Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Charlie Manson raped prison guards or something due to the abuse they dealt out on him, out of pure humiliation and degradation though. He wasn't gay because of the trauma.
Charlie Manson was not a person i would call perfectly sane or normal 😬
he WAS serial killer. not to mention atemption to make his own religion 😬
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Many people suffer from all types of abuse and neglect as children, yet grow up to be heterosexual. Many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, have had bad experiences with a person of the opposite sex. There is no correlation between any of these occurrences and homosexuality.
hafta agree with you on that point! ✅
Re: Moving On...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it…
[list]
[*]is present in or faithfully represents nature or life.[*]is a phenomenon expressive of natural conditions.
[*]conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.[/list]
Illustrating that homosexuality is natural is the fact that it extensively occurs in nature; Homosexuality has been documented in over 190 species and can be observed in nearly all sexually reproducing organisms, the exception being bacteria.
Studies of human sexuality indicate that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable, and current research suggests that sexual orientation is in place before birth and is caused by genetic and biological factors:
In 1991, Simon LeVey, neuroanatomist for the Salk Institute, found that the INAH3 structure of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is twice as small as those of heterosexual men, more closely resembling those of heterosexual women.
Seven years later, findings published in the March edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the University of Texas - Austin report that the cochlea structure in homosexual women more closely resembles that of heterosexual men.
In both studies, the difference in the structures of homosexuals is attributed to hormone exposure in the womb, evidence that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.
A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.
This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.
A study by Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52%, the likelihood of a fraternal twin being homosexual is 22%, and the likelihood of a genetic or non-genetic sibling being homosexual is 10%.
They also found that in most instances in which identical twins are separated at birth and one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual.
This study shows that sexuality has a genetic component and is not determined by life experiences.
Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute examined the DNA of 40 homosexuals and found that ALL shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.
More recently, Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. He identified that genetic components are indeed linked to the X chromosome and that there are other components likely to be on other chromosomes as well.
Furthermore, there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed.
Consider for a moment that almost all gay men and lesbians have grown up in a heterosexual world, with very little exposure to homosexuality. The overwhelming majority of gay men and lesbians were raised by heterosexual parents, educated by heterosexual teachers, and socialized with heterosexual siblings and friends. They were surrounded by heterosexism in magazines, books, movies and on television, yet they grew up to be gay.
To prove that homosexuality is not natural, you must show that a.) it is not a phenomenon that occurs in the material world or b.) that it is a phenomenon that occurs in the material world but is itself artificial.
If it is your claim that homosexuality is wrong, you have the burden of proof to show that it is wrong and citing The Bible is simply not adequate proof.
Now can we move on? [/B]
How are we accounting for Bi-Sexuals? What are their significant traits?
Adam,
You know I love your textbook answers to questions. But as I have stated several times in this thread, the reasons for it(and you also know I agree that they are genetic) are irrelevant. The fact is that it exists. We can debate the merrits of it being chosen or genetic all we want. But it hardly matters. It can be nautral or otherwise. But the bottom line is that it exists in the world. It should be accepted. Just because something or someone is different, doesn't make it bad. Chickens can kill the newborn with th eblack spot on it's head, but we are not chickens. We are human beings. And as such we all have a right to exist on our own terms.
I love you babe, and I know this is preaching to the choir, but we need not justify the merrits of who we are. We simply are.
Oh, and my mother took the pictures you gave me for my birthday to be framed.
Turbo_Cajun> “On the other hand, I dont think environmental influences should be left out of this discussion entirely. Things like rape or abuse or relationship problems with either parent can have a big effect on straight people's sexual behavior,”
The way you describe it, it’s as if homosexuality is the result of a TRAUMA – and hence a bad thing. It just doesn’t really work.
Straight people are subjected to rape, abuse and relationship-problems WITHOUT that turning them gay. And the other way around.
