PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality is a choice


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Thunder
10th October 2010, 07:07 PM
why do some folks still think that being gay or lesbian is a choice?

most science shows that gays and lesbians realize they are this way early on in life, sometimes even before puberty.

and yet, lots of folks like to talk about it...as if its a choice.

a choice, that can be changed. ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!

now I get it. :D

Cleon
10th October 2010, 07:14 PM
Who cares? What difference does it make one way or the other?

MG1962
10th October 2010, 07:17 PM
Who cares? What difference does it make one way or the other?

Exactly

Skeeve
10th October 2010, 07:18 PM
You have two choices:

1. Accept it.

2. Deny it and live a lie.

There are many married men with families who are quite gay and closeted, if my experience is any indication.

bikerdruid
10th October 2010, 07:19 PM
i sure as hell never choose to be queer.
it was the way i was born.

Thunder
10th October 2010, 07:22 PM
i sure as hell never choose to be queer.
it was the way i was born.

can you tell us..at what age you realized that you liked boys and not girls?

bikerdruid
10th October 2010, 07:29 PM
can you tell us..at what age you realized that you liked boys and not girls?
as long as i can remember.

Thunder
10th October 2010, 07:33 PM
as long as i can remember.

fascinating.

though, I'm sure this is not the same for all gays.

Kinsey's scale of homosexuality suggests to me that those who are less "strongly" gay, probably realized their sexuality later in life.

or maybe I am wrong. who the hell knows. I prefer to just believe that all gays and lesbians are born that way.

though I do have my doubts about many lesbians, who seem to have "chosen" their sexuality after numerous bad experiences with men, or growing up with a crappy dad. you never hear about men going gay, after being dissed by one too many girlfriends.

Skeeve
10th October 2010, 07:36 PM
though I do have my doubts about many lesbians, who seem to have chosen their lifestyle after numerous bad experiences with men, or growing up with a crappy dad.

Do you think maybe being lesbian may have influenced their relationship problems with men? Growing up in a society that looks down upon homosexuals forces some people to go along to get along.

Thunder
10th October 2010, 07:46 PM
Do you think maybe being lesbian may have influenced their relationship problems with men?

interesting theory. i should ask some of my lesbian friends about this.

bynmdsue
10th October 2010, 08:06 PM
Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.

Skeeve
10th October 2010, 08:13 PM
Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.

Interesting.

Tell me more.

Thunder
10th October 2010, 08:14 PM
Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.

indeed. i think if homosexuality was a choice, there would be ZERO homosexuals on Earth.

could you imagine actually CHOSING to be gay, in the Muslim world?

in Eastern Europe?

talk about suicidal.

bikerdruid
10th October 2010, 08:15 PM
Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.

quite the enlightened view.:rolleyes:

Fnord
10th October 2010, 08:20 PM
indeed. i think if homosexuality was a choice, there would be ZERO homosexuals on Earth. could you imagine actually CHOSING to be gay, in the Muslim world? in Eastern Europe? talk about suicidal.
An yet, oddly enough, there are people who actually choose suicide, even when there are other viable options.

SezMe
10th October 2010, 08:21 PM
most science shows that gays and lesbians realize they are this way early on in life, sometimes even before puberty.
The fallacy in this is that you are assuming the bigots are persuaded to engage in their bigotry by scientific evidence.

SezMe
10th October 2010, 08:24 PM
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.
Homosexuality is seen in a wide range of natural settings in many different species. In fact, most species do not reproduce sexually at all. Hence I'd like to see some evidence that homosexuality is a "perverted mockery of nature".

Cleon
10th October 2010, 08:28 PM
An yet, oddly enough, there are people who actually choose suicide, even when there are other viable options.

Not odd at all, really. Humans are not rational creatures. It takes very little for our emotions to dominate our actions. Every single one of us has at one point or another acted out of anger, fear, hate, love, or other emotion - whether it was the "best" viable option or not.

Despair and loneliness are powerful, powerful beasts. Combine these feelings with the raging hormones of an adolescent, and it doesn't take much to see that it can lead to some very bad, bad places.

Piggy
10th October 2010, 08:40 PM
My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.

Skeeve
10th October 2010, 08:44 PM
My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.

I am so using that.

That's two quotes of yours that I've stole this week! :D

Piggy
10th October 2010, 08:51 PM
I am so using that.

It usually stops the conversation.

kerikiwi
10th October 2010, 11:43 PM
Has anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice ever been asked to clarify whether heterosexuality is also a choice?
Surely, if one is the other is.

DC
10th October 2010, 11:51 PM
yeah i remember me swimming in the womb of my mother and thinking, what shall i be, Hetero-, Bi- or Homosexual, i then decided to pick Hetero. But then i made an horrible mistake, after i have picked the color of my eyes, hair and skin, i picked hairy breast and back. oh man i was born in the seventies, back then that was pretty cool and very sexy. how could i know how times change :(

marplots
10th October 2010, 11:54 PM
Now that I've got a few decades under my belt, I'm starting to wonder if celibacy is a choice.

PhantomWolf
10th October 2010, 11:56 PM
why do some folks still think that being gay or lesbian is a choice?

most science shows that gays and lesbians realize they are this way early on in life, sometimes even before puberty.

and yet, lots of folks like to talk about it...as if its a choice.

a choice, that can be changed. ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!

now I get it. :D

Do you think that sexuality is fixed and unalterable?

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 12:30 AM
Do you think that sexuality is fixed and unalterable?

Yes

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 12:34 AM
Yes

So if it it impossible to alter, and genetic, it should be impossible to have one straight and one gay identical twin, right?

DC
11th October 2010, 12:36 AM
So if it it impossible to alter, and genetic, it should be impossible to have one straight and one gay identical twin, right?

who said its genetic?

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 12:39 AM
So if it it impossible to alter, and genetic, it should be impossible to have one straight and one gay identical twin, right?

You've changed the question, from fixed and unalterable to fixed and genetic.
You tried a gotcha, and failed.

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 12:40 AM
who said its genetic?

Well there is this....

* A lot of headway seems to be made as regards the biological origin of homosexuality. Even Mormon professors at BYU support a biological theory:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 12:43 AM
You've changed the question, from fixed and unalterable to fixed and genetic.
You tried a gotcha, and failed.

Well since the options generally given are nature and nurture or combination, and anything based on nurture would indicate that what can be learned can be unlearned, or changed, I made an assumption that you were going with nature, or genetics as the answer. If this is wrong, feel free to explain otherwise.

Alan
11th October 2010, 12:48 AM
"Biological" does not just mean "genetic". There are things like hormonal influences before birth.

SezMe
11th October 2010, 12:50 AM
So if it it impossible to alter, and genetic, it should be impossible to have one straight and one gay identical twin, right?
There is an error in logic here. Fraternal twins are not genetically identical.

ETA: Plus what Alan said. Even identical twins don't have the identical biological environment. Also, I would not argue that it is "impossible" to change, just damn difficult.

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 12:51 AM
Well since the options generally given are nature and nurture or combination, and anything based on nurture would indicate that what can be learned can be unlearned, or changed, I made an assumption that you were going with nature, or genetics as the answer. If this is wrong, feel free to explain otherwise.

Things which affect the fetus are not learned, but still affect the fetus unalterably.

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 12:52 AM
"Biological" does not just mean "genetic". There are things like hormonal influences before birth.

True, however in this case we are also talking about embyros that have shared a placenta and womb and so it becomes very hard to argue that they would be exposed to a different hormonal enviroment in such a close proximity.

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 12:54 AM
..

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 12:55 AM
There is an error in logic here. Fraternal twins are not genetically identical.

Not talking Fraternal twins. (http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/251)

ETA: Plus what Alan said. Even identical twins don't have the identical biological environment.

See there is a claim that requires a lot of proof

Also, I would not argue that it is "impossible" to change, just damn difficult.

Interestingly it's easier for women than men, both ways.

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 12:57 AM
Interestingly it's easier for women than men, both ways.

See there is a claim that requires a lot of proof. ;)

Do you think sexuality is a choice?
If so, what did you choose, and why?

DC
11th October 2010, 01:14 AM
"Biological" does not just mean "genetic". There are things like hormonal influences before birth.

yep studies point into that direction rather than genetic.

OnlyTellsTruths
11th October 2010, 01:15 AM
I'm not sure why some of you are looking at it as an either/or (black or white, yes or no), instead of a range with no definite points where you can say "over this line be heterosexual, over this line be homosexual, and in between are the bisexuals"....

Confusing a broad range with defined points isn't just a problem with this topic, but with many that come up (not just at the jref).

Likewise, surely there are some people (most likely a very small percentage of g/l's) that actually did make a choice (not counting bisexuals). Yet, as was already pointed out above, thinking that it is anywhere near a majority and not a tiny minority is basically absurd.

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 01:28 AM
Likewise, surely there are some people (most likely a very small percentage of g/l's) that actually did make a choice (not counting bisexuals).

I am not convinced that is 'surely' true.
Of course you could argue that homosexuals have made a choice to be heterosexual, but they haven't chosen their sexuality, they have only chosen to deny it.

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 01:33 AM
See there is a claim that requires a lot of proof. ;)

one I could find on quick notice (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6990057.ece) Though I could also point to the likes of Anne Heche who went from Hetro to Gay to Hetro again.

Do you think sexuality is a choice?
If so, what did you choose, and why?

No and yes. I think sexuality is a very complex thing, and a small part of it is choice, though the vast majority of it is a function of our genes and how our environment manipulates our genes turning them off or on via our life experiences (hence the choice part). This would result in the possibility of having "gay genes" in your DNA, but not actually having them activated because of the environment and experience of the person. It could then lead to later experiences activating them, or deactivating them in a person with them previously active.

As SezMe says, this makes it very hard to change, but not impossible, and it has been shown that some people can and do change their sexuality throughout their lives. The trouble is that we like to label people, if you are attracted to the same sex, you are gay, if you then decide that you like the other sex too, or find an attraction to them, you're bi, etc, however is reality it's a case of our sexuality fluctuating as we grow and we respond to our enviroment.

This means that if you make the choice to immerse yourself in a different sexuality, then over time that environment may write a change the genes that are on and off in your DNA, modifying the way your body responds to that environment. The question is, does everyone have the same genes, or do some have only "gay" and some "straight" genes meaning that they are harder to manipulate? That I can't answer, though I actually suspect we all have one set and how they are switched on or off determine what our sexuality is at that point in out lives rather than some people having "gay" ones.

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 01:37 AM
yep studies point into that direction rather than genetic.

Actually the studies I have seen using Identical Twins seems to be pointing towards genes being turned on and off by chemical markers attached to the DNA strands. Now whether that is caused by hormonal levels in the womb, :shrug: (we really need a shrug emoticon)

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 02:16 AM
My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.
It seems to me that the answer to this must be "yes".
I prefer coffee to tea, but drink tea with some satisfaction if coffee is not available.
Many men have practised homosexual behaviour on ships, in jail , in boarding schools and in other situations where women were simply unavailable. Some continue in a normal context, many don't. It's likely some of these men were "innately" homosexual, but suppressed it in normal society, but I suspect a lot of them simply go along with it because sex is fun- and while it may be more fun with a woman, a willing male will do. Some of course, are unwillingly coerced- but how bad can it be, for instance, to have another guy masturbate you? I never had the experience, but it doesn't sound so frightful. Guys have a lot of practice, after all.

I think it's a complex business- some males and females seem to be born with "the wrong sex of brain"- and may always feel primarily attracted to their own sex. But it's probable a lot of gay and lesbian preferences develop as a result of experience, just like any other preferences.

Human behaviour is a mix of genes and environment with feedback loops at every level. Whatever floats your boat, as long as nobody gets hurt.

Darat
11th October 2010, 02:21 AM
The concept of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" as describing what people are is a social construct not some natural law.

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 03:13 AM
True, but in a thread like this it's just shorthand.
A man may be gay and an angler, but we tend to lump guys who wear PVC thigh boots together for convenience.:D

mediocrity511
11th October 2010, 03:21 AM
My father grew up in a strongly Catholic family, he married and had three kids and then about 20 years later the marriage broke down and he came out as gay. From what he's said he genuinely didn't realise he way gay, he used to think that he got incredibly jelous of attractive guys, but has since realised that those feelings were sexual attraction. Obviously because of his upbringing, he didn't even consider that he would be homosexual because it was wrong and he was a good Catholic man!
When he did realise he fought against it for a long time and it caused him great unhappiness. It also caused us a lot of unhappiness as a family because he became depressed, angry and agressive. Throughout this period he was talking to the priest about his problems in confession and trying to basically find his way to straightness again.
Nowadays he has accepted his sexuality and is a whole lot happier and we all have a better relationship with him too.
I know anecdote doesn't equal evidence, but watching someone trying to choose not to be homosexual makes me think that it really isn't a choice and that those who believe that don't quite realise how cruel they are being when they suggest someone simply stops being gay.

alex04
11th October 2010, 03:38 AM
heh, I got shouted down a few months ago at my partners church youth group over this issue.

I was surprised it even came up (should've known better). I thought I'd been sent back to the 18th century..


The point I was trying to get across; unless you can demonstrate a consistent 'cause of homosexuality', then how can you validate this view (homosexuality being a choice)?

For every example of a 'cause' (e.g. social environment etc,), I was able to give a counter.

Nevertheless, "I was wrong", they were right, assertion won the day :rolleyes:

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 03:41 AM
My father grew up in a strongly Catholic family,...


I wonder what the priest told him?

Many people of all sexual orientations remain chaste all their lives. It can certainly be done. Harder for some than others, like anything else.

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 03:43 AM
For every example of a 'cause' (e.g. social environment etc,), I was able to give a counter.
:rolleyes:

Let's have them then.

Skwinty
11th October 2010, 03:56 AM
Where does this leave people (male and female) who are heterosexual but enjoy anal sex?
Are these people born like that or do they make a choice?
What pidgeon hole do they fit into?
Gay?
Heterosexual with added benefits?
Perverts?
"Normal"?

Stereotypes are not good.:mad:

alex04
11th October 2010, 03:57 AM
Let's have them then.

Well as I said, this was a few months ago so I didn't come prepared today with a comprehensive list. Sorry. Mainly I remember being shouted at:D. Not sure if you're interrogating me, or just curious.

Off the top of my head, living environment - e.g. how your parents bring you up/nurturing), uh.. media that people are exposed to (e.g. television etc).

Having known a number of gay people - actually almost all the gay people I've known have had siblings.

My responses, largely, were - if it's a choice, and these factors had such an effect, why were their siblings (who were exposed to the same environment) not affected?

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 04:10 AM
Just curious. Good arguments are always useful to have.

There is some evidence (statistical and weak) that later born brothers are more apt to be gay- the suggested mechanism being that there's a battle between maternal and paternal genes during a pregnancy and that the mother gets better at it with experience. I presume this would be true only if it was the same father.

let's face it, we do stuff in part because it's how we are wired , in part because we are influenced by our environment (which is mostly other people) and in part because we are coerced. There is rarely a simple answer to a complex question. (eg, very few people are innately sexually attracted to grand pianos. Is this genetic or learned?)

alex04
11th October 2010, 04:31 AM
<snip>
There is some evidence (statistical and weak) that later born brothers are more apt to be gay- the suggested mechanism being that there's a battle between maternal and paternal genes during a pregnancy and that the mother gets better at it with experience. I presume this would be true only if it was the same father.

With regards to the people I've known to be gay, it seems to be a mixed bag. My friend's gay brother (that i mentioned earlier) was the youngest btw.

In all honesty, gay or straight is irrelevant to me. I just got irritated at the time as I thought gay people were not fairly represented in the discussion.

Bill Thompson
11th October 2010, 04:44 AM
why do some folks still think that being gay or lesbian is a choice?
...


Larry King asked some people on his show if they chose to be straight (they were protesting the movie "Broke Back Mountain") and they hemmed and hawed.

I think that is a good question.

alex04
11th October 2010, 04:59 AM
Larry King asked some people on his show if they chose to be straight (they were protesting the movie "Broke Back Mountain") and they hemmed and hawed.

I think that is a good question.

I did mention that. They still asserted that it was a choice.


I'm glad I wasn't around for the Kent Hovind dvds..

Thunder
11th October 2010, 05:21 AM
Where does this leave people (male and female) who

many states have a law for folks like this.

they are called "Sodomites".

