a theory for all of us

[r1g0r]

if we accept that there is a genetic link to homosexuality (or crossdressing or any other variant that we seem to see over & over), then we may have to accept the possibility that for the better part of the last century we have been ACTIVELY breeding more homosexuals (and etc...). the only accepted behavior for the last 100 years or more has been to get married and produce children. even homosexuals followed this pattern, possibly because it was the only option shown to them or the consequences for being known as gay were severe (often fatal). therefore, they married and had kids. no blame attached here, just a statement of fact. anything else was unacceptable. their children often saw that dad was "different" from other fathers, but this was accepted. these children have the genetic link handed to them by their parents, just as we get left-handedism or red hair or bad teeth. the good with the bad. these kids also see that "men" marry "women" and have "families". therefore they perpetuate the pattern. it wasn't until the last couple of decades that homosexuality has become more open and accepted. NOW, the homosexual or lesbian is more likely to seek out others of their own kind. strangely enough, if gay people marry other gay people they are LESS likely to produce children and hand down their genetic traits. in essence, if left alone to follow their own choices homosexuality could be reduced DRASTICALLY simply because the genetic trait would not be passed from generation to generation because people are forced to mimic behavior that is not natural for them. we have all heard stories of young people discovering that one of their parents was attracted to their own sex, and wondering if they "inherited" their OWN homosexuality from their parent. this could be more accurate than we have ever thought possible. the tales of "well, you know your father enjoyed wearing a dress and heels but only around the house when he was alone" may be a clue to the answers a lot of people are searching for. it may also provide the guidance to many other people who can't figure out how to deal with other people's behavior. after all, you don't blame somebody who's a hemophiliac or who is tall or has any one of a million other genetically-indicated traits or diseases. it's in their genes. r1g0r (trying to remember if he ever saw dad in a skirt or heels)

[mk4625]

I wonder how I came to be? As far as I know I have no blood relative who is gay or a crossdresser, or is rumored to be. If there are any, then they must be well-closeted. In my family, such stories would be gleefully repeated at family get-togethers. I used to think that my brother was gay however on several occasions he has made statements without prompting that indicate he is not. On the other hand it always seemed natural and "right" for me to wear women's footwear. I have no explanation for this other than to say that the most influential people in my life, my strongest role models, have been women who wore high heels. Then too perhaps there is some kinkiness that I don't know about.

[Yamyam]

[before we start - I'd just like to say that I have nothing against gay people, and indeed at least one of my oldest friends is gay!)

But why should we accept that there is a genetic component to homosexuality? As far as I know, many years of research looking for the 'gay gene' hasn't found one yet. And I'm even more skeptical that we'll find a 'high-heel' gene after that, any more than there's a 'red Lexus gene'.

Now that we have the human genome sequenced, we will find many fascinating things. But I'm still suspicious of the existence of a gay gene. After all, the genetic code is many millions of years older than Victorian morality. If, as you say, homosexuality makes you unable to reproduce, then the gay gene should have died out millions of years ago. This is true of any other mutation that means its carriers do not reproduce.

But, if there is a gay gene, and gay people are still around, then this logic must be flawed. That is, the gene, if there is one, hasn't died out, despite ensuring that its carriers do not reproduce. Therefore, it seems to me, at least, unlikely that there is a gay gene.

Animal and human development owes huge amounts to environment as well as genetics (the old 'nature vs. nurture' debate). And sometimes stuff just happens. One might as well return to the old Freudian-era argument that gay people are gay because their fathers were inadequate role models. Or because their parents committed a sin and their evil was visited upon their children. Or because they're possessed by demons.

Further, I also think that human sexuality is a sliding scale, from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual. Most people are somewhere in the middle, probably nearer to one end than the other. Some people are in the middle. This seems to me to be more complex than the existence of a single gene would imply.

Possession of some variant of the human genome means only one thing: you're human! Whatever the genetic code says, some people will drive red Lexuses, some people will love purple, and some people will want to wear high heels. Let us celebrate our differences, enrich ourselves with the new experiences that people can bring, and thank our favourite deities (where applicable) for humanity in all its breadth!

[Julietta]

Let us celebrate our differences, enrich ourselves with the new experiences that people can bring, and thank our favourite deities (where applicable) for humanity in all its breadth!

Beautifully written Yam x

[azraelle]

There may indeed be a "gay" gene, but I doubt that it determines sexual preference! What if instead it causes a sensitivity to things (and feelings) generally associated in our "modern" society as "feminine" or "unmanly"??

If our society was more enlightened and accepting of differences, instead of having a "need" to "pigeonhole" or categorize everything and everyone, then there might be a whole lot less gays nowadays. I believe that as a boy (who has these sensitivities) starts growing into a man, his peers and society in general "force" him into the category of "gay" because they don't allow themselves to have any other category to "stick" him into. The same may be true to some extent for lesbians in the opposite way.

[texasbumpkin]

There was a study about a year ago that was published, that looked at Identical twins, where one was homosexual and one was heterosexual. In this study they found that there was a difference in the amount of hormones produced by the pituitary gland and the hypothalmus. This is definately a discovery where these are people of the same identical genetic mapping. The major question is why does this difference exist? Is it that homosexuality is a dormant gene in the twins that some how was activated, either by mutation, of environmental stimuli? I just thought that this study was very interesting.

[mk4625]

There may indeed be a "gay" gene, but I doubt that it determines sexual preference! What if instead it causes a sensitivity to things (and feelings) generally associated in our "modern" society as "feminine" or "unmanly"??

If our society was more enlightened and accepting of differences, instead of having a "need" to "pigeonhole" or categorize everything and everyone, then there might be a whole lot less gays nowadays. I believe that as a boy (who has these sensitivities) starts growing into a man, his peers and society in general "force" him into the category of "gay" because they don't allow themselves to have any other category to "stick" him into. The same may be true to some extent for lesbians in the opposite way.

My feeling is that it is better to be gay if you have a partner you love, than straight with a partner you don't love (or no partner at all). The month alone from being dumped by Jean to meeting Kathy was the worst time of my life since my mother passed away.

[Yamyam]

What a wonderful idea! An 'in touch with your feelings' gene? I think that it's more a matter of upbringing myself. I've always talked to my little one about how I feel, and he accepts my feelings, and his own. I've worked hard at being in touch with how I feel, and I'm better for it. I hope I can pass that on to him.

My feeling is that it is better to be gay if you have a partner you love, than straight with a partner you don't love (or no partner at all). The month alone from being dumped by Jean to meeting Kathy was the worst time of my life since my mother passed away.

This is a tough world. Gay, straight, or whatever, it's best to face the world with someone you love. It's hard to have a good day when you wake in an empty bed. And you can face anything after a kiss from a lover!

Is there a point to this? Only that the only important thing is love. With love, anything is possible, and without it, there's no point in going on.

[Julietta]

Yam wrote:

Only that the only important thing is love. With love, anything is possible, and without it, there's no point in going on.

I know you quite well now Yam and you know what I have been through and have supported me unconditionally so please don't take this personally but what is love?

My ex supposedly loved me so much so he thought that by calling me all the names under the sun and that the odd push and shove now and then, which progressively got worse, were terms of endearment. The ex husband, not quite the same but he too thought that calling me a "fat cow" after having the kids would shake me up into loosing the weight as he hated overweight women, in fact disgust is a better description, of how he felt about it. So much so he couldn't bear to be near me. Yet he was broken hearted when I left him, after 16 years of it, which was a shock to me as he'd never let on he had feelings of any kind for me. What price is love? In my case unfortunately "without it" means I can go on.

Sorry that was very cynical. I had a strange encounter by text with my ex friend which has left me feeling unsettled and rather well, cynical.

Think I'd better get back to the story section

[Bubba136]

Hmmmmm! Julietta's situation sounds tragically complicated and involved. Now, let me get this clear, Julietta: Your ex husband loved you so much that he called you names and beat the crap out of you? And you endured 16 years of this treatment? Just what kind of a Saint are you to give your ex so many chances (and, what kind of a bum was he to mistreat you like that, in the first place)? First of all, if I even tried to physically abuse my wife or any of my children, she would have reported me and I'd still be in the slammer. Secondly, there wouldn't have a second time. One chance is all that I get. And, after 27 years of marriage, one chance is still all that I get. My wife is truthfully my soul mate. Our entire being is entwined and linked together through our consummate love for each other and our three children. I'm fortunate that I have her. I don't know what I would do without her. And, I would never think of ever physically or mentally harming her. I read article after article about women and men that “link-up” together and then go their separate ways when they find unpleasant, distasteful or intolerable qualities about one another. And, there’re usually one or more children involved after a few years of “being involved.” While it’s unconscionable that you endured this kind of treatment, I wonder how your staying with this guy for as long as you did affected your children. You’d hope that in their adult lives, they would learn from your experiences and be more careful when choosing a partner. However, prevalent studies indicate that children raised in abusive atmospheres wind up in abusive relationships when they grow up. It appears to be an “unbreakable” circle.” And, it’s not confined exclusively to the USA. It’s epidemic throughout western civilization. And, would be in thes other civilization if women were accorded equal treatment, as they are in western countries. As it is, women in these other civilizations don’t have many “birthrights.” Julietta, wish you well and hope things go well for you in the future.

[Firefox]

After all, the genetic code is many millions of years older than Victorian morality

Precisely. As I said on the other board the original post doesn't make sense to me as it contains too many faulty premises.

[Yamyam]

Yam wrote:

I know you quite well now Yam and you know what I have been through and have supported me unconditionally so please don't take this personally but what is love?

My ex supposedly loved me so much so he thought that by calling me all the names under the sun and that the odd push and shove now and then, which progressively got worse, were terms of endearment. The ex husband, not quite the same but he too thought that calling me a "fat cow" after having the kids would shake me up into loosing the weight as he hated overweight women, in fact disgust is a better description, of how he felt about it. So much so he couldn't bear to be near me. Yet he was broken hearted when I left him, after 16 years of it, which was a shock to me as he'd never let on he had feelings of any kind for me. What price is love? In my case unfortunately "without it" means I can go on.

Sorry that was very cynical. I had a strange encounter by text with my ex friend which has left me feeling unsettled and rather well, cynical.

Think I'd better get back to the story section

Julietta, I'm not taking any offence whatsoever. I suppose that I'm basically a romantic at heart. I also need my special people around me, the ones that I love. I can't put in to words what love means to me.

And I will continue to support you unconditionally, and I hope that I never ever upset you. You deserve much better than that!

[Francis]

love for me is knowing the comfort of my partner and supporting each other in whatever we do. we have our screaming sessions, what relationship doesn't, but always make up due to our bond. I think our relationship goes past love because we can't seem to stay mad at each other for more than a day! I'm sorry that your's didn't stay healthy and from the sounds of it, he can't have thought that much of you for using such nasty remarks, no matter how they were intended. I will admit to calling my wife a 'fat cow' before now, but she'll then call me a 'fat bastard'. True! I have put on weight and I don't know both my parents who were not married, so I readily admit to being a 'fat bastard' As for getting physical, there are no excuses. What possesses a man to harm a woman is beyond me. Admittedly, there have been time where I have nearly flipped and punched Jackie's lights out, but I remember that she's female and real men don't hit women, no matter what she did to provoke it, so I go outside and trash something. Better to take it out on an inaminate object than my wife, I think she's had her fair share of problems in life already! Just make sure that me and your ex don't get within arm's reach of each other! Violence against women just makes my blood boil.