Quoted from sniper Wasn't Anne Heche abducted by aliens at one point? Personally, I wouldn't use her as the poster child for the "choice" angle. The whole choice vs non-choice discussion is the really interesting part. I seriously don't believe homosexuality to be a choice, neither do I think it's an affliction, but living openly as a homosexual is a choice and sometimes, unfortunately, a very painful one.

Hmmm, now you and George both have me wondering about the "choice" question. It seems to me that for many individuals it is a choice, but then again, for those who are physically different, there might not be a choice. Here I'm speaking about cases of individuals that aren't "normal", or to put it another way, they are born kind of cross gendered. But those cases are more rare I think, although I have seen maybe two people like this, (from different cities) in my lifetime. I definitely saw that nature couldn't make up its mind with them and truly, I had a hard time discerning whether they were male or female. I felt bad for them because it's hard to imagine having to go through life with people staring at you and giving you strange looks.

But here is where I come to the question that arose in my mind after reading your comment to George's post. In those instances where there is a choice, (and that's based upon the assumption that there are many cases where there indeed, is choice) What might make that choice include telling everyone you can, becoming part of organized movements, showing off as much as any bible thumping style of Christian might, that THIS is the way, the truth, and the life, for me?

What might be the single factor that makes a person NOT want to live a low profile kind of life? Let's say we're not just talking about homosexuality, but any kind of lifestyle choice which includes belief systems as part of that lifestyle.

Like say for myself: I don't eat a lot of meat. I do eat it, but I choose not to eat a lot. I have many reasons for this which I won't go into now. Also, I believe very strongly in recycling. I believe in having a strong work ethic and taking pride in one's work, whatever it might be. I believe in the need for spiritual work, personal and public responsibility and that the two go hand in hand.... OK, that's just a few things.

I know that I'm not alone in these particular ideals. If say, we took several key ideas, like the above, add a few more specifics, and put them together like a "lifestyle package" we might develop a kind of movement, call it Real Earth People or who knows what. Well then, it might suddenly sound like a new thing. You might have parades and pamphlets and people getting all excited about the idea, but the thing is, that all along we've had these people around. It's just that they went about their business quietly. Maybe didn't speak a lot about their choices. While everyone else was fired up to the hilt in fast lifestyles, loading up Visas, consuming with fervor, these people, lived quite differently. But who knew?

So then, back to "choice" regarding homosexuality. Might it be that an individual who chooses to be part of "this movement" be doing so based upon a psychological phenomenon where any individual, wants to feel a part of something greater, something they feel (in their own mind, regardless of whether it's true or not) is important? This would be the same theory behind gangs and groups of any kind. People meeting on some kind of common ground, and feeling a sense of purpose and belonging-- this might be part of the answer to the reasoning behind the gay parades.

Very interesting posts above guys. It's made me think differently about the whole issue in yet another way.

Sandra

Spoken like a true scientist (bert, that is).  

Quoted from The boy who could fly I have more of a question that a comment cuz i dun realy care if people r gay or not as long as they aint a douche. I have noticed a huge, and i mean HUGE trend in bi sexuality the past couple years, mostly in teenagers, so the highschool kids here or the recently graduated one may know this more than the older people, but at the mall, at the movies, where i work i see lots of 15-18 year old guys walking hand in hand, and they all look the same, the same black hair that hangs over there eyes, snake bite piercings, skinny and baggy clothes.  So my question is, could this be a part of evolution or is it because it is more socially exceptable now?  I know its supposed to be like 10% of the population is gay, but this is more like 25%.  I asked this guy i work with about this and he said it was big at his school, in fact his GF is Bi, but that was always around even when i was a kid, I see it a lot  more in guys now.  So is this evolution or just a trend?

Homosexuality is being marketed like mad. (Male)Bisexuality would be a natural offshoot. Unfortunately for women, HIV contraction is the consequence of that...

Understanding homosexuality is fraught with the inherent problems that arise when tackling 'love' and its complexities.

No known singular antecedent exists for investigation, so what happens is that people utilise the topic as a means of facilitating bigotry - plain and simple.

Andrew

Quoted from bert There is limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors; there is some evidence linking sexual orientation to chromosomes 1 and 9, but it is far from compelling and inarguable evidence.

So basically what you're saying, Bert, is that increased expression of MMP-9 by inflammatory cells e.g. neutrophils and macrophages is correlated with a variety of processes, thus causing myelin sheath degradation and neuronal damage, ADAM19 protein localization to the seminiferous cords at both embryonic and postnatal ages examined (from 15.5-19.5 dpc to 2 dpp) will regulate the proliferation of perinatal testis cells in the perinatal period?

Quoted from sniper So basically what you're saying, Bert, is that increased expression of MMP-9 by inflammatory cells e.g. neutrophils and macrophages is correlated with a variety of processes, thus causing myelin sheath degradation and neuronal damage, ADAM19 protein localization to the seminiferous cords at both embryonic and postnatal ages examined (from 15.5-19.5 dpc to 2 dpp) will regulate the proliferation of perinatal testis cells in the perinatal period?

