New Theory Of Genetic Switches For Etiology Of Male And Female Homosexuality

[Jingthing]

Something new.

It's just a theory now.

More research to come.

But definitely interesting.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/video/science_2/1112753542/homosexuality-genetic-triggers-discovered-122312/

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112746818/homosexual-epigenetics-gene-expression-121212/

"A new study from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) reveals that epigenetics, rather than genetics, could be the basis for homosexuality.

To begin, epigenetics looks at how gene expression is managed by temporary switches, known as epi-marks. In the report, recently published online in The Quarterly Review of Biology, the authors discussed how sex-specific epi-marks generally do not transmit between generations and are considered erased. Homosexuality can result when these marks are not erased and are passed on from father to daughter or mother to son.

Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality, explained the studys co-author Sergey Gavrilets, who serves as the NIMBioS associate director for scientific activities and professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, in a prepared statement."

[tombkk]

Interestingly enough. I have always followed the theory that it doesn't matter why I'm gay, though. It matters that I am, at least to some of the people in my environment.

Most people I mix with couldn't care less whether my spouse is male or female. This holds true for both my private and my business environment. If I'm invited to an event "with spouse" (that includes all the diplomatic events, and many of the commercial / chamber events), they know who I'll bring along.

[Jingthing]

The choice issue has been politicized. So caring about it or not, the scientific research will continue. Lots of people are really curious and lots of people think that is does matter.

[LeCharivari]

Interestingly enough. I have always followed the theory that it doesn't matter why I'm gay, though. It matters that I am, at least to some of the people in my environment.

Most people I mix with couldn't care less whether my spouse is male or female. This holds true for both my private and my business environment. If I'm invited to an event "with spouse" (that includes all the diplomatic events, and many of the commercial / chamber events), they know who I'll bring along.

They may "know", but that doesn't mean that your b/f was invited (unless you are now married). "Spouse" has a specific meaning on an invitation, which is strictly only wife or husband. It has nothing to do with gender or sexual preference but is to limit attendance to those invited by name plus whoever they are in a formal (married) relationship with - no balloon chasers, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc.

In all probability it makes no difference at "networking" events, where virtually anyone is welcome, but it could at more formal functions. Unless you have checked with whoever has issued the invitation, arriving with anyone other than a "spouse" would be wrong.

[tombkk]

Interestingly enough. I have always followed the theory that it doesn't matter why I'm gay, though. It matters that I am, at least to some of the people in my environment.

Most people I mix with couldn't care less whether my spouse is male or female. This holds true for both my private and my business environment. If I'm invited to an event "with spouse" (that includes all the diplomatic events, and many of the commercial / chamber events), they know who I'll bring along.

They may "know", but that doesn't mean that your b/f was invited (unless you are now married). "Spouse" has a specific meaning on an invitation, which is strictly only wife or husband. It has nothing to do with gender or sexual preference but is to limit attendance to those invited by name plus whoever they are in a formal (married) relationship with - no balloon chasers, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc.

In all probability it makes no difference at "networking" events, where virtually anyone is welcome, but it could at more formal functions. Unless you have checked with whoever has issued the invitation, arriving with anyone other than a "spouse" would be wrong.

Thanks for your reply, but "spouse" in these invitations doesn't mean you have to present a marriage certificate. The specific meaning is that you bring your life partner, with or without any legal paperwork. Believe me, I'm pretty firm on the diplomatic parquet and have been invited to the National Days of many countries with my "spouse" of 10 years (minus the legal paperwork).

Many straight guys bring their life partners as well, and nobody asks whether they are married.

I agree with you that they would frown upon you if you brought your "flavour of the week". Everybody can spot a balloon chaser. This is not what I am talking about.

[LeCharivari]

Sorry to disappoint you͵ Tom͵ but what may be acceptable at networking events like national days is meaningless. Spouse on an invitation means what it says - spouse͵ nothing else.

Turning up to a genuine social function with someone else͵ however well you know them͵ is simply bad manners whatever your sexual preference

[Jingthing]

If you can't legally join with your spouse, and you still have a spouse, that's your spouse. This includes straight couples who are together but have decided not to marry.

[isanbirder]

Interestingly enough. I have always followed the theory that it doesn't matter why I'm gay, though. It matters that I am, at least to some of the people in my environment.

Most people I mix with couldn't care less whether my spouse is male or female. This holds true for both my private and my business environment. If I'm invited to an event "with spouse" (that includes all the diplomatic events, and many of the commercial / chamber events), they know who I'll bring along.

