# Sexual Orientation is Biologically Determined?



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2003)

A recent story adds more evidence that sexual orientation has a biological component--that people are "born gay" (though environment presumably still plays a role).

I'm convinced. I think the weight of scientific evidence is now strong enough to conclude that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not principally environment and certainly not principally choice.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *A recent story adds more evidence that sexual orientation has a biological component--that people are "born gay" (though environment presumably still plays a role).
> 
> I'm convinced. I think the weight of scientific evidence is now strong enough to conclude that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not principally environment and certainly not principally choice. *



I ask a young homosexual male while I was in college, how he knew he was gay?

He said follow me.

We then walked out of the lab and into the hallway where he said," See that Couple? ....., Whose butt did you look at?" I smiled and said hers, and he replied, I have always looked at his.

It can be genetic or biological, I for one do not know, I have only known myself


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 6, 2003)

Let me quote my Developmental Psych prof, Elizabeth Bates: "The nice thing about being a human being is that we do not have to be slaves to our biology."


----------



## Ender (Oct 6, 2003)

"Although homosexuality per se is not related to psychiatric problems, on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex," Rahman says. Gay men, for example, may be more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women.

so it's a mental condition?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> [Bso it's a mental condition? [/B]



Well it could be a mental chemistry issue, as well as body chemistry issue


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 6, 2003)

I won't bother my head with the question of biology vs cultural. But I feel so much of what we are is based on our upbringing or lack there of, that the cultural issue is what we need to look at. A persons desire to force there agenda on you, be it hetero sexual or homo sexual, is definantly cultural. Appearance issues are definantly cultural. Sleeping around is cultural. The cub scouts and the Army are cultural. Your desire to exercise your opinion or you actions in any of these forums is a choice. There are consequences reguardless; some are biological and some are cultural.
Sean


----------



## don bohrer (Oct 6, 2003)

What we fail to hear is the story's of gays that come out of the gay life style. These people were just as adamant about being gay as any other, but managed to make a life change..... why?

don


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 6, 2003)

I've a friend who works with helping those wanting to make the change from gay to straight. I'll query her and see if she has a viewpoint that I can cut/paste here. 

My own opinion is that no-one is BORN gay...by the same token no one is BORN straight. Sexual preferences are taught/influenced during childhood. A child may grow up seeing the loving relationship between father and mother and thus be influenced by that. A child may also grow up to see a bad relationship between mother and father and be frightened/influenced by that. A child grows up and is molested by either same sex or opposite sex and thus influenced by that. 
Basically the environment any child grows up in can greatly influence their choice of sexual preferences. 
A gay person may have never been taught "normal" biological pairings when they were a child. He/she may have had feelings that were never properly discussed and thus grows up believing that this is the way I've been ALL my life. But how can that be possible since a 3 or 4 yr. old child doesn't have any concept (and more importantly...understanding) of sexual matters. 
I've a number of Gay friends both male and female and careful questioning on their childhood has helped me formulate my hypothesis (above). 
A child may not always become gay because of these influences but they are about 1% of the (gay) population.  
The report of a Gay gene I found totally rediculous. It (to me) was a means to come out and say "See! I was made this way!" 
If a person makes an informed choice to be Gay then I cannot nay say them. It is their individual choice to make...when they're of age to make it. 
:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Let me quote my Developmental Psych prof, Elizabeth Bates: "The nice thing about being a human being is that we do not have to be slaves to our biology." *



Or as Richard Dawkins said, Of course we're not slaves to our genes--we thwart them every time we use contraception.

*MACaver*, there are twin studies, brain anatomy studies, etc., etc., etc.--I think there's a lot of evidence for a biological component!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2003)

The danger of arguing that it's all a genetic/phyiological difference is that then it becomes possible to define "being gay," whatever that means, as abnormal, as a deficit capable of being cured. 

The danger of arguing that it's all cultural is that then, it becomes possible to argue for silly ideas such as the notion that you're gay because your childhood was, to quote Marty Feldman, Abby Normal.

What never quite seems to get discussed in these discussions is that heterosexuality, whatever that means, is also both biological and learned. And considering how some straight guys behave...I'd suggest that we need a lot more research into that topic.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2003)

To help resolve this issue I recomend the song "what is and what is not gay" by the band King Missle.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Or as Richard Dawkins said, Of course we're not slaves to our genes--we thwart them every time we use contraception.
> 
> MACaver, there are twin studies, brain anatomy studies, etc., etc., etc.--I think there's a lot of evidence for a biological component! *



It seems to make sense that there are biological components to homosexuality. I think that some people are "biologically" gay, as others are not biologically gay, and are conditioned through their environment.

What I don't like is how our society is still afraid of the subject, and is still afraid to call it what it is.

Homosexuality IS an abnormality. I am sorry, but it is. Biologically speaking the "purpose" of sex, and our sexual desires, is procreation. We may have our own personal needs, desires, and value's that we place on sex, but the fact is that biologically speaking, it exists for procreation. 

So, to be attracted to the same sex whether due to your genetic make-up or not, is an abnormality. Just like having 2 sex organs, or an extra limb would be an abnormality. Let's call it what it is.

The "straight world" still seems very afraid to call it what it is.

Conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, generally don't want to come close to truly understanding the issue. So they wrongly (in my opinion) call sexual preference a "choice." They don't want to know about it because they see this abnormality as being "wrong." They often don't want to admit that it could be biological as well as environmental in nature because they would rather believe that homosexuals are making "a choice" to have a sexual preference, and that they choose wrongly. I believe that lifestyle is always a choice, but sexual preference is often not a choice.

"liberals" are no better. People more on this side of the fence work really hard to understand what homosexuality is all about, which is a good thing. The bad thing with people on this side of the fence is that they don't want to recognize it as an abnormality. They are not just tolerant, they are overly-sympothetic. They want to believe that it is just as "normal" to have homosexual relations as it is to have hetrosexual relations. This is simply not true.

So..."liberals" are afraid to call it an abnormality, and "conservatives" are afraid to recognize that it might not be a choice in many circumstances. Hmmm...what to do?

We'd do well to recognize a few things:

1. Sexual preference is not always a choice
2. Lifestyle is always a choice
3. Homosexuality is an abnormality

Then, I feel, the "straight world" can start being a little more tolerant and understanding, rather then overly sympothetic or intolerant. If a person was born without legs, for instance, would we descriminate that person for "choosing" to be without legs? Would we judge that person for the lifestyle they have to lead as a result of not having legs? Would we pretend that not having legs is "normal," and not open doors for them when they needed it, or continue to talk about "running" and shoe shopping when they cannot truly relate? Would we tell them how we feel their pain of not having legs, when it is clear that we still have both of ours? Would we chop off our own legs, so that they would feel more comfortable around us? Would we uncomfortably shy away from the subject, and pretend like the person has legs, when it is clear that they do not?

How about we do none of the above. How about we recognize that not having legs makes them different (because it isn't 'normal'), but that being different is O.K.? How about we recognize that they still have the power to choose how to live their life, even though they are different? How about we choose to recognize their differences, yet we choose not to judge them for these differences, or how they choose to live thier lives based off of these differences?

That might be a good start. Since this is the "study" perhaps my soapbox will give us all something to think over.   :soapbox: :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2003)

You think heterosexuality is normal? And the normal purpose of sex is procreation? 

Hm. In the first place, there's every reason to think that on biological grounds, sex is as much about bonding and about power as anything else.

In the second--well, there's the well-known fact that if somebody actually enforced our loopy laws about normal sex, about three-quarters of Americans would be in the pokey. (Get it...pokey.)

In the third, nobody who really looked at sex could argue that heterosexuality is "normal." Check out Freud, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life."

I agree with you about some of your other points--but that one...


----------



## Ender (Oct 7, 2003)

From a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality does nothing to strengthen or further the species as Darwin has stated for survival of the fittest. Any mutation or imbalance must do either one of these, or face extinction. Also statistics show that being gay only represents a small portion of the total population. Around 10% at last estimate. Therefore, being gay has to be an abnormality.

So, that leaves us with the question if someone is born gay. Being born gay stems from either a genetic issue or a chemical issue. If it is a chemical issue it has to be some sort of a chemical imbalance because being gay is not normal. But any imbalance would be considered a defect, and the gay community went ballistic when Dr. Laura called it a biological defect. So that leaves a genetic issue, but really how can these genes be passed on?  Even if 50% of all gays procreate, and actual statistics put the number at around 15%, it still has to be a recessive gene. Remember from biology that a recessive gene had at best a 50/50 chance of appearing in the next generation unless both partners are of completely the recessive gene. The Dominant/recessvce gene table)So looking at the math, you have 50% of gays procreating (a generous estimate) with only 50% of the offspring possibly being born gay. For example if you have 100,000 gays, only 50,000 will procreate, then only 25000 will be born with the gay gene. What will happen is that half of a half on down the generations will asymptotically approach zero. Homosexuality will become extinct.  

