Percent Homosexual

[Traveler]

The Canadian government just completed a study of homosexuals in their population. The percentage of homosexuality that they discovered was about 1%. The study was the largest most complete study of such a thing on a population. It was also discovered that the percentage of homosexuals is higher in heavenly populated areas and 70 percent higher among the under 30 population as compared to the over 30 population. It would appear that environment has more effect than the politically correct point of view will admit.

The Traveler

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 18 2004, 08:23 PM

percentage of homosexuals is higher in heavenly populated areas

Traveler,

Could this be a Freudian slip? Is it really more heavenly where there are more gays?

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 18 2004, 08:23 PM

The Canadian government just completed a study of homosexuals in their population. The percentage of homosexuality that they discovered was about 1%. The study was the largest most complete study of such a thing on a population. It was also discovered that the percentage of homosexuals is higher in heavenly populated areas and 70 percent higher among the under 30 population as compared to the over 30 population. It would appear that environment has more effect than the politically correct point of view will admit.

The Traveler

I don't get it. How do you gather this (that environment has more effect than the politically correct point of view will admit), based on what you posted?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Jun 18 2004, 07:03 PM

I don't get it. How do you gather this (that environment has more effect than the politically correct point of view will admit), based on what you posted?

It is not random throughout the population. Something has to account for concentrations. Any other possibilities?

[Snow]

Traveler,

You think that something about the environment causes or contributes to homosexuality. Your hypothesis is only one possibility. Perhaps homosexuals, knowing that the overall low percentage they represent believe that finding companions in sparsely populated area is difficult an so they congregate in populated areas.

Think, man, think!

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jun 18 2004, 09:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jun 18 2004, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shanstress70@Jun 18 2004, 07:03 PM

I don't get it.  How do you gather this (that environment has more effect than the politically correct point of view will admit), based on what you posted?

It is not random throughout the population. Something has to account for concentrations. Any other possibilities?

The gays I know tend to migrate toward all things 'artsy', which tend to be larger cities with more people. Do you think a gay guy who grows up in Omaha, NE will stay in Omaha? Not likely!

[Guest curvette]

Again Traveler, you are obsessed with homosexuality. I'm starting to wonder about you.

As to the age factor. Homosexuality is more accepted now in our culture so it's possible that more true homosexuals are living the lifestyle. It's also possible that more hetrosexuals are experimenting with homosexuality(?) It's also possible that older homosexuals are still in the closet, and aren't willing to identify themselves publicly.

[Traveler]

As I said the study was the most complete ever on a population. All of the excuses made are accounted for including where they grew up where the live and their age. I am sorry the randomness that should have been just is not there. The study accounts for every excuse made by curvette.

I am not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. However, I do wish that the issue could be discussed without name calling (homophobic) or accusations of obsession.

Granted this was Canadian society not the good old USA. But does environment make a difference? If we are to believe some, that claim that in other populations homosexuals are randomly produced at 10 to 15 percent then the only answer is that environment makes a difference.

The difference in age cannot be ignored as easy as curvette suggest. If a society that is more open to homosexuality produces much higher percentages of homosexuals 70%. Then we can honestly admit that norms within society do impact wether or not homosexual tendencies are developed. Why not realize truth - why not embrace truth - why consider truth a disadvantage - why dislike someone that will consider truth, counting them as the enemy?

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 18 2004, 08:52 PM

Traveler,

You think that something about the environment causes or contributes to homosexuality. Your hypothesis is only one possibility. Perhaps homosexuals, knowing that the overall low percentage they represent believe that finding companions in sparsely populated area is difficult an so they congregate in populated areas.

Think, man, think!

Thank you, Snow, Shan and Curvy. At least SOMEONE is thinking!

Traveler, you are fighting strawmen again. That some homosexuality is environmentally influenced is a non-issue. No one claims that environment has NO effect on human sexual behavior. Clearly, environment has at least SOME effect on most, if not all, human behavior. What you seem to forget, but which has been proven conclusively, is that genetics IS a component of homosexuality is at least SOME people. You seem to be consulting ONLY the literature that makes your point. But your point.....is pointless.

You may not like it, but clearly, God created some people to be gay. Let's deal with THAT issue.

