|
| Thread: Debate: Homosexuality is genetic in origin |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted December 18, 2004 04:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I liked Muriel's wedding
[offtopic]Is that how the film's called, cos I love that one, and have always wondered bout the title.
Some of the movies you mentioned (supposedly "male" movies, such as die hard and T2) are in my humble opinion pure Hollywood sh!t.  [/offtopic]
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Lady_milena
Honorable
Known Hero
Grannie Sweet Cheeks
|
|
posted December 18, 2004 03:36 PM |
|
|
Input from someone admittedly gay
This time I promise I will not be so long and second, nothing from what I say is based on scientific researches but on pure logic.
Researches, however, show that between 10 and 11% of the population in the world is gay. What does that mean? It means one in ten people. That's a huge part come think of it. Can this be a coincidence?
By defending the idea that homosexuality is of genetic origin, I make a presumption. There are two aspects of attraction - mental and physical. I presume that without actual physical attraction (realized or not), there should be such in order for the person to be gay. If a person like another of the same sex but does not fancy getting physically intimate with him/her, I claim that it's not a case of homosexuality.
Also, I believe homosexuality to be just like pessimism: it's either trained or by birth. Disappointment in the opposite gender can make people turn to their own for a change, which, however, does not mean it would be the usual preference. I'd like to emphasize that I'll be talking about *genuine* homosexuality, not about comfort sex and 'whoever's nearest'.
Since we were mentioning physical attraction, let me remind people how that actually takes place. Every organism emits sexual hormones called pheromones. Every person also has receptors that detect and analyze the pheromones that others give off. Male individuals by default are attracted to female pheromones and vice versa. It's the way nature has done it to make sure that people of opposite sexes will be attracted to one another. It's not for the mere reason of humans having pleasure but because progeny comes through sex. So, humans (and not only) are programed to be susceptible to the pheromones to the opposite sex. We're also programed to see green as green, blue as blue (but colorblind people are not this way). This is why I personally believe (but as I said, it's not backed-up by any researches) that the way genes combine sometimes leaves a person susceptible to the pheromones of the same gender or susceptible to both.
To sum it up, I view homosexuality in the same way as colorblindness. It's a condition, it's there, it's not a desease but makes people different from the rest - because this is the way they are programmed.
Let me also make another important point there. There are different levels of homosexuality or should I see, degrees? A leading point in this debate is the driving force of homosexuality. Like, some men are not able to get it up even at the sight of the most seductive women. Some women (like me) do not mind men but find the idea of something -inside- them revolting. Other women become lesbians after cases of rape. I've lived in a gay town and I've listened to millions of stories. A lot of gay men had several children and ex wives - some had not realized that the coldness in their relationships is due to the lack of attraction to the opposite gender on a large scale.
People are raised to think of themselves as heterosexual. Why some rebel and leave their families to live with partners of the same sex? It can't be rooted in the teen years. It should be something much deeper, something coded in the nature of the person.
Yet to answer such a complicated question... even scientists can't. How could you give a simple answer: yes or not? Things are never black or white.
____________
God does not need exist to save us...
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 18, 2004 06:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Dec 2004
|
Pfeh....
Up until now I've really quite enjoyed your posts Lady_Milena. What a jumbled mess of nonsense you seem to have offered. I think, perhaps, that you should try educating yourself with the science behind a 'researched study'.
Or....you might simply try reading bort's most excellent post in the Current Debate Commentary thread(created by Wolfman).
 **sigh**...
I suppose this is to be expected from someone who simply pops in and posts rather than actually reading what other people are saying.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 04:58 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 18 Dec 2004
|
Don’t mind Consis. That happens too often when he clicks Reply right after he finishes reading the last line.
So, its true that science cant give us answers (yet). If it could, we wouldnt be debating this. Furthermore, its amazing how assuming science researches are and how unproven the theories they often forward tend to be, even in the face of conflicting evidence. And that’s why this complex issue hasn’t been resolved yet. So, as I remember, cause i cant find bort’s post now, there were some basics of genetics showing the scientific potential to accomodate various theories, but nothing conclusively can be derived from it.
You’ve got an interesting opinion there milena, even though I cant see clearly where you locate the causes of homosexuality. I wanted to say something about the pheromones.
They seem to be the only thing that can somehow logically support the gayness-genes connection. But alas, for me they’re less likely to determine your sexuality than almost anything else. I mean, I have a bad taste of smell (cant smell a dead cat under my nose  ), but I’m hardly any near to asexual. Theres much more psychology involved imo, which is hard to imagine marked with genetic outlines.