My opinion is that it is a chemical imbalance. But if there is an imbalance, there can also be a way to balance. But the political and social ramifications to that would be astounding.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2003)

Yes, they would. Self-appointed guardians of, "normalcy," dressed up no doubt in lots of pieties about "Western history," and "morality," and "the good of humanity," could get to decide who was biologically abby-normal, and corrrect matters. With a pill. With forced sterilization.  With genetic testing and enforced abortion.

There's another name for "abnormality," if we're going to invoke evolution. It's called, "variation," and it is a large part of what drives evolution. 

I'd argue that excessive aggression in men is an anti-survival trait, one that has caused not only endless individual misery, but which has imperiled the whole species. And judging by the "scientific," standards passed around here, it's abby-normal too.

Anybody want to join my campaign to fix the macho--in the sense of having yer cat fixed?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 7, 2003)

rmcrobertson:

I have to disagree with you on your views of sexual normalcy. Things like power, lust, bonding, etc., are all psychological and emotional reasons we put behind sex, not purely biological.

I am not touching with a ten foot pole the subject of what is psychologically "normal," because God knows I am sure that I am not psychologically normal by even a stretch.

But, I would argue that the Biological "reason" for sex is simple: procreation. Homosexuality violates this biological reason. Therefore, I say it is an abnormality, plain and simple.

Do I then suggest that people with this abnormality should be forced into "changing" or "correcting" themselves? No! Nobody should have their rights taken away, just as long as they are not jeprodising the safety of others. It is just as much a homosexuals right to do whatever they want in the bedroom as it is my right to do whatever I want in my bedroom. Legislating sexual morality, or trying to socially/medically "correct" a sexual preference in a forceable manner is immoral in itself.

However, I would say that if research continues, it would be nice to know the source of homosexuality (from a biological standpoint), and if it is biologically reversable. Should people be forced to change? Of course not, the choice should be up to the individual...


----------



## Ender (Oct 7, 2003)

Well it has nothing to do with "self gaurdians of normalcy" or "morality" or "good of humanity" It has more to do with a standard bell curve and what lies in the first and second sigmas. anything in the 3rd sigma is considered abnormal or outlying data.

one can also argue that agressive behavior is one of the fuels that drives innovation. more inventions have trickled down into the general public because of development of weaponry. example: MRI, CAT scans, Satelitte techology or even basic metal working.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 7, 2003)

Other than Israel, I don't see where an enforcement of procreation would be an issue.(they need to outbreed the Arabs or be voted out of existence) I think the rejection of peoples lifestyle choices has more to do with peoples desire to control others.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *From a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality does nothing to strengthen or further the species as Darwin has stated for survival of the fittest. *



Playing devil's advocate, there are species such as ants with neuter members that perform a role--one can imagine the same for humans. I don't believe this to be the case--that there's a benefit--but it isn't as simple as noting the inability to reproduce, which is true of so many insects for example. Are insect drones 'abnormal'? Not by number--compare the number of infertile females to the number of queens.



> *  Also statistics show that being gay only represents a small portion of the total population. Around 10% at last estimate.  *



This is a "political" number. The true estimate is 2-4% of men and 1-2% of women. (Three sigmas out leaves less than 1%.) There's a long story behind that 10% number, tracing back to Masters and Johnson.

Also, recall that the genetic component may be multi-factorial--there may not be (I'd wager there isn't) a single gay gene, but rather a cluster of genes.

As for normality, if one defines 'abnormal' as 'in the minority' then this includes men, left-handers, and the elderly. It's common to view sexuality on a spectrum. For example, roughly half of all men and a quarter of all women will engage in/experiment with homosexuality at some point (this includes sexual experimentation by children 'playing doctor' and such). It isn't a pure either/or.


----------



## Ender (Oct 7, 2003)

well if half engage in experimentation, that would make it a choice.

and as far as left handed, blonde. or whatever recessive trait, the difference is that those are in the heterosexual environment where populations increase. Not the Homosexual, where they cannot (by procreation)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2003)

Uh...if gay people can't procreate, and being gay is wholly biological, and being gay is an anti-survival trait...why are there gay people?

Aggressivity on the Serengeti plains a million years ago? Arguably pro-survival, though I think you will find that you are relying upon theories of human history that have few (if any) supporting facts. Aggressivity now? With nuclear weapons? A pro-survival trait?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 8, 2003)

As the Evolutionary Psychologists (the new Sociobiologists) say, one must look to the evolutionary environment to understand why a trait like agressiveness might have been valued.

Once could imagine a value to apercentage of the population not being heterosexual if there was a need for more labor but not a significantly larger population--non-reproducing members might fit the bill.

I don't know of any theory taht has been suggested along those lines, mind you.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *As the Evolutionary Psychologists (the new Sociobiologists) say, one must look to the evolutionary environment to understand why a trait like agressiveness might have been valued.
> 
> Once could imagine a value to apercentage of the population not being heterosexual if there was a need for more labor but not a significantly larger population--non-reproducing members might fit the bill.
> ...



Arni,

I am not sure, if I dreamt it or ot, yet I think there is such a theory. There was a biological study that showed how Female Frogs in Africa would change/Mutate into male Frogs to be able to reproduce (* OK I am going from memory here, so I may have it backwards *) So, when there is not enough males to reproduce the species adjusts.

The study I remember leads you to believe that since the population of certain areas have elevated to the point that teh survival of the species is not required for them to reproduce, the no reproducing portion has increased. This study also had a similar section about the increased in infertility and the population.

Now, if I can only remember where I read this.  They say the memory is the second thing to go, I just wish I could remember what the first was?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 9, 2003)

I know that there are fish like that.


----------



## Ender (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *As the Evolutionary Psychologists (the new Sociobiologists) say, one must look to the evolutionary environment to understand why a trait like agressiveness might have been valued.
> 
> Once could imagine a value to apercentage of the population not being heterosexual if there was a need for more labor but not a significantly larger population--non-reproducing members might fit the bill.
> ...



or a "throw away" entity in times of war or duress. Some might argue that clones might follow that path were they to become common place. But thats a whole 'nother discussion.

and to address the other issue, no one said gays CAN'T procreate, they just don't as much as Hetero's because the very nature of being gay. Also, just by the number of gays procreating  would be a ever decreasing number if it was genetic. Because "you can't pass on those genes" with male to male sex.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 9, 2003)

It's not quite that simple--the genes might not manifest unless there were two copies, so anyone could be a  'carrier'. More likely there would be a cluster of genes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 9, 2003)

First off, a quote: "the difference is that those are in the heterosexual environment where populations increase. Not the Homosexual, where they cannot (by procreation)."

Second off: the problem lies in using pseudo-science to ground moral and religious beliefs. If you wanna get scientific, the evolutionary advantage of sex in our species doesn't seem to ever have simply been a matter of procreation...

Third off--as far as I can see, "straight," men are a hell of a lot bigger threat to our continued survival than gay people, taken all together, have ever been. I mean, why're gay people even the issue? They've never hassled me...which is more than I can say of others...


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *First off, a quote: "the difference is that those are in the heterosexual environment where populations increase. Not the Homosexual, where they cannot (by procreation)."
> 
> Second off: the problem lies in using pseudo-science to ground moral and religious beliefs. If you wanna get scientific, the evolutionary advantage of sex in our species doesn't seem to ever have simply been a matter of procreation...
> ...



I don't think "gay people" are an issue, at least not for me. I am more so just curious about the science behind it (and not pseudo science to ground moral and religious beliefs; the science behind it doesn't jeprodize my beliefs either way anyways). I also am facinated in how our society twists the issue around.


----------



## Ender (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *It's not quite that simple--the genes might not manifest unless there were two copies, so anyone could be a  'carrier'. More likely there would be a cluster of genes. *



a cluster of genes would make it harder to replicate and therefor make it more rare.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 12, 2003)

Well, here's one test to see if you carry the supposed gene or not... 

http://www.hekkuli.org/~hekkuli/flash/gaytest.swf


p.s. this is just for fun... you'll have to click on yes to get the joke but go ahead and click on no first...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2003)

Wow ... to my reading, there are a lot of scared, bigoted, people posting here. I find it kind of spooky.

My hope is that all of you someday discover that your mother or father, brother or sister, son or daughter, is gay. 

