What does you all think of this?

[Gfted1]

The environmental factors aren't really "encouragement" of homosexual acts.

 

But things such as types of social interactions, as well as overpopulation and other wierd stuff strongly correlated with homosexuality.

 

 

So you feel a country with an extremely skewed sex ratio, say China, would be more likely to have a disproportionate amount of homosexuals over a country with a sex ratio closer to 50/50?

[alanschu]

It's possible.

 

I remember reading up about it one time. Social ostracization seems to be a relatively significant contributor as well, though I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some homosexuals that came from low population areas, and had positive social interactions. Having said that, I certainly don't discount physiology.

 

I read the paper about 6 years ago now, so it's a bit fuzzier as a result. I vaguely remember that the idea wasn't even a strong disproportion of men to women, but rather just overpopulation and crowding in general.

 

 

The culture of China is also very different than ours, and I'm not familiar enough with it to analyze any differences.

Edited August 29, 2006 by alanschu

[213374U]

My own view is that they are perpetuating the falsehood that homosexuality is a 'condition' that can be cured.

Ironically, this assertion has the same validity as the stuff on that page - zero. Please, prove that homosexuality *isn't* a condition.

 

I'm not saying it is, by the way.

 

 

I don't think homosexuality is genetic at all, precisely for that reason. Soon or later, such a gene would eventually disappear.

Not really. There are many medical conditions that are caused by an inactive gene becoming active for some reason, for example. And some of those conditions are much more lethal than homosexuality (harlequin ichtyosis comes to mind). Also, and given the biochemical mechanism by which the parents' DNA is combined (the same mechanism by which brothers aren't identical), it could be some kind of error during the first stages of DNA replication.

[Musopticon?]

(harlequin ichtyosis comes to mind)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a nasty defect and very harmful.

[alanschu]

If it was truly genetic though, then wouldn't the children of homosexuals have a much greater chance of being homosexual themselves?

[Gfted1]

(harlequin ichtyosis comes to mind

 

 

Holy macaroni, I just googled that. Thank god the death is usually swift. *shudder*

[213374U]

If it was truly genetic though, then wouldn't the children of homosexuals have a much greater chance of being homosexual themselves?

I didn't say it was "truly" genetic. I don't believe that. I was just addressing Pidesco's point that as a useless trait for the species (from a reproductive standpoint) it would be weeded out in time. At any rate, it's probably not in the same level as Mendelian genetics, but I don't know enough about it to answer the question with a "yes" or "no".

 

I don't think anyone can, for that matter.

[Hassat Hunter]

I remember a story I read once about a boy who very early in his childhood (soon after being born) had his **** burned off. Some doctors convinced the parents that with proper hormones and raising the guy as a girl he would in the end act like a girl himself. So after some operations he was "turned girl"

 

Though he didn't want to do all girly stuff like play with dolls and when puberty hit he found himself in love with other girls... and when he hit like 20 they had to revert all the stuff and "make him man" again.

 

Morale; Education/raising means jack... it is in the nature...

 

Edit; how the hell can p-e-n-i-s become 4 *'s

Edited August 29, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[thepixiesrock]

He said he was turned girl.

[Hassat Hunter]

He said he was turned girl.

 

No idea what you talk about

 

(note to self: proofread more)

[thepixiesrock]

You're talking about yourself aren't you?

[><FISH'>]

Wow, my thread is still here. I don't often visit these boards because most of the discussions are way out of my league.

 

I'm thinking about it, but I don't want to waste my time if it proves ineffective. This website seems to aimed at men. While I can understand the material on that site, I can't relate to much of it since I'm a bit young and asexual.

 

I'm actually feeling quite bi-curious lately :D Could be a sign of change...Could just be one of those teenage phases...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wait a minute...you're still a teenager?

 

How old are you?

 

EDIT: I see you're 15.

 

 

It might be a bit early to claim you truly are asexual. Especially if you're starting to have some sexual curiosity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, I'm not having 'sexual' curiosity exactly. I'm just finding girls more appealing than I used to. I'm still disgusted by sex.

 

I know it's way too early to be labeling myself, but I don't want people to assume that just because I like boys it means I want to have anal sex with them. This has happened too many times with my friends and they often offend me (not intentionally).

 

 

I think he's referring to calling it "generic defect", as in we're somehow mutants.

 

I think it's something that evolves when growing up, and I'm actually the third son in the family... triva for those who believe in the 3rd and 4th son theory. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How does that theory work? Is it the 3'rd/4'th son the mother has concieved, the father has planted, or the couples amount as a whole? I'm the only son in my family, although my mother did have a miscarriage before me which couldn't be identified as male or female because it was squished up badly.

[Bokishi]

That site is weird.

[metadigital]

I don't think homosexuality is genetic at all, precisely for that reason. Soon or later, such a gene would eventually disappear.

Not really. There are many medical conditions that are caused by an inactive gene becoming active for some reason, for example. And some of those conditions are much more lethal than homosexuality (harlequin ichtyosis comes to mind). Also, and given the biochemical mechanism by which the parents' DNA is combined (the same mechanism by which brothers aren't identical), it could be some kind of error during the first stages of DNA replication.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Furthermore, my understanding of the latest research (although I haven't checked it since we last had this topic, about six months ago ) is that there is MORE THAN one gene involved.

 

In other words, (let's say) there are six genes, and they all confer some sort of benefit, though if they are all turned on (which happens in approximately ten percent of the population) then the person is prone to homosexuality. This doesn't preclude environmental factors (though they are irrelevant for this point).

I forgot to address your point about nature breeding homosexuality out of existance if it was genetic. Has exactly that occured in all species except the great apes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think strict homosexuality exists in nature (besides human beings, that is). There's plenty of sexual interaction between animals of the same sex, of course, but never exclusively. All animals are bound to get some heterosexual lovin' now and then.

 

I could be wrong, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are.

 

There are many documented instances of homosexuality in nature, from chimpanzees and dogs to whales.

[thepixiesrock]

I was at a family reunion once, and we had two male dogs there. We were all sitting there eating, and then the one dog started tring to "mount" the other dog. He did it again when we tried taking a big family picture.

[metadigital]

Did the mountee try to stop the mounter?

[thepixiesrock]

Not really. It kind of moved in discomfort, but it didn't like try to bite the other one or anything.

[Judge Hades]

Maybe they were going to take turns.

[Hassat Hunter]

There are many documented instances of homosexuality in nature, from chimpanzees and dogs to whales.

 

There is a big one about the homophile necrofilic duck (sp?)

[Pidesco]

You are.

 

There are many documented instances of homosexuality in nature, from chimpanzees and dogs to whales.

 

And those animals never engage in heterosexual relations, under any circunstances whatsoever?

[Judge Hades]

I don't think that most people would stick around and find out. Even if they did that just means the animals are bisexual. At least the animals don't have to worry about some bible thumper yelling at them that they are going to hell.

[Dark Moth]

Not yet.

[Purgatorio]

There aren't many bible bashers in Japan yelling insults at Snow Monkeys.

[Dark Moth]

This reminds me of a joke about a Preist, a Pastor, and a Rabbi who tried to convert a bear in the woods.

 

Lesson learned by the rabbi: circumcision isn't really the best way to start out.

[Judge Hades]

Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades