The "gay Gene"

[SirRiff]

HUGO

Well, Riff, I've repeatedly explained my views to you, pointed out your self-contradictions and talked you through them. Nobody else on this forum seems to be having a problem

what a strange thing to say hugo....

you really just keep using the word contradition, but never point what is the contradition itself. it seem rather silly actually. and who else on this forum do you think is claiming they see contraditions? nobody, just you, and you cant even point it out. i know its comforting to stay vauge and then conclude its not you thats running in circles, but when dealing with scientific thought one must be accurate and precise in response, which you cant seem to do. this isnt a playground where just saying 'whatever' is the way to look cool.

If you want to play the Experience and Qualifications game, you will notice that the sources I cited are all far more experienced and qualified than you, so you lose. These are not my opinions, they are scientific fact gleaned from some of the finest minds in the field.

no, actually you posted a few lines, then misinterpreted them, adn then failed to understand the basic concepts you posted. no matter how high an expert you cite, you didnt understand what you were posting and misrepresented the information. that is the problem, not the expert. and it takes more then one expert to actually make something respectable. its done by peer review.

For example, you criticise my definition of "heritability" but it is not mine, it is Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's, a medical doctor and geneticist.

here is an idea, post 5 more independnat definitions of heritability and see how closely they come to matching yoru interpretation. it will take 60 seconds and once and for all you can clear your name.

RONDA;

Nothing specific, but the key difference is I don't stroll into every conversation stating that I'm some kind of pseudo-expert because of my "background in genetics"

i only reassert my information because of people like you who when faced with an informed opinion question peoples intelligence and education. if you could really distinguish between real genetics and crap science i wouldnt have to tell you why i know my stuff better then what has been posted by others. hell if posted one of my research papers you would still feel informed enough to question my background even if you didnt understand the title.

Your attempts to trump all conversations and "clear up misconceptions" because of your "qualifications" is what aggravates

when hugo talks about heritability adn linkage studies, something i dealt with daily, and he gets them all wrong, its not arrogent to point out the correct definitions. i dont see why you guys with your highly informed opinions dont recognize the simplist universal concepts of genetics. untill you can use heritabillity and linkage studies in normal conversation i dont think you are qualified to question anybody elses education or intelligence on teh matter.

Yeah, by the way, Riff... since there is no proof of any kind that homosexuality is genetic, your background in genetics doesn't really help.

how did you come to that conclusion ronda? which journals did you research? where did you study sexual genetics?

my god, talk about claiming to know something you dont. i would love to hear how that opinion is in anyway informed yet mine isnt. now that would be a great post.

I doubt people's genes just "kick in" suddenly... and then back out again.

uhh....thats a very very bad concept to even use as an example. the display of a complex behavior is not solely dependant on a binany switch of a gene. just to mention...i dont think anybody with a genetics degree would mistake that link....oh wait...is that arrogent to say?

As for the rest of your post, I don't have time to read it, I work

well its good to know you are keeping yourself busy inbetween scientifc conferences. but i guess the work must be occuring just now after not reading the part when i asked you to tell us your background in the genetic science and why you think specialzed education does not make you privy to information. i'm sure you have several research articles lying around the house just like me that you can use to determine whether hugos posts were scientifically valid.

this whole thread makes me question the funding for science in our schools.

SirRiff

[Ronda]

this whole thread makes me question the funding for science in our schools.

Yeah, me too, if they're handing degrees to you.

I wouldn't be questioning your qualifications and education if you didn't bring it up in the first place as some sort of immediate trump card. Not to mention your insufferable arrogance when questioned.

The original point, if we can stop talking about you for a second, was that sexuality is not genetic in the way that hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, and gender are. I don't need a degree to know that is true, Riff, just a brain, eyeballs, and a little life experience. That was ALL the original point of this thread pointed out. You're making a moron of yourself arguing that it isn't so. Whether sexuality is determined in some degree by genetics (which I disagree with) is questionable. Whether it is SOLELY genetic, like the above mentioned is IMPOSSIBLE. Again, no degree needed.

[Ronda]

BTW:

"heritable - adj : that can be inherited; "inheritable traits such as eye color"; "an inheritable title" [syn: inheritable] [ant: noninheritable]

Capable of being passed from one generation to the next; hereditary.

Capable of inheriting or taking by inheritance. "

What's the issue, exactly? Why do you continue to argue semantics as if the entire issue hinges on the interpretation of a word? What Hugo originally said, which I agree with, (as does the scientist who wrote the cited paper) is that there may be some genetic predisposition but it is not the same as being black, which you would obviously directly inherit from your parents.

[SirRiff]

The original point, if we can stop talking about you for a second, was that sexuality is not genetic in the way that hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, and gender are. I don't need a degree to know that is true, Riff, just a brain, eyeballs, and a little life experience.

uhh...thats still kinda vauge if your going to make some sort of moral conclusion from that.

scientists like to be more precise, because it seems to me that what you are really saying is that gayness isnt a binary finite variable that is either on or off. well obviously, as i said several times sexual behavior is very complex and impossible to measure and quantify in reality. also the # of genes that govern sexual prefernce could be dozens or even hundreds.

so saying that it isnt "like eye color" is like measuring fish by the square foot. complex behavior is never one gene, so there is no way it could be a binary choice.

however that itself is a very crude way to really investige the hardwired part of sexuality. if we had 100 shades of hair color would you say that eye color is 'not like hair color"? becuase there are plenty of examples of small numbers of genes producing finite phenotypes that were previously thought to be a continuum before genetic research.

Whether sexuality is determined in some degree by genetics (which I disagree with) is questionable. Whether it is SOLELY genetic, like the above mentioned is IMPOSSIBLE. Again, no degree needed.

well it could be said that even that description of sexual behavior isnt even accurate, because why couldnt we model a precise level of sexual genetic factors by basically do code for sexual preference?

again, if you are just pondering life then yeah, anything could be anything.

if you are claiming some sort of moral or ethical or natural case for preventing gays from equality because of genetics, then it takes a more accurate description of what the genetic influence, and more importantly WHY this would alter the acceptance of that behavior in society. the root cause of the bahavior has never, by itself, completely vindicated nor condemned any other otherwise neutral behavior.

heritable - adj : that can be inherited; "inheritable traits such as eye color"; "an inheritable title" [syn: inheritable] [ant: noninheritable]

Capable of being passed from one generation to the next; hereditary.

Capable of inheriting or taking by inheritance. "

OMG, its finally right.

well, when you start a post on genetics and misstate heritable, the rest of yoru conclusions are dubious at best, especially when you insult the person who points out the error.

of course heritable is one thing, measuring heritability is another. is heritability next on the word of the day calender?

SirRiff

[nova_satori]

Hugo: Are you willing to say that you believe that with our current level of understanding genes and genetic manipulation, we can offically declare that we know that there isn't any gay gene?

Are you willing to say that will FULL knowledge that scientific "facts" have been shown to be false. Are you willing to say that in the face of history, you are willing to contiune down the road of human arrogance in saying that you know that there is no a gay gene?

Are you willing to say that we understand the full affect of EVERY SINGLE GENE that exists in human dna?

People have stood by proof, raged at each other about it, only to watch a simple expirement prove them wrong. Are you willing to be another one of these fools? IE: Life spontenous arises. Black plague comes from bad air. The several different cell makeups.

So according to your logic, our level of genetics has advanced to where we understand our genetic structure and can easily maipulate it to anything we wish?

[Hugo]

Are you willing to say that you believe that with our current level of understanding genes and genetic manipulation, we can offically declare that we know that there isn't any gay gene?

As I said, all you can actually prove is cogito ergo sum. You cannot absolutely prove to me that you are a real person and not an AI program posting on this forum. I can't absolutely prove that I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere with an extremely elaborate virtual reality system feeding information to my sensory centres.

According to the best of our knowledge, the world around us is real and we are actually living in it. According to the best of our knowledge, homosexuality is not innate.

You mock those who thought that bubonic plague stemmed from miasmas, however, they, like us, were proceeding according to the best of their knowledge and the information that was available. That's all you can do. If you don't subscribe to that, then please, feel free to drive yourself insane with solipsical questions and doubts of your own existence.

So, yes, homosexuality is not innate. That's my position, and it is made according to the facts available, and if it is proven wrong my defence will be that I made a sound judgement based upon the facts available. However, I don't think that will happen, any more than I think somebody will one day prove that eye colour is caused by environmental influence.

[SirRiff]

So, yes, homosexuality is not innate. That's my position, and it is made according to the facts available, and if it is proven wrong my defence will be that I made a sound judgement based upon the facts available.

now the real questions are

1. why would the genetic or environmental root of a behavior be of any concern to society when deciding whether to accept or condemn that behavior in its midst, and

2. how would these criteria compare to the critieria that we use to deal with other behaviors in society, such as murder, or disease.

SirRiff

[nova_satori]

You cannot absolutely prove to me that you are a real person and not an AI program posting on this forum. I can't absolutely prove that I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere with an extremely elaborate virtual reality system feeding information to my sensory centres.

Nor can you prove to me that you or I, or this "planet" exists. However, being a true skeptic is not something anyone likes to do.

According to the best of our knowledge, homosexuality is not innate.

According to the best of knowledge before, we are wrong on many accounts.

You mock those who thought that bubonic plague stemmed from miasmas, however, they, like us, were proceeding according to the best of their knowledge and the information that was available. That's all you can do. If you don't subscribe to that, then please, feel free to drive yourself insane with solipsical questions and doubts of your own existence.

I don't mock those who though the plague was from bad air. I was simply showing that people in the past have believed such "evidence" with much passion. Yet we all known thousands of scientific norms were false. To declare, like Craig has, that there isn't a gay gene is ludicrious. The information available is not enough to debate about something that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt at today's current level. I am telling you that you following the path has been littered with irrational thought and premature proclaminations.

So, yes, homosexuality is not innate. That's my position, and it is made according to the facts available, and if it is proven wrong my defence will be that I made a sound judgement based upon the facts available. However, I don't think that will happen, any more than I think somebody will one day prove that eye colour is caused by environmental influence.

However, you must keep in mind that your opinon, like many others before you, has a good chance of being false. To base a huge argument and litterally a flame war over something with no solid evidence, is totally irrational.

BTW: Enviromental factors can and do decide your final phenotype. You may have the gene for a certain height, but a lack of food and materials will stunt that growth, thus acting upon the final product. Happens all the time.

[Ronda]

Skin colour and gender are innate. They are not altered by environmental influences - tanning beds and surgery aside.

The original theme was basically that the parallel between gays and black emancipation/feminism cannot rightly be made because homosexuality is a behaviour, not an innate quality. I believe that's where we got on this tangent.

Whether or not we redefine words and essentially reorder our society to please/satisfy the more extreme elements in the homosexual population is not really what we were discussing. As the topic heading suggests, we're discussing whether homosexuality is 100% genetic, like one's skin colour or gender, or if it is not. I believe that it is obvious homosexuality is not.

Also, point taken about height - however, height is still not EVER a matter of choice, convenience, experimentation, etc. I think enough evidence exists that homosexual tendancies quite often involve CHOOSING certain behaviour. Therein lies the key difference.

I think it's more akin to alcoholism or smoking. One could say there exists genetic predispositions towards alcohol/substance abuse, ie. "addictive personality". However, that doesn't mean one WILL be an alcoholic, only that they may be more inclined. Environmental influences and experience play a large part and the subject always has some level of control over what they do. Height certainly does not fall into that category. It is not a behaviour. Oh, and before you mention it, I do not buy the feminist notion that being a woman or man is about how you feel inside...

[nova_satori]

Skin colour and gender are innate. They are not altered by environmental influences - tanning beds and surgery aside.

Depends, i'm not sure if gender in humans revolves independent of enviromental influence, but it does in many other species, such as numerous species of birds, turtles, crocodiles...etc.

As the topic heading suggests, we're discussing whether homosexuality is 100% genetic, like one's skin colour or gender, or if it is not. I believe that it is obvious homosexuality is not.

I belive we lack of the scientific capability and understanding to come to a conclusion of whether or not it is or isn't caused by genetics. Our level of genetic understanding and manipulation is essentially primitive. Without a extensive study of all of our genes and maipuliting many of them in different sequences and combinations, I believe we are illogical and irrational to declare whether there is or isn't.

Also, point taken about height - however, height is still not EVER a matter of choice, convenience, experimentation, etc. I think enough evidence exists that homosexual tendancies quite often involve CHOOSING certain behaviour. Therein lies the key difference.

Human Growth Hormone. Was a expiremention before and often is now. It also is convience too and choice!

I can't decide if it does revolve around Choosing. Many gay and lesbians often, when polled, say they did not choice to be in their positions. I have a few gay friends, none of them chose their perference.

However, many do go that way after a tramatic experience. My stance is of a nuetral one. It is probably a combination of both.

