This doesn’t say that the chimera explanation is not involved – it may well be, just that sexual antagonism long known in animals may also be present in humans and explain male homosexuality.

Also, it’s believed that female homosexuality is a different phenomenon, since sexual antagonism doesn’t match observations in female homosexuality.

I have g/g/b triplets and I see A LOT of feminine characteristics in my boy. He’s only five, so it’s not like I have any way of knowing at this point if he will be gay, but I would consider it a future possibility.

I know a tremendous amount of triplet families with fraternal mixed set triplets. Why not follow us and see what ends up happening in 10-15 years? What percentage of our g/g/b or b/b/g triplets will end up gay or lesbian due to environmental conditions in the womb? We are the perfect group to pose this question to.

(Loken is an actress who was in a relationship with Michelle Rodriguez, which was in my opinion the best looking lesbian couple ever. )

As Welmer explains, homosexual men tend to show certain physical characteristics, such as more feminized brain structures, which strongly suggest their sexuality has a real physical basis, and is not simply a response to childhood abuse. But by all means let’s look for evidence for your theory too. If you’re right, the pattern should be pretty hard to miss once the data’s collected.

Natural Manhood

The important thing about humans is that their children need parental nurture and protection for far longer than most other species. This gives a genetic advantage to mothers and fathers that form long-term bonds. So comparing human sexuality with all other mammals may not be relevant.

There’s a distinction between homosexual acts occurring in segregated environments (prisons, monasteries, nunneries etc), where it’s the only sex available, and homosexuality in the midst of heterosexual possibility.

Brian: [...]Thus, young boys who are molested by men (or who by accident or happenstance find themselves in a situation they perceive or sense as sexual around a male or males) may be inclined towards homosexual feelings or behaviors. [...]

You are actually very right. But, going by the same explanation, don’t you think, it is also possible that the societies in general and the West in particular makes boys heterosexual by forcing proxmity with women on them, and through various social mechansisms that make sure that boys channel their sexuality towards heterosexuality rather than towards other males.

Now, for a second, if we look at it objectively, without saying which sexuality is ‘healthier’ or more natural… then heterosexuality can be explained in much the same way as ‘homosexuality.’

The above statement is not validated by empirical evidences from contemporary non-westernized societies, from ancient pre-christian societies, and from the mammalian world.

Mammalian males do not, as a rule have a heterosexual orientation. They just have heterosexual sex once in a blue moon, and that too only for reproduction. Only a small proportion of males engage in reproduction in any given mating season, and a big proportion of males never mate to reproduce at all. Also, male-female interaction is in most cases limited to depositing the semen for reproduction… its like wham bam thank you mam. Mammalian males and females have no romantic or even social interaction with each other as adults (apart from possibly as mother-son or siblings).

On the contrary, mammalian males have lots of sex amongst each other the entire year. And its near universal. So, if there is any truly constant orientation amongst mammalian males, it towards other males not towards females. Also, the only romantic, bonds as committed couples that exist in the wild amongst mammals are between two males… and these can be of short duration as well as life-long, could also be monogamous.

I think the Western science needs to get over trying to fit natural facts into its preferred theories and for a moment try to adjust their theories — and reinvent them if need be — to the natural facts.

Mammalian males do not, as a rule have a heterosexual orientation. They just have heterosexual sex once in a blue moon, and that too only for reproduction. Only a small proportion of males engage in reproduction in any given mating season, and a big proportion of males never mate to reproduce at all. Also, male-female interaction is in most cases limited to depositing the semen for reproduction… its like wham bam thank you mam. Mammalian males and females have no romantic or even social interaction with each other as adults (apart from possibly as mother-son or siblings).

On the contrary, mammalian males have lots of sex amongst each other the entire year. And its near universal. So, if there is any truly constant orientation amongst mammalian males, it towards other males not towards females. Also, the only romantic, bonds as committed couples that exist in the wild amongst mammals are between two males… and these can be of short duration as well as life-long, could also be monogamous.

I think the Western science needs to get over trying to fit natural facts into its preferred theories and for a moment try to adjust their theories — and reinvent them if need be — to the natural facts.