Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Homosexuality

  1. #1 Homosexuality 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    What makes a person a Homosexual? I have trouble understanding the concept of homosexuality. I can somewhat rationalize with bi-sexuality in the sense that if it's about sex, then fair enough. A human being doesn't necessarilly need to fantasize about the opposite sex to become sexually aroused, nor fantasize about anything really inparticular. Its more of a phyiological response to a pleasurable sensation, so I believe anyway.

    But homo sexuality?? Maybe, well obviously I dont understand something , but as I do understand, Males and Females are not all that different.
    We are biologically unique in some respects, and to some degree that is what makes us mentally unique. Chemicals and hormones racing through exactly the same brains and minds.

    If homosexuality is a result of hormones, ie a male with feminine hormones present in the system, then would it not make sense for these males to find the attractiveness in females with more male hormones?

    Someone help me shed some light on this issue?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    2
    Having read about homosexuality in my Abnormal Psychology class I can tell you some things scientists know....

    - Twin Studies in which identical twins that share 100% of the same genes show that if one twin is gay there is approximately a 50% chance the other twin will be also. This says two things. First 50% is too high to be random so there is some genetic component to homosexuality second if it was totally genetic the chance would be 100% so there is also an environmental component which activates homosexuality.
    - Contrary to what some would say homosexuals do NOT 'choose' to be gay. Its an involuntary aspect of their nature.

    If homosexuality is a result of hormones, ie a male with feminine hormones present in the system, then would it not make sense for these males to find the attractiveness in females with more male hormones?
    I think the issue is a matter of being genetically programmed to respond to the physical aspects of the individual (e.g., sound of voice, muscles, sex organs, hair, etc...). Though I can't remember where I got that information from. Hormones probably do play a large part when the two homosexuals are in close proximity.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by bazlyx
    Having read about homosexuality in my Abnormal Psychology class I can tell you some things scientists know....

    - Twin Studies in which identical twins that share 100% of the same genes show that if one twin is gay there is approximately a 50% chance the other twin will be also. This says two things. First 50% is too high to be random so there is some genetic component to homosexuality second if it was totally genetic the chance would be 100% so there is also an environmental component which activates homosexuality.
    - Contrary to what some would say homosexuals do NOT 'choose' to be gay. Its an involuntary aspect of their nature.
    Your conclusion is flawed; the studies do indicate environmental pressures effect sexual preference, but not that homosexuality is the result of the pressures. In fact, if the pressures are social and cultural, in this homophobic society, heterosexuality is more likely to be caused by environmental pressures.

    I suspect that sexual preference, like most human characteristics, follows a bell curve, and that roughly ten percent of people are exclusively homosexual, ten percent exclusively heterosexual, and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by bazlyx
    - Twin Studies in which identical twins that share 100% of the same genes show that if one twin is gay there is approximately a 50% chance the other twin will be also. This says two things. First 50% is too high to be random so there is some genetic component to homosexuality second if it was totally genetic the chance would be 100% so there is also an environmental component which activates homosexuality.
    The twins also share the same fetal environment. If the mother's estrogen levels overwhelm the testtosterone produced by the fetuses, then both fetuses may become feminized. The well-known effects of maternal hormones on the sexual development of mammals has been well studied in domesticated with scores of refereed papers, many of which can be found using google.

    in addition, the hormone production of each twin can also significanlty affect the other twin sharing the same uterus. This is also well-known. Thus the possibility also exists that the higher dose of hormone's experienced by a developing fetal twin could cause this example you stated. I suggest that you look up the definition of a 'freemartin' (you can find it in Wikipedia)

    Given that the example you presented did not eliminate either the role of maternal hormones, nor role of the other twin's hormones on fetal development, then based on this data alone, the conclusion is not supported by the data.

