Womb conditions 'make men gay, wat about bi men then?

[little clown]

On the BBC News Website, The following article can be found:

Womb environment 'makes men gay (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm)

Whenever I read articles like these. It makes me wonder about a few things.

If conditions in the womb can indeed result in men being gay,
then how can one explain bisexuality in men?
And why focus on men?
I think it's kinda of funny how this type of research tends to focus exclusively on homosexuality.

Which brings me to the next set of questions:

Why does the origin of homosexuality have to be researched so often?
What does it matter what causes a person's sexual orientation?
IMO, sexual orientations don't need to be "justified".

What do you think about this kind of research?

Take care,
Dani

[Roan's Man]

" . . . sexual orientations (don't) need to be 'justified.' "

A hearty "Amen" to that, little clown!

(er, sorry, haven't learned how to use the quote feature.)

[littlerayofsunshine]

Its funny as to what people will waste money and effort in..


I just saw a blurb on the news this morning about a study that suggests that boys with older brothers are more likely to turn out gay or have gay tendencies.

Bah Humbug!!!

[little clown]

Hi Roan's Man

Thank you for pointing out that I'd written doesn't instead of don't.

I've got a sleeping disorder and sleep deprivation is proving to have a very bad effect on my English.
I've corrected the mistake.

About the quoting; as you write a reply, highlight the text you wish to quote with your mouse .
Above the text field there are several buttons. Press the button on the right.
The one that looks a little like a comic book text balloon to "quote"a text.

Take care,
Dani

[ScifiBiJen]

I have some biopsych and scinece knowledge, but I'm in no way an expert on any of this. My own :2cents: on the issue :



If conditions in the womb can indeed result in men being gay,
then how can one explain bisexuality in men?
They possibly can't. Science is much better at studying binary systems... the work in determining the exact hormone correlation between a 2 and a 3 on the Kinsey scale would probably be impossible.


And why focus on men?
Because male fetuses/babies have an interest in achieving a different hormone balance that the hormones in the mother's blood. While both males and females have estrogen and testosterone, the balance is different and that can be detected. For female fetuses, it would be a lot harder to understand changes, since the blood will be so much more similar to the mother's.


Why does the origin of homosexuality have to be researched so often?
What does it matter what causes a person's sexual orientation?
Jump over to the thread on "curing homosexuality"... or watch X-Men 3. If they find the root of what makes someone "deviant" from societal "norm", the next step may be to see if that can be altered.


IMO, sexual orientations doesn't need to be "justified".
I agree entirely.
Again, I could be entirely wrong on the above. This is just my understanding of the matter.

:flag1:

[JohnnyV]

On the BBC News Website, The following article can be found:

Womb environment 'makes men gay (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm)

Whenever I read articles like these. It makes me wonder about a few things.

If conditions in the womb can indeed result in men being gay,
then how can one explain bisexuality in men?
And why focus on men?
I think it's kinda of funny how this type of research tends to focus exclusively on homosexuality.

Which brings me to the next set of questions:

Why does the origin of homosexuality have to be researched so often?
What does it matter what causes a person's sexual orientation?
IMO, sexual orientations don't need to be "justified".

What do you think about this kind of research?

Take care,
Dani

:eek: Okay, I PROMISE I will not go on for too long about this --- (crosses fingers behind his back).

I agree with Littleray that it is a waste of time to determine what causes homosexuality. But here, in short,a re the reasons why it is researched so often:

--Gay and lesbian advocates are convinced that if they can use science to identify a cause for their orientation, they can then claim to be a distinct group of people, like African Americans or Jews, with claims to cultural heritage and a right to legal protection for equal rights.

Much of this has to do with American legal history, and specifically the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which were passed during and after the Civil War (1861-1865). These amendments (1) abolished black slavery, (2) made it impossible to deny people the right to vote, or suffrage, based on race, thereby making Blacks citizens, and (3) forced government to offer "equal protection under the laws."

"Equal protection under the laws" regardless of race became the foundation for a long struggle in the United States, against racism. It was a long, bitter fight, through the Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc., and culminated in the breakthroughs of the 1950s and 1960s, when courts finally ruled that it violated "equal protection" to send blacks to different schools, to ignore lynching, to allow the KKK to flourish without stopping them, to make voting conditions harder in black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, etc....

Basically, by the 1970s, "de jure" racism -- or racism carried out with the coercive power of government -- was over. Americans had to deal with "de facto" racism, or in other words, inequalities that result from people's actions outside of the laws themselves.

Okay, so, what does this have to do with gay and lesbian research? A LOT. Gay advocates look at the long struggle over black rights and they say, "I want our struggle to be just like that!" So they have a specific agenda, which is to reach the point where "de jure" homophobia is gone.

Currently, homophobia is not only de facto, but also de jure, since there are state laws that ban gay marriages, that do not enforce anti-discrimination laws against groups like the Boy Scouts for excluding gays, etc....

Gays get furious and say "when will this end????" I want equal protection now!

As a result of the rightful rage from gay groups, there is a search for the right rhetorical argument, one that can repeat the successful eradication of de jure racism:

--(1) It must be clear that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather, an innate characteristic like skin color over which gays have no control.

--(2) It must be clear that anti-gay laws create unequal conditions; i.e., that a member of the homosexual group will experience hardships above and beyond a straight person.

--(3) #2 must be such a violation of the federal constitution that action by a higher court must be authorized to overturn all the anti-gay laws that have been passed, at local levels, by popular referendum. Remember that in MOST STATES in the US, a majority of voting citizens have already voted to outlaw gay marriage. So the fight has to be waged through the courts, not through voting.

Step back and think -- Wow! All that legal and political mumbo jumbo depends upon scientists proving #1; otherwise the entire project collapses.

