|
Title: Homosexuality Post by: Frodo on June 25, 2011, 07:53:39 PM We had a poll somewhat like this years ago, but I don't want to go through the thread archives looking for it, so here is the newest incarnation of it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on June 25, 2011, 07:55:18 PM False dichotomy.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on June 25, 2011, 08:09:59 PM It doesn't affect my position on gay marriage, etc. and I don't really care.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on June 25, 2011, 08:29:43 PM Choice.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Cincinnatus on June 25, 2011, 08:34:26 PM Choice. Whether or not it's a choice or genetics, either way they should be afforded the freedoms to express said choice/genetic trait. I think we are shaped by our experiences, and all of us have some attraction to the same-sex in some form. Whether it's of sexual nature, or just admiration/envy, the degree/form of attraction is obviously dependent on the individual in question.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Ban my account ffs! on June 25, 2011, 08:38:04 PM False dichotomy. I think homosexuality can be both/either environmental and/or genetic. Some studies have indicated that the more boys a woman has, the higher the likelihood of them being gay. Others show that a higher proportion of gay men had mothers who suffered a difficult pregnancy (it's because we're so fierce). Yet others theorize it could be genetic, being that it was beneficial for groups of humans to have extra non-reproducing humans around to help care for others' children and also hunt and gather food without having to worry about children back at camp. As far as people who say how cultures never had gay marriage... The Native Americans here, the Ojibwe, had a word for gays: Niizh manidoowag, translated into English as "two-spirited", means somebody whose body simultaneously houses a male and female spirit. Male "two spirits" have been documented in 130 tribes and hav ebeen described in almost every Native American tribe/culture in North America (Will Roscoe, "Zuni-Man Woman"). These men often took on both male and female roles in society as well as special roles such as being medics during battles or passing down the traditional stories and history of the tribe. The two-spirit men sometimes took wives as well as often taking husbands. In almost all cases, these men took husbands who were not "two-spirits".. as in, they were "straight". In the Ojibwe tribes, these two-spirit men were respected and revered and were thought to hold special powers, such as giving people special nicknames that would give them good luck. Ozawindib is a famous example of a "two-spirit." Ozawindib was a famous Ojibwe warrior and two-spirit that took many husbands. He famously led Henry Rowe Schoolcraft to the source of the Mississippi River at Lake Itasca. When camping further west along the Red River at modern day Pembina, North Dakota, Ozawindib made several proposals of marriage to Henry Schoolcraft, which Schoolcraft, of course, declined. While two-spirit people in most Native American cultures were not considered specifically homosexual, it is likely that homosexual members of the tribes took on the roles of two-spirits. As an example, most women two-spirits, from what documentation has been found, had homosexual relationships almost exclusively. Two-Spirits referred to other two-spirits (both male and female) as their sisters, and it is believed that there were few cases of sexual relationships between two-spirits because it would be considered "incestuous." Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Paul Kemp on June 25, 2011, 08:38:24 PM I don't think it's a choice in some sense but I don't think that genetic is the best way to describe it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: The Mikado on June 25, 2011, 08:44:38 PM False dichotomy. That said, it is a fundamentally "a way you are" thing. That doesn't mean it's necessarily genetic, though. You're attracted to the person you're attracted to, and you can't change that.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on June 25, 2011, 09:09:22 PM Both Mikado and Snowy have brought up good points but I have a few more things to add:
1. You're implying that if homosexuality has a genetic component, it can't be influenced by our choices. In reality your orientation is influenced by cumulative experiences. Sometimes that's past sexual experiences. Sometimes it's things in your child hood. Sometimes it's simply how certain terms like 'sexual orientation' or 'gender' are defined or treated in a particular society. Obviously all these things can and do change. That does not imply however that you can just decide to develop an attraction to the same sex overnight. 2. Homosexuality wasn't even a coherent concept in the West until basically the 19th century and even now there's quite a bit of disagreement over what exactly being 'gay' means. Plenty of people will deny bisexuals exist and/or lump in anyone whose had a homosexual experience (particularly with a man) as automatically gay for example. Or claim that if you're on 'top' during a homosexual act, then you're not really gay. Or claim that if you have a homosexual experience in certain contexts (military, school, prison, whatever) then you're not really gay. And then of course there are all the issues associated with inter-sex and trans-gender people. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 25, 2011, 10:44:23 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc.
But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on June 25, 2011, 11:59:29 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 26, 2011, 04:25:04 AM Lifestyle choice.
This obsession with genetics explaining every part of our behaviour is one of the most disturbing traits of modernity. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2011, 08:33:32 AM I think, as others have noted that sexual preference could be shaped by environmental forces and it might be congenital, a trait you are born with, but not a genetic one.
One very strong argument against it being genetic is that, if it were, it would not lead to generational survival. With some level of involvement of the opposite sex, humans cannot reproduce. Throughout most of human history, that involved a heterosexual act. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: minionofmidas on June 26, 2011, 09:25:50 AM The question has been answered by numerous people on the thread already.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 26, 2011, 09:28:51 AM Does it matter?
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on June 26, 2011, 09:34:18 AM The heritability of homosexuality is probably about 50%, so it's at least partially genetic, but is also probably influenced by environment, including prenatal environment. The opposite of "genetic" isn't "choice", though, and to say that it's a conscious choice is almost certainly untrue. Despite this, the gaybashers have a bit of a point. We all have a lot of things we're born with and/or predisposed to that we don't have to act on, and if it is innate that doesn't make it inherently "better" or "worse". That's why Al's statement is probably the best so far when it comes to the question of the morality of homosexuality; no matter whether you believe homosexuality is moral or immoral, you need to be able to make the argument about its morality regardless of whether it is a choice.
Lifestyle choice. This obsession with genetics explaining every part of our behaviour is one of the most disturbing traits of modernity. The refusal to accept genetics explaining any part of behavior is one of the most disturbing traits of the 20th century :P Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2011, 09:38:52 AM The question has been answered by numerous people on the thread already. I don't think the congenital aspect was. All that said, I don't somebody sits down and makes a decision to be of a certain sexual preference; I would not call it a "choice of lifestyle" in that regard. Following up on that preference, gay, bi , or straight, is a choice, a personal one. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 26, 2011, 10:21:30 AM Lifestyle choice. This obsession with genetics explaining every part of our behaviour is one of the most disturbing traits of modernity. The refusal to accept genetics explaining any part of behavior is one of the most disturbing traits of the 20th century :P Really ? I honestly don't see how so. Does it matter? It does, for ideological matters. Believing in biological determinations or in free will leads to two very different visions of humanity. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 26, 2011, 11:04:28 AM It does, for ideological matters. Believing in biological determinations or in free will leads to two very different visions of humanity. I'm sure that they do, but what does that matter (except in an angels-dancing-on-pinheads sense) in this context? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2011, 11:16:43 AM It does, for ideological matters. Believing in biological determinations or in free will leads to two very different visions of humanity. I'm sure that they do, but what does that matter (except in an angels-dancing-on-pinheads sense) in this context? I think it helps us understand ourselves (including straight people). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: stegosaurus on June 26, 2011, 11:38:06 AM I would guess lifestyle choice. Beyond our primal urge to reproduce, sexuality is something that we pick up over time from our social/cultural environment. To imply that homosexuality is genetic, you would also have to say that other sexual predilections are genetic, which seems a little silly.
Overall, I find homosexuality to be a psychological phenomena that people choose whether or not to act on. I could be wrong, but either way I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate on gay rights/marriage, which I assume this was aiming toward. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2011, 01:15:10 PM Could we draw a distinction between sexual preference and sexual activity?
Sexual activityis usually lifestyle choice, but sexual preference does not seem to be. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Insula Dei on June 26, 2011, 01:39:49 PM Could it not be unrelated to genetics, yet at the same time not be a free choice? Seems like there is a world of possibilities you're not offering.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2011, 01:51:47 PM Could it not be unrelated to genetics, yet at the same time not be a free choice? Seems like there is a world of possibilities you're not offering. Congenital or possibly a learned trait, the latter like a native language (but obviously no gay or strait classes). This is actually one of the better conversations on the subject. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Free Palestine on June 26, 2011, 02:19:08 PM Could it not be unrelated to genetics, yet at the same time not be a free choice? Seems like there is a world of possibilities you're not offering. It's possible. There might be some reason relating to socialization in early childhood that causes people to become gay. In fact, I think that is definitely the cause of transgenderism. Neither are "choices," but nor are they, in my belief, genetic. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 26, 2011, 02:47:22 PM It does, for ideological matters. Believing in biological determinations or in free will leads to two very different visions of humanity. I'm sure that they do, but what does that matter (except in an angels-dancing-on-pinheads sense) in this context? I think it helps us understand ourselves (including straight people). Isn't that a little solipsistic? Besides, why should that have any bearing on how we - as a society - treat homosexuals? (or any other minority, for that matter). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on June 26, 2011, 02:49:44 PM A big ball of factors. Same with heterosexuality (which is never under the same degree of scrutiny and perhaps it is about time it was...)
