Etiology Of Gayness, Born Gay?

[LeCharivari]

You must be completely left brain dominant (you can google tests for it).

No need to Google - I've had the tests done by experts and that was their conclusion too (as, co-incidentally, I mentioned recently here). I prefer to rely on objective facts, not subjective opinions), so it doesn't confuse me at all.

Most of the scientific statistical surveys that have been carried out have shown no real evidence of a link between being left-handed and being gay, and no link at all between being left-handed and being either feminine or effeminate - on the contrary, more men are left-handed than women, which would seem to contradict what people thought "years ago".

[LeCharivari]

But regardless, you are missing my point here. Why the need to justify anything? Who gives a rats ass what right wing bigots think? You are a human being same as me and entitled to the same rights - or rather same rights as a white guy

So simple... and yet even gay people try to obfuscate it. Thank you, SBK.

Exactly, IB and SBK. It couldn't (and shouldn't) be simpler - it should be about human rights, not gay rights.

There are no "statistics" or "studies" that show with any certainty at all that being gay is "genetic" - none of the studies that puts this forward as a theory has ever made any attempt to address the basic tenet of Darwinism that genes are inherited, so if there was a gay gene the numbers would decline with each generation, which clearly has not been happening.

Most gay people don't need to get "comfort" from any study or hypothesis - we are what we are and that's the end of it, take it or leave it. If our "real enemies" don't like or accept us, putting forward any number of hypotheses or surveys or statistics won't do a thing to change that, particularly if those hypotheses are subsequently shot down in flames.

Blacks, women, and all other civil / human rights movements succeeded when those involved were accepted for who they were, not for what they were. Where different ethnic, religious or gender-based groups are accepted on an equal footing it is because they have been seen to be equal, not because they produced or manufactured anything to show that they were equal.

"The public" don't care about "strong evidence" of a "large genetic factor" - they care about WHO WE ARE, and we are accepted or rejected on that basis. That's not "realpolitik", its real life.

[Jingthing]

How bizarre! Sounds like an argument for gay "Uncle-Tomism." He's a credit to his orientation! Look, I never said or implied that we are going to convince active haters like Bachman or her followers who like her anti-gay politics not to hate gay people. Nor did I ever say we should need to know facts about gay etiology to "comfort" us. I also don't need comforting though I am sure many gay people, such as teens living in hate environments, or gays living in countries which murder them for being gay, among many others, MAY benefit to know some facts, such as homosexuality is NATURAL.

What I did mean was that getting the facts out about etiology (strong evidence of at least some genetic factors) and homosexuality in nature will help the general public (not the dedicated haters) process some of the hate speech with their own intellects based on countering information from their propaganda.

This time comparing the black civil rights movement directly to the gay one, do you think blacks achieved greater equality by Uncle Tomism? No! They achieved it with political ACTIVISTS, the broad spectrum from the revolutionaries to the Gandhian pacifists like MLK (my preference).

Uncle tomism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uncle%20tomism -

a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)

Here's an example of how far this apologetic gay Uncle Tomism will get us. These civil rights/equality issues are real. Recently New York allowed so called gay marriage. But when you look at it, is isn't REALLY gay marriage. Yet I can bet you the straight masses think we have won enough rights already. They don't even understand that ONLY equal FEDERAL gay marriage is a real victory. When you tell them this, they think we are being uppity f-----ts. Seriously, talk to your straight friends about this, most of them think give them an arm (as if it's their right to give, we deserve to DEMAND equality) they'll take a leg. This is where this hollow, pathetically weak, gay anti-Tomism gets you, if you're lucky. Not nearly good enough and not nearly FAST enough.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Jingthing

[sbk]

I agree, JT political activism is the way to go, but I don't think the haters will be swayed at all. I also don't think that it will do much to sway the normalies, as I call them because the arguments that will work with them are the fact that we are all human beings all deserving of the same rights and it won't matter one jot if you are gay, brown, black or female.

[sbk]

Here's an example of how far this apologetic gay Uncle Tomism will get us. These civil rights/equality issues are real. Recently New York allowed so called gay marriage. But when you look at it, is isn't REALLY gay marriage. Yet I can bet you the straight masses think we have won enough rights already. They don't even understand that ONLY equal FEDERAL gay marriage is a real victory. When you tell them this, they think we are being uppity f-----ts. Seriously, talk to your straight friends about this, most of them think give them an arm (as if it's their right to give, we deserve to DEMAND equality) they'll take a leg. This is where this hollow, pathetically weak, gay anti-Tomism gets you, if you're lucky. Not nearly good enough and not nearly FAST enough.

