Homosexuality- choice or predisposition?

[Red October]

there's been alot of debate recently among people i know as to whether homosexuality is something people choose to bo, or whether they are born that way. i tend to think its not a matter of being born that way, because babies are asexual. it seems more like its a predisposition that you are born with so they become homosexual later in life. im not a scientist or expert on this though, so its just an opinion.

[BreadBros]

I don't know. From what gay people have told me, its almost always something that becomes self-evident by itself as you become more aware of yourself and sexuality, so probably born with it or some sort of predisposition. A better question is: why does it really matter?

[Red October]

it doesnt really make much difference to me, but i was discussing it with some christians who thought it was a choice and therefore a grievous sin against god. it came up during a dsicussion about ted haggard

[Vanguard1917]

The thing is, whatever the truth, gays have nothing to gain from taking up the 'nature' argument. Saying 'we were born this way', and using it to attack the bigots is almost like presenting homosexuality to be some kind of birth defect that others should tolerate out of sympathy. After all, if it's a defect it can potentially be treated or cured.

It's better to just defend the right of adults to choose their sexuality for themselves.

[Red October]

It's better to just defend the right of adults to choose their sexuality for themselves.

but that argument doesnt fly with christians

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 14, 2006 12:47 am

It's better to just defend the right of adults to choose their sexuality for themselves.

but that argument doesnt fly with christians
That's not our problem.

[Red October]

it is if you want to have an actual debate with those people

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 14, 2006 12:50 am
it is if you want to have an actual debate with those people
Then don't debate with them. Honestly, if they differ ethically from you and refuse to change then there's no point debating. They argue on flawed premises. They refuse to take into account objective facts and logic, and therefore have no place in the civilized world, and that applies not only to debating but also to educating, governing or influencing society in any way.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 08:14 pm
A better question is: why does it really matter?
Exactly; in my debates I usually point out that it shouldn't matter, and that sexuality in general is a phantom, and thus the whole concept of sexuality should be abolished.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It doesn't matter. However, it consists of both a degree of choice and a degree of genetics. However, genetics are the primary factor.

[encephalon]

it's as much of a choice as heterosexuality.

[LSD]

there's been alot of debate recently among people i know as to whether homosexuality is something people choose to bo, or whether they are born that way.

First of all, it's not at all that simple. There's a difference between sexual attraction and sexual behaviour and the two need not correlate.

That said, there's some pretty convincing evidence that, in the majority of cases, sexual orientation is fixed form birth. Some people are almost certainly born bisexual and others may fight their predisposition for one reason or another, but it's postmodernist wishful thinking to deny that biology plays the most important role in determining sexual orientation.

Besides, the only reason that this is as hotly debated a subject as it is is because conservatives are well aware that "choices" are much easier to control than "natures".

Liberal politics have an inherent bias towards "natural" identity groups as opposed to socially constructed ones. So as long as homophobes can keep homosexuality squarely in the "lifestyle" column, they keep the gay rights movement weak.

How can you "love the sinner" if the "sin" is a fundamental part of who they are? The entire Christian heteronormative paradigm is premised on "alternative lifetyles" being optional.

Therefore anything that weakens that notion helps us in our efforts to purge society of the institutional heterosexism that currently plagues it.


i tend to think its not a matter of being born that way, because babies are asexual.

That's really not an argument. Babies aren't asexual, they're presexual and just because 2 month olds aren't out having sex, doesn't mean that orientation isn't shaped from birth.

Women don't grow breasts until puberty, but that doesn't make it any less of a biological process.


Saying 'we were born this way', and using it to attack the bigots is almost like presenting homosexuality to be some kind of birth defect that others should tolerate out of sympathy. After all, if it's a defect it can potentially be treated or cured.

That's irrelevent.

Eugenics could apply to any minority status. Your position is akin to saying that we should ignore the biological nature of sex because people may want to genetically eliminate all women.

Well...yeah, eugenics, even "liberal" eugenics can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore a valid and real biological identity so as to "hold off" the hordes of reprogeneticists waiting to wipe out the homosexuals.


A better question is: why does it really matter?

Because it does.

The problem with homosexuality being a "choice" is that it politically makes homosexuality just another "deviant" sexual "choice" and it eliminates homosexuality as a valid identity, especially from the perspective of the modern liberal state.

If gay people "choose" to be gay, then having gay relationships becomes legislatively no different from having "relationships" with a tree ...and accordingly, the bourgeois state is not obliged to recognize any deductive rights.

