Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A friend recently told me that "every scientific and psychological organization in the nation recognizes that are born homosexual." A Google search gives me conflicted results and the scientific angle is well out of my wheelhouse. For those among us who are more versed in both fields than the layman, is this claim true?

Of course it's true, you don't just "get" gay one day. You're welcome.

Not interested in the arguments about homosexuality, I'm interested in whether or not there has been consensus by scientists and psychologists on the origins of it.

No one is born gay.* It's a myth perpetuated by idiots.

If you ever read about someone purporting, in a serious manner, "the gay gene", immediately stop listening to them because they have no idea what they are talking about.


*Before everyone starts shitting themselves, no one is born straight, as well.

its fun to deflect from the obvious topic, which is "homosexuality: chosen or genetic". too bad there isnt a thread on...oh wait a min.

No one is born gay. You can be raised by homosexuals to be gay via adoption or a parent divorcee seeing other people. That or persuaded by political influence that keeps pressing homosexuality on everybody via mixed media.

^ Thus the perpetuation...read into that what you will...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No one is born gay.* It's a myth perpetuated by idiots.
But there are people born with a predisposition to commit crimes?

Originally posted by Astner
But there are people born with a predisposition to commit crimes?


Are there?

http://i46.tinypic.com/ht8lls.gif

Any of you turn gay?

I don't think it really should matter. It shouldn't affect anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No one is born gay.* It's a myth perpetuated by idiots.

If you ever read about someone purporting, in a serious manner, "the gay gene", immediately stop listening to them because they have no idea what they are talking about.


*Before everyone starts shitting themselves, no one is born straight, as well. not sure if this is a genetic thing, but i have heard/read on several occasions this idea about a flush of testosterone (or lack thereof) in the womb being responsible.

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

not sure how solid the theory is. it seems reasonable to me, though i do wonder how it could account for something like bisexuals or the fact that some gay males are masculine and others are feminine (and same with lesbians).

when I was young I use to tell myself I was going to be gay because I hated my father and this would surely piss him off, now I cant remember if that was a dream or if it was reality.

Originally posted by Col. Novine
"every scientific and psychological organization in the nation recognizes that are born homosexual."

short story, yes

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are there?

yes

Originally posted by inimalist
short story, yes

Short story, no. No one is born gay, straight, bi, etc. etc. etc.


I have never seen a newborn baby have the urge to **** another of the same sex, opposite sex, have an orgy, etc. bla bla bla.

It is going too far to say "people are born gay". No, they are not. "People are born with some genetic factors that may lead to homosexuality" would be more correct.



Originally posted by inimalist
yes

I do not know about this. I do not like the way he worded that question so I do not want to answer it with a, "yes".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Short story, no. No one is born gay, straight, bi, etc. etc. etc.

I would like to see your proof.

Not sure about a "gay gene", but what makes the most sense to me, homosexuals are born with a mental disorder/imbalance* of some level which leads them more inclined to their own sex. I'd also say environmental factors do factor in with that, can say how much though.

That at least makes more sense than say a man being born hetero and just deciding "I'm going to be attracted to cock"; especially considering the massive negative views most societies have towards homosexuality.

*Before anyone flips out, I don't mean "disorder/imbalance" in a sense where there's something negatively wrong with them, but in an perpetuating the species sense it doesn't follow.

So many lesbians turn out to be confused girls who either-

-Where molested at a young age and hated men and chose women as their choice of sexual exploration in defiance.

-Couldn't get a decent man because of their insecurities or social situation so chose to take women into their sexuality.

-Only had women in their circle of influence so explored them sexually.

-Or worse case, manipulated by the above into being a lesbian because they had forceful influences in their peers to make them assume they were gay.

-And then you have those girls who only find other girls attractive.

Now I can't count the amount of times on my hand that I haven't witnessed a long term lesbian suddenly decide that they were suddenly interested in men and gone into a long term relationship with one. Get married and have kids. The whole nine yards. It's laughable.

It's this reason men often mock the whole lesbian lifestyle. Because so often girls go the other way then back again.


Then you have to explore the whole male prison scenario. But that's another bag. The male gay situation I have witnessed amongst friends is that even though they find they female body gorgeous they don't find it attractive.....

I have male gay friends that can't watch gay porn. They have to watch straight porn. Which is interesting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure about a "gay gene", but what makes the most sense to me, homosexuals are born with a mental disorder/imbalance* of some level which leads them more inclined to their own sex. I'd also say environmental factors do factor in with that, can say how much though.

That at least makes more sense than say a man being born hetero and just deciding "I'm going to be attracted to cock"; especially considering the massive negative views most societies have towards homosexuality.

*Before anyone flips out, I don't mean "disorder/imbalance" in a sense where there's something negatively wrong with them, but in an perpetuating the species sense it doesn't follow.

I agree with that. It could be a timing problem in the womb. If testosterone is not at the right level, at the right time, the fetus could end up as a gay individual at a later time.

Ninjak,

Where are you getting these Lesbian "facts" from?

Because if we're just using anecdotal evidence, I know of a few women who were married for years, had children and then divorced their husbands due to finally facing that they were gay and really always have been.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would like to see your proof.

I cannot really prove that babies are born with a sexuality other than the fact that there has never been any baby, ever, that had an urge to get it on.


I would like to see the proof of babies ****ing. On the other hand, no, do not give me proof of that: that would probably be illegal?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure about a "gay gene", but what makes the most sense to me, homosexuals are born with a mental disorder/imbalance* of some level which leads them more inclined to their own sex. I'd also say environmental factors do factor in with that, can say how much though.

That at least makes more sense than say a man being born hetero and just deciding "I'm going to be attracted to cock"; especially considering the massive negative views most societies have towards homosexuality.

*Before anyone flips out, I don't mean "disorder/imbalance" in a sense where there's something negatively wrong with them, but in an perpetuating the species sense it doesn't follow.

I agree a little bit. I do think there are genetic factors involved. That's plural, not singular. Those mixed with environment are what lead to "sexuality".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I cannot really prove that babies are born with a sexuality other than the fact that there has never been any baby, ever, that had an urge to get it on.


That's likely due to sexuality (activating?)coming on with age.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I cannot really prove that babies are born with a sexuality other than the fact that there has never been any baby, ever, that had an urge to get it on.


I would like to see the proof of babies ****ing. On the other hand, no, do not give me proof of that: that would probably be illegal?...

dadudemon, are you drunk?

There are people who are born with a natural ability to sing, but we don't see babies singing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ninjak,

Where are you getting these Lesbian "facts" from?

Because if we're just using anecdotal evidence, I know of a few women who were married for years, had children and then divorced their husbands due to finally facing that they were gay and really always have been.

With women, it is a bit different, imo, than it is for a man.

They do not have to get aroused, at all, to have children. A man does. A man has to get it up, stick it in, and splooge. A women just has to put up with it.

So I am far more inclined to believe a women comes out as a "pure lesbian" than a man that has fathered a few children. It is hard (pun fully intended) to sell that you are "pure homosexual" when you had to have sex with women.



Society pressures! They fake it!


It is difficult to fake a boner and ejaculate. Not saying that they found their spouse attractive all those years, they just aren't the "pure gay" that they claim to be. Why can't people just admit that they are bisexual instead of claiming the poles?


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
dadudemon, are you drunk?

There are people who are born with a natural ability to sing, but we don't see babies singing.

No, not drunk. Just pointing out the obvious fact that sexuality is what develops: you aren't born with it.

And, no, people are not born with the natural ability to sing. It is learned.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...No, not drunk. Just pointing out the obvious fact that sexuality is what develops: you aren't born with it.

And, no, people are not born with the natural ability to sing. It is learned.

Sorry about the drunk part. That was just a reference to another thread.

You see, I think we are programmed with a lot more behavior then we realize. That is why I don't believe in free will. However, I do agree with you on the idea that we are all really bisexual to some degree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
With women, it is a bit different, imo, than it is for a man.

They do not have to get aroused, at all, to have children. A man does. A man has to get it up, stick it in, and splooge. A women just has to put up with it.

So I am far more inclined to believe a women comes out as a "pure lesbian" than a man that has fathered a few children. It is hard (pun fully intended) to sell that you are "pure homosexual" when you had to have sex with women.

Society pressures! They fake it!

It is difficult to fake a boner and ejaculate. Not saying that they found their spouse attractive all those years, they just aren't the "pure gay" that they claim to be. Why can't people just admit that they are bisexual instead of claiming the poles?



IIRC, it's very common for homosexuals to have tried the opposite sex before realizing/accepting they are indeed homo.

So calling them bisexual because they have been with both sexes before is faulty, though I'd guess it would be on a person-to-person basis.

"Fake it"? I'm not talking about the girls who have kissed another girl and say "Yaaaaay, I'm so Bi!", cos it's edgy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry about the drunk part. That was just a reference to another thread.

I caught it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I do agree with you on the idea that we are all really bisexual to some degree.

Bam.


There are probably "strict poles" out there, but I tend to think those are few and far between.


Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, it's very common for homosexuals to have tried the opposite sex before realizing/accepting they are indeed homo.

No, they are not "pure homo" as some would claim. Just the same as some claiming "pure straight".

Originally posted by Robtard
So calling them bisexual because they have been with both sexes before is faulty, though I'd guess it would be on a person-to-person basis.

No, that would be accurate, not faulty. And, yes, it would be a person to person basis. We are the sum of our sexual experiences/thoughts. Our sexuality cannot be clearly defined by a singular instant.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Fake it"? I'm not talking about the girls who have kissed another girl and say "Yaaaaay, I'm so Bi!", cos it's edgy.

lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
Short story, no. No one is born gay, straight, bi, etc. etc. etc.


I have never seen a newborn baby have the urge to **** another of the same sex, opposite sex, have an orgy, etc. bla bla bla.

It is going too far to say "people are born gay". No, they are not. "People are born with some genetic factors that may lead to homosexuality" would be more correct.

=

Originally posted by inimalist
short story


Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know about this. I do not like the way he worded that question so I do not want to answer it with a, "yes".

a) psychopathology that leads to violence and other things that are determined to be criminal

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Originally posted by inimalist
=

My bad.






Originally posted by inimalist
a) psychopathology that leads to violence and other things that are determined to be criminal

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

But those items are "leads to", not "always causes, without exception".


I was told that I had ODD.

Because **** you.

Originally posted by Astner
But there are people born with a predisposition to commit crimes?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are there?

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know about this. I do not like the way he worded that question so I do not want to answer it with a, "yes".

Originally posted by inimalist
a) psychopathology that leads to violence and other things that are determined to be criminal

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Originally posted by dadudemon
But those items are "leads to", not "always causes, without exception".


I was told that I had ODD.

Because **** you.

Dictionary.com:

predisposition -

1. the fact or condition of being predisposed: a predisposition to think optimistically.

2. Medicine/Medical . tendency to a condition or quality, usually based on the combined effects of genetic and environmental factors.

predispose

1. to give an inclination or tendency to beforehand; make susceptible: Genetic factors may predispose human beings to certain metabolic diseases.

2. to render subject, susceptible, or liable: The evidence predisposes him to public censure.

3. to dispose beforehand.

4. Archaic . to dispose of beforehand, as in a will, legacy, or the like.

Originally posted by inimalist
Dictionary.com:

predisposition -

1. the fact or condition of being predisposed: a predisposition to think optimistically.

2. Medicine/Medical . tendency to a condition or quality, usually based on the combined effects of genetic and environmental factors.

predispose

1. to give an inclination or tendency to beforehand; make susceptible: Genetic factors may predispose human beings to certain metabolic diseases.

2. to render subject, susceptible, or liable: The evidence predisposes him to public censure.

3. to dispose beforehand.

4. Archaic . to dispose of beforehand, as in a will, legacy, or the like.


I like that "combination of genetic and environmental factors" definition, the most.

With the environment, one may not be predisposed to certain behaviors, despite the influences of genes.

no.... the genes would still predispose, the environment would cause the behaviours not to appear

Originally posted by inimalist
no.... the genes would still predispose, the environment would cause the behaviours not to appear

I disagree. The genes would not predispose. It is a combination of the environmental development and the genes that will predispose towards certain behaviors.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree.

then you don't understand what genetic predisposition means

Originally posted by inimalist
then you don't understand what genetic predisposition means

Here is how I define that:

A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition.



Let me know if I got that wrong, Professor inimalist.

dont sweat it dadudemon. i got your back bro.

Originally posted by inimalist
then you don't understand what genetic predisposition means

troll! obviously you have been drinking. would you like to pm chat?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
dont sweat it dadudemon. i got your back bro.



troll! obviously you have been drinking. would you like to pm chat?

Reported.

for stealing your lines? not sure if thats against forum rules.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
for stealing your lines? not sure if thats against forum rules.

*obligatory reply to more trolling*

why do you need to reply to my "trolling"?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
why do you need to reply to my "trolling"?

Reported for derailing a thread with more trolling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is how I define that:

A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition.



Let me know if I got that wrong, Professor inimalist.

genetic predisposition means that a certain trait or quality is predisposed by a person's genetics.

so, humans are predisposed to learn language, especially between a critical period that seems to end at some point around 10 years of age.

a child that never is exposed to language will never develop language, but the predisposition was still there. A child with a predisposition to ODD may never develop it, it does not mean the predisposition was never there.

not always a risk, not necessarily inherited, not only relevant for diseases or conditions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, they are not "pure homo" as some would claim. Just the same as some claiming "pure straight".

No, that would be accurate, not faulty. And, yes, it would be a person to person basis. We are the sum of our sexual experiences/thoughts. Our sexuality cannot be clearly defined by a singular instant.


There are likely very few homosexuals on the planet then, using your logic. Just bisexuals who at some point are with only the same sex. I disagree.

But you're saying a singular instance can define someone as bisexual. A man who has only ever been with women except for one homosexual instance would be "bisexual" according to you. The same for a man who's only ever been with men with the exception of one heterosexual instant. I disagree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Reported for derailing a thread with more trolling.

pretty hypocritical considering i was parodying your whole routine word for word. but thats ok if you need to tattle to feel better.

also i think one report is enough.

Originally posted by inimalist
genetic predisposition means that a certain trait or quality is predisposed by a person's genetics.

I think it means a genetic probability of inheriting certain traits.

I also think predisposition is not the same thing as genetic predisposition. (go back through our conversation and you should see that...I think)

Originally posted by inimalist
not always a risk, not necessarily inherited, not only relevant for diseases or conditions.

This is pretty much my point.

Originally posted by Robtard
There are likely very few homosexuals on the planet then, using your logic.

Not my "logic": Kinsey Institute's research of which you were already aware.


Originally posted by Robtard
Just bisexuals who at some point are with only the same sex. I disagree.

Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions.

Originally posted by Robtard
But you're saying a singular instance can define someone as bisexual.

Yup. Thoughts count, too. Pretend 7 is pure straight and 1 is pure gay. Very few people would fall on 7 or 1. Does that scale look familiar?

Originally posted by Robtard
A man who has only ever been with women except for one homosexual instance would be "bisexual" according to you.

Yes, that's what I am getting at. Sure, they may be much more straight than gay.

Originally posted by Robtard
The same for a man who's only ever been with men with the exception of one heterosexual instant. I disagree.

