Are gay people the white Bengal tiger of the 21st century? If genetics have anything to do with our sexual orientation, then our days just might be numbered.
Check out today’s tongue-in-cheek (please don’t take it as seriously as some of the commentators on YouTube) talky blog via my second channel with special guest Haley Star. And stay tuned for the January 19th talky blog when Haley Star gives me a drag makeover. I promise that it’s even scarier than you can imagine.
January 9, 2012 at 10:57 am
There’s just one thing…Genetics has both Dominant and Recessive Genes. So all these Straight people running around now producing children….those children could be straight but have the Recessive “Gay Gene” and they’ll have kids and maybe that generation of people will be the generation where the “Gay Gene” becomes Dominant and those kids will grow up to be just as fabulous as you and Haley.
January 9, 2012 at 11:02 am
My uncle is gay, and hasn’t had kids. Both of my parents are straight, but two of my brothers are gay (my other brother and myself identify as straight). I believe that being gay is in some way genetic, but it doesn’t have to be like gay-to-gay-to-gay. It’s just a gene in the mix that in some people is more dominant, and now our society is becoming more accepting of it (we’ve still got a long way to go though).
The real problem we need to think about right now is the fact that the Republican primaries are focusing on same sex marriage as a hot topic. Like really, let life happen, focus on the fact that our economy is s**t. A friend of a friend made an interesting point, marriage licenses cost between $4 (in some Mass. cities) to $100 (in Minnesota) “Think of how much money that would inject into the government…. any true fiscal conservative should be FOR gay marriage if only for the money”
January 9, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Well said
January 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Well said
January 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm
That’s what sisters are for – “The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.”
)
January 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm
i understand what DW is saying-but only to a point.as long as heteros keep giving birth-there will always be the gay gene produced-maybe in smaller numbers.there always have been people with the gay gene-and always will.
January 9, 2012 at 4:11 pm
This is a non-issue. Listen to Haley.
January 9, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Funny video, Davey! Of course, gay people aren’t really in any danger of extinction. There’s also no “gay gene”; there is strong evidence for a genetic basis to sexual orientation, but it is not as simple as “you either have the gay gene or you don’t.” In reality, sexual attraction is a hideously complex chemical phenomenon mediated by fluctuating hormone levels, and how many hormones you produce, of what type, and how long they persist in your system is subject to a whole slew of genetically encoded factors.
Hence, the whole beautiful spectrum of sexual attraction. It all comes down to chemistry, and the hormones your body produces depend on your genes. I don’t believe that the current science is good enough to make any real statements about heritability, but plainly straight people can have gay children and vice versa, so there’s no reason to assume that will change.
January 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
This sounds correct to me. If it were the case that a single gay gene existed, it would have been found by now. When we identify a person as gay or homosexual, do we mean exclusively so? Isn’t there a wider variance in sexual proclivity than exclusively gay or exclusively straight? My experience would tell me that that is so.
January 10, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I wonder if there has even been a twin study for homosexuality. Identical twins should have the same genetic make-up. Is it always the case the both are either gay or straight?
January 9, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Davy, I’ll be happy so long as your beautiful pecs don’t go extinct. Hugs!
January 9, 2012 at 7:18 pm
You have it so wrong Davy, for a start 95% of gays come from straight families not gay parents and those genes your talking about that make gays are in the hetro gene pool and they are not going to die out, thats why gays have been born in every culture and throughout history. The genes you carry in your current day body are the genes of your grandparents so even if you were gay and decided to have children they are not going to be gay but will have the same genes as your grandparents and unless they was a gay gene in those grandparents them maybe. Lesbian & gay men producing children do not produce gays in most cases.
I think the biggest threat to gays dying out is “Normalizing gay into hetro life styles” its great we are getting equal rights but it causing our gay sense of ourselves to be bleach out and we are becoming like every other hetrosexual in the community and I believe in 10 yrs we will be so “Normalized” that there will be no gay clubs, events, support groups etc because those things are only important to us now because they give us hope, connect to who and how we are different. Once we blend in with normal society we lose all the connectivity. Thats the bigger danger in my opinon.
January 10, 2012 at 3:15 am
@Noel Delmo:
Noel,
I think I get your point,but partly disagree.I think that there will always be a gay sensibility,especially the sense of difference,hopefully at least in it’s positive,”skewed”outlook,and humor.There are negative aspects of that sensibility,often manifested as self caricature,even self-hatred,and defensiveness.