I'm not saying that's the way it "should be", but that's the way it is.

If homosexuality does turn out to be a choice (something which the evidence is more and more suggesting it's not), it would not mean that gay rights are not important. Unfortunately, however, it would mean that achieving them would be that much more difficult.

So politically, the more evidence that homosexuality is biological, the better for the gay rights movement.

[ZeroPain]

Sexual Orientation is a social construct plain and simple.

All this talk about biology is simply an elaborate way to enforce the false duality of gay-straight.

Now, you will note that I'm not talking about people who are born with hormone problems. I am referring to the majority of the human population who are born with the same neutral capacity for sexual attraction as anyone else.

[LSD]

Sexual Orientation is a social construct plain and simple.

I don't suppose you have any evidence for this assertion?


All this talk about biology is simply an elaborate way to enforce the false duality of gay-straight.

That duality is demonstrably true. It's not binary by any means, but there are straight people and gay people and it's frankly insulting to assert that their existance is nothing more than an artificial "construct".

If homosexuality were merely a social invention, we would expect to find socities in which no one were gay, in which that construct were not constructed. But the reality is that same-sex attraction is not only universally human, it's even found in non-human animals!

[Sentinel]

Well whether it has biological reasons (as I'm convinced it does) or not, it's most certainly not a choice. In my case the attraction towards my own sex has been there since I got into puberty, and did not 'evolve' as a result of curiosity, experimenting or whatever.

It was there.

When it comes to debating religious bigots, do it if you have audience you can ridicule them in front of. But the chances of someone who rejects logic understanding anything or really learning from debate are quite slim, so it'll propably be a waste of time otherwise. :(

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:46 pm
It's better to just defend the right of adults to choose their sexuality for themselves.
Absolutely. Many people in society as a whole pose the question of the origins of queer sexualities. Not too many people pose the same question about heterosexuality -- excepting perhaps some academicians and historians. The question itself -- completely setting aside the different answers you can give to it -- is political and reveals typical homophobic and heterosexist anxieties. Ergo, the question itself is wrong and should not be posed.

[ZeroPain]

I don't suppose you have any evidence for this assertion?

That duality is demonstrably true. It's not binary by any means, but there are straight people and gay people and it's frankly insulting to assert that their existance is nothing more than an artificial "construct".

If homosexuality were merely a social invention, we would expect to find socities in which no one were gay, in which that construct were not constructed. But the reality is that same-sex attraction is not only universally human, it's even found in non-human animals!

When you look back on past civilizations you can see that instances of homosexuality increase where it is more accepting. You can also see that the instances of heterosexuality rises with the increased disapproval of the society.

Heterosexuality will aways be more common if only because its the more obvious physical match.

What we see that as homosexuality is more accepted the more people come out about there natural sexuality.

The issue is that now we see that people are pressured to pick total heterosexuality or total homosexuality. This is Social Construct because it is not innate to all humanity.


Homosexuality is perfectly natural and innate to everyone.

[Dr Mindbender]

The choice argument is nonsense because why would you 'choose' to be a member of a group that is vulnerable to verbal or possibly physically hostile discrimination?
i think its down to largely parental upbringing or possibly chemical balances in the brain. I doubt its genetic because how could a heterosexual couple have the genetics for homosexuality? :huh:

Ive always subscribed to the school of thought that everyone is bisexual to a greater or lesser degree and that 'straightness' is a pre-conditioned state of mind that we foster in order to preserve the status quo.
If you look at the animal kingdom, particularly those species which dont practice monogomy theres any number of instances where creatures dont refrain from practices with the same sex.

[LSD]

When you look back on past civilizations you can see that instances of homosexuality increase where it is more accepting.

Absolutely, but only to a certain level.

Obviously people are more open about their sexuality in cultures which are more accepting of it, but that only proves that sexual behaviour is strongly shaped by environment. It tells us nothing about orientation itself.

Again, if your assertion were correct and sexual orientation were nothing more than "social construct", we would expect to see civilizations in which homosexuality did not exist; we would also expect to see other cultures in which it was clearly dominant.

Neither of these has ever existed, however.

Just like a certain segment of the population will always be born male and another part will always be born female; some people will always be born gay.

And, while I know it's not your intention, casting sexual orientation as a "construct", voluntary or otherwise, actually plays right into the hands of the conservative right who are desperate to maintain this paradigm of "lifestyle" homosexuality.

