Sypha Nadon on 21/5/2008 at 05:48
Oh, we share everything.
Scots Taffer on 21/5/2008 at 06:16
Not everything, you said you're still a virgin.
Kolya on 21/5/2008 at 07:46
Quote Posted by fett
AGAIN (3rd -4th time I've said this?) I wish there was some acknowledgment or awareness of the medical risks for the sake of anyone, hetero/homo for whom this is a regular practice.
I might have read too much into your posts because you happened to bring this up in a thread about gay marriage... I wouldn't have blinked an eye, had you made a thread about the dangers of anal sex. But you can see for yourself how people instantly used this to state some sort of natural law.
Shug on 21/5/2008 at 08:12
Apparently tons of people from different family situations and upbringings catch the gay all the time
studies have postulated that it's EVERYWHERE
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
mopgoblin on 21/5/2008 at 09:21
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
To "some" degree? What is "some"? And were these kids adopted as younger brothers into the other families?
After having a look, I've discovered that it wasn't mentioned in the article I was thinking of ("Fraternal Birth Order and the Maternal Immune Hypothesis of Male Homosexuality", Ray Blanchard, Hormones and Behavior, 2001). I did read a bunch of other articles on the topic at the same time, so I must be thinking of another one. I won't have the time to take a better look until at least the weekend, though.
Quote Posted by fett
It just means that in gay men, who are restricted to anal sex, there is a higher risk of medical problems than for those who do not have anal sex.
Gay men aren't restricted to anal sex; oral sex and mutual masturbation are obvious alternatives.
fett on 21/5/2008 at 14:42
Quote Posted by Kolya
I might have read too much into your posts because you happened to bring this up in a thread about gay marriage... I wouldn't have blinked an eye, had you made a thread about the dangers of anal sex. But you can see for yourself how people instantly used this to state some sort of natural law.
Point. Which is why I've said (for the 5TH TIME NOW) that this really has nothing to do with gay marriage.
mop - I'm guessing you don't know many people in long-term gay relationships. ;)
Raven on 21/5/2008 at 15:30
[scratch that]
Vivian on 21/5/2008 at 16:03
Yo Sub, when you've finished lolling at my fairly obv googlewhack, see if you can grab a copy of Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology textbook - as I remember it the arguments laid out pretty well there, the chapter on sexual selection probably. I don't have my copy to hand and I'm rubbish at remembering references unless its something very specific to what Im doing (hence pulling references semi-out of my arse, soz).
Louis Cypher on 21/5/2008 at 17:03
Quote Posted by Vivian
On the other hand, seeing as there is good evidence for it being genetic, and as it has evolved in a bunch of other species as well (most probably as a (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29) spandrel associated with increased fecundity in other sexes), you could say that it was entirely 'natural' (as if anything an organism can do is not in some way natural).
Heritability of homosexuality in humans is not 100%. It is probably more like 60%. Which means it is biased towards genetics, but nurture plays a highly significant role as well.
It's like schizophrenia. You have no guarantee that monozygotic twins that carry the predisposition for schizophrenia will both have the same outcome. Whatever genetic predisposition they have is triggered by the environment.
Hence, this 'homosexuality is genetic' argument is overblown.
