Are people born gay, or do they become that way as a result of childhood influences? The evidence seems to suggest that biology plays a crucial role in sexual orientation. While traditional psychoanalytic theory suggested that homosexuality could be the result of a child’s early interactions with both parents, there is little empirical evidence to support this position. It seems likely that this idea will go the way of similar ideas in psychoanalysis such as the “refrigerator mother” theory of autism, and the “double bind” theory of schizophrenia – that is into the dustbin of the history of ideas, replaced by much more robust biological theories based on scientific evidence.

The biology is by no means complete, but we do have at least two intriguing and compelling pieces of the puzzle.

The first is twin studies, which investigate patterns of inheritance. If you are a gay man, the chances your identical twin is also gay is around 50%. If he’s a non identical (fraternal) twin it’s around 22%, while an unrelated male’s chances of being gay are 2-4% (Not even the staunchest gay advocates believe Kinsey’s 10% these days!). If such studies are true then there are two conclusions you can draw.

Firstly, genetics plays a strong role in a person’s sexual orientation. The gradient from most to least genetically alike is paralleled by a decreasing probability two people share the trait of homosexuality. The second is that genetics is only part of the story.

Twin studies raise an obvious question. If homosexuality is a genetically determined trait (at least partially), why would such a genetic pattern survive the rigors of natural selection? Does this make evolutionary sense? Could such a genetic pattern confer a survival advantage in terms of Darwinian “fitness”? My answer is yes. Read on.

The second piece of the puzzle is birth order studies.

Gay men are more likely to be younger brothers than older brothers. It turns out that for each older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by around 30%.

Now could this be because younger brothers have a different roles and life experiences in families from older brothers? Could this hint at sexual abuse of the younger by the older being a cause - the hoary old chestnut of the “seduction theory” of homosexuality with big brother in the frame? It turns out this is not the case. Recent research indicates that the effect is preserved even when adoption results in a different age order in the adoptive family. A younger brother, for example, retains his increased probability of being gay, even if he is adopted out to a family where he becomes the oldest brother. The effect is biological, and related to the birth order of sons of the biological mother, not of the role in the social family.

So how could such a pattern be adaptive in an evolutionary sense? Surely a gay man is less likely to have his genes pass on to successive generations, and thus the “homosexuality genome” is likely to die out? Not necessarily.

Birth order studies suggest that the genetic pattern “for” homosexuality is more likely to be expressed if there is already an older brother around. In other words, both brothers may be equally likely to carry the pattern, but it is only expressed as a homosexual orientation in the younger. Could this be a way of biologically signaling a cooperative “division of reproductive labour” between brothers?

Reproduction is much more biologically expensive for females than males. A single male can easily service the reproductive needs of multiple females, which means that in many species there is competition between males for the reproductive “spaces” the females hold. Now, such competition is itself expensive. A pair of brothers who are fighting each other for the same reproductive opportunities has less energy to put into ensuring the survival of the offspring.

Now suppose there was some biological mechanism by which you could knock out your closest competition for female mates (your younger brothers), and yet preserve the advantage of having close male kin to assist in the care and protection of your offspring. It would definitely be a survival advantage for an older brother to carry the genes for such a mechanism.

But does the younger brother get a raw deal (reproductively) from such an arrangement? Not as raw as it first seems. Nieces and nephews carry 25% of your genes, the same percentage as your grandchildren. Now, you could fight your older brother for your own reproductive opportunity and get 50% into each of the next generation, but it may be a better strategy to concede and be satisfied with 25%, especially if it means more nieces and nephews than you’d otherwise have. Your older brother is always likely to be bigger and stronger than you until he passes his peak, at which stage the hierarchy reverses, but it’s better to reproduce before, rather than after the peak. As well as that, you save the energy (and risk of injury) you’d waste fighting and can both put it into raising the next generation.

Of course this only explains the negative (non heterosexuality) rather than the positive (homosexual attraction), but that, I suspect, is another story.

So did my brother turn me gay? I’d be really interested in people’s opinions on this, especially from those who know a bit more about evolutionary psychology than I do.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005A6D3-7ADC-14A0-B6C483414B7F4945

Who cares, you pervert.

Leigh, given yours and others concern about homosexuals it should be very important to you to understand what causes it. My guess is that you'd rather not know because knowing will make it hard to carry on with cries of "pervert/abomination/unnatural/etc". Most of you seem to manage to do so in the face of a large body of evidence that suggests that a homosexual orientation is mostly genetic.

My view is that if it is primarily genetic then trying to force gays into a straight pattern just causes a whole lot of unnecessary grief and genuine perversion - the creeps who hang around tiolet blocks because they don't feel they can be open about being gay at home or work, the married guys carrying on gay affairs on the side because they've tried to be straight and not succeeded.

The gays themselves, their heteropartners and others around them are subject to a bunch of unnecessary grief because of social pressures that benefit nobody. Where is the win for any of us if a small number of gays live as hetero's (mostly not happily so)?

I'd much rather see gays finding satisfying relationships with other gays than feeling forced into unhappy relationships with heterosexuals - what about you? Do you have a daughter you like to have married to a guy who'd rather be with another man?

Snout, I saw a doco a couple of months ago covering much of the material you mentioned. It was very interesting. I look forward to seeing if the issues you raised can be discussed.

R0bert

Oh good one Leigh - that comment confirms my earlier impressions of your bigoted intolerance of those who are different from you.

And you called my post on Boazy's latest loony Islamophobic thread "inconsequential"! It took you less than 24 hours to outdo me in the inconsequentiality stakes.

Snout, you raise some interesting points. I am by no means comfortable with homosexuality, and would rather that it didnt exist, but looking at things in a scientific light helps to understand WHY there is such a thing. I probably sound only marginally better than Leigh, but thats just my background speaking - pretty conservative. But I prefer to try to understand the WHY, even if I dont like something. So thank you for bringing these insights to us.

Robert,

I am not “concerned” by/with perverts. If they stopped talking about themselves, they could carry on without comment, and do what they wished.

When there is scientific evidence – not the blathering of people whose opinions are no more valid than mine, I am prepared to listen.

As I’ve said before, same sex gear is not designed to be used together: there is no getting around that one.

I accept that there are a VERY few people who are born with their wires crossed. I do not accept the modern and very sudden infestation of a bunch of weirdos calling themselves ‘gay’.

CJ,

It’s just your opinion that I outdid you. Can we settle for neck and neck? You and I are, I’m happy to say, are much different, but I tolerate you. Unless you believe that tolerance means keeping quiet and saying nothing, which seems to be the case with you.

Might I just point out that I don’t refer to people who disagree with me as “bigots”?

There you go. You can now retort that you don’t call people “perverts” if you would like last say :)

If people are born gay that must mean that paedophiles are also born that way. Why then should we blame paedophiles if they are born that way? While it is true that more and more young boys are growing up without the affirmation of manhood by a father it is ridiculous to invent some new science to prove a person is born gay. I feel sorry for many young boys and girls today who are not allowed to be boys and girls. Ultimately it is a choice people make to commit sodomy. It is obvious that our bodies were not designed for homosexual acts which are unhealthy and often lead to disease.

