From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Why is Ward such a bigot?
Date: 15 Oct 1998 08:26:04 GMT

In <702ii3$7jm@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> gmc0@ix.netcom.com (George M.
Carter) writes:

>Rob Arch Ward <wardr@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>snip...
>
>>The real reason is, is that the mind of the homosexual male is degraded
>>to the simplistic and childish mind of the woman.


   Worse than that-- it's FAR more simplistic than that of a woman.  In
gay men the "Men Turn Me On" module is working,  but the "What can I
get out of them, resource-wise?" module is defective, or not
functioning at all.  My gay friends tell me this makes their sex lives
enormously less complicated.  I report only what I hear.

                                       Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: The sex life of a homo male is an uncontrolled, open-loop system 
	and a potentially immunologically-ruinous one
Date: 16 Oct 1998 11:01:04 GMT

In <36260F95.7800@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> Rob Arch Ward
<wardr@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>Steve,
>Look - if you are a het male, you have to put up with women and all their
>messy emotional, childish baggage. As we gay men look on in disgust, you
>actually have to pretend to be interested in them, when in fact you are
>bored to tears with them, all you want is the het sex. I see this all the
>time at an Ohio State campus restaurant I sometimes frequent. The het
>male trying to entertain a het female and wondering what he should say to
>get her to put out, as he pays for whatever it is she has eaten.


    ROLF.  Yep.  Buy them a steak is MY first policy <g>.  Nah, if
you're bored to tears it's only a sign that you need to look for a
woman who thinks more like a man (said professor Higgins).  Some of the
most fascinating women I've known have been about two base pairs short
of being lesbian.


>Also, usually she wants children, so she can actually use the faculties
>for which her fantastical, flighty, behavior-observing, itinerant,
>scattered-brained mind was designed: the rearing of children. It is thus
>seen that a standard-issue female mind is an excellent match to
>performing the myriad small-duties of the household and also remaining
>sufficiently unfocussed to watch the young children as they run around
>and explore their fascinating surroundings


   Some truth in this.  However, the feminine mind is not just
engineered to teach and keep track of children, it's also constructed
to read subliminal communication and do social engineering.  What we
call EQ.  It takes just as many neurons to do this as it takes to keep
track of baseball stats.  More.  It is NOT a sign of lower
intelligence, it is a sign of intelligence channeled into different
talents.  There are not as many women math geniuses (pace Emmy Noether
and the gang), but on the other hand, women make superior novelists,
doctors, psychiatrists, behavioral biologists.  These are not
intellectually lightweight occupations, though of course they will be
devalued by people who worship at the alter of math and physics and
lifeless mechanics.  As will all the aspects of visual aesthetics at
which women and gay men historically excel.


>B. Homo male sex is an open-loop system
>
>Unlike the het case, in which sex is doled out in dribs and drabs
>(generally, in the long term)the homo male does not usually have to deal
>with any of this stuff. Sex is almost a readily available resource for
>him at any point in his life (except as an old man, say over 40)

   ROFL!  I've got to pass this on to a friend who's 42.  I can see his
sardonic grin.  He would certainly agree with you about gay sex.

                                    Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Why is Ward such a bigot?
Date: 16 Oct 1998 11:29:02 GMT

In <3625EB9E.EB68F82F@hotmail.com> Ron Nicholson <rdn@hotmail.com>
writes:

>Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
>> In <702ii3$7jm@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> gmc0@ix.netcom.com (George M.
>> Carter) writes:
>>
>> >Rob Arch Ward <wardr@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> >snip...
>> >
>> >>The real reason is, is that the mind of the homosexual male is
>> >>degraded to the simplistic and  childish mind of the woman.
>>
>> Worse than that-- it's FAR more simplistic than that of a woman. In gay
>> men the "Men Turn Me On" module is working, but the "What can I get out
>> of them, resource-wise?" module is defective, or not functioning at
>> all. My gay friends tell me this makes their sex lives enormously less
>> complicated. I report only what I hear.
>>
>>                                        Steve Harris, M.D.
>
>Some of us just happen to be in long term relationships, with all the
>benefits and pitfalls that they brings.
>
>How many gay friends to you have to think they are a fair random sampling
>of an entire community?



  Only 3.  But being gay men they tell me about their lovers and THEIR
lovers and so on and so on.  By now I've heard hundreds of stories.  As
for committed relationships, I see many.  As for committed monogamous
relationships--- you must live in a different universe than I do.  More
of this and I'll have to start asking you about your presidents.

   In my universe there's a great depression, then a big war, during
which F.D. Roosevelt dies in office of a heart attack.  Then vice
president Jimmy Byrnes finishes out the term and is beaten by President
Dewey.  Who then loses to a war general named Eisenhower.  Then next is
Joe P. Kennedy, Jr.(another war hero), then brother Bobby Kennedy, then
youngest bother Teddy to complete the sweep (There was another brother
who drowned in the war on a PT boat).  Teddy's still president here,
now going on his third term.  Eunice probably is next.  How about where
you are?