That explains why people are so frantic about finding a cause.

------

Okay -- now my view on it. :2cents: I think gay advocates have become wedded to the approach outlined above, but I don't think it's the right approach.

First, because I do not believe that sexuality is an innate characteristic.

Second, I do not believe that homosexuals are a distinct race of people, in any way comparable to African Americans. After all, we bisexuals exist, making everything complicated and messy. There were, all along, people who were racially mixed, but in the United States, the precedent was the "one drop" rule, which dictated that one drop of black blood made you black and overrode your white ancestry. Sexuality would be impossible to legislate into categories in that way (and would you want to, ever?)

Third, I think that gay advocates are mistaken in believing that their struggle will be won by presenting themselves as a race. Hello!!!!!! Africans were enslaved worldwide from 1450 to 1888, people!!! The Civil War ended in 1865, but the last antimiscegenation laws were only overturned 100 years later!!! And there is still massive inequality between blacks and whites (remember Hurricane Katrina?) Do YOU want to wait that long for gay rights?

Just my 4,596 cents worth. Now I'll shut up.

SMOOCHES,
J

[KatieBi]

I have some biopsych and scinece knowledge, but I'm in no way an expert on any of this. My own :2cents: on the issue :


They possibly can't. Science is much better at studying binary systems... the work in determining the exact hormone correlation between a 2 and a 3 on the Kinsey scale would probably be impossible.


Because male fetuses/babies have an interest in achieving a different hormone balance that the hormones in the mother's blood. While both males and females have estrogen and testosterone, the balance is different and that can be detected. For female fetuses, it would be a lot harder to understand changes, since the blood will be so much more similar to the mother's.


Jump over to the thread on "curing homosexuality"... or watch X-Men 3. If they find the root of what makes someone "deviant" from societal "norm", the next step may be to see if that can be altered.


I agree entirely.
Again, I could be entirely wrong on the above. This is just my understanding of the matter.

:flag1:


Also having a science background, I wanted to add another :2cents:

First off, I'm on board with SFJen up till the part about "curing homosexuality". I agree that some people probably conduct or get funded for this kind of research to biologically determine the cause of bi/homosexuality with the ultimate goal of finding some "cure"... but knowing lots of researchers myself, I can also say that many of us are in science because we are (biologically/genetically) curious people who are driven to answer the question "why?" about all the really interesting questions and aspects of human life and our universe.

In my humble opinion, there aren't many questions more interesting from both a human and scientific perspective than those dealing with love. Why and how do we fall in love with other people? What drives a parent or lover to sacrifice their own life for the life of their beloved? Do all people experience love in the same way, or is the "chemistry of love" always a very individual experience? Why do some people seem unable to find/sustain the kind of abiding, fulfilling love that many (I think/hope) dream of finding? I think it is highly unfair that approaching this question should only be left to the philosophers, anthropologists, and theologians ... science should be allowed to take a stab at these big issues too!

I understand why these kinds of findings are really threatening to read in the local newspaper; we all know that these kinds of studies can be used by ultra-conservatives against non-str8s. But, like most products of science (when conducted properly), the findings are, in and of themselves, not inherently good or bad - it's how they are used/interpretted. For instance, you could use the same study to say that since there is obviously a biological basis for, in this case, homosexuality in men, it is not some sort of "deviant choice" but as natural/predetermined as brown eye color or "attached" earlobes. It's only the value judgements we apply to these characteristics afterwords that can be dangerous.

[meteast chick]

:eek: Okay, I PROMISE I will not go on for too long about this --- (crosses fingers behind his back).

Wow, Johnny, very well said, my friend. I often wonder why laboratories spend millions of taxpayer dollars for seemingly meaningless tests, but when you step back and look at it, some of them have meaning, and you have clearly illustrated that. I wouldn't put gay rights quite in the same category as racism/civil rights either, but what category does it belong in? All this nurture v nature stuff is shite. IMO, it's something that is born-in. What causes it? I have no idea. If research in the name of gay rights is necessary, then I say go for it!

luv and kisses,
xoxoxoxo
meteast

[Roan's Man]

Little Clown -- nice thread and thanks for the tip. I wasn't trying to be an arse; used to be a writer/editor in an earlier life and old habits just taken over.

[little clown]

Hi All,


If conditions in the womb can indeed result in men being gay, then how can one explain bisexuality in men?

I wrote this sentence, because the way I see it, the very existence of bisexuality undermines the conclusions of the type of research mentioned in the BBC article.

Genetically inherited "trades", pre-natal conditions, an individual's upbringing...
It may be one factor that causes a person's sexual orientation, it may be a combination of different things.
I think it may be caused by something different in different people.
As you already know, I don't really care what causes someone to be bi, homosexual or asexual.
Access to equal rights for people of all sexual orientations is far more important to me.


And why focus on men?


Originally posted by ScifiBiJen
Because male fetuses/babies have an interest in achieving a different hormone balance that the hormones in the mother's blood. While both males and females have estrogen and testosterone, the balance is different and that can be detected. For female fetuses, it would be a lot harder to understand changes, since the blood will be so much more similar to the mother's.

I know about the "hormone boost" a male fetus is supposed to 'receive' in the womb, that is to encourage the growth of male genitalia and result in male gender identity, but for some reason, when I read the BBC article, I though that the reason this type of research focuses on men is because homosexuality in men tends to be less socially accepted than homosexuality in women.


Originally posted by JohnnyV
Gay and lesbian advocates are convinced that if they can use science to identify a cause for their orientation, they can then claim to be a distinct group of people, like African Americans or Jews, with claims to cultural heritage and a right to legal protection for equal rights.

