homo***uality?

[c_cube]

IMO walang genes na bakla o tibo. tingin ko environment at upbringing ang dahilan.

kaya sa isang pamilya o magkakamag-anak nagkakaroon ng dalawa o higit na bakla o tibo dahil nakikita ito na tanggap naman ng ibang meyembro ng pamilya at duon sila nagkakaroon ng "CHOICE" pumili kung anu ang gusto nila, dahil alam nila na tanggap naman ito at nabubuo sa isip nila na meron talagang ganun na "GENDER"

IMO lang po ha? baka may magalit eh hehehe

[_Cathy_]

Similar thought to the video that uls posted:

http://www.economist.com/node/12465295

The evolution of homo***uality
Gender bending
Genes that make some people gay make their brothers and sisters fecund
Oct 23rd 2008 | from the print edition


THE evidence suggests that homo***ual behaviour is partly genetic. Studies of identical twins, for example, show that if one of a pair (regardless of ***) is homo***ual, the other has a 50% chance of being so, too. That observation, though, raises a worrying evolutionary question: how could a trait so at odds with reproductive success survive the ruthless imperatives of natural selection?

Various answers have been suggested. However, they all boil down to the idea that the relatives of those who are gay gain some advantage that allows genes predisposing people to homo***ual behaviour to be passed on collaterally.

One proposal is that the help provided by maiden aunts and bachelor uncles in caring and providing for the children of their brothers and sisters might suffice. That seems unlikely to be the whole story (the amount of help needed to compensate would be huge), though it might be a contributory factor. The other idea, since there is evidence that male homo***uals, at least, are more likely than average to come from large families, is that the genes for gayness bring reproductive advantage to those who have them but are not actually gay themselves. Originally, the thought was that whichever genes make men gay might make women more fecund, and possibly vice versa.

Brendan Zietsch of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, and his colleagues have, however, come up with a twist on this idea. In a paper to be published soon in Evolution and Human Behavior, they suggest the advantage accrues not to relatives of the opposite ***, but to those of the same one. They think that genes which cause men to be more feminine in appearance, outlook and behaviour and those that make women more masculine in those attributes, confer reproductive advantages as long as they do not push the individual possessing them all the way to homo***uality.


The straight truth

Other evidence does indeed show that homo***uals tend to be “gender atypical” in areas beside their choice of ***ual partner. Gay men often see themselves as being more feminine than straight men do, and, mutatis mutandis, the same is true for lesbians. To a lesser extent, homo***uals tend to have gender-atypical careers, hobbies and other interests.

Personality tests also show differences, with gay men ranking higher than straight men in standardised tests for agreeableness, expressiveness, conscientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism. Lesbians tend to be more assertive and less neurotic than straight women.

There are also data which suggest that having a more feminine personality might indeed give a hetero***ual male an advantage. Though women prefer traditionally macho men at the time in their menstrual cycles when they are most fertile, at other times they are more attracted to those with feminine traits such as tenderness, considerateness and kindness, as well as those with feminised faces. The explanation usually advanced for this is that macho men will provide the sperm needed to make ***y sons, but the more feminised phenotype makes a better carer and provider—in other words an ideal husband. And, despite all the adultery and cuckoldry that goes on in the world, it is the husband who fathers most of the children.

As far as masculinised women are concerned, less research has been done on the advantages that their appearance and behaviour might bring. What data there are, however, suggest they tend to have more ***ual partners than highly feminised women do. That may, Dr Zietsch speculates, reflect increased competitiveness or a willingness to engage in unrestrained ***ual relations (ie, to behave in a male-like way) that other women do not share.

Dr Zietsch and his colleagues tested their idea by doing a twin study of their own. They asked 4,904 individual twins, not all of them identical, to fill out anonymous questionnaires about their ***ual orientation, their gender self-identification and the number of opposite-*** partners they had had during the course of their lives. (They used this figure as a proxy for reproductive fitness, since modern birth-control techniques mask actual reproductive fitness.)

