Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows

[The Feral Underclass]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

[Tenka]

I like how it has to be repeated that a "test for gay" in unborn babies would be unethical and foolish, etc. Wait, no I don't. That's horrible. People are horrible to need to be told that.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

They could have picked a better title.

[Slavic]

I like how it has to be repeated that a "test for gay" in unborn babies would be unethical and foolish, etc. Wait, no I don't. That's horrible. People are horrible to need to be told that.

When ever a study is reported for lay readers on genetics it always seems like the authors throw in those doomsday outcomes like that. Its almost like they expect the average reader to have a kneejerk reaction to anything related to genetics and gene testing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I wish they would include bisexuals when they do these studies on sexuality.

[BIXX]

I wish they would include bisexuals when they do these studies on sexuality.


I think they are (disgustingly) referring to bi people as gay.

Also, I tend to be suspicious of people claiming genes play a part in sexuality or gender, not because they may be wrong but because that "gay gene" shit always strikes me as some eugenics talk. And it really scares me. But maybe I'm just paranoid.

[Atsumari]

I think they are (disgustingly) referring to bi people as gay.

Also, I tend to be suspicious of people claiming genes play a part in sexuality or gender, not because they may be wrong but because that "gay gene" shit always strikes me as some eugenics talk. And it really scares me. But maybe I'm just paranoid.
Historically speaking, many eugenicists saw homosexuality as unnatural and even went so far to throw them in concentration camps like in Germany. Also, the modern gay rights ideology seems to be that homosexuality is something you cannot control and science proves it as a response against the superstition of gay conversion in America and the UK.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why would the existence of a 'gay gene' be scary?

[Luís Henrique]

I would like to see what the dynamics of such genetic determination of sexual orientation would be.

If it was a dominant/recessive thing like brown/blue eyes, we would have a population distribution of many heterosexuals and few homosexuals... and very few, if any, bisexuals. And it would be easy to trace the homosexual lineages, just as it is easy to do it with brown/blue eyes, or hemophilia or daltonism. On the other hand, if it was an additive scheme, we would have a predominance of bisexual people, with smaller "extremes" of strictly heterosexual and strictly homosexual people. As it happens with black/white skin. None of these distributions seem to correspond to reality.

Luís Henrique

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Why would the existence of a 'gay gene' be scary?

Not on its own, but... you know what the conclusion in the conservative mind will be. Some of them are not entirely anti-science and will not be above promoting and perhaps doing screenings and artificial selection to "abolish gays".

[The Feral Underclass]

Not on its own, but... you know what the conclusion in the conservative mind will be. Some of them are not entirely anti-science and will not be above promoting and perhaps doing screenings and artificial selection to "abolish gays".

How would they do that? What position within a Western state or within capitalism would position them into jobs where that were possible? I suppose in societies that were less liberal this would definitely be a concern, but in the West, the gay community is an important market now, I suspect there would be no impetus to cut off profits.

[Devrim]

I think they are (disgustingly) referring to bi people as gay.

The article linked to above isn't the research work. The article itself doesn't refer to bi-sexual people as gays, and I would doubt that the research work would either. These sort of things are quite meticulous in their detail. I would imagine that it wouldn't use the term gay at all, but instead would use some defining term such as 'males who stated that they had taken part in sexual activity with other males'.


Also, I tend to be suspicious of people claiming genes play a part in sexuality or gender, not because they may be wrong but because that "gay gene" shit always strikes me as some eugenics talk. And it really scares me. But maybe I'm just paranoid.

If it is true, and it almost certainly is true that genetics has some influence on sexuality then you had better learn to live with it. I don't think that it would really make any difference to how I think about it. I don't believe that people who have sex with members of the same sex should be discriminated against. That is because they are people not because what they do is or isn't a choice.

If it were to be discovered tomorrow that Chinese people were more intelligent than whites, or vice-verse, it would change my views on how to treat people one bit because I don’t believe that more intelligent people should be treated better anyway.

There are a reasonable number of people on the left who have based some ideological assumptions on some pretty bad science, and when science proves those assumptions wrong, tend to question the science rather that either their assumptions or their methodology. I am not saying that this applies to you, but there are people that it does apply to.

Devrim

[Devrim]

If it was a dominant/recessive thing like brown/blue eyes, we would have a population distribution of many heterosexuals and few homosexuals... and very few, if any, bisexuals. And it would be easy to trace the homosexual lineages, just as it is easy to do it with brown/blue eyes, or hemophilia or daltonism. On the other hand, if it was an additive scheme, we would have a predominance of bisexual people, with smaller "extremes" of strictly heterosexual and strictly homosexual people. As it happens with black/white skin. None of these distributions seem to correspond to reality.

I would doubt that people's sexuality is 100% genetic such as something like eye colour. I would imagine that even in 100 years time, science will still be saying something like "having this set of genes in combination with other sets of genes gives he a X% tendency to be homosexual".

Homosexuality is obviously pretty 'disadvantageous' in an evolutionary sense of the word. Genes have more than one effect, and it is quite possible that this has an 'advantageous' affect. As the various genes that they are suggesting influence sexual behaviour in men are on the X chromosome, they could well have an effect on women that was advantageous, to give a really basic example, bigger eggs. This could cause some sort of balance within the population.

Devrim

[Comrade Jacob]

[QUOTE=EchoShock;2722573]I think they are (disgustingly) referring to bi people as gay./QUOTE]

Everyone who is not straight must be gay in their eyes. It's easier to think like that.

[BIXX]

Why would the existence of a 'gay gene' be scary?


Like others have said- it's about the conservative reaction.

I wanna point out that this study does convince me that genetics play a role in sexuality, I just am worried about the conservative response. Knowing my sexual orientation I don't like the idea that someone could test me and know that I'm not straight.

Again, it's just a concern of mine.

[The Feral Underclass]

I guess what I don't understand is why anyone would care what the reaction of conservatives would be.

[Light of Lenin]

If it were to be discovered tomorrow that Chinese people were more intelligent than whites, or vice-verse, it would change my views on how to treat people one bit because I don’t believe that more intelligent people should be treated better anyway.

The White Identity is a creation of the White Nation. The White Identity came into existence about 500 years ago. It was created in America by Euro-Settlers of various ethnicities to justify their conquest of the North American continent, as the 'Heathen vs Heretic' Christian crap wouldn't stir the Euro-Settler masses into enough of a murderous genocidal rage to get the job of conquest done.

