mujaman said:
well i have to say i really enjoyed the ongoing debate between TC and sparky. i'm going to have to side with TC on this one though... although sparky does bring up some good points. i am a biology (pre-med) student in my 3rd year, so a discussion about genetics on a jeep board definitely caught my eye.
My father was a biology major, so believe me when I tell you that I knew full well the defects in my "arguments". If you read my further posts, you'd know I wasn't serious. Join us again next week when we have a discussion about quantum physics as they relate to the age-old question of the chicken and egg debate.:lol:
mujaman said:
for those of us who don't believe that homosexuality is a direct result of genetic defects, i think it is important to clarify that that does not make our default belief one of "gay by choice." i think homosexuality is more or less a psychological disorder brought about by a number of contributing factors: primarily environment (how you were raised, life experiences, trauma, lack of proper role models, etc.) and secondarily genetic make-up (possibly by defects causing abnormal amounts of hormones, lacking neurotransmitters, etc. which then have consequences upon sexuality).
I agree with the secondary genetic theory you posed here more than I do with your thoughts on environment. Although to some extent, I would think that dressing a little boy in girl's clothing and treating him as a girl throughout his learning years would be more likely to cause him to be gender-confused than gay. There is a huge difference between gender confusion and homosexuality. A crossdresser is often gender confused, but not neccessarily gay, and most gays do not crossdress. I tend to believe, from what I have read in medical literature (and yes, I've read a lot of it, rarely ever on the internet) that a smaller percentage of children raised that way would actually turn out to be homosexual than gender confused. Personally, I think the key to the genetic argument will eventually be found by studying hermaphrodites, and their ultimate gender persuasion, both those who are surgically "corrected" to be male or female after birth, and those who are not ever "corrected". With the constant bombardment of both female and male hormones from intact organs which produce them, the conflict would ultimately have to be settled, or at least I would think so. Mind you (TC), this is only theory and my opinion, so no google searches will be necessary, although feel free to do so if you want.
mujaman said:
it is, however, quite humorous and a little disappointing to me that anybody on this site (or elsewhere for that matter) would claim to have (or have read) conclusive scientific evidence pointing to the genetic responsibility of homosexuality. i'm sorry... but you can't go basing your life beliefs and conclusions from a web page you found in a google search! if you want REAL scientific data on a topic such as this, you should look to scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources (journals, databases, etc.), none of which will you be likely to stumble upon through a search engine.
Another point I was trying to make but never got around to it before passing out from the sheer hilarity of it all!
urple:
mujaman said:
scientists know VERY little about our genetic code, respectively speaking. true, we have made great advances in the past decade or so when it comes to genetics, but every time we make a new discovery it only shows us how much more we DON'T know.
Exactly. In fact, I believe it was one of our past Nobel winners who made the comment during his acceptance speech that, "The more we learn, the less we know."
mujaman said:
the truth is, there is NO "GAY GENE."
Ok, for the most part I've agreed with you, right up until this part. I worked with a used car salesman named Gene, and he was without a doubt, gay!!!
urple:
Thanks for an otherwise intelligent and well thought-out post. Definitely a breath of fresh air after some of the others posts here (mine included).
