# Identical twin studies show that homosexuality is not genetic



## Makalakumu

http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

This is very interesting, if people aren't born with it, then something in the environment is causing people to learn this behavior. Intersting.


----------



## Big Don

Shouldn't there be fewer studies of identical twins and a lot more studies of evil twins?


----------



## arnisador

The womb environment is though to have a significant effect--not genetic but pre-birth. Most twin studies have shown an effect but not one that explains it all.


----------



## Makalakumu

arnisador said:


> The womb environment is though to have a significant effect--not genetic but pre-birth. Most twin studies have shown an effect but not one that explains it all.



Epigenetics?


----------



## Manseau

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
> 
> This is very interesting, if people aren't born with it, then something in the environment is causing people to learn this behavior. Intersting.


I tend to believe that genetic make up is responsible for a portion of the incidence of homosexuality which I don't see as inherently evil. I think the rest of them are simply confused, opportunists (gay is in), or ambivalent about their sexual orientation. To the former I extend my hand in friendship and understanding.  To the latter I extend my middle finger in contempt.  

David


----------



## DennisBreene

A lot of genetic influence is not expressed at 100% The influence is more at the level of heightened pre-disposition.  It would be interesting to see what the percentages were on control populations (fraternal twins, siblings, the baseline incidence in the general population).  While the concordance was low, and suggests significant environmental influence, the article doesn't give enough statistical analysis to draw the conclusion that there is not a genetic component.  Practically, does it matter? Homosexuality exists. It is not felt to be a psychiatric disorder. If one is comfortable with one's sexual orientation, I believe most of society has moved toward a laissez faire approach if not actual support for individual choice in sexual orientation.


----------



## jezr74

Manseau said:


> I tend to believe that genetic make up is responsible for a portion of the incidence of homosexuality which I don't see as inherently evil. I think the rest of them are simply confused, opportunists (gay is in), or ambivalent about their sexual orientation. To the former I extend my hand in friendship and understanding.  To the latter I extend my middle finger in contempt.
> 
> David



What do you mean? You think being homosexual is evil, and some people see it as an opportunity? 

Why should you care if someone decides to explore, or has a leaning towards bi-sexual, homosexual or heterosexual lifestyle? Do you care about people having the latest style haircut or clothes?


----------



## Aiki Lee

A person's sexual orientation is not decided by simply one factor. There are genetic causes, environmental causes, psychological causes, and simply an overall acceptance of what someone can be comfortable with.


----------



## ballen0351

Makes sense there is no genetic or eveloutionary benefit to being gay.  It doesn't help prolong the gene pool or the species.  In fact bit would be counter productive


----------



## Xue Sheng

What I find interesting about this article is that it is says "Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic" and then later it states At best genetics is a minor factor,

So it is saying it is not genetic...but it might be a little bit genetic

To me this is saying something like "We have proved that the bomb did not explode...well it may have exploded a little bit"

IMO a better title for the article would be "Identical twin studies show that homosexuality might not be genetic"


----------



## Xue Sheng

Big Don said:


> Shouldn't there be fewer studies of identical twins and a lot more studies of evil twins?



Well they tried that...but evil twins being evil....well... most of the researchers have never been found.... of those that were found, many refused to talk about it and those that did talk about it discovered that the evil twin was lying most of the time so the data they collected was useless....and then they later disappeared as well never to be seen again


----------



## granfire

I found it interesting that there was supposedly a lot of changes during therapy....if that doesn't give some people hope that Teh Gay can be prayed away yet.....


----------



## Manseau

jezr74 said:


> What do you mean? You think being homosexual is evil, and some people see it as an opportunity?
> 
> Why should you care if someone decides to explore, or has a leaning towards bi-sexual, homosexual or heterosexual lifestyle? Do you care about people having the latest style haircut or clothes?


I said being homosexual (and would expand that to being gay) is not inherently evil. Look up the definition of inherently. 
It has become a cause celebre walking hand in hand with political correctness to force itself on organizations and individuals who are morally intolerant of that view in spite of their rights under the first amendment.
If you chose to dabble any life style be it bi-sexual, homosexual, trans-sexual, or any other way, it matters not a whit to me as long as it has no impact on me in a free society. 
Not sure where the clothes and haircut thing comes in but that's your thing, not mine.


----------



## jezr74

Manseau said:


> I said being homosexual (and would expand that to being gay) is not inherently evil. Look up the definition of inherently.
> It has become a cause celebre walking hand in hand with political correctness to force itself on organizations and individuals who are morally intolerant of that view in spite of their rights under the first amendment.
> If you chose to dabble any life style be it bi-sexual, homosexual, trans-sexual, or any other way, it matters not a whit to me as long as it has no impact on me in a free society.
> Not sure where the clothes and haircut thing comes in but that's your thing, not mine.




That's what I'm asking, what is the evil part about? your statement.. 





Manseau said:


> responsible for a portion of the incidence of homosexuality which I don't see as inherently evil.



Are you saying that in some cases it is evil?



Manseau said:


> it matters not a whit to me as long as it has no impact on me in a free society. Not sure where the clothes and haircut thing comes in but that's your thing, not mine.



That's not correct, you have made a comment of your opinion. You even went so far as to say, that people that make the choice beyond genetics you would extend the finger to.



Manseau said:


> It has become a cause celebre walking hand in hand with political correctness to force itself on organizations and individuals who are morally intolerant of that view in spite of their rights under the first amendment.



Who has has forced what on who?


----------



## jezr74

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
> 
> This is very interesting, if people aren't born with it, then something in the environment is causing people to learn this behavior. Intersting.



I guess it's similar to any other attraction instinct in humans. 

I must say I become more skeptical when I see articles like this hosted on a christian site, and I do first ponder the hidden agenda. But I guess science is handy just not sure of the premise. I'm not sure how many people actually put merit in the genetic stance in the first place. 

You haven't actually stated yourself what it is exactly you find interesting about the article to post it.

Some other sources..
http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/wpi/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf


----------



## Flying Crane

Manseau said:


> morally intolerant of that view



Ah.  Intolerance.  That's a wonderful thing.

Tag on "morally" as a way of justifying it.  Still doesn't fly.


----------



## Flying Crane

as to the original post, one only need look at the fact that many gay and lesbian people have fathered or mothered a child, and that child has about the same chance of being gay or lesbian as the rest of society.  So it's not AUTOMATICALLY inherited.  But I would be very very surprised if genetics played no role in it.


----------



## Makalakumu

jezr74 said:


> I guess it's similar to any other attraction instinct in humans.
> 
> I must say I become more skeptical when I see articles like this hosted on a christian site, and I do first ponder the hidden agenda. But I guess science is handy just not sure of the premise. I'm not sure how many people actually put merit in the genetic stance in the first place.
> 
> You haven't actually stated yourself what it is exactly you find interesting about the article to post it.
> 
> Some other sources..
> http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/wpi/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
> http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf



First of all, this doesn't affect my position on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry.  I think consenting adults should be allowed to enter into any kind of arrangement with each other and the government need not be involved at all.  Two men, two women, man and woman, moresomes, if it harm none, do what thou wilt.

Secondly, it's interesting that you bring up the fact that this was posted on a Christian site.  The argument they often make is that if homosexuality is not something you are born with, then it is unnatural and can be prayed away or some other BS.  What they fail to recognize is that if homosexuality is caused by the environment, then the vaunted "Christian lifestyle" is actually no better at "preventing" people from being gay.  As far as I know, there are just as many gay people in Christian families as there are in anyone elses family.  I am not saying that homosexuality is caused by Christianity, by the way.  There just isn't any demonstrable difference between Christian and non-Christian environments and the prevalence of homosexuality.

It's interesting when you start to consider the implications of an environmental cause for homosexuality.


----------



## Steve

Manseau said:


> I tend to believe that genetic make up is responsible for a portion of the incidence of homosexuality which I don't see as inherently evil. I think the rest of them are simply confused, opportunists (gay is in), or ambivalent about their sexual orientation. To the former I extend my hand in friendship and understanding.  To the latter I extend my middle finger in contempt.
> 
> David



This is interesting.  Why do you hold some in contempt?  That stood out to me 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> This is interesting. Why do you hold some in contempt? That stood out to me
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



It also raises the question:  IF the distiction he is making even were to exist, how would he be able to tell the difference?


----------



## Steve

I was reading on my phone, and responded before I got to page 2 and saw the further conversation around Manseau's comment.  I just want to clarify a little bit what stood out in my mind.  

First is that you (Manseau) drew a clear distinction between the actions and the intent.  As Flying Crane said, determining intent is a difficult thing to do.

Second, why do you think intent matters in this?  Say a man or woman is just kind of... meh.  Doesn't really matter either way.  Or maybe he or she is just trying to be cool.  What is it about this that makes it contemptible?  Is it the sexual component, or do you feel the same way about hipsters of any kind?


----------



## Steve

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
> 
> This is very interesting, if people aren't born with it, then something in the environment is causing people to learn this behavior. Intersting.


As with most things, I don't believe this is as simple as on or off.  When we get into the vagaries of personality and behavior, nothing is clean and neat.  I think that we all have propensities and genetic predispositions, but how they are handled by our parents and shaped by our early experiences will have a large effect on the person we become.


----------



## jezr74

Makalakumu said:


> First of all, this doesn't affect my position on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry.  I think consenting adults should be allowed to enter into any kind of arrangement with each other and the government need not be involved at all.  Two men, two women, man and woman, moresomes, if it harm none, do what thou wilt.



Thanks for answering, I wasn't having a go, was just curious. And didn't want to assume you had an agenda, or what that was.




Makalakumu said:


> Secondly, it's interesting that you bring up the fact that this was posted on a Christian site.  The argument they often make is that if homosexuality is not something you are born with, then it is unnatural and can be prayed away or some other BS.  What they fail to recognize is that if homosexuality is caused by the environment, then the vaunted "Christian lifestyle" is actually no better at "preventing" people from being gay.  As far as I know, there are just as many gay people in Christian families as there are in anyone else family.  I am not saying that homosexuality is caused by Christianity, by the way.  There just isn't any demonstrable difference between Christian and non-Christian environments and the prevalence of homosexuality. It's interesting when you start to consider the implications of an environmental cause for homosexuality.



I wish there was more information (that I could find) on the studies with the premise and controls etc...


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> This is interesting.  Why do you hold some in contempt?  That stood out to me
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2





Flying Crane said:


> It also raises the question:  IF the distiction he is making even were to exist, how would he be able to tell the difference?



You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....


So, this is an issue with promiscuity?   I'm genuinely struggling to figure this out.  I flat out don't get it.


----------



## Manseau

jezr74 said:


> That's what I'm asking, what is the evil part about? your statement..
> I was thinking about Big Don's glib comment about evil twins and inadvertently used that adjective to present the position that I don't see any gay person as bad.
> Are you saying that in some cases it is evil? No! When you have no  control over a predisposition in your sexual orientation that is neither a crime nor is it evil.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not correct, you have made a comment of your opinion. You even went so far as to say, that people that make the choice beyond genetics you would extend the finger to. Wanna-be gay people may enjoy your support but they don't have mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Who has has forced what on who?


Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America.  I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.


----------



## Manseau

Flying Crane said:


> It also raises the question:  IF the distiction he is making even were to exist, how would he be able to tell the difference?


Ask Lady Justice. She is the one who raises her blindfold to make the call and tip the scales of justice in "hate" crimes. Seems like George Orwell already went down this road, didn't he?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Manseau said:


> Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.



Yeah, because there's nothing divisive about excluding Boys from the Boy Scouts based on their sexual orientation.

Nothing divisive about giving someone the finger because of their sexual orientation, either.


----------



## Manseau

Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah, because there's nothing divisive about excluding Boys from the Boy Scouts based on their sexual orientation.
> 
> Nothing divisive about giving someone the finger because of their sexual orientation, either.


My, aren't we the selective readers.


----------



## Makalakumu

Why do gay activists earn your contempt?


----------



## Flying Crane

Manseau said:


> Wanna-be gay people may enjoy your support but they don't have mine.



who are "wanna-be gay people"?  Given that gay people have historically, and often still do today, suffered derision, hostility, violence and open discrimination from much of the straight (or perhaps the fearfully closeted) population, why would you think that someone would want to be gay?  Why would someone make a blatant choice in the matter, if they were not irresistabley compelled by the very fiber of their being?  That makes zero sense at all.  

Gay people are gay because that is who they are.  It's not a choice.


----------



## Flying Crane

Manseau said:


> Ask Lady Justice. She is the one who raises her blindfold to make the call and tip the scales of justice in "hate" crimes. Seems like George Orwell already went down this road, didn't he?



