View Full Version : Homosexuality
PanzerJaeger
04-12-2006, 07:07
What do you believe causes homosexuality in humans?
Byzantine Prince
04-12-2006, 07:31
It's a psychology. You are born with it or you develop it, and it might have to do with genetics but in a very obscure way.
InsaneApache
04-12-2006, 08:40
What do you believe causes homosexuality in humans?
I don't care and it's none of my business. :balloon2:
Divinus Arma
04-12-2006, 08:59
A close relative watched her dad blow his brains out with a shotgun when she was seven.
She's a lesbian. (one of those pretty ones, not the giant bull-dykes with the mullets) And I love her no matter what.
Major Robert Dump
04-12-2006, 09:12
Homosexuality is okay as long as both chics are hot.
This poll is gay
Judging from the party I was at on Monday, being fairly weird, ugly, and not fitting in.
On the plus side girls kissing is never a bad thing. I felt for the straight one who had to run away...
Duke of Gloucester
04-12-2006, 12:08
I don't care and it's none of my business.
What he said.
Ianofsmeg16
04-12-2006, 12:13
Whatever our Political Leaders want to do in their spare time is their own buisness...
R'as al Ghul
04-12-2006, 12:18
What do you believe causes fear of homosexuality in humans?
Duke John
04-12-2006, 12:20
Do women fear homosexuality? I thought it was mostly a guy thing?
Ianofsmeg16
04-12-2006, 12:20
What do you believe causes fear of homosexuality in humans?
Bad experiences in a Back street night club?:laugh4:
Seriously though, I think the homophobes are just scared of something different
What do you believe causes homosexuality in humans?
Why does it matter?
Quid
R'as al Ghul
04-12-2006, 12:25
Do women fear homosexuality? I thought it was mostly a guy thing?
Interesting question. My Gf was approached by a lesbian one time and
she said it felt weird, but she didn't feel afraid.
Personally I don't see how it affects me what they do sexually.
I find it weird that other peoples sex live is not a common topic (to a certain extent) to talk about, unless they are gay.
Mithrandir
04-12-2006, 12:32
Homosexuality is okay as long as both chics are hot.
This poll is gay
Laughed out loud :).
A close relative watched her dad blow his brains out with a shotgun when she was seven.
She's a lesbian. (one of those pretty ones, not the giant bull-dykes with the mullets) And I love her no matter what.
A close relative watched a man jump in front of a train when she was 6.
She's a heterosexual. ~:rolleyes:.
R'as al Ghul
04-12-2006, 12:35
A close relative watched a man jump in front of a train when she was 6.
She's a heterosexual. ~:rolleyes:.
q.e.d. :laugh4:
Big King Sanctaphrax
04-12-2006, 12:39
One theory I've seen advanced is that it's due to exposure to hormones in the womb. That seems plausible to me.
Psychology obviously plays a part as well, of course.
Oh here is an exciting new topic which hasn't featured before and has never died the death of one million flames! :help:
In my view it's mainly a matter of mankind having royally screwed up the air, food, and water supply and thusly paving the way for genomes to get severely messed up.
There is so much toxic crap in there nowadays that many are born with terrible birth defects, including the desire for "homosexuality."
I believe that it's a choice, with a combination of how you were raised and the environment you were born and raised in. But mostly it's a choice, I chose to like woman because I know that that's the way it's supposed to be, looking down the physical way.
I could just as easily like men, if I wanted to, but I'm not going to because homosexuality is am obstruction of God's plan for humanity.
-ZainDustin
R'as al Ghul
04-12-2006, 13:18
In my view it's mainly a matter of mankind having royally screwed up the air, food, and water supply and thusly paving the way for genomes to get severely messed up.
There is so much toxic crap in there nowadays that many are born with terrible birth defects, including the desire for "homosexuality."
How do you explain the homosexuality of the ancient Greek and Spartans?
Mithrandir
04-12-2006, 13:32
I believe that it's a choice, with a combination of how you were raised and the environment you were born and raised in.
-ZainDustin
How do you explain the Iranian men who knew they would be hung when their sexual preference would be discovered? (And it happened).
But mostly it's a choice,
I think the only choice is wether to come out or not.
It`s physical. I believe scientific studies agree with that.
Well, you could say it`s mental, of course, but mentality has roots in the physical..
Bar Kochba
04-12-2006, 14:09
in my personal Opioinon the cause of homosexuality is
GAH!!!
I believe that it's a choice.
So can you tell us when, exactly, you chose to be attracted to women? Can you recall the day when you weighed the decision, saying to yourself, "Hot leathermen or cheerleaders? Which shall it be?"