The LGBTQ Nation is composed of people who have developed various non-standard sexual attractions, corresponding with differing ideological narratives about how to view themselves. The modern gay man believes he is born that way, the bisexual believes no one (or very few) are perfectly gay or straight (the Kinsey Scale is their signifier), and the lesbian has a well-articulated political rejection of Patriarchy. The trans-woman and the Queer theorist stand opposed to these constructs, while offering their own inclusive theories and linguistic-constructs to describe their identities.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The LGBTQ Nation is composed of people who have developed various non-standard sexual attractions, corresponding with differing ideological narratives about how to view themselves. The modern gay man believes he is born that way, the bisexual believes no one (or very few) are perfectly gay or straight (the Kinsey Scale is their signifier), and the lesbian has a well-articulated political rejection of Patriarchy. The trans-woman and the Queer theorist stand opposed to these constructs, while offering their own inclusive theories and linguistic-constructs to describe their identities.

This is sub-RCP overgeneralized nonsense. Lesbianism in particular isn't some sort of political rejection of patriarchy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I also tend to be skeptical of genetic explanations for things. It's deterministic and is too close to pre-stonewall scientific explanations for same sex attractions: 3rd sex, psychological conditions, etc. I could be wrong, I'm not a geneticist and so if there's a lot of decent evidence like this, then I'm fine with having misplaced skepticism. But politically it's a terrible starting point. It's like debating abortion around when life begins in a way. I think for liberals this argument implies, "well if someone can't help who they are attracted to, then I guess it's ok". I think the political starting point needs to be fighting Lgbt oppression, and more generally that mutual attractions and sex should not be repressed.



The LGBTQ Nation is composed of people who have developed various non-standard sexual attractions, corresponding with differing ideological narratives about how to view themselves. The modern gay man believes he is born that way, the bisexual believes no one (or very few) are perfectly gay or straight (the Kinsey Scale is their signifier), and the lesbian has a well-articulated political rejection of Patriarchy. The trans-woman and the Queer theorist stand opposed to these constructs, while offering their own inclusive theories and linguistic-constructs to describe their identities.huh? what's standard sexual attraction? Developed attractions? I think people have been rocking and rolling in all sorts of ways with all sorts of people for as long as humans have been around.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Also, I tend to be suspicious of people claiming genes play a part in sexuality or gender, not because they may be wrong but because that "gay gene" shit always strikes me as some eugenics talk. And it really scares me. But maybe I'm just paranoid.
Well, there's a difference between saying there's a gay gene and saying some genes may influence sexual orientation. My view remains that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interplay between genetics and environment.

[Devrim]

I also tend to be skeptical of genetic explanations for things. It's deterministic and is too close to pre-stonewall scientific explanations for same sex attractions: 3rd sex, psychological conditions, etc. I could be wrong, I'm not a geneticist and so if there's a lot of decent evidence like this, then I'm fine with having misplaced skepticism. But politically it's a terrible starting point.

So you don't like it because of its political implications. It is a very misguided view in my opinion.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you don't like it because of its political implications. It is a very misguided view in my opinion.

Devrim
No, I said I'm generally skeptical of these arguments, this is because of a history of bourgeois science using genetic explanations for behaviors or social things. I also said I could be wrong to be skeptical.

In terms of a political argument for opposing oppression, I think it's an irrelevant question and a poor way to frame the question. Radicals usually don't, but many liberals do.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So you don't like it because of its political implications. It is a very misguided view in my opinion.

Devrim

To be fair, when "science" starts grappling with human social behaviours, it tends to be more about political implications than about any sort of testable hypotheses. Insofar as homosexuality as a category is premised on a whole lot of social assumptions (eg binary gender, a particular understanding of the relationship between "sexual acts" and "attraction", etc.) which are by no means universal, and correspond to particular political problems, it seems, to me, absolutely reasonable to reject this on political grounds.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The LGBTQ Nation is composed of people who have developed various non-standard sexual attractions, corresponding with differing ideological narratives about how to view themselves. The modern gay man believes he is born that way, the bisexual believes no one (or very few) are perfectly gay or straight (the Kinsey Scale is their signifier), and the lesbian has a well-articulated political rejection of Patriarchy. The trans-woman and the Queer theorist stand opposed to these constructs, while offering their own inclusive theories and linguistic-constructs to describe their identities.

Uh . . . what? I don't see any real evidence that anything like an LGBTQ nation has constituted itself, anywhere, especially given the peculiar character of "Q[ueer]" as a critical position which seeks to destabilize the false homogeneity of the previous four letters. Tack a few more letters on there for "Two-Spirit" and "Third Gender" and the idea that there could be a "national" character of LGBTQ-ness becomes more patently absurd. There's probably more of a Punk Nation (lol).

In any case, positing singular narratives for each letter is at a wild disconnect from reality (and has some implicit old-school TERF (http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/post/3891289414/terf)baggage). Unless, of course, you take these things to mean precisely these narratives - e.g. apolitical lesbians aren't lesbians, gay men "by choice" aren't gay men, etc. - in which case we're simply writing off perhaps the majority of LGBTQ-identified people as incomprehensible, and incapable of self-determination. That, uh, seems problematic.

[The Feral Underclass]

To be fair, when "science" starts grappling with human social behaviours, it tends to be more about political implications than about any sort of testable hypotheses.

I don't really understand how that can possibly be true, nor do I understand why the word science is in inverted commas. How do you think scientists arrive at verifiable conclusions if they don't test their hypotheses? What's political about the premise that we should understand how human beings function as human beings if we are able to?

I'm completely baffled.


Insofar as homosexuality as a category is premised on a whole lot of social assumptions (eg binary gender, a particular understanding of the relationship between "sexual acts" and "attraction", etc.) which are by no means universal, and correspond to particular political problems, it seems, to me, absolutely reasonable to reject this on political grounds.

Why does understanding how people have exclusive sexual attractions to members make assumptions about binary genders? Are transmen who are exclusively sexually attracted to their own gender not technically homosexuals?

Unless I have wildly misunderstood you, I don't understand why you would perform a sex with someone you were not attracted to?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I don't really understand how that can possibly be true, nor do I understand why the word science is in inverted commas. How do you think scientists arrive at verifiable conclusions if they don't test their hypotheses?

