[quote=“Tigerman”]
But, those environmental situations are extreme. Most of us do not live in prisons or on deserted islands. We all live in environments that are pretty much the same, given a few variables. And what of people who grow up in the same neighborhoods in families with similar values and economic circumstances… how do we explain that one person “chooses” to be heterosexual and enjoy a relatively easy social life, and his buddy next door “chooses” to be homosexual, with all of the social and possibly familial problems that could result from such a “choice”? Why would anyone make a “choice” to become possibly a family and social outcast, to face discrimination on a near daily basis, to face prejudice at work and on the street? That’s a notion that I cannot get my head around.
If its indeed a choice… why would anyone choose the difficult choice?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a diificult choice. It’s only difficult because the person in disagreement with the other person’s choice thinks it’s difficult. A homosexual who chooses to live his or her life their way are actually fine until us heterosexuals start in on what we think they ‘should be’ or ’ not be’…
Perhaps that’s the problem with the world–not allowing others to have choice and being fine with thier choices.
What does homosexuality as a lifestyle choice/in the genes have to do with abusers being victims of abuse? The last 3 or 4 pages have derailed the thread off topic. Frankly I don’t give a damn what makes someone a homosexual and I don’t see why anyone should give a damn. You is what you is.
Because if you read between the post the posters are trying argue that homosexuality does lead to deviant behaviour. But the irony is that most child molesters are straight.
Or, just plain homosexual.
Sexual does mean having sex as well as just thinking about it. Both definitions are perfectly valid, and both are in use today. So, if you want to say “practicing homosexual” to be explicit, fine. But the term homosexual has more to do with sexual activity than the term “gay” does.
Now you’re just being silly. The phrase “born heterosexual” doesn’t mean the sexuality is exhibited the moment one is born.[/quote]
But if “homosexual” and “heterosexual” mean are defined the way Tigerman posted earlier, then, by definition, you aren’t homosexual or heterosexual until you start having sexual thoughts or are attracted to others in a sexual way. That is exactly how it is being defined.
What’s silly is that you play this definition argument, and then expect it to lead to meaning that a person is born either homosexual or heterosexual. That is exactly the point that I don’t agree. It is nothing more than a scientific theory with very little evidence supporting it. If the evidence were to bear out that genetics is the controlling factor and how a person grows up or what
So, primarily, one does not become heterosexual or homosexual until after puberty when you start thinking those thoughts. I mean, if we’re going by the previously quoted definitions.
Now, it’s possible that we’re pre-programmed genetically to be one or the other, but we don’t actually become homosexual or heterosexual until we start having sexual thoughts. Just like some people are genetically preprogrammed to be bald, obese, or maybe even pyromaniacs but you can’t call an infant a balding, obese, pyromaniac. You have to wait until they mature into those characteristics.
It’s also possible (and from my read on the matter, highly likely) that the mechanism for homosexuality in males-- little is known about the female version-- is a complex combination of factors.
It could be that if you have gene X32e, X921r, and X91210 you’ll have a 90% probability of developing the hormones that lead to homosexual tendancies, but if you only have two of them the probability is only 20%, and just one it becomes 5%, and then early childhood experience and other environmental factors make up the rest.
So, then, the whole question of when it gets determined becomes murky.
Only if you have syrup as well.
Try re-reading the quote you didn’t understand what I meant by. It was itself a pancake+bunny reply, not a serious argument.
Seems like you had no choice in the matter. Seems like you didn’t even consider the matter. You just naturally were/are heterosexual.[/quote]
On the contrary. I had a whole lot of choices in the matter.
The one part I don’t think I had much choice in was the initial thought.
There’s no “right” or “wrong” here. Just definition.
The way I view the word “sexuality” requires be conscious of thought and desire for sex. Children are not sexual. One of the primary characteristics of human adolsecence is becoming sexual, developing sexuality both physically and emotionally.
You seem to be defining sexual as merely having the potential for sex. Well, you can define it that way, but I don’t see the advantage-- unless you want to outright say sexuality is determined before birth, which is not something we can really claim.
If it is shown conclusively, and I don’t mean beyond all measure, I mean to a fair degree of certainty, then I’d be more inclined to accept that sort of definition. But defining it based on an anticipation of future results seems like shoddy science to me.
I see evidence that genetics is a factor and have no problem with saying some would be “predisposed” (that’s my personal belief, actually), but the word “preprogrammed” is far too strong. I think genetics contributes a great deal. But the actual research does NOT support genetics as the sole source. That means environment and choice very likely play a role.
There is a correlation.
