Homosexuality
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:40:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Homosexuality
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Poll
Question: Do you believe that homosexuality is genetic, or a lifestyle choice?
#1
Democrat: genetic
 
#2
Democrat: lifestyle choice
 
#3
Republican: genetic
 
#4
Republican: lifestyle choice
 
#5
independent/third party: genetic
 
#6
independent/third party: lifestyle choice
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 123

Author Topic: Homosexuality  (Read 23762 times)
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: December 20, 2012, 09:06:38 AM »
« edited: December 20, 2012, 09:08:10 AM by Velasco »

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.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: December 20, 2012, 09:30:14 AM »
« Edited: December 20, 2012, 10:30:15 AM by DemPGH »

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.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: December 20, 2012, 11:00:28 AM »
« Edited: December 20, 2012, 11:10:52 AM by Nathan »

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.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 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.
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.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 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.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 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.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 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.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 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.
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: December 20, 2012, 02:35:11 PM »
« Edited: December 20, 2012, 04:20:42 PM by Insula Dei »

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'
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: December 20, 2012, 03:24:03 PM »

I think you are confusing sex with gender.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 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')
Logged
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: December 20, 2012, 04:16:45 PM »

I think you are confusing sex with gender.

You think so?
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: December 20, 2012, 04:22:07 PM »


Yes, here:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 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.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 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.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 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.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 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.
Logged
Peter the Lefty
Peternerdman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 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).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.244 seconds with 14 queries.