:p

Darat
11th October 2010, 05:31 AM
True, but in a thread like this it's just shorthand.
A man may be gay and an angler, but we tend to lump guys who wear PVC thigh boots together for convenience.:D

It is not about grouping people together it is exposing a fundamental flaw in the whole idea behind the concept of the opening post, the opening post arises only if we accept that when we label someone "homosexual" or "heterosexual" we are labelling something that is objective.

Rufo
11th October 2010, 05:34 AM
You can choose what to do. You can't choose what to want.

I can only assume that those who call sexual orientation a choice are referring to action or inaction; acting on your wishes, or refusing to take action to change them. Yes, those are choices. What you want, however, is not.

Piggy
11th October 2010, 05:38 AM
It seems to me that the answer to this must be "yes".

I think that speaks to the plasticity of sexual identity.

But I actually wasn't positing that argument as addressing the issue itself.

It's a rhetorical device I use sometimes (when it's safe) when I hear a man arguing that homosexuality is a choice.

When you ask that, it puts him in an awkward position.

He can say "no" and contradict his own position. Or he can say "yes" (as you have thoughtfully described in your post) and support his own position, but in doing so admit that he himself could choose to have homosexual sex, which so far I've never heard a "choice" advocate admit. (Although it's not a conversation I've had very often, so there's a very small sample here.)

Thunder
11th October 2010, 05:39 AM
I may not have chosen my heterosexuality....but I do choose not to run!!

:)

Piggy
11th October 2010, 05:39 AM
The concept of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" as describing what people are is a social construct not some natural law.

It is almost certainly not entirely a social construct.

HansMustermann
11th October 2010, 05:40 AM
My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

I dunno, man, do I also get a lot of booze and a viagra pill? I guess turning off the lights would also help too ;)

Darat
11th October 2010, 05:48 AM
It is almost certainly not entirely a social construct.

Granted "sexual" behaviours are certainly not a social construct but how we divide people into "gay" and "straight" is.

JFrankA
11th October 2010, 05:48 AM
You can choose what to do. You can't choose what to want.

I can only assume that those who call sexual orientation a choice are referring to action or inaction; acting on your wishes, or refusing to take action to change them. Yes, those are choices. What you want, however, is not.

Agreed.

I've always seen sexual attraction like food attraction. I compare it to ice cream flavors. For example, a person might prefer vanilla or chocolate or strawberry, and usually eat that flavor, but when presented with a different kind of dish, with different toppings put together by a different cook, that person would enjoy rocky roads.

IMHO, if the process that produces people's tastes in sex is exactly like the process that produces people's tastes in food, then it is from a mixture of nature, nurture and circumstance: in other words, it just is. It's like asking a person "Why don't you like bananas????" or "Why do you like very spicy food?"

Lothian
11th October 2010, 05:58 AM
Agreed.

I've always seen sexual attraction like food attraction. I compare it to ice cream flavors. For example, a person might prefer vanilla or chocolate or strawberry, and usually eat that flavor, but when presented with a different kind of dish, with different toppings put together by a different cook, that person would enjoy rocky roads.

IMHO, if the process that produces people's tastes in sex is exactly like the process that produces people's tastes in food, then it is from a mixture of nature, nurture and circumstance: in other words, it just is. It's like asking a person "Why don't you like bananas????" or "Why do you like very spicy food?"I am genetically repulsed by marmite.

Fnord
11th October 2010, 07:07 AM
Now that I've got a few decades under my belt, I'm starting to wonder if celibacy is a choice.
Celibacy is a choice...

... It's just not yours!

ddt
11th October 2010, 07:29 AM
Agreed.

I've always seen sexual attraction like food attraction. I compare it to ice cream flavors. For example, a person might prefer vanilla or chocolate or strawberry, and usually eat that flavor, but when presented with a different kind of dish, with different toppings put together by a different cook, that person would enjoy rocky roads.

IMHO, if the process that produces people's tastes in sex is exactly like the process that produces people's tastes in food, then it is from a mixture of nature, nurture and circumstance: in other words, it just is. It's like asking a person "Why don't you like bananas????" or "Why do you like very spicy food?"

I don't think that's a very wise analogy to make against the typical people who bring up the topic. Many tastes are acquired; who really liked their first portion of Brussels sprouts or of liver; or their first plate of spicy food? You only ate it because mummy told you to finish your plate.

This analogy plays into the hands of those idiots who think you can "cure" a girl of being lesbian by raping her. And more in general, of the crowd who thinks that gays and lesbians can be "cured" of their "affliction"; and those who apparently are afraid that homosexuality is contagious, or something along that line.

And it seems to me that that is exactly the crowd who wants to bring up the question whether homosexuality is a choice or innate - preferring the first answer of course. Personally, I couldn't care less what the cause(s) is/are, except for scientific curiosity.

JFrankA
11th October 2010, 09:05 AM
I don't think that's a very wise analogy to make against the typical people who bring up the topic. Many tastes are acquired; who really liked their first portion of Brussels sprouts or of liver; or their first plate of spicy food? You only ate it because mummy told you to finish your plate.

This analogy plays into the hands of those idiots who think you can "cure" a girl of being lesbian by raping her. And more in general, of the crowd who thinks that gays and lesbians can be "cured" of their "affliction"; and those who apparently are afraid that homosexuality is contagious, or something along that line.

And it seems to me that that is exactly the crowd who wants to bring up the question whether homosexuality is a choice or innate - preferring the first answer of course. Personally, I couldn't care less what the cause(s) is/are, except for scientific curiosity.

Good point. I've never thought of it like that because I don't ever try to "acquire a taste" for anything. I seems stupid to me to have a reward for drinking/eating something you don't like over and over is drinking/eating something you don't like.... you know?? :) And if something is an "acquired taste" does that mean you really don't like it and you're fooling yourself?

At any rate, I think you're right, it's not a great analogy. Sorry about that.

Dr. Keith
11th October 2010, 09:33 AM
Many men have practised homosexual behaviour on ships, in jail , in boarding schools and in other situations where women were simply unavailable. Some continue in a normal context, many don't. It's likely some of these men were "innately" homosexual, but suppressed it in normal society, but I suspect a lot of them simply go along with it because sex is fun- and while it may be more fun with a woman, a willing male will do. Some of course, are unwillingly coerced- but how bad can it be, for instance, to have another guy masturbate you? I never had the experience, but it doesn't sound so frightful. Guys have a lot of practice, after all.

Ah yes, the all male boarding school problem.

The flaw with this logic is that while the acts may be with another of the same sex the mind is with another of a different sex. When you find a straight man masturbating while thinking of another man you will have a better argument that sexuality is a choice than a straight man having another guy help him get off while thinking about a female.

Sex may be below the belt, but sexuality is between the ears.

That is not to say that sexuality if fixed, but the examples used are more about what is available to simulate the sex the person prefers, not a change in preference.

Skeptic
11th October 2010, 10:59 AM
Homosexuality -- BEING a homosexual -- is not a choice, since there is no action. To engage in homosexual ACTS is a choice. (So is, of course, engaging in heterosexual acts). It is a category mistake to confuse the two.

marplots
11th October 2010, 11:00 AM
Celibacy is a choice...

... It's just not yours!

Oh, the painful truth of that!

On the main subject, I tried an experiment. I decided to be gay for a day. I actively chose to be attracted to men and have a better sense of color combination. Largely, I failed. My only success came in the form of cleaning and trimming my nails, and clipping my nose hairs.

I was unable to make an authentic choice. Of course, others may have more force of will.

ingoa
11th October 2010, 11:13 AM
I support gay guys. Less competition trying to get the ladies. :D Lesbians are of course evil! ;)

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 12:33 PM
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!
- from Private Willis' Song , by W.S. Gilbert.

Of course nowadays they are happy clones, but I'm sure some are gay and some not.


It is not about grouping people together it is exposing a fundamental flaw in the whole idea behind the concept of the opening post, the opening post arises only if we accept that when we label someone "homosexual" or "heterosexual" we are labelling something that is objective.

Not sure I'm understanding you here. Care to expand on this?

Soapy Sam
11th October 2010, 12:38 PM
Homosexuality -- BEING a homosexual -- is not a choice, since there is no action. To engage in homosexual ACTS is a choice. (So is, of course, engaging in heterosexual acts). It is a category mistake to confuse the two.

So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

ie you would completely ignore their actual behaviour?

If we adopt a behavioural criterion, we can be objective. If we adopt a mental one, how do we apply it?

DC
11th October 2010, 12:44 PM
I support gay guys. Less competition trying to get the ladies. :D Lesbians are of course evil! ;)

No, they are most certainly not.
They make good movies. ;)

Dani
11th October 2010, 01:21 PM
Homosexuallity is wrong.

Dorian Gray
11th October 2010, 01:23 PM
Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.
That's right! And you and I should go out for a drink sometime at a nice secluded lounge and talk about it...

Dorian Gray
11th October 2010, 01:25 PM
Homosexuallity is wrong.Spelled wrong.

DC
11th October 2010, 01:26 PM
Homosexuallity is wrong.

in a reproductive way yes, that doesn't work, but most of them know that, and still seem fairly happy with it. so other than reproduction, what is wrong about it?

Dorian Gray
11th October 2010, 01:28 PM
Agreed.

I've always seen sexual attraction like food attraction. I compare it to ice cream flavors. For example, a person might prefer vanilla or chocolate or strawberry, and usually eat that flavor, but when presented with a different kind of dish, with different toppings put together by a different cook, that person would enjoy rocky roads.

IMHO, if the process that produces people's tastes in sex is exactly like the process that produces people's tastes in food, then it is from a mixture of nature, nurture and circumstance: in other words, it just is. It's like asking a person "Why don't you like bananas????" or "Why do you like very spicy food?"
In fact, it's exactly like asking a person why they don't like bananas.

qayak
11th October 2010, 01:28 PM
Homosexuallity is wrong.

So are Spaniards.

IMST
11th October 2010, 01:29 PM
Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.

But it gets better once you get out of the closet. You should give it a go.

Dani
11th October 2010, 01:30 PM
in a reproductive way yes, that doesn't work, but most of them know that, and still seem fairly happy with it. so other than reproduction, what is wrong about it?

No, what I meant is that "homosexuallity" is wrong because the correct spelling is with only one "l".

Sorry for the confusion. :p

Dani
11th October 2010, 01:34 PM
Spelled wrong.

Oh, now I see. You beat me to it.:o

HansMustermann
11th October 2010, 03:19 PM
So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

ie you would completely ignore their actual behaviour?

If we adopt a behavioural criterion, we can be objective. If we adopt a mental one, how do we apply it?

1. I don't see a problem. Most people can jolly well have both criteria in the back of their head, without needing a dichotomy between them. We can talk about being wired gay or about having gay sex without getting totally confused which is which.

Actually, probably the best example are lesbian porn flicks or all the college girls who "experimented with lesbianism". One can be wired as hetero even if they are having gay sex right at the moment.

2. In the end, does it matter if you can neatly divide the world or not. It seems to me that the world would actually be a better place if we cared less about knowing who is what.

IMST
11th October 2010, 03:58 PM
Meh, I prefer to know who the gays are. Makes dating 'em easier.

Piggy
11th October 2010, 05:10 PM
Granted "sexual" behaviours are certainly not a social construct but how we divide people into "gay" and "straight" is.

Fundamentally, it is not. Of course, every culture has its own socially constructed memes built around it. But every culture makes some sort of gay/straight/bi distinction, as far as I know.

Given the importance of sex to evolution, it would be extremely surprising if it turned out any other way, of course.

Piggy
11th October 2010, 05:12 PM
So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

I would, certainly.

Alan
11th October 2010, 06:51 PM
So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

ie you would completely ignore their actual behaviour?

If we adopt a behavioural criterion, we can be objective. If we adopt a mental one, how do we apply it?
There are different aspects of sexuality. Behaviour, romantic attractions, sexual attractions, identity and so on. They do not always align, which is why it's important to recognise the different elements. In those examples where they don't align, trying to sum them up with one label isn't as good as saying that behaviourally they're this and romantically they're that and so on.

What I go by when thinking of them is the attractions they report. To me, attractions (sexual/romantic) are the orientation: not the behaviour. But that doesn't mean ignoring that behaviourally, for example, the first person was bisexual. That doesn't mean exaggerating the importance of the homosexual behaviour to him, since in that example it doesn't seem important.

If you don't like the self-reporting of the mental factors because of the possibility of the person engaging in deception or self-deception, that problem exists with reports of the behavioural criterion too.

PhantomWolf
11th October 2010, 10:46 PM
It is not about grouping people together it is exposing a fundamental flaw in the whole idea behind the concept of the opening post, the opening post arises only if we accept that when we label someone "homosexual" or "heterosexual" we are labelling something that is objective.

Have to totally agree. I can even use myself as an example. :)

I'm going to note here that this is something I have told very few people, so you could say it's a sort of coming out.

Because I am physically male and sexually orientated as male, it's easy to label me as "straight". However those aren't the sum total of what makes up our sexuality and gender.

What few people know about me is that when it comes to the other important parts, the Brain Sex and Gender Identity, I test as female. This means that my brain is more female in the way it thinks than it is male, and while physically male, I would prefer to be female physically. If I'd grown up in a different place and time, then becoming transgender would have been a very likely option for me to choose, though due to my body size and shape it's not one that I am likely to do now simply because even with a $1 million in surgery the results would be a very heavy, set 6' 3", ugly, and un-feminine woman. Nor do I plan to become a drag-queen because my body is well and truly male whether I like it or not.

But what does it all mean? Had I been in a position where I had understood the way I was as a kid and that there was a way to "fix" it which I could have done, I'd likely be a female now, not a male, but my sexual orientation would still be male meaning that as a transgender, I'd have been considered gay.

So which am I? I know a lot of guys joke about being lesbians trapped in a man's body, but for me it's really true. What it means to me is that sexuality and even gender identity can be very subjective and labelling it based on only what we see doesn't cover the entire gamut of possibilities out there.

Uncayimmy
11th October 2010, 11:36 PM
My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.

I've used the same question, but it's not without its weaknesses. Men can be raped and achieve erections and even orgasm. It results in a lot of guilt and confusion, much as it does for female rape victims who respond physically to stimulation. Your larger point, however, is well taken.

I view "fetishes" the same way. I don't know why the things that turn me on do, and I don't judge others for their proclivities. Some men get insanely jealous if their wives even talk to other men while some men film their wives at mandingo parties (Google it). Foot fetishes are another example. Some people are really into it, but for the life of me I just can't see the appeal of a woman in heels squashing a blueberry muffin.

Whether it's a choice or not doesn't really address the morality issue. We can form a rational basis argument against pedophilia in that prepubescent children do not understand sexuality and cannot consent. It becomes less clear with adolescents. Many 16 year olds are sexually active, but society says adult prospective partners have to wait until s/he's 18 (varies by jurisdiction, of course). The rational basis argument for pedophilia starts to falter in this case because we would have no problem trying a 16 year old as an adult for felony crimes.

And then there's just plain old promiscuity. Generally speaking society frowns upon taking on "too many" partners or having "casual" sex. Society generally frowns upon "cheating" on a partner, but the drive is a perfectly natural one. Swingers have their own sub-culture that's bigger than most people realize. Then, of course, we have prostitution. There are segments of society who view those things as immoral yet the underlying drives are still "natural."

So, even if homosexuality is not a choice, does that cancel out the moral objections? I think it cancels out most of the rationalizations, but it really won't cancel out "god said so" arguments. Personally, I don't have an issue with what consenting adults do together so long as no third parties are hurt. However, I can see how people would find it repugnant (to answer the question I quoted, I couldn't do it). The emotional reactions are not unexpected. I think it will take a few more generations before it's not so contentious.

kerikiwi
11th October 2010, 11:45 PM
Deleted: far too slow I am

Halfcentaur
12th October 2010, 12:01 AM
If it's a choice doesn't that mean each and every one of us has the capacity to find members of the same sex attractive? if it's a choice, wouldn't that mean all heterosexuals are secretly resisting and denying sexual arousal by the same sex, and only those who choose to become homosexual indulge in this choice?

If not, then these people are saying that gay people are forcing themselves to find others of the same sex arousing. Why would people force them self to find something arousing that does not arouse them? Just to be contrary?

HansMustermann
12th October 2010, 12:37 AM
If it's a choice doesn't that mean each and every one of us has the capacity to find members of the same sex attractive? if it's a choice, wouldn't that mean all heterosexuals are secretly resisting and denying sexual arousal by the same sex, and only those who choose to become homosexual indulge in this choice?

