Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
The Science of Homosexuality
Homosexuality is an issue that has sparked tumultuous debate in the United States, and has been brought to the forefront in the last fifty to sixty years. While the legal and social implications has captured the attention of the media, the lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order. While few have come to a conclusive answer, important progress has been made since the time homosexuality was merely considered a mental disorder that could be cured.
In the March 2004, Health and Medicine Week, research findings from the study of homosexuality in rams was published. Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine had looked at the biological foundations of a male sheep's homosexuality. They used the animals since they had been consistently and thoroughly studied in the past, and provided for a controllable experiment. They studied the oSDN, "an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain." The hypothalamus is an important part of the brain that regulates body temperature, blood pressure, as well as sexual behavior. Researchers found that the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN) was larger and contained more neurons in male- oriented rams (1). This information is important in several different ways. While it is solely a study on ram behavior, it is believed that homosexuality can be found in many different species, not limited to humans. This is also important because it is the first study to show a relationship between variations in sexual partner preference and brain structure in an animal, which could provide insight into how humans are studied and what should be looked for in humans to unlock the clues of biological causes of homosexuality.
While the rams are an interesting case study, there are also research findings directly relating to humans. The prenatal hormone theory is a provocative explanation of the link between biology and homosexual tendencies. It is based on the idea that hormones can affect a fetus in the womb and can influence brain development. Studies on the neuroendocrine function in homosexuality has shown that while levels of testosterone and estrogen do not typically vary along the lines of homo and heterosexuality, it is one's response mechanisms to these hormones that can play a role in sexual orientation. It is far too basic to attribute homosexuality with a lack of testosterone in males and a lack of estrogen in women, and many studies have negated this idea. However, the central nervous system, which mediates behavior and physiological responses, can be heavily affected by the level of hormones present (2).
It is also believed that birth order has a direct relation to whether or not one is gay. It is possible that a woman's fetus builds up certain antibodies in her first pregnancy, if it is with a male, to male antibodies, and these affect the development of male fetuses in subsequent pregnancies (4). For each older brother, humans are believed to be approximately 33% more likely to be homosexual. In other studies, it has been found that homosexuals are 39% more likely to be left- handed than heterosexuals (3).
Biological study of sexual orientation is not without its flaw. It has been criticized in the scientific world for reducing the subject to simplistic sides of homo and hetero sexual behavior. Simon LeVay is a scientist who has published extensive research on the difference in biology between homo and heterosexuals. In Science magazine in1991, Thomas A. Schoenfeld writes about his work and the faults he finds with LeVays work. Schoenfeld states that biology cannot always be viewed as something that runs against social environment and upbringing, "It is all too common to see early experience, social learning, or choice pitted against biology, but these are false dichotomies" (5). Rather it is the genetic and biological traits that lead to predisposition towards certain behavior characteristics. This approach allows for the biological factors in homosexuality, without limiting the subject to exclusively culture or biology.
All of the research that has surfaced in the past century reflects an interesting pattern of social acceptability of homosexuality. What was once thought of as a negative and controllable defect, is now recognized and embraced by many. While society is far from fully accepting homosexuality as a cultural norm, it has entered the public sphere as a subject worthy of discourse, rather than feared and ignored. It is in this sense that scientists are able to invest more of their time and money into researching homosexuality. In addition, the study of homosexuality itself both in its cultural causes and social effects, such as AIDS, depression, gender roles, marriage laws, has gained world wide attention. The research presented is far from conclusive, and generally generates more questions than it answers. It is uncertain whether or not humans will truly understand the relationship between nature and nurture and the intricate balance of biological or genetic effects and learned cultural behavior. After seeing some of the evidence about biological theories of homosexuality, I am not completely convinced of researchers conclusions. However, I do believe that it presents the interesting point that one cannot consider homosexuality to be a purely psychological or behavioral characteristic, completely disregarding any evidence of biological or genetic influence. After all, in our society, where in some places homosexuals are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one choose to be gay?
