Genetics & Homosexuality, Are people born gay,The Biological basis for sexual orientation

On a twist on homosexual twin studies, an Australian research group examined the question of whether homophobia was the result of nature or nurture.
21 Surprisingly, both familial/environmental and genetic factors seemed to play a role.

by Rich Deem

Introduction

Born Gay?
There is a common belief among liberals that people are born either gay or straight. Conservatives tend to believe that sexual orientation is actually sexual preference, which is chosen by the individual. This page represents a review of the scientific literature on the basis for homosexual orientation.

Rich Deem
Are people born gay or straight? Much of the current media sources assume the question is a solved scientific problem with all the evidence pointing toward a biological (probably genetic) basis for a homosexual orientation. Contrary to this perception, the question has been poorly studied (or studied poorly), although there is some evidence on both sides of question. In addition, many of the initial studies, which were highly flouted by the media as “proof” for a biological basis for homosexuality, have been contradicted by later, more thorough studies. This evidence falls into four basic categories:

1. Brain structure

2. Possible hormonal influences

3. Concordance of homosexuality in twins

4. Concordance of genetic markers in siblings

Why does it matter?
Until a few years ago, sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us. The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are gay. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat gays and straights differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one’s race, over which we have no control.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE)

Other matters examined are:

• Sexual orientation - brain studies
• Hormonal influences
• Twin studies
• Genetic studies - the “gay gene”
• Sexual preference or orientation?
• Homosexuality and Darwinism
• Real genetic studies?

A Feminist Perspective (from a man) To Understand Male Stupidity

James Nelson: HIS BLOG

We men have experienced deprivation by our own doing and that of our forefathers. We who are male have lost touch with our vulnerability, our deepest human capacities for tenderness, our need for dependence - in short, a whole range of emotions. We simply don't feel very well. We are more alienated from our bodily existence, and our sexuality, instead of being a richly diffused sensuousness and invitation to intimacy, has taken a narrow, genital focus. We lose touch with the concrete particularity of pulsing life and instead are seduced by abstractions, confusing them with reality. We seem to live with a constant need to prove self-worth through achievement and winning. We relate competitively with other men and find it easier to have buddies than deep friendships. Predictably, we males will die younger than women - about the years at latest count. Gay men frequently break through the constrictions of hte macho mold, but they suffer more oppression than lesbians because of the dynamics of male homophobia in our society. And our social institutions are tragically distorted by the exploitative, competitive, dominance-and-submission, violent aspects of traditional masculinism.

What is the root of the problem? Why is the movement toward wholeness and equality so difficult? Why do human beings continue to live our those ancient dualisms of spirit-over-body and man-over-woman, dualisms that ocnjoined as men identified themselves with mind and spirit while labeling wome as body and emotion? Why is it all so persistent and difficult to change? Consider six possibilities...

1. There is historical inheritance and conditioning... I did grow up knowing that men had the responsibility and the destiny to rule. i did grow up konwing that men were to be in control o fhtemselves as well as in control of women and all else...

2. Related to the Christian heritage is the matter of biological misinformation. For centuries in a prescientific and patriarchal society it was believed that the male semen was the sole bearer of life. The woman was simply the ground into which the seed was planted. She provided the incubating space for life transmitted by the male. Indeed, it was not until 1827 that Western science knew anything about eggs and ovulation...

3. Another theory has to do with sexual fears... The aggression against the female partner is not so much an expression of castration anxiety as of performance anxiety... For successful intercourse to take place I must perform. I must have an erection. There is always the threat of impotence, whether I have ever experienced it or not. But this can become symbolic of life beyond the direct sexual experience. Throughout my life, I have learned to perform. The penile erection can become symbolic of a whole way of life for one conditioned in the masculine mode... The fear of failure is always lurking in teh wings. Then comes the temptation to express hostility toward those making the performance demands...

4. There is the possibility that sexism persists because of male evny of women's biological powers... men must cope with womb envy. In spite of centuries of mistaken biological information about conception, men have always recognized that in the birthing process women are much more intimately involved with the generation of new life. It is an awesome, mysterious, powerful event in terms of which males seem to have a negligible role. Hence, we men have found ways of symbolizing and acting out our own capacities to give birth... I do believe women are closer to the source and the newness of life. I do believe that women feel life more keenly and immediately, and I may well be inclined to envy and punish them for what I lack.

5. A theory concerning the dynamics of male sexism speaks of "father-wounded sons."... By far the strongest identification in teh first years of life is with the mother... I am called upon to trade the seemingly unconditional love of my mother for my father's world. WHile this other world bears promises of power and privilege, it caries the threat of many wounds. Everything now is conditional. My father's approval is conditional upon my performance. This is a world where I must compete with and ultimately be judged by other males...

6. Yet another possibility is homophobia... The gay male threatens other males because he embodies the symbol of woman... The gay male threatens me with "womanization"... I know that he has the capacity to view me not primarily as a person, but rather as a sex object, a desired body. But this is how straight men have so frequently viewed women. Hence, the gay man by his very being (quite apart form overt act) reminds me of the general male objectification of women and poses a psychic threat to treat me like one of them....in a sexist society, those men who perpetuate and embrace male dominance have only men as their equals. Women are inferior.

To seek validation, love, and affection from other men, however, is a fearful thing, for men have been taught to relate to other men on a different basis: competitiveness. The gay male who expresses affection toward other males symbolizes what seems denied to the rest of us. Hence, it is the gay male who receives the response of rage and oppression for having and for symbolizing that which other men lack and cannot have. Male homophobia injects distance into the relationships of father and son, of brother and brother, of men and men. As a consequence, men lean principally upon women for their validation and affection, and in so doing resent those very women precisely because they are not men's equals, and hence cannot adequately give what they have been asked to give.

...The old story, forever new, has to do with the grace of God. It is a grace that says "You are accepted." Against all my works of the law, against all my anxious striving for achievement, control, dominance, winning, and proving my worth, there is a word of grace, a word that still becomes flesh. This kind of love casts out fear, and fear is the root of male sexism.
Of what am I afraid? Am I afraid of the awesome demands of my father and of my Father God? If so, I need to experience that gospel wherein the father runs out to meet the returning son. And I need to realize the gospel's paradox that my Father God is at the same time my Mother God who nurses humanity at her full breasts.
Am I afraid of losing in competition?...If so, there is a paradox in the gospel about losing life and finding life, and I need to hear that freshly.
Am I afraid of performance failure...? If so, I need to understand anew that central paradox of the gospel that nothing I do earns the love of God. My worth is given.
Am I afraid of my negative emotions, particularly my anger? If so there is that gospel paradox which says that it is possible to be angry without sinning or alienating.
Am I afraid of losing my power and control? If so, there is that paradoxical figure who counted equality with God not a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself. He is the one who washed the disciple's feet.
Am I afraid of losing my strong, masculine, heterosexual self-image?... If so, I need to look again at that man who wept, who embraced the beloved disciple, who called out to others in his time of need.
Am I afraid of the child within me, afraid of the need for play, spontaneity, and feeling? If so, I need to hear again freshly Jesus' reminder that unless I turn and become like a little child I will not enter the New Age.
...Both women and men suffer under sexism. Both women and men yearn for liberation... But when men and women journey into this issue together, both personally and institutionally, we will all change. THen we might learn (in Tolstoy's words) to live more magnificently in this world.

Me:
Thinking about feminism and sexism and taking it seriously is a new thing for me, and still kind of strange. But I see those fears in both of the guys I've dated, and realize them for the causes of my frustration. My ultimate desire is to be accepted for myself, and so I accept those I love for the entirety of themselves. But if this threatens their performance-focused mentality, no wonder they view it as weakness and use my love to control me, rather than returning it like I hope they will.
I am a fool if I let myself be controlled and dependent, but I refuse to fight on their grounds. I have great power, but I will not dominate another with it. I will love the entirety of him for who he is and who he can be (despite all his half-attempts to make me hate him), but that does not mean I need to depend on him for affirmation or sexuality. I do know my own power, even if I fear using it because of my aversion for controlling others.
We will talk before break (though he doesn't know it yet - I plan on calling him before I leave on Wednesday. I don't want to freak him out during finals by telling him that I want to talk after finals). I will lay out for him the basics:

I've not forgiven him yet for asking me out again when he really didn't want me, but I will.
I still hurt when I'm not in touch with the reality of who he is and how we relate. When I focus on idealized memories and wondering how it could be, of course I hurt. He does not hurt me when he is around me because it is then when I am faced with the reality that you couldn't pay me to be in a relationship with him again. It's kinda mean, but true. And he needs to know it, so that he can relate to me without fearing that he's hurting me; and I need to express it to him, so that I can affirm my love for him without needing him or idealizing him.

