• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality

Originally posted by vegepygmy
A theory should not be presented as true until it has been proven. Simons Levay???s study does not prove a genetic link to homosexuality. He was apparently unable to eliminate significant variables, such as confirming the sexual orientation of all of the autopsy subjects in his small sample group.

In London a study of the brains of black cab drivers revealed that they had abnormally large hippocampus. Was this a result of a genetic trait that left them with no choice but to become black cab drivers? Or was it a product of their environment?

If sexual orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, why would identical twins have different sexual orientations? This question has not yet been adequately explained by the scientific community.


Like I stated, I had a problem with levay's work because he did not have good controls and there weren't enough subject matters. The same can be said for the black cab drivers, but it suggests we need to look further into why the differences exist.

To use the twin argument is fallacious. As for twins, we are finding out that epigenetic material is as important as inheritance of a gene in terms of psychiatric diseases and other physical diseases as it expresses itself . Other "physical diseases" don't have 100% accordance and expression between identical twins as well.

Remember, we do not have to isolated a gene to prove it is a biological phenomenom. We still have not isolated the gene for male pattern baldness!


A better example of the biological basis of homosexuality can be found with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.. Up to 40-60% of these women have bisexual or homosexual tendencies, suggesting that the in utero (the hormonal environment during gestation ) can and may play a role in sexual orientation.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1438641&dopt=Abstract

http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

These women are exposed to high levels of testosterone during their time in the uterus, many times it is corrected early and medications suppress the overactive adrenal glands.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by vegepygmy
hmmm???my university dialup has been down for a while, and this thread seems to have died. Ahh well???

1 Maccabees chapter 2 records the death of 1000 (not 80,000) Jews who refused to fight on the Sabbath against King Antiochus, and it also notes the subsequent decision of their surviving friends to fight on the Sabbath.

There is a record of Jewish military activity on the Sabbath in the Old Testament. Joshua chapter 6 is a description of the Israelites??? seven day siege of the city of Jericho.

In the Talmud, the Baraila states that Yeshu (of Nazareth) was hung on the eve of the Passover after being found guilty of sorcery, beguiling and leading Israel astray.

The Amoa ???Ulla??? comments that as a beguiler, Yeshu of Nazareth did not deserve to be spared from death.

This is a Jewish and not a Roman indictment of Jesus??? actions. The traditional Jewish method for dealing with blasphemy was death by stoning. This is might be seen as a rather harsh tradition of dissent.

???I am unsure if you have accidentally interchanged the terms Sabbath and Passover? The New Testament accounts say that Jesus taken on the first day of Passover and his body was removed from the cross prior to the Sabbath, while the Baraila says he was killed on the eve of Passover.


It depends on where you look. http://biblia.com/bible/maccabees1.htm
http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Midrash/20.htm


You are right, my details are obscure since I am recalling all this from my years in highschool and college over 15 years ago when I went to jewish services with my friends. (I jot these replys of in the few minutes I have between patients.)


All told, 80,000 jews were destroyed for refusing to violate laws of sabbath, eating pork (one of the famous macabbees female watched all her 7 kids get slaughtered for not eating pork.) etc. Perhaps not in one day as I had mistakenly recollected. Thus the war did initiate the new "rabbinic" tradition as you stated.

Once again, I don't know the specifics, but rabbinic and talmudic scholars still argue about the times and dates and meanings of some of the apparent contradictions, so these exceptions I'll leave to them. (If only christians realized how contrary the bible can be.) Wether it was passover or sabbath, any orthodox jew will tell you that it was ridiculous the jews would have gone through the effort they did to persecute a rogue jew, there were others during jesus time who also claimed to be the messiah. In fact, one of the main Jewish players was a high priest that was appointed by the Romans, not a descendant of Aaron as Jewish law at the time required. For many Jews, this was an indication of a brilliant political move by the institutions and government at the time of Jesus and this was one of the many examples of how the events surrounding Jesus were once again, contrary to the prevailing Jewish Laws.


It would be interesting to find out the specifics of why the catholic church in 1965 officially exonnerated the Jews regarding this specific issue. If anyone knows, I'd like to hear it.

Here is alink with one of the many critiques about the supposed jewish trial against jesus http://www.historicaljesusghost.com/
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Pepper
John H.

