Scientists: Homosexuality occurs in "hundreds" of species

[ufojoe]

No I wasn't serious, but like it was said before, if everyone turned gay the human race would die and THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG!

So, if we use your wonderful logic...

If every woman wanted her tubes tied and refused to allow science to impregnate her, it would be WRONG?
It would suck for the human race but would it really be WRONG? What if 10% of women did it? Or 50%?
Is it still WRONG?

It wouldn't be natural...

Is an artificial heart valve natural? Should we stop using them?

[John Galt?]

 Ã‚    I dont see great debate here Joe. I see some people trying to justify a hatefull prejudice, while others are trying to defend fellow human beings who are pursuing their right to life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

I see a whole bunch of debate completely off topic.  Gay Marriage is a different thread.  This one was supposed to be about Homosexuality in the animal kingdom and whether that might indicate if homosexuality in humans is inheireted or learned (ie a choice).

[ufojoe]

 Ã¯Â¿Â½ � I dont see great debate here Joe. I see some people trying to justify a hatefull prejudice, while others are trying to defend fellow human beings who are pursuing their right to life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

I know. It's a waste of time.

As far as Turbo? From what I've heard when Gene Simmons talks about sexuality, he could care
less if gays married. He recommends no marriage for EVERYBODY.

If Gene saw some of Turbo's posts, I think he'd ask for his autographed photo back.

[GameTime]

i just find it odd that being homosexual can be something one is born with, something that one is unconsciously nurtured into, and something that one freely chooses at will.  if they are born with it i find it odd that these renowned scientists cant find it.

i watched the 60 min and didnt get too much out of it.  i did wonder how an 18th month old is getting his hands on barbie dolls.

i just think if there is a gay gene it should have been found already.

Perhaps if you pointed out for them where the straight gene is it would speed the research up.

[John Galt?]

You can choose to act gay or straight, but you might be acting against your own nature (or natural predilection). Many, many people, prior to about the '70s, got married and had children despite being gay. They followed social norms and peer pressure even though it created poor marriages and unhappy people.

You need to check out the Mother Jones article because that is not what they're saying.

I don't know...

He didn't understand any of this, he tells me, until he found a reparative therapist whom he consulted by phone for nearly 10 years, attended weekend workshops, and learned how to "be a man."

10 years!  Something fishy there.  I know, and don't need a psychotherapist (not a psychiatrist e.g. bachelors degree vs PhD) to tell me I am naturally born with a desire to NOT want to step off high cliffs or out of perfectly good planes,  and I don't need 10 years of therapy to overcome that predilection (6 weeks of basic training does it for most).

The fact that "Aaron" needed that much therapy suggests that his sexual preference was very deeply rooted and not just because his father wasn't around enough.

The Fluidity thing is interesting but the study was focused on females,  and if homosexuality has a physiological base then it makes sense that its appearance would be different in (gay)men than in (lesbian) women.  Men and women are physiologically different.

The stuff Besen pointed out (to dispute NARTH) is interesting and more info would be useful.

In the last 15 years, researchers have discovered differences in brain anatomy between gay and straight men�and found that the 6 percent of rams that have sex exclusively with other rams (just one of hundreds of species in which homosexual behavior has been observed) have a similar neuroanatomical difference; identified a gene sequence on the X chromosome that is common to many gay men; traced genealogies to show that homosexuality runs in families, on the maternal side; proved that a man's likelihood of being gay increases with the number of older brothers he has, which scientists attribute to changes in intrauterine chemistry

Humans are very complex animals so I think we will find out that Homosexuality has genetic, prenatal, post natal physical, emotional/psychological factors that all contribute to verying degrees.  That Aaron had mother/father issues doesn't disprove that he also had genetic/biological factors that also contributed.

[John Galt?]

i just think if there is a gay gene it should have been found already.

True, after all there are only a little over 3,000,000,000 base pair DNA strands.  Of course if any one of these pairs flips, it has a completely different effect.  Still 6,000,000,000 should be that hard to figure out.  Oh wait, any of those could flip, not just one, so make it 6 billion squared, no big deal.   What, there are 23 different chromosomes and a gene on one has a different effect than on another?  (Pulls out Cray Supercomputer) OK so it's only like 3 billion to the 23rd power.

git'er done

[ufojoe]

I don't disagree with anything you said. But I DID find it to be an interesting article. Not the kind I would
expect from Mother Jones.

The part I agreed with most is where one of the people quoted in the article said that the gay/lesbian community
shouldn't rely solely on the "born that way," argument in case it turns out differently in the future. I agree. I
really don't care if they're born that way (although others do) or if they choose. Is it OK to persecute Christians
because they chose that religion? Not exactly the same thing but you get my drift.

The point you made about women compared to men was going through my head as I read it. Yes, I see a big
difference just by observing the girl/girl porn I have. Had! Had!

[Biggs3535]

No I wasn't serious, but like it was said before, if everyone turned gay the human race would die and THAT IS WHY IT IS WRONG!

So, if we use your wonderful logic...

If every woman wanted her tubes tied and refused to allow science to impregnate her, it would be WRONG?
It would suck for the human race but would it really be WRONG? What if 10% of women did it? Or 50%?
Is it still WRONG?

It wouldn't be natural...

Is an artificial heart valve natural? Should we stop using them?

Just like you told someone else, your analogy is flawed using his logic:

The women you are describing are CHOOSING to have their tubes tied.  The person having to use an artificial heart has no choice.

[John Galt?]

The person having to use an artificial heart has no choice.

Yes he does. It is just a really bad choice.