dcsimg
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Homosexuality: a choice or a gene?

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    502
    Men were made to **** women, women were made to **** men. Obviously, that's the way nature meant it to be. I believe, however, that human beings are able to arrouse themselves by doing almost anything if they allow themselves to recognize those desires. This doesn't end with having sex with persons of the same sex, this limited narrow-mindedness also manifests itself when other "different" sexual desires are concerned. People should just be able to **** what they want to ****, without any social/religeous limitations, as long as the creature (if concerning a living being) really wants to participate, is able to communicate those desires, and is in a mental position to judge if this really is what it wants.

    Genes do dictate that we are supposed to be attracted to the other sex to ensure reproduction. I can see how theories about this getting mixed up are valid. Saying this would mean gays are a "mistake" of nature (what turns you on is something else). I think transgenderness, although not the same, certainly is a related issue. When talking about relationships, I think human beings are able to love any person, to any degree, no matter what sex, as long as they are mentally free enough to do so.

    Of course, a person could also be made "gay." I find it no surprise that, for instance, a person sexually abused, by a person of a certain sex, for their entire youth get sexually screwed up. This wouldn't only manifest itself as avoiding a person of that sex, but also in being attracted a person of that sex.

    To conclude, I think there are two types of gay/bi people. Those who were genetically defined to be gay, and those that were externally formed (by traumas, cultural sexual narrow-mindedness or other experiences) to be gay. Please know I'm talking about being gay as in having serious relationships with people of the same sex. I'm not talking about having sex, as I think anyone being open to it, and mentally free enough, is able to get aroused by the most "weirdest" things.

    Thanks.
    Bleh.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,024
    I really hope you're not referring to "laws" that "god" commanded in the Christian bible? His laws were even more messed up than man's laws. Stone your kids to death if they misbehave, stone a woman to death if she has a kid out of marriage (of course nothing is to be done to the man in such a case), killing the first born children of Egyptians because of evils their parents supposedly did (imagine being executed for a crime your parents did?) etc. etc. etc. If that ridiculous old book really is the "divine word" of the "Christian god", then this "Christian god" of yours is really messed up in the head and I'd want nothing to do with the sadistic SOB.
    What is it with every non christian believing we believe everything in the old testament? When Christ came, he basically said everything said before him was BS, listen to what he had to say, his overpowered god's former choices. An Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is now considered BS by most christian religions. Judaism is one of the few who still believe it. Get your facts straight before you **** on our religion like that.
    [H]ard|OCP <--Best hardware/gaming news out there--|
    pwned.nl <--Gamers will love this one --|
    Light a man a fire and you\'ll keep him warm for a day, Light a man ON fire and you\'ll keep him warm the rest of his life.

  3. #83
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Trying to stay on topic here...

    Is homosexuality a rational choice, or is it determined by your genetic
    inheritance. First off, most of us don't want to know. We only want to use
    our assumptions on this issue as a weapon to render moot
    the other unstated question about the morality or acceptability
    of homosexual behavior.

    Nevertheless, it is a fascinating question in its own right.
    Obviously, I don't know the answer, not being a scientist.
    I am old enough, though, to remember the various political changes
    that have happened over the years.

    In the late 1960s, when the gay liberation movement was new, they
    were inclined to defend homosexuality by arguing that it was a rational
    choice, and therefore a right. They were arguing against the idea
    that it is an irrational urge, or a mental disorder.

    Somewhere between then and now, homosexual activists have changed
    course and now argue that it is genetically determined, hoping that this
    will establish it as normal, natural behavior.

    Of course, being genetically determined does not necessarily mean that it is
    good or beneficial, or benign. Hemophilia is genetic, and it makes you tend
    to bleed to death. There is no linkage between genetic inheritance and
    "goodness". Some things you inherit may not necessarily be healthy.

    So, the argument about whether it is a choice or a gene is still a proxy
    argument for and against homosexuality, rather than an investigation
    of the scientific evidence.

    BTW, there is little evidence for the idea that homosexuals are any
    different that anyone else genetically, but there is a class of persons
    who have genuine genetic anomalies that make it difficult to
    know which gender they are.

    http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/

    So, if you are really curious about the interplay of genetics and environment,
    and have real compassion for people who find themselves in gender
    no man's land, consider those whose genetic condition is well known
    and documented.

    As for homosexuality, it will remain a matter of opinion,
    at least for a while longer.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    502
    Originally posted here by The Grunt
    What is it with every non christian believing we believe everything in the old testament? When Christ came, he basically said everything said before him was BS, listen to what he had to say, his overpowered god's former choices. An Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is now considered BS by most christian religions. Judaism is one of the few who still believe it. Get your facts straight before you **** on our religion like that.
    On the matter of religion, although JP put it rather bluntly and with, in my oppinion, incorrent examples, I certainly do get his point and definately agree with him. Should Hitler be alive, I would never accept it should he say "Yeah... I know killing the jews was wrong, but now I believe blah and blah and blah." And I'm not talking about that ancient change from the old testiment to the new, I'm talking about things that happend after that. The inquisition, witch burning, systematically parasiting and manipulating people through a gigantic international uncontrollable entity called "the church." For instance, even today the church is spreading lies in parts of africa about condoms and other means of birth control, while the WHO, and other organizations who know what they're talking about, are telling these statements are simply incorrect. You are either incredibly naive, commonly ignorant, programmed by society, or all of them.

    Religion, although playing a big issue in this, should be a topic for a different discussion. I invite you to start a different thread about christianity and/or other religions and I, and I'm sure others too, will be happy to join the discussion.

    Originally posted here by rcgreen
    So, the argument about whether it is a choice or a gene is still a proxy
    argument for and against homosexuality, rather than an investigation
    of the scientific evidence.
    The scientific fact of the matter simply is that if it is a choice, society has a big influence on that choice. If it's a gene, society plays a big role in the choice one has to accept his or her own nature. Her own undeniable desires. As long as homosexuality is somehow, in some way, seen as "different," "weird," "taboo," or even "evil," soceity will provide a lot of scientific data in the outcome of one's sexual preference.
    Bleh.

  5. #85
    A valid point, religion should only be in this thread to the extent that it defines our stance on this issue. As far as the OT is concerned, I think I actually disagree with everyone on this thread, including my fellow christian collegues. However, discussion of that would require a thread if not an entire series of forums all its own.

    However, let me say as one last aside, I'm really tired of all christianity being equated to the catholic church. In the beginning, there was no catholic church...then they came into history with the Inquisition and many other screw ups...then those with a clue started the Protestant movement...but somehow many nonbelievers still lob us all in with the catholics. But again -- another thread altogether.

    Back on track though, I'd like to pose this question and hear responses for both sides: How does disease facctor into this? I have heard on one end that homosexuals are much more prone to certain diseases because of their lifestyle. If that is the case, then this would be a good scientific argument against it. However, I have not seen any official figures, so I do not know how true this really is. Fact or myth?

    Second thing that makes me ponder a bit is looking at it from an evolutionary perspective (I am not myself an evolutionist, but it's still interesting). Homosexuality seems to be a step backwards for the human race. Does this not go against our evolution then? It serves no use for the human race other than pleasure. From the evolutionist point of view, we desire heterosexual sex so strongly because it furthers the human race and thus helps with our species' survival. Homosexuality offers no such functionality.

    Just curious to hear how those of the other perspective view these things.

  6. #86
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    An interesting read...

    Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

    The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

    The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

    “We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    366
    Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
    Back on track though, I'd like to pose this question and hear responses for both sides: How does disease facctor into this? I have heard on one end that homosexuals are much more prone to certain diseases because of their lifestyle. If that is the case, then this would be a good scientific argument against it. However, I have not seen any official figures, so I do not know how true this really is. Fact or myth?

    Second thing that makes me ponder a bit is looking at it from an evolutionary perspective (I am not myself an evolutionist, but it's still interesting). Homosexuality seems to be a step backwards for the human race. Does this not go against our evolution then? It serves no use for the human race other than pleasure. From the evolutionist point of view, we desire heterosexual sex so strongly because it furthers the human race and thus helps with our species' survival. Homosexuality offers no such functionality.

    Just curious to hear how those of the other perspective view these things.
    I think the disease factor depends on the individual, if the persons involved are careful and practice safe sex with no exceptions there is no reason why they wouldn't be as safe as a heterosexual couple.

    Evolution can definately be set back with homosexual relationships. I guess that as far as lesbians go there is always invetro (sp?) fertilization, as one woman could carry the child. That is obviously not an option for men. That brings up a whole different area of this topic.
    Dream as if you are going to live forever, live as if you were going to die today.

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    394
    Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single ?gay gene?.

    The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the ?gay? genetic factors in circulation.

    The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

    ?We have finally solved this paradox,? says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. ?The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.?
    does this mean that the same would be true for female homosexuals? the article in question fails to bring this topic to the front.

    personally, i don't think hat survey put any new light on this subject. the way forward is through experimentation, and what better creature to experiment on than the fruitfly. this insect is probably the most holistically understood creature out there, for now.

    did anyone see that program on discovery about the fruitfly experiments where the guys changed a gene to make the colour of the flys eyes white, and as a result all the white eyed males tried to reproduce with other males by stimulating their reproductive "organs"? (i'm not that good with fruit fly anatomy)

    they weren't attracted to a particular fly. it's not like the flys had a choice in it. it wasn't social pressure.

    so it isn't a single gene, does this experiment sugest some sort of strange interdependance of certain gene bases?


    i just found this here,

    http://www.loyno.edu/~dorn/GSinterviews/Gay.htm

    i'm still reading it, but after a cursory glance, it doesn't seem to address the female gay populations origins.
    Hmm...theres something a little peculiar here. Oh i see what it is! the sentence is talking about itself! do you see that? what do you mean? sentences can\'t talk! No, but they REFER to things, and this one refers directly-unambigeously-unmistakably-to the very sentence which it is!

  9. #89
    AO's Mr Grumpy
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    903
    Originally posted here by AngelicKnight

    Back on track though, I'd like to pose this question and hear responses for both sides: How does disease facctor into this? I have heard on one end that homosexuals are much more prone to certain diseases because of their lifestyle. If that is the case, then this would be a good scientific argument against it. However, I have not seen any official figures, so I do not know how true this really is. Fact or myth?
    Surely any sexually active person can be prone to certain diseases because of their lifestyle, i.e any unprotected sex with anyone

    Originally posted here by AngelicKnight

    Second thing that makes me ponder a bit is looking at it from an evolutionary perspective (I am not myself an evolutionist, but it's still interesting). Homosexuality seems to be a step backwards for the human race. Does this not go against our evolution then? It serves no use for the human race other than pleasure. From the evolutionist point of view, we desire heterosexual sex so strongly because it furthers the human race and thus helps with our species' survival. Homosexuality offers no such functionality.
    Again just an observation, but in todays society isn't sex a pleasure activity, and the primary objective is fun and pleasure and the avoidance of furthering the human race via safe sex
    Computer says no
    (Carol Beer)

  10. #90
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    It's a JEAN. Size 33 waist, color blue. Or green if you like meese and ping pong balls.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •