I'm Born This Way

[Amergin]

It has occurred to me that if homosexuality was genetic, it would necessarily die out altogether because homosexual couples (of either gender) cannot procreate. So there must be some other factor. It is well known (to me anyhow) that many men marry and father children and later realize (or decide) that they are gay. The same of course would apply to some women.

Even taking into account these exceptional cases, the number of people "born" homosexual would diminish over a period of time until no persons would be born with a predilection towards homosexuality.

Is there something missing in my reasoning?

There is a difference between an adaptive trait and a malfunction.

The fact is well established that homosexual orientation is biological and brain based. And we hopefully agree that homosexual orientation is not wrong but a malfunction. But homosexual actions are biologically non-physiological. In a manner they are biological malfunctions. The orifices used are not adapted to what is inserted (not to become too graphic). As a result the tender mucosal lining of the rectal wall are too fragile for penetration. The lining splits permitting entry of pathogens. (For years this was mostly Syphilis. But the entry was perfect for HIV. The female genital canal is much tougher and adapted (designed) for the penetration in sex. The Homosexual acts in consideration of the risks of biological harm would be best avoided for one person and the partner. Social responsibility should make the homosexual seek celibacy for health reasons.

Homosexuality at its full manifestation is accompanied by anatomical changes in the brain. Is this secondary to the abnormal behaviour or is the abnormal anatomy responsible for the orientation? I favour the latter because young children even pre-adolescent show different behaviour. Little boys may play with dolls and other "feminine" behaviours. I think that they discover attraction to the same sex and/or lack of attraction to the opposite sex about the time of puberty. I remember some lads in primary school. We all (sort of) considered them "sissies". And three that I know of later were admitted gays. Could some have it from experience alone? I don't know. Like you said, no conclusive single cause has been found. The complex brain mechanism for sexual selection may be from multiple different possible causes.

I hypothesise that homophobes are latently homosexual, consciously or subconsciously even if married. I hear of men being once married and "turning gay." I think that some boys may have misorientation but fight it by dating girls, and getting married, trying to live a normal life. Christians may also consider the sin concept of homosexuality. But as hard as he tries he loses control and inhibition for some reason (stress, who knows?) And he leaves his marriage for a gay affair. I think that many homosexuals can find alternative life styles to divert the homosexual urges. Some try that in marriage. He may also use religion. But we all know how much that has failed in not only Catholic priests but Protestant ministers. I hear of ministries to gays that seem to get people out of the gay lifestyle, and may save them from HIV

Catholic boys (in Ireland, France, US, Canada, and Australia) are in families that put great stress on marriage and large families of children. They want their child to be a doctor or lawyer. But Mama is especially proud of her "son the Priest". So the gender confused adolescent can escape the indecision of gender and sex by seeking the "safety" of the celibate Priesthood. That way Mama no long pressures him to marry a good Catholic girl and produce grandchildren. Father Jimmy isn't expected to marry. He can't. He is fine with the family of dads, moms, and children because he is "Father Jim." But some fail. Their lust gets the better of them. And they may do it with other priests (25% are HIV+ by an American News report). It is a common cause of death among Priests. Unfortunately some take advantage of their role as protector of children to abuse children. Paedophilia is the terrible consequence of that failure.

I think that most evidence suggests that the orientation is biological (cause yet debated) but the behaviour itself is a choice. I am heterosexual, and married. I admit that I am attracted to beautiful shapely young women (daily) but I don't act on that attraction. I have never committed adultery while I may have desired it from a few thousand women over the years. My inhibition overcame that because I made a promise to my wife, called marriage. I am not a superman by any stretch. I think that one can overcome urges by consideration of the consequences.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

Homosexuality is a biological maladaptation. It is a misdirected firing of a network or super- circuit, an altered structure of a circuit that is one of the 4 components of the Neurobehavioural Sexual Reproductive Super-Programme.

Network I is the sexual self identity module. This is how we males identify ourselves as men. It is likewise with women as women. Malfunction there causes Transgenderism and possibly transvestitism.

Network II is the complex parieto-occipital identification and selection of a member of the opposite sex for a possible mate. If this module fails one has homosexuality (maladaptive) or bisexuality.

