Is Homosexuality Natural?
October 28th 2007 17:52
It's one of those questions, you might want to say 'yes' or even 'no' for the wrong reasons, that is one with political charge. As far as I can say this question isn't necessarily relevant in the world of 'gay rights' and 'gay marriage'. We are talking about a scientific issue, that is, do conditions in which a human is raised affect sexual orientation? Not ‘should we all be given a fair shot at marriage?’
Before getting into it I have to say that I'm not one to take views exclusively from either side of the debate, I make up my own mind on what seems to be the more sensible proposition. There’s a negative stigma associated with saying that homosexuality may not be natural, just like there is a negative stigma for saying that the media has a very heavy Jewish influence upon it. Either accusation (or assumption) can be based on logical ground with no real intention to insult or vilify but it can also be used as a tool by the less than scrupulous to further some sort of political agenda. So we have to understand that to have intelligent debate and conversation on the matter we have to give the benefit of the doubt to a person with a differing opinion, saying ‘homosexuality is not natural’ does not translate to ‘I hate homosexuals’.
Now, on the topic of homosexuality being natural, I've done some digging and found the following:
I would just like to point out the ambiguity of the point that "Mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals", it was mentioned before that "Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay". This of course reinforces that point but doesn’t present a new idea.
Source (has more information)
Some of the points made favour homosexuality being natural, others indicate that perhaps it's more imposed based on upbringing. Some imply it's purely natural, for instance the length of fingers, and some may be just in between, such as kids being three to five times more likely to turn out gay if they have a gay brother or sister.
However it could be more, what of the mothers living conditions? Taken from the same source
Which indicates that the amount of testosterone a baby may end up having is related to his or her mothers living conditions. Naturally this may slightly affect sexual persuasion, but in a natural sense? In a way yes, in a way no, one could argue that mentally disabled children aren't natural yet the cause of their existence is natural, what put them in their position is a natural genetic problem. So homosexuality could be natural within the sense it's a naturally occurring human disorder, on the other hand it could be a natural behaviour, not disorder, some humans have.
When thought of like that the situation becomes rather obvious, natural or not, it really doesn't matter, because there is a cause, however unnatural or natural as it may be, thats creating homosexuals. This cause is not so dominant that it occurs in any majority (as statistics point out it's at about 3% in the US) of pregnancy/growing up cases but it exists enough. Lesbian women may have more testosterone than straight women which would by all means account at least in part for the length of their fingers. It may explain in part what makes a lesbian but it by no means deems it natural or unnatural, normal or abnormal. Subjecting a developing embryo to abnormal conditions has a higher chance of resulting in an abnormal birth, can we say it’s natural or unnatural? It’s natural in the sense the cause has an effect but unnatural in that the cause is not something developing embryos are likely to come across.
Variations in the length of fingers is quite interesting too and doesn't stop with homosexuality or male vs. female dynamics, children with Autism also have some interesting variations in the length of their fingers also relating to testosterone. By this we can at the least conclude that homosexuality is not entirely based on choice and there may in fact be an element of it that is caused by developing circumstances which goes beyond the control of the boy/girl.
There are arguments that the way in which men and women of differing sexual persuasion react to pheromones of men and women might also be used to prove homosexuality is natural and goes beyond choice. From the above source:
While interesting there is this gigantic flaw in the results, straight women found both male and female pheromones equally pleasant. Are we to assume there are no straight women in existence and all are to varying extents closet lesbians? Yes in a way Hollywood might be right folks!
None the less the results are interesting and further ram home the fact there is more than an issue of psychology involved with homosexuality, without a doubt there is some sort of physiological aspect.
This evidence however does not prove homosexuality is perfectly healthy, there has been no proof of a ‘gay gene’ and what makes homosexuals has been more or less proven to be a combination of upbringing and environmental conditions, in some cases one, in some cases the other and in some cases both. We have mental and physical illness that come about naturally but have abnormal effects and homosexuality may in fact fall into this category.
So what do we have here, is it perfectly healthy to be a homosexual or is it something that poses negative health/mental risks? So far we’ve at least established that there need not be a ‘gay gene’ for there to be gays, so no reproduction needs to take place hence the idea that Darwinian theory could be applied to prove homosexuality is unnatural at least in some sense is null and void.
Now what of its cultural impact? In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen, the natural vs. unnatural argument is one that should be rested (believe you me I wanted to get into how soy sauce could affect sexual persuasion but didn’t have enough time), and the real questions that should be asked is if homosexuality can be reduced by ensuring healthier foetus development and child upbringing, if it should be reduced, that is, if we can make small adjustments to developing babies to prevent them from going through the problems of gender identity and finally if all women really are lesbians or bisexuals.
Before getting into it I have to say that I'm not one to take views exclusively from either side of the debate, I make up my own mind on what seems to be the more sensible proposition. There’s a negative stigma associated with saying that homosexuality may not be natural, just like there is a negative stigma for saying that the media has a very heavy Jewish influence upon it. Either accusation (or assumption) can be based on logical ground with no real intention to insult or vilify but it can also be used as a tool by the less than scrupulous to further some sort of political agenda. So we have to understand that to have intelligent debate and conversation on the matter we have to give the benefit of the doubt to a person with a differing opinion, saying ‘homosexuality is not natural’ does not translate to ‘I hate homosexuals’.
Now, on the topic of homosexuality being natural, I've done some digging and found the following:
About 3 percent of American men and 1.5 percent of women describe themselves as gay or bisexual, according to the National Institutes of Health. Those percentages are three to five times higher among people who have a gay brother or sister.
Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. (Blanchard)
Lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function.(Breedlove)
75 percent of young boys who dress up like girls, play with dolls and consistently choose stereotypical female pursuits will grow up to be gay. A similar, though less pronounced, pattern is found in girls who prefer trucks over tea sets.
Mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals.
In animal studies, about 8 percent of rams never father offspring because they only have eyes for other males. Australian sheepherders call them "shy breeders." (Roselli).
Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. (Blanchard)
Lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function.(Breedlove)
75 percent of young boys who dress up like girls, play with dolls and consistently choose stereotypical female pursuits will grow up to be gay. A similar, though less pronounced, pattern is found in girls who prefer trucks over tea sets.
Mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals.
In animal studies, about 8 percent of rams never father offspring because they only have eyes for other males. Australian sheepherders call them "shy breeders." (Roselli).
I would just like to point out the ambiguity of the point that "Mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals", it was mentioned before that "Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay". This of course reinforces that point but doesn’t present a new idea.
Source (has more information)
Some of the points made favour homosexuality being natural, others indicate that perhaps it's more imposed based on upbringing. Some imply it's purely natural, for instance the length of fingers, and some may be just in between, such as kids being three to five times more likely to turn out gay if they have a gay brother or sister.
However it could be more, what of the mothers living conditions? Taken from the same source
"...The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development. During stress conditions plasma testosterone emanating from the gonads decreases while adrenal androstenedione rises. The molecular structure of the two androgens, being very similar, it is postulated that the two hormones compete for the same receptor sites. Since androstenedione is a less potent androgen than testosterone, the decrease in male copulatory ability and increased lordotic potential seen in the prenatally stressed animals of the present study would be expected. The relative difference in potency between testosterone and androstendione has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Which indicates that the amount of testosterone a baby may end up having is related to his or her mothers living conditions. Naturally this may slightly affect sexual persuasion, but in a natural sense? In a way yes, in a way no, one could argue that mentally disabled children aren't natural yet the cause of their existence is natural, what put them in their position is a natural genetic problem. So homosexuality could be natural within the sense it's a naturally occurring human disorder, on the other hand it could be a natural behaviour, not disorder, some humans have.
When thought of like that the situation becomes rather obvious, natural or not, it really doesn't matter, because there is a cause, however unnatural or natural as it may be, thats creating homosexuals. This cause is not so dominant that it occurs in any majority (as statistics point out it's at about 3% in the US) of pregnancy/growing up cases but it exists enough. Lesbian women may have more testosterone than straight women which would by all means account at least in part for the length of their fingers. It may explain in part what makes a lesbian but it by no means deems it natural or unnatural, normal or abnormal. Subjecting a developing embryo to abnormal conditions has a higher chance of resulting in an abnormal birth, can we say it’s natural or unnatural? It’s natural in the sense the cause has an effect but unnatural in that the cause is not something developing embryos are likely to come across.
Variations in the length of fingers is quite interesting too and doesn't stop with homosexuality or male vs. female dynamics, children with Autism also have some interesting variations in the length of their fingers also relating to testosterone. By this we can at the least conclude that homosexuality is not entirely based on choice and there may in fact be an element of it that is caused by developing circumstances which goes beyond the control of the boy/girl.
There are arguments that the way in which men and women of differing sexual persuasion react to pheromones of men and women might also be used to prove homosexuality is natural and goes beyond choice. From the above source:
Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one.
While interesting there is this gigantic flaw in the results, straight women found both male and female pheromones equally pleasant. Are we to assume there are no straight women in existence and all are to varying extents closet lesbians? Yes in a way Hollywood might be right folks!
None the less the results are interesting and further ram home the fact there is more than an issue of psychology involved with homosexuality, without a doubt there is some sort of physiological aspect.
This evidence however does not prove homosexuality is perfectly healthy, there has been no proof of a ‘gay gene’ and what makes homosexuals has been more or less proven to be a combination of upbringing and environmental conditions, in some cases one, in some cases the other and in some cases both. We have mental and physical illness that come about naturally but have abnormal effects and homosexuality may in fact fall into this category.
So what do we have here, is it perfectly healthy to be a homosexual or is it something that poses negative health/mental risks? So far we’ve at least established that there need not be a ‘gay gene’ for there to be gays, so no reproduction needs to take place hence the idea that Darwinian theory could be applied to prove homosexuality is unnatural at least in some sense is null and void.