If not, then these people are saying that gay people are forcing themselves to find others of the same sex arousing. Why would people force them self to find something arousing that does not arouse them? Just to be contrary?

Well, you have to understand that a lot of these people take their "facts" from deranged preachers and the stupidity of Paul.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

It's the couple of verses which probably did the most harm, as well as the only place in the bible that even mentions lesbianism at all. It presents homosexuality as some kind of divine punishment for not being faithful (enough.)

It's not as much forcing yourself to like guys. Just, you know, you skip your prayers a few days, and suddenly you start liking guys and knowing what colours go well with a fuchsia shirt, see? ;)

You can probably see how those guys aren't going to be all tolerant of that, when their BS book says you could jolly well just have more faith instead.

Also, well, another part of the answer you'll start to understand when you read some of the bigotted messages against it. To a lot of people it's just a part of a surprisingly linear spectrum of fetishes and perversions. Sorta one day you start trying different positions with the missus 'cause missionary is so old hat, then you try something with oral sex and dildoes 'cause even cowgirl is old hat and boring now, then you start paying a dominatrix, maybe a bit of swinging and a threesome or two on the way down, then you start having sex with guys 'cause women are old hat and boring. And then you end up raping children 'cause now both adult genders are old hat and boring.

Which not only is offering them a ground to be against it as it is, but also creates the fear that one of those will teach their children that such perversions are OK. They can practically imagine little Timmy listening to a gay neighbour and going, "wait, so I could skip courting that moody bitch at school and just get to the really kinky parts involving three guys and a goat? Sign me up!"

marplots
12th October 2010, 02:05 AM
So Hans... when do I get to the digging up corpses?

Shrike
12th October 2010, 02:06 AM
<snip> the stupidity of Paul. </snip>

Oi, watch it!
Oh, hang on. THAT Paul. NM

Well, you have to understand that a lot of these people take their "facts" from deranged preachers and the stupidity of Paul.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

It's the couple of verses which probably did the most harm, as well as the only place in the bible that even mentions lesbianism at all. It presents homosexuality as some kind of divine punishment for not being faithful (enough.)

It's not as much forcing yourself to like guys. Just, you know, you skip your prayers a few days, and suddenly you start liking guys and knowing what colours go well with a fuchsia shirt, see? ;)

You can probably see how those guys aren't going to be all tolerant of that, when their BS book says you could jolly well just have more faith instead.

Also, well, another part of the answer you'll start to understand when you read some of the bigotted messages against it. To a lot of people it's just a part of a surprisingly linear spectrum of fetishes and perversions. Sorta one day you start trying different positions with the missus 'cause missionary is so old hat, then you try something with oral sex and dildoes 'cause even cowgirl is old hat and boring now, then you start paying a dominatrix, maybe a bit of swinging and a threesome or two on the way down, then you start having sex with guys 'cause women are old hat and boring. And then you end up raping children 'cause now both adult genders are old hat and boring.

Which not only is offering them a ground to be against it as it is, but also creates the fear that one of those will teach their children that such perversions are OK. They can practically imagine little Timmy listening to a gay neighbour and going, "wait, so I could skip courting that moody bitch at school and just get to the really kinky parts involving three guys and a goat? Sign me up!"

This is the same reasoning that fundamental believers (a lot of times in this thread, fundamental Christian can be replaced by fundamental Muslim or Jew) use about porn. According to them, reading Playboy (or softer) will invariably lead to reading (well, reading... ;)) more hardcore stuff, up until kiddie porn apparently. I don't have to tell the readers here that that is not true, do I?

To the OP, I know a couple of gay guys who, in their youth/puberty would have loved to have had a choice about being gay. In this case, more NOT being gay.

Darat
12th October 2010, 02:14 AM
...snip...

Not sure I'm understanding you here. Care to expand on this?

Consider the boarding school examples above, they are people who have engaged in sexual behaviour (and other types of behaviour) with people of their own sex (so homosexual acts) yet I doubt that in later life they would describe themselves as "homosexual/gay" the way I do. That is because in their sub-culture those homosexual acts are not the definition of a homosexual. Who is considered a homosexual is therefore not about the homosexual acts but something more, i.e. the social construct of homosexual/gay identification. (I think the issue is often confused because we use the same label for two different things; a certain type of behaviour is labelled "homosexual" i.e. sexual behaviour with a person of the same sex, and we use the same label for the social construct of the identification of someone as a "homosexual" e.g. people can identify themselves as homosexual even if they have never engaged in homosexual acts.)

(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)

Darat
12th October 2010, 02:18 AM
Fundamentally, it is not. Of course, every culture has its own socially constructed memes built around it. But every culture makes some sort of gay/straight/bi distinction, as far as I know.



Or introduce a third gender and so on -your comment actually supports my assertion rather than undermining it.


Given the importance of sex to evolution, it would be extremely surprising if it turned out any other way, of course.

:confused:

Alan
12th October 2010, 02:49 AM
Yeah (with regards to the post above that one), most of us on this board would see how easy it is for people to believe things that are demonstrably false, with evidence staring right at them. That can include sexualities too.

Soapy Sam
12th October 2010, 02:55 AM
Consider the boarding school examples above, they are people who have engaged in sexual behaviour (and other types of behaviour) with people of their own sex (so homosexual acts) yet I doubt that in later life they would describe themselves as "homosexual/gay" the way I do. That is because in their sub-culture those homosexual acts are not the definition of a homosexual. Who is considered a homosexual is therefore not about the homosexual acts but something more, i.e. the social construct of homosexual/gay identification. (I think the issue is often confused because we use the same label for two different things; a certain type of behaviour is labelled "homosexual" i.e. sexual behaviour with a person of the same sex, and we use the same label for the social construct of the identification of someone as a "homosexual" e.g. people can identify themselves as homosexual even if they have never engaged in homosexual acts.)
OK, then I did understand you- that's sort of what I was getting at with my later example of the guy who dies a virgin at 98. The problem of defining a "type" of personality by attitude rather than overt behaviour is simply that it may be impossible for anyone other than the individual himself to understand. (You might respond that we should not need to identify personality facets this way anyway and in general I'd agree- but isn't this very largely what the whole Gay Liberation movement was about?- defining the real and objective relationship of homosexuals to society as a whole? )
To do that, we need a way to define "homosexual".
You could substitute the word "intellectual" for "homosexual" there and have a practically identical discussion.

(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)That's an interesting insight. One I could never have thought of.

HansMustermann
12th October 2010, 03:44 AM
So Hans... when do I get to the digging up corpses?

Good grief, why would you want to dig up a rotting corpse? You nail them fresh at the morgue or at the wake. On the upside, you don't even have to bring her flowers. Usually the flowers are already there ;)

But to answer your question, probably at some point after even wanking to kiddie porn is no longer enough. Just guessing.

I'm still just at having a fetish about women's feet, so I'm only guessing what comes further down that slippery slope ;)

Soapy Sam
12th October 2010, 03:52 AM
Further down than their feet?
Beats me.
Tried standing 'er on her head?

HansMustermann
12th October 2010, 04:18 AM
This is the same reasoning that fundamental believers (a lot of times in this thread, fundamental Christian can be replaced by fundamental Muslim or Jew) use about porn. According to them, reading Playboy (or softer) will invariably lead to reading (well, reading... ;)) more hardcore stuff, up until kiddie porn apparently. I don't have to tell the readers here that that is not true, do I?

To the OP, I know a couple of gay guys who, in their youth/puberty would have loved to have had a choice about being gay. In this case, more NOT being gay.

Yes, well, Paul didn't say you'd get a choice if you're not faithful enough. You skip sunday school once too many and don't say grace at dinner, and *bam* suddenly you're saying it over a cock ;)

But yes, the slippery slope argument is used a lot. Whenever an idiot (not even necessarily religious) wants to condemn something otherwise not particularly bad, it must be a gateway to harder drugs, or a slippery slope to shooting people, or yes to kiddie porn.

Dani
12th October 2010, 04:47 AM
Well, saying that homosexuality is a choice is similar to saying that there are diferences between races. From a humanist perspective, this wouldn't change a thing, but from the bigoted perspective it's an important argument. Of course, bigots don't necessarily accept scientific authority.

Seriously, it's a lost battle for bigots in the western world. Every generation is more tolerant than the previous one because it's so obvious that what adult people do privately in their sexual lives with mutual consent is nobody else's business.

In Spain, 35 years ago we had a catholic dictatorship in which open homosexuals were sent to therapy programs, and nowadays a couple from the same sex can get married. And, in fact, even if the right wing party wins the next elections (very likely) they won't even think about abolishing this right, since the catholic church is no longer the authority it used to be. It would be suicidal from an electoral point of view.

Soapy Sam
12th October 2010, 04:52 AM
You're all GOING TO HELL.
Serves you right for molesting cows. Or something.

Shrike
12th October 2010, 05:24 AM
You're all GOING TO HELL.
Serves you right for molesting cows. Or something.

Well, cows are the only who can, well, accomodate me ;)

marplots
12th October 2010, 10:14 AM
Good grief, why would you want to dig up a rotting corpse? You nail them fresh at the morgue or at the wake. On the upside, you don't even have to bring her flowers. Usually the flowers are already there ;)

But to answer your question, probably at some point after even wanking to kiddie porn is no longer enough. Just guessing.

I'm still just at having a fetish about women's feet, so I'm only guessing what comes further down that slippery slope ;)

"slippery slope" -- I see what you did there.

Uncayimmy
12th October 2010, 12:49 PM
(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)

An old joke from when I was coming up was to say something like, "Bob? Oh, he's not gay. He just has sex with a guy whose boyfriend is."

Dr. Keith
12th October 2010, 01:59 PM
(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)

This is so true that I didn't think it needed to be said.

Well said, nonetheless.

brenn
12th October 2010, 02:59 PM
Aside from wondering what country the OP’s “almost South Africa” flag is from, this is a pretty interesting debate for its unintended implications.

I’m no expert, but my general idea would have been that sex-drive is a genetic factor, but the specific behaviors used to satisfy the sex drive are more likely environmental. Then again, I can see where a genetic component could be involved, since the survival of a species is obviously affected by the choice to have sex that results in reproduction and all sexually reproducing species do so. That would make it seem that homosexuality is the result of a genetic flaw (I say “flaw” because, if genetic, it is contrary to adaptations that reproduce the species). I guess, without being interested enough to do a lot of research, the guys who say “part nature, part nurture” get my vote.

Here’s the part the interests me – I realize the social goal of those who argue that homosexuality is genetic is to decrease discrimination. BUT, if such specific behaviors are genetic, what does that say about other schools of thought that behavior can be predicted genetically? If the majority of people, for instance, want sexual partners of another gender because of genetic predisposition, doesn’t that same fact lend itself to arguments like, “people with a particular genetic background are more likely to be violent” or “dishonest” or some other undesirable trait? In the alternative, couldn’t it be used to argue for racial superiority if certain groups of people could be said to be genetically predisposed to desirable behaviors? My point being that proving specific behaviors like sexual preference are genetic would seem to support all sorts of racist theories that have otherwise been refuted with the claim that people aren’t genetically predisposed to behaviors.

Any thoughts? Does an argument for genetic predisposition for sexual orientation that is popular with the left turn out to support racist theories popular with the right?

The second thought that just occurred to me is that a genetic predisposition to be gay would have to be eliminated from a species pretty quickly…but I’m no scientist, so somebody feel free to explain why that didn’t happen.

thaiboxerken
12th October 2010, 03:44 PM
Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Those who thing homosexuality is wrong have to show that it is wrong, not that it's a choice or not.

I dare say that if a murderer was born a murderer, I'd still consider that person wrong.

brenn
12th October 2010, 03:53 PM
Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Those who thing homosexuality is wrong have to show that it is wrong, not that it's a choice or not.

I dare say that if a murderer was born a murderer, I'd still consider that person wrong.

What is the point of posting your moral opinion in a factual debate? "Wrong" is a matter of opinion that can't be objectively true or false, so all anybody could do is try to change your mind, which would make no difference to anybody else. It does, in fact, seem to be completely irrelevant to the debate or whether homosexuality is nature or nurture.

HansMustermann
12th October 2010, 04:06 PM
Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Those who thing homosexuality is wrong have to show that it is wrong, not that it's a choice or not.

I dare say that if a murderer was born a murderer, I'd still consider that person wrong.

But unfortunately, as I was getting at before, its being genetic or not is actually an important factor even in debating morals with the bigots.

As I was saying, in their world, being gay is just another perversion in a slippery slope of increasingly grave perversions that has screwing children as the next step. Or for some the same step. You start from screwing women being boring old hat, and next thing you know even screwing adult men is boring old hat, and next thing you know you're balls deep in some 5 year old... or so some people think. So even if you argued with them that being gay is harmless, the next step in their BS slippery slope isn't. But if it's a born condition then it's basically anchored in a single point and doesn't slide as they think.

Another important point in their BS propaganda is that basically you can teach people to be gay, and in fact that there's some kind of "homosexual agenda" to take over their schools and teach their children to be gay. But if it's a born condition, then you can't teach someone to be gay if they weren't already born wired that way.

thaiboxerken
12th October 2010, 04:20 PM
What is the point of posting your moral opinion in a factual debate?

My opinion is based on rational thought. Those who think homosexuality is wrong need to demonstrate that it is wrong. They have yet to do so.

Choice or genetics may come into play once they establish that homosexuality can be, indeed, wrong.

themusicteacher
12th October 2010, 04:40 PM
The bottom line is that some people believe that everything in life comes out of cookie-cutters, that everything has clear definition, shades of gray and ambiguity are for losers and sissies and that there is such thing as "normal." These sorts of people spend their entire lives trying to prove how normal and right they are by attempting to prove how degenerate, wrong, immoral and "unnatural" others are and that goes double for sexuality. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is passed off as sensible and sane.

kuroyume0161
12th October 2010, 04:41 PM
What is the point of posting your moral opinion in a factual debate? "Wrong" is a matter of opinion that can't be objectively true or false, so all anybody could do is try to change your mind, which would make no difference to anybody else. It does, in fact, seem to be completely irrelevant to the debate or whether homosexuality is nature or nurture.

Because those positing the "homosexuality is a choice" slogan are using it to allow homosexuality to be covered by a banner of morality (and probably sin, which is an entirely religious construct which has no relevance to the real world anyway). Once you can relegate nature and nurture away and replace it with 'choice' you can then proscribe moral values and judgments upon those who 'made the choice' since now their actions and thoughts are conscientious rather than caused by other factors.

It is very relevant!

kuroyume0161
12th October 2010, 04:42 PM
The bottom line is that some people believe that everything in life comes out of cookie-cutters, that everything has clear definition, shades of gray and ambiguity are for losers and sissies and that there is such thing as "normal." These sorts of people spend their entire lives trying to prove how normal and right they are by attempting to prove how degenerate, wrong, immoral and "unnatural" others are and that goes double for sexuality. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is passed off as sensible and sane.

::Thumbs Up!:: :)

brenn
12th October 2010, 05:08 PM
Because those positing the "homosexuality is a choice" slogan are using it to allow homosexuality to be covered by a banner of morality (and probably sin, which is an entirely religious construct which has no relevance to the real world anyway). Once you can relegate nature and nurture away and replace it with 'choice' you can then proscribe moral values and judgments upon those who 'made the choice' since now their actions and thoughts are conscientious rather than caused by other factors.

It is very relevant!

Only because you have somehow decreed that something can't have moral implications if it is a result of a biological urge. What moral system agrees with that belief? Any? Hedonism, even? All sexually-related morality is based on controlling and directing a biological drive, so using the nature vs nurture debate to try to settle a moral question isn't very smart.

If your moral system says sleeping is immoral, then it is to anyone who believes in that system - that has nothing to do with whether it is biologial or avoidable.

kuroyume0161
12th October 2010, 05:51 PM
Only because you have somehow decreed that something can't have moral implications if it is a result of a biological urge. What moral system agrees with that belief? Any? Hedonism, even? All sexually-related morality is based on controlling and directing a biological drive, so using the nature vs nurture debate to try to settle a moral question isn't very smart.

If your moral system says sleeping is immoral, then it is to anyone who believes in that system - that has nothing to do with whether it is biologial or avoidable.

What moral implications?