I was wondering if anyone’s heard whether gays turn on by male pheromones or female ones? Whats more, has anyone ever smelled a pheromone?
Btw, milena, i didn’t know u were bi/homosexual. 
Ps; i still want the muriel question answered, asmo.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 19, 2004 05:52 AM |
|
|
|
Leo_Lion
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The 5th Element & 6th Sense!
|
posted December 19, 2004 10:04 AM |
|
|
I am going to solve this for everyone....
To determine if Homosexuality is genetic in origin or not, just rally up a bunch of people who claim to have "Gaydar", run a few tests, and find the one with the highest success rate.
From there, have this person sit in on a few deliveries and once the baby is born, have this "Gaydar Specialist" write down their Sexual Preference Estimate on a piece of paper (in secrecy, as not to affect the babies' development). Many years later, when the babies have grown into adults, have them come in for questionning to determine if the "Gaydar Specialist" was correct in his estimates.
If he was correct...Homosexuality is genetic in origin!
If he was incorrect...Homosexuality is Spiritual in origin! (As I effectively pleaded earlier in this thread!)
P.S. Thanks RealDeal for reviving this Thread! 
____________
*The end to no beginning...
*Take care, Leo
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 11:25 AM |
|
|
First of all, Yes Svarog that is the name of the movie.
Secondly, no prob Mr Lion =)
Back to Gay business.
Again i have to.. Disagree. I think being gay is something that is molded into you. Like opinions are. You can't just say "it's something you were borned with". Gay people aren't handicapped at birth, they aren't even handicapped. A Gay man isn't dumber than a regular man, neither is a gay woman. A Gay man is capable of doing anything a straightman can, just no the ability of getting turned on by a woman. So therefor i pleed, it's a matter of choice. It's just not a choice the person itself makes, it's subcontionsness takes it for the person, rather you like it or not. It's something the person endures at some point in it's life, thats why there are levels of gayness, because there are different scenarios.
You can't "cure" Gayness. Neither should you wan't to. Theres a reason why the gay man/woman exists. Theres a reason why everything exists. We can't just remove everything we don't like, or even worse, don't understand. Gay people can scare a normal straight man at first, but like Asmodean said, it's just a matter of dealing with it instead of bickering about it. I'm not the kind of homophobe i was just 3-4 days ago, just because a gay man talked to me about it(even though, Asmodean, if i ever see a picture of you in a dress, i'm the biggest homophobe ever again )
Like i said earlier, i'm no expert, i'm just comming with my humble opinion hoping will agree just a tad with me, if not it's not my problem. I'm not saying i'm the one here who has all the answers, because i'm not. I'm not saying i even know a fraction of the truth, but until someone can prove to me that it's wrong, it's what i'm sticking with.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Lady_Milena
Honorable
Known Hero
Grannie Sweet Cheeks
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Up until now I've really quite enjoyed your posts Lady_Milena. What a jumbled mess of nonsense you seem to have offered. I think, perhaps, that you should try educating yourself with the science behind a 'researched study'.
Or....you might simply try reading bort's most excellent post in the Current Debate Commentary thread(created by Wolfman).
If you have found my post senseless and an insult to your cerebral debate, I will be glad to oblige and will delete said posts and this one too.
____________
God does not need exist to save us...
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 03:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To sum it up, I view homosexuality in the same way as colorblindness. It's a condition, it's there, it's not a desease but makes people different from the rest - because this is the way they are programmed.
well i dont mind informing a colourblind person which colour something has, though it gets alittle more annoying when a gay starts hitting on me... so id say there is a slight difference between the two
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 04:48 PM |
|
|
Sorry to say this.. but that was friggin hilarious xD
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 19, 2004 06:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Dec 2004
|
Lady_Milena
No no, delete nothing! I was simply asking you to take a litte more time to read through what's being said before jumping in and posting a largely biased generalization. I know you speak from the heart. That seems to have always been your your style. I think it's a great one. But sometimes our hearts don't have all the information we need to make a truly informed decision.
This is why I recommended bort's post. I too speak from my heart. You may find myself, Peacemaker, Khaelo, bort, and many others discussing the intricate details of this very debate in the "Gay People" thread. I must tell you that I truly absolutely searched my soul for the answers. But I also tried to be as completely objective as possible. This is what I love about bort's post. I found it to be so helpful to my ordinarily heart-driven posting habits. It helped me realize that neither I nor anyone else can truly say with any reasonable degree of certainty what constitutes being gay.
The point is to start the process off on the right foot. The point is you can't get to "Y and Z" without having first established "X". "X" should equate to a firmly and soundly established commonly accepted set of scientific studies. bort's post clearly and concisely shows there to be no such research in existence at this time. That's what I was disagreeing with in your post. You began by accepting what is currently out there. But as bort's post so descriptively points out, can we afford to make such decisions based on such inaccurate research? Can we do so knowing that real peoples' lives are at stake?
I think we should start by identifying "X". Let us first spend the time and money on identifying the variables to the equation. The equation is of course whether or not homosexuality is genetic in origin. But I agree with bort that there hasn't been enough studies and debates yet to even identify what 'being gay' is.
All I want to do is to move forward being driven by my search for the truth and guided by my heart. Hearts can guide but should not drive and the truth(education) can drive but should not guide.
My first rather flimsy example: the movie "Jurassic Park". The scientists found the truth that they could in fact make dinosaur clones from d.n.a. found in mosquitos preserved in amber. But the problem was they never asked themselves if they should do what they could.
Another example: Just because a person can detonate an atomic bomb doesn't mean they should. And vice versa, just because he/she shouldn't detonate an atomic bomb doesn't mean they couldn't.
Does that make sense?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Lady_Milena
Honorable
Known Hero
Grannie Sweet Cheeks
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 08:10 PM |
|
|
I'd like to make a very short point here.
I'm not a scientist, so I leave this kind of work to people who know their jobs. I'm a layman (or should I say laywoman) and I don't dabble in things are not MY field. I only express my opinion based on what I choose to be my opinion.
There's also this point of the debate. I've seen some of those and people are usually given a side to defend. Many times you don't choose it, the art of debating is to have a case, be asked to defend a side and find a good way to do it.
In this case I merely chose to defend the idea that homosexuality is genetic. I made the point of 'chemistry' that I find so important - not only about gays but straight people too. There must be a reason who certain individuals attract others 'at first sight' while others repulse people in the same way. I can't say I know all that much but many smarter than me explain it with the presence of 'pheromones'. I'm not an expert in the field: I do not know. I'm making a speculation based on my logic and that, mind you, is female logic.
Of course, with this I chose to ignore several cases. Why, for example, people fall in love over the Internet. We can't talk about chemistry here, can we? Gay people would fall for people of the same sex over the Net without having seen them. Just an example. Once again I state it, in this case I merely choose to defend a side. My personal opinion on the issue in general I've started before. It's not only this, it's not only that. Sexuality is way too complicated to be due to a single factor. I see it as being plump. Some people are more prone to obesity, genes-wise, but if they can eat only apples, they won't go fat. If that makes sense.
____________
God does not need exist to save us...
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 08:46 PM |
|
|
Consis, everyone has thier own points in this subject including me.
I dont have to read crap of what you & anyone else read in the past to have my own point of view & niether does she.
Consis quit with with your little problems & this is a debate on this issue of Genetic or Origin, not insults dude.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 09:10 PM |
|
|
Consis normally i smile when i see a long post from you, why are you trying to ruin that?
If you only could reply to something you had 100 % knowlegde about, you wouldn't have all that many posts, would you? Thats goes for us all. But we have a thing called "opinions" and we have the right to come with them! I did not agree with her, but i read her posts and i liked that she took the time to tell us what she thought. But then you come and insult here like that? I'm dissapointed in you Consis.
You don't have the right to say that to here. And then you go on about "Lets find X!". That is Bull. You can't determine being gay with science, especially when you obviously know as little about it as you do.
Sorry to say this, but your posts in this thread are worth less to me then Boot's polls, and ... well what i've read from andiangelslayer and pig's intire batch of posts, i got used to it from them, but i thought you were more objective.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 09:46 PM |
|
|
I mean is this a private thread or what.
Borts post only COnsis.
I wont deny Bort is very smart in many issues but I like to read everuones toughts i mean we all have our own different views on this subjct & it's facinating to hear dif debates.
What I am reading is that She dont have the knowledge as Bort has so he should be the one making the replies.
That I see is an insult.
Yall better check yourself & reckognise big man.
About 90% of the time I dont read the begginings & why should I?
I usually know whats up & I usually have no arguments because i usually know about the issue.
WTF Khaelo is this forum only supposed to have certain Bort,PH,PM,COnsis & other few that are only invited in here or is this supposed to be for everyone.
This is totally favortism & hes not even a mod lol.
If you dont believe me look at the names he mentioned & look where they only reply & make threads in.
