socially stereotyped under many characteristics but are logically defined as one who deals in homosexuality meaning there is emphasis on the sex involved *if any* Ppl try to reduce homosexuality to lust or even love but there are no biological implications that apply to loving someone else. Love is an abstract entity unquantifiable by science in every aspect I would never base my argument on this. However, change of sexual orientation *which has been successfully established by myriads of ppl* is established when a homosexual chooses to no longer have sex with the same-sex or a hetereosexual no longer wishes to have sex with the opposite sex. This is with the account that actions are driven by intentions. To clarify if needed, hetereosexuals are not defined by who they are aroused by but who they actually have sex with. A murderer for instance is not a murderer until he has commited the murder (this is why courts cannot convict anyone on basis of intent).. The ACT defines him/her not the intention or the "arousal" as you say, however, because intention drives action as i said earlier most ppl do not stray from what they intend to do. This is why virgins can still implicate sexual orientation because it’s what they “intend” to do with their lives however their orientation will ultimately be defined by what they “actually” do. Therefore I can be "aroused" by a man *me being a man myself of course* and not be defined a homosexual until arousal is replaced by action. A man on this blog says he is hetereosexual but is occasionally attracted to other men. The "love" is not the defining point as many claim but ppl argue there is a "choice" because actions are boundless by free-will. Even you say “with pedophilia, the crime is having sex with someone not fully able to grant consent to such acts; or if they do give consent, not to understand the gravity of their decision… This is having sex with another without their consent. Homosexuals above the age required for effectual consent can, naturally, agree to have sex.” Though you argued the fact of consent you no doubt acknowledged that the sexual encounter itself, whether it being agreed or not agreed, was the distinction and the defining point. Another perspective: Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a genetic homosexual trait, these individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means). Therefore, if an alleged “gay gene” did exist, and people had no choice in sexuality, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether because genetics are absolute. It is maladaptive for humans to be “controlled” by genetics and have no say-so in their own life, it seems we are just as robots hardwired to behave a certain way as we would call it genetics. However, I go back to my first argument that it is the action that takes place and EVEN IF there was a gene or multiple genes that suggested homosexuality, gene expression (in general not just with sexuality) is conducive to environmental stimulus meaning that it can never be completely one-sided towards genetics. One can say sexuality is culturally constructed OR that it is a combination of both genetics and society but it is never just genetics. And yes one does not have control of biological build but since biology is not solely responsible for behavior, nothing is completely uncontrollable.
Also note that society will stereotype you off of intentions whether you act on them or not and stereotypes often contradict reality I was called and gay and mistreated for being “gay” many times and in no way am I homosexual so stereotypes are a collaboration of simplistic characteristics observed by ignorance this cannot be a determining point of homosexuality. And to further clarify I do think homosexuality is wrong for my own reasons but do not think homosexuals should be mistreated so I am sorry for your misfortune but please understand the argument is nothing about love by which we both seem to agree love is not a valid argument. and it is in no way meant to be offensive I believe I withstand a valid/sincere argument for case of choice over genetics.
Reply [45]
1. You use a very convoluted argument to explain yourself. Do you know what convultedness is usually indicative of? Confusion. I do not mean to offend you, but homosexuality is, on it's basic level, determined by arousal, not who you have sex with. Are you saying that men who are straight, but have had sex with a man merely because their sexual desires overwhelmed them are not straight? I do not think this is a valid opinion to hold. Let's face it, if you are sexually aroused by solely males and are a male yourself - you are gay.
2. Dealing with love is more difficult. Love, as you said, is unquantifiable by science. But saying that homosexuality is not biological because science cannot quantify love seems to suggest that science is ineffable - that it is perfectly developed and needs no more improvement. Again, this is remiss, as there are many variants of science still being worked upon. However, I digress from my original point. People are rarely 100% straight or 100% gay. There tends to be a continuum upon which the majority of the populous fall in between the two extremes. Because of this, people are often influenced by love. This love isn't discrimatory. However, if there is no physical attraction between the two partners (ie. 100% straight), then love will not strike them. It is impossible as there is no way for the two to express such love.