I think you will then see that whether it is nature or nurture is totally irrelevant, what will really matter then is YOUR attitude.

Peace - Mike


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2003)

Fair enough, but this thread is for the issue of nature vs. nurture--be it relevant or no.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Wow ... to my reading, there are a lot of scared, bigoted, people posting here. I find it kind of spooky.
> *



Confused....

You say "alot," but I am not sure "alot" of people have even been a part of this conversation. So...what is your definition of "alot." Why don't I just ask this as well: What statements have indicated "scared bigotry," with quotes please. I am not necissarily disagreeing with you at this point, I am just asking for more clarification.

Thank you, 

PAUL


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2003)

> You say "alot," but I am not sure "alot" of people have even been a part of this conversation.



Paul, may I refer you to http://www.m-w.com where you might reference the word 'alot' ... and you may find that it does not exist.

However, if you look up the word 'lot' .. you will find the defintion (please note, not my definition),  " 6a : a number of associated persons ".  Let's see how this reads now:


Wow ... .to my reading, there are a number of associated persons [who are] scared [and] bigoted, posting here.


Now, I will post, with quotes, some of the phrases that I think may be interpreted as 'scared bigotry'.

Still wishing you Peace - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2003)

Could these phrases be interpreted scared or bigoted? I did so. If my interpretation was incorrect, I offer my apologies.



> It can be genetic or biological, I for one do not know, I have only known myself





> A gay person may have never been taught "normal" biological pairings when they were a child.





> My opinion is that it is a chemical imbalance. But if there is an imbalance, there can also be a way to balance





> the Biological "reason" for sex is simple: procreation. Homosexuality violates this biological reason.



Peace - Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Could these phrases be interpreted scared or bigoted? I did so. If my interpretation was incorrect, I offer my apologies. *



I am going to say that I think your interpretation is incorrect. This is really a discussion on the science/physiology behind homosexuality, not so much on the social impact, or our personal morals/opinions regarding homosexuality.

Some of the comment here may have seemed cold and impersonal to you, but that is because we are talking about the scientific reasoning behind the issue, and not talking about it as a social issue. As you might know, science can be cold and impersonal, making it SOUND scared/bigoted if you don't realize the premises of the conversation.

So, I conclude, that I think you might be reading into some of these comments with a different perspective then what was intended by the writers.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 12, 2003)

> Could these phrases be interpreted scared or bigoted? I did so. If my interpretation was incorrect, I offer my apologies.



Apology accepted. As Paul pointed out this particular discussion is to look at the science of it. My background revolves around sociology and psychology and thus any of my own comments are derived from that. 

I've several life-long friends that are gay/lesbian and if I were bigoted then I wouldn't acknowlege them and call them the honorific: Friends.  I may not particularly agree with their lifestyle choices but they are just that: choices. Just as a person has trained in a particular MA style as a result of their choice of art. 
They're grown mature adults and thus able to decide for themselves on how they want to live. 
While I may not advocate it, I won't deny that it exists.

Enough defending myself (this IS a MA forum you know  ).

:asian:


----------



## Mon Mon (Oct 12, 2003)

Okay my view on homosexuality is that it is wrong and an abomination. I don't belive people are born gay. Now just in case anyone dose not like my views i really could care less. I will not condone the behavior as normal. well see ya


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 12, 2003)

We're on the issue of nature vs. nurture now? What happened to the title of the thread?

Hey, I have a question: is the unmotivated fear of difference biologically determined? or is it a byproduct of education?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *We're on the issue of nature vs. nurture now? What happened to the title of the thread? *



We're on the issue of nature vs. nurture where sexual orientation is concerned, not more generally.


----------



## Ender (Oct 12, 2003)

i'm back!!!..did i miss something??*LOL

ah!!..we got back to name calling...(scared bigoted people)...how very tolerant!..Actually we were having a discussion of the possible origins of Homosexuality.  if anyone got offened they should prolly go back and re-read the posts. I think most were of the scientific nature.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 12, 2003)

The origins of homosexuality? Hmm.

I would define the discussion as largely pseudo-scientific, with lots of bias slipped in under the name of objectivity.

Cornel West makes an interesting point in "race Matters," appropos of African-Americans. He asks: why are they always the problem, the issue?

I'd argue it's because of their identification by "mainstream" (ha!) culture as Other.


Similarly...the object of much off the pseudo-science, here, is the Other of so-called normal sexuality. There is no "normal," sexuality.

Or to quote somebody I read a long time ago...sex is dirty---at least, if you do it right.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *The origins of homosexuality? Hmm.
> 
> I would define the discussion as largely pseudo-scientific, with lots of bias slipped in under the name of objectivity. *


*

Well, sure...there are some biases because everyone has them, you included, regardless of how objective your trying to be. However, I disagree with the implication that people are using "psuedo science" just to blather around uneducated opinions. I don't feel that is the case, I think the discussion has been an honest attempt by most to discuss the biology behind homosexuality, of which we have limited information on.

I think that the only problem here is by certain folks who seem to be "overly sensitive" on the issue, impeding their ability to have an honest discussion regarding the science behind the subject. 




			Cornel West makes an interesting point in "race Matters," appropos of African-Americans. He asks: why are they always the problem, the issue?

I'd argue it's because of their identification by "mainstream" (ha!) culture as Other.
		
Click to expand...


Racial Minority rights and homosexual rights have parellels politically, and socially. This has little to do with the discussion, which is the science behind homosexuality.




			Similarly...the object of much off the pseudo-science, here, is the Other of so-called normal sexuality. There is no "normal," sexuality.
		
Click to expand...


Again...we are not talking about the difference between one couple who considers the missionary position with the lights off to be normal, while another can only get off after peeing on each other.

These are psychological and emotional nuances which, I would agree, would be impossible to define a norm. We aren't talking about that, however. We are talking about Sex from a biological perspective, where (like it or not) homosexuality is not the norm.




			Or to quote somebody I read a long time ago...sex is dirty---at least, if you do it right.
		
Click to expand...

*
LOL


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 13, 2003)

There is no such thing in human beings as sex from a wholly-biological perspective. What we have, reality, is sexuality.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 13, 2003)

> rmcrobertson wrote: The origins of homosexuality? Hmm.



As I understand it the origins go way back to our civilized beginnings... and probably even further. I recall reading that the ancient Greeks when they conquered a nation/country/town/whatever! symbolized their conquest by sexually pentetrating the male prisoners to in effect say "There! your **** is MINE! I won! Now, where are your wife and daughters?" Psychologically humiliating the defeated to let them know they're conquered. 

There's also recorded instances I've read about long ago (and forgotten the source) about Alexander's armies being out on the road conquering the world for so long and only able to pillage, rape and loot whenever they came upon a town or village every now and again got lonely and thus turned to each other for solice. But did that mean they were Gay? Did Alexander have a "don't ask don't tell" policy going on then?

If there are older instances of recorded events involving homosexuality then I haven't seen them per-se but I'm sure they're out there. My ancient history isn't up to snuff.  



> Originally posted by rmcrobertson: I would define the discussion as largely pseudo-scientific, with lots of bias slipped in under the name of objectivity.



You're right it is, so ask yourself why is that. Why does the subject of homosexuality cause such ire and biased opinions? Still even to this day of modern science and modern values and morals and standards? 
IMO because it strikes a chord deep down inside us. Especially males. Now take that and my example of the Greek Conquerors and look at it as a long line of the resistance to being defeated. A male dominated trait of refusing to submit which is what you're doing when you allow penetration. In effect saying I submit because you are stronger and I am weaker. 
There's a wee bit of warrior-class in nearly every male on the planet. We and our ancestors fought battles for our survival.  To lose those battles meant the destruction of you, your lifestyle, home, families...whatever! 
We're at war with Terrorism...why because they INVADED our private territory and caused harm.  Same goes for ancient civilizations and the symbolic representation they used to show they conquered their enemies. Our male egos have an aversion to such things going on. We can't help it we're men/male (w/all due respect to the women reading this discussion).
Thus you get the aversion that you read on this particular thread because the topic strikes chords deep down... most of us may not even be aware that we have them. 
We may be going down the street and see two (gay) men holding hands while shopping and think nothing of it.  
But subconciously we apply that to ourselves and the bias-ness and ill feelings come out and manifest themselves in bitter wordings... (of that I believe I may likewise be guilty). 
It's called... insecurity of one's self. 

oh yeah and denial is a river in egypt


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 13, 2003)

MACaver,

I have seen your first two points you list there in history also. I just cannot remember the source either.



BTW I just love Hobbes and the Avatar you have!