The_Doctor
04-12-2006, 14:33
A more interesting question would be:
What causes homosexuality in animals?
Answering that question should answer the first question.
Or an even harder question:
What doesn't cause homosexuality in humans/animals?
A combination of factors - its interesting to note that those who study behavioral sciences and mental health have yet to agree on what causes homosexual behavior.
It could be the environment of the society involved
It could be a hormone imbalance
It could be just a matter of choice.
Some would espouse that its genetic - which is about the only cause of homosexuality that I would disagree with
It could be a combination of all of the above.
Kralizec
04-12-2006, 14:51
It could be a combination of all of the above.
And different people might become homosexual for different reasons.
It`s physical. I believe scientific studies agree with that.
Well, you could say it`s mental, of course, but mentality has roots in the physical..
If it was already proven that being gay is physically hardwired in genes, then there would be no need to discuss this topic furthur. There is no evidence of of a gay gene, the results of the xp28 study is challenged by similar studies.
I believe that it's a choice, with a combination of how you were raised and the environment you were born and raised in. But mostly it's a choice, I chose to like woman because I know that that's the way its supposed to be, looking down the physical way.
I could just as easily like men, if I wanted to, but I'm not going to because homosexuality is am obstruction of God's plan for humanity.
-ZainDustin
Really? Then I'd like to know gods plan for people born intersexed? Approximately 1% of newborns are 'atypical' - link (http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency).
If it was already proven that being gay is physically hardwired in genes, then there would be no need to discuss this topic furthur. There is no evidence of of a gay gene, the results of the xp28 study is challenged by similar studies.
I didn`t say that they concluded, I said that they agreed.
Since certain twins (one part of the pair) can be acertained to be homosexuals even from early years, it seems to be quite a difficult matter.
At that age children do not have any incentive to make a choice (as if you can chose who you are attracted to :dizzy2: ), yet there is little you can say about it. Upbringing doesn't seem to affect that since twins are treated equally to a great extent. Hormones in the womb should be equal as well, but we can't know for sure though. Genes are the same.
So we end up with a situation where we simply can't say that it is one thing or the other.
Rodion Romanovich
04-12-2006, 15:12
Some can get homosexual due to genes probably, because some animals are gay. But not too many, especially not for species where they get few children. It can only appear through new mutations, or in the case of humans, when homosexuals are by culture forced to live as heterosexuals, get children, and therefore reproduce despite being gay.
Some more probably get homosexual because of hormone and toxine pollution. For example, male fish living downstreams of sewers have turned into strange monsters somewhere between man and woman and something else that doesn't belong to this world because of pollution from contraceptive pills. Plasters with hormones, given to 40-60 years old women in a certain period also contribute as much as around 10 contraceptive pills to this effect - which makes it strange that EU and US government haven't forbidden them, especially when other methods of taking in the same substance are more medically useful as the dosage received through plasters are difficult to regulate properly. This has made me wonder if most EU and USA politicians perhaps might be gay, since they seem so eager to make others become gay too.
Some probably get gay because it's fashionable, much like in 19th century England, ancient Greece, etc.
Some probably get gay because they're kept from women for a very long time and only see men, and when they're in the critical age for development of "the urge" - because the urge is only halfway ready programmed in the genes - they get it wrong because of that. This applies to spartans, and it has been studied in plenty of other situations, like prisons etc.
But one would think the babe thread would cure all cases caused by the last two...
Rodion Romanovich
04-12-2006, 15:15
Since certain twins (one part of the pair) can be acertained to be homosexuals even from early years, it seems to be quite a difficult matter.
At that age children do not have any incentive to make a choice (as if you can chose who you are attracted to :dizzy2: ), yet there is little you can say about it. Upbringing doesn't seem to affect that since twins are treated equally to a great extent. Hormones in the womb should be equal as well, but we can't know for sure though. Genes are the same.
So we end up with a situation where we simply can't say that it is one thing or the other.
How early years? Can you really tell something about someone's seuxality when they're below an age where they can make choices? If so, it's really scary because then someone might take advantage of that and persuade a young boy to become homosexual to abuse him. Bleh... :furious3:
It was a show made specifically on this issue and there were boys down tothe age of 7 I think.
They didn't much mind for the classical boy toys. Some more than others. The most extreme of the boys I would say would be transsexuals, meaning females caught in male bodies. But others were just very different.
The another part was about grown up twins of different sexual preference and they mentioned that often the straight twin knew his brother was gay long before he did himself.
I don't think you con convince a boy to be homosexual, you can abuse of course, but most studies I have heard of indicate that such boys stay within the normal spread of sexual preferences.
