Sorcerer Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 I don't care, get back on topic, you always do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damion Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 2-10 is[/b'] an 8% variation, my hypothesis would suggest it was effected by local population size, more specifically the size of the family group, the number of older brothers. The variation comes from different studies using different methods. The variations from individual studies stay pretty steady at around 2%-4% (in studies done by anti-gay researchers) or around 10% (in studies done by pro-gay organizations). To avoid an argument on which statistic is correct, I simply mashed the two averages together. It was laziness, yeah, but it's not a major issue. The point isn't how many people are gay, the point is whether or not it's a choice. I still maintain that behavioural traits are not 100% deterministic based on genes, the enivronment plays a large part in sculpting the phenotypic expression of the trait. Nature vs. nurture is a broad topic, and all serious studies I've seen have laid the blame squarely on... both. Humans are complex beings with simple instincts, and these two things often mesh in confusing ways. But, someone’s sexual preference isn't like someone's preference for crunchy or creamy peanut butter -- it's a basic, instinctual choice. Ask anyone who has known or raised a gay man from birth. They'll almost universally tell you from the time the kid was four or five it was obvious what their sexuality was. My cousin, the most prominent homosexual in my family, was walking around tiptoe (to simulate stiletto heels), playing with Barbie dolls and hanging out almost exclusively with girls when he was five. Effeminate all his life. He finally came out when he went to college. There were no other homosexuals in the household. He wasn't molested. He grew up in a backwoods town of around 300 people. There was no environmental factor. I'm just saying that it is possible to overcome urges, it was an example, I don't really often feel this way and would never act on it in a way which harms another person. You're absolutely right. It's possible to abstain from sex, gay or straight. What's your point? That gays should abstain? If that's what you're getting at, it's pretty ridiculous. Gay men or women have the same right to have consensual sex as any heterosexual. Do you disagree? So like I can overcome an urge to rape and even abstain from sex. Why is it that homosexuals can't overcome the urge to sodomise.... the point is its not that they have no choice, its that they don't want to make the choice. Not saying theres anything wrong with that, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However it still shows that its a CHOICE. Your sexual preference is NOT a CHOICE. Whether or not you have sex, yeah, that's a CHOICE. But the sexual act doesn't affect the sexual preference. The points I am making is: "Homosexuality isn't predetermined by genes" : this is because no behavioural trait is predetermined by genes, it is a combination of genes and the environment that produces a phenotype. Therefore just because you have a homosexual gene doesn't mean you will express this phenotype; ie it doesn't mean you will be gay. Likewise, not having the homosexual gene doesn't mean you won't be gay. I'm not saying it's 100% due to genetics in 100% of the cases. Genes, though, most likely play a role -- and not a small one. But, for argument's sake, let's say it's environmental. Fine. Sexual preference is still determined before a person hits sexual maturity, and it can't be reversed. It's still not a CHOICE. "Homosexual behaviour is a choice" : this is because even if the desire to do an action is there, we have control of our choices, the example was of a man who was supposedly "gay" not showing this behaviour untill after a long marriage and having children. Thus he chose to show heterosexual characteristics even though he was always supposedly "gay"...... Homosexuality is not a CHOICE. Whether or not you're going to hide your true sexuality, that's a CHOICE. Whether he should or shouldn't have hidden his sexuality isn't the point. You can choose to start a family with a gay man, maybe adopt some children -- does that make you homosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Homosexuality is not a CHOICE. Whether or not you're going to hide your true sexuality, that's a CHOICE. Whether he should or shouldn't have hidden his sexuality isn't the point. You can choose to start a family with a gay man, maybe adopt some children -- does that make you homosexual? To put it another way, I am not, currently, having sex with my girlfriend (as that would make typing difficult). Does that mean I am asexual? Sexuality is an individual's preferences. Just because they can overcome those preferences and exhibit contrary behavior does not make the preferences themselves the product of choice. "Homosexuality" is the preference for same-sex partners, not the behavior itself. For instance, I am bisexual. However, I have not yet "had relations" with a member of the same sex. This does not make me "not bi", because the preference is clearly there, regardless of whether I've acted on it. I am bi because my sexual preferences include both genders, not because of any actions or lack of actions with respect to those preferences. There was no environmental factor. I wouldn't say none. Perhaps it was somethign subtle, something in utero, like his mother's diet? There's too many factors to rule out the influence of environment completely. However, environmental influence does *not* equate with choice. The fur pattern of siamese cats is the product of environment (geneticly, they're all black, but the pigment synthesis can only happen at lower than core body temperature, namely in the extremities), but noone would say they chose it. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damion Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I wouldn't say none. Perhaps it was somethign subtle, something in utero, like his mother's diet? There's too many factors to rule out the influence of environment completely. I meant after birth. Sorry, should have clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I meant after birth. Sorry, should have clarified. Well, it still can't be totally ruled as non-environmental. It's just not from an obvious cause. There could be pheremonal influence on the genetic predisposition, for instance. The environment is so complex that ruling out it's influence would require raising kids in laboratory situations, which isn't exactly something a medical ethics board is going to approve. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damion Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Well, it still can't be totally ruled as non-environmental. It's just not from an obvious cause. There could be pheremonal influence on the genetic predisposition, for instance. The environment is so complex that ruling out it's influence would require raising kids in laboratory situations, which isn't exactly something a medical ethics board is going to approve. Oh boy. Semantics. Okay, here we go: There were no environmental causes that I'm aware of, even (or, rather, especially) those typically blamed for potentially causing homosexuality that I'm aware of (nor is anyone that watched him grow up are aware of any such incidents). Interestingly enough, though, he had several older brothers, which could serve as proof for some of the little tidbits I contributed earlier. And, for anyone who says homosexuality is infectious, his mother (my great aunt) babysat for everyone in that little town, and he played with all of them. We're all still friends and none of them are gay (or at least not openly so). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 "Homosexuality isn't predetermined by genes" : this is because no behavioural trait is predetermined by genes, it is a combination of genes and the environment that produces a phenotype. Therefore just because you have a homosexual gene doesn't mean you will express this phenotype; ie it doesn't mean you will be gay. Likewise, not having the homosexual gene doesn't mean you won't be gay. I think most people probably agree with that. "Homosexual behaviour is a choice" : this is because even if the desire to do an action is there, we have control of our choices... You are not drawing any distinction between different types of behaviour. Until you do, this approach is not going to get anywhere. If you disagree with me, then I suggest you choose to stop being heterosexual for a week, then come back and let us know how you got on. ...the example was of a man who was supposedly "gay" not showing this behaviour untill after a long marriage and having children. Thus he chose to show heterosexual characteristics even though he was always supposedly "gay"...... You should know better than trying to pass off the result of social influences as the result of biological mechanisms. If anything, this example simply goes to show the biology that underlies sexual preference cannot easily be indefinitely over-ridden. Also, do not under-estimate the frequency with which this occurs or the variety of different ways in which it does so - there are plenty of gay mums and dads and open marriages (homo, hetero and bi) out there. Ophiolite, I don't care what you think, one ad hominem attack deserves another (insert insult here). I never said such things and was very careful to show that I wasn't implying them, learn reading comphrension, Mr read between the lines thinks hes a psychoanalyst. Actually, you weren't very careful about that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I'm not saying it's 100% due to genetics in 100% of the cases. Genes, though, most likely play a role -- and not a small one. But, for argument's sake, let's say it's environmental. Fine. Sexual preference is still determined before a person hits sexual maturity, and it can't be reversed. It's still not a CHOICE. Finally, exactly what Ive being trying to make you see, I agree that it cannot be reversed, but my point was that environmental factors trigger the genes so that an otherwise disadvantageous genotype is not expressed, only when the family size (or perhaps the population size) is increased so that in a non-agrarian society resources would be stretched to maintain the current generations offspring would a celebacy and/or homosexuality gene be advantageous because they could increase the fitness of close relations offspring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Actually, you weren't very careful about that at all. Perhaps, but anything I have to say is only post-judice not prejudice, I didn't state anything about the homosexuals I haven't met, except maybe things which I have reasonable proof for which concerns ALL HUMANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 The points I am making is: "Homosexuality isn't predetermined by genes" : this is because no behavioural trait is predetermined by genes' date=' it is a combination of genes and the environment that produces a phenotype. Therefore just because you have a homosexual gene doesn't mean you will express this phenotype; ie it doesn't mean you will be gay. Likewise, not having the homosexual gene doesn't mean you won't be gay.[/quote'] Sorry i think i already made my contribution earlier in the thread,but i cannot help myself. Of course homosexuality is predeterminated by genes,your statement above is laughable.Am i the only person here who see's about three contradictions.It sounds like you dont know any gay people or had a gay child.I knew one of my children was gay around 5 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 I think what he probably means is that in a large number of cases, the right genes may be there but it will take environmental influence of some sort to "set off the effects", as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Yes saya but wether the individual chooses to act on his sexuality or not does not contradict the fact the person is still gay.Thats why we find people do not come-out for years after.Its not the homophobics they fear but the embarrassment of being gay which they cannot control despite living in denial and having a hetrosexual lifestyle.The individual would not cause harm to themselves, or destroy the break up of their family on something they choose to be.Its genetic and hereditory. I know that some have cited environmental issues 'abuse