Homosexuality

[graffic]

First off I'm not in anyway homophobic.

Is there scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice and someting your born with?

Ive never seen any scientific evidence, if there was solid evidence then it would stop all the debating etc

[Pow R. Toc H.]

who gives a fuck? It shouldnt matter. Do you fuck girls out of choice? Would you ever decide to fuck a guy? or vice versa if your a girl.

[graffic]

Well yeah thats true, but it wouldnt certainly stop all the debating for the many people who do think it matters

[Fightin Da Man]

It won't let me respond to this thread.

No, seriously, when I typed out my response it gave me 403 error saying that it was forbidden. I typed this and then it let me post though. I'm confused.

Anyway, see

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/
and
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap...pheremones.html (http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html)

for studies that show that there are probably natural causes for homosexuality.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:18 am
First off I'm not in anyway homophobic.

Is there scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice and someting your born with?

Ive never seen any scientific evidence, if there was solid evidence then it would stop all the debating etc
Material reality isn't good enough?

The testimony of millions of lesbians, gay men and bi peeps isn't good enough?

This laundry list of non-human animals who enjoy a little same-sex love isn't good enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anima...sexual_behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

To turn the dubious topic question on it's head, is there any evidence that homosexuality is not biological?

I can't recall any, but that's not going to stop 'the debates'.

Why?

Because the people who would argue that being queer is a 'lifestyle choice' are homophobes who think that homosexuality is unnatural - no amount of material reality or scientific 'evidence' is going to persuade them.

I mean, what exactly is the issue here?

Human sexuality is a broad spectrum, within this spectrum you have people who identify with labels such as 'heterosexual', lesbian, gay, bi, queer - to describe their sexuality.

In the current epoch, some people in the former group ('heterosexuals') claim that the people who identify with the other groups are pretending. That unlike them, the sexuality of the people in these groups is not innate or natural, but rather a conscious decision, a 'lifestyle choice.' In this 'reality' all of these people are just heterosexuals who have by accident or choice 'become homosexual.' And following they also argue that with a little therapy this 'process' can be reversed and each of these people returned to their natural, default sexuality - 'heterosexual'.

...

How is that view even remotely plausible?

It certainly has no basis in material reality or science, so where's the controversy?

To believe that crap you also need to believe that every person who identifies as a lesbian, gay guy or bi is a liar - that when they state that they've known all of their lives etc. that they were not 'heterosexual' - that each one of these people is either a liar or doesn't know what they're talking about... right...

Oh and also you'd have to ignore the fact that same-sex love has been observed in thouands of non-human animal species - but funnily enough i'm yet to hear any homophobes make the 'lifestyle choice' argument with African Buffalo :rolleyes:

The kind of people who make these arguments do so because of their beliefs (often religiously derived), specifically that 'homosexuality isn't natural' - they dont actually have any evidence for this view (this is because all evidence contradicts them) and that is what drives 'the debate' - the conviction of prejudiced idiots that their idiotic prejudices should be accepted by everyone.

[colonelguppy]

what difference does it make?

[Political_Chucky]

Great post bleeding. You explained it so much better then I could have haha.

[Demogorgon]

With all due respect, I can not understand why there was a debate at all. I mean how many people of any orientation can honestly put up their hands and say they chose their sexuality?

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:27 am
With all due respect, I can not understand why there was a debate at all. I mean how many people of any orientation can honestly put up their hands and say they chose their sexuality?
You’d be surprised. Just look at my Republican roommates. I spent an entire semester arguing ith them about "homos" constantly. They sure did bring up homosexuality a lot for three straight men. Makes you wonder. I swear I expected them to just wake up one day and find them sucking each other's dicks.

We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue. We don't expect that the words of radicals will change the beliefs of many right-wingers. However, our voices on this web site may help people understand opinions that are not their own.

[RASHskins]

yea andrew G is does make you wonder. Religious people aside who are still homophobic must be homosexual. I mean i used to know this kid who was not religious at all but still was homophobic. All he ever talked about, really made me wonder. okay maybe not but it does tell me that they are ashamed of any queer thoughts they may have had. ive had gay thoughts before but im sure thats a natural part of human sexuality. i know for a fact im not gay because im not turned on by men but that still dosen't eliminate thoughts about it. Just look at the animal proof. Of course there is still the religious pressure on society i mean you can never escape those bastards.

Nothing will change till we scrap religion.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:01 pm


Nothing will change till we scrap religion.
and the republican party for that matter

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by redcannon+May 06, 2007 01:23 am--> (redcannon @ May 06, 2007 01:23 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 10:01 pm


Nothing will change till we scrap religion.
and the republican party for that matter [/b]
And the Democratic Party, and the Green Party, and the Liberal Party, and the BNP, and the SPD, and the...

[graffic]

The green party?

[Fodman]

A quote for the OP:

"Heterosexuality isn't the normal thing, it's just common"

[ichneumon]

okay - what if there were a test for sexuality? pupillary reactions are involuntary and and do occur in response to sexual stimulation. what if you could sit down to this test, look at some porn, and it would classify you? also, it would work for pedophilia and bestiality.

i'm fairly certain such technology exists already.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+May 06, 2007 01:01 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ May 06, 2007 01:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:23 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 10:01 pm


Nothing will change till we scrap religion.
and the republican party for that matter
And the Democratic Party, and the Green Party, and the Liberal Party, and the BNP, and the SPD, and the... [/b]
I agree with graffic. The green party? Are they homophobic in some way? I admit, I don't know that much about them, but from what I hear they are not that bad. Why do so many other commies have such animosity towards them?

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:36 pm
okay - what if there were a test for sexuality? pupillary reactions are involuntary and and do occur in response to sexual stimulation. what if you could sit down to this test, look at some porn, and it would classify you? also, it would work for pedophilia and bestiality.

i'm fairly certain such technology exists already.
Actually, they have done testing like that, and have found that people are aroused by certain things. But they found out that the people were probably not aroused more, they were upset and the body went into arousal mode. The tests were done for many years and the conclusion was that a large amount of the people had the exact same reactions to various things. When they found out that some people had similar reactions to arousal as they did being upset they knew that there was no merit to the test.

I’ve got to say, I don’t necessarily like the idea of using science to classify sexuality. I think it’s too complex a thing for a simple standardized test to categorize. A standard test might open insanely subjective areas. For example, exactly HOW aroused would I have to be by an image of a man in order to classify as “homosexual,” and how aroused would I have to be to be classified as “bi-curious?”

[BurnTheOliveTree]

To my knowledge:

There is, very roughly speaking, an "Attraction to men" gene and an "Attraction to women" gene. Statistically, heterosexuality is the most common manifest of this genetic combination, but an important point to remember is that sexuality is fluid.

You are not ever "Straight" as an absolute. It's always a sliding scale depending on your genes.

Of course, the Attraction to men gene will often be more dominant in a man than Attraction to women. If it's only a slight domination, heterosexuality or asexuality may be forced by social pressure - it is possible to deny your genes, however painful.

One of the most memorable pieces of evidence for this was when they managed to pinpoint this exact gene in fruit flies. They put the Attraction to men gene in a large group of male fruit flies, and then offered them females and food. The males ignored the females and food, formed a kind of flying conga line, and began to rub genitals with eachother.

-Alex

[Fightin Da Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:19 pm
To my knowledge:

There is, very roughly speaking, an "Attraction to men" gene and an "Attraction to women" gene. Statistically, heterosexuality is the most common manifest of this genetic combination, but an important point to remember is that sexuality is fluid.

You are not ever "Straight" as an absolute. It's always a sliding scale depending on your genes.

Of course, the Attraction to men gene will often be more dominant in a man than Attraction to women. If it's only a slight domination, heterosexuality or asexuality may be forced by social pressure - it is possible to deny your genes, however painful.

One of the most memorable pieces of evidence for this was when they managed to pinpoint this exact gene in fruit flies. They put the Attraction to men gene in a large group of male fruit flies, and then offered them females and food. The males ignored the females and food, formed a kind of flying conga line, and began to rub genitals with eachother.

-Alex
I've never heard anything to suggest that there is a genetic explanation for sexuality. Do you have a source for that?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I've never heard anything to suggest that there is a genetic explanation for sexuality. Do you have a source for that?

Hmm, been living in a cave?


http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4215427.stm

-Alex

[Joanne]

I am a lesbian. How do you reconcile the long term survival of homosexuality with evolutionary theory? Shouldn't we have all died out by now? I assume that since I am just a minority part of a reproducing species I have been allowed to survive.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 pm
Is there scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice and someting your born with?

Ive never seen any scientific evidence, if there was solid evidence then it would stop all the debating etc
Is there any evidence that it is?

How on earth do you think such a choice made in the first place? I never "chose" to find men attractive.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:32 pm
How do you reconcile the long term survival of homosexuality with evolutionary theory? Shouldn't we have all died out by now?
because evolutionary theory doesn't work that way. traits that, when present in an organism, reduce that individual organisms reproductive potential, are not necessarily incompatible with long term gene survival in the population because the genes responsible might be present in other organisms of the same species that don't have a reproductive disadvantage...The most obvious case of this is in single gene recessive traits, where certain individuals might be genetic carriers who don't exhibit the trait because they don't have a matching allele for the trait, but can pass it on to their children who have a 25% chance of exhibiting the trait if their other parent is also a carrier for it...obviously sexual orientation isn't a single gene trait but combinations of genes that produce multiple gene traits can work in a similar but more complicated way.

reproduction isn't cloning and people's biological makeup isn't identical to their parents or siblings.



There is, very roughly speaking, an "Attraction to men" gene and an "Attraction to women" gene.

Even if sexual orientation is a single gene trait in fruit flies though it doesn't mean that it is in humans, or even that everyone who is 'attracted to men' or 'attracted to women' has the same genetic trait, there might even be several different combinations of genes; different genetic combinations might be responsible for different portions of what people think of as sexual orientation...which is in any case basically the social interpretation of sexual interests and behaviors, so it need not have a direct correlation with the biology that produces it.


but an important point to remember is that sexuality is fluid.

You are not ever "Straight" as an absolute. It's always a sliding scale depending on your genes.


I don't think you can just assert that as true without any empirical evidence for it...whether sexuality exists on a continuum (as does skin colour or height for instance) or whether it exists in several discreet variations (as does hair type or blood type for instance) is a real empirical question...and in fact i think the preponderance of evidence suggests the later more than the former. Also i don't think that the assertion that sexuality is "fluid" is also one that, if really thought about, seems very implausible at least for the majority of people, depending on what you mean by 'fluid'.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Even if sexual orientation is a single gene trait in fruit flies though it doesn't mean that it is in humans

Well it isn't conclusive proof, no, it's just one piece of evidence that sticks in the memory.

There's a lot more of these kinds experiments. Traipse through google if you must.


I don't think you can just assert that as true without any empirical evidence for it...

I didn't just assert it, it's a valid inference from the evidence available. As far as we know, the range of sexuality is not lumped into a few categories, it is fluid. One person can be gayer than another who is also gay, for example. That's a horrid way of putting it, but whatever, you get the point.

-Alex

[shorelinetrance]

What's the big deal with classifying what sexuality you are nowadays?

You like what you like, you don't need make a huge fuss over it.

I'm not antigay or anything, just saying.

[bezdomni]

To turn the dubious topic question on it's head, is there any evidence that homosexuality is not biological?
I agree with your post, but that is a shitty question...since you are asking someone to prove a negative.

It is like a theist asking for evidence that god does NOT exist. Or me asking you to prove that you are NOT a witch. :P

All evidence I have ever seen points to homosexuality being natural, but even if it was a choice, it wouldn't matter.

[The Feral Underclass]

The assumption that homosexuality is or could possibly be a choice makes absolutely no rational sense and in fact defies logic altogether.

Stop saying it's possibility.

[ichneumon]

are you saying that a person can't chose to be homosexual? i mean, with some serious conditioning and will, that should be possible.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:55 pm
are you saying that a person can't chose to be homosexual? i mean, with some serious conditioning and will, that should be possible.
WHAT? You realise that the idea of changing sexuality as an act of will is bollocks right? That's why you can't simply beat "the queer disease" out of people (or use aversion-shock therapy, constant prayer or whatever.). Do you not think that, since you can't change from gay to straight, it makes sense that you can't change from straight to gay?

Man, post-modernism must be eating your fucking brain or something.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:55 pm
are you saying that a person can't chose to be homosexual? i mean, with some serious conditioning and will, that should be possible.
of course a person can choose to have homosexual sex even if they aren't naturally inclined to it and certain conditions will make them more likely to do so (like, straight guys in prison) but sexual orientation is based on what you sexually most prefer not what you're willing to do if nothing else is available.


and you really can't conceptually choose your preferences, rather your preferences (are likely to) guide choice of actions...


Like, you can choose whether or not you eat chocolate, but you can't choose to want chocolate or not want chocolate

[Fightin Da Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:06 pm

I've never heard anything to suggest that there is a genetic explanation for sexuality. Do you have a source for that?

Hmm, been living in a cave?


http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4215427.stm

-Alex
I didn't read them all, but the BBC article directly contradicts your post.

The doctor doing the study said "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." He explicitly said there was no single "gay" gene, which is more or less what you said.

As for the fruit fly experiment, I think it's safe to say that humans are slightly more complex creatures, and you cannot make conclusions about human DNA based on theirs.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10, 2007 05:22 am
The assumption that homosexuality is or could possibly be a choice makes absolutely no rational sense and in fact defies logic altogether.

Stop saying it's possibility.
why?

anyways, i htink if we removed the jurisdiction of marriage form political institutions the problem could be avoided entirely.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 21, 2007 04:46 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 21, 2007 04:46 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10, 2007 05:22 am
The assumption that homosexuality is or could possibly be a choice makes absolutely no rational sense and in fact defies logic altogether.

Stop saying it's possibility.
why?
[/b]
I've already addressed 'why' in my post. If you disagree, please explain how and why?


CP
anyways, i htink if we removed the jurisdiction of marriage form political institutions the problem could be avoided entirely.

I don't understand your point.

Why would removing the jurisidiction of marriage from political institutions (could you please explain what you mean by that?) avoid the problem of bigoted people disputing the biological nature of homosexuality?

[apathy maybe]

(Though, to be fair, the idea of removing marriage and partnerships from the realm of government is a good idea anyway... But of course it won't get rid of homophobia.)

[Idola Mentis]

Hold everything - I'm confused.

What part of a human being isn't biological, and may cause non-biological homosexuality? Did everyone go and cyborg themselves overnight without telling me?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 23, 2007 11:28 pm
What part of a human being isn't biological, and may cause non-biological homosexuality? Did everyone go and cyborg themselves overnight without telling me?
It's the whole 'nature vs. nurture' dealie; some bigots argue that homosexuality may be the result of upbringing or other 'environmental factors,' and so potentially reversible through therapy etc.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 23, 2007 03:14 pm
It's the whole 'nature vs. nurture' dealie; some bigots argue that homosexuality may be the result of upbringing or other 'environmental factors,' and so potentially reversible through therapy etc.
Genetic homosexuality wouldn't be potentially reversible? I mean, wouldn't that be easier? Genetics are much better understood, giving better explained, more dramatic and consistent results than neurobiology and psychology, after all.

And why do they think psychological homosexuality would somehow be more "wrong" than a genetic cause? It's not as if any trash found sloshing around in our gene pool is automatically "natural" and "good". And "Nurture" is completely biological in nature too. Unless you believe in souls separate from physical reality, of course...

Oh. Now I get it. They're superstitious idiots.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by IM+--> (IM)Genetic homosexuality wouldn't be potentially reversible? I mean, wouldn't that be easier? Genetics are much better understood, giving better explained, more dramatic and consistent results than neurobiology and psychology, after all.
[/b]

I wouldnt' imagine so. Maybe i don't understand what you're saying, but i don't see how it would be possible to reverse gene expression after-birth.


IM
And why do they think psychological homosexuality would somehow be more "wrong" than a genetic cause?

It's not that they think 'psychological homosexuality' is worse than biological homosexuality; rather by arguing that homosexuality is psychological they can position it as a choice, a 'lifestyle', it's an attempt to de-legitimise non-heterosexualities i.e. that being queer is a mental illnesses, or as a result of 'bad' child-rearing... or perhaps both. But that regardless, to be queer is to be anything anything but natural, least of all a banal facet of humanity... because they equate 'unnatural' with 'bad.'

[Idola Mentis]

I wouldnt' imagine so. Maybe i don't understand what you're saying, but i don't see how it would be possible to reverse gene expression after-birth.
Nah, we can't reverse a gene's expression - yet - but manipulating further expression works quite well with many genetic anomalies. If homosexuality turns out to be as embedded in the phenotype as, say, primary sexual characteristics or downs syndrome, you could select embryos not containing the gene, or administer therapy during gestation - treat it as any other "undesireable" genetic condition.

Seems to me that for the purposes of deciding between supressing or encouraging homosexuality, no practical difference is introduced by varying the causes. Unless you assume that genes have a privileged position as a validator over other causes, such as conscious choice or nurtured brain structures. And why should it? People die from genetic diseases. If homosexuality is wrong, genetic homosexuality is a genetic disorder, nurtured homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and homosexuality by choice is a crime. If homosexuality isn't wrong, who the hell cares? We can just wait for science to come to a conclusion, and it won't make one inch of a difference.


It's not that they think 'psychological homosexuality' is worse than biological homosexuality; rather by arguing that homosexuality is psychological they can position it as a choice, a 'lifestyle', it's an attempt to de-legitimise non-heterosexualities i.e. that being queer is a mental illnesses, or as a result of 'bad' child-rearing... or perhaps both. But that regardless, to be queer is to be anything anything but natural, least of all a banal facet of humanity... because they equate 'unnatural' with 'bad.'
Yep - but that's where their argument turns into certifiable idiocy. The division between natural and unnatural only applies if one believes in a dualist world. Homosexuality with a psychological cause is no more or less biological or natural than homosexuality with a genetic cause. Brains are just brine and fat. No magic faggot-fairies has ever been found fluttering around in there. Nothing supernatural about human nurturing, regardless of how much parents and society manage to fuck it up. Human beings are a natural phenomenon. Whatever we do is, by extension, natural. Which shows that "natural" can't possibly be the same as "right". Too many people get tricked into accepting this baseless medieval dichotomy, and thus build their whole counterargument on their opponent's terms.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm
I wouldnt' imagine so. Maybe i don't understand what you're saying, but i don't see how it would be possible to reverse gene expression after-birth.

It does, however, raise a raft of thought-provoking issues.

For example, suppose a genetic test could be performed to ascertain homosexuality in the womb. Is it ethically justifiable to abort due to genetic "defect?" Would it be desirable to weed the homosexual gene out of the human gene pool?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 24, 2007 10:55 am--> (pusher robot @ May 24, 2007 10:55 am) For example, suppose a genetic test could be performed to ascertain homosexuality in the womb. Is it ethically justifiable to abort due to genetic "defect?" [/b]
Human sexuality is far too complex to be isolated by a 'genetic test', so this hypothetical is unrealistic.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Is it ethically justifiable to abort due to genetic "defect?"

No, because homosexuality is not a genetic defect


PR
Would it be desirable to weed the homosexual gene out of the human gene pool?

Of course not - why would ANYONE... who wasn't a complete bigot... want to eradicate queers from the population/gene pool? :unsure:

[Idola Mentis]

Human sexuality is far too complex to be isolated by a 'genetic test', so this hypothetical is unrealistic.
I suspect that's true - though we don't *know* that yet. And there's no doubt that *if* human sexuality is caused by genetics, something in gestation etc, it can be identified and fiddled with. Maybe not successfully, but you betcha some loon is going to want to try it.

So if we believe homosexuality is wrong (Which I DON'T) it goes in the pile with all the other ethical tangles caused by new biotech.



Originally posted by PR
Is it ethically justifiable to abort due to genetic "defect?" No, because homosexuality is not a genetic defect
Of course it isn't - but you can't prove that using the science of genetics. Genes have no values recognizable by human standards. Just to repeat my point: The argument for or against forms of sexuality belongs in a different domain of knowledge, regardless of cause.

So the original poster's suggestion is plain wrong; the cause of sexuality is not relevant to the debate on which forms of sexuality should be tolerated.


Of course not - why would ANYONE... who wasn't a complete bigot... want to eradicate queers from the population/gene pool? :unsure:
Well, you could argue, as has often been done, that it's a disorder. All that old crap about "nature" and irrational victorian fears of queer cooties can't be seriously applied anymore, but it certainly does cause the "sufferers" a lot of grief. Check the suicide statistics.

Of course, the problem is in the surrounding structure, not the form of sexuality. If it is a choice, it is one it costs us nothing to tolerate. If it is a biological compulsion, "curing" it is as useful as trying to eradicate red hair and freckles. (We can do it, but what's the point?) What the question boils down to is how rich or impoverished on variation we want our societies to be. Aesthetics.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:18 pm
First off I'm not in anyway homophobic.

Is there scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice and someting your born with?

Ive never seen any scientific evidence, if there was solid evidence then it would stop all the debating etc
Wether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or not is a moot point. Whenever you consider that the money spent on bringing up the average child between ages 0-18 years will amount to around £80 000 (about US $175 000) then you can see why it's in the political interests of the baby food /nappy(diaper) companies and other concerned profiteers to marginalise homosexuality as a legitimate way of life.

[luxemburg89]

are you saying that a person can't chose to be homosexual? i mean, with some serious conditioning and will, that should be possible.

you sound like a christian...

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 24, 2007 12:55 am--> (pusher robot @ May 24, 2007 12:55 am)
bleeding gums [email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm
I wouldnt' imagine so. Maybe i don't understand what you're saying, but i don't see how it would be possible to reverse gene expression after-birth.

It does, however, raise a raft of thought-provoking issues.

For example, suppose a genetic test could be performed to ascertain homosexuality in the womb. Is it ethically justifiable to abort due to genetic "defect?" Would it be desirable to weed the homosexual gene out of the human gene pool? [/b]
Gattaca anyone?
...
Or 300?

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

According to Freud, we are born basically "Bisexual". With no preference to either sex, but it is social climate that turns us into heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual(or rather, no change occurs here).

It's simple, it makes sense, and it proves the point of "Heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common". Though, heterosexuality is more natural, in the sense that it used to be the only way we could make babies, and thus progress our species.

But hey...lesbians rock..>.>(this is the horny part of my 15yr old mind, whom I have rightfully christened "Dr. Strangelove".)

[ShyFox]

Fox to Dr. Strangelove: Keep it in the pants, my good sir!
Anyway, I could argue about Freud, but I read that part too long ago to back myself up, although I support the idea that there is a biologica basis for sexual orientation. Anyhow, the way that research now seems to point is that most people have a bit of a gay streak in them. There's homosexuality in animals, too, so it's hard to say that it's something unnatural humans made up for decadent kicks.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:25 am
Fox to Dr. Strangelove: Keep it in the pants, my good sir!
Anyway, I could argue about Freud, but I read that part too long ago to back myself up, although I support the idea that there is a biologica basis for sexual orientation. Anyhow, the way that research now seems to point is that most people have a bit of a gay streak in them. There's homosexuality in animals, too, so it's hard to say that it's something unnatural humans made up for decadent kicks.
Eh, that doesn't make it unnatural, because it would be just as 'random' as heterosexuality. It's just a coincidence that most of us are straight. Though, I can say that it's a *good* thing, when one thinks ofthe general population. No babies = no population, tis' about as simple as that.

Not to say homosexuality is bad, because it isn't. If anything, it's now become one of the greatest things humanity has...produced? Overpopulation = bad. We need more frikken' gay people!



(...>.>...and more lesbians!)

[apathy maybe]

Has anyone said yet something along the lines of,
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
Who cares if homosexuality is caused by genetics, other biological factors or by upbringing (or some combination of the above)?

Why should any of us care what other people do in their own bedrooms (so long as it is consensual)?

Anyway... On with your pointless debate...

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 01, 2007 07:30 pm
Has anyone said yet something along the lines of,
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
Who cares if homosexuality is caused by genetics, other biological factors or by upbringing (or some combination of the above)?