You are simply incorrrect. Marriage is an institution create by God for man. Simply read the Bible, assuming you accept it as an authority.

All you have to do is read the Bible and you will see that homosexuality is a sin, just as pre-marital sex is. I don't say so in a judging fashion, as stated, I have my own issues.

I can't really debate the Bible with you because I don't get the impression you accept it as an authority. You seem to be making up your religion. On that premise, I will never be able to make a point you will accept.
Hi Pepper. You must remember that the Bible is written by Man - over 40 - and over a long period of time. Each has their own viewpoint when writing. There was no Bible in the Time of Christ or even right after He existed. It was not published until the invention of the printing press about 1350 AD. I was not trying to get into a debate using the Bible as a source since it is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. - of MAN. God speaks FOR HIMSELF. Since He knows Man and He created Man I find it impossible to accept that He would "allow" Man to SPEAK FOR HIM. I would think that if He had or has something important to say HE WOULD SAY IT HIMSELF. Given the corruption possibilities of Man IN ALL AREAS including and especially religion I would think God would NEVER allow Man to put words into the Mouth of Himself or speak FOR Him. I know I personally would NEVER allow someone to do MY talking FOR me if I had something really important to say. I would do it MYSELF. See what I am saying? The Bible is a religious article of ONE religion and there are thousands of religions each with their own "ideas" and "thoughts" and religious articles of which the Bible is just one. How does anyone "decide" "which religion" is the "right and truthful and accurate religion" and which is not? I consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES. I keep an open mind and am very objective about ALL things. I look to Nature and the Natural World and find much is really answered there. I am no one's enemy all I am trying to do is FIND what IS actually TRUE or not. I do not just "accept" anything just because someone tells me I am "supposed to" - in fact if that is what I am told I feel that is the VERY FIRST SIGN to NOT ACCEPT but to check out thoroughly and accurately as is Humanly possible the truthfulness and accuracy of what is said. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.
 
Originally posted by bandaidwoman
Like I stated, I had a problem with levay's work because he did not have good controls and there weren't enough subject matters. The same can be said for the black cab drivers, but it suggests we need to look further into why the differences exist.
If Simons Levay???s study was so poorly constructed, why was it provided as an example?
Quote from Levay:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.???


To use the twin argument is fallacious. As for twins, we are finding out that epigenetic material is as important as inheritance of a gene in terms of psychiatric diseases and other physical diseases as it expresses itself . Other "physical diseases" don't have 100% accordance and expression between identical twins as well.
What is the source of the epigenetic material? Are you referring to viruses?
Remember, we do not have to isolated a gene to prove it is a biological phenomenom. We still have not isolated the gene for male pattern baldness!


A better example of the biological basis of homosexuality can be found with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.. Up to 40-60% of these women have bisexual or homosexual tendencies, suggesting that the in utero (the hormonal environment during gestation ) can and may play a role in sexual orientation.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1438641&dopt=Abstract

http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

These women are exposed to high levels of testosterone during their time in the uterus, many times it is corrected early and medications suppress the overactive adrenal glands.
 
Originally posted by bandaidwoman
It depends on where you look. http://biblia.com/bible/maccabees1.htm
http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Midrash/20.htm


You are right, my details are obscure since I am recalling all this from my years in highschool and college over 15 years ago when I went to jewish services with my friends. (I jot these replys of in the few minutes I have between patients.)


All told, 80,000 jews were destroyed for refusing to violate laws of sabbath, eating pork (one of the famous macabbees female watched all her 7 kids get slaughtered for not eating pork.) etc. Perhaps not in one day as I had mistakenly recollected. Thus the war did initiate the new "rabbinic" tradition as you stated.

Military activity on the Sabbath was not a new tradition, it existed at the time of Joshua.
Once again, I don't know the specifics, but rabbinic and talmudic scholars still argue about the times and dates and meanings of some of the apparent contradictions, so these exceptions I'll leave to them. (If only christians realized how contrary the bible can be.) Wether it was passover or sabbath, any orthodox jew will tell you that it was ridiculous the jews would have gone through the effort they did to persecute a rogue jew, there were others during jesus time who also claimed to be the messiah. In fact, one of the main Jewish players was a high priest that was appointed by the Romans, not a descendant of Aaron as Jewish law at the time required. For many Jews, this was an indication of a brilliant political move by the institutions and government at the time of Jesus and this was one of the many examples of how the events surrounding Jesus were once again, contrary to the prevailing Jewish Laws.


