Hey Guys, You're Gay because of Mom

[Myr]

Hey,

They've done another study. If you have an older brother, there is a higher likelihood of you being gay.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200978,00.html

 

Interesting...

Myr

[Drewbie]

OKAY. I have an older brother, Guess I fit but he's totally hetro.

[JamesSavik]

There have been a number of studies which are somewhat similar but not definitive.

 

The problem with this one is that its sample size is too small to avoid statistical error. It needs a lot more work and I think that it was published prematurely.

[Kurt]

It is a good thing that I do not have any older brothers then...

[shadows]

I don't have any siblings. Meh. Edit: Of course, anecdotal evidence is the best kind...

Edited June 26, 2006 by shadows

[LittleBuddhaTW]

I've occasionally wondered if maybe, just maybe, homosexuality might be Mother Nature's way of population control. It's not a popular theory, and one that most researchers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, but just based on my observations, there seem to be an unusually large number of gays in Taiwan ... and I mean A LOT ... and it is the second most densely populated country on Earth ... and we all know that the planet is waaaay too overcrowded as it is. I noticed the same phenomenon when I was in China, the #1 most populated country on the planet. A little far-fetched, maybe, but something to consider.

[Myr]

I believe in Jurassic Park, the characters made a point of saying over and over again, that nature finds a way...

[Lugh]

I never had a chance..

 

I got four of them suckers...

 

they should have just declared me queer at birth and saved everyone a bunch of headaches.

 

 

 

Lugh

[Drewbie]

I've occasionally wondered if maybe, just maybe, homosexuality might be Mother Nature's way of population control. It's not a popular theory, and one that most researchers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, but just based on my observations, there seem to be an unusually large number of gays in Taiwan ... and I mean A LOT ... and it is the second most densely populated country on Earth ... and we all know that the planet is waaaay too overcrowded as it is. I noticed the same phenomenon when I was in China, the #1 most populated country on the planet. A little far-fetched, maybe, but something to consider.

 

No, even though it's just a theory u might be correct, makes sense to me. U.S is just about reach the 300,000,000 (population). If u ask me think the world needs more of us.

[Bao]

i dont think mother nature count us as part of nature anymore

[royal oak]

No, even though it's just a theory u might be correct, makes sense to me. U.S is just about reach the 300,000,000 (population). If u ask me think the world needs more of us.

 

I'm right there with you on that subject.

[AFriendlyFace]

I never had a chance..

 

I got four of them suckers...

 

they should have just declared me queer at birth and saved everyone a bunch of headaches.

Lugh

 

Well personally I've always hated the idea of nature just spitting out a bunch of traits and characteristics and everyone just always turning out predictably. In the nature vs. nurture debate I'm definitely pulling for nurture. However, that's just my personal preferences (anti nature; pro nurture), I actually believe they're intricately interwoven and completely different from person to person. In other words using homosexuality as an example I think a different and unique combination of genes will mean a completely different reaction to life experiences. Say Tommy and Billy both have the "potential" (based on their genes) to be gay, and Tommy spends a good bit of time growing up engaged in sports for example (though really I obviously think it's an infinite number of variables), as a result Tommy's experiences and socialization lead him to be straight. Now say we take Billy and put him in the exact same situation, and the exact same experiences and socialization have the exact opposite effect and Billy turns out gay. Say Tommy had instead spent a good bit of time playing video games or reading, maybe he'd have ended up gay, whereas if Billy had done those same thing he's have ended up straight. Anyway what I'm saying is I don't think (in most cases anyway) people choose their sexualities, but I think life experiences and environment do play a role, just in completely unpredictable ways. This is also basically what I believe about everything else as well a tendency to be: spiritual, angry, happy, sad, a leader, a follower, jealous, secure etc. I hate the idea that people are just born to be a certain way and whatever happens to them that's how it's going to be. Different experiences affect different people diferent ways.