                                      Steve

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Why is Ward such a bigot?
Date: 23 Oct 1998 08:55:20 GMT

In <desalvo-2210980527300001@rp24.pm3.monitor.net> desalvo@monitor.net
(John De Salvio) writes:

>How about posting the "fair amount of formally done sociology"
>to back you up?
>
>Don't forget to compare SINGLE male homosexuals to
>SINGLE male heterosexuals.
>
>Don't forget to factor in the more difficulty in finding women really
>willing to have casual sex.


   Now, how am I going to factor that in?  I didn't say homosexual men
were more promiscuous because of some moral flaw.  I didn't even say
that hetero men wouldn't do the same if hetero women acted like gay
men.  I merely stated a fact of behavior.  Do you disagree with it or
not?  If not, shut up.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids
Subject: Re: Re Re Duesberg Delurks (Part Two)
Date: 7 Nov 1998 00:01:40 GMT

In
<sdgross-0511981147510001@250.cambridge-21-22rs.ma.dial-access.att.net>
sdgross@att.net (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>Why not socialist bigotry? Why were Hitlers early bodyguards, the SA
>(prior to SS), Major Ernst Roehms men, exclusively homosexual drug
>addicts? Care to hazard a rational hypothesis as to what they saw as the
>essential link among Nazism, homosexuality and drug addiction? Perhaps
>the love of death?


  Perhaps a love of theater, drama, and the importance of outward
appearances.  Interesting question.

  Rebel groups and causes, no matter what their political persuation,
tend to accumulate homosexuals in the early days.  This was classically
true of Communist cells also (the Cambridge Five spy group at Oxford
was basically composed of homosexuals).  In part this is because (as F.
Bacon says): "He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to
fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either for good
or for ill."  Gay men have time to give, and as outcasts already they
have a reason to want to belong to tightly knit groups, such as one
finds in dissident movements.  They don't have wives wondering where
they're going every night, and wanting them home to help with the kids.
And homosexuals make superior spies and rebels not only because of
their relative lack of family committments, but also because of their
prior experience in leading double lives.

   The connection between homosexuality and drug use is well known,
just as it is between drug use and any group of outcasts and rebels,
from teenagers to bikers.  Drugs are a substutute for social
connection, and always have been. The mistake made with AIDS and drug
use was to see that 90% of AIDS cases were among homosexual men who
used drugs, and assume that the drugs were the cause.  It took later
studies to show that drug use was 80-90% among homosexual men who
DIDN'T get AIDS, also.  One would expect that THE supposed cause of the
disease would segregate better among those who had it and those who
didn't.  If the incidence of smoking were pretty much the same among
people two got lung cancer and those who didn't, afterall, it would
certainly make us receck our assumptions about the causes of THAT
problem.

                                        Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.pharmacy
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired
Date: 18 Feb 1999 04:35:28 GMT

In <36CB7CE6.98CE9338@emory.edu> Andrew Chung <achung@emory.edu>
writes:

>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> I have read about chemical castration for child molestors using Depo
>> Provera, a birth control drug for women. A shot of it once a week
>> reduces testosterone levels in men to pre-puberty levels. Since you
>> have to take it once a week, the process is reversible. I am a gay man,
>> but homosexuality differs with my religous views. This, of course, has
>> been a source of conflict for me most of my life. Is it possible to be
>> chemically castrated by your own choice? I would prefer not to have
>> sexual desires at all, if that can be done without severe side effects
>> etc.
>>
>> Does anyone know if I can do this, what the risks are, etc?
>
>Should be possible. Possible side effects include leg clots, acne, water
>retention etc, I suggest you discuss this matter with your doctor because
>there are alternative drugs that are safer (used to antagonize
>testosterone in treating prostate disease).



    Yep.  As Dr. Chung says, depo-Lupron is what you want.  Though it's
more expensive.  And you also have to pay for the 2 weeks of
aminoglutethamide it starts out with, unless you want to endure that
long with having your testosterone levels unusual HIGH.  If you really
want to be cost effective, there are places where you can get an
orchiectomy, complete with silicone replacements.  Contact any place
where they do sex change opperations-- they also treat people want to
become psychologically more neuter.

    I could suggest you change your religion, but I suppose it's hard
to make yourself believe what you don't believe, isn't it?  So maybe
the Lupron is better.  That way, if you have a religious epiphany and
realize how unlikely it is that the god who made the universe is really
very concerned about things like whether the beasts on Sirius III mate
out of season, or put tenticle A into hole B instead of hole D, and so
on--- then you won't have to get testosterone shots or patches.

                                       Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired
Date: 21 Feb 1999 13:53:27 GMT

In <19990218134839.11580.00001272@ng-fi1.aol.com> john19731@aol.com
(John19731) writes:

>>"Anonymous" <anon@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am a gay man, but homosexuality differs with my religous views.
>>
>>Do your religious views not include the notion that your god made you
>>as you are?
>
>saying that homosexuality is acceptible because "thats the god made you"
>is a weak argument, unless youre also willing to accept murders,
>pedophiles, and rapists because thats the way god made them.