I stingily believe in,and hope for the “normalization” of gay identity in thence of ACCEPTANCE_our difference being no more importance than eye,or hair color.
January 10, 2012 at 8:30 am
Well I would like to beleive that Bill but the evidence in this country (Aust) is showing that the younger generation of gay people don’t want to be associated with “only gay culture” and want to spend their time with their straight or metrosexual mates. This is leading to numbers in club/venues/gay business dropping to a point where many have closed and in some areas of volunteer gay services this is happening too. Whether its a combination of the new internet world and younger gays feeling that they don’t have to belong to a group/club anymore because they are more accepted in their general communities I don’t know or maybe its just a passing fad that will turn itself around?
January 10, 2012 at 3:16 pm
@ Noel Delmo
I think the more tolerant, societal attitude in Austria is owing to generational difference and the secular nature of formerly Christian Europe. Religious bias against homosexuality appears to validate much anti-gay sentiment in the U.S.
January 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Public acceptance of gays is progress, yet I can understand Noel’s disappointment. I came out to my gay friends in the service when it was not safe to be out. My friends and I were a very cohesive group who supported each other and we viewed ourselves as a secret society within the larger group. We all developed a heightened gaydar in figuring out who the other closeted gays were. We had our own specialized gay humor and it was great fun. When gay becomes “so what?” all the intrigue and fellow feeling among gays is gone. When we are no longer all in the same boat together, some will turn on others for all sorts of unjustifiable reasons. It’s ironic that it was gay solidarity that brought about the progress we have seen.
January 9, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Davey, you are being so silly.
To think that the number of gay people are going to die out is nuts. Because, gay people have been around just about ever since man kind has been around, from like way way way back in time.
So, I do not believe that there will be a time when there are no gay people, unless there are no people at all.
January 9, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Actually, children raised by (and often times the result of a gay father and lesbian mother) are no more likely to be gay then children raised by by any other group.
Still it’s a cute video, and it’s obviously not serious at all
I AM AMUSED
January 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm
I wonder who conducted that study on straight/gay penis size. I’d like to read the report. Sounds like pseudo science to me. I think these two had better stick to makeovers and forget the statistical analyses.
January 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Trojan condoms originally conducted the first study, and the finding of larger gay penises was a secondary finding. They were trying to determine the range of penis sizes to better estimate the sizes of condoms needed. However, this data has been replicated a couple of times now.
January 10, 2012 at 8:42 am
Joel I can’t speak for the rest of the world but I know that as 1 of 4 boys in a family of 7 I’m the only gay son and have the biggest penis out of the 4 boys. I know this as a fact because as children my mother would put all 4 boys in the bath at once to wash them and the visual evidence was out there for all to see. My brothers even use to tease me during my youth saying there was something wrong with my penis because it hung lower and was uncut compaired to theirs.
(The reason my was uncut was because being the last of the boys and born in the 60′s doctors stop doing automatic circumcised penises in hospitals).
January 10, 2012 at 11:39 am
@Noel Delmo
I took Davey’s topic as one we could have some fun with. I think you agree that your finding is based upon anecdotal evidence. Statements made on the basis of anecdotal evidence are not considered good science. I have lots of anecdotal evidence based upon my own observation. I have seen a lot of penises in my lifetime. They come in all sizes, shapes, and may I say, personalities. Some grow dramatically in size when erect and some do not, they just get harder. We could have a lengthy conversation on this topic. If Trojan condoms conducted the study, as Clarke asserts, were they measuring flaccid penises or erect penises? I should think they would be more interested in the latter. And was the data collected by self-reporting or actually measured with a dickometer? Oh, my, the possibilites are endless. Anyone who has conducted a scientific study knows there are many factors that must be controlled for in order to get a verifiable result. I simply question the methodology. It could make for fun reading.
January 10, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I assert nothing; I am reporting the findings of others.
Their study, it has been some years since I read it, was a quite extensive review of a bunch of studies, and with a fair amount of scientific rigor. Their findings were published in some peer reviewed journal. The metric of the inquiry was flaccid size and erect penis size–both length and circumference. The measurements were made by the investigators in a standardized method in some of the studies, and others were through self-report. There was a statistically significant bias towards larger sizes in the self-reported sturdies that was controlled for in their data analysis.
