Looks like it's a mother's antibody response to a succession of male foetuses that is responsible for the sexual orientation of gay men.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2244488,00.html

Wonder what the religious fanatics and other homophobic cranks will make of this ? :D

Always wondered about my younger brothers obsession with clinique, clothes and maintaining the body beautiful .......... That's solved that then.

I haven't got an older brother though ?

This title reminds me of that graffiti.
Someone had painted on a wall 'My mother made me a homosexual'
Someone else had written underneath it
'If I get her the wood, can she make me one' :hihi:

I haven't got an older brother though ?

Maybe you're not gay?

On the other hand, maybe it is a probability thing; the more older brothers you have, the more the dice becomes loaded.

Maybe you're not gay?


Perhaps, I don't like quiche or scatter cushions ?

You realise everyone with two sons will be panicking now :)

The article suggests that the effect might account for only a proportion of gay men.

It's very hand-wavey though. The suggested immune system involvement appears to be just a hypothesis at the moment; they have no experimental evidence for its involvement. Maternal 'anti-male' antibodies? Mmmm. A little more detail required, I think.

bollo**s

I designed myself!!!!

Perhaps, I don't like quiche or scatter cushions ?

You realise everyone with two sons will be panicking now :)

I like quiche but I don't get the scatter cushion thing. Does that make me bisexual?

We've got one son and are expecting another child shortly; we may have to ditch the boy's name we've chosen and go for something camper.

There's nothing wrong with gay people, maybe they just are who they are and so they never tried to be like others expect them to be.

I like quiche but I don't get the scatter cushion thing. Does that make me bisexual?

We've got one son and are expecting another child shortly; we may have to ditch the boy's name we've chosen and go for something camper.
What, like Caravette? (http://www.volkswagencamper.co.uk/latest_issue.htm) :hihi:

What, like Caravette? (http://www.volkswagencamper.co.uk/latest_issue.htm) :hihi:

Duh! Caravette's a girls name. I was thinking more of Stardream (http://www.motorhomedeals.co.uk/img/autocruise/autocruise_stardream.jpg) perhaps

I like quiche but I don't get the scatter cushion thing. Does that make me bisexual?

I kinda like the scatter cushions but don't dig the quiche. Does that make me upside-down bisexual?

I kinda like the scatter cushions but don't dig the quiche. Does that make me upside-down bisexual?

Sounds to me like you've got one of those Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowen things going on.

I've got a friend who's fallen in love with two school bags. Does that mean he's bisatchel.

I wonder if this work really proves anything? I think (feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood) that they are saying the chance of a boy being gay increased by a third for each older brother they have. I can't help wondering if some, or all, of the effect is actually social in that mothers treat younger sons in some way differently. It might also be that there is some effect from the way that one or more older siblings treat them.

yadda yadda yadda..................this navel gazing at "gayness" is so boring....................and I have said it before.so 1990's

the least interesting part of a person is their sexuality

The article I read said the brothers only had to have the same mother, they didn't have to be brough-up togther, or even by their natural mother.

It's important though, as once science proves it is genetic, and not a choice, we might get the same kind of protection as other minorities who didn't choose to be the way they are.

yadda yadda yadda..................this navel gazing at "gayness" is so boring....................and I have said it before.so 1990's

the least interesting part of a person is their sexuality
Try telling that to Peter Tatchell.

I find peoples sexuality very interesting sometimes.

The article I read said the brothers only had to have the same mother, they didn't have to be brough-up togther, or even by their natural mother.

Do you think they would have enough boys who were brought up seperately to be statistically significant? I would imagine that most people will be brought up by their own mother and then only a fraction will be gay, so their sample will be small for these unusual cases. I also wonder how they demonstrate that someone really is gay? Do they just ask them?

I must admit that who I shag and what I do with them is VERY
uninteresting........

I must admit that who I shag and what I do with them is VERY
uninteresting........

interesting ?
Well I might find it interesting..not yours but peoples in general.

well why not mine?????? lol

I also wonder how they demonstrate that someone really is gay? Do they just ask them?

I imagine so, why would they lie ?

well why not mine?????? lol

I will clear out my inbox (no pun intended) awaiting your private memoirs.

I must admit that who I shag and what I do with them is VERY
uninteresting........

Speak for yourself dear! ;)

Back to the main point, I'm interested in who exactly wants to know why some people are gay? I don't care if it's nature or nurture, I'm just happy as I am.

It's important though, as once science proves it is genetic, and not a choice, we might get the same kind of protection as other minorities who didn't choose to be the way they are.

Or perhaps they will develop an antenetal test to determine your childs sexuality in the futu

I cannot understand the need to even find out why people are gay in the first place.
You are who and what you are.
Are they still trying to find a "cure" :rolleyes:

Or perhaps they will develop an antenetal test to determine your childs sexualityin the future so that we can be wiped out before we're born? :|

There is that possibility, but perhaps by then parents would not be so bothered, it's "what other people might say" that scares parents now I think.