or rape' as contributary causes for homo's,but all that would happen is the individual may become an abuser,it doesnt mean they are actually gay,so this is an invalid example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Having just re-visited some of this thread I have the impression that the statement "Homosexuality is not pre-determined by genes, but genes may create a pre-disposition towards homosexuality", would be acceptable to all. The remaining dispute appears to be that Sorcerer feels that the individual can choose to over-ride the pre-disposition, whereas others feel this is not a matter of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Yes saya but wether the individual chooses to act on his sexuality or not does not contradict the fact the person is still gay. You are stating as fact that which this thread set out to determine. Hurrah for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 The remaining dispute appears to be that Sorcerer feels that the individual can choose to over-ride the pre-disposition, whereas others feel this is not a matter of choice. I don't think anyone has argued that no individual can over-ride the predisposition (in fact Sorcerer was arguing with someone who cited such a case). What they are disputing with Sorcerer is why any who can, should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 I don't think anyone has argued that no individual can over-ride the predisposition (in fact Sorcerer was arguing with someone who cited such a case). What they are disputing with Sorcerer is why any who can' date=' [u']should[/u]. To avoid discrimination from bigots? Or maybe, from desire to have a family? There can be both positive and negative reasons why someone would want to overcome a predisposition. It should be for them to decide, not others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 To avoid discrimination from bigots?Or maybe' date=' from desire to have a family? [/quote'] I did not mean reasons why they would want to, rather reasons why other people might think they ought to. Sorcerer's implications were that anyone who was gay had a duty to try and not be. I am querying the basis of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Having just re-visited some of this thread I have the impression that the statement "Homosexuality is not pre-determined by genes, but genes may create a pre-disposition towards homosexuality", would be acceptable to all. Of course, but there needs to be the understanding that homosexuality is the underlying feelings and urges and attractions, not the actual act itself. Avoiding same-sex sexual behavior no more makes a homosexual straight than avoiding all sexual behavior makes someone asexual. (And this isn't in objection to your definition, ophio, just as clarification) Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 That was why i mentioned bigots and added . Socerers implication would be quite funny. 'Still having homosexual thoughts? Stop that, try harder! Harder damn it, HARDER!, It's your duty to enjoy this copy of Penthouse, if that doesnt work then a complusory trip to a lap dancing club. If that fails than of to Madame Fifi's, we'll see if her girls can get any response.' A de-Gayness course could be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Of course' date=' but there needs to be the understanding that homosexuality is the underlying feelings and urges and attractions, not the actual act itself. Avoiding same-sex sexual behavior no more makes a homosexual straight than avoiding all sexual behavior makes someone asexual. (And this isn't in objection to your definition, ophio, just as clarification) Mokele[/quote']Good clarification. 100% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaR Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 This was an interesting thread. And I read the whole damn thing in one sitting Anyway, I think that until someone can finally prove that homosexuality is not a choice or something alike then the debate is still not going anywhere. Yes, I am aware that some studies point out that homosexuality is genetic, but I guess something is missing because if it would be taken as 100% proof then the laws will simply change without further delay. Edit: Just to make it clear, I meant the laws banning same-sex marriage in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 . Yes' date=' I am aware that some studies point out that homosexuality is genetic, but I guess something is missing because if it would be taken as 100% proof then the laws will simply change without further delay. Edit: Just to make it clear, I meant the laws banning same-sex marriage in the US.[/quote']You must have evidence lacking to me that shows lawmakers (in the US or anywhere) follow logic and proof. They follow special interests or public opinion or entrenched prejudice. Even if they were to accept the evidence (and for the purposes of discussion lets imagine it was incontrovertible proof that homosexuality was 100% genetic) that would still not automatically make the case for legalising same sex marriages. Sexual experimentation is commonplace amongst adolescents and is arguably an expression of our genetically controlled sexuality. Yet that same experimentation is effectively illegal in most western countries. The culture set the boundaries and laws, not logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaR Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 You said it yourself; politicians follow popular opinion most of the time. If the gay issue were to be proved without the shadow of a doubt that would pretty much make it a part of popular opinion (not to mention a proven fact which weights a lot more) as opposing views will have absolutely nothing to stand on. No matter what personal interest you have you simply can't argue that the earth is flat. See where I am going with this? Changes in the law will be imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I agree. Any truth goes through several stages. Reticule Opposed is Accepted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I agree. Any truth goes through several stages. Reticule Opposed is Accepted Reticule? i don't mean to be obtuse but what do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts