Questions to make the head spin

[Wynter]

Okay, I've been thinking about this alot recently after watching a sixty-minutes feature on identical twins with unidentical sexuality. I thought this was an amusing idea when I read Dom's The Log Way, but this show featured very similar situations and I've recently discovered a similar situation in the family of a guy at my work.

 

The show had a central question: Why are some people homosexual and while the majority are heterosexual?

The case of identical twins shows that it cannot be a purely genetic difference. But then being raised in the same family it seems illogical to say it's purely the result of enviromental influences.

 

This has me extremely confused and I thought I'd put this question out for all to comment on, especially some of the older members who have had a lot longer to ponder.

 

So, Why are we Gay?

 

Why are some of us effeminate/masculine (in case of lesbians) while others are indistinguishable from other heterosexuals?

 

The show featured statistical evidence to show that the more older brothers you have the greater your chance of being gay (data did NOT support a similar correlation in females). Does this hold true for any of you out there?

 

Wynter

[Drewbie]

I don't know why, Im gay, I don't care for the reason I'm happy the way I am, so is my uncle and his uncle that are also gay.

 

In parts of the us and other country's, if they found the gene or whatever it's called, they would try to destory it and I don't want that to happen.

[JamesSavik]

The latest science suggests that it has to do with developmental physiology in the womb rather than a purely genetic cause.

 

A recent study showed a strong correlation in birth order and the incidence of homosexuality.

 

Another study from a couple of years ago suggests that a persons sexuality may be affected by the balance and ratio of certain hormones while the child is in the womb.

 

What I am beginning to think is that there may well be a genetic cause for homosexuality but they are looking for it in the wrong place. They should be looking at the MOTHER and her endocrine system, not at the gay son.

[knotme]

Old Bob probably gets the last word here, if he wants it.

 

Why am I gay? After pondering for several decades, I'll begin with what may be the three best words in the English language ( ):

 

I don't know.

Try to not spin your your head over this 60-minutes program. The twins they discuss should surprise only if you buy into the thoroughly debunked notion of straight, gay/lesbian, and nothing in between. Kinsey showed us to have a continuum of sexual preferences, but nurture tends to follow one of two channels. Dolls or play-guns? Boys or girls? Social pressure discourages the obvious choice: both. Thus, ambiguous preference may resolve one way or the other. Or not! My hunch is that most identical twins share sexual orientations and that many of them are bi. That 60 Minutes was able to find an exception may not mean much.

Another study from a couple of years ago suggests that a persons sexuality may be affected by the balance and ratio of certain hormones while the child is in the womb.

Yes. In some species, the mother can choose the sex of the offspring by manipulating hormone ratios. Will humans be able to make use of this, or will we find an unacceptable level of unintended consequences? I share the wary irritation from Rob and Drew over this line of discussion. Perhaps the next decade or so could see added social pressures on gays and lesbians. Before I die, however, I expect to see parents dialing size, shape, intelligence, color, ..., and sexual orientation to suit. The present gay-straight issue will get lost in a sea of new ethical dilemmas. When mankind does finally sort this out, they'll look around at a critically overpopulated world, and most will finally acknowledge that they've got to learn to live without population growth. When they do, the myths that encourage it will crumble. I take some comfort in that thought, even though I'll be long dead.

 

In summary, I totally agree with

Why am I gay? Because I am and it's exactly how I would choose to be.

but at my age, I'm not mad about it.

[Graeme]

There are lots of things that can be said on this topic. Unfortunately I have to rush off so this will be short.

 

Studies with twins are very important in the nature/nuture debate. If nature determines homosexuality (ie. it's genetic), you would expect identical twins to have the same orientation and fraternal twins to show the same ratios as in the general public. If nuture determines homosexuality (ie. it's environmental), you'd expect both types of twins to have a high degree of agreement in their orientation.

 

Queensland University did this with the Australian Twins registry, and found neither of these two situations.

 

Identical twins show a high degree of probability in having the same orientation, but it is not 100% (from memory, it was in the 50-60% range). This is well above the fraternal twin mark, which implies a genetic link, but it is not purely genetic. If you want the details, I think Wikipedia has the links (look up homosexuality and find the details on twin studies).

 

Hence the latest theories which are that there is a genetic component but it is not "triggered" in all people (which also partially explains why, if it is genetic, it hasn't been bred out). Hormonal exposure in the womb is what is currently being postulated as the trigger.

 

As a side point, some studies have suggested that homosexuality in males is linked to high female fertility. In otherwords, the same genes that increase female fertility (obviously a survival trait) increase the probablity of homosexuality in males. This would also explain why homosexuality has not been bred out -- the genes are a desirable survival trait in the female line.

