From Ann Althouse, who makes an interesting point about the real victims of the insistence of society that men be heterosexual:

I've made fun of the Oscar ads for the movie, because of the way they emphasize the relationship between the men and their wives. This ad campaign is laughable for intentionally hiding the nature of the central love story. Nevertheless, the story of the wives interests me greatly. And the political argument inherent in this part of the story is, I think, especially strong. Those who would try to prevent or inhibit men from forming lifetime bonds with each other ought to give more thought to what happens to the women they marry. Those who think a man should struggle against his sexual orientation and find a way to form the classic marriage relationship with a woman ought to think about what they are advocating for the woman: a lifetime relationship with a man who has only feigned sexual attraction to her.

Lots of good discussion as well.

Not to be cynical but there are many successful marriages where the man is in a lifetime relationship with a women who has only feigned sexual attration to him. Indeed its easier that the reverse. How a man could 'feign' sexual attraction is a mystery to me. At the risk of being crude, my little man doesn't salute those to whom he is not attracted.

Tob

Ms. Althouse has swallowed the "Gay men are genetically predisposed to being gay." mantra. The fact of the matter is that there are all shades of gayness and bi-sexuality is quite common. The real message of this movie is about gay marriage. Which is ironic, since it's still relatively uncommon even in countries which have legalized it.

Ms. Althouse has swallowed the "Gay men are genetically predisposed to being gay." mantra.

There's no reason to believe otherwise, of which I'm aware. Or at least if the disposition isn't genetic, then it occurs during fetal development. Of course there are bi-sexuals, who have a choice, but if they're truly homosexual, then they don't, any more than I have a "choice" to be heterosexual.

Actually, most of the research points to homosexual tendencies to developing around the time of sexual maturation due to social and environmental causes. I know of no valid research that suggests that homosexuality occurs in the womb. All the way back to Kinsey, it was suggested that sexuality fell on an arc with some being more heterosexual, some more bisexual, and some more homosexual. History also supports that environment plays a role in homosexuality. The greeks for example, it was common for older men to take a younger man as a protege of sorts in which sex was part of the deal. This was rampant, as it was in roman society. There is also quite a few instances of modern day gays who have been able to realign their sexuality back to heterosexuality. However, this is quite the political hot button for the APA, who refuses to look at or sanction research in this area. Obviously due to the GLBA.

In fact there is no evidence of ANY sexuality occuring as a result of DNA or pre natal development. Sexuality is most certainly a combination of social, biological, and environmental factors. This is even apparent today with lesbian behavior, which is far more accepted then male homosexual behavior. More and more women are crossing the lines to have lesbian affairs.. this is easily seen in our culture. If pre natal development or DNA was the arbiter of sexuality, then how would one explain Greek and Roman society? Or our existing culture? As society changes it values according to homosexuality, sexuality will continue to shift according to that acceptance and social influence.

Actually, most of the research points to homosexual tendencies to developing around the time of sexual maturation due to social and environmental causes.

Most gays know that's complete nonsense. I know that I didn't "become" heterosexual. I was born that way.

Most of those "studies" were probably corrupted by including too many bisexuals, who were "confused" and did "have a choice."

If pre natal development or DNA was the arbiter of sexuality, then how would one explain Greek and Roman society? Or our existing culture?

Easily. A relatively large percentage of the population has some degree of bi-sexuality. I think there's also a lot of evidence that this is more the case for women, than men, as well, which explains the phenomenon of LUG (lesbian until graduation). This is likely (in my opinion) because women are much more attuned to whether or not other women are physically attractive than men are to whether or not other men are, because women compete much more on that basis, whereas men compete on power and status.

But I'm firmly convinced that true homosexuals (people who simply cannot find an attraction to the opposite sex) are born, not made, because I know I was born het. There has never, ever been a time in my life, that I've considered the possibility of sexual activity with a man, and it's not because of anything in my upbringing.

It's my layman's understanding that studies of twins show that male homosexuality has a large component that is either genetic or depends on environmental influences before birth.

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Studies indicating that it occurs near puberty are either severely flawed, or extremely outdated.

"Most gays know that's complete nonsense. I know that I didn't "become" heterosexual. I was born that way...There has never, ever been a time in my life, that I've considered the possibility of sexual activity with a man"

So, right from infancy you considered the possibility of sexual activity with a woman? Were you "Randy" in kindergarten?

I doubt it. For me, sexual attraction towards _anyone_ did not begin until right around the same time as puberty. Before then, girls had cooties.

Hands up, anyone who has heard of a prepubescent child having sexual attraction for anyone, regardless of sex.

So... let me get this straight...

Everybody in the world has to have sex with everybody they're attracted to, or they'll be forced to have sex with people they're not attracted to.