Weird, I don't know anyone who thinks gays are uppity for wanting to have the same partnership rights as straights. And if those are the kinds of straight friends you have JT, you need to find new ones. I wouldn't tolerate some moron who thought I was an uppity woman simply because I expected to have the same human rights as a man.

[endure]

Most people don't even know what etiology means. It's not scientific breakthroughs that change straight people's minds - it's something that they can relate to.

In the Uk there's a band called Boyzone which was hugely popular. Whether their music was any good is up for debate. One of their members was a guy called Stephen Gately. He was the kind of boy you'd take home to meet your Mum and was very popular with UK audiences He came out as gay before one of the Sunday rags outed him. It cause a big fuss for a day or two but the general consensus was that he was a nice guy and that his being gay was no big deal. He probably did more to make chunks of the British Public accept gay folks than all the etiology stretched out in a row.

Unfortunately he died in 2009. Before the cause of death was known Jan Moir, a columnist with the Daily Mail (who else?) wrote an article suggesting that there was nothing natural about his death and that it was was somehow connected to his activities as a homosexual. That article generated over 25,000 complaints from members of the public - the largest number of press complaints ever about one article. It turned out that he died from natural causes.

It's the Stephen Gateleys of this world who affect public opinion.

Mind you I think we in the UK have a different mindset to you US folks. You had the Stonewall Riots. We had the Vice-Chancellor of Reading University

[Ijustwannateach]

I agree that the 'average Joes' are going to look more to attractive role models in entertainment, etc.

However, over the long haul, having scientific opinion undermining the 'it isn't natural' argument is quite useful, too (look how often that argument comes up on gay threads here on the forum). I don't think we're going to find the 'gay gene' because I don't think it exists that specifically, or independently of environment, but a good strong argument and evidence for some biological basis with big biological names behind it would be nice (to his credit, E. O. Wilson has published repeatedly some very convincing 'just-so' stories about how gay genes could help the species survey prehistorically, but there's no evidence to back it up- we need a kind of gay Galapagos for that).

My personal idea of myself doesn't need anyone else's approval of homosexuality to feel ok or validated at this point in my life, but it's a mediated world out there and there are a lot of lost youngsters who need to see their own realities reflected in that media in a supportive way- both pop and academic. Some of the arguments regarding coming out of the closet still apply- for example, there isn't MUCH pressure in SOME areas of the world not to show men kissing on TV (although actually there is a bit in OTHER areas- including Thailand, which saw some of its first actual male-male kisses on widely-released film only recently- and no, I'm not counting 'art films', pornography, or anything with kathoeys) but when you consider the vast heterosexual film presence, there really is a need to up our representation there, too- not, at least in some areas, to overcome resistance, but to be visible for the good of ourselves and also those who are coming after us.

[LeCharivari]

Most people don't even know what etiology means. It's not scientific breakthroughs that change straight people's minds - it's something that they can relate to.

Exactly.

"The public" couldn't care less about "etiology" or "scientific opinion", whether they are "haters" or "normalies". What people care about is what they understand and what they can relate to, and that isn't gay genes or political activism, its PEOPLE. Less Fred Karger and more Mark Bingham.

No, I don't think that "blacks achieved greater equality by Uncle Tomism", by being "overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)". Neither do I think that "they achieved it with political ACTIVISTS", although that got their cause the recognition it needed which it would not otherwise have got. I think they achieved (and still are achieving) equality by winning "the approval of whites" by their individual actions, and that is how the gay minority will "win the approval" of the straight majority.

The time (and need) for "political activism" is past - "the public" already know the arguments for and against - they don't need repeated whingeing and whining to convince or remind them. What they need is people they can relate to and accept and respect, not some unsubstantiated paranoid psycho-babble about what is or isn't "natural".

Its all too easy to be a "political activist" from the safety of the bar stool, the web or even a Gay Rights demo (at least in the West, for several decades); what is far more difficult is to EARN acceptance and respect both as an individual and as a member of a minority group from "the public" and your straight peers by your individual actions - and it is those actions which will earn equality, not political posturing and finger-pointing.

.

Edited July 13, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

... do you think blacks achieved greater equality by Uncle Tomism?

