Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud

[cronus]

It seems very clear from the numerous scientific studies on the subject, that being gay is not a choice. it is something people are born with. Since it is imposed, it cannot be called a 'sin', or a crime. Those who rail against the behavior of gays are simply bigoted.

It also casts deep suspicion on those who claim to have been gay and have changed. Either they were not gay to begin with, or they are still gay and pretending otherwise. Or maybe they are bisexual, and decided for reasons of expedience, to ignore their gay tendencies and concentrate on the other gender. I do not think there is any evidence that it is possible to consciously change sexual orientation.

Some are born that way whilst others are bi or curious, and still others are lacking female company and frustrated....in prison or the navy. There is no one size fits all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Some people ride on the other bus - get over it!

[Mysturji]

WTF is "post gay"?
Sitting on the fence? (ooh, err, missus!) or queerly* attracted to lamp-posts?

* In the original sense of the word: i.e. strangely**
** Nothing personal, Audley

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Post gay = anything in here...

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=100

[Drewish]

This should have been allowed to run. I'm not fighting against the theocrats just so the politically correct wankers can take there place!

[klr]

Let's see them explain all the gay ducks and other sinful animals.

This should have been allowed to run. I'm not fighting against the theocrats just so the politically correct wankers can take there place!

I'm kind of leaning towards this view as well, but more because religion in general will then face a backlash for being "intolerant". All sorts of apologists for religion will then be squirming as they try to explain it away.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This should have been allowed to run. I'm not fighting against the theocrats just so the politically correct wankers can take there place!

As opposed to here place?

[Drewish]

This should have been allowed to run. I'm not fighting against the theocrats just so the politically correct wankers can take there place!

As opposed to here place?

Curiously I typed 'thier' the first time through. Then when I went back to correct my spelling I replaced it with the wrong grammar.

[Warren Dew]

It seems very clear from the numerous scientific studies on the subject, that being gay is not a choice. it is something people are born with.

It seems quite clear from the scientific studies that being gay is not a choice, true. That doesn't mean it's something people are born with, though. More likely it happens through an imprinting process.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It seems very clear from the numerous scientific studies on the subject, that being gay is not a choice. it is something people are born with.

It seems quite clear from the scientific studies that being gay is not a choice, true. That doesn't mean it's something people are born with, though. More likely it happens through an imprinting process.

Like geese, you mean? People hatch from their eggs and just copy the first large, moving object that they see; be that another human, a tractor, or a gay. Interesting theory. And here was me thinking our mental capacity was a little more sophisticated than that.

[Blind groper]

It seems quite clear from the scientific studies that being gay is not a choice, true. That doesn't mean it's something people are born with, though. More likely it happens through an imprinting process.

Except that this is most probably incorrect.

We do not know exactly what makes someone gay, but despite lots of research, there is no evidence it is imprinting. It may be genetic, and there are hints of various 'gay genes'. One gene that is frequently associated with gay men also, as it turns out, is associated with women who are especially fertile. The evolutionary significance of this is obvious.

Male homosexuality is also related to low testosterone levels in utero. One observation is that gay guys are often the third, fourth, fifth in a line of sons. Women who have a series of sons often produce antibodies against testosterone, and these antibodies reduce the testosterone affecting the development of those 3rd, 4th, 5th sons.

[Warren Dew]

We do not know exactly what makes someone gay, but despite lots of research, there is no evidence it is imprinting.

Actually there's a fair amount of evidence that imprinting and similar environmental effects are involved. For example:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-01742-006

[JimC]

We do not know exactly what makes someone gay, but despite lots of research, there is no evidence it is imprinting.

Actually there's a fair amount of evidence that imprinting and similar environmental effects are involved. For example:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-01742-006

Even if this is so, it creates the same ethical position as a genetic predisposition. Actually, the same could be argued if significant environmental/social factors are at work. Long term exposure to "the dominant mother" has often been alleged as a factor in men becoming gay. I think it is a bit of a folk fairy tale, but even if true, the man in question didn't choose to have this major influence on his development....

[Warren Dew]

We do not know exactly what makes someone gay, but despite lots of research, there is no evidence it is imprinting.

Actually there's a fair amount of evidence that imprinting and similar environmental effects are involved. For example:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-01742-006

Even if this is so, it creates the same ethical position as a genetic predisposition. Actually, the same could be argued if significant environmental/social factors are at work. Long term exposure to "the dominant mother" has often been alleged as a factor in men becoming gay. I think it is a bit of a folk fairy tale, but even if true, the man in question didn't choose to have this major influence on his development....

Agreed, and in fact I said that in my first response to Blind groper.

[Blind groper]

Actually there's a fair amount of evidence that imprinting and similar environmental effects are involved. For example:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-01742-006

From reading the abstract referenced above, I interpret the wording as that of a suggested hypothesis rather than demonstrated fact. Assuming my interpretation is correct, I have to say : "Nothin' new here!" Such opinions and hypotheses have been posed many times, but failed to accumulate the data needed to elevate them into a strong scientific model.