3. You argue that a change of sexual orientation is possible as orientation is determined by who you have sex with. Among the minds of the populous, this may be true. However, as already argued, arousal, the prelude to sex, does not change. It is steadfast. Therefore, whilst one may be denying their homosexuality by having sex with the opposite sex, they are still aroused by the same sex. Therefore, sexuality hasn't changed. Just who they have sex with.
4. You say you are pointing out that it is hypocritical to believe in homosexuality and religion. How is this so when most of the religions that condemn homosexuality are Judeo-Christian? Whilst I'm on the subject, marriage is not a Judeo-Christian religion. It was a Pagan tradition that the Christians stole (as they did many other Pagan rites and ceremonies) from them. Therefore, Judeo-Christian religion shouldn't come into the equation.
5. Your simile "A murderer is not a murderer unless he murders someone" to state that homosexuality is based on actions is flawed. The difference is that killing someone is the most basic synthesis of a murderer's identification. However, arousal is that of a homosexual's. Not sex. Arousal, which determines the sex. Thus, a more appropriate simile to use would be "A murderer is not a murderer unless he is caught and proven guilty for his crime." The prelude of this is, of course, the unlawful killing of another reasonable creature in being. The very basic identity of a murderer.
6. I am anonymous on this blog. Therefore I have no qualms about being 'out'. However, I do in real life as the reactions of those I love were not expected, and hurtful. I have no one that I love. Therefore I cannot go willingly against all odds to be with them. And indeed I haven't gone against all odds to be with anyone.
7. With my pedophilia argument, I did not acknowledge that the sex itself defined a pedophile. The arousal by children and the arousal by the power pedophiles have over these children defines them. Though one may never act on such desires, they will still be a pedophile if they are aroused by such things. One who looks up child pornography exemplifies this. There is no sex, merely arousal. Yet still, they are pedophiles as defined by their arousal.
8. Your sociological argument of nurture over nature is one to be expected. However, what is unexpected is that you provide an absolute answer. The true answer lies in amongst a tangled web of environmental and genetic interplay. What humans have established with science is this: homosexuality is influenced by a complex interaction between environmental and genetic factors. There is no argument saying that it IS genetic, and there can therefore be no argument saying that it isn't. At it's very basic level, I believe arousal does have an irrevocable tie to biological factors, as evinced by the differing size of the hypothalamus in gay and straight people. Not just this, but there are certain neuronal tissues within the brain that differ according to sexuality. Not just in length, or size, but in the amount of neurons attached to this tissue.
9. As for your stereotype argument, I cannot find any difference of opinion we hold. Also, I cannot remember what I argued on the basis of stereotypes. I believe the only thing I would have argued would be that homosexuals are often stereotyped as feminine, and heterosexuals are often stereotyped as masculine (for men) or the opposite (for women). Thus, a stereotype can effect the behaviour of an individual, as they begin to live up to the name they have (or rather, others have) built for themselves.
10. You believe in choice over genetics. This is extremely disturbing, as you yourself have declared that stereotyping cannot be a focal point of homosexuality. Funny thing is, most people WOULD believe the constant derisive comments made about their sexuality if they did endure such stereotypes. Thus they would subconsciously choose to be gay. If stereotypes and choice were even remotely a factor of sexuality. Also, you stated that nothing is absolutely genetic. So too can nothing be absolutely environmental. Thus, I stand for an argument that contends biology determines the very basic and primal instics (such as arousal - which I have argued is the crux of one's sexuality), and environmental factors build upon such traits (such as whether or not one accepts their sexuality - regardless of which, if it is one of the extremes of the continuum, they are stuck with it.)
Genetic Sexual Diversity [46]
TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN GENETIC SEXUAL DIVERSITY
There are two types of sexual human beings: heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are defined as the set of XX-XY progeny-producing pairs; non-heterosexuals include everybody else. You are one or the other, but you cannot be both. You are at some point on a continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. The source of such a non-uniformly distributed range of phenotypic expression lies in the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule (DNA), a plastic molecule capable of spontaneous mutation and responsible for all living things as you know them.
Living organisms (including humans) of whatever complexity arise from an evolutionary-derived genetic substrate. This genetic, mutational substrate is capable of producing an infinite number of human phenotypic expressions. Human phenotypes are finished products of the human DNA blueprint, one of which is sexual expression.