While Lady Justice may "raise her blindfold" (that doesn't make much sense either, by the way) it is YOU who said you raise your middle finger at a certain portion of the gay population.  So, how could you tell if a gay is gay because of genetics, or because of a "choice"?  It sounds like you've somehow got it figured out.  Please share your wisdom with the rest of us.


----------



## Flying Crane

granfire said:


> You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....



That is certainly not exclusive to the realm of homosexuality.  Plenty of straight people fit that description perfectly.  And still this has nothing to do with being gay thru genetics vs. making a choice in the matter.


----------



## Flying Crane

Manseau said:


> Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.



casualty of the activist gay movement?  Naw.  Some people simply need to grow up and become adults in the modern era.  Boy Scouts are a good example.


----------



## Steve

Makalakumu said:


> Why do gay activists earn your contempt?


Or, is it activists in general?  

Makalakumu, regarding the OP, I said before that it is likely both.  It occurred to me that this would be similar to identical twins with the BRCA1 "cancer" gene.  Both have a predisposition to cancer.  With the BRCA1 gene, according to Wikipedia, there's about an 80% chance of getting breast cancer before age 90, and a 55% chance of getting ovarian cancer.  So, would you say that if one of the twins ends up with ovarian cancer and the other does not, it's not genetic?  

What about if one chooses, as Angelina Jolie has recently, to have a mastectomy?  There is a choice involved, but wasn't the choice precipitated by a genetic predisposition?


----------



## jezr74

granfire said:


> You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....



Your assessment of gay people is they shag everything that walks? That's the criteria?


----------



## jezr74

Manseau said:


> Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America.  I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.



I think you do have a problem with gay people, that is why you are making the comments your making. I'm just asking questions based on your statements to understand.

Your views don't offend me, you have made the statements and I'm just querying them.

Personally, I think it was a good step for the Scouts, maybe could have been more and extended to leaders. It definitely gained respect on the world stage. Progressive, and still morally stable and ethical.


----------



## Carol

jezr74 said:


> I must say I become more skeptical when I see articles like this hosted on a christian site, and I do first ponder the hidden agenda. But I guess science is handy just not sure of the premise. I'm not sure how many people actually put merit in the genetic stance in the first place.



The fact that the none of the studies are referenced in the blog post to begin with leaves me skeptical.


----------



## jezr74

Carol said:


> The fact that the none of the studies are referenced in the blog post to begin with leaves me skeptical.



Yeah, I did a quick search to try and find supporting articles, or the comments made... some of the data doesn't match. I actually have a friend who is a genetic engineer, I've emailed him for his take on it.

There is something that doesn't sit right, and my genetic knowledge is very limited.


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> So, this is an issue with promiscuity?   I'm genuinely struggling to figure this out.  I flat out don't get it.



they could be serial monogamists. 

but I have always had the feeling that a few people were just in it for the 'in factor' or shock value. But that was in the early 80s, before AIDS...


----------



## granfire

Manseau said:


> Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America.  I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.



well, when you put character development on your banner...or moral straightness....being gay does not make you immoral or lacking character.
(considering that the LDS church caved on it, I think it's a good sign)

But that is beside the point.


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> they could be serial monogamists.
> 
> but I have always had the feeling that a few people were just in it for the 'in factor' or shock value. But that was in the early 80s, before AIDS...



Guys, I'm flat out confused at the subtext going in in this thread...  I'm not tracking at all.  It's like every post has had a few key sentences deleted.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## crushing

Steve said:


> Guys, I'm flat out confused at the subtext going in in this thread...  I'm not tracking at all.  It's like every post has had a few key sentences deleted.



I don't feel so alone now.


----------



## Big Don

Makalakumu said:


> Why do gay activists earn your contempt?


The Fulton Street Fair's denizens earn my contempt because that is NOT how you behave in polite society and the City of San Francisco earns my contempt for allowing that kind of behavior in public. 
Gay activists also earn my contempt by the heavy handed way they go about their activism.


----------



## jezr74

crushing said:


> I don't feel so alone now.



Just back and forth on homophobic comments.


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> The Fulton Street Fair's denizens earn my contempt because that is NOT how you behave in polite society and the City of San Francisco earns my contempt for allowing that kind of behavior in public.
> Gay activists also earn my contempt by the heavy handed way they go about their activism.



I'm sure the Fulton Street Fair's denizens will get by just fine without you.  As will the City of San Francisco.


----------



## Big Don

Flying Crane said:


> I'm sure the Fulton Street Fair's denizens will get by just fine without you.  As will the City of San Francisco.





^^Tacit approval of public sexual acts, with children in view^^
Stay classy


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> Guys, I'm flat out confused at the subtext going in in this thread...  I'm not tracking at all.  It's like every post has had a few key sentences deleted.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Gee, Steve,
   don't
     you

    something

heinous    
Obviously,                                       

therefore:


----------



## jezr74

Flying Crane said:


> I'm sure the Fulton Street Fair's denizens will get by just fine without you.  As will the City of San Francisco.



Talking about this?

http://fultonstreetfair.com

via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


----------



## Big Don

jezr74 said:


> Talking about this?
> 
> http://fultonstreetfair.com
> 
> via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


no
sorry
 after a 12 hr day i transposed fulton for Folsom
don"t link to photoas of that...


----------



## jezr74

Big Don said:


> no
> sorry
> after a 12 hr day i transposed fulton for Folsom
> don"t link to photoas of that...



Ok, yeah the two fairs are very different. lol

I can see how some of the fetish type things could freak some people out. But doesn't look too dissimilar to madi gra. 

Looks fairly tame from the pictures and they are just having a good time. To me it doesn't look that bad, but I can guess how others would look at it.

via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
> 
> This is very interesting, if people aren't born with it, then something in the environment is causing people to learn this behavior. Intersting.


Not really. Aside from the author's shady scientific bonafides, we have the simple fact that identical twins aren't.....well....._identical._ As in, their DNA aren't identical,.....


> Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.


 That's not some Christian website, or atheist website with a bias and agenda to grind, either-that's _Scientific American_-*identical twins aren't genetically identical.* 

Orthis: 





> [Research in 2005 found that identical twins differ in how their genes express themselves. Now scientists have learned that all identical twins may actually differ genetically from their partners to some degree.
> 
> As indistinguishable as identical twins often appear, scientists have long known they all differ somewhat from their partners. At times such discrepancies are relatively superficial &#8212; for instance, identical twins do not have identical fingerprints. Other times such differences are tragically obvious &#8212; one may develop the rapid aging disoder progeria while the other may not.


 Seen here                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Ad infinitum....ad nauseum. Identical twins *aren't*.

Not interesting at all.


----------



## Carol

elder999 said:


> Not really. Aside from the author's shady scientific bonafides, we have the simple fact that identical twins aren't.....well....._identical._ As in, their DNA aren't identical,.....  That's not some Christian website, or atheist website with a bias and agenda to grind, either-that's _Scientific American_-*identical twins aren't genetically identical.*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             NNot interesting at all.



Clones aren't truly identical, either.  The first cloned cat does not look like her donor/mother.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/cloningmyths/


----------



## aaradia

Ok, time to come out on martial talk I suppose. I am absolutely sure in my case it is genetic. And most of the people I knew when I was active in the GLBT community felt the same way. But I have known some people where it was a choice. 

It shouldn't matter. Freedom of religion is a choice, yet protected by our laws (in America.) The whole idea that we have to prove it is genetic to some people for them to be behind us having equal rights frankly annoys me. As long as it is a consenting adult, and I am not abusing some power structure (boss, teacher, etc.) it really shouldn't matter.

And I don't care if someone wants to flip the finger or approve of being gay or lesbian. You don't have to like me or approve of my life. But when you feel your opinion should affect MY life by denying me the same rights you enjoy - MY life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then I will fight you with activism or any way I legally can. And I don't need to flip the finger back at you, because I am laughing with joy for every bit of progress I have seen in my lifetime. And yeah, if my gaining equal rights annoys your bigotry, I admit I enjoy the salt in your wound. I should be above feeling that way, but nobody's perfect. 

As for people being gay because it is cool. That is just an ignorant statment. If you knew how difficult it still is for many of us, you would realize how ridiculous this statment is. Being Gay Lesbian is one of the leading , if not the leading, reasons teens kill themselves. People still get fired, beaten, and kicked out of their families for being gay/ lesbian/ bi.  I could go on about this, but I hope this is enough for people to get the point. 

Things I NEVER thought possible in my lifetime have happened. Gay marriage, boy scouts, societal attitudes, military - it's astounding to me that I get to live to see these things.

As for activists. There are a lot of activists that people never hear about. They shouldn't all be lumped in together. I used to be active in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Historical Society. There is the Log Cabin Republican Club. Sometimes, in any group, the loudest most obnoxious people get the most air time with the media. No group should be judged solely by that. Some of the people supposedly representing me make me cringe with embarrrasment. I know some African American Co-workers who expressed the same opinion to me on people like Al Sharpton supposedly representing them. 

Activities. Straight people have similar celebrations like Mardi Graw that get pretty raunchy. If you are going to object, object to all of them. I think I went to the Fulton street thing years ago, or something close to it. Certainly not my thing. Too raunchy for me personally. But it was late at night and it was an adult crowd.

And again, the media harps on the wildest part of our community. Look at news media coverage of our Gay Lesbian etc. parades. They show the leather boys in their umm, backless chaps, and the wildest drag queens and the bar floats. But you never see all the Church organizations, the historical societies, the stamp clubs.....

Boy Scouts - If the Boy scouts want to become completely private, with no special status, money, or special benefits from the goverment, then I don't care who they exempt from their organization. But as long as they benefit from the government, then they should not be allowed to be exclusionary to gay people. And activism to this end gets my full support.

Hate Crimes - I actually do not support the idea of hate crimes. If you kill someone for their wallet or because they are gay, they are still just the same amount of dead. However, let's remember why hate crimes developed. It was to counteract unjustices coming from bigotry in our court system. I remember reading stories of gay people being beaten to death and the perpetraters getting light or no sentences. They would claim the person came on to them, so they had every right to beat them to death and they would get away with this defense!

Finally, as on another MA forum I am on, it is awesome to see so many people be supportive of gay rights. And when I say "you" in this post, I am talking about society in general- for the most part I am not referring to members of this forum. 

Ok, this lesbian is getting off of her soapbox now. :soapbox:


----------



## arnisador

Manseau said:


> Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America.  I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda



The BSA elected to allow gay members (not adult leaders). That seems more inclusive, not more divisive.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Makes sense there is no genetic or eveloutionary benefit to being gay.  It doesn't help prolong the gene pool or the species.  In fact bit would be counter productive



The story is more complicated than that. Note that with males, homosexuality is more likely for those with more older brothers (presumably this particular phenomenon is due to womb environment effects, not genetics--and to the extent it's not genetic, evolution can't act on it). One theory is that, in evolutionary times, if you already have 4 sons (say), then it isn't clear which is better: A 5th son who might bear more children, or a 5th son who would not be likely to have children but might instead help raise the children of the other sons, improving _those _kids' survival prospects. You can simulate this and depending on what assumptions you make risk-wise, it can be beneficial to have a non-reproducing extra child. That child's genes do benefit (think in terms of the selfish gene) as each son is 50% similar to any other full brother, meaning the genes themselves are propagated. Meanwhile, for women, in evolutionary times it's unclear that homosexuality would have prevented a woman from being impregnated, given the likely nature of mating at the time.

There are other theories. To the extent that it's genetic, consider conditions like achondroplasia, which occur as a genetic mutation and would surely have reduced the chances of reproduction in evolutionary times. It's the nature of genetic mutation that such conditions will continue to occur despite being nonbeneficial from a reproductive success standpoint. 

Of course homosexuality appears to be a complex phenomenon depending on genetics, prenatal development, and early childhood environment. There are many conditions for which a person may have a genetic predisposition that only manifests under certain environmental influences.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Manseau said:


> Are youasking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of theactivist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don'thave a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I amsorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offerany.






Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah,because there's nothing divisive about excluding Boys from the Boy Scouts basedon their sexual orientation.
> 
> Nothing divisive about giving someone the finger because of their sexualorientation, either.






Manseau said:


> My, aren'twe the selective readers.



Whats  selective  about  that?You claimed the BSA are the latest casualty of the activist gay movementand this movement has a divisive agenda. Then D-Dog called you out on it and hes being selective? Thats exactly what you said; there is no need for selectinganything from your post. The whole thing is based in ignorance and intolerance.
How can an all inclusive organization be divisive? It is the people who do not accept _them_ that are divisive.
Your post does offend me, Manseau,but you have a right to that opinion.  Justlike I have the right to my opinion that _your _opinion is pure bigotry.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Makes sense there is no genetic or eveloutionary benefit to being gay.  It doesn't help prolong the gene pool or the species.  In fact bit would be counter productive


Unless it's Nature's way of helping with overpopulation.