There is that possibility, but perhaps by then parents would not be so bothered, it's "what other people might say" that scares parents now I think.
The only thing that would bother me is not what other people might say but what they might do.
My offsprings sexuality will be what it will be but I do care how others treat them throughout their life.
That said I would never tamper with nature so if their gonna be gay then their gonna be gay.

I imagine so, why would they lie ?

I suppose I wonder how they got their sample. Did they ask for volunteers who were gay men. In this case they will have got only those people who believed they were gay. If they took a cross secton of society and then asked everyone whether they were gay or not and then asked them about their family would they get different data?

The only thing that would bother me is not what other people might say but what they might do.
My offsprings sexuality will be what it will be but I do care how others treat them throughout their life.
That said I would never tamper with nature so if their gonna be gay then their gonna be gay.


well said..............

The only thing that would bother me is not what other people might say but what they might do.
My offsprings sexuality will be what it will be but I do care how others treat them throughout their life.
That said I would never tamper with nature so if their gonna be gay then their gonna be gay.

I couldn't agree with you more.

when my adopted sister came out to me, i was more distressed about the idea of the prejudice I knew she'd encounter from the idiot, unenlightened "diqqueddes" *coff* than the fact she was with a woman. That didn't bother me one jot.

My fears were realised, she was disfellowshipped from the church. The same people who had no problem with her looking after their children in the creche the week before, were snatching their kiddies away from her like she was fuffing Typhoid Mary. My god!! what do they think? the kids will catch "the Gay" from her or something, like you can catch the measles? *growls*

It was unbelieveable. nothing had changed: - she was still the same person, but somehow, she had entered this parallell universe where she was suddenly a pariah!!!

it was dreadful.

PT

My fears were realised, she was disfellowshipped from the church.

Without wishing to get too sidetracked, why was this exactly? Even if I don't like it, I can see that there are biblical reasons why the church can object to gay men. I can't think of any reason why they can object to lesbian women based on the bible?

Well I don`t have any older brothers.............

Without wishing to get too sidetracked, why was this exactly? Even if I don't like it, I can see that there are biblical reasons why the church can object to gay men. I can't think of any reason why they can object to lesbian women based on the bible?
Homosexuality doesn't "suit" the halo of religious people well. That has nothing to do with the bible.

OFF TOPIC, I know I know :wave:

Well if they found a reason then fair enough, but if they ever find a "Cure" then the worlds going to be a bleak place. The lists of talented, valuable and important homosexuals just goes on and on and on.

I am sure a "cure" does not exist, as we dont need curing, its part of our lives, we were born gay ..... oh I am sure I mentioned this on another thread.

I am sure a "cure" does not exist, as we dont need curing, its part of our lives, we were born gay ..... oh I am sure I mentioned this on another thread.

If they find the cause then there can be a "cure" even if you don't call it that. For example, if it turns out that there is a gene then women could have an abortion as some do now when the baby is disabled. If it turns out that hormones in the mother are the cause then they can give them drugs to offset this.

I am sure a "cure" does not exist, as we dont need curing, its part of our lives, we were born gay ..... oh I am sure I mentioned this on another thread.
Yeah well... as long as no idiot decides that its something that needs curing..You know what some people are like.

Hahahaha, then there must be cured the rest of human being before!

All this 'coming out' business shows that these people themselves realise something is not right.
If it is perfectly natural and normal, why do they have to go on about it all the time? They are either exhibitionists or sex maniacs,for it to be on their brain continually.
Why is it so vitally important for them that they have to announce to the world, that they are not as other men.
If a normal bloke was going around saying to everyone 'It is important that you should know that I am heterosexual' people would think he was barmy. :D

My head is starting to hurt.

All this 'coming out' business shows that these people themselves realise something is not right.

Rubbish.

If it is perfectly natural and normal, why do they have to go on about it all the time?

It is perfectly natural and normal, just like being left handed instead of right handed.
We don't go on about it all the time, but gay people are still fighting for equal rights and against prejudice, like yours, so it is sometimes necessary to make some noise...

They are either exhibitionists or sex maniacs,for it to be on their brain continually.

No, It's not on the brain continually; you've been reading too many red-top newspapers.

Why is it so vitally important for them that they have to announce to the world, that they are not as other men.

When most gay people come out, it isn't to the world; although as a liberating experience it can make you want to at times.
it's important to the person coming out; as not hiding anymore and willing to take the risk of the prejudice etc that can result from being out. it means not leading a double life, not having to lie and pretend, about being proud of who you are (that doesn't mean being 'proud' of your sexuality, just of who you are).
If a normal bloke was going around saying to everyone 'It is important that you should know that I am heterosexual' people would think he was barmy.