Having recently read a Thai and English version of Beecher Stowe's original Uncle Tom's Cabin rather than been influenced by who (or what) "Uncle Tom" has since become perceived to be in the USA, I can't help finding it rather ironic that someone (admittedly imaginary, but based on a real person) who refused to betray and beat his own kind and who was beaten to death by his white owner for refusing to say where two escaped black female slaves were, and whose actions convinced his original owner of the wrongs of slavery, has become seen to epitomise someone who betrayed his own race.

According to the Anti-Slavery Society Uncle Tom "galvanized anti-slavery sentiment" prior to the American Civil War and was "a significant force in leading to ... the abolition of slavery in the USA."

Maybe real Uncle Tomism gets you quite a lot and should be respected rather than reviled, after all.

[Jingthing]

It doesn't matter whether people know the word etiology or not. People know the the words CHOICE or BORN THAT WAY.

Obviously, I am talking about the contemporary meaning of Uncle Tom and it is a very insulting thing to call a black person. I don't think there was an ounce of Uncle Tom in either Malcolm X OR Martin Luther King. Abolition of slavery was important but the civil rights movement in the US really didn't really get much traction for 100 years after that, in the 1960's.

Political activism is NOT dead. That's absurd and totally wrong. Perhaps you mean street actions, yes they are out of fashion in this wired age. But organized political lobbies working day in and day out to push legal actions towards gay equality, that is ALSO political activism.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

I tend to doubt any solutions of the type, 'MAGNESIUM is the ONLY ANSWER!'. It is likely that in the case of such a complex socially constructed phenomenon as homophobia, in all of the ways in which it manifests in different countries, that a wide range of approaches will be the solution; including elements of pop culture, academic research, and social integration.

I would also say that microinfluences would be as or more important than macroinfluences. Kids who grow up around friends that reach the tipping point of coming out are much more likely to have a personal investment in the freedom and happiness of their friends, and that's a force for real social change. But how to get enough kids close enough to coming out to friends without the obvious threats and negative consequences? Social changes from pop culture driving changes in adult talk, along with scientific research to undermine religious or other entrenched social bigotry in public institutions, etc. The chair needs several legs to stand up, and works best when they all support each other.

The stigma attached to the epithet of being an 'Uncle Tom', by the way, is the implication that a black person needs to be a 'model citizen' in the eyes of whites (the book was written by a white woman) in order to be accepted, essentially a 'saint' and therefore no longer actually real. It threatened to create a stereotype (among whites, naturally) of the 'good black' which was as unreal as the image which had also been frequently touted (by white people of the period) of black people as being uneducable, animalistic, and/or savage. In that sense, it was unacceptable to be represented as either epitome, because it meant that white people still couldn't actually see the reality of blacks, as real people equivalent to them both in dignity and frailty. Many blacks have resented this, for what I find to be obvious and excellent reasons.

This argument often comes up in gay circles because of the disparity politically between those who wish, for various reasons, to represent 'all' of 'us' or 'our interests' as those of the wild, leather-clad, STD-laced, promiscuous extremes of homophobic fantasy, or of those who wish to represent 'all' of 'us' or 'our interests' as those of people who are 'just like everyone else'- voting, God-fearing, Republican capitalist teetotallers living in nice houses with white-picket fences, who just happen to want to live their Ozzie and Harriet lives with two men instead of a man and a woman. Neither extreme is true of most real gay people and both present a reality problem for those gays who want to be accepted as they ACTUALLY are- but politically the fantasies are easier to sell (and Uncle Tom was definitely used politically as a sales pitch).

[endure]

I'm glad I'm English.

[LeCharivari]

Political activism is NOT dead. That's absurd and totally wrong. Perhaps you mean street actions, yes they are out of fashion in this wired age. But organized political lobbies working day in and day out to push legal actions towards gay equality, that is ALSO political activism.

Well .... no, I meant "political ACTIVISTS" as you described them: "the broad spectrum from the revolutionaries to the Gandhian pacifists like MLK".

Organized political lobbying is a horse of a very different colour, as it is aimed directly at the legislature not the "general public", particularly in the US where its meaning is very specific and rules out any of the sort of "political activism" you have previously described.

I'm glad I'm English.

Well ....epideictic logolepsy isn't meant to be intelligible to mere mortals.

[Fookhaht]

I recognized my "gayness" in my early 50's--the same time that my whorl reversed itself. Now THAT'S spooky.