In the end, it doesn't matter. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: opebo on June 26, 2011, 03:03:00 PM This reminds me of the debate about liver. Isn't it true that the stereotype of young children in america is that they dislike eating livers? Or is that only certain kinds? Here in Thailand children are famous and somewhat pigeonholed as chicken-liver-lovers.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 26, 2011, 03:47:22 PM It does, for ideological matters. Believing in biological determinations or in free will leads to two very different visions of humanity. I'm sure that they do, but what does that matter (except in an angels-dancing-on-pinheads sense) in this context? I think it helps us understand ourselves (including straight people). Isn't that a little solipsistic? Besides, why should that have any bearing on how we - as a society - treat homosexuals? (or any other minority, for that matter). No. I'm interested in how the works. There are a bunch of legal issues that deal with treatment of people. This thread is not about those issues. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 26, 2011, 05:31:30 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. It’s different, because if you don’t eat or breathe at all, you die. You can live without sexual activity, believe it or not. Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Yes, I’ve made it through an undergraduate degree in college and at a secular research institution (with a liberal reputation at that) not a religious school. One day this may end if I find a girl I’d like to marry. If not, I might make it my whole life. It might not always be fun, pleasurable, or easy but it’s possible. Someday I might screw up and in my human imperfection engage in a sex act outside the bonds of marriage, committing a sin (though whether or not committing such an act is a sin or not is beside the point). The point is that if I do, it’s still a choice I made. There is more to life than sexual pleasure. Eating and breathing on the other hand are required to live without artificial support. Perhaps we could argue about whether an IV constitutes “eating” or a ventilator constituted “breathing” though that is entirely semantic because and IV and a ventilator serve the same purpose as eating and breathing. I guess one could make the argument that this is a lifestyle choice too but to make the opposite choice would interfere with a person’s ability to perform other tasks required to be a functional human. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on June 26, 2011, 05:33:12 PM This reminds me of the debate about liver. Isn't it true that the stereotype of young children in america is that they dislike eating livers? Or is that only certain kinds? Here in Thailand children are famous and somewhat pigeonholed as chicken-liver-lovers. My son likes chicken liver. So did my mother. I guess it skips a generation. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Ban my account ffs! on June 26, 2011, 05:34:29 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. It’s different, because if you don’t eat or breathe at all, you die. You can live without sexual activity, believe it or not. Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Yes, I’ve made it through an undergraduate degree in college and at a secular research institution (with a liberal reputation at that) not a religious school. One day this may end if I find a girl I’d like to marry. If not, I might make it my whole life. It might not always be fun, pleasurable, or easy but it’s possible. Someday I might screw up and in my human imperfection engage in a sex act outside the bonds of marriage, committing a sin (though whether or not committing such an act is a sin or not is beside the point). The point is that if I do, it’s still a choice I made. There is more to life than sexual pleasure. Eating and breathing on the other hand are required to live without artificial support. Perhaps we could argue about whether an IV constitutes “eating” or a ventilator constituted “breathing” though that is entirely semantic because and IV and a ventilator serve the same purpose as eating and breathing. I guess one could make the argument that this is a lifestyle choice too but to make the opposite choice would interfere with a person’s ability to perform other tasks required to be a functional human. You don't die if you quit breathing or eating because a) the buildup of carbon dioxide in your blood will cause so much pain and discomfort and send panic signals to your brain that you will begin breathing again or b) you will starve only for so long before the instinct to eat kicks in and you gorge yourself at McDonalds until you're violently sick. The same goes for sexual activity. Seeking release that is not available through sex or masturbation, you are discharging your body's excess semen in your sleep, whether you realize it or not. And how does your body do that? Why.. through the orgasm, of course. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on June 26, 2011, 05:36:12 PM Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Believe me, nobody is surprised. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 26, 2011, 05:40:31 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. It’s different, because if you don’t eat or breathe at all, you die. You can live without sexual activity, believe it or not. Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Yes, I’ve made it through an undergraduate degree in college and at a secular research institution (with a liberal reputation at that) not a religious school. One day this may end if I find a girl I’d like to marry. If not, I might make it my whole life. It might not always be fun, pleasurable, or easy but it’s possible. Someday I might screw up and in my human imperfection engage in a sex act outside the bonds of marriage, committing a sin (though whether or not committing such an act is a sin or not is beside the point). The point is that if I do, it’s still a choice I made. There is more to life than sexual pleasure. Eating and breathing on the other hand are required to live without artificial support. Perhaps we could argue about whether an IV constitutes “eating” or a ventilator constituted “breathing” though that is entirely semantic because and IV and a ventilator serve the same purpose as eating and breathing. I guess one could make the argument that this is a lifestyle choice too but to make the opposite choice would interfere with a person’s ability to perform other tasks required to be a functional human. You don't die if you quit breathing or eating because a) the buildup of carbon dioxide in your blood will cause so much pain and discomfort and send panic signals to your brain that you will begin breathing again or b) you will starve only for so long before the instinct to eat kicks in and you gorge yourself at McDonalds until you're violently sick. The same goes for sexual activity. Seeking release that is not available through sex or masturbation, you are discharging your body's excess semen in your sleep, whether you realize it or not. And how does your body do that? Why.. through the orgasm, of course. You can still choose whether to engage in a sex act with another individual. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on June 26, 2011, 05:44:28 PM You'd still be lusting in your heart!
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 26, 2011, 05:46:33 PM Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Believe me, nobody is surprised. Haha I bet there are plenty of nerdy individuals out there like me with no gf and who don't have random hook-ups, mostly from never attending a party (though I usually go to parties as the only sober one since most of my best friends have a rather different outlook on this kind of stuff than I do) :) Actually, I was more expecting to get the "You're lying, you can't possibly expect me to believe you don't masterbate" line from people. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: LBJer on June 26, 2011, 05:47:26 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. It’s different, because if you don’t eat or breathe at all, you die. You can live without sexual activity, believe it or not. Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Yes, I’ve made it through an undergraduate degree in college and at a secular research institution (with a liberal reputation at that) not a religious school. One day this may end if I find a girl I’d like to marry. If not, I might make it my whole life. It might not always be fun, pleasurable, or easy but it’s possible. Someday I might screw up and in my human imperfection engage in a sex act outside the bonds of marriage, committing a sin (though whether or not committing such an act is a sin or not is beside the point). The point is that if I do, it’s still a choice I made. There is more to life than sexual pleasure. Eating and breathing on the other hand are required to live without artificial support. Perhaps we could argue about whether an IV constitutes “eating” or a ventilator constituted “breathing” though that is entirely semantic because and IV and a ventilator serve the same purpose as eating and breathing. I guess one could make the argument that this is a lifestyle choice too but to make the opposite choice would interfere with a person’s ability to perform other tasks required to be a functional human. You don't die if you quit breathing or eating because a) the buildup of carbon dioxide in your blood will cause so much pain and discomfort and send panic signals to your brain that you will begin breathing again or b) you will starve only for so long before the instinct to eat kicks in and you gorge yourself at McDonalds until you're violently sick. The same goes for sexual activity. Seeking release that is not available through sex or masturbation, you are discharging your body's excess semen in your sleep, whether you realize it or not. And how does your body do that? Why.. through the orgasm, of course. You can still choose whether to engage in a sex act with another individual. Suppose heterosexuality, not homosexuality, was considered wrong by religion and social mores. How many straights would be willing to go their entire lives without "acting on" their sexual orientation as a result? Virtually none, of course. Why should gays be any different? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on June 26, 2011, 05:48:41 PM Bro, sarcasm aside I don't actually hate you but uh.. It's a tad hard to take anything abstinence related seriously as a solution. Most people tend to go a tad stir crazy trying to live up to that. Nobody wants to wind up like Neil Horsley or Jonathan Krohn.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: tpfkaw on June 26, 2011, 05:49:07 PM Dude, if you go to parties as the only sober one and you can't ever get a girl, then you're either disgustingly ugly, gay, autistic, your dick doesn't work, or your balls haven't dropped.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on June 26, 2011, 05:51:21 PM Dude, if you go to parties as the only sober one and you can't ever get a girl, then you're either disgustingly ugly, gay, autistic, your dick doesn't work, or your balls haven't dropped. Idk, some girls are into that, especially if their daddy's name is Schmitz. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: The Mikado on June 26, 2011, 05:54:34 PM Why people continue to go to that kind of parties baffles me. The alcohol is usually very, very low-caliber. Why people go to some sh**ty university party and drink abominations like Natty Lite when they could invest in a nice bottle of decent whisky or a pack of decent beer and drink at home is beyond me. It also ends up being considerably cheaper than the amount you spend to get stuff to keep your friends in booze, even if you go for bottom of the shelf stuff.
I didn't even enjoy that sort of thing when I was 20. Why the hell does TJ go to that sort of falling down drunk parties if he doesn't drink? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Ban my account ffs! on June 26, 2011, 06:12:51 PM Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Believe me, nobody is surprised. Haha I bet there are plenty of nerdy individuals out there like me with no gf and who don't have random hook-ups, mostly from never attending a party (though I usually go to parties as the only sober one since most of my best friends have a rather different outlook on this kind of stuff than I do) :) Actually, I was more expecting to get the "You're lying, you can't possibly expect me to believe you don't masterbate" line from people. That said, the "I'm saving myself for marriage" thing is nothing but a defense mechanism. If you don't have the self courage to get a girl, I don't believe you'd have the courage to say no if the situation presented itself. Just my humble opinion, of course. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 26, 2011, 06:15:47 PM I didn't even enjoy that sort of thing when I was 20. Why the hell does TJ go to that sort of falling down drunk parties if he doesn't drink? Mostly because all my friends do. I'd rather go with them than sit at home by myself every night. Usually there is a set of people only mildly drunk there in the circles I travel in, so it's not like everyone is falling down drunk. I basically just go and talk to people. And I don't try to spend every waking moment trying to convince everyone not to drink. Case is a small enough school where most people who would come already know my thoughts and telling them would be pointless. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 26, 2011, 06:23:18 PM Before anyone says it’s impossible, I’ve made it all 22.5 years of life this far without committing a sex act, including making out and masturbation. Believe me, nobody is surprised. Haha I bet there are plenty of nerdy individuals out there like me with no gf and who don't have random hook-ups, mostly from never attending a party (though I usually go to parties as the only sober one since most of my best friends have a rather different outlook on this kind of stuff than I do) :) Actually, I was more expecting to get the "You're lying, you can't possibly expect me to believe you don't masterbate" line from people. That said, the "I'm saving myself for marriage" thing is nothing but a defense mechanism. If you don't have the self courage to get a girl, I don't believe you'd have the courage to say no if the situation presented itself. Just my humble opinion, of course. Thank you very much for your compliments. I hope to always remain that way and recognize that agreement should not be necessary to treat people with respect. As for the “saving it for marriage”, well, there’s no way I can say for certain that I will do the right thing when placed into any situation and premarital sex is no exception. It is entirely possible that I will fail and not recognizing this would be rather naïve. I hope not to, but only time will tell! Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on June 26, 2011, 06:49:55 PM Lifestyle choice. This obsession with genetics explaining every part of our behaviour is one of the most disturbing traits of modernity. The refusal to accept genetics explaining any part of behavior is one of the most disturbing traits of the 20th century :P Really ? I honestly don't see how so. Well, there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko), but I was mostly being facetious. However, I do think closing your eyes and pretending that heritability doesn't exist is an outrage in the scientific community. Quote Does it matter? It does, for ideological matters. Believing in biological determinations or in free will leads to two very different visions of humanity. As Al has stated repeatedly, whether you believe any particular trait/action is innate or not should not affect your judgment of the morality of that trait/action. I'm interested in hearing how my worldview is defective, though, especially since, politically, we seem to be on the correct side ;D Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Joe Republic on June 26, 2011, 07:03:26 PM Here's a section taken from one of my old Psych textbooks from my college days. Enjoy.