No, they wouldn't; lost of straight men effectively shout their sexuality to the world on a daily basis in the pubs, at work etc; it's done so often that we don;t notice anymore. P.S. gay men are normal too.

stackmonkey, thanks for clearing up some misconceptions. :thumbsup:

Thanks stackmonkey, I couldn't have said better myself! :thumbsup:

My god!! what do they think? the kids will catch "the Gay" from her or something, like you can catch the measles? PT

Sorry PT, but that line just cracked me up. :D Put it down to being at work at this time and the amount of caffiene in my system.

Sorry - but gay is not normal (read rest before throwing something)

Ignoring the last couple of hundred years and latest medical science etc..

A species needs to have babies to survive.
Nature gives the equipment, but it wouldn't be much use if you didn't want to use it - which is why nature then came up with all the hormone, coloured feathers, lust thing, to get people to do it.
Nature then had to make it pleasureable to ensure the animal kept doing it, when it had evolved enough for the need to be diminished.

Sorry, but in human's case same sex sex is never going to produce a baby - it is therefore nothing to do with procreation and is therefore either a conscious decision to ignore 'convention' and seek pleasure wherever, or it is flaw somewhere in the genetic code.

Having 6 fingers on one hand is not normal (as someone else pointed out in one of the papers I think).

However, is being gay wrong - no. I just wish you'd all shut up about it. Unless, of course, I was looking for a partner, I don't want to know, I don't need to know, and I don't give a ff if you love men, women or vegetables.

...Sorry, but in human's case same sex sex is never going to produce a baby - it is therefore nothing to do with procreation and is therefore either a conscious decision to ignore 'convention' and seek pleasure wherever, or it is flaw somewhere in the genetic code...
Sex for pleasure in the absence of baby making? Shocker...

Sex between infertile couples, or while using contraception, is nothing to do with procreation either. Both are perfectly 'normal'. It's impossible to view 'normal' or 'abnormal' outside the context of today's society. That involves integrating advances in medical science into the definition. As such, vaccination, transplant surgery, in vitro fertilization and contraception are all 'normal' in the 21st century.

Same sex sex is simply a different form of the expression of love (or lust, or whatever). I think you'd benefit from an update and a little less pedantry.

I think you'd benefit from an update

Y'mean, like a software update? Reboot afterwards and you'll have differerent thinking? :)

Y'mean, like a software update? Reboot afterwards and you'll have differerent thinking? :)

Hehehehe, but this can only work for micosoft user - if anything works at all! :P
(tries to bring this Thread off Topic)

Y'mean, like a software update? Reboot afterwards and you'll have differerent thinking? :)
Something along those lines, yes. A few bug fixes at least :hihi: .

Sleepyfrog - Before you conduct a spiel of such irrepressible length and righteous certitude it may be advisable to ensure that your facts are, lets say, not made up from the top of your head.

Perhaps you have been unfortunate enough to miss the various recent documentary's such as 'animals bumming in fields' (I forget the precise titles). Throughout the animal kingdom, one perceives gays aplenty - do you think that a duck makes a conscious decision to bat for the other side?

The evolutionary argument runs thusly; males not interested in producing offspring themselves expend more energy in caring for their kin, and so ensure the passage of their 'gay' genetic material through safeguarding the genes of those related to them. I think there are actually several far better arguments than this, but I apologise for my acopaceticism on this matter, it's 10 in the morning and I can't be arsed to look them up, quite frankly. Suggest you do so, however.

Technically, we can reproduce, I could donate my sperm and pass-on my genes that way, it's not like were all infertile.

If I did have sex with a lesbian, just to create a baby would we be "normal" then ?

I'm rather pushed for time today due to work commitments but the idea that there is a genetic component to sexuality per se is hardly 'new'. Bogaert and Fisher's work on Gay men, as well as Dean Hamer's [ his work identified the 'candidate region' of xq28 on the very tip of some mens' Y chromosomes in relation to homosexual orientation] has been reasonably well known for years. Their work runs a horse and carriages through that of the pretentious 'philosopher' Michel Foucault, who fatuously claimed that sexuality per se is entirely learned behaviour, and the ludicrous 'social scientists', Gagnon and Simon who maintain that we learn 'sexual scripts'.

Whether homosexuality is 'normal' or not, I do not know. It is common in the animal kingdom, I believe. There appear to be cases of 'gay' animals [chiefly mammals I think], and doubtless borderline cases of some that 'might help out in a rush', so to speak. An old male Labrador of mine was noted for his lack of interest in bitches, and a certain light-footedness. I once read of US government research into homosexuality in male Octopuses [or is it Octopi?]. The idea of male Octopuses sodomising on the ocean bed is a disconcerting one admittedly, but who are we to pass judgement upon them? In any case, one would rather the US government spent money on research into similar areas - the shellfish BDSM scene, or 'cottaging' crabs etc, than wasting it on futile interventions in the former Mesopotamia.