Now what of its cultural impact? In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen, the natural vs. unnatural argument is one that should be rested (believe you me I wanted to get into how soy sauce could affect sexual persuasion but didn’t have enough time), and the real questions that should be asked is if homosexuality can be reduced by ensuring healthier foetus development and child upbringing, if it should be reduced, that is, if we can make small adjustments to developing babies to prevent them from going through the problems of gender identity and finally if all women really are lesbians or bisexuals.
| 96 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I can't say I'm 100% right on the matter but not being attracted to women does not give a man the right to gaze upon a naked woman in Islam. Islamically speaking women aren't allowed to gaze at other naked women, straight or otherwise since Islam does advocate a clearly defined set of protocols defining dignity. As such I can at the least say the website is going to some lengths trying to be 'unbiased' to the point it is in fact biased.
There is no reason to sugar coat facts, Islam like Christianity and Judaism does not look favourably upon homosexuals. It's extremely blatant in all three religions and going out of ones way to try and delibrately misinterpret their scriptures to fit an acceptable viewpoint as according to the west is downright wrong. That same kind of behaviour has also yielded many versus being taken out of context to advocate violence.
Comment by Mountain Fog
In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments
at least you have the courage of your convictions, and I applaud your forthrightness in expressing them, however misguided, erroneous they may be.
Yes, religion has played a huge role in persecution of homosexuals, so much so, that many great leaders, both civil and religious, have disguised their sexuality.
All based on..."God's word", as interpreted by a very human mortal being, and often rewritten and adapted to fit the mores of their times.
As for the fallacy that homosexuals will bring down society and governments...come on mate..surely you have more brain cells than that?
Homosexuality has been a part of the human experience since the times of the ancients, and there is no record, ever, of a homosexual led destruction of a government or a society. No the contrary is too painfully true.
It has been the homosexuals who have born the brunt of ignorant, religious bigotry.
And all for what? By the way, that 3% is seriously under scored, a similar study in Australia showed 10%, but noted, that the bisexual men most likely would never admit it, this goes for the studies in America also.
If God created everything, then he created gays too!
By the way, there are studies showing homosexual dolphins living their entire lives together, so, were they the result of too many brothers?
Cheers and always look for the good in everything, for there is already enough bad to go around.
fog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
To say that bisexual men don't admit something in a scientific survey indicates theres something wrong with the survey and trying to take conclusions from it is wrong. Irrespective of which way the bias swings. If you want to cite facts then cite them, but don't go out on a limb and say 'well they might not have admitted it'. If those who did the survey say such a thing then it shows they have little confidence in their research, padding numbers does not make the wrong right or the right wrong.
I'm more confident it's closer to 3%, the source I got that from was pro-Homosexual and the number seems to make relative sense in terms of homosexuals impact on culture and life in generel. 10% is a much larger number and had it really been that there would be more impact, irrespective of modern societies supposed (though next to non-existant) homophobism.
Comparing animal behaviours with humans is wrong, I will not accept that animal behaviour can at all be studied and directly applied to human behaviour. You can't keep a straight face and say 'some monkeys have engaged in homosexual behaviour' because some monkeys have also flung their poo around yet we'd send poo throwing humans into a mental asylum. We are more evolved up in our heads than animals, trying to put ourselves at their level is just stupid.
I do sympathise with those who say it will destroy our culture because in a way they may be right. Like I said, I don't take sides based on taking sides, I look at the debate in its whole and see which side makes more sense to me. Even extremists can make good points every now and again and there are a few points made that are now totally ignored, most likely due to their delivery being fundamentally flawed.
If anything homosexuality is something thats avoidable because while somewhat physiological in nature is not entirely built into us by way of a gene (one which does not exist). Hence at best homosexuality while being natural can in fact be viewed as a disorder, that is to say due to irregularities in upbringing (be it environmental or biological) can in fact produce homosexuals.
There is a psychological aspect to it and there is a physiological aspect to it, as far as I can tell some parts of either can work into it, a homosexual can be homosexual simply by their thoughts or by their physiology or a combination of both. The facts stand that certain conditions in regards to upbringing does in fact change the way the person beahves at an older age so significantly that it's even possible that it will affect sexual persuasions. You can't get past this and to argue against it is akin to religous fundamentalists arguing that it is all in their heads.
So why do I sympathise with the religous fundamentalists? Because they do make one valid point, even if inspired by hate, the point stands and is of concern. If homosexuality can be avoided should we not take active steps to ensure children don't turn out that way? If we can do that is homosexuality not a disorder? You cannot compare it to skin colour or left/right handedness because as we both know those are caused by genes and are 100% natural and unavoidable. No matter how you bring up a child if his or her skin is black it stays that colour, though it would seem there is a list of variables involved with children growing up to be homosexuals taht are within control of ourselves.
I realize it's not a popular opinion and in the end I'm just setting myself to be attacke dby the left and the right, but I honestly can't see another point of view that makes more sense and sadly most opinions are on the brinks of either side of the debate. I don't like taking an ultimatum approach and I don't like taking an uninformed approach, so I've done my best here to derive the best of the best conclusion on the matter while leaving room for questions that go beyond the scope of the topic at hand which is if homosexuality is natural or not. In that I believe I've succeeded in drawing out the most appropriate conclusion. If you think I'm wrong by all means tell me.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I think you are very wrong.
