Step by step, researcher looks for sexuality clues

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/26/sexuality/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Can you tell whether someone's gay just by the way he or she walks?

David Sylva wants to know. He straps bright red lights to people's bodies and videotapes them walking in the dark. He then shows the videotape to observers (who won't be biased by clothing or hairstyles since the walker is in the dark) and asks them to guess the walker's sexual orientation.

Sylva's observations focus on the physical characteristics of the individual's stride, such as the closeness of the knees.

Why does Sylva, a graduate student at Northwestern University, care so much about how gay people walk? Because he's one of a growing number of researchers who think sexual orientation may be as basic as how you walk, something inborn that you don't choose.

His premise reflects a growing belief among Americans, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. For the first time a majority of respondents -- about 56 percent -- said they don't believe a person can change his or her sexual orientation. In a similar poll in 2001, 45 percent said orientation couldn't change. In 1998, 36 percent held that belief. The sampling error for Wednesday's results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

A growing number of psychologists and geneticists are working on the "nature versus nurture" question -- a question that's set off a highly charged political debate about whether people choose to be gay, or whether gayness is determined by their DNA.

Take Richard Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University at Fullerton. His studies show that gay people are twice as likely to be left-handed. He also collects photos of hair whorls -- those circular swirls you see atop a man's head. He says about 10 percent of the general population have whorls that rotate counter-clockwise, but about 20 percent of gay men have counter-clockwise whorls.

Lippa acknowledges that studying hair patterns sounds strange. "It sounds a little like the 'Twilight Zone' or voodoo science," he says. But to Lippa, a link between sexual orientation and something that's clearly inborn (like handedness or the way hair grows) speaks volumes. His theory: You can't choose your whorl, and you can't choose your sexuality, either.

"You're born with either a clockwise or a counter-clockwise hair whorl. It's fixed, it's biologically determined. No one's going to argue that your hair whorl is influenced by learning or culture," he says.

Lippa says his next step is see whether there are specific genes that control sexual orientation.

Douglas Abbott thinks Lippa won't find a thing.

"There is no evidence of a 'gay gene,' " says Abbott, professor of child and family studies at the University of Nebraska.

Abbott points to studies that look at the sexual orientation of the offspring of gay people. "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction," he says. "But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

For Abbott, the answer to the nature-vs.-nurture question is very clear. "I think the primary causes of same-sex behavior are environmental and personal choice and free agency," he says. "Can someone change their orientation? The definitive answer to that is, "yes.' "

That makes Gerulf Rieger laugh. "Ask a bunch of straight guys [if they could switch to being gay] and they would tell you, 'Are you kidding me?' " says Rieger, a lecturer in psychology at Northwestern University. "So the other way around doesn't work either."

In his research, Rieger shows videotapes of men and women talking about the weather. Observers have been able to predict with great accuracy whether the person talking is gay or straight. "Even within seconds, people are pretty good at figuring out who's gay and who's not," he says.

Like Sylva with his illuminated walkers, Rieger thinks his research points to genetics, and not choice, as the source of sexual orientation.

"It doesn't seem to be the social environment, it doesn't seem to be the parents or peers that make you gay," he says. "It seems to be something that comes from within."

[JazmenFlowers]

sounds like a total ****tard to me. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

sounds like a total ****tard to me. :shrug:

You mean that this guy is finally trying to prove the the "establishment" that this is the way people are born? I don't think there has ever been another study of this magnitude done by anyone quite as respectable.
Where you see an enemy, I see someone trying to scientifically prove to religious hegemonics tht this is indeed biological.

[JazmenFlowers]

You mean that this guy is finally trying to prove the the "establishment" that this is the way people are born? I don't think there has ever been another study of this magnitude done by anyone quite as respectable.
Where you see an enemy, I see someone trying to scientifically prove to religious hegemonics tht this is indeed biological.
I should have clarified. I think that his aim and goal are awesome, but his supporting documentation and theories make him sound stupid...at least to me.

walks like a duck, talks like a duck, must be a duck.

if I ever hear someone say that to me ever again, I will not be held responsible for what I may do.

[strandinthewind]

I think it will be used both ways. I applaud the noble goal of establishing the congential nature of sexuality. On the other hand, I think religious crazies will use it persecute gay people based on these traits, which will, ironically, include none gay people who happen to have some of the traits.