Non-heterosexual rights is clearly a civil rights issue! There is no natural right to heterosexual supremacy. We are dealing with genetically-induced phenomena. Should we reinvent the wheel and begin again with a Supreme Court declaration of separate but equal status? I think not.
If I may continue to ramble.
Nature has no purpose; only consequences. Thrusting a planet into Newtonian space will cause that planet to follow a straight course…unless acted upon by another force. Consequently, Earth revolves around the sun because the sun’s gravitational field pulls it. Throw a ball into the air and, consequently, it returns toward Earth because another force, Earth’s gravity, draws upon it.
The consequence of a scaled range of human reproductive success (ranging from heterosexual to non-heterosexual phenotypes) is the convergence of the gene pool. This occurs because if you subtract a clinically significant percentage of genetic diversity from independent assortment mechanisms, the genetic pool will have less variability with each generation of newborns.
As a consequence, genetic material is removed from recombination opportunities. The genetic pool is restricted in potential variations because gene combinations and permutations are lacking. Subsequently, combinations and variations of genetic expressions are unavailable. Speciation (species is defined as an interbreeding population) to novel life forms fails to occur. The consequence of a converged gene pool is obstruction to human speciation as the universe unfolds in space and time.
So, it must follow that a portion of humanity is repository of non-recombining DNA segments that are culled away from mechanisms of independent assortment. These fragmented human DNA islands are deprived of participation in genetic exchange processes. Consequently, they are isolated from contributory global genetic patrimony. Non-participating genes cause humans to arrive at the cusp of species differentiation but never quite cross the threshold of speciation to newer life forms. We do have races of mankind, but not
a different species of man. Non-lethal mutations of DNA are retained in human progeny and become inbred in the human population.
The net effect of a converged gene pool is that humans are the end of an evolutionary line. There are many races, but only one species. And that will remain so. No other new human species will arise because the genetic pool is unable to expand due to genetic mechanisms inherent in human DNA and the phenotypic expressions arising from them.
Despite many isolating factors such as (1) the prehistoric migration of the human species throughout the world, (2) prolonged remote isolation of the human races (geographical barriers, cataclysmic phenomena, natural disasters, etc.), (3) deoxyribonucleic acid mutations, and (4) substantially elapsed periods of time (all the ingredients of speciation), no other human species has evolved, nor will. Non-heterosexual humans are the gatekeepers of speciation, and the gate is genetically locked. There is no key! Therefore, humans can no more speciate than can religions suspend the laws of nature. This phenomenon of species containment and genetic non-differentiation is intimately connected to heterosexual and non-heterosexual biologically-predetermined behavior.
If the evolution of humans has halted, then strategies to evoke desirable human qualities may be proposed. Only selective breeding and assortative mating can cluster desirable (or undesirable) genetic characteristics. Homogenization of the human races, as is the current trend, may produce a genetically more robust human species.
Selecting out superior genetic characteristics from the convergent gene pool may succeed to produce a healthier human species. Superior human qualities may be promoted via public policies that are socially desirable and acceptable.
One conceivable socially approved method is global competition among all individuals in the economic and educational arenas. This will select out desirable traits from those who are healthy, wealthy, and wise. But manipulated selection that arises from a system of universal competition will not benefit everyone equally!
E A Mortarelli
what has to do religion with it? [47]
If someone wants to be homosexual, religious say they are wrong, if someone wants to stop being homosexual, religious say all they can do it's turn "holly"... I think the only real solution to give happiness it has to do with science, religion it's just some kind of opression who wants us to believe there is no way out except for god.
I'm just asking...
If there is a God; does he really cares about who we love?
??? [48]
"Homosexuality" is nothing more than a neurological pheromone allergy. Upon exposure to feminine pheromones, "gay" men will often have an aversion and even begin to crave estrogen supplementation. This might lead you to believe that a "gay" man is actually a women trapped in a man’s body. If that's the case does a gay relationship really make sense? I don't think so. If this information is correct I would far rather settle down with a woman that has the same problem with masculine pheromones. Maybe we would need to do laundry more often or even sleep in separate beds sometimes, but this lifestyle seems much more logical, normal, and natural than a gay lifestyle. The only thing I can see from animals is that this defect also occurs in nature and animals lack the mental capacity to find an alternate solution. I don't consider myself homosexual. I'm just waiting until modern medicine can help eliminate or minimize these obstacles between me and the opposite sex. I don't know if this is right or not, but at least it gives me some hope and peace of mind.