   I do accept murderers, pedophiles, and rapists because that's the
way "god" (or Nature) made them.  In my work with animals I've seen
murderous dogs, rapist dogs, and even homosexual dogs.  I've even seen
one Ted Bundy dog, who very nearly tore a bitch in heat to shreds, all
while sporting an erection.  These things are not always a result of
human free will and the devil.  Rather, screwed up brains happen in all
parts of the animal kingdom.  If you'll read Goodall's work on chimps,
you'll see what I mean.  And the cub-killing habits of the average male
lion are not exactly a sign that the Creator of the Natural World was a
Nice Guy.

   The fact that I accept these things as natural doesn't mean I
advocate not protecting us humans from such violent sorts that occur
among our species, by locking them up or otherwise deprograming or
deactivating them.  Hurricanes are natural, but that doesn't mean you
don't build storm cellars.  It's not quite the same as shaking your
fist at the sky, though.

   In the case of homosexuals, however, I hardly see the need to do
anything about them.  Homosexual men are less dangerous than
heterosexual men, on average, by all accounts.  In gay bars there are
very few fights with guns and switchblades, and rarely even with fists.
Generally when the bouncers are called, it's due to a crecendo shouting
match of ever more clever and nasty insults.  So my gay friends tell
me, and so the cops I've known have confirmed.  And as for lesbian
danger--- give me a break.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired
Date: 21 Feb 1999 17:08:01 GMT

In <19990219233750.09582.00000081@ng-cg1.aol.com> john19731@aol.com
(John19731) writes:

>>You can when there's significant evidence that homosexuality is not a
>>choice.
>
>what evidence? site research articles please


    You can give male rats one shot of female hormone at the wrong time
in development, and they will present to be mounted, like a female, for
the rest of their lives.  Do you not believe this?  I can provide a
reference, but will do the work only if it's going to change your point
of view.  If not, what's the point?


>.>Do you condone heterosexuality?
>
>of course..
>
>>why?
>
>.this is the way animals have evolved to propagate. this is natural and
>normal, and, obviously essential for survival.


     It's not.  Some animals propagate without any sex at all, such as
parthenogenic strains of lizards.  Some animals are not just bisexual
but hermaphroditic, with both sets of sex organs.  In fact, some snails
even have "penis duels" to see which one is going to take the male role
with the other, with the "loser" having to invest calories in making
eggs and little snails.  And the loser could be either of them (imagine
a human double attempted rape in which there is a tussle between two
criminals, to see which person will get the other pregnant).  What
does that do to your view of the creator?  A great many animals are
infertile (worker bees) and benefit their sisters without having sex or
reproduction at all.  And finally, homosexual behavior has been
documented in primates and many other animals in the wild.  They're
plenty smart enough to know what they are doing, but social
relationships of a certain type are enforced by such behavior.





>> What makes you think
>>it's more or less of a choice than homosexuality?
>
>because there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. there is nothing
>natural about homosexuality...it is a perversion of nature.


    Read a frigging biology book.  Nature and biology, by defintion,
cannot be perverse.  Nature is what it is, and biology is what it is.
If you think there's something wrong with it, then let me suggest that
YOU are the one that is perverse.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired
Date: 22 Feb 1999 01:07:55 GMT

In <19990221135705.01159.00001653@ng-fi1.aol.com> john19731@aol.com
(John19731) writes:

>> You can give male rats one shot of female hormone at the wrong time in
>> development, and they will present to be mounted, like a female, for
>> the rest of their lives. Do you not believe this?
>
>yes, i believe this...it doesnt prove your argument, though. this
>experiment simply shows that you can artificially mani[pulate nature to
>get unnatural results. so what. it would nave been more convincing if you
>had given me research articles indicating some male rats naturally have
>excessive levels of female hormones and therefore behave like females. of
>course, the ultimate evidence would be to give me research articles
>showing homosexual males have excessive female hormones, and therefore
>they have homosexual tendencies. guess what: there are none.


    The point is that after this one shot, the hormone levels return to
normal, and there there rest of the life of the animal.  But it is
permanently homosexual.  And there are times in utero where a male or a
female child could well get an excess of the wrong hormone.  Perhaps if
the mother was stressed, and genetics made the child unusually
susceptable.  Identical twins are not always of the same sexual
orientation, but (here's the fascinating part) they are far more likely
to be than fraternal twins.  And fraternal twins of the same sex more
likely to be than siblings.  Why should that be?

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.pharmacy
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired/who's controlling??
Date: 22 Feb 1999 02:24:28 GMT

In <36D09D1A.C2DFBAAD@one.net> kbrauer <kbrauer@one.net> writes:

>The lack of education about religious matters is showing.  Why would
>you be so intolerant of people who pursue chastity for spiritual
>reasons?

   I'm no more tolerant, or intolerant, of people who starve themselves
or scar themselves or whip themselves for religious reasons.  Or commit
suicide, like the Heavensgate or Jones folks.  It's their choice, if
adults.   I'm a little less tolerant of those who preach practices
which seem to make people unhappy.  The guy wanting a castration or
chemical to stop his sexual urges didn't seem to be a happy camper, and
I know it's possible to be gay and happy.  So I'm thinking the
religious guys might not be arguing for the best choice, in those
terms.  But they're free to do that, also.  And I'm free to turn up
here and call them nuts.

>My understanding  is that most religions are generally benevolent and
>most of their ideals tend to enhance  human survival and social
>structures.  This includes ideals of sexual self mastery.

   There's a difference between self-mastery and celebacy for life.

>For homosexual men , chastity would add an average of about 15- 20
>years to their lifespans.  U.S. gay men live an average of 54 years.

   Homosexual monogamy would do the same.  A specious argument.  And
since you don't mention lesbians, who are also homosexuals, I think a
dishonest one, on your part.  Why use an argument if it's really not
the basis for your opinion?  Do you take us for stupid?


>On average, single men do
>not live quite as long as their married counterparts, but quite a bit
>longer than practicing gay men.


   And not as long as the average lesbian.  And there are monogamous
gay men (though I admit probably a minority, even in this age).  I know
you're having a hard time with the concept.  Again, however, it does no
good to use facts which wouldn't change your opinion, even if they were
different.

   BTW, there is some question over why married men live longer, since
no randomized trial has been done.  It may be that spouses take care of
mates really well, and better than home health nurses and social
services and rest homes (it's a good hypothesis).  But it may also be
that men with chronic diseases, or health or mental defects, are more
likely to be divorced or never married.  Are you advancing here the
concept of gay marriage as life extension, BTW?  Lesbian marriage?  No,
somehow I didn't think so.  Back to our problem of your use of
dishonest argumentation.


>I'd rather see my gay buddies live a full life than suffer with
>problems like HIV.

    You'd rather not talk about female homosexuals at all.  Hoping
perhaps we'd forget them.


>Chastity frees people from STDs and unplanned pregnancy.

   So does lesbianism.

>It may free women from a good deal of emotional pain.

   Preach this at the average women's shelter.

>  It frees them from the burden of B.C..  By practicing
>chastity, women are able attract higher quality men, if they so
>desire.

    Only if you define "quality" in tautological terms, so as include
the idea of attraction to chastity.  I think you're going to have a
tough time relating it to any other measure of quality in men.

>There are very practical, temporal advantages to chastity.  Chastity
>strengthens the family unit.

  People with no children aren't families?  If they are, are you saying
it strengthens the relationship to have sex only with each other?
Great.  Now you're ready to talk about homosexual marriage, right?

>> Chastity is without economic cost.

  Interesting argument, but not entirely true.  Anthropological studies
show that women almost universally gain in material goods from lovers.
Furthermore, having children by more than one man stengthens the
genetic diversity of your brood, and the probability that your genes
will survive you in times of stress and disease.  Which is why even
monogamous animals are known to "sneak" a few extra genes.
Evolutionarily, it is to their advantage to cuckold the father, but
have the resources anyway.  Complicated subject, but if you've ever had
the opportunity to witness divorce procedings in humans, you'll see all
these principles in action.


>Why to people clamor about patient's rights, and a person's ability to
>control his or her own body, then seek to deny Mr. Anonymous the
>right to control his own body, and gain some sort of self mastery for
>whatever reason.

   I don't think anyone here has done that.  Would you mind quoting
where that was proposed?

> Why attack his personal beliefs?

   What other kinds are there?  One may attack beliefs without
attacking the person, at least directly.  It's a part of forming value
judgments, which we're all stuck with having to do, like it or not.

>  Doesn't he have a right to them?  In what way do they harm
>you???  Why try to separate him from his ideals?  Are you trying to
>control him rather than respect him??


    Hey, in case it hadn't escaped your notice, we're here on the net.
We have far less control over him, more than likely, than the people
who've convinced him that homosexuality is against God's Laws.

                                     Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired
Date: 23 Feb 1999 01:13:17 GMT

In <biter.of.tires-ya02408000R2202991131530001@news.acns.nwu.edu>
biter.of.tires@nwu.edu (George Tirebiter) writes:

   Say, George-- did you happen to go to Communist Martyrs High School?

