Gayness Hereditary but not a "gene" (New Theory)

[3113]

...or so says a new study. From here:

Researchers announced today that homosexuality isn’t strictly genetic. But before the homophobes break out their party hats to celebrate this as proof of same-sex attraction being “unnatural,” note that the study in the Quarterly Review of Biology argues that homosexuality is passed from parent to child.

The key here is epi-marks, which control how genes are expressed, and they just might explain the evolutionary stumper of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t been eliminated from the gene pool.

As a press release explains in almost comprehensible terms, the study finds “sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus ‘erased,’ can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.”

Note that this study’s findings are

based on a biological and mathematical model. The theory still needs to be tested on real-life human beings

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, I saw that the Mormons have decided that homosexuality is not a choice. That's progress of a sort.

 

[njlauren]

The catholic church says that, too, but then calls it being 'objectively disordered'''this from a church with a Pope whose family were card carrying Nazis.........anyone wanna bet that if they had found a 'gay gene' that suddenly the pro life types would be clamoring for an exception to no abortion if the fetus had the 'gay gene'?

I sort of understand what they are talking about, there are methods of inheriting things that are not strictly genetic, past that I am in amateur land. I do know that other studies have tied it to a number of factors, that could be explained like this, that may cause the mothers body to do things in a certain way....

The thing that totally blows the whole notion of being gay being unnatural is the demonstrate able fact that homosexuality has been found in many species in nature, and in roughly the same proportions as among humans (roughly 4-10%). If it is found in nature, where there is no "Devil", no media to suborn the natural order, no sin, but rather instinct and natural drive, then that lends pretty good support to it being natural. Given the evidence we have, it seems more like the bible is a work of fiction and should be relegated to where it belongs, rotting away in churches where less and less people bother to go, then in any kind of influential position.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As luck has it I studied androgenic hormone insensitivity back in grad school. The theory isnt new, the means of expression is new. In its extreme form AIS males develope as females, tho they have no internal female reproductive organs, nor do they menstruate. They have external female physical traits and female interests, many marry.

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

 

[NaokoSmith]

The thing that totally blows the whole notion of being gay being unnatural is the demonstrate able fact that homosexuality has been found in many species in nature.

Yup this is so. In fact a study shows that gay male penguin couples are much more successful at rearing chicks (they go and bump an egg out of someone-else's nest sometimes) as they are the ones who go off collecting fish and their chicks get more fish. There is a nice kid's book about a gay male penguin couple and their egg based on a true story in a zoo.

I like the 'almost comprehensible terms' of the press release! .

What about bisexuality? That seems to disappear in these studies. Sexuality just isn't as clear-cut as these studies like to make out.

Actually I think gayness is all in the jeans. Have to be designer.

 

[Exquisition]

Yup this is so. In fact a study shows that gay male penguin couples are much more successful at rearing chicks (they go and bump an egg out of someone-else's nest sometimes) as they are the ones who go off collecting fish and their chicks get more fish. There is a nice kid's book about a gay male penguin couple and their egg based on a true story in a zoo.

I like the 'almost comprehensible terms' of the press release! .

What about bisexuality? That seems to disappear in these studies. Sexuality just isn't as clear-cut as these studies like to make out.

Actually I think gayness is all in the jeans. Have to be designer.

Sexuality is a spectrum and varies from day to day according to micro and macro stimuli.

that is my theory.

Sometimes I feel 'gay' sometimes I feel straight.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The catholic church says that, too, but then calls it being 'objectively disordered'''this from a church with a Pope whose family were card carrying Nazis.........anyone wanna bet that if they had found a 'gay gene' that suddenly the pro life types would be clamoring for an exception to no abortion if the fetus had the 'gay gene'?

I sort of understand what they are talking about, there are methods of inheriting things that are not strictly genetic, past that I am in amateur land. I do know that other studies have tied it to a number of factors, that could be explained like this, that may cause the mothers body to do things in a certain way....

The thing that totally blows the whole notion of being gay being unnatural is the demonstrate able fact that homosexuality has been found in many species in nature, and in roughly the same proportions as among humans (roughly 4-10%). If it is found in nature, where there is no "Devil", no media to suborn the natural order, no sin, but rather instinct and natural drive, then that lends pretty good support to it being natural. Given the evidence we have, it seems more like the bible is a work of fiction and should be relegated to where it belongs, rotting away in churches where less and less people bother to go, then in any kind of influential position.

Violence is natural, too. So is incest. So is cannibalism. And unless youre a LIT faggot or faggot wannabee, you discourage it all.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Sexuality is a spectrum and varies from day to day according to micro and macro stimuli.

that is my theory.