You can disagree, but sexuality is not as polar as you would like it to be. It is definitely not this "0 or 1" idea that you have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not my "logic": Kinsey Institute's research of which you were already aware.




Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions.



Yup. Thoughts count, too. Pretend 7 is pure straight and 1 is pure gay. Very few people would fall on 7 or 1. Does that scale look familiar?


Yes, that's what I am getting at. Sure, they may be much more straight than gay.


You can disagree, but sexuality is not as polar as you would like it to be. It is definitely not this "0 or 1" idea that you have.

So you're using the Kinsey "everyone's bisexual since there's really no 7's or 1's" mindset. Cool.

But a 6 or 2 would be considered straight or homosexual for practical purposes, if we're not being retards. I don't have a "1 or 0" idea.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're using the Kinsey "everyone's bisexual since there's really no 7's or 1's" mindset. Cool.

I take it a step further, though, and don't just stick to two poles on sexuality. I include other "dimensions" because some types of sexuality are not defined as "Finding the set of genetically prime women attractive" or "find the set of genetically prime men attractive". Sexuality is more than just those two definitions: even when injecting a sliding scale between the two poles.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think it means a genetic probability of inheriting certain traits.

in theory, it has nothing to do with inheritance

Originally posted by dadudemon
I also think predisposition is not the same thing as genetic predisposition. (go back through our conversation and you should see that...I think)

Originally posted by inimalist
Dictionary.com:

predisposition -

1. the fact or condition of being predisposed: a predisposition to think optimistically.

2. Medicine/Medical . tendency to a condition or quality, usually based on the combined effects of genetic and environmental factors.

predispose

1. to give an inclination or tendency to beforehand; make susceptible: Genetic factors may predispose human beings to certain metabolic diseases.

2. to render subject, susceptible, or liable: The evidence predisposes him to public censure.

3. to dispose beforehand.

4. Archaic . to dispose of beforehand, as in a will, legacy, or the like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is pretty much my point.

except that you said:

Originally posted by dadudemon
A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition.

in which 3-4 points within your definition are wrong, and what you quoted was me pointing that out to you

Originally posted by dadudemon
I take it a step further, though, and don't just stick to two poles on sexuality. I include other "dimensions" because some types of sexuality are not defined as "Finding the set of genetically prime women attractive" or "find the set of genetically prime men attractive". Sexuality is more than just those two definitions: even when injecting a sliding scale between the two poles.

Where are you on the Kinsey scale?

Originally posted by Robtard
Where are you on the Kinsey scale?

You are evil. Fortunately, I don't have sex, I'm married.

Originally posted by inimalist
in theory, it has nothing to do with inheritance

Wah?

Please tell me you're joking. It has everything to do with inheritance. There are things called genotypes and phenotypes. I think you are aware of this.




To your requote of the same thing you already posted:

"I like that 'combination of genetic and environmental factors' definition, the most."


I would never define, with just "predisposition" something that was actually a "genetic predisposition". Maybe I would if I had first defined "genetic predisposition" in the writing. But just calling it a "predisposition" is not accurate.



Originally posted by inimalist
except that you said:



in which 3-4 points within your definition are wrong, and what you quoted was me pointing that out to you



Errm.

No?

Nothing you said is following, logically.


This:

"A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition."

Is in no way contradictory to this (a modified version of what you stated):


"Genes are not always a risk, not necessarily inherited, and not the only relevant element that determines diseases or conditions."


Please rephrase your point but actually make your point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Where are you on the Kinsey scale?

If 7 is perfect "straight", I would probably be a 6.9.

I can't say that I am perfectly straight because I cannot claim to know all facets of my sexuality: I have not experienced every circumstance possible to properly determine a perfect 7.


However...I'm pretty dang straight.

inheritance is a common mechanism of genetic predisposition, but is not necessary

otherwise, that seems like, at best, semantic gibberish that I have no desire to argue with you about for pages

Originally posted by dadudemon
If 7 is perfect "straight", I would probably be a 6.9.

I can't say that I am perfectly straight because I cannot claim to know all facets of my sexuality: I have not experienced every circumstance possible to properly determine a perfect 7.


However...I'm pretty dang straight.

"Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions."

0.1, lol, dude.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions."

0.1, lol, dude.


I very well could be bisexual.


But I think I'm pretty straight.

Originally posted by inimalist
inheritance is a common mechanism of genetic predisposition, but is not necessary

otherwise, that seems like, at best, semantic gibberish that I have no desire to argue with you about for pages

I am reading your point as "you cannot genetically inherit a genetic predisposition in some instances." That..........may be true of some known mutational problems? There's so much stuff involved with making absolute statements and I wish to avoid them.


But what about all that other stuff?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am reading your point as "you cannot genetically inherit a genetic predisposition in some instances."

allow me to clarify then:

Inheritance, as in, the genes you get from your father's sperm and mother's egg, is a common way that genetic predisposition occurs. Probably the most common. Therefore it is a mechanism of the phenomenon.

However, they are not the same thing. In theory inheritance is not really related to genetic predisposition, aside from the fact that it is a common mechanism that produces it. Sure, appealing to inheritance probably explains many of the predispositions we see, but that isn't the same as inheritance being a definitional quality of genetic predisposition.

Think of it like evolution. Genetics provide the mechanism for it, but they aren't really related in theory . The relation is one we ascribe because of the explanatory power, however, in theory, there is nothing that necessitates the two concepts being related to one another.

Thanks for the reports. I issued a warning. Let me know if it continues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I very well could be bisexual.


But I think I'm pretty straight. You've sent me pictures of yourself shirtless via PM, flexing your chest and abs.

Yeah man. Super straight. 131

Originally posted by NemeBro
You've sent me pictures of yourself shirtless via PM, flexing your chest and abs.

Yeah man. Super straight. 131
Why have I not received these pictures?



Anyway, I think one of the silliest facets of the debate over homosexuality is the degree of equivocation that social conservatives use to further their agenda. Putting aside the Kinsey scale for a moment, let's look at the choices given: "genetic or environmental" factors. When a scientist explains that there is likely an environmental factor, people jump all over shows like "Glee" or "America's Next Top Model" and say that the culture is "turning people gay." In reality, the environmental factors are things like hormone levels during pregnancy and/or nutrition patterns. To admit that the determinants of sexuality are not strictly genetic does not bring the debate out of the realm of immutable biology.

More to the point, society does not get to simultaneously vote on which partners are "acceptable" and endorse an individualistic ideology. Put in political terms, either the Government is in fact a Nanny state which has authority over our personal lives, or not. There isn't a "no nanny state (except for sex)" platform that is even remotely close to consistent.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You've sent me pictures of yourself shirtless via PM, flexing your chest and abs.

Yeah man. Super straight. 131

To you too? Interesting.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that I disagree with your points, but what environmental factors have been shown, scientifically , to influence homosexuality?

All gay ship cruises?

Originally posted by NemeBro
You've sent me pictures of yourself shirtless via PM, flexing your chest and abs.

Yeah man. Super straight. 131

I also sent you pictures of my junk. What's your point? 313

Originally posted by Zampanó
Put in political terms, either the Government is in fact a Nanny state which has authority over our personal lives, or not. There isn't a "no nanny state (except for sex)" platform that is even remotely close to consistent.

BAM!

Zamp for president.

Originally posted by inimalist
allow me to clarify then:

Inheritance, as in, the genes you get from your father's sperm and mother's egg, is a common way that genetic predisposition occurs. Probably the most common. Therefore it is a mechanism of the phenomenon.

Okay. I follow you so far.

Originally posted by inimalist
However, they are not the same thing.

I do not believe either of us have argued that a genotype is always a phenotype.