"Science" is probably in inverted commas because there is a lot of dodgy, both from a methodological and political standpoint, "research" about these things. And science is quite a bit more complex than the hypothetico-deductive method - that is, at best, a toy model of science. Scientists are informed by the ideological framework they occupy; of course some are able to preform useful research despite this, others... well, let's just recall "scientific" racism, phrenology, the classification of homosexuality as a "mental illness" (an ideological term if there ever was one), sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, the initial excitement over "systems theory" and whatnot...

[The Feral Underclass]

"Science" is probably in inverted commas because there is a lot of dodgy, both from a methodological and political standpoint, "research" about these things. And science is quite a bit more complex than the hypothetico-deductive method - that is, at best, a toy model of science. Scientists are informed by the ideological framework they occupy; of course some are able to preform useful research despite this, others... well, let's just recall "scientific" racism, phrenology, the classification of homosexuality as a "mental illness" (an ideological term if there ever was one), sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, the initial excitement over "systems theory" and whatnot...

I'm sure Professor Michael Bailey of Northwestern University is a very sinister, nefarious and dubious man.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm sure Professor Michael Bailey of Northwestern University is a very sinister, nefarious and dubious man.

He probably isn't, but neither were the people who first defined homosexuality as an illness.

Which is not to say that this research is wrong - just that a bit more skepticism is warranted.

[The Feral Underclass]

He probably isn't, but neither were the people who first defined homosexuality as an illness.

Which is not to say that this research is wrong - just that a bit more skepticism is warranted.

Scepticism of what, exactly?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry, TAT, to make myself clearer, I'm going to chop up and rearrange your post a bit. Working "backward" will hopefully make things clearer.


Why does understanding how people have exclusive sexual attractions to members make assumptions about binary genders? Are transmen who are exclusively sexually attracted to their own gender not technically homosexuals?

Actually, case in point, studies of this sort tend to entirely exclude trans*/non-binary/queer genders/identities/inclinations. Unless it was simply skipped over in this article, for example, it seems to deal exclusively with cis men. That homosexual transmen even exist (and would potentially problematize any results) isn't so much as acknowledged. Similarly, non-binary identities serve to further complicate matters (what are the implications of the "gay man gene" in cases of, for example, gay men and genderqueers, genderqueers and genderqueers, or any other number of pairings in which either "hetero" or "homo" sexuality are fundamentally lacking explanations?).


Unless I have wildly misunderstood you, I don't understand why you would perform a sex with someone you were not attracted to?

There's more to unpack here too! For one, what constitutes attraction is often much more complex than "makes-my-juices-flow" - and ones juices can be flowing while, subjectively, one is utterly repulsed!
Beyond that: there are lots of reasons! Money! Prestige! Popularity! Curiousity! Custom! Does "sexuality" concern "sexual practice" (participation in particular acts with particular people?) or only "inclination"? On what basis is the latter to be judged? Profession of sexuality? (If so, we'd better go looking for the "can be cured of gayness by Jesus gene" - lol).
In other words, what I'm trying to get at is that sex and attraction can't be understood within the set of paradigms that currently constrain "scientific" discussions of "gay men" (a deeply unstable category).


I don't really understand how that can possibly be true, nor do I understand why the word science is in inverted commas. How do you think scientists arrive at verifiable conclusions if they don't test their hypotheses?

OK, "science" is scare-quoted, in this case, because it starts from a series of deeply political assumptions, rather than something that is itself quantifiable and testable (the "gay man" is historical - the rate at which an object falls in quantifiable). Scientists, in this case, haven't arrived at a "verifiable conclusion" in real terms, because they've extrapolated into the realm of the social, the historical, and the contingent.


What's political about the premise that we should understand how human beings function as human beings if we are able to?

That's precisely it, though - step back and look at the words! Human being concerns subjectivity and is implicitly political in its premise. Once we start dealing with the realm of identity and social relations (as gender and sexuality undeniably are!) we can necessarily only approach it in subjective terms by virtue of being fundamentally embedded in it. So, sure, we can look at genes and genetics, but when we extrapolate from that to social categories (man, gay) we're not talking about quantifiable objects with discrete existence.


I'm completely baffled.

I hope this helped.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Science" is probably in inverted commas because there is a lot of dodgy, both from a methodological and political standpoint, "research" about these things. And science is quite a bit more complex than the hypothetico-deductive method - that is, at best, a toy model of science. Scientists are informed by the ideological framework they occupy; of course some are able to preform useful research despite this, others... well, let's just recall "scientific" racism, phrenology, the classification of homosexuality as a "mental illness" (an ideological term if there ever was one), sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, the initial excitement over "systems theory" and whatnot...

Yeah, I don't think science can just be dismissed if you don't like the conclusions, but at the same time science does not exist outside of society. There are ideological assumptions, the way science in capitalism compartmentalizes phenomena, etc. there are also outside pressures on science... Things ideologically convenient to the ruling class or bourgeois institutions will be more easily accepted with less scrutiny, etc. there is also some of the pressures on researchers themselves... How do you get funding, what is considered useful areas to study by institutions and private grants (and therefore will get more support), the pressure to publish, etc.

One example that comes to mind is a famous study (in the us at least) of drug use where rats were given a choice of food or opiates and would choose the drugs until they starved. This study was scientifically sound and used by politicians to justify crack laws and aggressive policing and to dehumanize drug users... Non rich white ones anyway... As too far gone, as essentially permanent sociopaths who wouldn't flinch to kill you for a quick fix. I doubt that the scientists had any ideological aim in mind, but assumptions, funding directed into researching drug users, and media and politicians looking for justifications for the war on drugs allowed the study to become widely accepted in the sciences and more generally.

Recently the study was repeated but they found that rats who were kept in isolated and bad conditions would kill themselves with drugs and the rats who had been given a lot of room and stimulation and could associate with other rats still took the drugs, but didn't starve themselves.

Sorry for all the dead rats in this post. I didn't conduct the study. But if I was a lab-rat, I'd rather go out that way than testing deodorant or something.

[G4b3n]

Why would the existence of a 'gay gene' be scary?

The conservative and fascist response to the gene is what people are scared of, not the gene itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

The conservative and fascist response to the gene is what people are scared of, not the gene itself.

Why would that be scary?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Scepticism of what, exactly?

The conclusions of the study.

We could start by asking ourselves why homosexuality, and not heterosexuality, demands a genetic explanation.