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 13, 2003)

> Rich Parsons wrote: MACaver,  have seen your first two points you list there in history also. I just cannot remember the source either.



Thanks... I suffer from occasional chronic foot in mouth disease, often times when I'm sure I'm right... and sometimes I am... most of the times I'm not. Nice to have confirmation.




> BTW I just love Hobbes and the Avatar you have!



Thanks again... Hobbes is way cool.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *There is no such thing in human beings as sex from a wholly-biological perspective. What we have, reality, is sexuality. *



Really? I am not sure what you mean, to be honest...if you have the time, could you explain further?

Thanks.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 14, 2003)

People don't experience reality without filters of any kind (aka, "education," and "knowledge"), and they don't manifest pure biology in any way.

It's always BOTH nature and nurture. There's always a biological substrate--but that is always expressed through culture.

So, there's no pure expression of biological reality like, "sex," in people; instead, we have biology rewritten centrally and fundamentally by culture--calling this, "sexuality," is just a convenient way to keep track.

This is why all the arguments about behaviour being "unnatural," are such a laugh. If the behaviour weren't natural at some level, we wouldn't be doing it. Further, what people really mean by all this poppycock about "unnaturalness," is that things like homosexuality offend their morality and what they like to describe as, "God's plan."

Which, to be sure, they're perfectly entitled to believe, to teach their kids, to say, to write about. It's just that some take that next lil' step...and start attacking the "alien," and "unnatural," Other. But it is fun watching these folks wobble helplessly between opposite positions--it's Nature! they're unnatural! no, it's Culture! they can make a choice!--and simultaneously call on evolution (homosexuality is unnatural because we didn't evolve that way) and creationism (homosexuality violates the way God designed us).

Oy.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2003)

LOL...I have this picture in my head of some buck-toothed, gun toten, southerner yelling, "dem gays is unnatural...wheeeeehooooo!" at some white-supremist's rally. :rofl: It's funny, but not at the same time considering that there are people like that out there...even in my own state (the militia state).

A buddy of mine who is gay... (yea, yea. I know. EVERY "conservative" [which I am not in the true sense] likes to throw around that they knew a guy who knew a guy who was gay, giving them credence to throw around biased crap. I am not doing that here, but I do in fact have friends who are gay, and I value his opinion on the subject). Anyways...we were hanging out last night for Monday night football, and I asked him about this subject.

His response was similar to yours, Robert, in that he feels that it is both nature and nurture. He said if it didn't feel natural for him to be gay, he wouldn't be. And all of his friends who are also gay has had someone in their family down the line who was gay as well. There has to be something chemical or genetic passed down somehow making him the way that he is, he believes.

It is in part nurture also. Our society lets him lead the lifestyle he wants to right now, a gay lifestyle, and he is happy about that. He said that if he had grown up in a time when being Gay ment execution or ostrocisation from his community, chances are he'd curb his 'natural' tendecies to be gay. He would be celabete, or just in the closet for the rest of his life. Since our society thankfully lets him lead the life he wants to lead, he is able to do what he wants.

In terms of "normalcy," being gay is not "normal" biologically speaking (his words, understand). If our sexual tendencies have been put in place for the purpose of procreation and survival of our species, then obviously homosexuality violates that. Also, homosexuality is not a dominating factor in our society; most people aren't gay. So, it goes against the norm in that case as well.

How does my friend feel about all this? For one...who wants to be normal, he says? "I wasn't born normal, my lifestyle isn't normal, and nor would I want to be." The rest, are just facts, and no matter what comes out scientifically explaining the issue, it won't change the fact that he prefers men.

I think we can all learn from what I gathered from my buddy, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote anything about it. I was suprised that what he said so frankly mirrors what I was thinking as well. I figured there would be some differences along any lines, especially considering that I know another one of my homosexual friends would debate me to death on the 'normalcy' issue. But, we both basically had the same thoughts on the issue.

I think, Robert, that no matter what we say, some bigoted @$$ is going to use the 'reasoning' behind homosexuality to show how 'gay' behavior is wrong and should be 'corrected.' Some will believe that they should be corrected by force, whether through lack of privilages, violence, discrimination, or what have you. However, we can't use this fact to avoid trying to find answers, such as biological, sociological, or psychological reasoning behind homosexuality. I, personally, won't let other bigoted behavior prevent me from comfortably discussing the issue. We can't force bigoted @$$holes into changing, but I feel that the more educated we are on the subject, the better off we'll all be.

Now...in terms of biology, I see what your saying. It seems (correct me if I am wrong) that your saying that the reasoning for sex cannot be purely biological, because you cannot seperate psychology and sociology from the biology behind sex. I see what you mean, and understand. I can't really argue that point either, but I can say that I do feel that w/o sex, obviosly our species would not survive. I don't think I can ignore that fact as well.  So this leads me to believe that Biologically, sociology, and psychologically speaking, much of sexuality is geared towards basic survival of our species, which still puts Homosexuality outside of the norm. That is just my take on it, anyhow.


----------



## Ender (Oct 14, 2003)

right!..lets get rid of reasoning and logic!.....and it's only bigoted when they don't agree with you!*LOL


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *right!..lets get rid of reasoning and logic!.....and it's only bigoted when they don't agree with you!*LOL *



I didn't way that...where you refering to me....?


----------



## Ender (Oct 14, 2003)

I think, Robert, that no matter what we say, some bigoted @$$ is going to use the 'reasoning' behind homosexuality to show how 'gay' behavior is wrong and should be 'corrected.' Some will believe that they should be corrected by force, whether through lack of privilages, violence, discrimination, or what have you. However, we can't use this fact to avoid trying to find answers, such as biological, sociological, or psychological reasoning behind homosexuality. I, personally, won't let other bigoted behavior prevent me from comfortably discussing the issue. We can't force bigoted @$$holes into changing, but I feel that the more educated we are on the subject, the better off we'll all be.


well it sounds like circular reasoning to me. "They are bigoted a$$holes that we can't force to change", but on the other hand, they (gays) should not be forced to change or "corrected"....so if one doesn't change there are "ok"...but if the other doesn't change they are "bigoted".......too funny.*chuckles


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *People don't experience reality without filters of any kind (aka, "education," and "knowledge"), and they don't manifest pure biology in any way.
> 
> It's always BOTH nature and nurture. There's always a biological substrate--but that is always expressed through culture.
> ...



Robert, Are you sitting down? I agree with almost everyting you have said, and even the difference is not worth discussing.
 



Sexuality or Sex. Sex for procreation only. Hmm I would have to argue against this, since we have chosen for some form of birht control. Also, the Human species is not the only species to have sex for fun. The Dolphins do also, and as the '_experts_' state they believe it has something to do with their and our large brains and frontal lobes, they believe the dolphins enjoy it even more than humans do.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 14, 2003)

Oh jeez, we're actually discussing this like civilized people.

Clearly, not many of the posters of the moment on this thread are in kenpo.

Oh well..."so long, and thanks for all the fish."


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 14, 2003)

> Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects.
> 
> Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.



interesting, huh...

its not like we can say "well, the penguin never observed a normal heterosexual relationship"  or "the penguin was molested as a child"


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *
> 
> well it sounds like circular reasoning to me. "They are bigoted a$$holes that we can't force to change", but on the other hand, they (gays) should not be forced to change or "corrected"....so if one doesn't change there are "ok"...but if the other doesn't change they are "bigoted".......too funny.*chuckles *



Ender...it's not circular reasoning, man... 

In my opinion a "bigoted @$$hole" is someone who A. Discriminates against others because of race, gender, religion, etc.....OR B. Someone who believes they can force change upon someone because they don't agree with an aspect of their life (whether it be Sexuality, religion, or whatever).

I can't force change on a Bigoted @$$hole, nor should I try too. Educate...maybe....so they can choose to change themselves, but force? That would make ME a bigoted @$$hole against bigoted @$$holes.  

I can't force change on someone who is gay either...nor should we try (it's been tried way before our time). Let's say (for arguements sake) that we find out that homosexuality is purely chemical, and can be corrected with 1 shot in the arm of a concoction of the right hormones. So....should we round' up all dem gays and cure them of their unnatural behavior (tounge and cheek  )? Of course not...they can change if they want, but it shouldn't be forced.

Now...I think you misunderstood me. IF I thought that all Bigoted @$$holes should be "forced" to change...then my reasoning would be flawed. Since I don't think anyone should be "forced" to change....my reasoning is not flawed. That's why I was suprised at your comment, because I thought you directed it towards me, but it didn't seem to apply. I hope we are on the same level of understanding now.


