possible discovery of a Gay gene?

Its a correlation that was found in a scientific study. it can't prove anything about any diety.

Some people are born with blonde hair. Some dye it blonde because they like it and want their hair that way.

Some people I believe are born homosexual given genetics, chemical differences, whatever. Some people discover later in life they find the same sex more attractive and/or suitable, or just believe in an attraction to an individual regardless of their sex.

Regardless the reasons leading to, everyone should be respected and given the right to live their life in the manner they choose so long as it doesn't cause harm amongst others. Bush probably doesn't agree for religious reasons but he has no problem killing people.

Is there a half gay gene for bi-sexuals?

Is there a half gay gene for bi-sexuals?

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Let me just put it this way: What do you think society would be like with out morals?

I'm sure someone else already caught you on this, but I had to comment when I saw this remark made. You can have morals in the ABSENCE of religion. In fact, there's probably a better chance of it, since religion can be twisted in a way that can justify anything. The Muslims beheading people almost weekly over in Iraq are doing it under the guise of religion. That Christian group that was advocating the murder of gays was doing it under the guise of religion. Religion DOES NOT create morals, in fact, it seems to erode them.

I can be a good, upstanding person without ever having participated in any sort of religious activity (and I am).

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
[I can be a good, upstanding person without ever having participated in any sort of religious activity (and I am).

Thank you very much...dude u r not alone, I don't like religions that are all made up by some money lovers

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally posted by cyberdude78
The concept is that if a person knows they can break a law with out being caught then whats holding them back. Even if God really doesn't exist it's still nice having a nice set of morals to hold people back.

Are you suggesting that humans don't naturally have morals? Morals are not given by religion, they are given by humanity.

I'll agree that as a whole society develops morals on its own. Unfortunalty some individuals get greedy and feel that such morals don't apply to them. If a person feels that they can get away with something without getting caught by the police then they won't be punished. So if a person won't be punished than what will hold them back, maybe the threat of hell perhaps?

Anyhow sorry for sort of highjacking this thread. I wonder how this will affect the various policy's on gay marrige. Most likely if proven true it will force states to legalize marrige.

My 2 cents:

In my opinion, without having read this particular study: The idea of a gay gene is complete and utter rubbish.... same thing for the 'alcoholic' gene. Behaviors, including sexual preference, are not controlled by a single gene. If this were the case, everyone with the 'alcoholic' gene would be an alcoholic NECESSARILY. This is NOT the case. Scientists do have their own agenda to push, and the idea of objective science is a farce. For all we know the PI (principal investigator) of the study may have a gay son, or be gay themself and have an agenda. Scientists that make absolute correlations between behaviors and specific genes are full of &$^*. This is not to say that things like cystic fibrosis are not caused by a single gene, but this is not a behavior. The environmental dependence of genetic conditions can be easily proven for yourself. Look at two individuals with Down's syndrome: Both have the same genetic condition, an extra copy of a particular chromosome. However the manifestation of this disease runs the range from profoundly mentally disabled to slightly less than average intelligence. If genetic conditions are a some sort of certain 'sentence' how can one explain these two genetic anomalies: Down's Syndrome and alcoholism. I will clearly reiterate this for the record: There is no such thing as a 'gay' gene.

Wait, no religon, no morals? WTF? Why if there is no religon there is no morals? Is it just your religon or all? I don't get why you think that if proof that there is no one waiting to spank you when you die will cause people to cause crime, murder, rape, so forth? Strange.....

Anyways, even if their is no gay gene, they aren't hurting you, leave them alone!

This statement from the article would seem to argue AGAINST a 'gay gene," or a series of genes that cause gay traits:

They also noted that homosexual males often come from big families and are younger siblings with a number of older brothers.

The permutation of genotypes in a set of offspring is totally random. Younger children have no greater change of recieving a specific gene from a given couple of parents than the previous children did.

If it is indeed true that homosexuals often are younger siblings, then this is an excellent argument that a "gay outlook" is socially created by environment. Otherwise, how do your genes know your birth order?

Secondly,

Just because there is a gene "for" a certain behavior, doesn't mean that the individual is helpless in the face of the gene.

For example, many social scientists believe that alcoholism has a genetic vector. Yet we still hold alcoholics morally responsible for driving drunk. Similarly, people with a "genetic predisposition" for excessive testosterone are not allowed to be more agressive than others.

Humans choose their behavior, if not their genes. We are not robots.


Yet.

I noticed that this study came from Whitley Streiber's website. And then I remembered that he is gay. Many of the abductions he described in his book sounded more than a little like Freudian transference/inversion of sexual fantasies.

I am wondering if more homosexuals report alien abductions than the hetero population.

I have a theory about male homosexuality that I would like to share with people. Please read it and tell me your opinion. Here it is:

Male homosexuality is nothing more than 'inversion of control': Gay men still desire women deep down in their hearts, but something blocks them from expressing that desire. So instead of going out and get a woman for themselves, they assume the role of women themselves.

I think that gays, when fantasizing, think more about themselves as women than about their male partners. In other words, the center of their imagination during their fantasy is themselves as women, not the man that they make love with.

Straight men also fantasize about women, but they want to 'extract' female sexuality not out of themselves, about out of members of the other sex. Straight men are excited by a woman's feminine behaviour.

