Right on facepollution. You are absolutely correct IMO.
Just because someone doesn't agree that genetics is solely responsible for homosexuality doesn't mean that they believe its a choice.
Homosexuality is a product of external factors, which may or may not have a genetic component as well.
Think of it this way. If our culture was constructed in a way that it's taught since childhood that men should love men and women should love women, homosexuality rates would be through the roof. There are small cultures in remote parts of the world where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexual sex is only used to reproduce.
Homosexuality is not a choice at all, but to say it's all genetics is just ignorant.
Exactly, during the Roman Empire homsexuality and bi-sexuality was often the norm. It just makes me laugh that all these people that think they are liberals, who accept gay people, are ultimately indulging the right-wing fascists by even engaging in the this black and white debate. Because ultimately you are all accepting that it is something that needs excusing. The only possible reason I think anyone can say it is 'wrong', is in terms of our primary reason for being on the planet - to reproduce. However, personally I think the world is over populated with arse holes as it is, so if a few people don't want to reproduce, I'm more than happy to agree!
Exactly, during the Roman Empire homsexuality and bi-sexuality was often the norm. It just makes me laugh that all these people that think they are liberals, who accept gay people, are ultimately indulging the right-wing fascists by even engaging in the this black and white debate. Because ultimately you are all accepting that it is something that needs excusing. The only possible reason I think anyone can say it is 'wrong', is in terms of our primary reason for being on the planet - to reproduce. However, personally I think the world is over populated with arse holes as it is, so if a few people don't want to reproduce, I'm more than happy to agree!
I don't think it's a black and white issue. As I said before, I think sexuality is fluid. I also believe that people are born with an inherent ability to be attracted to whatever they are attracted to. How those attractions manifest themselves can change throughout a person's lifespan, but that ultimately our preferences/orientation/romantic feelings are driven by our brain chemistry and genetics. I also think that our tastes in food, colors and everything else is just as deeply rooted in brain chemistry. Outside influences can have an impact on the way we allow our preferences to manifest themselves, but the the ability to want and desire something is inherent.
I also don't see the study of this as an admission that homosexuality is wrong and therefore must be excused. We study all kinds of things for all different reasons, and I think it's reasonable to ask why homosexuality exists when it appears that our bodies (and all other animals' bodies) are basically just designed to fuck, reproduce ourselves and then die. I think it's fascinating.
I don't think it's a black and white issue. As I said before, I think sexuality is fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by that, because you seem to say on the one hand it is fluid, but then follow it up by saying you think it is genetically pre-determined. The two ideas seem quite disparate within the context of your argument.
I also believe that people are born with an inherent ability to be attracted to whatever they are attracted to. How those attractions manifest themselves can change throughout a person's lifespan, but that ultimately our preferences/orientation/romantic feelings are driven by our brain chemistry and genetics. I also think that our tastes in food, colors and everything else is just as deeply rooted in brain chemistry. Outside influences can have an impact on the way we allow our preferences to manifest themselves, but the the ability to want and desire something is inherent.
What are you basing that on though? I don't mean that to sound disrespectful, but what basis is there for that? I totally disagree about the tastes in food issue. I was brought up eating a fairly wide range of foods, whereas my parents were brought up on a very meat and two veg kind of diet. I have a fair few friends who have very bland diets, and when I ask them what sort of foods their parents eat, quite predictably they ate the same bland foods and weren't keen to try new things. Similarly, my sister's kids eat virtually anything she puts in front of them, because she got them trying different types of foods from a very young age.
I also don't see the study of this as an admission that homosexuality is wrong and therefore must be excused. We study all kinds of things for all different reasons, and I think it's reasonable to ask why homosexuality exists when it appears that our bodies (and all other animals' bodies) are basically just designed to fuck, reproduces ourselves and then die. I think it's fascinating.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear by what I meant. I've read a lot of people's opinions on the subject, and most people don't seem to be able to seperate their moral take on it, from the factual evidence. Considering that none of the scientific evidence (at least from what I've read) 100% proves the existence of a gay gene, I wonder why so many people place so much stock in that theory? Why do people feel the need to have a definitive answer in their head? My take on it at the moment, is that we just don't know - and I'm happy with that. I think the bigger question here is why does it matter either way?
By deciding to side either way with the traditional nature/nurture debate, without any concrete evidence (which NOBODY HAS), I think there has to be a moralistic reason as to why people want to conform to that particular belief - even if that reason is entirely on a sub-conscious level, which I think it is for a lot of people. I agree it's an interesting subject to study, and I have no isse with that, but I don't see how anybody can be 100% sure in their mind when there isn't the evidence there to support it.
You're thinking about it in a far too logical manner. If something effects you on a subconscious level, that means you are oblivious, so it IS NOT A CHOICE. I'll give an example. My mum is a child minder, and used to look after a boy from the age of about 6, it was quite apparent that he was very feminine, and people always said "I bet when he's older he'll be gay", sure enough at age 18 he came out. He was not raised in a 'homosexual' environment or one that was a particularly 'accepting' environment. His mother was incredibly overbearing, not helped by the fact that she suffered severe digestive disorders, and nearly died a number of times. His father chose to distance himself from them both, so there was complete absence of a father figure.
People shouldn't underestimate the influence their parents have on them. They are our role models at a very young age, and even the tinest and seemingly insignificant events can have a profound effect on our behaviour in later life. You even admitted that you think paedophiles are a product of their environements, so if that sexual persuasion can be formed under certain circumstances, then why not homosexuality?
To the person who asked about bi-sexuality, I don't think sexuality is a static thing, as much as people might protest it is. I think it's entirely possible that sexual confusion can be set in at a very early age. Or are you proposing a bi-sexual gene too? What about a gene for people who are sexualy attracted to animals? Or people who are attracted to children? Or people who get off on pain?
Let me give an analogy, are you born with your musical tastes? Can you help the fact that dance music, or country music might drive you mad, yet you love rock music? You don't choose not to like them, you choose not to listen to them. Nobody can make you like those genres. When we are younger we have no frame of reference, we soak up experiences and react to environments with reference to the lessons we learn.
I almost find the idea of a gay gene offensive to be honest. Not in that I don't think it's possible, but in the fact that people hang all their beliefs on it, because the only other option is that people 'choose' to be gay. It's like they are saying "they can't help it" as if there is something wrong with it.
Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.
You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.
If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.
If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.
It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.
It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.
Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.
I'm going to try to be easy without trying to sound sarcastic....
So, if you are bi-sexual? How does that come from your childhood? It would lead me to believe that someone is confused about their sexuality- but a few of my friends don't seem to be confused. Any thoughts?
people that claim to be "bi-sexual" (and i mean this as nicely as possible) are full of shit and are setting the gay agenda back years... its totally making it look like a choice which i do not believe it is... bi-sexuality strikes me as indecision and insincerity... i have nothing against homosexuals but have a big problem with this idea of bi... does that make me a horrible person?
Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.
You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.
If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.
If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.
It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.
It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.
Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.
Try to look at the big picture.
Just because a singular environmental experience hasn't yet been identified that causes homosexuality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, you ask, if it hasn't been identified, then why do I think it exists? Because, like almost all aspects of human lifestyle (including sexuality), the environment is a gigantic factor in shaping or causing it. There is no reason why homosexuality should be any different. None.
Like facepollution's color metaphor... favorite color is no doubt caused by the environment... you're not genetically predispositioned to a favorite color. But have we identified what specific environmental experiences cause our favorite colors? No.
What you're saying is that our color preference must come from our genes because we can't specifically identify social or environmental factors that cause a favorite color. And that makes no sense.
[EDIT] Also, it's important to note that I don't believe the environment is solely responsible for sexual preference... I believe it's a mix, just like most things. But you can NOT discount the enormous impact of the environment on almost everything we do.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
people that claim to be "bi-sexual" (and i mean this as nicely as possible) are full of shit and are setting the gay agenda back years... its totally making it look like a choice which i do not believe it is... bi-sexuality strikes me as indecision and insincerity... i have nothing against homosexuals but have a big problem with this idea of bi... does that make me a horrible person?
"Indecision" is not the right word at all. That implies sexual preference is a choice, which it isn't.
Some people (perhaps most people who claim to be bisexual? I'm not sure) use bisexuality as a way to get attention. And yeah, that's idiotic. But there are some people who are "honestly" bisexual, which I have no problem with. Just like homosexuality, its not their choice.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
"Indecision" is not the right word at all. That implies sexual preference is a choice, which it isn't.
