Originally Posted by cnredd

Is there a "gay gene"?...I don't think so...

But I'm going to use a word here that will pop up a few times in this theory...

"SUSCEPTABILITY"...

Now do I believe there's a gene that makes one susceptable to being gay?...Yup...

There IS evidence that genes exist that doesn't MAKE one become something, but DOES make them susceptable...

Let's take alcoholism as an example...

Studies have shown that it runs in the genetic code of parents who are alcoholics and pass it along to little Johnny and Mary...

Does that mean that little Johnny and Mary WILL BE alcoholics?...Of course not...But it does mean they are more susceptable to it than the kid whose parents aren't on the sauce...

And what it ALSO means is that there is no DIRECT connection...

There are millions of examples where the children of alcoholics avoid the stuff and millions of examples where parents who don't drink gave birth to an eventual slosh...

DISCLAIMER - I'm only comparing alcoholism to being gay in the medical sense...I'm not making a statement on any equivalancy of their place in society, so don't get your panties in a bunch...

So how do these "exceptions" happen?...I have two thoughts on it...

1) A term which I call "the switch"...

2) External influences...

let's take them one by one...

First, as I've said, I believe there's a gene that makes one susceptable to being "something"...It could be gay, a gambling addict, a lover of poetry, a desire to become a pilot...almost anything...

That doesn't mean the gene is turned "on" at birth and they WILL be that "something"...Just that the gene exists in a dormant stage until #2 (external forces) "switch" it on...

So now we come to the second thought on susceptability...external forces...

I don't believe being gay is a choice...But I DO believe being gay is a psychosomatic reaction to an event or events in one's life...In other words, something happened which turned the susceptability gene to the "on" position...

Now here's the fun part...

What that event(s) is could be literally anything...and the age of the event can be different from one person to the next...And still, one event to one person may do nothing for the "switch", but to the next person the event may be lifechanging...Even going further, the switch might get turned on by one big event in one person, but for others, it could be a series of events...Someone could have 15 events that happened to him that could turn the switch on but never did (a tougher gene to switch) while the person next to them was born with a susceptability gene that was easy to switch with one event that could've happened at a very young age...

And here's the kicker...Events can have OPPOSITE reactions to different people!!!! One guy breaks up with his girlfriend and freaks...The gene gets switched on and he disavows women for the rest of his life...On another guy the gene may not come close to switching and he starts making women his conquest...(And, of course, in yet another guy nothing happens)...

That explains why someone whose genetic makeup could point to something like alcoholism but it never happens, and why someone whose genetic makeup gives them a .00001% chance of becoming an alcoholic but the guy ends up in an alley with a bottle of Thunderbird...It also explains why one kid who had shelves and shelves of alcohol in the house with irresponsible parents could grow up not touching the stuff while another kid whose never even seen a bottle of alcohol until he was 24 could end up sitting at the far end of the bar talking to himself by the time he hits 26...

Some susceptability genes are simply tougher to switch on than others...

Now a question on this susceptability gene comes up that I don't have an answer for...

How many people have it?...let's say the population is 5% gay...Does that mean 100% of the population has it but only 5% get switched on?...Or could it be that 80% of the population has no shot at being gay, but the susceptability gene gets switched on in 25% of the remaining 20% of the population that DOES have it?...Got me...I'll wait until someone with a lab coat comes up with that one...


OK...Now we come to part where if I haven't made some angry yet, the floodgates should be open all of the way by the time they're done reading this...

I believe the number of gays are increasing...and it's due to the external forces...

Let's take another group of people first before anyone starts throwing tomatos at me...Gun enthusiests...

Were they BORN loving guns?...Of course not...But the two issues (gene susceptability/external forces) CREATES them...

In areas where guns are prevalent, you're going to find that people have many avenues and events that will turn that susceptability gene on...Of course, you'll also find exceptions to where the gun-toting idea turns some off, but I think we can agree that if you're in an area that has a gun devotion, the manifestation of that will be handed down to the next generation in that area...