Environmental influences and experience play a large part and the subject always has some level of control over what they do.

They have control over a severe lack of food and material? They have control of a lack of minerals in the grounds? HMMMMMM.

Height certainly does not fall into that category

It was simply a example of enviromental factors influencing phenotype. Few things are ever strictly nature, or strictly nurture. But we will not solve or decide which is more predominant. This argument has been going on for decades, I find it highly unlikely that this forum, with its severe lack of psychologists, Geneticists, pyscharists, sociologists, and antropologists will find the answer.

. Oh, and before you mention it, I do not buy the feminist notion that being a woman or man is about how you feel inside...

WHAT Are you talking about? That doesn't even have a corner in my mind, much less basis for a point to argue. Before you start making assumptions about me, stop.

[Vandervecken]

Well of course gayness is genetic. why would anybody in their right mind choose to be gay? they'd be making a choice to be an abomination in the eyes of our Lord and to go to hell.

[Craig Read]

Did you read anything Hugo posted? What arguments and facts support your view ? What medical expertise supports your assertion ?

Offer something concrete and intelligent not nostrums.

[Hugo]

Nova:

You are asking me to make a decision that ignores evidence I have, in favour of evidence that I may perhaps have in the future, despite the fact that nothing today leads me to believe that new evidence will ever come to light.

Being a sane and rational person, I won't do that.

[Hugo]

why would the genetic or environmental root of a behavior be of any concern to society when deciding whether to accept or condemn that behavior in its midst

This was not the point. The idea of this thread was to dispel the idea that being gay is like being black, or being a woman. Whether something has a genetic cause or not is no reason for a judgement. Cystic fibrosis is genetic, but it's not great to have it. A charitable nature is not genetic, but that does not make it ignoble.

Homosexuality is a behaviour and a choice as much as alcoholism and smoking - the sufferer may not like it, but usually he does not feel he has much power to change what he is. To overcome smoking, alcoholism or homosexuality requires a lot of willpower and effort and will be very difficult, but it is possible. There are former alcoholics, ex-smokers and ex-gays in abundance.

To proclaim that homosexuality is equal and invite them to celebrate their sexuality with sordid parades and media limelight, is akin to telling an alcoholic, "No, of course you don't have a problem. The rest of the world has a problem. Have another drink."

It might be the easiest answer, for you and for him, but it is not helping him at all and in fact is making the problem worse - being kind to be cruel, if you will. The first step in therapy is to recognise that you have a problem, and so far our society is in a collective denial that will prevent any healing from taking place.

It should be noted that programmes designed to help homosexuals do not, contrary to popular belief, show endless pornography and try to make the sufferer attracted to women. They ignore sexuality completely, and focus on building self-esteem and a positive self-image. After some success is achieved building self-esteem, homosexuals are surprised to note that attraction to women suddenly happens "as if of it's own accord." What can we infer from this?

[FastNed]

Hello Vandervecken, welcome to the Forum.

Your post is the expression of an opinion and while you are certainly entitled to hold it, it adds nothing to this discussion and indicates you have not read this thread prior to your post. Candidly, we have beat that opinion to death over and over in this and other threads.

The "Topic" is the Gay Gene and is a discussion of the existence of a genetic basis for homosexuality. As distinct from a religious belief.

The recent mention of "height" brings a question to my mind; I believe historical evidence exists that while height may be a genetic potential, as our knowledge of nutrition has increased and childhood diets have been modified and improved (in the West) the height of our population has increased. Could there be a corollary to this in the "Gay Gene"? That is, presuming one exists?

SirRiff, you're the geneticist - could this be a possibility? I do not want to use the term 'evolution' as that has a great deal of ideological baggage but as we have become more 'civilized' (we no longer need to hunt Mastodons for dinner) is it possible that the population of "Gay" people has increased? Without judgment of any sort, I'm thinking that a gay gene is like a hemophilia gene, something which would have ceased to replicate - a dead end gene?

[nova_satori]

Nova:

You are asking me to make a decision that ignores evidence I have, in favour of evidence that I may perhaps have in the future, despite the fact that nothing today leads me to believe that new evidence will ever come to light.

Being a sane and rational person, I won't do that.

I am not asking you to completely disgard your opinion. I am asking you to add the idea that new science will ultimately prove the truth. To debate with such fury and passion over something that no one can say beyond a doubt is ludicrious.

A sane and rational person does not attack another with full knowledge that new evidence and new science will prove either side.

Previous scientists thought that no new evidence would come to light on the topic of where life arises from. They thought it was from dead matter, like logs at the bottom of a lake. Are you going to be like them?

[SirRiff]

HUGO

This was not the point. The idea of this thread was to dispel the idea that being gay is like being black

yeah but people dont even know what that means. no two people could concisely describe what it means for gayness not to be "like being black" the same. what does that mean exactly? i take it you mean that its not "all or nothing". and only that. so that is why i asked the next questions, because i dont think that the above statement furthers the judgement on the behavior any. either you debate it through genetics only for the sake of interest, or through the judgement of society only for the sake of practicality and reaction.

Homosexuality is a behaviour and a choice as much as alcoholism and smoking

well once again its not just a behavior, all sexual behavior is in some part genetic else evolution wouldnt take place as it needed to. no reason to believe that gayness isnt 50% genetic, so its not an addition or bad habit, its part of that person just as intelligence is.

It should be noted that programmes designed to help homosexuals do not, contrary to popular belief, show endless pornography and try to make the sufferer attracted to women. They ignore sexuality completely, and focus on building self-esteem and a positive self-image. After some success is achieved building self-esteem, homosexuals are surprised to note that attraction to women suddenly happens "as if of it's own accord." What can we infer from this?

we can infer that with enough focused pressure and stimulation the human mind can be influence to alter its most basic associations. just as soldiers are taught to feel connected to each other and kill and die together against normal insticts, just as the Nazi Germans grew to a collective hatred of the very jews that lived beside them, just as children who are abused develop relationship problems, and just as suicide bombers can be influenced to give up thier own life by religous extremism.

the fact that human behaviors can be altered by intense nad prolonged pressure does not mean it wasnt natural or inherant in the first place. it could be that the successfull patients were open to suggestion, that they masked their true feelings, or that anybodys behavior can be influenced given enough stimulation.

FASTNED

The recent mention of "height" brings a question to my mind; I believe historical evidence exists that while height may be a genetic potential, as our knowledge of nutrition has increased and childhood diets have been modified and improved (in the West) the height of our population has increased. Could there be a corollary to this in the "Gay Gene"? That is, presuming one exists?

SirRiff, you're the geneticist - could this be a possibility? I do not want to use the term 'evolution' as that has a great deal of ideological baggage but as we have become more 'civilized' (we no longer need to hunt Mastodons for dinner) is it possible that the population of "Gay" people has increased? Without judgment of any sort, I'm thinking that a gay gene is like a hemophilia gene, something which would have ceased to replicate - a dead end gene?

oh my God, an intelligent thought out question. i almost didnt recognize it at first....let me bask in its glory....

well your basic model of the spread of a gene through a population is correct. however there is one important point that needs repeating. the spread of a gene over a popuation is almost always due to an increase in reproductive fitness that it brings.

for example, blacks have an increased frequency of th sickle cell anemia gene. this mutation causes red blood cells to have clumpy misshaped forms and causes alot of health problems. why do blacks have this gene more then whites? because this mutant gene also provides protection to the person from malaria, a disease that is far more common in africa. thus there was a selective pressure on the population of africans a long time ago which let people with one copy of the gene on average produce more children. one copy would bring protection from malaria, but would not cause sickly cell anemia (because one copy would still be functional). now, when two random blacks each with one copy of the gene have children, 1 in 4 of those children with get both defective copies, and the child will have sickle cell anemia.

the advantage in one situation, is a disadvantage in another.

i pondered how this could relate to gayness. the very act of sexul behavior must be genetically imprinted for all species for evolution to have occured preceeding humans. this is evident when you look at the mating habits within one species, they are always constant at any one time and always change slowly and together. the genes that influences sexual preference in humans would be no different, just more complex. gay behavior could very well be a different versions (and combinations) of the same sexual preference genes, but just primed to be receptive to same sex signals instead of opposite sex. if there are genes that prime for attraction there is no limits to what could be the target for that attraction. the actual mechanics of this is very very complex and poorly understood obviously, but there are numerous parallel examples of such gene networks like the immune system and the gender genes that make male and female sex organs.

now how would these genes continue in our genome without being lost?