[Bao]

faternal twins dont count lol. they're two eggs who get fertilized at the same time. soo they're basically just brothers/sisters or both that get borned at the same time cause they're not the same on a genetic lvl like identical twins. and i dont think HS will be explained till after people can explain how synaptic firings shit like that turn into thoughts. but imo when that happens i dotn think our sexuality is gonna matter all that when we can see the bigger picture of how our brain and who we are as living beings wok.

[TheZot]

So, Why are we Gay?

Ah, an ever so swell question.

 

First off, it's important to note that sexual behavior is, in general terms, genetically encoded, like a number of other very primitive behaviours. The wiring for it is built into your genes. (This is true of all species, and for a number of different behaviors) You have, encoded way down deep in your DNA, the genes necessary to build the brain structures that make you go ping for the member of the appropriate sex.

 

More importantly, you've got the genes to go ping for both sexes. This should be clear with very little thought -- guys, certainly, have all the genes that women have. The same can't be said for women, who generally don't have the genes expressed on the Y chromosome. On the other hand, the Y chromosome is relatively fragile, and quite small, so the odds of any behaviours being encoded on it are quite small. That means everyone could have developed the brain bits that makes women attractive, as well as the brain bits that make men attractive.

 

The question really is "why did those particular bits express?"

 

Currently the answer is a shrug and an "I dunno". Odds are it's potentially hormonal. And potentially environmental. And potentially genetic. And potentially thermal. (Yes, there are species where temperature affects the expression of genes) And potentially just random. It's a complex of behaviours after all, not just one.

 

"Preventing" homosexuality and bisexuality just isn't going to happen. Like many things, there are just too many different ways it's likely to be expressed and, fundies and other nutjobs aside, it's just not worth bothering doing anything about.

 

-Dan

[Wynter]

I've seen this question come up so many times on so many different forums and every time I just want to give the same answer - who cares?

 

There are only two reasons to find the cause of something - understanding and cure. I'm sure that a lot of gay people would like to understand what made them gay, but if the answer was ever discovered I'd be willing to bet that there would be immediate talk about finding a cure and potentially eradicating "deviant" sexuality from society.

 

Let's imagine the cause was identified. Let's say it's a genetic anomaly. Many people, particularly in religious circles, preach against tampering with nature to "genetically modify" a child before it's born, but how many of them would feel the same way if homosexuality could be eradicated using the same procedures? Not many. How many parents would choose to have a gay child? Very few.

 

What about if the cause was found to be psychological, the product of the way a child is raised? Surely that would give the hideous treatment centres in the US and parts of Europe some legitimacy? After all, if it's a psychological disorder then they can "cure" homosexuality.

 

I would like to know the cause, I can't pretend otherwise, but I sincerely hope that it's never discovered. Sure, I would like kids to be able to grow up without feeling pain because they're different, but I would rather see a change in society than a change in those children. Everyone is different. It seems bizarre to say, but the only thing every person on this Earth has in common is that we're all unique. I sincerely hope that in the natural human quest for understanding we do not give rise to a cure for a difference that should be embraced.

 

Why am I gay? Because I am and it's exactly how I would choose to be.

 

Rob

 

Who cares? Frankly I do. I dont doubt that finding a definite cause would lead to treatments and cures and Oprah specials etc. However I don't feel that to be a sufficiant reason to avoid the issue. Yes, it would be hard but in the end I believe that people aught to be given the choice. Personally if I was offered a choice I really don't know if I would take it. A large part of me would like to fit in, while another part sees no problem with what I am. All knowledge is valuable, I don't think I could make a decision until I knew exactly what caused it in the first place.

 

Old Bob probably gets the last word here, if he wants it.

 

Why am I gay? After pondering for several decades, I'll begin with what may be the three best words in the English language ( ):

 

I don't know.

When mankind does finally sort this out, they'll look around at a critically overpopulated world, and most will finally acknowledge that they've got to learn to live without population growth. When they do, the myths that encourage it will crumble. I take some comfort in that thought, even though I'll be long dead.

 

Homosexuality as Mother Nature's way of cutting down population growth? It's a great idea but I can already hear the religious solution to population growth: Abstinace. The Catholic Church will abolish Sex before it encourages homosexuality. The Bible is far too blunt on the subject for them to change the policy.

 

"Preventing" homosexuality and bisexuality just isn't going to happen. Like many things, there are just too many different ways it's likely to be expressed and, fundies and other nutjobs aside, it's just not worth bothering doing anything about.