I'm aware that several gay activists are desperately trying to prove that homosexuality is genetically determined or caused by a pre-natal event and their reasons for doing this, but I wonder if they actually represent the majority of the 'gay community.
I can imagine there a lot of gays and lesbians who are growing impatient and do not wish to wait until there is conclusive evidence about what makes them gay/lesbian, bi, etc.
(Assuming this can be proven, which I doubt.)

or as JohnnyV puts it:


Gays get furious and say "when will this end????" I want equal protection now!

I can also imagine that some people (regardless of their sexual orientation), think:
"Hey, wait a minute, don't you dare tell me that I was born this way, I choose to be like this, okay!"

Some gays and lesbians who feel this way must surely be annoyed by the fact that the very people who claim to represent them
are the ones who are trying to spread the idea that homosexuality is determined before birth.


Originally posted by Roan's Man
Little Clown -- nice thread and thanks for the tip. I wasn't trying to be an arse; used to be a writer/editor in an earlier life and old habits just taken over.

I'm glad you like the thread ....it's my first . ;)

Don't worry ...actually, I was glad you made me aware of my mistake.
I see that in another post, I've written sleeping disorder, when I should have written sleep disorder. I hate it when I make silly mistakes like that!! I'm sure that this post is full of typo's and grammatical errors as well. My English is primarily self-taught (I'm Dutch), so I'm bound to make mistaken anyway,
but when I am tired or when I have migraine, I get major problems with language. (Even my Dutch is bad at the moment.)
Anyway, thank you for correcting me, feel free to do it again, I'm in no way insulted by it!

Take care,
Dani

[BiBiologist]

I agree very much with KatieBi, and I will also quote myself from another thread for those who haven't read it:


I have seen a good parable on a PBS kids TV show. It's about two farmers, best friends, working in their adjacent fields with a path in between. A lady walks by on the path and says hello to each. I can't remember the names so I'll call them Ray and Guy. Ray comments what a lovely red hat the lady was wearing. Guy looks at his friend and says, "Yes, it was a lovely hat, but it was green." They fight all day about the color of the hat, until the lady walks by again, going back the other direction. Then Ray says, "I'm so sorry, my friend, you were right, the hat was green." Guy says, "Oh, no, it was you who were right, Ray, the hat was red." Finally, they realize that the hat was green on one side, and red on the other. So both Ray and Guy were right, each from their own perspective, but neither was right to think that the whole hat was one color. Not being able to see the other side of the hat, they made an assumption about it that turned out not to be true.

We all make inferences based on our own perspectives, our own feelings and experiences. I'm certainly guilty of that. I think that the hat story applies to this situation in that there are people who, based on their life's experiences or circumstances have chosen to be bisexual or gay/lesbian. And there are those who feel inside them that they have no choice in who they are attracted to. There are both kinds of people and we need to trust and accept each other's perspectives, and agree that we all need to be allowed to take the paths that feel most comfortable to each of us.

So the problem is here, in first agreeing that both choice and in-born homosexuality and bisexuality may exist, and then how to promote "de jure" acceptability for both, for which we will need to enlist the studies of scientists, historians, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists... The reasons may be multiple and the orientations on a gradient in terms of genetics, biology, intellect, and environment, and there is nothing wrong with spending money for a knowledge of all those things, so that everybody can be exposed to all sides of the issue--all sides of the "hat."

[JohnnyV]

I agree very much with KatieBi, and I will also quote myself from another thread for those who haven't read it:



So the problem is here, in first agreeing that both choice and in-born homosexuality and bisexuality may exist, and then how to promote "de jure" acceptability for both, for which we will need to enlist the studies of scientists, historians, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists... The reasons may be multiple and the orientations on a gradient in terms of genetics, biology, intellect, and environment, and there is nothing wrong with spending money for a knowledge of all those things, so that everybody can be exposed to all sides of the issue--all sides of the "hat."

Sam!!! Welcome back! I hope your summer is going well. I bet my wife $5 that this post was going to bring you back to the forum. I'm so glad to see (hear) your voice again.

J

[BiBiologist]

Thanks Johnny!
I'm honored to be worth a $5 bet! Just had some free moments this afternoon and had to check in. Hope y'all's summer is going well too!
sam

[Driver 8]

I will never get over the irony of Christians saying "Gays (etc.) have a choice, and therefore they don't deserve legal protection." Last I checked, you have a choice to be Christian, and discrimination on the basis of religion is still illegal. :2cents:

[NightHawk]

Johnny V,

Your perspective on the broader agenda of some in the gay community to duplicate the path of African Americans to equal rights was very interesting and well-written. I suspect, however, that for most people who wish to see the bias against homosexuality ended, the agenda is much simpler. If it can be shown that homosexuality is determined at birth as in your Point 1, then several moral issues become very simple.

First, if a homosexual does not become homosexual as a result of their own choice or a series of choices, then they are not immoral by virtue of making immoral choices. Sure, Christians might say that they suffer from a peculiar form of Original Sin, but few people actually worry very much about that, since it does not differentiate people. I think the idea of Original Sin is disgraceful, but that is because it affects the life decisions people make who believe in it. Nonetheless, it is a different thing to be viewed as bad due to the exercise of moral choice than to be viewed as simply having a bad nature. We judge the lioness who kills an antelope quite differently from a man who kills another man because he wants to steal his leather jacket. When choice plays a role in our sexuality, then moral issues do come to the foreground. One may, as I do, see those moral issues in a very different light than say that of Fundamentalist Christianity, but there are then moral issues to be carefully evaluated. And, of course, there is only the hope of a long-term evolution of a society's viewpoint of these moral issues then.