An effect on BEHAVIOR is not the same as effect on sexual preferences in gender. If you get my point.
Capt. Fantastic> No, I think it DOES matter whether or not homosexuality is chosen or genetic. As long as some people can CLAIM, that a group of people simply choose to subject them-selves to religious bigotry through choice of sexual partners, the same religious bigots can say “Homosexuality is WRONG, cause these people can just choose not to be gay.”
If we accept that homosexuality is simply ANOTHER hormonal mix in our brains, it’s perfectly natural, has always been and shouldn’t in any way be viewed as abnormal (MY view).
Originally posted by The Omega
Capt. Fantastic> No, I think it DOES matter whether or not homosexuality is chosen or genetic. As long as some people can CLAIM, that a group of people simply choose to subject them-selves to religious bigotry through choice of sexual partners, the same religious bigots can say “Homosexuality is WRONG, cause these people can just choose not to be gay.”If we accept that homosexuality is simply ANOTHER hormonal mix in our brains, it’s perfectly natural, has always been and shouldn’t in any way be viewed as abnormal (MY view).
I have always thought that it was genetic. I have argued it time after time. But my point is that it doesn't matter which it is, that those of us who are gay need not defend ourselves to people like jackie who want to pretend that it's a mental illness. But if it is learned, then that is just as natural as learning to write with your left hand as opposed to the right. Also, it causes no harm to people. If being gay meant you hurt people, then we would all be hurting people. There is a differnece between "learned" behavior and "chosen" behavior.
I, again, think it is genetic.
(plus, not to get picky, but that was a post direct at my boyfriend...not the general issue. Not that you can't comment on it. I mean, it is in a public forum.)
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Adam,You know I love your textbook answers to questions. But as I have stated several times in this thread, the reasons for it(and you also know I agree that they are genetic) are irrelevant. The fact is that it exists. We can debate the merrits of it being chosen or genetic all we want. But it hardly matters. It can be nautral or otherwise. But the bottom line is that it exists in the world. It should be accepted. Just because something or someone is different, doesn't make it bad. Chickens can kill the newborn with th eblack spot on it's head, but we are not chickens. We are human beings. And as such we all have a right to exist on our own terms.
I love you babe, and I know this is preaching to the choir, but we need not justify the merrits of who we are. We simply are.
Oh, and my mother took the pictures you gave me for my birthday to be framed.
We cannot fault straight in corpora facts in people, like skin colour, extra fingers, or metabolism, but one must always distinguish between mental facts, as they can infringe on our own terms. For instance, some people have an addiction to heavy metal, and like playing it on the utmost sound setting. We fault their mistakes, and if one takes the line that sexuality is a "in corpora" fact, then it could lead to severe misunderstandings.
My thoughts are that you should focus on treating all in a commonly accepted way, and do what humans can do that chickens cannot; adapt. We shouldn’t ever get into the frame of mind that an aspect of the psyche should be accepted, as that doesn’t imply acceptance for a weird reason. If you accept that 1+1=2 then you are going to be confused later. If you work it out you won’t. If you accept that people who are gay should be accepted, then later you will hit on another problem with some other thing that involves a group. If you meet them and realise that they are weird blokes, normal blokes, and other things then you can truly accept them.
Sorry if I’m being confusing, but to put it simply, applying logic that “it exists in the world” isn’t going to cut the mustard. If you say it’s genetic, then you have to realise that that isn’t all they are, and if you say environmental, then you’ve got to meet some non-porn star/ criminally insane ones (e.g. ones you chose to satisfy your viewpoint) and see if they seem abused, talk to them, look at their experience of gayhood.