Kanamori
04-12-2006, 16:41
If one means practicing homosexuality, it seems to be choice which determines whether one practices or not. If one means who one is attracted to, I would say a myriad of factors that would probably not be characterized by choice. That said, at the risk of overreacting, I think there is often a disturbing obsession with finding and labeling gay people, and thinking about it all the time. Some people, I think, spend more time worrying about who is gay, and what's gay, than homosexuals looking for a gay partner do. Frankly, those people that seem to spend all of their time thinking about 'gay' people are a bit weird. To practice homosexuality is a personal choice, and it is clearly a choice they should be free to make. Personally, I very much liked how homosexuals were quite free to be homosexuals in Britain, relatively free of prejudice. I met a few gay politicians and partners. They could be openly gay, and nobody cared; the way it should be.
Strike For The South
04-13-2006, 02:58
So can you tell us when, exactly, you chose to be attracted to women? Can you recall the day when you weighed the decision, saying to yourself, "Hot leathermen or cheerleaders? Which shall it be?"
yes actually. July 14 1999 It was a tuesday IIRC. Now dont get me wrong the leatherman made a good arguement and even busted out the village people. I nesarly choose them to. Then that cheerleader did that thing with her tounge and showed what she could do with her legs. When the guy tried that he tore his hamstring and bit his tounge open
Alexanderofmacedon
04-13-2006, 03:14
It's a mixture between the second and third choice in my opinion...
As for Anthony...you dirty...:no:
:inquisitive:
yes actually. July 14 1999 It was a tuesday IIRC. Now dont get me wrong the leatherman made a good arguement and even busted out the village people. I nesarly choose them to. Then that cheerleader did that thing with her tounge and showed what she could do with her legs. When the guy tried that he tore his hamstring and bit his tounge open
Im pretty sure that last part makes you gay SFTS.:sweatdrop:
As too gay people they dont really bother me. I have no problem with them as long as they dont come on too me then thats too far.:no:
Alexanderofmacedon
04-13-2006, 03:40
Im pretty sure that last part makes you gay SFTS.:sweatdrop:
As too gay people they dont really bother me. I have no problem with them as long as they dont come on too me then thats too far.:no:
Seconded.
Craterus
04-13-2006, 14:43
Most people who are/closely related to a homosexual say that it's fairly obvious from birth. They say that they always knew.
I don't think it's a matter of choice, but the upbringing could have an effect...
yes actually. July 14 1999 It was a tuesday IIRC. Now dont get me wrong the leatherman made a good arguement and even busted out the village people. I nesarly choose them to. Then that cheerleader did that thing with her tounge and showed what she could do with her legs. When the guy tried that he tore his hamstring and bit his tounge open
I consider myself well-answered. SFTS decided to be straight on Tuesday, July 14th, 1999. Enough said.
Wait a minute! July 14th, 1999 was a Wednesday! Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
Duke Malcolm
04-13-2006, 16:35
I thought that it had been established previously that it is not genetic...
I say there's summat in the water... hormones collected in those places where the water has been through others (don't they say the water in the south east has been through at least a few people?) collects hormones from women on the Contraceptive Pill, HRT, etc and is thence drunk by the unsuspecting person (pregnant or otherwise) and alters the foetus/child until adolescence. Also, farmers give hormones to chickens and other such livestock to make them bigger and the meat of the animals is eaten so additionalal hormones there. And I realise that I chose psychology, but I was really heading towards "upbringing" as in food and water used when the child was growing up... but also the time in the womb is significant... perhaps also when the gentleman's soldiers are being made and the womans ovaries are being filled, but I digress... there's definitely summat in the water...
Ser Clegane
04-13-2006, 16:57
I thought that it had been established previously that it is not genetic...
nope - it hasn't "been established"
A.Saturnus
04-13-2006, 19:19
How early years? Can you really tell something about someone's seuxality when they're below an age where they can make choices? If so, it's really scary because then someone might take advantage of that and persuade a young boy to become homosexual to abuse him. Bleh... :furious3:
A large Australian study has once shown that it's possible to predict later sexual orientation in the majority of cases at the age of 2.
What precisely causes homosexuality is not clear yet. That's no surprise since that is so for all personality traits. There's no doubt however that it has a multifactioral cause.
I thought that it had been established previously that it is not genetic...
Well, the fact that the chance is unequally distributed over families suggests that it is partly genetic.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-13-2006, 20:31
A large Australian study has once shown that it's possible to predict later sexual orientation in the majority of cases at the age of 2.
How was that study done exactly? If you predicted heterosexual everytime you'd be correct in the majority of cases. Were their predictions of homosexuality correct the majority of the time?
Scientifically or philosophically?
For the second one I’ll give you all a hint…
Kangaroo’s!
Do with it as you pleas.
This is an interesting question. Part of the problem here is that to qualify as homosexual to the rest of us, a person really only has to pronounce oneself as one. So I would say that this means there are at least some "homosexuals" whose difference in sexual preference has nothing to do directly with genetics. Furthermore, I think we'd all agree that "psychology" plays a part in sexual attraction. Take pedophilia for instance: I would bet all that it is NOT POSSIBLE for an attraction to the form of children to be a direct result of genetic encoding... such a thing could only be the result of psychological perversion. I would not contend, however, that the attraction that a pedophile feels is "not real".
So my answer is: there are probably some homosexuals whose difference in sexual preference is at least partly the result of psychological perversion and there are probably some homosexuals whose sexual deviation has nothing to do directly with genetics. The rest of the matter in question I am uncertain of, and don't have enough background in genetics to attempt any sort of guess or analyzation.
As a follow up I would say that a homosexual's sexual deviation, in action, no matter the "cause", has an inordinately large psychological component to it, due to all the errant penetration.
A.Saturnus
04-14-2006, 18:36
How was that study done exactly? If you predicted heterosexual everytime you'd be correct in the majority of cases. Were their predictions of homosexuality correct the majority of the time?
I was a bit unclear. The study was not qualitative but quantitative. Children were measured on a scale how much gender prototypicality they showed. The same people were asked as adults to range themselves on a scale how heterosexual/homosexual they found themselves. There was a significant correlation between the two measures.
A combination of Factors:
Choice? A little... possibly.
Gentics? Maybe.
Physchology? Most likely. University of Chicago did a study where they examined a certain part of the brain responsible for, I believe it was, sexual emotions. They found that the part of the brain in straight men was about 3 or 4 times as active as the part of the brain in straight women. The part of the brain in gay men was equal to the part of the brain in straight women. I'd give you a link, but I really dont remember what it was (A friend who is majoring in neurology (sp) gave it to me a while back). Just food for thought.
Louis VI the Fat
04-14-2006, 20:34
I have no problem with them as long as they dont come on to me Why? I try to hit on girls without asking them if they're heterosexual first.
Your arse is fair game, mate. :balloon2:
InsaneApache
04-14-2006, 22:23
Why? I try to hit on girls without asking them if they're heterosexual first.
Your arse is fair game, mate. :balloon2:
Is that my new quote? :laugh4:
That is funny.
solypsist
04-14-2006, 22:27
apparently dressing up in german uniforms and/or displaying swaztikas and/or iron crosses tends to cause homosexuality in the people who fetishize certain ultraconservative ww2 political parties:
The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, (ISBN 0964760932),
Craterus
04-14-2006, 23:50
Your arse is fair game, mate. :balloon2:
Awesome line... :laugh4: :laugh4:
When I was a Teenager I considered homosexuality as a form of (delicately) construction error. :shame:
Like a “flaw” in the mind of the person.
Later on I was beginning to suppose (due to the overpopulation) it’s a natural subconscious way from the human kind to keep the population level low(er).
Like kangaroos it’s been known that they can determine the population count.
Maybe other specie’s too in one way or the other have this capacity?
Then a friend pointed out there is a form off proof of from homosexuality since the Stone Age.
(Don’t ask I don’t know)
He said that they didn’t went to the hunt along with the other males.
But stayed with the women, taking care of the more household aspects of that time.
Sounds ludicrous I know.
But the again,… you know, maybe?:inquisitive:
So now I believe that’s it a combination of both.
Plus maybe a little bit of to much time on our hands and a large amount of time to play and think.
For the record: Don’t think I disapprove this phenomenon.~:)
Nature decided this to exist, so who are we to judge.
Divinus Arma
04-15-2006, 05:50
A close relative watched a man jump in front of a train when she was 6.
She's a heterosexual. ~:rolleyes:.
That wasn't her dad. And who initially wrote a note explaining why he killed his daughter too, before she hid and he couldn't find her.
A stranger and your father are very different things in the psyche of a child. I think it is fair to say that this contributed to her having a warped perception of men. Not that it happens in everyone who expereiences this type of trauma, I am just pointing to this one instances where conjecture seems reasonable.
'Other'. It can't be said that if it is just genetic, psychological or a combination of both.
Banquo's Ghost
04-15-2006, 11:57
Then a friend pointed out there is a form off proof of from homosexuality since the Stone Age.
(Don’t ask I don’t know)
He said that they didn’t went to the hunt along with the other males.
But stayed with the women, taking care of the more household aspects of that time.
Sounds ludicrous I know.
But the again,… you know, maybe?:inquisitive:
You'll find that we have very little evidence of behaviour patterns from even Neolithic times. Your hypothesis is rooted in the belief that homosexuals are by nature 'feminised' and indeed, that females in prehistoric societies behaved only as 'homemakers' as we moderns understand.
There is evidence from later periods of history and other cultures that shows both of these stereotypes are deeply flawed.
I don't think the Spartan warrior was noted for staying at home in a pinny looking after the kids, was he? :stupido2:
Later on I was beginning to suppose (due to the overpopulation) it’s a natural subconscious way from the human kind to keep the population level low(er).
Like kangaroos it’s been known that they can determine the population count.
Maybe other specie’s too in one way or the other have this capacity?
A specie's highest goal here on Earth, is to spread itself. Prosper such that it reaches beyond all horizons.
If it gets too many of them, illnesses will break out, and/our they will starve, many will die. But those who now are left, will have excellent conditions for living.
Homosexuality either occur because of random genetical mutations, or because of a special sort of enviroment that they grow up in. I go for the first.
So my point is that homosexuality doesn`t reallly benefit a specie, the more of a specie, the better. Especially for specie like homo sapiens, who get few children. Otherwise, there should have been an increase in percentage of the amount of homosexuals thru time, but I haven`t seen anything pointing out that.
A specie's highest goal here on Earth, is to spread itself. Prosper such that it reaches beyond all horizons.
If it gets too many of them, illnesses will break out, and/our they will starve, many will die. But those who now are left, will have excellent conditions for living.
Homosexuality either occur because of random genetical mutations, or because of a special sort of enviroment that they grow up in. I go for the first.
So my point is that homosexuality doesn`t reallly benefit a specie, the more of a specie, the better. Especially for specie like homo sapiens, who get few children. Otherwise, there should have been an increase in percentage of the amount of homosexuals thru time, but I haven`t seen anything pointing out that.
True... but if it was genetics we would also see a decline of homosexuals in the modern world (since they don't breed). We do not.
In fact there should by all standards be far more homosexuals just prior to the sexual liberation period (you can call it differently but you know what I mean). Nothing seems to indicate as much.
Neither does it explain how identical twins can have different sexuality...
True... but if it was genetics we would also see a decline of homosexuals in the modern world (since they don't breed). We do not.
In fact there should by all standards be far more homosexuals just prior to the sexual liberation period (you can call it differently but you know what I mean). Nothing seems to indicate as much.
Neither does it explain how identical twins can have different sexuality...
So you`re saying that the people around one, make other people homosexual, in order to keep the number of homosexuals constant?
That would make sense alot.
But it could be that there actually was alot more homosexuals before the sexual liberation period, do we have any statistics on that?
Banquo's Ghost
04-15-2006, 14:20
So my point is that homosexuality doesn`t reallly benefit a specie, the more of a specie, the better. Especially for specie like homo sapiens, who get few children. Otherwise, there should have been an increase in percentage of the amount of homosexuals thru time, but I haven`t seen anything pointing out that.
Kraxis dealt well with your genetic assertion so I will just add this:
Human beings are not prisoners of their biology.
Kraxis dealt well with your genetic assertion so I will just add this:
Human beings are not prisoners of their biology.
No. But then I haven`t said that neither directly nor indirectly.
So you`re saying that the people around one, make other people homosexual, in order to keep the number of homosexuals constant?
That would make sense alot.
But it could be that there actually was alot more homosexuals before the sexual liberation period, do we have any statistics on that?
I'm not sure what you mean?
In any case I do not know what makes homosexualism happen... Nor do I have any designs on the matter. But I do know that you don't choose to become one, either you are or you aren't (of course some homosexuals are really lying to themselves trying to be straight, but they are still attracted to their own sex). Why would anybody WANT to be homosexual? There are problems with children (and we must expect that everybody want them somehow), there are problems with people and of course there is the issue about legal rights in certain places.
Longer back we can't know how many homosexuals there were, but just prior to the late 60s it seems there were just as many as now. They were the 'first' homosexuals in the west that could live together in relative peace, thus they must have been much more numerous just then, and wafterwards we must have seen a decline. I just think that.
I'm not sure what you mean?
In order to keep the percentage of the population homosexual, is "nature makes it" that way, either through hormones or something like that.
I`ve read somewherer that women working together on the same place, has synchronized menstruation. I drawed an analog from here.
But if it is true that you can tell ones sexuality already at the age of 2 (mentioned earlier here), or similar, then that would be wrong.
