This has been buggin' me for a while.....

Ok, you we all know what "gay" means, right?

Well, what does it mean when someone calls someTHING gay?

Like just a little while ago me and my youngest sister were talking online, and when I typed something, just playing around (something silly like :aheddddd), she said that's gay :confused:

And sometimes people call their school gay or something. I'm missing something! No one else I asked will tell me what it means :rolleyes:

I'm guessing it means.....stupid or really disgusting?

usually it means something disgusting and perverted or it can just mean something you find stupid. like when i was at the mall with my friend and i saw a boy's shirt with a pink heart on it and my friend said "michael look at that shirt. its so gay".

Usually it means stupid

urbandictionary.com
that is the offensive way of using the term.

This has been buggin' me for a while.....

Ok, you we all know what "gay" means, right?

Well, what does it mean when someone calls someTHING gay?

Like just a little while ago me and my youngest sister were talking online, and when I typed something, just playing around (something silly like :aheddddd), she said that's gay :confused:

And sometimes people call their school gay or something. I'm missing something! No one else I asked will tell me what it means :rolleyes:

I'm guessing it means.....stupid or really disgusting?


1. gay
1. jovial or happy, good-spirited

2. a homosexual male or female

3. often used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. quite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their "masculinity"
1. "We'll have a gay old time."

2. "You DO know he's gay. Notice his homoerotic pornography collection."

3. "Man, these seats are gay. I can't even see what's going on!"

I. Hate. That. So. Much.

I don't use that. I say something is stupid. I'm not gay myself, but I still find it rude. Like when people call you "gay" as an insult, thats so stupid.

That and "********." That makes me want to hit people.

That and "********." That makes me want to hit people.
I agree.

I dont use it either, but most people i know do.

I agree...."gay" is a mean insult!

Sorry, I use that sometimes.

Sorry, I use that sometimes.
I use ******** sometimes. Oh well. Sorry


I never use it on people though

Man, this thread is so gay.

Yeah, I'm ********. ;)

^^:lol:

Ugh, for Christ's sake...people's vocabulary ohno:

"gay" refers to one who is sexually aroused by those of the same sex

"kids" call things gay using it as an insult...because people who are dumb enough to use that term probably don't even understand that ****.

Sooooo, I call things homosexual...to see what reaction I get out of people. OMFG THIS IS SO HOMOZECUAL.

Chris, do gay people call things straight?

Ugh, for Christ's sake...people's vocabulary ohno:

"gay" refers to one who is sexually aroused by those of the same sex

"kids" call things gay using it as an insult...because people who are dumb enough to use that term probably don't even understand that ****.

Sooooo, I call things homosexual...to see what reaction I get out of people. OMFG THIS IS SO HOMOZECUAL.

Chris, do gay people call things straight?
I enjoy my famous phrase...(let's assume someone said a cd was "gay")...."Funny...I didn't know cds had sexual preferences."

Har har har.

This is where people ignore me.

It puzzles me...some little tweenie, oblivious to most of the universe, goes "OMG, LYKE, TAHT DOOR IS SOOO GAY"...How in the world can an inanimate object have a sexual preference.

My brain reaches the point of total shutdown when trying to imagine a gay door.

It puzzles me...some little tweenie, oblivious to most of the universe, goes "OMG, LYKE, TAHT DOOR IS SOOO GAY"...How in the world can an inanimate object have a sexual preference.

My brain reaches the point of total shutdown when trying to imagine a gay door.
Precisely my point.

I enjoy my famous phrase...(let's assume someone said a cd was "gay")...."Funny...I didn't know cds had sexual preferences."

Har har har.

This is where people ignore me.
YES YES! I do that too! I go (using your example) I go "So your CD likes other CDs of the same sex?!?!"

Man, this thread is so gay.

Yeah, I'm ********. ;)

:rofl:

YES YES! I do that too! I go (using your example) I go "So your CD likes other CDs of the same sex?!?!"

Well, both objects DO have holes...

It puzzles me...some little tweenie, oblivious to most of the universe, goes "OMG, LYKE, TAHT DOOR IS SOOO GAY"...How in the world can an inanimate object have a sexual preference.

My brain reaches the point of total shutdown when trying to imagine a gay door.
well, depending on how they are hinged, some doors DO "go both ways"

I enjoy my famous phrase...(let's assume someone said a cd was "gay")...."Funny...I didn't know cds had sexual preferences."

Maybe they meant they thought the cd was "happy and cheerful". ;)
Seriously though, that was the primary meaning of the word before the homosexual community perverted it.(pun intended)
Just like when they sing on the Flintstones ending theme "we'll have a gay old time", you can be pretty confident that they are not talking about having a same-sex orgy or something. :p

Man, this thread is so gay.

Yeah, I'm ********. ;)

That attempt at humor was so gae!!!! ;)

^^As was that. :lol:

In this usage, it means "lame." And I always spell it like that.

I have never really thought about that but come to think of it,IT IS annoying,and its just poor vocab.
I have a gay friend and people try to rip him off by calling him 'gay'.I remember one time someone said to him during a dispute,"Uhhh you're so gay" and he replied :D " Yeah,I know that!"
So gay people obviously dont take offence to the word as much as some other people do.Seriously if someone said to me,"You're so gay" I'd laugh it off.