There needs to be a look at the nature of effeminate males and their conditioning by peers; the personality type of these males and their link to certain genes. The fact remains they are clearly born male and able to successfully procreate. Their children can be totally strait, so it seems to be a diversion to link it to gay genetics. It seems to be linked to emotions and perceptions of one's self as a man.

This is distinct from the abominable action of anal sex as practised equally among non-gay men. It is the act that defiles the person socially not the person himself. That a person expresses effeminate characteristics does not prove him gay, as many of his peers seem to imply. Many effeminate men have been sucessful parents and had sucessful marriages

Sounds to me like some people try to lend scientific credence to homosexuality by invoking a Mendelian genetic influence over physical traits. What sheer swill!!
Is there a 'Gay Gene'? Not yet. If there was one its expession would probably be environmentally controlled as are the majority of our genes.

Dear Snout
it appears from your evidence that social factors contribute a lot.
(the older brother/s thing)

I totally accept that there must be periods in a mans life where they are more vulneralbe to homosexual behavior or feelings, but I suggest that each of us has a personal responsibility to resist these, and try to re-inforce heterosexual feelings for obvious reasons.

In my own life, I've found that I've had periods of lust, (heterosexual type) where, if one surcumbs to these, and reinforces them, whether it be by literature or images etc, it can reach a state of equalibrium or stability where one could easily 'think' "This is me". Once we separate ourselves from that, through repentance, and then feeding our spirits and minds with more wholesome and spiritual God honoring information, we also reach a similar point of 'This is me' where stability occurs.

Point being, brain chemistry does have bearing on our sexual appetites.
So, the individual and the social both have importance. I am yet to accept the genetic aspect, but if I did, I would describe this as 'deviate' or.. 'abnormal' in a clinical way if you get my meaning.
Clearly for males and females 'heterorsexual' behavior is 'normal' and homosexual behavior is 'deviating' from that path of normality.

But compassion is the key for people who are homosexual and NOT trying to convince everyone else that it IS normal.

Then there is the additonal complication of people with medical conditions which confuse their real gender. Judgementalism on those people is not valid.

Judgementalism is reserved for those who would seek to re-define 'deviate' as 'normal' and then try to infect our children at school with such information.

Leigh - you haven't been called a bigot because your opinion differs. You've been called a bigot because you're bigotted.

The genetic reason for homosexuality is a curious question. Perhaps a simple conclusion to draw is that variation is essential for natural selection, and the more varied a gene pool, the stronger it is. Homosexuality could simply be a recurring variation - the genes wouldnt need to be passed on via the gay person, as they probably lie dormant in a large percentage of the population.

Or maybe I'm well off the mark...no idea. Interesting one though.

Onya Leigh :)

Isn't it amazing how "Every1 is a bigot but MEEEEEE" in C.Js. colorful little world .....

Mate.. have a peek at the Caliphate thread..and get on the phone to your 9 mates :)
If you have a chance, check out the web site http://www.caliphateprotest.wikispaces.com and see if you have any constructive advice ..which you can enter into the 'Discussion' section.

Country Gal.. very well said ! (P.s. do you have 9 friends also ? :)

Cheers all

Spendocrat,

I agree with your “no idea” confession:)

You pronouncement of my bigotry is an interesting one. Could you go a step further and explain to me how my views are based on bigotry, but your views are not? How can it be that I am bigoted, but you are not?

I’m sure that a clever fellow like you will be able to explain this to me and put me on the right track.

David,

I have saved the caliphate site for later. I had a quick look and notice that they are feeling the need for self-defence lessons. All adds grist to the mill and, if we didn’t have a cowardly do-nothing government, their “defence” training would also be looked into.

As for spreading the word, I doubt that people would listen to an old bigot like me:)

When I started this thread I was hoping to bypass the moral arguments for and against accepting homosexuality: these have been extensively shouted about on other threads, and I think most of us are aware of the positions of the various regulars on these kinds of threads on OLO (myself included). The trajectory of such arguments is that they generally devolve into insoluble arguments about personal taste, design, what God wants, and what is “natural” or “unnatural”.

Runner (and BOAZ), you’re quite correct that people have a choice about what consensual sexual acts they perform: but I’m hoping to keep the discussion to orientation rather than behavior, which is a separate issue. I don’t know if there are biological antecedents of paedophilia. Whether there are or not, I’m not sure what the connection is with adult homosexuality.

Country Gal, on the contrary, you sound like a thoughtful and open minded person whose views and beliefs deserve the same respect you are showing mine.

Porphyrin, the fact that the expression of genes (particularly those to do with human personality) is a function of their interaction with an environment is central to the hypothesis I’ve outlined. The existence of one or more gay-predisposing genotypes can be inferred from twin studies. The relevant environmental factors (and I suspect there are multiple) are obscure – except for birth order.

BOAZ, I certainly don’t exclude social factors affecting orientation – it’s just that I’m not aware of any evidence of these. The study makes clear that the older brothers thing is a biological rather than a social effect.

Philo, while it’s not possible for me to control the direction of a discussion between mature adults, there was a direction I was hoping to go with this thread, and you have hit the nail firmly on the head! I think questions of what constitutes “successful” masculinity are inevitably going to arise if an evolutionary “fraternal division of labour” hypothesis holds. It is not simply a question of homosexual versus heterosexual orientation (or the gradations in between), but goes to the heart of what is “real” masculinity

I generally don't regard people who disagree with me as bigoted - rather, I reserve that appellation for people like those who use terms like "pervert" or "deviate" for homosexuals. It also applies to religious nutters who are intolerant of any faith or worldview other than their own.

From the Concise Macquarie Dictionary:

"bigot. n. a person who is intolerantly convinced of the rightness of a particular creed, opinion, practice, etc."

Also from the same source:

"lie... n. 1. a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression."

I'll leave it to objective readers to decide to which prolific posters to this forum these terms are most applicable.

Leigh - I didn't think there was an explanation necessary, but if you insist: you are bigotted because you lack a basic understanding of homosexuality. You think it's perverted and/or weird. It isn't. Hence: bigotted.

Don't forget: it's been practised all through recorded human history, and only *ever* been stigmatised since...about 2000 years ago, funnily enough. Also, many of our ape cousins have been observed havin a go. I don't know how anyone could know these things and still consider it 'unnatural' in any sense that I understand the word, at least.

Sorry for being part of the tangent of the conversation, Snout.

My personal belief is that there isn't any cut/dry explanation for any persons sexual orientation/practices/desires/etc. I would say it's different for everyone...it may deeply embedded in your genes, or it may just be a case of meeting the right person.

The stigmatism of homosexuality in society certainly doesn't help us in understanding any better, of course.

Ok this reads like one of those joke threads right, you know the ones where we all sit and talk about Brazilians or Paris Hilton’s movie career.

I like the title “Did my older brother turn me gay?”

It does suggest something nasty happening in the bedroom after dark.

It invites comments along the lines of “Incest is the sort of problem best kept in the family”

So if this is not some sort of joke lets just assume

Some Gays are born (the result of hormonal defects in gestation)

Some are “acting out” a rebellion and living life on the edge (or the “rim”, if you prefer).
They might be more satisfied with a heterosexual relationship if they could muster the courage to just aspire to being “normal” instead of pursuing the “abnormal”.