 

I definitely don't think it matters though. I mean in the case of sexuality for example I really don't care if people choose it (which I don't think is usually the case), as long as they enjoy it and accept it. Who cares why I like guys? They're hot and I'm glad I do . And I definitely think it's ridiculous (just my opinion) for people to try to change it or influence it's course (which I think is way too complicated and unpredictable to begin with -think Oedipus trying to escape his fate). That's like saying, "I hate that I like like oranges! I need to stop liking oranges and start liking apples!" I mean what the heck, why would not want to like oranges if they taste really good to you? Besides they're perfectly healthy and so is homosexuality

 

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

Edited June 27, 2006 by AFriendlyFace

[LittleBuddhaTW]

The whole "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is a purely political one.

 

I believe that for some it's more "nature," for others it may be more "nurture," for some it's both ... and for others ... who the hell knows. I don't think it matters one way or the other. Again, people only care about proving it one way or the other for political motives.

[Umbathri]

I could care less if they want to categorize me with nature or nurture. Either would be acceptable in my personal mind. Ya I had a single mom and an older brother, does that mean I subconsciously wanted to be the little sister? Hell f**king no. I

[xander]

I hate the idea that people are just born to be a certain way and whatever happens to them that's how it's going to be. Different experiences affect different people diferent ways.

I totally agree with you on this one. I know that there's no way to ever prove whether or not if something had occured differently in someone's life, would that change the outcome (without time machines that is ), but I do think that experiences affect us all.

 

Ya I had a single mom and an older brother, does that mean I subconsciously wanted to be the little sister? Hell f**king no. I’m a man and everything that comes with it. Even drag queens kinda disgust me.

Haha, good point . I also feel that guys should be guys...not girls (no offense anyone ).

 

Ronnie

Edited June 27, 2006 by xander

[Umbathri]

Haha, good point . I also feel that guys should be guys...not girls (no offense anyone ).

 

Ronnie

 

Doh, I guess I should say I

[JamesSavik]

AFF: Well personally I've always hated the idea of nature just spitting out a bunch of traits and characteristics and everyone just always turning out predictably. In the nature vs. nurture debate I'm definitely pulling for nurture.

 

That's not exactly how it works. Nature (genetics) has some fixed attributes like hair and eye color which are statistically predictable. Then things become a lot less predictable. Genetic attributes become like a matrix of tendencies which are influenced by a number of factors like nutrition, conditioning and learning.

 

The science that we know and the science that we suspect both suggest that the mechanism of determinacy for sexual orientation is a complex mix of nature and nurture. It is looking less and less like it is purely one or the other.

 

 

LilBuddah: The whole "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is a purely political one.

 

You are right about this but it is a very, very loaded debate on which a lot is riding for GLBT people.

 

Nurture implies that sexual orientation is based on choice and is not a fixed personality attribute. Because A, B and C are present in the environment, the individual makes a decision about their "sexual preference" at some point. This theory is used by religious extremists and eX-gay organizations as the basis of their argument that gay people are intrinsically disordered and are in need of being "fixed".

 

The view of sexuality as a preference (or choice) rather than orientation (inherent characteristic) is seriously loaded with moral and ethical ambiguities. These ambiguities are used to justify all sorts of discrimination against gay people and, in extreme cases, dangerous "treatments" to change a persons "sexual preference".

 

 

Nature implies that sexual orientation is is not a matter of conscious choice. As sexual orientation is an inherent characteristic and not a moral deficiency, it becomes more and more difficult to justify discrimination. Anti-gay discrimination becomes akin to bigotry based on skin color.

 

 

A great many gay people, myself included, are enraged by the idea that we just "decided" to be gay. I guess I could "decide" to shoot myself in the foot but why would I do it? It would be very painful, debilitating and I would gain nothing from it. If there was any "decision" to be made, I would have chosen to be str8 and saved myself one hell of a lot of grief. If beatings, torture and being set on fire could not make me "decide" to be str8, I'm convinced that what ever mechanism determines sexual orientation, choice has absolutely nothing to do with it. [Anecdotal evidence of course but its good enough for me.]

[Umbathri]

Nurture implies that sexual orientation is based on choice and is not a fixed personality attribute. Because A, B and C are present in the environment, the individual makes a decision about their "sexual preference" at some point. This theory is used by religious extremists and eX-gay organizations as the basis of their argument that gay people are intrinsically disordered and are in need of being "fixed".

