60 Minutes , sunday , march 12 looks at gay/straight twins

[cruztbone]

As an old fogie of 53, I am proud to admit watching 60 Minutes on sunday nights from 7-8pm since the age of 15. last night, reporter Leslie Stahl did her segment on the research Northwestern University is doing on gay/straight identical twins.

conclusions? 1. among male siblings who are right- handed, the oldest is least likely to be gay(2%). the likelihood increases with each younger male born into the family.
2. twin males can have exactly the same environmental conditions and become 1 as gay, the other as straight. 3. among both males and females, the movement of hands during conversation is a reliable predictor in childhood of sexual orientation as adults. 4. homosexuality is NOT a chosen lifestyle-it is largely genetic, hormonal and involuntary.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE OLD FOGIES HAVE WAITED FOR DECADES TO SEE on network TV : actual scientific evidence about my population. No myth, no old wives' tales, no right -wing religious bullshit and no Republican platform nonsense. just empirical data with anecdotal , video interviews.

The story closed with gay men and women embracing each other. their hands wandered to touch each other's clothed buttocks. handholding and kissing in public.This is not new or shocking here in CA.

But it must infuriate the Bible Belt. God bless the first amendment, CBS news, Leslie Stahl and Northwestern U! there is a God: a God who loves gay men and women.

I would love to hear your reactions, folks. I am so pleased, i am going to work to incorporate this into the pride parade in Santa cruz, CA on Sunday, June 4 of this year! if you happen to be in the area, please come see us. This will be our 30th year of gay/lesbian pride with a parade in a city of 50,000.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Yes I saw it too cruztbone.

I'm delighted that 60 minutes continues to inform those who choose to be informed. And yes I believe it'll infuriate the Bible Belt.

But you "can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink" as the saying goes. And those who refuse to address hard evidence like evolution and the benefit of stem cell research are not going to have their minds changed anytime soon by a 60 Minutes segment. To those individuals ignorance with always been bliss and any change to the narrow constraints of a blindered Biblical existence simply fucks too much with their cloistered view of humans and their condition.

I'd love to be wrong, btw.

 

[Webster]

As an old fogie of 53, I am proud to admit watching 60 Minutes on sunday nights from 7-8pm since the age of 15. last night, reporter Leslie Stahl did her segment on the research Northwestern University is doing on gay/straight identical twins.
___________________________________

conclusions? 1. among male siblings who are right- handed, the oldest is least likely to be gay(2%).
________________________________
Hey,
I'm one of the 2% !


CBS' 60 Minutes has been so highly respected for so many years that I would think that more than a few people would be inclined to reexamine their ignorant views on homosexuality.

:smile:

 

[windtalkerways]

So is someone else I know Web...
one of four brothers! :smile:

 

[Matthew]

But you "can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink" as the saying goes. And those who refuse to address hard evidence like evolution and the benefit of stem cell research are not going to have their minds changed anytime soon by a 60 Minutes segment. To those individuals ignorance with always been bliss and any change to the narrow constraints of a blindered Biblical existence simply fucks too much with their cloistered view of humans and their condition.

Sad but true. I worry that the queer rights movement is staking too much on the idea that finding a "genetic cause" will deliver us from oppression. Even if we successfully prove that "we can't help it," we can't count on that for protection from the forces who get great political mileage out of using us as straw men. Think they will yield to logic? And science???

In the end, we have to fight for our rights independent of whether or not "it's a choice." And it doesn't help that the science searching for a "cause" is still shaky at best and also based on some faulty presuppositions.

 

[Chuck64]

Hey,
I'm one of the 2% !
:smile:

Ditto.

Just like everything else, I'm happy for the positive exposure this will bring. We're going to have to "earn" our first-class citizenship one mind at a time.

 

[bigschlotsky]

I didn't see the show but I'm glad they did it. On the issue of gay rights, I remember a couple yrs ago I was watching an episode of the West Wing and they were talking about some issue like gay marriage. At one point the (un-Cheneylike) Vice President character said something like "this will only be an issue for another couple decades. The kids don't give a damn about this." I was thinking about it and he's right. I'm sure there's a sense of urgency for older gay folks to have their rights recognized, and although I'm as straight as can be I'm all for equal rights for gays. But if it's any consolation for the folks out there, the West Wing was right. The younger generation, for the most part, couldn't give a damn whether gay people marry. And I lived in the Bible Belt (Kentucky) for a year and even there the people under 30 are MUCH more liberal than their parents on gay issues. Just like the black civil rights mvt. in the 50s-60s, it's only a matter of time.

 

[B_Stronzo]

In the end, we have to fight for our rights independent of whether or not "it's a choice." And it doesn't help that the science searching for a "cause" is still shaky at best and also based on some faulty presuppositions.