[Devrim]

We could start by asking ourselves why homosexuality, and not heterosexuality, demands a genetic explanation.

Are you seriously asking this or are you making a rhetorical point that I have completely failed to understand?

Devrim

[G4b3n]

Why would that be scary?

I never find myself agreeing with Echoshock, however, I am also worried about a eugenics type interpretation of the phenomena. And we know where that would come from of course.

[The Feral Underclass]

I never find myself agreeing with Echoshock, however, I am also worried about a eugenics type interpretation of the phenomena. And we know where that would come from of course.

Fascists and conservatives will respond like fascists and conservatives. Of course they make that interpretation or suggest it's a way to cure gay people. What I'm struggling to understand is why that is scary or relevant or interesting.

[G4b3n]

Fascists and conservatives will respond like fascists and conservatives. Of course they make that interpretation or suggest it's a way to cure gay people. What I'm struggling to understand is why that is scary or relevant or interesting.

It is scary in the sense that it is a direct threat to homosexuals who are already experiencing horrific repression throughout the world.

It is relevant in the sense that these are things we combat both physically and rhetorically.

As to why it is interesting, you can make the call.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is scary in the sense that it is a direct threat to homosexuals who are already experiencing horrific repression throughout the world.

Nothing useful or positive comes from fear.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Are you seriously asking this or are you making a rhetorical point that I have completely failed to understand?


No, I'm dead serious. Why is homosexuality seen as a deviation from the norm that needs to be explained, why is there no search for the "straight gene" (or rather genetic factors that lead to heterosexuality).

[The Feral Underclass]

No, I'm dead serious. Why is homosexuality seen as a deviation from the norm that needs to be explained, why is there no search for the "straight gene" (or rather genetic factors that lead to heterosexuality).

Isn't reproduction one of the fundamental base characteristics of all animals?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Isn't reproduction one of the fundamental base characteristics of all animals?

The possibility to reproduce, yes. But what of it? That doesn't translate into attraction or sexual orientation.

[The Feral Underclass]

The possibility to reproduce, yes. But what of it? That doesn't translate into attraction or sexual orientation.

Your question was why is homosexuality seen as a deviation (your words -- that's not necessarily the premise of Bailey's research). Presumably it is seen that way because we are animals and our fundamental base characteristic as animals is to reproduce. Since being a homosexual naturally inhibits that ability, it could be seen as a quirk of nature.

But why are you so afraid of accepting that homosexuality is a deviation or a quirk or an abnormality or whatever. What is fundamentally problematic about accepting that on its material, primary basis?

Ultimately I don't give a fuck why homosexuals are homosexuals. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I am a homosexual. It is a fact. It is a fact that isn't going to change; it is a fact that shouldn't have to change; it is a fact that shouldn't inhibit my existence nor should it be something that is shameful or regrettable. And society will have to deal with that whether it likes it or not, irrespective of the reason I am a homosexual. This is the terrain in which we should be framing this issue.

Trying to politicise something we have absolutely no control over seems completely useless and strikes me as an insecure attempt to justify the existence of homosexuality -- Well, it doesn't require justification.

[Devrim]

No, I'm dead serious. Why is homosexuality seen as a deviation from the norm that needs to be explained, why is there no search for the "straight gene" (or rather genetic factors that lead to heterosexuality).

Because if people didn't engage in straight sex, we would have found ourselves extinct as a species pretty long ago, and there wouldn't be anybody around today to search for it. If there wasn't some mechanism, which caused animals to engage in 'straight' sexual activity, sexual reproduction wouldn't be very successful.

Devrim

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Your question was why is homosexuality seen as a deviation (your words -- that's not necessarily the premise of Bailey's research). Presumably it is seen that way because we are animals and our fundamental base characteristic as animals is to reproduce. Since being a homosexual naturally inhibits that ability, it could be seen as a quirk of nature.

"Fundamental base characteristic" doesn't really mean anything. It reeks of "natures" - human nature, animal nature, whatever.

Homosexuality doesn't result in an inability to reproduce. Of course, homosexuals are generally disinterested in different-sex contact, but conceivably, an entirely homosexual community might view reproductive sex as something disgusting but necessary - much as we view surgery or whatnot.

In fact there is no good reason why a culture might not entirely separate reproductive and recreational sex - that most cultures do not is due to the vicissitudes of history.


But why are you so afraid of accepting that homosexuality is a deviation or a quirk or an abnormality or whatever. What is fundamentally problematic about accepting that on its material, primary basis?

Ultimately I don't give a fuck why homosexuals are homosexuals. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I am a homosexual. It is a fact. It is a fact that isn't going to change; it is a fact that shouldn't have to change; it is a fact that shouldn't inhibit my existence nor should it be something that is shameful or regrettable. And society will have to deal with that whether it likes it or not, irrespective of the reason I am a homosexual. This is the terrain in which we should be framing this issue.

Alright, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine the motivations and the ideological assumptions of research such as this.

Let me put it this way: is there anything wrong with having lower IQ? There isn't. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine critically research that claims to have found a link between race and IQ - or the notions of race and IQ themselves.


Because if people didn't engage in straight sex, we would have found ourselves extinct as a species pretty long ago, and there wouldn't be anybody around today to search for it.

What is "straight" about sex between people of different sexes or genders? "Heterosexuality" is a socially-constructed identity that probably doesn't predate the Industrial Revolution; in fact it dates to a much later period as I recall it. Well, let me put it this way: a hundred years ago, were there many straight people in the Ottoman Empire? As I recall it, there were none.

[Light of Lenin]

Uh . . . what? I don't see any real evidence that anything like an LGBTQ nation has constituted itself, anywhere

See the work of Queer-theorist Jasbir Puar. The LGBTQ Nation is a Western construction, not quite meeting the Leninist criteria of nationhood, but coming ever closer to it. The LGBTQ Nation is a Western construction that is finally integrating itself into the imperialist American Empire. The LGBTQ Nation is a hierarchal nation. The homosexual white male sits at the top of the national-hierarchy as the homo-nationalist comprador-intermediary to the White Nation. The trans-woman sits at the bottom. This fact is self-evident from the treatment of trans-women by their own nation and by the dominant White Nation.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Fundamental base characteristic" doesn't really mean anything. It reeks of "natures" - human nature, animal nature, whatever.

Well, it does actually. It means that humans, as animals, which we are, have a fundamental basic characteristic defined as the ability to procreate.