 

The view of sexuality as a preference (or choice) rather than orientation (inherent characteristic) is seriously loaded with moral and ethical ambiguities. These ambiguities are used to justify all sorts of discrimination against gay people and, in extreme cases, dangerous "treatments" to change a persons "sexual preference".

 

Nature implies that sexual orientation is is not a matter of conscious choice. As sexual orientation is an inherent characteristic and not a moral deficiency, it becomes more and more difficult to justify discrimination. Anti-gay discrimination becomes akin to bigotry based on skin color.

 

 

Not to start any great arguments over the subject, but if I could play devils avocet for a moment.

 

You equate the Nature aspect of being gay as being innocuous and unavoidable like having black skin color. But couldn

Edited June 27, 2006 by Umbathri

[AFriendlyFace]

A great many gay people, myself included, are enraged by the idea that we just "decided" to be gay. I guess I could "decide" to shoot myself in the foot but why would I do it? It would be very painful, debilitating and I would gain nothing from it. If there was any "decision" to be made, I would have chosen to be str8 and saved myself one hell of a lot of grief. If beatings, torture and being set on fire could not make me "decide" to be str8, I'm convinced that what ever mechanism determines sexual orientation, choice has absolutely nothing to do with it. [Anecdotal evidence of course but its good enough for me.]

 

Though I wholly agree with that, who in thier right mind would choose it? We can but live with the curve balls thats have been thrown us.

 

I certainly don't mean to upset or offend anyone, and I realize that many gay people have endured much pain and suffering as a result of their sexuality. I think that's awful and dispicable and I'm immensely sorry it's happened. I certainly couldn't fault these people or anyone else for choosing to take an easier path had the option be available. However, I for one wouldn't change it if I could. Obviously I can't say I'd have choosen it going into life since who can really say what they'd choose if both options were completely neutral to them. Perhaps if only presented with the information, "this'll be harder and less popular" I'd have said, "well I'll have the other option then", but I can say more positive things than negative things have resulted from my sexuality (in my own life). Sure there's all sorts of social and legal injustices which I'll probably never be able to overcome, but given the choice I wouldn't change. Of course I have to say I have been exceedingly fortunate in my experiences, so perhaps I have no right to make such statements. I do know this about myself though, it's more important for me to feel different than it is for me to feel the same. I have a much bigger fear of being "typical" or even "normal" than of being "strange" or "different". For me being gay fit nicely with that agenda, in fact when I was first questioning my sexuality the question I had to keep asking myself to be sure was, "are you sure you're not just doing this because it's less common?". Of course I don't claim to be "in my right mind" as Umbathri put it either, I probably am, but I'll be disappointed if I don't at least qualify for eccentric.

 

Anyway I fear my post will offend someone; this is most assuredly not my intention. I can only speak for my own life experiences and preferences, I in no way mean to question or marginalize anyone else's beliefs, experiences, or decisions. I definitely don't claim my attitude or thoughts are correct in general only correct for me. I also recognize that from a political point of view it might matter, and I'll rally behind this for the greater good. I just don't happen to internalize it.

 

Take care and have an awesome day everyone!

Kevin

Edited June 27, 2006 by AFriendlyFace

[Umbathri]

I certainly don't mean to upset or offend anyone, and I realize that many gay people have endured much pain and suffering as a result of their sexuality. I think that's awful and dispicable and I'm immensely sorry it's happened. I certainly couldn't fault these people or anyone else for choosing to take an easier path had the option be available. However, I for one wouldn't change it if I could. Obviously I can't say I'd have choosen it going into life since who can really say what they'd choose if both options were completely neutral to them. Perhaps if only presented with the information, "this'll be harder and less popular" I'd have said, "well I'll have the other option then", but I can say more positive things than negative things have resulted from my sexuality (in my own life). Sure there's all sorts of social and legal injustices which I'll probably never be able to overcome, but given the choice I wouldn't change. Of course I have to say I have been exceedingly fortunate in my experiences, so perhaps I have no right to make such statements. I do know this about myself though, it's more important for me to feel different than it is for me to feel the same. I have a much bigger fear of being "typical" or even "normal" than of being "strange" or "different". For me being gay fit nicely with that agenda, in fact when I was first questioning my sexuality the question I had to keep asking myself to be sure was, "are you sure you're not just doing this because it's less common?". Of course I don't claim to be "in my right mind" as Umbathri put it either, I probably am, but I'll be disappointed if I don't at least qualify for eccentric.