I’ll bet the info is still available on the Trojan website. I am sure you all have nothing better to do than check it out. Let me guess, Trojan.com. Have fun!
January 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Well, thanks for that.
January 10, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Well Joel I think its time you and I conducted our own study in to dick sizes, oh what fun it must be to have endless men lining up to be checked out and having a play to see which grows the biggest in relation to size and length. Sign me up..where do we start…any volunteers?
Maybe we could use Davey as the “Standard” to set our measure against?
January 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Actually, Noel, perhaps we should repeat the Trojan study for scientific purposes. This is no joke. We are all exposed to synthetic chemicals that are estrogenic in the human body. In men, they result in larger breasts, infertility and shrinkage of the penis and testes. It would be a contribution to science to see if average penis size has decreased since the study was last conducted. Society is becoming aware of the problem. Male infertility is on the rise, especially in economically advanced countries, and there seems to be no end to ads for “male enhancement,” most of which are shams.
Let’s face it, limp penises are no great shakes to look at. They are far more alluring when seen as the bulge in your Speedos. Now erect penises, that’s a different story. They have personality. They speak the language of urgency and desire. And, hey, you turn me on. Now, if we work as a team, would you prefer the task of getting them hard or of measuring with the dickometer? Is Davey a Standard? Who knows? I suspect he would say he is “above average.” Centimeters or inches, what is the measure of a man?
January 9, 2012 at 8:29 pm
While this vblog was tongue-in-cheek, there is a serious point to be made. DW, the latest research into this issue suggests that orientation is not genetic as much as it is biologic. There is increasing evidence that uterine conditions during gestation determine orientation.
So, if that theory is true, DW, you have the best of all worlds. Being gay or straight is not a choice, and gay people will never go away—neither by our chosen social interactions nor through genetic engineering by those would eliminate us.
My fear was always that they would find the gay gene, and parents would test for it to end pregnancies where the fetus demonstrated the gene. I guess that is less likely.
January 9, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Clarke, you hit on a point that I have long thought the gay community should seriously consider: if the gay gene ever IS identified, will gay women and men finally realize that abortion is not in their best interests? When I was younger, I was strongly pro-abortion, but once I learned about what really happens to the baby during the procedure, I became anti-abortion. Then when everybody started talking about the “gay gene” someday being identified, it quickly became clear that that could devastate the number of gay children being born, since even some anti-abortion activists might be willing to have one to keep from having a gay kid.
January 10, 2012 at 10:04 am
Clark’s admirer is a looney!
January 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm
I think Clark’s admirer is on target. Law & Order SVU once did an episode with this as the story line, and I’ve not been able to stop thinking about it since.
January 9, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Damn that guy dressed up like a girl is ugly. BTW gays are not born they are made. Everyone is born heterosexual. Evolution proves this. PS put a bag over his face..damn he’s ugly.
January 10, 2012 at 11:42 am
Haley Star is one hot chick. And he has a beautiful face with a flawless complexion. Eat your heart out, Beth!
January 11, 2012 at 2:51 am
@Noel Delmo:
Sorry to reply to your comment far below it,Noel,but 1]:I just saw it & 2]:There’s no reply slot following it..
I can see your objections to the “straightening” of gay culture,and I agree that some aspects of it may be lost or diminished_perhaps a bad thing,depending on one’s point of view.
However,I still largely disagree:To me lamenting that segregation is tantamount to a Jew pining for the ghetto,or a black slave :Still longing’ for de ol’ plantation,and of de ol’ folks at home.”
BTW:I go by bill[lower case deliberate](Guillermo3).
January 11, 2012 at 3:15 pm
@Beth:
Beth !!!!
Choice??!!!!!!!!!? Were you born in a cave ?_My guess is:Yes,and constant readings of Leviticus were compulsory.
January 9, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Wow! That’s actually a profound thought. I don’t know though how long it takes for a species to die out…. I mean, well you know what I mean. It is pretty major though that if we don’t reproduce that gays would no longer exist. The scary scary part though is that Michelle Bachmans husband would be out of a job. Oh well he would already be dead anyway since it would have to be hundreds if not thousands of years into the future.