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> ^^Tacit approval of public sexual acts, with children in view^^
> Stay classy



Given the topic of this thread, I have to ask: you do realize that the Folsom Street Fair is not a specifically gay venue?  There's folks of all kinds there, and all orientations (including many many many straight people) and all variety of sexual interests.  So is your issue with sexuality, or with homosexuality?


----------



## Flying Crane

jezr74 said:


> Talking about this?
> 
> http://fultonstreetfair.com
> 
> via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors



good catch.  Yeah. Folsom.


----------



## Manseau

aaradia said:


> Ok, time to come out on martial talk I suppose. I am absolutely sure in my case it is genetic. And most of the people I knew when I was active in the GLBT community felt the same way. But I have known some people where it was a choice.
> 
> It shouldn't matter. Freedom of religion is a choice, yet protected by our laws (in America.) The whole idea that we have to prove it is genetic to some people for them to be behind us having equal rights frankly annoys me. As long as it is a consenting adult, and I am not abusing some power structure (boss, teacher, etc.) it really shouldn't matter.
> 
> And I don't care if someone wants to flip the finger or approve of being gay or lesbian. You don't have to like me or approve of my life. But when you feel your opinion should affect MY life by denying me the same rights you enjoy - MY life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then I will fight you with activism or any way I legally can. And I don't need to flip the finger back at you, because I am laughing with joy for every bit of progress I have seen in my lifetime. And yeah, if my gaining equal rights annoys your bigotry, I admit I enjoy the salt in your wound. I should be above feeling that way, but nobody's perfect.
> 
> As for people being gay because it is cool. That is just an ignorant statment. If you knew how difficult it still is for many of us, you would realize how ridiculous this statment is. Being Gay Lesbian is one of the leading , if not the leading, reasons teens kill themselves. People still get fired, beaten, and kicked out of their families for being gay/ lesbian/ bi.  I could go on about this, but I hope this is enough for people to get the point.
> 
> Things I NEVER thought possible in my lifetime have happened. Gay marriage, boy scouts, societal attitudes, military - it's astounding to me that I get to live to see these things.
> 
> As for activists. There are a lot of activists that people never hear about. They shouldn't all be lumped in together. I used to be active in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Historical Society. There is the Log Cabin Republican Club. Sometimes, in any group, the loudest most obnoxious people get the most air time with the media. No group should be judged solely by that. Some of the people supposedly representing me make me cringe with embarrrasment. I know some African American Co-workers who expressed the same opinion to me on people like Al Sharpton supposedly representing them.
> 
> Activities. Straight people have similar celebrations like Mardi Graw that get pretty raunchy. If you are going to object, object to all of them. I think I went to the Fulton street thing years ago, or something close to it. Certainly not my thing. Too raunchy for me personally. But it was late at night and it was an adult crowd.
> 
> And again, the media harps on the wildest part of our community. Look at news media coverage of our Gay Lesbian etc. parades. They show the leather boys in their umm, backless chaps, and the wildest drag queens and the bar floats. But you never see all the Church organizations, the historical societies, the stamp clubs.....
> 
> Boy Scouts - If the Boy scouts want to become completely private, with no special status, money, or special benefits from the goverment, then I don't care who they exempt from their organization. But as long as they benefit from the government, then they should not be allowed to be exclusionary to gay people. And activism to this end gets my full support.
> 
> Hate Crimes - I actually do not support the idea of hate crimes. If you kill someone for their wallet or because they are gay, they are still just the same amount of dead. However, let's remember why hate crimes developed. It was to counteract unjustices coming from bigotry in our court system. I remember reading stories of gay people being beaten to death and the perpetraters getting light or no sentences. They would claim the person came on to them, so they had every right to beat them to death and they would get away with this defense!
> 
> Finally, as on another MA forum I am on, it is awesome to see so many people be supportive of gay rights. And when I say "you" in this post, I am talking about society in general- for the most part I am not referring to members of this forum.
> 
> Ok, this lesbian is getting off of her soapbox now. :soapbox:


 Hi aaradia, I just wanted to let you and all the folks on this thread know how very sorry and embarrassed I am for my poor contribution to this thread. I read through your post and very much appreciate your candor and perspective. You have graciously addressed a lot of things giving me a great deal to think about and apologize for.  My initial post was poorly framed and really did not contribute to the quality of this thread or the focus of this topic. I should have realized that from the initial response but my ego got the better of me. Again, I sincerely and humbly apologize to you and to anyone in this thread that my thoughtless words have offended. I guarantee that it will not happen again. Regards, David


----------



## DennisBreene

As I noted before, the study is flawed and doesn't really demonstrate anything.  Natural selection tends to favor any genetic change that does not reduce the individuals survival to reproductive years and therefore would have a reduced tendency to extinguish a predisposition for homosexuality; as would the possibility of new mutation recurring in a population. Aaraadia, thank you for your frank and open discussion. You are my new hero. My homosexual friends have all commented at some time or other that they were always gay, their issues were more related to coming to terms with that awakening knowledge.  Thankfully, society seems to be becoming more capable of accepting all manner of individuals these days and judging people on their humanity rather than on isolated characteristics (and we all have our share of those).  Maybe there is hope that mankind will grow up before it kills itself off.


----------



## Makalakumu

DennisBreene said:


> As I noted before, the study is flawed and doesn't really demonstrate anything.



I don't have an ideological dog in this race, but would someone with more specific knowledge than myself enumerate some reasons why this study is flawed?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Unless it's Nature's way of helping with overpopulation.



Perhaps but that's not really how nature works.  Every species main goal from fruit fly to blue whale and everything in between is to mate and ensure the survival of the species.  I'm also not saying its not genetic I just said it made sense as a theory.  Since it is possible to choose to be gay its prob hard to do a true an accurate study on the topic and quite frankly in my opinion is a waist of time money and resources.  Who cares why or why not someone's gay.  I'd rather cure cancer or something.


----------



## DennisBreene

Makalakumu said:


> I don't have an ideological dog in this race, but would someone with more specific knowledge than myself enumerate some reasons why this study is flawed?


I guess it would be more accurate to say that the report on the study leaves out critical information as I have not read the actual study.  I would like to know what control groups were used in the study.  The controls would tell a lot about whether there was truly a statistically significant difference in orientation and for a statistician (I'm not) provide the ability to calculate whether the study even had adequate numbers to detect a statistical difference.  I made an assumption based on what was given in the article and should have been more specific.  I apologize for not being clear enough on that matter.


----------



## jezr74

Makalakumu said:


> I don't have an ideological dog in this race, but would someone with more specific knowledge than myself enumerate some reasons why this study is flawed?



The premise is flawed, the article is saying that twins are genetically the same. This may be false. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

So now street cred comes into it. Scientific America or Holland Davis spin on other peoples work. Thats before scrutinising who he is trying took represent.


via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Perhaps but that's not really how nature works. * Every species main goal from fruit fly to blue whale and everything in between is to mate and ensure the survival of the species.  *I'm also not saying its not genetic I just said it made sense as a theory.  Since it is possible to choose to be gay its prob hard to do a true an accurate study on the topic and quite frankly in my opinion is a waist of time money and resources.  Who cares why or why not someone's gay.  I'd rather cure cancer or something.



Many species have subsets of their respective populations that do not engage in mating.  They have taken on other productive roles to help ensure the survival of their genes (or species, if you want to look at it from a different level).  Granted, in many of these species the non-mating members tend to be much more related to mating members (ie colonies that have a brood 'queen").  But that doesn't mean there isn't a possible evolutionary advantage for some of the population to not be involved in reproduction.

I think Arnisador made the point much more eloquent than I at post 53 in this thread.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...exuality-is-not-genetic?p=1576847#post1576847


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Many species have subsets of their respective populations that do not engage in mating.  They have taken on other productive roles to help ensure the survival of their genes (or species, if you want to look at it from a different level).  Granted, in many of these species the non-mating members tend to be much more related to mating members (ie colonies that have a brood 'queen").  But that doesn't mean there isn't a possible evolutionary advantage for some of the population to not be involved in reproduction.
> 
> I think Arnisador made the point much more eloquent than I at post 53 in this thread.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...exuality-is-not-genetic?p=1576847#post1576847



I'm not sure I agree that being gay is a subset of "regular" humans only made to take care of our kids


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure I agree that being gay is a subset of "regular" humans only made to take care of our kids



Interesting interpretation of my comments. But now that you suggest it and when you think about it; humans taking care of humans, doesn't that help ensure the survival of the species?


----------



## Aiki Lee

I dont think human evolution wasprogramed that way. Evolutionarily speaking each member of a species should belooking to pass off its own genes, hence why there is competition for mates.Sexual orientation is likely bio-psycho-social. It is equal parts genetics,psychology, and environmental factors. Human beings are incredibly complex, thereis never just one reason something is the way it is when it comes to us.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Interesting interpretation of my comments. But now that you suggest it and when you think about it; humans taking care of humans, doesn't that help ensure the survival of the species?



Yeah which is why we live in families.


----------



## granfire

I don't think being gay has an evolutionary advantage. 

but there are many changes in the population that may or may not be of some use. (aside from being gay does not keep a person from reproducing). I am thinking of situations where people are just differently wired (like 'high functioning autism' while supposedly broken and not normal, many of these individuals have a good bit to contribute. Or it's just a dead end on the evolutionary track)

But I find it interesting that we can't just accept that some people swing for the other team. 
but then again we can't accept that some people have different skin color....and THAT is easily understood where that comes from, and the obvious evolutionary benefits....


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Perhaps but that's not really how nature works.  Every species main goal from fruit fly to blue whale and everything in between is to mate and ensure the survival of the species.  I'm also not saying its not genetic I just said it made sense as a theory.  Since it is possible to choose to be gay its prob hard to do a true an accurate study on the topic and quite frankly in my opinion is a waist of time money and resources.  Who cares why or why not someone's gay.  I'd rather cure cancer or something.



Consider the difference between being something and doing something.  I can choose to do many things.  My grandmother lived life as a right handed person because she was forced to.  She was born a lefty and I'd argue she remained a lefty regardless of how she lived her life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Consider the difference between being something and doing something.  I can choose to do many things.  My grandmother lived life as a right handed person because she was forced to.  She was born a lefty and I'd argue she remained a lefty regardless of how she lived her life.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Yeah that's kinda what I ment.  It would be hard to study because I could say im gay and mess up the results.  There is no gay test.  Like if I study Cancer I can tell thru tests if you do or don't have it.  You can't test if your gay or not and then how do Bi-sexuals fit?  So its hard to study it.  I'm just not sury why there even is a study on this.  Its like where studying it to cure it or something.  I just think we could spend that money elsewhere.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah that's kinda what I ment.  It would be hard to study because I could say im gay and mess up the results.  There is no gay test.  Like if I study Cancer I can tell thru tests if you do or don't have it.  You can't test if your gay or not and then how do Bi-sexuals fit?  So its hard to study it.  I'm just not sury why there even is a study on this.  Its like where studying it to cure it or something.  I just think we could spend that money elsewhere.



Like many facets of human behavior, it is interesting, and researchers want to know.

Of course, with humans having the moral hangup of what is acceptable behavior in society, there is the cure aspect, too (which the article seems to be touching on, in regard of the people who 'changed' their preference during therapy) 

I think - aside from the gayness of it (bah, bad pun) it does also allow insights of what actually is fixed on our genes, since 'Identical' is by all accounts not 100%.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Since it is possible to choose to be gay...



I think that statement is really really REALLY iffy.  It suggests that you can also choose to be straight.  I know that for me, there was never a choice in the matter.  I've always known who I am attracted to, from the time I was very young.  I think people may confuse "choosing" with coming to terms with it and coming out of the closet.  It's definitely not the same thing.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> I think that statement is really really REALLY iffy.  It suggests that you can also choose to be straight.  I know that for me, there was never a choice in the matter.  I've always known who I am attracted to, from the time I was very young.  I think people may confuse "choosing" with coming to terms with it and coming out of the closet.  It's definitely not the same thing.



Not how I ment it.  I could if I wanted to claim to be a gay man live as a gay man.  There is no test to say your gay or not.  Gay men have lived as straight men raised families etc.  Straight men and woman in prison enter homosexual relationships then when released return to living straight.  so getting a true scientific study could be a problem.  Its kinda like people thatsay i knew i was gay as a child.  How?  I think its more a case of letting your current status influencing your past memory.  When I was 5 girls had cooties and were yucky.  Now I love woman but if I was gay now id could say see i knew at 5.  I olny had a sister growing up so sonetimes as a kid i played woth dolls if I were gay i couls say see i knew then ect ect ect.  Kids are kids they are not thinking in terms of sex.  Only as adults do we put that behavior on kids.


----------



## ballen0351

Sorry about the spelling I'm using my cell and my thumbs are fatter then the keys.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Not how I ment it.  I could if I wanted to claim to be a gay man live as a gay man.  There is no test to say your gay or not.  Gay men have lived as straight men raised families etc.  Straight men and woman in prison enter homosexual relationships then when released return to living straight.  so getting a true scientific study could be a problem.  Its kinda like people thatsay i knew i was gay as a child.  How?  I think its more a case of letting your current status influencing your past memory.  When I was 5 girls had cooties and were yucky.  Now I love woman but if I was gay now id could say see i knew at 5.  I olny had a sister growing up so sonetimes as a kid i played woth dolls if I were gay i couls say see i knew then ect ect ect.  Kids are kids they are not thinking in terms of sex.  Only as adults do we put that behavior on kids.



ah, I see your points, but I'll also say that yes girls had cooties when I was five, at the same time I was intensely interested in the physical differences between boys and girls.  I never would have admitted that to my guy friends because to a five year-old, girls had cooties.  But inside the workings of my brain, I knew what I found interesting.

As to the other issues, behaviors while in prison, etc., well perhaps that just illustrates examples of how fluid sexuality can be (er, no pun intended there...) and there are a variety of ways in which sexuality gets expressed.  In my mind, it reinforces homosexuality as a very real and very legitimate sexual orientation.


----------



## ballen0351

Its definitely real and valid which is why the study is just silly to me and a waist of time and energy.  Its like studying what is love.  Love is love who cares how or why.  It just is.  If I'm gay who cares why I just am.  To research it to me is a means to try to devalue it.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Its definitely real and valid which is why the study is just silly to me and a waist of time and energy.  Its like studying what is love.  Love is love who cares how or why.  It just is.  If I'm gay who cares why I just am.  To research it to me is a means to try to devalue it.



Humans are different in so many different ways.  I'm not sure if knowing how or why those differences occur devalue them.  If we were talking about differences in cognitive performance, we certainly wouldn't feel like understanding that would devalue cognitive performance.  

The difference, IMO, is that we are talking about sexual behavior.  Our culture has significant biases toward certain kinds of behaviors and these biases have little rational basis.  Does it really matter if homosexual behavior is genetic or environmental?  Love is love and the question of what is love doesn't make love less than it is.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Its definitely real and valid which is why the study is just silly to me and a waist of time and energy.  Its like studying what is love.  Love is love who cares how or why.  It just is.  If I'm gay who cares why I just am.  To research it to me is a means to try to devalue it.



There are likely lots of inquisitive people that are genuinely interested in knowing the hows and whys.  That's pretty much what science is.  Research has revealed an incredibly fantastic world of interesting facts and phenomena.  I don't think research revealing the our wonderful and improbable world has devalued it one bit.


----------



## ballen0351

I guess in my opinion the only reason you would study why someone is gay would be to change them.  We study bipolar for example to cure it.  In my opinion there is nothing to cure about being gay.  
Same with love there is no reason to study it other then to say it really isn't anything buct a chemical reaction blah blah blah it means nothing.  As an attempt to devalue it.  

I guess its possible o study it just because but if that's the case I'd rather see the effort put to curing something deadly.


----------



## crushing

The only things I see as getting devalued through knowledge and understanding is beliefs based in mysticism and the supernatural.  That may be a scary prospect for some.


----------



## Flying Crane

honestly, I can see both sides of it.  Yeah, we are an inquisitive sort and we want to understand why.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  BUT, in this case it is difficult to not wonder about what ulterior motives may be driving the research, because there's a history of it.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> The only things I see as getting devalued through knowledge and understanding is beliefs based in mysticism and the supernatural.  That may be a scary prospect for some.



Or saying being gay is wrong and we can fix you.  Look research shows your not born this way so take this pill and you will be better.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Since it is possible to choose to be gay.



Well, it's possible to choose to act as though you were gay, but it's much less clear that you can choose to _be _gay. Do you feel you personally could enact such a choice, right now, if you so desired?

Definitions are a real problem in this area. Early AIDS origins research was held up when epidemiologists couldn't figure out what was going on in Haiti. Long story short: Asking "Are you gay" may get a resounding _No _where asking "Do you work as a male prostitute (for other men) as a living?" might get a _Yes_. These men didn't identify as gay any more than a prisoner in a same-sex relationship would. It's complicated.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure I agree that being gay is a subset of "regular" humans only made to take care of our kids



It's one theory. Remember, we're talking about evolutionary pressures that may have been acting hundreds of thousands of years ago. Human population didn't grow very rapidly for a long time--it hit one billion worldwide around 1800 CE--so we may be looking at slight differences. Given the prevalence of same-sex play in other primates, it probably doesn't need a great deal of explanation, really.


----------



## arnisador

granfire said:


> I don't think being gay has an evolutionary advantage.



Per Dawkins, look at it from a genes'-eye persepctive. Might a mother benefit evolutionarily from having a set of genes that occasionally produces a gay child? It is plausible...not proven, certainly, but plausible.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah that's kinda what I ment.  It would be hard to study because I could say im gay and mess up the results.  There is no gay test.  Like if I study Cancer I can tell thru tests if you do or don't have it.  You can't test if your gay or not and then how do Bi-sexuals fit?  So its hard to study it.  I'm just not sury why there even is a study on this.  Its like where studying it to cure it or something.  I just think we could spend that money elsewhere.



Given the bias against homosexuals, arguing that it was purely genetic--which no one believes to be true, BTW--would undercut the arguments against gay rights. We need to study it because of such biases.


----------



## granfire

arnisador said:


> Per Dawkins, look at it from a genes'-eye persepctive. Might a mother benefit evolutionarily from having a set of genes that occasionally produces a gay child? It is plausible...not proven, certainly, but plausible.



well, I do grant you this though: a lot of gay guys are very creative. Certainly helpful for the society.


----------



## ballen0351

On an evolutionary scale it would sever a better purpose for people to be born unable to produce kids.  A gay male can still make babies so it doesn't help over population.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Well, it's possible to choose to act as though you were gay, but it's much less clear that you can choose to _be _gay. Do you feel you personally could enact such a choice, right now, if you so desired?
> 
> Definitions are a real problem in this area. Early AIDS origins research was held up when epidemiologists couldn't figure out what was going on in Haiti. Long story short: Asking "Are you gay" may get a resounding _No _where asking "Do you work as a male prostitute (for other men) as a living?" might get a _Yes_. These men didn't identify as gay any more than a prisoner in a same-sex relationship would. It's complicated.



Could I personally do it.  No I have no reason to.  Can it be done absolutely just as your two examples prove its done all the time.


----------



## Makalakumu

One thing to keep in mind is that our culture has a set of memes that we pass on regarding sexuality and these memes could be coloring how we view this. The idea that homosexuality is something a person is born with and cannot change could just be a reaction to the negative memes that creat bias in our culture.

Now, imagine that you live in a culture where homosexual relationships are accepted and encouraged. There are lots of examples of this in our time and throughout history. How might that bias change the way data is perceived?


----------



## ballen0351

But encouraging homosexuality goes against our instinct to breed.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Could I personally do it.  No I have no reason to.  Can it be done absolutely just as your two examples prove its done all the time.



Those are examples of people engaging in same-sex relations, but the point is that being homosexual--fundamentally attracted to those of your own sex--and engaging in sexual activity (for money, or lack of more desirable options, etc.) are not the same thing. You can choose to engage in same-sex sex acts but can't choose to be primarily _attracted _to the same sex.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> But encouraging homosexuality goes against our instinct to breed.



Eh. Plenty of cultures have separated out having sex for reproduction and having sex for pleasure. In ancient Greece, in modern rural Afghanistan, it's been commonplace for a man to have a wife for producing children and transferring property to the next generation but to also have a male lover for sex-for-pleasure.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Those are examples of people engaging in same-sex relations, but the point is that being homosexual--fundamentally attracted to those of your own sex--and engaging in sexual activity (for money, or lack of more desirable options, etc.) are not the same thing. You can choose to engage in same-sex sex acts but can't choose to be primarily _attracted _to the same sex.


Yes that was the point on why an accurate scientific study is hard.  There is no gay test.


----------



## Big Don

Flying Crane said:


> I think that statement is really really REALLY iffy.









> It suggests that you can also choose to be straight.





Anecdotal? Sure, does that mean it is not true, NO.
Yes, some people do choose to be gay.


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> Anecdotal? Sure, does that mean it is not true, NO.
> Yes, some people do choose to be gay.



Did you choose to be straight (I'm assuming you are, anyway).  If so, then you could just as easily chosen to be gay.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> But encouraging homosexuality goes against our instinct to breed.



People have sex with each other for lots of other reasons.  Sex for procreation is only one drive that humans manage.  If you consider how infertile males and females actually are and the amounts of sex acts that go on between actual fertilization, I think it could be safely said that sex for procreation is not necessarily even one of the primary reasons for sex.

Dr. Christopher Ryan wrote a book called Sex at Dawn that goes into the evolutionary history of sex in humans and other primates.  Very fascinating reading.  According to this book, the sexual experience is a bonding experience and is not limited to sex between males and females.  Regarding orientation, people in other cultures have had a much freer view of who could bond with who.  Which brings up a point about sexual orientation that I think this study points at.  If people in other cultures can regularly take same sex lovers, then some part of orientation is obviously cultural phenomenon.


----------



## Big Don

ballen0351 said:


> Or saying being gay is wrong and we can fix you.  Look research shows your not born this way so take this pill and you will be better.


 Spina Bifida and Down's Syndrome are genetic...
Not all things that are genetic are good.


ballen0351 said:


> Or saying being gay is wrong and we can fix  you.  Look research shows your not born this way so take this pill and  you will be better.


OK, explain why it is so wrong if a gay person were able to choose treatment that would make him/her heterosexual? If it is their choice, how is it wrong?


----------



## Big Don

granfire said:


> well, I do grant you this though: a lot of gay guys are very creative. Certainly helpful for the society.



Aren't stereotypes WRONG WRONG WRONG?


----------



## ballen0351

Just because some doc believes sex is a free love thing to be shared by all sexes doesn't make it true.  NAMBLA has docs that believe sex with young boys is healthy and good bonding as well so that argument doesn't hold much weight with me


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Eh. Plenty of cultures have separated out having sex for reproduction and having sex for pleasure. In ancient Greece, in modern rural Afghanistan, it's been commonplace for a man to have a wife for producing children and transferring property to the next generation but to also have a male lover for sex-for-pleasure.


Some cultures have embraced cannibalism too, that doesn't make it a good thing.


----------



## ballen0351

Big Don said:


> Spina Bifida and Down's Syndrome are genetic...
> Not all things that are genetic are good.


Never said they were I said I'd rather spend the time money and research on other more important things like ending cancer.  I could careless who's gay and why.  


> OK, explain why it is so wrong if a gay person were able to choose treatment that would make him/her heterosexual? If it is their choice, how is it wrong?


Never said that either but if your gay and dont want to be then dont.  Gi back to the 1st part the study to me is a waist of time money and. Energy


----------



## Big Don

ballen0351 said:


> Never said they were I said I'd rather spend the time money and research on other more important things like ending cancer.  I could careless who's gay and why.
> 
> Never said that either but if your gay and dont want to be then dont.  Gi back to the 1st part the study to me is a waist of time money and. Energy


No, you didn't but, there are those who act as if that is tantamount to rape.


----------



## Big Don

Flying Crane said:


> Did you choose to be straight (I'm assuming you are, anyway).  If so, then you could just as easily chosen to be gay.



So, you're intentionally missing the point? What, are you channeling another poster?


----------



## Big Don

Tolerance, as demonstrated in this thread is frequently espoused by people who completely refuse to be tolerant of any ideals, morals or thoughts of any but, their own.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Just because some doc believes sex is a free love thing to be shared by all sexes doesn't make it true.  NAMBLA has docs that believe sex with young boys is healthy and good bonding as well so that argument doesn't hold much weight with me



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece



> *Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece was regarded as contributing to morale.[SUP][1][/SUP] Although the primary example is the Sacred Band of Thebes, a unit said to have been formed of same-sex couples, the Spartan tradition of military heroism has also been explained in light of strong emotional bonds resulting from homosexual relationships.[SUP][2][/SUP] Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds.*



It is only the accident of birth that keeps some men from engaging in homosexual activity.  If you were born thousands of year ago in Greece and had chosen the profession of soldier, you might have had a gay lover.


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Anecdotal? Sure, does that mean it is not true, NO.
> Yes, some people do choose to be gay.


If a woman is bi-sexual and is in a committed relationship with another woman, is she choosing to be gay or simply choosing to be monogamous?  Similarly, if a bi-sexual woman is in a committed, monogamous relationship with a man, is she choosing to be straight?  

Here's another question.  If a guy is gay and is sexually attracted to men, but marries a woman, is he choosing to be straight?