Gay octopuses do sound scarey for some reason.

I would love to know WHY people find homosexuality such an interesting subject of debate on this forum?

people don't seem to discuss why people are heterosexual or bisexual? or even Asexual

what is the interest in being gay???

That would be a more interesting forum thread...........why do heterosexual men ( and perhaps women?) are obsessed with homosexuality>??

hummmm................all those amateur psychologists out there work that one out!!!

It's octopi.

Homosexuality is more interesting than heterosexuality because it's more unusual and its members form a minority often subject to discrimination. Don't really see any reason for people to ignore it utterly, besides anything else the less discussed and well understood things are, the more potential there is for bigotry about them - ignorance breeds hatred.

Plus much of the discussion is comparative between homosexuality and heterosexuality and not specifically focussed on homosexuality at all. Also I'm sure there are enough threads about breasts or whatever to even it out. It's interesting to speculate on the mechanisms evoking adult sexual preference, in what form and to what degree the genetic component contributes etc.

But, if you want to be completely prudish and refuse to discuss sexuality, feel free to abstain.

Gay octopuses do sound scarey for some reason.

They also sound jolly amusing. Perhaps they face persecution and discrimination from heterosexist Octopus patriarchy? They should organise themselves into a radical social movement to demand equality and equity on the seabed, if that is the case. Maybe, in time, an Octopus Peter Tatchell-figure will emerge to 'out' those in denial?

Thankyou to Crayfish for the correct plural term ['octopi'] above. Mind you, being a creature of the watery realm, you have a distinct advantage over the rest of us.

It's octopi.

Homosexuality is more interesting than heterosexuality because it's more unusual and its members form a minority often subject to discrimination. Don't really see any reason for people to ignore it utterly, besides anything else the less discussed and well understood things are, the more potential there is for bigotry about them - ignorance breeds hatred.

Plus much of the discussion is comparative between homosexuality and heterosexuality and not specifically focussed on homosexuality at all. Also I'm sure there are enough threads about breasts or whatever to even it out. It's interesting to speculate on the mechanisms evoking adult sexual preference, in what form and to what degree the genetic component contributes etc.

But, if you want to be completely prudish and refuse to discuss sexuality, feel free to abstain.



I think many of the threads here are pretty banal relating to homosexuality. I am all for constructive exploration of ones sexuality, certainly if it opens peoples' acceptnce to alternative lifestyles.......I feel there is too much a preoccupation with gay issues by straight men

They should organise themselves into a radical social movement to demand equality and equity on the seabed, if that is the case.

Like "seawall" or something.

"We're here, we're queer, and we're not posing for the Blue Planet"

Like "seawall" or something.

"We're here, we're queer, and we're not posing for the Blue Planet"

Simply brilliant!

It's octopuses - octopus is not latin but greek.

Apparently octopuses die shortly after reproduction, which is enough to make anyone explore other avenues.

But but but octopi is a far better word :(

Sorry, I was absolutely convinced that this was correct, I should have resorted to google first and brain later.

I would love to know WHY people find homosexuality such an interesting subject of debate on this forum?...
I don't think it's an interest in homosexuality as such. It's just another subject about which some peole have extreme views. As such, it tends to provoke debate, like any other potentially controversial issue.

It's octopuses - octopus is not latin but greek.

Apparently octopuses die shortly after reproduction, which is enough to make anyone explore other avenues.

Don't you mean that Octopuses indulge in a bit of 'Greek'?

Sleepyfrog - Before you conduct a spiel of such irrepressible length and righteous certitude it may be advisable to ensure that your facts are, lets say, not made up from the top of your head.

Perhaps you have been unfortunate enough to miss the various recent documentary's such as 'animals bumming in fields' (I forget the precise titles). Throughout the animal kingdom, one perceives gays aplenty - do you think that a duck makes a conscious decision to bat for the other side?

The evolutionary argument runs thusly; males not interested in producing offspring themselves expend more energy in caring for their kin, and so ensure the passage of their 'gay' genetic material through safeguarding the genes of those related to them. I think there are actually several far better arguments than this, but I apologise for my acopaceticism on this matter, it's 10 in the morning and I can't be arsed to look them up, quite frankly. Suggest you do so, however.

This - and others - missed my point.

I said gay is not normal, not that it is uncommon or restricted to humans. Nature tries many variations - or have you all not heard of evolution? Also saying gays can reproduce through artificial means proves my point - artificial!
My point is that on a purely biological basis gay is not normal as the sex drive was originally a means to attract mates and form bonds to ensure the survival of the species.

"so ensure the passage of their 'gay' genetic material through safeguarding the genes of those related to them."