Another aspect is this: If homosexuality is a function of environment or how one is raised, then the family of the homosexual person is also guilty of shortcomings if one of their own is homosexual. There are numerous family members who would like to think that they are in no way at fault.

Personally, I am inclined to suspect that the sexuality of individuals is commonly a result of an incredible interplay of many factors, which likely do include the chemistry of the womb, genetics, other biochemical conditions that develop over a lifetime, one's ability to feel and enjoy various sexual activities, one's imagination, and the choices one makes. Some people may be heavily influenced by the biochemistry issues, while others may not be. In general, many bisexuals may have rather intermediate biochemical conditions, while some may just have great imaginations and a very great ability to enjoy the pleasures of sex. Individuals are complex and there is little about individuals that is more complex than who they are interested in, who they love, and how they love.

[NightHawk]

As a scientist, it is hardly surprising that I am of the same opinion as KatieBi and BiBiologist (Sam) on the desirability of understanding the science as far as it applies of the sexuality of human beings. There is much to be gained by understanding most things. The more we understand, the more we are likely to use that understanding to evaluate the people around us, rather than simple moral prejudices developed thousands of years ago. Without the science, everyone's opinion is about as good as anyone else's. The earth-centered universe is then as valid as a universe in which the earth rotates about the Sun and the Sun is simply one of billions of stars distributed over huge distances. Without science, the man is ill is ill because God thought that he had transgressed, not because his body has been invaded by a bacteria or virus infection. Knowledge affects how we evaluate things greatly. More knowledge is broadly desirable. Of course, this puts me at odds with the idea that Eve's partaking of the Apple from the Tree of Knowledge was wrong. No real God would ever think such nonsense. Man without knowledge is too boring to believe.

[NightHawk]

Hi Sam,

You are one of my favorite people already. I hope you are having a great time with your children being home from school. At the same time, I hope you will have more moments when you can visit us here. I have missed you.

After all, you are a loving parent, a scientist, a romantic, and a thinking person. This is an all too rare combination, but tops in my book.

[JohnnyV]

Johnny V,

Your perspective on the broader agenda of some in the gay community to duplicate the path of African Americans to equal rights was very interesting and well-written. I suspect, however, that for most people who wish to see the bias against homosexuality ended, the agenda is much simpler. If it can be shown that homosexuality is determined at birth as in your Point 1, then several moral issues become very simple.

First, if a homosexual does not become homosexual as a result of their own choice or a series of choices, then they are not immoral by virtue of making immoral choices. Sure, Christians might say that they suffer from a peculiar form of Original Sin, but few people actually worry very much about that, since it does not differentiate people. I think the idea of Original Sin is disgraceful, but that is because it affects the life decisions people make who believe in it. Nonetheless, it is a different thing to be viewed as bad due to the exercise of moral choice than to be viewed as simply having a bad nature. We judge the lioness who kills an antelope quite differently from a man who kills another man because he wants to steal his leather jacket. When choice plays a role in our sexuality, then moral issues do come to the foreground. One may, as I do, see those moral issues in a very different light than say that of Fundamentalist Christianity, but there are then moral issues to be carefully evaluated. And, of course, there is only the hope of a long-term evolution of a society's viewpoint of these moral issues then.

Another aspect is this: If homosexuality is a function of environment or how one is raised, then the family of the homosexual person is also guilty of shortcomings if one of their own is homosexual. There are numerous family members who would like to think that they are in no way at fault.

Personally, I am inclined to suspect that the sexuality of individuals is commonly a result of an incredible interplay of many factors, which likely do include the chemistry of the womb, genetics, other biochemical conditions that develop over a lifetime, one's ability to feel and enjoy various sexual activities, one's imagination, and the choices one makes. Some people may be heavily influenced by the biochemistry issues, while others may not be. In general, many bisexuals may have rather intermediate biochemical conditions, while some may just have great imaginations and a very great ability to enjoy the pleasures of sex. Individuals are complex and there is little about individuals that is more complex than who they are interested in, who they love, and how they love.

Well said, Night Hawk. I'll add a little to what you've said. My view, I think, does not conflict with yours as much as it may seem at first glance. If you step back and appreciate the fact that we both seek, ultimately, a state of sexual fulfillment for as many people as possible, then the debate about choice or nature can be relegated to a cosmetic detail.

I think any belief system that reduces our identity or actions to things outside of our control is an assault on our freedom and our self-determination. To me the highest human form is the person who lives by his own rules, claiming his right to define good and evil as he sees fit. As a Christian, I take an optional addition to this belief system, saying that each person has to arbitrate his moral system directly with the deity in which he believes. Nobody but a God can impose morality on us, and ultimately, we are the only ones qualified to interpret our God's vision for our individualized moral structure.

If you choose not to believe in God, I applaud you, even though I believe in God. You've made a choice and exercised self-determination where religion is concerned. That's something that I admire, and I believe God admires it too.

I hear you loud and clear about the benefits of saying sexuality isn't a choice and therefore exonerating everybody involved of any inadequacy. But to me that sounds too much like saying "the devil made me do it." Eventually that instills, in yourself, an infantilized self-image. It's addictive to be constantly cleared of any responsibility for what you are doing. I've seen it firsthand among the gay men with whom I spent most of my 20s. It starts with "I didn't choose to be gay." Then comes, "I can't help being attracted only to gorgeous men who treat me like crap." Then comes, "I can't help wanting to have anal sex without a condom." Then comes, "I can't help giving this virus to other people....." I witnessed this destructive sequence firsthand, with dozens of men I still care deeply about. When you claim you are not choosing your sex life, you increase the likelihood that you won't be fully in control of yourself in the sex life you end up in. And sex does not mix well with impaired self-control.