Originally posted by Ytaker
We cannot fault straight in corpora facts in people, like skin colour, extra fingers, or metabolism, but one must always distinguish between mental facts, as they can infringe on our own terms. For instance, some people have an addiction to heavy metal, and like playing it on the utmost sound setting. We fault their mistakes, and if one takes the line that sexuality is a "in corpora" fact, then it could lead to severe misunderstandings.My thoughts are that you should focus on treating all in a commonly accepted way, and do what humans can do that chickens cannot; adapt. We shouldn’t ever get into the frame of mind that an aspect of the psyche should be accepted, as that doesn’t imply acceptance for a weird reason. If you accept that 1+1=2 then you are going to be confused later. If you work it out you won’t. If you accept that people who are gay should be accepted, then later you will hit on another problem with some other thing that involves a group. If you meet them and realise that they are weird blokes, normal blokes, and other things then you can truly accept them.
Sorry if I’m being confusing, but to put it simply, applying logic that “it exists in the world” isn’t going to cut the mustard. If you say it’s genetic, then you have to realise that that isn’t all they are, and if you say environmental, then you’ve got to meet some non-porn star/ criminally insane ones (e.g. ones you chose to satisfy your viewpoint) and see if they seem abused, talk to them, look at their experience of gayhood.
I appreciate your use of latin terms, but Jackie is reading this thread. Do not confuse her, she might accidentally say something relevant...or worse, misinterpret it to be th eword of god.
Again. I have made my pointof view on this subject clear. It is a genetic fact that homosexuality exists in this world. However, when looking at it from the perspective of someone like Jackie, I can accept that there are those who think is is a choice(although I can't understand that...instead I translate that to mean "learned behavior"😉 In that light, it exists...accept it. Also, it doesn't hurt or effect a straight persons happiness, health or livlihood. To that end, it does not matter what causes it. It exists, accept it. Should me having sex with my boyfriend cause death or destruction to one or many people, then I will listen to the counterpoint. However it does not.
What's the problem in me being an angel of God😇
I know it's genetic. I was citing morals, so I also looked at people who know that it's choice. I'm just saying that if a straight person "accepts" it, then they're going to have problems. Geneticists must see the genes as minor (you might disagree, but that's rather uncomplimentary) aspects of the personality, mentalists must accept it as not being caused by abuse.
As I think has already been mentioned several times in this thread...
Speaking here as an ex-gay and present bisexual myself, who has shared a lot of experiences with like-minded friends...
Both 'choice' and 'genetics' are very loose terms that serve only to conufse. 'Choice' implies you just suddenly decide at some point "I will be gay now," and maybe the next year think "now I shall try being straight for a while."
"Genetic" implies that it is something you directly inherit or is a result of some abnormal function in your genes. Omega has already ridiculed the idea of a simple 'gay gene', but te extent to which this is misleading goes beyind that simple misunderstanding.
And whilst we are here, talk of 'upbringing' brings in the odd idea that upbringing means if you are brought up near gay people it makes you more likely to be gay, or if you are not, that proves it is not upbringing. As a double comment on that scientific piece above, first of all to say that gays etc. grow up in a straight world is to miss the sexual subtexts that everyone is bombarded by from school age upwards; secondly, and more the point of what I am saying, upbringing is about the events in your life making you more open, more receptive, more accepting, or more rejecting of various factors of your being, NOT that you see x and so y happens.
Your sexual orientation is part of your personality. People are many, many things in life. Patient, impatient, angry, calm, sour, depressive, self-loathing, self-loving, obnoxious, shy, brash, arrogant, quiet, boring... now, how do these things come about? You don't just choose them. You aren't just born with them. it's not just down to what has happened to you in your life.
Let's face it, it is all of them. Your personal decisions are a major factor in who you are- "A man is the sum of his memories," and "We cannot choose who we are- yet whar are we, save the sum of our choices?" are two quotes that neatly sum this up. This is NOT saying "I will be this or that," this is that the way you react to events, reflectively observe events after they happen, consider the implications of those events, and then act differently in future, are all factors under your control- even if not totally consciously- that go towards making who you are.
Your upbringing decides the source material for all this information, and the people for whom you will chose as role-models to help base those choices upon. So again, this is a vital factor.