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Tolerance, as demonstrated in this thread is frequently espoused by people who completely refuse to be tolerant of any ideals, morals or thoughts of any but, their own.


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> View attachment 18098



Sorry, no, I have NEVER advocated tolerance. Tolerance is for the weak willed, the weak minded and, well, the testicularly challenged...


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> So, you're intentionally missing the point? What, are you channeling another poster?
> 
> Sorry, no, I have NEVER advocated tolerance. Tolerance is for the weak willed, the weak minded and, well, the testicularly challenged...



So Don, what exactly is your position?  Do you believe that homosexuality is evil and an abomination?  Does that description hit close to the mark?  Why not just come out and say how you feel about it?  Let your inner bigot free.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> If a woman is bi-sexual and is in a committed relationship with another woman, is she choosing to be gay or simply choosing to be monogamous?  Similarly, if a bi-sexual woman is in a committed, monogamous relationship with a man, is she choosing to be straight?



ooh!  ooh!  I know! I know the answer!  She's choosing to be in a relationship with someone she is attracted to and loves!  Do I win a prize?



> Here's another question.  If a guy is gay and is sexually attracted to men, but marries a woman, is he choosing to be straight?



ooh!! I know this one too!!  He is in the closet and feels he needs to have a "beard" to hide is homosexuality because he has an intolerant family who will probably disown him and/or lives in an area where he feels his life might be in danger if the other fellows suspect he might be gay.  He'll have a couple of children in this marriage as a way of perpetuating the deception and he will spend his years stamping down his misery and attempting to simply soldier on in a desperate hope that someday he might find the cure for Gay.  Eventually he will start taking "business" trips to places like San Francisco or South Beach Miami where there is a large, open, loving and supportive gay community where he will have affairs with gay men, compounding the constant guilt that he feels.  Eventually his wife will figure things out, the marriage will collapse, the kids will be traumatized and told that their father is the son of Satan, and the guy will either commit suicide or will move to San Francisco or South Beach and find acceptance, love, and happiness.  Gee, too bad he couldn't have simply been honest about who he is from the start and found love and acceptance in his life.  Would have avoided all these problems.

If he didn't get married, then the other option he might have considered is the priesthood in the Catholic church.  That's another good place to hide from your gayness, and try to pray it away.


----------



## Big Don

You are clearly a bigot for denying that some people do choose homosexuality, you're other things too, but, I don't feel like a warning, so...


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> You are clearly a bigot for denying that some people do choose homosexuality, you're other things too, but, I don't feel like a warning, so...



HAHAHAHA.  You're a funny guy, if nothing else.


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Sorry, no, I have NEVER advocated tolerance. Tolerance is for the weak willed, the weak minded and, well, the testicularly challenged...


I stand corrected.  You're admitting that you're a bigot, but at least you're a self aware bigot.  Not sure where we can go from here, Don.


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> You are clearly a bigot for denying that some people do choose homosexuality, you're other things too, but, I don't feel like a warning, so...


Wait.  Hold on.  I wish I'd seen this post before I posted my last one.  You literally cannot be a bigot AND tolerant.  They are antonyms.  Flying Crane is advocating tolerance, and so by definition cannot be a bigot.  Conversely, by definition, if you proclaim yourself to be absolutely intolerant of the beliefs of others (and even by your own admission, intolerant of even being tolerant) you are the quintessential bigot.  You can't be both.  That's like saying you're both gay AND straight.  Just not possible.  

A little vocabulary lesson for Big Don:

*tol·er·ance*

[tol-er-_uh_








ns]  Show IPA
*noun**1.*a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion,nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.




*big·ot*

[big-_uh_








t]  Show IPA
*noun*a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


----------



## jks9199

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite & respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator
*


----------



## arnisador

Big Don said:


> Anecdotal? Sure, does that mean it is not true, NO.
> Yes, some people do choose to be gay.



...or, bisexuality is a real thing.


----------



## arnisador

Big Don said:


> Not all things that are genetic are good.



But we generally don't deny people their basic rights for things over which they had no control. I don't think we should deny gays rights in any case, but to the extent it's genetic it might help with the argument.




> OK, explain why it is so wrong if a gay person were able to choose treatment that would make him/her heterosexual? If it is their choice, how is it wrong?



In a world where--unlike ours--it could work? If they're adults, sure. It'd be their choice.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Just because some doc believes sex is a free love thing to be shared by all sexes doesn't make it true.  NAMBLA has docs that believe sex with young boys is healthy and good bonding as well so that argument doesn't hold much weight with me





Big Don said:


> Some cultures have embraced cannibalism too, that doesn't make it a good thing.



Way to go nuclear, dudes.


----------



## aaradia

Big Don said:


> Spina Bifida and Down's Syndrome are genetic...
> Not all things that are genetic are good.
> 
> OK, explain why it is so wrong if a gay person were able to choose treatment that would make him/her heterosexual? If it is their choice, how is it wrong?



First off, those things are a joke. This speaker I saw once talked about how a group he was involved in like that (many years before) was a great place to pick up men. Ever follow the stories highlighted in magazines about people who got "straighened out" by one of those groups? I have. Several years later they are often found in gay bars, outed having a gay relationship. etc. 

Second, they are doing so only because society is telling them that they are bad, evil, sick, immoral whatever when they are not. It is damaging to a gay persons psychology. Just as the people who used shock treatment to cure gay people phsyically and psychologically damaged people. It's a milder version, but still based on the same garbage. (And yes, I witnessed the taping of people talking about being forced into shock treatment by their parents to "cure" them when volunteering for the historical society I mentioned). Pretty horrific stories. 

Third, you do realize it was taken out of the list of mental disorders as psychologists and psychiatrists became more educated on the topic, right? Like in the early to mid 70's? Being gay is NOT something that needs to be cured. We don't need "treatment" for anything but perhaps dealing with the bigotry and hatred that affects our lives.


----------



## Cirdan

Apparantly there is now an app to cure homosexuality...
http://now.msn.com/gay-cure-app-door-of-hope-claims-it-can-cure-homosexuality-in-60-days

Now where is the app that cures hetrosexuality? Can you get an app for every sexual orientation? Might be fun, be attracted to possums one week, forklifts the next.


----------



## Big Don

You all have read about how ridiculously politically correct the DSM V is have you not? Do you really think that is a new phenomenon?


----------



## crushing

Big Don said:


> Tolerance, as demonstrated in this thread is frequently espoused by people who completely refuse to be tolerant of any ideals, morals or thoughts of any but, their own.



The ol' "you aren't tolerant of my intolerance" line that invariably pops up in discussions regarding homosexuality.  It usually comes from the poor religious martyrs that are getting beat down and can't catch a break in this world that is all to quickly going to hell.


----------



## granfire

Cirdan said:


> Apparantly there is now an app to cure homosexuality...
> http://now.msn.com/gay-cure-app-door-of-hope-claims-it-can-cure-homosexuality-in-60-days
> 
> Now where is the app that cures hetrosexuality? Can you get an app for every sexual orientation? Might be fun, be attracted to possums one week, forklifts the next.





> Now if they could just come up with one that would clean your oven


:lfao:


----------



## ballen0351

aaradia said:


> Third, you do realize it was taken out of the list of mental disorders as psychologists and psychiatrists became more educated on the topic, right? Like in the early to mid 70's?


Actually if you listen to interviews from docs that were part of the change it was due to political pressure from gay rights groups.  It had little to do with research


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Actually if you listen to interviews from docs that were part of the change it was due to political pressure from gay rights groups.  It had little to do with research



be it as it may, it's hardly a mental issue, or rather it's not really damaging. 
(and as the spread of AIDS has shown, the boundaries really do not exist)


----------



## Aiki Lee

Big Don said:


> You all have read about how ridiculously politically correct the DSM V is have you not? Do you really think that is a new phenomenon?



The DSM V is controversial but not for any &#8220;political correctness&#8221;. Changes from the DSM IV-TR to the DSM V include dropping Asperger&#8217;s  as a distinct disorder and including it as a subset of the autism spectrum, chaining the title of mental retardation to intellectually delayed (means the same thing really), dropping the sub-categories ofschizophrenia, drops bereavement, expands the age allowance for pica and rumination disorders, and changed the name of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria has also been removed from the sexual disorders list and given its own category with a special subset for children experiencing issues with gender identity.
The controversy stands not for anything specifically to do with the diagnosis of any disorder but with the treatment recommendations.It is believed that there was possible pharmaceutical company influence on the members of the APA which constitutes a conflict of interest to the doctors involved. Of course none of this has to do with gender dysphoria or homosexuality because they are not treated with pharmaceuticals.


----------



## Aiki Lee

ballen0351 said:


> Actually if you listen to interviewsfrom docs that were part of the change it was due to political pressure fromgay rights groups. It had little to do with research



Having it in there in the first place had little to dowith research. There are not problems arising from identifying as homosexual.The problem lies in social stigma which leads to depressive disorders. A person identifying as homosexual who is not accepted by his or her peers, family or society would very likely face depression and see a psychiatrist or psychologist. Back in the day it was wrongly thought that just being gay made you mentally ill, but it doesnt. Being rejected and hated just for being different from the majority makes you depressed.
It was never a psych problem so they took it out. It was and still is a societal problem.


----------



## ballen0351

If its not genetic as some claim and, serves no biological benefit then perhaps it is a mental illness of some kind.  Some chemicals messed up or unbalanced in the brain


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> If its not genetic as some claim and, serves no biological benefit then perhaps it is a mental illness of some kind.  Some chemicals messed up or unbalanced in the brain



well, if you see it as harmful. But is it?

It's not like depression, or bi-polar or whatever....If left alone nobody get harmed any worse than from hetero people. 

The Greek had it figured out (some say, it got so popular, on both sides, that they had to actively encourage inter-gender fornication to get some babies...not sure tho, forgot where I read that) 

Somewhere in the Thora it says man shall not lie with a man...practical reasons...small tribe wandering through the desert...we gotta make babies. Aside from that? I don't think it was the downfall of the Hellenistic civilization....it had a good run for several centuries!

And while I grant you that animals can be wired just as wrong as humans, homosexual behavior has been recorded across many species, without ill effects. Should make one wonder...if it's so 'unnatural' why does it happen so much in nature?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> If its not genetic as some claim and, serves no biological benefit then perhaps it is a mental illness of some kind.  Some chemicals messed up or unbalanced in the brain



Or, sexual orientation is not as rigid as we think, and people fall at different points along a scale. If it's a mental illness, it should cause some dysfunction in a person's life. It woul dhave to be more than not wanting children (which isn't necessarily true of homosexuals, BTW)--we don't consider straight couples without kids to be mentally ill. What would the illness be, exactly?


----------



## aaradia

Just want to point out that Ancient Greece was not so much one unified country, but a mix of various City States that often warred with each other. They had different cultures and differing values within those City States. Athens and Sparta were not the same and should not be lumped in together as the same.

Not all of Ancient Greece was accepting of homosexuality.


----------



## arnisador

All true, but it was much more widely accepted throughout Greece then here--but in different ways. Through the agoge system in Sparta, older warriors with apprenticed younger warriors, for example.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Or, sexual orientation is not as rigid as we think, and people fall at different points along a scale. If it's a mental illness, it should cause some dysfunction in a person's life. It woul dhave to be more than not wanting children (which isn't necessarily true of homosexuals, BTW)--we don't consider straight couples without kids to be mentally ill. What would the illness be, exactly?


I don't think it has anything to do with wanting children.  It has to do with having a physical attraction that is not a normal thing.  For example when I watch that show about people in love with cars or walls or trees that is no doubt a mental illness.  Now is that a bad thing?  Not in my opinion.  Is it something that needs to be treated?  Not in my opinion.  Is it even worth studying?  Again no not in my opinion.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> It has to do with having a physical attraction that is not a normal thing.



by whose definition of normal?


----------



## Makalakumu

arnisador said:


> All true, but it was much more widely accepted throughout Greece then here--but in different ways. Through the agoge system in Sparta, older warriors with apprenticed younger warriors, for example.



The point I made earlier is that at least some part of homosexual behavior is cultural in origin.  Apparently, humans don't need to have any "gay genes" in order to care for and have sexual relations with people of the same sex.  I think this shows that human sexuality is a lot more flexible than is assumed in our culture.  

With all of these cultural examples, I find it hard to support the notion of "orientation" as purely something derived from nature or nurture.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> by whose definition of normal?



Well natures I guess since the goal of the species is to ensure its survival


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Well natures I guess since the goal of the species is to ensure its survival



I don't think that's supportable, especially when we are talking about humans.  Procreation is most definitely not the only reason for sex.  In the animal world we can look at the Bonobos, sometimes called "pigmy chimpanzees" (incorrectly so, as they are a distinct species but they look very very similar).  Their social interactions center largely on sexual interaction, including between members of the same sex.  