    Your point would be much better if you compared the percentage of identical male twins which are both gay to the percentage of of fraternal male twins which are both gay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    I suspect that sexual preference, like most human characteristics, follows a bell curve, and that roughly ten percent of people are exclusively homosexual, ten percent exclusively heterosexual, and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    Actually the best unbiased scientific studies suggest that about 2% of western males are exclusively homosexual. You may want to check you sources and make sure they are based on a statitically valid sample, and that the study was free of bias.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    I'd heard / read a similar statistic (well, actually lower than that, but probably conservative). One particular study's name was even used as the name for a popular radio show here (WFNX FM), "One in Ten."
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Actually, I presented my argument poorly; I used ten percent because it represents the extremes on the curve. But I am also familar with the phrase 'One In Ten'.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 ... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    I suspect that sexual preference, like most human characteristics, follows a bell curve, and that roughly ten percent of people are exclusively homosexual, ten percent exclusively heterosexual, and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    Aside from the fact that you've excluded people that are asexual, you seem to have summed it up nicely .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    No one knows really, how much of the male population is exclusively homosexual. That depends upon definitions and those might not at all apply to what's actually going on.

    The 10% figure is as reliable as the last digit. It's not very reliable. Studies coming out recently have shown that exclusive same sex activity is rare, about 5% or so among males. The problem was that study relied NOT upon observations, but upon 'asking'. This is inherently unscientific. How many persons in a homophobic community are going to answer that they are gay?

    How many bisexuals, who are in frantic position of hiding their sexuality from their wives, families, friends & co-workers will admit to being bisexual? Most cannot even admit it to themselves.

    Same sex activities, as are opposite sex activities, are a matter of actual, real existing day to day, week to week, year to year behaviors, necessarily and distinct from how many people will actually tell the whole truth about their activities.

    The facts are these, in the 1970's the Am. Psychiatric Association and its affiliates in psychology, essentially stated that same sex activities were normal variants of human sexual behaviors & not demonstrating any more pyschological aberrancies than the rest of the society. Thus it was NOT a psychiatric or psychological disorder and did not have to be treated or diagnosed.

    This has generally been the conclusion, scientifically, upon observations of human males. The same is true for women.

    there is NO known genetic predisposition to same sex behaviors. Humans are more or less bisexual to heterosexual. Clearly, any kind of genetic predisposition to same sex behaviors would disappear rather rapidly! They would NOT reproduce. Thus exclusive same sex behaviors must arise out of the bisexual/heterosexual population, normally. This is in fact seen. And the wide fluctuations among males from exclusive heterosexual to bisexual to exclusive homosexual activities and relationships show this.

    Most males are heterosexual. Some, from 10-25%, depending on the definition are bisexual. A few about 5% or so are exclusively gay. The 10% figure has no basis in the facts and often quoted in order to make it seem more common than it actually is.

    There is nothing psychologically wrong with same sex behaviors among males or females. Nor is there any known genetic predisposition to it, either. It's both genetically possible and environmentally influenced. No one knows. Not at all. And one grows increasingly perturbed by those, who, without any scientific, abundantly confirmed reports, that it is, or is not Mostly genetic or environmental.

    No one knows. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Definitions are everything.

    For example, many psychologists consider sex between one woman and two men (not necessarily simultaneously) as "homosexuality by proxy".

    Perhaps it is, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7
    and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    yes, but why is it a heterosexual society? i'd say because more people over along period of time have leanings toward hetersexuality rather than homo. If as much as 80% of the population were hiding bisexual feelings, then surely this would manifest itself and we would not be living in a "hetero" society?
    neptuniana
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    All kinds of unnormal sexuality fantasy occur because of mutations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by LC_Vega
    and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    yes, but why is it a heterosexual society? i'd say because more people over along period of time have leanings toward hetersexuality rather than homo. If as much as 80% of the population were hiding bisexual feelings, then surely this would manifest itself and we would not be living in a "hetero" society?
    In short, bias and babies.

    Until recently, heterosexual sexual activity was necessary to produce offspring; for reasons that have alway elluded me, babies have long been considered highly desirable by individuals and communities.

    The bias, in my culture, arises from the predominance of the triad of mono-theism, which arose in a homophobic and misogynistic culture.

