Homosexuality.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

Well let's see. I think that it is all about personal preference in the end, is there really a need for you to discuss things like brain waves and such? Can't you just accept it and leave it as personal preference? You may as well be asking why some people like apples and others prefer oranges. It's all about personal choices and preferences.

Um..no, you cannot leave it as personal preference at all because

a) It looks more and more like it is -not- personal preference at all
and
b) As soon as you cast it like a free choice, suddenly it becomes a lot more okay to be unaccepting of that choice.

As a genetic state, sexual preference becomes a state protected from discrimination, along with skin colour etc. As a free choice, for the same reason that jobs could refuse to hire someone with an excess of tattoos or body piercing, they could also try to justify not hiring someone who is gay.

[sammo123]

Re: Homosexuality.

I think it is all mental. My friend has a little brother who is only about five now. Recently my friend started calling him gay and homosexual. After about a year of his brother figuring it out what it meant by watching t.v. he started showing signs of being gay. It could be because he is still young or doesn't know any better, or maybe its because he was influenced by the world.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

Or maybe the older brother is perceptive, and picked up on cues that suggested he might actually be.

Or maybe the younger brother doesn't know that the older brother is (sounds like) an asshole who is using the word as an insult, and trying to be cool in his older brother's eyes is acting like that, having not figured out that the brother meant it as derogatory.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why single-case anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

[MarukuAntoni]

Re: Homosexuality.

a possibility could be that a dudes been rejected by the opposite sex many times and has been discouraged by it. so the dude looks to the same sex for a relationship. could be...

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

That seems like a very very specific and limited case however, and not at all the norm.

[Chrissi]

Re: Homosexuality.

I believe queerness is a combination of environment and personality (personality being, of course, a combination of genetics and environment, but an important enough factor to warrant its own mention). I'm bisexual, so I might provide a bit of a different view than most people.

I don't believe it's genetic. Sure, people can be or seem gay from birth or from as long as they can remember. Personally, I remember being interested in the pictures of female underwear models in the Sears magazines, moreso than the men, from a very early age. However, I didn't recognize that I was bisexual, since I still liked the men, and I didn't know what "bisexual" meant.

But this doesn't mean that I was always bisexual or that I was born this way. I think it means that I was curious, and NOTICED my attraction, and the noticing and accepting is what makes me bisexual.

Let's make this clear: a person is only gay if they think they are gay. You cannot know that somebody is gay before they know it themselves, because being gay is a state of actually being attracted to the same sex. It's not something you can tell about a person unless they feel it themselves.

I've personally noticed that certain personality types tend to be more likely to be gay. For example, liberal-minded people are more likely than conservative-minded. That's probably just because the conservative-minded with homosexual tendencies choose not to recognize these tendenies. And that's okay too.

Don't take this to mean that gays "choose" to be that way. If you think about it, choosing to be gay makes no sense. Why would anyone choose to be something that will permanently outcast them and make finding a relationship far more difficult? Why would anyone choose such a horrible fate upon themselves? The answer: nobody in their right mind would. You'd have to be crazy and masochistic. Also, implying that it's a "choice" of some sort makes it seem like anybody who wants to can be gay. This also implies that humans by nature have homosexual tendenies. All humans. Since anyone can be gay if they want to be.

So I think it's an environment thing. Genetics doesn't really make sense, since a "gay" gene would, naturally, die off. Again, saying it's not genetics doesn't mean that people choose, or that some people aren't gay their entire lives. It doesn't mean they have ANY sort of control over it. It just means that there isn't any DNA marker that makes you straight or gay or bi or whatever.

Also, if it has anything at all to do with conditions in the womb - that is environment, not genetics. Genetics refers specifically to what your DNA encodes.

[TD_m0nster]

Re: Homosexuality.