I'll add that I agree with you about the debate and the reasons to an extent. The problem is that, as I specified, the opponents don't want homosexuality to be natural in order that it falls under their domain so as to be completely under their rules of morality. The question of importance is whether or not homosexuality is 'moral' (indirectly: if it is a 'choice' then it is a human conscientious decision or, at the least, a propensity that can be curtailed or cured because it is a non-biological abnormality). Morals are relative and human constructs. By noting that it has natural components it is thus removed from relativistic and human constructivism since it is not based upon social or developmental constructs but something not directly related to humans, society, religion, and so forth (i.e.: it has biological components).

So far, the stats say that curtailment results in fascination leading to excess and that cures lead to remission in most cases. The definition as a form of insanity has been removed so psychoanalysis and other psychiatric forms of treatment are considered meaningless. And, morally, who is hurt by this not-so-normal condition? Most would say, "think of the children". Sorry, go down the block to the section on pedophilia. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it! Do I need to quote the percentages on pedophilia (most are men desiring/raping young girls - heterosexual as you can get)? Leave slippery slopes and forced prison sex in your locker. We're talking about, eh hem, mature, consensual homosexual desire and sex - not perversions which go beyond that!

INRM
12th October 2010, 07:28 PM
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous

kuroyume0161
12th October 2010, 07:37 PM
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous

Exactly.

Worse, the reasoning is tenuous at best. It portrays a social structure based upon very old notions that predate scientific knowledge. It wasn't called Sodomy because it was a medical term (see Old Testament and Lot).

At best, moderate religions want to say that it we are afflicted and should not be punished but pitied (and hopefully shown the way out). At least that is a somewhat respectful, tolerant view compared to say, oh, Islam where the view is 'punish, torture, kill, mame, no remorse'. Gotta love empathic religions.........

Piggy
12th October 2010, 08:06 PM
I've used the same question, but it's not without its weaknesses.

Oh, yes, there's actually a perfectly reasonable counter-argument to it. But so far, I've never actually heard it tossed back at me. :D

PhantomWolf
12th October 2010, 09:40 PM
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous

However we already do. The odds are that just as other sexuality is biological in form, so is pedophillia, and yet we do hold these people responsible. Note here that I'm not suggesting that doing so is right or wrong in either situation, and there are obviously other facts that can swing that part of the decision, however if the argument is purely based on "They can't control it so we can't hold them accountable" then....

kuroyume0161
12th October 2010, 10:24 PM
However we already do. The odds are that just as other sexuality is biological in form, so is pedophillia, and yet we do hold these people responsible. Note here that I'm not suggesting that doing so is right or wrong in either situation, and there are obviously other facts that can swing that part of the decision, however if the argument is purely based on "They can't control it so we can't hold them accountable" then....

Yes, this is true. But whether or not the sexuality is 'perverse' is more a matter of what the actions and desires dictate rather than how we feel about them. Pedophilia is the sexual desire for a prepubescent child (who is neither capable of sexual interaction nor of informed consent). While it may be a predisposition, like other mentioned conditions (besides homosexuality), it doesn't make it allowable. It also doesn't make it a choice, unfortunately.

While I can see how bringing in natural propensities doesn't change the so-called moral argument, it doesn't get at the issue either. Homosexuality isn't about raping innocent people who don't want that type of sex or are forced to have sex against their will. When it is, it is no different than heterosexual rape, right? Basically, the argument goes that homosexuality is just plain wrong (for whatever reason, for a myriad of reasons, for many reasons which are ludicrous such as 'sanctity of marriage' or 'procreation' - puhhhleease). The moniker 'choice' is just a term to belittle an innate quality and to make it as loathsome as something like pedophilia (or misogyny or other sexual deviance).

My thoughts rest upon individual rights (and responsibilities). Hey, if a man thinks he is a woman trapped in a male body and wants to go through all of the crap required to have something similar to a female body then why do we put so much effort to prevent this? There is no harm to anybody. It really boils down to what the cost of the actions are to others. If a man thinks that he must have sex with ten year olds, then there is harm to somebody and it should be prohibited. Common homosexuality is where two people like, love, lust after each other and mutually participate in a relationship or sexual activity. Who is harmed in this situation, again?

"It's icky" and "Ewwww" and "Shameful" don't cover the repression and acts of violence perpetrated to stifle human existence and happiness because it is something that someone thinks is reprehensible, sick, unclean, or sinful to the harm of no one else.

No matter what homosexuality is - it isn't what the 'choicers' make it out to be.

PhantomWolf
12th October 2010, 10:43 PM
I totally agree, I was pointing out the danger of the argument that someone can't control their choices so you can't hold them accountable.

Of course it should also be pointed out that while one can't necessarily control what you feel and want, you can control whether you partisipate. There is no law again a person being sexually attracted to a 10-year old, the law is against them taking active steps towards having sex with that 10 year old. Similarly just because a man feels he is trapped in the wrong sex body, doesn't mean he's going to rush out and get a sex change, he can choose not to do so, but remain as he was born for various reasons. Likewise those that identify as gay can choose not to participate in that lifestyle.

I firmly believe that our rational minds control the biological desires of our bodies, if they didn't, we'd be no better than animals.

Now again I'm not saying that one desire or another is wrong or amoral, nor that a particular choice is moral or amoral, quite obviously it involves more than that, for instance as you stated, on harm to those partaking for instance. But we need to be very careful with our arguments since in the end they can come back to bite you. For instance, if it can be shown that a certain 10 year was a willing partner in a relationshiop, was fully aware of the consequences, and was in this particular case really was mature enough to understand and willingly make the decision, since no one would be harmed in the action, should it still be amoral? Once again if you purely base your argument on harm done, the argument may fail. How about if we talk about two 15 year olds? What about a 15 year old and a 40 year old? Sometimes we just have to admit that we're inconsistant on these topics because they make us uncomfortable and just accept it.

kuroyume0161
12th October 2010, 11:19 PM
While the centers of the higher brain that inhibit certain actions are central to our sentience I don't think that we have complete control over our actions by any measure. Yes, we have more controlling features in place than other animals. But we are still animals and we still have the systems in place that drive certain basal desires (cravings, addictions, sex, anger, rage, other emotions, and so on).

There are definitely borderline situations where our 'definitions' of acceptance and inappropriateness are muddied. We put laws in place to make those delineations and, occasionally, rectify them for new circumstances. If it can be shown that a 10 year old had complete consent and wasn't coerced it may be a case against pedophilia in this instance. But that is an exceptional case and we usually consider the general situation wherein one person is taking advantage of someone who is incapable of a proper response. One case wouldn't change the overall view on pedophilia. Even then, most cases involving supposed consent of minors (many of the school teacher-student cases) end up with prosecution of the teacher no matter what. In this case, the responsible adult is responsible for the actions involved despite consent. Here, I think, we are seeing application of the law in order to make the law clear so that similar events are not promoted or acquiesced since this is a matter of abstinence under better consideration.

Nonetheless, homosexuality is purported to be present in at least 5% of the population (350,000,000+ people). If there were a precedent wherein 30-50% were involved in unlawful sexual situations then it might start becoming a situation where homosexuality appears to be deviant and require some form of legal injunction. Except for archaic 'buggery' or 'sodomy' laws, there are few situations were mutually consenting sex - and especially long term relationships or love - are considered unlawful.

Here's the problem. Abstinence. No one (well, very few) are promoting heterosexual abstinence. Actually, even those very few are mainly promoting it only until the god-given sanctimonious act of marriage. Applying a double-standard only results in retaliatory actions. If it is okay for heterosexuals to hold hands, kiss, make out (in public even!) then why is it that homosexuals should refrain from just about any form of affection? Now I'm getting to the dichotomy. At one time, homosexuals may have been grouped with pedophiles (though they still are in many fundy minds), rapists, perverts, and other deviants. The picture has changed over the past fifty years (and it wasn't always the picture painted over the past millenium or so). Once you accept that your difference is a deviation then you are easily persuaded by arguments involving shame, abstinence, covering up, appearing 'normal'. Once you realize that your difference isn't devious and has no deviousness about it then it is difficult to accept such arguments. Pedophiles, unfortunately, can't remove the inappropriateness of their desires and actions even if they knowingly admit it!

Where is the deviousness, the harm, in loving another person who is of the same sex, especially if they respond similarly (and are of an appropriate age respectively)?

JFrankA
13th October 2010, 05:52 AM
I agree with both Kuroyume0161 and Phantom Wolf. The past three posts you both put up were excellent.

If I might add another "sex-is-bad double standard", I've always seen the "abstain from sex until marriage" the ultimate form of prostitution.

bynmdsue
13th October 2010, 08:20 AM
maybe if you don't know what prostitution is

thaiboxerken
13th October 2010, 08:46 AM
maybe if you don't know what prostitution is

Maybe you don't understand his point.

brenn
13th October 2010, 11:47 AM
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous

So the people who want to believe it is genetic have the opposite agenda, of proving that it is not a choice and they can't be held accountable. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that both sides, as in this thread, are arguing for what they want the truth to be, rather than trying to determine what the truth is - that is why I objected to the moral arguments as obscuring the fact argument. Homosexuality doesn't become genetic, or not, because that's what you want, so the morality arguments are pointless without any fact basis.

In this thread, both sides seem to be arguing from the basis that they assume the fact that it is/isn't genetic and "here are the moral implications of that." You seem to have skipped the hard step, even though the thread seemed to start with the nature v. nurture argument.

So any thought on the idea that the “homosexuality is genetic” crowd is advancing a point of view about biological determination of fairly specific behavior that has implications for racism and similar "all people are not created equal" arguments?

JFrankA
13th October 2010, 12:58 PM
So the people who want to believe it is genetic have the opposite agenda, of proving that it is not a choice and they can't be held accountable. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that both sides, as in this thread, are arguing for what they want the truth to be, rather than trying to determine what the truth is - that is why I objected to the moral arguments as obscuring the fact argument. Homosexuality doesn't become genetic, or not, because that's what you want, so the morality arguments are pointless without any fact basis.

In this thread, both sides seem to be arguing from the basis that they assume the fact that it is/isn't genetic and "here are the moral implications of that." You seem to have skipped the hard step, even though the thread seemed to start with the nature v. nurture argument.

So any thought on the idea that the “homosexuality is genetic” crowd is advancing a point of view about biological determination of fairly specific behavior that has implications for racism and similar "all people are not created equal" arguments?

I've said it way back, though my analogy wasn't that great.

I've said it is a combination of three things: nature, nurture and circumstances.

Though the analogy was deemed not a good one, I'm going to use it anyway to illustrate my point:

We all have basic "tastes" - I don't like tomatoes but I like peanut butter. I could be forced into eating tomatoes but basically it isn't something I like. However, I would eat and enjoy tomatoes in a sauce, such as a pizza, but not in a salad or in a sandwich, etc. In fact, I could grow to like pizza almost as much as I like peanut butter, but would never like the tomato alone.

Now going to peanut butter, which is the human's closest version of "the perfect food" :), I could eat that so much that I'd go through a jar in a few days. However, since I want to remain looking acceptable, I deny myself peanut butter so I look good. No matter how much I deny it, however, my craving for it is there. In fact, it grows if I don't have some once in a while.

I think sexuality is the same thing: there are basic likes (nature) that can be adjusted depending on how it's used as one grows (nurture) and throw into the mix how it's presented (circumstances).

....I hope this made sense.....

Dr. Keith
13th October 2010, 03:37 PM
Then again, I can see where a genetic component could be involved, since the survival of a species is obviously affected by the choice to have sex that results in reproduction and all sexually reproducing species do so. That would make it seem that homosexuality is the result of a genetic flaw (I say “flaw” because, if genetic, it is contrary to adaptations that reproduce the species).

The discussion has moved to more interesting points, but I hate to see something like this just left to dangle.

There are plenty of evolutionary reasons for homosexuality in a population. One does not have to contribute DNA to contribute to the survival of the family. This may be on reason why homosexuality is so common in other species, as well.

SezMe
13th October 2010, 04:34 PM
Thanks for injecting that. I too was troubled that brenn's point was left hanging without a response yet I was too lazy to post a rebuttal.

brenn
13th October 2010, 05:18 PM
The discussion has moved to more interesting points, but I hate to see something like this just left to dangle.

There are plenty of evolutionary reasons for homosexuality in a population. One does not have to contribute DNA to contribute to the survival of the family. This may be on reason why homosexuality is so common in other species, as well.

That doesn't seem to contain an argument. That animals may have sex with other animals of the same species doesn't necessarily take it beyond there being a biological sex drive. I haven't researched the issue, but I guess it would support your point better if you said there were animals that show a preference for having sex with other animals of the same gender. As far as evolution - contributing to the survival of the species without passing on DNA has one, very obvious flaw - the animals that do so, do not pass on DNA. Somehow this isn't very convincing to me - if anything, it makes me lean more toward the "choice" than the "biology" argument.

Alan
13th October 2010, 05:58 PM
Hello. :)

Check out kin selection.

http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391KinSel.htm

But, again, "biology" does not equal "DNA". And certainly "not DNA" does not equal "choice".

PhantomWolf
13th October 2010, 06:53 PM
That doesn't seem to contain an argument. That animals may have sex with other animals of the same species doesn't necessarily take it beyond there being a biological sex drive. I haven't researched the issue, but I guess it would support your point better if you said there were animals that show a preference for having sex with other animals of the same gender. As far as evolution - contributing to the survival of the species without passing on DNA has one, very obvious flaw - the animals that do so, do not pass on DNA. Somehow this isn't very convincing to me - if anything, it makes me lean more toward the "choice" than the "biology" argument.

This is where the On/Off switch on our genes that is being found through twin studies would seem to be a strong contender. It would mean that the Genes that when switched on (or off) cause one to be attracted to the other sex are possibly the same genes that attract people to the same sex. It could even be that in women they are generally turned on (attracting them to males) and in males they are generally turned off (attracting them to females.) In some people they are "incorrectly" switched meaning you have males attracted to males, and females attracted to females. This would quite happily explain a lot of the things we see, including why it hasn't been breed out of us.

kuroyume0161
13th October 2010, 09:27 PM
But unfortunately, as I was getting at before, its being genetic or not is actually an important factor even in debating morals with the bigots.

As I was saying, in their world, being gay is just another perversion in a slippery slope of increasingly grave perversions that has screwing children as the next step. Or for some the same step. You start from screwing women being boring old hat, and next thing you know even screwing adult men is boring old hat, and next thing you know you're balls deep in some 5 year old... or so some people think. So even if you argued with them that being gay is harmless, the next step in their BS slippery slope isn't. But if it's a born condition then it's basically anchored in a single point and doesn't slide as they think.

Another important point in their BS propaganda is that basically you can teach people to be gay, and in fact that there's some kind of "homosexual agenda" to take over their schools and teach their children to be gay. But if it's a born condition, then you can't teach someone to be gay if they weren't already born wired that way.

You definitely made my point for me. Yes, that is the problem. It isn't whether *we* think that the factors dictating the behavior change the morality. It is how it is framed by those who want to have control and say in what the behavior is where these factors become very important.

We can debate the morality and ignore the factors involved (genetics, hormones, society, environment, choice, whatever). It is the end result that matters - does the behavior promote behavior that does harm to others?

But those who rail against the behavior don't care about the end result. They only care about their agenda: homosexuality is abnormal, an abomination, sinful, evil, sick, immoral, bad, illegal, wrong, corrupt, gateway to worse behaviors, and so forth. It is total B.S. But what brainwashing isn't? Evolution vs Creationism. Armageddon/Rapture. America is God's Country. Scientists are Elitists. Communists are Evil Atheists. All of this is brainwashing B.S. programmed into the uneducated using emotional triggers and no factual information.

It has been used for so long that people still think that women are inferior, that certain ethnicities are inferior, that homosexuals are sexual deviants who will eventually steal your little boy and have a sex party with goats and sheep. Some people need to mature - too bad that they haven't yet.

bikerdruid
13th October 2010, 09:33 PM
You definitely made my point for me. Yes, that is the problem. It isn't whether *we* think that the factors dictating the behavior change the morality. It is how it is framed by those who want to have control and say in what the behavior is where these factors become very important.

We can debate the morality and ignore the factors involved (genetics, hormones, society, environment, choice, whatever). It is the end result that matters - does the behavior promote behavior that does harm to others?

But those who rail against the behavior don't care about the end result. They only care about their agenda: homosexuality is abnormal, an abomination, sinful, evil, sick, immoral, bad, illegal, wrong, corrupt, gateway to worse behaviors, and so forth. It is total B.S. But what brainwashing isn't? Evolution vs Creationism. Armageddon/Rapture. America is God's Country. Scientists are Elitists. Communists are Evil Atheists. All of this is brainwashing B.S. programmed into the uneducated using emotional triggers and no factual information.