There were countless gay men I admired. They were the ones who didn't justify themselves. They lived. They had things figured out for themselves and answered only to their own conscience. 99 times out of 100, people like that had a functional conscience that successfully kept them from hurting themselves or other people with their choices. These were the gays I knew who said, "leave me alone" and "this is my decision," rather than "please pity me for what I am helpless to change about myself." Do you see the difference? Ultimately the choosers were more ethical, in my view, than the pity seekers, especially where AIDs was concerned. Those who felt in command of their sexuality and perceived it as their personal choice had the mental presence to put on a condom and avoid spreading the virus. Their life was something they felt they had built, and it was too precious to squander. Those who felt at the mercy of fate tended to view their life as second-best, and they didn't have enough self-love to protect themselves or others.

I think gays and bisexuals need to relish what they do. They should develop the strength of character to embrace the way of life they have chosen for themselves. They should demonstrate the confidence to say, "this is the life I choose" and ignore those who condemn them.

The minute you respond to other people's condemnation by explaining yourself, by saying "it's not my fault," you capitulate tacitly to the other people's moral system. You accept a second-class citizenship inside their moral community, in exchange for a badge of innocence.

While a lot of what I've just written may seem pedantic and far-removed from people's everyday lives, I am sincerley basing all of this on what I have seen happen among everyday people. It is so hard to instill true pride in people who believe that forces of nature forced them into a lifestyle. It is much easier to see pride in people who say that they chose to live the way they wanted, and "fuck you if you don't approve."

J

[Lorcan]

I hear you loud and clear about the benefits of saying sexuality isn't a choice and therefore exonerating everybody involved of any inadequacy. But to me that sounds too much like saying "the devil made me do it." Eventually that instills, in yourself, an infantilized self-image. It's addictive to be constantly cleared of any responsibility for what you are doing. I've seen it firsthand among the gay men with whom I spent most of my 20s. It starts with "I didn't choose to be gay." Then comes, "I can't help being attracted only to gorgeous men who treat me like crap." Then comes, "I can't help wanting to have anal sex without a condom." Then comes, "I can't help giving this virus to other people....."

What you are and what you do are two separate things. I am bisexual. I, for one, was born bisexual. I did not choose to feel attraction to both sexes. But i can choose not to have sex with men. I can choose not to have sex with woman. I can choose whether to use a condom or not. You can be born gay, and choose not to have sex at all, but wouldn't that be lonely.

I agree with the scientists because i have a very left brained mind who wants to make rational sense of things. I would like to know why i am bisexual and transgendered. Was it hormones? Am I a genetic chimera?

[little clown]

Hi


Originally posted by BiBologist
So the problem is here, in first agreeing that both choice and in-born homosexuality and bisexuality may exist, and then how to promote "de jure" acceptability for both, for which we will need to enlist the studies of scientists, historians, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists... The reasons may be multiple and the orientations on a gradient in terms of genetics, biology, intellect, and environment, and there is nothing wrong with spending money for a knowledge of all those things, so that everybody can be exposed to all sides of the issue--all sides of the "hat."


Originally posted by Lorcan
I agree with the scientists because i have a very left brained mind who wants to make rational sense of things. I would like to know why i am bisexual and transgendered. Was it hormones? Am I a genetic chime

Although I feel perfectly comfortable about being bi, without feeling the need to understand why I am bi, I understand the desire to find out why you are bi.
Hey ... I'd like to see all questions on all existing subjects in the universe answered.
Although it wouldn't change everyday life in any way, I'd love to know if the universe itself is finite or infinite, I wonder just how many hominids have proceeded Homo sapiens, how many hominids were out there that we aren't directly related to, I wish I knew what the exact function of the appendix is in humans and yes, I occasionally wonder about the nature of the various sexual orientations.....
There's no such thing as possessing too much knowledge. Not on any subject. Doing research that can help us gain knowledge on a subject isn't a waste of money.
However, I feel that finding out the origin of the various sexual orientations shouldn't be a requirement for the extension of equal civil rights to couples of all sexual orientations.

In my home country, we are no closer to realizing what makes people gay, asexual, straight or bi than people anywhere else on the planet, but unlike most other countries, we do have same sex marriage.


Originally posted by Nighthawk.
Your perspective on the broader agenda of some in the gay community to duplicate the path of African Americans to equal rights was very interesting and well-written. I suspect, however, that for most people who wish to see the bias against homosexuality ended, the agenda is much simpler. If it can be shown that homosexuality is determined at birth as in your Point 1, then several moral issues become very simple.

I'm an atheist, which is a bad thing to be in the USA, but fortunately for me, in the Netherlands, atheists are not seen as the personification of evil.
Perhaps it's my atheism, but I don't see why a persons sexual orientation is has to be a moral issue.


Originally posted by JohnnyV
If you choose not to believe in God, I applaud you, even though I believe in God. You've made a choice and exercised self-determination where religion is concerned. That's something that I admire, and I believe God admires it too.

Obviously, I don't believe there is a god that can admire me for anything, but thanks anyway.... ;)

Take care,
Dani

[DÆMØN]

Human chimeras are not unnatural. For example, most mothers carry some cells from each of their children in their blood and most twins carry some cells from their sibling twins. ...

... So yeah I can see the horomone angle in some respects... Further understanding of embryonic events would be neccessary before any real conclusions could be drawn up... this also could present a case for psychological issues as well. Still its another explanation, thats plausable... hmmm.... a job for Mythbusters Tv ?

[DÆMØN]

Human chimeras are not unnatural. For example, most mothers carry some cells from each of their children in their blood and most twins carry some cells from their sibling twins. ...