There is no marker, but you can definitely tell if someone's gay or not without that person recognizing so.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

You can suspect that they are exhibiting some tendencies that you personally associate with homosexuality, but I'm pretty positive that since homosexuality is a state of being, unless they are in that state of being actively, stating that they "are" homosexual is, as Chrissi described, not something you can do accurately.

[Chrissi]

Re: Homosexuality.

Exactly. You can have suspicions, but you can't define somebody else as being gay. Nobody knows what's going on inside your head. If the person isn't actively having homosexual desires and thoughts... they aren't homosexual, and that's just common sense. They can exhibit homosexual tendenies, and people can have ideas, but you can't define another person's sexuality. The only one who knows your own sexual orientation is you. if you know you're straight, or gay, then you are. Nothing that anyone else says about you can change that.

[atalkingcow]

Re: Homosexuality.

I can say with 90% certainty that being Gay/Lesbian/Bi is not a choice.

The most obvious proof of this is that..:::

1)Homosexuality tends to be shunned. Massively. Who would CHOOSE that?

2)Many,many,many people know incredibly early in life...usually before they even have words to describe it. I knew when I was about 9-11 ish. (17 now)

3)Saying its a choice implies that sometime way back in history, some guy thought... "I'll just go off after that nice looking guy over there, cuz I'm just plain sick of women!" And it somehow caught on. -.- RIGHT.....


Personal anecdote (sp?) time!


My family is probably one of the worst for a g/l/b to grow up in, with my brother who's obsessed with his little theory that "fags should die", my psycho-religious born-again dad, and my incredibly WASP neighborhood.
So personally i'm stuck as a closet-Bi, because i really don't feel like dealing with the fallout until i'm already on my own anyway.

Also, in my opinion, its worse being Bi, because both sides tend to be kinda mean about it. Seems to end up that the straights think you're just goin with the trend, and the gays think you're too embarrassed to admit it all the way.

I digress however, and I'll just return us to the topic.