Why should any of us care what other people do in their own bedrooms (so long as it is consensual)?

Anyway... On with your pointless debate...
Uh-huh. That's the sum of what I said. I just tried to explain *why* it doesn't matter too.

There are some reasons why we might need to care what people do, even if it's consensual. Not just bad arguments, either. But none of them tend to get aired in debates on sexuality, and in the end they don't hold up, being based on false premises or having consequences even their proponents won't accept.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 01, 2007 06:30 pm
Has anyone said yet something along the lines of,
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
Who cares if homosexuality is caused by genetics, other biological factors or by upbringing (or some combination of the above)?

Why should any of us care what other people do in their own bedrooms (so long as it is consensual)?

Anyway... On with your pointless debate...
....so we can understand why it is? Heterosexuality is easy, "We need to make babies". Homosexuality is a bit more complex. It's interesting.

[luxemburg89]

Heterosexuality is easy, "We need to make babies".

Well, perhaps, if you want to take such a boring view of fucking. I'd say the majority of people actually have sex for the pleasure - whether you get pleasure from a bloke or from a girl is up to the individual person. I don't see why it really matters. I mean the human population isn't in any danger of dying out or anything so let people fuck whoever/whatever they want.

[Lark]

I think it matters a great deal.

The homosexuality community by its very nature can not reproduce through procreation, so it has to reproduce some other way, it does so through culture struggles and identity politics, which drain away support or resources from other issues.

I think that legitimate criticism of individuals and groups who do not have the interests of wider society or individual and family development at heart has been silenced for a long time by allegations of homophobia.

[luxemburg89]

Lark, there are enough straight people to continue populating the earth - I feel somehow discriminatory in typing this, I do not know why and mean no offence (I do completely believe homosexual couples have every right to raise a child etc - I'd like to stress that). The population is not under threat, heterosexual people can easily procreate, even with a large homosexual community within society. The human race is not under threat and, as such, there is no basis for the argument that homosexuality will threaten the human race. If a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman, who are we to stand in the way of love, yet more importantly in the present moment - who are you to stand in their way Lark?

[Lark]

I dont oppose anyone engaging in homosexual affairs, I dont know very many happy homosexuals and do believe its a community with a lot of serious issues which they are avoiding, a lot of them perhaps arent even homosexual really.

A feminist author in the UK who wrote for the Guardian on and off since the seventies and eighties wrote about how *****y the gay and lesbian community got when she decided in the early ninties to settle down and raise a family with a husband, she decided that her lesbian affairs were political rather than anything else and was subject to attacks within the gay and lesbian press, it was really nasty.

Like I said people can do as they choose, there are plenty of other sexual habits that I dont think are healthy or seem odd to me, like sado-masochism or necrophilia, the difference is that none of these life styles have built up a political and cultural movement.

For such a national and global minority I think the homosexual community commands too much attention and clout.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:54 am
me, like sado-masochism or necrophilia, the difference is that none of these life styles have built up a political and cultural movement.
I've never done a thing to you.

Why do you disagree with it? If it turns you on, it turns you on. Nothin' you can do about it.

[Lark]

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+June 02, 2007 01:59 am--> (Friedrich Nietzsche @ June 02, 2007 01:59 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:54 am
me, like sado-masochism or necrophilia, the difference is that none of these life styles have built up a political and cultural movement.
I've never done a thing to you.

Why do you disagree with it? If it turns you on, it turns you on. Nothin' you can do about it. [/b]
If you'd read Eric Fromm you'd understand what I mean. It's a debilitating personality disorder which can easily tip over into something out and out criminal.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by Lark+June 02, 2007 02:04 am--> (Lark @ June 02, 2007 02:04 am)
Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 02, 2007 01:59 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 01:54 am
me, like sado-masochism or necrophilia, the difference is that none of these life styles have built up a political and cultural movement.
I've never done a thing to you.

Why do you disagree with it? If it turns you on, it turns you on. Nothin' you can do about it.
If you'd read Eric Fromm you'd understand what I mean. It's a debilitating personality disorder which can easily tip over into something out and out criminal. [/b]
You, mein freund, are an idiot. Would you also like to know that I'd love to, one day, participate in cannibalism?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

not saying i have a stance one way or the other on this issue, just food for thought:

the following is a quote from Engels in Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State : http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...amily/ch02d.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm)



But, in spite of locks and guards, Greek women found plenty of opportunity for deceiving their husbands. The men, who would have been ashamed to show any love for their wives, amused themselves by all sorts of love affairs with hetairai; but this degradation of the women was avenged on the men and degraded them also, till they fell into the abominable practice of sodomy and degraded alike their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede.

the next quote is from a letter dated june 22 1869 from Engels to Marx: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/69_06_22.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm)


The Urning you sent me is a very curious thing. These are extremely unnatural revelations. The paederasts [homosexual paedophiles] are beginning to count themselves, and discover that they are a power in the state. Only organisation was lacking, but according to this source it apparently already exists in secret. And since they have such important men in all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rosing to Schweitzer, they cannot fail to triumph. Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul [war on the ****s, peace to the arse-holes] will now be the slogan. It is a bit of luck that we, personally, are too old to have to fear that, when this party wins, we shall have to pay physical tribute to the victors. But the younger generation! Incidentally it is only in Germany that a fellow like this can possibly come forward, convert this smut into a theory, and offer the invitation: introite [enter], etc. Unfortunately, he has not yet got up the courage to acknowledge publicly that he is ‘that way’, and must still operate coram publico‘ from the front’, if not ‘going in from the front’ as he once said by mistake. But just wait until the new North German Penal Code recognises the droits du cul [rights of the arse-hole] then he will operate quite differently. Then things will go badly enough for poor frontside people like us, with our childish penchant for females. If Schweitzer could be made useful for anything, it would be to wheedle out of this peculiar honourable gentleman the particulars of the paederasts in high and top places, which would certainly not be difficult for him as a brother in spirit.

what do members make of these two quotes?

[Severian]

That Marx and Engels were products of their time (the Victorian era) and shared a lot of its prejudices.

There's certainly no reason to take those statements as some kind of argument against gay rights unless you take their Collected Works as some kind of Bible....appropriately enough if someone's supporting the often-religiously-justified prejudices against gays.

[luxemburg89]

It should also be known that Marx, despite this, was a huge fan of Byron's poetry - Byron engaged in many sexual exploits both hetero-and homo-sexual, and he would have known this lol - everyone who's ever read Byron knows it. So his prejudices cannot have run that deep.

[Idola Mentis]

Did Lark get banned over this? Oh well. He did have one point - persecution of homosexuals does create subcultures. I don't see why he seems to think subcultures is a bad thing in and of themselves... anyway.

As homosexuals get more accepted, there are some interesting stuff happening - lots of open homosexuals who haven't bought into any homosexual community, which means the majority of modern homosexuals doesn't conform to stereotypes, and want to marry and have kids instead of hanging out in gay bars the rest of their lives. And some bisexuals might actually settle for the opposite sex. You're likely to find people from the subculture who see this as threathening in some way or other, having invested so much of their identity in being marginalized.

[TC]

I think, a lot of this thread reveals the idealist bourgeois idealist political morality of liberals not the materialist emancipating political morality of marxists and marxian leftists.


It shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is biological, (and if biological whether its genetic or hormonal) or not. Sex is for pleasures sake for both gay and straight people. In industrial societies, sex and reproduction are totally separate things, you can have sex without reproducing and you can reproduce without having sex, so any discussion over whether or not homosexually is natural or not is ridiculous. Of course homosexual sexual behavior is unnatural, heterosexual sexual behavior is also unnatural, in fact almost everything we do in industrial society is unnatural and we are better off for it. Being natural does not confer any type of moral authority and being unnatural doesn't amount to any immorality, in fact trying to live in a natural way would be profoundly undesirable and plenty or most of what is natural is bad from the perspective of the human experience.

We need to learn not to argue on the level of bourgeois morality that holds that what is natural is desirable and that individuals desire for personal pleasure is immoral, because even if you can win that argument it would be the wrong point to make.