??? they are not passing on their 'gay' genetic material. They are passing on the genetic material from their family that wasn't gay. Passing on 'gay' genetic material would - ignoring science as I said before - mean the species would eventually die out.

As a social aspect however, I have no problem with people being gay, or having kids, or getting married, or having the same wages etc etc and do not see it as 'wrong'.
I view all of these as a right of everyone - regardless of age, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

So sorry to the people who think I am a homophobe - but I actually agree with the recent law changes and also agree they don't go far enough in ensuring that descrimination due to being gay is stopped once and for all.

I am just fed up with the whole 'I should love you 'cos you're gay' thing - no I shouldn't. I should love you because you are a fellow human being - who you fancy doesn't interest me in the slightest. If I want to know I will ask, in the same way that I might be interested in your favourite film.

If I want to know I will ask, in the same way that I might be interested in your favourite film.

Unless it's gay porn (or prawn) film

My point is that on a purely biological basis gay is not normal as the sex drive was originally a means to attract mates and form bonds to ensure the survival of the species.


Hi Sleepyfrog,

I think you're right to dismiss the 'Gay Uncle' theory as complete pap, but I am sure that homosexuality plays a part in the evolutionary process for the more highly developed of species.

The Tricky theory runs as follows...

If you think of evolution as a genetic search for beings that are better suited to their environment (which is itself ever changing). In simple terms, it does this by taking a selection of chromosomes from two successful parents and possibly transforming them in some way so as to produce a child that has many of the characteristics of its parents.

In small tribal groups, one way of controlling whether the gene pool is overly reliant on the genes of particular individuals is to make it such that people with common genetic make up are less likely to reproduce.

This idea would be supported by the article in the original post. The most sophisticated way of doing this would be to make it such that individuals were more likely to be disinclined to reproduce rather than unable to.

This - and others - missed my point.

I said gay is not normal, not that it is uncommon or restricted to humans. Nature tries many variations - or have you all not heard of evolution? Also saying gays can reproduce through artificial means proves my point - artificial!
My point is that on a purely biological basis gay is not normal as the sex drive was originally a means to attract mates and form bonds to ensure the survival of the species.

"so ensure the passage of their 'gay' genetic material through safeguarding the genes of those related to them."

??? they are not passing on their 'gay' genetic material. They are passing on the genetic material from their family that wasn't gay. Passing on 'gay' genetic material would - ignoring science as I said before - mean the species would eventually die out.



They are passing on their family's genetic material, which is more likely to predispose individuals to homosexuality than genes from families with no gay members.

Even if genes were the sole determinant of sexuality with no environmental component, and even if it is not a complex multigenic trait (both of these scenarios are highly unlikely, in my opinion, but just to keep things simple) then for example if homozygotes for a particular allele (at the single locus we'd then be considering) were homosexual, their family would have heterozygotic members - by continuing the propagation of this material they would be ensuring that future members of that family, by chance breeding of heterozygotes, would be homosexual. In the more likely case that sexuality is controlled by many genes and merely offers a predisposition towards homosexuality rather than a black and white 'one gay gene' scenario, then helping to facilitate ensuring the passage of genes offering say a 20% chance of being homosexual is obviously going to cause that family to produce homosexuals in the future. This latter option would be supported by the article at the top of the page, as helping offspring to survive that possess the antibody response that produces homosexuality would offer this predisposition, without necessitating that those offspring are themselves gay and do not reproduce.

Ergo, if a family with more homosexual members was more successful at producing offspring which live to an age where they themselves breed successfully, that family would then produce homosexual members in the future due to the nature of the underlying genetics. This is however only a hypothesis, which does rely on A) families with gay members producing offspring more successfully and B) a couple of points about the genes and patterns of heritability involved, which haven't yet been elucidated. Seems reasonable enough to me though.

I have heard somewhat about this thing called evolution, thankyou. The reason I was replying to your original post is because your idea of evolution seemed overly simplistic. Selection does not always occur purely at an individual level and individuals that help related members reproduce can pass on their genetic material by proxy - as evidenced for example by social insect colonies where guards and workers serve vital roles but never individually reproduce.

So then, why is it 'not normal'? If you're taking the definition of normal as being the modal state, then fair enough, this would be accurate - but it seems like you're attaching further subtleties to the word normal to me. If it isn't an unusual state among humans or animals, and it has an evolutionary basis so is produced through natural means rather than some form of artifice, in what way is it not normal?

on a biological level Crayfish is right.........homosexual behaviour is not normal...


however as a middle aged gay bloke, with a mortgage,, a hardworking partner, some bad habits, three dogs, a loving family, many friends, a lovely garden,a credit card ,a growing waist line,

I CONSIDER MYSELF VERY NORMAL

heterosexuality isn't normal; it's just common. ;)

I didn't say it wasn't normal! :| Read again

Or at least, I didn't say it was not normal in a bad way... by the strict definition of normal it isn't 'the norm', that being the most common state, which is heterosexuality...