It's Genetic, whether or not you admit it is environmental.


~~~

Cow

EDIT

So I think it's an environment thing. Genetics doesn't really make sense, since a "gay" gene would, naturally, die off. Again, saying it's not genetics doesn't mean that people choose, or that some people aren't gay their entire lives. It doesn't mean they have ANY sort of control over it. It just means that there isn't any DNA marker that makes you straight or gay or bi or whatever.

A gay gene would not die off, and here's why.

lets say we have a gay off in oooohhh.....early israel, where it's punishable by death to be gay.

So what do you think the chances are that he's not going to just go get married and go through the motions, eh?

What do ya know, the gene lives on!

and since the human urge to suppress what we don't agree with seems to be universal, I think my example can fly throughout history, backwards and forewards.

Even to this day we have homosexuals in heterosexual relationships, and of course you can always make a test-tube baby.
/Edit

[Tokzic]

Re: Homosexuality.

A gay gene would not die off, and here's why.

lets say we have a gay off in oooohhh.....early israel, where it's punishable by death to be gay.

So what do you think the chances are that he's not going to just go get married and go through the motions, eh?

What do ya know, the gene lives on!

No. Early Israel is a lot newer than homosexuality. Homosexuality has been around for an extremely long time, long before laws were in effect, and early humans would feel no pressure to have sex with the opposite sex if they didn't feel the desire to. Chrissi's right - a gay gene would have died off almost instantly.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Homosexuality.

In that case so would many of the common birth defects that kill people or render them incapable of breeding before they can produce offspring. (Retardation,etc)

Not saying being gay is a disease, just using the comparison.

REMEMBER, there are such things as recessive traits that only appear every few generations. Thus people with recessive gay genes could have children, those children could have children, but say 1 out of 3 kids is gay, the other two carry those genes, and pass it on to their children, etc.

Saying "gay gene would die out" is not a true argument against it, because it's based on the fallacy that all genetic traits are active in a person.

[Eccles]

Re: Homosexuality.

I can say with 90% certainty that being Gay/Lesbian/Bi is not a choice.

The most obvious proof of this is that..:::

1)Homosexuality tends to be shunned. Massively. Who would CHOOSE that?

2)Many,many,many people know incredibly early in life...usually before they even have words to describe it. I knew when I was about 9-11 ish. (17 now)

3)Saying its a choice implies that sometime way back in history, some guy thought... "I'll just go off after that nice looking guy over there, cuz I'm just plain sick of women!" And it somehow caught on. -.- RIGHT.....


/Edit

Well, something as complicated as that, reasonably, has both genetic and environmental causes.
In a sense it has been a stance of the gay community, and the "Left"
that being gay is genetic (which, is the only complicated trait they seem to
be for the "nature" side - usually they are "human nature deniers" and deny, for example, any differences between men and women, or are totally against
evolutionary psychology)
This stance probably stems from the "naturalistic fallacy - that is, if homosexuality is genetic then that's how god created them, and if it is natural it is good and that's why the religious guys claim it is all choice.
well, even it were a choice, you are allowed to make it. so I really don't see what's the argument is about.
As for the claims:

1) Well, being a religious/ethnic minority was shunned, is that genetic?
today, thank goodness, extremists are shunned is this genetic?
your accent is not genetic, and if you move to another country, you might want to change it to fit in, to no avail, so is it genetic because you have problems because of it?

2) You commit a false dichotomy - either genetic or choice, sorry NO.
e.g. if you lose a leg by accident, it is neither. if it is prenatal (which is a leading theory) then it's neither. If you are molested early on, for example, and it changes your brain chemistry somehow, it's neither.

3) another false dichotomy (which is committed both by the gay activists and the religious community) is that you are either gay 100% or straight 100%.
for such a complicated trait is ridiculous. it's like saying you're either 7 feet or 3 feet, either 500 pounds or 40 pounds. Most people are leaning towards being straight, even though many could have gay sex depending on the environment (like in prison, or ancient Rome or Greece where it was accepted), and some would prefer to die. some are totally gay and would never be with a woman, and some will marry and have children, (which could explain how gayness survived - and like sometimes a child is much higher than the parents (genetic + nourishment) then he could end up being much gayer than them)

So actually sexual preference is a spectrum and not two polar states,
but it seems that you have to hold one of these or you are either "a ***-loving liberal" or a "religious nut"

So like I said, it doesn't really matter if you chose it or not, since you have a right to choose it (or not).

But since we are dealing with facts, and with critical thinking, I had to put my 2 cents in.

Thanks for bearing with me

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

This stance probably stems from the "naturalistic fallacy - that is, if homosexuality is genetic then that's how god created them, and if it is natural it is good and that's why the religious guys claim it is all choice.
well, even it were a choice, you are allowed to make it. so I really don't see what's the argument is about.

Well, I'm pretty sure that most people who want to appeal to the genetic state of homosexuality are probably not referring to God creating anything at all. Also, I'm not exactly sure where you get this idea that "Gays are human nature deniers" For one, I'm really not sure what you're even trying to imply with the statement, and second, I'm not really sure what makes you think that "The gay community and the left" is some kind of homogeneous group.