[HejiraNYC]

How 'bout an official poll of hair whorls among the gay male Ledgies (i.e., all of the guys on here :lol: ) Are you clockwise or counterclockwise? I can't tell my own direction since it's shaved off. :shrug: So what about all of the other idiosyncratic behaviors exhibited by gay men? A predilection for Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Stevie Nicks, Joan Crawford and Liza Minnelli? A tendency to enjoy shopping and attend cultural events? A tendency to speak with a certain cadence and walk with a certain stride? A tendency to have exquisite taste?

I personally think this kind of research is rather dangerous. So let's say, theoretically, that somebody somewhere has found the X-factor that determines gay sexuality. Inevitably this will lead to all kinds of research (funded by the Christian right) to eventually diagnose and eradicate this X-factor. Who's to say whether amniotic fluid will be tested and babies will be aborted if the X-factor is detected? Of course they will condone, even encourage aborting a baby that would grow up to be gay. Don't get me wrong; I think it's great that genetic research is being conducted to determine risk factors and to treat life-threatening genetic diseases. But hunting for the gay gene is just unnecessary when there are so many nobler pursuits.

[JazmenFlowers]

^^^
true.

and my question is: who the **** cares? if you're gay, you're gay. why try to find the "cause"? I get that maybe he's in the right place, but, like you say, it's dangerous for many reasons. Gallactica (is that the right movie with Ethan Hawke) anyone? if we were to find that 95% of gays have those whirls or whatever, you'd have a lot of people either trying to shave their head so no one would know and the 5% with whirls who aren't gay would suffer the prejudice.

Margaret, if you do not pick up this phone is 5 seconds...you a gay.

[ryan8472]

^^^
true.

and my question is: who the **** cares? if you're gay, you're gay. why try to find the "cause"? I get that maybe he's in the right place, but, like you say, it's dangerous for many reasons. Gallactica (is that the right movie with Ethan Hawke) anyone?

Margaret, if you do not pick up this phone is 5 seconds...you a gay.

Gattaca :laugh:

[JazmenFlowers]

Gattaca :laugh:
****. :lol: Jazzy

[mikeschmike]

Margaret, if you do not pick up this phone is 5 seconds...you a gay.

Dees book...is called....Ass Master.

Anyway, back to topic. I watched the four videos on CNN of the people wearing the red blinking lights. I did pretty well...I got three out of four right. the genetics peice of this debate is way too frightening. People are people and that's it. Why would you want to mess with nature anyway?:shrug:

[JazmenFlowers]

^^^
I'm not trying to threadjack, but I have to tell you that it is so ironic because I couldn't get "I'm here to warrrrrsh yur vagina" out of my head this morning. I even had to say it outloud a couple times.

[mikeschmike]

^^^
I'm not trying to threadjack, but I have to tell you that it is so ironic because I couldn't get "I'm here to warrrrrsh yur vagina" out of my head this morning. I even had to say it outloud a couple times.

I love that you said it out loud. I love Gwen, and her vagina washing skillz.

[JazmenFlowers]

I love that you said it out loud. I love Gwen, and her vagina washing skillz.
yeah. I can only imagine what the cars on the freeway were thinking. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

I personally think this kind of research is rather dangerous. So let's say, theoretically, that somebody somewhere has found the X-factor that determines gay sexuality. Inevitably this will lead to all kinds of research (funded by the Christian right) to eventually diagnose and eradicate this X-factor. Who's to say whether amniotic fluid will be tested and babies will be aborted if the X-factor is detected? Of course they will condone, even encourage aborting a baby that would grow up to be gay. Don't get me wrong; I think it's great that genetic research is being conducted to determine risk factors and to treat life-threatening genetic diseases. But hunting for the gay gene is just unnecessary when there are so many nobler pursuits.

There is now wa the Fundies are going to abort a fetus for any reason. Hell, as it is now, they want a woman to deliver a fetus even if it could kill her. Also it would be political suicide for them. If anything, they would figure out who has the "gay chromosome" and send them to some kind of whack "How Not To Be Gay" church like I saw on Anderson Cooper this evening.
Any doctor who tried to extract amniotic fluid from a child I was carrying would receive a swift kick to the groin. I believe the majority of pregnant women might feel the same way.

[amber]

You mean that this guy is finally trying to prove the the "establishment" that this is the way people are born? I don't think there has ever been another study of this magnitude done by anyone quite as respectable.
Where you see an enemy, I see someone trying to scientifically prove to religious hegemonics tht this is indeed biological.

