Gay brothers may hold genetic clues for roots of homosexuality

THC

soulsinging wrote:

i was raised christian. i am quite familiar with their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. my brother is on track for priesthood, my uncle is a priest, and he and my other brother and all their friends are heavily involved in non-denominational young life programs. by no means am i a stranger to this stuff.

interesting...

you've seemed to backlash against that a tad bit...lol

soulsinging

THC wrote:

interesting...

you've seemed to backlash against that a tad bit...lol

not really backlash, they do some good things. i just think a lot of their doctrines are arbitrary and nonsensical. i feel the same way about most political groups. maybe im more aggressive in pointing it out about christianity cos i do it so often with my brothers... becos like any good old brother, i cannot resist fucking with my younger siblings

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Couldn't homosexuality be considered a sexual disorder along the lines of erectile dysfunction or infertility?

I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.

NoK

how does the gay gene(s) phenomenon explain bisexuals

Ahnimus

NoK wrote:

how does the gay gene(s) phenomenon explain bisexuals

There might be more than one gene involved. Those genes can be turned on or off by factors in the environment. A process called DNA Methylation. Genes are responsible for the specific structure of proteins produced and these proteins interact with brain cells to alter the behavior.

The point I've been trying to get across, with my less than sophisticated understanding of biology, is that gene expression is not a simple process. Sexual determination is very complex involving any number of factors.

It seems to me that genes and environment or nature and nurture together in some complex interactions, determines what we determine to do. So when we talk about 'choice', underlying choice, as a causal conditional, are genes and environment.

Ahnimus

MrSmith wrote:

Couldn't homosexuality be considered a sexual disorder along the lines of erectile dysfunction or infertility?

I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.

In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210


There is always controversy over it. The often cited research mentioned in the main article of this thread, was performed by two researches J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. Their research is often interpreted to support the genetic hypothesis of homosexuality. However, Bailey wrote a book a few years ago call The Man Who Would Be Queen which raised a lot of controversy in the Gay/Lesbian community.

wikipedia wrote:

The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism is a controversial 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.[1] In it, Bailey lays out an argument that male homosexuality is congenital and a result of heredity and prenatal environment. He also suggests that transsexualism is either an extreme type of homosexuality or an expression of a paraphilia, known as autogynephilia.

The book generated considerable controversy, as well as a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation. Northwestern made it clear that his change in status had nothing to do with the book. Bailey insists that he did nothing wrong and that the attacks on him were motivated by the desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about transsexualism, especially autogynephilia.[2]

Written in a popular science style, the book summarizes research done on the topic that supports Bailey's opinions. The online version of the book (along with most other books in the catalogue) was removed from the Joseph Henry Press site in February 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen

The trend is apparent I believe. The Gay/Lesbian community wants research to support their intuitive and emotional perspective and fight hard against any prejorative or derogatory terms or classifications. Rightly so? Perhaps, but also a bit anal. I'm not sure how to take it myself. But it would seem to me at face, that homosexuality is a disorder of sorts.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

oh ok. good info.

sounds like a lot of political correct B.S. getting in the way of honest research, though i could see how it could be used to persecute gays.

Ahnimus

MrSmith wrote:

oh ok. good info.

sounds like a lot of political correct B.S. getting in the way of honest research, though i could see how it could be used to persecute gays.

Yea, I don't think most researchers are out to persecute gays. That's the kind of bullshit society is apt to do. But social groups will persecute out-group members regardless of what science labels them. However, nobody says Autism is a choice, perhaps because it is considered abnormal and a defecit. On the other hand, that might change as well. Several Autistic communites are looking for the same type of omission from the DSM. I personally don't recall science making value judgements about Autism or Homosexuality. It simply illustrates the phenotype as either a loss of function or an abnormal function.

elmer

prism wrote:

since such a tiny percentage of child molesters are women how do you then explain what contributes to females becoming lesbian?

how do you know? you don't. I'd reckon less women are caught in acts of depravity than men and even then perhaps theres more likely to be cover-ups because of the difficulty concerning the victim. It would be naive to assume that women do not have an equal part in this evil.

callen

MrSmith wrote:

Couldn't homosexuality be considered a sexual disorder along the lines of erectile dysfunction or infertility?

I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.

not a disorder...its naturally occuring...doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything...I'm thinking people that can't grasp this are dysfunctional and they need some serious medical help...

lots of homosexuals have kids...

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

callen wrote:

I'm thinking people that can't grasp this are dysfunctional and they need some serious medical help...

thats a stupid thing to say, PC cop.

- Many disorders are naturally occuring
- Homosexuals can naturally have kids? damn, i really need to retake Health class. with medical help sure, but then again so can men with ED.
- I dont really care one way or another. you want to be gay? Fine by me, i couldn't care less (unless you are a really hot chick, then i hope you are at least bi).