But in common usage, normal isn't generally used with that exact sense in mind - what I was doing above was asking for what was meant by the word normal in the post I was answering.

Even if genes were the sole determinant of sexuality with no environmental component, and even if it is not a complex multigenic trait (both of these scenarios are highly unlikely, in my opinion, but just to keep things simple) then for example if homozygotes for a particular allele (at the single locus we'd then be considering) were homosexual, their family would have heterozygotic members - by continuing the propagation of this material they would be ensuring that future members of that family, by chance breeding of heterozygotes, would be homosexual. In the more likely case that sexuality is controlled by many genes and merely offers a predisposition towards homosexuality rather than a black and white 'one gay gene' scenario, then helping to facilitate ensuring the passage of genes offering say a 20% chance of being homosexual is obviously going to cause that family to produce homosexuals in the future. This latter option would be supported by the article at the top of the page, as helping offspring to survive that possess the antibody response that produces homosexuality would offer this predisposition, without necessitating that those offspring are themselves gay and do not reproduce.


I'd dearly like to know what you said here but there are too many long words.

Yes... I'll try to think of a simpler way of putting it... needs diagrams really, or some knowledge of genetics

Blah, I'll do it later, cutting it down to simpler terms = a humongous essay! :(

Yes... I'll try to think of a simpler way of putting it... needs diagrams really, or some knowledge of genetics

My explanation required an understanding of search algorithms (Holland,etc). Once I stripped out all the terminology, it was left a bit threadbare.

Maybe you could use the same words but in shorter sentences.

Ok, what I was saying is...

As far as I know this hasn't been completely determined yet, but I doubt that sexuality is controlled by a single gene locus - don't think that you have a 'gay gene'.

Like other complex traits, I'd be willing to bet that sexuality is a product of an interaction between many genes (each contributing to a lesser or greater extent to the phenotype, and probably demonstrating complex synergistic / antagonistic interactions), and that this genotype, which may confer a certain predisposition towards homosexuality, further interacts with the environment e.g. social upbringing, diet etc. to produce an individual's sexual preferences.

Given this, the 'gay uncle' hypothesis (as I'm approaching it here) proposes that a gay family member indirectly facilitates the transmission of some of the alleles (gene variants) that predispose an individual towards homosexuality by in some way offering a survival / reproductive advantage (probably through helping to care for or protect the young) to family members. This happens as family members share a proportion of their genetic material, depending on how closely related they are. I reckon if you looked at all animal species, you'd find that homosexuality is only apparent in species that exhibit parental / communal care (or social sex).

The other bit I put in was another variant on this as a hypothetical example, illustrating a mechanism that could act if there did happen to be one single gene that controlled everything to do with sexuality, which was where all the heterozygotic/homozygotic bit came into it. But this doesn't really matter as it's not likely to be the case anyway (though it could still be important when examining just one of the many genes likely to contribute to sexuality, even if this is not the case).

Did that make it any simpler? I'm not sure :)

I didn't say it wasn't normal! :| Read again



You want to re-read my post above again? (carefully) :D

Sorry stackmonkey, should have quoted - I was replying to Crowefan rather than yourself :) You summed up what I was getting at with the whole normal thing though. As it's common and natural I don't see what's left to be abnormal about it!

I didn't say it wasn't normal! :| Read again

Or at least, I didn't say it was not normal in a bad way... by the strict definition of normal it isn't 'the norm', that being the most common state, which is heterosexuality...

But in common usage, normal isn't generally used with that exact sense in mind - what I was doing above was asking for what was meant by the word normal in the post I was answering.


you said that BIOLOGICALLY it was not normal
I was quoting

read your post again

Can we get back to the gay octopuses

Can we get back to the gay octopuses

Could you imagine a gay octopus orgy?? The sheer number of tentacles would make your eyes hurt.:o :D

Could you imagine a gay octopus orgy?? The sheer number of tentacles would make your eyes hurt.:o :D

imagine trying to fight one off, you'd have no chance, though they might do a good massage ?

Sorry nick, nearly done.

Ok, what I was saying is...



Thank you, I understood that much better. Where I would have doubts would be:

a) Interaction with environment - yes, but I would be surprised if it had anything to do with diet or upbringing. More likely something less tangible.

b) I think that the reproductive advantage is that homosexuality forms part of a control mechanism to limit the likelihood of disappearing down an evolutionary cul-de-sac, and has little to do with caring or protection.

I keep hearing people say homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle choice.
Can someone become gay ?
This could explain my recent taste in camouflage hats and a need to buy all my soap from Lush at meadowhell.
At least thats what my boyfriend thinks :P (messing of course)(maybe);)

yawn..........................................oh my god I never thought I would say this but..........BRING BACK THE GAY OCTOPUS JOKES..........................................