At any rate, I think the mistake is in believing that there are only two sexes and one sexuality.  In my opinion, there are more than that.  There are male and female and heterosexual, but also bi and gay as real sexualities that ought to be included in the list.  Trying to make hetero and "the" sexuality is a mistake and as long as we keep trying to have only one catagory for that, well we are just gonna keep having trouble with it.  I believe that bi and homo and possibly some other sexual orientations that don't fit quite so cleanly into these categories, are entirely normal sexualities.  Just because they are found less commonly in society doesn't mean they are not normal.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> Just because they are found less commonly in society doesn't mean they are not normal.



That's exactly what it mean.  That's what normal is what a majority of society does.  That's what makes something normal.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> That's exactly what it mean. That's what normal is what a majority of society does. That's what makes something normal.



unless there's a semantics issue that I'm missing, I think it's not supportable.  I'll say it again: just because something isn't found as frequently in the population, doesn't mean it isn't normal.  Normal is not defined as "what the majority do".  That would be the definition of "common".  But that's not the same as "normal".


----------



## ballen0351

OK so if what a small % of what people do is normal then what is abnormal?


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> That's exactly what it mean.  That's what normal is what a majority of society does.  That's what makes something normal.



What if homosexuality is common in a society?  Wouldn't that become part of the new "normal"?


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> What if homosexuality is common in a society?  Wouldn't that become part of the new "normal"?



Yes normal changes as people change.  Lots of things that were normal aren't anymore and things that weren't before now are.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> That's exactly what it mean.  That's what normal is what a majority of society does.  That's what makes something normal.



That doesn't wash. By that definition, being male is abnormal. There's normal variation. Homosexuality is like that. Is there a 'normal' eye color?


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> That doesn't wash. By that definition, being male is abnormal. There's normal variation. Homosexuality is like that. Is there a 'normal' eye color?



So whats the definition then?  If being straight is normal being gay is normal bisexuality is normal.  Is anything not normal?


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> So whats the definition then?



Humans _____ anything that's dark and wet.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Humans _____ anything that's dark and wet.



Doesn't make it normal or right


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So whats the definition then?  If being straight is normal being gay is normal bisexuality is normal.  Is anything not normal?



Yes, but not where sexual orientation itself is concerned. Attraction to inanimate objects, say, is abnormal--amongst other things, it often causes problems (distress).


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Yes, but not where sexual orientation itself is concerned. Attraction to inanimate objects, say, is abnormal--amongst other things, it often causes problems (distress).



But whats the purpose of attraction?  To aid in making the next generation of the species.  So in the case of gay attraction its abnormal


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Doesn't make it normal or right



What makes it normal and right?  Why does "normal" and "right" even matter?


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> What makes it normal and right?  Why does "normal" and "right" even matter?



Because we live in a society and knowing what's "right" is what makes society work.
Normal doesn't matter much other then as a label.  But that's what this topic is about I guess studying why being gay isn't normal.  If it was normal we would not need to conduct a study


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> OK so if what a small % of what people do is normal then what is abnormal?



Depends on the issue, but I don't think you can just carry that over in this issue.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Because we live in a society and knowing what's "right" is what makes society work.
> Normal doesn't matter much other then as a label. But that's what this topic is about I guess studying why being gay isn't normal. If it was normal we would not need to conduct a study



see, that's where I'm saying I think that we as a society need to recognize it at normal, altho perhaps not as common as hetero, and stop trying to categorize it as abnormal.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> Depends on the issue, but I don't think you can just carry that over in this issue.



Why because its not PC to talk about it?  What's the difference?  Being different doesn't mean its evil or wrong just means its different then normal


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> see, that's where I'm saying I think that we as a society need to recognize it at normal, altho perhaps not as common as hetero, and stop trying to categorize it as abnormal.



You act as if abnormal =wrong.  I don't see it that way it just is different or not normal


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Why because its not PC to talk about it? What's the difference? Being different doesn't mean its evil or wrong just means its different then normal



I agree, different doesn't necessarily need to mean wrong or evil, different can still be normal.  Homo is different from Bi is different from Hetero.  And yet they are all normal.  They have all been recorded in human society for thousands of years, this has been around for as long as humanity, and perhaps longer in the animal world.  It's normal, we need to stop pretending that it's not normal.

The problem is that by pretending it's not normal, often what is put forth by people with an agenda, or who simply lack tolerance to differences in humanity, is that this particular difference IS wrong or evil.  It's not.  It's just different, but within the scope of humanity, it's absolutely normal.  It has a legitimate place on the spectrum of human existence and human experience.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> That's exactly what it mean. That's what normal is what a majority of society does. That's what makes something normal.



That doesn't make something normal. It makes it commonplace.

I'm bald. Most people are not. Does that make me "abnormal"?


----------



## Makalakumu

arnisador said:


> Yes, but not where sexual orientation itself is concerned. Attraction to inanimate objects, say, is abnormal--amongst other things, it often causes problems (distress).



Not necessarily, I can think of lots of inanimate objects that humans pleasure themselves with.

This discussion really gets interesting if we begin to consider masturbation.


----------



## ballen0351

Makalakumu said:


> Not necessarily, I can think of lots of inanimate objects that humans pleasure themselves with.
> 
> This discussion really gets interesting if we begin to consider masturbation.


Masterbation is an act not a way of life


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> That doesn't make something normal. It makes it commonplace.
> 
> I'm bald. Most people are not. Does that make me "abnormal"?


Yes again you act like abnormal is bad.  Its not its just different


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> Masterbation is an act not a way of life



Tell that to middle school age boys...lol.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Masterbation is an act not a way of life



being gay is not a way of life either.  It's just life, for a small but significant portion of the population, throughout all of human history.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Yes again you act like abnormal is bad. Its not its just different



abnormal does not have to mean bad.  But it often implies such.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> being gay is not a way of life either.  It's just life, for a small but significant portion of the population, throughout all of human history.



OK we will just have to disagree here


----------



## Sukerkin

There has long been quite some body of evidence that the incidence of homosexuality in a population has advantages for the group, especially as the size of the group increases.  It is also the case that this is not a 'human problem' as many species show the proclivity for homosexual orientation, again especially when populations get beyond a critical number.

For me, after the usual strong reactions against it as a younger man (probably a legacy of my overly religious upbringing), I have not allowed strong opinions on homosexuality to factor over much in my life.  I am far too interested in the beauty that is the female form to be much interested in the male form (no matter how Adonis like ) and, thankfully, I am no longer young and pretty so I don't have to worry about rebuffing unwanted advances; so I don't let the existence of men who love men to ruffle my feathers much.

This article from the Economist touches on the evolutionary advantages of 'switching affections' for a social group:  http://www.economist.com/node/12465295

P.S. The part about being "young and pretty" is a lie, I may have been young once but I have *never* been pretty :lol:.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> OK we will just have to disagree here



well, if you believe it is a way of life, then that implies a person has the ability to make a deliberate choice about it.  They could have gone either way, and they specifically chose gay.  That's really at the root of the issue, in my opinion.  When you recognize that it's not a choice, that it is simply who they are, it is the way they were "made", well then that really does change everything.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> well, if you believe it is a way of life, then that implies a person has the ability to make a deliberate choice about it.  They could have gone either way, and they specifically chose gay.  That's really at the root of the issue, in my opinion.  When you recognize that it's not a choice, that it is simply who they are, it is the way they were "made", well then that really does change everything.


Ok


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Yes again you act like abnormal is bad. Its not its just different





> ab·nor·mal   /ab&#712;nôrm&#601;l/
> 
> 
> Adjective
> 
> Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.
> 
> Synonyms
> 
> anomalous - unnatural - irregular - aberrant - unusual



If you're going to make up your own definitions, then it's going to be really difficult to carry on a conversation. Unless there's a Ballen-English dictionary around that I can consult?


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> If you're going to make up your own definitions, then it's going to be really difficult to carry on a conversation. Unless there's a Ballen-English dictionary around that I can consult?



Ok everything's normal nothings different were all the same but not.


----------



## Big Don

Flying Crane said:


> I don't think that's supportable, especially when we are talking about humans.  Procreation is most definitely not the only reason for sex.  In the animal world we can look at the Bonobos, sometimes called "pigmy chimpanzees" (incorrectly so, as they are a distinct species but they look very very similar).  Their social interactions center largely on sexual interaction, including between members of the same sex.
> 
> At any rate, I think the mistake is in believing that there are only two sexes and one sexuality.  In my opinion, there are more than that.  There are male and female and heterosexual, but also bi and gay as real sexualities that ought to be included in the list.  Trying to make hetero and "the" sexuality is a mistake and as long as we keep trying to have only one catagory for that, well we are just gonna keep having trouble with it.  I believe that bi and homo and possibly some other sexual orientations that don't fit quite so cleanly into these categories, are entirely normal sexualities.  Just because they are found less commonly in society doesn't mean they are not normal.



Animals are by definition amoral. People, have morals, well some...


----------



## Dirty Dog

Big Don said:


> Animals are by definition amoral. People, have morals, well some...



Implying that your sexual orientation is the only moral one, and that those who do not align with you are somehow lacking in morals.

:bs:


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Implying that your sexual orientation is the only moral one, and that those who do not align with you are somehow lacking in morals.
> 
> :bs:



Are you not judging his morals by your own to say he is BS.  Whos morals do web go by then?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Are you not judging his morals by your own to say he is BS.  Whos morals do web go by then?


Morality is like a giant venn diagram.  Most of us overlap on most things, but on some specific issues, what you believe is moral may be immoral to me.  Don has declared that he is bigot.  Further, he made it very clear that bigotry is, to him, moral, and that tolerance is immoral.  I disagree.  Do you?

Whether you do or not, the answer to your question is that you live by your own moral code. Don lives by his and Dirty Dog lives by his.  But don't presume that on any given topic, your position is the only moral one.  It just isn't.  

For what it's worth, I don't think that you should be made to tolerate something you believe is immoral.  I'm simply asserting that you should be able to acknowledge that other people have a different position, and that their position could be just as valid as your own.  Not better or worse.  But different.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Morality is like a giant venn diagram.  Most of us overlap on most things, but on some specific issues, what you believe is moral may be immoral to me.  Don has declared that he is bigot.  Further, he made it very clear that bigotry is, to him, moral, and that tolerance is immoral.  I disagree.  Do you?
> 
> Whether you do or not, the answer to your question is that you live by your own moral code.  But don't presume that yours is the only one, or even that yours is the only "good" one.


I'm speaking more on a society level how do we (as in all of us). Decide what's OK and what's not.  Or should we just be a more anything goes society?  

I do find it quite interesting that in an effort to prove to me that homosexual behavior is "normal". People used pigmy monkeys and Afghan mountain warriors that treat woman as property as the proof.


----------



## ballen0351

Double post


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I'm speaking more on a society level how do we (as in all of us). Decide what's OK and what's not.  Or should we just be a more anything goes society?
> 
> I do find it quite interesting that in an effort to prove to me that homosexual behavior is "normal". People used pigmy monkeys and Afghan mountain warriors that treat woman as property as the proof.


As I read your posts, my impression is that people were reacting to the negative connotations that the word "abnormal" carries with it.  There are other words you could have used, but you chose "abnormal."  Is it really a surprise to you that people reacted the way they did?


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Are you not judging his morals by your own to say he is BS. Whos morals do web go by then?



I make no judgement of his morals. I commented only on his (and your) bigoted attitude towards those whose sexual orientation doesn't align with your own. Deciding what sex acts are allowed between consenting adults is not a matter of morality. The only thing it is, is none of your damned business.


----------



## Flying Crane

Big Don said:


> Animals are by definition amoral. People, have morals, well some...



ah, back to the old "gay is evil" I see.  Funny stuff!


----------



## Flying Crane

as to morality and "lifestyle" or "way of life"... well here's the thing.  How someone chooses to behave can be considered a lifestyle, and might be judged on morality.  But this isn't a gay issue.  It's a person issue and is the same for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.  

Regarding lifestyle in sexuality, one can choose to be celibate, monogamous, or promiscuous.  And the realization of these paths can take many forms.  But this is a choice that a person makes for himself.  One can live a promiscuous lifestyle, or a monogamous lifestyle, or a celibate lifestyle, it has nothing to do with being gay or straight, in and of itself.  Plenty of straight people choose a promiscuous lifestyle.  

So yes, there are "lifestyle" issues that can be part of the picture, but that is a very different issue from homosexuality or other sexual orientations that differ from heterosexuality.  That is something that probably deserves its own discussion, so as not to cloud the topic here.  I can understand that someone might judge some of these choices on morality.  For many people, a promiscuous lifestyle is immoral.  I'm choosing to not pass judgement on it myself, but I can understand why people would feel that such a choice is immoral.  But that isn't the same as being gay.  Those are two separate issues.

Being promiscuous or monogamous or celibate is a personal choice.  Having a sexual orientation that differs from hetero, is not a choice.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I do find it quite interesting that in an effort to prove to me that homosexual behavior is "normal". People used pigmy monkeys and Afghan mountain warriors that treat woman as property as the proof.



You seemed unaware of the range of primate behavior in this regard. That's all.


----------



## Tgace

arnisador said:


> You seemed unaware of the range of primate behavior in this regard. That's all.



That sex can be used as a form of dominance and aggression? So?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Flying Crane said:


> Being promiscuous or monogamous or celibate is a personal choice.  Having a sexual orientation that differs from hetero, is not a choice.



While it may not be an individuals "choice" I don't believe that its a biological assignment either. There's no biological advantage in it....its a social/psychological issue. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I make no judgement of his morals. I commented only on his (and your) bigoted attitude towards those whose sexual orientation doesn't align with your own. Deciding what sex acts are allowed between consenting adults is not a matter of morality. The only thing it is, is none of your damned business.


Well since someone posted this thread it is MY DAMNED BUSINESS since that's the point of a forum to discuss ideas and information.  I'm sorry you don't like my opinion I guess its OK for you to pass judgment on people but the reverse is not OK.  But whatever


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> You seemed unaware of the range of primate behavior in this regard. That's all.



I understand it I just feel were slightly above them.  They also throw poop and kill their young as well but that's fine


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> As I read your posts, my impression is that people were reacting to the negative connotations that the word "abnormal" carries with it.  There are other words you could have used, but you chose "abnormal."  Is it really a surprise to you that people reacted the way they did?


I'm sorry abnormal wasn't PC enough for a bunch of adults to have a conversation.  I was using it as Non-normal or not the norm.  I didn't give it a neg connotation you all did.


----------



## Makalakumu

ballen0351 said:


> I understand it I just feel were slightly above them.  They also throw poop and kill their young as well but that's fine



Humans kill their young as well, but I think the greater point that is being lost is that sex is not just for reproduction. Sex is social behavior as well. Sex is used to pair bond, to form stronger communities. Homosexuality, in this regard, is actually an evolutionary advantage because it allows for stronger communities to develop.


----------



## elder999

Okay. I've had some time to investigate. The original post is based on a lie at worst, faulty data at best, and-most likely-predetermined outcomes based on a religiously driven agenda.

You see, there are a number of twin studies on sexuality. In one, 52% of monozygotic male twins shared sexuality, but only 22% of the dizygotic (two eggs....) did.Most studies have shown similar results, with a higher incidence of shared sexuality in the monozygotic (what the OP calls "genetically identical") twins, indicating at least a partial genetic basis in sexuality, which is, as others have pointed out, not merely a biological behavior in humans (or other primates!) which is used in  a variety of contexts, and far more fluid than simply genetics.

For myself, I know that at a very early age, while I had no idea what it was, there was _something_ I wanted to do with girls. Other men have said the same thing, and-among my homosexual friends and relatives, many have said something to the effect of having similar early attractions toward boys. While this is anecdotal, it lead me to believe  long ago that such drives,whether typical or, as in the case of homosexuality, *atypical,* (try that one for PC speak of things that veer from the mean, ballen) were genetic in nature. 

Yes, most homosexuals are born that way-time will prove this out.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I'm sorry abnormal wasn't PC enough for a bunch of adults to have a conversation.



In this context it has a connotation of _abnormal psychology_, for me at least.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> In this context it has a connotation of _abnormal psychology_, for me at least.



Abnormal is just a word I use a lot at work so that's why I went with it.  When I describe someone's behavior as abnormal I'm saying its different.  For example I pull a car over and the driver is acting differently then 100 other people I've stopped before I write how behavior was abnormal.  Its not good or bad its just different.  Its a way to build PC so I use the term often.  I didn't give it any negative stigma and in fact said several times I didn't believe it to be a bad thing just different.


----------



## Flying Crane

arnisador said:


> In this context it has a connotation of _abnormal psychology_, for me at least.



aye, abnormal does tend to connote something negative.  Abnormal psych is a good example.  Other, if you have an abnormal growth on your brain, it's not a good thing.  abnormal growth in cells can be cancer.  While the word itself can be neutral, it more often than not indicates something bad or undesired.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Abnormal is just a word I use a lot at work so that's why I went with it.  When I describe someone's behavior as abnormal I'm saying its different.  For example I pull a car over and the driver is acting differently then 100 other people I've stopped before I write how behavior was abnormal.  Its not good or bad its just different.  Its a way to build PC so I use the term often.  I didn't give it any negative stigma and in fact said several times I didn't believe it to be a bad thing just different.


 That's a yuck....."no negative stigma..":lol:


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> That's a yuck....."no negative stigma..":lol:



I don't get it.  And actually at this point I just don't care.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> I don't get it.  And actually at this point I just don't care.



It's just that one has to wonder whether you learned to speak English in the same U.S. that the rest of us have learned and used it for the last 50 or so years......:lfao:


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> It's just that one has to wonder whether you learned to speak English in the same U.S. that the rest of us have learned and used it for the last 50 or so years......:lfao:



Guess not.  At least I have you to police the boards looking for all the mistakes I make.  Carry on my friend take out the red pen and correct away.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I'm sorry abnormal wasn't PC enough for a bunch of adults to have a conversation.  I was using it as Non-normal or not the norm.  I didn't give it a neg connotation you all did.



  Not about being pc.  It's about saying something and feigning surprise when someone reacts predictably.  I didn't give it a negative connotation.  It HAS a negative connotation.  The word is typically used in a negative way. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## seasoned

Folks, just a friendly reminder. We're heading down a very narrow road here. Courtesy with one another while typing is of utmost importance. There are certain issues in life where we will fine ourselves on one side of the fence, so to speak, or the other. But civility is always the business of the day here on MT. Thanks...............


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Guess not.  At least I have you to police the boards looking for all the mistakes I make.  Carry on my friend take out the red pen and correct away.


 Hardly "correcting"-merely pointed out a less charged word. We are, after all, on an internet forum: *words are all we have.* Others understood what you said to have a negative connotation-you say you didn't mean any, something I'm willing to accept at face value. "Abnormal" generally does have a negative connotation for most U.S. English speakers, though......


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Guess not.  At least I have you to police the boards looking for all the mistakes I make.  Carry on my friend take out the red pen and correct away.



Or you could say, "my bad.  I didn't know." And carry on, instead of getting defensive.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Or you could say, "my bad.  I didn't know." And carry on, instead of getting defensive.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Or he can realize its the INTERNET not a term paper.  He understood what I was trying to get across.  Just like you do when I use the term Abnormal.  Change it to whatever feel good word you want.  Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then the majority, blah blah blah blah.  You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket you cant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior.  Its not bad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different.  If it wasn't different there would be no need to study it.  There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Hardly "correcting"-merely pointed out a less charged word. We are, after all, on an internet forum: *words are all we have.* Others understood what you said to have a negative connotation-you say you didn't mean any, something I'm willing to accept at face value. "Abnormal" generally does have a negative connotation for most U.S. English speakers, though......



OK so go back and change all the "abnormal" to "different (but not bad) then the majority".  will that make you feel better?


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Abnormal is just a word I use a lot at work so that's why I went with it. When I describe someone's behavior as abnormal I'm saying its different. For example I pull a car over and the driver is acting differently then 100 other people I've stopped before I write how behavior was abnormal. Its not good or bad its just different. Its a way to build PC so I use the term often. I didn't give it any negative stigma and in fact said several times I didn't believe it to be a bad thing just different.



If it didn't carry any negative stigma, it wouldn't help you invent probable cause.

So in other words: :bs:


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> If it didn't carry any negative stigma, it wouldn't help you invent probable cause.
> 
> So in other words: :bs:



Really so now your an expert in law enforcement too?  I love how you know your on the wrong side of the topic so instead of talking about the topic you spend 3 pages on grammar and word usage.  You win 
Im not gay, dont want to be gay, and quite frankly dont care about gay issues.  I said my part I think the study on Why is stupid and a waist of time.  People are Gay because they are Gay, people are straight because they are straight.  If its genetic, chemical, or choice I really dont care it doesnt really matter.

SO SHOVE THAT UP YOUR BS POLE


----------



## Sukerkin

Before this escalates any further, gentlemen, can I suggest that all those with stirred blood take a look in your respective mirrors and ask yourself if you are handling this topic in a way that does credit to yourself.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Okay. I've had some time to investigate. The original post is based on a lie at worst, faulty data at best, and-most likely-predetermined outcomes based on a religiously driven agenda.
> 
> You see, there are a number of twin studies on sexuality. In one, 52% of monozygotic male twins shared sexuality, but only 22% of the dizygotic (two eggs....) did.Most studies have shown similar results, with a higher incidence of shared sexuality in the monozygotic (what the OP calls "genetically identical") twins, indicating at least a partial genetic basis in sexuality, which is, as others have pointed out, not merely a biological behavior in humans (or other primates!) which is used in  a variety of contexts, and far more fluid than simply genetics.
> 
> For myself, I know that at a very early age, while I had no idea what it was, there was _something_ I wanted to do with girls. Other men have said the same thing, and-among my homosexual friends and relatives, many have said something to the effect of having similar early attractions toward boys. While this is anecdotal, it lead me to believe  long ago that such drives,whether typical or, as in the case of homosexuality, *atypical,* (try that one for PC speak of things that veer from the mean, ballen) were genetic in nature.
> 
> Yes, most homosexuals are born that way-time will prove this out.



In the original article, it was claimed that 8 large studies from the US, Australia, and Scandinavia all supplied evidence that showed that homosexuality was not genetic. The original studies were not linked in the article. Did you find them? Could you post one that you looked at?

This is interesting, because I referenced another book earlier that looked into the evolutionary psychology of sexuality and the conclusion that huge numbers of researchers are concluding is that sexuality and sexual orientation are far more fluid then we assumed.perhaps it can be "set" in some people, but from a cross cultural perspective, that number is exceedingly small.

Case in point, if you looked at the cultures where homosexual relationships are normal and accepted, an overly large percentage of people who perhaps would have claimed to be heterosexual in another culture, now freely engage in homosexual relationships. This is a big problem for people who think sexual orientation is something that you are born with. 

In the end, and this is something I've thought for a long time, perhaps our language is flawed. Perhaps classifying people as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual is not valid.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Or he can realize its the INTERNET not a term paper.  He understood what I was trying to get across.  Just like you do when I use the term Abnormal.  Change it to whatever feel good word you want.  Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then the majority, blah blah blah blah.  You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket you cant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior.  Its not bad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different.  If it wasn't different there would be no need to study it.  There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.


my opinion is that people trot out the term PC when they know they're being jerks and want to make themselves feel better about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jks9199

*In the last few days, I have posted a warning in this thread.  There have been at least two, possibly more, reminders or hints that people are crossing the line.  This is the last warning.  Discuss the issue.  Leave the insults and shots out.  

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator
*


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Or he can realize its the INTERNET not a term paper.  He understood what I was trying to get across.  Just like you do when I use the term Abnormal.  Change it to whatever feel good word you want.  Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then the majority, blah blah blah blah.  You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket you cant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior.  Its not bad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different.  If it wasn't different there would be no need to study it.  There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.



Your logic is flawed, sir.

We study a variety of things that are called "normal." Human sexual behavior in general, for one-various mores and customs for another. History. Art. English literature. Biology. Physics.......etc., etc., etc.

More to the point-for a heterosexual, like myself, or-I'm assuming-you, having sex with a member of the same gender is abnormal. For the homosexual, it is, in fact, normal-and it would be abnormal for them to have congress with a member of the opposite gender. it is in this context-and only in this context-that your use of "abnormal" might not have any charge or connotation, but that isn't how you are using it.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> More to the point-for a heterosexual, like myself, or-I'm assuming-you, having sex with a member of the same gender is abnormal.



...although we see that in many circumstances, such as prison or the navy, such a person often enters into consensual  of this sort, showing that _preference _is what's at issue indeed.


----------



## Aiki Lee

I somehow missed all the action continuing here so here is my lengthy responses to to everything. Please excuse me as my words still run together in places when I copy this from Word to MT.



ballen0351 said:


> If its notgenetic as some claim and, serves no biological benefit then perhaps it is amental illness of some kind. Some chemicals messed up or unbalanced in thebrain



It is most certainly NOT a mental illness.
From the National Alliance on MentalIllness: 
A mental illness is a medical condition thatdisrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others anddaily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mentalillnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity forcoping with the ordinary demands of life.
Anyoneidentifying as non-hetero does not automatically have a disruption in thinking,mood, feelings, daily functions, or the ability to relate with others. 
There isnothing unique about not-hetero individuals that would qualify them to bementally ill based on orientation alone. Just because a persons brainchemistry may be different does not mean they are ill.



ballen0351 said:


> So whats thedefinition then? If being straight is normal being gay is normal bisexuality isnormal. Is anything not normal?


Normal is a subjective term. It meanssomething different to everyone. There is no such thing as normal inactuality. There are only what we perceive to be acceptable or unacceptable andthat will vary from person to person. 



ballen0351 said:


> Because we livein a society and knowing what's "right" is what makes society work.
> Normal doesn't matter much other then as a label. But that's what this topic isabout I guess studying why being gay isn't normal. If it was normal we wouldnot need to conduct a study


Societys definition of right is oftenwrong, just look at the Civil Rights campaign. A lot of people thought it wasjustified in keeping minorities segregated and that it was a mans job to keepwomen in their place. Thats not right, that is just what has been acceptedin the past. As humanity grows as a species we must constantly challenge perceivedinjustices and right the wrongs of society.
Studying something is done so that one canunderstand. Something doesnt have to be abnormal to be studied. I couldstudy the family dynamics of Irish Americans, are they abnormal just because noteveryone is Irish American? Being different is not the same as not beingnormal. When people dont understand something they study it.



ballen0351 said:


> Masterbation isan act not a way of life


If a man identifying as straight has sexwith another man is he gay now? Has that changed his way of life? Sexualintercourse is an act, not a way of life. Im fond of red heads, is that a wayof life? There is more to a person than just their orientation.



Dirty Dog said:


> That doesn't make something normal. It makes it commonplace.
> 
> I'm bald. Most people are not. Does that make me "abnormal"?





ballen0351 said:


> Yes again you actlike abnormal is bad. Its not its just different


No that is not abnormal. You dont look at a balding man and say thats not normal. You look at it and think sometimes men go bald. The majority does not define normal. As it was already said byothers, the majority decides what is common. White people may be the majority in this country but that doesnt make them more normal compared to minorities. See how odd it would be to look at Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, andother ethnicities and say youre abnormal?



Big Don said:


> Animals are bydefinition amoral. People, have morals, well some...


All people live by some sort of moral. But like Steve said, morals can be different depending on culture and belief systems. Personally I draw the line that immorality stems from causing harm to people and homosexuality causes no harm, therefore how can it be immoral?



ballen0351 said:


> Ok everything'snormal nothings different were all the same but not.


Actually normal implies that things are as they should be. In physical health having cancerous skin cells would be abnormal but having a good tan wouldnt be. But if I burn under the sun and another person tans are either of us abnormal? Different yes, but not abnormal.
Abnormal implies something is not the way it should be, and who are we to say that people attracted to adults of the same sex is not how they should be? A person faking being straight to avoid stigma would not be doing what is normal for him or her; it doesnt feel right to them.



Tgace said:


> While it may not be an individuals "choice" I don't believe that its a biological assignmenteither. There's no biological advantage in it....its a social/psychologicalissue.


It is a combination of all three. Sexual attraction is partially chemical, partially psychological, and partial socially constructed. There is no one answer to it. And just because there is not advantageto being gay (and really thats for the individual to decide), doesnt mean itis not biological. What is the advantage of having green eyes as opposed to hazel? None, but it is genetically determined.



			
				
I do find it quite interesting that in an effort to prove to me that homosexualbehavior is "normal". People used pigmy monkeys and Afghan mountainwarriors that treat woman as property as the proof.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> People also pointed out it was common among aspects of Greek culture. It was prevalent in many parts of the world including Persia, Japan, the Netherlands, and many places in Africa. Its prevalent throughout all of human history, but not every culture accepted it.
> 
> So would you consider the cultures that forbid it more normal than those that do not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abnormal is justa word I use a lot at work so that's why I went with it. When I describesomeone's behavior as abnormal I'm saying its different.
> 
> 
> 
> Abnormal and different are not the samething. As said before something can be different and considered normal, likeskin color for example. There is a difference between commonality and normalcy.
> 
> 
> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the term abnormal does carry negative stigma whether you intend it or not. When someone has an unhealthy psychology it is abnormal. If someone is just different then they are different, not abnormal.
> Elders use of the word atypical maybetter reflect the idea you are trying to represent.
> 
> 
> 
> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or he can realizeits the INTERNET not a term paper. He understood what I was trying to getacross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The appearance it gave me was that you used abnormal to describe the behavior as wrong or unhealthy as that is the meaning of the word as used in the common vernacular.
> 
> 
> 
> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you dowhen I use the term Abnormal. Change it to whatever feel good word you want.Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then themajority, blah blah blah blah. You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket youcant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior. Its notbad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different. If it wasn'tdifferent there would be no need to study it. There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality is not different from the norm,it is less common. Again that is like saying minority ethnicities are not normal. The wording is wrong, whether you chose to believe it or not the word does not mean what you think it means.
> We classify everything. We are human beings have to assign names and meaning to everything, its how we gain psychological control of our lives by assigning meanings and values to things and categorizing them.
> People study common things as well, not just the uncommon. Again something is studied when understanding is being sought. People study everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> In the original article, it was claimed that 8 large studies from the US, Australia, and Scandinavia all supplied evidence that showed that homosexuality was not genetic. The original studies were not linked in the article. Did you find them? Could you post one that you looked at?



Interestingly,John, given the claims of the countries involved, I think I did look at some of the same studies-in other words, the writers of the article are claiming findings that are _completely opposite the conclusions put forth by the actual experimenters._

There's this one : A genetic study of male sexual orientation.Bailey JM, Pillard RC.Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 60208

and this one: Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Bailey, J. Michael; Dunne, Michael P.; Martin, Nicholas G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

and this one:Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden , which studied more than 7000 pairs of twins in Sweden, and concluded-as most have-that there are genetic as well as environmental factors that seem to determine or influence sexuality.

So the article is pretty much B.S., John.




Makalakumu said:


> This is interesting, because I referenced another book earlier that looked into the evolutionary psychology of sexuality and the conclusion that huge numbers of researchers are concluding is that sexuality and sexual orientation are far more fluid then we assumed.perhaps it can be "set" in some people, but from a cross cultural perspective, that number is exceedingly small.



See above. I know there's nothing "fluid" about my sexuality, though-over the  years, I've had numerous gay friends, some of whom hit on me, and-even at my drunkest and most horny-I have never been slightly interested. 




Makalakumu said:


> Case in point, if you looked at the cultures where homosexual relationships are normal and accepted, an overly large percentage of people who perhaps would have claimed to be heterosexual in another culture, now freely engage in homosexual relationships. This is a big problem for people who think sexual orientation is something that you are born with.



Define "overly large percentage." I mean, essentially, what you're saying is that there's more evidence of certain sexual behaviors in environments where those behaviors are accepted-I'd posit that it's not that there's a higher percentage of homosexuals, but a higher percentage of _open_ homosexuality.

I mean, you don't really think that there are *no* homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan, do you? :lol:



Makalakumu said:


> In the end, and this is something I've thought for a long time, perhaps our language is flawed. Perhaps classifying people as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual is not valid.



People classify themselves, John-one could say much the same about race:am I _black or African-American or Indian or Native-American or  white or Polynesian or "other?"_ Does it matter? In the end, I am all of those things-some to a lesser degree than others, perhaps-and, quite truly, _none_ of them. I am simply who I choose to be. Sexuality may be the same, but basic drives are basic drives-I don't much like some cheeses-as in, find them completely unpalatable-but I bet I'd eat them if I were starving....this is, of course, not the best analogy-I'm pretty good at taking care of myself, sexually, and would prefer that over congress with another man, I think, just as I prefer love making with my wife over masturbation-but you get the idea.


----------



## DennisBreene

It's interesting to me that the statistics in the article from Northwestern show about 1/2 the incidence of homosexuality in dizygotic (fraternal) twins as compared to monozygotic (identical) twins and another 50% drop in incidence when compared to adoptive paired siblings with no genetic linkage.  That suggests pretty strongly that homosexuality is strongly linked with genetics and also demonstrates the importance of adequate control groups. And I agree with elder. From a societal perspective it matters little.  What is ultimately relevant is how one identifies oneself.  The only marginal benefit to the general population is that this kind of evidence for genetic influence reinforces the wisdom of leaving people alone to live life as they wish when it is of no consequence to others.


----------



## jezr74

Have been on the road so behind on posts, but for what its worth, quoted from a mate of mine who is a genetic scientist.



> Actually it is just a gene.  everything about you is programmed by your genes. nothing you do say think or anything else is possible without them and the way what they code for interacts.  of course environmental influences will affect which genes are expressed more then others within a specified context.  But your genetic make-up determines the parameters within which you can exist.  Gayness is simply another parameter which may not be expressed.  conscious will, may retard expression, but not base desire, no matter how hammered into ones subconscious.
> 
> the article which i just bothered to read, seems to lack insight.  any difference between twins sexuality is genetically based, cause its part of their programming. it can simply be explained that environment turned up certain genes or turned down others leading to same sex attraction.




Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Makalakumu

jezr74 said:


> I_t can simply be explained that environment turned up certain genes or turned down others leading to same sex attraction._



This seems to indicate that the phenomenon is genetic and environmental.  Which brings up a point I brought up earlier, if homosexuality is epigenetic, it's not a choice, but neither is it something that you are necessarily born with or can pass on to your offspring.

I also think this shows that the subject of orientation is a lot more uncertain than it is often portrayed in the media.


----------



## Makalakumu

Thanks for looking up some of these studies.  I've been busy and let this conversation drift off.



elder999 said:


> People classify themselves, John-one could say much the same about race:am I _black or African-American or Indian or Native-American or  white or Polynesian or "other?"_ Does it matter? In the end, I am all of those things-some to a lesser degree than others, perhaps-and, quite truly, _none_ of them. I am simply who I choose to be. Sexuality may be the same, but basic drives are basic drives-I don't much like some cheeses-as in, find them completely unpalatable-but I bet I'd eat them if I were starving....this is, of course, not the best analogy-I'm pretty good at taking care of myself, sexually, and would prefer that over congress with another man, I think, just as I prefer love making with my wife over masturbation-but you get the idea.



Yet, if you were born in a different culture, it might have been easier to make different choices sexually.  Is this because the individual was genetically predisposed toward same sex unions, or is it the product of deep seated sexual mores?  Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between.  Perhaps some people have a drive that makes them attracted to who they are and perhaps others have a more flexible sexuality?  Genetic testing wouldn't necessarily reveal someone without the "sexuality" gene, but with more flexible standards.

What would happen if we could go back and test people in past cultures with more flexible standards?  How about cultures that exist right now?  How about prison "gay for the stay" populations?


----------



## Blade96

why do we need a study for this and a study for that to try and explain why people like or dont like what they like and dont like?

Cant we just accept that we are just different?

I dont like babies and toddlers. But I sure as heck dont need a study to try figure out why I dont like them.

To me this is ridiculous.


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> Thanks for looking up some of these studies. I've been busy and let this conversation drift off.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, if you were born in a different culture, it might have been easier to make different choices sexually. Is this because the individual was genetically predisposed toward same sex unions, or is it the product of deep seated sexual mores? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Perhaps some people have a drive that makes them attracted to who they are and perhaps others have a more flexible sexuality? Genetic testing wouldn't necessarily reveal someone without the "sexuality" gene, but with more flexible standards.
> 
> What would happen if we could go back and test people in past cultures with more flexible standards? How about cultures that exist right now? How about prison "gay for the stay" populations?



These area all good questions, given the obvious and inherently flexible nature of human sexuality. I think, though, that in most cases, some sort of preference one way or the other would be noted. As in "gay for the stay," which might be about sexuality but is more often about power and dominance. Culturally, in some of the examples you speak of, this is pretty much true: in cultures where such flexibility has been more acceptable, sex with one gender served one set of purposes, and sex with the same gender served another.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Blade96 said:


> why do we need a study for thisand a study for that to try and explain why people like or dont like what theylike and dont like?
> 
> Cant we just accept that we are just different?



Unfortunately enough people seem to hate others that identify as not completely heterosexual. So lies and myths are created about them and the only way to combat such things are through scientific research, to prove to bigots that there is nothing to be afraid of.


----------



## Blade96

Himura Kenshin said:


> Unfortunately enough people seem to hate others that identify as not completely heterosexual. So lies and myths are created about them and the only way to combat such things are through scientific research, to prove to bigots that there is nothing to be afraid of.



Bigots often have irrational beliefs. I am sure you've seen all kinds of studies done, and the humans who refuse to believe in it no matter WHAT the scientists do or say.

You cant be rational with an iirational human or belief.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Unfortunately no. But those on the fence can be convinced one way or the other so the studies are meant for those who are more open minded.


----------