[endure]

I'm glad I'm English.

Well ....epideictic logolepsy isn't meant to be intelligible to mere mortals.

Indeed.

BTW the online OUP doesn't know what "logolepsy" means either.

[endure]

I recognized my "gayness" in my early 50's--the same time that my whorl reversed itself. Now THAT'S spooky.

OT but how do you feel about your 'missed' years?

[Fookhaht]

I recognized my "gayness" in my early 50's--the same time that my whorl reversed itself. Now THAT'S spooky.

OT but how do you feel about your 'missed' years?

Want me to start a new thread?

[endure]

I recognized my "gayness" in my early 50's--the same time that my whorl reversed itself. Now THAT'S spooky.

OT but how do you feel about your 'missed' years?

Want me to start a new thread?

Go on then

[tombkk]

It's the Stephen Gateleys of this world who affect public opinion.

True. I hear from Latin America that Ricky Martin did a lot for them, especially for themselves. Thinking that's it's not bad to be gay. The first step.

Germany has an openly gay Minister of Foreign Affairs, and several cities in Europe (and I believe also the US) have gay mayors. Not only have these people been elected into office, politicians are celebrities too.

[tombkk]

I would also say that microinfluences would be as or more important than macroinfluences. Kids who grow up around friends that reach the tipping point of coming out are much more likely to have a personal investment in the freedom and happiness of their friends, and that's a force for real social change. But how to get enough kids close enough to coming out to friends without the obvious threats and negative consequences? Social changes from pop culture driving changes in adult talk, along with scientific research to undermine religious or other entrenched social bigotry in public institutions, etc. The chair needs several legs to stand up, and works best when they all support each other.

I have always (since my coming out in highschool) considered my homosexuality natural and presented myself accordingly. This means that I don't tell people that I'm gay, for example in business, but when the topic comes up, it's not something I hide. I bring my boyfriend to social events, to company events "with spouse", to diplomatic invitations "with spouse". None of my friends (most of who are straight) have a problem with their children realising that these are two men being a couple, but then, we live in Thailand. I would have to struggle to think of a customer who thinks I am straight (unless he's a new customer).

That's what my political "activist" contribution is: Show people I have access to that being gay is nothing that they need to be afraid of. Microinfluence, as you call it.

[Ijustwannateach]

^Back when I was first coming out to close friends, teachers, and eventually my family, one thing I noticed was that even if the person I was coming out to didn't react well (which was really the exception rather than the rule), it still changed many things for them. One of the most homophobic friends I had did kind of drop me for a while; only for me later to hear from him signs that he had been doing his best to become more open-minded; we wound up discussing some of the more mainstream gay movies that had been released, etc., etc.

I think when people know that we are real and are people in their daily lives, it makes it much harder to keep a prejudice alive based on ignorance and demonization.

[FWIW]

There are no "statistics" or "studies" that show with any certainty at all that being gay is "genetic" - none of the studies that puts this forward as a theory has ever made any attempt to address the basic tenet of Darwinism that genes are inherited, so if there was a gay gene the numbers would decline with each generation, which clearly has not been happening.

Picked that snippet, but it could have been anything else in the thread. Not normally somewhere I would drop in on, but "Etiology" always catches my eye.

To address my weakest point, I was surprised by the comments regarding "gay" or "straight" in this thread. I though the concept of a strict dichotomy gay/straight had been ditched years ago? I really thought we thought of sexuality in terms of a continuum where sexuality runs the gamut from "complete staight" to "complete gay" (for lack of better words), with only a very small proportion of the population being extreme outliers. But perhaps I am simply out of date in this area of sexuality.

However, to perhaps firmer footing. I doubt few (if any) real geneticists would propose that "gayness" was controlled by a single gene, or even a couple of genes. Most times when we think of traits that are normally distributed (see point above) we think in terms of multiple genetic loci (tens or even hundreds of genes) that have a cumulative effect. Even then, with most identified traits, the environmental effect is as big, if not bigger than the genetic effect.

The advances in genetics may one day allow a complete reading of say an infant to "predict" the likelyhood of "gayness", but that environmental effect is going to make that prediction little more than an expensive educated guess (thank goodness).