Yeah, my impression is that the studies are good, and interesting, but should be totally unnecessary, because IMO, the thing he is trying to prove with his research is obvious, and has been for a very, very long time.

However - Unfortunately, things aren't so obvious to some people. Some people need this kind of "scientific validation". Which is my answer to "Who the f*ck cares". Well, you better care, b/c there are some super a-holes out there that aren't enlightened. At all. They might beat you up and kill you if you are gay.

So while I think these studies shouldn't be very necessary (although they may be scientifically interesting none the less), I've noticed that there are enough f*cktards left in the world who think things about gay people that are totally lame, and that this research is another small tool towards changing these lamos' minds.
I mean, these people are really stupid. There will have to be a huge stupid aresenal of scientific "evidence" published for years to come to make these Efftards change their mind and realize some obvious things, if they haven't yet.
And so, to that end, carry on with your totally redundant scientific studies. I'm not an f-tard, but many, many people are, and those people should see the studies. There should be studies published in everything these ftards might read, or see, if they do read. Studies should be in effing Highlights magazines in their doctors' offices. Studies should be in Star, or People, and on stupid TV programs - wherever these ftards gain their information is where these studies should be. "God" help us.

I'm not sure how much the threat of "fundies hunting for the gay gene" is really a substantial worry at this point (with all due respect to Hejira). I see the point, but I think it is an aspect that is small in comparison to what studies can accomplish in a positive way. Because no real studies will every support the current fundie platform about gay people.
Plus, WTF? They don't want people to abort, they don't want stem cells used...they don't want gay people...those two things are mutually exclusive.

Iown't care what kind of stupid studies have to be done, as long as the right idea is spread wide and far. Iown't care what it takes to make people know that being gay is genetic, and it's fine.
Oh, and that Abbott guy is a loser/wanker.

[irishgrl]

You mean that this guy is finally trying to prove the the "establishment" that this is the way people are born? I don't think there has ever been another study of this magnitude done by anyone quite as respectable.
Where you see an enemy, I see someone trying to scientifically prove to religious hegemonics tht this is indeed biological.
I dont think you choose your sexuality, nor do I think its in your DNA. Sexuality is a "soul" thing IMO and science will NEVER find a "gay gene". That said, I'd rather see the current trend of scientific searching continue, if for no other reason than that it puts a monkey wrench in the funditard's toolbox.

[seeker007nmss]

Reminds me of the germans in the 1930's measuring noses to find signs of Jewish blood. History just keeps repeating....

[SuzeQuze]

How 'bout an official poll of hair whorls among the gay male Ledgies (i.e., all of the guys on here :lol: ) Are you clockwise or counterclockwise? I can't tell my own direction since it's shaved off. :shrug: So what about all of the other idiosyncratic behaviors exhibited by gay men? A predilection for Barbra Streisand, Madonna, Stevie Nicks, Joan Crawford and Liza Minnelli? A tendency to enjoy shopping and attend cultural events? A tendency to speak with a certain cadence and walk with a certain stride? A tendency to have exquisite taste?

I personally think this kind of research is rather dangerous. So let's say, theoretically, that somebody somewhere has found the X-factor that determines gay sexuality. Inevitably this will lead to all kinds of research (funded by the Christian right) to eventually diagnose and eradicate this X-factor. Who's to say whether amniotic fluid will be tested and babies will be aborted if the X-factor is detected? Of course they will condone, even encourage aborting a baby that would grow up to be gay. Don't get me wrong; I think it's great that genetic research is being conducted to determine risk factors and to treat life-threatening genetic diseases. But hunting for the gay gene is just unnecessary when there are so many nobler pursuits.

:lol: I love your sig! Not making light of your post though.

To me it's just common sense that people are born with their sexual orientation. But I've come to learn my sense isn't as common as I wish it were.

[mikeschmike]

But I've come to learn my sense isn't as common as I wish it were.

That's sig worthy.

[carrie721]

That's sig worthy.

totally.

on topic, isn't there some better way to spend this time & money? aids, cancer, injured soldiers ... i admire that someone wants to prove once and for all that sexuality is inherent, but people will believe what they want to believe anyway, even if they have all the evidence in front of them. this guy's spinning his wheels.

[gldstwmn]

Reminds me of the germans in the 1930's measuring noses to find signs of Jewish blood. History just keeps repeating....

Hardly. The Germans had a specific purpose in the 30's. This is not a government backed research project.

