It's not so much "going" as "went." It's perfectly legal to have gay partners and gay sex now, too, but that doesn't stop the "they hatez teh gheys!" whining and "homophobe" label being applied whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that the choice of partners is a choice.

If the gay activist/supporter ideal -- sexual behavior is deterministic -- is correct, then the social opprobrium displayed in the Jezebel article and the Fisher quote above is really hate speech against straight men with the identified allele. The absence of a vasopressin regulator gene isn't "something to overcome" any more than homosexual attraction is; it's who these men are. They cheat, it's sweet; get used to it!

"Choosing*" a type of sexual partner is different than choosing the number of sexual partners

*If sexual orientation is actually a choice".

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

How is it different?

 I fucking LOVE Key Lime pie...really...it's my favorite in the whole world.  I don't know why...I was just born that way.  I could be sitting down to a perfectly perfect piece of Lemon Meringue pie and I would cross a busy road to get to a piece of Factory Made Key Lime Pie.  Then, given enough coffee I would eat pie after pie after pie after pie until my heart burst...just like one of those small mice who will mate with a female over and over again until he keels over...except with Key Lime Pie.  And coffee.

Now...blueberry pie?  I never had an orientation towards the fruity pies of the berry variety*.  You could put a perfectly made, hand crafted blueberry pie in front of me.  It could have been made by a convocation of the world's most famous pastry chefs and prayed over by the world's wisest holy men...you might even get me to sincerely pray that I would orient toward the blueberry pie.  But I just couldn't...I'd take a few bites and dream of Key Lime Pie.

*Except I do like cherry pie...I guess that makes me a pervert.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Hello, I'm a pie person.  I've eaten just about all of them: cherry, blueberry, dutch apple, key lime, lemon meringue, even chicken pot.  But, I'm just not built to be a cake person.  The cake hasn't been baked that could entice me away from my love affair with pies, sweet pies.  So, that'd be a no to angel food, chocolate, peaches and cream, and even wedding cake.  Not even the creamiest, thickest frosting can send me over to the cake side of things.

Now, as I said, I'm a pie person but I'm congenitally incapable of remaining loyal to one type of pie.  That's because I love them all and I'll hop from one tempestuous relationship with a fruits of the forest to a walnut caramel apple pie.  I'll admit it, I'm a pie slut and it must be something in my genes.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

So, what I hear you saying is that while we are all attracted by the sweetness of the pastry, ultimately we do orient towards one type of another?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Okay, no cake. How about ice cream?

----- The earth may burn, but we will quiver

Pie ala mode.  Of course, it just doesn't work with say coconut custard or lemon meringue, or really any of the chiffons, but on a berry or apple pie, yes indeed.  The real question is, do you favor french vanilla, regular vanilla, or vanilla bean?  Or are you a total pie ala mode slut and you favor cherry vanilla, butter pecan or neapolitan?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I used to love cherry pie, to the exclusion of all other pies, except that chocolate pudding kind...
But over the years, I've slowly oriented to apple pie.

What the hell does that mean?

----- The earth may burn, but we will quiver

From the substance of your reply, I take it that you cannot explain why you believe that the cause of a propensity for homosexuality is different than the cause of a propensity to desire a large number of partners. (The MAYOR though you were "astute," but I bet he can't explain it either.) I'll assume it is because it violates your liberal ideology.

No, Ken.  I thought Lou was astute.  I thought you were more careful with words than that.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I thought Lou was astute

I scored him astute because:

a. He did afford for how the gender of your partner may or may not be a choice to you.

b. Choosing to be faithful or not is a choice.  According to the study, it's less of a choice for those men who are allele-rich.

Now then, I really wasn't addressing whether homosexuality is something to be accepted or criticized and I was really only scoring Lou's comment and not gerry's.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Given the lack of understanding originally demonstrated in the original comment, I thought I would try to explain the difference between quality and quantity.  I know straight men who are completely monogamous...I know straight men who are total horn dogs and if they stay with the same woman for 6 months, the papers are notified.  Flip side...I know gay men...monogamous vs horn dogs blah blah blah.

As an aside, it's funny how this study, which started with a study of voles and then later, heterosexual  men has prompted some of our leading right-leaning lights to go trolling for gays.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...I thought I would try to explain the difference between quality and quantity

Then you cleanly missed the entire point

Nope...the point of this submission is, hey look...a gene found in rodents and guys may show how some boys can't commit and others can.  And of course, like many other discussions here concerning biological behavior, someone of the right-tilting orientation has to chime in with "what about teh gayz?"  In case you didn't notice, the study isn't about gayness...it's about biologically driven monagony.  

But aside from all that...forget about the fruity pie vs creamy cake argument, forget about quality vs. quantity.  The best comment came from Skeptic where he said that having such knowledge about ourselves could help us determine our own path to sexual happiness.  There's nothing that needs to be cured or fixed.  Down one path lies the justice of the peace...down the other lies Craigslist.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

In case you didn't notice, the study isn't about gayness...it's about biologically driven monagony.

It's about biologically driven sexual preference, of which gender and number are both components. Don't oppress me with your duonormative fascist marginalization, you polyphobic bigot. ;-)

Name calling aside (heh), you are right...the study is about one type of sexual preference.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...the point of this submission is...

Anyway, I think gerrymander's point was an interesting one. Do you disagree that society scorns men who cannot stay committed to one woman?

I got the final para...I just didn't know that Jezebel was in the same league as say the WSJ or CSM.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Without the final graf, what is there to discuss?

