Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on May 10, 2005, 10:23:26 PM
-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
A new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.
When homosexual men smelled the odor of male sweat—more specifically, a chemical in the male hormone testosterone—their brains responded similarly to those of women.
The findings suggest that brain activity and sexual orientation are linked. It also supports an opinion held by most scientists, that people are born—not bred—gay.
"This is one more line of evidence that there's a biological substring for sexual orientation," said Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.
Very interesting stuff! I suspect this clashes with what many here believe. After everyone gets the gay jokes out of their system, I'd be curious to see what you guys think in the face of this study.
-
Do women want to **** men in the ass?
-
I guess that really depends on the woman in question.
-
Let's see...
A: Charlize Theron
B: Another man's hairy ass
Either way, we men don't get to decide. The choice is already made. A!
Of course, there are the exceptions. From what I've read, Freddy Mercury would pretty much **** anything, and he died for it.
Lesbians baffle me, especially the butch couples. A woman that wishes she was a man with another woman that feels the same. WTF? On the other hand, if one is butch, I still scratch my head. I assume the butch one feels much the same way towards women as I do, but I have to wonder what motivates the other (normal?) one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Let's see...
A: Charlize Theron
B: Another man's hairy ass
Either way, we men don't get to decide. The choice is already made. A!
Of course, there are the exceptions. From what I've read, Freddy Mercury would pretty much **** anything, and he died for it.
Lesbians baffle me, especially the butch couples. A woman that wishes she was a man with another woman that feels the same. WTF? On the other hand, if one is butch, I still scratch my head. I assume the butch one feels much the same way towards women as I do, but I have to wonder what motivates the other (normal?) one.
Same with the gay guys i think. they try hard to be as feminine as possible and are attracted to other feminine "guys".. that makes em both lesbian...kinda
-
which WW2 aces were gay?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
Very interesting stuff! I suspect this clashes with what many here believe. After everyone gets the gay jokes out of their system, I'd be curious to see what you guys think in the face of this study.
OK, first off, this study (and most other "studies" on politically active questions) suffers from issue blindness -- the expectation that what you already believe will be proven. That results in drawing conclusions that are not supported logically, or sometimes even by the data.
What do I mean? Well, this study proves only that humans will respond sexually to stimuli associated with previous sexual pleasure. These people are already gay The study only proves an ASSOCIATION between the stimuli and the response, NOT CAUSATION. It's essentially an expensive and politically charged repeat of Pavlov's original studies on stimuli/response patterns in dogs. To draw the conclusions they do, they would have to do the studies on PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT YET GAY, and then watch to see their sexual orientaion play out.
ANother example of this application of PC conclusions to scientific data BY THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES is a study from a few years ago that measured the brain tissue volume in areas associated with sexuality, in men who had died of aids. The researchers chose to ignore the well known fact that HIV infects the brain. Therefore, it was unclear whether the changes seen were caused by the HIV infection, or by the victim's previous sexuality.
The media is pretty crappy at presenting science to the public, which explains why studies often seem to contradict themselves -- the media generally doesnt understand science. But, researchers themselves can fall prey to their own bias, and when the bias is generally held by the world at large the researcher's failings can be accepted at face value.
One last point: even IF eventually a pre-existing tendency to homosexuality can be demonstrated, it would still NOT prove that sexuality is predetermined. To choose a stereotyped example: the fact that I have Irish blood may (supposedly) leave me more likely to have an explosive temper, but it DOES NOT mean that I'm allowed to beat my wife because I'm mad. No one has yet ever demostrated a biologic factor that makes homosexuality more likely, but if there was such a factor it will never mean that we are controlled by our genes. We have conciousness, we have intellect, we have a choice.
-
Hmmmmmmmmm.........
Thinkin...........
Hormones.
They are present.
Doctors and scientist are STILL figuring out what are hormones.
They still DO NOT fully understand what hormones do or how they do it.
Fairly recently they discovered the hormone within the male's ejaculatory fluid.
Females do NOT create this hormone yet react to it.