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

Then why are they "Bigoted a$$holes"?...maybe they are the enlightened ones? maybe they have researched the issue and determined the being gay isn't justified?..or at least not as right as others may think. Thats one of the problems I have with the left, when someone disagrees with them they try to "label" them or call them names. (homophobes).....maybe gays are "vagina-phobes"?..*L

 the other tactic is to attack the speaker. these two tactics usually come from a weak position.

the other thing is when all the "justifications" used for being gay can be used for pedophilia. "maybe it's nurtured, or chemical, or in the genes" take every argument you used for gay and put in the word pedophile. in fact, those argument would prolly work better, because of procreation issues. try it.
*s


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *interesting, huh...
> 
> its not like we can say "well, the penguin never observed a normal heterosexual relationship"  or "the penguin was molested as a child" *



I have heard about this study...and it is interesting. I would like to look into it more though. I know that certain male animals (like hyenas and dogs) will "hump" weaker males in the pack. However...this is not "sexual" because these animals are doing it to show dominance, not because they want to 'get intimate' with another male. Also...some animals (like hyenas again) have incredible sex drives at certain times a year, where they'll hump ANYTHING....female, male, inatimate objects, or whatever. But this is mostly because they are wanting a release and will look for anything that will give them it, NOT because they prefer males over females. If there was another female available that would let them...they'd be all over that preferably.

Plus...these seemingly "homosexual" traits is usually male on male. Although I am not an expert and I'd be curious to know more about this, in truth I have never heard of female on female sex in the animal kingdom. This leads me to believe that it isn't "homosexuality," at least not most of the time, but rather other factors (such as male dominance) that comes into play.

This is comparable to humans. A group of guys' who gang rap another guy in jail, for instance. The rapists aren't necisarily "gay"...they are just overly aggressive, showing dominance (and psychologically "sick" by our societies standards that thankfully doesn't condone rape). They still could prefer women.

So...I am curious to know what Dr. Bagimihl means by his definition of "gay behavior." What defines it for him, specifically. Does he mean that 5% of penguins waddle gay, or interior decorate well? I am being facetious here, but in all seriousness...if he means "traits" then I am very skeptical. If he means actual "sex," then I think we need to narrow down further because there is a difference between a dog humping another to show dominance, and a dog only prefering to "have sex" with other male dogs. I think to truly define homosexuality in the animal kingdom, we would need to find observed examples of animals who consistantly "prefer" same sex over the opposite sex for sexual release, both on the male side and female side. I am skeptical in that I don't think these studies have defined that yet.

Now...I am skeptical about the studies, but not the idea in itself. If Homosexuality truely exists in the animal kingdom, then this further supports my idea that homosexuality is biological as well as environmental, and that people can be "born gay" just like in the animal kingdom. However...I don't think we have conclusive evidence yet to support this from the animal kingdom.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 15, 2003)

Well, it would also work if you linked together words like, "Republican," and "greedy warmonger."

I think the objection, Ender, is that words like "gay," on these forums always get immediatedly linked to other words--like"pedophile," or "pervert," or, "abnormal."

If I were consistently to link together--even in passing--certain words, so that every time words like, "Condoleeza," came up, I used words such as, "horse-toothed," or, "dismissive," or, "ignorant and arrogant," or, "in way over her head," well, it wouldn't be long before--quite properly--folks started noting that whatever I consciously thought I thought, there sure seemed to be an unconscious pattern of ideas that deserved a little interrogation.

In other words--the prob is the repeated linkage of concepts. As you can perhaps see from my examples here, it's kinda visible--and kinda annoying.

Oh, and on the whole "vagina-phobe," jazz--I strongly recommend going to Borders and flipping through a copy of Klaus Thelwielt's, "Male Fantasies," or reading Freud on the Medusa. It ain't the GAY guys who seem to have the problem...


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

I didn't say link...I said "used for"....

so your comment is incorrect.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *Then why are they "Bigoted a$$holes"?...maybe they are the enlightened ones? maybe they have researched the issue and determined the being gay isn't justified?..or at least not as right as others may think. *


*

Thinking that being gay isn't "right" or "justified" does not make a person a bigoted @$$hole. Pay attention to what I wrote. Having that opinion is fine. It is when someone with that opinion wants to force change on someone else, whether through discrimination or force, because they don't agree...that is when they are a bigoted @$$hole. Having the opinion that "gay is wrong" is fine. Wanting to force others to change because of your opinion, even if it is the 'right' opinion, is not only wrong, but is unamerican. 




			Thats one of the problems I have with the left, when someone disagrees with them they try to "label" them or call them names.
		
Click to expand...


Oh...hear we f**kin' go with this "left" S**t. Aren't you trying to 'label' with that comment. Get with the program...no one is calling anyone anything here ('cept you who likes to label anyone who disagree's with your position as "liberal" or "left").




			(homophobes).....maybe gays are "vagina-phobes"?..*L
		
Click to expand...


Heh...maybe certain people are.




			the other tactic is to attack the speaker. these two tactics usually come from a weak position.
		
Click to expand...


I agree that labeling and attacking would come from a weak position....um aren't you sort of labeling me and attacking me with this post? I wouldn't consider you "on the attack" too badly here, but you are certianly labeling me and overgeneralizing what I have been saying.

Besides that, I don't think I or anyone has labeled or attacked you here...so I don't know what your talking about. It's almost like your all fired up from a different conversation.




			the other thing is when all the "justifications" used for being gay can be used for pedophilia. "maybe it's nurtured, or chemical, or in the genes" take every argument you used for gay and put in the word pedophile. in fact, those argument would prolly work better, because of procreation issues. try it.
*s
		
Click to expand...

*
Sure. The same justification could be used for us eating our children too. Black widows and sharks eat there children...so why can't we? That doesn't make it "right" however. One major glaring thing that does differentiate "homosexuality" from "pedophelia" is that pedophelia violates the rights and safety of others (namely, the children), and homosexuality does not. What 2 gay people do in the bedroom doesn't violate the safety of others; an adult preying on a child and essentially abusing them sexually does. For you to make the comparison is unreal to me.

But remember too, that we are talking about the science behind it. We can talk about the science behind pedophelia, rape, etc. We can look at the biological, sociological, psychological, physical, environmental factors involved with any of these issues if you'd like...and we can seperate the science from the morallity for discussion purposes on these issues as well. 

The subject isn't the morality of homosexuality, however, it is the science. You as well as many others seem to be having difficulites in truly seperating the morality from the science of the issue to look at just the one part. Why is that?

A note on morality...however...since it has been brought up. I am not going to speak religiously, but rather, politically...since you like to label things liberal or conservative a lot. In AMERICA...(you know...that country that is supposed to be free that we live in?) we believe that people have the 'liberty' and 'freedom' to do what they want in life, just as long as they aren't violating the liberty and freedom of the other citizens. Homosexuality isn't violating anyones liberty or freedom....while pedophilia is. I don't think we can parallel the too in a moral/political sense...which is the parallel you were trying to make with your comments.

So...do you understand what I mean when I say "Bigoted @$$holes" now?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> I  think the objection, Ender, is that words like "gay," on these forums always get immediatedly linked to other words--like"pedophile," or "pervert," or, "abnormal."



I understand what you are saying here Robert...but I disagree with the "abnormal" part as being a bad thing. I don't think abnormal = bad, so I never saw it as a problem linking the word abnormal with anything that deviates from the typical.


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

Oh...hear we f**kin' go with this "left" S**t. Aren't you trying to 'label' with that comment. Get with the program...no one is calling anyone anything here ('cept you who likes to label anyone who disagree's with your position as "liberal" or "left").

No, because the comment wasn't directed at you.  I'm just pointing out  tactics usually used...so you can be made aware...besides, refering  liberal or left is a position in my opinion.

there is no  connection whatsoever between eating children and what this discussion is about. thats a wild stretch by anyone's imagination.*L


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *
> 
> No, because the comment wasn't directed at you.  I'm just pointing out  tactics usually used...so you can be made aware...besides, refering  liberal or left is a position in my opinion.
> *


*

Oh...O.K. You addressed me, then went into "That's the problem I have with the left...", so I naturually thought you were generalizing about me and saying I was using the tactics you mentioned. I am glad that wasn't the case. Thank you.




			there is no  connection whatsoever between eating children and what this discussion is about. thats a wild stretch by anyone's imagination.*L
		
Click to expand...

