As a gay person myself, I think the choices given are culture are between ludicrous and insulting (that being gay is a "choice based on too much Will & Grace") and just normal insulting (that it's based on freakish genetic mutations). I don't know what "causes" gayness, but the question is pretty insulting - what made us so wrong? Instead I think a society that encourages compulsory heterosexuality and reinforces heterosexual behavior throughout its social institutions and works on outcasting others for deviating from those behaviors probably plays some role in it.

As a dude, I don't think my brain is more "female" just because I have an attraction to men. I think there's a variety of sexual expressions and a variety of types of people that are interested in them. I'm most offended by the idea that a gay person is a "breed" that can be forgotten with the flip of a switch - all the genetic treatment in the world won't get rid of forms of same-sex attraction

Yeah, isn't it interesting that in a culture where porn is a multi-billion dollar industry, we find time and energy to condemn sexuality in which intimacy, love, and caring exists. Aren't womanizers heralded and one-night stands commonplace? Another line of attack that often gives me great
amusement (though it also causes me to scratch a hole in my head) is "the sanctity of marriage". LMFAO! Are those championing that sanctity not aware of the divorce rate in this country? Is that not a greater denigration of this supposed sanctity than some small fraction of the population who would wish to marry a same sex partner? Anyhow, more power to you eku...

Agreed: genetic reductionism does feel offensive when it targets a core part of an individual's identity, though this is certainly not the intent of these studies.

Ditto the support & respect to eku from a straight (but not narrow) brother.

Oka

I don't so much mind trying to understand how some people turn out gay and others don't, in the sense that it helps make a stronger case that it's not a choice. But the idea that someone might figure out how to "fix" gay people worries me. I like who I am, and I wouldn't trade my life or the people in it for anything. The idea of reprogramming everyone to be straight is a little too "master race-ish" for me.

okakura, I think it's important to distinguish between biology and ethics. I don't find the idea of a gay gene offensive at all, because genes are just macromolecules. They don't make something right or wrong, good or bad, meaningful or meaningless. I'm not saying people don't interpret it that way, the "genetic reductionism" you refer to, but simply that there isn't much logic to it. Lots of things are controlled by genes or other biological factors. That's objective fact. What value we place on those things is subjective.

It seems very likely that homosexuality does have a biological cause (not genetic probably, but biological nonetheless). In some measurable biological ways, a gay man's brain does resemble a straight woman's. Those are biological facts. I don't think any of that makes being gay "wrong", and if people do try to make that connection between biology and morality, that's their fault, not biology's.

So what if homosexuality IS a choice? Would it matter? Why should it matter to you WHERE the hell I put my penis? As long as where I'm putting it likes it to be there, it's none of your, or his, or hers, or THEIR business!!!

And THAT is the point we need to start shoving down religious idiot's throats. It's NONE OF THEIR F&CKING BUSINESS! This is NOT a religious dictatorship we live in, whether they admit it or not.

I'm all for science and understanding, but if they're gonna start weeding us out, I say we weed ourselves back in by doing the same thing in reverse. Start creating gay children.

Better yet, as humans are so wont to do - wouldn't it be great if heteros started (en masse) this procedure to "guarantee" hetero babies and it turned out to sterilize them, instead? Oh sure, they'd be straight - they just wouldn't be able to procreate anymore!

The PERFECT solution!

Yeah, I'm pretty repulsed by the eugenics aspect of this argument as well. I remember my mother being upset that I was happy with who I was when she found out I was gay. I always felt it was a pretty devastating picture of her personality at that time. (She's adapted to a saner, happier world view now.)

And I'm not sure what they mean by a "feminized" brain, but if anything I've always felt hyper-masculine and pretty repulsed (sexually speaking) by anything even slightly suggestive of femininity.

In any case, there are plenty of sane people out there, both straight and gay, who'd never dare to tamper with nature.

And all those Christians who did would find themselves in a fairly deep hole of their own digging when they had to try and explain why they could do a better job than "god" at sorting out their kid's future. After all, the argument would have to be identical to manipulating a fetus to weed out all sorts of physically and mentally undesirable characteristics and that's a hell of a slippery slope.

I am sure you realise that whether or not someone is offended by an argument or explanation has nothing at all to do with that argument or explanations validity.

As to the question being insulting in of itself, I can understand that in an environment of religious borne hatred that the motives of the question could be very disconcerting to say the least. But I don't think this research is being done at the University of Creationism. People who condemn the question "why?' ought themselves to be condemned. Or given honorary doctorates from the U. of C.

There is a "sanctity of marriage". But then you would not understand that since you confuse government ordained cohabitation contracts with marriage. You don’t understand that there are contracts put together by men and that they are totally different than marriages put together by God.

This difference in the brains just might explain the debate of what is meant by reprobate mind.

melvinhermille:

Yeah, isn't it interesting that in a culture where porn is a multi-billion dollar industry, we find time and energy to condemn sexuality in which intimacy, love, and caring exists. Aren't womanizers heralded and one-night stands commonplace? Another line of attack that often gives me great
amusement (though it also causes me to scratch a hole in my head) is "the sanctity of marriage". LMFAO! Are those championing that sanctity not aware of the divorce rate in this country? Is that not a greater denigration of this supposed sanctity than some small fraction of the population who would wish to marry a same sex partner? Anyhow, more power to you eku...

Those of us who oppose same-sex marriages have always opposed pornography, one-night stands, womanizers, and the like. To us, same-sex marriage is the next step down the ladder, and worry how much farther we have yet to decend. And yes, I am aware of the divorce rate in this country, and its not as high as you think it is, if you are referencing the "50% divorce" statistic. This statistic is based on a survey in 1981 that recorded 2,422,000 marriages and 1,213,000 divorces in the same year (from Hollywood vs. America). Commentators saw these numbers and lept to the conclusion that the divorce rate was 50%. However, to support this statement you would have to assume that the number of marriages represented the only married couples in the country, and that all the divorces came from that same pool. And even if the divorce rate really is that bad, to conservatives its more proof that we need to sustain the traditional, nuclear family.

TruettCollins, I'm aware of courthouse marriage licenses. Indeed, that is municipal and nothing more. But are you saying every couple that ever took vows in a church and was subsequently pronounced "husband and wife" by a priest is still in a monogamous and faithful union? I assume those are the ones put together by God but if I'm mistaken, I certainly welcome enlightenment. Where are these holy failsafe marriages sanctified?

TruettCollins:

There is a "sanctity of marriage". But then you would not understand that since you confuse government ordained cohabitation contracts with marriage. You don’t understand that there are contracts put together by men and that they are totally different than marriages put together by God.

I have been to several church weddings in my life. At all of these events, standing in a church built by men, a man, usually called priest or father or pastor married two other people. At no time did I bear witness to God entering the building.

So perhaps you would like to explain the difference between the marriages that I have seen men put together and the marriages that God has put together? As a further request could you please refrain from using fairy tales in your explanation as we are all (I think) reasonably serious and rational adults here?

Thanks.

regfife, your efforts against pornography, one-night stands, and womanizing are horrible inept failures. I'm going to go so far as to call them virtually non-existent. With their non-existent status established, its fair to dismiss your proclamation as pointless lip service and chest thumping.

I didn't reference any percentages in my post since 30% or 40% or 50% divorce rates all suffice to undermine any statistically verifiable proclamation of the "sanctity of marriage". Sanctity being such a definitive absolute.

You say that even if the divorce rate is really that bad, that is "proof" that you need to sustain the traditional nuclear family? Yet the "sustainment" that you refer to is already decayed to the point of its status as a rallying point is undermined due to the divorcees and divorcés. Those divorced heterosexuals are the ones that have undermined the validity of your stand. Why isn't there a vociferous and rabid conservative front organized to marginalize, belittle, control, protest, coerce, and pigeonhole divorced men and women? They populate the most visible segment of American society that has destroyed any righteous position you have to hold up the "sanctity of marriage" as a basis for oppression of the freedom of others to live their own lives with the same sanctioned privileges you enjoy.

I don't understand why the idea of a gay gene would be offensive. Genes play a large part of who a person is. For instance, intelligence is another trait with a large genetic component.