From a political perspective, this postmodern tact of denying orientation is a bad one. It may appeal to some postpositivist relativist fantasy of "transcending" biology, but it does nothing for the flesh-and-blood gay rights movement.

As long as conservatives can justify "hating the sin" while "loving the sinner", theological homophobia is "belief" rather than intolerance. Indeed, the entire Christian heteronormative paradigm is premised on "alternative lifetyles" being optional.

Liberal politics have an inherent bias towards "natural" identity groups as opposed to socially constructed ones.

If gay people "choose" to be gay, then having gay relationships becomes legislatively no different from having "relationships" with a tree ...and accordingly, the bourgeois state is not obliged to recognize any deductive rights.

I'm not saying that's the way it "should be", but that's the way it is.


Heterosexuality will aways be more common if only because its the more obvious physical match.

What does that even mean? What makes heterosexuality "more obvious" than homosexuality? If anything, the reverse is true.

Children and adolscents tend to spend more time among their own gender, they also tend to relate more strongly to others of the same sex. When they hit puberty, most teenagers start to develop sexual attractions and begin seeking out opposite sex partners; but if sexuality were as "contructed" as you claim, this wouldn't be the case.

Same-sex relationships are the "obvious" one, they're the ones that flow directly out of pre-adolsecent experience, they're the ones that would be simplest to understand and initiate.

And yet despite that, heterosexuality is now and always has been the dominant sexual orientation.


What we see that as homosexuality is more accepted the more people come out about there natural sexuality.

So people do have a "natural sexuality"? I thought it was all "social construct"... :rolleyes:


Homosexuality is perfectly natural and innate to everyone.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural and innate to homosexuals; just like how heterosexuality is natural and innate for heterosexuals.

If we were all "born bisexual", the ration between gay and straight would be much smaller, if not 1:1 outright.

Remember, we're talking about a fundamental aspect of behaviour here, reproduction, the "purpose of life" as it were. To assert that biology plays no role in so basic a function is, frankly, absurd.

[ZeroPain]

Sexuality is not the same as sexual orientation.
There is such a thing as preference, however without environmental influences it is total orientation.



Again, if your assertion were correct and sexual orientation were nothing more than "social construct", we would expect to see civilizations in which homosexuality did not exist; we would also expect to see other cultures in which it was clearly dominant.

Neither of these has ever existed, however.

Christian Rome
Sparta

Refusing to recognize the truth for a better political stand makes it no less true.



What does that even mean? What makes heterosexuality "more obvious" than homosexuality? If anything, the reverse is true.

Children and adolscents tend to spend more time among their own gender, they also tend to relate more strongly to others of the same sex. When they hit puberty, most teenagers start to develop sexual attractions and begin seeking out opposite sex partners; but if sexuality were as "contructed" as you claim, this wouldn't be the case.

Same-sex relationships are the "obvious" one, they're the ones that flow directly out of pre-adolsecent experience, they're the ones that would be simplest to understand and initiate.

And yet despite that, heterosexuality is now and always has been the dominant sexual orientation.

I was wrong in phrasing but correct in intention.

Heterosexuality has the ability to produce offspring. Children are influenced by their parents to gravitate to heterosexual relationships because of their parents wish for grandchildren. This on a large scale steady's more the trend of heterosexuality.


If we were all "born bisexual", the ration between gay and straight would be much smaller, if not 1:1 outright.

Again people have non-exclusive preference and are effected by their parents and the society as a whole.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:48 pm

Remember, we're talking about a fundamental aspect of behaviour here, reproduction, the "purpose of life" as it were. To assert that biology plays no role in so basic a function is, frankly, absurd.
With that reasoning where do we go with the argument that homosexuality has no function biologically in the process of evolution?

Which is an argument that is sometimes thrown by christian types. Of course the irony is that they admit to not 'believing' in evolution.

I think the important points are the prevalent existence of homosexuality in distinct cultures thus weakening if not eliminating the notion of cultural creation. And even in small bands with little to no influences for external cultures.

Another important point biological is homosexuality in other mammalian species which do not have culture.

[LSD]

Christian Rome
Sparta

Are you asserting that in either of those civilizations homosexuality was non-existant or dominant? Because the historical record clearly proves the reverse.

Again, the tolerance for homosexual behaviour in a society will shape how open people are about their sexuality, but no civilization has ever been without the dichotomy of gay/straight orientation.

Even in societies which promoted homosexual relationships, heterosexual ones remained more common.

And, again, no society has been without homosexuality. Something which would have to happen if your "social contruct" assertion were correct.