The naturalistic fallacy doesn't apply to a statement like "Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is not unnatural" it could only apply to a statement like "Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is morally good to be a homosexual" which isn't a statement I see often. Most people (and rightly so in my opinion) don't consider sexual preference of any sort to be a moral issue at all. People just are how they are.

1) Well, being a religious/ethnic minority was shunned, is that genetic? today, thank goodness, extremists are shunned is this genetic?
your accent is not genetic, and if you move to another country, you might want to change it to fit in, to no avail, so is it genetic because you have problems because of it?

Your ethnicity (At least insofar as your physical appearance in the context of your ethnicity) is genetic. Your accent is a product of where you grew up, and while some people can try to actively suppress an accent later in life, the fact that you need to go out of your way to take steps to do so suggests that it is also not especially a choice.

Further, your attempted objection doesn't seem very strong to me. The claim was "The fact that people are shunned for being homosexual implies that it is less likely to be a choice, and more likely to be genetic, because it seems unlikely that people would make a free choice knowing they would be shunned." Simply pointing to a few cases where something people choose is shunned doesn't disprove their claim. Religion is a matter of firm belief. If you are already religious and devout, and you -go- to a place where your religion is shunned, chances are very good that you'd stay true and deal with the shunning, but you've already -made- your choice, and religion is inherantly a choice you make for keeps.

Basically, belief in a religion tends to inherantly include concepts of being rewarded for your faith -especially- in the face of shunning, and plenty of negative consequences for betraying your faith. I really don't think the same can be said for sexual preference. Heterosexuality is more accepted, more widely practiced, and homosexuality in addition to all the social issues surrounding being gay, severely limits your number of potential partners. There's pretty much nothing but disincentive to -choose- to be gay.

2) You commit a false dichotomy - either genetic or choice, sorry NO.
e.g. if you lose a leg by accident, it is neither. if it is prenatal (which is a leading theory) then it's neither. If you are molested early on, for example, and it changes your brain chemistry somehow, it's neither.

Again, all they said was "You know before you can be said to reasonably understand the choices in order to choose." There is no false dilemma here. They not only aren't saying is must be only genetic or only a choice, they even went so far as to say they were only 90% sure of their argument, and were simply providing some claims to support the idea that it is not "a choice"

The problem with trying to argue a mix of the two, is that in order to actually make a choice in the literal sense of the term, you must have a completely free ability to decide upon any of the possible outcomes of the choice. If homosexuality is at -all- genetic, you have a strong disincentive to choose to be heterosexual, since you're basically choosing to be unhappy and unfulfilled. While you certainly can choose a life of denial, that doesn't change the fact that you are genetically homosexual.

Basically: Even if homosexuality is genetic, you can still choose to not -act- that way, but that doesn't make you straight, even if you act straight.

3) another false dichotomy (which is committed both by the gay activists and the religious community) is that you are either gay 100% or straight 100%.

It isn't a matter of percentages. The three generally accepted states of sexuality like that are "Is only sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex" "Is only sexually attracted to members of the same sex" and "Is sexually attracted to members of both sexes" Bearing in mind as Chrissi said earlier, the defining factor is entirely internal. You can be male, and think a male is attractive without being bi or homo-sexual. So while it might be a scale not a toggle switch, the actual states of being are applied only to narrow bands on that scale.

So actually sexual preference is a spectrum and not two polar states,
but it seems that you have to hold one of these or you are either "a ***-loving liberal" or a "religious nut"

Now see, -there- is the presentation of the false dilemma. While it is surely the case that the people who have chosen to take one of the extremes usually tends to view the "other side" in that way, the vast swaths of people who hold much more moderate views haveto be considered as well.

So like I said, it doesn't really matter if you chose it or not, since you have a right to choose it (or not).

You're confusing the concepts of "being" and "acting" You can choose to act gay or straight entirely independantly of whether you actually -are- gay or straight. That you always have the choice of how to act publically doesn't deny the possibility that which state actually applies is genetic.

So while you've done an excellent job describing all the logic to support that you can choose to -act- whichever way you feel like, you haven't actually disproven the earlier claim that the state in which you -are- seems more apt to be genetic.

[perkeyone]

Re: Homosexuality.

Is it even possible for homosexuality to be genetic?
If you think about it...
In order to be gay you would have to inherit genes that make you gay from you parents.
The likelihood of a gay individual having children is slim.
Therefor homosexuality genes would not have a good chance of being passed on to the next generation of offspring.
I guess there is a possibility that homosexuality is influenced by a combination of genes and/or those genes are recessive.
But... I think that when hypothetical mutation(s) occurred to normal (hetero) genes and new (homo) genes were created, the homosexuality genes would not have had a good enough chance to be passed on and become widely distributed, especially not to the extent to which homosexuality currently is (distributed).