The rules of attraction


Their first observation was that the number of ***ual partners an individual claimed did correlate with that individual’s “gender identity”. The more feminine a man, the more masculine a woman, the higher the hit rate with the opposite ***—though women of all gender identities reported fewer partners than men did. (This paradox is normal in such studies. It probably reflects either male boasting or female bashfulness, but though it affects totals it does not seem to affect trends.)
When the relationships between twins were included in the statistical analysis (all genes in common for identical twins; a 50% overlap for the non-identical) the team was able to show that both atypical gender identity and its influence on the number of people of the opposite *** an individual claimed to have seduced were under a significant amount of genetic control. More directly, the study showed that hetero***uals with a homo***ual twin tend to have more ***ual partners than hetero***uals with a hetero***ual twin.

According to the final crunching of the numbers, genes explain 27% of an individual’s gender identity and 59% of the variation in the number of ***ual partners that people have. The team also measured the genetic component of ***ual orientation and came up with a figure of 47%—more or less the same, therefore, as that from previous studies. The idea that it is having fecund relatives that sustains homo***uality thus looks quite plausible.

[_Cathy_]

-------------------------------------

[renzo_d10]

probably its either influence or choice. di ako naniniwalang there's such thing as gay gene. ewan ko ha.

may kilala akong gay, siya lang kasi guy sakanilang magkakapatid. might as well siguro sa isip niya na maging " katulad " nalang nila. :hysterical:

[goldencoil]

No pun intended to our fellow gay tsikoteers here.

Dun sa lugar na malapit sa amin, may 3 parlors being run by gays. For some reason, yung mga bata na lumalaki dun sa street na yun, nagiging gay din. Some even shows sign as early as 7-8 yrs old.

May mga classmates din ako nung HS na barkada ng mga gays. Pero meron sa kanila na pag nakikita ko sa FB eh mukhang nagpaka straight na...unless they're just faking it.

Again, observation ko lang to.

[gaspanic]

Bakit parami ng parami ang mga bading di naman sila nanganganak? lol

[niky]

Opinions are one thing, facts are another.

Children raised by homo***ual partners (usually adopted) are not any more likely to become homo***ual than children raised by hetero***ual partners.

From personal experience, children in our family born of hetero***ual partners who were partially raised by homo***ual relations have all turned out "hetero". Boys raised by aunts have turned out to be, well, boys. The idea that it's all environmental is just plain bunk.

Genetics and hormones play a big part in homo***uality... We have a number of lesbians in the family... and the women of that generation in our family who weren't are also "alpha" type personalities... more dominant-type than your typical Filipina.

-

In the end, like the article Cathy quoted states, there are benefits to having a little homo***uality in your blood in terms of genetic survival... a man who's too manly doesn't often make a good father... just ask the kids of men with second, third, fourth and fifth families...

[ghosthunter]

I believe homo***uality is cause by two factors: genes and/or environment.

There is enough talk about genes by others here.

I would like to talk about the environment. Certain chemicals used in modern everyday items can have side effects on young children but totally harmless to adults. Some of these chemicals are used in modern plastics which can leach out. Often, these plastics are used in food & drink containers. So when these chemicals leach out, it gets consumed by people. The longer the item is in use, more of the chemical leach out faster. The same if hot or warm liquids are placed inside these containers.

There has been research into some of these chemicals and their actions inside a young child. It has been observed that some chemicals have the action of a gender hormone. If a male child is exposed young enough and often enough to the chemical, the male child can develop female behaviorism as he grows up.

So think and observe. Those baby bottles used to feed milk to babies. Are those made from plastic or glass?



Support:
http://viewzone2.com/phthalatesx.html

[_Cathy_]

^Breastfeeding is still best for babies

[ghosthunter]

^Breastfeeding is still best for babies

So we should survey the homo***ual community if they were breastfed or bottle fed?