Works Cited
1) "Biology is Behind Homosexuality in Sheep, Study Confirms." Health and Medicine Week (2004): 422. ProQuest. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 25 Sept. 2006 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=588863761&Fm t=3&clientId= 42764&RQT=309&VName=PQD>.
2) Diamant, Louis. Male and Femal Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches. Cambridge: Hemisphere Corporation, 1987. 129-153.
3) Kristof, Nicholas D. "Gay At Birth?" New York Times (2003): a19. ProQuest. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 24 Sept. 2006 <http://proquest. umi.com /pqdweb ?did=430686171&Fmt=2&clientId=42764&RQT=309&V Name=PQD
4) Levay, Simon. "The Biology of Sexual Orientation." Homepage of Simon LeVay. Feb. 2006. 25 Sept.2006 <http://members.aol.com/slevay /page22.html#_Brain _stud ies%97function>.
5) Schoenfeld, Thomas A. "Biology and Homosexuality." Science 254 (1991): 630. JStor. Bryn Mawr College Canaday Library. 25 Sept. 2006 <http://links.js tor.org/sici?sici= 0036-8075%2819911101%2 93%3A254%3A503 2%3C630%3ABAH %3E2.0.CO%3B2-9>.
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
About Student Papers
| This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated. |
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
A Random Walk
New Topics
-
4 weeks 5 days ago
-
4 weeks 5 days ago
-
9 weeks 1 day ago
-
9 weeks 3 days ago
-
9 weeks 5 days ago
Comments
hmm
Homosexuality is perfectly fine with me and really should be to everybody else.
Ahh
Ahh, I get you now. :) The only reason I thought you were against was you replied to someone against it, but sounding like you were of the same opinion. :S Sorry.
Reply
1. This is an extremely flawed argument. "People will choose to be gay because they love the same sex" is pretty much the premise this rebuttal rests upon. This is a circular explanation. How does that love arise in the person "choosing" to be gay then? If heterosexualis are not aroused by one of the same sex, how is it then that these heterosexuals become homosexuals? Because they fall in love with someone of the same sex? But isn't it already established that this cannot happen for heterosexuals? As their name implies, they love people of the opposite sex. Thus it seems remiss to even suggest that it's a choice for homosexuals to be homosexual. People can die all they want for love of their God, but that is completely different to people 'choosing' to be subject to an extremely high level intensity of bullying.
2. I am familiar with the endocrine system and it's effects on the human psyche also. Believe me, Chris was not arguing neurologically. He was arguing the immoral status of pedophilia and attempting to compare it to homosexuality. If what he was arguing was indeed the endocrinatic influence on sexuality/sexual pleasures, then it stands to reason heterosexuality falls within the same category as pedophilia. This is extremely unlikely, as already discussed, pedophilia is determined psychologically - by those who enjoy holding a level of power over others. Pedophiles are not attracted to children, they are attracted to the power they have over them.
3. Exactly! There is no argument about homosexuality if there is no religion - or no BELIEF in religion, as it were. Thus, if one is irreligious, they should have a right to enjoy their life with no arbitrary interference by religious nuts, or even religious people. I agree that religious people should have a say about their own life, but they should NEVER have a right to interfere with another's. As for religion shaping morals - I believe the opposite. I believe that morals shaped religion. As religion is a written document, and as it is relatively unchangeable, the morals expressed in religion are also steadfast. Thus, the morals we see throughout religious scripts nowadays are morals of 2,000 years ago. After all, Judeo-Christian religions are quite new, about 2000-5000 years old. Morals have existed since humankind attained rationality.
Thus, it would appear that right and wrong are NOT dictated by religion, but merely recorded in religion for future reference. It would seem that right and wrong change over time - according to human rationality. Once again, this proves that religious doctrine is not fundamental to right and wrong. However, people have made it so by believing in the contradictions the bible presents, thus cementing a belief of right and wrong according to archaic texts. Also, humans may be imperfect, but there are no beings more rational than they.
Finally, you are absolutely crrect in saying that if one is irreligious, then they can do no wrong as dictated by religious docrtrine, merely by the law. Therefore, I call to your common sense - why do religious peoples argue that they are doing wrong? According to you, they aren't as they are irreligious. So who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that what someone (irreligious) is doing is wrong as dictated by the bible? I'm not saying don't express your opinion, I'm saying there's a difference between expressing one's opinion and forcing that opinion onto another. Sadly, most religious people do not see the distinction and thus, both are concurrent.
I must say, you did offend me. Ignorance is offensive to me. It was when you declared homosexuality was a choice. It certainly wasn't for me. I have been shunned by my family and my friends simply for BEING homosexual, not for having a homosexual partner. I do not love anyone (the way you were implying) yet. But I am attracted to the same sex. Therefore, can you argue I CHOSE to be gay for love, even when I don't love anyone? This is ignorance, and it is offensive. Believe what you want to believe with respect to religion, but do not for one second state that what I am is a choice I made.
Action dictates Orientation, not love
In respect to you I will speak no more of religion since you have an obvious distinction b/w it and sexuality and have your own opinions on it as well. However, The argument is NOT "ppl will choose to be gay because they love the same-sex". The argument in question was the fact that people will WILLINGLY go against all odds to be with the one they presumably love *regardless of bullying, societal pressures and so-forth* Is it not true that you in no way kept homosexuality to yourself despite being "shunned" as you say? Using your own terms it seems you were in danger of your "health", "safety", and "well-being" and yet you still pronounce homosexuality on this blog and most likely in life as well.
Please listen carefully I am not saying homosexuals choose to be homosexual in the way you claim I stated it. And neither am I imposing religious doctrines on homosexuals who don't believe, but only pointing out the fact that it’s hypocritical to be support to both homosexuality and religion. Now homosexuals are socially stereotyped under many characteristics but are logically defined as one who deals in homosexuality meaning there is emphasis on the sex involved *if any* Ppl try to reduce homosexuality to lust or even love but there are no biological implications that apply to loving someone else. Love is an abstract entity unquantifiable by science in every aspect I would never base my argument on this. However, change of sexual orientation *which has been successfully established by myriads of ppl* is established when a homosexual chooses to no longer have sex with the same-sex or a hetereosexual no longer wishes to have sex with the opposite sex. This is with the account that actions are driven by intentions. To clarify if needed, hetereosexuals are not defined by who they are aroused by but who they actually have sex with. A murderer for instance is not a murderer until he has commited the murder (this is why courts cannot convict anyone on basis of intent).. The ACT defines him/her not the intention or the "arousal" as you say, however, because intention drives action as i said earlier most ppl do not stray from what they intend to do. This is why virgins can still implicate sexual orientation because it’s what they “intend” to do with their lives however their orientation will ultimately be defined by what they “actually” do. Therefore I can be "aroused" by a man *me being a man myself of course* and not be defined a homosexual until arousal is replaced by action. A man on this blog says he is hetereosexual but is occasionally attracted to other men. The "love" is not the defining point as many claim but ppl argue there is a "choice" because actions are boundless by free-will. Even you say “with pedophilia, the crime is having sex with someone not fully able to grant consent to such acts; or if they do give consent, not to understand the gravity of their decision… This is having sex with another without their consent. Homosexuals above the age required for effectual consent can, naturally, agree to have sex.” Though you argued the fact of consent you no doubt acknowledged that the sexual encounter itself, whether it being agreed or not agreed, was the distinction and the defining point. Another perspective: Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a genetic homosexual trait, these individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means). Therefore, if an alleged “gay gene” did exist, and people had no choice in sexuality, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether because genetics are absolute. It is maladaptive for humans to be “controlled” by genetics and have no say-so in their own life, it seems we are just as robots hardwired to behave a certain way as we would call it genetics. However, I go back to my first argument that it is the action that takes place and EVEN IF there was a gene or multiple genes that suggested homosexuality, gene expression (in general not just with sexuality) is conducive to environmental stimulus meaning that it can never be completely one-sided towards genetics. One can say sexuality is culturally constructed OR that it is a combination of both genetics and society but it is never just genetics. And yes one does not have control of biological build but since biology is not solely responsible for behavior, nothing is completely uncontrollable.