January 10, 2012 at 1:49 am
Isn’t being gay nature’s way of controlling overpopulation (outside of death rates)??? And even if it is genetic, for thousands of years, there have been gay people – despite oppression or nonacceptance in the past, homosexuality (at least I think) is still growing, and will continue to grow until nature has found a balance….just my thought. =D
January 10, 2012 at 8:49 am
Would agree Jau and would like to add that being gay is natures way of providing creative people into society. You only have to look at history of famous inventors/artist/builders that were all gay and made the world a better place for all to enjoy and marvel at.
January 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Yes, and imagine if all gay people disappeared from society, what would happen to the creative arts? The straights would have to reproduce us using genetic engineering to stimulate a new renaissance in the arts and culture.
January 10, 2012 at 2:39 am
Don’t listen to Beth. Haley Star, YOU are beautiful
January 10, 2012 at 6:00 am
what the f**k is wrong with Beth ?!
god she’s such a mean ignorant c**t !!
hmm anyway i think everyone missed a point here:
there will ALWAYS be gay people
gay people existed a long time ago according to history
the reason why homosexuality thrived was because since the early 20th century (1900s) men began to shower on regular basis and groom as well.
if i was born in the middle ages i wouldn’t go near men ’cause they stink and they don’t groom !
i would probably have sex with someone just to feel something
so having that increase in the standards of personal hygiene for men merely stimulated something that will always be there .
so there you go ..thoughts Dave ?
January 10, 2012 at 6:02 am
someone * ==> women
January 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm
There’s a reason they used so damned much perfume in bygone days. Some continue the practice today, unfortunately.
January 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm
@saud:
saud,
You’re certainly right about Beth !_Now,please!:Take a cold shower!!!
January 10, 2012 at 6:33 am
If this were true, there’d be many people out there both celebrating this “fact” and using it as a weapon against full equality for all. So I don’t fancy the chances of being added to the endangered species list anytime soon. Besides, I thought there was only one (1) species of human being on this planet. Just sayin’. Hardly a “fun” “fact” either!
Are you going to be doing your bit to ensure the survival of gay men in the future world Davey? Isn’t it enough that we’ve already been rounded up to select segments of each city to be open about ourselves without giving someone reason to put gay people in a zoo. And just how would those concerned conversationist go about instilling a breeding program?
With 8 billion people on this planet I feel there is plenty of room for “non” breeders and we gay people are they! (But, only if we choose to be).
January 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm
@Jason(+J.):
Hi Jason+ !!
My comment on your comment:Hear!Hear!!_Good for you.
January 12, 2012 at 6:26 am
Thanks bill(Guillermo3).
January 10, 2012 at 9:10 am
I can’t beleive there are still stupid people out there saying “Gay” is a choice.
Right up to the 1860′s in the western world you were put to death or jailed for life for sodomy and it was still illegal to be homosexual right up to the 1960.
In some countries still today gays are stoned to death/shot or jailed for life for being gay.
No one in their right mind would put themselves in that sort of danger or want to be thrown out of society simply for a “choice” and even in counties where the death penality applies today there are gays which is proof in its self that being gay is not a choice otherwise you would avoid it and/or death that comes with it in those counties.
January 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm
being gay is not a choice, but the sexual act of be gay is one and it is a choice for gays and straight alike…
January 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm
@Noel Delmo:
Great,Noel !!
Stupidity seems to be a rampant,non-descriminating,incurable pandemic.Why else would some people in the U.S.A. support Santorum?!
January 12, 2012 at 6:25 am
@ Shane W – So is the sexual act of being “straight” if you wish to apply that logic.
January 12, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Jason ( +J ) that is what i said, ever action comes with a choice…
January 12, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Those who label homosexuality a choice have their own rationale for doing so. First, they get to label us as engaging in sinful activity. Second, they use the choice argument to legitimate their conduct in reparative therapy. It seems to apply to those Christians who think it is their godly duty to save the rest of us from Hell and damnation. They mean well?
Those Christians who believe in predestination have it both ways. Yes, they say, homosexual acts are sinful, but if one is predestined to do it, one will. I say, go with your predestined fate and have a good time.We’ll all meet down under later on.
January 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm
But here’s the thing, who said that homosexual acts are sinful, a few lines in a book written less than a few thousand years ago. Homosexuals lived and loved long long before all of that, so if homosexuality wasn’t a sin before then why is it now? And homosexuality isn’t a sin everywhere in the world or in every religion.