Originally posted by inimalist
In theory inheritance is not really related to genetic predisposition, aside from the fact that it is a common mechanism that produces it.

And this is where I lose you. Inheritance is directly related to genetic predisposition. Sure, it does not directly create GD, but it is one of the major factors the result in the expression of that GD.


Originally posted by inimalist
Sure, appealing to inheritance probably explains many of the predispositions we see, but that isn't the same as inheritance being a definitional quality of genetic predisposition.

But, I don't want to "appeal to inheritance": I want to keep it as a multifaceted phenomena. I don't want to blame just genes (inheritance) or environmental factors.

More on topic:

You could be born with a dice-roll of genes that will favor homosexuality but still develop into a heterosexual for life...and vice versa.*


Originally posted by inimalist
Think of it like evolution. Genetics provide the mechanism for it, but they aren't really related in theory .

Okay, I think I understand your point a bit better, now. But I do not think the process of evolution and the realization of genetic predispositions in a single generation is the same thing (same as in the comparison, not a literal "same thing" or directly comparable.

Originally posted by inimalist
The relation is one we ascribe because of the explanatory power, however, in theory, there is nothing that necessitates the two concepts being related to one another.

If I can comment on this in a more direct way: if genetic predisposition was not inherited, it would not be a genetic predisposition.



*Not verified scientific fact as far as I am aware. Just speculation on my part based on various things I have studied.

Originally posted by Col. Novine
A friend recently told me that "every scientific and psychological organization in the nation recognizes that are born homosexual." A Google search gives me conflicted results and the scientific angle is well out of my wheelhouse. For those among us who are more versed in both fields than the layman, is this claim true?

jXv_czh1M2A

Couldn't have worded the question any better. I'm only concerned with whether or not there is a consensus, not whether or not the consensus (or lack thereof) reflects a definitive assessment of the origins of homosexuality: that's something for another thread entirely.

Originally posted by inimalist
not that I disagree with your points, but what environmental factors have been shown, scientifically , to influence homosexuality?
I read this in a lay-article, but I was given to understand that the mechanism causing successive sons to be more prone to homosexuality was that the mother's body becomes more accustomed to the testosterone. The idea was that an nth son would be exposed to more estrogen than the n-1th son.

(Single google books source based on a 1987 study)


Originally posted by Nephthys
Except for crimes such as pedophilia, necrophilia or taking advantage of a position of authority I assume.
Each of those are cases where one person's personal life is infringing upon or endangering the personal life of another.

Consensual homosexual relationships are not such cases.

I honestly don't understand why people fear or shun others based on their sexuality?

But no, I don't believe people are born gay.

True Story.
I was having a discussion with this guy in his mid-50's who made it clear that he was openly gay & in a same sex relationship. He grew up straight, never once had any homosexual inclinations or curiosity at all. He married & had several children & led a happy fulfilled life as a husband & father. Unfortunately his wife of 30 years wasn't happy with her life & once all their children were grown up & left the house, wanted a divorce. The guy was devastated. (This is where in the conversation, I was pissing myself with laughter...)

Anyway a month after the divorce, the guy went out with his best friend (who was also divorced) to drown their sorrows...suffice to say, he woke up the next morning in bed with his best friend & thus freely accepted his turn in life to being in a gay relationship. He said on comparison he could understand & relate to a male's feelings & point of view, whereas women could be difficult & hard to co-exist at the best of times.
So yeah a person can change sexuality by choice & not influenced by genes or society.

2nd True Story.
This guy I briefly knew in his 30's was sent to a strict boy's boarding school run by Catholic Brothers as a child. He was beaten & sexually molested by several of the priests over a period of years.
Suffice to say, no one believed him, not even his parents.
He ran away from boarding school, turned to drugs & found himself selling his ass on the streets. he said it was ironic because now the same priests that had once abused him were now his paying clients for gay sex.
The point here, in his own words was that he didn't consider himself gay or attracted to the same sex...he just simply knew the "power of his own sexuality" whether it was male or female that wanted sexual favours from him.
So society might've influence his childhood into a life of being abused but it never made him a homosexual.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I honestly don't understand why people fear or shun others based on their sexuality?

But no, I don't believe people are born gay.

True Story.
I was having a discussion with this guy in his mid-50's who made it clear that he was openly gay & in a same sex relationship. He grew up straight, never once had any homosexual inclinations or curiosity at all. He married & had several children & led a happy fulfilled life as a husband & father. Unfortunately his wife of 30 years wasn't happy with her life & once all their children were grown up & left the house, wanted a divorce. The guy was devastated. (This is where in the conversation, I was pissing myself with laughter...)

Anyway a month after the divorce, the guy went out with his best friend (who was also divorced) to drown their sorrows...suffice to say, he woke up the next morning in bed with his best friend & thus freely accepted his turn in life to being in a gay relationship. He said on comparison he could understand & relate to a male's feelings & point of view, whereas women could be difficult & hard to co-exist at the best of times.
So yeah a person can change sexuality by choice & not influenced by genes or society.

2nd True Story.
This guy I briefly knew in his 30's was sent to a strict boy's boarding school run by Catholic Brothers as a child. He was beaten & sexually molested by several of the priests over a period of years.
Suffice to say, no one believed him, not even his parents.
He ran away from boarding school, turned to drugs & found himself selling his ass on the streets. he said it was ironic because now the same priests that had once abused him were now his paying clients for gay sex.
The point here, in his own words was that he didn't consider himself gay or attracted to the same sex...he just simply knew the "power of his own sexuality" whether it was male or female that wanted sexual favours from him.
So society might've influence his childhood into a life of being abused but it never made him a homosexual.

So based on one story where a man seems to be bisexual or 'came-out' late in life and another where one was sexually abused and was later basically forced to use sex as a means of survival, you can conclude "people are not born gay, ever"?

I don't know about science, but I have asked the gay people that I know, and they all say that they have always felt an attraction to their own sex, for as long as they can remember. This includes people who were married for 20 years. Society can push a person into a situation that doesn't match their wants.

Originally posted by Robtard
So based on one story where a man seems to be bisexual or 'came-out' late in life and another where one was sexually abused and was later basically forced to use sex as a means of survival, you can conclude "people are not born gay, ever"?

anecdotal evidence is only valid when he uses it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/environmental-factors-may-influence-sexual-orientation

I'm just going to ignore a site with a blatant agenda. Thank you for providing the original source.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17039403

The issue here, as the response article linked to it mentions, is that it ignores all the people who don't get married (roughly half of adults in Denmark). The sample is inherently biased because it uses a sample of convenience. The most common way of explaining this is to point to magazine surveys, they reach only people who read that magazine and are likely to respond to a survey. Despite the large sample size the results have limited value.

In particular their raw data shows how the sample is biased. All groups (male, female, gay, straight) show distortions in birth order compared to the general population. This means it is showing that there is a correlation between birth order and getting married in general.

Your own important point about the Kinsey scale is relevant. Sexual identity is not a wholly binary matter while marriage is. People can and do get married counter to their sexual identity. Since the study only looks at first marriages this would have even more and effect on their numbers.

So its an interesting study and doesn't look to be pushing anyone's agenda but its usefulness in studying sexual orientation is questionable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Necrophilia doesn't endanger the personal life of another person.
No, but it does infringe on the spiritual life of that person's family. (One of the ways anthropologists/paleontologists identify humans as distinct from other bipedal animals is that early tribes developed the concept of life after death.)


Oh, I'm much more an authoritarian than that post made me look. Rather, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of social conservatives who simultaneously call for less government regulation and more government intervention.

Sorry if that was unclear.