So what does not having sex do? Will it cause your skin to turn an eerie neon green? Turn you into an invisible non-person who's not allowed to vote or shop? Please enlighten me on the horrid consequences of resisting every little urge!

Clearly, however, not having sex is horribly transgressive behavior which can't be allowed to exist.

Everybody in the world has to have sex with everybody they're attracted to, or they'll be forced to have sex with people they're not attracted to.

Apparently you didn't get it "straight" at all. Where in this post, or comments, did anyone claim such an absurd thing?

So, right from infancy you considered the possibility of sexual activity with a woman? Were you "Randy" in kindergarten?

No. I never considered the possibility of sexual activity with anyone until I was older, but I never considered the possibility of sexual activity with a man at all. Ever.

Not because anyone told me it was wrong (I grew up in a very liberal household), but because it was obviously disgusting. Hard-wired disgusting.

Quote from Rand: "whereas men compete on power and status"

So, when you get males in a situation where sex becomes a maintaining component of power and status within a confined group, i.e. Prison. Then, you begin to see an increase of homosexual activity used a means of gaining favor or establishing rank.

Studies of pygmy chimpanzees suggest that bisexuality is common place amongst the cliques and used as a tool of maintaining the pecking order. It’s often the case that the ones on top end up being sexually gratified the most by those lower in the order of which are seeking favoritism.

Also, its becoming more of the trend for your average heavily lisped, bent wrist homosexual male that the only reason he has the delicate features and high voice is because they are taking estrogenic hormone therapy. If they were born that way, wouldn't they have the over abundance of these hormones already in play and wouldn’t have to seek additional treatment to encourage those traits. Not saying that there isn’t a percentage of the population that perhaps are born that way. Here lately; however, the trend is to become a designer effeminate.

it was obviously disgusting. Hard-wired disgusting.

This suggests the possibility that antipathy to homosexuality is inherited. This would actually make a lot of sense, from a sociobiological point of view, if homosexuality is otherwise not entirely predetermined. A male with this antipathy would be more likely to father children.

Somewhat amusingly, societies with strict prohibitions against homosexual conduct would tend to select against this trait, since it would no longer be as beneficial, and societies with no such prohibitions would tend to select for it.

expanding Paul's comment...

The question I have with the nature/nurture part of this discussion stems from the fact that if homosexuality was solely (or even primarily) genetic, and homosexual men are thus less likely to be attracted to women, and less likely to be willing or able to have children to pass on this gene to the next generation: why are there still homosexual men?

If genetics were the main cause of homosexualtiy, then generations of selective breeding of heterosexual men across several dozens of various societies should have virtually eliminated this gene.

Moreover, the fact that previously heterosexual men could physically respond and act homosexual when transferred to certain environments (i.e. prison) would seem to also correlate with the 'nurture' over 'nature' argument.

-S

It's unlikely that homosexuality is caused by a single gene. It's more likely a combination of them (perhaps recessive) that individually are beneficial (and don't cause homosexuality) but when combined are expressed as a homosexual phenotype.

As for "previous heterosexual men" turning homosexual, this is readily explained by the fact that they weren't previously heterosexual--they were bisexual, and had only engaged in heterosexuality prior to prison, either because it was their preference, or out of societal pressure.

I can double damn guarantee you that I wouldn't willingly get sexual gratification from men if women were unavailable. I'd simply gratify myself the same way I always have when women were unavailable. I don't know how many are, like me, purely het, but I'm sure that not everyone in prison engages in homosexual activity.

If genetics were the main cause of homosexualtiy, then generations of selective breeding of heterosexual men across several dozens of various societies should have virtually eliminated this gene.

This assumes there is not some counterbalancing benefit to the gene or genes. One example of a theory in which this not the case would be one where high levels of certain hormones in the uterus promotes homosexuality. These hormones might also have the effect of causing the mother to have more children.

Your all wrong. Homosexuality is sometimes caused by eating breakfast cereal dry as a child. It's also caused by jumping out of a swing while going as high as you can. Or by running under cold water from the lawn sprinkler.

This entire subject seems bizzare to me. Why would anyone or why should anyone, except the hard core pro-homosexual, pro-lesbian, pro-trans-gender, pro-whatever-ya-wanna-do-except be-hetero crowd, care about this movie? It's outright more fictionally based than Star Wars, Jaws and Laverne and Shirley combined. The ONLY reason it's getting the talk it's getting is because of it's oddity.

How far, friends and neighbors, would a movie get if it was about 2 sheperds who love their wives, love having sex with thier wives, and DON"T wind up having sex with each? It would never get made, heterosexual sex is just too icky for the movies, especially if its inside wedlock, between people married to each other.

This is like paying attention to a child throwing a tantrum, just encourages them to act up more.