    And I don't think that the 80% [or 98%] is 'hiding bisexual feelings'; I think that they just don't have an acceptable social context in which to express them, and so they are not aware of them as sexual feelings.

    Take a good look at the 'social grooming' and 'dominance games' of primates, including humans [particularly teen-agers].
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    I suspect that sexual preference, like most human characteristics, follows a bell curve, and that roughly ten percent of people are exclusively homosexual, ten percent exclusively heterosexual, and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    You may suspect it, but you would be wrong. You need to consider the function of sexuality - primarily for reproduction. It does little for the reproductive health of a species if a significant proportion of them 'lean' towards homosexuality.
    Additionally, around 10% of all mammals are homosexual. It is stretching the bounds of coincidence rather far to think that all these species just happen to have heterosexual cultures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    I suspect that sexual preference, like most human characteristics, follows a bell curve, and that roughly ten percent of people are exclusively homosexual, ten percent exclusively heterosexual, and that the other eighty percent are heterosexual because they live in a heterosexual society.
    You may suspect it, but you would be wrong. You need to consider the function of sexuality - primarily for reproduction. It does little for the reproductive health of a species if a significant proportion of them 'lean' towards homosexuality.
    Additionally, around 10% of all mammals are homosexual. It is stretching the bounds of coincidence rather far to think that all these species just happen to have heterosexual cultures.
    All mammals, not just primates? That's interesting. Shoots down my theory that homophobia is all to blame on the triad of monotheism.

    Individuals do not evolve, species evolve; perhaps a species benefits from having 10% of the adult population likely to be childless. The extra adults could assist to support the children, and so contribute to the reproductive health of the species?
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    All mammals, not just primates?
    I am not 100% certain. It is definitely more than just primates. Forgive the absence of citations: this was something I looked into some time back, following a similar debate on another forum. I retained the facts, not the source.
    I have an even vaguer recollection that homosexuality has also been observed in birds and possibly reptiles.
    Just speculating: we know that some fishes change sex at least once in their lifespan. It would be interesting to see if any of the genes thought to be implicated in homosexuality are related to those responsible for sex changes in fishes.
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    perhaps a species benefits from having 10% of the adult population likely to be childless. The extra adults could assist to support the children,
    and provide a necessary reservoir of interior decorators. :wink:

    Edit: Some quick googling turned up the following:
    An interesting link on the role of hormones in pre-natal development [females are the default form, you'll be pleased to know] and post-natal behaviour. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neur...2/Bodian2.html
    This one discusses a book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. The site and the book have a clear agenda, but it does not detract from the facts. [I was especially intrigued to read that female long eared hedgehogs engage in oral sex. Must be something to do with the spines!]
    http://www.vexen.co.uk/human/homosexuality.html

    And here is an absolute classic:
    A German zoo was planning to introduce male penguins into a group of female penguins because the female penguins seem to be attracted to one another. Homosexual rights groups are angry with the plan because they believe the zoo’s actions are trying to turn the penguins straight.
    from - http://www.americanvision.org/articl...e/02-16-05.asp

    And there are over 100,000 hits where those came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    That's more than a bit bizzarre. Why the hell did they have only female penquins in the first place? And why should the introduction of male penquins 'force' female penquins to be straight?

    And who is playing Peeping Tom with the long-eared female hedgehogs? And, since we are discussing it, what about short-eared or male hedgehogs?

    While I am not one to anthropomorphize, I am getting a bit concerned about rights to privacy! [But I am curious about those short-eared male hedgehogs ...]

    I shouldn't trivialize the discussion.

    I worry about discussions of the root-cause of homosexuality; such discussions imply that it is an abnormal aberration, rather than a natural variation. And why do people care?

    I am particularly annoyed by the argument that homosexuality could not be genetic, because homosexuals would not reproduce, and pass on the homosexuality. That would require that a.] homosexuals never engage in heterosexual activity, and b.] that sexuality was a +/- trait, determined by a single gene, of which the homosexual allelle was dominant.