DDM, I'll cede the hormone issue (subject to inimalist's reply) but remind you that the things that "made being gay a stronger possibility for him" are anectdotal and/or stereotypical evidence. (My boyfriend and I both have still-married parents, for example.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm just going to ignore a site with a blatant agenda. Thank you for providing the original source.

After everyone shit themselves over the white supremacist site (lol), I did not think it would be prudent to post just a biased news article for Zamp's amusement (I do not know him well enough).



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The issue here, as the response article linked to it mentions, is that it ignores all the people who don't get married (roughly half of adults in Denmark). The sample is inherently biased because it uses a sample of convenience. The most common way of explaining this is to point to magazine surveys, they reach only people who read that magazine and are likely to respond to a survey. Despite the large sample size the results have limited value.

In order to claim the stats are invalid/wrong/biased/useless/questionable, you would have to provide something (data) that would cast doubt/contradict the results.

Do you have evidence to support that there is a difference in action/interaction in Denmark's homosexual community when compared to "non-married" and "married" individuals? For example, I will pull numbers out of my ass: 2% of married individuals in Denmark are homosexual whereas 6% of single individuals in Denmark are homosexual (which may skew the numbers, but not necessarily for multiple reasons: that could simply reflect the marriage rate for both heterosexual and homosexuals in Denmark. Or the marriage rate is completely irrelevant to the results as the results (that are not specifically marriage dependent) hold true in the "single" population, as well). And then, on top of that, then do the 6% have differing stats compared to the married ones (minus the obvious incomparable ones such as how long a marriage lasts).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In particular their raw data shows how the sample is biased. All groups (male, female, gay, straight) show distortions in birth order compared to the general population. This means it is showing that there is a correlation between birth order and getting married in general.

B-but...wasn't that one of their findings? Meaning, if you have older siblings that get married, you are more likely to get married and get married in a heterosexual marriage.

But what are these distortions to which you refer? Distorted how?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your own important point about the Kinsey scale is relevant. Sexual identity is not a wholly binary matter while marriage is.

Yes, this gets to the meat of it. I don't like a wholly binary scale like this study entertains and like most people hold as accurate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People can and do get married counter to their sexual identity. Since the study only looks at first marriages this would have even more and effect on their numbers.

I do not know if the study looks at first marriages. However, if looking at first marriages was their goal, then that does not distort their numbers: that is measuring what they sought to measure.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So its an interesting study and doesn't look to be pushing anyone's agenda but its usefulness in studying sexual orientation is questionable.

Well, I don't think so. It does provide some reasons for why there my arise sexual preferences that were influenced by the environment. One of which is contradictory to the ol' "more males born before you makes you gay" myth. I find this study much more useful than most I have read(because there is slim studies conducted on environmental influences of homosexuality or heterosexuality).


And that brings up another point: why isn't the causes/results of heterosexuality studied a bit more? This study did cover a bit of that and I liked that.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I believe this is actually the leading theory at this time regarding at least male homosexuality. while I suppose it is technically an environmental factor, I wonder how many people, especially layman, would call hormones in the womb "environmental". for instance, I'd still label it more as a biological factor, but that us purely semantics.

Isn't "nature vs. nurture" a layman debate, anyway? It would be more like, "social environment, biological environment, and genetics" instead of just "nature vs. nurture".

edit - it seems like I am missing one. Spiritual nature? But mos scientists do not entertain that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And this is where I lose you. Inheritance is directly related to genetic predisposition. Sure, it does not directly create GD, but it is one of the major factors the result in the expression of that GD.

so, as I said, it is theoretically unrelated but a common mechanism... So you haven't lost me apparently, maybe my point is unclear?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, I think I understand your point a bit better, now. But I do not think the process of evolution and the realization of genetic predispositions in a single generation is the same thing (same as in the comparison, not a literal "same thing" or directly comparable.

no, they aren't the same thing, and that's not even remotely close to my point.

I'm saying that, in theory, the mechanism by which a phenomenon occurs is not a definitional quality of a phenomenon. So, with evolution, regardless of what the mechanism is, so long as there is something that produces offspring with variation and inheritance, it will occur. The theory of genetics, while helping to explain evolution, is not really related to the phenomenon at a theoretical level (notice my edits specifying "theory".

Similarly, because genetic predisposition simply means the things our genes predispose us for, it doesn't matter how we got those genes. The mechanism of inheritance helps explain things we see in nature, it is not, theoretically, related to genetic predisposition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I can comment on this in a more direct way: if genetic predisposition was not inherited, it would not be a genetic predisposition.

ok, but that is just wrong. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. For something to be a genetic predisposition, it doesn't matter where the genes come from, so long as they are there to predispose.

think of an entirely artificial life form, cooked up in a lab, with genes invented by scientists. That life form would still have a genetic predisposition to do the things its genes dispose it to do, yet would have no inheritance at all. Mice bread specifically to grow tumors are a good example of this. They have the genetic predisposition designed by scientists, yet it isn't inherited through any means, it is artificially inserted.

You are confusing the fact that the common mechanism we see in nature for genetic predisposition is inheritance with inheritance being a definitional quality of genetic predisposition. This would be the same mistake of thinking genes are a definitional quality of evolution, when they are merely the common mechanism by which many forms of life evolve.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*Not verified scientific fact as far as I am aware. Just speculation on my part based on various things I have studied.

twin studies tend to show your speculation isn't the case, and in fact, provide a lot of evidence against kinsey in general

Originally posted by dadudemon
In order to claim the stats are invalid/wrong/biased/useless/questionable, you would have to provide something (data) that would cast doubt/contradict the results.

lol, wut?

example: almost all studies on people who use drugs sample their subjects from rehab centers and emergency rooms. This biases the results such that drugs look far more dangerous than they are. Because I don't have the information on all drug users (re: this is actually an impossible task, samples vs populations and all that, if you reeeaaaaaally want to argue stats with me again), that doesn't mean there isn't a sampling bias in the initial studies, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the criticism.

Like, what you are saying is that I could run any study I wanted using a deliberately biased sample, and you couldn't criticize it until you have run the identical study with a perfectly representational sample. Really think about that.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, wut?

invalid/wrong/biased/useless/questionable


I am sure you can think of exceptions to that, but exceptions are not the point, obviously.


I don't want a discussion on, "Well, this is potentially biased because of how it was sampled." I don't want a "potentially biased" discussion because that does nothing to contribute. I want, "Study x shows that this sample is biased because of results Y".


Edit - One of the things I enjoy doing is poking holes in any study. I certainly could rant about how many problems there are with that study but I have nothing substantial to provide to the discussion. It would be one thing if the study was invalid because of how it was sampled or because the conclusions were malformed. That does happen in published works, obviously.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, as I said, it is theoretically unrelated but a common mechanism... So you haven't lost me apparently, maybe my point is unclear?

No, this is why I keep losing you. Why would it be theoretically unrelated? That's the one word you're using that is throwing off the meaning, entirely. I obviously disagree that it is unrelated.



Originally posted by inimalist
no, they aren't the same thing, and that's not even remotely close to my point.

Similarly, because genetic predisposition simply means the things our genes predispose us for, it doesn't matter how we got those genes. The mechanism of inheritance helps explain things we see in nature, it is not, theoretically, related to genetic predisposition.

This is just too hard for me to digest. I do not think I will ever comprehend your point because your point, to me, it seems like you do not know about the things of which you speak. But I have been questioning my conclusion about you on this topic because you seem very confident in what you are arguing and you almost always never argue about things of which you do not know. So what is the disconnect on my end?

Is it that genetic predisposition and the relationship with inheritance has been firmly established but you use things such as "theoretically unrelated"?


How about I approach this differently.

You said:

"The mechanism of inheritance helps explain things we see in nature, it is not, theoretically, related to genetic predisposition."