[Jason]

It would be interesting to find out how a Calvinist would view the genetic disposition of homosexuality! B)

[Rodney]

Originally posted by curvette@Jun 19 2004, 09:48 AM

Again Traveler, you are obsessed with homosexuality.  I'm starting to wonder about you.

You and me both, Curvette and probably anyone else who has followed what seems to be Trav's favorite subject.

It's also possible that older homosexuals are still in the closet, and aren't willing to identify themselves publicly.

Like maybe the Travman himself?? I mean the guy's probably not yet willing to admit it to himself. I think he just needs a good dose of it and maybe he'll stop obsessing.

[Nicodemus]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 18 2004, 09:52 PM

Traveler,

You think that something about the environment causes or contributes to homosexuality. Your hypothesis is only one possibility. Perhaps homosexuals, knowing that the overall low percentage they represent believe that finding companions in sparsely populated area is difficult an so they congregate in populated areas.

Think, man, think!

You can be a little more kind and tactful with your words. Forgive me for saying what I must, but many of your posts are contentious when, I mean, they REALLY don't need to be.

[Nicodemus]

Not only is the percent homosexual probably deceivingly low, the percent BIsexual has got to be through the roof in comparison. I just graduated from high school, and teachers compliment bisexuality and students revere it for being openminded and mature about having found themselves. Yes, I said techers compliment it.

And so for social acceptance and being able to brag about it, many people adopt bisexual tendencies. And I don't even want to know what the percentage for that is.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Nicodemus@Jun 19 2004, 10:14 PM

I just graduated from high school, and teachers compliment bisexuality and students revere it for being openminded and mature about having found themselves. Yes, I said techers compliment it.

What school did you go to?

That's enough to make me rethink home schooling

[Nicodemus]

Let's just say it is a high school in Texas- the conservative Bible belt. In the Dallas/Ft Worth area which is the most conservative region of Texas due to Dallas Theological Seminary and various other places.

I'm going to private school or homeschool my kids. When I say homeschool I mean get a group of like 15 parents who are homeschooling and teach them together.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Jun 19 2004, 11:23 AM

What you seem to forget, but which has been proven conclusively, is that genetics IS a component of homosexuality is at least SOME people. You seem to be consulting ONLY the literature that makes your point. But your point.....is pointless.

It would help if you would provide the conclusively proven independent studies and the unbiased sponsor. Since you are a scientist I am sure you would not make your statement without real unbiased undisputed backing.

Thanks

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Rodney@Jun 19 2004, 08:22 PM

Like maybe the Travman himself?? I mean the guy's probably not yet willing to admit it to himself. I think he just needs a good dose of it and maybe he'll stop obsessing.

I had the good dose of it in my childhood by someone pretending to be a national Boy Scout Leader - I discovered that any attempt to expose such behavior results in exactly what we have see on this form. Demonize anyone that attempts to expose the truth. Can't we stick with the issues and get away from the name calling.

The following are my concerns that have not answered:

1. Is there a natural drive for all species (higher life forms - especially intelligent life forms) to reproduce?

2. Is there any scientific evidence that those engaged in homosexual activities have natural sympatric (non-cognitive) responses that are not part of the nog-cognitive natural urge to reproduce?

3. Is the "sex" drive in homosexuals completely unrelated to the natural drive of the species to reproduce?

4. Can cognitive stimulations to the natural drive to reporduce be altered by the learning processes in intelligent species (as per Pavlov)?

5. How logical is it that homosexuality be considered natural and gender roles be considered dependent results of environmental conditioning?

If there are issues you would like considered please present them and lets discuss the issues without all this attitude of hate. Is such a thing possible?

The Traveler

[sgallan]

Traveler -

Doesn't your religion council against being a "hobbiest"?

[punaboy]

the survey study is important, in that it again provides evidence that the spurious figure cooked up by Kinsey is false, and it is way past time for gays to drop Kinsey's lie that "10% of all people" are homosexual.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 20 2004, 03:23 PM

If there are issues you would like considered please present them and lets discuss the issues without all this attitude of hate. Is such a thing possible?

Not possible, with me anyway. I guess I just don't really care about it that much. Sorry.

[Nicodemus]

Well, I do have SOME background in geobiology. I studied evolutionary developmental biology on my own for a short time after I graduated. I'll see if I can recap on this issue (I posted this on a different set of forums just I kid you not about an hour ago. Since we're talking about it here, I'll just copy and paste):

You guys need to realize that homosexuality is a choice, just like preferring Chinese food and liking Seinfeld. They aren't forced to do such. There are no genes that reinforce such behavior.