... So yeah I can see the horomone angle in some respects... Further understanding of embryonic events would be neccessary before any real conclusions could be drawn up... this also could present a case for psychological issues as well. Still its another explanation, thats plausable... hmmm.... a job for Mythbusters Tv ?

And anyways I'm the kind that says " fuck you if you don't approve. " heh. I don't need to justify my sexuality to relegionists and other pseudo authority figures. This life is MINE, I'll live it as I please; after all it only happens once per lifetime.

[macphisto]

Again, I'm another with a scientific background and want to throw my :2cents: in the ring. Firstly, can I address the whole nature vs. nuture thing. Whenever I have to find out which one of two things is affecting a complex system I am working on, nine times of ten, both have an influence, and I think this is the case here.
There is alot of scientific evidence to support nature - for the simple reason that it is easier to classify and quantify. There are less variables.
However, someone's upbringing it a hell of a lot more complicated. And people are unreliable - they lie and forget. Also, if you allow the two variables to interact, then you have even more complications!
For example, there could be a genetic predeposition to being gay if brought up in one manner, but which may never raise itself it brought up in a different manner.
Through my brief enough career in science I have found one thing, you can fill a barn with what you can explain with science, but there is still a whole world outside that barn that can't be.
This is a complex problem and like most in nature - can never be proved. You can only formulate a theory, and through scientific history (apart from mathematical truths), when a theory becomes established, somebody inevitably challenges it successfully, or refines it.
One thing though - it is worthwhile. Most of the fear and hatred in this world comes from one thing - ingorance. If you increase the amount of knowledge available about a subject, you may stop at least one person hating that thing.

[KatieBi]

What you are and what you do are two separate things. I am bisexual. I, for one, was born bisexual. I did not choose to feel attraction to both sexes. But i can choose not to have sex with men. I can choose not to have sex with woman. I can choose whether to use a condom or not. You can be born gay, and choose not to have sex at all, but wouldn't that be lonely.

I'm with you Lorcan! But I do not disagree with the opinion you have of folks who blame their irresponsible *acts* on some genetically or environmentally determined biology, Johnny V.

Many wise biologists after me have also made a point that I neglected to make ... that most things we look at in biology respond to the combination of both genes and environment ... but other people have said it more eloquently than me already. So in the interest of brevity ...

Am I the only one who is now wondering how many bi scientists frequent this site?

[softfruit]

For me, all one needs to know about the scientists involved in this is that they are starting from the premise that whether sexual orientation is nature or nurture, we are all heterosexual until something "goes wrong".

Despite - and without doing comparison to - the oodles of bisexuality across the rest of nature.

When they start researching from the basis of "how come despite the fact they could acheive orgasm with someone of any gender, millions of people arbitrarily discount 3 billion potential partners", I'll start thinking they might have enough of a clue at the start of their work that what they come up with at the end of it could have some validity.

[BiBiologist]

NightHawk,
Again I thank you. You have added several important points as well, and I'm glad you're here!

Johnny,
With utmost respect, there are a few points you have seemed to disregard while clinging to your own set of experiences. First, you have not acknowledged the possibility that orientation, that is, the state of being attracted to either one's own sex, the opposite sex, or both genders, is biologically determined; that one's orientation may be present at birth. I understand your theory that sexual behavior is 100% choice, but I don't believe I've ever read in any of your posts that any of us have a sexual orientation that is separate from behavior. Do you not believe there is such a thing as sexual orientation?

Secondly, if you do not acknowledge that orientation exists, you disregard not only some good scientific evidence but also the assertions of a large number of people who have posted on this site. Many of us, many very stable, intelligent, lucid people feel we know our own bodies and minds. We feel after years of life, experience, and education that we had no control over the attractions we have had, some of us feeling these attractions before we were even old enough to understand sexuality, morality, or choices. We do not look for pity, we just know this as a fact of our existence. We don't see it as an excuse for our behavior, but a reason for choosing a particular way of life. Many of these people are in alternate lifestyles that do no harm to anyone, and are not like those friends you describe. You reject the honest assessments of all these very stable, intelligent, lucid people in favor of believing that your experiences with a few friends typifies the whole community of people who believe their orientation is inborn.

Thirdly, how would it hurt you if it were proven that some people's sexual orientation (yes, maybe everybody's) is inborn? Not doing the research doesn't make the truth go away, and you are still welcome to assert that behavior is a choice. But Johnny, buddy, you might need to acknowledge that your friends are not good examples and we are not all like them. You may fear that the belief in inborn orientation will lead to a slippery slope of bad behavior or unhappiness that you have seen in your friends, but many of us see it leading to less ignorance, greater acceptance, an easier time coming out, and our families feeling better.

Softfruit,
I know many scientists start with a premise, but that is sometimes just based on the level of knowledge of the times in which they live. If they ignore previous work, then it's just bad science. That's why I think the best way to get some understanding is through a compendium of disciplines.

little clown
The article you posted at the beginning of the thread really isn't too bad, and the point is not that you have to have older brothers to be gay, but that social factors in being raised with older brothers does not make a boy gay. The scientist clearly states that this is not a biological study in saying, "But the question of mechanism remains." It is just one nugget that contributes to the weight of evidence for a biological basis for sexual orientation. And there may be multiple factors, like genetics and/or womb conditions. Not saying orientation needs to be "justified," but in a practical sense I believe we would be better off if it were better understood.
sam

[NightHawk]

BiBiologist Sam,

Thank you for your good points in response to Johnny V's post. Thanks for being so gracious in welcoming my individualistic presence here! I have been a bit spare in my participation lately due to an overwhelming influx of work at my lab, so I was delighted to find one of your few recent posts. I hope you have a great summer.