Quote Abnormal Psychology - Seligman, Walker & Rosenhan 2001 Origins of Sexual Orientation When does a male become heterosexual or homosexual? How does it happen? Once sexually active, can he change if he wants to? We must distinguish between “exclusive” or “non-optional” homosexuals on the one hand and bisexuals on the other, since most men who have sex with other men are bisexuals. For as far back as they can remember, men who are exclusively homosexual have been erotically interested only in males. They have sexual fantasies only about males. They fall in love only with males. When they masturbate or have wet dreams, the objects are always males. The orientation of the exclusive male homosexual - and of the exclusive heterosexual - is firmly made. How is sexual orientation laid down? Fetal Hormones A major theory of the origin of homosexuality holds that the tendency is laid down before birth by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and neurological processes, and that this orientation is activated by hormonal changes at the onset of puberty (Bancroft, 1994; Ellis and Ames, 1987; McClintock and Herdt, 1996). Learning only alters how, when, and where homosexuality will be expressed. According to the Ellis-Ames fetal disruption theory, the crucial neurochemical events that control masculinization occur during the second to fourth months of pregnancy. This sequence of events is delicate and exquisitely timed and, if it is disrupted, incomplete masculinization of the fetus will occur. The fetus is partly masculinized, however, with a male gender identity and male external organs. The main effect of fetal disruption is to change in utero just one aspect of his erotic life: sexual attraction to men rather than to women (Gladue, Green, and Hellman, 1984). This view does not say that sexual orientation is determined in the womb. Rearing, role models, pubertal hormones, genes, the content of late childhood play, fantasies and reams, and early sexual experiences all probably also play a role (Bailey and Zucker, 1995). In fact, Bem (1996) acknowledges the role fetal hormones and other biological influences play; he theorizes, however, that these merely create a temperament that is attracted to exotic, rather than sex-typical, activities. In contrast, the fetal hormone view asserts that hormonal events in the womb create a strong predisposition to homosexuality or heterosexuality, leaving the later pathways to be discovered. Anatomical Basis for Sexual Orientation Human sexual orientation may even have a basis in the anatomy of the brain (Allen and Gorshi, 1992; Reite et al., 1995; Swaab, Gooren, and Hofman, 1995). Brain researcher Simon LeVay (1991) examined the brains of dead homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Most were AIDS victims. He focused his autopsy on one small area, the medial anterior hypothalamus. This area is implicated in male sexual behavior, and men usually have more tissue here than women. He found a remarkably large difference in the amount of tissue: heterosexual men have twice as much as homoexual men, who have about the same amount of tissue as women. Moreover, the anterior hypothalamus is just the area that controls male sexual behavior in rats, and this area develops when the brains of male rats are hormonally masculinized before birth. So it seems possible that hormonal disruption during early pregnancy may result in a smaller medial anterior hypothalamus, which may in turn affect sexual orientation. Too little research has been done on lesbians to know if the same theories might apply to female homosexuals. It is unknown if a slight masculinization of a female fetus (chromosomally XX) produces lesbians. It is possible, but still controversial, that lesbianism is the mirror image of male homosexuality. Lesbians, unlike exclusive male homosexuals, however, commonly report choosing homosexuality after adolescence (Bailey, Kim, Hills, and Linsenmeier, 1997; Seidman and Rieder, 1994). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: UpcomingYouthvoter on June 26, 2011, 07:28:24 PM Genertic and proud independent Democrat.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Boris on June 26, 2011, 09:54:09 PM Why people continue to go to that kind of parties baffles me. The alcohol is usually very, very low-caliber. Why people go to some sh**ty university party and drink abominations like Natty Lite when they could invest in a nice bottle of decent whisky or a pack of decent beer and drink at home is beyond me. girls and drinking games Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: The Mikado on June 26, 2011, 10:38:10 PM I'd take my solitude and alcohol as a pair. I don't particularly like people, but I do like booze.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: HAnnA MArin County on June 26, 2011, 11:47:10 PM How did the subject of partying get brought up in the topic about homosexuality? I'm going to assume that that was done unintentionally.
I'll admit, I don't know everything there is to know about sexual orientation, but I don't like it when people say that homosexuality is a choice. Being gay, I can tell you that it's not. None of us choose to be this way. Why would anyone choose to subject him or herself to a lifestyle full of shame, embarrassment and discrimination where (s)he has to live in constant fear of having his/her life threatened simply because of what (s)he does in the privacy of his/her own bedroom? Honestly, how can you say that people CHOOSE to want that? If you argue that homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality must be a choice, too. So when did you choose to be straight? People who say that being gay is a choice usually follow it up with, "It's a choice, so you can choose to change your ways and 'see the light.'" I for one can say that I have never been sexually attracted to a woman. Once (AT A PARTY - okay, I can see where the party issue was brought up now, lol) this really pretty blonde-haired, blue-eyed cheerleader sat on my lap and started licking inside my ear and kissing my neck and tried to get me worked up, but nothing was going on down there. Ten minutes later I had a blonde-haired, blue-eyed boy sitting on my lap doing the exact thing and long story short, we proceeded to the bedroom. (Sorry, TMI I know) Now when I was much younger (talking kindergarten years), I had a "girlfriend" (keep in mind a "girlfriend" in kindergarten is different than having a girlfriend in high school). Obviously, when you're in kindergarten, you don't have a girlfriend because you're sexually attracted to her and want to have sex with her. When you're that age, you pretty much do what your parents tell you do, and it's "expected" of boys to think girls are pretty. Now before kindergarten, during my preschool years, thinking back, I do think I had a "crush" on a boy who once stole my toy tractor while we were outside playing. People often ask me, "When did you KNOW you were gay?" No one has ever asked me, "When did you choose to be gay?" To answer that question, I think I knew something was "wrong" when I started going through puberty. I watched a lot of "Skinemax" as a child when my parents were asleep, and I just always remembered paying more attention to the men and never the women. When I was in junior high, I had heard rumors going around that people thought I was gay. I didn't know what it meant but eventually I knew what it meant and why they thought that. I played volleyball with the girls; I didn't play basketball with the boys. All of my best friends were girls. Surprisingly, I wasn't ever bullied or teased for it (and I went to one of the smallest public schools in the state of Missouri in a very rural community). I feel like I'm going off on a tangent. I guess in conclusion, I know that it is NOT a choice, but at the same time, I don't really feel that it can be completely genetic. It's a complicated issue, and while I can't provide many facts (I do know that homosexuality has been found in 450 species, and homophobia has only been found in one. Which one seems unnatural to you?), all I can give is my anecdotal experiences of what it's been like being gay. Hope I've contributed something to this discussion, and if I haven't, I apologize. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 27, 2011, 08:14:26 AM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on June 27, 2011, 09:09:04 AM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. That's actually probably untrue. Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!). A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired. I'm somewhat of a supertaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster), for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight. It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics :P That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course. But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on June 27, 2011, 09:14:52 AM Not genetic per se, but far more similar to genetics than lifestyle choice (i.e., not wholly [or maybe at all] genetic, influenced by pre-natal conditions, but definitely not a choice nor something that can be controlled by others by controlling childhood environment).
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Free Palestine on June 27, 2011, 09:18:45 AM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. That's actually probably untrue. Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!). A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired. I'm somewhat of a supertaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster), for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight. It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics :P That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course. But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them. I think it has to do with fat parents passing on their unhealthy eating habits to their kids, who become fats themselves, rather than anything genetic. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 27, 2011, 01:37:35 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. That's actually probably untrue. Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!). A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired. I'm somewhat of a supertaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster), for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight. It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics :P That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course. But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them. We still choose how much to eat. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on June 27, 2011, 01:42:02 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. That's actually probably untrue. Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!). A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired. I'm somewhat of a supertaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster), for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight. It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics :P That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course. But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them. I think it has to do with fat parents passing on their unhealthy eating habits to their kids, who become fats themselves, rather than anything genetic. That's probably not the case; parents seem to do very little to affect obesity after early childhood according to most studies which take genetics into account (Maes, Neale, & Eaves, 1997 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/nq274521q17r6354/); Wardle, Carnell, Haworth, & Plomin, 2008 (http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/2/398.full)); you'll find very little correlation between the weight of parents and their adopted children, for example. The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. That's actually probably untrue. Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!). A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired. I'm somewhat of a supertaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster), for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight. It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics :P That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course. But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them. We still choose how much to eat. I'm not saying we can't; I'm just saying that our choices are influenced (in the case of weight, quite strongly so) by our genes. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 29, 2011, 02:05:33 PM Democrat: genetic
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Lulz on June 29, 2011, 03:28:28 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice
This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on June 29, 2011, 03:40:10 PM This is not a very good poll. They never really are. Just abstain, that's what I do. In any case, it has already been pointed out that the dichotomy is false. (nurturing, for example, or sociological factors beyond one's control were not among the choices. And combination of factors wasn't a choice.) But, false dichotomy or not, these polls generate lively and interesting discussion. And occasionally, if you're lucky, some amusing flame wars. Learn to enjoy such polls on their merits. And welcome! :) Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on June 29, 2011, 04:57:14 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 29, 2011, 05:14:36 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. Any blood relatives that are gay? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Lulz on June 29, 2011, 05:21:16 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. That would be like going onto an internet forum and asking an alleged cancer patient whether their cancer was caused by genetics or environmental factors. That is hardly a scientific exercise. There are hundreds of disorders that have been definitvily found to have a genetic basis. We can test for them and say with 100% certainty that a person has the disease or is a carrier. There are far more things where we just don't know. Homosexuality is one of them. We can't say for sure ALL homosexual are compelled to behave the way they do based on genetics neither can we deny it. It needs more research. That is the reasonable answer. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on June 29, 2011, 05:23:20 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. Any blood relatives that are gay? Yes; 2. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 29, 2011, 05:50:28 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. Any blood relatives that are gay? Yes; 2. Current or former generation? Grew up in the same area or some distance away. (You have me beat by one.) Added: One parent's side or both parents sides'. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on June 29, 2011, 06:12:43 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. Any blood relatives that are gay? Yes; 2. Current or former generation? Grew up in the same area or some distance away. (You have me beat by one.) Added: One parent's side or both parents sides'. One grew up in California :) The other grew up not far from me. And, same generation. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 29, 2011, 06:58:34 PM Democrat, Lifestyle Choice This is not a very good poll. I chose lifestyle choice because I'm not comfortable with the whole gay thing, but truth be told there just isn't enough science to support either view. Well I can help you with part of it. I'm gay; so if you consider it to be a 'lifestyle choice', ask me anything you want on it. Any blood relatives that are gay? Yes; 2. Current or former generation? Grew up in the same area or some distance away. (You have me beat by one.) Added: One parent's side or both parents sides'. One grew up in California :) The other grew up not far from me. And, same generation. On one in a prior generation? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: The Mikado on June 29, 2011, 07:37:11 PM Afleitch, is it true that there's pressure in the gay community to not be the "stereotypical" gay guy? I've noticed that the gay people I know tend to be downright annoyed at effeminate "fairies" and say that they make the rest of the gay community look bad.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 29, 2011, 08:09:26 PM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.
Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Holmes on June 29, 2011, 08:15:42 PM Afleitch, is it true that there's pressure in the gay community to not be the "stereotypical" gay guy? Yes, to an extent. See: internal Pride parade squabbles. But it's true for a lot of groups, isn't it? The pressure not to be a certain way, otherwise it reflects poorly on that group. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: tpfkaw on June 29, 2011, 08:58:32 PM Not a choice, not entirely genetic.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Lulz on June 30, 2011, 12:30:44 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. There are women walking around Africa with a plate in their lower lip. They still manage to get laid. Does that mean African men are genetically predisposed to dig chicks with plates in their lip? This is why I say this poll makes no sense. Everyone has an agenda. Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact. It is not an opinion. And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best. If you know more than those of us with "no brain." Please post the genetic sequence for this "gay" gene. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Gustaf on June 30, 2011, 02:53:56 AM Afleitch, is it true that there's pressure in the gay community to not be the "stereotypical" gay guy? I've noticed that the gay people I know tend to be downright annoyed at effeminate "fairies" and say that they make the rest of the gay community look bad. What I heard is more that on the market, the effeminate gay men rank lower. But my source might be unreliable. :P Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: LBJer on June 30, 2011, 07:45:37 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact. It is not an opinion. And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best. This is only partially true. I removed my vote for genetics because it's not clear being gay or straight is a matter of genetics. But it IS clear that it's not a choice. As others here have already said, for those who dispute this, when did you choose to be straight? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on June 30, 2011, 08:27:31 AM Afleitch, is it true that there's pressure in the gay community to not be the "stereotypical" gay guy? I've noticed that the gay people I know tend to be downright annoyed at effeminate "fairies" and say that they make the rest of the gay community look bad. What I heard is more that on the market, the effeminate gay men rank lower. But my source might be unreliable. :P There is the same diverse choice amongst gays as there is amongst striaghts as to what people find attractive. I don't think effeminate men 'rank lower'; there are those who find them their type :) And tastes change as you get older I find. I prefer geeky, less fussy, slightly 'laddish' men but that's just me :P Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on June 30, 2011, 09:26:43 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. There are women walking around Africa with a plate in their lower lip. They still manage to get laid. Does that mean African men are genetically predisposed to dig chicks with plates in their lip? This is why I say this poll makes no sense. Everyone has an agenda. Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact. It is not an opinion. And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best. If you know more than those of us with "no brain." Please post the genetic sequence for this "gay" gene. Though I appreciate your desire for more data, no one will ever find "the genetic sequence for this 'gay' gene"; for one, there's probably many more than one gene which affects sexuality, and, for two, genes are inherently way more complicated than one gene -> one trait. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 30, 2011, 09:57:27 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not mean that the person will act upon that preference. I'd like to distinguish between the preference and the action. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Joe Republic on June 30, 2011, 10:06:56 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on June 30, 2011, 11:14:54 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? A lack of thought Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: LBJer on June 30, 2011, 11:20:50 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not mean that the person will act upon that preference. I'd like to distinguish between the preference and the action. If a robber demands money from a cashier at gunpoint, the cashier can choose to say no and risk getting killed. But what sane person would do that? Similarly, who (gay or straight) would choose not to act on their sexual preference (unless you're talking about priests and nuns, etc.)? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: minionofmidas on June 30, 2011, 11:28:22 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference is totally gay. Corrected. :D Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 30, 2011, 11:47:24 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? I think, however, you have to make that distinction when you talk about "choice." Someone can have a sexual preference and, for a number of reasons, choose to to act upon it. Yes, that reason can be religious, but can also be not finding the right person and believing sex should not be casual and only in a committed relationship. I think that would apply to any sexual preference, i.e. I don't think being gay means you have to sleep around. Sexual activity, excluding rape, is a conscious choice. Sexual preference probably is not a conscious choice, but it might not be genetic either. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: minionofmidas on June 30, 2011, 11:55:01 AM All right and true, but sexual preference is what the terms straight and gay refer to, so it's irrelevant.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Lulz on June 30, 2011, 12:34:11 PM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. There are women walking around Africa with a plate in their lower lip. They still manage to get laid. Does that mean African men are genetically predisposed to dig chicks with plates in their lip? This is why I say this poll makes no sense. Everyone has an agenda. Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact. It is not an opinion. And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best. If you know more than those of us with "no brain." Please post the genetic sequence for this "gay" gene. Though I appreciate your desire for more data, no one will ever find "the genetic sequence for this 'gay' gene"; for one, there's probably many more than one gene which affects sexuality, and, for two, genes are inherently way more complicated than one gene -> one trait. Well then this gentleman should have a variety of genetic sequences to post to prove his point. My point is we don't know. I know there are those with an agenda that want to say its genetic yet they can't point to any definitive data to back up their point of view. And there at those with equally little evidence that wish to close their minds to the possibility that it may be genetic. Neither party is correct. The answer is we need to do more research to answer the question. If this was a disease there is no way members of the public with no scientific background would spend days on internet forums fiercely arguing about something with so little data. Its absurd. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 30, 2011, 12:41:24 PM All right and true, but sexual preference is what the terms straight and gay refer to, so it's irrelevant. "Sexual preference," "Sexual Attraction," or "Sexual orientation," all refer to what sex or sexes a person finds attractive. It has nothing to do with any action of the individual. I'm reminded of a story Pope John XXIII told about his days as Papal Nuncio in Paris: "You know, it's rough being a papal nuncio. I get invited to these diplomatic parties where everyone stands around with a small plate of canapes trying not to look bored. Then, in walks a shapely woman in a low-cut, revealing gown, and everyone in the whole place turns around and looks -- At Me!" Years later, he could remember the woman, probably indicating an attraction. He didn't act upon that attraction. Obviously, he didn't for religious reasons, but it did represent a choice. I think you have to make that distiction, and I'm not suggesting that all gay people should be celibate. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Del Tachi on June 30, 2011, 01:14:53 PM It's really in one's upbringing.
If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 30, 2011, 01:51:10 PM It's really in one's upbringing. If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations? You can have identical twins with some notable differences, however. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on June 30, 2011, 04:13:08 PM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. There are women walking around Africa with a plate in their lower lip. They still manage to get laid. Does that mean African men are genetically predisposed to dig chicks with plates in their lip? This is why I say this poll makes no sense. Everyone has an agenda. Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact. It is not an opinion. And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best. If you know more than those of us with "no brain." Please post the genetic sequence for this "gay" gene. Though I appreciate your desire for more data, no one will ever find "the genetic sequence for this 'gay' gene"; for one, there's probably many more than one gene which affects sexuality, and, for two, genes are inherently way more complicated than one gene -> one trait. Well then this gentleman should have a variety of genetic sequences to post to prove his point. Of course not; we simply need studies of heritability to prove that some of differences between human in sexual orientation are genetic in nature. There have been some, which have found mixed results, but most of which find levels of concordance between identical twins higher than those between fraternal twins (see also: the work of Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey. they're controversial figures, for sure, and I definitely don't believe everything they've said, but they've done a lot.). You can also see here (http://nymag.com/news/features/33520). Quote If this was a disease there is no way members of the public with no scientific background Watch your mouth ;) It's really in one's upbringing. If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations? Not 100% genetic does not imply 0% genetic :P Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Holmes on June 30, 2011, 04:42:58 PM Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 30, 2011, 10:30:48 PM Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either. But there might be some common factors. I have a blood uncle who is gay, and so far as I know, none are of his siblings children are. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 30, 2011, 10:49:32 PM I think the issue of human sexuality is very very complex.
I'm personally of the view that sexuality is largely based on genetic traits, but there are also elements of external factors in some people... but the thing I've noticed is that there are virtually no common factors in the backgrounds of any of my gay or lesbian friends. There is some evidence which supports the younger brother factor... but it's not that compelling. While I agree that the act of sexuality is a choice, but I think the recipe for mental instability is the suppression of normal healthy sexual expression. I know some people who were and some who are still in the closet... and I honestly don't think I've known more miserable people. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on June 30, 2011, 11:16:24 PM While I agree that the act of sexuality is a choice, but I think the recipe for mental instability is the suppression of normal healthy sexual expression. I know some people who were and some who are still in the closet... and I honestly don't think I've known more miserable people. Two points. 1. When I say sexual activity is a choice, I'm not suggesting that the choice should be no, only noting that it is a choice. 2. Someone who engages in secret sexual activity, i.e. "in the closet," has already made that choice. I think that is a matter of personal preference, which I'll respect. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Person Man on June 30, 2011, 11:18:10 PM Perhaps a better wording for this poll is whether someone can be "naturally" gay or not. Beyond that, there's the issue of whether that makes it ok to be gay. I mean, it could still be possible to believe that there are people who are naturally gay but that its still not ok to be gay...as JJ has pointed out by alluding to the fact that beyond who we have sex with, we first make the choice to actually have sex with another person.
...and my answer is "genetic" but not because I think it actually is "genetic" but that I think that most gay people wouldn't not be gay but for wanting to be gay. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 01, 2011, 03:16:30 AM Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: John Dibble on July 01, 2011, 09:18:55 AM It's really in one's upbringing. If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations? Not 100% genetic does not imply 0% genetic :P Yes, and having genes that might be associated with homosexuality isn't a guarantee of being homosexual. Our genes are kind of like a recipe, and when you cook a recipe it isn't necessarily going to come out 100% identical every time. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 01, 2011, 09:22:35 AM Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality. Being in the closet means a "public" denial of your sexual preference, I will give you that. The cases you described were of people sexually active that operate, or wish to operate, on that preference. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Holmes on July 01, 2011, 09:44:59 AM Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either. But there might be some common factors. Such as? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: bullmoose88 on July 01, 2011, 11:21:03 AM Republican; genetic. Though I suppose one can't entirely rule out the possibility (however remote) that a handful of persons are homosexual by choice. I don't know how many people would choose to be persecuted, but for the handful that might I'm sure they have reasons.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on July 01, 2011, 11:42:35 AM Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this.
Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on July 01, 2011, 12:40:10 PM Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this. Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have? I agree that it should not matter. Marriage rights, spousal visitation in hospitals, beneficiary advantages, service in the military, etc. All should be equal under the law. But I disagree with you that it should be instinctive to ponder the source of one's heterosexuality. Really, I'm the product of billions of generations of biological endeavor. Even before any species capable of pondering the philosophical intricacies of things like liberties had evolved, the phenomena of sexual selection and sexual production were out there. They'd go unlabeled and unrecognized for hundreds of millions of years, but the physics behind the chemical reactions behind the physiological urges were there. I'm attracted to folks who are (a) members of my own species, and (b) females for the same reason that I eat: To survive and pass on my genes. I don't choose it. Now, I didn't vote in this poll for several reasons. One, the dichotomy is false. Two, there are other possible reasons to explain homosexuality. Three, I honestly don't know the answer. Four, it doesn't really matter one way or the other to me. But I'd be lying if I said I never wondered about it. What makes folks gay? I don't know. But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 01, 2011, 02:01:04 PM Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either. But there might be some common factors. Such as? If I had some for sure, I would not have said "might." Birth order has been mentioned. A strong mother/father might be an environmental factor. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 01, 2011, 02:15:13 PM Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this. Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have? I think I have done the first. Notice that I've said "sexual preference" and not talked about "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality." I can make a biological case against homosexuality, and against heterosexual celibacy for that matter. Neither leads to passing on the genes (note that I cannot make this argument against bisexuality). The question was not "what rights gay people should have," but "What causes someone to be gay?" That question leads to "What causes sexual preference?" I don't want to equate sexuality to a disability (and I am disabled), but you can ask "What causes disability," and "What rights should disabled people have?" You'll get two different answers, but one is a biological question. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on July 01, 2011, 02:15:50 PM But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males. It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 01, 2011, 02:25:18 PM But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males. It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand. My first question is, is that true homosexuality or bisexuality? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 01, 2011, 03:51:14 PM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on July 01, 2011, 03:54:28 PM But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males. It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand. Fair enough. And I've been brainwashed by the school system, unquestioning. But at the moment I have a hard time finding a better explanation for the diversity of plant and animal life, and the former diversity exhibited in the fossil record, than the party line towed by the public schools. Given the intrinsic drive to reproduce, and the fact that reproduction sexually requires one of each to mate, it only seems natural that heterosexuality is the "default." And in that line of thought, I thought it an odd comment for you to make. But I have witnessed homosexual coupling in cats and in dogs. In fact, we had a cat when I was young that I'm quite sure was gay. He absolutely preferred to mount other male cats, even when healthy, intact, female cats of reproductive age were abundant in the neighborhood. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 01, 2011, 04:06:08 PM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 02, 2011, 10:20:52 PM Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality. Being in the closet means a "public" denial of your sexual preference, I will give you that. The cases you described were of people sexually active that operate, or wish to operate, on that preference. I think you're moving the goal posts on this one... there is a clear difference between the Act of sex and sexuality - someone can be sexually attracted to men, but having sex with women... I think most people wish to act on their sexual interests... it's a kind of fundamental element of sexuality and how you know what your sexuality is. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 02, 2011, 11:15:14 PM Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality. Being in the closet means a "public" denial of your sexual preference, I will give you that. The cases you described were of people sexually active that operate, or wish to operate, on that preference. I think you're moving the goal posts on this one... there is a clear difference between the Act of sex and sexuality - someone can be sexually attracted to men, but having sex with women... I think most people wish to act on their sexual interests... it's a kind of fundamental element of sexuality and how you know what your sexuality is. No, I'm trying to disquish between the two. The poll does not indicate that. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 03, 2011, 01:21:44 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: California8429 on July 03, 2011, 10:31:27 PM Choice.