And yes, everyone is born with certain genetic predisposiitions to certain things. Note predispositions, NOT certainties, and that this is only one piece in the larger puzzle that is someone's life.
And this ABSOLUTELY applies to sexual orientation as much as it does for everything else. It is a long combination of life factors that influence who you are sexually attracted to. It is NOT a set certainty for some, for others, it is rigid. The underlying reasons behind this- personal choice, upbringing, and genetics- are exceedingly complex and should not be simplified.
And so, in as such that it does not harm anyone- well, not more so than other lifestyles- there is no room in the modern world for treating this lifestyle choice differently. But one myth should be shot down- that all gays get pissy if you make out it is a choice, not preset. Some gays get JUST as pissy if you say it is genetic, because that implies- and is often said this way- as if it is not their fault, pity what they are born with, because they cannot help it. Many Gays don't want to be accepted because people think they cannot help it, they want to be accepted because it is RIGHT, and because it is valid. Accepting it on the idea they have no choice is not really equality at all. So it is absolutely vital to recognise this element in someone's make-up, and not to confuse this view with the view of some Church's that therefore 're-orientation' is a good idea, as if it is ever healthy to force personality change like that even if it WAS right to make people straight, which it is not.
And so every time you hear someone say "Let them be, they can't help it..." consider to yourself- is it not the subtext of that comment that if they COULD help it, they should? If you turn around and ask these people "So what would you say if they COULD help it..." you may reveal a more sinister mindset than at first seemed; treating homosexuality as an unfortunate thing to be pitied, rather than the valid choice people want it to be. Ok, it's not as bad as gay bashing, but the statement itself is still evidence of inequality. Whether they can help it or not shouldn't even be an issue.
So please bear that all in mind...
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I have always thought that it was genetic. I have argued it time after time. But my point is that it doesn't matter which it is, that those of us who are gay need not defend ourselves to people like jackie who want to pretend that it's a mental illness. But if it is learned, then that is just as natural as learning to write with your left hand as opposed to the right. Also, it causes no harm to people. If being gay meant you hurt people, then we would all be hurting people. There is a differnece between "learned" behavior and "chosen" behavior.I, again, think it is genetic.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Adam,You know I love your textbook answers to questions. But as I have stated several times in this thread, the reasons for it(and you also know I agree that they are genetic) are irrelevant. The fact is that it exists. We can debate the merrits of it being chosen or genetic all we want. But it hardly matters. It can be nautral or otherwise. But the bottom line is that it exists in the world. It should be accepted. Just because something or someone is different, doesn't make it bad. Chickens can kill the newborn with th eblack spot on it's head, but we are not chickens. We are human beings. And as such we all have a right to exist on our own terms.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I think has already been mentioned several times in this thread...Speaking here as an ex-gay and present bisexual myself, who has shared a lot of experiences with like-minded friends...
Both 'choice' and 'genetics' are very loose terms that serve only to conufse. 'Choice' implies you just suddenly decide at some point "I will be gay now," and maybe the next year think "now I shall try being straight for a while."
"Genetic" implies that it is something you directly inherit or is a result of some abnormal function in your genes. Omega has already ridiculed the idea of a simple 'gay gene', but te extent to which this is misleading goes beyind that simple misunderstanding.
And whilst we are here, talk of 'upbringing' brings in the odd idea that upbringing means if you are brought up near gay people it makes you more likely to be gay, or if you are not, that proves it is not upbringing. As a double comment on that scientific piece above, first of all to say that gays etc. grow up in a straight world is to miss the sexual subtexts that everyone is bombarded by from school age upwards; secondly, and more the point of what I am saying, upbringing is about the events in your life making you more open, more receptive, more accepting, or more rejecting of various factors of your being, NOT that you see x and so y happens.