I just don't understand the need to troll for teh gayz.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I don't understand why you are responding.

Society rightly scorns men who promise to be faithful and who then are unfaithful to their spouse.  Dishonesty is a bad thing.  And society does admire men who are devoted to their families to the exclusion of any other sexual distractions.  But not all men have to conform to that model.  

In earlier historical times, promiscuous men tended to scatter their "wild oats" and father illegitimate children whom they then usually failed to support, which was not good for the children in question, or their mothers, or society in general.  In the present time, through the use of birth control it is possible to be promiscuous and still avoid  having unwanted children (the second line of defense is abortion).  While society at large might still regard such a person as being less admirable than those who are devoted family men, it is an acceptable personal choice.  We are not obligated to always act in the way that our neighbors might prefer.  

Homosexuality is also widely scorned by society, although not as much as it used to be, since the gay liberation movement has made significant progress.  However, homosexuals are not going to, and should not have to alter their sexual orientation to conform to the rather foolish demands of the closed-minded.  In the Bronze Age when the anti-gay prejudice was originally invented out of a fear that tribal rates of reproduction would be harmed if men were allowed to engage in some non-reproductive form of sex, there was a struggle to keep up the population in the face of uncontrolled epidemics, famines, tribal warfare, very high child mortality rates, and so forth.  in the modern overpopulated world, such concerns are clearly misplaced.  It would be much more logical to be grateful to those who do not add to the already excessive global population.

We are not obligated to always act in the way that our neighbors might prefer....homosexuals are not going to, and should not have to alter their sexual orientation to conform to the rather foolish demands of the closed-minded

In the Bronze Age when the anti-gay prejudice was originally invented out of a fear that tribal rates of reproduction would be harmed if men were allowed to engage in some non-reproductive form of sex...

You know, I just took some care to explain that I do NOT have an anti-philanderer bias.  You really don't seem to read my comments very carefully.  Read it again.

My historical reading of the origins of homophobia comes from a serious study of history, it is not made up.  If you have a different explanation, let me know.

You agree, then, that expecting men to be monogamous is foolish and close-minded?

Please send me a link to a scholarly work about gays in the Bronze Age.

Some men are monogamous, some are not; expecting or requiring all men to be monogamous would indeed be foolish and close-minded.

The reason I have come to the conclusions I have about the history of homosexuality and social attitudes about it, is that I have a coherent picture of human history, coming from innumerable sources that I have encountered over the past 50 years or so, but I do not have one specific link to send you.  You are, of course, free to disbelieve my conclusions, however, I did not make them up out of thin air.  And you still haven't sent me your alternative explanation.  If my opinion is not believable, what is your explanation?

Why must you go trolling for gays in a discussion that has nothing to do with gays?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Look, Lou, I'm sorry if I outed you. You'll get over it. Be strong.

mmmm, you big handsome troller...What I wouldn't do for 5 minutes alone with you and a pie.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

If the gay activist/supporter ideal -- sexual behavior is deterministic

Good point.  I've alway supported gay rights, but I've never felt comfortable with the argument that they should be entrenched in law because homosexuality is biologically determined.  We're increasingly coming to see that many behaviors are biologically determined, including possibly things such as sociopathy and predilection towards pedophilia - so should those things be legal too?  I think the far stronger case is to make an argument based on privacy rights & our country's traditional respect for individual freedoms.  I know the gay rights movement has resisted that because there's this notion that if being gay is a choice, then it can be viewed as a disease or a disorder that can be cured - but I think we're seeing that, in fact, arguing that it's biological makes it even more likely to be viewed as some sort of disease or disorder (and considering how quickly we're advancing in genetic research, the specter of a "cure" may soon be on the horizon).  Better for all, I think, that sexual orientation simply be viewed as a lifestyle choice like (and just as acceptable as) any other.

I agree, the morality or immorality of a given behavior does not depend upon whether it is or is not caused by some biological predisposition.  The key issue about homosexuality is that it is not an inherently harmful activity (it can be harmful if it spreads sexually transmitted disease, of course, but then so can heterosexuality, and the solution is to take appropriate precautions, not to suppress sexuality) and therefore it is pointlessly cruel to make people miserable by preventing them from having the kind of sex that they want, when it is harmless (biblical objections notwithstanding).

In the case of promiscuity, much like other forms of sexual activity, it can be done responsibly or irresponsibly.  People who get married and promise to be faithful to their spouse and then cheat, are guilty of dishonesty, which is a bad thing.  But, as I noted in my earlier comment, you don't have to do it that way.  You can either refrain from getting married, or you can get married with the understanding that you will NOT remain faithful to your spouse, but will instead have an open marriage.  Similarly, if your promiscuity results in illegitimate offspring for whom you fail to pay child support, that too is irresponsible - but you don't have to do that, you can be promiscuous and use birth control.

Even the issue of pedophilia was raised (in the title of a comment) by our old rabble-rouser zyx, but that also falls within the same analysis.  It is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to satisfy such urges without doing harm to children, so people who have that particular kind of sexual desire are in a difficult position, and will just have to be repressed in order to behave responsibly.  If, however, some harmless outlet for pedophilia could be devised (I would suggest highly realistic robots who resemble children, or possibly some virtual reality fantasy that is purely computer-generated and does not involve actual children) then this also becomes a harmless activity.  And just because someone else's sexual activity may seem distasteful to you, is not a reason for you to interfere with their sex life.  I can assure you that your own sexual activity is distaste to at least someone.  There are Puritans to whom all sexual activity is distasteful.  But as long as we do not harm others, then our sexuality is our own business.