Homosexuality doesn't result in an inability to reproduce.

I never said it did, did I?


Of course, homosexuals are generally disinterested in different-sex contact, but conceivably, an entirely homosexual community might view reproductive sex as something disgusting but necessary - much as we view surgery or whatnot.

Your clutching at straws there really. Animals seek to reproduce, that's why we have evolved physiological systems in which to do that. I don't really understand what you're trying to deny here.

Of course we can create social systems and cultural values about how homosexual communities respond to reproduction, but it doesn't alter the fact that born males and born females are specifically designed to have reproductive compatibility. That's just a fact. Any reality in which that compatibility is inhibited is obviously going to be a point of interest.

I continue to fail in understanding what that is a problem?


In fact there is no good reason why a culture might not entirely separate reproductive and recreational sex - that most cultures do not is due to the vicissitudes of history.

I'm not arguing with you about that, but that's not the question is it? The primary, physiological function of sex is to reproduce. That is just a fact. Just because we can conceptualise that and construct social identities around it is neither here nor there.

You asked why research considers homosexuality as the thing that requires research and that answer is because homosexuality poses a complication to process of reproduction.


Alright, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine the motivations and the ideological assumptions of research such as this.

Imagine if human beings couldn't think, were completely unaware of our existences and had no sapience whatsoever. How should homosexuality in our species be considered then?

I'm sorry, but I just fail to see what this so called motivation and ideological assumption is that we need to be examining. I understand the political and social point you're making, but you simply cannot escape the physiological realities of the human as an animal, and therefore it just seems redundant to be making these arguments.


Let me put it this way: is there anything wrong with having lower IQ? There isn't. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine critically research that claims to have found a link between race and IQ - or the notions of race and IQ themselves.

I still don't understand how suggesting that there may be a genetic factor that determines homosexuality is as fundamentally problematic as drawing links between race and IQ...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm sure Professor Michael Bailey of Northwestern University is a very sinister, nefarious and dubious man.
Actually, he kinda is. He promotes the ideas that trans women are either gay men or men aroused by the idea of having a female body.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well, it does actually. It means that humans, as animals, which we are, have a fundamental basic characteristic defined as the ability to procreate.

That still doesn't tell me anything, because I have no idea what a "fundamental basic" characteristic is. The first things that comes to mind is that it could be a characteristic that defines humans - but this is grossly uncharitable, because obviously people who have lost the ability to procreate don't stop being humans.


Your clutching at straws there really. Animals seek to reproduce, that's why we have evolved physiological systems in which to do that. I don't really understand what you're trying to deny here.

Well, for one your description of the causation involved is very wonky - it sounds very teleological. The evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction are still very unclear, but due to its ubiquitous nature, this mode of reproduction presumably offers some advantage when it comes to survivability. That is the "reason for" sexual reproduction, not because "animals strive to reproduce".


Of course we can create social systems and cultural values about how homosexual communities respond to reproduction, but it doesn't alter the fact that born males and born females are specifically designed to have reproductive compatibility.

Again, this sounds extremely teleological. Designed by who? Of course, I don't think you believe in some grand designer, but your posts reflect the sort of teleological ideology that was popular with certain biologists and philosophers up to, oh, the seventies? I guess? The last work in this vein, that I am familiar with, are certain notes by Merleau-Ponty in the late fifties and early sixties.


I'm not arguing with you about that, but that's not the question is it? The primary, physiological function of sex is to reproduce.

Did I mention your argument sounds teleological? "Function" is one of those concepts that is actually very difficult to understand, but whatever it is, it's contextual and system-specific. The function of a condom in different-sex sex can include pregnancy prevention; a condom used in sex between two males can't have that function.

So a de-contextualized, "primary" function doesn't actually make sense. It sounds like a secular substitute for the obviously religious notion of "purpose".

And looking at actual societies, the last time sex primarily served the function of reproduction was probably Democratic Kampuchea. Other animals also have sex for a variety of reasons - captive bonobos are fairly famous for their creativity when it comes to sex.


You asked why research considers homosexuality as the thing that requires research and that answer is because homosexuality poses a complication to process of reproduction.

Really? So researchers are trying to find the monastic gene as well? The military gene?


Imagine if human beings couldn't think, were completely unaware of our existences and had no sapience whatsoever.

I don't need to imagine it, I've had the misfortune of reading International Viewpoint.


How should homosexuality in our species be considered then?

It wouldn't be considered anything because it wouldn't exist. Homosexuality is a cultural construct; it's on a much higher level, complexity-wise, than same-sex sexual behavior. Heterosexuality likewise.

[The Feral Underclass]

I admit I'm out of my depth here. I don't have the insights to really add any more to this debate. It is something you clearly know more about and have a much deeper interest in.

It doesn't help matters that you just react to my comments without actually offering any wisdom. Simply pointing out that I am wrong is not really useful and doesn't help me understand you, despite having said numerous times that I don't.

This for example:


Really? So researchers are trying to find the monastic gene as well? The military gene?

How is that helpful?

Perhaps in future you could become better at actually using your knowledge to help people learn.

[Devrim]

What is "straight" about sex between people of different sexes or genders? "Heterosexuality" is a socially-constructed identity that probably doesn't predate the Industrial Revolution; in fact it dates to a much later period as I recall it. Well, let me put it this way: a hundred years ago, were there many straight people in the Ottoman Empire? As I recall it, there were none.

I think that in the Ottoman Empire of a century ago there was a concept of being 'straight', or at least not being gay. Homosexuality had been legalised over 50 years earlier, and there was a conception that there were people who were gay, and people who were not, and others who are in-between.

In general I accept your point though.

The thing is though that the people who are doing this sort of research are certainly not talking about 'gays' or 'straights'. I haven't read the paper but I would be almost certain that it doesn't use those terms. Rather I would imagine that it would use a term like 'men who primarily feel attracted to members of their own sex', or 'men who primarily engage in sexual acts with members of their own sex. They would probably define primarily too. That is how scientific papers are written.


Really? So researchers are trying to find the monastic gene as well? The military gene?

The whole 'gay gene' thing is a media conception. Scientists have done research into genes that influence aggression and religious experience even. All it would need was for the media to call this an 'army gene', or a 'monastic gene'.

