Originally posted by Bardock42
It could be solely social influences, for example. Then it would be neither chosen or genetic.
But how does that not fall under "chosen"? That is where I am confused. Are you saying that their decision to become homosexual based on those social influences does not reflect, "in the long run", a voluntary decision?
I think this conversation is going to end up at how we define "choice".
IIII*
Originally posted by dadudemon
But how does that not fall under "chosen"? That is where I am confused. Are you saying that their decision to become homosexual based on those social influences does not reflect, "in the long run", a voluntary decision?
Yes, it is certainly conceivable I'd say, and with that a third option.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think this conversation is going to end up at how we define "choice".
It is a vital point, yes.
Originally posted by Robtard
For lack of a better word, being straight would seem to be "normal"; I know that indirectly implies that homosexuality is abnormal, but it's not my intention.From a species existence point of view, if all or mostly all animals of any certain species were born homosexual (not sexually inclined to the opposite sex), that species would probably go extinct.
Leads me to believe, that the sexual urge to mate with the opposite sex is naturals fail-safe for survival of the species. Who knows, maybe homosexuality is natures normal way of population control.
I agree that the reason of why people are straight, should be looked into just as much as to why people are gay, it would only serve to understand both aspects better.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree with that assessment...heterosexuality is definitely looked into and explored much more often then homosexuality is looked into.I rarely see a study done on homosexuality...I see studies done left and right on heterosexuality.
Gettin' it on with the opposite sex seems to be an obsession for humans and it is talked about anywhere and everywhere....magazines, the news, video games..everywhere.
Homosexuality is not as common or looked it, it is more interesting to look into from a scientific perspective because it is not "normal"...discovering something new is what most scientists love to do.
I could actually say the opposite of that guy and be more correct than he is..."why isn't homosexuality looked into more often? Why are humans obsessed with their heterosexuality? It would seem that studying the abnormal would be more interesting rather than repeatedly going over the same things gone over millions tp billions of times for thousands of years. Is homosexuality really that much of a taboo?"
This is incidental to the point. Those who do not believe homosexuality to be innate are quick to point out that there is no smoking gun, i.e. a study that conclusively identifies a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Yet, there is no study that conclusively identifies a biological or genetic cause for heterosexuality. They falsely presume that because a characteristic is shared by most people that it is innate, and that because it is has yet to be proved otherwise, any variation of this is chosen. This does not consider that the characteristic which they presume to be innate—the presumption of which is the basis for their belief that another characteristic is chosen—also has yet to be proved to be innate. It is the equivalent of arguing that left-handedness must be chosen because it cannot be proved otherwise, when the cause of right-handedness has yet to be conclusively identified.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is incidental to the point. Those who do not believe homosexuality to be innate are quick to point out that there is no smoking gun, i.e. a study that conclusively identifies a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Yet, there is no study that conclusively identifies a biological or genetic cause for heterosexuality. They falsely presume that because a characteristic is shared by most people that it is innate, and that because it is has yet to be proved otherwise, any variation of this is chosen. This does not consider that the characteristic which they presume to be innate—the presumption of which is the basis for their belief that another characteristic is chosen—also has yet to be proved to be innate. It is the equivalent of arguing that left-handedness must be chosen because it cannot be proved otherwise, when the cause of right-handedness has yet to be conclusively identified.
To my point, heterosexuality does have a "smoking gun" in a sense; that is, sexual attraction to mate with the opposite sex to (or could lead to) produce offspring.
Personally, I would take the word of 90% (being conservative) of homosexuals who say "I didn't choose to be sexually attracted to xx or xy" as a smoking gun, that it indeed isn't a willful choice. But that's just me.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, it is certainly conceivable I'd say, and with that a third option.It is a vital point, yes.
I understand, now, why you believe there is a third I believe there is only two options.
I define a choice (relating to many different social climes) as something voluntarily made. if you chose to place yourself in an environment that leads to a subconscious, or rather, an involuntary decision to become homosexual, then that is your choice in the long run. You chose that environment and therefore, you chose homosexuality. I do not believe in fate...I believe in choice and causality. (Sounds like dialogue from he Matrix.)
