'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Pete

The left's pickle.

Imagine

The cause of Homosexuality is found and it can be tested for during pregnacy - but the test can only be done after the 6th month.

Women begin getting abortions in the 3rd trimester based on that test.

What's the left to do - such a pickle.

A Gay gene. If it's real it ought to be self NON-perpetuating. Except for women. There isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him".
In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

And what made you think he was really gay? Maybe he was just a tad smarter than the guys hanging out with each other on a Friday night.

[Richard]

There isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him". In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

Damn - wish I woulda thought of that one back then - I coulda enjoyed college even more and avoided being drafted!

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Originally Posted by Dozer523

isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him".

We are supposed to try to change men? Damn, my mom lied to me... she said, "wait on em hand and foot." I knew I had something wrong all these years.
AM

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

LOL oh, you're all going to hell-- I'll make room in my handbasket -- Dozer first, I have twinkies...

Pete has a point, and it's one that scientists are worried about -- but I would add that there's going to be a certain percentage of people who would opt for abortion, but there's also going to be a certain percentage of gay men who opt for suicide. Personally, I don't give a sheeiite whether it's choice or not -- I don't get why it's such a big deal. I don't want anyone telling me what my husband and I can and can't do in the privacy of our own bedrooms, and I don't think I have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can or can't do in theirs

It does matter a lot if these consenting adults live in the army barracks........ However your right about Dozer,just offer him twinkies and he'll follow you anywhere.......

Big Teddy

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Danimal18C

My comments about polygamy were purely sarcastic. The point I was making is that in our society, polygamy is considered aberrant behavior, yet one could probably make the scientific suggestion that it is genetically supported by men's lust for women ( or vice versa) even when in committed relationships. There are a lot of people who cheat on their spouses... would that conclude to a "Cheating Gene?"

Thanks for the reply. I sort of figured that you were joking about polygamy, but one can never tell.

They weren't born to have some sexual disposition to like pretending to be horses. If anything, it was through some kinky experimentation that lead to their fascination with it. I've heard Homosexuals make the similar claims about their arousal. That they are only "Attracted" to members of the same sex...most homosexuals only admit to themselves that they are gay after experimenting.... sounds a lot like the dude who put a pair of reigns in his mouth... and liked it.

There is only one problem with this: there are virtually no studies confirming your horse fetish theory.

Second, you are dead wrong about believing that most homosexuals only "realize" they are gay after experimentation. 99.999% of gay men I've talked with (that is, all of them) said they knew they were gay by the age of 11 or 12. A few of them did admit that they had been sexually abused earlier in life, but we're talking about a very small percentage. I know for a fact my brother was never molested.

I've always believed in nurture over nature. Science is studying the possibility of genetic involvement with sexuality, but have yet to discover a Rainbow colored Allele on someone's chromosomes that makes them Gay. A great example of scientific evidence that does not support genetic dispositions to sexuality is Twin Studies. Scientists have studied sets of Identical twins, who have very very close sets of genetic patterns, but one is openly homosexual, the other is Heterosexual. I have an Identical twin brother, and while both of us are Heterosexual, we both have very different concepts of attraction. I don't believe I was born Heterosexual.

The identical twin data suggests that in upwards of 60% of all cases where one twin is gay the other twin is also gay, which is overwhelming evidence FOR a genetic component of homosexuality. It also suggests that other factors can be at play too that interact with the underlying genetic makeup (the brothers who aren't gay).

A lot of people like to quote those studies (especially the Bailey / Pillard one) without quoting the conclusion: that homosexuality is largely hereditary.

Now, in Darwin's concept of Fitness, I believe most creatures on earth have a desire to procreate, which would suggest that only heterosexual relationships can naturally produce offspring... but I credit my Mother and Father raising me to understand sexuality as a man + a women. I credit my social groups, where members of one gender always pursued relationships with members of the opposite sex. And lastly, I credit my choices. I've never had the desire to try homosexuallity out, to see if I'd like it.

Darwin's concept of fitness has to do with an individual gene's fitness, not an organism's. The organism's fitness is a byproduct of the gene's, nothing more. Many, many gay men have fathered children, both in marriage and outside of it, and that suggests that, on some level and at some scale, the presence of such a gene can raise an individual's sexual fitness... as weird as that may seem. Game Theory has shown us time and time again that many simple strategies, while seeming counter-intuitive, can actually be very successful given certain conditions.

You were born a straight man, and for that, I congratulate you. Me too. You state plainly that you've never had a desire to try homosexuality, but I doubt you can make the same claim for heterosexuality. Many men have experienced the same upbringing as you, within the same social groups, with similar parents and lessons, and cannot make that same claim.

Personally I don't care if someone chooses to be homosexual or bisexual, it's none of my business. The example I used of men showering with women has to do with sexual propriety. The reason men don't shower with women in the military is not because they can't help themselves, and turn into raging sexual tyrannosauruses... it's because in our society, its sexually inappropriate. Would anyone on this forum let another man shower with his wife, even if they didn't touch eachother? NO Way... it's inappropriate. If men are insecure about some gay guy staring at their "ding-dong" that's on them... but sexuality shouldn't be apart of our mission. It's the same reason I support the current gender limitations to combat arms. Sexualty doesn't belong on the battlefield.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but not too long ago, there were certain races of men that were considered to be "beneath" the white man, and that even interacting with them was "inappropriate", "uncivil", and "unclean." Times changed.