Originally posted by Pusher Robot+--> (Pusher Robot)For example, suppose a genetic test could be performed to ascertain homosexuality in the womb. Is it ethically justifiable to abort due to genetic "defect?"[/b]


Originally posted by Bleeding Gums Murphy+--> (Bleeding Gums Murphy)
No, because homosexuality is not a genetic defect
[/b]

Stop being a liberal Bleeding Gums.


What is a 'defect' is totally subjective because it depends on what 'effect' you want, but thats irrelevant to the question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with aborting a fetus because it would grow into a gay person; deciding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is a purely personal choice and one that can be made for any reason; the right to choose is always the right to choose for reasons that other people disagree with otherwise its no right or choice at all. One of the most disgusting reactions against prenatal genetic testing has been parents of downs syndrome children campaigning against people aborting downs fetuses. They have utterly no right to impose their own preferences on other people's bodies and life choices or get more people to share their suffering, its sick.


Originally posted by Pusher Robot

Would it be desirable to weed the homosexual gene out of the human gene pool?


Originally posted by Bleeding Gums Murphy

Of course not - why would ANYONE... who wasn't a complete bigot... want to eradicate queers from the population/gene pool? unsure.gif

It wouldn't be desirable to get homosexual genes out of the gene pool, but i would guess that if they were identified, people would weed embryos for them and i don't think theres anything wrong with that. Obviously most people wouldn't do it but some people might do it just because people tend to, if given a choice, prefer children more like themselves who they can relate to more easily (and given the fact that the people in a position to make the choice would be straight it would be an understandable preference even if they weren't bigoted).

In any case, you can never base abortion policy or morality of abortion on the usefulness to the population or gene pool because that would subordinate the personal rights and bodily autonomy of an individual to society, treating them as an instrument of population production rather than a person in their own right.


According to Freud, we are born basically "Bisexual". With no preference to either sex, but it is social climate that turns us into heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual(or rather, no change occurs here).

Freud said a lot of stupid things that have no empirical basis...and thats not even an accurate description of freudian psychosexual development.


Though, heterosexuality is more natural, in the sense that it used to be the only way we could make babies, and thus progress our species.


The personification of species and evolution into some sense of 'purpose' is totally unmaterial, it ascribes supernatural mystical purpose to random natural phenomenon.

Traits that lead to higher rates of reproduction are not more 'natural' than traits that lead to lower rates. They don't 'help the species', the species is not something that can be helped or hurt its an abstract description of a collection of individuals.

This is very regressive ideological thinking.


Heterosexuality is easy, "We need to make babies".

Uh, no, we really don't need to "make babies. Babies don't actually help us, people "make them" because they want for essentially selfish reasons, not because they need to. Capitalists need workers to make babies because they need an expanding labour force to exploit but it doesn't benefit a socialist or communist society (or, for that matter, a hunter gather one).

And in any case, if you haven't noticed, heterosexual sex doesn't typically lead to pregnancy...unless you're very drunk or very stupid or doing it on purpose.


[email protected]
The homosexuality community by its very nature can not reproduce through procreation, so it has to reproduce some other way, it does so through culture struggles and identity politics, which drain away support or resources from other issues.


Apart from getting a few trendy bisexuals who are probably only good for meaningless sex (or more realistically, public make out sessions), cultural struggles and identity politics don't reproduce for the gay community; straight people do that.


I think that legitimate criticism of individuals and groups who do not have the interests of wider society or individual and family development at heart has been silenced for a long time by allegations of homophobia.

Anyone who is primarily concerned with the interests of "family development" is not concerned with the interests of "wider society" and "individual development" i would argue.

Although that would also be the case of someone arguing that its wrong to abort fetuses with gay genes were such to be identified (as that would be placing identity group development at the expense of individual development).




A feminist author in the UK who wrote for the Guardian on and off since the seventies and eighties wrote about how *****y the gay and lesbian community got when she decided in the early ninties to settle down and raise a family with a husband, she decided that her lesbian affairs were political rather than anything else and was subject to attacks within the gay and lesbian press, it was really nasty.


Sure, there are plenty of straight women who pretend to be lesbians or bisexual for political reasons (radical feminism, queer theory, female separatism) but thats a tiny minority and its irrelevant to the discussion of people who are actually gay and not just claiming to be for political reasons.

And in any case it would be totally legitimate for lesbians to be incredibly pissed off at someone who did that because it would mean that she wasted their time.


Like I said people can do as they choose,

People can't choose to be gay, they can choose to fake it though. Likewise there are gay men who pretend to be heterosexual for political reasons (Ted Haggard, obviously comes to mind) but that doesn't mean that real straight guys choose to like women, they just do.


NorthStarRepublicML


what do members make of these two quotes?

Marx and Engels were, in both cases, talking about pederasty not homosexuality. Greek and Roman men of high social class, who would probably be considered heterosexual in contemporary society (as in, had primary relationships with women) often had sex with young and low status males in an essentially abusive fashion. This isn't comparable to homosexuality in the proper sense where the preference is typically for adult developed men not semi-androgenous teenagers.

For instance in ancient Macadonia it was somewhat scandalous that Alexander the great had a boyfriend his own age because it was only the social custom for aristocratic men to have much younger male lovers. Likewise in Rome, aristocratic men had sex with their male slaves (with the slaves as the receptive partner), that didn't mean they were gay anymore than prison rapists are gay, it was a case of situational homosexual behavior not homosexual orientation.

So i really don't think its fair to cast Marx and Engel's as "homophobes" since what they were responding to was radically different than homosexuality as it exists in present day society.

[communard resolution]

Oh dear, this thread is almost a year old. Anyway, here's the information I've got on homosexuality, the gay gene, and so on.

There is no such thing as a gay gene. We are all born "polymorphously perverse", as Freud calls it, and our experiences during childhood, adolescence, and to some extent later on, determine our broad sexual orientation, which however is not written in stone and may be subject to change. The reason why people claim they were "born gay" is because this way it's easier to "justify" your homosexuality in a homophobic society heavily influenced by Christian morality ("If God made me that way, it isn't my fault"). That's why the notion of being born gay is much more widespread in the USA, where the religious right has a stronger influence on popular opinion. In countries such as, say Germany or the UK, gay people are often quite happy to state they only found out at some point that they preferred people of the same sex (which isn't the same as choosing to be gay, but could be interpreted that way by homophobes).

In the 80s, American scientists claimed to have found a 'gay gene'. I don't think they incidentally stumbled upon a 'gay gene' when doing some research out of sheer interest. More likely, a bunch of nice liberal folks gave them the assignment to find something that may or may not resemble a 'gay gene' in order to help gay people justify their sexuality in American society. And you know, if I pay a group of scientists enough money to find something I want them to, they will find me something. Any research can be criticized on methological grounds, and in under-researched areas the results will obviously remain relatively unchallenged.

I'd like to make clear that I'm not in any way opposed to homosexuality, whether there's a 'gay gene' or not. Even if homosexuality was a 'choice' -which I don't think it is- this choice would be fully legitimate. My point is that it doesn't necessarily advance the cause of sexual emancipation (or our understanding of sexuality) if we embrace simplistic narratives that have clearly been motivated by a desire to "justify" non-mainstream sexuality in an irrational/religious society.

I can't present you with any sources for this. I've heard it from a friend who has been investigating into this a lot more than I have.

I read Foucault's History of Sexuality years ago and seem to remember from it that until fairly recently, there was no such thing as 'homosexuals', only 'homosexual acts'. Only in the late 19th century, Western scientists established in their infinite wisdom the notion that the majority of people are 100% straight, and the rest 100% gay or 50-50. They started categorizing people's sexualities, and after a while this construct developed a dynamic of its own.

With this in mind, my friend's claims make a lot of sense to me.

I haven't got evidence to back this up and therefore can't be sure - although I have observed in real life how easily people's orientations can switch from one preference to another and back. It seems to me that sexuality is complex and chaotic, and terms such as 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' just don't do it justice.

I'm looking forward to hear your opinions on this.

[Bud Struggle]

Someday, I'd like to know the real reason some people are homosexual--not that I care for any real reason--I'm just curious (no and not THAT kind of curious! :D) I just think that with all the "politics" surrounding it I doubt if the real reason will ever be known.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Someday, I'd like to know the real reason some people are homosexual--not that I care for any real reason--I'm just curious (no and not THAT kind of curious! :D) I just think that with all the "politics" surrounding it I doubt if the real reason will ever be known.
It probably has something to do with their sexual preference

[Lector Malibu]

The only reason why homosexuality has been questioned is because of the influence of religious morality throughout time.