Some are the result of their environment (introduced to specific sexual practices or intimidated by their craving the attention of the opposite sex etc. this could be a long list)

This includes being infected like pedophiles are infected from being the victims of pedophiles.

Either way (poor choice of words maybe), so long as folk have a happy and fulfilled life, it does not matter to the rest of the world which team they bat for or for that matter, whether that are a pitcher or receiver.

I'm intrigued by the genetic arguments for homosexuality, although most of the people I know who are same-sex attracted tend to see their sexuality as more of a 'spectrum' - one of my friends commented that he first thought he might be gay when he saw "Romeo + Juliet" and found Leonardo DiCaprio just as attractive Claire Danes. :)

Another friend-of-a-friend dated various men for several years before becoming attracted to her female housemate - they have now been dating for several years and are soon to have a committment ceremony. Their perspective is that they each fell in love with 'the person', rather than 'the person's gender'.

'tis tricky.

I wonder in such cases whether it is a spectrum, or if it is 'the person', or if they are attracted to the opposite sex initially as a form of social 'face-saving'. I know as a hetero woman I claimed for several years in high school to have a crush on various boys at my school, simply to 'fit in', despite having no sexual attraction to the opposite sex at that age at all- I was younger than my classmates, and somewhat behind on the sexual-attraction thing, so I made it up - I wonder how that plays for people feeling same-sex attracted, but living in a society which is very ambivalent about their right to be so attracted.

Sorry to go in another direction again :)

Col Rouge, rarely do I agree with any of your posts. At times, they can almost make me angry (almost) but I'm 100% with you on this one. Who cares if homosexuality is genetic or a lifestyle choise. What right have we to judge others? Easily said I know and sometimes I find myself acting as judge and jury from my arm chair view of the World, but unless someone is causing harm to somebody else, live and let live I say. I've know gay people, both male and female and have only ever found them to be friendly, helpful and loyal. And this word "normal" that is constantly bandied around, how can we flawed humans ever hope to decide what's "normal" and what isn't. "Normal" means so many different things to so many different people, I believe there's no such thing and I've strived to strike the word from my vocabulary! Judgement is where religion falls down so badly too. Their supposed belief is that only God can judge and yet their churches fail to allow gay people the opportunity to pray with the rest of the congregation. They'll gladly shake a bible at a gay person or non believer and tell them they'll be cursed to hell if they don't repent, but how can they know? Isn't it only their God that can decide the non believer's fate? Not much hope of it happening out where I live, but I'd much sooner live in between two gay neighbours than live next to a person like Leigh who comes across as someone so full hate and totally misunderstanding of the plight of others. And that's a shame, because Leigh has often proved himself to be capable of contributing a well thought out post. Unfortunately, his reply to this thread is not one of his finer moments.

Col, Wildcat you make a good point that it should not matter why someone acts outside the "norm" does so. If the action involves onnly themselves or other then consenting adults then it really is nobody elses business.

On the other hand I see value in understanding the causes especially in the light of some a concerted attack on some groups by those who know how everybody else should live.

Unfortunately the idea that an aging middle eastern shepherd god takes time out from admiring the placement of galaxies across the universe, the efforts of his followers in spreading hatred, slaugtering innocents etc or his own efforts in starving children through famine, drowning them in tsunami's etc to call out "hold everything, thats not the right hole for that to go in" seems to be taken seriously by some.

Personally I'd rather see him (or her) if they exist devote a bit more effort to stopping those claiming to follow them from flying planes into the sides of buildings, shelling innocents and otherwise making the world a worse place and a bit less on who puts what where.

In the mean time from what I've seen there is ample evidence that genetics play a major factor in determining peoples sexual orientation. As with a number of other issues the evidence is not all in, the conclusions may not be final but the devil is in the detail rather than the big picture.

I've also seen that those who choose based on social pressure rather than actual orientation all to often bring misery on themselves and those around them.

Maybe a few less will accept the disgusting views of those who want to decide how the rest of us should live if the science is better understood on this and other issues.

R0bert

Yes, I'm with spendo, Col, Wildcat, Laurie and R0bert on this one. I probably agree most with Laurie, in that I think innate sexuality is experienced on a kind of spectrum, which can more or less fit in with various cultural norms.

To address Snout's main point, I don't think it really matters which of what seems to be a multi-faceted etiology for homesexuality is the most predictive one for particular individuals - whether one seeks a genetic, social, cultural, psychological or whatever 'root' cause (pardon the pun). Really, those who have problems with homosexuality (or any sexuality involving consenting adults for that matter) should just 'butt' out of other people's lives (sorry, couldn't resist that one) :)

Col, no it’s not a joke thread, although I did think hard about the wisdom of posting what’s intended as a cheeky title. In the end I couldn’t help myself, not only because it encapsulates the research I want to discuss, but also because it sends up what I think has long been a particularly corrosive aspect of discussions about the origins of homosexuality – the assumption that if someone’s gay then it must be someone’s fault.

I’d have preferred not to start with three long posts, but I couldn’t get the argument any more concise without losing crucial elements. If you like, skip to the end of the third post and click on the second link to the Scientific American article.

I think it’s reasonable to ask why the origin of variation in sexual preference matters. Many years ago I worked with autistic kids, and I can recall the absolute outrage of parents who suffered the double burden not only of looking after a severely disabled child, but being told by some psychoanalytically oriented psychiatrists that their child’s condition was caused by deficient parenting, specifically the callous emotional coldness of the mother. Similarly, parents struggling with a psychotic adolescent were sometimes informed that their child’s tragic and frightening condition was due to emotionally manipulative parenting in early childhood. These days, fortunately, any sane psychiatrist would be as likely to ascribe these proven biological disorders to demonic possession, as lay these odious therories on vulnerable families.

Of course I don’t see homosexuality as a clinical condition (very few doctors or psychologists do), but the laying of guilt trips is still very pervasive, and is based on a similar theoretical framework with as little evidence - that is none - as the mid 20th century theories about schizophrenia and autism. The “seduction theory” is equally unfounded in evidence, although gay kids may be more likely to suffer sexual abuse for reasons I’ve outlined elsewhere. Such ideas confuse and obscure the very real issues childhood sexual abuse victims face.

RObert, can you remember the name of the doco you saw?

Oh come on! Let's be honest and start addressing perverts for what they are: poofters and dykes who can't cope with reality and can't get their minds above their navels because are unable to form a normal relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Try solo sex if needs be, but get used to the idea that sex is not the be all and end all of a a decent and fulfilling life. There are any amount of happy and celibate people who have found the meaning of life without falling prey to disgusting, unnatural behaviour.

Spendocrat,

I apologise for asking you to explain yourself in relation to your unwarranted abuse of me. I unwittingly encouraged you to dig yourself further into your role of gormless ignoramus. I assure you that I thought you were intelligent enough to be worthy of normal sociable intercourse. My mistake. Sorry. I really should be more sensitive to the intellectually deprived.

Gee, I can't imagine why anybody would think that Leigh is bigoted.

Fortunately there are some reasonable people participating in this debate.

Snout, no sorry I don't. I think it was on SBS on a weeknight but am not sure. I've had a bit of a look around their website but have not found it yet.