I mean are they smarter then us that we cant even make a reply without getting shut out because thier usuals in there.
I remeember back in the days when every forum everyone always loved visiting in without feeling any bad vibes.
Too Bad Khaelo I tought you better then that but I guess your just the same.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Shenjairo
Known Hero
Simsalabim
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 10:40 PM |
|
|
The reason I asked what would qualify as a wimpy film is because that seemed like a big stereotype to me. I will try to write a small list of movies that I like, all of which may qualify as being such movies since they are either musicals, romantic comedies or more emotional than the average movie.
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Love Actually
Notting Hill
Bridget Jones' Diary
Amelie from Montmartre
Gone with the Wind
My Best Friends Wedding
Grease
Cabaret
Chicago
Virgin Suicides
Bend it Like Beckham
Moulin Rouge
Edward Scissorhands
These to me are all in the 3 to 5 range and I own ten of them, where the last two get into my top 10 list for movies of all time. You did say you didn't think it was like that all around the world so I'm not attacking the notion that all gay people like wimpy films (I highly doubt that it would be like that though). The thing I'm asking about is that you said that your gay friends seemed normal in every aspect except for liking films like these. Why would liking emotional movies not be normal? Would you for example suspect me as being gay based only on the list I provided?
If liking emotional movies is tied to something I would put more money on it being tied to femininity/masculinity, which has almost nothing to do with being gay or not.
As for the vote on whether it's genetics or not I did put a vote in for genetics since I'm pretty sure of it. There are in fact some studies that slightly support that theory, but several of them can't be repeated because of ethics or unique circumstances so the validity isn't very high. I have also only read Pshycology A so it doesn't go very in-depth of certain studies, but could probably dig up the names if someone really wanted to. Of course there's outside pressure also so I don't have anything against that argument except that I think it would be unwise to rule out genetics completely. As for me personally I knew I was heterosexual at 4, which is 3 years before I even knew what that word meant. Would have been pretty hard to make me choose a direction that early, especially since I didn't have that much contact with the outside world except for my parents and of what I can remember we have never spoken about sexuality.
____________
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted December 20, 2004 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
All I want to do is to move forward being driven by my search for the truth and guided by my heart. Hearts can guide but should not drive and the truth(education) can drive but should not guide.
My first rather flimsy example: the movie "Jurassic Park". The scientists found the truth that they could in fact make dinosaur clones from d.n.a. found in mosquitos preserved in amber. But the problem was they never asked themselves if they should do what they could.
Another example: Just because a person can detonate an atomic bomb doesn't mean they should. And vice versa, just because he/she shouldn't detonate an atomic bomb doesn't mean they couldn't.
Does that make sense?
both yes and no, the reasoning makes sense but the result doesnt.
what you are talking about is the subject which Von Wright discusses in his book "sience and reason".
To make a long discussion short, he uses the terms rationaliasation and reason as opposites.
As rationalisation doesnt have to include reason but reason does include rationalisation.
For an example similiar to yours, to build a atomic bomb you must be rational about it. But the reason is never there since you are building something which goal is to destroy and cause havoc.
But to make something that we all benefit from such as cars you must first be rational about the making of it and have the reason to see its good.
Then if you wanna push it even further you could discuss if cars to benefit this world or not from an enviromental perspective.
Yet.. this reasoning or rationalisation has nothing to do about being gay. I dont think you can make an X+Z= Y formula about this. Nor can you say that its rational to be gay nor that its reason behind it as there is no answers to it.
If you wanna put this in an rational vs reason way you would ask yourself if learning how a person is gay is reasonable as you would need the rationalisation to figure it out.
There isnt formulas and mathematical solutions to everything in this world, learn about Heiselberg and his science to see that.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 20, 2004 01:38 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Dec 2004
|
I love Aculias.  Does Aculias love me?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted December 20, 2004 01:44 AM |
|
|
loool just loool
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 20, 2004 03:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why, for example, people fall in love over the Internet. We can't talk about chemistry here, can we? Gay people would fall for people of the same sex over the Net without having seen them. Just an example.
Nah. Its more like they are falling in love with an imaginary person, and its got little to do with sexual attraction. You can trick a gay into falling in love with you, by introducing yourself as a guy, because he projects an image of a male body over your online charcter. Namely, this is not an argument concerning sexual attraction (and preference), because it doesn’t involve the physical, which is the one mostly connected to sexual love (or just love, in the sense it’s meant most of the time).
Ps: I want to smell someone’s pheromones.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