                               -- A Firesign Alum



>Actually, there is lots of concrete evidence indicating this. Try
>visiting a library.
>
>> >Identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation, but
>> >(here's the fascinating part) they are far more likely to be than
>> >fraternal twins. And fraternal twins of the same sex more likely to be
>> >than siblings. Why should that be?
>>
>> ok, heres a little genetics leason for you. not everything that "runs
>> in families" has a genetic basis. an example is wealth...rick kids tend
>> to have had rich parents and poor kids tend to have poor parents. there
>> is no money gene though.
>>
>> also, for a genetic link to be real conclusive, there needs to be an
>> extremely high concordance between monozygotic twins...they have
>> identical genes, afterall. just out of curiosity, what is the rate of
>> concordance between mono vrs dizygotic twins? i dont know for sure, but
>> i imagine its no where near 100%.
>
>No, it's about 50% for both male and female homosexuals. Which as you can
>tell, is indicative of a significant genetic component, ie 50%. For
>something as complex as sexual behavior, this is in fact a very robust
>genetic effect. Here are some references:
>
>Hum Biol 1998 Apr;70(2):347-65
>Human sexual orientation has a heritable component.
>Pillard RC, Bailey JM
>
>Arch Sex Behav 1981 Oct;10(5):465-75
>Is homosexuality familial? A review, some data, and a suggestion.
>Pillard RC, Poumadere J, Carretta RA
>
>Psychiatr Clin North Am 1995 Mar;18(1):71-84
>A biologic perspective on sexual orientation.
>Pillard RC, Bailey JM
>
>Arch Gen Psychiatry 1986 Aug;43(8):808-12
>Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality.
>Pillard RC, Weinrich JD
>
>Am J Psychiatry 1993 Feb;150(2):272-7
>Familial aggregation of female sexual orientation.
>Bailey JM, Benishay DS
>
>Behav Genet 1993 Jul;23(4):313-22
>Familiality of female and male homosexuality.
>Bailey JM, Bell AP
>
>Arch Sex Behav 1993 Jun;22(3):187-206
>Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three
triplet
>sets.
>Whitam FL, Diamond M, Martin J
>
>Arch Sex Behav 1982 Dec;11(6):511-20
>A family study of sexual orientation.
>Pillard RC, Poumadere J, Carretta RA
>
>Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993 Mar;50(3):217-23
>Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women.
>Bailey JM, Pillard RC, Neale MC, Agyei Y



Commment: some of these deserve to be read in at least abstract form.
I've included a few critical ones also, to be fair.  Naturally, there
are still come unbelievers out there, just as in the case of the
cigarette lung cancer connection and the cause of AIDS.   However, I
really have hard time figuring out how so many studies should show this
much association with genetics, if there was no genetic component here.




J Homosex 1995;28(1-2):91-113


A critique of the possibility of genetic inheritance of homosexual
orientation.

Haynes JD

State University of New York, College at Buffalo 14222, USA.

Many workers in human sexuality have tried to discover causes of sexual
orientation. No one theory has proved to be satisfactory. Studies of
monozygotic and dizygotic twins, some of whom have been reared separately
and some together, suggest that there may be an inherited component of
homosexuality. Other studies, particularly those concerned with the
evolution of human sexuality, question such a possibility. A further
question arises because a large part of the human population is neither
exclusively homosexual nor exclusively heterosexual. This paper will
examine the evidence for genetic inheritance presented by twin and family
studies. It will explore ways in which a gene favoring a homosexual
orientation but not reproduction could continue to exist in a population.
The importance of defining terms that refer to sexual orientation will be
discussed in the context of determining exactly what may be inherited.
Finally, the effects of accepting genetic inheritance as the cause of
sexual orientation will be discussed.

PMID: 7560926, UI: 96028448

----------

Arch Sex Behav 1993 Jun;22(3):187-206


Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three triplet
sets.

Whitam FL, Diamond M, Martin J

Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe 85287-2101.

Twin pairs in which at least one twin is homosexual were solicited
through announcements in the gay press and personal referrals from 1980
to the present.  An 18-page questionnaire on the "sexuality of twins" was
filled out by one or both twins. Thirty-eight pairs of monozygotic twins
(34 male pairs and 4 female pairs) were found to have a concordance rate
of 65.8% for homosexual orientation. Twenty-three pairs of dizygotic
twins were found to have a concordance rate of 30.4% for homosexual
orientation. In addition, three sets of triplets were obtained. Two sets
contained a pair of monozygotic twins concordant for sexual orientation
with the third triplet dizygotic and discordant for homosexual
orientation. A third triplet set was monozygotic with all three
concordant for homosexual orientation. These findings are interpreted as
supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation.

PMID: 8494487, UI: 93263797

----------

Br J Psychiatry 1992 Mar;160:407-9


Homosexuals who are twins. A study of 46 probands.

King M, McDonald E

Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London.

Forty-six homosexual men and women who were twins took part in a study of
their sexuality and that of their co-twin. Discordance for sexual
orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are
insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation. There
was a high level of shared knowledge of sexual orientation between
members of twin pairs, and a relatively high likelihood of sexual
relations occurring with same sex co-twins at some time, particularly in
monozygotic pairs. The implications of these results for the study of the
origins of sexual orientation and for twin research are discussed.