Some people (perhaps most people who claim to be bisexual? I'm not sure) use bisexuality as a way to get attention. And yeah, that's idiotic. But there are some people who are "honestly" bisexual, which I have no problem with. Just like homosexuality, its not their choice.
youre right... bad word choice... my feeling is that most of those people are probably homosexuals but because of social stigmas or simply for a greater availability of sexual partners they choose to keep their options open... it just doesnt feel to me like those people are being honest with themselves or their partners... thats my only problem with it... not a moral thing or anything like that
Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.
You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.
If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.
Actually you needed to read what I wrote a little more carefully. What I actually said was that there are tiny seemingly insignificant events and circumstances that can have profound effects. Since these happen on a sub-conscious level, there wouldn't be any obvious pattern or commonality.
The examples I gave were of extreme behaviour, and there are no doubt a lot more issues involved. But in your acceptance that environmental factors in the case of a paedophile, can and do effect their sexual orientation, how can you possibly deny that a different set of circumstances could result in another type of sexual orientation. Considering the fact that there have been many cases of married straight men coming out, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many that remain happily married. Being predisposed to something doesn;t mean you willl automatically become something. In the same way that somebody genetically predisposed to a certain type of cancer, won't necessarily develop that cancer.
If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.
It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.
It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.
Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.
I do recall hearing about that study, and like I said, I think it's entirely possible for somebody to be predisposed. A couple of questions though, what if the gay son is a first born? Also did they find the same thing in girls?
Ok that I find a little bit harsh. My opinion seems to take in both sides of the argument, and yet you're accusing me of being narrow-minded. I lean towards one side of the argument, because there is much evidence that supports the idea that behaviours are learned. But I'm entirely open to any scientific evidence. By the way, I studied this subject at Uni as part of my Psychology degree, so these aren't just random ideas I've come up with.
Just because a singular environmental experience hasn't yet been identified that causes homosexuality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, you ask, if it hasn't been identified, then why do I think it exists? Because, like almost all aspects of human lifestyle (including sexuality), the environment is a gigantic factor in shaping or causing it. There is no reason why homosexuality should be any different. None.
Like facepollution's color metaphor... favorite color is no doubt caused by the environment... you're not genetically predispositioned to a favorite color. But have we identified what specific environmental experiences cause our favorite colors? No.
What you're saying is that our color preference must come from our genes because we can't specifically identify social or environmental factors that cause a favorite color. And that makes no sense.
[EDIT] Also, it's important to note that I don't believe the environment is solely responsible for sexual preference... I believe it's a mix, just like most things. But you can NOT discount the enormous impact of the environment on almost everything we do.
Let's assume for the sake of example that homosexuality really is genetic, and that this genetic circumstance causes a certain abnormality in the brain, which leads to homosexuality. That is, after all, the current prevailing theory.
In which case, it would bear resemblance to such abnormalities of the brain as schizophrenia, manic depression, intelligence, etc.
Environment can play a role in those conditions. However, genetics is the dominant factor. That is, those conditions can exist wihtout environment, but they can't exist without genetics.
And, yes, favorite color is considered to be based in genetics. That is, girls naturally gravitate towards the lighter colors and boys gravitate toward the darker colors.
Of course genetics won't determine whether boys prefer blue over green or whether girls prefer pink over yellow or purple. But the trend points to a pattern which supports that color preference is related to gender.
Gender is, of course, related to genetics. Boys inherently develop certain personality traits while girls develop certain personality traits of their own.
Is it possible that environment can contribute to homosexuality? I'm sure it can. I'm not saying it can't.
However, when we look at the big picture, we see that the most dominant factor in the occurrence of homosexuality can only be genetics.
So how do you explain the higher incidence rate and acceptance of homosexuality during, for example, the Roman Empire?
there was just a lot more sexy lil boys running around back then... i blame todays rising childhood obesity... sexy boys arent as common as they used to be... kids need to get back to the healthy fundamentals: discus, naked wrestling, gladiatorial combat, etc.
that was always the cornerstone to the success of the roman empire... like the super awesome adventure club says... sex with children is the key to immortality
Ha ha! Which leads us on to straight men who go to prison and end up sleeping with other men. Are they all gay before they go in? Is the lack of women a pure coincidence?
Edit: apologies, this was kind of a flippant off the cuff remark, I really should have explained exactly what I meant.
Ha ha! Which leads us on to straight men who go to prison and end up sleeping with other men. Are they all gay before they go in? Is the lack of women a pure coincidence?
Wait.
You're referring to pedophilia as a sexual orientation. And you believe that participation in a homosexual act equates homosexuality.
I don't think we're on the same page enough to even continue discussing this.
Ha ha! Which leads us on to straight men who go to prison and end up sleeping with other men. Are they all gay before they go in? Is the lack of women a pure coincidence?
they might fall in love with another person like in the movie Brokeback Mtn
9/98, 9/00 - DC, 4/03 - Pitt., 7/03 - Bristow, 10/04 - Reading, 10/05 - Philly, 5/06 - DC, 6/06 - Pitt., 6/08 - Va Beach, 6/08 - DC, 5/10 - Bristow, 10/13 B'more
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
Actually you needed to read what I wrote a little more carefully. What I actually said was that there are tiny seemingly insignificant events and circumstances that can have profound effects. Since these happen on a sub-conscious level, there wouldn't be any obvious pattern or commonality.
But, the example you gave of a possible factor of influence was the overbearing mother and absentee father. Those aren't tiny, seemingly insignificant events and circumstances.
Sexual orientation is a powerful instinct upon which the continuance of the human species depends. The absence of or the twisting of that instinct in such way so as to undermine its intended purpose constitutes a major change in behavior.
To believe that tiny, seemingly insignificant events circumstances can effect that change is to be really uninformed about the subject of human behavior altogether.
The examples I gave were of extreme behaviour, and there are no doubt a lot more issues involved. But in your acceptance that environmental factors in the case of a paedophile, can and do effect their sexual orientation, how can you possibly deny that a different set of circumstances could result in another type of sexual orientation.
OK well here you admit that you gave examples for extreme behavior. So make up your mind. Do you want to discuss factors involved in general behavioral changes or specific, extreme circumstances?
I'm not ruling out the possibility that some homosexuals are that way due to extreme cases of environment and upbringing. But, those cases are exceptions and not the norm. No one is here to discuss the exceptions except for maybe you apparently.
Considering the fact that there have been many cases of married straight men coming out, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many that remain happily married. Being predisposed to something doesn;t mean you willl automatically become something. In the same way that somebody genetically predisposed to a certain type of cancer, won't necessarily develop that cancer.
The cases of married men coming out of the closet should not be an indication that there are many gay men who are happily married into a heterosexual marriage. Common sense should tell you that there are many homosexual men who are unhappily married into heterosexual relationships and are afraid to come out due to the severe negative impact doing so would have on their lives.
Your cancer comparison doesn't apply here either because your assumption about gay men who are happily married assumes that those men are gay. In terms of your cancer analogy, it would mean that people develop the cancer, but never actually become sick from it.
I do recall hearing about that study, and like I said, I think it's entirely possible for somebody to be predisposed. A couple of questions though, what if the gay son is a first born? Also did they find the same thing in girls?
You're the person who knows a guy who smoked cigarettes all his life without ever suffering health consequences from it, and then assumes that cigarettes are safe.
Ok that I find a little bit harsh. My opinion seems to take in both sides of the argument, and yet you're accusing me of being narrow-minded. I lean towards one side of the argument, because there is much evidence that supports the idea that behaviours are learned. But I'm entirely open to any scientific evidence. By the way, I studied this subject at Uni as part of my Psychology degree, so these aren't just random ideas I've come up with.
Yes, behaviors are learned, but you haven't been able to make a logical and plausible connection to how behavioral science applies to homosexuality.
What you call taking in both sides of the argument is what I see as just using flawed logic to support hasty generalizations.
If I were you, I would not admit to actually having studied this subject, because that would only mean that your education basically was a waste of your time. I haven't anything from you so far that would indicate to me that you have an in-depth understanding of this subject.
OK, after reading some of facepollution's posts and after reading his opinion about homosexuality in prison, I think it's safe to say that he is not being truthful about his psychology degree.