IF these genes provided some postive effect in the past when we relied on instinct more then consciousness, they would be maintained in every person to some degree. i did a paper once on the genetic basis of mating habits and how they lead to new species and there are one or two possibilities.

if these genes were simply socialization genes in the past, part of the entire relationship building-mating-family unit gene structure for highly social animals, then they would be resposbible for ensuring that animals (say monkeys) overcame their basic fight or flight instinct long enough to form family and tribe relationships within thier species. they would influcence specialized instinct suppressing behaviors such as non threatening playfighting, grooming, food exchange, vocalization, mating rituals and sex. thus it might be beneficial to have a version or combination that produced a more broad range of interations, not limited to sex with just females or play fighting with just males of simliar age or tribe. the monkey with these behaviors could have benefited from these extra relationhips within its tribe and the entire tribe would benefit from the social advancement if the genes were carried into the offspring.

as the social network of the speices became more formalized the small variations in one particular monkey might not make any difference, but that gene would still be kept becuase it now played a more rigid role in everyday life.

a million years later that gene in some updated form would still exist in humans, as we socialize and learn in much the same way, but our brian has gone past just instinct are our consciousness now makes most of the decisions. thus we can interpret and expand apon the basic sexual preferences and identities that were so primative in the past and expand on our small variations and potentials.

this is one example why i belive that the sexual identity genes, the sexual gender genes, and the sexual preference genes are all modular parallel evolutionary creations and small variations in one can lead us to expand apon that by our complex environment and powerfull mind. we are not programmed anymore for basic instincts, but still the original instructions for the most essential features of survival point us in the right direction.

so i truely belive there are gene variations or combinations that will strongly move some people to experience different sexual preferences.

to what degree i dont know. but from my genetics background i would consider sexual behavior and the fight or flight response to be two critial responses with genetic evolutionary basis and think the influence would be comparable or even exceeding that or environment.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

I am asking you to add the idea that new science will ultimately prove the truth.

No, thank you, I choose not to live my life in a Descartian denial of reality.

no two people could concisely describe what it means for gayness not to be "like being black" the same.

Well, if I'm born black, I'm black. There are different characteristics that mark one out as Negroid, but to whatever degree you have them they won't change (short of surgery). But people go from straight to gay and back again all the time.

well once again its not just a behavior, all sexual behavior is in some part genetic

According to the research I cited, all behaviour (not just sexual) is in some part genetic. Like smoking or alcohol abuse.

we can infer that with enough focused pressure and stimulation the human mind can be influence to alter its most basic associations.

Yes, that's what psychotherapy is. However, the fact remains that homosexuals overwhelmingly suffer from rejection and self-esteem issues, often quite severe. Psychiatrists term this to be psychological trauma.

[FastNed]

Hi Hugo, you mention:

"However, the fact remains that homosexuals overwhelmingly suffer from rejection and self-esteem issues, often quite severe. Psychiatrists term this to be psychological trauma."

I do not disagree with this observation, I've noted the same myself but I do wonder if this is a "chicken or egg" situation?

Is this because (as some evidence would indicate) there was early childhood victimization? I have read investigative reports over the years and a common theme was the young victims were told, repeatedly, that they were "made" for this sort of activity. As adults, we know this is BS intended to control the victims and convince them to participate but it appeared to have a highly significant effect on the youths involved.

It is often not noted but these acts are a 'rape' and it is well accepted that the act is as much about 'power' or 'control' as it is about sex. Reports on adult female rape contain very similar statements and in a number of cases, there were statements that because the rapist had forced a physical response (a climax) the victim had hesitated about reporting the rape. There is the same sort of theme running through female abuse cases, the victim was convinced "she" deserved the abuse. That some of what a molester/rapist does brings pleasure has to mess up the mind of a victim. What effect does this have on someone when society (or a significant portion of it) holds the act to be unnatural?

This is the other end of it, that if you take/receive pleasure from what 'society' holds to be an unnatural act, would you not have self-esteem issues?

This is tangential to the genetic issue but your statement brought these questions to my mind.

[Hugo]

Ned,

Since you mention child abuse, it's interesting to note that when looking at homosexuals, the number of them who were sexually abused as children is vastly greater than that amongst heterosexuals. You can also see that homosexuals often have also suffered in a non-sexual way. Most homosexuals felt rejected by their father figures, had no father figures at all, or failed to bond with their peers, before they were even aware of sexuality.

Many studies have also shown that homosexuals are also very over-represented amongst the ranks of pedophiles. While around 3% of adults are homosexual, that figure rises to over 30% of pedophiles.