Lesbians Raped! ....now confirmed

An alleged rape of a lesbian couple in Kingston has been brought to our attention, according to our sources and ongoing investigations since, anecdotal evidence has unearthed that sometime in May the couple who reside in a middle class neighbourhood near to the Kingston business district were attacked by a group of men who hang out by the entrance to their avenue from the main thoroughfare.

It is alleged that the men for some time now have been making verbal remarks especially when the girls drive in and out of the community. It is also alleged that one of the girls is a licensed firearm holder and that the men were aware of this and also verbalized their intentions to take the gun from her. The girls were said to be "open" with their relationship at times much to the concern of their friends and a neighbour who advised otherwise.

On the weekday morning in question of the attack the girls were in bed on around 6am when a door to the home was kicked in after the grills were cut, 2 masked men with knives entered but spoke in muttered tones so as to disguise their voices and proceeded to "straighten out" the girls, this a common belief among homophobes here that a rape sequence or straight sex under duress will make a lesbian woman straight.

The ordeal was said to have lasted for two hours before the men left on foot, without the firearm but other items were removed from the house. The girls have since relocated with the assistance of friends and are seeking medical advice as well.

We are not sure of any action to apprehend the culprits has been undertaken by the police. The girls however were hospitalized for a short time and taken to the rape unit for examination.

We are tracking this matter very carefully and will update this post as soon as new information comes to light, as you can appreciate we cannot ask the girls to rehash the ordeal at this time as traumatic as it was for them, our sympathies and prayers go out them.

As we can see this is worldwide phenomenon to use rape to "cure" lesbians:
S.African Gangs Use Rape To `Cure` Lesbians

Awful just awful.

Not Much has changed since eh....Charter of Rights Bill Deliberations

here is an excerpt from the REPORT OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ITS DELIBERATIONS ON THE BILL ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTUTION OF JAMAICA TO PROVIDE FOR A CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FOR CONNECTED MATTERS - July 20, 1999.

view the full PDF report here

here we are ten years later and nothing much has changed see former Prime Minister Edward Seaga's take Charter of Rights/dynamics of development (Part 11) many others are worried about the so called loopholes in the proposed charter that would make "homosexuality" too out there.

Excerpt reading.......
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

Another issue raised was whether the Constitution should also guarantee freedom from discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. This issue was raised, in written presentation and by oral address to the Committee, by a group called the Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J. Flag). The written presentation is attached as Appendix 5. Representatives of J. Flag quoted what was said to be a statement by Professor Edwin Cameron, now a Judge of the South African Constitutional Court, at page 450 of the 1993 volume of the South African Law Times, that “sexual orientation is defined by reference to erotic attraction: in the case of heterosexuals, to members of the opposite sex; in the case of gays and lesbians, to members of the same sex”.

They argued that the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Freedoms should seek to protect the inherent human identity from abuse and that what was included in human identity were those features of a person, or characteristics, that that person was born with. Sexual orientation, they said, was one of those features or characteristics of human identity, in the sense that everyone has a sexual orientation and that that sexual orientation was largely, if not entirely, outside the individual’s control. Homosexuality, they said, was, to the homosexual, as natural and unchangeable as heterosexuality was to the heterosexual.

The balance of scientific opinion, they argued, was weighted in favour of the view that sexuality, including sexual expression, was indivisible from individual identity, and was in the same category as race, gender, or brown or blue eyes. Furthermore, they said, there was no credible evidence or convincing argument that sexual orientation could be changed. On that basis, the representatives of J. Flag argued that sexual orientation should not form the basis of discrimination against, or abuse of, any human being and proposed that the best way to achieve this was to include, in the Constitution, provision for protection against discrimination on that ground. That proposal, they added, was consistent with current international trends.

The Constitution of South Africa, it is to be noted, includes sexual orientation among the grounds on which the state and persons are prohibited from unfairly discriminating directly or indirectly against anyone. The Committee is concerned, however, as to the effect which implementation of that proposal would have in relation to the Marriage Act and the institution of marriage and on parenting. The representatives of J. Flag had themselves conceded that the Marriage Act would be inconsistent with such a constitutional provision. Other matters which the Committee has taken into account include the view of some of its members that the proposal by J. Flag challenges Christian society, and that, as heterosexuality is what assures the perpetuation of the human race, homosexuality could be regarded as a challenge to the existence of the human race.