Johnny V,

Basically, the scope of human choice is broad and this is wonderful. Most all of us make many, many choices a day and most all of us make such a volume of choices that this would of itself make us incredibly complex and unique individuals. This is good and yes, we do bare responsibility for the choices we make. We should be willing to shoulder the consequences of those choices, since we made them. In most aspects of our lives, the choices we make tend to dominate who we are and who we become. We largely make ourselves to be who we want to be. Of course, some people just want to be who they think other people will like, so they forfeit many choices to what they think other people would have them choose. But, doing this is a choice too.

So clearly I am not a determinist. Yet, I do understand that human beings have a nature and that nature places limits on us. I may wish to fly simply by flapping my arms, but it is simply not going to happen. I might wish that understanding foreign languages came easily to me, but that will never be the case. For me, all the words run together and there is no hope of separating them. Sad, but it is my nature. I have one daughter who at 2 days old and ever since has always been impatient and another who similarly has always been too laid back and too patient. This is a part of the nature each came into this world as. I believe Sam when she says she was always attracted to women. It is a part of her nature. I have always simply been attracted to good people, though that attraction was not particularly sexual until I was in my 20s. Odd, but true. Perhaps a pesky part of my innate individual nature from birth? Perhaps hard to say, but why not? Was this why I did not have strong urges to have sex with the easy girls as a teenager when so many of my friends did? Maybe, I simply did not have the chemical driving forces that others often have. Maybe, once I found the pleasures of sex with someone I like were so great, this made it possible and even easy for me to think of sex with anyone I really like, while others really are only able to enjoy it with one gender or the other. Both from introspection and from the observation of others, I really do think people have individual natures and that some of this nature is innate. I can be a good long-distance runner, but I could never be a good sprinter or a good high jumper. You need more fast-twitch muscle for those activities. Instead, I have the endurance muscle. So, I am prepared to believe that some people are only attracted to the same gender, some only to the opposite gender, and some others in varying degree are attracted to both genders.

These differences do not relieve us of making many choices that affect our happiness and that may affect other people. Those choices are difficult, so it is wise to approach them on the basis of principles based on a moral code. I try to develop these on a rational basis by an assessment of the nature of man and how man must act to control his environment to make his life both secure and happy. Others turn to a religion, though I think those religions were commonly primitive attempts by man to develop moral principles to live by with some real elements of rational assessment. Moses wrote a number of pretty decent commandments before giving them to the Hebrews. Allowing for the time at which Moses wrote the Commandments, he did a respectable job. A tribe that followed his commandments would have some real advantages over tribes that did not. His moral code was worth something. We can do a bit better today and we do not have to attribute our moral code to a God.

If there is a God, I feel pretty confident that he appreciates rational people more than blind followers. The man using his mind is no doubt more interesting and more respected than is the mere crowd follower or the person who finds moral issues so complex that he would rather just adopt a popular moral code than be responsible for thinking one out himself.

I am not personally saying that it is critical to say that gay people have no choice about their sexuality. There are moral questions that are thereby simplified, but even the more complex issue of bisexuality is in my opinion one where the burden of proof that it is wrong cannot be handled by those opposed to bisexuality. The issues are more complex, but in the end it is not unhealthy or emotionally debilitating to love and to have sex with both genders. On the contrary, it seems to me that it is a good thing rather than a bad thing. Indeed, people have a habit of saving their greatest taboos for those things that are tempting to the rational person who simply wishes to achieve happiness. If something really is bad, then people are more likely to give you rational reasons why it is bad.

little clown - It is not always the Christians or theists who demand that homosexuals prove that they are not immoral. I have heard a number of arguments based purely on evolution or upon man's need to procreate. They are wrong, but they are certainly made, even by atheists. Personally, I think that those who would say that an act or that someone is immoral has the obligation to prove that this is the case. If they cannot do this on a rational basis, then their opinion is worth little attention.

[BI BOYTOY]

i heard the same on the evenig news i also would like to know the same thing

[OralBradley]

This seems, at least in part, to be a rehash of some earlier research. The thesis was that the presense of male hormones in the womb engendered antibodies that fought late male foetuses went through the masculizaning process and increased the probablity that the child would be gay. That may work in some cases, but it is certainly not a guarantee. I am the second some and bisexual, but my brother was also gay for a part of his life. In the case of my grandsons, the older is gay and the younger straight, belying the theory.
I that that, in all probability, both nature and nurture play a part in a person's sexuality (as well as other personality traits). Not only am I bisexual, and my grandson gay, but I have a niece who is lesbian. In that our early lives were very different, there is anecdotal evidence of nature taking some part in our sexuality. It is interesting to note, howeer, that the "gay gene" skipped one generation (neither of my sons is gay), but did hit a daughter of my sister.

[little clown]

Originally posted by NightHawk
little clown - It is not always the Christians or theists who demand that homosexuals prove that they are not immoral. I have heard a number of arguments based purely on evolution or upon man's need to procreate. They are wrong, but they are certainly made, even by atheists. Personally, I think that those who would say that an act or that someone is immoral has the obligation to prove that this is the case. If they cannot do this on a rational basis, then their opinion is worth little attention.


Hi NightHawk,

Don't worry, I know it's not just religious people who think negatively about non-heterosexual people. I didn't mean to say that atheists can't be bigots. Several atheists are. And there are many religious people who are very open-minded.
I want to ensure you that I have never felt that atheists as better people than non-atheists. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between theists and atheists is than one group believes in one or more deities, while the other one doesn't.
There are various things in the posts I've made on this thread that I should have formulated differently. I made the mistake of getting behind the computer when I was actually much too tired to express myself in a comprehensive manner.
What I meant, is that I don't really understand the connection between sexual orientation and religion.
And that I think I do not understand the connection, because I am an atheist.
That's what I should have written instead.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone. I never meant to do this!