Your sexual orientation is part of your personality. People are many, many things in life. Patient, impatient, angry, calm, sour, depressive, self-loathing, self-loving, obnoxious, shy, brash, arrogant, quiet, boring... now, how do these things come about? You don't just choose them. You aren't just born with them. it's not just down to what has happened to you in your life.
Let's face it, it is all of them. Your personal decisions are a major factor in who you are- "A man is the sum of his memories," and "We cannot choose who we are- yet whar are we, save the sum of our choices?" are two quotes that neatly sum this up. This is NOT saying "I will be this or that," this is that the way you react to events, reflectively observe events after they happen, consider the implications of those events, and then act differently in future, are all factors under your control- even if not totally consciously- that go towards making who you are.
Your upbringing decides the source material for all this information, and the people for whom you will chose as role-models to help base those choices upon. So again, this is a vital factor.
And yes, everyone is born with certain genetic predisposiitions to certain things. Note predispositions, NOT certainties, and that this is only one piece in the larger puzzle that is someone's life.
And this ABSOLUTELY applies to sexual orientation as much as it does for everything else. It is a long combination of life factors that influence who you are sexually attracted to. It is NOT a set certainty for some, for others, it is rigid. The underlying reasons behind this- personal choice, upbringing, and genetics- are exceedingly complex and should not be simplified.
And so, in as such that it does not harm anyone- well, not more so than other lifestyles- there is no room in the modern world for treating this lifestyle choice differently. But one myth should be shot down- that all gays get pissy if you make out it is a choice, not preset. Some gays get JUST as pissy if you say it is genetic, because that implies- and is often said this way- as if it is not their fault, pity what they are born with, because they cannot help it. Many Gays don't want to be accepted because people think they cannot help it, they want to be accepted because it is RIGHT, and because it is valid. Accepting it on the idea they have no choice is not really equality at all. So it is absolutely vital to recognise this element in someone's make-up, and not to confuse this view with the view of some Church's that therefore 're-orientation' is a good idea, as if it is ever healthy to force personality change like that even if it WAS right to make people straight, which it is not.
And so every time you hear someone say "Let them be, they can't help it..." consider to yourself- is it not the subtext of that comment that if they COULD help it, they should? If you turn around and ask these people "So what would you say if they COULD help it..." you may reveal a more sinister mindset than at first seemed; treating homosexuality as an unfortunate thing to be pitied, rather than the valid choice people want it to be. Ok, it's not as bad as gay bashing, but the statement itself is still evidence of inequality. Whether they can help it or not shouldn't even be an issue.
So please bear that all in mind...
Basically, I think we can agree. Especially since it doesn't cause harm to anyone, either way you look at it.
"And so every time you hear someone say "Let them be, they can't help it..." consider to yourself- is it not the subtext of that comment that if they COULD help it, they should? "
Abso-bloody-lutely. But people are dumb Ush, it's the way of the world.
The way I see things it could be genetics, choice, sexual orientation, upbringing or whatever. The fact is someone becomes Homosexual or Bisexual for a reason. We shouldn't probe for the reason just so we can deem it natural or unnatural. The fact of the matter is, regardless of WHY they are gay, they are gay.
You get one life so don't spending it trying to run other peoples.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"And so every time you hear someone say "Let them be, they can't help it..." consider to yourself- is it not the subtext of that comment that if they COULD help it, they should? "Abso-bloody-lutely. But people are dumb Ush, it's the way of the world.
The way I see things it could be genetics, choice, sexual orientation, upbringing or whatever. The fact is someone becomes Homosexual or Bisexual for a reason. We shouldn't probe for the reason just so we can deem it natural or unnatural. The fact of the matter is, regardless of WHY they are gay, they are gay.
You get one life so don't spending it trying to run other peoples.
-AC
Well done, you got the point across that I was trying, and failing, very well.
I've got to make the point though, that gayness is unnatural. This is an argument you can use against people who try to deem it that, by the way. So is intelligence, perfect eyesight, and anything else off the average scale. The rarer the rose, the sweeter the smell.