Heterosexuality has the ability to produce offspring. Children are influenced by their parents to gravitate to heterosexual relationships because of their parents wish for grandchildren.

Except that the vast majority of homosexuals are born of heterosexual parents. Not to mention that a significant portion of gay people do not have tolerant families.

If your theory were true, we would, again, expect to see socities in which the social conditions were such that no one "constructed" a gay identity. In reality, of course, that just doesn't happen.

Besides, "wanting grandchildren" is hardly a universal desire. Plenty of parents don't pressure their children to procreate and many that do nonetheless have gay children.

All in all, your hypothesis fails to have any resemblence to the real world.


This on a large scale steady's more the trend of heterosexuality.

If that were true, why has the "trend" been so monumentally unsuccessful?

If straight parents lead to straight children, how are there even gay people at all? How is it that such a significant proportion of society resisted this "social trend" and didn't "follow" their parents' "example".

Again, your paradigm just doesn't jive with the facts. Straight parents have gay children and gay parents have straight ones. And there is absolutely no evidence that the orientation of the parent is a significant factor in determining the orientation of the child.

Although, it should be noted, that your argument is exactly the same as the one that the conservative right uses in opposing gay adoption. They too claim that orientation is a "construct" and that gay parents will "influence" their children towards the "homosexual lifestyle".

Again, I recognize that you're not trying to defend rightist bullshit, but your postmodernist "deconstruction" of reality is palying right into their hands.

Obviously politics shouldn't override science, but we need to be aware of the political consequences of scientific conclusions. And in this case, not only are your conclusions politically dangerous, but they are entirely unsupported by the available scientific material evidence.

You're not opposing the biological model of homosexuality because you've been convinced by the evidence, but because it fits into your ideological paradigm.

So before you accuse anyone else of manipulating science, you might want to take a long hard look at just why you're so resistant to the idea that sexuality just might be something you're born with.


With that reasoning where do we go with the argument that homosexuality has no function biologically in the process of evolution?

Lots of things don't have evolutionary functions, that doesn't make them any less real or "natural". There's no evolutionary reason for lefthandedness, but no one would propose that discriminating against left-handed people is acceptable.

[Janus]

There's strong evidence behind the arguement that there is a mostly biological predisposition.

[Sean]

There's no evolutionary reason for lefthandedness, but no one would propose that discriminating against left-handed people is acceptable.

That's also only a fairly recent achievement, a two generations back you'd have your hand tied behind your back and forced to try use the right one to write in many schools!

I honestly don't believe that people are just 100% "born that way", and I feel that its an arguement mainly used to segregate people. There are definately hormonal factors at play in the womb, but I doubt very much that in most people they play more a of role than, say formative childhood experiences (although I'll confess to not being much of a psychologist).

Also, the idea that homosexuality is somehow done out of a deliberate choice is equally ludicrous as a stand-alone arguement. Sure, maybe some middle class rebel goes out and gets a girlfriend or boyfriend just to spite their parents or put their fingers up to society, but that can't be applied to everyone else.

The idea of our sexual orientation merely being either something implanted or a consciously determined act are both sides of the same anti-gay coin. Circumstance is the key player, IMHO. It could be argued that the same sex nature of prison systems provides an example of this.

[ZeroPain]

Your confusing again sexual orientation with specific terms that apply to everyone.

I'm not saying that homo-hetero sexuality is a construct. I am saying that the totality of gay-straight is a result of sociological influences on individuals.

The majority of people repress their natural sexuality under social pressure, however this most assuredly will not apply to everyone.

[LSD]

The idea of our sexual orientation merely being either something implanted or a consciously determined act are both sides of the same anti-gay coin. Circumstance is the key player, IMHO.

Except there's no evidence to support that contention. And, again, what really serves the "anti-gay" movement is this postmodern rejection of biology. This notion that all people are "born neutral" and then "become" gay due to "society".

It encourages discrimination in the name of "protecting" children from said "influences" and legitimizes discrimination by casting prejudice as "differences of opinion".

Again, I'm not saying that we should falsify data to serve a political end, but then science is on my side here. The evidence collected so far, and I'll be the first to admit that it's severly limited, has pretty consistantly shown that biology and not "childhood circumstance" is the leading contributor to sexual orientation.

And since that's the case, you've got to wonder where all this resistance to the notion is coming from. And, unfortunately, for the most part the answer is ideological stubbourness.

Whether it's the "sin" paradigm on the right or the postmodern paradigm on the right; far too many people are letting their beliefs override their reason.