Pedophilia is very likely a genetic issue as well. If there’s a gene involved, can we hold the person responsible for their actions?
Absolutely, because even if it is 100% genetic (which I doubt, but I’m open to being proven wrong), child molesting is still a choice. A person can choose not to pursue improper thoughts about children and never, ever act on those thoughts.
But homosexuality is not illegal, and to many, if not most people nowadays, not immoral. So, for those who do not have the belief that it is immoral, there would be no reason not to pursue their thoughts and have the behavior.
The difference is one of morality, not of applicability.
You could easily be born either homo- or heterosexual even if you didn’t immediately begin to think about or be otherwise concerned about sex.
We are born either boys or girls, although at birth there is not much difference between the sexes. It takes a while before we begin to take our gendered shapes. And secondary sexual characteristics come even later in life. Yet, there is no doubt from birth we are either a boy or a girl.
I think it is quite reasonable to understand the definition as stating simply that when one begins to have sexual awareness and thoughts and attractions, the orientation of those thoughts and concerns identifies us as either homo- or heterosexual.
There are certainly degrees of sexuality just as there are degrees of sexual maturity. While we may not be raging hormonal beasts at birth, we do come out with genitilia, which does pretty much define our gender. But, they say that the biggest sex organ we have is our brain.
I cannot claim it as an absolute certainty. But, I certainly can point to more and more in the way of studies and findings that do seem to strongly indicate a sexual predisposition. Moreover, you cannot deny with any degree of certainty that sexuality is determined at birth (or before).
Then I suppose you ought to be warming, at least, to the idea.
Why? We have determined indicators that point to predispositions for all types of conditions. Why should sexuality be different?
OK. But then, the question is how great a role does environment play? And then you have to explain why one sibling is homosexual while another is heterosexual.
All things are r[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]elative.
I think genetics is the key. A little white baby adopted by black parents and raised in a black family is still going to be white, at least in appearance. That’s due to genetics. He may grow up listening to one sort of music and speak a different style of English than other white kids, and that would be due primarily to environment and also to choice. But his sexuality… I cannot see how environment and choice would factor into this.
Hmmmmm…
So, if one is predisposed to being a homosexual, and indeed is attracted sexually to the same sex, but chooses to refrain from engaging in homoxual sex, then, per your thinking, that person is not a homosexual?
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]
It’s like choosing to eat so much that you get fat. Who wants to look less attractive, have poor health, and shave years off their life?
And yes, some people are predisposed towards getting fat, but they still do have the choice.[/quote]
How do we explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom (non human animals)? Do animals make a choice about sex? Don’t animals simply have sex for the purpose of procreation?
If it is not primarily controlled by genetics, why would animals choose to engage in homosexual sex?
[quote=“jdsmith”]
Why not just say it is genetic to shag anything that moves?[/quote]
Or [i]doesn’t[/i]…as the case may be.
[quote] Area man charged with bestiality
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
A 44-year-old Saginaw man remains jailed today on charges of bestiality after he was seen engaged in sexual acts with a dead dog, Michigan State Police troopers said.[/quote]
Even provided the existence of a gene that 100% guarantees future homosexuality or heterosexuality, I would still not accept that definition since to me, you have to be at the bare minimum thinking about sex to be sexual.
Well, except for sexual organs. At birth we have gender because we have sex organs, even though they aren’t capable of sex at the time. Boys still have the plug and girls still have the receptacle, even though the power hasn’t been turned on yet.
Because we have the physical organs from birth.
If at puberty boys suddenly grew a male sexual organ where none had been present, and girls suddenly opened up a female sexual organ where none had been present, then I’d say they weren’t “male” and “female” until puberty. We’d probably have an entirely different classification of human development before that took place.
Yes, that is a reasonable definition, though not the only one. So, by that definition, it would start sometime after puberty starts, not at birth.
Are we (the majority of the population) genetically programmed to be heterosexual?
If not, why not?
If animals have sex only to procreate, and if, as I think is likely, there is no social stigma amongst heterosexual animals used against homosexual animals, and if sexuality is a choice, then why do the vast majority of animals engage only in heterosexual sex?
Yes, but obviously NOT our sexuality. Sexuality is a behavior and a state of mind, not a physical characterisitic.
I cannot claim it as an absolute certainty. But, I certainly can point to more and more in the way of studies and findings that do seem to strongly indicate a sexual predisposition.[/quote]
Yes. Sexual predisposition. Not determination. A critical distinction in this discussion.