It was very interesting in part because of some of the statistical oddities (older brothers don't seem to have any impact on the orientation of younger brothers if the younger brothers are left handed but very clear statistical outcomes for right handers). They also looked at some interesting case studies with twins where some characteristics were evident very early. Maybe more about challenges to what it means to be male than necessarily sexual preference but still interesting. In one case one twin who is really into the whole toy soldier, truck thing. His twin was almost totally the opposite, all soft colours, soft toys and totally different interests.

If I find it I'll let you know.

R0bert

"But I prefer to try to understand the WHY, even if I dont like something. So thank you for bringing these insights to us."

Countrygal, you sound like an intelligent lady. There was a
book published some years ago called "Brainsex", it should
still be around. It discussed the scientific data regarding
gays, which showed that hormone levels at crucial stages of
fetal development, were a key issue. Its at the point where
they can create gay rats and monkeys in the lab, by fiddling
with these. It covers other stuff too, so is certainly worth
a read.

The most amusing story on this topic that I can recall, was when
some Xtian US fundie group was founded to "help" the
gay Xtians. In the end, the two male founders ran off with
one another :)

Snout, I rarely bother to wade thru threads full of people shouting at each other but I found your post well written and, most importantly, interesting. I've just recently read "The Birth Order Book" by Kevin Leman and was staggered by how much our character is determined simply by where we came in the family. This just adds to the mix.

Well its as clear as day to me that Leigh has been in love with his right or left hand for years now - so we should have some understanding for his anxiety if we all started discussing any kind of loving relationship, be it between men or women.

This leads me to what i think is the core of the discussion here - if homophobia did not exist would we be discussing homosexuality as being the outcome of nature or nurture - any more than we would be discussing hetrosexuality? I don't think so.

Liegh provides us with a good example of someone who was enculturated in believing in particular sexual taboos. Poofs, fags, gays, are interestingly all part of my teenage son’s intra-boy language but does he really hate gay people? No. But it is used as sorting mechanism amougst teenage boys, no different to my own teenage years.

To sort out what you ask? One could easily say its a sorting mechanism to sort out sexuality in a peer group but I think it much more than this, much more deeply embedded, much more complex.

Psychoanalysis or biology are useful in terms of analysing some common variables but I don’t think they are anymore reliable or accurate in determining these issues than relying on Leigh standing on a street corner and asking him to point out “who is” –or “who is not”.

So at the end of the day who cares, we need more love in the world.

Wildcat, me make people angry? Maybe I just challenge a few of your values.

Although, whilst I take some (uncommon) comfort in actually having several people agree with me, I wonder why. I am saying nothing different here to what I say in most posts.

People who are homosexual are no different to people who are left handed (and they used to try and force them to be right handed too). Left handed people and homosexuals merely display variations in the wide and colourful tapestry of folk who we nowadays accommodate socially and respect sufficiently to follow their own path.
We benefit from less "regimentation", through the collapse of pressure groups of rigid class and religious power systems, which stifled individuality in generations who went before us.

So, as a life long right handed heterosexual (my own personal "differences" are neither in any unconventional choice of hand or partner), may I say, do not presume that someone will get anywhere by relying on anyone else for anything; be it acceptance or recognition.

We control 90% of what matters in our lives (our internal thoughts, sense of self and externally, our responses).

We can work with the hand we are dealt or be resentful of it and usually others.

We can endeavour to be honest and compassionate

But we cannot rely on government to make others as honest and compassionate as we would expect them to be.

Cherish your individuality and respect it in others. Expect others to disagree with you and think what a boring place this earth would be if we were all the same or what a horror it would be if we were forced to be the same (the socialist / communist model).

Leigh
Brilliant! Simultaneously accusing me of unwarranted abuse and calling me intellectually deprived..like, in the same breath almost. Awsome.

I love your idea that gay people are 'unable to form a relationship with the opposite sex', too. I imagine if I were gay that would be quite a relief, you know, being gay and all. I would be all: "well, I'm completely unable to form a relationship with the opposite sex! Darn. But, on the bright side, I'm actually gay so that works our fine in the end. Phew."

And what was this...'sex isn't the be all and end all of a fulfilling relationship' stuff? Are you still talking about gay people at this point? Cause I'm pretty sure most people are already aware of this stunning revelation you've had.

Oh, and in the interest of civilised discourse...can you not call my mum, step sister, three friends and one uncle 'disgusting and unnatural'. Cause...I'm not sure if you're aware of this....but some people find that a tad, well...offensive, yeah? You've already made clear that you aren't a fan of unwarrented abuse, so I'm sure you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Did my brother turn me gay? No the "choice" or choice is ultimately the gay persons.

But who cares if a person is gay or not? Apart from their sexuality they are just like everyone else. I think that most people can see the measure of a person's worth is held in their humanness not their sexual orientation.

I think, there are plenty of supposedly hetrosexual men and women who are more perverted (like Leigh) in their attitudes to others' humanity (and sexuality) than gays.

Snout: The journal "Science" published a study by Simon LeVay, the then Associate Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of California that showed that the brains of a gay male are structurally different to hetro-sexual men. He found that the nucleus of the hypothalmus that triggers male-typical sexual behaviour was much smaller in gay men and was much like that in women's brains. He also found that the corpus callosum differs (bigger in gays) between gay and straight men. It is also larger in artistic and people who inclined to think in degrees and are less either/or thinkers.

Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health in Washington found evidence to suggest a specific gene -carried on the maternal line- influences sexual orientation in men.

See

Simon Levay, The Sexual Brain (Cambridge, MA, MIt Press, 1994), 102.

A. Nystrand, 'New Discoveries on sex differences in the brain', national Institute of Ageing, NIH Bethesda, Lakartidningen 93:21 (1996), 2071-3.

I always find it interesting that when people are ranting against same-sex attracted folk, they always focus on Male homosexuals. Why is that? Is female homosexuality less threatening? Somehow less 'deviant'?

My main concern regarding homosexuality is that it should be normalised to the point where people don't have to 'come out' to their friends and family - it shouldn't be a huge deal, and they shouldn't have to deal with discrimination and abuse. One of my male same-sex attracted friends has ended up going overseas to get away from the dissaproval of his family regarding his lack interest in women. How sad for him, and the many others who put up with the constant disapproval and discrimination on a regular basis.

That said, I'm always slightly surprised when I find out someone (a friend/acquantaince) is gay - But I guess in a way, its like finding out someone is left-handed: right handed is so common and dominant, that unless you have concrete evidence of left-handedness, you tend to assume that people must be right-handed. I guess I tend to assume people are the same as I until given reason to assume otherwise. I don't know if thats wrong or not - but I guess surprise is a better reaction than many around here.

Spendocrat,

Was it just "intellectually deprived" you objected to, or was it the fact that it was mentioned simultaneously with something else? Are you complaining about my syntax?

Not only are you intellectually deprived, but you don't even demur at advising all and sundry what a strange family you have. They must be very proud of you, bandying their private behaviour about. I've not offended your family. You have.

Your complete misunderstanding of what I said, if not deliberate, certainly highlights your lack of intellect, particularly your second paragraph.

However, seeing that you have so much difficulty with what other people say, I will no longer respond to anything you have to say.

Can't say fairer than that.

Good luck with you disablity.

