-DB-

no, i dont accept the premise. you are mixing terms. it has been known that gays would act homophobic to deny to themselves and others the fact that they are gay. that is something that is psychological, not genetic. prove somehow that homophobia and homosexuality are linked genetically, because i would much rather group homophobia and racism, as they both hate for no reason.

ChurchOfBruce

Sexual orientation is almost all nature. Homophobia is *all* nurture.

And, yeah, you can be a lesbian in a man's body, because gender identity is nature, too.

--Frank

dk

Is that a scientific fact, a cultural norm, dogma or some other kind of knowledge?

ChurchOfBruce

It's common sense.

Sexual response is *instinctive*. It's not learned. Yes, we can control it to some degree, but we can control hunger to some degree, too, and I don't think anyone's going to contend that hunger is a learned response.

However, sexual excitement is instinctive. I'm assuming you're a guy--tell me, how much control do you have over your erections? Some, but not complete. If something sexually excites you, then it sexually excites you.

Men don't turn me on. You could have the best looking man in the world standing in front of me stark naked, and.....nothing. Now, change "man" to "woman" in that scenario, and Mr. Happy will be flying at full mast and ready to go .

You ask any gay man the same thing, and he's going to say exactly the opposite of what I just said.

The (admittedly limited) research I've seen points towards homosexual's brains being wired differently, which is another point towards nature.

As for the other thing--gender identity, which is more my thing--yes, there are studies that show that gender identity is nature. One proposes that
the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. In other words, men with female gender identities seem to have physical brains that have more in common with genetic females than non-gender-conflicted genetic males.

That one is here: <a href="http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm" target="_blank">http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm</a>

Yes, it's limited. And, AFAIK, this is the only study of its kind (so far). Transgenderism isn't high on the list of research topics &lt;G&gt;.

One of the theories on this--and the proof is *mighty* scanty, but this is the theory--is this: First of all, in uetero, we're all female. Female is the default. Somewhere around the sixth to eighth week, a fetus with XY chromosomes gets a "hormone bath" which programs the cells of the building reproductive system to form themselves to "male". The current theory proposes that there is a *second* hormonal bath which affects, not the reproductive system, but the brain--specifically, that BSTc area mentioned above. A genetic male who gets the *first*--reproductive system--hormone bath but has something go awry with the second one, the brain one--well, there you have a person with gender identity dysphoria.

By the way, the *first*--reproductive system--hormone bath can go awry, too. We *know* that--this is how we end up with intersexed people and people who are outwardly female but have XY chromosomes, and so on.

I can tell you that I've known I was "born with the wrong body" since I was *six*. And I'm *not* considered transsexual (since my gender dysphoria is not strong enought to make me rearrange body parts). Imagine how a true TS feels. Most of them have known all along. I have a TS friend who, when asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, always replied "a girl" as far back as memory goes.

And, gender identity is independent of sexual orientation. There are male-to-female TSs who end up as straight women, and those who end up as lesbians, and those who end up bisexual. (If I went into the body shop for the cut-and-paste, I'd be a lesbian. I'm completely oriented towards women, as I explained above. What genetalia I happen to have, or how I see my gender, has nothing to do with that.)

--Frank

Dark Jedi

Hmm. Please explain, logically, where the first gay came from, based on that arguement.

-DB-

sorry, i was being sarcastic.

maybe dk could explain it better

dk

dk: I’m not sure what category of knowledge “Common Sense” falls under, perhaps democratic consensus. Genetics offers no comment on a sex orientation gene. Seems to me all genetics has to say is…
. . . . . . Name of . . Sex of . . . Frequency in
Chromosome . Syndrome . Individual . .Population
---------- . -------- . ---------- . --------------
. 46. . . . .XX Normal . . Female . . 0.511*
. 46. . . . .XY Normal . . . Male . . 0.489*
. 45. . . . XO Turner . . Female . . 1/5,000
. 47. . . . XXY Klinefelter .Male . . 1/700

dk: But a little more investigation yields:

Quote:

Klinefelter's Syndrome - An Orientation

dk: Clearly the X chromosome plays no part in sex assignment (see Klinefelter syndrome) of boys and girls, so common sense says the cause of Bi-Females and Lesbians is something else, perhaps nurture who knows. The cause of gaydom and bi-men might be the Y Chromosome but who knows. To assume the cause of bi, gays and lesbian is genetics defies common sense, but who knows.
dk: I hate the taste of gin, even good gin gives be the shivers, but a good rye whiskey or bourbon on the rocks is primo. If I drank gin for a while I assume I'd acquire a taste. I did acquire a taste for wine and beer. I don’t like sweet potatoes, and never have but my whole family swears by them. I once dated a woman with hairy armpits and legs and thought she was wonderfully sexy, but many of my friends thought she was a she-man, and teased me endlessly. I don’t have any sexual fetishes of note but I’m told some people live and die by them. The point is my personal taste in booze, food or women doesn’t establish a genetic link, and that’s common sense, lets be honest now.
dk: Like I said, I suspect the causes of bi, gay, and lesbian people are part nature and part nurture. I don’t understand why parents abuse their children, teachers sometimes blame families they don’t know for racial inequalities, fathers beat up little league umpires or anyone mainlines heroine, maybe its genetic, I don’t know. When I don’t understand something I defining the parameters as broadly as possible, so for me the cause of bi, gay and lesbian people is some unfathomable mixture of nature and nurture.
dk: I don’t know what to say that you haven’t, it’s was a very limited study.
dk: This kinda evidence seems a little desperate if you want my honest opinion. Don’t get me wrong I don’t have anything against personal opinion, speculation or fantasy but this amounts to philosophical, psychological and political doctrine. The hard science is inconclusive at best. The Human Genome is backing away from many of its initial claims. Craig Venter (Celera Genomics Group) is accusing his competition of selling genes that don’t exist. Given the discrepancy in gene counts they need to redo the Table of Contents.