I've seen no evidence to indicate homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. People are homosexual because they are homosexual period.

[Bud Struggle]

The only reason why homosexuality has been questioned is because of the influence of religious morality throughout time.

I've seen no evidence to indicate homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. People are homosexual because they are homosexual period.

Yea, but there's some sort of science behind it--either biological or psychological. We can't explore everything else in the universe with science and stop when we get to homosexuality. As I said, I don't care myself other than that people have bee arguing about this for the last 50 years, I'd like to see how science concludes the story.

[Lector Malibu]

Yea, but there's some sort of science behind it--either biological or psychological. We can't explore everything else in the universe with science and stop when we get to homosexuality. As I said, I don't care myself other than that people have bee arguing about this for the last 50 years, I'd like to see how science concludes the story.

Tom I really don't feel the issue is of such worthy scientific deliberation though.

It's just as simple as some people love the flavor of oranges , some don't.

How many scholars an scientist have deliberated over that example whith the same passion?:lol:

[Hiero]

Yea, but there's some sort of science behind it--either biological or psychological. We can't explore everything else in the universe with science and stop when we get to homosexuality.

Hard science can't explain everything. How can biology explain how male to male relationships in ancient Greece were common and in Sparta encouraged and then to more modern time where homosexuality is condemned and is a minority? It can't. Only social science can explain social phenomena.


I read Foucault's History of Sexuality years ago and seem to remember from it that until fairly recently, there was no such thing as 'homosexuals', only 'homosexual acts'. Only in the late 19th century, Western scientists established in their infinite wisdom the notion that the majority of people are 100% straight, and the rest 100% gay or 50-50. They started categorizing people's sexualities, and after a while this construct developed a dynamic of its own

That is something I have learnt this year. It leads to the idea that basically we are sexual beings, we have some biological drive to have sex ie we get horny. Then through social experinces we develop sexual identities. Most people adobt the dominant heterosexual identiy, while a few break norms and act out their sexual desires on their own gender and assume the homosexual or bisexual identity. There is arguement on how much we adobt and how much is forced onto us by society.

I doubt there is any scientific mystery about homosexuality.

[communard resolution]

The only reason why homosexuality has been questioned is because of the influence of religious morality throughout time.

I've seen no evidence to indicate homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. People are homosexual because they are homosexual period.

That seems a bit simple. Also, you totally misunderstood. I haven't claimed at any point that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Read my post again.

The point I'm making is: people have been claiming homosexuality is biologically determined in order to defend themselves against Christian homophobia. But chances are nobody is born heterosexual or homosexual - we are all born with the potential for both. Your experiences in childhood, adolescence, etc, determine your broader tendency. As soon as you 'know' what way you're inclined, you assume a particular sexual identity (be it straight, gay, or bi), which however isn't unshakable and may be subject to change. This isn't to say that one is better or worse than the other.

I recommend you read Foucault's History of Sexuality, which denies that sexuality is biologically determined. Foucault was a Marxist homosexual and not opposed to homosexuality at all. I find his narrative of sexuality more convincing than the simplistic "I was born gay"/"I was born straight" that you tend to hear in the US a lot. That phrase was designed to appease Christian homophobes and is utterly unhelpful because a) right-wing Christians will never tolerate non-mainstream sexuality anyway and b) it doesn't help us understand how human sexuality works.

[communard resolution]

How can biology explain how male to male relationships in ancient Greece were common and in Sparta encouraged and then to more modern time where homosexuality is condemned and is a minority? It can't. Only social science can explain social phenomena.


I second you on this.

[Peacekeeper]

People always seem to miss a big point when talking about this.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY CHOOSE TO BE GAY?

We're a pretty hated group of people.

[Bud Struggle]

People always seem to miss a big point when talking about this.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY CHOOSE TO BE GAY?

We're a pretty hated group of people.

Nonesense! What man doesn't love Lesbians? :)

[Peacekeeper]

Nonesense! What man doesn't love Lesbians? :)

I've ever understood that either. Where is the appeal there? They will not have sex with men... :laugh:

[communard resolution]

People always seem to miss a big point when talking about this.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY CHOOSE TO BE GAY?

We're a pretty hated group of people.

Who claimed in this thread that being gay is a choice?

[Lector Malibu]

That seems a bit simple. Also, you totally misunderstood. I haven't claimed at any point that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Read my post again.

Z, hold up. my post was not based on yours at all. I made it this morning why I was on the way out the door. So don't take it as i was refering towards your post.


The point I'm making is: people have been claiming homosexuality is biologically determined in order to defend themselves against Christian homophobia. But chances are nobody is born heterosexual or homosexual - we are all born with the potential for both. Your experiences in childhood, adolescence, etc, determine your broader tendency. As soon as you 'know' what way you're inclined, you assume a particular sexual identity (be it straight, gay, or bi), which however isn't unshakable and may be subject to change. This isn't to say that one is better or worse than the other.I disagree. I am sure at this point born with whatever it was that would determine me to be a homosexual. I was talking about this awhile ago. I don't feel homosexuality is determined by environmental influences. In my case there was nothing about my environment that made me a homosexual.

Also this type of thinking can be dangerous in the sense that people can try and justify homosexuality as the result of a flawed environment or what have you.


I recommend you read Foucault's History of Sexuality, which denies that sexuality is biologically determined. Foucault was a Marxist homosexual and not opposed to homosexuality at all. I find his narrative of sexuality more convincing than the simplistic "I was born gay"/"I was born straight" that you tend to hear in the US a lot. That phrase was designed to appease Christian homophobes and is utterly unhelpful because a) right-wing Christians will never tolerate non-mainstream sexuality anyway and b) it doesn't help us understand how human sexuality works.noted

[RGacky3]

I think too little is known on the matter to make a specific statement on it, and I don't think you should label people or ideas as homophobic unless they are specifically designed to be so.

For example, saying that homosexuality could be a genefic defect (which I have no idea if its true or not) is not homophobic, red hair is also a genetic defect but that does'nt mean anything social issues go.

Saying that homosexuality could be due to upbringing and thus perhaps no engraned in stone (Again I have no way of knowing if this is true or not) is also not homophobic, because that is the same thing with food likes and dislikes, they are not engraned in stone.

[Dhul Fiqar]

R Gacky 3: How is red hair a "defect"? I think you need to make a differentiation between genetic "defects" (however you define such things) and genetic predispositions or traits.

[Dean]

Tom I really don't feel the issue is of such worthy scientific deliberation though.

It's just as simple as some people love the flavor of oranges , some don't.

How many scholars an scientist have deliberated over that example whith the same passion?:lol:

That's a good pint, but you fail to realize something: some people change their taste through the years. That is pretty clearly saying that even if sexuality is biological, it is pretty fluid and subject to change. For one, I think sex is largely about what is identified as appealing to you, and I think your upbringing and social norms not only affect this, but can be the root for sexaul tendancies - like suppression.

[Lector Malibu]

That's a good pint, but you fail to realize something: some people change their taste through the years. That is pretty clearly saying that even if sexuality is biological, it is pretty fluid and subject to change. For one, I think sex is largely about what is identified as appealing to you, and I think your upbringing and social norms not only affect this, but can be the root for sexaul tendancies - like suppression.

Well here are some things to consider.

Pretty much since the beginning of time homosexuality has existed on some level. Where talking many ,many years of changing involving environments that have still resulted in homosexuality emerging in.

Yes tastes change but I've liked guys for a really, really long time, ...err:lol:

If someone is GLBT that even if they don't act on it , so to say it is still a part of who they are.

Really, if you took two people and raised them in the same controlled environment. There is still a chance that if one of them was LGBT that that would emerge.

The fruit example is good because there really is no prompting on why a person would not like a fruit. The choice not to like the fruit is simply just based on the person

Same with this issue.

[Dean]

Well here are some things to consider.

Pretty much since the beginning of time homosexuality has existed on some level. Where talking many ,many years of changing involving environments that have still resulted in homosexuality emerging in.

