The Science of Gayness: Does it Really Matter?

Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.

Taoist physicians regarded homosexuality among men as a dangerous practice- for several reasons. First of all, Yang is by nature an active, aggressive force, and, when two aggressive forces meet, a fundamental conflict of energies and intentions result. Male homosexuality requires that one partner yield to the other by adopting the female role, both physically and psychologically, and when this practice becomes a habit it completely undermines the fundamental role of Yang in the order of nature. Looking at this situation of Yang conflict at a microscopic scientific level, when sperm from two different men are mixed together and observed under magnification, they may clearly be observed fighting one another in a desperate struggle for supremacy.
Psychology aside, the greatest threat posed to men by homosexual practices are physiological.
Anal penetration, the mutual exchange of Yang sexual fluids, and frequent uncontrolled ejaculations are the culprits. Ancient Taoist physicians noted a pathological condition called 'Dragon Yang Syndrome' which occurred exclusively among promiscuous male homosexuals. 'Dragon Yang' (lung-yang) is a common Chinese euphemism for male homosexuality, equivalent to the English word 'gay'. Symptoms of this ailment included weakness and fatigue, skin ulcers and boils, low immunity, and impotence.

Lee, you are somewhat Confusius'd. Traditional roles of dominance and passivity are no more defined by gender than by anatomical components or the phyiologcal constituencies of the organism. Though you may view your penis as a spear of conquest and a tool to penetraye the dark mysteries, this my friend is a learned neurosis. More appropriately, "gayness", is a socio-cultural expression of biological diversity within a species. Genetic, or otherwise, the viability of a partnership does not in any way depend on "penetration" but the mutual manefestation of growth with the natural paring of two organism, human or not, and in the manner and style reflected by the personal prefernces of two consenting adults.

Lee is funny. According to him her, I (and other gays) am ejaculating randomly without control, all while being fatigued (maybe from all the ejaculation?) and suffering from boils.

What a sorry lot we gays are!

Lee, you're so wise. Yawn.

Anyway, I think that the stigma about homosexuality will often prevent scientists from sound reasoning. Even in this article, Jen says something about gayness maybe being due to too much or too little testosterone in fetal development. That is as offensive [as is the whole subject] as scientists saying that a fairly mutant like level of pigmentation in fetal development of the skin organ is what causes blackness. Why do people have so much trouble accepting diversity within our species?

remember our constitution. we all have the right of our persuit of happiness. we do live in the united states of america. we all have the right to be happy and free. this has nothing to do with our sex lives.

Here we go again: nature vs. nurture. Who cares? Why can't I be gay simply because I want to be?

The Gay gene? FIX IT BEFORE BIRTH?
You breeders might need fixing; but we are just fine. If we find the Brad Pitt gene, will we all look like that?

I agree with du about the demonizing of ones opponents. The name calling is not helpful. But I am still waiting to hear a compelling argument for opposing gay marriage. I have listened very carefully, and read intently. All of the arguments talk about what is "natural" or how marriage is about procreation and how gays can't do that. Being gay IS natural for me. I could procreat with or without marriage if I wanted too. Those opposing gay marriage on these grounds are not also calling for restricting straight but sterile couples from marrying. Or those past child bearing years. Or any number of other examples of marriage not involving the creation of children. Marriage is about 2 people who love each other sharing a life together and providing support for each other. Society benefits from these relationships straight or gay. Many religious reasons are often trotted out asailing these relationships. But I don't have to believe your religion or anyone's. My religion is just fine with me being gay. Many churches are. I am still waiting for a compelling argument. My personal belief is that the bottom line on this issue is all that "icky" sex. Some straight people just can't get past that.

Good one! Made me laugh. I agree.

I'm waiting for a convincing argument against gay marriage too. For the life of me, I just can't understand why the idea of it is a threat to marriage between heterosexual couples. I think the "causes" of gayness are irrelevant and that the "you can have a domestic partnership" offering is another incarnation of separate-but-equal claptrap. Gay couples shoulder the same responsibilites of citizenship as straight couples in the U.S.,and by every measure of fairness, deserve the same benefits and freedoms enjoyed by straights. I think gayness is like left-handedness-- not the norm but certainly not not pathological either. It's really time to stop demonizing homosexuality, and to stop discriminating against people on the basis of their personal relationships.

It seems that this preoccupation with finding a 'gay' gene is a preoccupation of the same people that rabbit on about the sanctity of life (but only when it involves the unborn-capital punishment and the needless deaths of untold numbers of innocent civilians from our bombs-hey that's OK). So it seems to me, there is a fundamental conundrum here. If there is a gay gene and a fetus carrying this gene can be identified-what are they going to do about it? Besides, it seems that this just invalidates the argument against abortion about 'what if Beethoven's mother had terminated her pregnancy?'How many terribly creative people who contribute so much to our society are gay? I'm sure any reader can immediately think of examples among the famous and among their own circle of acquaintances. And what if the 'gay gene turns out to be the same one for certain types of artistry?? I think a scientific search for 'gayness' makes no sense from any perspective. Isn't it all time we grew up and let others live their own lives in peace? The huge Black vote for Obama was impressive but people who have experienced prejudice should think twice before they inflict it on others. My favourite philosopher/educator Paulo Friere wrote a lot about the oppressed becoming the oppressors once they have bettered their situation. Let's ensure this wonderful political change becomes a new dawn for all Americans where everyone is afforded to live his or her life according to individual principles and we all share a mutual care and respect for each other. America could shine like a beacon once more!By the way, from an anthropological perspective, there is some indication that the 'gay gene', if it exists has a beneficial purpose- more non-breeding adults to help ensure the survival of a family's young. I know some wonderful gay uncles who sem to demonstrate this effect.