Not that I would really have a high regarded opinion. I did read an interesting article that those with older brothers are more likely to be gay Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 04, 2011, 09:41:17 PM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Not really, which is unfortunate :-\ Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 05, 2011, 08:24:39 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 05, 2011, 09:15:00 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation. That's well and good, but how do you objectively measure that? That's the real problem, and why people often use self-identification instead. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 05, 2011, 09:35:44 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 05, 2011, 11:35:53 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation. It's the only fact about the situation. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 05, 2011, 11:38:08 AM Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to. Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall. Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however. That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon. Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire. Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with? TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation. That's well and good, but how do you objectively measure that? That's the real problem, and why people often use self-identification instead. I wouldn't say self-identification isn't useful for measuring the number of out gay, straight, etc. people, but it isn't useful for tallying the entire population because it removes from consideration those who are too oppressed (by social pressure, religion, etc.) to come out. Realistically, if we're going to be concerned about rights and social justice, we ought to be concerned about the rights of those who are the most oppressed more even than those who are willing/able to come out. So to lump them in with straight people is particularly nefarious. They're the ones most at risk for suicide, for example. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on July 07, 2011, 02:17:27 AM These options are disingenuous.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 07, 2011, 09:34:53 AM These options are disingenuous. AGREED!!! It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Hotblack Desiato on July 07, 2011, 09:37:17 AM It's genetic and more of a continuum from gay to straight as opposed to being a black and white thing.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 07, 2011, 10:38:31 AM These options are disingenuous. AGREED!!! It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality. Yes! jmfcst's departure has certainly helped the tenor of discussions about teh gay, at least a bit. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 07, 2011, 02:53:36 PM These options are disingenuous. AGREED!!! It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality. Yes! jmfcst's departure has certainly helped the tenor of discussions about teh gay, at least a bit. I don't think it is that. Human sexually is a serious issue and we've having a serious discussion of it. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 07, 2011, 03:39:49 PM These options are disingenuous. AGREED!!! It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality. Yes! jmfcst's departure has certainly helped the tenor of discussions about teh gay, at least a bit. I don't think it is that. Human sexually is a serious issue and we've having a serious discussion of it. I'm not sure he would've let us had such a serious discussion :P Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Holmes on July 07, 2011, 07:39:11 PM I did read an interesting article that those with older brothers are more likely to be gay D'aw, I don't have a brother, just a sister. And my boyfriend is the older brother. I wish we could be like the other gays. :( Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on July 07, 2011, 08:50:00 PM Well, I have an older brother. But he's a libertarian, so maybe that doesn't count. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Frink on July 08, 2011, 01:52:58 AM Who cares? Live and let live.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on July 08, 2011, 11:00:31 AM Who cares? Live and let live. when you were young and your heart was an open book... Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Torie on July 10, 2011, 12:33:17 PM I think, as others have noted that sexual preference could be shaped by environmental forces and it might be congenital, a trait you are born with, but not a genetic one. One very strong argument against it being genetic is that, if it were, it would not lead to generational survival. With some level of involvement of the opposite sex, humans cannot reproduce. Throughout most of human history, that involved a heterosexual act. Actually, a tribe having some gay men in it helped survival of the clan group, because they increased the survival rate of the young of the tribe by being sort of a social safety net as it were. That is the theory anyway, and one I find persuasive. It is very obvious to me that sexual preference along a continuum has a strong genetic component. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 10, 2011, 12:48:11 PM I think, as others have noted that sexual preference could be shaped by environmental forces and it might be congenital, a trait you are born with, but not a genetic one. One very strong argument against it being genetic is that, if it were, it would not lead to generational survival. With some level of involvement of the opposite sex, humans cannot reproduce. Throughout most of human history, that involved a heterosexual act. Actually, a tribe having some gay men in it helped survival of the clan group, because they increased the survival rate of the young of the tribe by being sort of a social safety net as it were. That's a hypothesis, yes, but group selection is junk science :P Rather, you want to say something along the lines of "gay men helped the survival of gay genes, because they increased the survival rate of the young of the tribe who also had those gay genes (perhaps latent/recessive/what have you) by being a sort of social safety net". Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 10, 2011, 05:28:26 PM I think, as others have noted that sexual preference could be shaped by environmental forces and it might be congenital, a trait you are born with, but not a genetic one. One very strong argument against it being genetic is that, if it were, it would not lead to generational survival. With some level of involvement of the opposite sex, humans cannot reproduce. Throughout most of human history, that involved a heterosexual act. Actually, a tribe having some gay men in it helped survival of the clan group, because they increased the survival rate of the young of the tribe by being sort of a social safety net as it were. That is the theory anyway, and one I find persuasive. It is very obvious to me that sexual preference along a continuum has a strong genetic component. How so? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 10, 2011, 07:33:30 PM I think, as others have noted that sexual preference could be shaped by environmental forces and it might be congenital, a trait you are born with, but not a genetic one. One very strong argument against it being genetic is that, if it were, it would not lead to generational survival. With some level of involvement of the opposite sex, humans cannot reproduce. Throughout most of human history, that involved a heterosexual act. Actually, a tribe having some gay men in it helped survival of the clan group, because they increased the survival rate of the young of the tribe by being sort of a social safety net as it were. That is the theory anyway, and one I find persuasive. It is very obvious to me that sexual preference along a continuum has a strong genetic component. How so? Having "spare" adults to assist in raising the children improves survivability. It fits with the idea that humans and other mammals have adopted the genetic survival strategy of having a low child-adult ratio and investing a lot in each child (compare, say, sea turtles or salmon, which instead having many offspring and invest very little in each child, relying on sheer numbers to continue the genetic line). Actually, it would be interesting to know if homosexuality has ever been documented in such a strength-in-numbers species. An alternative possibility is that carriers for some genetic causes of homosexuality may be more fertile or have some other evolutionary advantage. (Similar to how carriers for sickle-cell anemia are immune to malaria, and female carriers of red-green colorblindness have greater ability to distinguish colors and better night-vision.) This is particularly strong for the theory that individuals themselves are not genetically homosexual, but their mothers have genes that make them predisposed to have gay children (through unusual womb conditions, etc.). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 10, 2011, 07:49:12 PM That is interesting, but the high infant mortality rates should take care of that.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 10, 2011, 07:57:36 PM Who cares? Live and let live. when you were young and your heart was an open book... Damn it!!! It's going to be in my head all day now!!! Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 10, 2011, 07:59:33 PM That is interesting, but the high infant mortality rates should take care of that. "Take care of"? Who is to say what the ideal child-to-adult ratio is for survival of genes? The point is not simply to have a replacement for the inevitable early parents deaths--it might be better to have twelve adults raising twenty children than ten adults raising those same children. (Ten adults might result in ten of the children surviving and having offspring, but the addition of two more childless adults might result in fifteen of the children surviving and having offspring--an enormous genetic advantage.) Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 10, 2011, 09:21:24 PM That is interesting, but the high infant mortality rates should take care of that. "Take care of"? Who is to say what the ideal child-to-adult ratio is for survival of genes? The point is not simply to have a replacement for the inevitable early parents deaths--it might be better to have twelve adults raising twenty children than ten adults raising those same children. (Ten adults might result in ten of the children surviving and having offspring, but the addition of two more childless adults might result in fifteen of the children surviving and having offspring--an enormous genetic advantage.) I would think throughout most of human history, you'd have adults with fewer children because of infant mortality, though I can your point. Also, I'm see that as helping survivability, but it wouldn't be passed on genetically. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 10, 2011, 09:49:20 PM That is interesting, but the high infant mortality rates should take care of that. "Take care of"? Who is to say what the ideal child-to-adult ratio is for survival of genes? The point is not simply to have a replacement for the inevitable early parents deaths--it might be better to have twelve adults raising twenty children than ten adults raising those same children. (Ten adults might result in ten of the children surviving and having offspring, but the addition of two more childless adults might result in fifteen of the children surviving and having offspring--an enormous genetic advantage.) I would think throughout most of human history, you'd have adults with fewer children because of infant mortality, though I can your point. Not true at all. Families had a lot more children in the evolutionary past (pre-agriculture). Most did not survive to reproductive age, but that did not mean they weren't being raised. Quote Also, I'm see that as helping survivability, but it wouldn't be passed on genetically. Yes, it would. We're talking small clan groups--everyone shares a lot of the same genes, some of which would be the genes related to homosexuality (which undoubtedly would be found, recessively carried or otherwise, in the heterosexual as well as homosexual members of the population). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on July 11, 2011, 02:45:29 AM Democrat: genetic
Meaning it comes from God, so trying to suppress it is in the sin, not acting on it. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 11, 2011, 08:50:35 AM That is interesting, but the high infant mortality rates should take care of that. "Take care of"? Who is to say what the ideal child-to-adult ratio is for survival of genes? The point is not simply to have a replacement for the inevitable early parents deaths--it might be better to have twelve adults raising twenty children than ten adults raising those same children. (Ten adults might result in ten of the children surviving and having offspring, but the addition of two more childless adults might result in fifteen of the children surviving and having offspring--an enormous genetic advantage.) I would think throughout most of human history, you'd have adults with fewer children because of infant mortality, though I can your point. Not true at all. Families had a lot more children in the evolutionary past (pre-agriculture). Most did not survive to reproductive age, but that did not mean they weren't being raised. Quote Also, I'm see that as helping survivability, but it wouldn't be passed on genetically. Yes, it would. We're talking small clan groups--everyone shares a lot of the same genes, some of which would be the genes related to homosexuality (which undoubtedly would be found, recessively carried or otherwise, in the heterosexual as well as homosexual members of the population). First, large families did occur in agricultural environments as well. The ratio would be important; if a genetic homosexual preference accounted for 10% of the clan, how much of a difference would that make? Second, even if recessive (and assuming an gay sexual preference doesn't switch on later in life), it still should be bred out. Some things, like sickle cell trait, actually help people survive to adulthood and procreate. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Verily on July 11, 2011, 09:08:15 AM That is interesting, but the high infant mortality rates should take care of that. "Take care of"? Who is to say what the ideal child-to-adult ratio is for survival of genes? The point is not simply to have a replacement for the inevitable early parents deaths--it might be better to have twelve adults raising twenty children than ten adults raising those same children. (Ten adults might result in ten of the children surviving and having offspring, but the addition of two more childless adults might result in fifteen of the children surviving and having offspring--an enormous genetic advantage.) I would think throughout most of human history, you'd have adults with fewer children because of infant mortality, though I can your point. Not true at all. Families had a lot more children in the evolutionary past (pre-agriculture). Most did not survive to reproductive age, but that did not mean they weren't being raised. Quote Also, I'm see that as helping survivability, but it wouldn't be passed on genetically. Yes, it would. We're talking small clan groups--everyone shares a lot of the same genes, some of which would be the genes related to homosexuality (which undoubtedly would be found, recessively carried or otherwise, in the heterosexual as well as homosexual members of the population). First, large families did occur in agricultural environments as well. The ratio would be important; if a genetic homosexual preference accounted for 10% of the clan, how much of a difference would that make? I'm ignoring the agricultural period because it is too short to have had much impact on human evolution. As for the latter question, that's basically impossible to know. It's a hypothesis (and one that's not easy to test). It does not seem an unreasonable proposition that there is an "ideal" adult-child ratio, however. Quote Second, even if recessive (and assuming an gay sexual preference doesn't switch on later in life), it still should be bred out. Some things, like sickle cell trait, actually help people survive to adulthood and procreate. You seem to have an extremely poor grasp of genetics. One does not need to be phenotypically expressive of a trait to pass down the genes related to that trait. Sickle cell provides no advantages whatsoever to the person afflicted. In fact, before modern medicine, nearly every person with sickle cell died before reaching sexual maturity and thus had no descendants. The advantages of the sickle cell genes accrue, not to those afflicted, but to the carriers of the sickle cell genes who do not express the trait (because it is recessive). Thus, the genes survive among the carrier-relatives of the sickle cell-afflicted even though those who express the sickle cell phenotype generally do not have direct descendants. There are two ways this could be true of homosexuality. (1) The genes related to homosexuality could provide direct genetic benefits to the carriers, like sickle cell does. (They might increase fertility, for example.) (2) Alternatively, the genes related to homosexuality could provide indirect benefits to the carriers. (Having homosexual relatives to increase the adult-child ratio might be a biological advantage.) Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Torie on July 11, 2011, 09:59:54 AM Verily, your body of posts above are most helpful and impressive in saying so well what would have taken me some time to think through and pound out on the keyboard. I just did the Reader's Digest version myself. Thanks!
