New, large study suggests sexuality not tied to a genetic marker.

How do you know? Forget Justinian, homosexuality between males was institutionalized in Athens and Sparta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

I know several men and women in their early twenties who have enjoyed a variety of sexual preferences although this is not as common in the UK as some other countries. Tourists on the Greek Islands for instance. I dont think any are repressed, in fact the opposite, they are hedonists.

What do you mean how I know? Anyone with a basic knowledge of ancient history should be aware of the mass prosecution of homosexuality. Justician was following the heartwarming message of Leviticus, which reads: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" [Leviticus 20:13]

I fail to see, however, how repression and hedonism are relevant to the subject matter at hand...? Care to explain?

Justinian was banning what were widespread Roman customs. Certainly he was using Scripture to justify his persecution. You seem to have missed my point which was that homosexuality and bisexuality could be a choice for ordinary people before it was persecuted. During the persecution (ie: until recently) only those who could not easily choose remained homosexual

Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure and sexually confident people treat sex as a pleasure. It is conventional to regard people who sleep with their own sex, but generally fall in love with the opposite sex, as "repressed homosexuals" but there are also hedonists who simply like sex and for whom the labels do not matter.

As the days of persecuting homosexuals become ever more distant society will probably return to the Romano-Greek model of most people being bisexual at times.

Thirdly, in logical field do you think it's so easy to change your sexuality? Do you really think people go around saying "today I'll be gay, tomorrow I'll be straight"? I mean, you're a human being, surely you can try to see for yourself whether you can change your sexual preferences (and I mean preferences!).

Nonetheless, you're making the massive mistake here of confusing sex with sexual preference. The former is plain, physical sex. The second is an innate feeling of attraction to a sex (or to both sexes in case of bisexuals). You can obviously choose whom you're having sex with, but you can't choose whom you're attracted to. Still, a straight person (as in, 100%, if that exists), would never have sex with a guy, and the inverse is also true.

Bisexual behaviour is increasingly common.



You said it all when you said "a straight person (as in, 100%, if that exists)" This is exactly my point.

Gosh... where do you base that now? Anecdotal evidence won't cut it!

That doesn't mean people consciously choose to be gay or straight... Are you sure this is what you mean? Because from what you've been saying, it seems like you're contradicting yourself.

I used a direct quote from you.

You seem to be using the terms "Gay" and "Straight" as immutable labels. No behavioural trait is black or white, yes or no, they all lie on a spectrum. In the early 21st century, now that persecution has ended, people are able to be what they want. However, we are not so far from persecution of sexual behaviour that the bulk of society does not condemn certain choices. It is still much easier for a person who could be attracted to either sex to choose the opposite sex, avoiding even the possibility of "straying"..

The studies that thought they found any other gene were carried out with tiny sample sizes compared to this study.



The study is ongoing, yes, but at this point, after processing 24k+ applicants the study has found no gene.

What do you mean how I know? Anyone with a basic knowledge of ancient history should be aware of the mass prosecution of homosexuality. Justician was following the heartwarming message of Leviticus, which reads: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" [Leviticus 20:13]

This provides a great explanation.

It wasn't "institutionalised" per se. Greeks and Romans made no distinctions between heterosexuality or homosexuality. These words are young (circa 100 yrs old), and there are no equivalent ones in neither Ancient Greek nor Latin.

Instead, the distinction was between the "active" and the "passive" role - irrespective of who had the passive role, be it man or woman. Nonetheless, if institutionalised you mean they could marry, then yes, that was true, particularly in Rome.

What does that prove? Apart from it being anecdotal evidence, if they had sexual intercourse with both sexes, they are bisexual. End of. A heterosexual would be disgusted at the thought of having sex with a man, and a homosexual the same with a woman.

I am well aware of the situation in the Greek islands (and Athens and Thessaloniki for that matter), as I'm Greek myself. It has been like that for thousands of years, bar occupations and wars. I fail to see, however, how repression and hedonism are relevant to the subject matter at hand...? Care to explain?

Hi, classicist here, who studied history of sexuality and gender specifically. Although there is something in what you say, it's not an accurate assessment. Firstly, conceptions of sexuality differed significantly over time and place in the ancient med. Rome's culture also had completely different origins to Greece's, and although it borrowed a lot from Greece from the mid/late republic on, it remained very much distinct. But there was absolutely no point at which women would have been considered to have been 'active' in sex with a man! And although there is a tiny bit of evidence that possibly some sort of same-sex marriage rituals might have taken place at some point in Rome's history, there is no actual directly attested example, and such a 'marriage' did not exist in law. And although the terminology of 'active' and 'passive' does originate in these cultures, it is not accurate to think of this as a replacement for binary sexual orientation.

It is true that the concept of a symmetrical hetero- and homosexuality is very recent (very!). However, it's certainly not the case that same-sex and heterosexed behaviour and relationships were considered equivalent. Although Athens did have normalised same-sex relationships in the form of pederasty, the limits on what was considered respectable in this context were very narrow. In particular, pederasty as openly portrayed did not include penetrative sex, ever (not to say that it didn't take place, but it was considered extremely taboo for a male citizen to be the 'passive' partner). When homosexual behaviour in Rome was considered respectable, when it was considered transgressive, and when it was considered abhorrent, was similarly circumscribed.

In general, particular constructions of sexuality translate poorly between cultures. This is one reason it is difficult to take the concept of a 'gay gene' seriously. Exclusive homosexuality gets a lot of press but is rare in all periods, including the present. The fact that four times as many people in this survey described themselves as 'not completely hetero/homosexual' or 'bisexual' demonstrates how difficult it is to do meaningful research on this subject. As someone is open about having sex with both men and women, I can tell you that most people still find it a novelty. So it's a real question who all these respondents are, and whether they would agree with the sexuality the survey assigned to them.

It's an interesting survey. But it's not really very compelling. Everything, from the self selecting sample, to the self reported data, to the questionable model and definition of sexuality, to the multimulti comparison and posthoc approach, counts against it. And yes, not proving something isn't the same as proving that not-something. Still, interesting start!

PS I don't know why you think that a gay man has to find the idea of sex with a woman repulsive. Not so much older men, but a lot of gay men my age tell me they are curious about having sex with women. (We're probably also the first generation where so many out gay men have never had sex with a woman or a girlfriend - coincidence?)

Secondly, please don't be so ignorant.

You have a very immature view of life. Try being with someone you don't actually like and you'll understand how unfair and wrong you are, and how much you'll hurt them in turn.
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

A 2002 survey in the United States by National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else". The same study found that 2.8 percent of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3 percent homosexual, and 3.8 percent as "something else".^[26] In 2007, an article in the 'Health' section of The New York Times stated that "1.5 percent of American women and 1.7 percent of American men identify themselves [as] bisexual."^[27] Also in 2007, it was reported that 14.4 percent of young US women identified themselves as "not strictly heterosexual", with 5.6 percent of the men identifying as gay or bisexual.^[28] A study in the journal Biological Psychology in 2011 reported that there were men who identify themselves as bisexuals and who were aroused by both men and women.^[29] In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans' sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that only 0.7 percent of Americans identify as bisexual.^[30]

And...? I fail to see the relevance of this (off of Wikipedia!).

We're talking about homosexuality, not bisexuality.