Nor have I tried. I have very explicitly allowed for such a possibility. But the evidence so far does not support that conclusion. Patterns of homosexual distribution do not match that predicted for direct inheritance. Evidence does support a genetic link, most likely an inheritance of factors that contribute to homosexuality. But still, as you said, we can’t rule it out yet.
Quite the contrary. You should be getting skeptical. Initial experiments did not match up to expectations when it was hypothesized that homosexuality would be genetically inherited. Whatever the genetic influence is (which research strongly suggests does exist), it doesn’t look to be direct inheritance.
So, while researchers may just be looking in the wrong place, there may not be a genetic determination at all.
Why? We have determined indicators that point to predispositions for all types of conditions. Why should sexuality be different?[/quote]
It’s not different. If you have a predisposition for being near-sighted, you aren’t called a near-sighted person when you’re born. When you develop vision where you have trouble seeing things far away, then you are called near-sighted. My comment was made in opposition to calling people homosexual from birth, because even if there was a direct genetic cause they still wouldn’t be homosexual until later in life.
That’s an excellent question, and one well worth exploring. We don’t know to what degree it is predetermined or to what extent it is predisposed. It could be pretty much hard-coded, or there could be much more environmental factors and choice involved.
Actually, that’s really easy. People living in the same family have different experiences and react to the same stimuli in very different ways.
Now, 52% is a powerful number, some of the strongest evidence to support a genetic influence in human sexual orientation. But then, if genetics determined sexuality, why wouldn’t that number be nearer to 100%? If they share exactly the same DNA, why wouldn’t they both be determined to be the same sexual orientation?
Seems like there’d have to be other factors in addition to the genetic influence, right? But the evidence does support the idea of predisposition. If environment plays a part, then the fact that twins would have much the same “coded” reaction to the same experiences so that they’d be much more likely that others to end up reacting the same way to stimuli outside genetics. Not 100% the same, but maybe something like 52%…
That depends on your definition of white, doesn’t it?
In terms of behavior, that little baby will probably be just as black as the rest of them, and just as proud of it.
So, is sexuality a physical characteristic like gender, or is it behavior and thought?
I side with the latter far more so than the former.
I don’t see how it can’t. Our behavior is shaped only in part by our genetics. We have predispositions, sure, but environment and choice are huge parts of how we both think and act.
And yes, thought is a choice on many levels (though certainly not all).
That depends. Do they continue to think about it a lot? If yes, then, according to one definition yes, but the other no. If they control their thoughts, or develop heterosexual desires then no.[/url]
[quote=“Tigerman”]Are we (the majority of the population) genetically programmed to be heterosexual?
If not, why not?[/quote]
Maybe we are, and homosexuality is just a lack of that programming.
Maybe we’re not pre-programmed, just predisposed towards it, but since there’s no stigma against heterosexuality and social and cultural institutions supporting the practice, the vast majority of us just do what we are predisposed to do, while a minority of us become monks and stuff like that.
So many “ifs” here.
#1: What if conscious choice is a difference between human and animal? We can actually choose, they just do all things on instincts and as a difference engine. #2: What if there is a social stigma, and gay animals regularly get the crap beat out of them by the gay-bashing straight animals? #3: What if animals also have sex for fun, too? #4: What if it’s environmental factors?
And while we’re on the subject, why do dogs want to hump people’s legs? Maybe they want to deepen our relationship or something? Or are they hoping for half-dog, half-man, half-fire hydrant offspring? And is that where the first werewolves came from?
There is a theory out there somewhere out there in theory land that sexuality develops in part in the womb where the fetus is or is not exposed to certain hormones, particularly estrogen and testosterone of course. According to the theory there is a certain point at which a developing fetus needs to be exposed to the appropriate level of hormones or an attraction to the opposite sex will not develop. The theory goes on to say that chemicals in the environment affect those hormone levels. Sounds plausible to me.
In any event there ceratainly seems to be more and more gay people around. Genetic, hormonal, experiential and social factors probably all play a role if you ask me, and you might as well ask me as anyone else I suppose, for a straight person by God I’ve known a lot of gay people.
And now for another semi-non-sequitur by Sinister Tiddlywinks:
In the past, I always thought of gayness as mother nature’s solution for population control.
But now, we’re living in an age of family planning, which includes finding alternative ways for gay couples to have their own biological children.
So now both gay and straight couples procreate. If a government is concerned about a declining population, then that government should encourage both its straight and gay population to procreate.
I think we see more gay people now because it’s OK to be gay now. More acceptable. You probably don’t see many gay people in Taliban county, Afganistan, not because they don’t exist, but because they may be aggressively persecuted for it.
I’m a little slow on the uptake : How do gay couples procreate?