Betting eventually they will figure out that there is a hormone in females that males do not create yet react to.
Also betting these hormones have a far greater affect on the human body then is currently understood.
Betting the earlier the contact ( age wise) the greater the affect.
Also betting the male hormone can and does affect other males. And the undiscovered female hormone can and does affect other females.
Just some thoughts.
-
It's really semantics.
Homosexuality in the most literal sense of the word is activity, therefore a choice, all sex is, unless you're raped.
Being sexually attracted to the same sex is not a choice.
Maybe it would be better If all people chose sex acts as identity as the gays have done.
I would be eagerly anticipating the women's blowjob pride parade.
-
Homosexuality has causes other than just biological. Abnormal sexuality is often a product of developemental issues. That's why some lesbos like pretty chicks, and some lesbos like women that look like men. And Troy MacLure likes fishes.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Homosexuality has causes other than just biological. Abnormal sexuality is often a product of developemental issues. That's why some lesbos like pretty chicks, and some lesbos like women that look like men. And Troy MacLure likes fishes.
Can this mean Aces High can have a Sheep Pride Parade?
Everybody spit shine your hip boots!
-
Simaril while what you say is true it doesn't negate the fact that they could prove that the brain reacts to the scents without the knowledge of the carrier.
Previous activity doesn't explain getting stimulated by a certain type of sweat. At least unless the concentration is so heavy that you can literally smell it and associate it with some experience.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
OK, first off, this study (and most other "studies" on politically active questions) suffers from issue blindness -- the expectation that what you already believe will be proven.
What an amazing disservice you do to the scientists that produce studies on this topic. And although it might be true in some cases you can't assume it's true in this one. Another point is that although it might be a politically hot topic in some places, it's quite possible that it simply isn't in Sweden, but I honestly don't konw..
That results in drawing conclusions that are not supported logically, or sometimes even by the data.
Luckily this isn't the case in alot of studies which demostrate biology as the probable cause of homosexuality. And it's also a reason that peer review is such a necessary part of the scientific method.
To draw the conclusions they do, they would have to do the studies on PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT YET GAY, and then watch to see their sexual orientaion play out.
Do you mean "people who have not had a homosexual experience"? I say this because it might be possible that people are either hetero or homosexual thier entire lives.
ANother example of this application of PC conclusions
The scientists certainly didn't reach a PC conclusions, but infact stated the same point you made about causality.
"Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."
Note the qualifiers.
to scientific data BY THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES is a study from a few years ago that measured the brain tissue volume in areas associated with sexuality, in men who had died of aids. The researchers chose to ignore the well known fact that HIV infects the brain. Therefore, it was unclear whether the changes seen were caused by the HIV infection, or by the victim's previous sexuality.
You are discussing the controversial research done by Simon LeVay, but what you are leaving out is that he was repeating the experiments of Laura S. Allen, and concurrently D.F. Swaab. That found that also differences in the hypothalamus.
You say that HIV infects the brain, but there is no evidence that it causes areas of the hypothalamus to shrink or grow?
The incidence of homosexuality in maternal, fraternal and non-twin brothers also leads credence to the theory that homosexuality it caused by biology. As wells as the genenic sequencing experiment done by Hamer.
And although yes, I agree that more research needs to be done in order for it to be conclusively proven that homosexual is caused by biology. There is a hell of alot more scientific evidence to support that theory than any other.
But, researchers themselves can fall prey to their own bias, and when the bias is generally held by the world at large the researcher's failings can be accepted at face value.
Indeed, but simply making that statement alone doesn't invalidate the research.
One last point: even IF eventually a pre-existing tendency to homosexuality can be demonstrated, it would still NOT prove that sexuality is predetermined.
Actually by definition it does, what it doesn't predetermine is whether or not someone is going to act on that sexuality.
To choose a stereotyped example: the fact that I have Irish blood may (supposedly) leave me more likely to have an explosive temper, but it DOES NOT mean that I'm allowed to beat my wife because I'm mad.