January 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm
@Shane w
I’m simply repeating info I gleaned from conversation on BTI. It’s not my dogma.
January 13, 2012 at 6:07 am
Shane W – Every action comes with a set of consequences not choices.
January 13, 2012 at 6:09 am
Being straight is not a choice, but the sexual act of being straight is a choice for gays and straights alike!
January 14, 2012 at 8:37 am
Jason your right every action does come with consequences, but choice come in when you choose what action to take and choice comes in how you choose to deal with the consequences of your actions, Choice is in every moment every second of every day of every year of ones life. Whether someone is gay or straight or bi or whatever they all make a choice of when and if they have sex, because sex is a choice, what your drawn to is not, at least I don’t think it is…
January 15, 2012 at 2:54 am
Shane W – I see what you’ve been saying. While others, myself included, having been discussing the choice of sexuality (and that truth) you have been referring to the choice to actively engage in sexual conduct (do the deed). Yes I too believe we are able to exercise “choice” or “self control” with regard to whether we do it or not (F@*k one another).
Of course, I do believe that those who marry religion (priests and nuns) accept that part of their vocation is no sex. Of course, we have seen and heard plenty of evidence to suggest that this doesn’t always happen and children are getting hurt. I feel it is too much to ask of an individual to sacrifice that part of themselves, but that’s just my opinion.
January 15, 2012 at 2:57 am
Shane W – there is plenty of living and breathing evidence that sexuality is not a choice and I’m glad there is some agreement here.
As for the choice of whether to induldge and have sex, yes it clearly is a choice. Something I am glad we have control over.
January 10, 2012 at 10:00 am
Maybe lots of guys who like other guys are just as not as conspiciously ostentatious as you or as you suggest others to be. May be lots prefer not to have labels. May be many are more pious and conservative in their approach.
January 10, 2012 at 11:54 am
Consider this blogbuddies: In some very Catholic countries, where parents go to extreme measures to protect the virginity of their unmarried daughters, it is not uncommon for teenage boys to have sex with each other. Some continue the practice into adulthood and some do not. I think we all might benefit from going back to read the original Kinsey report on human sexuality, as least as it was praticed in the USA.
When I visited Brazil in the 1960′s, it appeared that openly gay was widely accepted. The Brazilians also seem to have a very healthy attitude toward race. So much of our perception seems to be based upon culture and cultural taboos.
January 10, 2012 at 12:27 pm
I’m not worried or scared that gays will one day disappear. There is all the arguments about genes and hormones and all that jazz, However, I do worry about the genetic modification aspect and those who will use it to remove the genes and the other medical things that will (maybe) be used to change the hormones that may or may not be involved in the creation of the homosexual. Also, I think there is one other aspect that not many will consider is that God/Goddess or whatever you believe to be God/Goddess has a plan for the homosexual portion of the human population and that we the homosexuals have always and will always be part of the human race, no matter what other humans may want to change. There is a reason that the homosexual exists, its just that we haven’t figured that part out yet. And don’t forget we are members of every family, every race, every gender, and every other part of the human race, if I’m not mistaken that is why the rainbow is are symbol, because we come in every color and type of human…
January 10, 2012 at 12:35 pm
We are going extinc !?! Damm I better go and turn some str8 guys over to the gay way
January 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm
You either have magical powers or a really seductive ass.
January 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm
I think that if there is a gay gene, its probably recessive, and that most people carry it. So when carriers breed, it makes one of us. Or maybe its not genetic. Maybe its random, or maybe its environmental. But I doubt that we’re going away anytime soon.
January 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm
@Clarke:
Clarke,
Your typos are better than mine[& that's an achievement!] ! I particularly like “based on sturdies” .
Shouldn’t that site be Trojan.c*m?
January 11, 2012 at 7:13 pm
I will have your babies davey wavey we will have many gay babies together …….. (I am laughing quite a bit as I write this
)
January 12, 2012 at 6:27 am
Cute little butt babies too I’m sure!
January 12, 2012 at 6:29 am
The only “Choice” with regard to being “Gay” is whether to acknowledge and live your truth or to deny it.
Same principle pretty much applies to anything and everything in life.