[gldstwmn]

:lol: I love your sig!

I couldn't figure out what it was until you mentioned it amd made me look at it again. :lol: I'm sure that could sell on eBay for at least $200.

[mikeschmike]

totally.

on topic, isn't there some better way to spend this time & money? aids, cancer, injured soldiers ... i admire that someone wants to prove once and for all that sexuality is inherent, but people will believe what they want to believe anyway, even if they have all the evidence in front of them. this guy's spinning his wheels.

I suppose you're going to say something smart about all those morons who buy into that whole evolution mess. :mad:

Seriously though, you have a point. People laugh in the face of proven scientific facts and will never buy into any of this. God made the earth, it's 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, etc. Why waste the effort?

[carrie721]

I suppose you're going to say something smart about all those morons who buy into that whole evolution mess. :mad:

Seriously though, you have a point. People laugh in the face of proven scientific facts and will never buy into any of this. God made the earth, it's 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, etc. Why waste the effort?

exactly. they'll say it was a conspiracy, it's the liberal media, blah blah. it's a shame someone even felt this kind of research was necessary.

[HejiraNYC]

I couldn't figure out what it was until you mentioned it amd made me look at it again. :lol: I'm sure that could sell on eBay for at least $200.

Especially since it would come with a Certificate of Authenticity! :p Now where is that leftover French toast I had for breakfast...

[amber]

If people "are going to think what they always thought anyway", and no one ever changes their mind, then society would have the same viewpoints as it did 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Our society's opinions have actually grown and changed very fast in this century, alone, regarding various types of human rights issues.
So, to say that studying something is useless and that everyone will think what they were going to think anyway is simply not true. Society's attitude towards gay people has changed remarkably just in the past 30 years. That didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because of learning and the spread of information. Some studies and information are more compelling than others, but I would hardly call studies "useless". If no one ever looked for things, studied things, and shared the information, where would gay people be today? Or anyone?

[mikeschmike]

If people "are going to think what they always thought anyway", and no one ever changes their mind, then society would have the same viewpoints as it did 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Our society's opinions have actually grown and changed very fast in this century, alone, regarding various types of human rights issues.
So, to say that studying something is useless and that everyone will think what they were going to think anyway is simply not true. Society's attitude towards gay people has changed remarkably just in the past 30 years. That didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because of learning and the spread of information. Some studies and information are more compelling than others, but I would hardly call studies "useless". If no one ever looked for things, studied things, and shared the information, where would gay people be today? Or anyone?


Hmmm, that wasn't quite the point I was trying to make. I realize the advances that have been made in the acceptance of gay culture, I do. In a perfect world, maybe this study would have a lot more relevance. All I'm saying is that genocide, war, poverty, global warming, AIDS epidemics, corporate greed and crooked politicians are everyday normal news for our world. There are plenty of other places where this money and these resources can be applied.

You know, like coming up with the ten commandments of driving (http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/06/28/holy.rollers/index.html)

[AliceLover]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/26/sexuality/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Can you tell whether someone's gay just by the way he or she walks?

David Sylva wants to know. He straps bright red lights to people's bodies and videotapes them walking in the dark. He then shows the videotape to observers (who won't be biased by clothing or hairstyles since the walker is in the dark) and asks them to guess the walker's sexual orientation.

Sylva's observations focus on the physical characteristics of the individual's stride, such as the closeness of the knees.

Why does Sylva, a graduate student at Northwestern University, care so much about how gay people walk? Because he's one of a growing number of researchers who think sexual orientation may be as basic as how you walk, something inborn that you don't choose.

His premise reflects a growing belief among Americans, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. For the first time a majority of respondents -- about 56 percent -- said they don't believe a person can change his or her sexual orientation. In a similar poll in 2001, 45 percent said orientation couldn't change. In 1998, 36 percent held that belief. The sampling error for Wednesday's results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

A growing number of psychologists and geneticists are working on the "nature versus nurture" question -- a question that's set off a highly charged political debate about whether people choose to be gay, or whether gayness is determined by their DNA.

Take Richard Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University at Fullerton. His studies show that gay people are twice as likely to be left-handed. He also collects photos of hair whorls -- those circular swirls you see atop a man's head. He says about 10 percent of the general population have whorls that rotate counter-clockwise, but about 20 percent of gay men have counter-clockwise whorls.