Devrim

[synthesis]

If it was a dominant/recessive thing like brown/blue eyes, we would have a population distribution of many heterosexuals and few homosexuals... and very few, if any, bisexuals. And it would be easy to trace the homosexual lineages, just as it is easy to do it with brown/blue eyes, or hemophilia or daltonism. On the other hand, if it was an additive scheme, we would have a predominance of bisexual people, with smaller "extremes" of strictly heterosexual and strictly homosexual people. As it happens with black/white skin. None of these distributions seem to correspond to reality.

Wouldn't the additive scheme kind of fit the "pansexual hypothesis" (i.e., that people are just attracted to people, not genders, and sexual identity is constructed after the fact)? That seems to be the most logical reconciliation of what we understand about sexuality, socio-psychologically speaking, and recent genetic research such as this.

[Slavic]

Wouldn't the additive scheme kind of fit the "pansexual hypothesis" (i.e., that people are just attracted to people, not genders, and sexual identity is constructed after the fact)? That seems to be the most logical reconciliation of what we understand about sexuality, socio-psychologically speaking, and recent genetic research such as this.

Dominant/recessive and additive genes are not as fine tuned as you would imagine. More and more of our proteins and chemical pathways have been found to be influenced by a multitude of genes instead of a singular gene that can be of different alleles. That being said, the dominant/recessive genes are more so the exception instead of the rule.

If sexuality if influences by our genes, it is not going to be from a singular gene and that gene is not going to fit into the dominant/recessive scheme because if it did it would have been found already.


Well, for one your description of the causation involved is very wonky - it sounds very teleological. The evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction are still very unclear, but due to its ubiquitous nature, this mode of reproduction presumably offers some advantage when it comes to survivability. That is the "reason for" sexual reproduction, not because "animals strive to reproduce".

Actually the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction are very clear. The greater the genetic variance, the greater the possibility of species adapting to Earth's ever changing environment; which directly leads to the species continued existence.

Biological organisms have one supreme goal, and that is to exist and to perpetrate their continued existence. If this were not true, there would be no life. This being said, organisms which utilize a system which increases their chances to perpetrate their existence tend to exist longer then those who use inefficient methods.

In terms of continued species existence, sexual reproduction has proven to be the most efficient way of increasing genetic variance and thus providing the greatest chance of a species continued existence. All other modes of reproduction fall by the way side.

To deny that sexual reproduction is of utmost importance to biological organisms is to deny the most basic of modern science.

[Ritzy Cat]

The phenomenon of "gay" as identities and labels is a very recent one (400-500 years). It was very normal for people in the Roman Empire, Greek City States, Chinese Empire, etc. for people to have homosexual relationships. Nobody really thought anything of it. However, there was a type of superiority complex - in a homosexual relationship, the "dominant" partner was seen as more masculine and the "submissive" one was seen less so. Despite this nobody really cared about the actual genders in the relationship. I think an interesting thing was how some emperors in East Asian countries castrated young men and made them essentially the concubines of the Emperor's concubines. Seems to me like a very degrading thing, but it would not be irregular for an Emperor or something to court these eunuchs.

I read a book on Greek History a few months ago, an interesting quote I remember was something along these lines:

"If someone were to tell someone "I think I am in love", it would not be uncommon for them to respond with "With a boy or a girl?"

I really don't know what caused this homosexual/bisexual negative stigma that rose out of recent times. My guess is its entanglement with religion. You'd think people would care less, if the reason heterosexual relationships are "normal" because they can produce offspring, in the modern world many people care much less about producing offspring and securing their family line, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of years ago when they felt almost forced to have a male heir for their wealth.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I think that in the Ottoman Empire of a century ago there was a concept of being 'straight', or at least not being gay. Homosexuality had been legalised over 50 years earlier, and there was a conception that there were people who were gay, and people who were not, and others who are in-between.

In general I accept your point though.

Fair enough - it was my impression that, while there were people in the Ottoman Empire who were exclusively attracted to women, or to men, this was seen as a specific preference (like attraction to "redheads" today) in context of an assumed attraction of men to women and younger men of lower status. I am by no means an expert on the topic, though.


The thing is though that the people who are doing this sort of research are certainly not talking about 'gays' or 'straights'. I haven't read the paper but I would be almost certain that it doesn't use those terms. Rather I would imagine that it would use a term like 'men who primarily feel attracted to members of their own sex', or 'men who primarily engage in sexual acts with members of their own sex. They would probably define primarily too. That is how scientific papers are written.

And that is what I would expect from a serious researcher, like Kinsey. But there is a lot of, let's be honest, rubbish research on this topic, particularly when it is explicitly politically motivated - and DND has shown that it is.


The whole 'gay gene' thing is a media conception. Scientists have done research into genes that influence aggression and religious experience even. All it would need was for the media to call this an 'army gene', or a 'monastic gene'.

I know that "the gay gene" is a media invention, just like "the God particle" and so on. I was using a popular formulation sarcastically. The point is, though, there is no research into the genetic basis of monasticism or military life, although there should be if we accept TAT's explanation.

Now, there is a lot of research into the genetic basis of religion - much of it motivated by either politics or bad philosophy - but religion is not monasticism. Of all the major religions, only Christianity and Buddhism include a subset of adherents who are prohibited to have sexual relations by religious law. And in both cases, this subset is tiny - overall I would guess that religion has a net positive ("positive" purely in the quantitative sense, politically that is all rather negative) effect on fertility rates, what with the emphasis on control over female sexuality and coerced childbearing.

Likewise, being in the military is more than aggression - surely, from an evolutionary point of view, the "smart" (i.e. more adaptive) way to deal with aggression is to slit someone's throat at night or become a pig, not to put yourself directly in the path of things ranging from autocannon shells to cluster munitions.


Actually the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction are very clear. The greater the genetic variance, the greater the possibility of species adapting to Earth's ever changing environment; which directly leads to the species continued existence.

Yes, people sometimes call this the "Vicar of Bray" hypothesis. It isn't as popular as it used to be, but it's not to be discounted out of hand either. Nonetheless, sexual reproduction has an immense cost. It isn't clear how the benefits outweigh the costs, so any explanation is still tentative. There have been, I think, recent experiments concerning the "Red Queen" hypothesis, which are encouraging but far from conclusive.


Biological organisms have one supreme goal, and that is to exist and to perpetrate their continued existence.

This is problematic on many levels.