English for the stupid please, which mean me  

Quoted from bert There is limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors; there is some evidence linking sexual orientation to chromosomes 1 and 9, but it is far from compelling and inarguable evidence. Part of the long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality stems from the fact that the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction, and according to natural selection, homosexuality should have been “selected out”.  Why it persists is still a mystery. There are many who believe it is a genetic trait, and there are those who believe it is a complex combination of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture), unique to each and every individual. People who are saying that science has “proven” anything here are incorrect.  I felt compelled to clarify that point. Unfortunately, it is all too often that either God or Science can derail a discussion that essentially boils down to simple human rights. Won’t be the first time.  Won’t be the last.

Genetics isn't the only factor. It may be a combination of things. It's also to do with the fact that the male and female chromosomes are engaged in a constant battle for supremacy.

The placenta is a male parasite which steals resources away from the female to protect the child. The females body responds to it by creating higher levels of antibodies to fight off the "infection". This may be why children with older brothers are more likely to be gay.

The female body releases higher levels of antibodies with each male pregnancy, which for reasons yet to be discerned seems to make it more likely that the child will have a more female brain, or "gay" brain if you will.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-173878/Boys-big-brothers-likely-gay.html

That theory doesn't explain why homosexuality is as prevalent in the West as elsewhere though, because we have fewer babies and just as many homosexuals.

It correlates though.

There are genes that seem to be play a part in making someone gay, but you can have those genes and not be gay.

Like I say, it's a combination of things.

It's yet to be proven definitively what exactly causes it, but I'd say it's fairly well established that some people are born gay.

The brain scans show a structurally difference in a homosexual brain that can't be explained by "learnt" behaviour but must be caused by some physical phenomenon either after, or more likely, before birth.

We're still filling in the pieces, and will be for a while yet, but it's safe to say that it's not as simple as it being a lifestyle choice. It's soemthing that you are seemingly pre-disposed to, whatever the exact mechanism that is taking place.

Quoted from JamminGirl Homosexuality is being marketed like mad. (Male)Bisexuality would be a natural offshoot. Unfortunately for women, HIV contraction is the consequence of that...

Lesbians have a lower risk of HIV than heterosexuals. Although they are still equally susceptible to other STI's.

I'm kinda sorry that I caught this topic so late because my mood at the moment is off "debate" mode. But I'll throw this out there. Sexuality is fluid. Noone was "born" to have sex with children, farm animals, people of their own gender, objects etc.
There will never be a gene that says that. Scientists, yes, "scientists" who say otherwise are all talking out their asses and you should ask yourselves, "why are they trying to convince me of this? What's in it for them?"
I know enough about engineering and system analysis to be able to decipher junk science when I see it. Behaviour is formed based on environment. We are all sponges when we're born. Whatever we've become is directly as a result of what influences we soak up.
There was a russian study where (as cruel as it was) they left some young children in a building and fed them like animals in a cage but gave them no social/nururing contact. The result: these children were indistinguishable from wild animals, behaviour-wise. The snarled, kicked and scream, made grunts and pooped and peed in the same manner as wild animals locked in cages(because you know that even wild animals form social groups where they teach each other and learn).

Overbearing female influence on a young boy from 0-3 without male influence will no doubt result in an effeminate boy. If he grows into teenager without that male guide, he will lack masculine identity and gradually gravitate toward what he lacks. Society, like George implies, will decide for him that certain factors(how he dresses, acts, career choices) means he's "gay". So he will start questioning his own sexuality and wonder why he needs that male bond(not realizing that it's because of what he lacked as a child). So in essence, society pushes him toward that sexual path.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Lesbians have a lower risk of HIV than heterosexuals. Although they are still equally susceptible to other STI's.

Lesbians and heterosexual men. It is several(some say 2000, some say 12, some say 4 but basically it's more than 200%) times easier for a man to pass HIV on to a woman that for her to pass it to a man. Biologically speaking.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Hmmm, now you and George both have me wondering about the "choice" question. It seems to me that for many individuals it is a choice, but then again, for those who are physically different, there might not be a choice. Here I'm speaking about cases of individuals that aren't "normal", or to put it another way, they are born kind of cross gendered. But those cases are more rare I think, although I have seen maybe two people like this, (from different cities) in my lifetime. I definitely saw that nature couldn't make up its mind with them and truly, I had a hard time discerning whether they were male or female. I felt bad for them because it's hard to imagine having to go through life with people staring at you and giving you strange looks. But here is where I come to the question that arose in my mind after reading your comment to George's post. In those instances where there is a choice, (and that's based upon the assumption that there are many cases where there indeed, is choice) What might make that choice include telling everyone you can, becoming part of organized movements, showing off as much as any bible thumping style of Christian might, that THIS is the way, the truth, and the life, for me? What might be the single factor that makes a person NOT want to live a low profile kind of life? Let's say we're not just talking about homosexuality, but any kind of lifestyle choice which includes belief systems as part of that lifestyle. Like say for myself: I don't eat a lot of meat. I do eat it, but I choose not to eat a lot. I have many reasons for this which I won't go into now. Also, I believe very strongly in recycling. I believe in having a strong work ethic and taking pride in one's work, whatever it might be. I believe in the need for spiritual work, personal and public responsibility and that the two go hand in hand.... OK, that's just a few things. I know that I'm not alone in these particular ideals. If say, we took several key ideas, like the above, add a few more specifics, and put them together like a "lifestyle package" we might develop a kind of movement, call it Real Earth People or who knows what. Well then, it might suddenly sound like a new thing. You might have parades and pamphlets and people getting all excited about the idea, but the thing is, that all along we've had these people around. It's just that they went about their business quietly. Maybe didn't speak a lot about their choices. While everyone else was fired up to the hilt in fast lifestyles, loading up Visas, consuming with fervor, these people, lived quite differently. But who knew? So then, back to "choice" regarding homosexuality. Might it be that an individual who chooses to be part of "this movement" be doing so based upon a psychological phenomenon where any individual, wants to feel a part of something greater, something they feel (in their own mind, regardless of whether it's true or not) is important? This would be the same theory behind gangs and groups of any kind. People meeting on some kind of common ground, and feeling a sense of purpose and belonging-- this might be part of the answer to the reasoning behind the gay parades. Very interesting posts above guys. It's made me think differently about the whole issue in yet another way. Sandra