It would be interesting to find out the specifics of why the catholic church in 1965 officially exonnerated the Jews regarding this specific issue. If anyone knows, I'd like to hear it.

Here is alink with one of the many critiques about the supposed jewish trial against jesus http://www.historicaljesusghost.com/

What is your contention? That observant Jews do not kill other Jews for religious reasons? This is not supported by the historical record. The Orthodox Jews of today might be seen as somewhat more liberal than those of the past of who advocated the stoning of blasphemers to death.
 
Originally posted by vegepygmy
If Simons Levay???s study was so poorly constructed, why was it provided as an example?
my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.???


Because noone has come up with a good answer for the physical differences he found between gay and heterosexual men!

You cannot ignore that kind of data.

As a true scientist, I concede to poor control sample size but that does not negate his findings and render it superfluous. I consider myself objective about data, even if it is data that may help or may not help my hypothesis.

It's interesting that noone has been able to attack the data on congenital adrenal hyperplasia and its associtation with homosexuality.


What is the source of the epigenetic material? Are you referring to viruses?


see link on explanation of epigentic material. Remember the science of genetics is still in its infancy. http://www.mcmanweb.com/epigenetics.htm
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11532/latest/

Epigenetic processes do not change the information contained within the genetic material itself, the ACTGs, but modulate gene expression through modification of meta-genetic information. However, epigenetic changes can be stable and passed on through mitotic cell divisions.


For more detailed research papers on epigentic material..http://www.biotech-info.net/632.pdf
http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/sample/g01-118.pdf

As for the rest of jewish law, I'm tired of arguing about it so I will let that go. My expertise is in the field of science so I will continue with that.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by vegepygmy
If sexual orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, why would identical twins have different sexual orientations? This question has not yet been adequately explained by the scientific community.


Harking back to the twin studies: although not 100% accordance (except in one study) the percentages are impressive beyond the regular 2-5% of the general population.
AGE REPORTED CONCORDANCE
STUDY DATE RANGE MALE MZ TWINS MALE DZ TWINS SAMPLE SOURCE
Kallmann 1952 >20 37/37 (100%) 3*/26 (12%) Psychiatric, correctional and charitable agencies, plus direct contacts
Heston & Shields 1968 20-52 3/7 (43%) 1/7 (14%) Hospital Twin Register
Bailey & Pillard 1991 19-65 29/56 (52%) 12/54 (22%) Homophile publications
* Concordance rate varies from 3/26 (Kinsey scale 3-6) to 11/26 (Kinsey scale 1-6)
N.B. The data in this table represent only those cases where the sexual orientation of each subject is 'fairly certain', and is either predominantly homosexual or predominantly heterosexual.

MZ stands for monozygotic twins, and DZ dizygotic twins. (the former shares 100% of genetic material, the latter, 50%)


More on physical differences:

Inner Ear Difference In Lesbians
Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the cochlea (a structure of the inner ear) in lesbians differs from the cochlea of heterosexual women. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (March 1998).

The difference was detected using a test that measures a very slight sound that the cochlea makes when responding to a soft clicking sound. Results indicate that lesbians have click responses that are significantly weaker than those of heterosexual women, and are more similar to those of men. Generally, the cochlea in women is more sensitive than that of men.

Dennis McFadden, the lead author of the study, believes the cochlea of lesbians may be affected by hormone exposure before birth. It is presumed that an unknown site or sites in the brain that influence sexual orientation may be similarly affected.

While this study has yet to be replicated, it does suggest a biological component may be involved in the determination of sexual orientation.




Twin Studies
Studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different homes have been performed and replicated. It has been found that in many cases of identical twins, that if one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. This lends credence to the theory that sexuality has a very strong genetic component, and is not purely determined by life experiences.




Anatomical Brain Differences and Sexual Orientation
In 1991 Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute, examined the brain tissue from 41 people as follows:

19 homosexual men who had died from complications of AIDS
16 heterosexual men (6 had died from complications of AIDS, and 10 from other causes)
6 heterosexual women (none were reported to have AIDS)
No samples from lesbians were available.
He found the INAH3 (a structure within the hypothalamus) was twice as large in heterosexual men (even those who had died form AIDS) as in homosexual men. He also found a similar difference between heterosexual men and heterosexual women. This study suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.