The Network III is the complex and sequenced motor activity of copulation, which along with Network IV the Autonomic, generates the "hormones", genital secretions, engorgement of male and female parts with blood, erection, and ejaculation. Failure here produces Bob Dole's ED (Erectile Dysfunction) and profits from sale of Viagra. :roll:

I think we could possibly agree on the fact that homosexual orientation is biological and neurobehavioural maladaptation, i.e. in the brain. And we might even agree that it is not choice or sin, but a neurobiological gender selection programme error. Homosexual actions are definitely, in my opinion, biologically non-physiological. Homosexuality and same sexuality is a side tracking of the complex programme that Evolution’s rules first manifested in our remote ancestor Pikaea in the Cambrian Period.

In a manner they are biological sins. But sin has superstitious connotations. The orifices used are not adapted to what is inserted (not to become too graphic). As a result the tender mucosal lining of the rectal wall, the endothelium is too fragile for penetration. The lining splits permitting entry of pathogens. For years this was mostly Syphilis. But the entry was perfect for HIV. The female genital canal is much tougher and adapted (designed) for the penetration in sex.

The Homosexual acts considering the risks of biological harm would be best avoided for one person and the partner. Social responsibility should make the homosexual seek celibacy for health reasons. Otherwise one homosexual should be monogamous (is that correct for two of the same gender?) The partners should be strict in monogamy and mutually consenting, knowing a risk of HIV. Maybe gay marriage is justified by public health.

However, I do not believe that homosexuality even in a strictly monogamous "marriage" is necessarily biologically or medically safe. One still has the fact that the wrong appendages are placed in orifices not adapted to them.

Amergin

 

[Paladin]

Two words folks. "Mirror Neurons"

 

[Sam Albion]

I do not accept that anyone is born gay, in much the same way as I do not accept that people are born Jews, or Buddhists. Just because I don't believe people are born Jews or Buddhists does not mean I hate them, or deny their existence, and nor does it mean that I am not able to accept who and what they profess to be for what it is. I find it... laughable, almost, that we need this "genetic basis" to "prove" gay exists. What is the big deal? Some people like minge, some people like cock. So what?

But... if you're still insistent... ask yourself this... Is somebody born a criminal? Two hundred years ago, scientists found "proof" that criminality was a genetic predisposition... Oh yes. Police law books from the Victorian era even have pictures: the typical queer, the typical nutter, the handbag robber and rapist have funny earlobes, knitted eyebrows, etc, etc. All later to be proven as complete bunkum. And, let's not forget about phrenology... held up as scientific fact, discounted years later as hocus pocus. Being gay isn't just about sex, in much the same way being a buddhist isn't just about the dharma. We have to consider identity, self perception, fitness of choice, culture, age, society, peer influences, parental values, et cetera.

Nobody is born a rocker, or a goth, or a cyber-hippy. These identity value labels are just that. Labels. Useful, but... also limiting.

 

[citizenzen]

Everything about a man is inherited through the genetic traits of his parents and written into his genetic code. We are all created as invisible thoughts in God so these thoughts are written in this code to be formed with the genetic traits of our parents that contain these sins.

The leap between these two sentences is an astoundingly large one. Is there anything the OP (or anybody else) could provide to tie that gap... or more accurately gaping chasm... together?

I do not accept that anyone is born gay, in much the same way as I do not accept that people are born Jews, or Buddhists.

Even if you don't accept that people are born that way, even if they consciously chose homosexuality over heterosexuality, does it matter?

You seem to give people the freedom the choose the religion they prefer. Do you likewise support their freedom to choose the partner they prefer? It shouldn't matter to you or anybody else what sexual choices people make. The freedom to associate with who you want to associate should prevail... so long as both are consenting adults.

The path one takes getting to that choice is really immaterial.

 

[psychicpredictions]

Behaviour, as much as we'd all like to believe, ISN'T genetic. Behaviour is learned, 100%. A two year old is already programmed. There's lots of stuff they haven't been presented with yet, but they have learnt how to behave, and boss, and throw bricks, due to their enviroment. Sexuality, too, I believe, is a learned behaviour. Yes, desire is there, during and after puberty, but what you do with that desire is wholly dependent on what your environment deems acceptable.

Yes, a lot of theories conform with your viewpoint like Erickson's theory on development. There are some cultures that treat gay people as outcasts so although there may be members of that culture who have homosexual inclinations, they may choose not to practice it. My dad says somebody who looks gay, acts gay but has a wife and kids may simply be a non-practicing gay guy. I wonder where he got that from! lol

 

[tychomorpheus]

Why? Why not?

What if the body is a receptacle for the spirit and what we are is governed by our spiritual consistency and apparent only trough bodily expressions? An example: a lot of people think about being gay (even fantasize) but are not and will never be gay. This comes as a support for the post above about heterosexuality and homosexuality as two ends of a spectrum, but adds a subtle difference: who we are is not defined by what we do and neither by what we think. It is a melange between the two like the DNA spiral all created in a “live” manner according to the environment, the events occurring and the others around us.

Also there is a huge difference between gay sexuality and gay life. In psychology its common knowledge, like someone mentioned before, everyone is a tad gay. But actually being gay in our modern understanding is living the gay life: marry someone the same gender, loving and expressing tenderness towards someone of the same gender, wanting to experience parenthood with someone of the same gender, sexual jealousy towards someone of the same gender and so on. While everyone is religiously attacking homosexuality based on sexual practices, there is little effort to interpret the rest of what makes a gay, gay.

Think about it. If we are ONLY who our genes define us how come in situations of extreme danger (natural disaster) or extreme relaxation (we win 1 mil dollars) we suddenly change. There are athletic apparently dumb people (like construction workers) who have turned into information processing machines lobbying to save their sick child and pushing doctors beyond current medical borders. There are witty people who dumbed down in time as they switched to field work to save their starving families. No these last generic statements are not peer reviewed.

Actually please don’t bring but peer review into this. Peer review is one of the most limiting factors for progress there is. It is the ultimate crap invented by elitist minded people to limit access in the rows of the scientists. Its not even their fault. All groups in time grow attached to consistency and slowly in time raise the entry barrier higher and higher. Peer review happens without enforcing. We have here the reputation system for example. Nobody forces anybody to do anything yet when you are amazed by some post you feel like encouraging that person and click that “bravo” button

If you want to study say thunderbolts and look only at the light while ignoring its mostly made of a mass of electrons what will you find out? Its the same about a human being. Biologists and neuroscientists have this amazing God like feeling stamping behavior as
genetic and personality as a brain function. While this is true for the apparent part which is our body does it provide a complete picture while discarding any subtle parts of the human being? And no, the answer is not another question like asking for a proof that the soul, the spirit or God exists; this approachIt simply discards the whole point of the discussion, like discussing veganism with eskimos when there is practically no other source of food than meat in their environment and they are below 0degC most of the year.

However, what is the deeper understanding our genetic programming offers? For example i believe (not peer reviewed either) that the most common reasons for man doing wrong are abstinence and attachment.

Abstinence is exactly about being someone else than who you are. What you are ALWAYS will be an experience you feel. Like the homosexual entering a straight family life in the previous post. This man acts in obvious opposition to his nature. Abstinence is a major religious approach but in my view this forced restraint causes the real sin: violence. The stem of violence is in anger. There are men who naturally would be polygamous but culturally enforced to be monogamous. This abstinence from sexual exploration causes anger on the wife who is objectified, reduced to a mere function of marriage, this for the price of fidelity, rational violence born by this anger.

Attachment is basically extending your physical body to the environment: unable to live without someone, defined by social status, guided by a goal in all the actions, hating death or disease. All these tie humans to their world in a subtle level, both physically and spiritually. Physically attachment gives psychological issues (say love suicides), wrong perceptions (say the “love hurts” paradigm). Spiritually attachment causes fear. People do the most stupid of things out of fear: steal or kill for their loved ones is a good example.

Behind “wrong doing” is NOT instinct or drive. Instinct and drive (while not always) are usually individual approaches to life and inflict their results on the person itself. But the big problems we have are not individual but collective: stealing, killing, deceiving, manipulating, being manipulated and so on. Its not our individual experience that causes the “bad” of our society but our interaction and the problems caused for example by abstract, subtle, spiritual features such as fear or anger.

Listen to your body. The OP has a point. You are born this way. By listening to your body you will feel less angry and be less afraid because you will end the war with yourself. But don’t be fooled into assigning this the supreme condition. This is the start only.