Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

reply to post by endrun


Why don't you point me to the reams of your peer-reviewed publications? Obvioulsy, because you speak with so much authority, you MUST be a prestigious research scientist with an imposing resume.'
Only a person of science with an immense catalog of achievement would be so bold as to react to statements without even knowing what those statements actually were.
Wait . . . is this Dr. Watson? Dr. Watson, are you messing with me?

You ->

I would like to see one thing in these MRI / PET scan studies. What is the percentage of people with gay-mental characteristics are actually are actually NOT gay? My guess: as much as 25% of the male population, and 50% of the female population have this gene.

That would almost certainly imply some sort of genetic affinity with an environmental trigger. Exactly like alcoholism.

#

I want to add something that is a bit off-topic.

I am not gay. However, for whatever reason, I have constantly been hit upon and pursued by gay men my entire life. I have tried to establish friendly relationships with men who are guy, and have NEVER had any success.

These close friendships always turn out to be extremely embarrassing – or worse. Once, I was actually beaten near senseless by a male "friend" after I rejected his advances.

I have reached the point in my life that, when I find out some guy is gay – I just politely avoid that person as much as possible in any social situation. I wish this wasn't necessary, but it is the only practical attitude.

Because of this, I have actually become a big believer in "don't ask and don't tell", which doesn't make it easier for the homosexual population, but certainly smoothes things over for people like me.

Also, I think gay marriage (if that marriage is based upon sexual fidelity) would obviously be a GOOD thing, since it would permit easier interactions between straight and gay poeple, and reduce social tensions.

#

I include this viewpoint to contrast with some of the other poignant discussions made here. There are many sides to this issue. Many of them are painful, on both sides.

reply to post by Buck Division

Without details, ditto. I think I'm biased, but there's an overlooked dark side.
Still, even though I have been really frightened before it's still, well,...

Really. Good intentions, but as so often is the case, BLAMMO

reply to post by Buck Division


Buck, an interesting personal story there. My experience with most Gay men is, if they know another man is straight, then they don't bother.

But, ou had your experiences, distasteful as they were, and yet you still have a level head about it, shows a great deal about your character.

If we change the 'script' a bit, are there any women out here in ATS-Land who have unwelcomed and possibly violent encounters with men pursuing them?? Just thought I'd point out, if possible, that the 'playing field' should be leveled whenever we can. What I mean is, it is in the male that most sexuallity turns aggressive. (I'll ignore, for the moment, the 'cougar' concept...because women will have a different form of aggression, far more subtle...)

WW

I don't know any gays who don't watch TV. Every gay starts watching television before they turn... often it takes yers of brainwashing to get the job done.

It could be that all the gay stuff of television helps turn children into homos.

This is all about the Bilderberg population reduction agenda and destruction of the family, which is not a gay agenda, but homos are being used to carry it out.

If gays didn't know they were gay, they would take out their sexual addiction on our women and just imagine how many kids there would be with all of the Unprotected sex. And they obviously aren't going to marry all of those women...

If gays, were strictly gay and practiced only gayness and society had no gay propaganda, then the gay gene wouldn't have lasted more than a few generations. So being gay isn't a gene, and if it is then the homos have found their way of working around it.... But it isn't genetic so who cares...

What you said about unwelcome advances. OH YEAH.
My sensitivity to women and unwelcome "interest" shall we say, may be overblown. But, doggone!
Girls actually get used to it, in some cases! I couldn't live that way. I'd never be seen in public with jewelry and heels, etc.
People would say, "oh, she asked for it!"
No.
She didn't.
This is one of my BIG issues with conservative Islam. Women.

reply to post by doctormcauley


Am I the only one who sees the fallacy in this reasoning???

Anyone?? Buehler? Buehler?

Television!?!!!!!! So, by this alleged "logic" homosexuality has only existed since 1950???

"doctor", indeed.....heal thyself!!

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
Hopefully no one takes offense to this, but I've never been one to call a spade a club.

I bet this guy knows exactly what you do call a spade...

Originally posted by stfger
Who cares?

Let people be people, why is everyone always trying to find a genetic reason for every behavior and personality trait.

Who cares what causes people to be gay, just accept people for who they are and stop trying to find a reason.

To those people whom are concerned with gay rights the reason for being gay is of paramount importance.
The justification for flagrant prejudice against homosexuals is that homosexual behavior is a sin. If it is proven that homosexual behavior is not a choice then we must conclude that the bible is wrong again. After all, God would not create people who's strongest desire would lead them straight to hell, therefore homosexuality must either be a choice, or God must be an insufferable prick.

I've never understood why religious people cannot just conclude that the bible was written by people, and people are stupid.
It doesn't make the fundamental message any different.

The bottom line is that due to religion there is a societal stigma toward homosexuality. There is a lot of data I could post links to that would back my position that homosexuality is not a choice. Here are two examples...

www.newscientist.com...
www.madsci.org...

I do like this one though...

Identical twins, as you probably know, share all of their genes. Non-identical, or fraternal twins share half their genes... the same rate as other brothers and sisters. Finally, adopted kids share no genetic material, but are raised in the same environment from an early age. A common way of looking for genetic link for any trait is to compare the concordance rate in such pairs of siblings...

Researchers found that the concordance rate for homosexuality is highest among identical twins, lower among fraternal and lowest in adopted siblings. Such a pattern is evidence for a genetic basis to homosexuality... the closer you are genetically to your sibling, the more likely you both are to be gay. If you are not genetically related, you are less likley to both be gay, even though you grew up in the same home.

www.madsci.org...
This points to genetics having a HUGE influence. While there may also be hormonal factors, I guarantee that choice doesn't factor into the equation.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Gay being a mental disorder was never proven by the APA at all.
In fact, it was a failure to actually prove that it was an actual mental disorder that caused the APA to listen to gay's and change the classification.

That is just not true.

Ball's in your court papi. Evidence?

Why are you trying to be disingenuous?

That's cute, but, you don't "try" to be disingenuous. You either are, or you are not. It's a state of mind.

–adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

dictionary.reference.com...

It was proven through scientific means that is was a mental disorder and the only reason they removed it was because of political pressure. This is fact and has been well documented.

That's some high-falutin' jibber jabber to not be followed by evidence.

I posted a few links, did you read them. Just google and you will find much more.

Your links were opinion pieces with no substance. Also, googling the subject just turns up more opinion pieces.

Look, you're free to not like gays, it's cool dude, that's why this is America. But eventually you'll have to understand that hating gays isn't like hating hippies, it's more like hating black people.
Still though, you're free to hate blacks too, so, enjoy that.



[edit on 6/23/2008 by Sunsetspawn]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by doctormcauley

 

Am I the only one who sees the fallacy in this reasoning???

No, I just failed to see enough reasoning in the fallacy to know where to begin to reply.

Some arguments are simply not battles that can be won.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by doctormcauley

 

Am I the only one who sees the fallacy in this reasoning???

Anyone?? Buehler? Buehler?

Television!?!!!!!! So, by this alleged "logic" homosexuality has only existed since 1950???

"doctor", indeed.....heal thyself!!

Anyone can tell, the amount of open gayness in society now correlates to the amount of gay propaganda being put out by the media in that particular society.

It just happens that television promotes gay. They teach children about anal sex in sex ed.

And don't think you are being clever with the remark about TV in the 1950's - don't think for one second the FCC would allow a open gay homo on the air - Where Children might see them...

Now kids see homos on TV all the time. Now more kids are having gay sex than ever before... which also means Risky sex. They are oraling each others anals and oraling each other vaginas, with no condoms mind you.

You are killing yourselves, don't say we didn't warn you.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
Hopefully no one takes offense to this, but I've never been one to call a spade a club.

I bet this guy knows exactly what you do call a spade...


[edit on 6/23/2008 by Sunsetspawn]

You must have some persecution issue.

I obviously don't agree with your agenda so that means I -must- be racist.







[edit on 6-23-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]

(derogatory image removed)

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Jbird]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Illusions, perhaps you are right. What is the point in debating an....a.....I cannot find a word to describe another ATS 'member' that won't run afoul of the T&Cs....

If this person is so closed-minded, then I suggest he/she move on to other forae, perhaps one of the religious threads, somewhere else?? They'd (that is a contraction for 'they would') then find many to bob their heads in agreement, and continue the biggoted spewing of barely hidden/suppressed hatred.....

OK, carry on!!

Originally posted by djerwulfe
reply to post by endrun

 

Why don't you point me to the reams of your peer-reviewed publications? Obvioulsy, because you speak with so much authority, you MUST be a prestigious research scientist with an imposing resume.'
Only a person of science with an immense catalog of achievement would be so bold as to react to statements without even knowing what those statements actually were.
Wait . . . is this Dr. Watson? Dr. Watson, are you messing with me?