Yes tastes change but I've liked guys for a really, really long time, ...err:lol:

If someone is GLBT that even if they don't act on it , so to say it is still a part of who they are.

Really, if you took two people and raised them in the same controlled environment. There is still a chance that if one of them was LGBT that that would emerge.

The fruit example is good because there really is no prompting on why a person would not like a fruit. The choice not to like the fruit is simply just based on the person

Same with this issue.

The point isn't taht sexuality can be changed, but that since it is based in psychological drives, the biological compulsion for them must be limited to some degree by the mental understanding you have of your own sexuality, particularly when we consider the existance of a person in a more advanced socio - philosophical setting, where sexuality is not just a moral issue, but a part of the law and of our own self-identity. For instance, I may be extremely inclined to like men, but in the setting of a society which frowns upon homosexuality I may be very inclined not to act on my drive. Eventually, it is very possible to repress the drive, and inflate my desire for women at the same time. In such a scenario, not only would society act to stifle my primary sexuality, but it would act to reinforce other aspects of my sexuality. And I think we would really be lying to ourselves if we thought that sex had nothing to do with such mechanics on any level.

[Lector Malibu]

The point isn't taht sexuality can be changed, but that since it is based in psychological drives, the biological compulsion for them must be limited to some degree by the mental understanding you have of your own sexuality, particularly when we consider the existance of a person in a more advanced socio - philosophical setting, where sexuality is not just a moral issue, but a part of the law and of our own self-identity. For instance, I may be extremely inclined to like men, but in the setting of a society which frowns upon homosexuality I may be very inclined not to act on my drive. Eventually, it is very possible to repress the drive, and inflate my desire for women at the same time. In such a scenario, not only would society act to stifle my primary sexuality, but it would act to reinforce other aspects of my sexuality. And I think we would really be lying to ourselves if we thought that sex had nothing to do with such mechanics on any level.

Dean :lol: for the most part society does frown upon homosexuality.

And let's say you hate liver. Yet law has been introduced that you must eat liver and pig out on liver with other normal liver eaters.

Are you really gonna end up liking liver ?

or will you occasionally wish you had a steak

Green Eggs and Dean? :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

R Gacky 3: How is red hair a "defect"? I think you need to make a differentiation between genetic "defects" (however you define such things) and genetic predispositions or traits.



Thats just what I remember from Biology class, red hair comming about through a mutation of a certain gene, which could be a considered a defect in that it comes about from an abnormal gene mutation. Now then thats different from something like being blonde or brunette, considering bloneness is a reccessive gene and dark hair is dominant, blondeness is not a mutation, just reccessive. Now thats just biology (as I remember it feel free to correct me), But that being said it makes no difference to socio-political matters, that was my point.

The same would apply to homosexuality if it were found out that it was genetic, and even if it was abnormal (again I have no way of knowing either way), it would'nt make a difference sociologically.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nonesense! What man doesn't love Lesbians? :)

Ministers for a particular flock claim they don't.

(Coincidentally, this is my 666th post)

[Bud Struggle]

(Coincidentally, this is my 666th post)


Commie Devil! :lol:

[communard resolution]

Z, hold up. my post was not based on yours at all. I made it this morning why I was on the way out the door. So don't take it as i was refering towards your post.

I disagree. I am sure at this point born with whatever it was that would determine me to be a homosexual. I was talking about this awhile ago. I don't feel homosexuality is determined by environmental influences. In my case there was nothing about my environment that made me a homosexual.

Also this type of thinking can be dangerous in the sense that people can try and justify homosexuality as the result of a flawed environment or what have you.

noted

No problem, Lector. I assumed you were referring to my post because I resurrected this thread after it had been in limbo for a while.

I wonder how you can be so sure that there was nothing about your environment that inclined you towards a homosexual orientation. According to Freud, we are all 'polymorphously perverse' (receptive to a wide variety of sexual turn-ons) in infancy, after which outside influences determine our sexual preference. So I would imagine that a lot of this influence is very subtle, almost unconscious. It doesn't necessarily mean "society shoving heterosexuality down your throat" (although that can certainly be a factor later on) or alternatively contact with gay people/exposure to gay imagery/etc. As for myself, I know that my earliest, very 'innocent' sexual fantasies as a kid (before I even knew they were sexual) were very different, if not the opposite to the orientation I would later assume.

What exactly happened later and how, I don't know. But I do know that before I got clued up to the whole 'gay' and 'straight' business that is modern sexuality, I didn't give a damn what turned me on as long as it turned me on. I heard similar reports from other people, and given how many people switch orientations at various stages in their lives (how many 'straight' men end up in bed with 'straight' friends when they get too drunk? Hell, only last week a young lady friend of mine slept with a guy who believes he's 'gay'), I'm inclined to take the theories that deny biological determination much more seriously.

I can see where you're coming from when you say that this understanding of sexual orientation could be potentially dangerous. But I don't think it's a useful strategy to adopt our enemies' (right-wing Christians and such) thought patterns and tailor our theories towards them just to make them like gay people a little bit better. They will never fully tolerate non-mainstream sexuality anyway, and by shying away from knowledge we're choosing to stay ignorant ourselves. Knowledge is power. If the Christian Right says "homosexuality isn't biologically determined and therefore a sin", we shouldn't be replying "no no, it IS biologically determined and therefore okay". We should be saying "it may or may not be biologically determined, but either way we don't give a shit if it's a 'sin' or not. It doesn't hurt anyone and it isn't better or worse that heterosexuality."

On a vaguely related note, some people think that religion is superstitious bullshit but still a positive force without which people would be less virtuous. What do we do - challenge religion and help them become 'good' and social people even without God, or do we keep them in the dark because it might be 'dangerous' to leave them without supernatural guidance? I think the former is preferable.
I think homophobes will be homophobes whether sexuality is biologically determined or not. We should challenge the ideologies and superstitions that make people homophobic, not cater towards them to lessen their homophobia a bit.

Maybe I have caused your being reluctant by making my post sound too much like "what makes a person become gay?" What I really meant was "What makes a person become 'straight'? And what makes a person become 'gay'?" - Does that make sense?

[Awful Reality]

I believe the accepted theory is that Homosexuality is based on nurture, not nature.

What's the difference, anyway?

[Mujer Libre]

I believe the accepted theory is that Homosexuality is based on nurture, not nature.

What's the difference, anyway?
Who is that theory accepted by?

I think to say that homosexuality is caused specifically by one thing or another runs the risk of pathologising it, and simplifying what is almost certainly, in reality, a very complex (and political) issue.

What "causes" heterosexuality?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I agree with MujerLibre, that this is a very political issue.

Whether someone 'chooses' (or is 'conditioned') to be homosexual or whether they are 'born' that way or whether it is a 'mix' is wholly irrelevant to us.

Those who seek to attack homosexuality, typically argue that it is 'unnatural' and hence jump on the bandwagon that it is purely a social cause, and hence can be 'cured' by social means.

But those whom argue that it is 'natural' and hence the person is 'not to blame' for their sexuality are also wrong (not the science, but the political/social conclusions drawn from it).

No one should be subjected to discrimination regarding their sexuality. Period!

(I understand that this thread was examining the 'causes' of homosexuality, but let's not forget the political context behind it all).

[Lector Malibu]

No problem, Lector. I assumed you were referring to my post because I resurrected this thread after it had been in limbo for a while.

I wonder how you can be so sure that there was nothing about your environment that inclined you towards a homosexual orientation. According to Freud, we are all 'polymorphously perverse' (receptive to a wide variety of sexual turn-ons) in infancy, after which outside influences determine our sexual preference. So I would imagine that a lot of this influence is very subtle, almost unconscious. It doesn't necessarily mean "society shoving heterosexuality down your throat" (although that can certainly be a factor later on) or alternatively contact with gay people/exposure to gay imagery/etc. As for myself, I know that my earliest, very 'innocent' sexual fantasies as a kid (before I even knew they were sexual) were very different, if not the opposite to the orientation I would later assume.