Sometimes I feel 'gay' sometimes I feel straight.

To be totally straight with you , I follow Foucault's thinking on this and consider sexuality to be situated in a discourse. We are who society allows us to be. This can be a category which is forbidden - you can be something that everyone is saying 'that's naughty and bad and unnatural'. You can't be an identity that people don't even talk about.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Ewan McGregor deals perfectly with homophobic question

Here is Ewan McGregor saying that to kiss another guy is just boringly normal. He is so cool he could be a Jedi Knight!

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-ewan-...e-to-a-casually-homophobic-question?g=2&c=ao1

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

To be totally straight with you , I follow Foucault's thinking on this and consider sexuality to be situated in a discourse. We are who society allows us to be. This can be a category which is forbidden - you can be something that everyone is saying 'that's naughty and bad and unnatural'. You can't be an identity that people don't even talk about.

Nonsense. You act according to your social class. Peasants and perfumed princes fuck in the street, while the middle-class fucks in the bushes and in toilet stalls.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

In the Classical World, there wasn't any homo- or hetero- sexuality, just sexuality with same gender interplay more common in Greece, less common in Rome and uncommon (but not unknown) among the Israelites. And bisexuality was most normal of all. A Greek or Roman gentleman would have a wife for reproductive purposes (families being the ultimate importance) and a young chap for a lover on the side until the lover's family arranged a marriage for him and the whole thing began all over again Even within the early Church there are two noted sets of saints who can legitimately, (by anyone but the current Vatican, of course) be recognized as same-sex couples. Additionally, despite the Curia's anguished wails and denials, prior to the really weird and terrible XIX Century, there were ceremonies blessing the union of same-sex couples and lots of homoerotic poetry and letters between high ranked churchmen. Why this changed, no one has been able to determine. It's one of those mysteries of history.







xix

 

[Exquisition]

To be totally straight with you , I follow Foucault's thinking on this and consider sexuality to be situated in a discourse. We are who society allows us to be. This can be a category which is forbidden - you can be something that everyone is saying 'that's naughty and bad and unnatural'. You can't be an identity that people don't even talk about.

Very philosophical but doesn't hold true for me. I'm not familiar with Foucalt but seems to me this is a little like saying you can't be something if there isn't a socially recognised interpretation of it.

Is that on the right lines?

For me, it's not just mental but physical too. Perhaps this is something simple as diet, abstinence from masturbation for a while which I assume will affect hormone levels as well as mood.

Does this make any sense? I'm trying to elucidate on something complex & personal and not very well at all.

My sexuality really does 'swing', I'm only just beginning to understand it.

 

[Exquisition]

In the Classical World, there wasn't any homo- or hetero- sexuality, just sexuality with same gender interplay more common in Greece, less common in Rome and uncommon (but not unknown) among the Israelites. And bisexuality was most normal of all. A Greek or Roman gentleman would have a wife for reproductive purposes (families being the ultimate importance) and a young chap for a lover on the side until the lover's family arranged a marriage for him and the whole thing began all over again Even within the early Church there are two noted sets of saints who can legitimately, (by anyone but the current Vatican, of course) be recognized as same-sex couples. Additionally, despite the Curia's anguished wails and denials, prior to the really weird and terrible XIX Century, there were ceremonies blessing the union of same-sex couples and lots of homoerotic poetry and letters between high ranked churchmen. Why this changed, no one has been able to determine. It's one of those mysteries of history.

xix

Yes, I've heard about this with the Spartan's.

 

[ms.read]

As someone who identifies as bisexual, I cannot understand a person of the opinion: "You must be heterosexual!! Breed Breed Breed!!!!! Make babies until your parts fall off or out!!!"

Let people be how they want to be. If a person wants to spend thier life with another person of the same or opposite gender, let them. It's not like the human population is having a hard time sustaining a high birth rate.

A big fuck you to all the opinionated people that want to keep individuals in a box.

I say again, let people be who and how they want to be, as long as they are not harming anyone including themselves.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Foucault on sexuality