*
LOL...I know it's a stretch, but that is why I used the example. To me....homosexuality and pedophilia is as much of a stretch as hetrosexuality and male to female gang rape. Obviously gang rape and hetro-sex are not the same, and the only connection between the 2 is that they are sexual in nature. Nobody thinks that hetro-sex and gang raping are connected in any way other then that. However...that is strangely not always the case with homo-sex. Because the subject is "sex," I far too often here anything outside of the "normal hetrosexual worldview" of sex lumped together; thus Necrophelia (sex with dead people), Beastiality (sex with animals), pedophelia (sex with children), as well as other "odities",  and homosexuality all seemed to get lumped into the same category. I feel that the comparison is unfair just like linking hetrosex and gang rape would be unfair.
Hetro-sexual behavior doesn't jeprodize anyones safety (beyond any emotional and physical consequence between consenting partners) and rights, while gang rape does. Homosexual behavior similarly doesn't jeprodize anyones safety (beyond any emotional and physical consequence between consenting partners) and rights, while pedophelia does.

So...eating children and sexuality is an off the wall comparison? Well, I think the same is true with the pedophelia/homosexuality comparison.....or at the very least, the comparison is 'unfair.'


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

Well I think there can be a link beween pedophilia, bestiality, narcophelia etc, if you use the"explanations" you gave.

My position is that it is a chemical imbalance that causes these behaviors and therefor there can be a treatment. Much as psychosis or schizophrenia etc are all chemical imbalances that cause those behaviors. in fact, rapists can now be treated with chemical castration.

your position is (my understanding) is that it's a nature/nurture/genetic (genetic may be the other guys' position)/psychological/social issue. I think you can use that position for pedophilia, bestiality, narcophelia. this position can further state the we must "accept"  these pedohiles, rapists, narcopheliacs, and homsexuals beacuse they have no choice and we must pity them. my position is that they can be treated.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 15, 2003)

Guys, 

Keep it civil.

Thank you.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

I agree in the sense that if homosexuality is in part chemical/biological, then yes, in theory it could be treated if one were to choose to have it treated. The same would be true in the case of pedophelia, rape, etc.

I don't agree with the "pity" part, though. We all make our own decisions. For instance, I am a hetrosexual male, and I definatily have urges to have sex with hot women. However, I don't expect my Fiancee' to say, "We'll, it's just his natural urge, so he can go out and cheat on me." I wouldn't expect her acceptance or pity regarding the issue. Dispite my urges, I have the ability to make my choices, no matter how difficult those may be at times.

Same is true with a rapist, for example. A rapist might have the urge to rape over the average person due to treatable factors. But they still have a choice. And...if they choose to hurt another person, which is what rape is, then this becomes a punishable crime.

But again...we come to a major difference here, and where environmental factors come into play. If you decide to live the lifestyle of a rapist or pedophile, you are deciding to hurt another human being, or many other human beings, which is a punishable offense. If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being; no punishable offense. This is a major difference...so I don't agree with the "pity" aspect because of this difference.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Guys,
> 
> Keep it civil.
> ...



I think we're pretty civil still....aren't we...?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I think we're pretty civil still....aren't we...?  *



Had a couple concerns about certain directions/etc...

no worries.  Tis just a 'nudge'.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Had a couple concerns about certain directions/etc...
> 
> no worries.  Tis just a 'nudge'.  *



Ahh....understood.


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I agree in the sense that if homosexuality is in part chemical/biological, then yes, in theory it could be treated if one were to choose to have it treated. The same would be true in the case of pedophelia, rape, etc.
> 
> I don't agree with the "pity" part, though. We all make our own decisions. For instance, I am a hetrosexual male, and I definatily have urges to have sex with hot women. However, I don't expect my Fiancee' to say, "We'll, it's just his natural urge, so he can go out and cheat on me." I wouldn't expect her acceptance or pity regarding the issue. Dispite my urges, I have the ability to make my choices, no matter how difficult those may be at times.
> ...



what about Homosexuals who DELIBERATeLY pass on the AIDS virus?


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 15, 2003)

ANYONE who deliberately passes on the HIV virus should be prosecuted.  it falls under the category of "reckless endangerment"

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/chat_990217edwards.html


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *what about Homosexuals who DELIBERATeLY pass on the AIDS virus? *



But that is more of a crime associated with HIV carriers with malicious intent....could be straight or gay. Homosexuality and AIDs patients with Malicious intent are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

mutually exclusive?...hmmm....they may be mutually inclusive, or exclusively excluded,or mutually included...but not mutually exclusive.

     1+1=1 mutually inclusive
     1-1=1 exclusively inclusive
     0-1=1 exclusivley inclusive
     1-0=1 exclusivley inclusive

     1-1=0 exclusively excluded
     1+1=0 mutually exclusive

you said : If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being.

that may not be true, because you may be an unwitting carrier.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

you cought me red- handed..."mutually exclusive" is not what I ment to say, really, even though I said it. I know what it means, and it doesn't adequetly describe what I am saying. 

What I am saying is that there is no direct correlation between "homosexuality" and "aids patent with malicious intent"...although they could be one in the same, the aids patient could be hetero just the same, so there is no direct correlation.



> you said : If you are deciding to have a gay lifestyle, you are not deciding to hurt another human being.
> 
> that may not be true, because you may be an unwitting carrier.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ender (Oct 15, 2003)

Well I couldn't exactly say that. There have been many cases where a homosexual engaged in high risk behavior,caught aids, figured society was against him and purposely infected others or the blood supply. There is a correlation there.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 15, 2003)

there are actually more hetero folks with HIV.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 15, 2003)

Ok..I gotta add my 2.5 cents here....

*On homosexuality:*
I've seen studies that claim its 'choice', that its' genetics', etc.  Each study seemed to be funded or otherwise influenced by a particular viewpoints supporters.

My -opinion- is that its all and none.  In some cases its choice, in others its genetics, in others something else.  

I see nothing wrong with the whole thing, though its not for me. 
I've also seen a large amount of hypocracy amongst certain individuals.  2 guys are discusting, but 2 gals are 'really hot'.

When it comes to the 'rightness' of same-gender relationships, it seems the ones that complain the most are conservative Xians. Historically, most cultures haven't cared much either way.  In Japan today, same gender relationships aren't anywhere near as taboo as in the US.  Matter of fact, huge industries support it.



> Actually, the anime crowd has a lot of interesting and diverse things.
> 
> http://www.yaoicon.com/
> Quote:
> ...



Recent studied have indicated that Alexander the Great had a long term relationship with Hephaistion.


> Jewish, Christian, and Moslem scholars have been horrified at tales of Alexander's homosexual affairs. The social stigmatization of homosexual activity is a relatively recent phenomenon. It began in Judaism and was adopted early in the history of The Christian Church and later in Islam. This socio religious taboo was undreamed of in the Macedonia of the 4th century B.C..
> 
> Still Christian moralist scholars have spent lifetimes denying to Alexander that which his culture did not.The modern word, "homosexual", has no place in 4th century B.C. Macedonia. It is inapplicable to a culture where bisexuality was extremely common, if not the norm. In the culture of that time and place homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual are not nouns.People were not grouped by sexual preference.
> 
> That Alexander was exclusively homosexual is impossible; he had two wives and a least one, possibly two sons. That he was exclusively heterosexual is unlikely. His father was not, his grandfather was not and he had no reason to be.




*On Aids:*
Its not a 'gay' disease, its a 'disease' period.  It attacks everyone regardles of race, gender, religion, or sexual practices.  Its been around since the 30's according to a recent study.  

Purposefully infecting or trying to infect someone is a criminal offence.  Accidental can be procecuted as well under neglegence and liability laws.

If you lead a promiscous lifestyle, it is -your- responsibility to protect yourself and your partner, as well as get tested regularly. If you are more monogamous in your practices, you should still get tested every few years as part of your normal physical.  Many STDs are also transmited in non-intercoursal manners...AIDS being 1 of them. (transfusions, tatoos, drug use and dentalwork are a few of the non-sexual transmision means for STDs)


*On Rape:*
Rape is not a 'sex' crime, but a 'power' crime.  It is dominence more often than it is sexual in nature.  In some cultures, it was accepted that the conquered warriors would be raped by the victors.  It was both a 'dominence' and a 'stripping of power'.  I believe that studies have shown that 'lust' is present in a small percentage of rapes.  Arrousel is also an issue.  In 1 particular case, a man was restrained and mounted repeatedly by a pair of women.  The female judge decided that "since he got it up, he was willing.".  It was later overturned.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *Well I couldn't exactly say that. There have been many cases where a homosexual engaged in high risk behavior,caught aids, figured society was against him and purposely infected others or the blood supply. There is a correlation there. *



But there have been cases of hetro's doing the same thing. "High Risk behavior" in this case could be unprotected promiscuity or needle sharing, which is a behavior that could be exhibited by both homo's AND hetro's....therefore no correlation between specifically homosexuals and malicious intent to infect someone with aids. There may be a correlation between "people who are sociopathic and who engage in high risk behavior" to "aids patents who maliciously infect others".... but this correlation would be completely seperate from sexual preference.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 15, 2003)

um yeah... what he said.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2003)

O.K....2 things Kaith....VERY IMPORTANT HERE!



