Consensus on being born gay?

Started by Zampanó23 pages

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 Zampanó
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.

not that I disagree with your points, but what environmental factors have been shown, scientifically [edit], to influence homosexuality?

Originally posted by Zampanó
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.

Except for crimes such as pedophilia, necrophilia or taking advantage of a position of authority I assume.

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 [edit], 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 [edit] 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 [edit].

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.

Re: Consensus on being born gay?

Originally posted by Col. Novine
A friend recently told me that "every scientific and psychological organization in the nation recognizes that [people] 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?

YouTube video

dadudedemonmanthingy
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".

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 [edit], 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.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Each of those are cases where one person's personal life is infringing upon or endangering the personal life of another.

Necrophilia doesn't endanger the personal life of another person.

And I think the point was more that since the government will stop/punish those personal choices then you have accept we live in a Nanny State (since you made it a binary system based entirely on that factor).

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 Zampanó
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.

A Danish study may have debunked that "myth". In fact, having older brothers may increase the likelihood of marrying heterosexually.

"The Danish researchers found no evidence that having older brothers increased the likelihood of men marrying homosexually. On the contrary, they found that older siblings increased the probability of heterosexual marriage. The choice of homosexual versus heterosexual marriage serves as an obvious, although not perfect, assessment of sexual preferences."

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.

That story is all-too common.

The opposite can be true, as well: you can be homosexual for years and then, seemingly all of a sudden, be straight. A reverse "coming out of the closet" if you will.

I had a friend, growing up, that was an effeminate boy. He certainly got it on as a teen with the ladies. But, shortly before his 17th birthday, he called me up (this was back in the day when land-lines were still used quite often... irrelevant to the point, I know, but something that brought on nostalgia) and told me that he had something important to tell me. I told him, "let me guess, you're gay?" He laughed and asked how I knew. I told him that growing up, he just seemed gay. It wasn't just his effeminism, it was other things. He didn't do anything homosexual as a boy, he just seemed gay in retrospect. I was waiting for him to "come out of the closet", of course. He feared the backlash at school so I told him to come over and talk about it. We talked for a few hours and I reassured him that all would be well and I would stop any abuse he may receive from our male peers. Other than a couple of stupid comments, everyone was very receptive and nice to him about it. Great guy...I should see how he's doing, these days. hmm

However, a lot of factors were stacked up, environmentally, that made becoming gay a stronger possibility for him: his parents divorced when he was young, he spent some of his childhood bouncing back and forth between both parents, his father eventually became absent from his life, his mother was very overbearing and smothering, etc. Typical/stereotypical things that people associate with homosexuality.

But is that backed by science? Most of it is.

And of the social influences of homosexuality:

"The researchers found for each additional year one’s parents stay married, the probability of heterosexual marriage in the children increased by 1.6% among sons and 1.0% among daughters. In contrast, the rate of homosexual unions decreased by 1.8% among sons and 1.4% among daughters for every year of intact parental marriage. Summing these effects over years of childhood and adolescence contributes to a noteworthy impact."

If your parents have a stable long-term marriage, you're more likely to marry heterosexually.

"The authors also confirmed previous research suggesting that children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than children reared in intact families."

"The authors also confirmed previous research suggesting that children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than children reared in intact families."

“...for men, unknown paternal identity, parental divorce, short duration of cohabitation with both parents, and long duration of father-absent cohabitation with mother were all associated with increased rates of homosexual marriage.”

"The study adds support to the theory that environmental and biological factors work together to influence sexual attractions and behaviors. Dr. Frisch concluded, '…whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that environmental factors are important.'"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/environmental-factors-may-influence-sexual-orientation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17039403

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.)


And I think the point was more that since the government will stop/punish those personal choices then you have accept we live in a Nanny State (since you made it a binary system based entirely on that factor).

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 Zampanó
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)

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.

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.