The philosopher historian Foucault wrote his History of Sexuality based in his other thinking about society. For Foucault human society is about power and ways of organising power (governmentality). One of the key areas through which society seeks to organise the individuals within it is through sexuality. We measure who is married and who is living together, what kind of families make up populations. We look to control and manage e.g. the sexuality of children through telling them not to fiddle with their genitalia. We talk incessantly on the therapist's couch about our sex lives in the effort to understand ourselves.
Within this there are certain sexualities which are spoken about. These include reviled sexualities, in particular for our society homosexuality. Homosexuality and heterosexuality define each other, the one can't exist without the other.
Even more so both sexualities provide the context for defining gender. There can be no female and male without heterosexuality and even more so without homosexuality (you can't be a same sex loving person if there aren't different and same sexes to love). Gender underpins the sexual economy, it drives our desire - whether for difference or sameness, so we need it to be there so we organise it through sexuality.
We are different physically but we're much more alike as human beings than we are different. We've selected out gender as the area we are going to focus on in relation to difference to put in motion all kinds of cultural activities. This sounds as if we have a choice. We don't have much room for manoeuvre, we have a small range of gender identities to choose from and it isn't possible not to choose. Think about the number of times people will say: Is that a man or a woman? Like, Why does it matter to you?
The thrill of difference, desire, high heels and boxer shorts, mixing them up - I will be a girl wearing boxer shorts which make it even more obvious that I'm a girl, I'll be a girl wearing boxer shorts who looks like a boy. How delicious a mix we have made in the sexual economy.

 

[topace]

I believe that whether or not someone will be homosexual is determined upon a multitude of factors like background, culture one is raised in, etc. I also believe that a bad sexual experience with the opposite sex could turn one homosexual.

Nothing a good therapist couldn't cure...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I believe that whether or not someone will be homosexual is determined upon a multitude of factors like background, culture one is raised in, etc. I also believe that a bad sexual experience with the opposite sex could turn one homosexual.

Nothing a good therapist couldn't cure...

Anyone who chooses a same sex orientation has the ability to make that choice. Meaning-- they were bisexual to begin with even if they had never thought of themselves in that way. Genuinely hetero people who have bad experiences with the opposite sex stay hetero-- they just distrust the sex they are attracted to. I know a woman like that, and she has been mostly celibate for fifteen years. She sometimes bemoans the fact that she cannot be attracted to women instead.

I think that 100% heterosexuality is as much of an outlier statistically, as 100% homosexuality.

 

[RjThoughts]

Anyone who chooses a same sex orientation has the ability to make that choice. Meaning-- they were bisexual to begin with even if they had never thought of themselves in that way. Genuinely hetero people who have bad experiences with the opposite sex stay hetero-- they just distrust the sex they are attracted to. I know a woman like that, and she has been mostly celibate for fifteen years. She sometimes bemoans the fact that she cannot be attracted to women instead.

I think that 100% heterosexuality is as much of an outlier statistically, as 100% homosexuality.

Normal bell curve statistical graphs show that 100% heterotypesexuality and 100% homotypesexuality is possible, though at the ends.

I know, it wasn't Math Nerd verbage, but you know what I mean. LOL

 

[Stella_Omega]

double post

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I think that 100% heterosexuality is as much of an outlier statistically, as 100% homosexuality.

I don't think so. That would make 50/50 bisexual androgyny the mean, and I just don't think that is the case.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think so. That would make 50/50 bisexual androgyny the mean, and I just don't think that is the case.

That doesn't actually follow. Bell curves can have very sharp profiles, with a narrow peak topping it. They can be lopsided, with the peak favoring one side.

It's difficult to say that most people are straight by nature, when there is patently so much effort put into nurturing that straight 'norm' and supressing any variance.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And this has been known since about the 40's, when Kinsey first studied the spectrum.

This particular bear happens to be about a 2 on a scale of 1-10, straight to gay. Yes, I have in the past been attracted to the occasional male human. However, I much prefer women. Had my earliest attractions played out, I might be further along the scale. I don't know. What I am sure of is that this whole debate is less about what people do than about people who want to tell other people what they can and cannot do. Power is at the heart of it and if someone were to examine the XIX Century from that standpoint they might find some interesting data.

As far as Foucault is concerned, more Modernist twaddle. While his own sexuality is unclear, AFAIK, Wikipedia reports that he did leave the Communist party because ifs prejudice in favor of homosexuals.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I believe that whether or not someone will be homosexual is determined upon a multitude of factors like background, culture one is raised in, etc. I also believe that a bad sexual experience with the opposite sex could turn one homosexual.

Nothing a good therapist couldn't cure...

Stop talking about it in terms of 'cures' and 'causes'. you're making it sound like a fucking disease.

 

[RjThoughts]

double post

I mathed it up, using key words

 

[soflabbwlvr]

That doesn't actually follow. Bell curves can have very sharp profiles, with a narrow peak topping it. They can be lopsided, with the peak favoring one side.

It's difficult to say that most people are straight by nature, when there is patently so much effort put into nurturing that straight 'norm' and supressing any variance.

Data can be distributed many ways, but only when it is distributed around a central value with no bias left or right is it considered a normal distribution, or a "Bell Curve." Normal Distribution.