And it doesn't even have to be a bloodline...How many kids become an enthusiest of something because the neighbor they look up is a shining example?...Of course, the opposite happens, too...where a kid becomes an alcoholic because their neighbor is always drunk and happy and the kid starts imitating them and by the time they find themselves deep into alcoholism, it's too late...Either way, it wasn't that the kid woke up and said "I love guns!(or alchohol)"...It was their surroundings that turned their susecptability switch on which ultimately made them go that route...

And that's why I believe the number of gays is increasing...

The number of things that represent the gay community have increased in the public the last few decades, so that means the events that are able to turn the susceptability gene to be turned on has also increased...

In a town with no gays, the chances of having that gene switched on is low...In fact, the only people that would end up gay would be very low just like the number of people who avoid alcohol born in an "alcoholic lifestyle" would be low...An exeption to the rule where the gene gets switched based on a repellant reaction...

But in places where being gay has a positive and public reaction, the chances of the susceptability gene being switched on skyrockets...which ends up in the obvious...more people being gay...(Once again, there would also be a very low exception to the rule where people would be turned of because of the positive display of the lifestyle like I mentioned above)...


So lets's review...which should make eveything as confusing as ever...

Those are my beliefs, so take them as you wish...I could be off by a mile or spot on, but either way, digest how you'd like...

* Everything effects everyone differently, so there is no "one cause" for being something...in this case, gay...

* Being gay does not come from a gene that makes one gay, but a gene that can be turned on due to surroundings and events that can happen in that person's life...and just like most other formations in both body and mind, the younger one is, the easier for changes to occur...

* The switch can be turned on due to one event or many events...most likely depending on the individual...Likewise, there could be an opposite reaction where events and surroundings make the gene into a tougher position to switch on...

* Being gay is not a conscious decision (choice)...

* Being in an area that has an increased amount of surroundings and events creates more chances where the gene can switch to the "on" position...

So there you go...

Take it however you want to...It's just what I "think" is happening...

Now excuse me while I put on my kevlar...

Originally Posted by conman

I know I'm gonna get some hate thrown my way for this one, but here goes.

I believe homosexuality is some form of an illness or issue that has been neglected. I have known many gays who were molested or raped. I feel that the "issue" created is a direct result of this life trauma.

I also know some who have had no sexual trauma (that I know of). In this case it may be a genetic predisposed type of illness, similar to diabetes. In either case it is an issue that has not been treated accordingly.

Sex is essentially designated for procreation. The fact that two same sex people cannot create a living being through sexual contact leads me to believe it is not as natural as "hetero" sex.

I ask that people read this with an open mind as this is simply my theory. I don't know the truth (but who does), and I don't know what the best form of treatment would be for somebody who is gay.

Homosexuality is tolerated in our society, for the most part, and this is a good thing. If a homosexual is happy being gay, and don't agree that anything is wrong with them than that's great.

Originally Posted by jallman

I appreciate your candor here and certainly won't throw any hate your way. However, I must point out that I see a serious flaw in your argument about sex not being for any purpose than procreation: if that is the basis of your decision that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "an illness", then you are going to have to put a little effort into explaining heterosexual behavior like oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation. Also, couples not able to procreate who have sex or those taking birth control or using condoms to hinder procreation but still indulge in the sexual acts. These issues undermine the argument that sex, in our society, must be for procreation or it is unnatural.

Originally Posted by Redfactor

Okay since it seems nobody else is jumping at the gun to contest your "theory," I figure I'll play devil's advocate (as I believe something sorta along those lines). I got a sense you were looking for a critique : )

Okay, a susceptibility gene.

It seems that you've taken the alcoholism gene and expanded it to homosexuality. The alcoholism gene doesn't produce alcoholics, but rather makes those with the gene react to alcohol in a heightened way. This makes them more susceptible to the addiction. They still have to drink heavy amounts of alcohol for a duration of time to build this dependency.

So, if we're to carbon-copy that system to the gay gene, we'll run into some problems.

First, homosexuality isn't an addiction, it is a preference. Susceptibility requires an action to result in fruition. Homosexuality does not require this action.

When kids start to become sexual beings, at around at 9, they generally have never had sexual contact and have been socialized to be attracted to the opposite sex (even if they don't like them at this point). Yet children develop their homosexual feelings at this time like you or I would develop our heterosexual feelings.

With no sexual contact or experience with either sex, they have not taken any action that would allow a susceptibility gene to come to fruition.

As for your external forces, I'm glad you admit you don't have the science behind your claims because you sure don't have a study to cite that supports your idea :P

There's no doubt that trauma can have a huge impact on the human psyche, but to claim that every gay person became homosexual as the result of an external catalyst is just far fetched. I doubt you'll find a study that doesn't go directly against your position.

As for the number of gays rising, I believe Arcana is pretty much spot-on. It's not so much that there are more gay people, rather, they're just in an environment which allows them to be gay with significantly less oppression.

As an aside, I doubt there's a town with at least 100 people that doesn't have a gay resident; unless they actively push gays out of the community.


-----

Now, I'll provide my stance as of now out of fairness : )

I believe that every person has two genes which control sexual orientation. One for attraction towards women, and one for attraction towards men. These two genes work together to determine sexual orientation.

This works on a sliding scale. So your Male gene may contribute 80% of your sexual orientation and the Female gene would contribute 20%. This would result in a gay man or a straight woman.

If you flipped the ratio around, you'd have 80% Female and 20% Male. This would result in a straight man or a homosexual woman.

Here's where it gets tricky. If the ratio is somewhere around 45M and 55F to 55M and 45F, the person could self-identify them self as bisexual, straight, or gay. When they're so close together, then social pressures and internal desire towards a specific orientation could become a factor.

Originally Posted by conman

I understand it's quite pleasurable. I am not saying that people only have sex to procreate. I am saying that the purpose of intercourse is to produce children.

Oral sex is fun, and masturbation is often necessary (not good when the pipes get clogged). Anal sex (between man and woman) is a power play IMHO. It really is no better than vaginal intercourse (it's often much worse). My wife and I discuss this often. I see it as a way to break the monotony, but even more so to, and no pun intended, plant my flag.

My argument really went off course. As I said I agree with you that sex is not strictly used for the purpose of bearing children, but that is what the act is naturally intended for.

Originally Posted by conman

I understand it's quite pleasurable. I am not saying that people only have sex to procreate. I am saying that the purpose of intercourse is to produce children.

Originally Posted by conman

I understand it's quite pleasurable. I am not saying that people only have sex to procreate. I am saying that the purpose of intercourse is to produce children.

Oral sex is fun, and masturbation is often necessary (not good when the pipes get clogged). Anal sex (between man and woman) is a power play IMHO. It really is no better than vaginal intercourse (it's often much worse). My wife and I discuss this often. I see it as a way to break the monotony, but even more so to, and no pun intended, plant my flag.

My argument really went off course. As I said I agree with you that sex is not strictly used for the purpose of bearing children, but that is what the act is naturally intended for.

Originally Posted by rivrrat

The purpose as determined by whom?

In the same breath you say that the purpose is procreation but that people engage in it for other reasons (including yourself). And you imply that's okay. However, you also stated that it's not okay for homosexuals.

Why is non-procreative sex "normal" for heterosexuals but abnormal for homosexuals?

Originally Posted by quatrotritikali

I really cannot think of any good reason why hetero women liked to have anal sex...without there being some trade-off or benefit of doing so. Perhaps these women are masochists who get off on feeling pain. Perhaps the man likes to "plant his flag" (which I feel is both insensitive and selfish, unless the woman is into it as well, and not simply allowing the man to "have his way" as a female obligation to pleasuring the man).

Men have prostates, an organ that women do not possess. The prostate is sensitive and when massaged or rubbed up against...the prostate is stimulated, causing pleasure (some say intense pleasure) for the guy receiving the man's penis. The man giving anal sex to a guy (or a woman for that matter) gets off from the tightness and pressure compressed around his penis...much like a tight vagina. The resulting friction is highly erotic, eventually resulting in climax for everyone involved (if done right).