These topics are always amusing, particularly because people seem to expend so much effort on either proving that homosexuality is 'right' or that it is 'wrong'. However, most of the arguments put forward are extremely problematic, and in fact, look like people are really clutching at straws.

For example, "homsexuality has been practiced throughout time". Yes, murder and rape have also been around since the dawn of time, but that doesn't make them right or acceptable, does it?

Also "apes engage in homosexual acts". So? Apes also engage in behaviour we, as humans, wouldn't engage in or consider appropriate. One is eating their own feces (or the feces of others).

As for the whole genetic v. social conditioning thing, who cares? It might be an interesting topic in a first year psychology class, but it's one of those boring old subjects that has been done to death. Homosexuality is most likely a result of social conditioning, helped along by genetics (or, if you prefer, a dormant genetic trait, which is sometimes triggered by social conditioning). Either way, who cares?

I don't care about any person's sexual orientation or practices, so long as a) they don't shove it in my face all the time (no pun intended) and b) they're not hurting any innocent person. So be gay if you want, but please, don't try to convince us it's the best thing since sliced bread. Frankly, I don't give a s**t.

And a good weekend to all!

Cheers Leigh, it is indeed pretty obvious we're not going to be able to communicate ideas in any meaningful sense. There's no need for a retort from me, anyway, as your desperate need to classify me as someone of a lower intellect rather than go through that whole horrible process of, you know, actually considering what I have to say, speaks for itself.

Just so you know, however - my family has no problem with who they are. Thusly, I have no doubt they don't mind me mentioning my relationship to them on an anonymous forum where no names are used and no privacy can possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be breached.

Let me know next time you actually want to talk about the topic at hand - maybe we'll give it another go someday. If you can handle talking to someone with a disability.

I mean...disability? Ouch. Someone needs a nap.

Gekko - I didn’t point out those things as a defence for homosexuality being 'right', rather as my passage of reasoning for considering the term 'unnatural' to be completely inappropriate.

That's the other thing that annoys me, the 'I don't care what people do, just don't shove it in my face'. Aside from the obvious fact that the shoving of homosexuality into straight peoples faces is not a particularly common occurence in my experience, I might remind people to view it from the other side: we genuinely do see hetero culture celebrated everywhere we turn - magazines, tv, music, fashion, so on. This is a good thing, and so is the celebration of homosexuality. Dig?

Spendocrat “the term 'unnatural' to be completely inappropriate”

Read my previous posts then hear this

Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.

It requires abnormal coupling in a manner deviant to that required for procreation, the basic reason for sexual union (although these days not the only reason).

I would never consider ostracizing someone because they are homosexual.

However, embracing someone socially and respecting their right of choice and fulfillment in their personal relationships is my way of suggesting “tolerance” works better for everyone than “intolerance” for those who were previously locked up for being unnatural or abnormal.

Snout, your three initial postings here are a neat summary of progress in solving the apparent paradox of why homosexuals haven’t simply died out. My first thought was to wonder why you didn’t publish them as a single article on OLO, but having read through the responses, I’m no longer wondering.

Should it be demonstrated that homosexuality has an evolutionary purpose, the intolerant views here would be compromised, indeed untenable. So even investigating the causes of homosexuality is seen as a challenge to those who irrationally condemn it. Eventually an explanation for homosexuality will be found, though I won’t be surprised if it turns out to be two explanations (hello Laurie), one for men and one for women.

Fortunately there’s some evidence that the younger you are, the more tolerant you are http://snipurl.com/sc8b, at least with respect to gay people. With any luck it won’t be necessary to wait for an explanation to discredit the intolerant people’s views: they are the ones dying out.

Indeed, I’m encouraged by the fact that respondents whom I normally associate with less tolerant and more conservative views have taken the position that ultimately the causes of homosexuality don’t matter – most important is being able to live happy and fulfilled lives.

Sorry I can’t add anything to help you answer your question. However, thanks for putting it, and for framing it so well.

Many other species engage in homosexual acts even when the opposite gender is available.

Homosexuality has been observed in birds, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, oranguta, ostriches, penguins etc.

I firmly believe that homosexuals are born that way. Most could no more engage in heteresexual relations than I could in a homosexual act.

I am close to a family of 4 females and 3 males where all 3 males are homosexual.

When my children reached an age of curiosity, I advised them that it's hard enough to be "normal" so why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Therefore, they are to be viewed in the same vein as anyone else.

An experimentation on exposure to the nasty chemical dioxin revealed "that dioxin appears to interfere with the testosterone levels and permanently alters the distribution of androgen receptors.

"Dioxin's effect on testosterone may alter sexual differentiation of the brain during early developmental stages when male hormones imprint the brain for male-mating behaviour, male-type response in the hypothalamus and male-type biochemical response to chemicals such as LH (?). Dioxin's precise effects on testosterone remain to be determined.

"Dioxin exposure, even in single doses and at very low concentrations may seriously disrupt normal reproduction in humans and animals."

Since dioxin is persistent and bioaccumulative by invading the entire food chain from industrial and some natural sources, I would suppose that the older one is during pregnancy, the more dioxins one has accumulated. It is reported that one exposure to dioxin will take at least 7 years for the body to expel the chemical.

This could explain why younger brothers may be more prone to being born homosexual.

Of course it fails to explain the practice of many "respectable" heteresexual males who insist on sodomising their wives, whilst calling homosexuals "shirt lifters!"

RObert, I’m still laughing at your characterization of a monotheist god obsessed with human orifices. You make a very important point: many religions have an absurdly egocentric view of the universe, attributing the most profound cosmic significance to the most banal and ludicrous of human obsessions.

Rainer, your point about “homophobia” being at the root of why this question even arises outside of arcane scientific circles is spot on. I used quote marks because the term itself is controversial, but it’s the best word I can find to describe what is to me a strange and deeply irrational human emotion. Perhaps one day evolutionary psychology will make some sense of this, too.

Strongly held but rationally unjustifiable beliefs are part of what makes us human. Sometimes they are charming and harmless, but sometimes they can be very harmful.

Obviously, I have a personal interest in challenging a particular pervasive, irrational belief about human sexuality (and believe me, it is only one of many). What is sometimes frustrating is the very irrationality of it. It’s very difficult to get some people to move beyond the mental framework that human variation is a result of something “going wrong”. An example of this thinking is the apparently unshakeable idea that homosexuality is a kind of sexually transmissible disease that you pick up from someone who is already “infected”. To me the idea that sexual abuse can reverse the polarity of sexual orientation is patently absurd, and goes completely against the experience of people who have suffered such abuse. I suspect that such a belief is, at the deepest levels of the human psyche, one of the root causes of homophobia.

As w pointed out, the existence of homosexuality has been an apparent paradox in evolutionary models. However, the birth order study by Bogaert (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005A6D3-7ADC-14A0-B6C483414B7F4945) goes some way to solving that paradox.

I think what biology and particularly evolutionary psychology teaches us is that diversity is not just a sooky left wing ideal – it is the natural order of things. And understanding our own nature is hugely liberating – for everyone.

Snout

Do you believe that the ratio of gays has increased over some 40 years or is it simply due to gays now publicly acknowledging their sexuality?

This is a question I've pondered over my 5 years research into hormonal disruptors such as dioxin where clinical researchers hold these chemicals responsible for feminization of hormonal and behavioural responses on the unborn fetus.

snout, you mentioned root causes of homopobia. I've often wondered how much of it has to do with modesty as well.