I don't imagine making this tread a discussion of morality will aid in. In fact it will probably take it totally of topic.
-
Me thinks it's caused by wire A going to terminal B
and wire B going to terminal A.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Me thinks it's caused by wire A going to terminal B
and wire B going to terminal A.
Since we can't rewire brains, what do we do?
"No one has yet ever demostrated a biologic factor that makes homosexuality more likely, but if there was such a factor it will never mean that we are controlled by our genes. We have conciousness, we have intellect, we have a choice."
Actually this study just did. Now if you think sexual attraction can be controlled, then I guess you'd be able to perform sexually with a man, huh?
;)
-
It's all so obvious, isn't it? There is really no such thing as a hetrosextual male. All those guys erroniously labeled as "straight" are actual just lesbians trapped in a man's body. Oh the shame of it:eek: !!! I wonder of anyone's tried that line on some good looking lesbian yet?
-
what about gay sex in prison? is the brain magically transformed?
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
what about gay sex in prison? is the brain magically transformed?
The "catchers" in prison are largely homosexuals who play the role of females...the "pitchers" are largely hetrosexual men who are somewhat ambigious about thier sexuality, revert to hetrosexuality upon release from prison, and constitute a small percentage of the prison population.
Maybe it's just me, but man, the idea of being a willing participant in homosexual activity grosses me out...if you feel like you could be persuaded then you're already there, you're just in denial. ;)
-
Sex in prison is about having no "other" outlet...and about dominance.
As far as this research is concerned, I don't believe the facts presented necessarily prove anything of substance. For instance, it doesn't really answer the question of WHY the gay brain develops the way it does. Also, it doesn't tell us whether or not a person's sexual preference is determined by the type of sex they have during their very first sexual encounter...as in an older boy seducing a younger boy. (This is something I have always suspected was one of the root causes of individuals choosing a gay lifestyle.)
What effect does this first experience have upon the development of the adolescent brain?
-
The bottom line is that being attracted to a person of the same gender is not deviant. I would wager that most humans are homo-social, that is, they prefer the company of their own gender. However penetrating an excretory orifice with a sexual organ IS deviant, and is not healthy, morally, physically or culturally.
-
don't let any women hear that ;)
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
don't let any women hear that ;)
I SECOND THAT!
By the way, I made a hormone in science class.
*cricket*
I didn't pay her!
*cough*
*cricket*
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What an amazing disservice you do to the scientists that produce studies on this topic. And although it might be true in some cases you can't assume it's true in this one. Another point is that although it might be a politically hot topic in some places, it's quite possible that it simply isn't in Sweden, but I honestly don't konw..
"Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way." [/i]
The last part of that quote, wich you used in your reply, indicates a lack of impartiality at best. Blatant bias is not an unjustified description.
To draw the conclusions they do, they would have to do the studies on PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT YET GAY, and then watch to see their sexual orientaion play out. [/i]
Do you mean "people who have not had a homosexual experience"? I say this because it might be possible that people are either hetero or homosexual thier entire lives.[/B]
To come to any logical or scientific conclusion on this subject, there would have to be a study of children that have not been exposed to sexual experiences. If 4 year old males exhibited the same nuerological response, and then practised homosexuality in adulthood, a correlation could be drawn. As it stands, the data that was recorded by this study does nothing to bolster the theory that homosexuality is a predetermined biological condition.
The scientists certainly didn't reach a PC conclusions, but infact stated the same point you made about causality.[/B]
"Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."[/i]
Note the qualifiers.[/B]
The statement begins as an objective view, but ends with a subjective opinion with no basis in fact or research.
The citation of research of AIDS victims is irrelevant. Including it only suggests that AIDS only infects homosexuals.
One last note on 'predetermination'
I'm an alcoholic. I choose not to drink. I have a genetic inclination to be an alcoholic. If I decide to allow that inclination to dictate my actions, would you consider me progressive, or a drunk?
-
This argument was largely put to bed when the nature vs nurture experiment failed in the sixties.