Sandra.

You seem to be confusing trans-gendered people (or more correctly people with Gender Identity Disorder) with homosexuals.

These are people essentially born in the wrong body IE they have male parts but think/feel they are really female and vice versa. It's a related, but different topic.

They don't consider themselves gay as such, but straight and just stuck in the wrong body (although there are some confusing exceptions to that general rule).

Quoted from JamminGirl Lesbians and heterosexual men. It is several(some say 2000, some say 12, some say 4 but basically it's more than 200%) times easier for a man to pass HIV on to a woman that for her to pass it to a man. Biologically speaking.

Heterosexual men are at greater risk of HIV than lesbians. The act of intercourse with a penis makes it more likely to contract HIV for a man with a woman than a woman with a woman (it breaks more blood cells).

You are correct in what you say about heterosexual coupling though. Women are more likely to contract the virus from an infected male than vice versa

Has anyone here read "And The Band Played on"?  

I started reading it awhile back and never finished due to lack of time.  It's a very complex book.  I really should get back to reading it, as it's a very fascinating story that in great detail goes through the rise of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's.

Quoted from JamminGirl I'm kinda sorry that I caught this topic so late because my mood at the moment is off "debate" mode. But I'll throw this out there. Sexuality is fluid. Noone was "born" to have sex with children, farm animals, people of their own gender, objects etc. There will never be a gene that says that. Scientists, yes, "scientists" who say otherwise are all talking out their asses and you should ask yourselves, "why are they trying to convince me of this? What's in it for them?" I know enough about engineering and system analysis to be able to decipher junk science when I see it. Behaviour is formed based on environment. We are all sponges when we're born. Whatever we've become is directly as a result of what influences we soak up. There was a russian study where (as cruel as it was) they left some young children in a building and fed them like animals in a cage but gave them no social/nururing contact. The result: these children were indistinguishable from wild animals, behaviour-wise. The snarled, kicked and scream, made grunts and pooped and peed in the same manner as wild animals locked in cages(because you know that even wild animals form social groups where they teach each other and learn). Overbearing female influence on a young boy from 0-3 without male influence will no doubt result in an effeminate boy. If he grows into teenager without that male guide, he will lack masculine identity and gradually gravitate toward what he lacks. Society, like George implies, will decide for him that certain factors(how he dresses, acts, career choices) means he's "gay". So he will start questioning his own sexuality and wonder why he needs that male bond(not realizing that it's because of what he lacked as a child). So in essence, society pushes him toward that sexual path.

This is untrue. The prevalence of females in a family has zero bearing on sexuality for a male. The opposite is true. There is a correlation between the number of older brothers one has and how likely you are to be gay.

One only has to look at Jack Nicholson to realise that being surrounded by women does not result in you being homosexual. He was raised by his mother and had several sisters. No male influence whatsoever.

See my post above.

Quoted from JamminGirl Overbearing female influence on a young boy from 0-3 without male influence will no doubt result in an effeminate boy. If he grows into teenager without that male guide, he will lack masculine identity and gradually gravitate toward what he lacks. Society, like George implies, will decide for him that certain factors(how he dresses, acts, career choices) means he's "gay". So he will start questioning his own sexuality and wonder why he needs that male bond(not realizing that it's because of what he lacked as a child). So in essence, society pushes him toward that sexual path.

While I agree with some of what you've said - you are contradicting elements yourself.

How can a boy grow up lacking a male identity? What is a male identity? Do males grow up in noticeably similar ways for a reason? If so - which is what you suggest - then there must be some natural, pre-birth coding. Otherwise, why is certain behaviour classified as 'male' or 'female'?

As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in-between. Nature and nurture play a role.

The tests you cite are an example of psychological and anthropological investigations that really only scratch the surface - interesting as they are.

Also, it's a very simplistic notion to suggest that gay men are simply yearning for a male figure, who was missing in their early life. It's plausible, but not likely, IMO. That really undervalues the worth of true love that is evident between homosexuals.

Andrew