I don't have the time (or patience) today to spell it all out for you and quote sources etc. so here is what I think in point form:
- First, I agree with Fog's assessment of the numbers of homosexuals. I think 3% is way under, and any statistics are going to be lowered significantly by the impact of social restraints and pressure on any individual.
- You can't seriously say 'this is about science, not the rights of gays'. That argument was used in the past to show that women were inferior (they are just naturally more emotional, have a less dominant brain, would be a risk to society if given power), likewise the 'primitive' brains and actions of Black people meant they weren't 'true' humans and could contaminate individuals and society. Surely you see what such an argument means?
- The 'evidence' you have used is simply compounding the very real effects biological essentialism and the heterosexual matrix have on society.
- You say homosexuality could well be a 'disorder' that we should do what we can to prevent. So we get that message out there, that gay people are the poor unfortunate disabled products of bad gestation/upbringing... do you HONESTLY think that the numbers of gay people will actually fall (more like less people will admit it, and secretly live in fear and self-doubt), and that this attitude would be positive?! Do you have any idea how offensive it is for you to say we should do this in order to stop the negative impact they will have on society? If we are to stop anything in childhood IT SHOULD BE INGRAINED PREJUDICE!!! That is the real problem here. You are advocating prejudice by saying that homosexuality should be 'avoided'. This simply reinforces the discriminatory and ignorant ideas that still abound - and which are the things that should be wiped out. Not homosexuals.
I would say more but I'm too angry and don't have time right now. I suggest if you want to become more informed in order to form your opinion - as you insist you do - that you should read Butler, Wittig, Connell, or any other truly credible academic's work. It looks like you have simply typed 'homosexuality unnatural' into Google and gone from there.
Michaelie
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
And although I am not a lesbian, my fourth finger is longer than my index finger. Make of that what you will. Maybe you should go to a gay bar and collect data on everyone's finger length. There are a lot of errors to be found in such evidence, and a lot of other factors that haven't been considered as to impact on the 'upbringing' evidence you have gleaned.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You can yell it to hell and back yet the statistics I have look right, they come from what should be a biased source towards homosexuality (not against) yet had this 'low' number, the only theory I found advocating 10% came from a blatant mistranslation of a quote in some research paper.
Yes I can because I am not trying to use the science in a political matter, I am not mixing the two concepts up. Who said women are weaker? Science? Nope, scientifically women are stronger than men, they live longer, have lower suicide rates, are less likely to die of disease or at infancy generelly score higher in academics, it goes on and on. What happened with 'proving' the inferiority of women was politically charged bullshit, something I tried to avoid here by sticking only to the facts. Even then I feel regret that my sources all seemed pro-homosexuality but providing solid sources meant that they had to be reliable. I did do some stretching to make some aspects of one set of research results look more important than what they potentially are but that was just to illustrate a point.
The evidence I have is sound and proven, unlike your claims that the number is 'much higher'. I would like to see your claims backed up by facts otherwise all I can do is dismiss them as emotional charge. In the end research is research and fact is fact, the research doesn't seem to be biased or skewed and I made sure I wouldn't take anything out of context. On the whole however I do feel the research on pheromones which I took from the webstie was biased, there was no mention of gay men anywhere in the article but there was on lesbians. Either there was no research done on gay men or the results for homosexuals where delibrately left out of the article which I'm kind of leaning towards believing (unfavourable results perhaps?).
Interestingly enough there was another research by some scientist alluded to in the article in which he was convinced that stress upon a mother during pregnancy would increase the likelyhood of homosexual offspring. It said in the article his theory was proven in his research which showed women pregnant during World War 2 (specifically in england during the bombings I believe) were far more likely to have homosexual children. If true we are coming from a previous peak of homosexualism. I did not put it here because while interesting (and in effect SUPPORTING my point of view) did not have enough information and I just dismissed it as too vague to try and use. Yet there is supporting evidence from actual research to suggest that stress upon a woman does at least in some ways alter sexuality in developing babies.
I am not advocating prejudice by saying homosexuality can be avoided, I do ask 'should it be avoided if steps can be taken that are not too extreme?'. I did not at all go into trying to answer that question which deserves another blog post entirely. However I will say that I was in no way advocating prejudice against homosexuals, much like if I said that autism could be avoided I am not being prejudice against people with autims. If homosexuality is a disabliity (and in a way the inability to produce offspring can be seen as such) then I feel sympathy, not prejudice to homosexuals. I infact feel sympathy to them now, the gender identifiaction problems they go through and the negative stigamtism involved with them. It's cause for sympathy, not prejudice and you are taking great leaps and bounds trying to make me sound prejudiced simply because I am citing facts and research and deriving an opinion based upon it rather than resorting to emotion.
Do I think the rate of homosexuals will drop if my theory is proven without a doubt? No, because my theory is about the cause, and the cause indicates that it may be something built into them since gestation. So I honestly don't expect the number to decreate, but I do expect there to be greater understanding of homosexuality. Either way the incovenience of facts does not mean the facts should be helpd back. I am leaning towards beliving it is a disorder, If indeed stress to the mother increases the likelyhood of a homosexual being born and the inherint reality that homosexuals cannot reproduce then that is the disability caused by the abnormality which comes from troubles during their development. I'm not putting my foot down, though it feels right to me that this may be the case. Having said that I am in no way advocating prejudice against homosexuals, I have nothing against them, but understanding what causes homosexuality is important and trying to beat around the bush on the issue is wrong. Yes religous fundamentliats have set a precedent that homosexuality is a sin against god and is all in their heads but I'm not doing that and people who want to claim it's purely natural and genetic are just doing the equal and opposite of the religous fundamentalists. Neither are good, though one is better than the other it doesn't make either line of thought the best way to tackle the situation.