 

Anyway I fear my post will offend someone; this is most assuredly not my intention. I can only speak for my own life experiences and preferences, I in no way mean to question or marginalize anyone else's beliefs, experiences, or decisions. I definitely don't claim my attitude or thoughts are correct in general only correct for me. I also recognize that from a political point of view it might matter, and I'll rally behind this for the greater good. I just don't happen to internalize it.

 

Take care and have an awesome day everyone!

Kevin

 

 

Well said. I

[Camy]

I

[glomph]

There are cultures that consider seventh sons very special.

 

Now we know how special.

 

Can you say pessimist? I knew you could

[glomph]

Nurture implies that sexual orientation is based on choice and is not a fixed personality attribute. Because A, B and C are present in the environment, the individual makes a decision about their "sexual preference" at some point. This theory is used by religious extremists and eX-gay organizations as the basis of their argument that gay people are intrinsically disordered and are in need of being "fixed".

 

The view of sexuality as a preference (or choice) rather than orientation (inherent characteristic) is seriously loaded with moral and ethical ambiguities. These ambiguities are used to justify all sorts of discrimination against gay people and, in extreme cases, dangerous "treatments" to change a persons "sexual preference".

Nature implies that sexual orientation is is not a matter of conscious choice. As sexual orientation is an inherent characteristic and not a moral deficiency, it becomes more and more difficult to justify discrimination. Anti-gay discrimination becomes akin to bigotry based on skin color.

 

 

That's a strangely idisyncratic way to define your terms to frame the debate.

 

Usually in Nature-Nurture debates, the former is a reference to heredity and the latter to environment.

 

The environment in the womb is still environment, so this study argues on the nurture side.

 

Choice is another matter altogether. Whether you have "gay" genes, or whether mommy's immune system got tired of dealing with boys and started attacking their masculinity, or whether your absent or abusive father "made" you gay, that doesn't mean you chose any of that.

 

People don't choose whom they are attracted to. Some people are just not your type. You may recognize that they are very good-looking people, but for some reason you aren't really attracted to them, even if they are of the sex which you prefer. And then sometime someone whose appearance leaves a lot to be desired will create some sort of spark. As far as I know, no one really understands why for any of this, other than some Freudian psychobabble.

 

People do choose their actions. We don't pursue everyone whom we find attractive. And people marry for reasons that have nothing to do with attraction.

[Xiang_Xiang]

Hey,

They've done another study. If you have an older brother, there is a higher likelihood of you being gay.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200978,00.html

 

Interesting...

Myr

 

 

 

 

I do have an older brother, though.

 

Colin

[xander]

I certainly couldn't fault these people or anyone else for choosing to take an easier path had the option be available. However, I for one wouldn't change it if I could. Obviously I can't say I'd have choosen it going into life since who can really say what they'd choose if both options were completely neutral to them.

It's definately ignorant for those certain people to say that it's a choice. I mean, I've always wanted to have kids of my own some day and its obvious that the simplest way to achieve this would be to take the straight path, but I'm not attracted to women, and I can't help that. I could choose to to take the straight path and hide my homosexuality deep inside or something, but that wouldn't be healthy nor fair to the woman I was with. However, though I chose to take the straight path, I still havent chosen to be straight. I guess the only people that could choose the path they wish to take either way are bisexuals who are neutral or equally attracted to men and women. I don't know if I'm sounding offensive in how I put that (I definately don't mean to). I don't like how they put it in our 7th grade sex/AIDS talk..."Bisexuals don't care who they have sex with" . I don't know how some people can't understand that people can be just how they are...that they don't necessarily make a choice, but we can't help that they're ignorant so the only thing to do I guess is ignore them and/or feel sorry for them.

 

Ronnie