But in answer to your point, the abuse occurs before the homosexuality. When you say that, 'there is the same sort of theme running through female abuse cases, the victim was convinced "she" deserved the abuse', it raises another interesting point: many homosexuals who were abused by adult males as children became homosexual because the abuser suggested to them that what they were doing was right and natural, or that because they derived any amount of pleasure from it, they must be gay.

[SirRiff]

Many studies have also shown that homosexuals are also very over-represented amongst the ranks of pedophiles. While around 3% of adults are homosexual, that figure rises to over 30% of pedophiles.

come on HUGO that is not only inaccurate but exteme detail selection at its best.

pedophiles prey on non-consenting non-sexually mature children. there is no comparison to a gay banker who has had a steady parter for 10 years. that much is obvious.

the number of perfetly "normal" hetero men who have molested young girls is very very high itself. as you can tell by the massive number of women who experience some sort of sexual abuse in thier life, most as young girls.

thus there is no reason to belive that the sickness of forcing sex onto children has no stronger link to gays then heteros.

instead of just saying what you did, it would require posting the proportions of staight men who molest little girls vs the proportions of gay men who molest boys nad see if there is a significent difference. THAT is how you determine if there is cause and effect.

Sirriff

[Hugo]

come on HUGO that is not only inaccurate but exteme detail selection at its best.

Not at all. It's accurate as I said it. These studies basically compared pedophiles' choice of adult partners and found that over 30% of them were homosexual in their adult relationships, as opposed to 3% of the general population. I believe that I already stated which studies they were, so please, check up on them and tell me how you feel that they distort the truth.

there is no comparison to a gay banker who has had a steady parter for 10 years.

A gay man who's been monogamous for 10 years is an oxymoron. 27% of homosexuals have had over a thousand sexual partners. Less than 1% can even be considered semi-monogamous (5 or fewer sexual partners).

This is the crux of the matter: homosexuals are not "just like us, but attracted to the same sex". Homosexuality goes hand-in-hand with psychological trauma, self-image issues, child abuse, pedophilia, extremes of promiscuity, personality disorders, immaturity and stunting of emotional growth and capacity, and so forth.

Don't worry, though, Riff, after the senate passes C-250, you can threaten me with jail time if I continue to say this sort of thing. Does that make you happy?

Oh, and why do you always capitalise my name?

[SirRiff]

Don't worry, though, Riff, after the senate passes C-250, you can threaten me with jail time if I continue to say this sort of thing. Does that make you happy?

no misinformation here folks, move along....

um, the law specifically protects religous values and is ment to protect gays from violence and persecution. and no canadian is going to support charging people randomly anyways. talk about misinformation, its statements like these that lowed the credability of your argument. saying "studies" show gays do this and gays do that. look at the number of children in the states that come back to different then assumed fathers and you see that heterosexual males probably lag very closely behind the average gay man inter terms of total partners.

if you have a study that compares hetero criminal acts against gay criminal acts please make it easy for us and post a link. i have never seen such a study myself and i dont recall seeing a link to it yet.

however i doubt just from common sense that the number of hetero molesters is massively lower then gay molesters. sexual abuse among from all men would need to be compared to make any conclusions that gay men tend to be more deviant.

and as for you name, i dont know i guess i just capitalize names so people can see more easily whom i am responding to.

SirRiff

[nova_satori]

Hugo: I never mentioned Child Abuse, you have someone else's post mistake as mine.

[Craig Read]

Riff, Hugo makes specific points with backup. You don't - here is an example:

at the number of children in the states that come back to different then assumed fathers and you see that heterosexual males probably lag very closely behind the average gay man inter terms of total partners.

Okay provide some sources for this.

Hugo has provided plenty that show the opposite to be true.

Homosexuality is a psychosomatic/environmentally produced illness that results in deviant behaviour, with deviancy meaning the mathematical digression from normal patterns.

No one here arguing the above give's a rat's ass, whether sodomy turns a guy on or not, or what he does in his private rooms, the issue is larger - it has to do with constitional powers, the meaning of the word family, state vs. church separation and the imposition of judicial decree over parliamentary debate based on the FALSE assumption that Gayness is natural.

What Hugo is trying to tell you is that the political process for change in marriage is based on FLAWED data and unproven assumptions.

That is the issue. Not whether you fly rainbow flags from your bedroom window.