Obviously, organisms such as plants or bacteria don't have a supreme goal - in fact they have no goals at all - unless you either anthropomorphize these organisms, or assume that nature has some divinely-ordained purpose. Expressions such as these are common, but they reflect a pre-Darwinian ideology, and criticizing them is part of the ideological struggle.

Likewise, more complex organisms do not necessarily have survival and procreation as overriding goals, as both the existence of sterile workers in eusocial species and altruistic sacrifice shows. Rather, on average, the genotypes of organisms that are efficient at surviving until reproductive age and reproducing are more likely to survive to the next generation. Since sex obviously confers advantages in this regard, this is the reason for sexual reproduction, not because animals strive to have sex. The latter notion is teleological - it puts the consequence, "goal", prior to the action in causal terms.

TAT, I will respond in more detail tomorrow. Right now I'm far too tired.

[Luís Henrique]

Because if people didn't engage in straight sex,

No one needs to be "heterosexual" to engage in straight sex.


we would have found ourselves extinct as a species pretty long ago, and there wouldn't be anybody around today to search for it. If there wasn't some mechanism, which caused animals to engage in 'straight' sexual activity, sexual reproduction wouldn't be very successful.

Indeed.

What remains to be shown is whether "heterosexuality" is the only mechanism to cause inter-sexual activity - or even if it is such a mechanism at all.

For my part, I don't think anyone was "heterosexual" as we understand such notion long before the 19th century.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

That is how scientific papers are written.

I remember having read something by Bailey in the past. It didn't strike me as good science, no. Indeed, the opposite: it seemed to me to be just pseudo-science, or junk science, or something other than science.

Your criterium is a good one, though. If we read Bailey and realize that he delves in the concepts of "gay" vs "straight" or "homosexual" vs "heterosexual", instead of "men who are primarily attracted to men" vs "men who are primarily attracted to women", can we agree that his works falls out of the broad category of science?

Luís Henrique

PS: I have found a previous discussion among us that involved Bailey. From this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2416762&postcount=41) on, and continuing on that thread, some discussion about Bailey's methods are available.

Basically, I stand by the points I made there, and consider Bailey, at best, an incompetent scientist.

(Here (http://http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/124/), the abstract of one of his papers. So, at least in the abstract, he talks about "gay men" and "lesbians", not about men or women who are primarily attracted to their own sex...)

[Luís Henrique]

Actually the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction are very clear. The greater the genetic variance, the greater the possibility of species adapting to Earth's ever changing environment; which directly leads to the species continued existence.

The vast majority of living individuals on Earth are bacteria, which don't enjoy the benefits of sexual reproduction...

Luís Henrique

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

While I appreciate the science behind this I hate the "I was born that way," line.

[Slavic]

The vast majority of living individuals on Earth are bacteria, which don't enjoy the benefits of sexual reproduction...

Still does not negate the importance of sexual reproduction, especially amongst populations that do not expand at such an exponential rate that of bacteria.

Mind you most bacteria can and do employ "sexual" methods of gene exchange besides traditional binary fission. The most sexual of methods being the creation of a pilus (membrane bridge) between two bacteria in which genetic information is exchanged. Bacteria can also uptake genetic information from the environment from deceased bacteria.


Yes, people sometimes call this the "Vicar of Bray" hypothesis. It isn't as popular as it used to be, but it's not to be discounted out of hand either. Nonetheless, sexual reproduction has an immense cost. It isn't clear how the benefits outweigh the costs, so any explanation is still tentative. There have been, I think, recent experiments concerning the "Red Queen" hypothesis, which are encouraging but far from conclusive.

The hypothesis I proposed has been taught in every college/university I've attended. The "Red Queen" hypothesis still uses the base theory of the need for genetic variation; it just explores the need for genetic variation within a predator/prey parasite/host dynamic. In either case each organism must "out run" "out evolve" the other to keep from extinction.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No, I'm dead serious. Why is homosexuality seen as a deviation from the norm that needs to be explained, why is there no search for the "straight gene" (or rather genetic factors that lead to heterosexuality).

Well considering that "deviation from a norm" is defined as a minority of people going against a generally accepted practice (opposite-sex relations), homosexuality is practically a textbook example. The question is whether or not we attach any moral judgement to this "deviation".

[Luís Henrique]

Mind you most bacteria can and do employ "sexual" methods of gene exchange besides traditional binary fission.

Nice try, but since bacteria don't come in two different sexes, this would actually mean that most living individuals in this world reproduce through 'homosexual' sex... and that 'homosexuality' is actually the oldest form of sexuality, to boot.

Luís Henrique

[Loony Le Fist]

Nice try, but since bacteria don't come in two different sexes, this would actually mean that most living individuals in this world reproduce through 'homosexual' sex... and that 'homosexuality' is actually the oldest form of sexuality, to boot.


Just to clarify--bacteria reproduce through asexual means, not homosexual means. As you have stated yourself, bacteria do not have sexes, and therefore cannot be homosexual. Their reproduction doesn't involve sex at all. Homosexuality, based on organisms on Earth, cannot produce offspring. This is of course not to say there might yet be undiscovered or alien life forms that are capable of doing so.

Also this is not meant to imply that homosexuality is not natural or somehow inferior. After all, may species closely related to humans have been observed to engage in homosexual sexual activity with one another. Chimpanzees seem to engage in homosexuality quite frequently in fact. Sex, generally, is very important to chimpanzees as it is used as a greeting, and as a barter mechanism amongst individuals. It is also important among dolphins and they, like chimpanzees, appear to be one of the few species to engage in it for fun.

Though homosexual behaviour is well documented among mammals, it is less documented among other families. However, there is an odd case of a single documented observation of a male mallard duck homosexually raping another male duck. Ducks, geese and swans are known to engage in extremely violent sexual behaviour in general.

Animal homosexual behavior

Animal Homosexual Behavior


Duck and geese mating behavior

Violent Mallard Mating Behavior

In this video, the male geese actually violently holds the female's head underwater. Pretty unbelievable.
Geese mating

[Loony Le Fist]

...
Presumably it is seen that way because we are animals and our fundamental base characteristic as animals is to reproduce. Since being a homosexual naturally inhibits that ability, it could be seen as a quirk of nature.


It's actually quite natural. There's lots of species, especially mammals that exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild. Though even if it wasn't so what. And besides, there's nothing that rules out the possibility of homosexual reproduction. We just haven't observed any so far.