Lippa acknowledges that studying hair patterns sounds strange. "It sounds a little like the 'Twilight Zone' or voodoo science," he says. But to Lippa, a link between sexual orientation and something that's clearly inborn (like handedness or the way hair grows) speaks volumes. His theory: You can't choose your whorl, and you can't choose your sexuality, either.

"You're born with either a clockwise or a counter-clockwise hair whorl. It's fixed, it's biologically determined. No one's going to argue that your hair whorl is influenced by learning or culture," he says.

Lippa says his next step is see whether there are specific genes that control sexual orientation.

Douglas Abbott thinks Lippa won't find a thing.

"There is no evidence of a 'gay gene,' " says Abbott, professor of child and family studies at the University of Nebraska.

Abbott points to studies that look at the sexual orientation of the offspring of gay people. "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction," he says. "But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

For Abbott, the answer to the nature-vs.-nurture question is very clear. "I think the primary causes of same-sex behavior are environmental and personal choice and free agency," he says. "Can someone change their orientation? The definitive answer to that is, "yes.' "

That makes Gerulf Rieger laugh. "Ask a bunch of straight guys [if they could switch to being gay] and they would tell you, 'Are you kidding me?' " says Rieger, a lecturer in psychology at Northwestern University. "So the other way around doesn't work either."

In his research, Rieger shows videotapes of men and women talking about the weather. Observers have been able to predict with great accuracy whether the person talking is gay or straight. "Even within seconds, people are pretty good at figuring out who's gay and who's not," he says.

Like Sylva with his illuminated walkers, Rieger thinks his research points to genetics, and not choice, as the source of sexual orientation.

"It doesn't seem to be the social environment, it doesn't seem to be the parents or peers that make you gay," he says. "It seems to be something that comes from within."

That little quote right there made me squirm. Theres no way I could be straight. Vaginas??? Ewwwwww.

[HejiraNYC]

If people "are going to think what they always thought anyway", and no one ever changes their mind, then society would have the same viewpoints as it did 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Our society's opinions have actually grown and changed very fast in this century, alone, regarding various types of human rights issues.
So, to say that studying something is useless and that everyone will think what they were going to think anyway is simply not true. Society's attitude towards gay people has changed remarkably just in the past 30 years. That didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because of learning and the spread of information. Some studies and information are more compelling than others, but I would hardly call studies "useless". If no one ever looked for things, studied things, and shared the information, where would gay people be today? Or anyone?

Yes, society does evolve and mindsets do change. But social evolution has never been engineered by science, empirical data and null hypotheses. It's been about appealing to people's emotions, saying certain buzzwords and "spreading the gospel" via the mainstream media. People just tend to think with their guts, data be damned. I think TV shows like "Will and Grace" have more power to change perceptions than any scientific studies, and they provided a more sympathetic image for the gay community as much as they perpetuated the annoying gay stereotypes. Through TV shows like this, society as a whole realized that gays are not all crack smoking pedophiles dying of AIDS. Rather, they are also your harmless, wisecracking (but prancing) next-door-neighbors. Unfortunately, we still hate 'em, but on an individual basis, yeah, some of 'em are alright.

My feeling about research into the determinants of sexuality is that it does more harm than good because it's a losing battle either way. If they have identified the gay gene, they will waste more time and money on ways to treat it/prevent it (meanwhile the polar ice caps are melting, people are starving, people are dying from cancer, etc.). Someone with an axe to grind with you at work can swipe your coffee cup, run a DNA test and then out you to the entire world if you are positive for the gay gene. Conversely, if some kook determines, in a persuasive manner, that sexuality is a choice, you'd better believe that there will be a push for repealing any legal protections that gay people have been able to eke out over the past few decades. Accordingly, gay rehab facilities will spring up like weeds. We have to keep in mind that it was not very long ago that homosexuality was considered a disease in the DSM.

[carrie721]

Yes, society does evolve and mindsets do change. But social evolution has never been engineered by science, empirical data and null hypotheses. It's been about appealing to people's emotions, saying certain buzzwords and "spreading the gospel" via the mainstream media.\

yes! thanks for saying exactly what i was going to.

[seeker007nmss]

Hardly. The Germans had a specific purpose in the 30's. This is not a government backed research project.

I was referring to the fact of trying to find a correlation between to variables based on stereotype, rather than actual science in order to promote their theory.

