Origin of homosexuality unresolved despite study
----snip
Research supports both camps, but is far more vague, nuanced and unsettled than either lets on.
Science has been searching for the origins of homosexuality since at least the 1930s, when early endocrinologists were hoping to find a glandular explanation for homosexuality. In the early 1990s, science seemed on the verge of finding a "gay gene" or, as Mr. Kerry referred to, some inborn, biological basis for homosexuality, akin to eye color or height.
However, none of the "gay gene" studies have panned out.
----end snip
In the beginning, sure I thought there may be a genetic predilection towards homosexuality. Then I got older and learned and observed more.
I don't think there's a specific gene for homosexuality or heterosexuality. I think there's... libido and then there's also pheromones.
But, nah. I don't buy into the "gay" gene. I know there are some who do. Can't blame 'em. Really.
For years, my girlfriends and I have pondered WHY we are so drawn to a particular man. Why that man. And why would we persist in being keenly sexually attracted to this guy even when we know he's perhaps not the right choice for us? Or that he's not even really that interested in us? Typically, we'd shrug our shoulders in explanation and bleat out: "Pheromones" as a catch-all to pinion that which we couldn't fathom.
My bet is that there's a nurture/cultural aspect to this pheromone draw. I grew up around soldiers and manly men. Ergo, I get drawn to manly men. The Marlboro men. That quick keen pheromone hit is the most amazing organic drug. Doesn't mean I act on it. I try to incorporate my brain when I detect that pheromone blast raging away.
What else have I discovered personally? I don't deny that pheromone draw. But! I have learned to add modifiers to it. When that pheromone hit happens, I immediately look for other qualities in my objection of obsession -- like kindness, intelligence, fairness, etc. It tempers that raging obsession from going batty and controlling *me*. And through years of working with and understanding my "pheromones", I've learned that trusting this "draw" is dead wrong; and more than always draws me to a person I am not truly compatible with.
Years ago in a cyber debate on sex.. someone posted a comment to this day I still laugh about and because there is a fascinating sexual comprehension in it: Sex is best when its really dirty.
Raw sex versus sexual relationships. Right there. There's the nub of the entire "gay/hetero" argument, IMHO. And for its related branches. Do we seek the penultimate in the experience of sex, thereby becoming sexual connoisseurs with sex for the pure experience of it sans a vital relationship outside of use/user? And can this constitute a relationship?
Ask many straight couples who've wed based on the "sex" thing, and you'll find a great many divorces. However, those who found sexual compatibility alongside personal compatibility and you'll find sustaining marriages.
Does this mean, then, that in sexual compatibility one takes the thrill-edge off the "ultimate" sexual experience? Possibly. If the couple is open to understanding sexualness, they will find newer more exciting ways to grow that part of their relationship.
Do I think there are men who just don't "click" with females? Yep. But I don't think it means that are destined specifically for a gay life. In order to be in the social "clique", of course, making the gay choice means that person will have a community. Long ago, men like this tended to become monks and Jesuit priests.
Again, I don't think it's a "gay" gene. To posit a gay gene, IMHO, also means there must also be a gene for how many offspring a woman will seek out to produce. A quota. DNA is an awesome thing. But in also suggesting there is a gay gene or a hetero gene is also to imply the whole disease issues -- cancer genes, leukemia genes, and the like.
For ever, it seems, sociologists have argued that cultural standards set norms. If adultery is punishable by death, for example, there will be far fewer instances of adultery.
And let's look at quotas, once again. In CA, the colleges were admitting by preferential affirmative action -- those with Spanish last names. Very many of these were last names acquired by marriage - not ethnic lines. Dittos on American Indians... many admissions applications were claiming 1/4 Cherokee in order to get in on the preferential treatment in college admissions.
The money thing. Those who are inside those categories as recipients of preferential treatment in America -- and gays and gayness are included in those special "quotas" -- why wouldn't someone wish to claim a behavior as a "birthright". There's money, and preferential treatment in those claims, played well.
Am I suggesting that some are doing all this to simply get in on the "money / preference" dole? Of course. And why not. The irony, I must insert here, is how many of these seeking those preferences also tend to deride "evil capitalism". But that's a rant for another day.
Do I have gay friends in my daily life. Yes. And we go round and around, periodically, on this issue. I've never tried to talk them out of their own view, or lambaste them, or abuse them in anyway. We have these hell-raising debates, which end up with all of us laughing at each other.
And why? Because my gay friends are not looking for an excuse for themselves. And I'm not looking for an excuse for them. These are my friends. The last thing I would ever do is wish to encourage a lie or self-denial in them.
Have I lost gay friends over this issue? Yes. And it hurt badly.
When the gay gene is used to excuse promiscuous behavior. Or, the "gay marriage" issue comes up. Unions? I'd support that. What I don't support is language bastardization. Language bastardization destroys civil communications at multiple levels.
So, despite, all that numerous studies I've read on both sides of the pro/con gay gene debate -- No, I don't think there is a specific "gay gene". I think there are cultural isms and standards and laws which encourage gayness.
And given my overlong exposure to harpy radical feminism, were I male, perhaps I too would become gay, rather than tangle with any of these femmes. Who'd want the grief?
Humans are amazingly adaptable creatures. The will to survive and to rise above, is human nature; not limited to "gayness" or "straightness" or whatnot.
We get heart-stoppingly drawn to specific people. But we do get to choose whether or not we act upon these flashpoints of intense attraction. And this applies across the board, male and female.
What's next? A domestic violence gene, to be researched and put into the public sphere? There's a gene which permits women/men to want to be beaten... or be the beater?
I love research. But I'm sickened by how willing is humanity to allow themselves to be put into a petri dish just in order to satisfy a job/grant quota.
Wonder if there's a gene for that...
No comments:
Post a Comment