On the same token, do you think that sometimes someone who is technically homosexual actually "becomes" heterosexual because of the "third" factor? If that were the case then someone like that would not "eventually come out"....contradicting this:
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Sooner or later, they all crack and these men end up cheating on thier wives with other men, not "coming out" until much later in thier life.
Same with Lesbian women.
Which, btw, I know that you didn't make that point.
Though this is not the same, I believe that someone who becomes addicted to a drug that will kill them if they quit cold turkey has had a certain choice removed from them, however, it was their choice in the first place, despite the fact that they no longer have a choice to stop doing drugs. (They do, however, have a choice to stop doing drugs with help, but that choice is extremely hard to make and almost impossible.)
I feel that homosexuality is even more extreme, meaning that once you truly are homosexual, you really don't have the choice to stop. IF environment was the factor that caused you to become homosexual, then you had the choice of that environment. Even if you didn't even remotely think that that choice would lead to homosexuality, it is still a form of choice from the beginning. (Again, even though your ability to choose is virtually removed after a certain point.)
You may define choice as it applies in this context differently which is why you define a third and I do not.
Additionally, when I said earlier that it could be a combination of the two, choice or genetic, I meant just that. When we speak of this "third", it really is just a combination of genetics and choice, imo. (Because I can't pass the genetic portion off as fact, yet.)
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, there is no study that conclusively identifies a biological or genetic cause for heterosexuality.
No, there are plenty of studies on heterosexuality that conclusively point to biological, and therefore, genetic factors as they pertain to reproduction in humans. See my other thread here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930
This thread, though not all of it is about heterosexuality, it does list some studies done that directly test biological markers of heterosexuality. This thread HARDLY list a great deal of tests done about human sexuality. That thread also proves another point I made earlier: heterosexuality is tested and studied much more often than homosexuality...which directly contradicts the professional opinion of Peter Tatchell. I don't think he truly realized how often heterosexuality is studied/tested...he approached the subject narrow mindedly thinking that it was just as appropriate to test why straight people are straight when tests are done all the time to explain the whys of straight people, though, not specifically to differentiate them from homosexuals.
(P.S. I didn't have time to look over my post and proofread it...forgive me if it is confusing or has mistakes...ask me to clarify if I have worded things stupidly or just forgot to put words down....this is a dadudemon post in its raw form...readers beware.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand, now, why you believe there is a third I believe there is only two options.I define a choice (relating to many different social climes) as something voluntarily made. if you chose to place yourself in an environment that leads to a subconscious, or rather, an involuntary decision to become homosexual, then that is your choice in the long run. You chose that environment and therefore, you chose homosexuality. I do not believe in fate...I believe in choice and causality. (Sounds like dialogue from he Matrix.)
On the same token, do you think that sometimes someone who is technically homosexual actually "becomes" heterosexual because of the "third" factor? If that were the case then someone like that would not "eventually come out"....contradicting this:
What type of environment would a heterosexual person place themselves where they would turn homosexual?
Because I've been to gay bars; I've been to parties where there were plenty of gays around and I've watched Barbara Streisand films, yet I didn't turn or even thought of becoming gay.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand, now, why you believe there is a third I believe there is only two options.
Ok.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I define a choice (relating to many different social climes) as something voluntarily made.
Me too. To pick voluntarily from a number of options.
Originally posted by dadudemon
if you chose to place yourself in an environment that leads to a subconscious, or rather, an involuntary decision to become homosexual, then that is your choice in the long run.
You might not know that it does or have the choice to leave.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You chose that environment and therefore, you chose homosexuality. I do not believe in fate...I believe in choice and causality. (Sounds like dialogue from he Matrix.)
Just that you don't always choose your environment.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On the same token, do you think that sometimes someone who is technically homosexual actually "becomes" heterosexual because of the "third" factor? If that were the case then someone like that would not "eventually come out"....contradicting this:
I am not sure what you mean with "technically" a homosexual.