They may "know", but that doesn't mean that your b/f was invited (unless you are now married). "Spouse" has a specific meaning on an invitation, which is strictly only wife or husband. It has nothing to do with gender or sexual preference but is to limit attendance to those invited by name plus whoever they are in a formal (married) relationship with - no balloon chasers, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc.

In all probability it makes no difference at "networking" events, where virtually anyone is welcome, but it could at more formal functions. Unless you have checked with whoever has issued the invitation, arriving with anyone other than a "spouse" would be wrong.

Thanks for your reply, but "spouse" in these invitations doesn't mean you have to present a marriage certificate. The specific meaning is that you bring your life partner, with or without any legal paperwork. Believe me, I'm pretty firm on the diplomatic parquet and have been invited to the National Days of many countries with my "spouse" of 10 years (minus the legal paperwork).

Many straight guys bring their life partners as well, and nobody asks whether they are married.

I agree with you that they would frown upon you if you brought your "flavour of the week". Everybody can spot a balloon chaser. This is not what I am talking about.

Many years ago now, I was invited to the Governor's annual garden party in Hong Kong. I thought it would be boring to go on my own, so I rang up the Social Secretary and asked if the invitation included my wife. (I was as gay then as I am now).

"Oh! Are you married? Good!"

This nearly reduced me to hysterics. Anyway, on 'the day', a girlfriend of mine, complete with 'the hat' (you have to have 'the hat' for a garden party) were ushered through Government House, and descended the steps to the lawn, where all the earlier guests were looking up to see who was coming.

"Who's she? He's not married, is he?"

It all went off fine, and those who knew me had a good laugh. Now, that was some time ago, and with a girlfriend. But I think it would work nowadays (the circumstances being comparable) with a respectable boyfriend. Not a flipperty little toyboy!

To get back to Tom's comments, I think many people nowadays would admire you for bringing your partner. No, it's not bad manners.

[LeCharivari]

... To get back to Tom's comments, I think many people nowadays would admire you for bringing your partner. No, it's not bad manners.

Agreed, IB - as long as you have the manners, as you did, to ask beforehand.

... and there's no requirement to even be specific - just "can I bring a friend?" is all that's needed in response to a formal invitation. This particularly applies to any invitation where identification is required (as it might be by an Embassy).

Attending a Royal Garden Party in the UK, for example, has traditionally only been open to the invitee, his or her spouse (wife or husband) and unmarried daughters between 18 and 25 but that has now been extended to include Civil Partners (but not, even if you ask, "life partners").

Its simply basic etiquette and mutual respect. (which are usually the same thing).

[endure]

... To get back to Tom's comments, I think many people nowadays would admire you for bringing your partner. No, it's not bad manners.

Agreed, IB - as long as you have the manners, as you did, to ask beforehand.

... and there's no requirement to even be specific - just "can I bring a friend?" is all that's needed in response to a formal invitation. This particularly applies to any invitation where identification is required (as it might be by an Embassy).

Attending a Royal Garden Party in the UK, for example, has traditionally only been open to the invitee, his or her spouse (wife or husband) and unmarried daughters between 18 and 25 but that has now been extended to include Civil Partners (but not, even if you ask, "life partners").

Why not sons?

[tombkk]

Sorry to disappoint you͵ Tom͵ but what may be acceptable at networking events like national days is meaningless. Spouse on an invitation means what it says - spouse͵ nothing else.

Turning up to a genuine social function with someone else͵ however well you know them͵ is simply bad manners whatever your sexual preference

Not in Thailand. Many people are not legally married but have been a couple for many years (the PM being a good example). In addition, people who invite me, know me. Sorry to disappoint you, but acceptance is better than you (and I mean the personal "you", i.e. LCV, not the general "you") would think. I know this, because diplomats whose functions we attended, re-invite us, often even to their private functions.

There was one occasion in the past where a diplomat who I was not really close with invited me to a private function "with spouse". I called him and asked him whether he was aware that my spouse was male. He started to stutter something about "errr.... hmmmm... we are so tolerant these days...", and we declined to attend. It happens, but it's an exception.

[tombkk]

If you can't legally join with your spouse, and you still have a spouse, that's your spouse. This includes straight couples who are together but have decided not to marry.

Many examples of that in Thai High-Society.

I do think it will become easier when same-sex marriage (or civil partnership) is introduced in Thailand. I have been here for more than two decades, I can wait another one.

[LeCharivari]

You're totally missing my point, Tom.

I'm not talking about "acceptance", I'm talking about formal invitations, what the term "spouse" means in a formal context such as when used in a formal invitation, and the correct way to reply. It has nothing to do with whether you get re-invited or not, or whether those inviting you actually mind or not, or in most cases whether they even notice or care - its simply about what is correct formally.

You are also missing the point that diplomatic functions are "Not in Thailand" - they are in whichever country is inviting you, on their terms not those current in Thailand. If invited to a function by a country where gay marriage is legal, for example, a "spouse" would mean whoever you were married to regardless of their and your sex.

[LeCharivari]

... Attending a Royal Garden Party in the UK, for example, has traditionally only been open to the invitee, his or her spouse (wife or husband) and unmarried daughters between 18 and 25 but that has now been extended to include Civil Partners (but not, even if you ask, "life partners").

Why not sons?

Its the only remaining vestige of Royal participation in the presentation of debutantes at court, which Phil the Greek ended in 1958 - Queen Charlotte's Ball isn't really the same as the "debs" are more likely to have appeared in Sports Illustrated than the Illustrated London News.

As its all part of "coming out" I'm not sure how that would apply to gay sons - I'll have to think about that one!

[tombkk]

You're totally missing my point, Tom.

I'm not talking about "acceptance", I'm talking about formal invitations, what the term "spouse" means in a formal context such as when used in a formal invitation, and the correct way to reply. It has nothing to do with whether you get re-invited or not, or whether those inviting you actually mind or not, or in most cases whether they even notice or care - its simply about what is correct formally.

You are also missing the point that diplomatic functions are "Not in Thailand" - they are in whichever country is inviting you, on their terms not those current in Thailand. If invited to a function by a country where gay marriage is legal, for example, a "spouse" would mean whoever you were married to regardless of their and your sex.

I said "not in Thailand" because I was assuming that your experience is from somewhere else...

[catmac]

What a wonderful thread this is!

There I was worried to death at the thought that some wierd wiggly bit had fallen off my genes and turned me into a raging poofter, only to calm down, smile and thank my lucky stars that I've never been invited to the Royal Garden Party or an Embassy do in my life.

[Jingthing]

What a wonderful thread this is!

There I was worried to death at the thought that some wierd wiggly bit had fallen off my genes and turned me into a raging poofter, only to calm down, smile and thank my lucky stars that I've never been invited to the Royal Garden Party or an Embassy do in my life.

Raging poofter? Seriously, dude?

[endure]

What a wonderful thread this is!

There I was worried to death at the thought that some wierd wiggly bit had fallen off my genes and turned me into a raging poofter, only to calm down, smile and thank my lucky stars that I've never been invited to the Royal Garden Party or an Embassy do in my life.

Raging poofter? Seriously, dude?

I think you'll find that catmac is English. Self deprecation and all that. Sorry if it doesn't travel well.

[Jingthing]

What a wonderful thread this is!

There I was worried to death at the thought that some wierd wiggly bit had fallen off my genes and turned me into a raging poofter, only to calm down, smile and thank my lucky stars that I've never been invited to the Royal Garden Party or an Embassy do in my life.

Raging poofter? Seriously, dude?

I think you'll find that catmac is English. Self deprecation and all that. Sorry if it doesn't travel well.

So you're saying he IS a raging poofter?

[endure]

What a wonderful thread this is!

There I was worried to death at the thought that some wierd wiggly bit had fallen off my genes and turned me into a raging poofter, only to calm down, smile and thank my lucky stars that I've never been invited to the Royal Garden Party or an Embassy do in my life.

Raging poofter? Seriously, dude?

I think you'll find that catmac is English. Self deprecation and all that. Sorry if it doesn't travel well.

So you're saying he IS a raging poofter?

No, HE'S saying he's a raging poofter. From your post it seemed that you found this somehow offensive. I just pointed out that we English use this sort of language in a self-deprecatory manner which might not always be understood by those who aren't English.

[Jingthing]

Golly. Shucks. Heavens to Betsy! ... do you sell fanny packs in England?

[LeCharivari]

No

[LeCharivari]

If you can't legally join with your spouse, and you still have a spouse, that's your spouse. This includes straight couples who are together but have decided not to marry.

Many examples of that in Thai High-Society.

I do think it will become easier when same-sex marriage (or civil partnership) is introduced in Thailand. I have been here for more than two decades, I can wait another one.

Many examples across all levels of Thai society,Tom - which is precicely why, in another thread, I made the point that gay marriage isn't such a big deal in Thailand because straight marriage isn't such a big deal either.