No. It is not correct. [49]
No. It is not correct. Sexuality is determined by more than pheromonal/hormonal defects. These may be factors, but they are not the only ones.
Also, I must assert my extreme disapproval towards what you declare. Being gay is no more morally apprehensible than being straght or being bisexual. It is what it is. One cannot change it and live a satisfactory life; which according to the Constitution, everyone has a right to. It is not a choice, and therefore it is wrong to want gay men to turn into women. Or vice versa. After all, transsexuals are not necessarily homosexual. This further proves that just because one is of a certain sex, it does not mean that they are born to love those of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality and Science [50]
It is interesting to discuss about homosexuality. When we were children in 1950, we did not hear much about it. Now in these twenty years we are hearing much about it, and there is a controversy about it in science and in religion. Homosexuality is something peculiar: is it normal, natural, genetic, or abnormal, deviant, disorder, unnatural (and unusual)? Sexual orientation can be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and pedophile. What is normal, what is abnormal? Since homosexuality is considered by the society at large as abnormal, can it be changed? if it is changed, is it harmful? These are the questions that come into picture in any discussion about homosexuality in the light of science and of ethics(Christianity, or any other religion). There is homosexuality behaviour among the animals. Does it mean that homosexual behaviour among humans is politically correct, socially acceptable, ethically good?
Science does not come through scientific evidence to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetically determined. On the other hand, we would not say that humans choose to be homosexuals (in orientation). Can homosexuality be corrected and changed? Or should we say that homosexuality should not be changed, because it would harm the homosexual patients? What should we say about the pedophiles? How should we comment about the biblical statements? What is the relationship betwenn nature and nurture? I would end my reflections rather with questions than with all definite answers. But I would have in mind some direction while answering all our questions. This is a delicate issue. We do respect our homosexual brethren and lesbian sisters. But let us search the truth in all these issues. Let the truth prevail. We can always continue our research...
Matthew is right! [51]
Matthew has said practically all I was going to say!
Homosexuality is natural [52]
Maybe homosexuality is natural for the human race in order to keep human beings from overpopulating. Have there been any studies done in this area?
observation [53]
I came to this site out of curiosity. I am an older, heterosexual male who works as a DJ three nights a week at a local sports bar where several lesbian girls hang out occasionally. I have an observation from a "straight" viewpoint.
The lesbians and gay men I have encountered in my life are people. They laugh, cry, love, argue, make mistakes, do amazing things, have productive lives, fall down, get back up...and unfortunately some fall down and stay down. They are people, plain and simple. Some are likable, and some are difficult to like. Some are beautiful and some are ordinary...just like everyone else.
In my view, anyone who finds love and companionship that lasts and is healthy for them, regardless of gender, is blessed. Each and every person knows in their own heart whether they love someone, or are just out for a good time. That's not for me or anyone else to judge.
By the way...the girls who come to my DJ dance floor are fun to watch. *smile*
PR
Well said. That's what I've [54]
Well said. That's what I've been thinking too.
Chris is incorrect [55]
How on earth could you compare homosexuality to murder? One is a crime and the other isn't (even if its "unnatural" it is not harming anyone)
I find all those who are anti-gay tend to use religious arguments in their favour. RUBBISH, nothing but emotion and wasteless human error in such things as the Bible.
Fact update: Psychologists have concluded that pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation (they are neither hetero, homo or bi) They only focus on children (age) soley regardless of sex in some matters. This means PEDOPHILIA and homosexuality are two different things. Even further expand this, Pedophiles have not advanced past a healthy adult mentality concluding to the choice in pedophilia.
Man is doing nothing wrong in homosexuality, animals are great to observe when it comes to natural instinct, so you can well and truly keep your incompetent theories to yourself because it seems that in all departments (science, biology, psychology) there is a clear logic towards NATURAL HOMOSEXUALITY.