PMID: 1562871, UI: 92223998

----------

Behav Genet 1991 Jan;21(1):75-96


Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sex-dimorphic behaviors in
male twins.

Buhrich N, Bailey JM, Martin NG

Department of Psychiatry, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sex-dimorphic behaviors were
assessed concurrently and retrospectively, for childhood, in 95 pairs of
male monozygotic (MZ) twins and 63 pairs of dizygotic (DZ) twins. There
was a significantly higher rate of adult homosexuality among the MZ than
among DZ twins. We employed a model-fitting approach using LISREL to test
for genetic and environmental influences on variation for each trait
singly and on the covariation among all six traits (three for childhood
and three for adulthood).  Univariate analyses confirmed the presence of
familial factors for five of the six variables but were generally unable
to distinguish shared environmental from genetic influences. Hierarchical
tests of multivariate models supported the existence of an additive
genetic factor contributing to the covariance among the variables. More
restrictive multivariate models yielded a significant genetic influence
on sexual orientation. Because of the different rates of orientation by
zygosity and because of the restrictive nature of some of the
multivariate models, our results are best considered tentative but do
suggest that further biometrically oriented studies of sexual orientation
and its correlates would be worthwhile.

PMID: 2018464, UI: 91207209

----------

Hum Biol 1998 Apr;70(2):347-65


Human sexual orientation has a heritable component.

Pillard RC, Bailey JM

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, MA
02118, USA.

We present an overview of behavioral genetics research on homosexual and
heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that
homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families. Sibling, twin,
and adoptee concordance rates are compatible with the hypothesis that
genes account for at least half of the variance in sexual orientation. We
note observations of homosexual behavior in animal species, but the
analogy to human sexual orientation is unclear. We discuss the
reproductive disadvantage of a homosexual orientation and present
possible mechanisms that could maintain a balanced polymorphism in human
populations.

Publication Types:
  Review
  Review, tutorial


PMID: 9549243, UI: 98210409

----------

J Homosex 1995;28(1-2):115-45


Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions.

McGuire TR

Department of Biological Sciences, Nelson Biological Laboratories,
Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1059, USA.

Genetic analysis of behavioral differences among human beings requires
both careful experimental design and appropriate genetic models. Any
genetic study must be (1) valid and precise measures of individual
differences, (2) appropriate methods to ascertain biological
relationships, (3) research subjects who have been randomly recruited,
(4) appropriate sample sizes, and (5) appropriate genetic models to
interpret the data. In addition, the researchers must exercise caution in
interpreting biosocial effects from the observed phenotypic correlations.
To date, all studies of the genetic basis of sexual orientation of men
and women have failed to meet one or more or any of the above criteria.

Publication Types:
  Review
  Review, tutorial


PMID: 7560918, UI: 96028449

----------


Behav Genet 1993 Jul;23(4):313-22


Familiality of female and male homosexuality.

Bailey JM, Bell AP

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
60208-2710.

We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual
females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in
previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial.
Homosexual females had an excess of homosexual brothers compared to
heterosexual subjects, thus providing evidence that similar familial
factors influence both male and female homosexuality. Furthermore,
despite the large sample size, homosexual females and males did not
differ significantly from each other in their proportions of either
homosexual sisters or homosexual brothers. Thus, results were most
consistent with the possibility that similar familial factors influence
male and female sexual orientation. However, because results conflicted
with those of some other studies, and because siblings' sexual
orientations were obtained in a manner likely to yield more errors than
in these other, smaller studies, further work is needed using large
samples and more careful methods before the degree of cofamiliality of
male and female homosexuality can be resolved definitively. We also
examined whether some parental influences comprised shared environmental
effects on sexual orientation. Scales attempting to measure such
influences failed to distinguish subjects with homosexual siblings from
subjects with only heterosexual siblings and, thus, did not appear to
measure shared environmental determinants of sexual orientation.

PMID: 8240210, UI: 94058941

----------

Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991 Dec;48(12):1089-96


A genetic study of male sexual orientation.

Bailey JM, Pillard RC

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 60208.

Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or
adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual
orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives
directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the
relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of
monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of
adoptive brothers were homosexual.  Heritabilities were substantial under
a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of
homosexuality and ascertainment bias. However, the rate of homosexuality
among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2%
(13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple
genetic hypothesis and other published reports. A proband's self-reported
history of childhood gender non-conformity did not predict homosexuality
in relatives in any of the three subsamples. Thus, childhood gender
nonconformity does not appear to be an indicator of genetic loading for
homosexuality.  Cotwins from concordant monozygotic pairs were very
similar for childhood gender nonconformity.

Comments:
  Comment in: Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993 Mar;50(3):240-1


PMID: 1845227, UI: 93290504

----------

Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993 Mar;50(3):217-23


Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women.

Bailey JM, Pillard RC, Neale MC, Agyei Y

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 60208.