Best wishes,
Dani

[little clown]

Hi

Not so long ago, I read there are scientists who believe the gender of babies have an effect on whether a woman has a miscarriage or not. The researchers believe a pregnant woman's body responds more aggressively to the presence of a male fetus, because her body considers a male baby to be more alien to her body than it would a female baby. In response to this, her body starts to create something akin to anti-bodies during her first pregnancy (of a boy). The presence of these "anti-bodies" can result in a miscarriage if she again becomes pregnant of a baby boy.
When I first read the "Womb environment 'makes men gay'" article on the BBC, I wondered if the people who announced this to the press where the same people who are behind the research mentioned in the BBC article.
Like OralBradley, I've read (a few months ago, I believe it was) an article in which the claim was made that men who have an older brother are more likely to be gay than those who don't. I too assumed that the BBC article is a follow-up on that story, trying to explain why this might be the case.

What disturbed me the most about the BBC article is the following sentence: "The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain"
Now, I realize the researchers' spokesperson who made the claim wasn't saying that the brain of a gay man is somehow inferior to that of a straight man, he's merely saying it's different, but I'm still not too crazy about the way the sentence was formulated. I would've elaborated on it a bit more, but then again, perhaps he has and that just wasn't mentioned in the BBC article.

Before I'd gotten to the end of the article, I'd begun to wonder who's behind this sort of research.
(I wondered about a few other things, but I've already mentioned those in my first post)
Then I read about a gay activist who welcomes the results of the research and it got me thinking ...
I keep seeing articles like the one on the BBC. Are there really that many people out there who hope that a person's sexual orientation is somehow biologically determined? (BTW, I'm not saying it's either right or wrong to hope for this.) I doubted this and that's one of the reason why I started the thread. To find out if I was right about this.
Judging by the reactions in this forum the opinions on this are divided.

Thank you all for making me a bit wiser!
Hmmm, that makes it sound like I'm sucking up to you folks ... that's not how I mean it.. :bigrin: ...anyway, thanks!

Dani

[LouiseBrookslover]

Well, I don't know if my mother's inhospitable uterus made me bisexual, but I do know her inability to have me vaginally gave me the ability to kill Macbeth, if that ever comes up. :tongue:

[NightHawk]

Dani,

First: I certainly am not offended by your being an atheist. I am one myself, even though I have an imaginary friend God with whom I toss ideas back and forth on occasion! No one here has given me too hard a time about that, though Johnny V jokes (nicely) about it. I have this commitment to the idea that one should believe in things based upon good solid reasons and I have not found such reasons for a belief in God. Indeed, the God of the major religions does not even make sense to me. Of course, I am always open to having this explained to me if anyone actually does understand God. I can certainly imagine a God who I would like as a friend. On the other hand, I have no great desire to be one of God's sheep.

Second: In a proper world, it should be a good thing to tell good people that you think they are good, or helpful, or useful. It should be fine, yea simple justice, to offer praise for the good. This reinforces the good and offers it recognition. In a malevolent society, people will assume the praiser is a suck-up. This site seems to be characterized by a high level of benevolence, so I do not think people are inclined to assume malevolent intent when a benevolent intent fits the context. Civilized living is greatly facilitated when one assumes benevolent intent until it clearly is inconsistent with the facts.

[NightHawk]

It is a fine thing that BiBiologist has not assumed that my intentions with respect to her are malevolent or of the suck-up type. It says good things about someone when they accept praise graciously in the spirit in which it was given.

There are others here who deserve praise as well. I intend to be shameless in taking note of that from time to time. The only reward I am looking for is the pleasure it gives me to be able to recognize good, intelligent, and interesting people and to give such people the justice of recognition. Meeting good people sure beats the alternative.

[twodelta]

Alot has been said in this thread on the relationship of "being born gay" vs str8. Some have eluded to research that suggests it is inherited. I, personally, don't have the answer, and really could care less, one way or the other. I wonder though, how the science world would explain my family. My brother is five years older, and is straight as straight can be. I however, am as Bi as Bi can be. We have the same mother and father, were raised in the same house at the same time. We even went to the same schools. So, what makes us so different - who really cares?? - Dave

[Sparks]

All studies about this is nothing more than mental masturbation, and most of it is crap. :2cents:

[wry123]

It has been known since the early 1960's that pre=natal androgens have a direct effect on the sexual orientation of the child (enutero). The only response I would have is to quote an old Cajun proverb: "Be what you is!"
:)

[DGoncz]

Here's a good page on queer biology.

http://www.hypnoticwishes.com/learn/transgender-origins.shtml

They don't call it "Bi" ology for nothing!

Doug

[the sacred night]

Well, I don't know if my mother's inhospitable uterus made me bisexual, but I do know her inability to have me vaginally gave me the ability to kill Macbeth, if that ever comes up. :tongue:

HAHAHA :bigrin: That was the most hilarious thing I've read all day. Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare work, but I've always wondered about that "No man born of woman" thing, since he was still born of a woman, just took a different route out...

But on the actual topic of the thread... it pisses me off too how people think sexual orientation needs to be "justified," but I am also curious just for the sake of knowing as well. I'm afraid thought that if it ever does become generally accepted that it is/is not a choice, people will start to judge it based on that, and say if it is a choice then it must be bad, or if it isn't it must be ok... whether it's a choice truly shouldn't matter, because there are a lot of perfectly ok things that are a choice, and a lot of really harmful things that are not a choice.

Personally, though, I have to say I think I'd remember it if I made such a life-altering decision... and I don't remember choosing.