I read severel sources on homosexuality and went to efforts to at least ensure every bit of research I quote came from a pro-homosexual source. Yes thats biased and I expect to cop some flak from conservative christian types (should they care to read this) but there was no resesarch citations from 'unbiased' sources or worse from the other bias.
I did in fact type 'homosexuality unnatural' but I also typed 'homosexuality natural' and 'finger length testosterone'.
You should also read the responses to the article I have linked to and repeatedly taken quotes out of throughout my writing to get a better understanding of just how biased my source was.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
When I get the time I will try to come back and give you some proper quotes from credible academia.
Michaelie
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Proving such a thing as a gay gene exists would support homosexuality being 100% natural because it is built into us by natural development over thousands of years. That doesn't mean homosexuality is a matter of the mind and has no physiological aspect simply because the gene doesn't exist. It's just one possibility that was looked into, it's science after all.
The research I cited showed that lesbians almost exlcuisvely had a similar finger length proportion to that of men. Does that mean all women who have these proportions are lesbians? Most certainly not, but it's a reality and a fact that lesbians have a higher likelyhood of this difference in the length of their fingers to hetrosexual women. This is actually proof that there is a physiological aspect to homosexuality. After all, no matter how you think you can't change the length of your finger.
Your arguments don't hold water because you are not actually trying to cite research to back your opinons, rather you are, muchlike religous fundamentalists, trying to argue research is wrong based on minor differneces or alleged conclusions the research is making. 'Well the research says lesbian women have similar looking hands to men, then why am I not a lesbian because my hands are like mens?', thats flawed because the research shows lesbians by and large have similar looking hands to men compared to hetrosexual women, meaning that the conclusion the research came to is that proportion wise more lesbians have similar hands to men than hetrosexual women.
I don't take an ultimatum approach on things and I don't appreciate desperate attempts to poke holes in legitamite research simply because you are unwilling to accept it.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
I can support this, as I said above, as well as the rest of what I have said. I have given you the names of the academics - I just don't have time to find the particular passages this morn or I'll never get my own post on.
I have explained what I think of the research, and how it has been interpreted in particular. I just honestly don't think you have garnered a deep enough understanding before forming your opinion. If you do read those volumes let me know if they change your approach to this.
Michaelie
Michaelie
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You're essentially saying that I'm being prejudiced for suggesting homosexuality might be the result of abnormalities during gestation. Thats the same as saying I am prejudiced against people with autism because I believe there may be abnormalties to their gestation. The only reason it may sound prejudiced to you is because you are trying to accept it as 'perfectly normal' and I'm simply saying that may not be the case, it has the hallmarks of a disorder (inability to have offspring) and if it is something that can be avoided should a pregnant mother and child not be subject to abnormal conditions then there is some serious consideration thats going to have to be made on the matter.
While I did quote that site almost exclusively everything I quoted I saw on other websites too. Your claim that your source is credible doesn't sound like much to me, if you're accusing me of providing unreliable sources then here are some that may feel more reliable for you:
Length of finger indicates homosexualism:
Really Long Link
brain development of a fetus:
Really Long Link
I dislike the totalitarian approach many people take on such matters, everytime something is said or discovered thats not with what people want to believe it is automatically labeled as inaccurate or dangerous or whatever else. Trying to play a blame game without taking on the other persons viewpoint shows that you are not interested in the facts, you accused me of setting a prejudice against homosexuals and while taking it back later on you did in fact accuse me of googling 'homosexual unnatural'. You quite knowingly set the precedent in which I suddenly was the homophobic bad guy.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
There is no need to look into a hetrosexual gene because it is 100% natural, it's good that pepole looked for a gay gene because that might have led somewhere. NO one ever found a hetrosexual gene because no one ever looked for one, whose to say a hetrosexual gene would not be found? Keep in mind that gay activisits funded the research too, they wanted to find a gay gene too.
I disagree, if it were a gene it would mean that there is something in our evolution involved with it and there would be heavy evidence to suggest it's natural. Granted even its existence doe snot 100% prove it being natural it would certainly push that aspect. BUt like I said, the reason the research started was to try and prove homosexuality is natural and normal, who cares about finding a hetrosexual gene? That was not what the research was about, though I'm sure part of it would be to look for such a thing. I'm no doctor so I have no idea how they 'look' for these thingsbut obviouisly there was some logic in finding it and proving homosexuality is natural otherwise no one woul dhave funded the research.
Homosexuality should be proven natural, it has the hallmarks of being something unnatural so it has to be proven natural. Of course when we say natural we mean in the sense of 'fate', that it is inevitable, beyond our control, does not involve pregnancy stress or anything of the sort.