It has been used for so long that people still think that women are inferior, that certain ethnicities are inferior, that homosexuals are sexual deviants who will eventually steal your little boy and have a sex party with goats and sheep. Some people need to mature - too bad that they haven't yet.

right on the mark.
excellent post.:)

brenn
14th October 2010, 05:19 AM
This is where the On/Off switch on our genes that is being found through twin studies would seem to be a strong contender. It would mean that the Genes that when switched on (or off) cause one to be attracted to the other sex are possibly the same genes that attract people to the same sex. It could even be that in women they are generally turned on (attracting them to males) and in males they are generally turned off (attracting them to females.) In some people they are "incorrectly" switched meaning you have males attracted to males, and females attracted to females. This would quite happily explain a lot of the things we see, including why it hasn't been breed out of us.

That does make sense, at least at my level of biology education (which, happily, was not required to go beyond Bio 101). Certainly an improved explanation over "animals do it."

I think, when I get time, I'll have to post a separate thread to get any response on my "unintended consequences of claiming behaviors or biological" question. Unfortunately, that may not get me any responses from the pro-genetic-explanation people who would post on a thread like this.

HansMustermann
14th October 2010, 06:24 AM
So the people who want to believe it is genetic have the opposite agenda, of proving that it is not a choice and they can't be held accountable. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that both sides, as in this thread, are arguing for what they want the truth to be, rather than trying to determine what the truth is - that is why I objected to the moral arguments as obscuring the fact argument. Homosexuality doesn't become genetic, or not, because that's what you want, so the morality arguments are pointless without any fact basis.

In this thread, both sides seem to be arguing from the basis that they assume the fact that it is/isn't genetic and "here are the moral implications of that." You seem to have skipped the hard step, even though the thread seemed to start with the nature v. nurture argument.

So any thought on the idea that the “homosexuality is genetic” crowd is advancing a point of view about biological determination of fairly specific behavior that has implications for racism and similar "all people are not created equal" arguments?

BS. Wanting to believe has nothing to do with it.

There are actual MRI studies that shows that at least certain pathways (which are currently easy to identify and trigger for such a study) in the brain of homosexual men and homosexual women that are wired like for the opposite gender.

Now it's hard to say if it's genetic or hormonal imbalances in the womb or what. But it _is_ pathways that -- for whatever reason that wiring might happen -- are already formed when you pop out of the womb, and are not known to rewire after that in any known circumstances. Much less as a matter of "choice". Generally you'll find that you don't have a choice to rewire the connections between your brain's lobes.

(If nothing else, all those anti-gay preachers who got caught with male prostitutes, would have chosen to rewire themselves to straight if it were that simple.)

But at any rate, it has nothing to do with wanting to believe, but with evidence.

bynmdsue
14th October 2010, 06:31 AM
So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

bikerdruid
14th October 2010, 06:56 AM
So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

no....our brains are wired for good taste and common sense.
the serial killer's brain wiring would resemble the conservative's brain.
you are just confused.

HansMustermann
14th October 2010, 06:58 AM
So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

Or like an aspie, or like a musical genius, or like just about anyone else who has slightly different wiring.

Frankly, even as "by association" fallacies go, yours has to take the cake for pencils-up-the-nose underpants-on-head retarded. Making a connection to serial killers just because both have some pieces of wiring different -- except it's actually different pieces, and in different ways, and with different results, and only one of them actually causes any harm -- is such weak sauce that it's almost funny. It's like saying that a cell phone is like an ICBM guidance system, just because they're both wired differently than my desktop computer.

ETA: also, just to make it clear: technically the only thing it's wired like is, literally, like the brain of a woman. Unlike you wish to claim that women are wired like serial killers, I don't see how you can support that for "queer" men.

bynmdsue
14th October 2010, 11:09 AM
Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

I'm agreeing with you all. The queer cannot help itself,much like the drunk who has a disease or the obese with their thyroid problem.
The degenerate engaged in homosexual acts are completely blameless for their promiscuous and reckless behaviors. Like a dog humping legs, they simply cannot help themselves. They are slaves to their disordered brains.

Pity the poor pansies.

JFrankA
14th October 2010, 11:48 AM
What drives a person to ignore logic in order to gain transitory satisfaction from a burst of bile? Nature, nurture, disordered brains?

Same person who doesn't call the process of a person holding back sex until a life-long, legal, binding contract is signed that states all material and financial possessions now legally belongs to both parties involved "prostitution"....


:)

bookitty
14th October 2010, 11:58 AM
Same person who doesn't call the process of a person holding back sex until a life-long, legal, binding contract is signed that states all material and financial possessions now legally belongs to both parties involved "prostitution"....


:)

Wow, that's a big ole' can of worms you've got there. :p

JFrankA
14th October 2010, 12:47 PM
Wow, that's a big ole' can of worms you've got there. :p

It is. I dug up the worms myself. :D

brenn
14th October 2010, 01:08 PM
My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.

I overlooked that before. It's a good response. Not because it's particularly witty or demonstrates any sort of truth, but because it defies those on the other side to say something they are not at all inclined to say. It's nearly on par with the old, "have you stopped beating your wife."

However, maybe I only thought of this because I work with prisoners some, but the prison environment seems to contradict your hypothesis, being that temporarily turning to gay sex seems pretty widespread among prisoners. Working with Afghans and learning quite a lot about them last year, including the apparent acceptance of same-sex relations (many say the same is also true in Arab muslim countries), also reinforces my belief that, in an environment without access to the opposite sex, the sex drive will often be expressed through sex with the same gender. This would also apply to the prior references to homosexual animals.

Ron_Tomkins
14th October 2010, 01:32 PM
So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

And like a geniuses born with unusually high IQs

So if you're gonna make analogies, make sure you add the positive ones too. Otherwise, your attempt at argument by selective analogy is coming out as dishonest.

Dr. Keith
14th October 2010, 01:53 PM
And like a geniuses born with unusually high IQs

Not to get OT but everyone knows that geniuses are made by buying DVDs to teach them to read at 18 months.

It used to take mozhart tapes, but we've moved past that barbaric tradition. Tapes {{shudder}}.

/sarcasm

Dr. Keith
14th October 2010, 02:00 PM
That doesn't seem to contain an argument.

It's not an argument. I'm not trying to convince you of anything you haven't already admitted: you don't know what you are talking about and you may want to research this a bit more.

There are many benefits of non-procreating individuals in a population. Take the time to look into this.

Sorry for the OT derail.

HansMustermann
14th October 2010, 04:28 PM
Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

I have news for you. This species has a lot of variability anyway. Some are born super-geniuses, some are born retarded. Some have excellent coordination, some are spazzes. Etc. However you would define the one standard wiring to have, pretty much you'd have a set of exactly one person fitting that and about 6 millions of "defectives".

The question is what beef of yours is that someone has the "wrong" wiring, and why only in one aspect. Or are you saying you can't have sympathy for _anyone_ who differs at all from your BS standard?

At the end of the day, it's not even the worst wiring to get. Men wired like women, basically, can do everything that a woman brain can do. Which turns out to be very much every job ever invented for a start.

The difference is only in what they do in their free time, with other consenting adults.

So exactly what _is_ your problem? Exactly what kind of entitlement delusions make you think you should judge or regulate that?

PhantomWolf
14th October 2010, 05:46 PM
But it _is_ pathways that -- for whatever reason that wiring might happen -- are already formed when you pop out of the womb, and are not known to rewire after that in any known circumstances.

I'm going to call you for evidence on these two. My understanding of the research is that they don't know when they form or if they are able to be changed. I'd be delieghted for you to produce evidence for your claims though.

PhantomWolf
14th October 2010, 05:47 PM
Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

So you are saying that even though to all outward appearances I am a striaght male, the fact that my brain's sex and identity are both female that I am somehow wrong and defective?

Piggy
14th October 2010, 05:59 PM
I overlooked that before. It's a good response. Not because it's particularly witty or demonstrates any sort of truth, but because it defies those on the other side to say something they are not at all inclined to say. It's nearly on par with the old, "have you stopped beating your wife."

However, maybe I only thought of this because I work with prisoners some, but the prison environment seems to contradict your hypothesis, being that temporarily turning to gay sex seems pretty widespread among prisoners. Working with Afghans and learning quite a lot about them last year, including the apparent acceptance of same-sex relations (many say the same is also true in Arab muslim countries), also reinforces my belief that, in an environment without access to the opposite sex, the sex drive will often be expressed through sex with the same gender. This would also apply to the prior references to homosexual animals.

Actually, that's already been hashed out on this thread, in precisely the terms you describe.

I use it as a rhetorical device and nothing more. It's not meant to actually shed light on the question, but rather to throw a wrench into a less-than-adequate thought process.

Skeptic Ginger
14th October 2010, 10:05 PM
I'm going to call you for evidence on these two. My understanding of the research is that they don't know when they form or if they are able to be changed. I'd be delieghted for you to produce evidence for your claims though.There are two leading hypotheses, hormone exposure in utero and genetics (or both causes in different cases). There is ZERO evidence it is a lifestyle choice and the hypotheses of the dominant mother and other nurture hypotheses have pretty much been discarded as misguided lines of inquiry.

You can do your own research and if you find any science that differs, by all means share it.

I find it amusing how many people just decide they 'know' when they don't know anything about it really.

Uncayimmy
14th October 2010, 10:34 PM
There are two leading hypotheses, hormone exposure in utero and genetics (or both causes in different cases). There is ZERO evidence it is a lifestyle choice and the hypotheses of the dominant mother and other nurture hypotheses have pretty much been discarded as misguided lines of inquiry. (emphasis added)

The exception being situational sexual behavior.

Phantom Wolf was asking for evidence for the claims by Hans. What I think Hans was referring to was this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%2522Ivanka+Savic%2522&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation.

PhantomWolf
14th October 2010, 11:51 PM
There are two leading hypotheses, hormone exposure in utero and genetics (or both causes in different cases). There is ZERO evidence it is a lifestyle choice and the hypotheses of the dominant mother and other nurture hypotheses have pretty much been discarded as misguided lines of inquiry.

If you had bothered in reading the thread you'd see what I believe the likely cause is based on Identical Twin genetic studies.

You can do your own research and if you find any science that differs, by all means share it.

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. Hans made a claim that the pathways were formed in the womb. To my knowledge the study never concluded this, and, thanks UncaYimmy, the fact it was done on adults and thus couldn't say when they formed, just that they had. Secondly Hans claimed that these structires were unchangable, again not something the study claims. If Hans has further evidence of his claims then all and good, but I'm never just going to agree with someone's claims merely because they support the side I'm on, that is the behaviour of CTs and Pseudoscience.

I find it amusing how many people just decide they 'know' when they don't know anything about it really.

:id:

HansMustermann
15th October 2010, 02:58 AM
I'm going to call you for evidence on these two. My understanding of the research is that they don't know when they form or if they are able to be changed. I'd be delieghted for you to produce evidence for your claims though.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php

Also quote from an actual doctor in there: "A cognitive biology expert told BBC News that he believed these brain differences were decided early in the development of the fetus. There was no longer any argument, "if you are gay, you are born gay," he said."

I think if you want to argue the opposite, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. Just because it's a positive claim of the form "X happens." If you know when or how that can happen, it's your task to show it, not everyone else's to prove that for all brains of all humans that ever lived it didn't.

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. Hans made a claim that the pathways were formed in the womb. To my knowledge the study never concluded this, and, thanks UncaYimmy, the fact it was done on adults and thus couldn't say when they formed, just that they had. Secondly Hans claimed that these structires were unchangable, again not something the study claims. If Hans has further evidence of his claims then all and good, but I'm never just going to agree with someone's claims merely because they support the side I'm on, that is the behaviour of CTs and Pseudoscience.

So, how do you call trying to reverse the burden of proof? Because last I heard it's called an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Darat
15th October 2010, 03:05 AM
I've moved a lot of posts to Deep Storage as they were involved in an exchange that had posts that included cruel and hateful remarks made against other Members. Let's try to keep it civil even if some folk have extreme views that you strongly disagree with.

We had this post reported yesterday: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6441925#post6441925 - although many people would call that "hate speech" we do not moderate for such comments as long as they are not directed at a fellow Member. Sometimes such general comments are nothing more than someone's attempt to use sophistry to disguise an attack on a specific Member or Members and when we judge that to be the intent we do moderate for that.

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 03:27 AM
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php

Thank you for this. However it doesn't say what you claim it does, and in fact UncaYimmy has already linked to the actual study, not just an article about the study.

Also quote from an actual doctor in there: "A cognitive biology expert told BBC News that he believed these brain differences were decided early in the development of the fetus. There was no longer any argument, "if you are gay, you are born gay," he said."

Yes I'll conceed that he is a doctor, however look at the underlined word. I don't want to know what he believes, I want to know what he can prove. I want evidence that these brain structures are formed in the womb. His belief that they are formed there is not evidence, it's an apeal to authority. "Trust me, I'm a Doctor."

I think if you want to argue the opposite, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.

Did you bother even reading my post? Have you bothered reading ANY of my posts in this thread? No? Thought not.

Just because it's a positive claim of the form "X happens." If you know when or how that can happen, it's your task to show it, not everyone else's to prove that for all brains of all humans that ever lived it didn't.

You made two major claims here, don't blame me that you can't back one up at all and have to rely on an appeal to authority for the other. I would have loved you to have come up with some real evidence, it would have boosted my own possibility that genes switched on and off depending on our gender, are reversed in homosexuals. That would explain why HoW and HeM's brains are similar and why HoM and HeW's brains are similar, but you haven't met your burden of proof to show that what you say is true.

So, how do you call trying to reverse the burden of proof? Because last I heard it's called an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, you made the claim, it's your responsibilty to meet the burden. I'm actually saddened at your attitude Hans, I thought more of you.

HansMustermann
15th October 2010, 03:34 AM
I have seen that claim made or quoted by several doctors. The article I linked for example was written by a Ph.D., who at the very least seemed to have no problem with that.

I hope you'll excuse me if I take doctors talking about medicine as real authorities. More than Random Internet Guy disbelieving it, at any rate.

ETA: and just to make it clear, the "believed" there doesn't mean personal wild guess, but the standard model of brain development. It can, of course, be wrong, but if you want to argue a different model of brain development, the burden of proof _is_ on you. Sorry.

Skwinty
15th October 2010, 03:37 AM
Yes I'll conceed that he is a doctor, however look at the underlined word. I don't want to know what he believes, I want to know what he can prove..



I thought science wasn't about wrong or right and that science doesn't prove anything. Science explains observations. Just asking, not looking for an argument.:)

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 03:51 AM
I have seen that claim made or quoted by several doctors. The article I linked for example was written by a Ph.D., who at the very least seemed to have no problem with that.

I hope you'll excuse me if I take doctors talking about medicine as real authorities. More than Random Internet Guy disbelieving it, at any rate.

ETA: and just to make it clear, the "believed" there doesn't mean personal wild guess, but the standard model of brain development. It can, of course, be wrong, but if you want to argue a different model of brain development, the burden of proof _is_ on you. Sorry.

You still don't seem to get it, I'm not arguing for any model of brain development, I'm wanting you to show the evidence for the one you are supporting.

Skepticism (philosophy):

(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

I'm not saying you are wrong and something else is true, I'm saying you haven't actually managed to show what you are saying is true. All you have done so far is used repeated appeal to authority.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

Just because people (even experts) say something and claim it, doesn't make it true. What I want to see is the evidence, and as of yet I haven't see it. All I have seen is a study on adults which didn't itself speculate on when or how those pathways were developed. Now if you can show something that actually does show that, well and good, I'll be happy, but what you have provided so far is extremely lacking, and "Trust me I'm a Doctor" or what the BBC reported is not scientific enough for me to be willing to throw away my suspended judgment, even if it is for you.

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 03:57 AM
I thought science wasn't about wrong or right and that science doesn't prove anything. Science explains observations. Just asking, not looking for an argument.:)

Through observation science tells us that hammers have a tendacy to fall down when let go of a few metres above the surface of a planet. If someone told me that the hammer would float away, I'd suggest that they hold it over their foot and see if they were right or wrong.