I have never really thought about that but come to think of it,IT IS annoying,and its just poor vocab.
I have a gay friend and people try to rip him off by calling him 'gay'.I remember one time someone said to him during a dispute,"Uhhh you're so gay" and he replied :D " Yeah,I know that!"
So gay people obviously dont take offence to the word as much as some other people do.Seriously if someone said to me,"You're so gay" I'd laugh it off.
You can't generalize a group of people from one person's reactions. And, in addition, you can't label people with a term and then generalize the labeling which you give.

Ugh, for Christ's sake...people's vocabulary ohno:

"gay" refers to one who is sexually aroused by those of the same sex

"kids" call things gay using it as an insult...because people who are dumb enough to use that term probably don't even understand that ****.

Sooooo, I call things homosexual...to see what reaction I get out of people. OMFG THIS IS SO HOMOZECUAL.

Chris, do gay people call things straight?
no.

I love how America thinks all gay people are friends and just sit and so "queer" and listen to Cher all day long...People need to come to the realization that the gay lifestyle isn't a choice, and in addition to this PERSONALITY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUAL PREFERANCE!

People need to come to the realization that the gay lifestyle isn't a choice

Yes it damn well is! God didn't make anyone 'gay'.If he wanted us to screw the same sex,he would've made Adam and Steve.Of course its a choice,all this stuff about chromosomes in gay people being different to heterosexual is bull s.h.i.t. I wasnt born gay,but I might decide tommorow that I like women.There,thats a choice.

Yes it damn well is! God didn't make anyone 'gay'.If he wanted us to screw the same sex,he would've made Adam and Steve.Of course its a choice,all this stuff about chromosomes in gay people being different to heterosexual is bull s.h.i.t. I wasnt born gay,but I might decide tommorow that I like women.There,thats a choice.

Argh. You are ignorant. Do we chose to be white or black, too?

Anyway, I used to use the word "gay" as loosely as kids do these days. But then I turned 13.

It always annoys me. I hear that, along with fa***t way too much. It needs to stop.

Argh. You are ignorant. Do we chose to be white or black, too?

No I am not ignorant,for starters.
And what does being gay or straight have to do with being black or white? Thats beyond our control.I believe our sexuality isn't.People are'nt born gay,its something they choose to become.Its the lifestyle they choose.Sometimes its bad sexual experiences with the opposite sex that drive them to it.

No I am not ignorant,for starters.
And what does being gay or straight have to do with being black or white? Thats beyond our control.I believe our sexuality isn't.People are'nt born gay,its something they choose to become.Its the lifestyle they choose.Sometimes its bad sexual experiences with the opposite sex that drive them to it.

I didn't chose to become sexually attracted toward females. I know that for a fact. It's like saying you chose to have type AB blood, or chose to have curly hair, or chose to have green eyes. None of them were choices. Nobody choses their personality, either. Either you're one way, or you're the other. Sometimes you adapt. But you don't choose.

At least that's how it goes in the reality I've opened my eyes to.

Well I'm obviously going to lose this fight.I'm sorry if I offended you about your sexuality.I really dont know what the hell I was talking about,sorry.

Argh. You are ignorant. Do we chose to be white or black, too?
That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. :rolleyes:
What's with people using race to justify their sexual preferences?!

I didn't chose to become sexually attracted toward females. I know that for a fact. It's like saying you chose to have type AB blood, or chose to have curly hair, or chose to have green eyes. None of them were choices. Nobody choses their personality, either. Either you're one way, or you're the other. Sometimes you adapt. But you don't choose.

At least that's how it goes in the reality I've opened my eyes to.
All of those things you have mentioned are genetic. Of course you can't choose your blood type, eye color, hair, etc! Most facets of personality are learned based upon your role models and the environment which you grew up in.
And learned behavior can be modified.

i.e. You do choose.

At least that's how it goes in the reality I've opened my eyes to.
You better close them again because your "reality" is quite skewed, IMO.

And you might do well to turn off the tv, since that is where most of this thinking is learned.

Gay- was a word used in the 1950's and it was common to use and not as we make of it today. It means happy, cheerful, merry or vivacious.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH i hate that. and I also hate when people call other people "homos" god it's so sick even my 22 year old sister calls people "gay". This is gay You're gay That was gay You look gay They probably don't even know what that means for cripes sake. But when I point out their stupidity in using that term they just laugh at me. Friggian ballbag numbskull idiots.

and I also agree with what Georgia said earlier that people's sexuality have nothing to do with how they dress or what music they listen to. I'm so ****ing sick of all the stereotypes. "ooooooh that guy is wearing purple pants and likes Queen he must be *gasp* so oooooo lyke gay omg" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH make it stop it's one of the many many reasons why I loathe teenagers. Those type of people humiliate me by being in the same atmosphere.

well, depending on how they are hinged, some doors DO "go both ways"
:rofl: Ahaha.

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. :rolleyes:
What's with people using race to justify their sexual preferences?!

It's as much of a choice as it is to chose your sexuality.

All of those things you have mentioned are genetic. Of course you can't choose your blood type, eye color, hair, etc! Most facets of personality are learned based upon your role models and the environment which you grew up in.
And learned behavior can be modified.

i.e. You do choose.

So? It's not about genetics. It's about being that way from the day you were born. Personality also has a lot to do with your genetic makeup.

You better close them again because your "reality" is quite skewed, IMO.