[seeker007nmss]

If people "are going to think what they always thought anyway", and no one ever changes their mind, then society would have the same viewpoints as it did 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. Our society's opinions have actually grown and changed very fast in this century, alone, regarding various types of human rights issues.
So, to say that studying something is useless and that everyone will think what they were going to think anyway is simply not true. Society's attitude towards gay people has changed remarkably just in the past 30 years. That didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because of learning and the spread of information. Some studies and information are more compelling than others, but I would hardly call studies "useless". If no one ever looked for things, studied things, and shared the information, where would gay people be today? Or anyone?

Societies views do not change, only cycle. Our technoligical toys change, but the human core does not. The acceptance of gays was much more accepted in ancient times during that cycle than now. The culture and ideas on the island of Lesbos, the Spartens, all had strong gay attributes. The Temples of pleasures in Rome are very close to places like Las Vegas. Temple of Aphrodite or Mandalay Bay. Different from one stand point, similar in the core.

Society never changes. It thinks it does by reiventing itself We will always have poor, homeless, greed, corruption aspects on one side, and music, art, literature, kindness on the other. Every aspect of history from wars to religion to thoughts on any given subject fall back to basic principles. The basic instinct to reproduce (Give your off spring greater chance to survive thereby continuing your genes) and the "look I was here" need. Or in more modern terms Money (control of resources) and Power (Survival).

It all cycles and repeats. over and over and over.

[amber]

^^^ So, societies do change, they go through different cycles. So for x number of years in x place at x time, people believe such and such. Then their views change, or cycle into different views. And there is always something new that people are finding out that has never been known before. so, basically, I think yours is a poor argument as far as speaking to this subject. And while cycles in general do repeat, they absolutely are not comprised of exactly the same components every time.
And when new cycles come about, as far as thought and morality, it is still because new information to that particular society at that time causes it to change.

[Rickypt]

I am not interested in proving whether or not one is born gay. By doing that, I find an inherent belief that being gay is bad or not normal, but we can "blame" it on the fact we're born that way. Besides, most gay people know we were born that way so why can't people just believe us instead of wasting time on experiments.

Homophobic people are going to be homophobic regardless of the science. Many of these folks are the same people who don't believe in evolution. They will find a religious reason to discriminate against and hate gays regardless.

It really shouldn't matter if we are born gay or choose it.

Edit: i wrote this before reading the whole thread. I see I'm just agreeing with what many others have written: carrie, mike, hejira, etc.

[seeker007nmss]

^^^ So, societies do change, they go through different cycles. So for x number of years in x place at x time, people believe such and such. Then their views change, or cycle into different views. And there is always something new that people are finding out that has never been known before. so, basically, I think yours is a poor argument as far as speaking to this subject. And while cycles in general do repeat, they absolutely are not comprised of exactly the same components every time.
And when new cycles come about, as far as thought and morality, it is still because new information to that particular society at that time causes it to change.

Only what they percieve as new. The core is always the same. And Yes, I agree, the cycles are not comprised of the same components everytime. But society can't seem to go beyond a certain point of a selfish, short-sighted stance that it always seems to take. Not all of siciety, mind you. There are glimmers of light every once in awhile. But they don't always last, and sometimes are few and far between. Now....How about a choccochip cookie? I'm buyin. ;)

[seeker007nmss]

It really shouldn't matter if we are born gay or choose it.




I agree. People aways feel the need to catagorize things. I am straight and think gay or not is a nonissue. Any Variance in society, relgion, belief, ...whatever should be tolerated as long as they are not harming innocents or forcing/harming others for not believing the same thing. With the idea that you understand and take responsibility for your actions. You break it, you buy it.

[gldstwmn]

I was referring to the fact of trying to find a correlation between to variables based on stereotype, rather than actual science in order to promote their theory.

Then your point is well taken. I bet you were a great math student? :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

^^^ So, societies do change, they go through different cycles. So for x number of years in x place at x time, people believe such and such. Then their views change, or cycle into different views. And there is always something new that people are finding out that has never been known before. so, basically, I think yours is a poor argument as far as speaking to this subject. And while cycles in general do repeat, they absolutely are not comprised of exactly the same components every time.
And when new cycles come about, as far as thought and morality, it is still because new information to that particular society at that time causes it to change.

It's such a coincidence that we are talking about cycles now becuase when I was riding my bike today I was thinking that life itself is just a series of cycles.