'Shaky at best' indeed.

I'm suspect of being "explained away" too Matthew to the edification of those who'd label heterosexuality as somehow superior. I've long-maintained that one of these talk show gurus ought to have a show where the entire audience is gay people firing inquiries like "how did you decide to be heterosexual?" or "was your mother neglectful when you were being raised thus causing you to go for the opposite sex?" type questions.

I noticed the LOGO channel recently doing a study of homosexuality in the animal kingdom and thought "ah yes, here we go again trying to justify ourselves again".

Nope. I'm all done.

 

[windtalkerways]

I didn't see the show but I'm glad they did it. On the issue of gay rights, I remember a couple yrs ago I was watching an episode of the West Wing and they were talking about some issue like gay marriage. At one point the (un-Cheneylike) Vice President character said something like "this will only be an issue for another couple decades. The kids don't give a damn about this." I was thinking about it and he's right. I'm sure there's a sense of urgency for older gay folks to have their rights recognized, and although I'm as straight as can be I'm all for equal rights for gays. But if it's any consolation for the folks out there, the West Wing was right. The younger generation, for the most part, couldn't give a damn whether gay people marry. And I lived in the Bible Belt (Kentucky) for a year and even there the people under 30 are MUCH more liberal than their parents on gay issues. Just like the black civil rights mvt. in the 50s-60s, it's only a matter of time.

I think you are right, Schlotsky.

It will take a bit longer but I
agree that the tide is slowly
turning on the general view
of homosexuality.

It is the biased, bigoted, narrow-
minded people who always seem
to have the loudest voices,
especially because they know
they are losing ground on their
egregious views.

 

[B_Stronzo]

The kids don't give a damn about this." I was thinking about it and he's right. I'm sure there's a sense of urgency for older gay folks to have their rights recognized, and although I'm as straight as can be I'm all for equal rights for gays. But if it's any consolation for the folks out there, the West Wing was right. The younger generation, for the most part, couldn't give a damn whether gay people marry. And I lived in the Bible Belt (Kentucky) for a year and even there the people under 30 are MUCH more liberal than their parents on gay issues. Just like the black civil rights mvt. in the 50s-60s, it's only a matter of time.

Wow bigschlotsky.

I don't see it at all and I'm in Massachusetts. Fucking Meredith Viera's son (and she and her husband are BOTH liberals) has founded a conservative group decrying gay marriage at his college.

And now we have Pierce Bush as the new generation of Bush representatives:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/02/gop.bushs.lkl.access/

In fact, last year while I was getting my Master's in a highly respected college here in the Bay State I was astounded at how different the college student forum was politically from when I took my Bachelor's a decade plus earlier.

There is no small shortage of up and coming bigots... I've seen them. They're out there and I don't feel any great sense of hope.

Signed, Gloomy Gus

 

[vinny_spiruccino]

I didn't see the show but I'm glad they did it. On the issue of gay rights, I remember a couple yrs ago I was watching an episode of the West Wing and they were talking about some issue like gay marriage. At one point the (un-Cheneylike) Vice President character said something like "this will only be an issue for another couple decades. The kids don't give a damn about this." I was thinking about it and he's right. I'm sure there's a sense of urgency for older gay folks to have their rights recognized, and although I'm as straight as can be I'm all for equal rights for gays. But if it's any consolation for the folks out there, the West Wing was right. The younger generation, for the most part, couldn't give a damn whether gay people marry. And I lived in the Bible Belt (Kentucky) for a year and even there the people under 30 are MUCH more liberal than their parents on gay issues. Just like the black civil rights mvt. in the 50s-60s, it's only a matter of time.

Mad props to my straight brother!!

Keep this in mind - just like with racial discrimination, gays are persecuted by religious zealots because "the Bible says....". In other words, the Bible really DOES say that Noah had 3 sons, Ham, Shem, & Japhael. And that when Noah made a drunk fool of himself, Ham went out & tried to get the people to make him their new leader because Noah certainly wasn't fit for the job any longer. The other 2 sons supported their father even when he was wrong because God had made Noah their leader. God was so mad at Ham for causing all the controversy that "he and all his decendants" would forever more be subserviant to the other two brothers. This was how the church justified slavery - Africans were Ham's decendants and Europeans were the decendants of the other two brothers, according to church doctrine. In fact, the largest evangelical church in the US today, the Southern Baptist Church, broke away from its northern counterpart around the time of the civil war over a doctrinal dispute & bacame it's own denomination. The doctrine? That it was the duty and obligation of white Christians to maintain the Biblical standard of keeping Ham's decendants in their subserviant place. They only admitted their erroneous interpretation a few years ago. It took four hundred years of right wing, Bible thumpin, TERRORISM towards Africans.