To specifically address the point in the snippet, you noted that if there was a "gay" or "gayness" gene/s it would have died out many generations ago. Again, not according to modern genetics. Gene populations work in favour of the whole gene pool. While "gay genes" may have a worse effect on the individual, they could have a strong positive effect on the gene pool - or even more directly on the survivability of the genes themselves. Your brothers and sisters (if you have them) have pretty much the same DNA as you do (although in different combinations, but you have the same parents). Your brothers and sisters children carry a quite significant part of the identical genetic material that you have. If a gay mans "investment" is in his brothers and sisters children - the specific "family" genes (or genetic material) may actually do better than being passed down directly. Weird concept I know. But the point is, there may be a strong selective pressure keeping those genes in the population - despite the apparent disadvantage (in genetic terms) to the individual.

[R7BKK]

Now that I see FWIW's post, I decided I'd finally chime in too to help clarify some misunderstandings that are popping up in this thread.

Anyway, FWIW did a good job pointing out that the idea of a 'gay gene' is absurd and majorly simplistic. That's just an easy way for the media to reference it. Traits, especially behaviour, are created by a complex interplay of multiple genes + the environment, including the prenatal environment, which can have major effects before you even exit the womb. There's no single "gay gene", but genetics probably plays a major role in whether someone ends up being gay.

The majorly flawed point I wanted to correct though was the idea that gay people would die out over the generations if it were genetic. That sounds totally logical, and I can see why tons of people might have the same thought. But actually it's totally, absolutely irrelevant - for many reasons... FWIW gave one.

One of the easiest reasons to see why this doesn't matter... think about how many fatal genetic diseases are still passed on. Mutations continually occur in our genetic material. So maybe there's a genetic equilibrium.... there could be certain mutations that allow us to be gay (this doesn't mean it's abnormal... mutations are natural and influence tons of things), and the rate of mutation could completely balance out the lesser rate of breeding. Or maybe the number of gay people are increasing over time? Or maybe they are decreasing? It's hard to tell.

I think the figure given in one of the threads was "3000 years" and we haven't seen the number of gays decreasing. Three thousand years is just a blip on the radar. Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years or so. Homos have been around for about 2.5 millions years. (I mean the genus Homo... but the other sense of the word is probably true too.) The rate of gayness in humans could have been increasing, decreasing and doing all kinds of dips and dives like a roller coaster for hundreds of thousands of years.

There are no "statistics" or "studies" that show with any certainty at all that being gay is "genetic" - none of the studies that puts this forward as a theory has ever made any attempt to address the basic tenet of Darwinism that genes are inherited, so if there was a gay gene the numbers would decline with each generation, which clearly has not been happening.

There's no need "to address the basic tenet of Darwinism that genes are inherited... so the numbers would decline" because that's not true. Also - permit me to be petty here - it's not "a basic tenet of Darwinism that genes are inherited". Darwin had never heard of genes. But I do get your point.

There could in fact be reasons why there are selective advantages for having gay people (as FWIW mentioned). Having gays in populations might have meant non-breeding individuals who could help provide for others in their families and societies without even making more mouths to feed.... meaning it's an advantage for populations to have gays. Also, it's very possible that having a gay child for some biological reason makes women more fertile... so they end up passing on even more of the genetic material (with more offspring). Plus we're looking at gayness from a very narrow perspective at a pinpoint in time. Maybe over history, most gays have had children - in marriages of convenience or whatever.

For the record, and to show I'm an equal opportunity critic, I do think "etiology" was an extremely poor choice of words. (1) The vast majority of people don't know what it means. (2) To the vast majority of people who ARE familiar with it, I think it carries a connotation that I personally would never want to associate with gayness. Most of the time "etiology of [something]" is used when talking about a disease. It's still completely correct to use it, but has very strong associations that are counter-productive.

And to add my two cents to the overall conversation, I do think the idea that gay people are "born this way" can be a very powerful tool in fighting prejudice, in political and legal fights for rights and even for young gays who are having a hard time accepting themselves. I wouldn't discount the importance of a biological basis for who we are. At the same time, even more powerful are personal relationships and things that people can relate to... having a gay relative or friend, seeing openly gay people in society, human stories, human connections, etc.

[Ijustwannateach]

Based on recent posts, I've decided that this subforum needs a new guideline: no attacks on subforum members in general, Thaivisa members in general, or LGBT persons in general. Such material will be deemed inflammatory and the entire post(s) in which they occur removed on sight; furthermore henceforth such posts will also receive warnings.

[tombkk]

^Back when I was first coming out to close friends, teachers, and eventually my family, one thing I noticed was that even if the person I was coming out to didn't react well (which was really the exception rather than the rule), it still changed many things for them. One of the most homophobic friends I had did kind of drop me for a while; only for me later to hear from him signs that he had been doing his best to become more open-minded; we wound up discussing some of the more mainstream gay movies that had been released, etc., etc.

I think when people know that we are real and are people in their daily lives, it makes it much harder to keep a prejudice alive based on ignorance and demonization.

I agree. As a rule (with customers and new friends) I let them get to know me first, and that tiny piece of information that I'm not married because Thai law does not allow us to, comes at the appropriate time.

[Ijustwannateach]

A post commenting on moderation and its replies have been removed as per forum rules.

[Scott]

Jingthing, thanks for posting the article. I am extremely interested in the etiology of gayness as well as a whole host of things. I am still trying to figure out why the appendix hasn't disappeared and why tonsils exist (other than to make Drs. wealthy treating sore throats).

Knowledge need not serve a purpose. Once there is knowledge, we can build on it.

If I could go back in time and change things, there are more than a few that I would change. Being gay isn't one of them. Peeping out of the closet door, there was a whole wonderful world that didn't exist within it. Seeing oneself in the light of reality can help us to see others realistically.

Being gay hasn't been easy, but it sure has been fun. I for one, would like to know how I ended up so lucky.

[Jingthing]

I feel the same way. In my case, I don't think I chose to be gay. But I also consider myself lucky that it worked out that way. There is one thing I wonder about in my own experience. Even though I vividly recall crushes on the same sex from my earliest memories, I reckon boys who grow up straight have the same kinds of feelings that change over time. You know what I mean, the homosocial time of boyhood when it's rare for any boys to be very interested in girls. The thing I wonder about is the reaction of the world to their perception of me being different. If they hadn't have mentioned it I wonder what would have happened. Today in much of the world with awareness of gay issues being so widespread, it surely would be a different thing for peers (and others) to point out differences. Then the gay issue would be explicit. I remember reading school reports on me from an early age saying -- doesn't like to rough house with the other boys, etc., and you know what they were saying.

BTW, nothing wrong with the word etiology. It is often used as causation of disorders, but it's wider and valid definition is causation of ANYTHING. Including heterosexuality.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Those early teen years are pretty confusing with lots of strong feelings. I remember feeling intense feelings for both males and females. There was a sexual aspect to both, but the male aspect far outweighed the female part. Over time, the male sexual attraction grew stronger and clearer. With my peers the male sexual attraction diminished and the female attraction grew.

We really never thought of things as gay/straight, although the words were around. 'Queers' were those other people from other places who did bad things--we just enjoyed pleasuring each other.

Even in small towns in rural, redneck areas there were people who were gay. Everyone knew and there was a quasi-acceptance--they weren't usually labeled, but it was known. It was a sort of 'our somewhat effeminate neighbor boy' is ok, but something should be done about those New York queers.

I think some of the same dynamic is at play in largely rural Thailand. It's hard to really hate your brother-in-law's sister's kid who goes to school with your kid, but enjoys playing dress-up with the girls. There are a lot of other dynamics at play, but the concept is probably the same.

[R7BKK]

BTW, nothing wrong with the word etiology. It is often used as causation of disorders, but it's wider and valid definition is causation of ANYTHING. Including heterosexuality.

You're right -- it's perfectly valid to use the word 'etiololgy' here. Maybe I was being overly critical, but it definitely wouldn't be my personal choice of words.

Words have power, and I try to be particular about the words I use. For similar reasons, I generally avoid using the term 'homosexuality' (as do many other people). It just sounds so scientific/biological/clinical...almost like you're talking about a disorder. The word 'gay' is so much more user friendly - and friendly in general.

And I too count myself lucky that I ended up gay. I always find it odd when a straight person comments to me how being gay must be such a horrible/difficult lifestyle.... or when gay people use the same argument... "why would someone choose to be gay?" I think living a prototypical straight lifestyle would be pretty dreadful and count my blessings. (Luckily there are billions of people happily counting their blessings on the other side of the spectrum.)

The one small caveat to this is that being gay has been so sensationalized and glorified in pop culture in the past decade or so that I find a lot of straight people think every gay man they meet is going to be their fabulous fairy godfather...who can come to the rescue with fashion and interior decorating and relationship advice and caustic wit, a snappy remark for every occasion.