Sibling Studies
Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University studied the sexual orientation of siblings raised together. They found that if one sibling is homosexual the chance of another sibling being homosexual is as follows:

52% for an Identical Twin
22% for a Fraternal Twin (non-identical twins)
10%(approx.) for adopted or non-genetic siblings
Again, this study suggests that sexual orientation has a genetic component.



Atypical Gender Behavior in Children as an Indicator of Sexual Orientation
Richard Greene of the University of California at Los Angeles reports that children who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play indicates a homosexual orientation 75% of the time. Richard Greene's observations suggest that sexual orientation is in place early in the life cycle.




Finger Print Studies
J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada compared the number of ridges(finger prints) on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with corresponding digits on the right hand. They found that 30% of homosexuals had excess ridges on the left hand digits, while only 14% of heterosexuals showed the same characteristic.

Because fingerprints are fully developed in the fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter, this study may suggest a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth, perhaps at conception.


Although none are conclusive, these are the the latest in a growing scientific literature suggesting that sexual preferences may not be simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology. The causes may be mutiple, ie: genetic, hormonal, epigenetic and there may not be one single determinant, but the data continues to accrue that many homosexual behavior has a biological basis. Personally, the best data comes from the hormonal influences such as the congenital adrenal hyperplasia since large numbers and epidimeological data can be harvested. The twin studies, etc. all are still limited mainly by the size (, as in numbers,) of the study subjects.
 
Last edited:
Hi Pepper. You must remember that the Bible is written by Man - over 40 - and over a long period of time. Each has their own viewpoint when writing. There was no Bible in the Time of Christ or even right after He existed. It was not published until the invention of the printing press about 1350 AD. I was not trying to get into a debate using the Bible as a source since it is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. - of MAN. God speaks FOR HIMSELF. Since He knows Man and He created Man I find it impossible to accept that He would "allow" Man to SPEAK FOR HIM. I would think that if He had or has something important to say HE WOULD SAY IT HIMSELF. Given the corruption possibilities of Man IN ALL AREAS including and especially religion I would think God would NEVER allow Man to put words into the Mouth of Himself or speak FOR Him. I know I personally would NEVER allow someone to do MY talking FOR me if I had something really important to say. I would do it MYSELF. See what I am saying? The Bible is a religious article of ONE religion and there are thousands of religions each with their own "ideas" and "thoughts" and religious articles of which the Bible is just one. How does anyone "decide" "which religion" is the "right and truthful and accurate religion" and which is not? I consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES. I keep an open mind and am very objective about ALL things. I look to Nature and the Natural World and find much is really answered there. I am no one's enemy all I am trying to do is FIND what IS actually TRUE or not. I do not just "accept" anything just because someone tells me I am "supposed to" - in fact if that is what I am told I feel that is the VERY FIRST SIGN to NOT ACCEPT but to check out thoroughly and accurately as is Humanly possible the truthfulness and accuracy of what is said. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.
Great point John, happy new Year I hope You Meat Many MEn in 2010.
 
Only guy-on-guy is forbidden is the old Testament, gal on gal is not mentioned.

Probably because the guys who wrote the bible were, well, GUYS. They had their own tastes in mind.

Oddly, the old testament specifically forbids gal-on-animal shenanigans but again, the dudes get a pass.

And the bible never mentions age because, well, the guys probably wanted to keep that avenue open too. I'm sure they liked them young back then.

It gets funny with drag. It's outlawed not in the sex laws section, but in a section that is essentially the civil code, dealing with lost farm animals and home construction. The last translation i read says, "A man shall not wear a woman's clothes and woman shall not wear a man's. God finds this a disgusting perversion."

Do they really think God can't drag? God can handle drag. It's the dudes who wrote the bible that didn't like it.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Oh, and homosexuality was probably a necessary evolutionary invention.

An extended family with a few extra functional and fully contributory aunts and uncles and no kids of their own had a clear advantage over a group in which everyone had kids.

Imagine living in a place where everyone had kids. yikes!
 
I am getting a little concerned with all these homo threads lately
WTF! is going on what happened to men being men, in my opinion you queers need to stay in the closet.
:D
 
When we're done here, we can start on the origins of the universe. After that the origin of lats, glutes and delts.
 
Back
Top