These views, of course, are not shared by the representatives of J. Flag. It is important to record that the representatives of J. Flag have stated that they regard the legislation which criminalizes buggery between persons as the essence of discrimination against homosexuals, particularly in relation to its enforcement against male homosexuals, and, therefore, that if a recommendation for the repeal of that legislation in relation to consenting adults in private is as far as the Committee would be prepared to go, they would be grateful for that concession.

The Committee urges J. Flag to carry out further research as to
(i) the Constitutions which guarantee protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation;
(ii) the laws which would be inconsistent with such a constitutional provision;
(iii) scientific data as to the causes of homosexuality;
and (iv) whether there has been an increase in homosexuality following on such a liberalization of the law in other countries.

The Committee is not at present disposed, however, to include in the Charter of Rights a guarantee of protection from discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, because of the implications which this would have, in particular, its implications in relation to the institution of marriage and questions of parenting. It would, however, bring to the attention of the Government, as a matter for consideration, the issue of the repeal of the provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act in so far as it relates to the offence of buggery between consenting adults in private.

see also the Parliamentaty submission by JFLAG HERE & HERE

Here we are thinking the San Fransican boycott issue was a done deal...

The Gleaner 06.04.09

the gleaner seems to be lagging behind these days in it's coverage of items don't you think? See the piece below from the Flair section.

So, gays plan to boycott Jamaica and they are encouraging those who love their gay friends and relatives to do the same. I had to put my frustration in writing. This is Jamaica and we are against homosexuals.
There is no if, but or maybe about it. Why are they forcing us to accept them? We do not have to. We are a Christian country and homosexuality is contrary to our practices, so why should we drop all our morals, values and religious standards just to please their forbidden choice?

Music banned

They banned our music and tried to halt the careers of our dancehall artistes. Now they want to discontinue our products? I can understand the banning of the music because of the violence, but to try and turn people against our country and trying to stop our progress is another thing. We are simply standing up for what we believe in, which is in accordance with the Bible.

Homosexuals are not above our laws. This fact they can't change.

There are other countries that gays can visit and do what they want to openly. Why not go there? Things like buggery are against our laws (Buggery, Offences Against the Person Act, Section 76.

And why should their family and friends suffer because of them? They should stay away from our tasty food, energetic music, beautiful island and beaches because we won't bow down to homosexuals?

Instead of simply attacking us and trying to force us to protect and accept you, how about accepting our laws and abiding by them? You are not changing your minds and becoming heterosexuals, and we reluctantly accept that. Likewise, we are not changing our minds, or our laws to please you, so accept this. In the end, if you want to boycott our country, we don't mind.

- Divine

Do you have something on your mind? Rant and rave about men, women, society whatever you fancy. Email what's on your mind to lifestyle@gleanerjm.com. Pieces should be no longer than 300 words.

Charter of Rights/dynamics of development (Part 11)

We weren't able to follow all of this series by Mr. Edward Seaga former Prime Minister but this installment on the Charter that he helped to put together begins to eaxmine the serious fundamentals ....... hence the post, as appearing in the Gleaner 05.04.09


Edward Seaga, Contributor
As noted in last week's article, some have argued that there should be no saving clauses which reserve power for the state, that all fundamental rights and freedoms should be absolute and inalienable, save, of course, for periods of peril and emergency.

In discussions that followed in the Constitutional Reform Commission, we agreed that the construction of the saving clause as drafted and quoted, allowed all rights to be as inalienable as possible without derogating from the need for exceptional treatment in periods of peril and emergency, or as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, for which ample judicial interpretation exists.

Provisions of the charter

The new draft of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms has spelled out each right and freedom individually rather than in clusters. This has enabled specific expression in clear and precise language capable of being understood at reasonable levels of literacy.