    I propose that we figure out left-handness first, and then use the model developed to explore other traits. The estimated percentage of left-handed and homosexual humans are roughly the same [i.e., under 10%, and no less than 2%].
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by j
    The estimated percentage of left-handed and homosexual humans are roughly the same [i.e., under 10%, and no less than 2%].
    Why do you keep saying that? Where is your refereed scientific data supporting this statement?

    The studies I have seen in refereed journals of the incidence of exclusionary homosexuality (not bisexuality) in humans is about 2 %. Not 10%. The 10% number is a political number.

    Here is an analysis reposted from another forum (don't worry it isn't copyrighted material):

    " 1.51% of total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian
    or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. 2.8% of males age 18 or
    older, and 1.4% of females age 18 or older divided by 284,800,000
    total population (2003 figures). 0.9% of women identify themselves as
    lesbians (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.32% of total U.S.
    population being lesbians. 2 percent of men identify themselves as gay
    (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.7% of total U.S. population
    being gay men. Source: National study published in Laumann, et al.,
    The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States
    (1994), cited in Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and
    Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003), pg. 16.
    This friend of the court brief was filed by a coalition of leading
    pro-GLBT activist groups, including: Human Rights Campaign, National
    Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians
    and Gays (PFLAG), National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian
    Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
    Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way
    Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and
    Education Fund, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater
    Houston, and others. See also: Peter Sprigg, 28 January 2004,
    "Homosexual Groups Back Off From '10 Percent' Myth", InFocus (Family
    Research Council), Issue No. 260; URL:
    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04A01. From Sprigg:
    A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted
    in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent
    of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or
    bisexual."... in an amicus curiae (or "friend of the court") brief
    filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. In
    the case, which was decided in June of 2003, homosexual activists
    successfully sought to have a Texas law barring homosexual sodomy
    declared unconstitutional. The brief was filed by a coalition of 31
    pro-homosexual activist groups, including some of the leading national
    organizations like the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay and
    Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
    (PFLAG); the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); and
    the People for the American Way Foundation. The unusually candid
    statement about the relatively low number of homosexuals in the
    population appeared on page 16 of the brief. The text contains the
    assertion, "There are approximately six million openly gay men and
    women in the United States, and 450,000 gay men and lesbians in
    Texas." After the national figure there appears a footnote, number 42
    in the brief. The actual footnote at the bottom of the page reads as
    follows (in its entirety): "The most widely accepted study of sexual
    practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life
    Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4
    percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian,
    or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex:
    Sexual Practices in the United States (1994)..." Unfortunately,
    despite their candor about the small percentage of the population that
    is homosexual, the authors of the brief still managed to overestimate
    the actual number of "openly gay men and women" by more than a third.
    That's because the figures of "4 million openly gay men and 2 million
    women who identify as lesbian" were apparently arrived at by
    multiplying the 2.8 percent and 1.4 percent figures by the total
    number of males and females in the U.S. population. Yet it hardly
    seems reasonable to count any of the 60 million Americans who are
    fourteen years old or younger (and particularly the 40 million who are
    nine or younger) as "openly gay men and women." If one applies the
    percentage figures from the NHSLS instead to only the population of
    men and women 18 years old or more, one arrives at an estimate that
    perhaps 4.3 million Americans (2.8 million men and 1.5 million women)
    identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. It is important as well
    to note that the "bisexual" component in that is fairly high. In fact,
    the percentage of the population that identifies exclusively as
    homosexual (not bisexual) is only 2 percent for men and 0.9 percent
    for women, or about 2 million men and slightly less than a million
    women. And even an exclusive homosexual self-identification is not
    always matched by similarly exclusive behavior. The NHSLS found that
    only 0.9 percent of men and 0.4 percent of women reported having only
    same-sex sexual partners since age 18, a figure that would represent a
    total of only about 1.4 million Americans (men and women combined). In
    fact, the book on the NHSLS that was cited in the homosexual groups'
    brief refers as well to "the myth of 10 percent," noting that it was
    probably drawn from part of the research of Alfred Kinsey. However,
    even Kinsey actually concluded that only "4 percent of the white males
    are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives." And the book by
    Laumann et al. notes that Kinsey used research methods that "would all
    tend to bias Kinsey's results toward higher estimates of homosexuality
    (and other rarer sexual practices) than those he would have obtained
    using probability sampling." [Two key reasons: Kinsey's research was
    conducted exclusively with males, which has a higher rates of
    homosexuality and bisexuality, and Kinsey's research was conducted
    predominantly within prison populations.] The Laumann book also
    mentions in a footnote that "Bruce Voeller (1990) claims to have
    originated the 10 percent estimate as part of the modern gay rights
    movement's campaign in the late 1970s to convince politicians and the
    public that 'We [gays and lesbians] Are Everywhere.' At the time,
    Voeller was the chair of the National Gay Task Force"--forerunner to
    one of the groups represented by the recent brief.
    Previously, combining multiple sources, Schmidt arrived calculated
    that 1.8% of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian. Schmidt, Thomas E.
    Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate.
    Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1995), pg. 102-103.
    [Original sources: P. Painton, "The Shrinking Ten Percent," Time,
    April 26, 1993, pp. 27-29; P. Rogers, "How Many Gays Are There?"
    Newsweek, February 15, 1993, pg. 46; A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy & C.E.
    Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B.
    Saunders, 1948); J. H. Court & J. G. Muir, eds., Kinsey, Sex and
    Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, La.: Huntington
    House, 1990); T. W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of
    Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Planning
    Perspectives 23 (May/June 1991): 102-7. See p. 104, table 2. Smith is
    director of the General Social Survey Project at the NORC (University
    of Chicago).]"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Silylene, if you look at what J has said, it does not contradict your position.

