With the gay rights agenda still very much in the news this question lies at the heart of the current debate. Join us as we explore these questions with our panel, chaired by Guardian writer Kira Cochrane and hear both sides of an issue that continues to polarise opinion.
The Guardian.
In answer to your question.
Nobody has the foggiest idea.
Anyone who claims they know is a liar.
Perhaps human understanding will never reach the point where we can answer this question.
People - gay or anti-gay - often just choose the option they feel most comforting.
This is an amusing parlour game, no more, no less.
No rational person would think it should have any impact on how gay people are treated.
Thanks for asking.
Panelists include Julie Bindel and Peter Tatchell - don't all rush at once.
Surprised they didn't ask that intellectual titan, Lady Gaga.
Why I'm glad I have the gay gene, Theo Merz, Telegraph, June 11th...
Haters, as is their wont, continue to hate, saying that if homosexuality is genetic, it’s nothing more than a birth defect. They add that if a gene can be isolated, removing it becomes easier. At the other end of the spectrum, among my London-based, 20-something gay and straight friends, the reaction is largely: who cares? Why this obsession with cracking a possibly non-existent gay code? As the actress Cynthia Nixon, who is married to a woman, commented on an earlier study, “It doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here”.
But while, as they’d say on the BBC, other gay opinions are available, I find the idea of a biological basis for my homosexuality extremely comforting. For me, the fact that we were born this way remains a convenient truth to fall back on in moments of self-doubt.
See? Told you.
Note the excited squeal with which Queerty reported the latest research...
And note the unwittingly ironic sub-header, 'Blinded with science'.
Posts
And if you do want to hear Julie and Peter it costs twenty pink pounds to get in
ReplyDeleteWeren't Julie and Peter in them Ladybird books that learnt me how to read?
DeleteI agree that this "gay gene" topic is tiresome - it's like some are desperate for an excuse to justify who they are are attracted to.
ReplyDeletePeople fancy people , for all sorts of conscious and unconscious factors...... get over it ;)
I'm more interested in why some homos restrict themselves to performing exclusive "bottom-top" roles.
- eg. Is prejudice and/or phobia against men who are only penetrated by other men the same as against men who only penetrate other men ?
Is it more "macho" to penetrate a man than a woman ?
"Penetration is not being presented as a specifically sexual or specifically anal , or even specifically homosexual act........ Instead , it is to be understood as what might be called an 'existential' penetration or psychosomatic vulnerability the penetration of which is experienced as a violation of the inviolate masculinity to which masculine subjectivity is (supposedly ) heir."
*Jonathan Kemp:Penetrated Male p.73*
"The male subject is required to submit to – be penetrated by – a dominant discourse of masculinity, but once that identity is established, any further penetration is a threat to its stability, and must be disavowed.
The male body is thus heavily policed, and the penetrated male body becomes the problematic site of fear/desire, a dumping ground of all our fears about homosexuality/anality/feminization/psychosis.
It also functions as a site of transgressive pleasure.
http://www.beigeuk.com/2014/04/jonathan-kemp-the-penetrated-male/
Davy Marzella