Basically the idea was that you could raise a boy to be a girl, and vice versa. Parents that had male infants who's genetalia was destroyed or defective were led to believe that the infant could be salvaged by a sex change operation, and raise the child as a girl.
Of course it didn't work.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I'm an alcoholic. I choose not to drink. I have a genetic inclination to be an alcoholic. If I decide to allow that inclination to dictate my actions, would you consider me progressive, or a drunk?
I'm not too sure if the negative effects of humping men and heavy drinking are comparable.
-
The comparison is in the genetic tendency towards alcoholism and the proposed tendency towards homosexuality.
A person geneticaly predisposed to alcoholism can choose to not drink.
-
seeing your avatar Laz I find funny your participation in this thread :p
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
The comparison is in the genetic tendency towards alcoholism and the proposed tendency towards homosexuality.
A person geneticaly predisposed to alcoholism can choose to not drink.
Likewise a person predisposed to homosexuality can choose not to have sex....however, I have a tough time dictating standards of behavior followed by consenting adults in the privacy of thier own homes.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Doctors and scientist are STILL figuring out what are hormones.
They still DO NOT fully understand what hormones do or how they do it.
you gotta be kidding me. :eek:
next you gonna say, they haven't figured out what gravity is??
if so.... :eek: :eek: :eek:
and :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl etc.
-
I simply cannot understand how anyone can think it's possible to choose to be gay. Or that your first experience can dictate your sexuality. Or the way your Mother brought you up.
I can only refer to my own experiences. I knew nothing about sex as a kid but when I hit puberty. I didn't need any help deciding who I was attracted to (although I wasn't sure why, being very innocent). My best friend, Gerard (who actually later turned out to be gay) or my sister's best friend, Caroline, (who was an early developer). I didn't need to choose because I was pre disposed to girls. Gerard never got a look in after that. Gerard went the other way but I only found out years later. Because he was as innocent as I was at the time.
So in my opinion anyone who believes you can choose to be gay, must do so because at some point in their life they faced that choice and decided not to be gay.
Therefore those of you who believe being gay is a choice must be gay themselves but have chosen not to exercise that option. They then pretend to themselves and the world and their wives that they are straight and even cultivate a sort of homophobia.
In my opinion most homophobes and those who declare themselves disgusted by gay sex are in fact in denial about their own sexuality.
You can read through this thread and decide who is gay and who is not. It's nature not nurture.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
however, I have a tough time dictating standards of behavior followed by consenting adults in the privacy of thier own homes.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by straffo
seeing your avatar Laz I find funny your participation in this thread
That's a she-sheep:p
-
Originally posted by DieAz
you gotta be kidding me. :eek:
next you gonna say, they haven't figured out what gravity is??
if so.... :eek: :eek: :eek:
and :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl etc.
If you know otherwise please list it here........
They know about some hormones but are still in the dark as to what exaclty they do. Or how they do it.
They can to a degree duplicate the hormone but still do not fully understand the how.
-
DEM GAYS IS AN ABOMINATION AND THEY IS GOING TO HELL!!! AND SO IS CHAIRBOY FOR READING REASEARCH ABOUT THE GAY!
-
You've brought up some good points, SOB.
-
next you gonna say, they haven't figured out what gravity is??
Actually science hasn't been able to explain the gravital force yet.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Actually science hasn't been able to explain the gravital force yet.
He's right. Best we can do so far is "makes stuff fall down."
Of course it looks much more impressive with all the mathematical equations and such.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I simply cannot understand how anyone can think it's possible to choose to be gay. Or that your first experience can dictate your sexuality. Or the way your Mother brought you up.
So in my opinion anyone who believes you can choose to be gay, must do so because at some point in their life they faced that choice and decided not to be gay.
Therefore those of you who believe being gay is a choice must be gay themselves but have chosen not to exercise that option. They then pretend to themselves and the world and their wives that they are straight and even cultivate a sort of homophobia.
In my opinion most homophobes and those who declare themselves disgusted by gay sex are in fact in denial about their own sexuality.