January 12, 2012 at 6:34 am
and yes you can “choose” to be open or closeted but is it healthy to lie to yourself?
How many people are openly straight? Is that something they “chose” to do, or something they just went and did?
Those who believe there is a “choice” are obviously “choosing” to be unenlightened or plain ignorant.
January 12, 2012 at 4:05 pm
If homosexuality were a choice, would that be so bad? When a straight engages in sex with a gay person, is he homosexual by choice or just a misguided straight? I can’t speak from experience, but I have heard some women claim they switch back and forth from heterosexuality to homosexuality (lesbianism). Those who most castigate gays also say they stand for “freedom.” So what’s wrong with making a free choice about one’s sexual experience? Are they hypocrites? The answer is yes.
January 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm
How does one choose truth? Isn’t something true or not true? Whether you acknowledge or deny the truth, it is still the truth.
January 13, 2012 at 5:42 am
Shane W – Because it is possible to lie to yourself, just as easily as it is to lie to other people. Living your life with integrity, that’s a choice. Railroading other people into your way of thinking by twisting their words and throwing them back, that’s a choice too.
January 13, 2012 at 6:13 am
@ bill (Guillermo3) – I have my moments of genius! (okay, pseudo genius, but genius none-the-less).
January 13, 2012 at 6:16 am
Shane W – The print on this post is white on a black background. I “choose” to see it that way. Does that make it true?
January 13, 2012 at 11:50 am
@Shane W
What is truth? is a question philosophers might debate for hours on end.
January 13, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Maybe I wasn’t clear but that is what I was asking, what is truth is all truth the truth for everyone or is the whole MY TRUTH part of truth? However there are some things that are true no matter whether we lie or don’t know or hide from them. it’s like jason’s computer screen his is black with white letters but mine is white with black letters, for me they are both true but does that make them THE TRUTH or our own truths??? And as for the comment about my way of thinking, I don’t really have one, I question then listen and then answer, as for the choice thing CHOICE is one of the only things I respect when it comes to other people their freedom and right to choice…
January 14, 2012 at 5:26 am
Actually Shane W, my screen’s appearence is very similar to yours. I just chose to create my own truth rather than embrace what is really right here in front of me. What I mean by truth is: The one part of your being that can’t be denied and is crying out to be recognised. That many suppress in favour of a better or easier way of life or in accordance to another person’s set of ideals. I guess I’m refering to one’s nature, or programing. You can recognise and work with it or you can work against it, only to find yourself in constant struggle. I feel you maybe referring to the subjective as opposed to the undeniable, (aka: what we convince ourselves is true and what really is true). As Joel J states above, that’s one debate that could keep philosophers engaged for quite sometime.
January 14, 2012 at 7:23 am
Sometimes, I think our disagreements are based upon semantics and not substance. That may be the case here in regards to own’s truth. One’s truth can often be distorted by perception, which can be clouded or distorted by previous experience or by others who tell us who we are. I am gay, have always been gay, and yet, for so many years, I perceived myself as straight. How can that be? In my experience, homosexuality is intrinsic, the result of nature not nurture.
January 14, 2012 at 7:40 am
I should have read that before posting it. What I meant to say is, how one’s defines his truth depends upon his perception, which can often be clouded or distorted……….
January 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm
@Jason(+J.):
Wow,Jason+ !!You’ve said it all!:THANKS!!!
January 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm
BTW, folks, the species is homosapiens which includes all humans, male and female, gay, straight, and whatever.
January 12, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Yep that’s right, we’re all Homo’s. Homo sapiens that is… I wonder if homosexuality existed in the other homo species, such as homo erectus ? I wonder how far back homosexuality goes?
January 12, 2012 at 7:37 pm
While we are on the subject of penis length, this from Dr. Harvey Simon of the Harvard Medical School:
Doctors in London studied 104 men between the ages of 17 and 84, measuring foot size and penile length to see if they are related. In short, their answer was a flat-footed no.
Researchers in Greece went even further. They obtained a whole series of body measurements in 52 men between the ages of 19 and 38 to see if any body dimension was related to the size of his testicles or the length of his penis. They found only one association: Men with longer index fingers tended to have longer penises.
My comment: Leave it to the Greeks and medical science. Those size queens among us now have a better means of guessing size.