Just plain theory.
Longer back we can't know how many homosexuals there were, but just prior to the late 60s it seems there were just as many as now. They were the 'first' homosexuals in the west that could live together in relative peace, thus they must have been much more numerous just then, and wafterwards we must have seen a decline. I just think that.
Well, this liberation didn`t come as a tsunami, I believe. Such that it took it's time for everyone to "come out of the cabinet".
Of course it wasn't over night... but over a few years. In fact the the first years were more 'liberated' than now.
And since people generally live pretty long (more than 3-4 years) the product of the last generations of homosexuals should have been there obviously. But nothing indicates that there were more of them than now.
A.Saturnus
04-15-2006, 19:39
A specie's highest goal here on Earth, is to spread itself. Prosper such that it reaches beyond all horizons.
A species does not have any goal. Evlution does not know purpose only causation and necessity. Species are accidential constructs of nature, stemming from the fact that for sexual reproduction compatible partners are needed. In non-sexual reproducing lifeforms, it is much harder to determine what a species is. Species is in fact a vague concept.
A species is also not the unit of evolution. There are no mechanisms in biological evolution that would select and adapt species. The selection mechanism of biological evolution is the survival chance of individual genes. Metaphorically put, the gen would sacrifice its species any time if that service its interests.
Therefore are theories that try to explain something on basis of the interest of the species in contradiction with biological evolution.
A species does not have any goal. Evlution does not know purpose only causation and necessity. Species are accidential constructs of nature, stemming from the fact that for sexual reproduction compatible partners are needed. In non-sexual reproducing lifeforms, it is much harder to determine what a species is. Species is in fact a vague concept.
A species is also not the unit of evolution. There are no mechanisms in biological evolution that would select and adapt species. The selection mechanism of biological evolution is the survival chance of individual genes. Metaphorically put, the gen would sacrifice its species any time if that service its interests.
Therefore are theories that try to explain something on basis of the interest of the species in contradiction with biological evolution.
Yes, I know that, but it may appear that evolution has "goals", still; without that actually being the case.
Metaphorically put, the gen would sacrifice its species any time if that service its interests.
You just "innappropriately" personified an element too in the conclusion to your statement. ~;p
Edit: and actually the selection mechanism is really based on the phenotypes of individuals; if a specific gene happens to be "in" an individual with a successful phenotype (viril, dominant, efficient, etc within the environment of reference) then so be it.
True... but if it was genetics we would also see a decline of homosexuals in the modern world (since they don't breed).
I don't think this is true. The "alleles" for homosexuality could persist, without homosexuals breeding, in individuals who are heterozygous for that gene (if the homosexual trait is recessive). These individuals would have one "homosexual" allele and one dominant, "wild-type", "normal" allele. In this case the "wild-type" allele, being dominant, would result in a heterosexual phenotype being displayed. When two of these heterozygous individuals breed, it would be possible for the offspring to inherit two "homosexual" alleles for that gene... in that case they would be homosexual. This is why certain diseases that absolutely result in infant or adolescent mortality persist.
I'm not saying this is the case or that its likely, just that the fact that homosexuals don't breed doesn't rule out the possibility of genetic causes.
I'm not saying this is the case or that its likely, just that the fact that homosexuals don't breed doesn't rule out the possibility of genetic causes.
Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible.
The homosexuality trait has been proven to not have "Medelian Properties". I posted a link a while back about this. Simply put, you can not use the dominant/recessive alelle system. If it is genetics, it most likely is a combination of traits which would be extremely hard to prove.
If it is genetics, it most likely is a combination of traits which would be extremely hard to prove.
That's really what I was aiming towards, I just simplified it for the example, but my statement is still ok: the fact that homosexuals don't breed doesn't rule out genetic causes. The occurence of mutations is another thing that may support the argument. Again, I'm not commenting on the likelihood of such causes.
I'd be interested in a test that measured the hormone levels of homosexuals. I wonder what is the effect of an atypical set of hormone concentrations upon a male brain?
I'd be interested in a test that measured the hormone levels of homosexuals. I wonder what is the effect of an atypical set of hormone concentrations upon a male brain?
I commented on this earlier in the dicussion. I wish I still had the link to the journal at University of Chicago. I had a really good article.
Justiciar
04-18-2006, 02:40
http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/multimedia/videoclips/daytoday/episode6/Gay%20Desk.mpg
solypsist
04-18-2006, 02:58
you mean like genetic "defects" of nearsightedness, obesity, male pettern baldness as well as the combination of genetic info that does not result in blonde hair and blue eyes? you're on a slippery slope with this.
Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-18-2006, 03:37
It's like that awfull Gattaca movie~:eek:
http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/multimedia/videoclips/daytoday/episode6/Gay%20Desk.mpg
Very funny. ~:)
you mean like genetic "defects" of nearsightedness, obesity, male pettern baldness as well as the combination of genetic info that does not result in blonde hair and blue eyes? you're on a slippery slope with this.
I mean by genetic defect just what the notion implies: a defect based on a physiological failing. If you wish to argue there are no such things we can discuss it, but your position will be difficult.
Major Robert Dump
04-18-2006, 13:37
I bet some people turn gay so they can have more clothes
Marcellus
04-18-2006, 14:28
http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/multimedia/videoclips/daytoday/episode6/Gay%20Desk.mpg
Ahh, The Day Today. Utterly brilliant.
Catiline
04-18-2006, 14:35
Bad experiences in a Back street night club?:laugh4:
Seriously though, I think the homophobes are just scared of something different
Technically they're scared of something the same :dizzy2:
solypsist
04-18-2006, 16:43
so then something like nearsightedness does fit within your definition. i seriously doubt you'd promote death-in-the-womb (the only current "correction" available at the detection stage) for something like that. i don't think homosexuality, if it is a gene, fits any definition of physiological defect, in that it does not hamper the normal functioning of being a person - quite the contrary - the only people who seem to have affected living with homosexuality are the ones who don't have this (theoretical) "genetic issue".
I mean by genetic defect just what the notion implies: a defect based on a physiological failing. If you wish to argue there are no such things we can discuss it, but your position will be difficult.
so then something like nearsightedness does fit within your definition. i seriously doubt you'd promote death-in-the-womb (the only current "correction" available at the detection stage) for something like that. i don't think homosexuality, if it is a gene, fits any definition of physiological defect, in that it does not hamper the normal functioning of being a person - quite the contrary - the only people who seem to have affected living with homosexuality are the ones who don't have this (theoretical) "genetic issue".
No one mentioned death as a correction. Death is an elimination.
Normal functioning begs the question. If someone were born blind due to a genetic failing should or should not energies be spent on giving the person sight? If pedophilia were shown to be a genetic defect should the stance be: no attempt to change the impulse should be undertaken as pedophiles live normally otherwise: the only ones who seem to have "affected living are the ones who don't have this genetic issue"? In the Twenty-First Century most see pedophilia as negative, but a cultural history will demonstrate that was not always so. The point is the issue turns on a moral stance. Whether one sees the genetically blind, gay or pedophilic as needing any kind of corrective may depend on a moral standard over and above base functionality. Though one could argue the one impacts the other.
Dutch_guy
04-18-2006, 18:13
I bet some people turn gay so they can have more clothes
You post these seemingly random one-liners in every backroom thread you post don't you ?
Makes me laugh each and every time.
:balloon2:
A.Saturnus
04-18-2006, 19:55
Edit: and actually the selection mechanism is really based on the phenotypes of individuals; if a specific gene happens to be "in" an individual with a successful phenotype (viril, dominant, efficient, etc within the environment of reference) then so be it.
I disagree, but that would lead off topic now.
Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible.
One should not assume that something like a "gay gene" exists. If homosexuality has a genetic component, it would still be multifactorial, so probably several genes would be involved. Since these genes can have other functions as well, it can't be considered a defect in a classical way. It may of course be possible - if one allows for gene manipulations at all - to decrease predispositions for homosexuality. The same would be true for other traits with genetical components, such as religiousness.
One should not assume that something like a "gay gene" exists.
I agree.
If homosexuality has a genetic component, it would still be multifactorial, so probably several genes would be involved. Since these genes can have other functions as well, it can't be considered a defect in a classical way.
Any multifactorial standing does not, in and of itself, escape judgment. It merely indicates complexity.
It may of course be possible - if one allows for gene manipulations at all - to decrease predispositions for homosexuality. The same would be true for other traits with genetical components, such as religiousness.
This of course lends itself back to my initial post: "Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible."
solypsist
04-18-2006, 21:25
(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination.
No one mentioned death as a correction. Death is an elimination.
(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination.
Are you suggesting the whole is understood in terms of a part and that the removal of a part constitutes the ending of the whole? If so, then you must be opposed to hair cuts.
solypsist
04-19-2006, 14:41
a haircut is not the same as altering genetic dat to result in a different person. your constant method of selecting only a small part of my argument and then applying your own definition in an effort to lead the conversation isn't going to work here. you need to answer my original question of whether your theory of being gay as a detectable physiological flaw holds parity with other, documented unwanted genetic flaws. pretty much a yes/no question.
Are you suggesting the whole is understood in terms of a part and that the removal of a part constitutes the ending of the whole? If so, then you must be opposed to hair cuts.
a haircut is not the same as altering genetic dat to result in a different person.
Based on what you wrote they are parallel: any change of a part constitutes a change (and in fact elimination) of the whole. Thus, a hair cut means the end of the person whose hair was cut.
your constant method of selecting only a small part of my argument and then applying your own definition in an effort to lead the conversation isn't going to work here.
Have you presented an argument? Is this it: "(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination."?
Is there some larger argumentative strata I am missing?
I have presented no definition. I do understand rational implication however and can use it.
you need to answer my original question of whether your theory of being gay as a detectable physiological flaw holds parity with other, documented unwanted genetic flaws. pretty much a yes/no question.
I have presented no theory of being gay. Please read more carefully. I did say that if gaydom could be consigned to a genetic state then the more interesting question would be whether such should be considered a defect and fixed where possible.
Obviously, if being gay is a genetic flaw then it would be similar to other genetic flaws.
A.Saturnus
04-19-2006, 19:26
Any multifactorial standing does not, in and of itself, escape judgment. It merely indicates complexity.
Yes. I meant that it is not a defect in the way for example Trisomi 21 is a defect.
This of course lends itself back to my initial post: "Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible."
We're in agreement, it is an interesting question. Of course, the broader question is whether genetic manipulation of humans should be allowed at all. If it is introduced in great scale, it will be unavoidable for society to make some important decisions. Which manipulations are acceptable and which not? Should people be allowed to determine the sex of their child? Skin colour? Personality? Sexuality? Political affiliation? Of course, the answers to these questions cannot be looked for in science. They are ethical of nature. Thus, in the end, aesthetical.
We're in agreement, it is an interesting question.
I think so.
Of course, the broader question is whether genetic manipulation of humans should be allowed at all. If it is introduced in great scale, it will be unavoidable for society to make some important decisions.
I agree. Of course, knowing the future via Star Trek should give us a clue which road we ought to take to take.
Which manipulations are acceptable and which not? Should people be allowed to determine the sex of their child? Skin colour? Personality? Sexuality? Political affiliation? Of course, the answers to these questions cannot be looked for in science. They are ethical of nature. Thus, in the end, aesthetical.
Of course, the sound man rejects emotivism.
Most parents will seek any reasonable advantage for their offspring. So come the day when we can see in advance that little Timmy will have violent criminal procilvities, or little Suzie will lean towards lesbianism, I rather expect that parents will correct any and all genetic variations that will make life more difficult for their Timmy and Suzie.
The fact of the matter is that being gay is a lot of hassle and trouble. No loving parent would wish it on their child, and if there were and easy gene fix, I'm sure it would be applied more often than not.
Here's a ponderer -- what if we find out that violent and criminal behavior has a genetic origin? What will that do to our criminal justice system? If we become capable of "fixing" a rapist, should we still lock him up? Should it be for just as long as we would lock him up if he weren't capable of being fixed?
If broad personal behaviors turn out to have genetic origins, there will be a lot of questions raised that will have no easy answers.
Here's a ponderer -- what if we find out that violent and criminal behavior has a genetic origin? What will that do to our criminal justice system? If we become capable of "fixing" a rapist, should we still lock him up? Should it be for just as long as we would lock him up if he weren't capable of being fixed?
If broad personal behaviors turn out to have genetic origins, there will be a lot of questions raised that will have no easy answers.
Getting a social consensus on regulating anti-social behavior would be much easier than allowing for a genetic "corrective" for behavior that has advocacy groups. The gay question is a perfect example: gay apologists, their detractors and those in the middle would still need to decide the base morality. The same issue would apply (as Saturnus pointed out) if religiosity, or the reverse a-religiosity, were tied to genetics and could be "fixed". The 'should it be fixed' issue would still need to be answered.
rasoforos
04-24-2006, 20:51
In my view it's mainly a matter of mankind having royally screwed up the air, food, and water supply and thusly paving the way for genomes to get severely messed up.
There is so much toxic crap in there nowadays that many are born with terrible birth defects, including the desire for "homosexuality."
Navaros, this is just plain scary... I would get some good laughs if it was a line in Southpark but I doubt that it is your next stand up comedy line... :no:
To the main topic: What exactly do you mean 'causes homosexuality'? You make it sound like a disease...like Cholera ...or Republicanism... :inquisitive:
There is only one explanation...Veggies are known to contain estrogens...which are female hormones. Vegetables are Satan's way of making us all gay...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.