Also note that society will stereotype you off of intentions whether you act on them or not and stereotypes often contradict reality I was called and gay and mistreated for being “gay” many times and in no way am I homosexual so stereotypes are a collaboration of simplistic characteristics observed by ignorance this cannot be a determining point of homosexuality. And to further clarify I do think homosexuality is wrong for my own reasons but do not think homosexuals should be mistreated so I am sorry for your misfortune but please understand the argument is nothing about love by which we both seem to agree love is not a valid argument. and it is in no way meant to be offensive I believe I withstand a valid/sincere argument for case of choice over genetics.
Reply
1. You use a very convoluted argument to explain yourself. Do you know what convultedness is usually indicative of? Confusion. I do not mean to offend you, but homosexuality is, on it's basic level, determined by arousal, not who you have sex with. Are you saying that men who are straight, but have had sex with a man merely because their sexual desires overwhelmed them are not straight? I do not think this is a valid opinion to hold. Let's face it, if you are sexually aroused by solely males and are a male yourself - you are gay.
2. Dealing with love is more difficult. Love, as you said, is unquantifiable by science. But saying that homosexuality is not biological because science cannot quantify love seems to suggest that science is ineffable - that it is perfectly developed and needs no more improvement. Again, this is remiss, as there are many variants of science still being worked upon. However, I digress from my original point. People are rarely 100% straight or 100% gay. There tends to be a continuum upon which the majority of the populous fall in between the two extremes. Because of this, people are often influenced by love. This love isn't discrimatory. However, if there is no physical attraction between the two partners (ie. 100% straight), then love will not strike them. It is impossible as there is no way for the two to express such love.
3. You argue that a change of sexual orientation is possible as orientation is determined by who you have sex with. Among the minds of the populous, this may be true. However, as already argued, arousal, the prelude to sex, does not change. It is steadfast. Therefore, whilst one may be denying their homosexuality by having sex with the opposite sex, they are still aroused by the same sex. Therefore, sexuality hasn't changed. Just who they have sex with.
4. You say you are pointing out that it is hypocritical to believe in homosexuality and religion. How is this so when most of the religions that condemn homosexuality are Judeo-Christian? Whilst I'm on the subject, marriage is not a Judeo-Christian religion. It was a Pagan tradition that the Christians stole (as they did many other Pagan rites and ceremonies) from them. Therefore, Judeo-Christian religion shouldn't come into the equation.
5. Your simile "A murderer is not a murderer unless he murders someone" to state that homosexuality is based on actions is flawed. The difference is that killing someone is the most basic synthesis of a murderer's identification. However, arousal is that of a homosexual's. Not sex. Arousal, which determines the sex. Thus, a more appropriate simile to use would be "A murderer is not a murderer unless he is caught and proven guilty for his crime." The prelude of this is, of course, the unlawful killing of another reasonable creature in being. The very basic identity of a murderer.
6. I am anonymous on this blog. Therefore I have no qualms about being 'out'. However, I do in real life as the reactions of those I love were not expected, and hurtful. I have no one that I love. Therefore I cannot go willingly against all odds to be with them. And indeed I haven't gone against all odds to be with anyone.