    under 10%, and no less than 2%
    Under 10% is not the same as 10%.

    That said, I should be interested in some of the references that characterise it as low as 1% or 2%. Please cite.

    Edit: thank you for adding the information in your original post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Ophiolite, there were many studies of this sort in Nature and Science, published approximately 1988-1994 which found that human exclusive homsexuality was 1-2 % (actually several were less than 1%). I don't have access now to these journals, as I am not at work. At that time, as a result of these studies, these CDC dramatically reduced the projections for HIV/AIDS in the US. Researchers at CDC now use homosexuality numbers of about 1% for estimating the epidemiology of HIV in the US.

    The "10% incidence" number is purely political, and not scientifically based.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    So what?

    I used a very broad range, so that no-one would get side-tracked into a numbers debate; this thread is not about the numbers.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    but if it is the genes, wouldn't it of died out by now?

    natural selection, the genes said woun't be able to reproduce for obvious reasons? so it owuldn't be passed on?
    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by goodgod3rd
    but if it is the genes, wouldn't it of died out by now?
    1. Until the 1970s/1980s, in the west, most homosexual males concealed their orientation, often from themselves. Marrying and having children was an effective way to do this.
    2. It may well not be genetic, but related, at least in part to developments in the womb. For example:
    Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66.
    The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation.
    Rahman Q.
    One of the most enduring and controversial questions in the neuroscience of sexual behaviour surrounds the mechanisms which produce sexual attraction to either males or females. Here, evidence is reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development. Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation. Linkage studies are partly suggestive of X-linked loci although candidate gene studies have produced null findings. Further evidence demonstrates a role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates. However, hormonal effects are often inconsistent and investigations rely heavily on 'proxy markers'. A consistent fraternal birth order effect in male sexual orientation also provides support for a model of maternal immunization processes affecting prenatal sexual differentiation. The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. These current theories have left little room for learning models of sexual orientation. Future investigations, across the neurosciences, should focus to elucidate the fundamental neural architecture underlying the target-specific direction of human sexual orientation, and their antecedents in developmental neurobiology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by goodgod3rd
    but if it is the genes, wouldn't it of died out by now?

    natural selection, the genes said woun't be able to reproduce for obvious reasons? so it owuldn't be passed on?
    Only if homosexuals never engage in heterosexual activity AND homosexuality were a dominant allelle for a +/- trait.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    2. It may well not be genetic, but related, at least in part to developments in the womb.
    To support your argument, look up the definition of a freemartin. It's a well documented phenomena in animals of the effects of the womb environment on sexual development.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    i see, makes sense.
    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Problem with those human studies purporting to estimate how much of the population is gay or straight or bisexual is that they are 'self-reported". No one believes those as the reports are determined NOT by actual, observable behaviors, but by what people say about themselves. Clearly, many bisexuals, who are largely homosexual will deny they are homosexual. Many entertainers come to mind. So do J. Edgar Hoover and his long term partner, Tolson.