And that never leads to progressive results.


It could be argued that the same sex nature of prison systems provides an example of this.

No, actually the prison system is an example of situational sexual behaviour, it has nothing to do with attraction or orientation. This is best demonstrated by the fact that upon exiting prison, those situational behaviours cease.

That doesn't change the fact that certain people are born primarily attracted to one sex, others are born attracted to the other, and others still are born attracted to both.

Nor does it change that fact that no social factors seem to significantly influence this phenomenon. Again, no society in history has been either devoid of or replete with homosexuals. That doesn't tells us what "causes" sexual orientation, but it sure tells us what doesn't: society.


Your confusing again sexual orientation with specific terms that apply to everyone.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Perhaps english isn't your first language?

You claimed that homosexuality is merely a "social construct" that we are all "innately" bisexual and that "the majority of the human population ... are born with the same neutral capacity for sexual attraction as anyone else".

Now you're saying that there is such a thing as biological predisposition and that all humans are not "neutral" in their sexual attraction.

Frankly, I'm not sure if you even know what it is that you are saying.

So let me make this simple; do you think that sexual orientation exists, yes or no? If so, do you think that biology plays the leading role in shaping it, yes or no?

If the answer to both those questions is yes than this argument is pointless because we agree on the fundamentals.


I'm not saying that homo-hetero sexuality is a construct.

Actually, that's exactly what you said.


Originally posted by you
Sexual Orientation is a social construct plain and simple.

All this talk about biology is simply an elaborate way to enforce the false duality of gay-straight.


The majority of people repress their natural sexuality under social pressure

And that "natural sexuality" would be what? Bisexuality?

[ZeroPain]

You claimed that homosexuality is merely a "social construct" that we are all "innately" bisexual and that "the majority of the human population ... are born with the same neutral capacity for sexual attraction as anyone else".

No, I am saying that "gay" and "straight" are social constructs.

Homosexual
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex.




Now you're saying that there is such a thing as biological predisposition and that all humans are not "neutral" in their sexual attraction.

What?
I never said that there was a biological predisposition?
Can you quote me on what your referring to?



And that "natural sexuality" would be what? Bisexuality?

Bisexuality suggests that you do not develop any preferences and stay neutral.



I think your just failing to distinguish similar but distinctly different terms.
:wacko:

[LSD]

I think your just failing to distinguish similar but distinctly different terms.

Maybe because you're not making any sense.

Gay = homosexual
Straight = heterosexual

It is definitionally impossible to claim, as you do, that "homo-hetero sexuality is [not] a construct", but "the totality of gay-straight" is.

Again, I don't think that you're understanding the words you're using. That or you've invented new meanings for them that no one but you understands.

So, again, I'm going to try and simplify this to two basic questions: do you think that sexual orientation exists, yes or no? If so, do you think that biology plays the leading role in shaping it, yes or no?

This thread is about whether homosexuality is a "choice" or "predisposition". Your contribution was that it's a "social construct" and that all humans are "innately ... homosexual". In other words, that it's not biological.

Now you seem to be (somewhat) backing away from that claim. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure what your position is anymore.

Frankly, I'm begining to doubt if you do either...


What?
I never said that there was a biological predisposition?
Can you quote me on what your referring to?


Originally posted by you (emphasis added)
Sexual Orientation is a social construct plain and simple.

All this talk about biology is simply an elaborate way to enforce the false duality of gay-straight.

Now, you will note that I'm not talking about people who are born with hormone problems. I am referring to the majority of the human population who are born with the same neutral capacity for sexual attraction as anyone else.

So which one is it? Are humans "born ... neutral" or is orientation biological in nature? Because right now, you seem to be trying to assert both.

[apathy maybe]

I think what Zero is trying to say is that the majority of humans are to some extent born bisexual. That is while they may be attracted to one sex or another more then the other, they still have some possible preference for both.

So on a scale from 1 to 10 (where one is exclusively heterosexual and 10 exclusively homosexual), the majority of people are neither 1 or 10, but 2 or 3. Society pressures these people into conforming to a straight 1 however. Suppressing their potential sexuality.


Personally I think this sounds plausible and fits in with a biological explanation of sexuality.

[ZeroPain]

Maybe because you're not making any sense.

Gay = homosexual
Straight = heterosexual

It is definitionally impossible to claim, as you do, that "homo-hetero sexuality is [not] a construct", but "the totality of gay-straight" is.

Again, I don't think that you're understanding the words you're using. That or you've invented new meanings for them that no one but you understands.


"Straight" and "Gay" suggest total dedication to one or another gender.

Homosexual and Heterosexual simply has to do with attraction to the specified gender.

Get it straight. :rolleyes:



So, again, I'm going to try and simplify this to two basic questions: do you think that sexual orientation exists, yes or no? If so, do you think that biology plays the leading role in shaping it, yes or no?

1. No, only preference.
Biology is why we are born with neutral potential attraction, because its biologically advantageous.



So which one is it? Are humans "born ... neutral" or is orientation biological in nature? Because right now, you seem to be trying to assert both.

Humans are born neutral if they are balanced and have a normal physiology.



I think what Zero is trying to say is that the majority of humans are to some extent born bisexual. That is while they may be attracted to one sex or another more then the other, they still have some possible preference for both.

So on a scale from 1 to 10 (where one is exclusively heterosexual and 10 exclusively homosexual), the majority of people are neither 1 or 10, but 2 or 3. Society pressures these people into conforming to a straight 1 however. Suppressing their potential sexuality.


Personally I think this sounds plausible and fits in with a biological explanation of sexuality.

Yes!

Thank you ;)

[LSD]

"Straight" and "Gay" suggest total dedication to one or another gender.

Homosexual and Heterosexual simply has to do with attraction to the specified gender.

Again you're using words in ways that no one else does. In comon parlance straight means heterosexual and gay means homosexual.

It woulld be remarkably helpful in the future if you'd use words in a way that makes sense.


Biology is why we are born with neutral potential attraction

Except we're not "born neutral" and you have still not provided any evidence to the contrary.

Besides, doesn't this assertion contradict apathy maybe's explanation of your meaning? Again, you can't simultanerously assert that humans are born orieentation-neutral and [are] "attracted to one sex or another more then the other".

So, again, which is it? Universal neutral bisexuality or orientation (to whatever degree) from birth?

[chimx]

i haven't read the 2nd page of replies, but hopefully this hasn't been covered. currently, there is not enough scientific evidence to prove homosexuality is natural, but there is a great deal of evidence that points to that as being the truth.

for example, there are physiological differences between straight and gay men. The hypothalamus nuclei is significantly larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. Also, I recall reading about a chromosomal difference they find in roughly 2/3s of all gay men, which is certainly statistically significant.

Of course, it is always useful to point out that homosexuality is exhibited in numerous other animals. I believe the current count is in the mid 20s for other species that copulate with the same sex. This includes numerous mammals, including sheep and monkeys, as well as frogs and some insects. Do these animals "choose" to be gay? are gay sheep a sin in god's eyes?

[ZeroPain]

Again you're using words in ways that no one else does. In comon parlance straight means heterosexual and gay means homosexual.

It woulld be remarkably helpful in the future if you'd use words in a way that makes sense.


Then I suppose that I should also define communism as:


Communism is a political system existing in the Soviet Union in 1917 – 1991 and in the eastern Europe since the end of the 2nd World War to approximately 1990. At present the only communist countries are China (since 1945), Cuba (since 1962), North Korea and Vietnam.

Communism is a type of totalitarianism. It has the following characteristics: a massive repression system run by a well established secret police forces, an official and far-reaching system for denunciatory activities, single party rule, censorship, imposition of an official (“the only correct”) state ideology and appearance of newspeak.

Its obvious that we should accept definitions of ignorance simply because a majority accepts them.
:rolleyes:


Besides you fail understand that while "gay" people are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are "gay".


Besides, doesn't this assertion contradict apathy maybe's explanation of your meaning? Again, you can't simultanerously assert that humans are born orieentation-neutral and [are] "attracted to one sex or another more then the other".

Why not?
Individuals are sexually neutral and then later in life develop some preferences based on taste.

[chimx]

umm, could you provide some science studies that show that? or are you talking out of your ass? there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that span multiple species.

[LSD]

Besides you fail understand that while "gay" people are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are "gay".

Only if we use your bizarre definitions of the words. To everyone else, "gay" means homosexual.


Why not?

Because am's point was that people are born with a preference towards one sex over the other. I guess you two don't actually agree after all.


Individuals are sexually neutral and then later in life develop some preferences based on taste.

You keep asserting that, but you've provided zero evidence to back it up. And that's despite my repeated demonstrations that it's simply not possible.

Again, if orientation were "developed ... later in life", then there would be societies in which no one were gay. The fact that that doesn't happen in addition to that fact that homosexuality (or "gayness") occurs in non-cultural animals proves pretty conclusively that this issue has more to do with biology than "choice" or "society".

People are born gay. Others are born straight. That's what all the collected evidence suggests, that's what the historical record suggests, that's what everyone who's studied this field -- except those with an alterior political motive, of course -- believes.

So if you want to argue against all of that, you'd better have some damn convincing evidence to support your claims. So far, you've presented nothing.

[Cryotank Screams]

I don't know if this has been said or mentioned yet in the thread but I personally studies that try to find a "cause," or some magical "gay gene," even if they have true and noble intentions are in and of themselves homophobic, because that is like saying it is a disease or some such non-sense.

I think such studies should be stopped, and that all the proof you need is nature, non-human animals are gay, the human-animals are gay, therefore it's natural, enough said, case closed.

[Patchd]

Besides you fail understand that while "gay" people are homosexuals, not all homosexuals are "gay".

:blink: I'm lost, enlighten me

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 16, 2006 02:30 am
I don't know if this has been said or mentioned yet in the thread but I personally studies that try to find a "cause," or some magical "gay gene," even if they have true and noble intentions are in and of themselves homophobic, because that is like saying it is a disease or some such non-sense.
It's not like saying it's a disease, it's like saying it's a genetically decided aspect of a person, like hair colour or eye colour.


I think such studies should be stopped, and that all the proof you need is nature, non-human animals are gay, the human-animals are gay, therefore it's natural, enough said, case closed. I'm very curious about the human genome and therefore I think "leave well alone" is not an acceptable way of looking at things. Science is about the question "why", we know somethign is natural now we should find out why that thing happens.

The problem only occurs when we go from "why does this happen" to "how will I stop it" (or at least in this case.). Otherwise I think that, yes, we should find what genes cause people to be attracted to certian sexes - not to stop them or judge them, just to gain more knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by LSD
Because am's point was that people are born with a preference towards one sex over the other. I guess you two don't actually agree after all.No, my point was that most people were born with a preference towards one sex over the other. Most people are nominally heterosexual. This preference does not exclude the possibility of a relationship with a person of the same gender. However, societal pressure tends to force people into being exclusively heterosexual, or as can be seen in the queer community, gay or lesbian. I know gay and lesbians who discriminate against bisexuals, that is the 'community' is forcing a hetero/homo dichotomy that does not exist.

[Cryotank Screams]

It's not like saying it's a disease, it's like saying it's a genetically decided aspect of a person, like hair colour or eye colour.

Then why is no one look for the "straight," gene, why are all efforts on finding the "gay," gene?


Science is about the question "why", we know somethign is natural now we should find out why that thing happens.

True, however it is my opinion that science should be based on value, and finding a "gay," gene seems both pointless, and to be perfectly honest, useless, who even said that a "gay," gene exists in the first place? All this effort could turn out to be for nothing.

I much rather focus on nanotechnology, cloning, and stem cell research, than finding some "gay," gene.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 17, 2006 03:58 am

It's not like saying it's a disease, it's like saying it's a genetically decided aspect of a person, like hair colour or eye colour.

Then why is no one look for the "straight," gene, why are all efforts on finding the "gay," gene?
Evolution is predicated upon reproductive potentiality. The existence of a "gene" that deters reproductive potentiality would be quite fascinating and significant.

[Ol' Dirty]

Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are extreme terms to use. The human psyche is really to complex to be divided into neat little groups. Many have the attraction to people of the same sex, whether they acknowledge it or not.

In Ancient Rome and Greece, there were no taboos around homosexuality. If you wanted to make love to a person of the same sex (which many people did (in fact, homosexual sex was considered a right of passage for young Greco-Roman men)). There were many groups (such as the Sacred Band of Thebes) that were gay or lesbian lovers. With these taboos eliminated, people fucked who they pleased, as long as it was consentual. If homosexuality were genetic, then people would have homosexual sex no matter what taboos and restictions were placed on them.

If you elimnated the homo- and bi- sexual population of the world, more of these people would begin to flourish, as it is more a psychological andcultural practice than a genetic one.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 17, 2006 03:58 am

It's not like saying it's a disease, it's like saying it's a genetically decided aspect of a person, like hair colour or eye colour.

Then why is no one look for the "straight," gene, why are all efforts on finding the "gay," gene?
I assume because it would be simply a type of gene that decides sexual predispositions and therfore its discovery would coincide with the discovery of the "straight" or "bi" gene. Then again I'm no genetiscist.

[LSD]

If homosexuality were genetic, then people would have homosexual sex no matter what taboos and restictions were placed on them.

That's exactly right, and it's also exactly what happened.

Again, when a society's more tolerant of homosexual behaviour, more people are willing to be open about their sexuality and / or sexually experiment. But even in the most repressive of socities, there are still gay people.

If orientation were merely sociological, there would be societies in which no one were gay. The fact that that doesn't happen, in addition to the fact that homosexuality occurs in literally hundreds of other animals proves pretty conclusively that this issue has more to do with biology than "choice" or "culture".

People are born gay. Others are born straight. That's what all the collected evidence suggests, that's what the historical record suggests, that's what everyone who's studied this field -- except those with an alterior political motive, of course -- believes.

Sure, sexual behaviour isn't as simply as primary attraction, but primary attraction nonetheless still exists.

[Krasnaya]

You do not choose, nor are you born with it. In reality, you are told.

Some people see through that, obviously, and may become bisexual. Sometimes, people are told to be bisexual, but it doesnt last for long, because they grow out of that environment and move into a new one that is hostile to bisexuality. And sometimes people develop parahilia like attractions, after birth, and they may become homosexual.

[chimx]

so homosexual sheep are really just told to be homosexual?

that makes me wanna say "bah!" on multiple levels.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 10:08 pm
You do not choose, nor are you born with it. In reality, you are told.


Please elaborate, before I call you a dumbass.

[Krasnaya]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2006 02:37 am
so homosexual sheep are really just told to be homosexual?

that makes me wanna say "bah!" on multiple levels.
Im talking about humans.


Please elaborate, before I call you a dumbass.

I did elaborate. Its the same reason people are attracted to fast cars and big tvs.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 10:49 pm
I did elaborate. Its the same reason people are attracted to fast cars and big tvs.
Not really, just spouted of some inconceivable bullshit, that goes against all scientific, psychological, and sociological, data and research.

Again elaborate, I fail to see your logic; dumbass.

[Krasnaya]

Why are you insulting me?

[apathy maybe]

'Cause you are a dumbarse?

It might be that you do not mean that society tells people what gender to be, in which case it is bad wording on your part. But if you are trying to say that sexuality and gender are not biological, then I think the insult is worth it.

[nightwatchman]

I think it is with you when you are born because you can't help the feelings you have, like if you have feelings for the same sex you cant help it, its not like you can choose which sex to have feelings for. But I also think it deals with how you are brought up, for example if you are a women and your mother was really slutty or something like that I think you would grow up to be like that because you would see it as the right thing to do. Or for example if your father or mother was a nerd and not too sexually outgoing I think you would aslo see that as being the right thing to do. Also I think it deals with the outside influences from besides your parents, like the media, friends, or books you read. And on a different point it is ridiculis how homosexuals are discriminated against just becuase it says it is wrong to be gay in a fictional book (the bible), its not like thier is anything wrong with them they can do anything any straight person can do.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Krasnaya+November 21, 2006 02:49 am--> (Krasnaya @ November 21, 2006 02:49 am)
[email protected] 21, 2006 02:37 am
so homosexual sheep are really just told to be homosexual?

that makes me wanna say "bah!" on multiple levels.
Im talking about humans.
[/b]
so not only are you a dumbass, you are anthropocentric.



(i'm also sad that nobody found my "bah" joke funny)

[TC]

...people have certain parameteres for sexual preference, as in, what turns them on the most. This isn't to say that people can't choose to engage in sex acts with people who are not their optimal preference, and people do that all the time. In this sense homosexuality is clearly biologically determined for the reasons outlined by LSD and Chimx among others who i think did a very good job of explaining this. Calling it 'predisposition' is too weak really, as if it was just a certain likelyhood; people basically want what they want, they might choose whether or not they act on it or deny it but people don't choose their desires.


But likewise self-identification is chosen; lots of people with homosexual preferences choose for political or social reasons to identify as straight, like Ted Haggard, and likewise lots of people with heterosexual preference choose to identify as bi for political or theoretical or social reasons. Likewise not everyone who engages in homosexual behavior is homosexual or bi because lots of people engage in sex acts with partners whom they do not prefer, who aren't their primary sexual interest, and everyone can think of examples of this...so

[Intellectual47]

Most phsycologists have no idea. I personally think that if you are bitten by a South American elephant, you become gay. Or Aquaman.


Maybe Aquaman makes you bisexual?