It only takes common sense to know that prison homosexuality has more to do with displays of power over another human being than sexual orientation.
And anyone with a psychology degree would not be able to discuss color preferences without at least paying lip service to the concept of gender identity.
You'd think that someone who wrote a paper on this subject for a college course would have something more to offer than the gibberish he's served up so far.
It's sad, really, that people believe that they have to front on an internet message board in order to be heard.
OK, after reading some of facepollution's posts and after reading his opinion about homosexuality in prison, I think it's safe to say that he is not being truthful about his psychology degree.
It only takes common sense to know that prison homosexuality has more to do with displays of power over another human being than sexual orientation.
Argh I wanna scream right now, so many points I want to make, I'll come to them all. I am talking about consenting gay sex in prisons, not rape, or
surivival, or power struggles. Perhaps if you knew more about the subject you would know that this does go on. I'm talking about men who actively seek other men to have sex with to satisfy their sexual urges, which you are saying goes against every natural urge. So if that were the case, and these men were genetically speaking heterosexual - it would be a strong case in suggesting that a relatively uncomplex set of circumstances could produce homosexual behaviour. I absolutely do have a degree in psychology. No bullshit, I swear on my life. I just happen to have a different view to the traditional ideas.
In terms of the example I gave with the child my mum looked after, the factors I mentioned were my educated guess, I can't say for sure exactly what factors influenced him in becoming gay - I doubt he could either.
And anyone with a psychology degree would not be able to discuss color preferences without at least paying lip service to the concept of gender identity.
Again the idea of gender identity can be argued in either nature or nurture. Boys tend to be dressed in more masculine colours or have bedrooms in colours like blue and green, whilst girls tend to be surrounded by pinks and purples and reds. Environments have a profound effect on people.
You'd think that someone who wrote a paper on this subject for a college course would have something more to offer than the gibberish he's served up so far.
It's sad, really, that people believe that they have to front on an internet message board in order to be heard.
See I think the OP was right, it was inevitable that this would descend into a petty argument or slanging match. I won't indulge you in that, but what you are calling 'gibberish' is in fact essentially one side of an argument which is well established, and well researched by theorists worldwide.
Your cancer comparison doesn't apply here either because your assumption about gay men who are happily married assumes that those men are gay. In terms of your cancer analogy, it would mean that people develop the cancer, but never actually become sick from it
You need to think about the analogy a little more carefully. I was referring to the fact that hypothetically if the gay gene did exist, it would be perfectly feasible that someone's circumstances and experiences could prevent them from ever even considering experimenting in that type of activity. What I'm getting at is that I think if there is a gay gene, I suspect like things like schizophrenia or cancer (just as examples), someone may be predisposed, but it takes for external triggers for things to kick in. This does happen with something like cancer, demonstrated by the fact that two people could smoke exactly the same amount of cigarettes for the same amount of time, and one might get lung cancer and the other doesn't.
You're the person who knows a guy who smoked cigarettes all his life without ever suffering health consequences from it, and then assumes that cigarettes are safe.
No no, I asked you two very reasonable questions, for which you didn't supply any answer. By making that statement, it makes it look like you blindly accept the things you are told without questioning them. There is nothing flawed in my logic, I'm just not willing to commit 100% to either side of the debate becasue there is no concrete evidence either way. You might see my argument as a cop out, but I see your argument as completely one sided. Bottom line, there is not firm evidence to connect homosexuality to genetics - not yet. However, there is extensive evidence to suggest that all sorts of behaviours can be produced through various forms of conditioning, therfore I will keep an open mind that this could well apply to homosexuality.
You also didn't answer my question about the high levels of homsexual activity during the Roman empire.
Brain of J.Lo
Wait.
You're referring to pedophilia as a sexual orientation. And you believe that participation in a homosexual act equates homosexuality.
I don't think we're on the same page enough to even continue discussing this.
Well like I said, I believe sexuality probably exists on a sliding scale. I think it's far more complex than just liking men or women. Sorry if the concept I'm proposing is slightly out of the basic frame work with which you are used to discussing such issues. Just to clarify what I mean, if it was 100% proved there wasn't a gay gene, then all forms of sexuality would be 'sexual orientation' - so whilst your mocking tone implies you think I don't know what I'm talking about, it is just in fact the general nurture debate - nothing too complex or radical to understand.
Argh I wanna scream right now, so many points I want to make, I'll come to them all. I am talking about consenting gay sex in prisons, not rape, or
surivival, or power struggles. Perhaps if you knew more about the subject you would know that this does go on. I'm talking about men who actively seek other men to have sex with to satisfy their sexual urges, which you are saying goes against every natural urge. So if that were the case, and these men were genetically speaking heterosexual - it would be a strong case in suggesting that a relatively uncomplex set of circumstances could produce homosexual behaviour.
Again..extremely rare occurrence. You're talking about consentual homosexual sexual activity being acted out by otherwise heterosexual males behind prison walls. Statistically speaking, it is extremely rare. The vast majority of homosexual activity behind prison walls is non-consentual.
Secondly, in those instances where heterosexual men engage in homosexual sex, it is because they have learned to "pretend" that their male partner is a woman. That's why in prison the receiving person is called the "bitch".
And that's also why men who have feminine characteristics are targeted for sexual activity. It's not that heterosexual men are suddenly attracted to men per se. It's that they will take anything that will even remotely pass for a woman. That is not true homosexuality.
In terms of the example I gave with the child my mum looked after, the factors I mentioned were my educated guess, I can't say for sure exactly what factors influenced him in becoming gay - I doubt he could either.
In other words, you're changing your story...typical of someone who didn't have the slightest clue as to what he was talking about in the first place.
Again the idea of gender identity can be argued in either nature or nurture. Boys tend to be dressed in more masculine colours or have bedrooms in colours like blue and green, whilst girls tend to be surrounded by pinks and purples and reds. Environments have a profound effect on people.
Actually, psychologists consider gender identity to be genetic above all, rather than a result of environmental influence.
The most famous case in point involves a man whose penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision and replaced with female genitalia.
The man continued to instinctively identify himself as a male in spite of being taught to believe that he was female.
The concept of gender identity and its genetic influences is pretty much common knowledge to anyone with any basic formal psychology education.
That's why I am very doubtful about your degree in psychology.
See I think the OP was right, it was inevitable that this would descend into a petty argument or slanging match. I won't indulge you in that, but what you are calling 'gibberish' is in fact essentially one side of an argument which is well established, and well researched by theorists worldwide.
You haven't said anything that is established by anybody. I was willing to play cordial conversation with you until you started to pretend that you were something that you're not.
You need to think about the analogy a little more carefully. I was referring to the fact that hypothetically if the gay gene did exist, it would be perfectly feasible that someone's circumstances and experiences could prevent them from ever even considering experimenting in that type of activity. What I'm getting at is that I think if there is a gay gene, I suspect like things like schizophrenia or cancer (just as examples), someone may be predisposed, but it takes for external triggers for things to kick in. This does happen with something like cancer, demonstrated by the fact that two people could smoke exactly the same amount of cigarettes for the same amount of time, and one might get lung cancer and the other doesn't.
By that rationale, you infer that heterosexual tendencies could be avoided if a person was never exposed to heterosexual behavior. That is unlikely considering that sexual preference is highly instinctive and there is no evidence that it needs to be taught or that there needs to be a catalyst environment in order for those tendencies to be brought out.
It's true that people with genes for a certain disorder don't always end up with those genes being expressed.
But there is plenty of evidence of mental disorders and afflictions such as cancer expressing themselves without any particular trigger.
And in the case of cancer, there are well documented triggers for those without a gene that predisposes them.
There are no known specific triggers for homosexuality. What you're arguing is pure supposition based on loosely analogous circumstances. And you want to make those suppositions while referring to yourself as education in psychology? It just doesn't make any sense.
No no, I asked you two very reasonable questions, for which you didn't supply any answer. By making that statement, it makes it look like you blindly accept the things you are told without questioning them.
You're the person who doesn't understand homosexuality behind prison walls or the roots of gender identity. In other words, you're the one who needs to open his eyes.
There is nothing flawed in my logic, I'm just not willing to commit 100% to either side of the debate becasue there is no concrete evidence either way. You might see my argument as a cop out, but I see your argument as completely one sided. Bottom line, there is not firm evidence to connect homosexuality to genetics - not yet. However, there is extensive evidence to suggest that all sorts of behaviours can be produced through various forms of conditioning, therfore I will keep an open mind that this could well apply to homosexuality.
I consider the source. You haven't been able to demonstrate even a fundamental grasp of human behavior other than that people are influenced by their environment on a subconscious level.
But you managed to misapply that concept of subconscious determinants to prison homosexuality and gender identity. So, it seems like you don't even understand the concept of subconscious determinants of behavior.
Sexual preference is a major form of behavior that isn't easily swayed by minor events. Common sense would tell me that if homosexuality is brought about by environment and upbringing, someone would've noticed by now a commonality in those two factors in the millions upon millions of cases of homosexuality that occur in our society.
You also didn't answer my question about the high levels of homsexual activity during the Roman empire.
Your question is derived from such a misconception that is so easily identified, I was expecting that just about anyone who was reading this thread would've been able to answer this for you.
There is no evidence that homosexuality occurred at a higher rate of incidence in the Roman period than in the current period.
What is known is that it was considered more socially acceptable, and hence we see that it occurred more frequently in the public eye.
With the advent of christianity, homosexuality became taboo and therefore took place behind closed doors.
But, whether or not homosexual tendencies occurred more frequently before or after Christianity is not known.
Are you sure you went to college?
I absolutely do have a degree in psychology. No bullshit, I swear on my life. I just happen to have a different view to the traditional ideas.
So now you admit that your views are different from that which are formally taught in a psychology education.
If your views are so different, then why even bother mentioning your education?
I think the truth is that you tried to intimidate people in this thread by pretending to be educated in psychology, but when someone was able to identity the difference between your views and those taught in psychology, you changed your story so that your views are just different from those taught in a textbook.
Right sponger, I could and will address every point you make there, if you really want me to. However in the interest of not making this thread a million pages long by quoting and disecting every little point you have made, I'll try to define exactly my stance, backed up with the evidence as to why I believe it. Like I said, if you really want me to go through each of those points I will.
I will say this again and I'll say it as clearly as possible THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS LINKED TO GENETICS. You can argue this point til the cows come home, but there isn't any concrete proof. You (or somebody on here) mentioned the study whereby it was found that birth order effects sexuality in boys. I believe the study you are talking about is the Blanchard and Klassen study? Yes it does indicate that there is a genetic link in some gay men, but there were also a significant number of gay men in that study who had no older male siblings. Therefore, this is not conclusive proof.
Are you familiar with the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory?
"A developmental theory of erotic/romantic attraction is presented that provides the same basic account for opposite-sex and same-sex desire in both men and women. It proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperaments that influence a child's preferences for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel different from oppositeor same-sex peers--to perceive them as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This, in turn, produces
heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of dissimilar peers: Exotic becomes erotic. Specific mechanisms for effeeting this transformation are proposed. The theory claims to accommodate both the empirical evidence of the biological essentialists
and the cultural relativism of the social constructionists."
This theory encompasses both males and females, and explains both homosexual and heterosexual attraction, it also has incredibly significant results - far more significant than genetic arguments alone. I suggest you read the whole thing: http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf
For the record, I studied Social Psychology at the De Montfort University. It would be around eight years ago that I actually studied this particular subject, and hell knows I would never remember the particular theorists and case studies that were covered. If you read through Bem's study I quoted above, you will notice a lot of similarity in the core views I've given in my various posts. From the importance and significance of those early formative years and seemingly minor factors, to the probabability that sexual orientation is likely the result of BOTH genetics AND environmental factors, and the idea of predisposition. In addition it also addresses one of the main points that I tried to raise, and got shot down for: the moral and political agendas involved in research of this particular subject.
I will freely admit I am not the most articulate writer going. I tend to type at a furious speed, particularly when it's something I feel passionate about. The result of which, is that things that I could argue quite effectively in person, may come across as something totally different on the page. Things I am implying, eluding to or that I feel are damn-well obvious, may not come across that way. For example, the only reason I gave the example of the kid my mum looked after, was becasue somebody else had mentioned some kid on a tv show that they could tell was gay from a young age - therefore it must be genetic. Me suggesting that the complicated nature of this kid's upbringing MAY have something to do with his sexuality, was in no way me saying THIS IS WHY HE'S GAY. I can now see how you would come to that conclusion, but given my open acceptance that it's probably both a mixture of genetical and environmental factors, I thought that was obvious.
Anyway, and for me this is probably the most important issue here; given that there currently isn't one widely accepted and proved argument for the genetic theory, I wonder why somebody would be so convinced to the point that they largely discredit the nurture side? My educated guess would be, that the nurture side is so synonymous with right-wing religious attitude towards sexuality, that some people will side with the 'opposite' belief, just to show their support - despite the lack of evidence. To me this is akin to watching Fahrenheit 911 and then believing 911 must have been a conspiracy - sure the film might throw up a lot of questions and doubts on the 'official theory' but it's hardly conclusive proof.
Anyway, I hope there aren't any hard feelings here. I respect your opinions, and have taken note of your criticisms in terms of analogies and off the cuff remarks and examples, which I agree don't always add strength to my argument.
I will say this again and I'll say it as clearly as possible THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS LINKED TO GENETICS. You can argue this point til the cows come home, but there isn't any concrete proof. You (or somebody on here) mentioned the study whereby it was found that birth order effects sexuality in boys. I believe the study you are talking about is the Blanchard and Klassen study? Yes it does indicate that there is a genetic link in some gay men, but there were also a significant number of gay men in that study who had no older male siblings. Therefore, this is not conclusive proof.
Yes, there were a large number of gay men who had no older siblings. However, the chances of homosexuality increased from 28% to 48% with each older sibling. Compare that to the fact that there are no known environmental determinants with that strong of a correlation.
Also keep in mind this study which found differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Are you familiar with the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory?
"A developmental theory of erotic/romantic attraction is presented that provides the same basic account for opposite-sex and same-sex desire in both men and women. It proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperaments that influence a child's preferences for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel different from oppositeor same-sex peers--to perceive them as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This, in turn, produces
heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of dissimilar peers: Exotic becomes erotic. Specific mechanisms for effeeting this transformation are proposed. The theory claims to accommodate both the empirical evidence of the biological essentialists
and the cultural relativism of the social constructionists."
This theory encompasses both males and females, and explains both homosexual and heterosexual attraction, it also has incredibly significant results - far more significant than genetic arguments alone. I suggest you read the whole thing: http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf
Apparently, you did not read the whole thing back whenever you supposedly studied it. From the onset, it dispels the myth about overbearing mothers and absentee fathers being a factor what-so-ever in the development of homosexual behavior. Yet, for some reason, you chose to mention that myth when supporting your beliefs about environment and upbringing in regards to homosexuality.
Also, through the Roman period reference, you mentioned that an environment in which homosexual behavior is openly practiced will produce more occurrences of homosexuality. However, the study you provided dispels that belief as well, pointing out that as long as heterosexual orientation remains "exotic", homosexual activity will hold no lasting appeal.
Lastly, all that study really boils down to is that people are sexually attracted to gender behavior that seems foriegn to them. Boys who exhibit female gender characteristics will be attracted to men later in life because males seem "foriegn" to them.
There are two major flaws with that theory. The first is that it assumes that being a homosexual male means exhibiting feminine gender traits during childhood. This, of course, is debatable.
Secondly, gender identity has been established to be genetically and biologically rooted. And that's a big reason why exotic erotic theory is still largely debated.
And of course there is the fact it pretty much flies in the face of what you've been saying so far, which is that homosexuality could be brought on by a combination of genetic and environmental factors that have yet to be determined.
The Exotic Erotic theory makes those factors fairly simple, and that's why I am still led to believe that you really have had no formal education in behavioral science. Up until you posted that theory, your views have neither been consistent with genetics based theory nor with environment based theory as it pertains to the exotic erotic theory.
For the record, I studied Social Psychology at the De Montfort University. It would be around eight years ago that I actually studied this particular subject, and hell knows I would never remember the particular theorists and case studies that were covered. If you read through Bem's study I quoted above, you will notice a lot of similarity in the core views I've given in my various posts. From the importance and significance of those early formative years and seemingly minor factors, to the probabability that sexual orientation is likely the result of BOTH genetics AND environmental factors, and the idea of predisposition. In addition it also addresses one of the main points that I tried to raise, and got shot down for: the moral and political agendas involved in research of this particular subject.