And you might do well to turn off the tv, since that is where most of this thinking is learned.

LOL, yeah. I learned all of this from watching Seinfeld and Sportscenter.

Please do not make any derogatory remarks about gays. It's offensive. It's also in violation of TJ's rules.

4. No personal attacks - do not bring your instant messages, private e-mails or messages to the board. No derogatory comments against other posters, including slurs based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, or political affiliation. No personal threats or harassment. No impersonation of other users. Also, do not act in a matter interpreted as condescending towards other users. They have just as much right to express their opinion.

It's as much of a choice as it is to chose your sexuality.
I can't believe anyone actually believes that.
But, in not wanting to be condecending I'll just have to say, "to each his own", and leave it at that. Lest I tick off the p.c. police. ;)

Not referring to you, Janice.

Well I'm obviously going to lose this fight.I'm sorry if I offended you about your sexuality.I really dont know what the hell I was talking about,sorry.
I'm glad you readily admit that you have no clue what you are talking about in many facets of life.

All of those things you have mentioned are genetic. Of course you can't choose your blood type, eye color, hair, etc! Most facets of personality are learned based upon your role models and the environment which you grew up in.
And learned behavior can be modified.

i.e. You do choose.
You are so ignorant regarding this issue, it is ridiculous. Nature vs. Nurture is a story as old as the hills. First of all, it is NOT proven that sexual preference is chosen or learned. Also, why don't we modify heterosexual behavior if that's the way it is? You views are quite twisted and uneducated to be quite frank.

I can't believe anyone actually believes that.
But, in not wanting to be condecending I'll just have to say, "to each his own", and leave it at that. Lest I tick off the p.c. police. ;)

Not referring to you, Janice.
You aren't condescending, you are ignorant and openly hostile to a very large group of people.

Yes it damn well is! God didn't make anyone 'gay'.If he wanted us to screw the same sex,he would've made Adam and Steve.Of course its a choice,all this stuff about chromosomes in gay people being different to heterosexual is bull s.h.i.t. I wasnt born gay,but I might decide tommorow that I like women.There,thats a choice.

It's not a choice, I assure you.

It's not a choice, I assure you.
THANKYOU. I don't even understand why people would argue otherwise...

Hello: You are all talking about something completly unrelated. We are not talking about sexuality or anyone's sexual preference. The original post asked what does 'gay' means...According to the dictionary it means happy or merry not homosexual like most of you are trying to say just to bring up a topic that's very controversial since our sexuality is no one's bussiness.

Hello: You are all talking about something completly unrelated. We are not talking about sexuality or anyone's sexual preference. The original post asked what does 'gay' means...According to the dictionary it means happy or merry not homosexual like most of you are trying to say just to bring up a topic that's very controversial since our sexuality is no one's bussiness.
Hello!:
gay ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
Given to social pleasures.
Dissolute; licentious.

Yes it damn well is! God didn't make anyone 'gay'.If he wanted us to screw the same sex,he would've made Adam and Steve.Of course its a choice,all this stuff about chromosomes in gay people being different to heterosexual is bull s.h.i.t. I wasnt born gay,but I might decide tommorow that I like women.There,thats a choice.
If that were the case, most people would choose to be straight, don't you think? If for no other reason than to avoid persecution and the stress.

Yes it damn well is! God didn't make anyone 'gay'.If he wanted us to screw the same sex,he would've made Adam and Steve.Of course its a choice,all this stuff about chromosomes in gay people being different to heterosexual is bull s.h.i.t. I wasnt born gay,but I might decide tommorow that I like women.There,thats a choice.
Actually, I think what you just said is bull****. Scientific facts prove it.

I can't believe anyone actually believes that.
But, in not wanting to be condecending I'll just have to say, "to each his own", and leave it at that. Lest I tick off the p.c. police. ;)

Not referring to you, Janice.
What I'd like to know is why anyone would believe being gay is a choice when these people are always teased, and don't get the same rights. Yeah, I think I'm going to head into that life...

THANKYOU. I don't even understand why people would argue otherwise...
Because of the ****ing Bible that God didn't even write, that's why.

I'm out. *waits for post to get deleted*

i find it EXTREMELY stupid to think being gay is a choice. so basically, gay people can just as easily become straight as they became gay? i don't think so. last time i checked, nobody woke up one day and said "i'm going to be gay ". i'm sure if it was a choice, nobody would choose it. sexual preference is not controlled or chosen. it's almost like saying that you are choosing to either be attracted to males or females. that's not how attraction works.

You are so ignorant regarding this issue, it is ridiculous. Nature vs. Nurture is a story as old as the hills. First of all, it is NOT proven that sexual preference is chosen or learned.
I think the important thing is, that it is NOT proven that homosexuals are born that way. It is the biggest myth that the homosexual community has perpetrated.
Also, why don't we modify heterosexual behavior if that's the way it is? You views are quite twisted and uneducated to be quite frank
Why should we modify it? Girls and boys were born with their own particular genitalia for a specific reason. And it wasn't so they could have sex with members of their own sex. Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that.

Why should we modify it? Girls and boys were born with their own particular genitalia for a specific reason. And it wasn't so they could have sex with members of their own sex. Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that.

you're so prejudiced.

Wow this topic went stray very quickly.

i don't think you can choose your sexual preference but you can choose whether or not to pursue a relationship with someone. you can't control being sexually attracted to someone but you can choose whether or not to have sex with them or pursue a relationship.