Homosexual female probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins,
or adoptive sisters were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual
orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives
directly, or, when this was impossible, by asking the probands. Of the
relatives whose sexual orientation could be confidently rated, 34 (48%)
of 71 monozygotic cotwins, six (16%) of 37 dizygotic cotwins, and two
(6%) of 35 adoptive sisters were homosexual. Probands also reported 10
(14%) nontwin biologic sisters to be homosexual, although those sisters
were not contacted to confirm their orientations. Heritabilities were
significant using a wide range of assumptions about both the base rate of
homosexuality in the population and ascertainment bias. The likelihood
that a monozygotic cotwin would also be homosexual was unrelated to
measured characteristics of the proband such as self-reported history of
childhood gender nonconformity. Concordant monozygotic twins reported
similar levels of childhood gender nonconformity.

PMID: 8439243, UI: 93175996

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.med.pharmacy
Subject: Re: Chemical Castration Desired/medical care
Date: 23 Feb 1999 10:21:29 GMT

In <36D23C6F.727A2D58@one.net> kbrauer <kbrauer@one.net> writes:

>Empathy involves the ability to understand someone else's feelings. There
>are medical practitioners whose personal prejudices against the
>constraints of organized religions inhibit their ability to empathize
>with Anonymous guy. This might limit the ability to influence his medical
>decisions. His religious views are very important to him, and he would
>probably not think that you are working in his best interest by asking
>him to divest himself of his beliefs.


Comment:

    Oh, don't be such a prig.  As has been explained many times before,
this is a public forum, not a doctor's office.  Those of us who are
doctors use the title here to save a lot of time about background
questions (I don't use the M.D. when posting in sci.physics, except
perhaps by reflex.  Who the hell cares in that forum?).  It does not
mean that because I'm a doctor, anybody I offer advice to is my
patient. And that also goes for what I say on the radio and at cocktail
parties, too.

    You will recall that several of us, myself included, gave the man
advice about how libido could be changed chemically.  Any other advice
can be as medical as you want to make it.  And it's really rather
difficult to separate medical things from non-medical things, when it
comes to questions about how to change your behavior chemically or
surgically or even with psychotherapy.  If you go to your doctor and
want your son's foreskin removed, do you expect to find "prejudices"
inhibiting what you want?   What kind of thing would count as a
prejudice here?  How about if you want the baby's ears pierced?  Or the
little girl's clitoris removed?  It's a slipperly slope.  If a patient
with a deep religious belief that he needs to commit suicide visits me
with questions about how to do it, am I obligated to do nothing but
issue a polite personal denial to help, coupled with expressions of
respect for his belief system, and wishes for his future success?  The
hell I am.  He presents me with a sensitive issue like that and he's
entitled to my opinion.  The best he'll get is that I'll tell the
office nurse not to charge him.


*******************

Other matters:

    While I'm writing, I'm reminded that you asked me in another
message how I knew that some gay men were celebate.  Actually, if
celebate refers to unmarried, and chaste refers to sex only within
sanctioned marriage, and abstinent refers to no sex at all, none of
these were what I meant. But I do know gay men faithful to one partner.
 How do I know they exist?  Same way you know heteros like that exist.
Somebody said once that the Kinsey Report on Sexuality in the Human
Female should really have been called: "What 1,352 Women Told Me One
Time."  That's really all we have to go on, when it comes to our fellow
humans, is it not?

    There is evidence that cheating is widespread in heterosexuals.
We've long known that from 5 to 10% of children, in every genetics
study ever done, cannot have been fathered by the man who thinks he did
the fathering.  And since we imagine that women having affairs take
some extra precaution not to become pregant, this suggests a very
widespread practice.  No, not universal.

   But it's not universal for sexually active gay men to be
promiscuous, either, and there is the same indirect evidence that many
are not.  In the early 1980's infection of promiscuous gay men with the
HIV virus reached rates of well over 90%.  It probably got to 50% in
San Francisco, if the San Francisco Men's Health Study is any
indication.  But only a fraction of gay men in the country were ever
infected.   What fraction?  That's hard to estimate, but it was the
minority, surely.  In this country there were 50 million men, give or
take, between age 18 and 45, according to the census of 1990. ,That's
the sexually active group.  If 5% are more homosexually oriented than
otherwise (a conservative figure), that makes 2.5 million gay men at
the age to be promiscuous at the height of the epidemic.  But there
were, at that time, no more than half a million HIV-infected gay men,
and since the disease was recognized there have been fewer than that
many die.   If gay men were universally promiscuous, I would think the
numbers would be in the millions.  Don't you?