HansMustermann
15th October 2010, 04:06 AM
Nobody's asking you to believe anything. I'm not the High Inquisitor of Brain Development, nor the Ayatollah Of Medicine, or anything. If you want to not believe, don't. If you can come up with a better brain development model, please do so. It's how science works, after all.

But, you know, the same applies in reverse too. You'll excuse me if between believing some doctors and believing you, I'll go with the doctors. As the informal logic version of that fallacy goes, the one that is actually wrong is actually an Appeal To Misleading authority. The doctors are real authorities. Random Internet Guy #12345678 handwaving why he doesn't believe them is not.

Plus, you've been shooting your mouth about pseudo-science and such BS, which goes a bit beyond just being skeptical. There is an implicit claim in there, which I'd like to see you support. Or refrain from such BS.

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 04:16 AM
Nobody's asking you to believe anything. I'm not the High Inquisitor of Brain Development, nor the Ayatollah Of Medicine, or anything. If you want to not believe, don't. If you can come up with a better brain development model, please do so. It's how science works, after all.

But, you know, the same applies in reverse too. You'll excuse me if between believing some doctors and believing you, I'll go with the doctors. As the informal logic version of that fallacy goes, the one that is actually wrong is actually an Appeal To Misleading authority. The doctors are real authorities. Random Internet Guy #12345678 handwaving why he doesn't believe them is not.

Plus, you've been shooting your mouth about pseudo-science and such BS, which goes a bit beyond just being skeptical. There is an implicit claim in there, which I'd like to see you support. Or refrain from such BS.

Do you actually read my posts or just make up what you think they say and go for there?

How many times do I have to say I HAVE NO BRAIN DEVELOPMENT MODEL I WANT YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE ONE YOU ARE USING!

Do you understand this?

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 04:44 AM
Nobody's asking you to believe anything. I'm not the High Inquisitor of Brain Development, nor the Ayatollah Of Medicine, or anything. If you want to not believe, don't. If you can come up with a better brain development model, please do so. It's how science works, after all.

It's not a case of what I want to believe or not, I follow the evidence. Give me the evidence and we'll be sweet. All you have to do is link to study or paper or even an article that shows how they have determined that these structures were formed in the womb. Do that and I'm happy on your point 1.

But, you know, the same applies in reverse too. You'll excuse me if between believing some doctors and believing you, I'll go with the doctors.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not asking you to believe me about anything. What exactly do you think I want you to believe? Show me were I have made a claim that I want you to accept or believe.

As the informal logic version of that fallacy goes, the one that is actually wrong is actually an Appeal To Misleading authority. The doctors are real authorities. Random Internet Guy #12345678 handwaving why he doesn't believe them is not.

I'm not handwaving, I have spelled out in detail what my issue is, you refuse to a) accept my issue as I state it, and b) meet it with what I ask for.

If Joe Smith arrives on this board and says that "1,000 Architects and Engineers believe that the WTC was demolished" would you simply accept it, or would you question it? Good Skepticism is to question it and demand evidence not just the Expert's word. Excellent Skepticism does the same thing when John Brown turns up and says that the "Engineers of NIST say that damage and fire brought down the WTC."

Sketicism is not just about questioning things that we find hard to believe, it's about questioning the very things we find easy and want to believe. If we don't do that we are no better than the CTs and peudo-scientists out there.

Plus, you've been shooting your mouth about pseudo-science and such BS, which goes a bit beyond just being skeptical. There is an implicit claim in there, which I'd like to see you support. Or refrain from such BS.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I said:

If Hans has further evidence of his claims then all and good, but I'm never just going to agree with someone's claims merely because they support the side I'm on, that is the behaviour of CTs and Pseudoscience.

Please point out exactly what "implicit claim" is in there, and show me exactly what is BS about what I have said.

HansMustermann
15th October 2010, 04:59 AM
But you've been shooting your mouth about pseudoscience and lack of support before even waiting to see if any is provided. At the point where you can make such claims, it seems to me like you damn better have a model and support.

At any rate, such pathways forming in the womb:

http://shb-info.org/sexbrain.html

(Also has a chapter on the irreversibility of that.)

(Different piece of) wiring from the amygdala causing anxiety doesn't change after birth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/magazine/04anxiety-t.html?_r=2&em

Brain dimorphism and asymmetry (one factor mentioned in the gay vs hetero study) being already present at birth (although, interestingly enough, the asymmetry in males was actually the opposite at birth than what it will grow into):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886661/

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 05:07 AM
But you've been shooting your mouth about pseudoscience and lack of support before even waiting to see if any is provided. At the point where you can make such claims, it seems to me like you damn better have a model and support.

You really need reading comprehension lessons. Go and re-read what I wrote, I even re-quoted it for you and you still haven't got it. I said that if I just accepted what you said then it would be me acting like a CT or pseudo-scientist. Exactly what claim is there in this that needs to be supported?

Thank you for finally providing some links, I'll read them and comment once I finish, or tomorrow as it's getting late here.

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 06:15 AM
At any rate, such pathways forming in the womb:

http://shb-info.org/sexbrain.html

(Also has a chapter on the irreversibility of that.)

Thank you for posting this, it was an interesting read. I do have to disagree with them in several places, the main one being that the pathways on various things, including those I have, all activate during puberty. I can clearly remember acting as and dressing as a girl well before puberty (between 5 and 8) before I came to understand that such behaviour was "wrong" and went into the role I was expected to take. As I have said previously, had I understood what was going on, and been in a situation where it would have been accepted and things changed, I'd be a rather different person now.

I also debate that the pathways are totally unchangable. While I certainly regret that I'm not who I could have been, and don't try and kid myself that it doesn't have an affect on me (I still prefer to have long nails and hair as well as having other rather more personal issues, and no I do still wear male clothing) I also understand and function socially based on the fact I have XY genetics, not XX despite what my brain says about it. As I have gotten older I can switch over to a more "Male" brain than I could when I was younger even if I still perfer the female side and being about females rather than males (I also no longer totally detest males and their ways.)

In the end I prefer to see myself as a male not female, as the papers you linked would declare me. I don't believe I am fooling or deluding myself with this, because I have been male so long that, that is what I am, even if some days my brain still tells me it should be otherwise.

TragicMonkey
15th October 2010, 06:56 AM
Ultimately, we all are as we are, regardless of how we (or anyone else) feels about it, regardless of how we got to be how we are, and regardless of what terminology we use to talk about it. Do we make distinctions that people in other times and other cultures don't? Yes. This suggests to me that while people don't change, the way they think about themselves does. But in the end it doesn't matter. What's important is that we accept our differences and live together peaceably.

HansMustermann
15th October 2010, 07:02 AM
Dunno, PW, in case it wasn't clear:

1. Yes, nobody said you'd also get an XX body _if_ you have, so to speak, an XX brain. In fact that's kinda the whole point. Some people have an XY body and an XX brain. If they also got an XX body we'd call them hetero women instead of gay men.

2. Nobody said it's all nature. Sure, most of human behaviour is trained/learned and changeable. The fact that some people have some female wiring there doesn't change that. Sure, they'll be attracted to other men and a few other modifier to the instincts, but otherwise being raised as a man still means they won't act or think 100% like a woman. So no big surprise there.

3. That's not stuff you can diagnose in yourself by just thinking hard about it. I mean, sure, you can know what your preferences are and whatnot, but not how your lobes are wired or what kind of symmetrical or asymmetrical brain you have. If you think such wiring is changing in you at the moment, then go get an MRI. That's evidence. What you think your wiring is, isn't.

PhantomWolf
15th October 2010, 07:15 AM
Dunno, PW, in case it wasn't clear:

1. Yes, nobody said you'd also get an XX body _if_ you have, so to speak, an XX brain. In fact that's kinda the whole point. Some people have an XY body and an XX brain. If they also got an XX body we'd call them hetero women instead of gay men.

Already agree on that

2. Nobody said it's all nature. Sure, most of human behaviour is trained/learned and changeable. The fact that some people have some female wiring there doesn't change that. Sure, they'll be attracted to other men and a few other modifier to the instincts, but otherwise being raised as a man still means they won't act or think 100% like a woman. So no big surprise there.

Actually if you read your linked papers, they pretty much do say that it's all biology.

3. That's not stuff you can diagnose in yourself by just thinking hard about it.

Yes and no. I'm sure you wouldn't tell a gay person they couldn't diagnose it themself.... An MRI might be able to show what's going on, but doesn't change what's going on.

I mean, sure, you can know what your preferences are and whatnot, but not how your lobes are wired or what kind of symmetrical or asymmetrical brain you have. If you think such wiring is changing in you at the moment, then go get an MRI. That's evidence. What you think your wiring is, isn't.

Getting an MRI wouldn't do a lot, if I'd gotten one at 10, one at 20, and one now, that'd be useful because you can compare. All one now would do is prove I'm totally screwy. :)

HansMustermann
15th October 2010, 07:22 AM
Well, then you could do another MRI in 10 years when you're all manly and we could count the differences, like in those puzzles in newspapers ;)

As for nature-vs-nurture, it depends what you mean by that. As I was saying, at the level of modifiers to basic instincts, like anxiety or gender preferences, sure, those are hard-wired and it's all nature. Human behaviour as a more general and higher level thing, I don't think any of those came even close to saying it's all (or even predominantly) nature.

So basically _if_ you have an XX brain (so to speak,) then sure, your fight-or-flight will be modified like that of women, and you'll be sexually attracted to men, and some stuff like that. But the learned/trained stuff would still be leaned and respectively trained stuff.

Piggy
15th October 2010, 08:48 AM
Ultimately, we all are as we are, regardless of how we (or anyone else) feels about it, regardless of how we got to be how we are, and regardless of what terminology we use to talk about it. Do we make distinctions that people in other times and other cultures don't? Yes. This suggests to me that while people don't change, the way they think about themselves does. But in the end it doesn't matter. What's important is that we accept our differences and live together peaceably.

And in the middle of the fight, a hockey game broke out.

But only briefly. :(

Mr. Scott
15th October 2010, 03:20 PM
Sorry to come in so late on this topic. Here's my own story, others, and what I believe.

I'm a guy and have always been attracted to guys (since I was around 4 years old). However, I also became attracted to girls when I hit puberty. I've never met anyone who had the same story. I still respond sexually to women but have chosen to only date guys because it feels more vital and true to my nature.

I know people who claim to have been straight first then gradually turned bisexual then sometimes exclusively gay. I also know people who've been gay then became straight. I know a woman who claims to be lesbian, had a previous lesbian relationship, but is in a straight, exclusive relationship and still claims to be lesbian by nature.

There seem to be no end of combinations and transformations, but I really never see a choice to have a gay, straight or bisexual nature. Only choices to be what one is, or to pretend to be what one is not.

My favorite hypothesis of the origin of homosexuality is "sexually antagonistic selection" (google it) which has some good science behind it and should be immune to any proposals I know of to reduce or eliminate homosexuality in society.

In a free society, such efforts are inappropriate. The idea that homosexuality reduces reproduction has been refuted by studies I've heard of that found the rate of unintended pregnancies in gay and bisexual teens is higher than in straight teens. Fundamentalist endeavors to curb homosexuality, like the hanging of gays in Iran (google image this if you can stomach it), are profoundly futile.

Ron_Tomkins
15th October 2010, 11:03 PM
Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

I'm agreeing with you all. The queer cannot help itself,much like the drunk who has a disease or the obese with their thyroid problem.
The degenerate engaged in homosexual acts are completely blameless for their promiscuous and reckless behaviors. Like a dog humping legs, they simply cannot help themselves. They are slaves to their disordered brains.

Pity the poor pansies.

Okay, so homosexuality is a choice. That means anyone can choose to be a homosexual by their own free will. Fine.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "Become a homosexual now and really mean it, or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a homosexual or do you have me shoot you?

kuroyume0161
15th October 2010, 11:20 PM
The idea that homosexuality reduces reproduction has been refuted by studies I've heard of that found the rate of unintended pregnancies in gay and bisexual teens is higher than in straight teens.

Homosexuality has certainly hurt reproduction. We are *only* nearing 7 Billion homo sapiens sapiens that we and the planet can barely support. We need many more, right!? ;)

That argument used by anybody is very stupid by any measure. It is akin to the argument that gay marriage hurts 'sanctimoniously proper' straight marriage. How exactly?

These are people who have lost their reason totally in a fit of rage, dogmatism, and idiocy. Is there some ecological factor similar to the one posited for the witch trials near Salem, MA?

SezMe
16th October 2010, 02:33 AM
Okay, so homosexuality is a choice. That means anyone can choose to be a homosexual by their own free will. Fine.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "Become a homosexual now and really mean it, or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a homosexual or do you have me shoot you?
This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for fightn'
This is for fun

Craig4
16th October 2010, 11:25 AM
I'm a bit curious as to why the only two choices here seem to be either it's a choice or you are born that way. Why are we rejecting the idea that there could be environmental factors which could play a role in sexual orientation and it's still not a choice? Just because you're behavior is influenced by an environmental doesn't mean you're making a choice.

bikerdruid
16th October 2010, 11:30 AM
I'm a bit curious as to why the only two choices here seem to be either it's a choice or you are born that way. Why are we rejecting the idea that there could be environmental factors which could play a role in sexual orientation and it's still not a choice? Just because you're behavior is influenced by an environmental doesn't mean you're making a choice.

true....studies have shown that in higher population areas, the percentage of homosexuals increases.
that seems clearly a biological/environmental factor to keep population density in check.

Bishadi
16th October 2010, 12:30 PM
An yet, oddly enough, there are people who actually choose suicide, even when there are other viable options.

is the best analogy on the thread.


ie.. procreation is the purpose of sex via nature.

Cell-divisions is the same; the life gives a portion of itself to live into the next generation.


The issue is few maintain the concept of what intercourse is for based on the enjoyment factor. Naturally the parts are what the gender and SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the person is born with. ie... biology sets the orientation and same sexual relations are of choice in 99.9999999999999999999999% of the cases.

To even teach a child that is not genetically hemorphradite that same sexual preference to the extent of sexual needs, is not their choice is lying to that human being. No matter what any psychologist is willing to put their credentials on the line.

Skwinty
16th October 2010, 12:35 PM
true....studies have shown that in higher population areas, the percentage of homosexuals increases.
that seems clearly a biological/environmental factor to keep population density in check.

How does that work on children?
Some gay people say that they knew they were gay at an early age. Are you saying that the parents pass that on to their offspring as the child is too young to realise the implications of over population.

bikerdruid
16th October 2010, 04:18 PM
How does that work on children?
Some gay people say that they knew they were gay at an early age. Are you saying that the parents pass that on to their offspring as the child is too young to realise the implications of over population.

i don't presume to know.
i was queer from early childhood.
however, since i was catholic, i thought i was the only one in the world and i was goin' to hell.

Mr. Scott
16th October 2010, 09:33 PM
procreation is the purpose of sex

I prefer not to word it that way since nature and evolution have no purpose.

In humans, sex results in procreation less than 1% of the time.

Practically everything in nature exists because it's been better at existing than what doesn't exist.

Sex exists because recombination of parental genes are generally advantageous to offspring.

Sex also promotes social bonding in many animals (eg bonobos).

Bonding sex in humans can keep parents together so they will more likely stay teamed up to raise offspring.

When the opposite sex is not present (eg jails and segregated boarding schools) homosexual relations can keep the plumbing and emotions primed for future heterosexual relations.

In some animals homosexuality maintains pecking order (eg spotted hyenas), improving the social stability of a group. Gay sex can work this way for humans. There is a sexually maintained pecking order in the gay community and gay communities include bisexual (reproductive) members.

Homosexuality may also be another misfiring of our clunkyly evolved brains, but since the rate is pretty stable, there's reason to believe it's occurrence is generally advantageous. We are messily evolved, but in a free society, messes are permitted.

It's easy to see advantages to certain rates and types of homosexuality, but not, strictly speaking, a natural "purpose."

Mycroft
16th October 2010, 10:44 PM
How does that work on children?
Some gay people say that they knew they were gay at an early age. Are you saying that the parents pass that on to their offspring as the child is too young to realise the implications of over population.

I don't think anyone is saying overpopulation leads children to consciously choose to be gay.

Skwinty
16th October 2010, 11:01 PM
I don't think anyone is saying overpopulation leads children to consciously choose to be gay.


I am not saying that either.
Craig4 asked why only 2 reasons for being gay.
1. You are born that way.
2. You choose to be that way.

He then says enviromental issues can be a cause, to which Bikerdruid states that overpopulation is an environmental cause of people being gay.