The charter is now before Parliament. It was introduced by a bill entitled an Act to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica to provide for a Charter of Fundamental Right and Freedoms after lengthy discussions in a Select Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The protected rights and freedoms include the following 10 provisions which are not original, but in some cases are amended for clarification, followed by eight new provisions:

1. The right to life, liberty and the security of the person;

2. Freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious and political doctrine;

3. Freedom of expression;

4. The right to seek, distribute or disseminate to any other person, information, opinions and ideas through any media;

5. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

6. Freedom of movement;

7. The right to due process of law;

8. Freedom from discrimination, on the ground of race, social class, colour, religion, gender, place of origin or political preferences;

9. Protection of property rights;

10. The right of a person who is charged with or detained, in connection with a criminal offence to communicate with and retain an attorney-at-law;

11. The right to equality before the law;

12. The right to equitable and humane treatment by any public authority in the exercise of any function;

13. The right to protection from search of the person, respect for private and family life, privacy of home and of communication;

14. Entitlement of every child - "to such measures of protection as are required by the status of a minor or as part of the family, society and the State"; and "who is a citizen to publicly funded tuition in a public educational institution at the pre-primary and primary levels".

15. Entitlement of a person charged with a criminal offence or detained in pursuance of a provision of any enactment to communicate with and be visited by his spouse, partner or family member, religious counsellor and a medical practitioner of his choice;

16. Enjoyment of a healthy and productive environment free from threat or injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage;

17. Entitlement of every citizen who is registered to vote, to participate and vote in free and fair elections; and

18. Entitlement of every citizen to be granted a passport and not be denied or deprived thereof except by due process of law.

Notwithstanding the broadening and deepening of human rights to which the state must commit itself in this exercise, perhaps the most significant new feature in the charter is to be found in sub section (5) of Section 3, which expands the scope of the charter to include "natural or juristic persons" under the protective covering for which constitutional remedies can be sought. The existing provisions cover only abuses by the state. The amendment will allow abuses by the act of any other person or body to be justiceable.

This makes it possible for citizens whose rights have been abused to seek redress in a court of law against not only the state and entities of the state, but any civil authority or persons, subject to "the nature of any duty imposed by the right".

This is an enormous expansion of the protective covering in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Departure from the traditional group of human rights to include constitutional remedies against persons or bodies not connected to the state has opened another door, according to Earl Witter, public defender, to seek redress against offenders who abuse by non-feasance, that is, non-performance of something for which responsibility exists, or mal-feasance, a responsibility which is not carried out. Most of the abuses of human rights fall into these two categories which deprive the citizen of an entitlement and should be included in the charter in the same manner as the entitlement of a child to be schooled and to be shielded from abuse have been listed.

More than any other single factor, the performance of a government in enhancing public administration, could be lifted to exemplary levels through expansion of the charter to include these two entitlements to performance as areas in which serious grievances could be opened to constitutional remedies.

The eight new articles of the charter prohibit a range of notorious abuses and gross neglect by committing the State to provide:


equality before the law for all;

equitable and humane treatment by any public authority;

protection from search of the person, respect for family life and privacy of the home;

free tuition for children from pre-primary through to primary level;

entitlement of every child to protection as part of the family, society and the State;

enjoyment of a healthy and productive environment ... free from environmental abuse;

entitlement of every person charged with a criminal offence to communicate with and be visited by his spouse, family member, religious counsellor and medical practitioner of his choice;

the right to vote and the right to free and fair elections.
State of emergency

When the reforms are approved, no longer will it be possible to sustain a state of emergency for longer than two weeks without approval of the Opposition, nor can any extension of the period exceed three months at a time. Additionally, the basis on which an emergency is declared can be challenged in a court of law. Further, any person detained would have a right of review within six weeks, not six months, and the hearings would be by a tribunal whose findings must be accepted by the authorities.

Many will contend, and with some justification, that even the most comprehensive and far reaching Charter of Rights and Freedoms are in large part empty but well-meaning declarations, if they cannot be enforced on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged who are mostly defenceless against abuses of their fundamental rights and freedoms.

With the power to enforce sanctions, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could become an effective tool to foster the development of a dynamic society. Without an effective public defender to enforce sanctions against abuse, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms would become another useless document destined for a dark corner of a dusty cupboard.

Not only must remedies for the shortcomings of the act establishing the public defender be urgently enacted, but funding must be guaranteed to enable prosecutions to be provided through the new constitutional provision to guarantee legal aid for all entitled persons. I have seen other bodies which are noble in intent, such as the Police Public Complaints Authority, launched with fanfare, but deprived of resources to function.

The Charter of Rights when enacted and funded and the public defender when fully empowered and funded, together represent the sublime hope for justice for the poor who historically have been unable to find justice for themselves.