All university level education I have had disagrees with this statement as it relates to the topic. When we reviewed medical disorders that are inherited (see, this may be the disconnect because you may be referring to all genetic disorders rather than just those that are inherited. Since this topic is about homosexuality, I tend to discuss only that which is inherited because I seem to think that most genetic causes of homosexuality are inherited and not randomly, genetically, influenced) and we covered the probabilities of the diseases 'activating' in the offspring, it was not theoretical: it was based on real world data. Our results were compared against the real rates of occurrences (that was how we were graded). The genetic predisposition to those diseases and inheriting those diseases could be mapped, probabilistically, quite accurately. If by "theory" you mean "there is a 25% chance that your offspring will inherit this disease"................maybe I am on the same page as you are. I do agree that some genetic disorders are not inherited but are just random genetic defects. Is this what you're talking about? Is this why you call it "theory"? Or are you using theory in a different way (a set of explanations that are confirmed with empirical results). In that case, then "theoretically unrelated" does not makes sense because you should word it "theoretically related".


Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but that is just wrong. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. For something to be a genetic predisposition, it doesn't matter where the genes come from, so long as they are there to predispose.

Well, of course, I disagree and I am definitely not wrong.


After getting this far into your post, I know where our disconnect is: you are focusing on the set of random genetic occurrences that correlate to genetic predisposition. I am focusing, most of the time, on genetic predisposition that is inherited. Obviously, the set that I am focusing on is relevant to the topic and much larger than the set you are focusing on. I acknowledge your set of focus but you have yet to acknowledge my set.

Originally posted by inimalist
think of an entirely artificial life form, cooked up in a lab, with genes invented by scientists. That life form would still have a genetic predisposition to do the things its genes dispose it to do, yet would have no inheritance at all. Mice bread specifically to grow tumors are a good example of this. They have the genetic predisposition designed by scientists, yet it isn't inherited through any means, it is artificially inserted.

But this does nothing to prove your point, at all. This only explains an external, artificial, mechanism by which genetic predisposition can be created. This is an apples to oranges comparison. The topic is "genetic predisposition to homosexuality". As far as I am aware, there is no mad-scientist creating homosexual humans in a lab and then releasing them into the population.

In "nature", those genes are inherited from the parents in sexual species. Some disorders or genetic predispositions are random and NOT inherited, sure: I will give you that.

Originally posted by inimalist
You are confusing the fact that the common mechanism we see in nature for genetic predisposition is inheritance with inheritance being a definitional quality of genetic predisposition.

I do not think so since I clearly stated that it was one of the major contributing factors, seen here:



Lemme be clear: homosexuality. If you want to talk about exceptions, cool: but this is the wrong thread for finding exceptions to general statements I making because my statements are not "general" they are specific to the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by inimalist
This would be the same mistake of thinking genes are a definitional quality of evolution, when they are merely the common mechanism by which many forms of life evolve.

I do not think your evolution point works very well to make your point: it's too much of an apples to oranges comparison.

Originally posted by inimalist
twin studies tend to show your speculation isn't the case, and in fact, provide a lot of evidence against kinsey in general

No, the opposite is true. The twin studies prove my point that despite the genetic dice roll in favor of one or the other, some seemingly defy their genetics.

If even a single identical twin study results in one being straight and the other gay, my point has been proven (and you and I both know that that is the case...and it is not just one). In fact, it was the twin studies that I had in mind while typing that portion of my post.

Just to alleviate any confusion on your part on what my actual point was, here it is again:

"You could be born with a dice-roll of genes that will favor homosexuality but still develop into a heterosexual for life...and vice versa."

The keyword there is "could".

again, it seems we aren't even talking about the same thing /shrug

Originally posted by inimalist
again, it seems we aren't even talking about the same thing /shrug

I will admit it is mostly my fault.

Here's why:

"I do not think I will ever comprehend your point because your point, to me, it seems like you do not know about the things of which you speak. But I have been questioning my conclusion about you on this topic because you seem very confident in what you are arguing and you almost always never argue about things of which you do not know. So what is the disconnect on my end?"



To put it in a digest form: you don't seem to know what you're talking about and you're coming off as ignorant. However, I strongly doubt that superficial reading of your point and, instead, conclude that I simply do not know what your point is, still.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I simply do not know what your point is, still.

this i know

Originally posted by dadudemon
In order to claim the stats are invalid/wrong/biased/useless/questionable, you would have to provide something (data) that would cast doubt/contradict the results.

No, not say that the data is questionble all I have to do is demonstrate that the sampling process is likely to be seriously biased. However as I mention below their raw data about birth order was found to be significantly different than many previous studies had found.

Originally posted by dadudemon
B-but...wasn't that one of their findings? Meaning, if you have older siblings that get married, you are more likely to get married and get married in a heterosexual marriage.

The study you're citing says otherwise. "For men, homosexual marriage was associated with ... being the youngest child."

Originally posted by dadudemon
But what are these distortions to which you refer? Distorted how?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17333322.1

Their data for heterosexuals in particular does not reflect the findings of previous studies that have been done about birth order.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know if the study looks at first marriages. However, if looking at first marriages was their goal, then that does not distort their numbers: that is measuring what they sought to measure.

The study mentions looking only at first marriages.

And if you want to use this study to talk purely about marriage habits that's fine but you'd better including a massive asterisk every time you do so no one "accidentally" thinks you're talking about sexual orientation.

Originally posted by inimalist
this i know

That's me being nice. I know what your point is but find it wrong.

This is the gayest conversation ever in the history of KMC.

Originally posted by Robtard
So based on one story where a man seems to be bisexual or 'came-out' late in life and another where one was sexually abused and was later basically forced to use sex as a means of survival, you can conclude "people are not born gay, ever"?

My conclusion isn't just based on the 2 scenarios I mentioned.
I've been running a business for nearly 20 years now in Darlinghurst, the heart of the gay & lesbian community of Sydney...this is where the Gay Mardi Gras parade happens every year.

So based on my dealings with clients in the gay community for the past 20 years, I've heard many a homosexual laugh & scoff at scientific explanations that they were born that way.
They weren't predisposed, born effeminent or raised by single parents starved of compassion.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
born effeminate

Nah, dude, my homie was definitely born that way.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ninjak,

Where are you getting these Lesbian "facts" from?

Because if we're just using anecdotal evidence, I know of a few women who were married for years, had children and then divorced their husbands due to finally facing that they were gay and really always have been.

Sorry for the late comment. I expected to get torn apart actually.

My lesbian points of view are based upon my life experiences.
I've known girls who said for most of their life were lesbians then turned straight.
And girls who were straight for years and turned gay.

And then back again.

This is a really boring topic. Can we move the attention to a different thread?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This is a really boring topic. Can we move the attention to a different thread?

Agreed.

But out of curiostity what thread would you prefer be the correct one to converse about this in?

Boba Fett with his armor but no weapons versus shirtless Rambo.

Does Rambo get a knife?

Rambo is hardcore gay.

He'll have a hard time getting through that armor.

But I think he can do it.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Sorry for the late comment. I expected to get torn apart actually.

My lesbian points of view are based upon my life experiences.
I've known girls who said for most of their life were lesbians then turned straight.
And girls who were straight for years and turned gay.

And then back again.

this tends to be supported by modern studies, though there isn't much explanation for why women are more fluid in their hetero/homo orientation. It could be as simple as social expectation.

I think it's psychological and nothing else.

Originally posted by inimalist
this tends to be supported by modern studies, though there isn't much explanation for why women are more fluid in their hetero/homo orientation. It could be as simple as social expectation.