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 11, 2011, 11:54:37 AM Yeah, Verily's doing a better job than I ever could at explaining ;)
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 11, 2011, 12:44:29 PM I'm ignoring the agricultural period because it is too short to have had much impact on human evolution. As for the latter question, that's basically impossible to know. It's a hypothesis (and one that's not easy to test). It does not seem an unreasonable proposition that there is an "ideal" adult-child ratio, however. We're still talking about 40-75 generations; I can see your argument even extending to that period. I can see the extension of the child-adult ratio extending well into historical times. Quote Second, even if recessive (and assuming an gay sexual preference doesn't switch on later in life), it still should be bred out. Some things, like sickle cell trait, actually help people survive to adulthood and procreate. You seem to have an extremely poor grasp of genetics. One does not need to be phenotypically expressive of a trait to pass down the genes related to that trait. Sickle cell provides no advantages whatsoever to the person afflicted. In fact, before modern medicine, nearly every person with sickle cell died before reaching sexual maturity and thus had no descendants. The advantages of the sickle cell genes accrue, not to those afflicted, but to the carriers of the sickle cell genes who do not express the trait (because it is recessive). Thus, the genes survive among the carrier-relatives of the sickle cell-afflicted even though those who express the sickle cell phenotype generally do not have direct descendants. [/quote] CS trait does; it weakens the effects of malaria. There is an advantage to having the trait as you pointed out. That advantage is that you survive long enough to breed and possibly pass the trait to your children. It keeps the species alive in malaria prone areas, and it keeps the trait around to be passed on to future members of the species. It might even permit someone with CCA to live long enough to pass the trait, but not the disease, to the next generation. Quote There are two ways this could be true of homosexuality. (1) The genes related to homosexuality could provide direct genetic benefits to the carriers, like sickle cell does. (They might increase fertility, for example.) (2) Alternatively, the genes related to homosexuality could provide indirect benefits to the carriers. (Having homosexual relatives to increase the adult-child ratio might be a biological advantage.) The second argument is compelling, and could be broader than you suggest, but it doesn't really answer the first one. If you have a trait that might be very advantageous, but it renders you unable to reproduce, it won't stay around after you die. It it would be triggered later in life, "turned on" as it where, it would make sense. Assume that the "gay gene" is g and the "straight gene" is s; the gay gene is recessive. Parents: gs and gs Offspring: gg (no children) gs (children) gs (children) ss (children) You are basically breeding out the gene, unless there is a substantial advantage of the gs over the ss. I'm not seeing that evolutionary advantage. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on July 11, 2011, 02:12:11 PM gg (no children) gs (children) gs (children) ss (children) you're assuming that all straight folks have children. And that gay folks never do. Both are demonstrably false. For example, in my department there are 15 of us, all over 35 and, as far as I can tell, all straight. Only 11 of us have any children. Also, of the three closer personal friends I have who are definitely gay, one has had two biological children with his wife of nearly 20 years. I don't know if these are "average" stats, but it's enough to disprove your assumption. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 11, 2011, 05:14:06 PM gg (no children) gs (children) gs (children) ss (children) you're assuming that all straight folks have children. And that gay folks never do. Both are demonstrably false. For example, in my department there are 15 of us, all over 35 and, as far as I can tell, all straight. Only 11 of us have any children. Also, of the three closer personal friends I have who are definitely gay, one has had two biological children with his wife of nearly 20 years. I don't know if these are "average" stats, but it's enough to disprove your assumption. I'm assuming most gay people don't pass on their genetics (at least in the clan environment Verily suggested). We could assume a certain percentage of straight people don't procreate, and take that into account. The the number of people that can procreate within the same gender, however, will be zero. Now, something could change that zero. If the g gene would either be triggered later or if it were not an exclusively "gay gene," it could explain it. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Joe Republic on July 11, 2011, 05:55:07 PM Harking back to the excerpt from a Psych textbook I posted back on Page 4, one of the emerging causation theories concerns hormonal disruption in the womb. As we know, fetal development is an incredibly delicate process, dependent on perfectly coordinated timing. If just one tiny thing happens differently, or not at all, it could very well have massive psychological and/or physiological repercussions throughout the person's eventual life.
The fetal disruption theory therefore posits that the delicate process of hormonal masculinization of male fetuses (since every fetus starts out as female) can sometimes take a different course, therefore leading to a differently sized medial anterior hypothalamus. (Hetero men usually have more tissue here than homosexual men, who have roughly the same amount as females.) So the jury is still out on whether fetal hormonal disruption is genetic in origin, or if there's a 'gay gene' at all. Rather, it seems likely that male homosexuality is more of a biological 'accident' that took place in the womb. A lot like cleft palates, if you'll pardon the comparison. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: angus on July 11, 2011, 07:27:10 PM I'm assuming most gay people don't pass on their genetics (at least in the clan environment Verily suggested). We could assume a certain percentage of straight people don't procreate, and take that into account. The the number of people that can procreate within the same gender, however, will be zero. yes, I understand. I came into this argument mid-way, and I don't necessarily buy into the pretext of this poll, but I'm checking up on it occasionally, and I just wanted to point out that not only don't straight people always achieve biological success, but also that gay people actually do. Sometimes. Like I said, one-third of the close personal friends I have that are gay--not that I have many--have procreated in the usual way. I mean, as long as we're pursuing this Mendel's Pea experiment, we need to keep that in mind. So your simple model, which assumes zero biological success for homosexuals, must be modified if you're going to realistically carry on with this line of argument. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 11, 2011, 08:28:29 PM I recently read a very interesting book recommended by a friend on the studies related to sexuality over the past 40 years.
His hypothesis is this - there is no actual single gay-gene - so in reality no trait to be passed on - but what does seem to happen is a flood of hormones at a key stage in the foetus' development that triggers an effect in a key part of the hyper-thalamus which control the more primal sexual attraction - which gives a gay man all of the testosterone of a man, and the same physical and sexual development of a man - but with a similar portion of the hyper-thalamus to that of a woman. So they end up finding those traits about men sexually arousing as well as triggered to 'nest' with a man rather than a woman. Honestly, it's the most reasonable option out there I've heard. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: ilikeverin on July 11, 2011, 10:50:36 PM Sigh. Just because there is no one gay gene does not mean there are none, or that homosexuality is not heritable. That's like saying height isn't heritable, because there is no one height gene. In fact, we hardly have any specific genes we can point to, at all, and call a "height gene", and the one we do know, with a certainty, influences height appears to change it by about a centimeter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6975865.stm).
And differences in gross brain size are just correlational. We don't know if fetal environment changes brain size, or if brain size influences fetal development, or if both brain size and fetal development are affected by some third factor (genetics?). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 11, 2011, 11:15:51 PM Lol... I said the in-utero hormonal theory makes the most sense... to me.
It's quite plausible that there is a heredity element - even if there isn't a clear genetic connection that doesn't mean that homosexuality isn't naturally occurring and inate to someone from the time they're born - and a non-changeable part of who a person is. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Joe Republic on July 12, 2011, 04:17:45 AM Funny, Polnut and I posted much the same thing within three hours of each other. :)
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 12, 2011, 08:28:51 AM Lol... I said the in-utero hormonal theory makes the most sense... to me. It's quite plausible that there is a heredity element - even if there isn't a clear genetic connection that doesn't mean that homosexuality isn't naturally occurring and inate to someone from the time they're born - and a non-changeable part of who a person is. I think that might be the more logical conclusion, congenital factor. It is not inheritable (but there may be a genetic predisposition), but there are some prenatal factors. I would not rule out a learned trait, like first language, either. I do doubt that sexual preference is a choice, though (excluding rape) sexual activity is. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on July 12, 2011, 11:05:51 AM I do doubt that sexual preference is a choice, though (excluding rape) sexual activity is. As is eating and drinking; if you want to get all technical about it. And while abstaining from sexual activity won't kill us, it isn't particularly psychologically healthy. There is no reason to advise someone to abstain completely from homosexual behaviour if they are gay except for doctrinal (and usually religious doctrinal) reasons. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: J. J. on July 12, 2011, 12:07:35 PM I do doubt that sexual preference is a choice, though (excluding rape) sexual activity is. As is eating and drinking; if you want to get all technical about it. And while abstaining from sexual activity won't kill us, it isn't particularly psychologically healthy. There is no reason to advise someone to abstain completely from homosexual behaviour if they are gay except for doctrinal (and usually religious doctrinal) reasons. I'm not suggesting anything, except sexual behavior (except for rape, obviously), is voluntary. That applies to homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual behavior. I am not advising any consenting adults to abstain, only noting the fact. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 12, 2011, 09:32:09 PM Funny, Polnut and I posted much the same thing within three hours of each other. :) a) because we rock b) because I don't read posts above me thoroughly Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Frink on July 12, 2011, 11:21:20 PM Who cares? Live and let live. ... Well played. :) Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: courts on July 13, 2011, 04:08:21 AM Democrat: genetic Meaning it comes from God, so trying to suppress it is in the sin, not acting on it. Nice logic ya got there Zach. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DreamTheater on December 18, 2012, 02:31:40 PM Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: politicus on December 18, 2012, 02:52:07 PM Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 18, 2012, 08:03:48 PM Here's a reply I made to the same guy in a different thread in this same board.