                                       Steve Harris, M.D.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology,sci.psychology.theory,sci.med
Subject: Re: ; what causes homosexuality; part of the truth
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:56:50 -0700

"Morpheus" <carterr@miskatonic.edu> wrote in message
news:amHW7.7197$Q06.42874@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> "Kenneth Isaacs" <isaacs@storm.cncoffice.com> wrote in message
> news:a0f8rl$8l8@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > The inexorable effect of evolutionary process is that any genetically
> > based human trait that interferes with reproduction will gradually,
> > but ultimately, fall out of the gene pool. Homosexuality reduces the
> > likelihood of reproduction. That makes it difficult to defend the
> > notion of homosexuality as having a genetic basis.
>
>  Homosexuality is widespread across a myriad species and appears to remain
> constant over time which would argue for a genetic basis.  It is
> somewhat simplistic to dismiss it as aberrant because homosexuals do not
> reproduce directly.  The best explanation focusses on kin selection,
> i.e., that homosexual members of any given family unit can act as
> secondary caregivers for the children of siblings who carry the same
> genes.  By giving those children an increased chance to pass on their
> genes to future generations, homosexuals are able to ensure the
> continuity of their own genes. Therefore, homosexuality can be a
> positive trait from an evolutionary perspective.


COMMENT:

I hate to tell you this, but kin selection as explanation for some trait
usually *sucks* as means of explaining genetic differences within (as
opposed to between) species.  The reason is that for it to work, you must
have pretty good reproductive isolation between groups-- better than you
usually see between groups of critters in the same species.  If you don't
have reproductive isolation, what happens to traits which hurt the
individual in reproduction, but benefit the group, is that they are
vulnerable, and simply get very quickly diluted out by short-term,
short-sighted direct natural selection at the individual level.

So: with good outbreeding, there's just no *chance* for the generation after
generation of careful group-selection that it takes for tribe A to win out
over tribe B, because they have better shamans or track lighting or better
musicals or whatever it is the homosexuals allegedly differentially
contribute to a culture or kin.

Since homosexual behavior is seen in a wide variety of mammals, including
those in which it would seem very unlikely to play any kind of
group-selective role (because they aren't that social!), my guess is that a
simpler hypothesis is correct: homosexuality is simply a comparatively rare
side-effect of some other process or system which is very heavily in favor
of reproductive success. In this case, homosexuality, thought not a simple
genetic recessive trait like hemochromatosis or sickle-cell trait or
whatever, would still be maintained in populations like these traits.

Finally, note that a good fraction of homosexual males and females have
offspring.  It takes a whopping dose of the trait to much negative effect on
reproductive success. Thus the point being that the supposed countervailing
evolutionary pressure against the genetic and "environmental" conditions
which act to set the stage for homosexuality, or homosexual behavior, are
probably not as large as you think.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Eating for Blood Type? Any experience out here?
Date: 20 Jun 2005 10:14:09 -0700
Message-ID: <1119287649.219850.193760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>"It" is more of a germ deserving to be eradicated.  After all, who
would name themselves after junk food in a science nutrition forum?
There is nothing normal, or desirable, about being gay. <<

COMMENT:

There's nothing normal about being red-haired or left-handed, either,
Gohde--- you bigotted weenie. Whether or not it's explicitly
"undesirable" to be left-handed depends on the level of enlightenment
in the society you live in. Once upon a time it was considered
"sinister" to be left-handed, hence the modern meaning of the word.
We've progressed since then, but not in other ways.

A hundred years ago when left-handed students were punished and schools
actively tried to get them to switch to writing with the "correct
hand," there were just about half as many left-handed students as there
are today. Evidently about half of today's left handed students are
sufficiently ambidexterous to be converted to right-handed writing, if
they are hounded enough. But the other half really have little choice
in the matter, and are made about as miserable by this procedure as a
right-handed student would be if he lost his hand and was forced into
doing everything left-handed.

Sexual orientation is very much like handedness. Would it not be better
to leave everybody alone? That's a rhetorical question. You, evidently,
will have problems answering it.  Due to stupidity and lack of
imagination.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Help Visual Purple get a date tomorrow night!
Date: 12 Aug 2005 20:12:27 -0700
Message-ID: <1123902747.477587.96180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Alternate Identity wrote:
> In article <2qCdnREnMeJWtGDfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
>  "George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Someone named "Visual Purple" posted the following
> > message to soc.women.lesbian-and-bi on August 4.
> > Let's help this "lonely anomaly" get a date this Saturday.
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> >
> > I live in a closed-minded provincial area in Israel.
> >
> >
> > There is a gay center a few miles from here and another in Jerusalem.
> >
> >
> <snipped>
>
> Why do people insist on using sexual orientation as an insult?
> There is not a damned thing wrong with being Bi or Gay.



COMMENT:

I have to agree on the last, though I personally happen to be straight.

It is a little wierd hearing about *orthodox Jewish* Israeli gay clubs,
though. I mean, the same halachic stuff in the Torah that is used for
all that kosher rigmarolle, is also pretty definite about homosexual
behavior. Or so I would have thought until I googled halachic and gay
and wished I hadn't. Three sexual orientations, four opinions. I have
this mental picture of all these yenta lesbians trying to figure out
how you can mix the milk and the meat and the fish. 8-[.

Anyway we libertarians prefer to do our experiments without a rule
manual.

SBH