My favorite explanation is form the Dresden Files: the psychic vampire overlord who rules the porn industry things girl-on-girl is hot and guy-on-guy is gross

Originally posted by inimalist
this tends to be supported by modern studies, though there isn't much explanation for why women are more fluid in their hetero/homo orientation. It could be as simple as social expectation.

I had an unsupported theory that it was due to our ancestors splitting off by gender for extended periods of time: the women back at the "temporary settlement" and the men on the hunt.

But then that would mean that men would be as dynamic as the women....



Screw this theory.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
My conclusion isn't just based on the 2 scenarios I mentioned.
I've been running a business for nearly 20 years now in Darlinghurst, the heart of the gay & lesbian community of Sydney...this is where the Gay Mardi Gras parade happens every year.

So based on my dealings with clients in the gay community for the past 20 years, I've heard many a homosexual laugh & scoff at scientific explanations that they were born that way.
They weren't predisposed, born effeminent or raised by single parents starved of compassion.

If we're using "he/she said" as definitive evidence, I've yet to hear a homosexual say it was a choice they made, the answer is always something on the lines of: "It's how I've always felt".

Considering the negative views most societies have towards homosexuality, it's difficult to believe a straight man one day just said "meh, I'm going to be attracted to men from now on and love the cock.", as an example. Especially in countries where it's punishable by incarceration or death.

Did you choose to be straight? (or homo, if you're such)

edit for drinking

all i have to say is








I aint gay

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
all i have to say is








I aint gay

It's OK Spawn. When the day comes that you're ready we'll be here for you.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
all i have to say is








I aint gay Are you parodying the common perception that men who constantly state their sexuality and deny any possible homosexuality are really repressed gay man, or... Are you just a repressed gay man?

Choose.

1CQg9f7z9eg

The dinosaurs all died because they turned gay.

Fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I had an unsupported theory that it was due to our ancestors splitting off by gender for extended periods of time: the women back at the "temporary settlement" and the men on the hunt.

But then that would mean that men would be as dynamic as the women....



Screw this theory.
They ****ed the carcasses of whatever they killed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They ****ed the carcasses of whatever they killed.

Sounds gross, man. Any normal person would sex the animals up when they were still alive. uhuh

well being gay seems to scare some people. So if all the people in the world become gay..who really would care?

We would become extinct just like the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Mindset
We would become extinct just like the dinosaurs.

So?

Homosexuality comes from the devil so if you're gay you are owned by Satan

Heterosexuality comes from God so if you're straight then you are of God.

Bisexuality is when God and Satan are both fighting over you so if you're Bi then you are important

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're using "he/she said" as definitive evidence, I've yet to hear a homosexual say it was a choice they made, the answer is always something on the lines of: "It's how I've always felt".

Considering the negative views most societies have towards homosexuality, it's difficult to believe a straight man one day just said "meh, I'm going to be attracted to men from now on and love the cock.", as an example. Especially in countries where it's punishable by incarceration or death.

Did you choose to be straight? (or homo, if you're such)

This is a silly comparison I'm making but, "I FEEL like having chicken for dinner tonight."
Isn't that considered a CHOICE I've made?

Regardless of your sexuality, why question one's choice of attraction?
You may look at your partner & think he/she's the most beautiful person on this planet & yet another person may judge he/she as a 4 out of 10.
Or you may be attracted to someone of a totally different faith that your family objects too & still you'd think they were worth the grief & negativity to be with.

I'm straight, I'm assuming you are too, so yeah it is beyond our grasp to contemplate "the love of cock." Maybe it's not all about gay sex, maybe the bonding & mutual understanding does make relationships easier.
Yes, in some countries homosexuality is deemed a crime that's punishable but then again I am & was referring to present day Australia & not Iran. Your same logic doesn't stop people from taking & dealing in drugs although it too is punishable by law.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
This is a silly comparison I'm making but, "I FEEL like having chicken for dinner tonight."
Isn't that considered a CHOICE I've made?


It's a choice to eat it but not a choice to like it. Just like its a choice to pursue a relationship of either gender but it's not a conscious choice to be attracted to someone.

Originally posted by jalek moye
It's a choice to eat it but not a choice to like it.


Why would I choose to eat something I didn't like?

I understand your 2nd sentiment but not your opening statement.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Why would I choose to eat something I didn't like?

I understand your 2nd sentiment but not your opening statement.

I'm saying you don't choose whether or not you like the food. But you do choose if you want to eat it.

What do you have against chicken?

Personally, I think it has to do with your experiences and your environment as a child.

I don't see how it could be genetic because I've heard about identical twins having different sexual orientations.

Originally posted by Insomniatric
I don't see how it could be genetic because I've heard about identical twins having different sexual orientations.

Well, there is some conflict in the twin studies, to be sure. Some showed no difference, some showed a little difference, some showed random difference.

I believe the consensus (if I remember the study that reviewed the studies...it wasn't a meta-analysis) is a 30% occurrence. Meaning, when variables are controlled for, monozygotic twins are 30% more likely, regardless of the circumstance, to be homosexual (both of them). Maybe that was compared to dizygotic or maybe that was compared to the rest of the population: I do not remember. I would have to go back and read it.

I may have botched the numbers, horribly, but it goes something like that.


What does that mean? It means a significant portion of sexual orientation is most likely genetic.

to be fair, the only numbers I've ever seen are correlations, which while being in the .3-.4 range, shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as "30%". nor can any causality be determined from them, indicating that we can't say with any certainty what causes those values. genetics could explain it, yet something like different life experiences could make one twin more or less likely to embrace their homo/hetero orientation.

this focus on genes specifically seems somewhat silly though. I'm not suggesting it has anything to do in any serious way with later childhood development or whatever, more just that there are a number of ways homosexuality could be biological without it depending on specific genes.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
This is a silly comparison I'm making but, "I FEEL like having chicken for dinner tonight."
Isn't that considered a CHOICE I've made?

oh wow...

but atleast you know it was silly

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, the only numbers I've ever seen are correlations, which while being in the .3-.4 range, shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as "30%". nor can any causality be determined from them, indicating that we can't say with any certainty what causes those values. genetics could explain it, yet something like different life experiences could make one twin more or less likely to embrace their homo/hetero orientation.

this focus on genes specifically seems somewhat silly though. I'm not suggesting it has anything to do in any serious way with later childhood development or whatever, more just that there are a number of ways homosexuality could be biological without it depending on specific genes.


If you're talking about a correlation coefficient, I did not read about one being .3-.4. Likely, that is coincidental to the percentage to which I was referring. But, a .3 R would be a weak correlation.

But, I was only addressing the notion that, "I do not see how it could be genetics". I was not, however, typing up a comprehensive post about the entirety of theory and speculation regarding homosexuality.


Originally posted by inimalist
oh wow...

He's commenting on actions.


"I want to put my ween in a man's butt, tonight" would be comparable to his example. That's not the same thing as "same-sex attraction", imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon


It means a significant portion of sexual orientation is most likely genetic.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong but if it's genetic, why isn't there a significant amount of homosexual animals either in the wild or kept in zoos or domesticated as pets or livestock?

Surely if it's genetic the percentage would be as significant & noticeable as the human population's ratio of homosexuality to hetero.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but if it's genetic, why isn't there a significant amount of homosexual animals either in the wild or kept in zoos or domesticated as pets or livestock?

I would be happy to correct that: there are tons and tons of homosexuality activities among animals.

Our closest relatives, the bonobos (Pan which includes common chimps, too), have quite a bit of samesex relations.

However, and I think this is important: I am quite certain that none of the bonobos are exclusively homosexual...bisexual.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Surely if it's genetic the percentage would be as significant & noticeable as the human population's ratio of homosexuality to hetero.

IIRC, some animals have much more homosexual behavior than humans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're talking about a correlation coefficient, I did not read about one being .3-.4. Likely, that is coincidental to the percentage to which I was referring. But, a .3 R would be a weak correlation.