I definitely don't think homosexuality is a choice, however, it is equally absurd to think it is caused by a gene, because I'm pretty sure a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. I have no idea whether there is a gay gene or not, but the concept is hardly absurd. There are any number of genes for which having one copy is beneficial while having two has a baneful effect. For example, if one takes the stereotypes of being gay as being correlated with greater creativity, compassion, etc. as true, then gays would improve the chances that their non-gay siblings (who would have a 2 in 3 chance of carrying a recessive gay gene if there be such a thing) are able to have offspring who reproduce successfully. So in other words, gays could be like worker ants and bees. They wouldn't have descendents of their own, but help their close relatives to have them. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Ban my account ffs! on December 18, 2012, 10:39:37 PM The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc. But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could. Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then. What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat. It isn't absolute free will, but it is close. That's actually probably untrue. Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!). A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired. I'm somewhat of a supertaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster), for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight. It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics :P That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course. But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them. While I love cabbage and brussel sprouts, I have a strong aversion to bitter foods... and though I love the flavor of chili peppers, the burn is incredibly painful. In fact, it is not much less intense than, say, burning the sensitive area on the bottom of your wrist on a hot griddle. Olives and tonic water are repulsive to me... as are bitter greens and many alcoholic beverages. Well, yay.. at least I can be super at something. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2012, 04:54:49 AM It might not be scientifically impossible, but why assume a genetic determination before it's proven? Most of our preferences of any kind do not have a precisely determined origin - they are just part of our personality. Until there is some scientific evidence, I don't see the point of wondering about this. Nobody's wondering if our preferences on food, sports, or hobbies are genetic or not.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DemPGH on December 19, 2012, 10:21:35 AM Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on December 19, 2012, 10:49:47 AM Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny; i.e the idea that homosexuality may not quite be genetic (so let's not be too hasty in the whole 'rights' thing) yet heterosexuality somehow is, yet both as you say are observed patterns of sexual behaviour in nature. Understanding one is the key to understanding the other.The very fact that same sex behaviour is exhibited by me and by a seagull, despite several hundred millions years of evolution between us and there continues to be same sex orientated seagulls, cats, whales, monkeys and humans despite each successive generation dying off suggests it is a genetic trait. Indeed it occurs in every observed animal species that reproduces by procreation (which as a group of living things is coinicidently in the minority), and procreation is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. So it's interesting. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: SPC on December 19, 2012, 03:59:20 PM Where's Other/Both? Obviously there are components of both that determine whether one becomes homosexual or not; if it weren't, the frequency of one's identical twin being homosexual given that one is homosexual would be closer to 100% (if it were entirely genetic) or 10% (if it were entirely environmental/lifestyle choice), rather than the actual value of approximately 50% (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html). While the advocates of genetically-determined sexuality certainly have a point with the examples of homosexuality elsewhere in the animal kingdom, are we supposed to believe that there was just something different (one might even say queer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=583zhKnsDjI)) in the gene pool in Ancient Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece)?
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DreamTheater on December 19, 2012, 04:05:38 PM Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: SPC on December 19, 2012, 04:08:41 PM Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice. That's why Tay-Sachs was eradicated, right? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DreamTheater on December 19, 2012, 04:23:21 PM That's why it's very rare. And it will probably die out in the next couple thousand years.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on December 19, 2012, 06:46:07 PM That's why it's very rare. And it will probably die out in the next couple thousand years. DreamTheater, circa. 1000 BCE: "[see above]" Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 19, 2012, 08:30:21 PM What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny normative Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Person Man on December 19, 2012, 09:29:22 PM Is it necesary for it to be genetic or a conscious decision? Could it be a cultural thing, an adaptive thing or perhaps something biological that happens after birth (exposure to certain chemicals when you are predisposed to become gay when exposed to them..like an autoimmunity or leaky gut thing or even if you change your body somehow)? Or it could be all of the above and in different level of incidence between males and females.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Thomas D on December 19, 2012, 09:32:50 PM Where is the option for 'My dad never hugged me'? :P
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Person Man on December 19, 2012, 09:36:10 PM Or the one that "I am in really good shape like those guys that are gay and women just nag me too much". :P
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Goldwater on December 20, 2012, 12:20:32 AM Genetic (R).
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Insula Dei on December 20, 2012, 04:42:30 AM Do I feel the need to weigh in on this?
Of course I do. 1. @Afleitch: Yeah, heterosexuality isn't 'just' genetical either. Not that hard to admit to that. Consider child X. If nothing out of the ordinary were to occur, child X would grow up to become a fully functional heterosexual. Chil X is brutally abused. Constatation: child X grows up to be something other than a fully functional heterosexual. Child X may have trouble staying in relations, choosing the right partners, or just not be capable of sex. It may even turn homosexual. No way of knowing what could happen. Most of us have never been abused. But look back at that first paragraph: do you really think 'nothing out of the ordinary' is any less formative than abuse? Think again. We're formed, at least to some degree, by our experiences, and it isn't because sexual abuse is so completely awful that it would be any more formative than that one picture you used to keep looking at in that book of fairy tales you had as a 5 year old. You know the one. 2. If you have a rubber ball and you kick it, it will react different from a metal ball you kick with the same angle and the same force. Hello genetics. 3. Homosexual animals do not exist. You may have animals that engage in sexual activity with the same gender. Sure. I somewhat doubt there are animals that do so consistently, to the exclusion of al other sexual activity. But even that is definitely possible. I don't know the science. What I would be somewhat willing to bet is that if you were to look at any case of animal homosexuality, you'd find strong indications of environmental factors playing a massive role in this. I'd even be willing to predict the n° 1 environmental factor contributing to same-sex intercourse: captivity. But none of that's the reason that animal homosexuality does not exist. The reason animal homosexuality does not exist is the exact same reason animal heterosexuality does not exist. Animals don't think and, even more importantly, they don't speak. No animal has ever looked at itself and thought 'I am homosexual'. Animals don't define themselves in function of their behaviour, sexual or otherwise. Animals just plain do not define themselves. 4. You sleep with men, but you call yourself a homosexual. (Or gay, have your pick). See the difference? 5. How absurd is it to define yourself in function of who you sleep with? Might as well define yourself by what you eat, right? Or, wait for it, by what arbitrary genitals you happen to have, eh? Oh, wait. This is the core of what being human is about. We speak, and we speak about ourselves. And after we've spoken, we take what's been said deadly seriously. You care about your gender. You care absurdly much about your gender. You care about your gender identity to the point where you're willing to go the extra mile to claim it. Looking at you Nathan. You laugh at Lacan, but at the end of the day a pun can really make you sick to the core of your being. Here are four words which can make you ill: 'I am a man'. 6. Back to homosexuality. What is it I've been saying? a) (homo)sexual behaviour is not innate, and b) (homo)sexuality is a construct. Those are not value judgments. Look at like this: (insert any great piece of art you want here) didn't grow on a tree either. Welcome to the human race. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DemPGH on December 20, 2012, 08:40:25 AM Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny; i.e the idea that homosexuality may not quite be genetic (so let's not be too hasty in the whole 'rights' thing) yet heterosexuality somehow is, yet both as you say are observed patterns of sexual behaviour in nature. Understanding one is the key to understanding the other.The very fact that same sex behaviour is exhibited by me and by a seagull, despite several hundred millions years of evolution between us and there continues to be same sex orientated seagulls, cats, whales, monkeys and humans despite each successive generation dying off suggests it is a genetic trait. Indeed it occurs in every observed animal species that reproduces by procreation (which as a group of living things is coinicidently in the minority), and procreation is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. So it's interesting. Yeah, I agree with you. Many times the erroneous view is taken that because a behavior is exhibited by the minority and because it's a behavior that the majority cannot relate to, it's somehow not normal. Which is simply not the case. Example: while it's much more overtly genetic, nature produces a small minority of green-eyed people. The vast majority are blue-eyed or brown-eyed, but nature produces green eyes. I think sexuality is a bit more complex than just genetics, but I think that's an appropriate analogy. Nature certainly produces homosexuality. The "it's a choice" argument reduces sexuality to something like, what do I feel like wearing today? And it's much more complicated than that, tied closely to the fiber of an individual's being. At any rate, here's an interesting National Geo piece on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's pretty interesting: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: memphis on December 20, 2012, 08:50:10 AM Why do Darwinian arguments always focus exclusively on the individual? We don't live in a vacuum, and neither did our ancestors. Societies must be equally fit or individuals will not survive. Perhaps the gays are a force that makes society stronger. It makes a lot of sense to me that it's good to have a small part of the population who is unemcumbered by the need to care for children and are, therefore, able to attend to other matters.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Velasco on December 20, 2012, 09:06:38 AM His hypothesis is this - there is no actual single gay-gene - so in reality no trait to be passed on - but what does seem to happen is a flood of hormones at a key stage in the foetus' development that triggers an effect in a key part of the hyper-thalamus which control the more primal sexual attraction - which gives a gay man all of the testosterone of a man, and the same physical and sexual development of a man - but with a similar portion of the hyper-thalamus to that of a woman. So they end up finding those traits about men sexually arousing as well as triggered to 'nest' with a man rather than a woman. This hypothesis can be applied to transsexualism, in fact I've heard it as a possible explanation of the gender dysphoria. I suspect that things are terribly tortuous when gender identity or sexual orientation are involved. We have the distinctive features that define sexes. Of course from a statistical point of view, there are features that are more frequent in men or women but, does they define what is a man or a woman? I think it's perfectly possible a man with feminine traits or a woman with masculine ones without gender dysphoria involved. I remember a test about sexual identity that was on the internets which gave curious results -I took it and apparently I have some feminine traits, according to it, and I'm not gay. I doubt that there's a simple explanation for human sexuality. Do I feel the need to weigh in on this? The reason animal homosexuality does not exist is the exact same reason animal heterosexuality does not exist. Animals don't think and, even more importantly, they don't speak. No animal has ever looked at itself and thought 'I am homosexual'. Animals don't define themselves in function of their behaviour, sexual or otherwise. Animals just plain do not define themselves. (...) Back to homosexuality. What is it I've been saying? a) (homo)sexual behaviour is not innate, and b) (homo)sexuality is a construct. Those are not value judgments. Look at like this: (insert any great piece of art you want here) didn't grow on a tree either. Welcome to the human race. If we admit that animals don't think and they don't have an idea of themselves as individuals, yes: animals aren't hetero nor homosexuals. Simply they are. As for the last point, I'm not sure if homosexuality is innate or a construct, but I think that not including the 'social construct' option is a serious flaw of this poll. 'Lifestyle choice' is simply an absurdity regarding sexual orientation. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DemPGH on December 20, 2012, 09:30:14 AM Why do Darwinian arguments always focus exclusively on the individual? We don't live in a vacuum, and neither did our ancestors. Societies must be equally fit or individuals will not survive. Perhaps the gays are a force that makes society stronger. It makes a lot of sense to me that it's good to have a small part of the population who is unemcumbered by the need to care for children and are, therefore, able to attend to other matters. Not sure I completely follow your line of thought, but if Darwinians focus on the individual it is because individuals drive evolution within a population. As in, an entire species just doesn't evolve. Individuals drive that process over a very long period of time within communities, which makes sense when one considers the wide degree of variations within species. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 20, 2012, 11:00:28 AM I've been following this thread with interest for a while now but I just want to talk about this for a second. I'm not entirely sure what belgiansocialist in fact means by this, but:
This is the core of what being human is about. We speak, and we speak about ourselves. And after we've spoken, we take what's been said deadly seriously. You care about your gender. You care absurdly much about your gender. You care about your gender identity to the point where you're willing to go the extra mile to claim it. Looking at you Nathan. You laugh at Lacan, but at the end of the day a pun can really make you sick to the core of your being. Here are four words which can make you ill: 'I am a man'. My problem with this is a considerable amount of confusion about it. I can't claim something if I'm not sure what it is, particularly if it's a category (or any of a number of categories) that doesn't 'naturally' exist (the quotes are obviously hugely important here, since it's a bit of a crock concept and has a damaging influence on my psychology). I realize that because of this it's probably pretty easy to argue that I'm in bad faith and that's a lot of why I've been talking about this less, in general, in my life, lately, because I want to be able to discuss this cogently and I have a lot of other things to 'discuss cogently' too right now. Which is admittedly itself a bit of an excuse to not answer hard questions relating to identity--something I actually do feel opposed to the idea that I or anybody has to do. And if I went over the aspects of the situation that do make me feel sick I'd be here for a while, and outstrip the bounds of what I want to share with the Atlas Forum. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: memphis on December 20, 2012, 01:04:57 PM Why do Darwinian arguments always focus exclusively on the individual? We don't live in a vacuum, and neither did our ancestors. Societies must be equally fit or individuals will not survive. Perhaps the gays are a force that makes society stronger. It makes a lot of sense to me that it's good to have a small part of the population who is unemcumbered by the need to care for children and are, therefore, able to attend to other matters. Not sure I completely follow your line of thought, but if Darwinians focus on the individual it is because individuals drive evolution within a population. As in, an entire species just doesn't evolve. Individuals drive that process over a very long period of time within communities, which makes sense when one considers the wide degree of variations within species. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on December 20, 2012, 01:15:10 PM What I'm saying is that it's not only individuals who are in competition mode. Even hunter gatherers didn't walk around solo. They lived in bands. Societies must be fit as well or they will be a victim to inter tribal competition. I'm suggesting that having the gays around may make for a more competitve society. That model makes a lot of sense in a tribal setting with scarce resources because having adults without children around because providing food for children in such a setting is a huge constraint on time and resources. Extra adults would alleviate this some. It would give a reproductive advantage to being related to a gay person but not being gay. In the understanding that sexual orientation is decided by a singular recessive gene, this idea would help to make the heterozygous form more advantageous. Of course this analysis is junior high, single-gene, level and almost nothing is actually that simple. Another possibility that's somewhat likely is that it's influenced by some developmental condition, ie. the level of some hormone in utero, that appears vaguely random but not entirely. Or some combination of many different things. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: memphis on December 20, 2012, 01:30:23 PM I never said it had to be one gene. We're very complicated creatures. It still makes sense for there to be a mechanism for having gay people around.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: TJ in Oregon on December 20, 2012, 01:35:21 PM I never said it had to be one gene. We're very complicated creatures. It still makes sense for there to be a mechanism for having gay people around. Oh certainly. It leading to a lack of reproduction doesn't at all mean it would die out. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on December 20, 2012, 02:33:32 PM Why do Darwinian arguments always focus exclusively on the individual? We don't live in a vacuum, and neither did our ancestors. Societies must be equally fit or individuals will not survive. Perhaps the gays are a force that makes society stronger. It makes a lot of sense to me that it's good to have a small part of the population who is unemcumbered by the need to care for children and are, therefore, able to attend to other matters. Humans have historically found all kinds of ways of dividing up who cares for the children, and in which way. Mothers always play the key role, with fathers usually either equal or secondary. But sometimes the maternal uncle is just as important as the father. And then you have grandparents and other relatives. Which is to say, whether or not your sexuality is conducive to reproducing isn't necessarily the best indicator of whether you spend most of your time caring for children or doing something else. Plus, in many societies raising children and other work are not done so separately as they are in our own. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Insula Dei on December 20, 2012, 02:35:11 PM I've been following this thread with interest for a while now but I just want to talk about this for a second. I'm not entirely sure what belgiansocialist in fact means by this, but: This is the core of what being human is about. We speak, and we speak about ourselves. And after we've spoken, we take what's been said deadly seriously. You care about your gender. You care absurdly much about your gender. You care about your gender identity to the point where you're willing to go the extra mile to claim it. Looking at you Nathan. You laugh at Lacan, but at the end of the day a pun can really make you sick to the core of your being. Here are four words which can make you ill: 'I am a man'. My problem with this is a considerable amount of confusion about it. I can't claim something if I'm not sure what it is, particularly if it's a category (or any of a number of categories) that doesn't 'naturally' exist (the quotes are obviously hugely important here, since it's a bit of a crock concept and has a damaging influence on my psychology). I realize that because of this it's probably pretty easy to argue that I'm in bad faith and that's a lot of why I've been talking about this less, in general, in my life, lately, because I want to be able to discuss this cogently and I have a lot of other things to 'discuss cogently' too right now. Which is admittedly itself a bit of an excuse to not answer hard questions relating to identity--something I actually do feel opposed to the idea that I or anybody has to do. And if I went over the aspects of the situation that do make me feel sick I'd be here for a while, and outstrip the bounds of what I want to share with the Atlas Forum. Okay, let me clarify a bit: 1. Your name is wholly incidental up there. Just needed a transgender individual to liven up my point. 2. What's my point again? Oh, yeah, a quite banal one: gender matters. 'Want proof of that? look at transgenderism. That's putting yourself trough quite a bit of trouble in order to claim a gender identity. Why would you do that if Gender didn't matter? You wouldn't' Aye, it's very banal. 3. But now you say something that I find both interesting and wrong. You say (correct me if I'm wrong, etc.) that 'manhood' is a crock concept. I answer: how can it be? What would a 'pure' version of the idea of manhood look like? It would look like nothing, for there's no reality to 'manhood' other than the one contained in the concept as it is used, and yet this is not a trivial reality. When you say 'I am a man' you know what you say. You may mean something different from what I mean when I use these words, but you still have a very definite meaning in mind. It may just be so that that meaning diverges from what you feel you are. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not going to presume I understand you. But 'manhood' as a concept concerns the both of us, I'd say. 4. Final Point: is gender not 'natural'? Of course it isn't. A monkey can see what sex you are, much like he can see what race you are. But the decision to care about such distinctions, is exclusively human. (And in my opinion exclusively linguistic). Why don't we care in the same way about the colour of our hairs? (addendum: Why don't we generally...) (EDIT: This whole bit is useless to the point of 'whatever did I just write'. I'll readily admit to that.) All summed up: Gender is a human significance* invested in a biological distinction. *Significance= both 'importance' and 'meaning' Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 20, 2012, 03:24:03 PM I think you are confusing sex with gender.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: afleitch on December 20, 2012, 03:55:34 PM Another possibility that's somewhat likely is that it's influenced by some developmental condition, ie. the level of some hormone in utero, that appears vaguely random but not entirely. Or some combination of many different things. Well it's already established there is a combination of factors in play. It's partly genetic as it's occurrence in both identical twins is 70% higher than it is in non-identical twins. It's partly hormonal as there is a correlation between high levels of testosterone exposure in the womb and homosexuality in men and it's partly based on uteral conditions as incidences are higher in younger sons of women and in the children of women who are prone to miscarry etc. In all honesty it doesn't matter except that it has to because for some people it's the only guarantor that people who are homosexual have inherent rights to simply be and to express themselves in the face of the 'but what about god' crowd (who ironically fail to see their own expression of faith as being the very definition of a 'lifestyle choice') Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Insula Dei on December 20, 2012, 04:16:45 PM I think you are confusing sex with gender. You think so? Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 20, 2012, 04:22:07 PM I think you are confusing sex with gender. You think so? Yes, here: Quote 4. Final Point: is gender not 'natural'? Of course it isn't. A monkey can see what gender you are, much like he can see what race you are. But the decision to care about such distinctions, is exclusively human. (And in my opinion exclusively linguistic). I take gender to mean the normative aspects of sex distinctions, while sex being the biological ones. At least that is how I understand it. A monkey thus could not distinguish your gender so much as your sex. (Actually, I agree the spirit with which you wrote although the race bit is problematic too). Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on December 20, 2012, 06:15:59 PM 3. But now you say something that I find both interesting and wrong. You say (correct me if I'm wrong, etc.) that 'manhood' is a crock concept. I answer: how can it be? What would a 'pure' version of the idea of manhood look like? It would look like nothing, for there's no reality to 'manhood' other than the one contained in the concept as it is used, and yet this is not a trivial reality. When you say 'I am a man' you know what you say. You may mean something different from what I mean when I use these words, but you still have a very definite meaning in mind. It may just be so that that meaning diverges from what you feel you are. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not going to presume I understand you. But 'manhood' as a concept concerns the both of us, I'd say. Oh, no, sorry. The crock concept was the idea of a distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' genders. We seem to be entirely or almost entirely in agreement; I just wasn't sure about what you originally meant by naming me. Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Maxwell on January 04, 2013, 11:05:27 PM I think of course its not a choice, but not necessairly genetic. Nevertheless, the non-choice option.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Franzl on January 05, 2013, 10:03:17 AM It's obviously not a choice, but this question is also entirely irrelevant to the political question of gay rights.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: DC Al Fine on January 05, 2013, 04:32:31 PM People don't choose to be gay anymore than I choose to be straight. However environmental factors could affect sexual orientation along with/instead of genetics. I just don't know.
Title: Re: Homosexuality Post by: Peter the Lefty on January 06, 2013, 04:51:09 PM It's either genetic or predetermined by other biological factors. But definitely not a choice (at least as far as attraction goes).
|