Gay men fantasize about women too, but they don't dare to 'extract' female sexuality out of others, but out of themselves. Gay men are still excited by a woman's feminine behaviour, but as applied to themselves and not to others.

I think that all men, gay and straight, have the female sexual prototype hardcoded as their pleasure target inside their mind. Straight men seek to find that pleasure target in women; gay men seek to find that pleasure target in themselves. Gay men suffer of 'inversion of control'.

I think that is the reason gay men like to be punished: the male sexuality is about 'punishing' females; straight men satisfy that instinct by applying their strength to women; gay men also satisfy the exact same instinct by letting others apply the male strength to them; but in both cases, the same rule of satisfaction applies: the female side must be punished.

I guess it is difficult to talk about such subjects, and it is also very difficult for people to reach a level of self-awareness that can help them think about themselves in such a way that they can understand where they stand...

but would it be too much to ask any homosexual that reads these lines if my theory is correct?

I bet that last post will offend just about everyone. Personally, I think there is an amount of truth in what you say, if the word "dominate" is used to edit over "punish." You begin to make all sex sound a bit purvy.

Before the APA was taken over by a gay agenda in the early 1970's, the diagnostic statistical model described homosexual behaviour (they were not trying to categorize "orientation," just overt behavior) as a constellation of traits that were a response to unfinished business in the interior world of the individual.

Personally, I am getting to the point where I don't believe in the existence of gay, bi, or straight "orientations." I guess I'm an existentialist at heart. You are only as gay or straight as your last sexual encounter, or your current desires. We all choose consentual sex, which means we as individuals pick what we will be. The genes may incline, but they do not impel.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

The genes may incline, but they do not impel.

Very eloquently stated. I couldn't agree more!

I bet that last post will offend just about everyone.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. I don't understand why my post was offensive though. I just tried to explain what goes inside a homosexual male.

Anyway, assuming I said 'dominate' instead of 'punish', what do you think of my theory? do you think that homosexuality is 'inversion of control'?

The key difference between a homosexual and a women could be that the woman thinks more of the man that she makes love with and has more 'love' feelings about him, while the homosexual thinks more of himself as a woman than his partner. I call that difference 'inversion of control'.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
This statement from the article would seem to argue AGAINST a 'gay gene," or a series of genes that cause gay traits:
They also noted that homosexual males often come from big families and are younger siblings with a number of older brothers.

The permutation of genotypes in a set of offspring is totally random. Younger children have no greater change of recieving a specific gene from a given couple of parents than the previous children did.

They're talking about the 'normal' gene being present in everyone, but, after carrying several male children, the mother develops 'anti-bodies' or 'immunity' to it, and transfers this immunity to the later male children. This suppressses 'not gay' and allows the child to be gay. Or something. Like a few people have been saying here, the idea of genes being so deterministic is garbage, and the scheme outlined above seems like special pleading or something.

Its interesting to read that some are suggesting that being Gay is not normal and one day there will be a cure for it, Gene therepy etc.

Up until recent years being Gay was looked down upon and many years ago gays were ostracised being banned from Army etc.

Now under Law Gays have rights and even employers advertise for Gays because they are "under represented" in the workplace (UK Police for instance).

One minute we are, (whether Religously or by Government) told being gay is bad and another we are to accept being Gay as normal.

Years ago Incest was a bad thing and people were ostracised and shunned. but many people think it is normal to fall in love with a family member even a sister or brother....

What am I getting at?

If I tell you I am Gay....What do you think?
If I told you I am in Love with my Brother/sister....What do you think?
If I tell you me and Uncle Billy/Aunty Jill are in love and have a secret relationship....What do you think?

At least if I am in love with my sister (If I am Male) we could have a child together?

What is normal?
Is going against the "norm" a bad thing?

??

Those of you who know my stance on this issue know that I am completely against the concept of a 'gay gene'. This is not because I actually care about anyone being hetero or homo, but rather because it would again hammer another nail in the coffin of humans having freewill. If sexual preference is not an ideal created and influenced through the interactions with the world throughout our lives, then it proves we never had a choice in the first place and therefore are NOT in control of ourselves.

Originally posted by the sandman

Its interesting to read that some are suggesting that being Gay is not normal

For my own part, i used the word 'normal' for its, well, normal usage. Gay isn't 'normal' insofar as its a minority of the population. I switched part way thru tho, because I do realize that its something of an issue to put it quite like that. I wouldn't say that gays are 'unhealthy' and can/should be cured because they aren't 'normal' in that sense tho.

Years ago Incest was a bad thing and people were ostracised and shunned. but many people think it is normal to fall in love with a family member even a sister or brother....

Uhmmmmmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the wild suggestion that incest is infact bad, disgusting, and wrong.

If I tell you I am Gay....What do you think?

Don't care.

If I told you I am in Love with my Brother/sister....What do you think?
If I tell you me and Uncle Billy/Aunty Jill are in love and have a secret relationship....What do you think?

I'm going to do something I don't normally do. Use a smiley.

At least if I am in love with my sister (If I am Male) we could have a child together?

Is going against the "norm" a bad thing?

If it involved banging your sister, yes doode, its a bad thing.