You can read through this thread and decide who is gay and who is not. It's nature not nurture.
And I am of the belief that anyone who reacts so strongly and attacks others with such vehemence on the subject must himself be dealing with repressed issues. Just because YOU believe nature decides it, from your experience, does not make it so. Science has yet to explain many things we take for granted. I would tend to agree that there probably is a biological factor involved, perhaps even the major determining factor. However, I do not presume to dictate to others that because they do not believe the same as I, that they must themselves be so affected and repressing it.
In other words, cool your jets. People attacking other people for not buying into their personal beliefs on this subject is what makes it still such a touchy thing today, even though we have been dealing with it as a species for thousands of years. There's no need for personal attacks that make an uncomfortable subject even more so.
-
Agreed.
While I personally think this is a biological issue, I respect that others have opinions that differ. The only time I really get distressed about things like this is when I feel that the person I'm disagreeing with chooses to disagree not on the merits of the evidence, but instead because they've already made up their minds.
If someone posts "This research is flawed because" (so far, I'm cool, I'm listening, but then they continue with) " scientists occasionally make mistakes, and it's obvious that, because I disagree with their assertion, they must logically be mistaken." That's frustrating, because it's like the person isn't playing with the same rules the rest of us are.
I think the research is interesting, and I look forward to reading some scientific research that suggests otherwise. While I have an opinion on how this works, I don't think either side has made a slam-dunk case yet.
Whichever way the science goes, I'll follow, but I won't let dogma take over for the critical center of my brain.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The bottom line is that being attracted to a person of the same gender is not deviant. /B]
Dude...
Were you trying to say what you just said?
:eek:
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
And I am of the belief that anyone who reacts so strongly and attacks others with such vehemence on the subject must himself be dealing with repressed issues. Just because YOU believe nature decides it, from your experience, does not make it so. Science has yet to explain many things we take for granted. I would tend to agree that there probably is a biological factor involved, perhaps even the major determining factor. However, I do not presume to dictate to others that because they do not believe the same as I, that they must themselves be so affected and repressing it.
In other words, cool your jets. People attacking other people for not buying into their personal beliefs on this subject is what makes it still such a touchy thing today, even though we have been dealing with it as a species for thousands of years. There's no need for personal attacks that make an uncomfortable subject even more so.
Nice one Star accuse me of personal attacks by making one. Let me assure you, I have no 'repressed issues'. They are all out in the open LOL.That just being the point of message. In any case
I fail to see the personal attack I made. If anything I generalised. Nor was there any vehemance or an attempt to dictate merely an expression of my opinion based on my expericence.
I will admit a degree of mischievousness.
My point remains the same. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine how anyone could think being gay is a choice or a a matter of upbringing. To me that is intuitively obvious. I also think it's obvious to most people. Let's have a vote?
Religious people don't like the biological idea because it implies that God created homosexuality and thus must be acceptable. The Catholic church got around that one years ago by saying being gay is Ok as long you didn't do any of that dirty stuff. Ironic that considering it's recent history. The whole subject is riven with cant and hypocrisy.
My opinion remains the same. People who get all worked up about what other people get up to in the privacy of their own bed have definite issues of their own.
-
Well if by gay you mean homosexuality. Of course it's a choice All sexual activity is voluntary, unless you're raped. If you mean sexually attracted to the same sex, well that's different. Like I said, semantics. See above.
I'm of the opinion that much of human homosexuality is a result of biological abnormalities. These being the flamers, men who are women in all but body. We all know these, they couldn't fly below gaydar if they had professional acting coaches.
However there are also those who have developed into homosexuals from a result of developemental factors. Classically from a very deep dislike and distrust of the opposite sex usually stemming from.. surprise, surprise, sexual abuse at an early age. Think pink lesbians here.
So yes, homosexuality, like any other abnormal sexuality can be a result of developmental stressors.
-
If the radical right would just allow themselves out of the closet then we wouldnt have a problem with this subject.:)
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Nice one Star accuse me of personal attacks by making one. Let me assure you, I have no 'repressed issues'. They are all out in the open LOL.