7. With my pedophilia argument, I did not acknowledge that the sex itself defined a pedophile. The arousal by children and the arousal by the power pedophiles have over these children defines them. Though one may never act on such desires, they will still be a pedophile if they are aroused by such things. One who looks up child pornography exemplifies this. There is no sex, merely arousal. Yet still, they are pedophiles as defined by their arousal.
8. Your sociological argument of nurture over nature is one to be expected. However, what is unexpected is that you provide an absolute answer. The true answer lies in amongst a tangled web of environmental and genetic interplay. What humans have established with science is this: homosexuality is influenced by a complex interaction between environmental and genetic factors. There is no argument saying that it IS genetic, and there can therefore be no argument saying that it isn't. At it's very basic level, I believe arousal does have an irrevocable tie to biological factors, as evinced by the differing size of the hypothalamus in gay and straight people. Not just this, but there are certain neuronal tissues within the brain that differ according to sexuality. Not just in length, or size, but in the amount of neurons attached to this tissue.
9. As for your stereotype argument, I cannot find any difference of opinion we hold. Also, I cannot remember what I argued on the basis of stereotypes. I believe the only thing I would have argued would be that homosexuals are often stereotyped as feminine, and heterosexuals are often stereotyped as masculine (for men) or the opposite (for women). Thus, a stereotype can effect the behaviour of an individual, as they begin to live up to the name they have (or rather, others have) built for themselves.
10. You believe in choice over genetics. This is extremely disturbing, as you yourself have declared that stereotyping cannot be a focal point of homosexuality. Funny thing is, most people WOULD believe the constant derisive comments made about their sexuality if they did endure such stereotypes. Thus they would subconsciously choose to be gay. If stereotypes and choice were even remotely a factor of sexuality. Also, you stated that nothing is absolutely genetic. So too can nothing be absolutely environmental. Thus, I stand for an argument that contends biology determines the very basic and primal instics (such as arousal - which I have argued is the crux of one's sexuality), and environmental factors build upon such traits (such as whether or not one accepts their sexuality - regardless of which, if it is one of the extremes of the continuum, they are stuck with it.)
Genetic Sexual Diversity
TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN GENETIC SEXUAL DIVERSITY
There are two types of sexual human beings: heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are defined as the set of XX-XY progeny-producing pairs; non-heterosexuals include everybody else. You are one or the other, but you cannot be both. You are at some point on a continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. The source of such a non-uniformly distributed range of phenotypic expression lies in the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule (DNA), a plastic molecule capable of spontaneous mutation and responsible for all living things as you know them.
Living organisms (including humans) of whatever complexity arise from an evolutionary-derived genetic substrate. This genetic, mutational substrate is capable of producing an infinite number of human phenotypic expressions. Human phenotypes are finished products of the human DNA blueprint, one of which is sexual expression.
Non-heterosexual rights is clearly a civil rights issue! There is no natural right to heterosexual supremacy. We are dealing with genetically-induced phenomena. Should we reinvent the wheel and begin again with a Supreme Court declaration of separate but equal status? I think not.
If I may continue to ramble.
Nature has no purpose; only consequences. Thrusting a planet into Newtonian space will cause that planet to follow a straight course…unless acted upon by another force. Consequently, Earth revolves around the sun because the sun’s gravitational field pulls it. Throw a ball into the air and, consequently, it returns toward Earth because another force, Earth’s gravity, draws upon it.
The consequence of a scaled range of human reproductive success (ranging from heterosexual to non-heterosexual phenotypes) is the convergence of the gene pool. This occurs because if you subtract a clinically significant percentage of genetic diversity from independent assortment mechanisms, the genetic pool will have less variability with each generation of newborns.
As a consequence, genetic material is removed from recombination opportunities. The genetic pool is restricted in potential variations because gene combinations and permutations are lacking. Subsequently, combinations and variations of genetic expressions are unavailable. Speciation (species is defined as an interbreeding population) to novel life forms fails to occur. The consequence of a converged gene pool is obstruction to human speciation as the universe unfolds in space and time.