Wow this topic went stray very quickly.
Didn't it though? :lol: This is what happens when someone with a differing opinion expresses it amongst ultra-liberals.

i found this on a website about homosexuals

Gay is not a choice... it is how we were born.

I guess this is one of the most important things to understand about being gay. Being gay is something that most of us realize makes us feel different at a very early age. We just feel differently. Because it is felt at an early age it can not be something we are taught or are influenced in to. The only change that might be possible by our environment is how we react to our feeling and desires. Certainly in an environment where we have confidence in who we are and a sense of well-being, it is more likely that we are to trust our feeling and come out at an earlier age. Usually in our desperate desire to be accepted as normal, most gays ignore their feeling until they are ready to come out later in their early adult years.

The sooner we realize that this is just who we are and how we were born the less guilt there is for all concerned. Instead of trying to figure out the cause of a person 'becoming' gay, we need to simply accept it and move on with our lives.

If you think about it, if homosexuality is a choice, who would choose it? Who would choose to submit themselves to all the prejudice there is today? Being gay is not easy and certainly not a life that most would find desirable. Another way to look at it is 'When do heterosexuals choose their sexual orientation'? You might want to ask one and see what they say. No, its not something you choose any more than all the other feeling you

you're so prejudiced.
Eh, label me however you want if it makes you feel better.
But I am right. :D

Eh, label me however you want if it makes you feel better.
But I am right. :D
No, you are far from right...You are ignorant to all things you personally cannot experience and therefore limiting your learning potential a great deal. This attitude isn't going to get you very far in life, you need to grow up and come to realizations before you state your bigoted opinions that are clearly wrong.

I hated myself and wanted to kill myself because of who I was for a long time. I hated gays so much, and everything even related to the lifestyle.Well guess what? I self imposed this zero self confidence and hatred on myself because of the current world prejudices and hatred for this group of people. There was a time in my life where I came to the realization that you HAVE to accept who you are and make the best out of what you were given. I HATE being the way I am, I wish I could have a normal life...being married to a wonderful woman and having a family. But I can't...I wish I could, but I can't and it makes me so sad that I can't live the ideal life I want to without it being a blatent lie. The only way I can even try to be happy is accept the truth that exists with my own life and build off of it. Who are you to be judgemental and critize someone's attempt at living a decent life? It really is not your place to do so. We all are unique, by demeaning anyone's existance from one trait and not their whole personality is VERY prejudice and you elliminate many great friendships and experiences because you are too worried about your own personal biases that are built on false thoughts.

But I am right. :D

Eh, think whatever you want if it makes you feel better.

but you are bigoted. :D

Didn't it though? :lol: This is what happens when someone with a differing opinion expresses it amongst ultra-liberals.

A swing and a miss!

I could just as well accuse you of being a bible thumping zealot, but I'm better than that.

Eh, label me however you want if it makes you feel better.
But I am right. :DEgocentric, no?

Didn't it though? :lol: This is what happens when someone with a differing opinion expresses it amongst ultra-liberals.
Oh shut it. I can see here who's starting the problems, bringing politics into this.

I hated myself and wanted to kill myself because of who I was for a long time. I hated gays so much, and everything even related to the lifestyle.Well guess what? I self imposed this zero self confidence and hatred on myself because of the current world prejudices and hatred for this group of people. There was a time in my life where I came to the realization that you HAVE to accept who you are and make the best out of what you were given. I HATE being the way I am, I wish I could have a normal life...being married to a wonderful woman and having a family. But I can't...I wish I could, but I can't and it makes me so sad that I can't live the ideal life I want to without it being a blatent lie. The only way I can even try to be happy is accept the truth that exists with my own life and build off of it. Who are you to be judgemental and critize someone's attempt at living a decent life? It really is not your place to do so. We all are unique, by demeaning anyone's existance from one trait and not their whole personality is VERY prejudice and you elliminate many great friendships and experiences because you are too worried about your own personal biases that are built on false thoughts.
Great post, sir.

And for that Sterlings HeroWlonbyte?!?1b There IS proof he's correct. So suck that into two pieces and swallow it. Ever watch the discovery channel?

Eh, label me however you want if it makes you feel better.
But I am right. :D

You are ignorant.

Please no politics, name calling or fighting.

Thanks.

A swing and a miss!

I could just as well accuse you of being a bible thumping zealot, but I'm better than that.
Well, you could, but you would be wrong. I'm not even that religious. My opinions on this topic are based mainly on logic and nature.

Please no politics, name calling or fighting.

Thanks.
That's ok, Janice. I don't mind. It just proves my point about self-appointed "open-minded" people as attack hounds when they hear something that doesn't gel with how they have been conditioned to think.

Who was it that said "If you don't leave liberals in a sputtering impotent rage, you're not doing it right." ?!


Ah, my work here is done. ;)

My opinions on this topic are based mainly on logic and nature.

Or a lack thereof.

Or a lack thereof.
Again with the insults? :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:

That's ok, Janice. I don't mind. It just proves my point about self-appointed "open-minded" people as attack hounds when they hear something that doesn't gel with how they have been conditioned to think.

Who was it that said "If you don't leave liberals in a sputtering impotent rage, you're not doing it right." ?!