[irishgrl]

It's such a coincidence that we are talking about cycles now becuase when I was riding my bike today I was thinking that life itself is just a series of cycles.
well, the wheel in the sky keeps on turning after all.........

[HejiraNYC]

when I was riding my bike today I was thinking that life itself is just a series of cycles.

Yes, Lindsey, isn't that WEIRD? :rolleyes: ;)

[SuzeQuze]

That's sig worthy.

Thanks. After it came out I thought that too. :laugh:

[seeker007nmss]

Then your point is well taken. I bet you were a great math student? :laugh:

I got disgusted with upper mathematics when a friend's father , who is a nuclear physicist at Sandia Labs in NM, asked why we were being taught some upper level calculus stuff. "I don't even use that". I was already on the edge and that pushed me over the "I don't want any more math" ledge.

[amber]

I am not interested in proving whether or not one is born gay. By doing that, I find an inherent belief that being gay is bad or not normal, but we can "blame" it on the fact we're born that way. Besides, most gay people know we were born that way so why can't people just believe us instead of wasting time on experiments.
I'm not understanding the logic. How does studying something scientifically imply that it is bad? Most things we are are genetic, when we study those things, it doesn't necessarily mean or imply they are bad, just because we are studying them. And of course gay people know they were born gay, but maybe non gay people want to understand further. After all, they don't know what it is like being you. And, JMO, if someone is born something, that seems more "normal" to me. Like being left handed is normal, or blond. Cause you were born that way.

Homophobic people are going to be homophobic regardless of the science. Many of these folks are the same people who don't believe in evolution. They will find a religious reason to discriminate against and hate gays regardless.
Then how has homophobia in our society dropped so dramatically in recent years? By accident? Also, even if a homophobic doesn't change their mind, maybe their kids will believe differently because of evidence, scientific or otherwise. I think it is a fallacy to believe people can't change their minds. Not everyone, but some people surely can, and over a generation populations especially change their minds.

It really shouldn't matter if we are born gay or choose it.
It shouldn't matter if we are born left handed, or will get cancer, or experience hair loss, or choose to eat meat, or anything. Doesn't mean we shouldn't study those things. If it doesn't matter to you if gay people were born or chose it, then what is the harm in gaining scientific knowlege about it?
And does it really matter to you what type of reason leads people to the conclusion to accept gay people? I would think acceptance is desireable no matter what.

Not being rude, just not really understanding your logic.


:xoxo:

[irishgrl]

I'm not understanding the logic. How does studying something scientifically imply that it is bad? Most things we are are genetic, when we study those things, it doesn't necessarily mean or imply they are bad, just because we are studying them. And of course gay people know they were born gay, but maybe non gay people want to understand further. After all, they don't know what it is like being you. And, JMO, if someone is born something, that seems more "normal" to me. Like being left handed is normal, or blond. Cause you were born that way.

arent you confusing a physical characteristic with something that is inherently emotional/spiritual? (not quite sure what term to use, I just know it aint physical or mental!) I mean, there is no physical connection to sexuality, no "gay gene" floating out there, and science is barking up the wrong tree IMO. That said, however, at least the scientists are willing to acknowledge that it isnt something a person has control over...

[carrie721]

arent you confusing a physical characteristic with something that is inherently emotional/spiritual? (not quite sure what term to use, I just know it aint physical or mental!) I mean, there is no physical connection to sexuality, no "gay gene" floating out there, and science is barking up the wrong tree IMO. That said, however, at least the scientists are willing to acknowledge that it isnt something a person has control over...

i disagree that there isn't a gay gene ... i think it probably is genetic. but i've got no interest in finding one. waste of time and money.

[strandinthewind]

i disagree that there isn't a gay gene ... i think it probably is genetic. but i've got no interest in finding one. waste of time and money.

I think there likely is not one. I think sexuality is not really defineable in that context. I think we are biologically engineered to want to have sex; it is the reason we are here in fact. I think what attracts you is something different.

[carrie721]

I think there likely is not one. I think sexuality is not really defineable in that context. I think we are biologically engineered to want to have sex; it is the reason we are here in fact. I think what attracts you is something different.

if it's not genetic, what do you think it is? do you think sexuality is inherent?

[strandinthewind]

if it's not genetic, what do you think it is? do you think sexuality is inherent?

I guess I take it from a bigger (for want of a better word) vantage point - I think that the fact that attraction with so called sexuality varies so much (some guys like fat girls or trashy girls, or preppies, etc. ) that that variation explains homo as opposed to hetero sexuality.