And here's a secret now that we're onto genetics- few loci, none that I know of but I am assumiing that there are some just to give others the benefit of a doubt, are isolated. There is no homosexual gene. Just like there is no gene that encodes for this or that. There is no one gene that encodes for baldness, or one gene that encodes for whatever else. Everything is intertwined to some extent. Baldness, for example, is an autosomal trait (NOT inherited on your mother's side I don't care who you've been talking to). However, it is caused by dihydrotestosterone, which also gives men their beards. Hence, if one were to remove the gene for baldness, they'd also be affecting the production of facial hair. And I'm betting this would have an effect on the region which produces it you know what I mean. Though it seems like a small issue, one gene affects many others. Cystic fibrosis is another example. Someone check me on this but if I'm not mistaken it comes from a genetic recessive disorder on the 8th chromosome. It's a devastating disease, however it doesn't just give you bloody productive coughs and degenerative of pulmonary tissue, it can incur bronchiectasis (stretching of bronchial tubes) pulmonary edema, and, oddly enough, pancreaitis. In such, people with cystic fibrosis, even though it has nothing to do with pulmonary conditions, have trouble digesting high protein and fatty foods, and have salty skin (a problem with the production of pancreatic amylase). You see how this one gene for cystic fibrosis affects not just the cough, but digestion and the salinity of skin. I could go on and on.

There will be no homosexuality gene. If such is founded to be rooted sociobiologically, which might be the case, I'm betting my money that homosexual tendencies are more frequent, by some series of physiologic contigencies, another mutation or disorder. Much like salty skin is an odd side effect of cystic fibrosis.

Well doesn't that mean since it's genetically related that- well whatever? No, people are still held accountable. God has programmed each of us to have weaknesses. There is a gene that has been discovered, nicknamed the "warrior gene" that is more prominent in some men that generally coincides with aggressive behavior. God simply has given this person a trial to overcome a weakness with anger.

NOW HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE: If a gene was entirely dedicated to homosexuality, then homosexuality would be uncontrollable. It would be a genetic predisposition, just like blue eyes or black hair. If it promotes a tendency that is a trial to overcome. The difference is whether something encodes for it absolutely, or whether a tendency of it is more common with certain genes. In my experience, which isn't too grand but is present, there are no loci that affect any one thing.

My point: there is no homosexual gene. There might be a gene that promotes tendencies, but for the former homosexuality is not a choice, for the latter it is a choice and a decision, just more difficult for some than for others. I'm not going to deny that some have homosexual tendencies. BUT EVERYONE HAS A CHOICE.

[Nicodemus]

If someone does not remove that popup ad I am going to stop coming here.

[shanstress70]

Well gosh, Nic...

What's the point of all these studies if you know the answers? Better tell the scientists who have been studying this for years to call it off since you already know what they're going to find. Wow, we have smarter people here than I thought!

[srm]

Originally posted by curvette@Jun 19 2004, 08:48 AM

Again Traveler, you are obsessed with homosexuality. I'm starting to wonder about you.

As to the age factor. Homosexuality is more accepted now in our culture so it's possible that more true homosexuals are living the lifestyle. It's also possible that more hetrosexuals are experimenting with homosexuality(?) It's also possible that older homosexuals are still in the closet, and aren't willing to identify themselves publicly.

In the past year he has participated in 3 threads about homosexuality. He started two of the three. This hardly seems like an obsession.

[sgallan]

You: BUT EVERYONE HAS A CHOICE.

Me: Could you choose to be homosexual and live a happy bonded life with a member of the same sex? I couldn't. I am a flaming heterosexual. So the choice seems to be - for the true homosexual as distinguished from the bi-sexual - to live a lonely life without the really cool experience of sharing ones life in that loving and intimate way I share my life with my wife. And why? Because one version of an unprovable god says it is so. Is it small wonder very few homosexuals stay within your religion. Or any religion. Nonetheless, it is your religion, and you do have your beliefs and faith. But when you attempt to impose those beliefs on those who do not share that faith then you are really not much better than those people whose religious beliefs subjucate women..... for example. And would similarly like to impose those beliefs on all.