Capt Fantastic> Of course you are right that it DOESN’T MATTER if homosexuality is chosen or genetic or won in the lottery. It shouldn’t matter.
As you’ve noticed most people here go “Who gives a damn”. My point is simply, that the bigots will be harder pressed to come up with a REASON for their bigotry, if it’s a trait people are born with.
It’s not that same as saying that it would change my views if it WAS chosen. I don’t care what consenting adults do with themselves.
(Sorry about barging in on a private conversation Capt! I hope you understand what I’m trying to say 😉 )
Ush> Well said.
In researching the facts about what we know in regards to the human gene, I’ve found some interesting things that I’ve taken into consideration when thinking about the question: Homosexuality, Chosen or Genetic? Firstly, early reports about the numbers of genes in the genome have fallen drastically. Original estimates placed the number as high as 40,000. More recent studies seem to indicate that this number is actually around 25,000 or less. However, this doesn’t change the fact that these genes can operate on several different levels and have more than one function. It seems to be all about timing. As much as the scientific community has accomplished in researching the human gene, they are still years and years away from knowing what specific genes are responsible for and more importantly WHEN they are meant to carry out this function. Also remember, just because you can map out the structure of DNA, doesn’t mean you know what it is and what it does.(another reason to allow stem cell research) Look at it this way, you can map out a city but not know who lives where or what goes on in certain buildings. That would require more research. But in terms of genes, it’s clear that some genes have multiple functions based on WHEN they activate.
If scientists knew what all these genes did, there would be considerable advances in treatments for cancers, AIDS, Lou gherig’s disease, etc. However, scientific studies have shown that a certain gene will function when told to by the needs of the DNA. Consider evolution. It is not the predestined path that an organism is meant to take. Rather, it is the trial and error exercise that an organism has experienced. When the first bacteria crawled out of the primordial oceans of pre history, it wasn’t GOING to become a bug and then a bear and then a human. It simply worked out that way. This was based on multiple mutations that occurred as a result of the environmental needs forced on it by nature. So, you have a fish that developed lungs and legs and crawled out of the ocean. If it crawled out of the ocean into a warm environment, maybe it developed scales. If it crawled out of the ocean into a colder climate, it would likely develop fur. But what this means is that evolution doesn’t pick and choose its path, rather it’s determined by the path it’s already on. So you have homosexuality to consider. If an organism developed a trait that hindered the natural survival of the species, it would eventually die out. Considering homosexuality has been observed in at least 190 species, homosexuality does not hinder the continuation of any species in which it occurs. This leads me to the conclusion that the point of evolution is not propagation, but continuation and existence. Once I was born, that was it for me. I was the end result of my biological path. The result of all the people who came before me. I can either reproduce and propagate the species, or I cannot and simply exist alongside the rest of my species. This doesn’t make me another species; it simply makes me a VERSION of the species in which I exist. But, if homosexuality were nature saying that this line needed to die out, that these genes needed to be removed from the gene pool, it would have eliminated me before I reached maturity in the womb. I simply would not exist or have been conceived at all.
So, genes turn on and off based on the needs of the organism in which they exist. That’s why some medicines work in treating cancers on one patient and another patient with the same cancer dies as a result. Taking all of this into consideration, the only way to view the situation is through hard-line physical evidence. What is the biological difference between a heterosexual male and a homosexual male? For some answers to that question, I’ll reference this post:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2654464#post2654464
"I've got to make the point though, that gayness is unnatural. "
I don't think it is really. If anything unconventional is a better word. Anything involving two human beings being intimate cannot be unnatural in my opinion. I'm sure if males had female organs too then they would have sex just like anyone else. They just have to make do with what they have. Intimacy comes in all forms:
Male/Male, Female/Female, Male/Female.
It's just unconventional if anything.
-AC