You ->

I cannot point you to any peer-reviewed publications, because articles don't generally talk about the proof of nonexistence of something. I DID read your writing and I think it's really funny that you think I don't have critical reading skills, since everyone who knows me knows that I'm an avid reader who analyses everything I read. You have no idea who I am or what I'm like, and you assume things about me that aren't true.
For the record, I was a practicing psychotherapist for many, many years and I am married to an award-winning, nationally known scientist who is a biologist. As such, we receive and read scientific journals. Believe me, between the 2 of us we've studied this issue from every angle and read everything we could. We have both also known many gays and lesbians and I think have a pretty good understanding of the issue.
Lastly, the way you worded it, it sounded as if you were saying that homosexuality led to pedophilia - my apologies for not understanding you, but if you'd made it a little more clear, I would have understood what you were saying. Now that I do understand, I still don't agree with you. The reasons for the origins of pederasty in ancient Greece are not really known and there are several theories, none of which includes your reason for the development of pederasty in Greece.
I do not usually quote from Wiki, but this article sums it up nicely and has good information:

en.wikipedia.org...

The reason I objected so strongly to what you said is that when incorrect information is disseminated, it just creates more needless hatred and prejudice against gays and lord knows they don't need any more of that.

Cheers, Endrun (Proud Fag Hag)







[edit on 23-6-2008 by endrun]

reply to post by endrun


endrun.....your Wiki link should be sent to the 'doctor' of the post up above....guess, by his/her logic, the ancient greeks had television too.....

Originally posted by doctormcauley
It could be that all the gay stuff of television helps turn children into homos.

This is all about the Bilderberg population reduction agenda and destruction of the family, which is not a gay agenda, but homos are being used to carry it out.

If gays didn't know they were gay, they would take out their sexual addiction on our women and just imagine how many kids there would be with all of the Unprotected sex. And they obviously aren't going to marry all of those women...

If gays, were strictly gay and practiced only gayness and society had no gay propaganda, then the gay gene wouldn't have lasted more than a few generations. So being gay isn't a gene, and if it is then the homos have found their way of working around it.... But it isn't genetic so who cares...

By your reasoning, with gays taking out their "sexual addiction" on women and producing lots of children - well, that is currently what hetero men do isn't it? And who says they wouldn't wear condoms? I think your logic is flawed and based on prejudice, not information. If TV causes gayness , I guess there were no gays before TV, as someone else said. That is a ridiculous statement and no there are no more gays than there ever were, the numbers are pretty consistent, 1 in 10 are attracted to the same sex.

Now, answer me this: If there is such a thing as the gay gene, why has it not been bred out, seeing as how most gay men do not procreate?? I'd love to hear your answer to that one.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Good one WW! I wonder if TV causes pedophilia as well?

reply to post by endrun


Your spouse might have something legitimate to say on the subject, but you?
And you didn't read my original post or my rebuttle becasue what you're saying is crap and futher demonstrates your lack of cognitive powers. Psycho-shaman.

I didn't say to point me to peer-reviewed articles about homosexuality. I said point me to YOURS. Saying you read critically, isn't reading critically.

Freud is a fraud. And a background in pysch-anything akin to being a clergy person. i.e. PSUEDOSCIENCE

reply to post by endrun



And another thing: I didn't make any assumptions. I only concluded that you weren't particularly bright because of your reactions and misunderstanding some simple text.

I didn't say there was a behavioral connection between homosexuals and pedophiles, I said that cultural tolerance of sexual deviance was a slippery slope.

D@mn.

reply to post by djerwulfe


Trying to be Switzerland here.....many many times I have seen various posts be misconstrued....

Remember, we are writing here. Ther are no facial expressions, no body language to accompany what we write.

AND, discussions on a board (or 'thread') are not always timed appropriately....stuff flies through the 'internets' at different speeds....

Make sense? So, the possibility of mis-understanding grows, depending on your conection speed to the 'internets'....

(I am using my best grammar and spelling skills, in this post....please tear me apart at your leisure, now....)

WW


EDIT....my first glance, I found at least two spelling errors. I did not correct them. I may have made othere errors, but so far I see two....kudos to those that find more!!!


[edit on 6/23/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by endrun

It makes sense, now that I think about it.
But if you don't take my word for psychotherapists as charlatans, maybe this guy carries a little more weight.
I raise you a Wiki...
en.wikipedia.org...