A lot of people have issues with the idea of someone who might find them sexually appealling (or not) looking at them when they are doing certain activities. The reasons that womens only gym's seem to do well and that women and men generally have seperate toilet facilities outside the family home may well contribute to the fear that some people have of homosexuals. The idea that the guy standing next to you at the urinal may have a look out of sexual interest is not one that a lot of guys are comfortable with. Pretty much in the same way that a lot of women are OK with being exposed with other women but not with men (other than a partner).

Anybody else pondered that and have any thoughts on the issue?

R0bert

Dickie, I think it’s hard to say, but my guess is that the incidence of a primarily male homosexual orientation is either stable, or may in fact be dropping in Western societies if the older brothers theory hold – a smaller proportion of men born in the last few decades actually have older brothers. It’s ironic that many of those religious groups that are most vehemently opposed to homosexuality also tend to have the largest families and may thus have the greatest proportion of gay sons! Kinsey did his study of orientation in the 1940s and came up with a 10% figure. More recent estimates are lower than that (generally under 5%), although this may be due to more accurate methodology than reflecting a true decline.

Two important things to bear in mind: as Laurie pointed out earlier, orientation tends to lie along a gradual spectrum from exclusively homosexual at one end to exclusively heterosexual at the other. My impression is that most people do identify with one end or the other, but the biologically determined intrinsic orientation might actually allow for a more even spread. The second thing is that intrinsic orientation, behavior and self identity don’t necessarily line up, and this is one of the problems with using a term like “gay” – which are you talking about?

My guess is that the increased visibility of homosexuality is probably more likely to be to do with increased acceptance and a more generally open attitude to sexuality, rather than a true increase in numbers, although I reckon these days a lot more people who are intrinsically gay are also gay by social identification. Whether actual homosexual behavior has increased as a result is an interesting question!

Snout

An interesting topic - that of gay children born to religious parents.

I worked in a college with a religious ethos for some 10 years, however, one of my children attended the local state school.

A colleague and I often mused over our perception that there were more gay kids at the college than the state high school. History has proven us correct.

There is nothing more just, I believe, than righteous parents discovering their child is gay.

This revelation more often than not, gives the parents an opportunity to exit their indoctrinated convictions and become accepting of those they previously regarded as unacceptable members of their community.

Of course, not all the intrinsically gay kids we knew lived happily ever after. Mainly they were the ones who attempted to conform to their parents' beliefs and their own religious background by endeavouring to survive in a small, fairly intolerant society by covering up their sexual orientation, which only resulted in much misery for some.

Snout I do not believe a gay gene exists,or that seduction can alter a person's biological sexual preferences. I believe there would be heaps of kids seduced by an older brother which did not result in the victim "turning" gay.

I remain fascinated by the hormonal disruptor theory and the role that these environmental factors have in the procreation of all species.

One wonders why there is an increase in infertile women? Communities are constantly bombarded with hormones in the beef, fish and chicken they ingest (I'm not a vegetarian), contraceptive pills, fast foods and the uncontrolled, unregulated emissions of hormonal disrupting industrial pollutants.

On a more frivolous note (and probably inane), is nature rebelling against population explosions? Apart from the generous contribution that most homosexuals make to societies in the way of their proven, inherent talents, could they also contribute to a decrease in population by their reluctance to procreate?

Hopefully, not too many will donate to the invitro-fertilisation programmes!

However, my limited research has revealed that committed homosexuals make excellent adoptive parents as shown on a TV programme a couple of years ago.

Bugger, I find this topic very interesting but noticed this thread rather late and most of the things that I would have addressed have already been commented on by others.

I’m lacking time now so I’ll be quick but may be back later.

A few things I’d still like to comment on are:

Have there been any similar studies done at all about female homosexuality?

I once read that the percentage of homosexual animals seems to be close to that of human homosexuality.

In China, where there is a one-child policy, and where no one has younger siblings, would there be less occurrence of homosexuality than in other nations?

Celivia

One website claims that the Chinese government estimates there are 30 million gay men and women in China so I guess that's about 2.5% of the population.

Apparently though, there is a reluctance by gays to "come out" in rural areas where there still remains a stigma.

Interestingly, the website also claims that a Shanghai university opened its first academic course in homosexuality in 2005.

dickie: "There is nothing more just, I believe, than righteous parents discovering their child is gay."

Indeed. If there was actually a God, then at least one of Boaz's or Leigh's offspring would be gay.

Or maybe they are ;)

ronnie peters, Friday, 12,

Said, "He found that the nucleus of the hypothalmus that triggers male-typical sexual behaviour was much smaller in gay men and was much like that in women's brains. He also found that the corpus callosum differs (bigger in gays) between gay and straight men. It is also larger in artistic and people who inclined to think in degrees and are less either/or thinkers."

My question is: Do gay men produce sperm or ovum? Are they capable of fulfilling a male parental role?

dickie,
If you worked among children how did you determine they were gay? Did they later actually engage sexually as adults with other male adults; or were their behaviours childish effeminite?

"My question is: Do gay men produce sperm or ovum? Are they capable of fulfilling a male parental role?"

Philo, the answer to your question is clearly bleeding obvious.

The thing is, its not the point. Sexual attraction involves
innate tendencies and in the end, the mind is what the brain
does.

Lets say somebody was born gay, that's how their brain is wired.
Clearly nobody has a right to condem that person, much like
you can't condem somebody for the colour of their skin.

To deny that sexual attraction involves innate tendencies, is
ignoring the realities of how the mind works. We think and
we feel and what we feel involves emotions and innate feelings
of attraction. We ignore them at our peril.

For religion to condem what nature has created, is once again
just about people kidding themselves. At the end of the day,
when Philo has an erection, it kind of comes naturally, you don't
need to think about it and decide what is attractive and decide
to have an erection. Nature has it all figured out for you!

Philo, your not going to try that wasting sperm thing again are you?

If so we could try a couple of rephrases of your question (rather than redoing the maths on what proportion of sperm actually end up contributing to a childs dna - although that was fun).

My question is: Do catholic clergy (priests, nuns etc) produce sperm or ovum? Are they capable of fulfilling a parental role?

My question is: Did Jesus produce sperm or ovum? Was he capable of fulfilling a male parental role?

Now can you make the answers to the rephrased questions fit with your expectations of gays?

R0bert

Phio's question is: Are they capable of fulfilling a male parental role?

Like many, you assume all male gays do not have stereotypical male tendencies that you think are relevant for parenting. They play footy, dink beer, you name it.

But on the other hand I know many heterosexual blokey men who should never have become fathers. And I'm sure you could say the same for gay men too.

I don't think for a minute that being a good father is dependent on one's sexuality. The same can be said of Lesbian mothers.

There are two topics that always bring out the same bunch of bigoted fools – homosexuality and atheism, because both are condemned, without reason, by religion.
It has been proven by reputable science that the major cause of homosexuality is not genetic, but the absorption of testosterone in the womb. All children are born female. Those with an XY combination of chromosomes have receptors that trigger testosterone doses at specific times during gestation. If some of these don’t coincide, then the transformation from male to female is incomplete. For example, if the dose is not absorbed properly when visual signals of sexual attraction are developing, then the foetus will remain in the default state [female] for that, and the otherwise normal male will find males sexually attractive. The figure of ten percent is about right, and occurs in all higher animals.There is a theory that after giving birth to a son, a form of allergic reaction occurs in the mother with the second, causing the testosterone production to be faulty.
A completely formed male will be rational, ready to learn new things and apply them, whereas a normal female will be cautious about too readily accepting new stuff as she requires stability. Boaz, Col Rouge and all those other bigoted oppressors of difference, are thus slightly more female than male, in that they retain the female desire to resist new information. Let’s persecute them!

jbgirp,
The first part of your post sounds quite reasonable- until...

"A completely formed male will be rational, ready to learn new things and apply them, whereas a normal female will be cautious about too readily accepting new stuff as she requires stability.
......retain the female desire to resist new information."

As a female, I desire to resist this information ;+)

Do you have a link to some scientific evidence of this?

I have never found that females resist or have the desire to resist new information more than men do.
However, I am ready to learn new things, but I don't find it very rational to accept assumptions without any evidence or reason behind them.

Phew- I feel better now :)

ronnie peters, Friday, 12,

Said, "He found that the nucleus of the hypothalmus that triggers male-typical sexual behaviour was much smaller in gay men and was much like that in women's brains. He also found that the corpus callosum differs (bigger in gays) between gay and straight men. It is also larger in artistic and people who inclined to think in degrees and are less either/or thinkers."

Philo asks in response:

My question is: Do gay men produce sperm or ovum? Are they capable of fulfilling a male parental role?

My answers.

Question one.
Yes. Gay men produce sperm. The brain, among other things, produces ideas and attitudes. The reproductive organs produce semen and ovum. Now you can relax next time you get a stiff neck. Gay men can also produce love, kindness and have often been blessed with many desireable human qualities.

Question two: I think Yes. Parenting is more about using your brain to prepare children for the world than your sexuality. Actually given the amount of homophobia around I'd say a gay couple would more likely have a very well adjusted adult in relation to their attitude to people of difference than hetrosexual "Christian "parents who teach their children nonsense about the evilness of homosexuality.

You need to read your Bible more closely Philo.

Celivia,

you write [As a female, I desire to resist this information.] And so you should. It was pretentious guff with as much intellectual foundation as religious inspired homophobia. No, there's no scientific research on this... because rational people realise that human variation is virtually limitless and any such stereotype would be both offensive and silly. My experience with attitudes to my homosexuality has been the opposite of what I wrote. More women have been interested in discussing and thinking about it, and less condemnatory, than men.
You write. [I don't find it very rational to accept assumptions without any evidence or reason behind them.]

Neither do I, and I feel better now knowing there is one more rational and sensible woman on the planet.
Cheers. Ybgirp

Ybgirp,
Thanks for replying; you're wonderful, and you're quite right- I do see the funny side of what you posted!

I must confess, that after I wrote what I wrote, I realised that I may have misunderstood and that your intention was not to insult women but to poke a bit of fun out of the homophobes in this thread. And don't they need it!

I'm glad that you responded as I was trying to figure out how to bring this up in a next post.

We all know about the ones who protest the hardest, don't we? ;+)

I hope our paths will cross again; it's been delightful to discover that there's another reasonable member on the OLO forum.

To everyone:
I do really think that the theory about homosexuality and evolution Snout presented to us is an interesting topic to discuss; and it's a shame that homophobes had to turn this thread into a moral discussion once again.

I figure that most homophobes in this discussion are those Christians who oppose homosexuality AND evolution so chances of a reasonable discussion on this are one in a zillion.

I realise that I don't have added anything of much substance myself, except saying that I'm interested in finding out if there has been any research to show homosexuality rates of first-born boys and their male siblings, and I have a special interest in Chinese findings as homosexuals there will all be only children.

To compare those two outcomes would reveal something to either support or dismiss the theory.

Snout,
if you still read this, do you know if any more research is being done on this or if there are plans for more research?

Perhaps interested people can still try to keep this discussion on topic while juggling the homophobes.
We, women and homosexuals are very good at multitasking, after all ;+)

Celiva, "We, women and homosexuals are very good at multitasking, after all ;+)" damn, I'll just have to tag along on the one track :(

and

"We all know about the ones who protest the hardest, don't we? ;+)" - if you are implying what I think you are then I'll have to admit to having the same thought but deciding that the gay community probably does not want them either. The only fun bits about it are that some of them have as one of their deepest fears that you might be right and imagining other topics which might draw even louder howls of protest.

Seriously though it is an interesting topic, both because of the contrast between "genetic predisposition" and the "god does not like it" theories and because it is part of the unfolding of knowledge about how humans tick.

R0bert

Oh no poor, poor RObert,
it was just a joke- honest, you don't have to tag along! We all tag along together!

You probably remember the discussion started by holyshadow (btw I suspect it was OzGirl) titled "Gay marriage- are Australians ready?"

When I said "We all know the ones who protest the hardest" I was thinking of the article that Snout put up in one of his posts there- I looked it up, here's the link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
It talks about some research on the arousal of homophobics- did you see it before?

I thought this was very funny- because of this article I now giggle when people are protesting just that little bit 'too much'.

Oh and I will always remember your maths on the 'waste of sperm' argument- it was one of the wittiest arguments I have ever heard! That must have been a while ago- I couldn't find it anymore.

What I don't really understand is this:

If creationism is the truth, then wouldn't God have created homosexual people?

If evolution is the truth, then the theory Snout presented here makes sense.

In either case, homosexuality shouldn't be a problem.

Celivia, is this the one you wanted http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#48371

I got a bit lost as to what Philo's actual concerns were, apparently it was not specifically the wastage of sperm but his concern that humans are dying out "Being gay or lesbian is death to the species - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#48451" and we need every last gay to be procreating away to get the numbers back up (this endangered species thing is a real drag). If that is the case then celebacy must also be death to the species, curses on those who don't do their bit.

Also apparently gays are unable to teach about normal hetero-sexual relationships (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#48413) and that is apparently important for a teaching position in the church. Now if they were elderly celebate men who like wearing dresses and funny hats they would be much better equiped to teach about normal hetero relationships.

As I said at the time it would be much funnier if Philo did not appear to be serious.

R0bert

The bad, sad part of this is that of all the so-called Western Democracies, only the Australian and U.S.A. governments still refuse to enact laws that will prevent discrimination and harassment of same-sex-oriented people. The Labor party’s draft bill on the subject still exempts all religions from compliance and makes no mention of Civil Unions. Quite frankly, we were in some ways better off fifty years ago when no one spoke about it, and those of us who were invisible [the majority] just went on with our lives. Now every kid is fully informed and, thanks to compulsory religious instruction in all schools, many are out there looking for gays to bash.
I'm serious! All Australian educational institutions from primary to university are hot-beds of homophobia and dangerous places for gays to lift their heads. It was not like that when I went to university.
There is only one source of homophobia – religion. And yet every piece of legislation that is supposed to protect gays from discrimination, grants total exemption to religions. It’s like saying no one may murder except for those who are in the habit of murdering.
Because it is murder we are talking about. Every year in Australia tens of thousands of same-sex-oriented people are harassed, beaten or suffer grievously, and there are about ten hate murders. If the joy of life has gone and you live in fear, that too is a form of murder.
The denunciation of homosexuality by religions has increased markedly over recent years with religious TV imported from the U.S.A. in which the likes of Pat Robertson assure Australians that god hates gays. This not only instigates hate crimes, it is the cause of at least 50% of all youth suicides and the suicides of many older people.
Not until religions are placed within the law instead of above it, is there hope of equal rights for all.

ybgirp,
You are so unresearched to say only the USA and Aust are the only countries that do not allow same sex marriages. The fact is only one or two countries in fact allow such sex disoriented marriages. Try all the Muslim countries and see what the outcomes are.

Philo,
re-read ybgirp’s post; he did not say that the USA and Australia are the only countries that do not allow same sex marriages.
He says that OF THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, these two countries refuse to enact laws that will prevent discrimination. These laws could be civil unions, not necessarily SSM.

SSM occurs in more countries than two; do some research on the internet and you can pluck some facts of sites like:

“In 2001, the Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage. At present, same-sex marriages are also recognised in Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts (for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws).”

BTW, The Netherlands is the only country that gives married homosexual couples exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples including adoption and IVF for lesbians. Hopefully other countries will follow.

RObert,
YES that was the post I was looking for- it was much fun to re-read it, thanks! Although I know what you mean about the seriousness of it all, I find the 'logic' of some religious people very amusing when it comes to homosexuality and some other issues as well.

Sometimes when you do have kids it’s not enough!
I was once told by a religious poster called Martin that I was selfish for having only 2 children! He and his wife have 6 kids!
Uhm…God had only one son! What a waste. And how many kids did Jesus have?

O dear, I’d better stop now before I insult anyone.

Philo, You are either stupid or deliberately offensive -- my guess is both. You are opposed to human rights for all, you are opposed to equality of opportunity, you have no interest in or understanding of love, science, logic, reason, compassion, ecological sustainability, history, facts... Your indoctrination has been perfectly installed. You are the puppet of your religious masters. You should be brought before the 'false advertising' commission for posing as a thinking person.
Celivia - thanks. Also to the posts from RObert that I too found both amusing and informative.

Celivia, it’s not just the Netherlands. In July 2005 Spain extended all marriage rights to same-sex couples. There was an issue with the status of non-biological parents which was cleared up in October 2005, but essentially the legislation simply widened the definition of spouse to include same-sex partners. Adoption rights were granted at the same time, so marriage rights in Spain are exactly the same for everyone. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/unions.html

Uniquely, in Spain religious weddings involving same-sex partners are also recognised. As far as I know, everywhere else same-sex partnerships are formalised in a civil ceremony.

I haven’t noticed the sky falling over Spain, and opposite-sex couples are continuing to marry, oblivious to the damage that has been inflicted on the institution they are entering into ... and this in a country where 80% of the population say they are catholic (but only 42% believe in god!). http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/08/world/main1786404.shtml

Robert, ybgirp, I don’t understand why you respond to Philo. It’s clear that he doesn’t read what you write. He simply picks up on one or two words and has a mad tilt at those. Most likely he’s a sad, tortured soul, and you’re never going to change his mind or relieve his pain. Since no-one else takes him seriously, I don’t think you should either. Treat him like any crank you pass on the street – smile graciously and keep going.

How strange- I replied to your post days ago, w, saying that I didn't know that Spain had updated its adoption laws and to say thanks for the info; the more the merrier/marrier.
Seems like the post did't go through.
Anyway, I just wanted to post the news about Blair overruling the Church on gay adoption. I'm somewhat surprised about this.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/blair-overrules-church-on-gay-adoption/2007/01/30/1169919303562.html#

How long before Australia will follow?
It's only a matter of time.

Celivier; Australia will never follow enlightened countries such as those of Europe, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada because we are wedded to the USA and religion Sadly, the day of legislators that care about decency and human rights has passed. Today we are in the grip of religious fervour, both parties courting the religious vote. There will almost certainly be an Islamic Party candidate next Federal election and this will split the votes further. You see, Christian fundamentalists have been doing their homework; They hold the balance of power in sufficient seats to make everyone worried. There is no political capital or votes to be made out of human rights, pluralism, or equality for all, therefore they will be dropped in favour of whatever any politically important religion wants. It's important to realise that there is no constitutional requirement for secularism in any arm of government in Australia, hence Rudd's headlong embrace of religion, the spending of $9,000,000 on religious education in state schools, the tax-free status of all religious enterprises - like Sanitarium; even Pizza shops when run by religions... We are much more likely to see a reduction in rights for gays, not an increase.

Celivia, and anyone else worried about the increasing religiosity of Australian politics, perhaps you might be interested in the Secular Party, it's one year old and needs a few more members before it can put up candidates. It's free to join and nothing is required of you apart from that... Cheers. http://www.secular.org.au

And Sunday's meeting of 500 or so Muslims want to create a super state that operates under Sharia law.

The group claims it's only for Islamic countries where the social order would include the death penalty for gays, lesbians and unchaste women. Seems the unchaste heterosexual male is exempted!

Ahdielah Edries, the President of the Islamic Council of WA claim the group do not represent the views of most Muslims but 500 attendees at this meeting is not an insignificant number.

I would recommend that our overly tolerant government of Islam closely monitor these lunatics who incite murder in the name of religion!

This discussion has drifted well away from the original topic regarding the “causes” of homosexuality, but, hey, that’s life.

Celivia, you sent your response to a different discussion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=354#7357

ybgirp, I’m not nearly as pessimistic as you. As the link in Celivia’s last message shows, governments everywhere are choosing secular before religious values. In Australia, the blanket exception from anti-discrimination laws does not apply in WA and (I think) Tasmania, and I’m sure I’ve read about electoral polling in NSW is revealing that voters are wary of the Liberal Party because of its ties to the religious right (but I can’t find the link right now).

Note also that in the federal sphere the religious right recently took hits on stem-cell research and ministerial control of RU486.

Yes, there are some developments which are a cause for concern – the shift of government services to religious charities is a particularly worrying trend, especially in jurisdictions where they are allowed an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. But overall, I think Australians are moving towards less religious influence in their daily lives, not more.

I think it’s great that the Secular Party is pointing out the influence of religious organisations in this country. However I don't see any need to change my vote.

You are a wise person, W, and I have taken heed of your advice regarding religious nutters. However, articles I have read indicate that mainstream religions regularly oppose certain legislation, then recant in return for financial rewards and the extension of existing rights - the $9 billion awarded to the teaching of christianity in state schools is a current example of a softener and follows suspiciously close the the most recent 'cave in' by religion. When Muslims reach the dizzying heights of profitability enjoyed by the mainstream religions - $8 billion for the Catholics in 2005, in excess of $2 billion for each of the anglicans and Uniting... then they too, perhaps, will be prepared to modify their claims for law changes.
It seems an expensive and dangerous path to travel.
Today there are several hundred federal laws actively discriminating against gays, and there is no move whatever from either party to change that. Indeed, the mood is in the opposite direction. I do not share your optimism about an enlightened future for Australian gays. This country has a vile history of intolerance and persecution of all minorities, concealed behind the myths of "fair go" and "Mateship".