• Venter says there are 26,000 to 40,000 genes,
• Incyte Genomics says it's got 120,000; .
• Human Genome Sciences says it has identified 100,000 human genes.
• DoubleTwist pegs it at 65,000 to 100,000.
• Affymetrix sells DNA analysis chips with 60,000 genes.

Quote:

First, that with only 30,000 genes to go around (of which, it's been argued, only 3,000 or so are viable from a pharmaceutical point of view) the golden age of medical applications (meaning, $$$) could be brutish and short. Second, that the pointy end of genomics' scalpel would seem to be not in the genes, but in the proteins. And decoding the human proteome — well, that's a whole other race

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ChurchOfBruce

CoB: The problem here is that you are equating "nature" to raw genetics. You're right, further down, when you say that there is controversy about various gene research. We *don't* know, yet. Just because there's no *chromosomal* differences in gay/lesbian people doesn't mean that something else *in uetero* isn't crucial. We don't have all the genes mapped, we don't quite know--although we have an idea--of hormonal influences on the developing fetus. We're still figuring that out.

What I meant by "common sense" still comes back to innate sexual response. I'm not attracted to men. I couldn't be gay if I tried. It's never going to happen. What makes me different from a gay man? It's *not* nurture--it's obvious I'm pro gay rights &lt;G&gt;. It's an instinctive response.

You ever spend any time with any gay people? My best friend my sophomore year of college was a lesbian. She wasn't out of the closet to too many people, and I had a girlfriend back home I was being loyal to, so we hung around a lot together. Most of the campus thought we were getting it on &lt;G&gt;, which was the idea--it kept people off both our backs--but it was strictly platonic. We were attracted to each other intellectually, so we spent a lot of time together.

One of the more enlightening things was that the way she looked at and reacted to women was *exactly* the way I did. You can't fake that. A good looking girl walking across campus aroused her interest, just as it did mine. A good looking guy did nothing for her, as it did nothing for me. That is *not* learned behavior.


A genetic link? That depends on how you define "gentic link". I still maintain a lot of that stuff is nature, not nurture. If you "developed a taste" for beer and wine, then you were *neutral* to begin with. My bugaboo isn't gin, it's tequila. I say with utmost confidence that I could *never*ever*ever* develop a taste for tequila. Never happen. The stuff makes me gag. It's vile &lt;G&gt;. Now, if you think you can voluntarily control your taste buds and your gag reflex......&lt;G&gt; I can't. My abhorrence for tequila is *physical*. My taste buds aren't wired to appreciate tequila. The stuff *literally* makes me gag--that's not a figure of speech.

Now, my sister can do tequila shots until the cows come home &lt;G&gt;. Why? Something's different about our taste buds. It isn't nurture.

--Frank

dk

Point by Point Frank you're welcome to your personal opinion, but you started out this conversation claiming objective certainty. If we're honest, the cause of homosexuality is unknown. Parents that don't want their child exposed to homosexual dogma, doctrine, propaganda and brainwashing in public schools are being violated.

I'm pointing out that our public schools are engaged in social engineering that calls into question thier integrity and accountablity. Public schools need to clean up thier act,
first be accountable for education
second clean house of vested and special interest groups
third Stop being a garbage dump for societies social ills.

ChurchOfBruce

The cause of homosexuality is not unknown. Find a gay person who, previously in life, had no sexual interest in the same sex and then suddenly got "converted" to the "gay lifestyle". Good luck. You have not once refuted my contention that sexual response is innate--because you can't. If sexual response is innate, homosexuality can *not* be a learned response. Like I said, common sense.

As for your children being exposed to things you wish they weren't--welcome to parenthood. However, you pick and choose homosexuality out of the multitude of things they might be exposed to because you're a homophobe. If one of your kids is gonna be gay, then they're gonna be gay. Having someone tell them that this is OK might save them from suicide. This is wrong?

Heck, my six year old went off to kindergarten and got exposed to the Backstreet Boys. I'd rather have her be surrounded by a pack of lesbians . Homosexuality might not be a learned response, but musical taste *is*.

--Frank