Furthermore, the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or hardwired is irrelevant anyway. As long as two people of consenting age are entering into a relationship, who is anyone else to judge?

[Slavic]

Thats why I put "sexual" in quotations because it is not sex in the sense of two organisms of opposite sexes, but because the mode in which this exchange of dna occurs; phallic structure piercing another structure, is similar to modern sexual dna exchange; penis structure piercing vagina structure.

I havn't done any research on it, but I can make a wild guess that such phallic structures in bacteria may have been the ancestor structures of modern penises.

Also, lolz modern penises. Couldn't help but laugh when I reread that.

EDIT: Can't quote for some reason but this is in response to Luis Henrique
"Nice try, but since bacteria don't come in two different sexes, this would actually mean that most living individuals in this world reproduce through 'homosexual' sex... and that 'homosexuality' is actually the oldest form of sexuality, to boot."

[cyu]

Anybody heard of these stories? What do you make of them?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/11/softeners-in-plastics-may-affect-masculinity-in-young-boys-study-says.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on

[tallguy]

Sexuality is largely, though by no means wholly, influenced by genetic heritage. If it wasn't, the human species would not have survived long enough for us to have produced a civilisation capable of sufficiently complex technology eventually allowing us to discuss it here. Obviously, there will be genetic statistical outliers. But then, in terms of complex behaviours, genes always plays the games of probabilities and rarely the game of absolutes. In the case of humans, because we are such fantastically complex animals, behaviourally speaking, it is also feasible that sexual behavioural tendencies may be, at least for a small number of people a small amount of the time, entirely environmentally determined. Just not for most people most of the time. For most people, most of the time, genetics plays the dominant role.

[Lily Briscoe]

Sexuality is largely, though by no means wholly, influenced by genetic heritage. If it wasn't, we would not be here to discuss it.
How do you figure that?

EDIT: since you edited your post...

Sexuality is largely, though by no means wholly, influenced by genetic heritage. If it wasn't, the human species would not have survived long enough for us to have produced a civilisation capable of sufficiently complex technology eventually allowing us to discuss it here.I don't see how this follows at all.

[Althusser]

I would like to see what the dynamics of such genetic determination of sexual orientation would be.

If it was a dominant/recessive thing like brown/blue eyes, we would have a population distribution of many heterosexuals and few homosexuals... and very few, if any, bisexuals. And it would be easy to trace the homosexual lineages, just as it is easy to do it with brown/blue eyes, or hemophilia or daltonism. On the other hand, if it was an additive scheme, we would have a predominance of bisexual people, with smaller "extremes" of strictly heterosexual and strictly homosexual people. As it happens with black/white skin. None of these distributions seem to correspond to reality.

Luís Henrique

I wouldn't be so sure. Along with the biological factors that determine sexual orientation, you'd have to expect dominant ideology (heteronormativity/ ostracizing environment) to be a major factor involved, not only about whether one is "out of the closet" to others, but also to themselves.

When it comes to the gender binary, when we're hailed with the image of how men and women act, we correspond to that image subconsciously. Aside from the studies claiming there are biological factors, I imagine we're interpellated with our sexual orientation. I even think the biological factors are subordinated by it.


Sexuality is largely, though by no means wholly, influenced by genetic heritage. If it wasn't, the human species would not have survived long enough for us to have produced a civilisation capable of sufficiently complex technology eventually allowing us to discuss it here.

Why? If sexual orientation wasn't genetic, why wouldn't human beings exist today in it's current state of relative sophistication?

[tallguy]

Why? If sexual orientation wasn't genetic, why wouldn't human beings exist today in it's current state of relative sophistication?I am not saying that if sexual orientation was not genetic then we would not have this level of sophistication of civilisation. I am saying that if it was not largely genetic in origin and if the bulk of that genetic predisposition was not heterosexual, then we would not have survived as a species long enough to have developed any kind of civilisation, including one as complex as this.

Or, to put it another way, if sexual preference was primarily an arbitrary function of interpersonal/cultural learning, then there would be no particular prevalence of any particular sexual disposition such as, for example, heterosexuality and, if the above were the case, any competing species which did have a predominance of genetically determined heterosexuality would, in short order, have out-competed our species and thus driven it to extinction. The fact is, however, this did not occur. Our continued presence as a species today is the de-facto evidence of this.

Whilst there are, of course, many factors of competition between species other than reproductive fecundity, reproductive fecundity really is a big one. In other words, all other things being equal, if you throw more mud against the wall than your competitors, more of your mud will stick to the wall than that of your competitors. A predominance of heterosexuality in the human population must be largely genetic in origin because, if it were not, our species would have been driven to extinction by a competitor species long ago.

All of which fully allows for the existence of all other forms of sexual predisposition, of course (or even merely disposition based on freely chosen preferences). It just means that they will, all other things being equal, be less prevelant than the dominant evolved predisposition of heterosexuality.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It's actually quite natural. There's lots of species, especially mammals that exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild. Though even if it wasn't so what. And besides, there's nothing that rules out the possibility of homosexual reproduction. We just haven't observed any so far.

Furthermore, the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or hardwired is irrelevant anyway. As long as two people of consenting age are entering into a relationship, who is anyone else to judge?

That's an ignorant position for a communist to hold. Since successful sexual reproduction is the basis for life, sexual politics are the basis for all other spheres of socio-economic conflict. Our sexual politics need to be made clear by us. As the Leninist/Stalinist and all 20th century Revolutionary Socialist States have shown, the institution of marriage will necessarily continue to exist in countries controlled by the working class until the era of imperialism and capitalism are defeated globally. Hopefully the international revolution won't take too long, as the creeping yet necessary conservatism of the Russian Revolution was obviously a large reason for the success of counterrevolution.

[Tenka]

That's an ignorant position for a communist to hold. Since successful sexual reproduction is the basis for life, sexual politics are the basis for all other spheres of socio-economic conflict. Our sexual politics need to be made clear by us. As the Leninist/Stalinist and all 20th century Revolutionary Socialist States have shown, the institution of marriage will necessarily continue to exist in countries controlled by the working class until the era of imperialism and capitalism are defeated globally. Hopefully the international revolution won't take too long, as the creeping yet necessary conservatism of the Russian Revolution was obviously a large reason for the success of counterrevolution.

Leaving aside for now the parts of your post that are not bolded... what, pray tell, is the position you hold?