 

-Dan

 

Im not seeking prevention methods, merely understanding of myself. What makes me the way I am, to understand human nature. I've always felt understanding leads to acceptance (tolerance is not enough!).

 

I suppose what I really want in the end is a way to break down to the stigma.

 

Wynter

[C James]

Homosexuality as Mother Nature's way of cutting down population growth? It's a great idea but I can already hear the religious solution to population growth: Abstinace. The Catholic Church will abolish Sex before it encourages homosexuality. The Bible is far too blunt on the subject for them to change the policy.

 

The Bible is quite blunt (far more specific than it is on homosexuality) on a lot of things that they prefer to ignore. Men must wear beards, two types of cloth my not be mixed, the prohibition of crop rotation, PI =3, etc, etc.

 

However, as for abstinence, the state of Arizona is spending a bundle on a TV advertising campaign plugging total abstinence before marriage for everyone. So, that rather neatly raps up the issue in many eyes: Ban sex outside of marriage, and prohibit gays from marrying. (I've heard that very argument on several occasions).

[Howie]

The Bible is quite blunt (far more specific than it is on homosexuality) on a lot of things that they prefer to ignore. Men must wear beards, two types of cloth my not be mixed, the prohibition of crop rotation, PI =3, etc, etc.

 

However, as for abstinence, the state of Arizona is spending a bundle on a TV advertising campaign plugging total abstinence before marriage for everyone. So, that rather neatly raps up the issue in many eyes: Ban sex outside of marriage, and prohibit gays from marrying. (I've heard that very argument on several occasions).

 

i wonder if some idiot could actually get a bill of that nature passed: no sex outside marriage. in some states it couldn't be that difficult. sometimes the growing fundamentalisation of the world scares me. the fundamentalist lobby is way too well organised.

[C James]

i wonder if some idiot could actually get a bill of that nature passed: no sex outside marriage. in some states it couldn't be that difficult. sometimes the growing fundamentalisation of the world scares me. the fundamentalist lobby is way too well organised.

 

Nothing would surprise me. Arizona still has laws against both sodomy and adultery on the books, though so far as I know technically not enforced. BUT, the fact that they are illegal does have impact, such as when seeking adoption, law enforcement employment, etc.

 

Also, here is another facet of Arizona law.

 

Suppose two 17 year olds (regardless of gender) are involved in a physical long-term relationship. Suppose that one of them is a day older then the other (any age difference will do, but it can be as small as one day).

When the eldest turns 18, if the relationship continues he or she can be prosecuted for felony statutory rape, including being given the life-long label of "registered sex offender".

 

In practical terms, they don't bother enforcing this against females who happen to be a few days older than their boyfriends. However, if the boyfriend is the older one, it will be prosecuted if there is a complaint (by anyone). With gay relationships, it's even more likely to result in prosecution.

 

Oh, it's illegal to hunt camels here in Arizona, it's illegal for Donkeys to sleep in Bathtubs, and any misdemeanor committed while wearing a red mask becomes a felony (though any other color is ok).

[Graeme]

faternal twins dont count lol. they're two eggs who get fertilized at the same time. soo they're basically just brothers/sisters or both that get borned at the same time cause they're not the same on a genetic lvl like identical twins. and i dont think HS will be explained till after people can explain how synaptic firings shit like that turn into thoughts. but imo when that happens i dotn think our sexuality is gonna matter all that when we can see the bigger picture of how our brain and who we are as living beings wok.

I'm sorry, but I was rushed this morning and didn't explain things clearly.

 

Studies involving identical and fraternal twins are useful in identifying what is genetic in nature and what is environment. Fraternal twins share the same environment. Identical twins share the same environment and the same genetics. So, any traits shared by both types of twins are probably environmental in nature, but traits shared by identical twins and not fraternal twins are probably genetic in nature.

 

Studies involved in identical twins raised apart are also very interesting, but this is a lot rarer situation and the number of twins involved makes any conclusions from these studies questionable.

 

Wikipedia article on biology and sexual orientation

[AFriendlyFace]

I've seen this question come up so many times on so many different forums and every time I just want to give the same answer - who cares?

Oh Rob! You made me SO happy when I opened this thread and that was the first response

 

For my thoughts on the matter check out my blog entry: Sexuality: I just don't care (Gosh, I've gotten alot of mileage out of that one ).

Why am I gay? Because I am and it's exactly how I would choose to be.

I don't know why, Im gay, I don't care for the reason I'm happy the way I am, so is my uncle and his uncle that are also gay.

Yeah! You go guys!

 

"Preventing" homosexuality and bisexuality just isn't going to happen. Like many things, there are just too many different ways it's likely to be expressed and, fundies and other nutjobs aside, it's just not worth bothering doing anything about.

