um.....well, yes and no. Sexual attraction is controlled, primarly i belive, by the hypothalimus, a structure in the brain. The size of the hypothalimus (spelling?) is determined by genetics. Straight women and gay men have the same size, or around the size hypothalimus. Lesbians and straight men have similiar sizes as well.

So I would say yes...homosexuality is influenced (i would guess soley) by genetics

This is something WebMD had to say about this two years ago:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...there-gay-gene

"The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality... In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers. The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone."

But this is taking the OP's question way beyond what she asked. I don't know if the answer to the "gay gene" question in any way helps AF find answers to her question about whether MS policies are in place regarding sexual orientation.

There isn't one gene persay, as far as I know, but there are a lot of indications to suggest that homosexuality is in part controlled by other biological factors. These include how many sons a mother has had before (hormonal changes in the womb environment), exposure to testosterone in the womb, identical twins are more likely to both be gay than fraternal twins, many gays say that they first had an inkling they were attracted to the same gender in childhood, when the environment factor is still in flux, etc. Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? No. After hearing countless stories (and witnessing friends go through it) of the attempts to 'be normal,' to supress homosexual tendencies, the fallout it often leaves in its wake when one comes out - it's so much emotional pain that I don't think most sane people would voluntarily take that upon themselves as a 'choice.' That said, I don't believe homosexuality is strictly genetically controlled, but I do believe biology has a large role to play in determining who we're attracted to.

This article gives a good overview: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Straight women and gay men are more likely to have index and ring fingers that are the same size. Straight men and gay women are more likely to have ring fingers that are longer than their index fingers. It has to do something with hormones exposed in the uterus.

I don't remember where I read this, but it is (briefly) mentioned here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_finger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Interesting stuff.

My ring finger is shorter than my index finger. What does that make me?

Single.:p

33, from what I read the first paragraph was saying that most people in fraternities and sororities are of the mindset that they'll marry and become family-focused individuals. This is common just about everywhere around here, but especially among greeks, who tend to be more traditional.

Well, I think the people that join are of that mindset to begin with, rather than they acquire/are taught that mindset when they join, which seemed to me what modorney was saying. I don't think a lot of the fraternity members in the southern chapters need to be "mentored" to want to get married & have kids. They've been thinking of that since 6th grade.

I just had a mental picture of every GCer with children going home and saying, "Show me you hands. Oh, my God."

Amazing you bseem to get something right?

Are you from the South?

You are a Peach?:rolleyes:
Well maybe a grapefruit?:rolleyes:

Again with the lulz!

No one can decide on a "unified theory" because I am of the opinion that there are two types of gay men - those who were born that way and those who were imprinted later on. In fact, the "later on" imprinting can determine to a great extent what one finds attractive, whether gay or straight.

The first type is outwardly effeminate; the second type looks like any other guy. Neither one makes a deliberate choice. It's simply who there are, for whatever reason.

Of interest here is that historically, gay men in fraternities were of the straight-looking (Type II) variety. No one knew they were gay unless they were revealed in some way. A lot of them even dated girls!

More recently, we've been seeing more of the Type I accepted into fraternities, and that's what this thread is really all about.

A number of years ago, my chapter gave a bid to a kid who looked gay from a mile away, but no one mentioned anything about it. Not to me, anyway. He got initiated, "served his time", and graduated. He now has a MySpace page listing himself as Gay, and has lots of friends in his list - straight brothers - who post on his page.

I commend the brothers in my chapter for being so open-minded and willing to accept a good person for what he is in all respects, and I'm sure they will pass that same good nature on to their children - some of whom just might turn out to be gay.

You never know.

Respectfully, I believe it's hard for you to explain your reasoning because this isn't an opinion you reached through a process of logical reasoning. It's an emotional gut reaction. That doesn't make it evil, but it does make it pretty pointless to try to back it up with reasoning.

Also, I don't understand why it matters whether homosexuality is biologically determined. We know very well that being a Baptist is not biologically determined. But we also know that being one -- or not being one -- goes right to the core of many people's sense of self. We all understand that while people sometimes have a religious change of heart during life, it's almost impossible to join or abandon a religion just because you WISH your beliefs would change. Faith is too close to the core of your being to be denied.

I think that most of us further agree that it's morally wrong to hate 5 million people you've never met because they are Methodist instead of Catholic. The fact that religion is not innate and immutable like race has nothing to do with the immorality of religious bigotry.

That's what I was asking about when I posed the question about the kind of teetotaling, virginity-pledging rushee who'd call the police if he saw underage drinking in the house. Is that kind of guy an ideal candidate for your Christian-based organization with its high ethical standards? Or is he just too darn moral to fit into the group? I bet it's the latter.

How come you get to decide the terms of the debate? I'm arguing that if you (meaning any fraternity, not just yours) claim that you're excluding gay people on moral grounds, you better welcome teetotaling virgins, or you're a dishonest hypocrite. That's quite germane to the question of "legitimacy." Generally, I view dishonest and hypocritical actions as illegitimate.

In other words, if you exclude gay people because you don't like them, you should come right out and say so. Right now that's perfectly legal in most of the country. I may conclude that you're a bigot, but I'll agree that it's a legitimate decision.
________
WEB SHOWS

What does being a virgin have anything to do with homosexuality? I fail to see the correlation. I see nothing wrong with fraternities excluding homosexuals from membership based on moral grounds.

Okay, why is homosexuality immoral?