Ah, my work here is done. ;)

Again with the politics? :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:

Again with the politics? :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:
True enough. I'm surprized this thread wasn't locked a long time ago, actually :lol: .

True enough. I'm surprized this thread wasn't locked a long time ago, actually :lol: .
surprised*, oh man of logic.

That's ok, Janice. I don't mind. It just proves my point about self-appointed "open-minded" people as attack hounds when they hear something that doesn't gel with how they have been conditioned to think.

Who was it that said "If you don't leave liberals in a sputtering impotent rage, you're not doing it right." ?!


Ah, my work here is done. ;)
I think a lot of people here are intelligent enough to make up their own minds without having to be "conditioned" to think that way.

surprised*, oh man of logic.
Logic does not mean perfect. Yes, it is a typo. I was typing fast. So sue me. :rolleyes:


You know, I could scour your posts just waiting for you to make *gasp!* a spelling error so I could point it out, as you obviously felt you needed to, but I'm not that petty. :cool:

Logic does not mean perfect. Yes, it is a typo. I was typing fast. So sue me. :rolleyes:


You know, I could scour your posts just waiting for you to make *gasp!* a spelling error so I could point it out, as you obviously felt you needed to, but I'm not that petty. :cool:
yep, petty and gay...why should i even live?

No one knows, with any substantial body of evidence, whether it's genetics, environment, both, neither, or something else entirely. And if anyone has substantial references from ANY credible scientific resource, journal, et cetera., one way or the other, please inform me! Myself, as well as the rest of the scientific community, political universe, and every other group with a stake on this somehow, would love to know.

Personally, if I were just a little bit better off financially, I'd be willing to pay a group of scientists equal in number to the population of India to find out, if for NO other reason than to end the debate and/or pissing contests from both sides.

Don't know if this will satisfy you(I'm sure it won't mean anything to some people), but this article has some interesting analysis(complete with sources) of scientific studies on this issue, including the flawed Hamer Study; the one that started the notion that homosexuals are born that way.

The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone

by: Mrs. Yvette C. Schneider

Many misconceptions exist about the supposedly inborn nature of complex behaviors such as homosexuality. Most of these are due to media reports that present scientific studies in selective sound bites.

In reality, no scientific studies show an inborn cause for any such complex behaviors. In this day of shirking responsibility and blaming anything but ourselves for our actions, claims that someone is genetically or chemically structured to engage in dangerous or antisocial activities find increasing appeal.

People have asserted that they cannot keep themselves from smoking, drinking, or even adultery, because they were born with uncontrollable proclivities. While it is true that we are born with fallen natures that incline us toward any number of vices, it is an error to contend that an inclination is "uncontrollable." We can make choices and are not hopelessly forced to engage in illicit or dangerous practices of any sort.

When the question of the origin of homosexuality arises, homosexual activists tend to resort to the often-heard refrain "I was born gay." There are even T-shirts sold at homosexual functions and bookstores that say, "Hey Mom, Thanks for the Genes." The idea that homosexuality is a predetermined condition that originates in the womb also has been increasingly embraced by society as a whole. A February 2000 Harris Poll of 1,010 randomly selected adults found that the number of people who believe "sexual orientation" "is more dependent on the genes you are born with" has increased 6 percent since 1995. Thirty-five percent of the people polled believe that homosexuality is "genetic," versus 29 percent who held that opinion in 1995. Fifty-two percent believe that "what you learn and experience" causes homosexuality, as opposed to 65 percent who believed that in 1995.[1]

But what do we really know about the science of behavior? Not much. Scientific studies have done more to confirm the complexities of human behavior than they have to isolate specific causes.

THE Hamer Study
In 1993, geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute released a study that claimed to have found a genetic component to some instances of male homosexuality.[2] That is very different from saying that he found a gene that inevitably determines that a man will be homosexual. Hamer never claimed to have done that. He studied 40 pairs of brothers who were homosexual, and hypothesized that a certain genetic marker on the X chromosome was at least partially responsible for their homosexuality. Since men have an X and a Y chromosome, and they inherit their X chromosome from their mothers, Hamer theorized that the mother may be the carrier of the gene determining homosexuality in their sons. It would not manifest in the mothers' lives, but they would pass that gene on to their sons.

Hamer found that of the families he interviewed that had more than one son who was homosexual, a significantly larger number had a maternal uncle or a maternal aunt's son who was also homosexual than showed a paternal linkage. This would suggest a maternal linkage for male homosexuality in some cases. Finding homosexual brothers who had homosexual maternal uncles would indicate that somewhere along the mother's family line, the gene determining male homosexuality was most likely present.

This type of study is known as a gene "linkage study." In linkage studies, the researcher looks for a trait that appears frequently in an extended family, then checks to see if there is a DNA segment, or marker, on a particular chromosome that contains a variation that is the same in the members of the family with that trait. If the researcher finds that the same marker is present consistently in the family members who have that trait, he assumes that the marker he is studying is either close to or is the gene that codes for that trait. Such studies have been successful in locating genes that cause all sorts of diseases like Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. Linkage studies, however, have not found genes that code for complex behaviors.

Dean Hamer's study targeted the q28 marker on the X chromosome. It found the same variants on 33 of the 40 sets of homosexual brothers. From that, Hamer concluded that some male homosexuality was influenced by gene Xq28.