I do what I can. :)
I will admit a degree of mischievousness.
Nothing wrong with that, and read in that light I have no problems with your post. I simply misunderstood your position/mood/whatever. My bad.
My point remains the same. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine how anyone could think being gay is a choice or a a matter of upbringing. To me that is intuitively obvious. I also think it's obvious to most people.
Again, I'd tend to agree with that, but I refuse to make blanket statements about a condition I have never experienced (and hopefully never will). Pure biology doesnt explain Bi-sexuals, and more than one lesbian woman was previously happily heterosexual until severe trauma gave her phobias regarding males that drive her to female companionship in order to fill bonding and/or sexual needs. The answer lies somewhere in between I think, but how much of one or the other is impossible to pin down, at least at this time. I'm not qualified to tell, thats for sure.
Religious people don't like the biological idea because it implies that God created homosexuality and thus must be acceptable. The Catholic church got around that one years ago by saying being gay is Ok as long you didn't do any of that dirty stuff. Ironic that considering it's recent history. The whole subject is riven with cant and hypocrisy.
The church doesnt much like to believe anything that is outside their teachings is natural. It causes those of us who believe to get headaches trying to figure it all out (at least those of us who care at all about the philosophy of it all). Best I can do is fall back on "The Lord works in mysterious ways," and the fact that all of us are entitled to the same treatment and basic respect due all living things, regardless if we agree with their lifestyle or sexual orientation. Whether or not homosexuals are an abberation is irrelevant to the subject of their immortal souls. Catholics only recognize 2 unforgivable sins, I only recognize 1. Being gay isnt on either one of our lists.
My opinion remains the same. People who get all worked up about what other people get up to in the privacy of their own bed have definite issues of their own.
On THAT, most assuredly we agree.
An ye harm none, do as you will. God is the only judge that matters, when its all said and done.
-
Lets just pray that if a meteor hits the planet that the only suvivors aren't the "Pink Pistols" and the "The Feminist Action League".....................
-
Never fear bustr, the roaches would survive too. :)
-
Suave is correct as usual.
-
Stolen from repressed individual:)
Well if by straight you mean heterosexual. Of course it's a choice All sexual activity is voluntary, unless you're raped. If you mean sexually attracted to the opposite sex, well that's different. Like I said, semantics. See above.
I'm of the opinion that much of human heterosexuality is a result of biological abnormalities. These being the macho type men .
However there are also those who have developed into heterosexuals from a result of developemental factors. Classically from a very deep dislike and distrust of the same sex usually stemming from.. surprise, surprise, sexual abuse at an early age.
So yes, heterosexuality, like any other abnormal sexuality can be a result of developmental stressors.
:lol
-
Silat, confusion over sexual orientation is very common among survivors.
Also if you read what Suave was talking about regarding nature vs. nurture, that actually supports a genetic basis for sexual orientation.
Why do you make ad hominem attacks instead of actually discussing the issue?
-
One thing that people don't seem to appreciate is that even if something has a "biological" cause, it's not always genetic in origin. Environment (including trauma) can cause biological changes too.
The brain is just another organ, and its development is very sensitive to environment. The younger the person, the stronger the response. MRI and such can actually measure physical changes in the brains of infants who were neglected or abused. You can see the difference.
So I can't get too excited about a "nature vs. nuture" debate. It's not an either/or proposition, but a continuum.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Silat, confusion over sexual orientation is very common among survivors.
Also if you read what Suave was talking about regarding nature vs. nurture, that actually supports a genetic basis for sexual orientation.
Why do you make ad hominem attacks instead of actually discussing the issue?
I guess you didnt see the smiley face:) ?
Not an attack but it works both ways Funked and that is my point.
So if I substitute the words hetero for homo you dont see that Sauves statement still stands as he explained it?
What more would I need to explain to you?
I absolutely agree with genetic explanation for sexual orientation...
In a minute amount of cases sexual orientation is decided by environmental forces. This goes for homo, bi, hetero or whatever.