    It's 'same sex' behaviors which are regarded as homosexual. That's how animal ethologists view animal behaviors. The same standard must be applied to humans. It's not what people believe or say about themselves, but what they actually do which is the whole truth. And those are often very different.

    In animal studies there are about 100 known examples of easily observed same sex activities. It's seen in primates, dogs, porpoises (T. truncatus) and many other social species.

    The bottle nosed dolphin, T. truncatus lives in exclusively sexually segregated pods of males or females, which only break up during the time an actively breeding female is available. Then individuals go back to their buddies and girl friends for their gratifications. They are mostly homosexual, but periodically heterosexual.

    Dolphins are also a very highly sexual species, which may also explain part of their behaviors. There are numerous instances where these highly sexed animals will attempt sex with humans, too, with some unfortunate results. Human males will show many of these characteristics.

    I agree with Sylilene that the figure of 10% homosexuality among males is too high. It's probably about 5% or so, as it, for social reasons, will be underreported and more than the about 2.8% figure given. & as it does fluctuate from time to time, it's sure that exclusive homosexuality among males is less than that. The extent of bisexuality is also hard to check on, because the observations which would make a more secure figure, cannot easily be done. I'm sure, tho, given human ingenuity, a good methods could probably be developed. However, relying upon human reports, which are highly fraught with problems, is not going to give a reliable figure. Altho there would be serious privacy issues, again, a problem.

    There would also seem to be a difference in causes between gay males and females. And no one really knows what's genetic or environmental. And to say that it's 'no choice' or mostly or all 'choice' is unreasonable because of the simple fact, no one knows.

    Probably there are many, who do actually vary between same sex and opposite sex activities, who do have some choice in the matter. Or it may be they have limitted choice.

    Obviously, one's choices at the market are limitted by what's actually on the shelves, as much as one's likes & dislikes. The amount of same sex activities going on in boys' schools, the Royal Navy (cf. Churchill's "buggery, grog and the lash' quote), and prisons are decidely related to social isolation, availability and restricted opportunities.

    Social segregation of males in order to prevent sexual interaction and unwanted pregnancies and activities between males & females, would rather create more same sex opportunities and eventual stable, long term same sex behaviors, as well. So, it's probably counterproductive in that way, and may be a primary cause of same sex activities, simply because it creates circumstances wherein long term bisexual or homosexual activities can be created. Young males are highly sexual between the ages of 16-26, which is their sexual peak. It's exactly at those times when their sexual behaviors are being developed that they are often sexually segregated.

    However, in a landmark "Science" article several years ago, which showed some genetic predisposition to same sex activites among males, it was stated, very truly, that 'same sex activities were 'normal' for humans. And this has been the professional positions of the American and Euro psychological and psychiatric communities for some time, as they did not find any more mental illness among persons having same sex behaviors, than they did the population at large. Since about 1970 or so, altho the movement to remove homosexuality from the 'pathological' list was pretty well established in the 1940's.

    About 60% of human societies do not consider discrete same sex activities, esp. among males as wrong. One recalls seeing in Polynesia a young man who was specifically accepted by his family as being gay. There was even a social position for this kind of male. No one thought much about it.

    In the same society one saw a young man and woman actively kissing on the beach, with obvious sexual interest. Later that night, the same man was dancing with his boyfriend, in much the same way he'd been with his girl friend. No one cared there.

    So, we have some tantalizing evidence (but no real proof) about what brings about same sex behaviors, but we really have no very reliable data about its incidence, possibly in part due to social disapprobation and other related factors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •