I have a daughter and I would like her to be straight and have a family. But if not no big deal. I would love my kids either way
many gay people have families
many, many straight people do not
why do you hope your daughter has a family? what if she doesn't want one or can't for another reason? I hope my parents never said that...if I had children I would hope they are kind people, I would hope they get to experience great things in life, I would hope they would get to do whatever it is that truly want to do.
I don't understand parents who want their kids to have something just because it's what *they* have and they assume their kids are going to want the same thing. a relative of mine said this about her daughters "I hope some day when they're both married and have kids..." sickening. don't make assumptions about what small children will be and do when they grow up, you will only disappoint yourself.
many gay people have families
many, many straight people do not
why do you hope your daughter has a family? what if she doesn't want one or can't for another reason? I hope my parents never said that...if I had children I would hope they are kind people, I would hope they get to experience great things in life, I would hope they would get to do whatever it is that truly want to do.
I don't understand parents who want their kids to have something just because it's what *they* have and they assume their kids are going to want the same thing. a relative of mine said this about her daughters "I hope some day when they're both married and have kids..." sickening. don't make assumptions about what small children will be and do when they grow up, you will only disappoint yourself.
oh yes... shame on anyone who would like the pleasure of grandchildren someday... :rolleyes:
i see what your saying but not to such an extreme... "sickening"?!
obviously, everyone wants happiness and prosperity first and foremost for their children (good parents anyway), but why shouldnt we also hope for a family (gay or straight) for them in order to carry on family traditions, name, etc... might sound like narcissism... but i see nothing wrong with it
many gay people have families
many, many straight people do not
why do you hope your daughter has a family? what if she doesn't want one or can't for another reason? I hope my parents never said that...if I had children I would hope they are kind people, I would hope they get to experience great things in life, I would hope they would get to do whatever it is that truly want to do.
I don't understand parents who want their kids to have something just because it's what *they* have and they assume their kids are going to want the same thing. a relative of mine said this about her daughters "I hope some day when they're both married and have kids..." sickening. don't make assumptions about what small children will be and do when they grow up, you will only disappoint yourself.
I agree. I have a friend who's married and she has no intention of having kids, but she gets constant pressure from all her friends and family asking when she's having kids since she's in her ealy 30's. She actually asked her doctor if she could have a hysterectomy, and the doctor said no becasue she was too young and she may want kids in the future. Since when does a doctor get to make that decision for you? Some people just don't like kids that much!
I agree. I have a friend who's married and she has no intention of having kids, but she gets constant pressure from all her friends and family asking when she's having kids since she's in her ealy 30's. She actually asked her doctor if she could have a hysterectomy, and the doctor said no becasue she was too young and she may want kids in the future. Since when does a doctor get to make that decision for you? Some people just don't like kids that much!
yah that doesnt make sense to me... why wait til menopause and be forced to deal with PMS if you dont want those eggs anyway??
dont mean to negate my last post... but if youre that sure you dont want kids then that option should be yours... understandable that friends and family might be curious tho... its just a social norm in the "natural" progression of life
yah that doesnt make sense to me... why wait til menopause and be forced to deal with PMS if you dont want those eggs anyway??
dont mean to negate my last post... but if youre that sure you dont want kids then that option should be yours... understandable that friends and family might be curious tho... its just a social norm in the "natural" progression of life
Yeah it really gets to her though, cause people just won't let up on it.
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.
Actually, your interpretation of that situation is not consistent with exotic erotic theory.
Remember, your original description of that situation was solely regarding the boy's domineering mother and absentee father.
Now you're adding elements regarding his female playmates and lack of interest in associating with other boys. According to EBE theory, those tendencies occur independently from the parental situation. That is, the boy's choice in playmates is derived solely from his genetically influenced temperament.
Again, it's another example of how you aren't really consistent with the theory that you claim is supporting your views. If EBE theory was the basis of your opinion about that boy's homosexuality, then you would not have bothered to mention the parental situation.
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 EBE study also states that gender noncomformity is based on temperament, which is admittedly a biological factor.
That is, were it not for the genetic coding of temperament, there would be no gender nonconformity.
Like I said earlier, I'm not completely dismissing EBE because I agree with its basis in genetics regarding temperament. As is the case with gender identity disorder, I'm not surprised that homosexuals behave atypically from heterosexuals.
You might remember in an earlier post I said that while environment does have a role, genetics are the dominant factor because the projected outcomes cannot exist without the genetic factor, but they can exist without the environmental factor.
Regardless of gender conformist or noncomformist behavior, the genetically encoded temperament still exists and could very well account for the remaining homosexuals who do participate in gender conformist activities.
In this link here which offers critiques of EBE theory, it states that on pages 157-158 of the full-length study, it is noted that feelings of alienation alone cannot account for homosexuality. Remember, the feelings of alienation are a product of environment.
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?
The same question could be asked about temperament encoding. Would a gay person who was born with a feminine temperament as the study argues not feel as though they were born the wrong sex?
And, actually, the genetic roots of gender identity is not discussed in the EBE study that you posted.
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?
Are you saying that's not what you've been saying? It's what you've been saying, but not in a way that is consistent with EBE theory.
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!
But you placed too much emphasis on environment/upbringing. In fact, by just including upbringing in your view, you are being inconsistent with EBE theory.
After all, you paralleled the environmental influence of homosexuality to that of pedophelia and serial killers, when environment clearly does not have the level of influence on homosexuality as it does on pedophelia and extremely violent sexuality.
And then you correlated the environmental impact to that which produces color preferences. Clearly that is a huge misapplication of the concept.
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.
The EBE study you posted implicates traumatic sexual experiences as the factor involved with people entering the pathway at different points.
Traumatic sexual experiences are not what I would call "seemingly minor experiences". Again, this is another instance where you arenot consistent with what is being laid out by EBE theory.
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.
EBE theory states that for the most part it is defined in childhood and the exceptions are caused by traumatic sexual experiences. In both cases, temperament has the dominant influence, and that is of course brought about by genetics.
That is much different from what you are saying in that quote. If you do not agree with EBE theory, then why stand behind it?
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.
Actually, the EBE study quickly mentions those studies and quickly proposes that they may affect temperament. In no way does the EBE study you posted claim there to be "strong evidence" that those other studies have the effect that you are claiming is noted in the EBE study.
At most, they are paid lip service in the EBE study.
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.
What you call lack of articulation, I call lack of consistency. It just doesn't seem to me that you are consistent with the EBE article that you posted.
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.
Well, if you google "critique of exotic becomes erotic theory" you will find a number of hits.
Of course, this is natural for every theory posed by scientists.
However, one critical point you will find is that the sampling method used for EBE theory was flawed. The heterosexual sampling was done properly. However, the sampling for homosexuals was not considered "random".
And if there was a problem with the statistical integrity of the birth order study and the brain structure study, then why didn't the EBE article point those problems out? Instead, the EBE article accepted them as viable and tried to briefly incorporate them into EBE theory.
In this link, Dr. Nicolosi describes his skepticism about EBE theory by explaining that EBE theory is based on the notion that human sexuality is based on fetishes. Do you really find it plausible that "natural" sexuality as we know it is defined by what is "unnatural" to us?
Also consider that the human genome wasn't mapped until the year 2000, 4 years after the EBE study was released.
And since then, more and more studies are revealing that a multitude of human behaviors can be traced back to what is coded in our DNA.
Instead of accusing the genetics supporters of political one-sidedness, you might consider implicating yourself as just desperately wanting to legitimize your claims to a formal education.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Comments
I now have carpal tunnel from excessive typing thanks to you.
many gay people have families
many, many straight people do not
why do you hope your daughter has a family? what if she doesn't want one or can't for another reason? I hope my parents never said that...if I had children I would hope they are kind people, I would hope they get to experience great things in life, I would hope they would get to do whatever it is that truly want to do.
I don't understand parents who want their kids to have something just because it's what *they* have and they assume their kids are going to want the same thing. a relative of mine said this about her daughters "I hope some day when they're both married and have kids..." sickening. don't make assumptions about what small children will be and do when they grow up, you will only disappoint yourself.
i see what your saying but not to such an extreme... "sickening"?!
obviously, everyone wants happiness and prosperity first and foremost for their children (good parents anyway), but why shouldnt we also hope for a family (gay or straight) for them in order to carry on family traditions, name, etc... might sound like narcissism... but i see nothing wrong with it
http://seanbriceart.com/
I agree. I have a friend who's married and she has no intention of having kids, but she gets constant pressure from all her friends and family asking when she's having kids since she's in her ealy 30's. She actually asked her doctor if she could have a hysterectomy, and the doctor said no becasue she was too young and she may want kids in the future. Since when does a doctor get to make that decision for you? Some people just don't like kids that much!
dont mean to negate my last post... but if youre that sure you dont want kids then that option should be yours... understandable that friends and family might be curious tho... its just a social norm in the "natural" progression of life
http://seanbriceart.com/
Yeah it really gets to her though, cause people just won't let up on it.
Actually, your interpretation of that situation is not consistent with exotic erotic theory.
Remember, your original description of that situation was solely regarding the boy's domineering mother and absentee father.
Now you're adding elements regarding his female playmates and lack of interest in associating with other boys. According to EBE theory, those tendencies occur independently from the parental situation. That is, the boy's choice in playmates is derived solely from his genetically influenced temperament.
Again, it's another example of how you aren't really consistent with the theory that you claim is supporting your views. If EBE theory was the basis of your opinion about that boy's homosexuality, then you would not have bothered to mention the parental situation.
The EBE study also states that gender noncomformity is based on temperament, which is admittedly a biological factor.
That is, were it not for the genetic coding of temperament, there would be no gender nonconformity.
Like I said earlier, I'm not completely dismissing EBE because I agree with its basis in genetics regarding temperament. As is the case with gender identity disorder, I'm not surprised that homosexuals behave atypically from heterosexuals.
You might remember in an earlier post I said that while environment does have a role, genetics are the dominant factor because the projected outcomes cannot exist without the genetic factor, but they can exist without the environmental factor.
Regardless of gender conformist or noncomformist behavior, the genetically encoded temperament still exists and could very well account for the remaining homosexuals who do participate in gender conformist activities.
In this link here which offers critiques of EBE theory, it states that on pages 157-158 of the full-length study, it is noted that feelings of alienation alone cannot account for homosexuality. Remember, the feelings of alienation are a product of environment.
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayscience.html
The same question could be asked about temperament encoding. Would a gay person who was born with a feminine temperament as the study argues not feel as though they were born the wrong sex?
And, actually, the genetic roots of gender identity is not discussed in the EBE study that you posted.
Are you saying that's not what you've been saying? It's what you've been saying, but not in a way that is consistent with EBE theory.
But you placed too much emphasis on environment/upbringing. In fact, by just including upbringing in your view, you are being inconsistent with EBE theory.
After all, you paralleled the environmental influence of homosexuality to that of pedophelia and serial killers, when environment clearly does not have the level of influence on homosexuality as it does on pedophelia and extremely violent sexuality.
And then you correlated the environmental impact to that which produces color preferences. Clearly that is a huge misapplication of the concept.
The EBE study you posted implicates traumatic sexual experiences as the factor involved with people entering the pathway at different points.
Traumatic sexual experiences are not what I would call "seemingly minor experiences". Again, this is another instance where you arenot consistent with what is being laid out by EBE theory.
EBE theory states that for the most part it is defined in childhood and the exceptions are caused by traumatic sexual experiences. In both cases, temperament has the dominant influence, and that is of course brought about by genetics.
That is much different from what you are saying in that quote. If you do not agree with EBE theory, then why stand behind it?
Actually, the EBE study quickly mentions those studies and quickly proposes that they may affect temperament. In no way does the EBE study you posted claim there to be "strong evidence" that those other studies have the effect that you are claiming is noted in the EBE study.
At most, they are paid lip service in the EBE study.
What you call lack of articulation, I call lack of consistency. It just doesn't seem to me that you are consistent with the EBE article that you posted.
Well, if you google "critique of exotic becomes erotic theory" you will find a number of hits.
Of course, this is natural for every theory posed by scientists.
However, one critical point you will find is that the sampling method used for EBE theory was flawed. The heterosexual sampling was done properly. However, the sampling for homosexuals was not considered "random".
And if there was a problem with the statistical integrity of the birth order study and the brain structure study, then why didn't the EBE article point those problems out? Instead, the EBE article accepted them as viable and tried to briefly incorporate them into EBE theory.
In this link, Dr. Nicolosi describes his skepticism about EBE theory by explaining that EBE theory is based on the notion that human sexuality is based on fetishes. Do you really find it plausible that "natural" sexuality as we know it is defined by what is "unnatural" to us?
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/critique.html
Also consider that the human genome wasn't mapped until the year 2000, 4 years after the EBE study was released.
And since then, more and more studies are revealing that a multitude of human behaviors can be traced back to what is coded in our DNA.
Instead of accusing the genetics supporters of political one-sidedness, you might consider implicating yourself as just desperately wanting to legitimize your claims to a formal education.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
http://quickbeamoffangorn.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/gene-robinson-gay-bishop.jpg
Oh you're dead ard you are, posting that from behind the safety of your computer.