You mean to tell me that as a result of earning a 4 year degree in psychology with a focus in social psychology, the only real basis for your views on homosexuality that you can muster is the exotic erotic theory, which you couldn't even properly argue? As much as I want to believe you, it just doesn't add up.
I will freely admit I am not the most articulate writer going. I tend to type at a furious speed, particularly when it's something I feel passionate about. The result of which, is that things that I could argue quite effectively in person, may come across as something totally different on the page. Things I am implying, eluding to or that I feel are damn-well obvious, may not come across that way. For example, the only reason I gave the example of the kid my mum looked after, was becasue somebody else had mentioned some kid on a tv show that they could tell was gay from a young age - therefore it must be genetic. Me suggesting that the complicated nature of this kid's upbringing MAY have something to do with his sexuality, was in no way me saying THIS IS WHY HE'S GAY. I can now see how you would come to that conclusion, but given my open acceptance that it's probably both a mixture of genetical and environmental factors, I thought that was obvious.
Even your exotic erotic theory states that the developmental factors of homosexuality are not that complicated. It's a very simple matter of gender roles making the opposite gender seem foreign, which produces an erotic attraction as puberty sets in. The theory that you support is actually in contradiction to your views.
Anyway, and for me this is probably the most important issue here; given that there currently isn't one widely accepted and proved argument for the genetic theory, I wonder why somebody would be so convinced to the point that they largely discredit the nurture side? My educated guess would be, that the nurture side is so synonymous with right-wing religious attitude towards sexuality, that some people will side with the 'opposite' belief, just to show their support - despite the lack of evidence. To me this is akin to watching Fahrenheit 911 and then believing 911 must have been a conspiracy - sure the film might throw up a lot of questions and doubts on the 'official theory' but it's hardly conclusive proof.
Actually, there are currently no known environmental attributes that significantly influence sexual preference. Even your exotic erotic theory is based in the biological factor of temperment, which ultimately affects sexual preference through the simple means of opposite gender identity.
And like I said, gender identity is considered in the world of psychology to be based in genetics and biology. Look it up.
Add to that the studies about birth order and brain structure differences, and suddenly I don't understand how you find it so difficult to side with those who put their faith in genetics as being the main determinant in homosexuality.
Anyway, I hope there aren't any hard feelings here. I respect your opinions, and have taken note of your criticisms in terms of analogies and off the cuff remarks and examples, which I agree don't always add strength to my argument.
I visited the website for the university that you mentioned, and it seems that it does not offer a stand-alone degree in psychology. That is, psychology at the university is taught not as a specific major, but as a supplement to other majors.
So, I can see what you mean by "studying social psychology" at that university. I was scratching my head for a moment because there is no such thing as a degree in social psychology. Rather social psychology is taught as part of a degree in psychology.
I'm guessing what you did there was study a few courses in psychology to supplement whatever other subject you were majoring in.
Instead of dropping credentials, you could've saved me a lot of time and been more upfront about where you got your inspiration. And from the looks of it, I wouldn't be surprised if you just hurried up and found something on the net in the last day or so and hoped for the best. I base that conclusion on how inconsistent your views are with the theory that you posted.
I come here not only to engage in stimulating debate, but also to learn. Learning is facilitated by self-honesty in regards to what we already know. I don't know everything, but if I was as passionate as you are about touting what I might seem to know, then we'd be here all week learning about what I may have accomplished in the time that I've been on this earth. Alas, that would be a waste of not only yours and everyone elses' time, but mine as well.
dang kids... i appreciate the constructive dialogue but there has to be a more productive use of your time... you couldve cured gayness in the time it took to type all that! (TOTALLY )
Once again sponger, I'm not going to quote everything, because I don't wanna be a space whore. Yes I 100% did attend De Montfort University, and no I did not major in anything other than Social Psychology. My degree was 3 years long, I started in 1999 and graduated in 2002. If I must, I will dig out my certificate and scan it for you - but then again, I'm sure I would be accused of stealing it from some site. The campus I studied at shut down about a year or two after I left, I believe, and the resources were amalgamated with the main Leicester campus. I suspect they have changed to another course now - after all, it has been nearly six years since I left.
Apparently, you did not read the whole thing back whenever you supposedly studied it. From the onset, it dispels the myth about overbearing mothers and absentee fathers being a factor what-so-ever in the development of homosexual behavior. Yet, for some reason, you chose to mention that myth when supporting your beliefs about environment and upbringing in regards to homosexuality.[quote/]
Yeah I admit it was a seemingly valid example, poorly explained - and like I said before, I was just throwing it out as an example, I didn't say the situation necessarily lead to the kid becoming gay. Whilst the study dissmises any substantial link, it also doesn't disprove the fact that those could be contributory factors. For example, with this kid, because of his mothers severe illness, he was pretty much relied on to help her out from a very young age. Consequently he wasn't able to hang out with other kids very often, and so was very shy. Not only that, but like I said the father withdrew from the family, so he didn't really have a father figure in his life. When he was at our house, he never played with any of the other boys, because he was shy and they were a lot more lively, so he used to follow my mum about, and do all the arts and crafts type stuff with the girls my mum looked after. When he went to school his friends were all girls, and that same pattern followed through high school. Thinking about it, he pretty much is a text book example of the Exotic becomes erotic theory.
Lastly, all that study really boils down to is that people are sexually attracted to gender behavior that seems foriegn to them. Boys who exhibit female gender characteristics will be attracted to men later in life because males seem "foriegn" to them. There are two major flaws with that theory. The first is that it assumes that being a homosexual male means exhibiting feminine gender traits during childhood. This, of course, is debatable.
Secondly, gender identity has been established to be genetically and biologically rooted. And that's a big reason why exotic erotic theory is still largely debated. [quote/]
Given the strength of the research, I find it hard to belive how dismissive you are. The assumption you are dismissing is backed up by a very high correlation, I don't think you can just ignore the fact that 63% of homosexuals reported not conforming to sex-typical activities. That is a significant correlation. Given the very nature of the nurture side of this debate, and the countless variables involved, it would never be possible to identify one single defining factor that makes somebody gay. However, a 63% result is incredibly high.
The issue of 'gender identity' is also debatable, and discussed in the study. Whilst you can argue that gender coding is imprinted in our dna, you can also argue that gender roles are defined by society - like the study states, we are exposed to the male/female form of relationship from a very young age, and this is something that exists world over. If it was as simple as just a biological imprint, would a gay person who presumably has skewed genes, not feel as if they were born the wrong sex?
And of course there is the fact it pretty much flies in the face of what you've been saying so far, which is that homosexuality could be brought on by a combination of genetic and environmental factors that have yet to be determined.[quote/]
Hang on, not sure I quite get you here.....so I've said all along that I think it is probably a mixture of the two, perhaps somebody could be predisposed, and that maybe it might be triggered by environmental factors and you figure that how?
My views have been pretty ope, I readily admitted it has been years since I studied this subject, I gave my opinions based on my memory and the main things I took from it. I'm presuming the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory is the one I studied, because I can't find any other all-encompasing theory like that. Whilst I didn't accurately pin point the finer details of the study, like the gender activities etc; I did speak about predisposition, and the immense importance of formative years - both corner stones of the EBE theory. Like I said, it's been 8 years - my memory aint that good!
Even your exotic erotic theory states that the developmental factors of homosexuality are not that complicated. It's a very simple matter of gender roles making the opposite gender seem foreign, which produces an erotic attraction as puberty sets in. The theory that you support is actually in contradiction to your views.[quote/]
Did you not read the latter part of the study? It actually addresses the fact that certain people may enter the pathway at different points, depending on their experiences. So the 'seemingly minor experiences' that I was talking about actually DO play a big role, becasue they could prevent someone from following the typical pathway that seems to apply to the majority of gay people. And this is what I'm getting at, and what I don't think you are fully grasping. No two people are the same, even twins will have completely different experiences, therfore pinpointing the moment in time that somebody's sexuality is defined is an incredibly difficult thing to do.
Add to that the studies about birth order and brain structure differences, and suddenly I don't understand how you find it so difficult to side with those who put their faith in genetics as being the main determinant in homosexuality.[quote/]
The birth order and brain structure studies are covered in EBE, and there is strong evidence to suggest that these genetical anomalies effect childhood temperament and not necessarily sexuality.
I'm sorry my lack of articulation may have wasted some of your time, you are absolutely right, I should never have entered into the debate in such a careless manner. My only excuse being that the OP's dismissal of the nurture side of the argument was like a red rag to a bull, and thus I typed the first things that came to my memory. In hind site, I should have brushed up on my knowledge, after all, it has been 8 long years since I gave it any in depth research, and I shouldn't rely on my memory to serve me that well.
I will say though, and I know I keep saying it, but the studies you have presented are far from conclusive proof. There are a number of factors that would need to be looked at before you could possibly claim that. Off the top of my head, sample size, sample selection, the people carrying out the research, the people who fund the research, the political implications of results. There is no doubt about it, this is a major moral and political hot potato, and I still maintain that NOBODY has proved either way the true reason, and thus placing all one's trust in either side, must be motivated by some other factor.
I stopped reading it after I saw that all of you are inspiring novelists.
Geeeez people.
Well, when you are trying to make points you have to quote everbody who is disagreeing with ya!! It's very hard to get your point across on the internet!! hehehe
And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
I think my half brother is gay. I could care less if he's gay or straight. The only thing is he's got a big attutude problem with me for some reason treats me like shit, and I'm his older brother. I always tell him he's getting an ass kicking for his 18th birthday, but if he is gay would that be a hate crime?
I think my half brother is gay. I could care less if he's gay or straight. The only thing is he's got a big attutude problem with me for some reason treats me like shit, and I'm his older brother. I always tell him he's getting an ass kicking for his 18th birthday, but if he is gay would that be a hate crime?
just be sure you threaten with an ass "kicking" and not an ass "pounding" or you might get his hopes up...
Comments
Exactly, during the Roman Empire homsexuality and bi-sexuality was often the norm. It just makes me laugh that all these people that think they are liberals, who accept gay people, are ultimately indulging the right-wing fascists by even engaging in the this black and white debate. Because ultimately you are all accepting that it is something that needs excusing. The only possible reason I think anyone can say it is 'wrong', is in terms of our primary reason for being on the planet - to reproduce. However, personally I think the world is over populated with arse holes as it is, so if a few people don't want to reproduce, I'm more than happy to agree!
I don't think it's a black and white issue. As I said before, I think sexuality is fluid. I also believe that people are born with an inherent ability to be attracted to whatever they are attracted to. How those attractions manifest themselves can change throughout a person's lifespan, but that ultimately our preferences/orientation/romantic feelings are driven by our brain chemistry and genetics. I also think that our tastes in food, colors and everything else is just as deeply rooted in brain chemistry. Outside influences can have an impact on the way we allow our preferences to manifest themselves, but the the ability to want and desire something is inherent.
I also don't see the study of this as an admission that homosexuality is wrong and therefore must be excused. We study all kinds of things for all different reasons, and I think it's reasonable to ask why homosexuality exists when it appears that our bodies (and all other animals' bodies) are basically just designed to fuck, reproduce ourselves and then die. I think it's fascinating.
Can you explain what you mean by that, because you seem to say on the one hand it is fluid, but then follow it up by saying you think it is genetically pre-determined. The two ideas seem quite disparate within the context of your argument.
What are you basing that on though? I don't mean that to sound disrespectful, but what basis is there for that? I totally disagree about the tastes in food issue. I was brought up eating a fairly wide range of foods, whereas my parents were brought up on a very meat and two veg kind of diet. I have a fair few friends who have very bland diets, and when I ask them what sort of foods their parents eat, quite predictably they ate the same bland foods and weren't keen to try new things. Similarly, my sister's kids eat virtually anything she puts in front of them, because she got them trying different types of foods from a very young age.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear by what I meant. I've read a lot of people's opinions on the subject, and most people don't seem to be able to seperate their moral take on it, from the factual evidence. Considering that none of the scientific evidence (at least from what I've read) 100% proves the existence of a gay gene, I wonder why so many people place so much stock in that theory? Why do people feel the need to have a definitive answer in their head? My take on it at the moment, is that we just don't know - and I'm happy with that. I think the bigger question here is why does it matter either way?
By deciding to side either way with the traditional nature/nurture debate, without any concrete evidence (which NOBODY HAS), I think there has to be a moralistic reason as to why people want to conform to that particular belief - even if that reason is entirely on a sub-conscious level, which I think it is for a lot of people. I agree it's an interesting subject to study, and I have no isse with that, but I don't see how anybody can be 100% sure in their mind when there isn't the evidence there to support it.
Again...you're completely overlooking the fact that there are no known commonalities in upbringing and/or environment in the occurrences of homosexuality.
You're using a few, unrelated instances of unusual upbringing and/or environment to justify for you the possibility that homosexuality is a product of environment and/or upbringing.
If that were true, then a large portion of gays would have that situation in common. Instead, they don't have that in common. The same can't be said about pedophiles and serial killers. Pedophiles and serial killers do have upbringing and/or environment in common.
If you want, I can try to find a study which came out about a year ago which found a statistical correlatin between homosexuals and birth order.
It was discovered that as women have more male children, their bodies develop an antibody that attacks the male hormones in the male fetus. The antibodies see the male fetus as a foriegn object.
It's believed that when the antibodies attack the male fetus, the fetus becomes homosexual.
Again, most gays do not share a certain type of upbringing and/or environment in which they were raised.
Try to look at the big picture.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
http://seanbriceart.com/
http://seanbriceart.com/
Just because a singular environmental experience hasn't yet been identified that causes homosexuality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, you ask, if it hasn't been identified, then why do I think it exists? Because, like almost all aspects of human lifestyle (including sexuality), the environment is a gigantic factor in shaping or causing it. There is no reason why homosexuality should be any different. None.
Like facepollution's color metaphor... favorite color is no doubt caused by the environment... you're not genetically predispositioned to a favorite color. But have we identified what specific environmental experiences cause our favorite colors? No.
What you're saying is that our color preference must come from our genes because we can't specifically identify social or environmental factors that cause a favorite color. And that makes no sense.
[EDIT] Also, it's important to note that I don't believe the environment is solely responsible for sexual preference... I believe it's a mix, just like most things. But you can NOT discount the enormous impact of the environment on almost everything we do.
"Indecision" is not the right word at all. That implies sexual preference is a choice, which it isn't.
Some people (perhaps most people who claim to be bisexual? I'm not sure) use bisexuality as a way to get attention. And yeah, that's idiotic. But there are some people who are "honestly" bisexual, which I have no problem with. Just like homosexuality, its not their choice.
http://seanbriceart.com/
Actually you needed to read what I wrote a little more carefully. What I actually said was that there are tiny seemingly insignificant events and circumstances that can have profound effects. Since these happen on a sub-conscious level, there wouldn't be any obvious pattern or commonality.
The examples I gave were of extreme behaviour, and there are no doubt a lot more issues involved. But in your acceptance that environmental factors in the case of a paedophile, can and do effect their sexual orientation, how can you possibly deny that a different set of circumstances could result in another type of sexual orientation. Considering the fact that there have been many cases of married straight men coming out, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many that remain happily married. Being predisposed to something doesn;t mean you willl automatically become something. In the same way that somebody genetically predisposed to a certain type of cancer, won't necessarily develop that cancer.
I do recall hearing about that study, and like I said, I think it's entirely possible for somebody to be predisposed. A couple of questions though, what if the gay son is a first born? Also did they find the same thing in girls?
Ok that I find a little bit harsh. My opinion seems to take in both sides of the argument, and yet you're accusing me of being narrow-minded. I lean towards one side of the argument, because there is much evidence that supports the idea that behaviours are learned. But I'm entirely open to any scientific evidence. By the way, I studied this subject at Uni as part of my Psychology degree, so these aren't just random ideas I've come up with.
Let's assume for the sake of example that homosexuality really is genetic, and that this genetic circumstance causes a certain abnormality in the brain, which leads to homosexuality. That is, after all, the current prevailing theory.
In which case, it would bear resemblance to such abnormalities of the brain as schizophrenia, manic depression, intelligence, etc.
Environment can play a role in those conditions. However, genetics is the dominant factor. That is, those conditions can exist wihtout environment, but they can't exist without genetics.
And, yes, favorite color is considered to be based in genetics. That is, girls naturally gravitate towards the lighter colors and boys gravitate toward the darker colors.
Of course genetics won't determine whether boys prefer blue over green or whether girls prefer pink over yellow or purple. But the trend points to a pattern which supports that color preference is related to gender.
Gender is, of course, related to genetics. Boys inherently develop certain personality traits while girls develop certain personality traits of their own.
Is it possible that environment can contribute to homosexuality? I'm sure it can. I'm not saying it can't.
However, when we look at the big picture, we see that the most dominant factor in the occurrence of homosexuality can only be genetics.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So how do you explain the higher incidence rate and acceptance of homosexuality during, for example, the Roman Empire?
"love the one you're with?"
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
that was always the cornerstone to the success of the roman empire... like the super awesome adventure club says... sex with children is the key to immortality
http://seanbriceart.com/
Ha ha! Which leads us on to straight men who go to prison and end up sleeping with other men. Are they all gay before they go in? Is the lack of women a pure coincidence?
Edit: apologies, this was kind of a flippant off the cuff remark, I really should have explained exactly what I meant.
Wait.
You're referring to pedophilia as a sexual orientation. And you believe that participation in a homosexual act equates homosexuality.
I don't think we're on the same page enough to even continue discussing this.
they might fall in love with another person like in the movie Brokeback Mtn
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
But, the example you gave of a possible factor of influence was the overbearing mother and absentee father. Those aren't tiny, seemingly insignificant events and circumstances.
Sexual orientation is a powerful instinct upon which the continuance of the human species depends. The absence of or the twisting of that instinct in such way so as to undermine its intended purpose constitutes a major change in behavior.
To believe that tiny, seemingly insignificant events circumstances can effect that change is to be really uninformed about the subject of human behavior altogether.
OK well here you admit that you gave examples for extreme behavior. So make up your mind. Do you want to discuss factors involved in general behavioral changes or specific, extreme circumstances?
I'm not ruling out the possibility that some homosexuals are that way due to extreme cases of environment and upbringing. But, those cases are exceptions and not the norm. No one is here to discuss the exceptions except for maybe you apparently.
The cases of married men coming out of the closet should not be an indication that there are many gay men who are happily married into a heterosexual marriage. Common sense should tell you that there are many homosexual men who are unhappily married into heterosexual relationships and are afraid to come out due to the severe negative impact doing so would have on their lives.
Your cancer comparison doesn't apply here either because your assumption about gay men who are happily married assumes that those men are gay. In terms of your cancer analogy, it would mean that people develop the cancer, but never actually become sick from it.
You're the person who knows a guy who smoked cigarettes all his life without ever suffering health consequences from it, and then assumes that cigarettes are safe.
Yes, behaviors are learned, but you haven't been able to make a logical and plausible connection to how behavioral science applies to homosexuality.
What you call taking in both sides of the argument is what I see as just using flawed logic to support hasty generalizations.
If I were you, I would not admit to actually having studied this subject, because that would only mean that your education basically was a waste of your time. I haven't anything from you so far that would indicate to me that you have an in-depth understanding of this subject.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It only takes common sense to know that prison homosexuality has more to do with displays of power over another human being than sexual orientation.
And anyone with a psychology degree would not be able to discuss color preferences without at least paying lip service to the concept of gender identity.
You'd think that someone who wrote a paper on this subject for a college course would have something more to offer than the gibberish he's served up so far.
It's sad, really, that people believe that they have to front on an internet message board in order to be heard.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Argh I wanna scream right now, so many points I want to make, I'll come to them all. I am talking about consenting gay sex in prisons, not rape, or
surivival, or power struggles. Perhaps if you knew more about the subject you would know that this does go on. I'm talking about men who actively seek other men to have sex with to satisfy their sexual urges, which you are saying goes against every natural urge. So if that were the case, and these men were genetically speaking heterosexual - it would be a strong case in suggesting that a relatively uncomplex set of circumstances could produce homosexual behaviour. I absolutely do have a degree in psychology. No bullshit, I swear on my life. I just happen to have a different view to the traditional ideas.
In terms of the example I gave with the child my mum looked after, the factors I mentioned were my educated guess, I can't say for sure exactly what factors influenced him in becoming gay - I doubt he could either.
Again the idea of gender identity can be argued in either nature or nurture. Boys tend to be dressed in more masculine colours or have bedrooms in colours like blue and green, whilst girls tend to be surrounded by pinks and purples and reds. Environments have a profound effect on people.
See I think the OP was right, it was inevitable that this would descend into a petty argument or slanging match. I won't indulge you in that, but what you are calling 'gibberish' is in fact essentially one side of an argument which is well established, and well researched by theorists worldwide.
You need to think about the analogy a little more carefully. I was referring to the fact that hypothetically if the gay gene did exist, it would be perfectly feasible that someone's circumstances and experiences could prevent them from ever even considering experimenting in that type of activity. What I'm getting at is that I think if there is a gay gene, I suspect like things like schizophrenia or cancer (just as examples), someone may be predisposed, but it takes for external triggers for things to kick in. This does happen with something like cancer, demonstrated by the fact that two people could smoke exactly the same amount of cigarettes for the same amount of time, and one might get lung cancer and the other doesn't.
No no, I asked you two very reasonable questions, for which you didn't supply any answer. By making that statement, it makes it look like you blindly accept the things you are told without questioning them. There is nothing flawed in my logic, I'm just not willing to commit 100% to either side of the debate becasue there is no concrete evidence either way. You might see my argument as a cop out, but I see your argument as completely one sided. Bottom line, there is not firm evidence to connect homosexuality to genetics - not yet. However, there is extensive evidence to suggest that all sorts of behaviours can be produced through various forms of conditioning, therfore I will keep an open mind that this could well apply to homosexuality.
You also didn't answer my question about the high levels of homsexual activity during the Roman empire.
Well like I said, I believe sexuality probably exists on a sliding scale. I think it's far more complex than just liking men or women. Sorry if the concept I'm proposing is slightly out of the basic frame work with which you are used to discussing such issues. Just to clarify what I mean, if it was 100% proved there wasn't a gay gene, then all forms of sexuality would be 'sexual orientation' - so whilst your mocking tone implies you think I don't know what I'm talking about, it is just in fact the general nurture debate - nothing too complex or radical to understand.
Again..extremely rare occurrence. You're talking about consentual homosexual sexual activity being acted out by otherwise heterosexual males behind prison walls. Statistically speaking, it is extremely rare. The vast majority of homosexual activity behind prison walls is non-consentual.
Secondly, in those instances where heterosexual men engage in homosexual sex, it is because they have learned to "pretend" that their male partner is a woman. That's why in prison the receiving person is called the "bitch".
And that's also why men who have feminine characteristics are targeted for sexual activity. It's not that heterosexual men are suddenly attracted to men per se. It's that they will take anything that will even remotely pass for a woman. That is not true homosexuality.
In other words, you're changing your story...typical of someone who didn't have the slightest clue as to what he was talking about in the first place.
Actually, psychologists consider gender identity to be genetic above all, rather than a result of environmental influence.
The most famous case in point involves a man whose penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision and replaced with female genitalia.
The man continued to instinctively identify himself as a male in spite of being taught to believe that he was female.
The concept of gender identity and its genetic influences is pretty much common knowledge to anyone with any basic formal psychology education.
That's why I am very doubtful about your degree in psychology.
You haven't said anything that is established by anybody. I was willing to play cordial conversation with you until you started to pretend that you were something that you're not.
By that rationale, you infer that heterosexual tendencies could be avoided if a person was never exposed to heterosexual behavior. That is unlikely considering that sexual preference is highly instinctive and there is no evidence that it needs to be taught or that there needs to be a catalyst environment in order for those tendencies to be brought out.
It's true that people with genes for a certain disorder don't always end up with those genes being expressed.
But there is plenty of evidence of mental disorders and afflictions such as cancer expressing themselves without any particular trigger.
And in the case of cancer, there are well documented triggers for those without a gene that predisposes them.
There are no known specific triggers for homosexuality. What you're arguing is pure supposition based on loosely analogous circumstances. And you want to make those suppositions while referring to yourself as education in psychology? It just doesn't make any sense.
You're the person who doesn't understand homosexuality behind prison walls or the roots of gender identity. In other words, you're the one who needs to open his eyes.
I consider the source. You haven't been able to demonstrate even a fundamental grasp of human behavior other than that people are influenced by their environment on a subconscious level.
But you managed to misapply that concept of subconscious determinants to prison homosexuality and gender identity. So, it seems like you don't even understand the concept of subconscious determinants of behavior.
Sexual preference is a major form of behavior that isn't easily swayed by minor events. Common sense would tell me that if homosexuality is brought about by environment and upbringing, someone would've noticed by now a commonality in those two factors in the millions upon millions of cases of homosexuality that occur in our society.
Your question is derived from such a misconception that is so easily identified, I was expecting that just about anyone who was reading this thread would've been able to answer this for you.
There is no evidence that homosexuality occurred at a higher rate of incidence in the Roman period than in the current period.
What is known is that it was considered more socially acceptable, and hence we see that it occurred more frequently in the public eye.
With the advent of christianity, homosexuality became taboo and therefore took place behind closed doors.
But, whether or not homosexual tendencies occurred more frequently before or after Christianity is not known.
Are you sure you went to college?
So now you admit that your views are different from that which are formally taught in a psychology education.
If your views are so different, then why even bother mentioning your education?
I think the truth is that you tried to intimidate people in this thread by pretending to be educated in psychology, but when someone was able to identity the difference between your views and those taught in psychology, you changed your story so that your views are just different from those taught in a textbook.
So what school did you graduate from?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I will say this again and I'll say it as clearly as possible THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS LINKED TO GENETICS. You can argue this point til the cows come home, but there isn't any concrete proof. You (or somebody on here) mentioned the study whereby it was found that birth order effects sexuality in boys. I believe the study you are talking about is the Blanchard and Klassen study? Yes it does indicate that there is a genetic link in some gay men, but there were also a significant number of gay men in that study who had no older male siblings. Therefore, this is not conclusive proof.
Are you familiar with the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory?
"A developmental theory of erotic/romantic attraction is presented that provides the same basic account for opposite-sex and same-sex desire in both men and women. It proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperaments that influence a child's preferences for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel different from oppositeor same-sex peers--to perceive them as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This, in turn, produces
heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of dissimilar peers: Exotic becomes erotic. Specific mechanisms for effeeting this transformation are proposed. The theory claims to accommodate both the empirical evidence of the biological essentialists
and the cultural relativism of the social constructionists."
This theory encompasses both males and females, and explains both homosexual and heterosexual attraction, it also has incredibly significant results - far more significant than genetic arguments alone. I suggest you read the whole thing: http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf
For the record, I studied Social Psychology at the De Montfort University. It would be around eight years ago that I actually studied this particular subject, and hell knows I would never remember the particular theorists and case studies that were covered. If you read through Bem's study I quoted above, you will notice a lot of similarity in the core views I've given in my various posts. From the importance and significance of those early formative years and seemingly minor factors, to the probabability that sexual orientation is likely the result of BOTH genetics AND environmental factors, and the idea of predisposition. In addition it also addresses one of the main points that I tried to raise, and got shot down for: the moral and political agendas involved in research of this particular subject.
I will freely admit I am not the most articulate writer going. I tend to type at a furious speed, particularly when it's something I feel passionate about. The result of which, is that things that I could argue quite effectively in person, may come across as something totally different on the page. Things I am implying, eluding to or that I feel are damn-well obvious, may not come across that way. For example, the only reason I gave the example of the kid my mum looked after, was becasue somebody else had mentioned some kid on a tv show that they could tell was gay from a young age - therefore it must be genetic. Me suggesting that the complicated nature of this kid's upbringing MAY have something to do with his sexuality, was in no way me saying THIS IS WHY HE'S GAY. I can now see how you would come to that conclusion, but given my open acceptance that it's probably both a mixture of genetical and environmental factors, I thought that was obvious.
Anyway, and for me this is probably the most important issue here; given that there currently isn't one widely accepted and proved argument for the genetic theory, I wonder why somebody would be so convinced to the point that they largely discredit the nurture side? My educated guess would be, that the nurture side is so synonymous with right-wing religious attitude towards sexuality, that some people will side with the 'opposite' belief, just to show their support - despite the lack of evidence. To me this is akin to watching Fahrenheit 911 and then believing 911 must have been a conspiracy - sure the film might throw up a lot of questions and doubts on the 'official theory' but it's hardly conclusive proof.
Anyway, I hope there aren't any hard feelings here. I respect your opinions, and have taken note of your criticisms in terms of analogies and off the cuff remarks and examples, which I agree don't always add strength to my argument.
Peace out.
Yes, there were a large number of gay men who had no older siblings. However, the chances of homosexuality increased from 28% to 48% with each older sibling. Compare that to the fact that there are no known environmental determinants with that strong of a correlation.
Also keep in mind this study which found differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
brain structure study
Apparently, you did not read the whole thing back whenever you supposedly studied it. From the onset, it dispels the myth about overbearing mothers and absentee fathers being a factor what-so-ever in the development of homosexual behavior. Yet, for some reason, you chose to mention that myth when supporting your beliefs about environment and upbringing in regards to homosexuality.
Also, through the Roman period reference, you mentioned that an environment in which homosexual behavior is openly practiced will produce more occurrences of homosexuality. However, the study you provided dispels that belief as well, pointing out that as long as heterosexual orientation remains "exotic", homosexual activity will hold no lasting appeal.
Lastly, all that study really boils down to is that people are sexually attracted to gender behavior that seems foriegn to them. Boys who exhibit female gender characteristics will be attracted to men later in life because males seem "foriegn" to them.
There are two major flaws with that theory. The first is that it assumes that being a homosexual male means exhibiting feminine gender traits during childhood. This, of course, is debatable.
Secondly, gender identity has been established to be genetically and biologically rooted. And that's a big reason why exotic erotic theory is still largely debated.
And of course there is the fact it pretty much flies in the face of what you've been saying so far, which is that homosexuality could be brought on by a combination of genetic and environmental factors that have yet to be determined.
The Exotic Erotic theory makes those factors fairly simple, and that's why I am still led to believe that you really have had no formal education in behavioral science. Up until you posted that theory, your views have neither been consistent with genetics based theory nor with environment based theory as it pertains to the exotic erotic theory.
You mean to tell me that as a result of earning a 4 year degree in psychology with a focus in social psychology, the only real basis for your views on homosexuality that you can muster is the exotic erotic theory, which you couldn't even properly argue? As much as I want to believe you, it just doesn't add up.
Even your exotic erotic theory states that the developmental factors of homosexuality are not that complicated. It's a very simple matter of gender roles making the opposite gender seem foreign, which produces an erotic attraction as puberty sets in. The theory that you support is actually in contradiction to your views.
Actually, there are currently no known environmental attributes that significantly influence sexual preference. Even your exotic erotic theory is based in the biological factor of temperment, which ultimately affects sexual preference through the simple means of opposite gender identity.
And like I said, gender identity is considered in the world of psychology to be based in genetics and biology. Look it up.
Add to that the studies about birth order and brain structure differences, and suddenly I don't understand how you find it so difficult to side with those who put their faith in genetics as being the main determinant in homosexuality.
I visited the website for the university that you mentioned, and it seems that it does not offer a stand-alone degree in psychology. That is, psychology at the university is taught not as a specific major, but as a supplement to other majors.
So, I can see what you mean by "studying social psychology" at that university. I was scratching my head for a moment because there is no such thing as a degree in social psychology. Rather social psychology is taught as part of a degree in psychology.
I'm guessing what you did there was study a few courses in psychology to supplement whatever other subject you were majoring in.
Instead of dropping credentials, you could've saved me a lot of time and been more upfront about where you got your inspiration. And from the looks of it, I wouldn't be surprised if you just hurried up and found something on the net in the last day or so and hoped for the best. I base that conclusion on how inconsistent your views are with the theory that you posted.
I come here not only to engage in stimulating debate, but also to learn. Learning is facilitated by self-honesty in regards to what we already know. I don't know everything, but if I was as passionate as you are about touting what I might seem to know, then we'd be here all week learning about what I may have accomplished in the time that I've been on this earth. Alas, that would be a waste of not only yours and everyone elses' time, but mine as well.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
http://seanbriceart.com/
I stopped reading it after I saw that all of you are inspiring novelists.
Geeeez people.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Well, when you are trying to make points you have to quote everbody who is disagreeing with ya!! It's very hard to get your point across on the internet!! hehehe
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
http://seanbriceart.com/