Stop being so sensitive darling.
Actually it was a serious question, can you become gay ?
Is homosexuality truly biological in its origins ?

most straight men can go gay.....especially after four pints of beer!!!

what do you think AJ???

Who,s round is it :P

I may buy you a bag of crisps too!!

yawn..........................................oh my god I never thought I would say this but..........BRING BACK THE GAY OCTOPUS JOKES..........................................

Ok here goes....


Are gay cephalopods known as backs cuttlefish?

hummmm try another lol

I may buy you a bag of crisps too!!

As long as their Quentin flavour.

Oh dear that was terrible, I apologise wholeheartedly for my schoolboy behaviour.

mt quentin crips are past their sell by date--see my next thread..I dare you

Stop being so sensitive darling.
Actually it was a serious question, can you become gay ?
Is homosexuality truly biological in its origins ?

Actually it was a serious question, can you become gay?
No but you an choose to be bi-sexual or asexual.

Is homosexuality truly biological in its origins?
Yes, and it isn't just this study (or gay octopuses) that show us this. Male beetles have also been observed only mating with other male beetles. Bear in mind that beetles do not have sex for enjoyment, it's functional and the idea it's some for a purely sexual trait is just silly. Being a gay male, or a gay beetle, is not about only wanting sex with other males of the species, it's about only finding males atractive sexually. There is a big difference. One is a consious decision, one is subconsious. Attraction is influsneced by many things, hormones and smells play a big factor in humans, and in beetles it's about other things like the dances they perform.

Actually it was a serious question, can you become gay?
No but you an choose to be bi-sexual or asexual.

Is homosexuality truly biological in its origins?
Yes, and it isn't just this study (or gay octopuses) that show us this. Male beetles have also been observed only mating with other male beetles. Bear in mind that beetles do not have sex for enjoyment, it's functional and the idea it's some for a purely sexual trait is just silly. Being a gay male, or a gay beetle, is not about only wanting sex with other males of the species, it's about only finding males atractive sexually. There is a big difference. One is a consious decision, one is subconsious. Attraction is influsneced by many things, hormones and smells play a big factor in humans, and in beetles it's about other things like the dances they perform.

Excellent reply :thumbsup:

Thanks downtroad.

What did the gay octopus, say to the other gay octopus?

"Did you get those scatter cushions for Marks and Sparks?"

hummmm try another lol

Ooooo tough audience.

If gay octopus jokes were easy, everyone would be doing them.

Tis Threat is quiete amusing :P

Perhaps, I don't like quiche

Not even the Mediterranean ones with feta? :huh:

Actually it was a serious question, can you become gay?
No but you an choose to be bi-sexual or asexual.



I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think that you can subconciously choose to be gay also. I'm going on what a gay female friend told me about her experience.

Not even the Mediterranean ones with feta? :huh:

Is that the ultimate test of whether you're gay? Even if you can resist "normal" quiche, the Mediterranean ones with feta will get you every time?

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think that you can subconciously choose to be gay also. I'm going on what a gay female friend told me about her experience.

Thats most likely bi-sexual.

Already knew those that have older brothers can turn bent, in fact i've said it on here before because of mates that turned gay, though it's also to do with lack of a father figure given my now expert findings.

It's PC to say it's not because of being in so much male company though. It's also proven footballers turn camp sharing so many baths, though again that should never be whispered.. despite the shaved chests and Joe Cole, Gerrard and Lampard in particular doing the collapsed wrist 'ooh' when he misses a shot.

Thats most likely bi-sexual.

I thought bi-sexual meant attraction to either gender, not just your own?

I thought bi-sexual meant attraction to either gender, not just your own?

My understanding as well. It wasn't clear from your post if that was the case, which is why i said "most likely". :)

My understanding as well. It wasn't clear from your post if that was the case, which is why i said "most likely". :)
Ahh Ok I see what you mean. I didn't mean "experience" as in a one off. I meant as in her past experiences resulting in her only preferring women.

What, like Caravette? (http://www.volkswagencamper.co.uk/latest_issue.htm) :hihi:

Mine's pink! You can have that for £8000. and oh how it amuses me when the hubby takes it our camping with friends!!!

Is that the ultimate test of whether you're gay? Even if you can resist "normal" quiche, the Mediterranean ones with feta will get you every time?

I reckon! If you can resist those and the temptation to rearrange furniture at your friends house then you are straight.

Ahh Ok I see what you mean. I didn't mean "experience" as in a one off. I meant as in her past experiences resulting in her only preferring women.

I don't think it would change the biological side, that’s more of a psychological change. It could be subconscious. Of course i don't know the details so i am just hypothasisiing here...

For instance one time I was forced to eat custard. For years the smell of custard made me feel sick and I still don't like it today. It's called association. Traumatic events can cause a sustained subconscious reaction. Its what they were trying to achieve with some forms of electric shock treatment, they would show pictures of food and then shock the person to try and put them off food... sometimes with disastrous effects.

So in the case of your freind, maybe she is just unable to feel atracted to men, and therfore by default likes women. Which is not really the definition of being gay.

What if you have traumatic experiences with men and women? What's the next 'default' in the chain? I think I'd go for camels, they're exotic, mysterious, sorta slinky, and have party tricks like nailing a man to a wall with phlegm at 50 paces. Phwooaor.

What if you have traumatic experiences with men and women? What's the next 'default' in the chain? I think I'd go for camels, they're exotic, mysterious, sorta slinky, and have party tricks like nailing a man to a wall with phlegm at 50 paces. Phwooaor.

I am going for octopuses all the way. Lots more options and great suction power.

P.S Two gay octopuses walk in to a bar, one says to the other;

"You just cannot find good gloves these days."

Funny you should mention that Crayfish, but I read once about a guy that got done for sexually assaulting motorcars, small hatchbacks being a real turn-on apparently. Maybe he had been traumatised in human relationships.

Anyway, the "cure" was to give him a copy of Autotrader or similar and just when he reached the point of no return they would slip a copy of Playboy into his view. Presumably to try and recreate the positive associations with the female form.

:lol::lol::lol:

I don't think it would change the biological side, that’s more of a psychological change. It could be subconscious. Of course i don't know the details so i am just hypothasisiing here...


So in the case of your freind, maybe she is just unable to feel atracted to men, and therfore by default likes women. Which is not really the definition of being gay.

Well this woman has been in a relationship with the same woman for over 10 years and would describe herself as a lesbian. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the definition of gay is that your sexual orientation is towards your own gender. I don't think it's exclusive to that fact being biological.

A guy walks into the pub with an octopus. He sits the octopus down on a stool and tells everyone in the bar that this is a very talented octopus. He can play any musical instrument in the world. He hears everyone in the crowd laughing at him, calling him an idiot, etc. So he bets £50 that the octopus can play any instrument that they have.

A guy walks up with a guitar and sets it beside the octopus. The octopus starts playing better than Jimi Hendrix, just rippin' it up. So the man pays his £50. Another guy walks up with a trumpet. The octopus plays the trumpet better than Dizzie Gillespie. So the man pays his £50. Then a Scotsman walks up with bagpipes. He sits them down and the octopus fumbles with it for a minute and sits it down with a confused look.

"Ha!" the Scot says. "Can't you play it?"

The octopus looks up at him and says, "Play it? I'm going to screw him as soon as I figure out how to get his pajamas off."

They're coming thick and fast now...

A guy goes into a seafood restaurant and asks to see the dishes of the day. The waiter wheels over a trolley and the man examines the dishes.
"I'll have the little green squid with the hairy lip, please" says the man. "O.K." replies the waiter and calls out "Gervais!"

A little French chef appears with a large knife, the waiter instructs the chef to kill the little green squid with the hairy lip.

Gervais is just about to slice at the poor squid when he notices a tear running down its face. Gervais is touched, and admits that he hasn't the heart to kill the squid.

"Not to worry" says the waiter, and calls out "Hans!!" at which an enormous German bloke comes out of the kitchen. "Sir", says the waiter, "this is Hans, the dishwasher. Hans, kill that squid!"

The dishwasher wields a huge rolling pin and is just about to bludgeon the little green squid with the hairy lip when it cringes back and gives a little cry.

"I am sorry sir, I just cannot kill the squid" Hans admits, his lower lip trembling.

"Well sir," says the waiter, "it just goes to show that ........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hans that do dishes, can be soft as Gervais. With mild green, hairy lip squid!"

Here's another one....

Two gay octopuses are having a row. "I saw you having lunch with that hunky young octopus again !" one of them screams. "No, dear, you've got it all wrong," protests the other. "Our relationship's purely planktonic!"

Tricky and the octopuses -
I'd love to know if you have any sexual ambitions in this direction. :heyhey:

Tricky and the octopuses -
I'd love to know if you have any sexual ambitions in this direction. :heyhey:
I went to bed with a woman who later charged me 20 squid. Does this count?

And I caught crabs.

I went to bed with a woman who later charged me 20 squid. Does this count?

And I caught crabs.
Hmmmmm...yeah yeah, I remember - the guy with weird (wierd) fantasie's.
I (no one) would like to know the reason for this - but it counts, it counts - of course!

I dont have wierd fantasies! You interpret them as wierd thats all!
I`m perfectly normal, the rumours that are circulating regarding myself, three small slices of lemon, a freshly shaved gorilla in a basque and a 10 foot length of garden hose are all false!