If I'm going to hell because "the Bible says..." homosexuality is a sin, then I plan to meet Harriet Tubman there. After all, "the Bibl says..." slaves - obey your masters. She didn't obey, & she was a slave. I say thank God for her - an individual who was able to hear God's voice clearly despite what church doctrine taught. The Bible hasn't changed since then, just the minds of it's readers...

This concludes sundy school for today boys & girls...

 

[windtalkerways]

Mad props to my straight brother!!

Keep this in mind - just like with racial discrimination, gays are persecuted by religious zealots because "the Bible says....". In other words, the Bible really DOES say that Noah had 3 sons, Ham, Shem, & Japhael. And that when Noah made a drunk fool of himself, Ham went out & tried to get the people to make him their new leader because Noah certainly wasn't fit for the job any longer. The other 2 sons supported their father even when he was wrong because God had made Noah their leader. God was so mad at Ham for causing all the controversy that "he and all his decendants" would forever more be subserviant to the other two brothers. This was how the church justified slavery - Africans were Ham's decendants and Europeans were the decendants of the other two brothers, according to church doctrine. In fact, the largest evangelical church in the US today, the Southern Baptist Church, broke away from its northern counterpart around the time of the civil war over a doctrinal dispute & bacame it's own denomination. The doctrine? That it was the duty and obligation of white Christians to maintain the Biblical standard of keeping Ham's decendants in their subserviant place. They only admitted their erroneous interpretation a few years ago. It took four hundred years of right wing, Bible thumpin, TERRORISM towards Africans.

If I'm going to hell because "the Bible says..." homosexuality is a sin, then I plan to meet Harriet Tubman there. After all, "the Bibl says..." slaves - obey your masters. She didn't obey, & she was a slave. I say thank God for her - an individual who was able to hear God's voice clearly despite what church doctrine taught. The Bible hasn't changed since then, just the minds of it's readers...

This concludes sundy school for today boys & girls...

Beautifully put, Vinny!:smile:

 

[B_Stronzo]

Vinny?

Much as I applaud your good scholarship I think the average "fundie" sees but several key things in the Old and New Testaments with regard to homosexuals (particularly MALE ones):

-those few damning passages in Leviticus and the implications in Romans.

They don't give a shit about re-interpretation or the fact that translations, over the centuries, are undoubtedly skewied to conform to the social dictates of the day. That's all most those predisposed to hate need and predisposition is key. Those few passages will do nicely. That's all they need to wrap their brains around homophobia and most are all too willing to do so ... and generally not because of any particular religious convicition (truth be told).

The enemy? In my opinion it's straight males and "cock-whipped" females who buy into the myth of the patriarchal society.

Ugh... what a world.

 

[Matthew]

The enemy? In my opinion it's straight males and "cock-whipped" females who buy into the myth of the patriarchal society.

Ugh... what a world.

Agreed, but I'd say that in this case the enemy is homophobia. Many straight males collude, but some do not. Including a few who hang out here.

Can you accept that as a friendly amendment, Stronzo?

 

[B_Stronzo]

Agreed, but I'd say that in this case the enemy is homophobia. Many straight males collude, but some do not. Including a few who hang out here.

Can you accept that as a friendly amendment, Stronzo?

Willingly Matthew. And if it wasn't clearly implied in my post I'm more than happy to have you reinforce it.

 

[Webster]

I thought that all straight males were a bunch of ignorant homophobic jerks.
Most of the straight guys here have been a very pleasant surprise.

:smile:

 

[tallguypns]

I thought that all straight males were a bunch of ignorant homophobic jerks.
Most of the straight guys here have been a very pleasant surprise.

:smile:

That's because most of the str8 guys here are comfortable with who they are. They'll even compliment your looks and sometimes flirt with you!

 

[B_big dirigible]

This won't do much for you. "60 Minutes" doesn't carry all that much weight. It's moderately popular, but so is "Wheel of Fortune". At best, it's just TV, and nobody working in TV today could spell "science" without looking it up.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

I've always had an idea that homosexuality was a genetic thing. I know a family of 5 boys and one girl, the girl being the youngest. From oldest to youngest:

1. gay
2. gay
3. straight
4. gay
5. straight
6. (girl) bi

The oldest 3 had a different mother and when they divorced, she kept the boys and raised them. The father remarried but then also divorced when the youngest was about 10-12.

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

That's because most of the str8 guys here are comfortable with who they are. They'll even compliment your looks and sometimes flirt with you!

For god sakes, don't ENCOURAGE him!