But, I was only addressing the notion that, "I do not see how it could be genetics". I was not, however, typing up a comprehensive post about the entirety of theory and speculation regarding homosexuality.

fair enough. depends on the field, anything in human behaviour with an r of .3-.4 is astounding. not so for biology or physics, but given how variable and malleable human behaviour is, we drool over r's of .4 (I don't, I wouldn't use a correlation if I could avoid it, but... yeah...)

What I should have said is more about factor analysis and the "30%" claim. The only way you could come out with that number is if you could run a full ANOVA that included all of the relevant variables that would impact why someone would report being gay or straight (twin studies are almost all self report, meaning that if one twin had the "biology of homosexuality" but was socially conditioned against it, they would reduce the correlation even though, biologically, they should increase it). clearly that is impossible at this point, as we really don't even know what the major ones would be, and we lack a real, objective method of defining homosexuality that doesn't simply look at behavioural outcomes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's commenting on actions.


"I want to put my ween in a man's butt, tonight" would be comparable to his example. That's not the same thing as "same-sex attraction", imo.

actually, no, he is commenting on desires.

He says that the feeling of wanting chicken is one he chose, which is ludicrous. Feelings of hunger are biological and determined by systems designed to maintain homeostasis, and the desire for chicken comes from systems that determine what nutrients the body needs and memories for what food is available.

The only choice he has in the matter is whether or not he acts on the desire he has, and depending on how neuro we want to get, the only choice he may have control over is deciding not to eat chicken.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
This is a silly comparison I'm making but, "I FEEL like having chicken for dinner tonight."
Isn't that considered a CHOICE I've made?

Regardless of your sexuality, why question one's choice of attraction?
You may look at your partner & think he/she's the most beautiful person on this planet & yet another person may judge he/she as a 4 out of 10.
Or you may be attracted to someone of a totally different faith that your family objects too & still you'd think they were worth the grief & negativity to be with.

I'm straight, I'm assuming you are too, so yeah it is beyond our grasp to contemplate "the love of cock." Maybe it's not all about gay sex, maybe the bonding & mutual understanding does make relationships easier.
Yes, in some countries homosexuality is deemed a crime that's punishable but then again I am & was referring to present day Australia & not Iran. Your same logic doesn't stop people from taking & dealing in drugs although it too is punishable by law.

That is silly, so ignoring.

You're talking about choice of action. We're both straight, we can choose to sleep or not sleep with women; we didn't choose that we're sexually attracted to women though. Why do you assume that homosexuals choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex, when you didn't choose to be sexually attracted to women?

There is evidence that drug attraction is inherent, were some people are more prone to alcohol/drugs than others. eg An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic, though he/she may choose to not drink anymore, the desire is always there.

As far as committing crimes(dealing drugs), crime is lucrative and criminals believe they won't get caught. So you're making another silly comparison.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but if it's genetic, why isn't there a significant amount of homosexual animals either in the wild or kept in zoos or domesticated as pets or livestock?

Surely if it's genetic the percentage would be as significant & noticeable as the human population's ratio of homosexuality to hetero.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would be happy to correct that: there are tons and tons of homosexuality activities among animals.

Our closest relatives, the bonobos (Pan which includes common chimps, too), have quite a bit of samesex relations.

However, and I think this is important: I am quite certain that none of the bonobos are exclusively homosexual...bisexual.



IIRC, some animals have much more homosexual behavior than humans.

and the inevitable reply would be "well, are you suggesting that we should base our ethics on the actions of dumb animals?", shunning the point which they tried to win the thread with. fascinating how it plays out like clockwork every time with this topic.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and the inevitable reply would be "well, are you suggesting that we should base our ethics on the actions of dumb animals?", shunning the point which they tried to win the thread with. fascinating how it plays out like clockwork every time with this topic.

Humans are some of the dumbest animals I have ever seen. Lets base morality on fact, would that be ok with you?

ok with whom? i was merely pointed out an eerily repeated pattern of debate.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok with who? i was merely pointed out an eerily repeated pattern of debate.

Same here...

ah i see. i dont recall that response in the pattern, as i must confess that witnessing the pure cognitive dissonance of the previously predicted reply forces me to ignore the rest of it.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ah i see. i dont recall that response in the pattern, as i must confess that witnessing the pure cognitive dissonance of the previously predicted reply forces me to ignore the rest of it.

So, you are being forced to ignore?

Are humans animals, or something else?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are being forced to ignore?

Are humans animals, or something else?

why continue listening/reading? to learn what?

again, i think you are attempting to debate with me when i have not debated a single point here.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
why continue listening/reading? to learn what?

Whatever!

It would be helpful if you answered my question.

i edited. please note that i have not expressed an opinion on the topic. so what exactly am i supposed to clarify for you?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i edited. please note that i have not expressed an opinion on the topic. so what exactly am i supposed to clarify for you?

Whatever!


Are humans animals, or something else?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whatever!


Are humans animals, or something else?

i have an idea. wait for the predicted response from our conservative christian friend and then you may try out these snappy retort questions.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i have an idea. wait for the predicted response from our conservative christian friend and then you may try out these snappy retort questions.

Try something... answer my question. I just want to know where you stand. This has nothing to do with "snappy retort questions", whatever that means. Don't be paranoid. I just want to know.

If we are animals then looking at the behavior of other animals would be appropriate, but if we are not then their behavior would be irreverent. Do you see how that makes a different?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If we are animals then looking at the behavior of other animals would be appropriate,
why? should i emulate a spider because i am an animal as well as it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
but if we are not then their behavior would be irreverent.

either way the behavior of a paramecium is irrelevant. this is a silly tangent. its supposed to be the orthodox religious people that create this type of diversion, i thought.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
why? should i emulate a spider because i am an animal as well as it?



either way the behavior of a paramecium is irrelevant. this is a silly tangent. its supposed to be the orthodox religious people that create this type of diversion, i thought.

We are very distantly related to spiders, and even further from paramecium, so lets not use those as examples. Lets take a look at Baboons, which are a lot closer related. However, you still haven't told me if humans are animals or not.

It seems like such a simple question, I cannot figure out why you refuse to address.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are very distantly related to spiders, and even further from paramecium, so lets not use those as examples. Lets take a look at Baboons, which are a lot closer related. However, you still haven't told me if humans are animals or not.

so which animals do you have in mind? how am i supposed to gauge a response when you offer nothing but "animal"? are we talking about a primates? mammals in general? land dwellers? vertebrates? what? i point out how vague it is and you offer this:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems like such a simple question, I cannot figure out why you refuse to address.

oh i get it. you're trolling me. jolly good!

Originally posted by focus4chumps
so which animals do you have in mind? how am i supposed to gauge a response when you offer nothing but "animal"? are we talking about a primates? mammals in general? land dwellers? vertebrates? what? i point out how vague it is and you offer this nonesense:



oh i get it. you're trolling me. jolly good!

Didn't I say Baboon? Or did you not read my post?

you made both the more specified question and baseless accusation of me "refusing" your "simple question" in one post. i hope this is just baiting because the alternative does not bode well for you.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
you made both the more specified question and baseless accusation of me "refusing" your "simple question" in one post. i hope this is just baiting because the alternative does not bode well for you.

Why?

We can't talk about how the sexual behavior of animals like Baboons apply to human behavior without first coming to an agreement about what a human is. Are we animals or something else?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

We can't talk about how the sexual behavior of animals like Baboons apply to human behavior without first coming to an agreement about what a human is. Are we animals or something else?

wait...how is baboon sex relevant?
because they are also primates? is that the arbitrary line you are drawing? primates?