How "appropriate" something is, of course, is based on societal mores of the day. 100 years ago, a woman showing her ankles was "inappropriate". Hell, letting you wife walk down the street by herself was considered to be a huge error in judgment.

I cannot argue that what many consider "appropriate" and "inappropriate" right now would not allow gay men in showers, or women for that matter. I, however, hope that such lingering vestiges of our Puritan beginnings finally dissolve in the 21st Century.

People will always try to justify their behaior. Genetics seems to be the perfect excuse. how can someone be held accountable for their behavior if they were "just born that way." In an American culture where nobody accepts responsibility anymore, what better than a scientific link to explain their decisions. I think our insecurity in our culture means that we look for things to blame our behavior on instead of making choices and accepting any merit or concequence of those choices. Whether conciously or sub-consciously all sexual behavior comes down to choice... ei "do I follow my sexual compulsions?""Do I go home with that chick in the bar?""Do I cheat on my wife?" or "Do I experiment with something new?"

People are (or should be) held accountable for their behavior when it directly affects the livelihood of others. There is a lot of evidence that people are born murderers and rapists, but I have no problem locking them up. Gay men aren't hurting anyone except when they do foolish stuff like have unprotected sex with other gay men. The same foolish things straight people do.

I am not advocating that we should simply try to point at the Human Genome (which is a cipher we haven't even begun to interpret yet) and try to lay blame for all our actions there. Somewhere along the way, though, humans became convinced that they could control everything--their actions, their outcome, their destiny, the world--just by having enough will power. This, of course, is the very definition of hubris. In the end, sometimes, shit just happens.

As for the "sexual behavior comes down to choice," I highly recommend reading "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker. It is frightening just how little "choice" there is in the things we say, think, and do around the opposite sex... regardless of what we've been conditioned to believe about ourselves and willpower.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Richard

In case you haven't noticed - pink font is used by many in this forum to denote sarcasm or snark.

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Genomics is also still very much in its infancy.

A new, very inexpensive way to sequence an individual's genome has recently been developed (by Craig Venter, I believe). A new project is currently being funded that will ask 100,000 volunteers to have their gene sequenced, but along with that will come a contract of total personal transparency. They will have to answer huge, extremely detailed surveys about their likes, dislikes, talents, development, favorite foods, everything. All of this data will be posted into a database, right next to their full genome. That way, a scientist could find all the people that, say, are good baseball players and look for genetic similarities.

In 50 years, what we know right now about genetics and genomics will look foolish.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

A Gay gene. If it's real it ought to be self NON-perpetuating. Except for women. There isn't a woman in the world who doesn't think "oh I can change him".
In college no one got laid more then the gay guy.

I know you wrote it sarcastically, but easily the most sexually successful (with women) man I ever knew came out of the closet in his mid twenties. He had probably slept with six or seven hundred women before then, fathering who knows how many children.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by BrianH

I know you wrote it sarcastically, but easily the most sexually successful (with women) man I ever knew came out of the closet . . .

I wasn't being all that sarcastic.
I shared a three room apartment off campus with two guys, one was "gay" (shad-dup) . . . he owed a couch, a stereo, knew how to mix drinks beyond a rum and coke, owned a vacuum and knew how to use it ).
On more then one Saturday or Sunday morning there was a pretty girl in the kitchen wearing his blue striped oxford shirt (it was code , and he was rubbing it in). We always hoped that one or lots) would seek solace and or revenge with one of us straight guys. . .

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pete

Imagine

The scenario I've imagined is that the same discovery that establishes the scientific bases of sexuality also determines that life begins at conception.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Genomics is also still very much in its infancy.


In 50 years, what we know right now about genetics and genomics will look foolish.

There is also the issue of epigenetics.
http://www.epidna.com/

Our choices may affect the "programming" of our children, before they are even born.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The scenario I've imagined is that the same discovery that establishes the scientific bases of sexuality also determines that life begins at conception.

Sigaba,

Would really like to hear more about this scenario, if you care to share it?

Holly

[99meters]

Originally Posted by Richard

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

I believe I knew a few guys with this hormonal imbalance while growing up. These guys were very effeminate from a young age.
Most of the guys in school (me too) would call them "f#gs or sissies". Some did choose a homosexual life-style and others did not.
I can see a hormonal imbalance causing these guys to act "softer". However, I believe having their peers call them f#gs constantly at an age where we are trying to find yourself did more to push some to chose a homosexual life-style.
If I noticed, that my son was low on testosterone from a young age, I would place him on a extended steroid cycle.

[Stras]

Per the Forum rules for the Early Bird Forum, "This forum is for breaking news only. Threads will be moved elsewhere after approximately two days."

I believe this thread is long overdue for moving to another forum.

I'm not seeing any "breaking news" in the last several days of postings.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Richard

As far as homosexuality goes, current science hypothesizes that there is no such gene but that critical hormonal level imbalance during otherwise normal 'in utero' sexual developmental coding of the brain is the causative mechanism.

Some things are moral choices and some are physiological...no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

Interesting. So, to draw a loose parallel to other biochemical imbalances that cause aberrant (and potentially dangerous) behavior, should we as a society require someone suffering from such an affliction to take medication to 'correct' the imbalance?

As a related aside, if you run the numbers in the CDC link Richard posted that relate to HIV statistical analysis, 51.2% (or close to half, as Teddy correctly posted) come from male-to-male sexual contact. Another 30.9% come from high-risk sexual behavior, defined by the CDC as having sex with someone "known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection."