|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
|
I believe queerness is a combination of environment and personality (personality being, of course, a combination of genetics and environment, but an important enough factor to warrant its own mention). I'm bisexual, so I might provide a bit of a different view than most people.
I don't believe it's genetic. Sure, people can be or seem gay from birth or from as long as they can remember. Personally, I remember being interested in the pictures of female underwear models in the Sears magazines, moreso than the men, from a very early age. However, I didn't recognize that I was bisexual, since I still liked the men, and I didn't know what "bisexual" meant. But this doesn't mean that I was always bisexual or that I was born this way. I think it means that I was curious, and NOTICED my attraction, and the noticing and accepting is what makes me bisexual. Let's make this clear: a person is only gay if they think they are gay. You cannot know that somebody is gay before they know it themselves, because being gay is a state of actually being attracted to the same sex. It's not something you can tell about a person unless they feel it themselves. I've personally noticed that certain personality types tend to be more likely to be gay. For example, liberal-minded people are more likely than conservative-minded. That's probably just because the conservative-minded with homosexual tendencies choose not to recognize these tendenies. And that's okay too. Don't take this to mean that gays "choose" to be that way. If you think about it, choosing to be gay makes no sense. Why would anyone choose to be something that will permanently outcast them and make finding a relationship far more difficult? Why would anyone choose such a horrible fate upon themselves? The answer: nobody in their right mind would. You'd have to be crazy and masochistic. Also, implying that it's a "choice" of some sort makes it seem like anybody who wants to can be gay. This also implies that humans by nature have homosexual tendenies. All humans. Since anyone can be gay if they want to be. So I think it's an environment thing. Genetics doesn't really make sense, since a "gay" gene would, naturally, die off. Again, saying it's not genetics doesn't mean that people choose, or that some people aren't gay their entire lives. It doesn't mean they have ANY sort of control over it. It just means that there isn't any DNA marker that makes you straight or gay or bi or whatever. Also, if it has anything at all to do with conditions in the womb - that is environment, not genetics. Genetics refers specifically to what your DNA encodes.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! Last edited by Chrissi; 11-25-2007 at 08:03 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: california
Posts: 248
|
There is no marker, but you can definitely tell if someone's gay or not without that person recognizing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
You can suspect that they are exhibiting some tendencies that you personally associate with homosexuality, but I'm pretty positive that since homosexuality is a state of being, unless they are in that state of being actively, stating that they "are" homosexual is, as Chrissi described, not something you can do accurately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
|
Exactly. You can have suspicions, but you can't define somebody else as being gay. Nobody knows what's going on inside your head. If the person isn't actively having homosexual desires and thoughts... they aren't homosexual, and that's just common sense. They can exhibit homosexual tendenies, and people can have ideas, but you can't define another person's sexuality. The only one who knows your own sexual orientation is you. if you know you're straight, or gay, then you are. Nothing that anyone else says about you can change that.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
I can say with 90% certainty that being Gay/Lesbian/Bi is not a choice.
The most obvious proof of this is that..::: 1)Homosexuality tends to be shunned. Massively. Who would CHOOSE that? 2)Many,many,many people know incredibly early in life...usually before they even have words to describe it. I knew when I was about 9-11 ish. (17 now) 3)Saying its a choice implies that sometime way back in history, some guy thought... "I'll just go off after that nice looking guy over there, cuz I'm just plain sick of women!" And it somehow caught on. -.- RIGHT..... Personal anecdote (sp?) time! My family is probably one of the worst for a g/l/b to grow up in, with my brother who's obsessed with his little theory that "fags should die", my psycho-religious born-again dad, and my incredibly WASP neighborhood. So personally i'm stuck as a closet-Bi, because i really don't feel like dealing with the fallout until i'm already on my own anyway. Also, in my opinion, its worse being Bi, because both sides tend to be kinda mean about it. Seems to end up that the straights think you're just goin with the trend, and the gays think you're too embarrassed to admit it all the way. I digress however, and I'll just return us to the topic. It's Genetic, whether or not you admit it is environmental. ~~~ Cow EDIT Quote:
lets say we have a gay off in oooohhh.....early israel, where it's punishable by death to be gay. So what do you think the chances are that he's not going to just go get married and go through the motions, eh? What do ya know, the gene lives on! and since the human urge to suppress what we don't agree with seems to be universal, I think my example can fly throughout history, backwards and forewards. Even to this day we have homosexuals in heterosexual relationships, and of course you can always make a test-tube baby. /Edit
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by atalkingcow; 11-25-2007 at 11:51 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Tokzic: Today at 11:59 PM. Reason: wait what |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
|
In that case so would many of the common birth defects that kill people or render them incapable of breeding before they can produce offspring. (Retardation,etc)
Not saying being gay is a disease, just using the comparison. REMEMBER, there are such things as recessive traits that only appear every few generations. Thus people with recessive gay genes could have children, those children could have children, but say 1 out of 3 kids is gay, the other two carry those genes, and pass it on to their children, etc. Saying "gay gene would die out" is not a true argument against it, because it's based on the fallacy that all genetic traits are active in a person.
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
Well, something as complicated as that, reasonably, has both genetic and environmental causes. In a sense it has been a stance of the gay community, and the "Left" that being gay is genetic (which, is the only complicated trait they seem to be for the "nature" side - usually they are "human nature deniers" and deny, for example, any differences between men and women, or are totally against evolutionary psychology) This stance probably stems from the "naturalistic fallacy - that is, if homosexuality is genetic then that's how god created them, and if it is natural it is good and that's why the religious guys claim it is all choice. well, even it were a choice, you are allowed to make it. so I really don't see what's the argument is about. As for the claims: 1) Well, being a religious/ethnic minority was shunned, is that genetic? today, thank goodness, extremists are shunned is this genetic? your accent is not genetic, and if you move to another country, you might want to change it to fit in, to no avail, so is it genetic because you have problems because of it? 2) You commit a false dichotomy - either genetic or choice, sorry NO. e.g. if you lose a leg by accident, it is neither. if it is prenatal (which is a leading theory) then it's neither. If you are molested early on, for example, and it changes your brain chemistry somehow, it's neither. 3) another false dichotomy (which is committed both by the gay activists and the religious community) is that you are either gay 100% or straight 100%. for such a complicated trait is ridiculous. it's like saying you're either 7 feet or 3 feet, either 500 pounds or 40 pounds. Most people are leaning towards being straight, even though many could have gay sex depending on the environment (like in prison, or ancient Rome or Greece where it was accepted), and some would prefer to die. some are totally gay and would never be with a woman, and some will marry and have children, (which could explain how gayness survived - and like sometimes a child is much higher than the parents (genetic + nourishment) then he could end up being much gayer than them) So actually sexual preference is a spectrum and not two polar states, but it seems that you have to hold one of these or you are either "a ***-loving liberal" or a "religious nut" So like I said, it doesn't really matter if you chose it or not, since you have a right to choose it (or not). But since we are dealing with facts, and with critical thinking, I had to put my 2 cents in. Thanks for bearing with me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | ||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
The naturalistic fallacy doesn't apply to a statement like "Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is not unnatural" it could only apply to a statement like "Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is morally good to be a homosexual" which isn't a statement I see often. Most people (and rightly so in my opinion) don't consider sexual preference of any sort to be a moral issue at all. People just are how they are. Quote:
Further, your attempted objection doesn't seem very strong to me. The claim was "The fact that people are shunned for being homosexual implies that it is less likely to be a choice, and more likely to be genetic, because it seems unlikely that people would make a free choice knowing they would be shunned." Simply pointing to a few cases where something people choose is shunned doesn't disprove their claim. Religion is a matter of firm belief. If you are already religious and devout, and you -go- to a place where your religion is shunned, chances are very good that you'd stay true and deal with the shunning, but you've already -made- your choice, and religion is inherantly a choice you make for keeps. Basically, belief in a religion tends to inherantly include concepts of being rewarded for your faith -especially- in the face of shunning, and plenty of negative consequences for betraying your faith. I really don't think the same can be said for sexual preference. Heterosexuality is more accepted, more widely practiced, and homosexuality in addition to all the social issues surrounding being gay, severely limits your number of potential partners. There's pretty much nothing but disincentive to -choose- to be gay. Quote:
The problem with trying to argue a mix of the two, is that in order to actually make a choice in the literal sense of the term, you must have a completely free ability to decide upon any of the possible outcomes of the choice. If homosexuality is at -all- genetic, you have a strong disincentive to choose to be heterosexual, since you're basically choosing to be unhappy and unfulfilled. While you certainly can choose a life of denial, that doesn't change the fact that you are genetically homosexual. Basically: Even if homosexuality is genetic, you can still choose to not -act- that way, but that doesn't make you straight, even if you act straight. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So while you've done an excellent job describing all the logic to support that you can choose to -act- whichever way you feel like, you haven't actually disproven the earlier claim that the state in which you -are- seems more apt to be genetic. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
Is it even possible for homosexuality to be genetic?
If you think about it... In order to be gay you would have to inherit genes that make you gay from you parents. The likelihood of a gay individual having children is slim. Therefor homosexuality genes would not have a good chance of being passed on to the next generation of offspring. I guess there is a possibility that homosexuality is influenced by a combination of genes and/or those genes are recessive. But... I think that when hypothetical mutation(s) occurred to normal (hetero) genes and new (homo) genes were created, the homosexuality genes would not have had a good enough chance to be passed on and become widely distributed, especially not to the extent to which homosexuality currently is (distributed). |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Perky...if homosexuality is a recessive trait (And given the much smaller instance of homosexuality versus heterosexuality there's no reason to think it wouldn't be) there is nothing at all stopping it from being transmitted through heterosexual generations.
Further, a lot of the discussion here has had less to do with "genetics" so much as "Environmental conditions pre-natally" which while not a function of genetics, is still something beyond your control. The discussion isn't so much "Choice vs Genetics" as it is "Conditions that are within your control vs conditions that aren't" |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
What i meant was that i doubt the genetic explanation of homosexuality would allow it to spread as much as it (hypothetically) has. Quote:
Quote:
I am certain that genes were suggested to be a factor at least once in the thread so far. (not including my post or yours) I just wanted to add my 2 cents. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
|
I may repeat something stated earlier in the thread, I only skimmed it. If so I'll shut up. I have done a great deal of research into the topic of homosexuality. My major is pre-med so I have to know a lot about how people behave. The information was forced on me, but maybe I can help clear something up.
Homosexuality is not something you can help. There is no way anyone can help it. Many people live out there lives trying to deny that they are gay. It’s a horrible existence. People are born either gay or strait, there’s nothing anyone can do to change it. No one really knows until they reach puberty. That’s when you know. It is a 100% black and white kind of thing. Everyone has heard of bisexuals, but the truth is that that is a choice. There are no proven instances of anyone truly being unable to control their feelings about both sexes. I did find it a little odd that while men react exclusively to either male or female stimuli, most women can react equally to either. So perhaps it is a little more of a choice for women. I am by no means saying all women can be homosexual, it’s still genetic. The study was based on stimuli from physically touching the person. Men only reacted to the sex they were attracted to, while women had at least somewhat of a reaction to both sexes. I don’t really understand the results; I just want to share the only part of it that really struck me as odd. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Bisexuality is most definitely not a choice, for the people who really are, and aren't just saying it to be weird. A hot naked woman and a hot naked man both ,quite frankly, turn me on. I can't help it, I can't stop it, and I wouldn't want to anyway. We can assume that it's possibly an effect of my environment growing up, we can assume its something genetic, we can even assume its the effect of a chemical imbalance in the womb. None of that changes the fact that it ISN'T a choice. Of course, I'm not saying there aren't people out there who -say- they're G/L/B just to be different/cool. There definitely are. But, there's white people who act black, through a concious (sp?) decision. Does that mean there are no Black people? Does that mean that every black person made a -choice- to be Black? Of course not. I'm gonna stop before I say something stupid, cuz I'm already in a really pissy mood. Adios Cow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 32
Posts: 1,279
|
I don't think homosexuality is as black and white as people try to make it out to be. People aren't 100% anything. I think you can be genetically predisposed towards one sexual preference, but environmental factors play a crucial role as well. I don't believe I was born a lesbian. I wasn't born anything. Certain circumstances in my life (in addition to whatever hormones and chemicals were shot through my body in my mother's womb) guided me towards being attracted to other women. I have no scientific evidence to back that up, but how much scientific evidence do you need when you live it?
__________________
The weight of what I say depends on how you feel. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
|
Here is the input of a Psych major (not that that implies any credibility whatsoever):
I haven't seen the term genetic predisposition thrown around too much yet, and maybe it should be. I personally don't believe that there is a specific gene for homosexuality. Rather, certain combinations of genes predispose individuals to respond behaviorally, cognitively, and/or physiologically to environmental stimuli (of course, including prenatal chemicals) in ways that will result in homosexuality. Neither nature nor nurture by itself causes homosexuality. Rather, they continuously interact, resulting in who we are and who we will be. I just want to add also that I wholeheartedly agree with the following argument: Why would anybody inflict the the pain and hurt that tend to coincide with homosexuality on himself or herself? Maybe I'm a little biased, but the argument makes a great deal of sense to me. Last edited by bradrrek; 11-28-2007 at 02:59 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum User
|
it's biological and environmental, like someone else mentioned in the thread earlier. for biological, you're born attracted to the same gender, and that's how it will be. like reach said, there are similarities between homosexual men and heterosexual women's brain chemistry. for environmental, you can obviously be influenced for your sexuality as you can by most everything else. while you may truly be heterosexual, if you're brought up in a homosexual environment you may only learn to love the same sex. i assume later in life you'll come to terms with your true sexuality. i believe these are the two sides of the coin for homosexuality. the only way a homosexual and "become" a heterosexual is if they are inherently heterosexual. trying to convert an inherently homosexual person to heterosexuality isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Excellent analogy. Thats exactly how nearly all psychologists today see it. But I dont know anymore than they do. The truth is the information the scientific community gets is almost exclusively from volunteers now. I suppose it is entirely possible that there are a lot of bisexual people out there how just havent come forward. Of course its also possible that you are only one of very few exceptions. Every single rule has some exception somewhere. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
I'm very curious to see how you can possibly make a statement like "I can understand you being attracted to both sexes if you're a girl, but if you're a guy then OMG psychology is wrong" Who the hell has ever published something legitimate saying that bisexuality can only occur in women? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
To clarify, I'm a guy.
Btw, thanks for complimenting my awesome-o analogy. ^_^ |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|