> I've also seen a large amount of hypocracy amongst certain individuals. 2 guys are discusting, but 2 gals are 'really hot'.



Now come on dude...EVERYONE knows that 2 girls is hot, and 2 guys is gross. And...5 girls + me = 
artyon: 

2ndly:



> In 1 particular case, a man was restrained and mounted repeatedly by a pair of women.



O.K.....2 things...well...3. 1. Where are these women now, 2. Are they hot 3. If #1 the answer is nearby and #2 the answer is yes, then are they available to come over my house for the evening?


*SMACK!* 

r54ti3wr5hehdafgshgsdtrwsy6t

*That was my Fiancee' smacking me on the back of my head, and then afoidgisaofaofdajodojdfaoj was my head bouncing around on the keyboard*

:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## arnisador (Oct 15, 2003)

Please, stay on topic--Is  Sexual Orientation Biologically Determined. This is not a 'right' or 'wrong' question but rather a question of nature vs. nurture.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 16, 2003)

Ah yes, after reading the last two pages I see--it's all the fault of the famous Homosexual Hordes Who Deliberately Pass On the AIDS Virus.

Nothing like a good urban myth. A wet slap with a copy of, "Savage Nights," for that one.

As for some of the other stuff--a back issue of, "Representations," the one with Neil Hertz's, "Medusa's Head: Male Hysteria Under Political Pressure," and another wet slap.

And to all--a copy of, "And the Band Played On." The book, not the movie. The author essentially blames an unconscious, unholy alliance between Reagan's guys and some parts of the gay community (and there's a weird phrase--would Boy Scouts be, "the heterosexuaal community in training?") for the explosive spread of HIV in the 1980s...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Ah yes, after reading the last two pages I see--it's all the fault of the famous Homosexual Hordes Who Deliberately Pass On the AIDS Virus.
> 
> . . . *



Hi Robert, Thanks for this great lead in
:asian: 

Arnisador, if this is too off topic, I apologize and ask for a split.


Everyone,

Please look back to the late 40's and early 50's when there was Polio and a vaccine was the medical push of the day. Multiple groups tried to create a vaccine, and one did succeed and their test and reports included test monkeys from africa and test subjects in the villages of Africa. 

Yet, there were at least one other group that did not use healthy monkeys, they never thought anything could cross over. In these villages (* Yes Villages Plural *) where the Polio Vaccine was tested, has 100% AIDs and HIV infections. You can watch the spread from these towns and reported cases over time.

So, to make a comment about the homosexual community about AID's is all their fault, is outrageous. The fault lies in GREED! Someone wanted to be the first to make a Polio Vaccine.

Back to the subject


Like I said, those that openingly admit to being homosexual, that I have talked to all state that they were attracted to the same sex from the beginning. Oh they admit they, dated the opposite sex to check it out or to keep up an appearance, yet they were always attracted to the same sex. So, approaching this wiht an open mind and the cold hard facts of science. Using these people as my data points, I would have to say it is not a choice of lifestyle. If the environment was lethal to them then they might choose an alternative life style (* Hetrosexualality *) just to survive.

Regards
:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 16, 2003)

So you mean that AIDS wasn't started through an unholy conception between a Monkey and a Homosexual? :rofl: 

That is about as mythical as the hordes of homosexuals trying to infect the populus with aids.

Sorry...I couldn't resist. I remember when that was the ongoing rumor for awhile.

What I do wonder about...and again, I don't think this is completely off topic, so I apoligize if it is but.....I wonder if there was any evidence that AIDS was more prevalent in the gay community ever? I was always TOLD that AIDS was mainly in the homosexual communities, but now it is in every community. Like it somehow crossed over. I never gave this any credence because I haven't seen the evidence, but in truth, I don't know either way.

Was there ANY evidence to support the rumor that AIDS was more prevelent among homosexuals at one time?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2003)

Thread closed. Please start a new thread for any side topic.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2003)

Thread re-opened, by request.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## MartialArtsChic (Nov 25, 2003)

Back in my theater days I was talking to an old friend about whether a person was born gay or chose to be gay.  Up to that point, I really hadn't come across any gay people and didn't know if it was a choice or not.   He looked at me and said "I was born this way, do you think I want to be gay?  I don't know anyone who would want to be gay"  

He tried to deny it, even though he had known from the age of 12/13, he had girlfriends and all that in his college days, but he said it grossed him out to kiss them other then a peck on the cheek and he got tired of hiding it.


Lorrie


----------



## Matt (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Please, stay on topic--Is  Sexual Orientation Biologically Determined. This is not a 'right' or 'wrong' question but rather a question of nature vs. nurture.
> 
> -Arnisador
> -MT Admin- *



Well this seems to indicate that it is biologically determined:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2266135.stm

So does this:

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

These were easy to find. I'm surprised nobody brought them up yet. 

Matt Barnes


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 26, 2003)

Lorrie,

Your friend had a good point.  Imagine growing up in a society where homosexual behavior was, until recently, outlawed in some states, where marriage between gays is illegal in most jurisdictions, where Gay bashers kill (Matthew Shepard case in point) and religious extremists celebrate such a murder (godhatesfags.com), where mainstream churches publicly renounce such a lifestyle.  The Western history of homosexuality is one of persecution and murder of Gays.  The laws found in Leviticus call for the killing of Homosexuals--imagine your friend turning to the Bible for comfort from his existential pain and running into THAT.  Gays have been prevented from holding sensitive government jobs, have been denied security clearances, have been hounded, and put into jail.  We talk about President Clinton's indiscretions with Monica...William Manchester reports how during World War II a Marine Sergeant Major was busted to private and sentenced to prison for fifty years for having oral sex with a Corpsman.

Fifty freakin' years.

Why in the Hell would anybody WANT to be Gay?

I was a terrible homophobe for years.  When Rock Hudson (whom many thought was an icon of heterosexuality) got sick, I started asking myself _why_ a man would desire another man.  That led me to ask _why_ I desired women.  My sexual feelings for the opposite sex were deep rooted, and not an issue of "choice".

I came to the conclusion that it was largely biological in origin...and that there might even be variation within the variation.  Human sexuality is complex, ridiculously so.  Human heterosexuality alone has a huge range of expressions and fetishes (including transvestism...which is largely expressed in straight males).




> Well this seems to indicate that it is biologically determined...<snip>...These were easy to find. I'm surprised nobody brought them up yet.



I brought the issue of biological etiology in the thread on "Gay marriages, Matt.  I gave several other sites as well.  I'll paste it from the other thread.  They are as follows:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...splay&DB=PubMed

That's about 177 Journal entries.

Here's a nice little slideshow:

http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/psy.../homosexuality/

In the slide show we find the following:

_Pillard et al. (1981, 1982) discovered that when male probands reported other gay and lesbian relatives, they usually came from the maternal side of the family. This seemingly lends support to the idea that homosexuality is heritable, and may be connected to a region on the X chromosome (Pattatucci, 1998).

Males (genetic XY) who are unable to utilize testosterone normally are feminized, as are male babies whose mothers were subject to high dosages of estrogen while pregnant. 

This research is supported by the earlier conclusions of Meyer & Bahlburg (1993) who proposed that high concentrations of androgenic hormones are required during the period of sexual differentiation of the brain to masculinize the neural substrate relevant to sexual orientation and neurocognitive function._

And lastly, we find this:

_The etiology of homosexuality remains unclear, but the current literature and the vast majority of scholars in this field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice, that is, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual.

---American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Adolescence_


Took me a whopping five minutes to find those sites using Google.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## arnisador (Nov 26, 2003)

I was once asked--rhetorically--when I decided to "give in" to the homosexual agenda that maintained that homosexuality was not a choice but rather was inborn and/or determined at a young age.

I replied that I gave in when the weight of scientific evidence supporting that point of view, and refuting the point of view that it was a matter of choice, become so crushing that I simply could not, as a scientist, maintain any other position.

It's quite well-accepted by researchers at this point that homosexuality is largely determined by some combination of genetics and influences acting at an early age and that sexual orientation almost always becomes "set" before puberty.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 26, 2003)

From what I read, the development takes place in utero, while the fetus is developing.  But then, development is on going, so I suppose it could be a long and involved process.


Steve


----------



## MartialArtsChic (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Your friend had a good point.  Imagine growing up in a society where homosexual behavior was, until recently, outlawed in some states, where marriage between gays is illegal in most jurisdictions, where Gay bashers kill (Matthew Shepard case in point) and religious extremists celebrate such a murder (godhatesfags.com), where mainstream churches publicly renounce such a lifestyle.  The Western history of homosexuality is one of persecution and murder of Gays.  The laws found in Leviticus call for the killing of Homosexuals--imagine your friend turning to the Bible for comfort from his existential pain and running into THAT.  *



He's one of those people who you could ask anything to and he would answer.  He's one of those people you would never, in a million years, think was gay.  So, he's comes across his share of gaybashers and he changed his church because of one time going in there and at the sermon the priest went off about being gay was wrong and that God would condemn them.  He just wondered "how can he condemn me and make it wrong when he made me".  

It's my opinion your born gay or your born straight.

Lorrie


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 27, 2003)

It seems many of the people on the board agree with us, Lorrie.

Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

I ad the priviledge of know a homosexual young male in College.  I thought he was hetro since he was always with his girlfriend. Silly me. I thought she was cute, and was trying to figure out the relationship at first, and then decided she had to be his girlfriend by the way they acted together. She turned out to be just a good friend. He answered a question(S) I had. When and How did you know?

His reply, "See that couple there?

Yes

"Whose butt did you look at at?"

Hers?

He replied," I have always looked at his"



As to to the level of sexuality, why do some people like blondes while others like brunettes, and the list goes on. We have preferences that many of us cannot explain, no matter who hard we search or ask.

And as for it being a choice, the only choice is do they tell you (*And the world *) about themselves.

With Respect
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2003)

Hey Rich ... Just wanted to remind you .. you posted about your college friend in the second post on this thread


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Hey Rich ... Just wanted to remind you .. you posted about your college friend in the second post on this thread  *



Yes, some of those coming late to the thread may not have read all seven (7) Pages.

I apologize if for the repeat, yet I was trying to support .


----------



## donald (Nov 28, 2003)

What are you kidding? Freud, normal? He was a junkie, wack job... If being a homosexual was "normal" we would'nt even be having this discussion. Because we(straights) would be in the minority! If sex is'nt for procreation, whats its main function, release? The abandonment of morals in this nation has raised up a generation of immorals.  Take a look at history. Every nation who set themselves up as the all to end all. Be it political,personal, etc.. Fell far, and hard. Rome,USSR,Nazi Germany ETC.,ETC.. We have to face facts as facts. Look at how we're designed as men, and women. Is this an accident of nature? 

By His Grace :asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 28, 2003)

Just because something isn't in the majority doesn't mean it isn't normal...

Are by that logic, you are calling every minority living in the US abnormal, because they aren't just like you.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Just because something isn't in the majority doesn't mean it isn't normal...
> 
> Are by that logic, you are calling every minority living in the US abnormal, because they aren't just like you. *



Can I then say that all Straight or Gay Erpoean and Africans and Asian decent can go home? As American Indian decent, does this mean that this country took this land from illegally and that it is by God's Will that I can take it back?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 28, 2003)

> What are you kidding? Freud, normal? He was a junkie, wack job... If being a homosexual was "normal" we would'nt even be having this discussion. Because we(straights) would be in the minority! If sex is'nt for procreation, whats its main function, release? The abandonment of morals in this nation has raised up a generation of immorals. Take a look at history. Every nation who set themselves up as the all to end all. Be it political,personal, etc.. Fell far, and hard. Rome,USSR,Nazi Germany ETC.,ETC.. We have to face facts as facts. Look at how we're designed as men, and women. Is this an accident of nature?




Who is talking about FREUD, Donald?  I keep looking back over this thread for recent reference (since it was re-opened) and can't seem to find any reference to Freud.  And if we were, an ad hominem attack against the guy for his addictions isn't reason for maligning him.  Attack his work, not his personal life.  Otherwise it isn't a valid argument.

Freud died in the 1930's.  His theories of homosexuality (and many other things) have been discarded for the weight of the evidence which has been partially listed and described here.  Freudian theories were discussed on one of those links, but it also discussed several other perspectives.  Those were the ones to which I referred.  

As for "straights" being in the minority were homosexuality deemed "normal"...where are you getting that?  Heterosexuals comprise over 95% of the population.  If George Bush, John Ashcroft, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court all gave homosexuality a big thumbs up (not in our lifetime, bet on it) that doesn't mean that straights are going to give Gay sex the good old college try.  Get real.

Yes, you're right.  Sex can be for procreation.  But nature isn't precise, it seems, and tends to give us variation.  Hence we observe homosexuality among different species.  We also see animals of one species attempting to mate with animals of another.   

My wife and I have no children of our own...and it is hardly a sexless marriage.  As for sex being for "release", sure it is.  Its also for FUN.  Its also for emotional bonding.

The "abandonment of morals" issue as far as I'm concerned is invalid, given my premise that homosexuality has a biological etiology.  Check the references given in more detail.  Homosexuality isn't an issue of morality when it involves consenting adults.

Insofar as men and women being accidents of nature in their design...yeah, I guess they are.  I'm a male because a sperm carrying the X chromosome just happened, by luck or perhaps by fortitude, to be the ONE to fertilize my mother's egg.  My sexuality was determined by the fact that during my mother's pregnancy I, as a fetus, received the proper environment for development.  Another male, born the same day, was born Gay because of that cocktail of androgens his mother had floating through her blood was different than my mother's.  Perhaps his mother was under stress.  Perhaps he had a genetic predisposition that was triggered indirectly by that stress.

Something altered the development of that other child's amygdala so that he was, from youth, attracted to males.  His brain developed the sexual receptiveness of a woman...yet he was born male.  

If you STILL don't believe in this process of nature, look at hermaphrodites.  Explain that, please.  You state that we should look as to how we're designed as men and women?  How about them?  What of the masculinized (but not necessarily lesbian) woman and the effeminate (but not necessarily gay) man...the latter with very little testosterone, almost no beard at thirty, delicate bone structure and fat distribution like that of a woman.  We have a man like that in our school...he has two children and is straight.  He has breasts, Donald.

I'll let the issue of Rome, Germany, and the USSR alone.  It is off topic, and far too simplistic.



Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 29, 2003)

> I'm a male because a sperm carrying the X chromosome just happened, by luck or perhaps by fortitude, to be the ONE to fertilize my mother's egg.



For the record .. it was a sperm carrying a Y chromosome that caused you to be male.

XX = Female
XY = Male



One other thought occurred to me as I was reading some of these posts. We are discussing sexuality as if it is a binary condition. I do not believe it is. I believe sexual orientation is experienced along a continuum. People may be mostly straight or mostly gay or bisexual. It is all part of the wonder of being human.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 29, 2003)

> For the record .. it was a sperm carrying a Y chromosome that caused you to be male.



I stand corrected!  

Y?  Because I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong.  Xpect further retractions as necessary.  I prostate myself in humility for having made that mistake.  Feel free to fetus whatever corrections  you deem necessary ova the duration of this thread.  It will be of inestimable cervix to those less schooled in biology.  Excuse me now while zygote on to the second half of your post.

I believe you're correct that sexuality is not a binary condition.  I do not believe it is an "either/or" situation given bisexuality and transgenderism.  The large range of sexual preferences within any one gender specific preference (and it can be that specific...someone always falls to the extreme right or left of any bell curve) are indicative of this.  There is probably no vas deferens between the different forms of sexuality.

The question is, how do we teste hypothesis?  If anyone takes up such seminal research, let me know.

This certainly is a fertile topic, isn't it?



Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 29, 2003)

> Y? Because I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong. Xpect further retractions as necessary. I prostate myself in humility for having made that mistake. Feel free to fetus whatever corrections you deem necessary ova the duration of this thread. It will be of inestimable cervix to those less schooled in biology. Excuse me now while zygote on to the second half of your post.



:lol: :boing2: :lol:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 29, 2003)

Had to include this for Donald.

The following is from an article about a Canadian MP, Larry Spencer, who believes that homosexuality should be re-criminalized.  He also thinks that there is this huge conspiracy on the part of homosexuals to take over North America.  Spencer is originally from Missouri.

PLEASE NOTE the Freudian overtones of this guy's quote:


_- He said he believes homosexuality, rather than being part of someone's nature, is something that is developed by young people who struggle with their identity in relation to a parent, such as an "overbearing mother" or cold father._ 

Some of the other things he says are downright outlandish as well.

The link is here:

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=9D91AA32-6859-457E-80E3-E90BEA944031

Regards,


Steve


----------