My views are open to change though at this stage only refinment of my understanding is possible rather than a shift in focus. Unless there is direct evidence to the contrary of the research results I've seen then there is little chance of me fundamentally shifting focus. Facts are layed down and they have to be disproven by superior facts.
Heres another interesting piece of research done (not sure if I've linked to it already): Really Long Link
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
You have entirely missed my point.
Again, my objection with this research and your interpretation of it is about the obliqueness of it and the biological essentialist standpoint respectively. I have looked at your sources. I gave you mine and you have dismissed them. Do you know anything about them?
I never took it back - I wholheartedly believe your opinion is prejudiced. What I said was:
You contradict youself here:
and here:
Michaelie
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I reinforced my sources, I did my best to not look at them in a biased manner, I don't see contradicting evidence against them, only supporting evidence. I just looked at your sources and am going to show why I don't understand how you can consider the writers you suggest as being 'credible'.
That contradiction was a result of a lack of sleep, I edited it out later. Yes i did search for homosexuality unnatural b ut didn't really take anything from those results.
I did look at the wikis of the people you linked to (since you say they are credible)
Butler has no scientific background and doesn't seem to have done any research into homosexuality but rather commentated on the matter instead She's a pholosopher, not a scientist, and I cannot in good conscience take anything she says as scientific fact though I most certainly can take her views into consideration when trying to apply facts into practical situations. (She's also a feminist
Monique Wittig also has no scientific background, she's a 'feminist theorist'. Again that does not discredit scientific fact and her opinions are just that. If she cites research and studies then thats great, but I'm not interested in her views. I'm interested in the scientific aspect of the matte (as I wrote in the article, this isn't about gay rights, this is about science).
O'Connel is apparently an editor for a magazine for gays and lesbians? Again she isn't a scientist of any sort, she's a (possible feminist) writer. Do I care? I respect her opinions (whatever they may be) but I don't find how I'm supposed to try and go against research done by real scientists.
So we have two feminists and one gay magazine writer whose writings I should read to gain a better understanding of how completely natural homosexuality is? I'd rather stick to the actual research first hand and derive an opinion from there rather than read someone elses opinion based on or not based on the same (or different) research.
Your sources (or the writers you refer me to) aren't scientific in nature but rather just passive opinions of other people, I would rather read your opinion first hand than someone elses whom you agree with and I would rather be disproven on scientific ground rather than just raw opinions which won't really effect my opinions.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I know you're trying to say that the research is inherintly biased because they are 'oblique' and all but honestly I don't see whats wrong with them and you have yet to actually show me something tangible and credible that I can take into due consideration (besides other peoples opinions).
Something like this (but to your favor):
...
It also revealed that some drugs can have the opposite effect — mothers of heterosexual males were 70% more likely to have taken pills to combat nausea than those of gay men.
Ellis said: “This was the first study in that area — looking at the effect of prescribed drugs — we found no evidence of male homosexuality but it did tie up to lesbianism. We were interested in prenatal stress but thought we should look at other prenatal factors and this was not what we expected to find but it was very clear.”
He added that the numbers taking the drugs were small and a larger study should be undertaken.
Really Long Link
Could you in good conscience say that the research should not be continued? I want it to be, I want to see the types of results we'll get if the research was done on 20000 people not 5000. I tcan prove or disprove the theories drawn here. It's interesting but more importantly it's factual and thats what I'm lookin gfor. Your arguments are just interesting but present no facts, they are no more than opinions that I cannot take into consideration when putting it against actual research.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Butler is a researcher, lecturer and very important author on the topics of gender and sexuality. She looks at science and society and is probably the most famous and credible author on the topic. As I have said above, you can never just look at this from a 'scientific' point of view, you have to look at what is impacting science and what science will have an sociological impact on.
Connell is the Professor of Education at the University of Sydney and a renowned analyst of gender and sexuality. He, probably even more than Butler, uses science, statistics and case studies very extensively in his work - but again, incorporates it meaningfully.
Again, I will endeavour to give you specific research at a later date.
You still don't get what I'm saying, and I find the way you're looking at all this a bit simplistic.
OK gotta work. Will come back later if I can.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Because I'm putting a cause to an effect you're trying to say is 100% natural and is not caued by anything but magic makes it seem simplistic?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You say that I have to look at what is impacting science, that is coming dangerously close to implying there is some sort of global conspiracy against homosexuals. I'm sorry I don't really buy that, I more or less do in fact trust researchers who don't seem to care going one way or the other with their findings (often times they are liberal minded anyway).
What you're trying to do is extend this argument beyond its scope which is simply that there is probably a very real cause that homosexuality has a cause by way of abnormalities imposed on developing/growing babies.
A lot, and I mean a lot, of research seems to be backing this viewpoint. What I'm citing is not 'grasp at straw' type things, they show likelyhood of homosexuality increases under specific conditions. You're trying to say that it's just leaning that way because of social notions that thats how it is, homosexuality has to prove it's natural hence every little thing is used against it.
Might I remind you that this kind of research hs been applied to other things such as proving the health risks of smoking? Sure not everyone is going to die of lung cancer if they smoke but it increases the likelyhood and I'm more convinced than ever subjecting gestating/developing babies increases the likelyhood they turn out gay.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
You're going in circles with this, if I negate what you just wrote with my opinion I will just be repeating myself. I will repeat this only - you have missed my point, because I don't think you understand the depth of your implications. It's not just about what is researched and how research is conducted - it's about how it is used and interpreted in the everyday world.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You're not negating anything, your opinion cannot disprove scientific fact. I'm sorry, it just can't and I can't in good conscience put opinion side by side with actual research, there is no point of connectivity between the two. Opinions should be derived from facts.
Now what I'm saying is that I have this theory which the more i look into the more convinced I become that it's true. The question, like I've said at the start of this article, is not about gay rights, it's about science.
Gay rights and public relations with homosexuals is beyond the scope of what I'm writing so I beg your pardon that I'm missing the point you are making (though I find it irrelevent in this discussion). However since you're pressuring me I'll say that societies reactions cannot be used as a constraint to research when the research itself is ethically and morally sound.
If these conclusions are in fact true and if further studies adds more weight to the findings of these studies (more than likely) then thats great. I don't see why society should care or become more homophobic or translate the results to further a homophobic agenda. What this does is promote understanding from a scientific perspective that can later be applied to real life. What if, lets say, the research from the Times article I linked was used to create a program to help teens who have a relatively high chance of becoming lesbian?
It could be as simple as filling out a questionaire where one of the questions is 'did you take slimming pills regularly during the development of your child?' and if answered yes later on in life that child can be marked as potentially needing help with gender indentification. Granted the revelations of this research (if proven to be true of course) could scare women away from taking slimming pills but that doesn't come across as a homophobic reaction, just one of the desire to protect ones baby. I mean, no parent wants their child to go through difficult times when it could be avoided. In the end it's just science and the revelations aren't so grand to imply the research is off center or open to wild and crazy interpretations.
It only feels that way to you because you are taking it too offensively that there is quite possibly a cause to creating homosexuals. I personally don't see why anyone should take offense at this and anyone who tries to use this to push some sort of homophobic agenda is indeed grabbing at straws.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
I wish to put forward the theory that perhaps homosexuality is a part of nature's design. If every member of a society were to reproduce, it would make for some major overpopulation problems.
In other intelligent species (i.e. apes, monkeys, dolphins, whales--to name just a few) there are males and females who do not have relations or reproduce with those of the opposite sex, but play an integral part in the function of their extended family unit as nurturers, providers and/or protectors. These have also been observed to indulge in sexual play with or become companions with members of their own sex.
From that larger perspective, it makes sense to me...
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Besides, overpopulation leads a to lot more than just food shortage...disease, crime, higher mortality rate.
Again, nature keeping things in balance. I mean, I'd rather keep it down with control of breeding rather than the other alternatives listed above, wouldn't you?
I, for one, am glad there are non-breeders out there that contribute to society.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Disease, crime and higher mortality rates are not caused by over population, they're caused by mismanagement. A by-product of greed that often times is a direct result of foreign corporations bleeding a country dry of its resources and work force. Look at Japan, it's what you would call 'over populated' yet it has one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world, the people live long (very long) and disease isnt something thats killing them on a daily basis.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Also, what's this?
You're holding up Japan as an example of "successful" overcrowding? Here's a quote from an ABC Tokyo report on 5 November 2004:
[
Haruhiko Ukawa (phonetic) is an official with the Justice Ministry.
HARUHIKO UKAWA: "Well, with respect to the increasing prison population, I think we can safely say that the prison overcrowding in Japan is at the highest in these 30, 40 years, I think."
There are regular reports of physical abuse by guards. In 2001 and 2002, several prisoners were killed by their keepers at Nagoya jail.
One of them died when guards pushed a high-pressure fire hose into his rectum. The force of the water caused massive internal trauma. The prison tried to claim the injuries were self-inflicted."
Think the overcrowded conditions weren't the cause of such violence?
Now, you name me just one example in the entire Animal Kingdom (and that includes humans) of a society consisting of an all-breeding population. Even rabbits and rats, both infamous for their copious breeding, control their birthrates when overcrowding occurs; either by re-absorption of the fetus into the womb, killing the young, or by homosexual activity
between the males.
Looks like a pretty strong case for nature's design, doesn't it?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Over crowding prisons are not directly tied to problems with over crowding, the problems with prison over crowding is something that exists even in the US yet the US doesn't have as dense a population as Japan. Often times you find prison over crowding occurs because of laws that force prison sentences where none is needed.
Needless to say prison over population has very little to do with over-population, otherwise countries not 'suffering' from the same over popuulation problems as Japan would not have over packed prisons.
Perhaps one day we may 'over crowd' the planet, but we sure aren't over crowding it now, and we wont until we have at least doubel the numbers we have now. You talk of food shortages or natural resource shortages yet none are real threats. The principle reason for people going hungry or homeless is not because we don't have any natural resources to accomadate them, it's because we have greedy corporation types who want to keep the price of food and resources high.