My question was, how does that influence children, as many gays say they knew they were gay at an early age?

If you are a heterosexual adult and the population is inreasing rapidly, what is the trigger that makes people gay?

My feeling is that people are born that way.
I once watched a series of "in the womb" time lapse photographs of the sexual organs forming. The way the male and female organs develop are so similar, that hormonal imbalances can have a huge impact on sexual organ development or the way the brain interprets the sexuality of the individual after birth.

Hope this clarifies my question.

Bishadi
16th October 2010, 11:58 PM
I prefer not to word it that way since nature and evolution have no purpose.
oooops! I think I see the reason; you have no idea what life is. First off philosophically speaking:

life; purposed to continue.
Ie... Once started 'it' (life) intends to continue. Did not say how or what started it but via evolution to simple fire the light will sustain if the environment sustains providing. The process in itself, the life "intends to continue" .

2nd: life; abuses entropy

3rd: most instinctive critters, bonoboos, dolphins etc... Are frustrated and why the same sex is taken/offered.

The parts are for the duty and just because and willi wankin mandrel will scar a grown man for life does not mean the toys are there for fun.

So whether a person or a critter enjoys the sensations does not mean it is natural. In fact to succumb to self indulgence can be quite rude. But then again I wear glasses now too.


In humans, sex results in procreation less than 1% of the time.

Practically everything in nature exists because it's been better at existing than what doesn't exist.

Sex exists because recombination of parental genes are generally advantageous to offspring.

Sex also promotes social bonding in many animals (eg bonobos).

Bonding sex in humans can keep parents together so they will more likely stay teamed up to raise offspring.

When the opposite sex is not present (eg jails and segregated boarding schools) homosexual relations can keep the plumbing and emotions primed for future heterosexual relations.

In some animals homosexuality maintains pecking order (eg spotted hyenas), improving the social stability of a group. Gay sex can work this way for humans. There is a sexually maintained pecking order in the gay community and gay communities include bisexual (reproductive) members.

Homosexuality may also be another misfiring of our clunkyly evolved brains, but since the rate is pretty stable, there's reason to believe it's occurrence is generally advantageous. We are messily evolved, but in a free society, messes are permitted.

It's easy to see advantages to certain rates and types of homosexuality, but not, strictly speaking, a natural "purpose."

GrouchoMarxist
17th October 2010, 12:51 AM
oooops! I think I see the reason; you have no idea what life is. First off philosophically speaking:

life; purposed to continue.
Ie... Once started 'it' (life) intends to continue. Did not say how or what started it but via evolution to simple fire the light will sustain if the environment sustains providing. The process in itself, the life "intends to continue" .

2nd: life; abuses entropy

3rd: most instinctive critters, bonoboos, dolphins etc... Are frustrated and why the same sex is taken/offered.

The parts are for the duty and just because and willi wankin mandrel will scar a grown man for life does not mean the toys are there for fun.

So whether a person or a critter enjoys the sensations does not mean it is natural. In fact to succumb to self indulgence can be quite rude. But then again I wear glasses now too.


How bout them Lions!

SezMe
17th October 2010, 01:20 AM
The issue is few maintain the concept of what intercourse is for based on the enjoyment factor. Naturally the parts are what the gender and SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the person is born with. ie... biology sets the orientation and same sexual relations are of choice in 99.9999999999999999999999% of the cases.
The percent includes everyone on the planet with several orders of magnitude left over. Care to recalculate?

SezMe
17th October 2010, 01:24 AM
2nd: life; abuses entropy

Nope.

3rd: most instinctive critters, bonoboos, dolphins etc... Are frustrated and why the same sex is taken/offered.

How do you know these critters are frustrated? Did you have a conversation about it?

The parts are for the duty and just because and willi wankin mandrel will scar a grown man for life does not mean the toys are there for fun.

Have you ever masturbated, Bishadi?

So whether a person or a critter enjoys the sensations does not mean it is natural.
Enjoyment of a sensation is not natural? What a weird claim.

Craig4
17th October 2010, 02:11 AM
2nd: life; abuses entropy

3rd: most instinctive critters, bonoboos, dolphins etc... Are frustrated and why the same sex is taken/offered.

The parts are for the duty and just because and willi wankin mandrel will scar a grown man for life does not mean the toys are there for fun.

So whether a person or a critter enjoys the sensations does not mean it is natural. In fact to succumb to self indulgence can be quite rude. But then again I wear glasses now too.

Where are you getting that life abuses entropy? Organisms are open systems. Spend some quality time reading about the laws of thermodynamics. They say nothing about open systems.

Where are you getting that masturbation scars people for life? Got some studies somewhere to support that conclusion?

BobTheDonkey
17th October 2010, 05:56 AM
The discussion has moved to more interesting points, but I hate to see something like this just left to dangle.

There are plenty of evolutionary reasons for homosexuality in a population. One does not have to contribute DNA to contribute to the survival of the family. This may be on reason why homosexuality is so common in other species, as well.

I've only made it this far in the thread, but I too am glad to see that someone retrieved this from being lost.

There is, in any population, a given percentage that will not reproduce but are still capable of providing a benefit to the continuation of their species. I think it's important to remember that evolution via natural selection targets survival of the species, not the individual's genes.

In fact, this very argument is defeated often enough by the later produced argument against homosexuals adopting. If a homosexual couple is willing to raise a child, does that not help fulfill their obligation to assisting in survival of our species?

I personally have no desire to reproduce (heterosexual in a longterm relationship). Whatever those reasons may be, the point remains that it is no less immoral/wrong/crime-against-nature for my gf and I to marry/enjoy sexual relations/etc than it is for a pair of homosexuals.

BobTheDonkey
17th October 2010, 06:09 AM
Where are you getting that masturbation scars people for life?

Curses! That must be why I'm so screwy in the head :rolleyes:

Emet
17th October 2010, 06:36 AM
Where are you getting that life abuses entropy? Organisms are open systems. Spend some quality time reading about the laws of thermodynamics. They say nothing about open systems.

Where are you getting that masturbation scars people for life? Got some studies somewhere to support that conclusion?
(bolding mine)

Guess you haven't spent much time over at SMT, Craig4.

There are a many threads with statements like that over there.

link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6386850&postcount=40)

Craig4
17th October 2010, 06:48 AM
You use that word (entropy) a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 08:20 AM
The percent includes everyone on the planet with several orders of magnitude left over. Care to recalculate?

No need to. A human being makes a choice.

If dogs can't think, then no wonder they do what they are told.

So run your own experiments;

ask the dog if they have a choice of what reaction they will make

and then ask human beings.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 08:25 AM
Nope.
that is kind of a reactionary response


How do you know these critters are frustrated? Did you have a conversation about it? i often watch while some read about it.



Have you ever masturbated, Bishadi? 500, 750 and even 1000 hook long lines, with both anchovie or squid


Enjoyment of a sensation is not natural? What a weird claim.

same sex intercourse is not natural.


many dont think so, but many will lie to themselves even unto suicide.

Mr. Scott
17th October 2010, 08:26 AM
you have no idea what life is

Hahaha that made me laugh out loud. I think I have a pretty good idea what life is.

I like this definition of "purpose": "an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"

I guess the purpose of a snowflake is to make a pretty six-sided sculpture. So smart these snowflakes!

We are molecular machines that just kept running better than other molecular machines that didn't keep running. "Purpose" emerged in advanced central nervous systems. Most living things have no central nervous system and therefore have no purpose, and most higher animals have no idea the "purpose" of sex is to make babies. It's to experience pleasure, and the pleasure system typically leads animals to do what makes similar creatures.

TFian
17th October 2010, 08:37 AM
I don't understand, if it's a choice, what's the problem? Many opponents of homosexuality (and other sexual minorities) seem to treat that as a silver bullet. But..since proven to be harmless, it's a lot like claiming wearing "Green hats" is a choice, so it should be banned.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 08:43 AM
Where are you getting that life abuses entropy? Organisms are open systems. every system within the universe is an open system (causally described).


Spend some quality time reading about the laws of thermodynamics. They say nothing about open systems. the first law, renders conservation, the second claims }to equilibrate a potential difference'; if the first requires a conservation, then to equlibrate you must know how and why.

hot going to cold and no idea why, is stupid!

if life has an instinct to procreate, it seem the life dont wannna die

i have evidence, life, and adherants cant even define a simple flame of the bic lighter (abusing the law)



Where are you getting that masturbation scars people for life? Is that question based on having a ADHD issue? I said, i was scarred by what i saw. Were you reading some fignewton of the immagination or is it just normal to post what you thought you read?

go to the zoo and watch the mandrels (in season).................. them boys are serious about their bidness and i have personally mentioned to mothers with kids, "you may not wish to have your kids see what they are doing on that side of the enclosure"

i have heard older women practically scream (closer to a loud gasp)

Got some studies somewhere to support that conclusion?

in this case of the mandrel, i dont think it is necessary

but if you personally need something to do with your life, then please go look into the catholic pedophilia issues, i will bet quite a few of the victims are scarred for life there.

i can be quoted as claiming that thru the lies of the irresponsibile are how the procreation of homosexual preferences, continues

i dont need a study!

I witness what i see, all by myself.

p/s... this is a conversation on homosexual 'choice'..... if you want to play and twist up words with me, you will not find my humor nice to misgivings.

GrouchoMarxist
17th October 2010, 08:52 AM
Mandrill.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 08:59 AM
Hahaha that made me laugh out loud. I think I have a pretty good idea what life is.

I like this definition of "purpose": you forgot the 'd'






I guess the purpose of a snowflake is to make a pretty six-sided sculpture. So smart these snowflakes! the energy combines upon the mass to create the fractal (snowflake). For that environment the greatest amount of energy for the structure.

It is a natural phenomenon. (see conche shell (or about any sea shell, life)

We are molecular machines that just kept running better than other molecular machines that didn't keep running. "Purpose" emerged in advanced central nervous systems.

to tap the surface of a flat pond the wave rolls over the mass. As if it knows what it is doing but we know better. ie.. the energy itself is 'in motion' and as some believe it is rolling down hill, them few do not comprehend, that proportionally, the amount of mass affected (the whole body of the pond) is increasing. (conservation)

Most living things have no central nervous system and therefore have no purpose,

funny, what is a cytoskeleton but the nervous system of the cell.

but i see you are losing this debate because of the context usage of the word and spelling or PURPOSED to continue.



and most higher animals have no idea the "purpose" of sex is to make babies.

That is what makes people so cool, we can comprehend reality.

instinct shares the 'purpose' of life all by itself.

and most all humans know that sex is how babies come.



It's to experience pleasure, and the pleasure system typically leads animals to do what makes similar creatures.

ducks and nuts, like to have thier head buried, even if it means death, just for the fun?

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 09:05 AM
I don't understand, if it's a choice, what's the problem? because many psychologist within the quack practice of lying to people have created precedence over the concept that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Anything of the physiological aspect of sex, is biological and the psychologist have created a whole branch of BS that many have come to believe.

sexual orientation is the gender a life is born with, not what they prefer!

run it on google, wiki, etc...... this whole issue would be dead, simply by shutting down the adverse imposition of irresponsible psychological acceptances.



Many opponents of homosexuality (and other sexual minorities) seem to treat that as a silver bullet. But..since proven to be harmless, it's a lot like claiming wearing "Green hats" is a choice, so it should be banned.

i am not an opponent of gay preferences.

i just believe a each person must be responsible for themselves.

TFian
17th October 2010, 09:08 AM
because many psychologist within the quack practice of lying to people have created precedence over the concept that sexual orientation is not a choice.

What "quack"? Who are you talking about? A duck?

sexual orientation is the gender a life is born with, not what they prefer!

Ok, so you then agree homosexuality isn't a choice?


run it on google, wiki, etc...... this whole issue would be dead, simply by shutting down the adverse imposition of irresponsible psychological acceptances.

I'm sorry, what?

i just believe a each person must be responsible for themselves.

From that wording, it seems you give it a negative connotation, why?

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 09:18 AM
What "quack"? Who are you talking about? A duck? any liar is a duck to me, just quacking





Ok, so you then agree homosexuality isn't a choice? if you are born with your parts (sexual orientation) and then choose to like the same sex; then you know already, that same sexual choices are the preferences.

the sexual orientation of a life is what they were born with (gender).

in the psychology field, they have redefined what 'sexual orientation' is in which they now have people believing their are gay by birth but not a one of them are diagnosed hemorphridite (born both sexes).

So my position is quite clear, if you are born gay, then genetically you will be hemorphridite otherwise it is BS; all cases.

anyone can love the same sex but there is no such thing as being born to have sex with the same sex; because that 'species' will go extinct.







I'm sorry, what?



From that wording, it seems you give it a negative connotation, why?

the whole arena within the legal system is ruined because of irresponsible psychologist.

TFian
17th October 2010, 09:21 AM
any liar is a duck to me, just quacking

Uh...

if you are born with your parts (sexual orientation) and then choose to like the same sex; then you know already, that same sexual choices are the preferences.

Well then, back to my original question, so what? If it's a choice, what does it matter?

the sexual orientation of a life is what they were born with (gender).

No

in the psychology field, they have redefined what 'sexual orientation' is in which they now have people believing their are gay by birth but not a one of them are diagnosed hemorphridite (born both sexes).

So my position is quite clear, if you are born gay, then genetically you will be hemorphridite otherwise it is BS; all cases.

Never heard that argument before. How could it be "gay" if you are both sexes though? Isn't both ways then heterosexuality for you?

anyone can love the same sex but there is no such thing as being born to have sex with the same sex; because that 'species' will go extinct.

....


the whole arena within the legal system is ruined because of irresponsible psychologist.

Maybe you should see one.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 09:30 AM
Uh...



Well then, back to my original question, so what? If it's a choice, what does it matter? it dont.

did you notice my first post, that observed the likening in which suicide is also a choice



No and that claim can only be sustained by reading duck work



Never heard that argument before. How could it be "gay" if you are both sexes though? Isn't both ways then heterosexuality for you?

i have lots of arguments you may never have seen (heard) before.

my point is the sexual orientation of the life is what they are born with. If any human being wants to claim, they like same SEX and it is because they are born that way, then for that person to be honest, then they must be hemorphridite; all cases.

which means for example, there are more children born with a cleft palet (and 'we the people' can assist them), then children born gay



and the best way to ID the liar who claims they are gay by birth, is to perform biological test



now the honest ones like to have same sex and it is there choice.

i have no problem with honesty but i do have a problem with liars that adversely affect others because they feel they can or have the right.

TFian
17th October 2010, 09:31 AM
it dont.

did you notice my first post, that observed the likening in which suicide is also a choice

and that claim can only be sustained by reading duck work




i have lots of arguments you may never have see (heard) before.

my point is the sexual orientation of the life is what they are born with. If any human being wants to claim, they like same SEX and it is because they are born that way, then for that person to be honest, then they must be hemorphridite; all cases.

which means for example, there are most children born with a cleft palet (and 'we the people' can assist them), then children born gay



and the best way to ID the liar who claims they are gay by birth, is to perform biological test



now the honest ones like to have same sex and it is there choice.

i have no problem with honesty but i do have a problem with liars that adversely affect others because they feel they can or have the right.

Uh yeah. Seek professional help dude.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 09:34 AM
Uh yeah. Seek professional help dude.


this is exactly what happens when reality sets in to people who can represent lies and care little of others.


Homosexuality is a choice, and to comprehend what that means literally, is what breaks the back of any gay beliefs.

commandlinegamer
17th October 2010, 09:39 AM
So my position is quite clear, if you are born gay, then genetically you will be hemorphridite otherwise it is BS; all cases.

You used a semicolon ( ; ) above, which is generally used where you have two clauses that stand up as sentences in their own right and where a standard conjunction such as and or but might be used. By replacing the conjunction with the semicolon a less formal tone can be realised.

The colon ( : ) I think would be better in your sentence above, it helps to explain or reiterate in more detail what has gone before. But your first comma cries out even more so for the colon and as anyone who has two colons will know, more than one is a bit counter-productive, so better replace the semicolon with a dash ( - ), and all will be well.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 09:46 AM
You used a semicolon ( ; ) above, which is generally used where you have two clauses that stand up as sentences in their own right and where a standard conjunction such as and or but might be used. By replacing the conjunction with the semicolon a less formal tone can be realised.

The colon ( : ) I think would be better in your sentence above, it helps to explain or reiterate in more detail what has gone before. But your first comma cries out even more so for the colon and as anyone who has two colons will know, more than one is a bit counter-productive, so better replace the semicolon with a dash ( - ), and all will be well.

hey perhaps that should be in the gay psychology course; using colons for the wrong thing will do nothing for life.


thanks for the contribution to the thread!

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 09:50 AM
Where are you getting that masturbation scars people for life? Got some studies somewhere to support that conclusion?

same studies used by christine o'donnell.:rolleyes:
she's an 'anti-wanker' too, i believe.

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 09:51 AM
Homosexuality is a choice.

at what age did you choose to be straight, bishadi?

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 09:58 AM
same studies used by christine o'donnell.:rolleyes:
she's an 'anti-wanker' too, i believe.

if you study with the same level of your reading comprehension, then no wonder you are confused

i dont know if COD has been to the zoo and observed the frustrated mandrill

but ask most any teen, sexual frustration can cause lots of self inflicted actions.

TFian
17th October 2010, 09:58 AM
if you study with the same level of your reading comprehension, then no wonder you are confused

i dont know if COD has been to the zoo and observed the frustrated mandrill

but ask most any teen, sexual frustration can cause lots of self inflicted actions.

You're funny.

Have you considered stand up comedy?

commandlinegamer
17th October 2010, 09:58 AM
hey perhaps that should be in the gay psychology course; using colons for the wrong thing will do nothing for life.


Here I should say that underlining might be confusing for those new to the web: when a hyperlink is expected and cannot be clicked upon, only frustration can ensue. Bold text is fine, but even better: italics.

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:02 AM
if you study with the same level of your reading comprehension, then no wonder you are confused

i dont know if COD has been to the zoo and observed the frustrated mandrill

but ask most any teen, sexual frustration can cause lots of self inflicted actions.

perhaps you are confused....:D

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 10:04 AM
at what age did you choose to be straight, bishadi?

i was born straight just like 99.99999999% of human life but some can choose to be murderers, pedophiles and even preachers who like the same sex perferences and can be all happy about it.



you were born with your gender and that sexual orientation is the sex of your biological life. If you choose coke bottles or even cows and dogs; i have no idea what YOU like but i know some of the strange stuff like putting a needle in ones own arm or even blowing their own brains out by suicide is just about as bad as not procreating to live into the next generation.

most all life, instinctively procreates (cell division)

the lives that dont, like skins cells, make a nasty blemish or even become a cancer to the host (the organism)

i often suggest that if your parents didnt do what is natural, you would not be here!

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 10:05 AM
You're funny.

Have you considered stand up comedy?

no because what i have to say, oooousally puts people back in their seat.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 10:07 AM
Here I should say that underlining might be confusing for those new to the web: when a hyperlink is expected and cannot be clicked upon, only frustration can ensue. Bold text is fine, but even better: italics.

i a person can choose to be gay, then i can choose to bold, underline and even touch their consciousness with a mirror

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:11 AM
i was born straight just like 99.99999999% of human life but some can choose to be murderers, pedophiles and even preachers who like the same sex perferences and can be all happy about it.



you were born with your gender and that sexual orientation is the sex of your biological life. If you choose coke bottles or even cows and dogs; i have no idea what YOU like but i know some of the strange stuff like putting a needle in ones own arm or even blowing their own brains out by suicide is just about as bad as not procreating to live into the next generation.

most all life, instinctively procreates (cell division)

the lives that dont, like skins cells, make a nasty blemish or even become a cancer to the host (the organism)

i often suggest that if your parents didnt do what is natural, you would not be here!

you are indeed confused.
i certainly never chose to be queer.
my life would have been much easier if i had been straight, but i was not born that way.
what the heck does cancer have to do with this?
do cells choose to be cancerous?

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:12 AM
no because what i have to say, oooousally puts people back in their seat.


i dunno...my only reaction to you is amusement.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 10:19 AM
you are indeed confused.
i certainly never chose to be queer. you just chose to render that lie


my life would have been much easier if i had been straight, but i was not born that way. Oh really, then yu must be a bonafide hemorphridite.

i have met a few but i prefer not having to prove your claim is a lie



what the heck does cancer have to do with this? rogue, deformed and often strange method of metastasis, within the life of an organism that will often kill the host just to continue.

ie... since 'gay' copulation cannot procreate, then like cancer the rogue can only duplicate by damaging another


do cells choose to be cancerous?

nope, they are usually damaged goods

GrouchoMarxist
17th October 2010, 10:21 AM
i a person can choose to be gay, then i can choose to bold, underline and even touch their consciousness with a mirror

But can you mirror their conciousness with a touch?

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:23 AM
you just chose to render that lie

Oh really, then yu must be a bonafide hemorphridite.

i have met a few but i prefer not having to prove your claim is a lie

rogue, deformed and often strange method of metastasis, within the life of an organism that will often kill the host just to continue.

ie... since 'gay' copulation cannot procreate, then like cancer the rogue can only duplicate by damaging another




nope, they are usually damaged goods
you are losing it.
i am not a hermaphrodite...i am a man. i just happen to be queer.
i did not chose to be this way. i do not lie...i have no reason to lie.
you are indeed confused.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 10:25 AM
i dunno...my only reaction to you is amusement.


seems i have you reacting with a whole bunch of posts

kind of like holding you by a thread

what may bug you is when you finally realize that truth trumps the BS of liars



but then again, anyone can lie by choice.


what i rather enjoy of reality, mother nature and existence itself is that the unevolved, the rogue, the lives that do not maintain the PURPOSE of life as the ultimate goal, will go extinct evntually!

i like the natural order, how about you?

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 10:27 AM
you are losing it.
i am not a hermaphrodite...i am a man. i just happen to be queer.

then you were not born gay; fact!


i did not chose to be this way. i do not lie...i have no reason to lie.
you are indeed confused.


you are on this forum, furthering inconsistant beliefs because it assists you in maintaining your own needs, beliefs, preferences, choices.

which means to deny that you are lying, is lying to yourself.


Are you a preacher too?

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:29 AM
i like the natural order, how about you?

i am an outspoken environmental activist.
i am an advocate for the natural order.
the natural order does include homosexuality as well.
you are merely deluded....and amusingly so, btw.

Craig4
17th October 2010, 10:30 AM
[QUOTE
i dont need a study!

I witness what i see, all by myself.

[/QUOTE]

Wow you just have no idea how this works do you? It's nice you have these little experiences that you seem to think are valuable that's just not how science works. If we're going to say that "A" is harmful then we come up with well designed and repeatable experiments to determine if "A" is in fact harmful. We call this "research". Compared to properly conducted research, your witnessing doesn't really carry any weight.

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:31 AM
then you were not born gay; fact!




you are on this forum, furthering inconsistant beliefs because it assists you in maintaining your own needs, beliefs, preferences, choices.

which means to deny that you are lying, is lying to yourself.


Are you a preacher too?

you are wrongly accusative.
i'm not a preacher, i'm a teacher...they do rhyme, though.
you are indeed a deluded person.

bikerdruid
17th October 2010, 10:50 AM
seems i have you reacting with a whole bunch of posts

kind of like holding you by a thread

what may bug you is when you finally realize that truth trumps the BS of liars



but then again, anyone can lie by choice.


what i rather enjoy of reality, mother nature and existence itself is that the unevolved, the rogue, the lives that do not maintain the PURPOSE of life as the ultimate goal, will go extinct evntually!

i like the natural order, how about you?

btw, bishadi, for what it's worth, i have met hundreds of people like you in my lifetime.
people that, for whatever reason, flatly refuse to believe the science, that hold to archaic beliefs, and claim that everyone else is wrong.
often, they are repressed homosexuals that are trying to convince themselves that they can simply choose to be straight, regardless of their own orientation.
saying it is so does not make it so.
i sincerely hope that none of your children turn out to be queer....you would make their lives a living hell.
and being queer is hard enough without those you love and trust being deluded.
happily my family was not that way.
what would you do if one of your children turned out to be homosexual?

Craig4
17th October 2010, 10:52 AM
then you were not born gay; fact!




you are on this forum, furthering inconsistant beliefs because it assists you in maintaining your own needs, beliefs, preferences, choices.

which means to deny that you are lying, is lying to yourself.


Are you a preacher too?

Would you care to provide some empirical evidence that Biker Druid (or anyone else) was not born gay? What studies of genetics, biology, human sexuality or anything else have you done to come to this conclusion? It's entirely possible that Biker Druid was not born gay and his (and everyone else's) sexual orientation is the result of factors we don't fully understand. However, to say it's a fact he wasn't born gay requires far more evidence than your attempts thus far have communicated.

bookitty
17th October 2010, 11:25 AM
what i rather enjoy of reality, mother nature and existence itself is that the unevolved, the rogue, the lives that do not maintain the PURPOSE of life as the ultimate goal, will go extinct evntually!

i like the natural order, how about you?

The "gays can't have babies, so the race will go extinct!!!" gambit just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. It's just so nonsensical. The "goal" of propagation is not to make babies, it's to make adults who will be able to do their part. If the infant animals die, the line dies out as well.

There are numerous examples of social animals who do not breed within their group but instead support the group in some fashion. This is the "natural order."

To say that all individual animals must breed is ridiculously over-simplified. It's a stoner argument. "But dude, like the animals and DNA and stuff, right?"

Red3
17th October 2010, 11:58 AM
Lol, the "it's not natural/goes against nature" thing nearly makes me piss myself with laughter every time I hear it...It makes absolutely no sense.

The people who spout this rubbish must think their television grew on a tree.

Red3
17th October 2010, 12:00 PM
deleted.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 01:04 PM
Lol, the "it's not natural/goes against nature" thing nearly makes me piss myself with laughter every time I hear it...It makes absolutely no sense.

instinctively life maintains the nature

mankind has believed it is not a part of nature, since perhaps even genesis.

mankind created words as well as acting schools, dont mean either are good for nature

The people who spout this rubbish must think their television grew on a tree.

kind of like it sure wasn't gays that enabled mankind to evolve

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 01:13 PM
The "gays can't have babies, so the race will go extinct!!!" gambit just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. sounds like the peeve i see is the lack of maintaining coherance to what you read and basically have a subjective approach to observing the nature of life.

i could care less how you view the lineage of mankind, but your line of life will dies off if you do not procreate. ie... the combination of your mother and father could be wasted by a the selfish choice of actions, by you!

It's just so nonsensical. The "goal" of propagation is not to make babies, it's to make adults who will be able to do their part. If the infant animals die, the line dies out as well. kind of like same sexual intercourse dont do much for either as they are too busy taking resources for their own entertainment, or perhaps because they live the entertainment industry versus the good of others or even themselves.

There are numerous examples of social animals who do not breed within their group but instead support the group in some fashion. This is the "natural order." i have accidently stepped on ants too, but when one attacks me, it aint no accident

To say that all individual animals must breed is ridiculously over-simplified. It's a stoner argument. "But dude, like the animals and DNA and stuff, right?"

better than the self-centered argument; i do because i can and dont care about anyone else but myself.


there is no right to lie, in itself.


but to know what life is, then procreation is not only for you. ie.. your parents and the whole lineage since the beginning of time, that makes you.

i never discount Love, but hell to liar

JFrankA
17th October 2010, 01:15 PM
kind of like it sure wasn't gays that enabled mankind to evolve

You know, there is a species of bugs that when a male is attracted to a female, but the female has a "boyfriend", the male will disguise himself as a female. He'll then go to the "boyfriend", seduce him and allow the boyfriend to mate with him instead.

This way, the disguised male can then mate with the female while her "boyfriend" is spent.

....isn't this a way homosexuality allows evolution or at the very least, an example of homosexuality being used to "produce babies"?

johnny karate
17th October 2010, 01:20 PM
kind of like it sure wasn't gays that enabled mankind to evolve

I'm pretty sure most homophobes don't believe in evolution anyway, so I don't see a problem.

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 01:20 PM
Would you care to provide some empirical evidence that Biker Druid (or anyone else) was not born gay? take a genetics test or purely look between the babies legs when born.

if there is no genetic difference in which the science can provide EVIDENCE that the child is born hemorphradite, then that child is sexually orientated to the gender it was born as.

any diffference is learned. ie... there is no genetically material evidence that renders a make genetically wants a male part put in them. And anyone who tells you that is a liar.

Same with the female side, there is no gene that makes a women REQUIRE that she has sex with another women.

desires are not genetically driven to contradict the life otherwise they are called genetic mutations and them folks can be assisted.

kind of like the cleft palet, we can assist them versus having to cut everyone elses lip to make them feel better.


What studies of genetics, biology, human sexuality or anything else have you done to come to this conclusion? most everything i do is about life and the comperhension of living organisms to the molecular level.



It's entirely possible that Biker Druid was not born gay and his (and everyone else's) sexual orientation is the result of factors we don't fully understand. However, to say it's a fact he wasn't born gay requires far more evidence than your attempts thus far have communicated.
if the person was born hemorphridite, then gay can apply to the biology if not it is all psychological.

case closed!

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 01:26 PM
I'm pretty sure most homophobes don't believe in evolution anyway, so I don't see a problem.


homosexuals cant evolve via the fact of no procreation.

homophobes are the created label of homosexuals just like an atheist is usually an evolved theist.


i do believe this type of conversation will bring out more insults from gay posters reflecting their only capability of defense, then ever seeking the truth of the matter.

Calling me deluted is as good as telling your mother/father that you hate them for living.

Red3
17th October 2010, 01:29 PM
i could care less how you view the lineage of mankind, but your line of life will dies off if you do not procreate. ie... the combination of your mother and father could be wasted by a the selfish choice of actions, by you!



So what? It's not written in stone that your particular line *has to* carry on for either ethical or evolutionary reasons no matter how long it's been here. The species as a whole is doing just fine. Choice or not, homosexuality will not alter the success of the human race - if it could have, it would have by now, probably a long time ago. So what are you worrying about? In fact, with the numbers we're up to now on earth we could probably do with more gay people - more gays = less new babies, plus they can adopt some of the ones that're here and no one wants...But I guess you're against that too?

And the adoption issue bolsters the altruistic and community oriented aspect of humanity. You don't need to reproduce to play a role in human survival.

SezMe
17th October 2010, 01:31 PM
take a genetics test or purely look between the babies legs when born.
That's the problem right there. Bishadi thinks that external genitalia are the same thing as sexual orientation.

Well, that's just not the case, Bishadi. Sexual orientation is set in the brain, not in the bits. To think otherwise is just plain dumb....no, it's even worse than that. The MA prevents me from being more explicit.

Alt+F4
17th October 2010, 01:32 PM
homosexuals cant evolve via the fact of no procreation.

You believe that gays don't have children? Really? I just hope your issue is that English is not your first language. In whatever language it is, do they have capital letters? Where you come from do they teach you that evolution works the same for gay people and straight people?

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 01:34 PM
btw, bishadi, for what it's worth, i have met hundreds of people like you in my lifetime. bet you havent met one like me.


people that, for whatever reason, flatly refuse to believe the science,

now you are talking about your own failing. ie... biology tells you your gender and sexual orientation but you can lie to yourself all you like.

i sincerely hope that none of your children turn out to be queer

bringing in my children?


...you would make their lives a living hell.
and being queer is hard enough without those you love and trust being deluded.

deluded?

trying to insult me on 2 fronts????


happily my family was not that way. some kids believe they are peter pan for a while, but most grow out of it.
what would you do if one of your children turned out to be homosexual?teach em the truth of the matter and let them make their own choice.


but it dont mean they can lie to another because they like what they like.

personal responsibility is far more important than your selfish beilefs

Bishadi
17th October 2010, 01:37 PM
So what? It's not written in stone that your particular line *has to* carry on i know and why it is a choice.

you can hang yourself too

for either ethical or evolutionary reasons no matter how long it's been here. The species as a whole is doing just fine. Choice or not, homosexuality will not alter the success of the human race i know


that is not the argument. The debate is whether it is a choice or is someone born that that.


its a choice, unless hemorphridite.

that is reality and then if any lie to another claiming otherwise, they are the corrupt. Kind of like a preacher telling everyone to pay up or go to hell; just lies that harm others based on the lack of personal responsibility.

Red3
17th October 2010, 01:40 PM
homosexuals cant evolve via the fact of no procreation.

Gay people often have children. But let's say you're right, if homosexuality is genetic then gay people are created by random mutations made happen by your beloved, perfect nature. An idea that you won't like (because I'm guessing to you nature = god?) and that's why you're sticking to your tired old line about it being a choice.