January 12, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Davey ,
Prof. Richard Dawkins addresses this particular issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
January 12, 2012 at 11:43 pm
According to Dawkins, if there is a gay gene, it is not deterministic; that is, its expression may depend upon the environment in which the person exists. Interesting thought.
January 13, 2012 at 2:22 am
@Joel J:
Come now,Joel,
Australia…Down Under..may not be perfect,but it’s hardly fair to equate it with Hell.Besides,I hear that most denizens of Hell[except those from New Jersey] have much better accents.
January 13, 2012 at 6:19 am
bill (Guillermo3) – Whoah, Joel J did what now?
My home is girt by sea, not fire and brimstone! And I don’t smell sulphur in the air either!
January 13, 2012 at 11:44 am
I purposely did not capitalize down under so Jason (J) would not think I was referring to Australia. In any case, we all may meet again on Dante’s lowest rung of the Inferno. Sometimes, I feel like we’ve already been there. Ciao.
January 13, 2012 at 1:51 pm
@Jason(+J.):
Jason+,as Joel wrote,in the comment just below yours,he did not mean Australia.I did.Down under may not be Hell,but there is that accent,which may be equivalent.
BTW:I think Joel J needs to re-read his Dante.I’m certainly not going to_been through that inferno to many times already!
More later,via e-mail.
January 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm
@Jason(+J):
Whatever happened to the F-ing . ?!
You are hot today!!(or was it yesterday?)
Now there’s just that accent…..
January 14, 2012 at 5:32 am
bill (Guillermo3): The ice is thin and the green house effect is taking hold. You’ve never heard my voice and I never heard yours. American’s are hardly the sexiest sounding people on the planet. I’m not saying that Australian’s are, but thanks for the gross generalisation.
ps: I’m glad you find my opinions to be… on fire, at the very least.
January 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm
As a marine biologist, let me say that genetics are very tricky. I’ll try to simplify them a little, but I can’t promise that anyone other than myself will be able to understand my observations.
Genes always come in groups of two or more. Furthermore, there are different types of genes called dominant genes and recessive genes. Dominant genes are just like their name: dominant. This means that of the two parents, only one of these genes must be passed on to their children for it to appear in their children’s genetic make-up. An example of a dominant gene is the brown hair color in men. The gene for hair color comes in groups of two. If a boy receives a brown hair gene from his mother, the boy’s hair will end up brown no matter what color the other gene in the group is.
On the other hand, recessive genes need for all of the genes in the “gene group” to be similar in order for the gene to be in the child’s genetic make-up. In hair color, red hair is the most recessive gene. The same boy as depicted earlier would have to receive a red hair gene from both his mother an his father for him to be born with red hair. If the red hair gene is paired up with any other gene for hair color, the boy will exhibit the second hair color.
My theory is that the “gay gene” is a recessive gene and that for this same boy to be gay, he must recieve “gay gene” from his mother and his father. Now this doesn’t mean that his mother and father both have to be gay. Because the “gay gene” is recessive, his mother and father could both have one gay and one straight gene and could both be straight. This means that a single “gay gene” could be passed down from generation to generation and only show up in a genetic make-up when united with another gay gene. Because of past historical tendancies for gay males and females to unite with the opposite sex, a single “gay gene” is more than likely rooted in many straight people as well as gay people. Because of this, Davey, I don’t think you have anything to worry about gays going “extinct” any time soon. I hope this made sense to anyone reading.
January 19, 2012 at 3:16 pm
i read that the x-gene was passed on through females…
January 20, 2012 at 5:13 am
Whether gayness is due to a dominant or recessive gene, or if it’s the result of some kind of more confusing hormonal fluctuation later, human beings are made of genetic material and that material must be passed on for it to continue. If gay people stop passing their material on won’t the amounts of it in the straight population dilute over time? Say it takes a thousand years rather than a hundred, a) that’s bad enough, and b) what of the “dwindling years” till total extinction – it’s bad enough trying to find a date now let alone when WE’RE the 1%. I sometimes think we’re too preoccupied (and understandably so) in this day and age with coming out and enjoying it, and forget that there’s more to life than the present.
All that said, as I understand it, there have been gay people since long before there was marriage of ANY kind, and gayness can be found throughout the animal kingdom – if elephants and penguins and whales have been gay for millions of years, maybe there’s more to the equation than I know.