[carrie721]

I guess I take it from a bigger (for want of a better word) vantage point - I think that the fact that attraction with so called sexuality varies so much (some guys like fat girls or trashy girls, or preppies, etc. ) that that variation explains homo as opposed to hetero sexuality.

well, i believe those differences can probably be explained in terms of nature & sometimes nurture as well ... so :shrug: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

well, i believe those differences can probably be explained in terms of nature & sometimes nurture as well ... so :shrug: :laugh:

I think so too. I mean look at identical twins and one, but not the other, is gay. That is not evidence of the genetic theory :shrug:

Also, check your PM's :D

[carrie721]

I think so too. I mean look at identical twins and one, but not the other, is gay. That is not evidence of the genetic theory :shrug:

Also, check your PM's :D

that doesn't necessarily mean there is no gay gene - just that there are other contributing factors in some cases.

i don't have anything :confused: can you re-send?

[irishgrl]

i disagree that there isn't a gay gene ... i think it probably is genetic. but i've got no interest in finding one. waste of time and money.
unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. sexual orientation isnt genetic. as was stated in the original article, if that were true, then gay people's children would also be gay regardless of upbringing. also, straight people's children would always be straight.

just not a supportable theory, sorry.

[irishgrl]

I guess I take it from a bigger (for want of a better word) vantage point - I think that the fact that attraction with so called sexuality varies so much (some guys like fat girls or trashy girls, or preppies, etc. ) that that variation explains homo as opposed to hetero sexuality.
IMO it is a "soul" thing. something that goes back to our very identity, who we are and what we care about.

I would also posit that it has to do with Karma and past life memory, what we feel comfortable with and what we are here to learn.

[Moony]

unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. sexual orientation isnt genetic. as was stated in the original article, if that were true, then gay people's children would also be gay regardless of upbringing. also, straight people's children would always be straight.

just not a supportable theory, sorry.

What about dominant and recessive genes? For instance, two brown eyed parents won't always have brown eyed children (simplifying here, maybe..w/e). Perhaps sexual orientation is even a combination of a few different genes + external stimuli? Who knows. I'm with a few of you here, I don't care to know. IMO, It doesn't matter what causes you to be gay/straight.

[SuzeQuze]

unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. sexual orientation isnt genetic. as was stated in the original article, if that were true, then gay people's children would also be gay regardless of upbringing. also, straight people's children would always be straight.

just not a supportable theory, sorry.

That isn't true. Genetics are much more complicated than that. I think that perhaps a handful of genes are involved.

[strandinthewind]

Cool points above. But, I still cannot get around the fact that identical twins can have different sexuality. Their genes are exactly the same.

[irishgrl]

Cool points above. But, I still cannot get around the fact that identical twins can have different sexuality. Their genes are exactly the same.
exactly. sexuality isnt genetic IMO; dominant/recessive and/or combinant genes notwithstanding. sexuality is part of our personality which is not mappable via impirical scientific method, because it is inorganic.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I could not open the cite.

But, back to what I was talking about, I was not really saying it was a fetish thing, like bondage. I was was trying to say this - if a guy is asleep and someone (man or woman) starts to fellate him, he is going to become erect and eventually ejaculate. In other words, his body and hormones are such that stimulation of his penis leads to ejaculation no matter the stimulator. Now, if this guy was a hetero and another guy fellated him while he was awake, he might still get an erection because of the phycial touching, but he will not be into it because guys do not atract him. I do not that attraction is genetic, I think it is something else. The hormones and the reaction caused by the, however, are genetic.

[Rickypt]

Then how has homophobia in our society dropped so dramatically in recent years? By accident?

Sorry, just coming back to this thread. I'll try to answer your other questions soon. As for this one, I think it has dropped because of more people coming out and the proliferation of gay/lesbian characters in tv, film, etc. I think there was a major shift in society's attitude towards gays when kd, Melissa, and Ellen came out. Cheers to the women.

More people now know someone who is gay and that makes it easier to be comfortable with the gays. Plus younger people don't have as many years of being taught to hate/fear gays combined with only negative stereotypes in the media/pop culture. It's the younger ones who are less homophobic. None of it has to do with science.

[strandinthewind]

^^

I disagree a little in that the science enhances the general thought that it is a disease as opposed to a congential attribute, if you will. But, certainly, as always, your point about the coming out to America as the most significant cause is accurate.