This conclusion raised many questions, some of which came from Hamer himself. Why were there seven sets of homosexual brothers who did not display the Xq28 variants? he asked in his study. One of the answers he included was the possibility of "nongenetic sources of variation in sexual orientation."[3]

Other questions that have been raised include the following: Does the Xq28 gene actually control the direction of sexual desire? Were the methods Hamer used scientifically sound? Did the heterosexual male relatives have the Xq28 variants, as well? What is the rate of the Xq28 variants in a randomly selected control group unrelated to the homosexual brothers? (Most linkage studies do not check to see if the DNA segments in question are present in people without the trait.) Why was there no control group of heterosexual brothers?

The more questions asked, the more doubt that is cast on using Dean Hamer's study and his conclusions to advance any particular theory. Hamer wrote in his report, "We have now produced evidence that one form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted through the maternal side and is genetically linked to chromosomal region Xq28."[4] In fact, the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services investigated Hamer when one of his research assistants claimed that Hamer withheld findings that were inconsistent with his conclusions. The National Cancer Institute transferred him to the National Institutes of Health, and the results of the investigation were never released.

One of the earmarks of a scientific study's accuracy is its replication by other scientific studies. One study alone does not prove anything. Hamer wrote in his conclusion, "As with all linkage studies, replication and confirmation of our results is essential." The findings of one study must be reproduced in another study to determine its accuracy. Hamer's study of Xq28 has not been replicated.

Similar Study, Different Results
Drs. George Rice and George Ebers of the University of Western Ontario and Stanford University did attempt to reproduce Hamer's Xq28 results in a study of their own. Their study was released in April 1999 in Science magazine, the same magazine that printed Hamer's study in 1993. Rice and Ebers failed to reproduce Hamer's results. They concluded, "These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality." [5]

Rice and Ebers studied the Xq28 in 52 pairs of brothers who were both homosexual. They found that only about 50 percent shared the same variants. Their results were nowhere near what Hamer had found in his study. The researchers concluded,

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.[6]
That may be true, but these researchers did not follow the same criteria that Hamer used. It is unclear from Rice and Ebers's study how many of the homosexual brothers had homosexual maternal uncles, or homosexual male cousins from their mothers' sisters. The presence of male homosexuality along the maternal line is required to attempt to prove that a certain type of male homosexuality is the result of a gene on the X chromosome. Nevertheless, while this study did not directly disprove Hamer's study, it did show the complexities involved in trying to pin the homosexuality of brothers on genetic factors.

In the March 1993 edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry (AGP), Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined past and current claims and concluded that "there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. The appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data."[7]

Ironically, this important review is in the very same AGP edition that includes a highly publicized study of lesbian twins. Conducted by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, two researchers who made news in 1991 with a male twins study with similar results,[8] the lesbian study concludes that about half of the lesbians in the sample with identical twins had a twin who was lesbian.[9] Thus, the authors surmise that lesbianism may have at least a partly genetic origin.

Both studies by Bailey and Pillard, however, are flawed. The twins were recruited through advertisements in partisan homosexual publications, which, presumably, are read mainly by those who identify with the aims of the homosexual rights movement. Also, the twins were raised in the same household. Research strongly indicates that environmental factors play a crucial part in gender-identity formation. (See, for instance, the review of environmental studies in Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1991).)

The Bailey-Pillard studies of non-twin siblings showed a frequency rate for homosexual siblings similar to that of adoptive siblings with no shared genetic inheritance whatever. Also, nowhere are the unique psychological dynamics of twins taken into account, nor are other factors such as age at the earliest sexual experiences or whether or not one or both of the twins ever was sexually molested. Finally, the fact that nearly half of the homosexual twins' identical siblings were heterosexual should dampen the hopes of homosexual activists that sexual orientation is genetically based. If it were genetic, then 100 percent of the twins would be homosexual.

The Brain Studies
Another highly publicized 1991 study was done by former Salk Institute researcher Simon LeVay, who studied a cluster of neurons known as INAH3 (the third interstitial hypothalamus) in the brains of 35 male cadavers.[10] Contrasting 19 known homosexuals with 16 supposedly heterosexual men, LeVay found that the homosexuals generally had smaller clusters. But one of the many flaws of this study is its extremely small sample size and his failure to identify a control group. Also, LeVay did not actually know the orientation of the "heterosexual" cadavers; he assumed they were all heterosexual, even though six had died of AIDS.

The study also included major exceptions. Three of the "heterosexuals" had clusters smaller than the mean size for the homosexuals; three of the homosexuals had larger clusters than the mean size for "heterosexuals." Furthermore, it is unclear what role the nodes play, if any, in sexual orientation. Variations may be the result, not the cause, of sexual activity or of AIDS-related brain damage.