I don't make value judgments about sexuality at all, but frankly I think in a "perfect" world everyone would be bisexual. I'm not saying it's "better" it just seems to me that intellectually it's by far the most rational choice. So preventing strikes me as ludicrous. If you think about it it's just like the Utopian dream of people no longer seeing each other in terms of race.

 

Try to not spin your your head over this 60-minutes program. The twins they discuss should surprise only if you buy into the thoroughly debunked notion of straight, gay/lesbian, and nothing in between. Kinsey showed us to have a continuum of sexual preferences, but nurture tends to follow one of two channels. Dolls or play-guns? Boys or girls? Social pressure discourages the obvious choice: both. Thus, ambiguous preference may resolve one way or the other. Or not! My hunch is that most identical twins share sexual orientations and that many of them are bi.

Intuitively these are my thoughts as well. However, I'll freely admit I'm biased toward looking at sexuality (and pretty much everything else in life) as something with shades of gray.

 

The present gay-straight issue will get lost in a sea of new ethical dilemmas. When mankind does finally sort this out, they'll look around at a critically overpopulated world, and most will finally acknowledge that they've got to learn to live without population growth. When they do, the myths that encourage it will crumble. I take some comfort in that thought, even though I'll be long dead.

YES! I must admit it's always been a "guilty pleasure" of mine that I feel...hmm how can I phrase this..."green" because I won't be actively contributing to overpopulation. I think the best response to people who say homosexuality is a choice would be to say:

 

"Well then it's the more responsible, civilized choice"

 

Perhaps that's why I've never personally taken exception when anti-gay people take up the "It's a choice" rallying call. If it is a choice it's an intelligent one to make and it's filled with many benefits. Of course heterosexuality has it's benefits too, and if it were a simple matter of choice I don't think either would be the best choice foreveryone.

 

Take me for example, for me homosexuality is boon to my "agenda". I find it very liberating. As a young gay guy I'm free pick and choose the "stereotypes" and "roles" as I see fit. I can be as into: clothes, "spa" stuff, music, art, and minority rights as I please. I fit in perfectly in these circles and can become "just another gay guy". However, as man (and one who enjoys challenging stereotypes) I can "do it myself", play the "Southern Gentleman", walk alone at night, and get away with much more assertive/agressive behaviour than the average woman (without recieving harsh labels - so unfair BTW). I find it opens more doors for what I can experience.

 

I also feel like being gay should allow for more egalitarian relationships without getting bogged down in "roles". "You do the laundry tonight and I'll change the oil in the car, but tomorrow we might switch." Of course these things should be taken one by one and handled by the partner most skilled in that area. I just think it's...limiting for one person to take on all the "Protector" roles and another to take on all "Nurturer" roles. I have a strong taste for both and I refuse to be relegated to one or the other.

 

So what am I? Someone who hates labels. However, since I'm foreced to live in a society that requires them, I happily take the "gay" label. I'm more physically attracted to more guys more often. However, there's quite a few women who, on a purely sexual basis, I'd like to sleep with, but there's futre of these than there are guys and my reactions to guys are more intense and stable. I also have a much more emotionally romantic attraction to guys - which I think is the most important aspect (for me anyway).

 

So yes, I don't care why I'm "gay", I'm just glad I am

-Kevin

[Red_A]

Nothing would surprise me. Arizona still has laws against both sodomy and adultery on the books, though so far as I know technically not enforced. BUT, the fact that they are illegal does have impact, such as when seeking adoption, law enforcement employment, etc.

 

Have you forgotten the Mann Act as amended in 1986 applies to crossing a state line to both sexes and minors. This has been applied to homosexual relationships, where the a sexual offense according to one of all the applicable states. ie if your boyfriend in any state you cross is a minor, or homosexual activity is an offense, you have broken the Mann Act.

 

Good luck, in avoiding this, I reckoned that it was impossible?

[old bob]

Old Bob probably gets the last word here, if he wants it.

Why am I gay? After pondering for several decades, I'll begin with what may be the three best words in the English language ( ):

I don't know.

 

Hey

Why should I get the last word ?

Because my age ?

Because I made successively my live experiences as gay, than straight, then bi ?

Because I have 2 straight sons, 1 gay and had a daughter bi ?

Because I never hid my sexuality ?

Because I saw around me "gayness" be filled as a "sin", than as a "lust", than a "mood" and now as a "politiical identity" ?

My last word : Im happy to have friends, if by chance they are gay and we like each other , thats OK for me.

I lost since years and years the need to ask the question to be or not to be (gay).

If thats what you mean with "my last word", you have it

Old Bob