What exactly happened later and how, I don't know. But I do know that before I got clued up to the whole 'gay' and 'straight' business that is modern sexuality, I didn't give a damn what turned me on as long as it turned me on. I heard similar reports from other people, and given how many people switch orientations at various stages in their lives (how many 'straight' men end up in bed with 'straight' friends when they get too drunk? Hell, only last week a young lady friend of mine slept with a guy who believes he's 'gay'), I'm inclined to take the theories that deny biological determination much more seriously.

I can see where you're coming from when you say that this understanding of sexual orientation could be potentially dangerous. But I don't think it's a useful strategy to adopt our enemies' (right-wing Christians and such) thought patterns and tailor our theories towards them just to make them like gay people a little bit better. They will never fully tolerate non-mainstream sexuality anyway, and by shying away from knowledge we're choosing to stay ignorant ourselves. Knowledge is power. If the Christian Right says "homosexuality isn't biologically determined and therefore a sin", we shouldn't be replying "no no, it IS biologically determined and therefore okay". We should be saying "it may or may not be biologically determined, but either way we don't give a shit if it's a 'sin' or not. It doesn't hurt anyone and it isn't better or worse that heterosexuality."

On a vaguely related note, some people think that religion is superstitious bullshit but still a positive force without which people would be less virtuous. What do we do - challenge religion and help them become 'good' and social people even without God, or do we keep them in the dark because it might be 'dangerous' to leave them without supernatural guidance? I think the former is preferable.
I think homophobes will be homophobes whether sexuality is biologically determined or not. We should challenge the ideologies and superstitions that make people homophobic, not cater towards them to lessen their homophobia a bit.

Maybe I have caused your being reluctant by making my post sound too much like "what makes a person become gay?" What I really meant was "What makes a person become 'straight'? And what makes a person become 'gay'?" - Does that make sense?

Freud said some weird things:lol:

Well In my case there was not anything about my environment growing up that would cause me to be a homosexual to my knowledge. I came from a fairly traditional family with a Mother and a Father with siblings. I'm actually the only family member that is gay. I mean like going back generations, seriously:) Actually I was thinking about this the other day.

I was trying to think back to my earliest conscience thoughts that could be deemed as homosexual. I distinctly remember right before I went through adolescence I had a attraction to a male friend of mine. We were really good friends, kinda like that best friend thing. Honestly though as I look back on the friendship , there was something else there. I defiantly had the early definition of a sexual attraction to him. Yes my body was starting to go through changes. Yet we all go through changes not all of us turn out to be GLBT people though.

Thing is though I feel that if your preference is determined it is exactly that. For instance I have gone out with women and had relationships. I never really seemed to fit though. Actually my first official girlfriend made a comment that she did not think I was straight. Now when I went out with her sure we had special times and I was happy. Subconsciously I could not put my preference on hold though. I'll give you an example

This woman I went out with had very short hair. We where in the bathroom getting ready for the day and she was combing her hair. Well we where joking around and I started to comb her hair. Actually I combed her hair into a very "guyish" style even parted it. I thought it looked amazing but she made the comment. I'm not a guy.

So subconsciously my preference was coming out, even though I was in a heterosexual relationship with a woman I loved very much.

What I'm saying is that sexual preference is not a "fetish" or a "choice" so to say. It's just part of who you are.

I agree with you that any ground we can gain in the homophobia battle is a win. It is biologically determined though.

The religious right needs to learn that what's considered religiously ethical does not equate fact.

on a side note but relevant.

I actually have a lot of solidarity with women on the abortion issue because I am a homosexual. Outside of supporting a women's choice, I know what it's like to be told what I can do with my body and what I can't. I realize that it is not the same , but it helps me to understand some of the issues women face, and why the battle for a right to chose is a priority.

I also agree that by challenging religion we loosen the grip on the people. Religion is a political tool to exert fear and control over the people , plain and simple.

[Dean]

I agree with MujerLibre, that this is a very political issue.

Whether someone 'chooses' (or is 'conditioned') to be homosexual or whether they are 'born' that way or whether it is a 'mix' is wholly irrelevant to us.
Choosing and being conditioned are totally different, and this seems to be where many comrades opose the idea that it can be conditioned. The fact is that somethign can be totally acceptable and still be an an aspect (if only in part) of nurturing.

I adamantly opose the idea that it is only a nature or nuture thing. I think the studies indicate quite clearly that it is a combination of the two.


Those who seek to attack homosexuality, typically argue that it is 'unnatural' and hence jump on the bandwagon that it is purely a social cause, and hence can be 'cured' by social means.

But those whom argue that it is 'natural' and hence the person is 'not to blame' for their sexuality are also wrong (not the science, but the political/social conclusions drawn from it).

No one should be subjected to discrimination regarding their sexuality. Period!

(I understand that this thread was examining the 'causes' of homosexuality, but let's not forget the political context behind it all).
Yes, claiming that it is a less inherent trait could lead to more criticism by the right-wingers. But that is in no way a justification for us to lie to ourselves; since we aren't bigots, that is a foregone conclusion, and any discussion on the generation of homosexualtiy should be unmotivated by the moralists' positions.

So I don't think mujer libre is accurate in claimign it is purely biological. I think it is doing an extreme disservice and disrespect to people in general to categorize their sexuality as set in stone and outside of debate. We should seek to learn and listen regardless of the political ramifications behind knowledge; ignorance is never better.

[Mujer Libre]

Dean- I didn't make that claim. :P In fact, my whole post was aimed at suggesting that the idea of finding one single "cause" for homosexuality (whether nature OR nurture) is a) too simplistic and b) open to misuse for political purposes.

[Baconator]

I believe there is a study to see if homosexuality might be genetic. I've heard some suggestions that attraction to the same sex might be part of the mitochondrial DNA.

Even if that isn't the case its no one's business if two people voluntarily engage themselves in a romantic relationship regardless of gender. There is no valid reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

[Dean]

Dean- I didn't make that claim. :P In fact, my whole post was aimed at suggesting that the idea of finding one single "cause" for homosexuality (whether nature OR nurture) is a) too simplistic and b) open to misuse for political purposes.

I guess we're in agreement then, you're dead-on that no one cause can be exclusively linked to homosexuality.

[Sky]

male to male relationships in ancient Greece were common

It is a mistake to suggest that homosexuality in Greece was an entirely tolerated practice. In Athens laws existed for the purpose of restraining the spread of pederasty.

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece was primarily an aristocratic custom. These habits, associated with snobbery, were not present among the peasants and the artisans.

Homosexuality did not prevail in Greece to any great extent before the Dorian invasions. There is no trace of homosexuality in "Iliad" or "Odyssey", even in references to Ganymede. In the Dorian states homosexuality was much more conspicuous than in Athens. Plutarch states that chiefly warlike peoples were addicted to homosexuality.

In Plutarch’s "Erotikos" it is suggested that the development of homosexuality was connected with the rise of gymnasia and arenas in which boys engaged in wrestling, the foot-race, leaping, etc. The competitors were always naked. Affection between males had its origin in gymnasium, where youths were trained in such techniques as hurling the javelin, which were really in preparation for military service. They were continued in military camps and finally practiced on the actual battlefield. Since the children of slaves and toilers did not receive an education, they were not affected by homosexual influences.

[RGacky3]

They were continued in military camps and finally practiced on the actual battlefield. Since the children of slaves and toilers did not receive an education, they were not affected by homosexual influences.

You don't know that slaves and artisans wern't gay, they just wern't written about.

Also people don't become gay because of 'homosexual inflences,' its not like you cant convince someone to be gay, or that a straight person around gay people will become gay.


In Athens laws existed for the purpose of restraining the spread of pederasty.

Pederasty is different from homosexuality, pederasty is closer to pedophilia.

I think its interesting to note that the guy asking the origional question had to start with "I"M NOT HOMOPHOBIC, but heres my question." I think its sad that a guy has to start an honest question that way.


There is no valid reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

Heres my 2 cents on gay marriage, if gay people want to et married then fine, but I also don't think the state should be in the business of marriage at all, marriage is a spiritual/religious thing, 2 people going through a ceremony to say they pledge their love to each other has nothing to do with the state, also it should be up to the specific religion or whoever doing the marriage if the want to marry gay people, not the state. Personally I don't understand why non-religious people want to get married, other than the tax breaks and such its kind of pointless.