You're grasping at straws if you're taking one example I'm stating as the defacto standard and attempting to discredit my argument by discrediting that one example. You want another example? I know you'll want another and another no matter how many I give because you're not interested in the message but rather you're stuck in the semantics. I won't entertain the idea of continually showing different foodstuffs that are in no short supply, suffice to say there is plenty of food in the world and people aren't going hungry because there is a shortage thereof.
In the end your argument is inherintly flawed anyway, humans don't have a natural affinity with the environment, they cannot tell north from south with no sun or compass, they cannot sense these things so how are they going to suddenly be able to be influenced by nature? Come on, according to nature we should sleep during winter and go out and hunt during summer and breed only in Spring. We're way past the existence of animals who are so dependant on their environment who may or may not do this or that based on their conditions. But us? meh, damned if it did, damned if it didn't, we always get our way. If we're mating and it's spring well thats just a nice coincedence beceause we'll be doing the same thing during winter too.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
My statement remains: homosexuality exists in nature, and that includes homo sapiens. Always has, always will. I'm just throwing out hypotheses as to why it exists in nature. Population control would be one such hypothesis. Some Mediterranean people use homosexual intercourse as well as anal intercourse (as opposed to vaginal) with women for birth control today.
Other guesses as to why homosexuality exists? Perhaps some just don't have the genetic makeup to propagate. If pheromones and hormones didn't exist, you can rest assured that many men and women would not otherwise be attracted to each other. Opposing natures, values and priorities would prevent propagation.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You know what else exists in nature? Incest, are we going to try and lable incest between humanbeings as natural? My point stands that there is no affinity between humans and nature, we are actually seperate entities and to say 'well population control might have something to do with it' is goign against the very fundamental aspect that makes us human.
If you're going to throw in a theory or hypothesis it needs to have backing, there is not enough evidence to support your idea that it has something to do with population control besides random musings and attempting to link it to animal behaviour. If you have facts to suggest humans are actually naturally adapting for the sake of population control then please put it forward.
However saying animals do it is not evidence, animals also partake in incest, they throw their poop around too, some don't mate unless it's spring. The point I'm trying to make here is severel fold.
One is that behaviours as complex as gender identity cannot be taken from animals and applied to humans.
The other is that there is no population problems, prison over crowding odes not mean theres a problem with population. Otherwise countries which aren't really suffering from said population crisis wouldn't have overflowing prisons.
Food is plentiful, chickens alone outnumber people, we produce 11 billion tonnes of wheet a year, which equates to about 1.75 tonnes per person per year (and is about 4 kilos a day), over 600 million mt of rice, almost 700 million mt of Maize, and who knows how much more food we produce.
We have literally millions of square miles of habbitable land we leave empty. There is no population problem, we could hvae 10 billion people on earth and there wouldn't be a population problem. Why do people go hungry? Why do they go without a lot of the basic resources others do? It's far more complex and not at all related to population crisis.
Finally, my last point, we as humans are not really linked to the environment. By your logic, that it's all about population, the homosexual population in over crowded parts of the world should be propoprtionaly higher than those that have lesser populations yet I doubt that is possible. However other hypothesis (as I've mentioned in the blog post) have been tested and have two varying extents been proven true. They are not just thought experiments but rather tested theories and thats what I'm looking for.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
I'll be back with that shortly.
P.S.--there are lots of hominids that fling poop, screw their siblings and only mate during predetermined time periods, too....I think you're in denial, Ahmed. Hominids are a part of the animal kingdom. like it or not. Adaptation/evolvement to unnatural living conditions doesn't alter the fact.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
google the following: coprophilia, Polynesian royalty, and Roman Catholic birth control methods.
Back soon with my links.
Hey, this post is getting too long. How about starting another one? Seems to be a hot subject.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
There is no such thing as a "gay gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people -- both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation
(For the record, I don't agree with evrything NARTH has to say about this, but the above is an interesting point)
That's from the NARTH.com website position statement.
Here is a study by the University of Padua in Oct. 2004 that supports this opinion and adds a twist: their studies suggest that there is no "homosexual gene", but rather a gene that rules sexual attraction to males:
(source: newscientist.com, "Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained")
Now, after all of that:
Appears to support my guess that nature, once again, is balancing things out.
That would, in turn, support my hypothesis that homosexuality is, in fact, "natural".
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Anywho, you poiint this out:
From my article:
What you're bringing in is not nature balancing things out, you have not successfully proven that there is either a population crisis or that homosexuals become because the environment somehow has an effect on human fetal development. All you show is that there is a biological aspect to homosexual development which is the exact same conclusion I came to with this blog post.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
"We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring."
Balancing out.
By the way, if you are claiming that homosexuality does indeed have biological versus environmental origins (which is what I'm saying, too, yes)--then why ask if it's "natural"? Biological reasons are about as natural as you can get, no?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Anonymous
I just wrote a post on PADSOC that addresses this post. You are welcome to check it out and respond here.
Comment by Anonymous
Further more, it is inconclusive that homosexuality is natural in the sense that it is healthy or natural in a sense that it is a genetic/mental disorder. It is inconclusive because all studies don't provide conclusive evidence. Most I have read about is genetic functions in sexual attraction and interpretations from bias sources.