So, it must follow that a portion of humanity is repository of non-recombining DNA segments that are culled away from mechanisms of independent assortment. These fragmented human DNA islands are deprived of participation in genetic exchange processes. Consequently, they are isolated from contributory global genetic patrimony. Non-participating genes cause humans to arrive at the cusp of species differentiation but never quite cross the threshold of speciation to newer life forms. We do have races of mankind, but not
a different species of man. Non-lethal mutations of DNA are retained in human progeny and become inbred in the human population.
The net effect of a converged gene pool is that humans are the end of an evolutionary line. There are many races, but only one species. And that will remain so. No other new human species will arise because the genetic pool is unable to expand due to genetic mechanisms inherent in human DNA and the phenotypic expressions arising from them.
Despite many isolating factors such as (1) the prehistoric migration of the human species throughout the world, (2) prolonged remote isolation of the human races (geographical barriers, cataclysmic phenomena, natural disasters, etc.), (3) deoxyribonucleic acid mutations, and (4) substantially elapsed periods of time (all the ingredients of speciation), no other human species has evolved, nor will. Non-heterosexual humans are the gatekeepers of speciation, and the gate is genetically locked. There is no key! Therefore, humans can no more speciate than can religions suspend the laws of nature. This phenomenon of species containment and genetic non-differentiation is intimately connected to heterosexual and non-heterosexual biologically-predetermined behavior.
If the evolution of humans has halted, then strategies to evoke desirable human qualities may be proposed. Only selective breeding and assortative mating can cluster desirable (or undesirable) genetic characteristics. Homogenization of the human races, as is the current trend, may produce a genetically more robust human species.
Selecting out superior genetic characteristics from the convergent gene pool may succeed to produce a healthier human species. Superior human qualities may be promoted via public policies that are socially desirable and acceptable.
One conceivable socially approved method is global competition among all individuals in the economic and educational arenas. This will select out desirable traits from those who are healthy, wealthy, and wise. But manipulated selection that arises from a system of universal competition will not benefit everyone equally!
E A Mortarelli
what has to do religion with it?
If someone wants to be homosexual, religious say they are wrong, if someone wants to stop being homosexual, religious say all they can do it's turn "holly"... I think the only real solution to give happiness it has to do with science, religion it's just some kind of opression who wants us to believe there is no way out except for god.
I'm just asking...
If there is a God; does he really cares about who we love?
???
"Homosexuality" is nothing more than a neurological pheromone allergy. Upon exposure to feminine pheromones, "gay" men will often have an aversion and even begin to crave estrogen supplementation. This might lead you to believe that a "gay" man is actually a women trapped in a man’s body. If that's the case does a gay relationship really make sense? I don't think so. If this information is correct I would far rather settle down with a woman that has the same problem with masculine pheromones. Maybe we would need to do laundry more often or even sleep in separate beds sometimes, but this lifestyle seems much more logical, normal, and natural than a gay lifestyle. The only thing I can see from animals is that this defect also occurs in nature and animals lack the mental capacity to find an alternate solution. I don't consider myself homosexual. I'm just waiting until modern medicine can help eliminate or minimize these obstacles between me and the opposite sex. I don't know if this is right or not, but at least it gives me some hope and peace of mind.
No. It is not correct.
No. It is not correct. Sexuality is determined by more than pheromonal/hormonal defects. These may be factors, but they are not the only ones.
Also, I must assert my extreme disapproval towards what you declare. Being gay is no more morally apprehensible than being straght or being bisexual. It is what it is. One cannot change it and live a satisfactory life; which according to the Constitution, everyone has a right to. It is not a choice, and therefore it is wrong to want gay men to turn into women. Or vice versa. After all, transsexuals are not necessarily homosexual. This further proves that just because one is of a certain sex, it does not mean that they are born to love those of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality and Science
It is interesting to discuss about homosexuality. When we were children in 1950, we did not hear much about it. Now in these twenty years we are hearing much about it, and there is a controversy about it in science and in religion. Homosexuality is something peculiar: is it normal, natural, genetic, or abnormal, deviant, disorder, unnatural (and unusual)? Sexual orientation can be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and pedophile. What is normal, what is abnormal? Since homosexuality is considered by the society at large as abnormal, can it be changed? if it is changed, is it harmful? These are the questions that come into picture in any discussion about homosexuality in the light of science and of ethics(Christianity, or any other religion). There is homosexuality behaviour among the animals. Does it mean that homosexual behaviour among humans is politically correct, socially acceptable, ethically good?
Science does not come through scientific evidence to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetically determined. On the other hand, we would not say that humans choose to be homosexuals (in orientation). Can homosexuality be corrected and changed? Or should we say that homosexuality should not be changed, because it would harm the homosexual patients? What should we say about the pedophiles? How should we comment about the biblical statements? What is the relationship betwenn nature and nurture? I would end my reflections rather with questions than with all definite answers. But I would have in mind some direction while answering all our questions. This is a delicate issue. We do respect our homosexual brethren and lesbian sisters. But let us search the truth in all these issues. Let the truth prevail. We can always continue our research...
Matthew is right!
Matthew has said practically all I was going to say!
Homosexuality is natural
Maybe homosexuality is natural for the human race in order to keep human beings from overpopulating. Have there been any studies done in this area?
observation
I came to this site out of curiosity. I am an older, heterosexual male who works as a DJ three nights a week at a local sports bar where several lesbian girls hang out occasionally. I have an observation from a "straight" viewpoint.
The lesbians and gay men I have encountered in my life are people. They laugh, cry, love, argue, make mistakes, do amazing things, have productive lives, fall down, get back up...and unfortunately some fall down and stay down. They are people, plain and simple. Some are likable, and some are difficult to like. Some are beautiful and some are ordinary...just like everyone else.
In my view, anyone who finds love and companionship that lasts and is healthy for them, regardless of gender, is blessed. Each and every person knows in their own heart whether they love someone, or are just out for a good time. That's not for me or anyone else to judge.
By the way...the girls who come to my DJ dance floor are fun to watch. *smile*
PR
Well said. That's what I've
Well said. That's what I've been thinking too.
Chris is incorrect
How on earth could you compare homosexuality to murder? One is a crime and the other isn't (even if its "unnatural" it is not harming anyone)
I find all those who are anti-gay tend to use religious arguments in their favour. RUBBISH, nothing but emotion and wasteless human error in such things as the Bible.
Fact update: Psychologists have concluded that pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation (they are neither hetero, homo or bi) They only focus on children (age) soley regardless of sex in some matters. This means PEDOPHILIA and homosexuality are two different things. Even further expand this, Pedophiles have not advanced past a healthy adult mentality concluding to the choice in pedophilia.
Man is doing nothing wrong in homosexuality, animals are great to observe when it comes to natural instinct, so you can well and truly keep your incompetent theories to yourself because it seems that in all departments (science, biology, psychology) there is a clear logic towards NATURAL HOMOSEXUALITY.
You haven't proved much against Chris
To Matthew I feel you are mistaken. You shot down religious arguments without given any valid reasons to eradicate them. If you looked carefully "Anti-Gay" ppl you speak of usually have very clear religious reasons as to relating homosexuality to murder because they are both sins punishable by death in the eyes of those who use the bible as support. For people who have any interest in the bible and still in favor of homosexuality, though homosexuals are not put to death nowadays and ppl argue that was a thing of the past, this STILL lets u know of God's hatred for homosexuality to give homosexuals the same punishment as someone who has committed murder. And homosexuals DO indirectly affect the public. Yes people say it’s none of anyone else's business however maybe if the public didn't have to deal with the politics involved as well as the STD's then it wouldn't be thrown in everyone's face. Think about it: how can someone tell the public to stay out of the same thing that they want the public to support.. such as Gay Marriages for example. EVERYONE is somehow affected by homosexuality otherwise we wouldn't even HAVE blogs and debates and scientist who have to study if there is a "gay gene" *anonymous commenter stated earlier that few decades ago homosexuality wasn’t even a topic*.. which by the way where is your proof that homosexuality is supported biologically? People are quick to repeat what they hear but never take the time to investigate. There are three significant experimental findings by LeVay, Bailey, and later Hamar that all presented evidence towards genetic homosexuality and all three experiments presented fallacies with NO clear proof of biological homosexuality. This site provides good links as well.
In all the world there are
In all the world there are more creatures than just man that make lifetime matings. Among them, some of the noblest -- wolves, swans, gees, the graet raptors -- all creatures man could do worse then emulate, in many, many ways. And with all of them, all, there are those pairings, from time to time, within the same gender. Not often, but not unheard of either. I tell you to think on this: homosexual pairing occurs in nature. How then, 'unnatural'? Usual, no; and not desirable for the species, else it would die out for lack of offspring. But not unnatural. The beasts in the fields are innocent as man can never be, who has the knowledge of good and evil and the choice between, and the beasts in the field do not cast out their gay brotheren. This I think I have learned: where their is love the form does not matter, and the gods are pleased. This I have observed: what occurs in nature, comes by the had of nature, and if the gods did not approve, it would not be there.
Magic's Pawn
book one of The Last Herald Mage
chapter 9 page 278 – 279
Comparison between Animals and Humans
I understand your point. I believe differently because of a few key things. First off, I want to comment on the last thing that was originally posted on this blog/site. "After all, in our society, where in some places homosexuals are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one choose to be gay?"
Doesn't that beg the question: After all, in our society, where is all places murderers are treated with little respect, and often times, are met with hostility, why would one chose to murder someone else?
By saying that you don't think someone would do something because society looks down upon it as a minority or even a majority doesn't make any more sense than saying people would never chose to murder someone because society looks down upon it. And there is no one person in the whole earth who will argue that every murder is caused by an emotional disturbance, or a psychological disorder.
Now, to comment on your view point that if it's found in nature, then the gods must approve or it wouldn't be there. Do the "gods" approve of tornadoes and earthquakes that cause so many people to lose their homes and die as a result? Do you think that tsunamis are approved by the "gods", even the one that wiped out over 100,000 people in asia just earlier this year?
Everyone has their own personal beliefs, but here's my idea. There are pedophiles who like to have sex with children also, and they exist in nature. If homosexuality has to be genetic, doesn't the preference for younger sex partners also have to be genetic? They are both sexual preferences right? Or are they choices? As the poster of the original article even stated, there is no conclusive evidence yet that concludes that sexual preference is caused by genetics.
In nature, both humans and animals have demonstrated many equal characteristics as far as their basic animal instincts; hunting, reproduction, and territorial domain are just a few examples right? Well, you said yourself that animals don't have the ability to determine between right and wrong. Why then if homosexuality was wrong would you believe that they could chose to "do the right thing". You have said that humans have the ability to determine between right and wrong, and because of that, there is controversy between homosexuality. Because some believe it to be wrong, and others right, there will always be controversy. The main issue here is that if a murderer is caught, they will try to make excuses for why they did it. You can go to court and see for yourself: emotional distress, psychological issues, greed, pre-emptive strikes (i thought they were going to kill me first). Many of these are excuses, not actual fact. Man by nature when they know they are doing the wrong thing tries to excuse it somehow, in every instance. I believe this is why this issue has come to the forefront. Not because it's reasonable, or even logical or true, but because people want an excuse to do the wrong thing.
And if there are "gods", where is their instruction? Where do these "gods", who if they were gods would have had to define right and wrong for us, give us their definition of what's right and wrong? Do they even talk about it? Do they even exist?