Another study (Allen and Gorski, 1992) shows a pattern of different sizes of the brain's anterior commissure between a group of heterosexual men and a group of women and homosexual men. But as William Byne and Bruce Parsons point out, this study has "many of the same interpretive difficulties as LeVay's." These include a "tremendous" number of exceptions, such as the fact that 27 of 30 homosexual men had anterior commissures that "fell within the range established by 30 heterosexual men."[11]

Not many studies have been conducted on lesbian heritability, although researchers have used twin studies like the one mentioned above to try to determine whether there may be a biologic influence to lesbianism. Hamer writes, "The best recent study suggests that female sexual identification is more a matter of environment than heredity."[12] That study was done by Australian behavioral geneticist Nicolas Martin and Northwestern University psychologist Michael Bailey.[13] Using a national registry of twins in Australia, rather than recruiting twins through advertisements in homosexual publications, they studied 1,912 women between the ages of 17 and 50. They found no difference in the rate of lesbianism in monozygotic (identical) or dyzogotic (fraternal) twins. If there were a genetic factor to lesbianism, the incidence of shared lesbianism would be 100 percent in monozygotic twins, who have identical genetic makeup, as opposed to dyzogotic twins, who share about 50 percent of their genetic code. Hamer wrote, "The results showed that for women the main influence on sexual orientation was the shared environment--being raised in the same household by the same parent--while genes seemed to count hardly at all."[14]

In a joint research venture, Hamer's partner, molecular geneticist Angela Pattatucci, found that lesbianism's pattern in families was just like that of male homosexuality.[15] A woman whose sister was a lesbian had a 6 percent chance of also being a lesbian. Astonishingly, the daughter of a lesbian had a 33 percent chance of being a lesbian. This result is genetically impossible. A mother and her child cannot be more genetically similar than two sisters. "But the pattern we observed could mean only one thing: being a lesbian, or a nonheterosexual woman, was 'culturally transmitted,' not inherited," Hamer wrote.[16]

Biochemist Neil Whitehead, in his book My Genes Made Me Do It!, writes,

Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the one-gene-one-trait variety have been found only in very simple organisms. The closest thing to a genetically-caused human behavior that science has come up with in humans so far (aggression in Dutch men related to a mutation of one gene), is far too responsive to counseling and varied in its expression to be genetically determined. This raises the obvious question: is there really any such thing as a genetically-caused human behavior?[17]
Science published an article in 1994 that included the following statement:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. 'Unfortunately,' says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, 'it's hard to come up with many' findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. 'All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.'[18]
The Stein Critique
Edward Stein, Ph.D., homosexual activist and author of The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation, critically examines the research of both Hamer and LeVay that claims a biological origin to homosexuality.[19] In an interview with the Advocate (a homosexual magazine), Stein said, "There are serious problems with the science itself. ... My training had taught me that a lot of what was being said was, well, highly unscientific."[20]

While a number of Stein's criticisms are similar to those stated above, Stein also explains in his book that none of the researchers studying hypothesized biological origins of homosexuality has proven direct causation, although in some circumstances they claim to have done just that. Hamer, as mentioned before, actually concluded in his report that he had found evidence of the transmission of "one form of male homosexuality" through the maternal line. Hamer's book on the biology of behavior is subtitled The Search for the Gay Gene, [21] implying that such a gene could possibly exist, an assumption that Stein firmly refutes:

Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or psychological phenomenon. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis, which in turn may influence the development of psychological dispositions and the expression of behaviors. There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a disposition or a behavior, and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving. The terms 'gay gene' and 'homosexual gene' are, therefore, without meaning.  No one has  presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation.[22]
Stein criticizes LeVay for concluding in his study that "sexual orientation in humans is amenable to study at the biological level," as well as for making even stronger claims to the press. For example, LeVay is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1991 in an article that states,

Psychological literature is replete with material suggesting that male homosexuality is triggered by relationships with an overly protective mother or with a distant, even hostile father. 'Here is a whole other way of looking at the question,' says LeVay. 'These children may already be determined to become homosexual or heterosexual. The development plan that is laid out for them may be what causes them to develop certain troubled relationships with their parents.'[23]
Stein writes in his book,

LeVay has at best shown that there is a correlation between INAH-3 and sexual orientation; he has not, as he admits when he is careful, shown any causation. Further, and relatedly, he has no evidence that biological factors directly affect sexual orientation. Even if he could prove that INAH-3 size and sexual orientation are perfectly correlated in his sample population (and I have argued that he fails to do so), this would not establish any direct causal account of homosexuality.[24]
There is increasing debate among homosexual activists as to whether or not they should even be advocating the idea that homosexuality is genetic. It was once thought to be politically expedient to say, "I can't help my attractions. I was born this way." Stein told the Advocate,

Many gay people want to use this research to promote gay rights. If gay people are 'born that way,' then discrimination against them must be wrong. ... A gay or lesbian person's public identity, sexual behaviors, romantic relationships, or decisions to raise children are all choices. No theory suggests that these choices are genetic.[25]
Not only is the scientific research that tries to prove an inborn nature to homosexuality questionable, but the researchers also fail to take into account the existence of thousands of former homosexuals. If homosexuality were biologically determined, it would seem impossible for homosexuals to become heterosexual.

Recently, Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the men who helped change the American Psychiatric Association's opinion on homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, acknowledged that homosexuals can become heterosexual. In an interview with CitizenLink online newsletter, Spitzer said, "The critics of this kind of therapy don't just argue that it is rarely effective; they argue that it's never effective."

Spitzer is interviewing former homosexuals who have left the homosexual lifestyle and have lost their attractions for the same sex. He said,

What we're really trying to see is, 'Are there individuals who give a pretty convincing report that they have changed in a fundamental way their sexual orientation, and has it been sustained for many years? ... I'm personally convinced that many of these individuals have maintained and made major changes in their sexual orientation.[26]
Conclusion
Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.

Yvette C. Schneider, a former lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council.

END NOTES
1. August Gribbin, "Public More Accepting of Gays, Survey Finds: Most Believe Orientation is Genetic," The Washington Times, February 13, 2000.
2. D.H. Hamer, et al., "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science 261 (1993): 321-327.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. George Rice, et al., "Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28," Science 284 (1999): 665-667.
6. Ibid.
7. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (March 1993): 228-239.
8. J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-1096.
9. J. Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, Michael C. Neale, and Yvonne Agyei, "Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (March 1993): 217-223.
10. Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 258 (1991): 1034-1037.
11. L.S. Allen and R.A. Gorski, "Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89 (1992): 7199-7202, cited in Byne and Parsons, op. cit., 235.
12. Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, Living With Our Genes: Why They Matter More than You Think (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1998), p. 188.
13. Ibid., pp. 188-189.
14. Ibid., p. 189.
15. Angela M.L. Pattatucci and Dean H. Hamer, "Development and Familiarity of Sexual Orientation in Females," Behavior Genetics 25 (1995): 407-19, cited in Hamer, ibid., p. 191.
16. Hamer, ibid.
17. Neil and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation (Lafayette, La.: Huntington House Publishers, 1999), p. 209.
18. C. Mann, "Genes and Behavior," Science 264 (1994): 1687.
19. Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
20. Michael Bronski, "Blinded by Science," The Advocate, February 1, 2000, p. 64.
21. Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).
22. Stein, op. cit., p. 221.
23. David Perlman, "Brain Cell Study Finds Link to Homosexuality Tissue Differs Between Gay and Straight Men," The San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 1991, p. A1.
24. Stein, op. cit., p. 215.
25. Bronski, op. cit., p. 64.
26. Pete Winn, "A Crack in the Wall? A respected psychiatrist rethinks homosexuality," CitizenLink: Family Issues in Policy and Culture, February 21, 2000, www.family.org/cforum/hotissues/a0009548.html.

That and "********." That makes me want to hit people.
it makes my skin crawl when people use "********" in that sence of the word. Stupid people.

Oh god...come ooooooooooon. Nobody chooses who they are attracted to whether you are gay, straight, or asexual. It's hormones. It's not the same as choosing your friends.

Oh god...come ooooooooooon. Nobody chooses who they are attracted to whether you are gay, straight, or asexual. It's hormones. It's not the same as choosing your friends.

I think I agree.....I use to think really gay things all the time when I was younger.....I stopped finally when I was about 11.
IDK....I was a pervert I guess, lol. I don't wanna say what I thought.....it's too gross and I really don't wanna bring it up.

I don't have the time nor patience to read that entire article of randomly thrown-together articles that date back to over 10 years ago, but from what I read, it doesn't prove or disprove any solid theories on how homosexuality works.

I don't have the time nor patience to read that entire article of randomly thrown-together articles that date back to over 10 years ago, but from what I read, it doesn't prove or disprove any solid theories on how homosexuality works.
it DOES prove how far someone will go to come up with an excuse for intolerance.

Oh god just lock this thread already.

it DOES prove how far someone will go to come up with an excuse for intolerance.
Great, another one. :rolleyes: How come whenever someone doesn't have a valid argument in a debate, they resort to labeling and try to demonize you. Pathetic, really.
I'm just calling it as I see it, rob, and backing it up with facts. If you think the truth is intolerant, so be it.

Great, another one. :rolleyes: How come whenever someone doesn't have a valid argument in a debate, they resort to labeling and try to demonize you. Pathetic, really.
I'm just calling it as I see it, rob, and backing it up with facts. If you think the truth is intolerant, so be it.
you brought out a very long list of points completely irrelevent to the debate; just because someone can choose not to do something that doesnt change what they are. You could choose to be celibate for your entire life, that wouldn't prove that you are a heterosexual or homosexual in any way. There simply isnt enough scientific proof of either argument.

Have you never heard of the expression "live and let live" ? I am NOT trying to change your mind or your beliefs; I am saying that some people have different beliefs than you do, and it is unfair for you to impose YOUR beliefs on them when their simple existance has no impact on yours.

This messageboard really is NOT the appropriate forum for a debate on this subject, and not something that I had any intention of getting into a debate over. I neither labeled nor demonized you - it was you that chose to go to such great lengths to prove that someone else's existence was not up to your level of acceptance, and I would call that intolerance.

Great, another one. :rolleyes: How come whenever someone doesn't have a valid argument in a debate, they resort to labeling and try to demonize you. Pathetic, really.
I'm just calling it as I see it, rob, and backing it up with facts. If you think the truth is intolerant, so be it.
Your mental processes and thinking are very distorted. Most likely due to the brain washing that you have received since childhood that you are superior to homosexuals. Let's point out example one of the real truth:

I am gay.
I don't want to be gay AT ALL.
I was brought up the same way a lot of others were, and also to basically hate and mock gay people (not specificaly...but the implications were still there). Never met anyone who was homosexual until I was in my teens.
I still am gay.

What conclusions can we draw from this? Either wanting or not wanting to be homosexual has no impact on whether you are or not. It's just the way the world is, and if you are as blind and intolerant of an (admittedly) undesireable lifestyle as you are to other global sociological issues, you are going to have a tough stressful life. I highly reccomend to reevaluate your life personally so you can more properly evaluate and make intelligent and non-discriminatory contributions to society.

Oh god just lock this thread already.

Yeah :lol: