Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Laith on 16/04/2006 05:15:31
-
i always wondered,
anyone has an answer?
Laith
-
Me i personnally think its got nothing to do with how your brought up, i say its in your genes, a genetic error, and i say a genetic error because i dont believe their is any reason for gay people in the great scheme of things,survival of the species (evolution). So i say people are born with the genetic makeup for them to be gay.
(i'll get in trouble for that). [:)]
Michael
-
I think i agree with you, but is there any scientific proof?
Laith
-
I really dont know but i suspect that people are born gay because of the pain and distress that many go through trying to come to terms with it would you go through with all the fear of coming out to your parents if it was a choice? but if thats true then i wonder if other sexual proclivities are also ingrained from birth for example has anyone heard of chubby chasers that is people who seek out tremendously obese partners surly that also results in less chance to breed.
J.B.S Haldane on the perforated eardrums which were a consequence of his pressure experiments "the drum generally heals up; and if a hole remains in it, although one is somewhat deaf, one can blow tobacco smoke out of the ear in question, which is a social accomplishment".
-
Firstly, your genes can give you a strong predisposition to one sort of behaviour or another, but it is not regarded that they absolutely determine that behaviour.
The second thing is what do you mean by being gay?
You might argue that being gay is in fact defined by a predisposition and not by the behaviour itself, in which case you can suggest that it is defined by a persons genes, but to date it has not been possible to directly measure a person's gay gene, so you cannot say that person X has performed a homosexual act, but is not genetically gay, while person Y is genetically gay but has refrained from performing any homosexual acts.
We also know that social contexts will alter the likelihood that an individual will indulge in homosexual acts, but what can we read from this regarding the genetic predisposition of these individuals towards homosexuality?
George
-
Being gay does sound like a stupid evolutionary idea. I have heard a few reasons that it persists.
It isn't an inherited tendancy to like the same sex but men (or women) so the sisters of a gay bloke really like blokes and so have more reproductive success
Being bisexual may have advantages in forming stable friendships with people of your own sex, which will give you an advantage especially when young, so you are more reproductively sucessful later on. I have a feeling that bisexuality is more common than people think, just you then don't fall into either a gay or straight social group.
My mum has a theory that you then have some blokes that everyone trusts to look after the women while the men go off hunting, fighting or something else stereotypical.
-
Point 1: It appears that homosexuality may be neither genetic, nor strictly due to upbringing. The environment within the womb appears to be the principal factor.
This link discusses the role of hormones in pre-natal development and post-natal behaviour. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html
Point 2:Homosexuality is common amongst animals.
The following link discusses the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. The site and the book have a clear agenda, but it does not detract from the facts. [I was especially intrigued to read that female long eared hedgehogs engage in oral sex. Must be something to do with the spines!]
http://www.vexen.co.uk/human/homosexuality.html
And here is an absolute classic:
A German zoo was planning to introduce male penguins into a group of female penguins because the female penguins seem to be attracted to one another. Homosexual rights groups are angry with the plan because they believe the zoo’s actions are trying to turn the penguins straight.
from - http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-16-05.asp
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ophiolite
Point 1: It appears that homosexuality may be neither genetic, nor strictly due to upbringing. The environment within the womb appears to be the principal factor.
This link discusses the role of hormones in pre-natal development and post-natal behaviour. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html
Interesting, but not totally surprising, and nor does it either prove or disprove genetic influence, it merely demonstrates that whatever it is is substantially determined by the time of birth (substantially, because it also shows that testosterone levels during infancy still have an influence, and possibly even in adulthood – but the later it happens, the less complete the influence).
What it also focuses on is trying to explain why some men take on a female gender role, and why some women take on a male gender role; but in any homosexual relationship, there is one partner who takes on a gender role that is opposite to their biological sex, but there is also one partner in the relationship who retains the gender role that is consistent with their biological sex. It seems to make no effort to explain the biological process by which someone retains the the gender of their biological sex, but seeks out a partner of their own sex rather than a partner of the opposite sex.
No surprise again, by it reaffirms the correlation between aggression and violence and gender and testosterone. All of this has long lead me to suspect that the increasing intolerance of violence within modern society (by modern, I don't only mean over the last generation or two, since it is a trend that can be observed over many centuries) has not itself contributed to the feminisation of society, and possibly to an increase of male homosexuality (although the issue of female homosexuality is a separate matter which may or may not be related, but if it is related, would have to be so through some very indirect mechanism), as well as possibly associated with the documented trend in lower sperm counts in men.
George
-
This subject usally inspire's non cordial behaviour but so far everybody's been good lets hope it stays that way[:)]
______________________________________________
Its a chemical imbalance caused by our genes , in other words straight people bodies make and release and use the right levels and kinds of chemicals which are require for normal life where men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men.
Our genes determine everything about us and have first say on everything which isn't controllable by our thought processes, they determine when and what chemicals are naturally released into our blood streams and what levels are required for them to affect us. We may be able to change how strongly some of them affect our lives, the level of our emotions etc through our thought processes but ultimately they have the first say on what we basically are to start with.
What i would like to know is when why or how does something become inheritable through our genes.
Also could being gay become or be already an inherited condition as its only usually when something becomes dominant that we notice its existence.
Michael
-
Right. Whole can of worms here.
quote:
Our genes determine everything about us and have first say on everything which isn't controllable by our thought processes,
This isn't strictly true. Our genes control what proteins we make (and also what other kinds of RNA we make but I'll ignore that as being the same kind of argument as with proteins), which is pretty important in general terms since it's the proteins that provide much of our cell structure and also it's the proteins that catalyse cell reactions and so forth. But there's a lot more to it than that. Which proteins we actually synthesise from the genes which give us the code for them is controlled partly by proteins we've already synthesised but also to a large extent, especially but not exclusively in early developement by chemical and other triggers from the external environment (see references to testosterone exposure in the womb, above).
quote:
What i would like to know is when why or how does something become inheritable through our genes.
Uggh!
Um, the implication I get on reading this sentence is that a pre-existing characteristic "becomes" encoded in the genes. Which may or may not be what you meant but is decidedly misleading.
What really goes on is that random mutations in the genes (that is, if the wrong nucleic acid gets put in, or one is added or lost when the cell DNA copies itself as it divides) may mean that a different amino acid is incorporated into a protein and the nature of the protein is changed (how it folds, how active it is, what it does...) or indeed rendered entirely inactive, or equally it may change some non-coding DNA which might influence whether a protein is translated (synthesised in the first instance), or how much of it, or when, by altering how other molecules bind to the DNA to promote or prevent transcription/translation.
Any such mutation may have some effect on how the cells and so the whole organism functions. Some conditions/characteristics (some types of haemophilia, cystic fibrosis, some predispositions to cancers, some hair colours) result from a single mutation, others from the cumultive effect of a number of different mutations.
Some genetic effects are only observed in the presence of certain external conditions (propensity to tan/burn in sunlight).
There are not all that many wholly genetically determined effects. I'd be astonished if soemthing as big and messy as sexuality were one of them.
quote:
Also could being gay become or be already an inherited condition as its only usually when something becomes dominant that we notice its existence.
Become? No.
Already be? Possibly... it's probably influenced by genetic factors, and environmental factors, and social factors. For one thing if I bet that there are a lot of "straight" people out there, and probably gay people too, who would be more accurately defined as bi.. but it's easier to be one thing or the other, bi people can have a tough time in both communities. Besides which if you've been brought up to expect to find one sex attractive, provided you actually do there's often no reason to look beyond that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
What i would like to know is when why or how does something become inheritable through our genes.
Also could being gay become or be already an inherited condition as its only usually when something becomes dominant that we notice its existence.
As Ariel highlighted in her reference to the Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium, all genetic traits that exist in a population will be expressed to some degree or another, and dominance and recessive only effects the proportion of the population that manifest the trait (which will also be influenced by environmental stresses and upon opportunities available to the population).
At present, most of the research into homosexuality seems to revolve around testosterone, which also has relevance to such behavioural traits as IQ and aggression (as well as the ability to sing in birds – I was wondering if there was any comparison between human IQ and singing ability in birds?). We know that there is a spread levels of IQ and aggressive behaviour throughout the population, and thus it clearly implies there is a broad spectrum of levels of testosterone triggered character traits in other ways, so why not in sexual orientation.
As with eye colour, so with hormone levels, I would expect that such complexity and variability would probably actually be under the control of multiple genes rather than a single gene. At very least, the fact that testosterone levels vary throughout life (not only after birth, but more importantly, before birth), and so I could well imagine there are genetic triggers that not only control how much testosterone a person gets, but at which point in their development might be switched on or off.
I believe that one of the differences between humans and other primates is that humans develop slower, and retain more juvenile characteristics far later into life than most other primates.
http://www.cliftonunitarian.com/toddstalks/humanbeing.htm
quote:
In case this hasn’t already become far too complicated, I wish to now introduce yet another important concept in this discussion, the process science refers to as neoteny. Neoteny refers to the tendency for the adult form of a species to retain juvenile characteristics. It comes from the Latin words neo, meaning "new," and teinein, meaning "to extend." Neoteny, then, means to extend newness, or extend youth, and, trust me, there are no creatures on earth more juvenile than human beings. Actually there are instances of other neotenous animals, like salamanders capable of sexually reproducing while still in the larval state; flightless birds resembling giant chicks; and domesticated dogs which have been bred from wolves to retain puppy like characteristics in order to live more safely among humans. But human beings are by far the most neotenous creatures on earth. Human beings, for instance, mature far slower than any other primate. Stephen Jay Gould say we are also born premature, especially in comparison to other primates. "If women gave birth when they ‘should,’" he writes, "after a gestation of about a year and a half—our babies would share standard precocial features with other primates."11 Humans are born still in embryo, retaining soft embryonic bones, including the "soft spot" on the skull; we retain flat faces and large heads throughout our lives, resembling newborn primates, rather than their adult forms with low brows and long faces; we also have a late eruption of teeth, a delicate skeleton and our spine remains connected to the base of our skulls, as it does in the fetal state of all primates, but in non humans moves to the top of the skull during fetal maturation.
As neotenous creatures we are vastly inferior to all other primates with the exception of our intelligence. We remain nearly completely bald so that we can’t survive harsh temperatures without clothing, we are physically weak and awkward creatures that have difficulty climbing and lifting or own weight, and we don’t have opposable toes like our primate relatives. Clearly, the only advantage to being born premature and maintaining juvenile characteristics is our great brain size, resulting from our continued maturation outside the womb. If we weren’t born premature, both our heads and our brains would have to remain small. As Gould points out, "our brains continue to grow at rapid, fetal rates after birth."12 He points out, for instance, that the human brain is only 23% of its final size at birth, as compared to 65% in macaques and 40.5% in chimpanzees. Gorillas achieve 70% of their total brain size during their first year of life. Human beings don’t achieve this amount until their third year.
How (if at all) neoteny influences gender orientation, I could not say, excepting that it must effect the process of sexual maturation.
I can well imagine that modern humans are to some extent increasing the evolutionary progress of neoteny as juveniles develop in ever safer environments, and thus it makes sense for them to gain ever greater benefit of the time available for maturation.
George
-
Almost no behavioral characteristics can be atributed to 100% genetics or 100% environment. Most (if not all) behaviors stem from a genetic predisposition of some sort, but are still heavily influenced by one's environment. There have been attempts to find what genes are involged in determining sexuality. There was a paper published (i believe in the late 90's) that used population genetics to map homosexuality to the XQ28 region of the genome. This paper was mostly refuted a few years later, but there have been other studies since then. One of the biggest areas of reserach in the drosophila field (hehe, taht's me) of recent years has been into behavioral issues. one of the very first findings to come out of this field was the gene "fruitless" which seems to be the major determiner of sexuality in flies. Altering this gene can cause flies of either gender to reverse their sexuality (or "be gay"). If you serach on the web, you can find some really cool videos of males flies following eachother aroung in a long single file line trying to court one another. its kind of cool.
however, as I said above, humans are much more influenced by enviironmental factors than lower organisms are, so to postulate that there is one (or even multiple) gene(s) in our genome that deterimne our sexuality 100% is quite ludicrous.
Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
-
Are people born heterosexual or does the come after….or before… or maybe in between…. [}:)][:D][}:)]
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
is it possible that it is a chemical imbalance in the brain?
-Meg
-
That would suggest that is an illness that needs a cure. What excites you excites you. It the human condition to be excited. For the survival of the species we had better make certain we remain capable of creating the next generation and being heterosexual will add to this possibility. But what turns you is what make you YOU! It’s your personality, it part of your make up that defines you. Of course people are scared of things that don’t conform to there view of the world. A lot of people and societies want everyone to conform to a standard set of normal behaviour. They try to push and pull individuals into boxes that they don’t fit into. It only causes pain and suffering. We end up lousing sight of what matters most in all this and that is to my thinking, love between consenting people. Not gender or sexuality but love. Nobody says its wrong for two men or women to love each other. Problems only surface when we start thinking about what they may be getting up to. It only a few years ago when it was legal for men to beat there wives in many so called civilised countries yet you could be imprisoned for having sex with a same sex partner that you loved and cherished. I prefer to worry about how people are treating one another rather then there sexuality. If you guy or heterosexual or bisexual enjoy it, be safe and above all else love one another.
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
cheers!
-Meg
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrian
That would suggest that is an illness that needs a cure. What excites you excites you. It the human condition to be excited.
How does that work out when you start talking about paedophilia?
Remember that 200 years ago, having sexual relations with a 14 y.o. Girl was legal, but sodomy was illegal (this is still the case in some countries in the world).
BTW, I do realise that sodomy does not exactly correlate with homosexuality; but homosexuality was an idea invented in Victorian times, and prior to that time, the only basis in which a homosexual male (or in fact a heterosexual male) could be regarded as breaking the law was through committing sodomy.
George
-
Personally, I feel that labels (gay, straigt, bi, whatever) are disgusting. We should be able to live in a society where we are free to love and have relations with whomever we chose (as long as it is consenting, with the exception of children). Although I don't believe that will ever happen in my lifetime, or even my childrens for that matter. Especially with the likes of Mr Bush in power.
quote:
BTW, I do realise that sodomy does not exactly correlate with homosexuality; but homosexuality was an idea invented in Victorian times, and prior to that time, the only basis in which a homosexual male (or in fact a heterosexual male) could be regarded as breaking the law was through committing sodomy.
The government has no place in someone's bedroom, but even in Canada they do. Under the Canadian criminal code it is illegal to commit sodomy in a public place, which constitutes as more than 2 people, so threesomes are out.
-Meg
-
quote:
Originally posted by elegantlywasted
Personally, I feel that labels (gay, straigt, bi, whatever) are disgusting. We should be able to live in a society where we are free to love and have relations with whomever we chose (as long as it is consenting, with the exception of children). Although I don't believe that will ever happen in my lifetime, or even my childrens for that matter. Especially with the likes of Mr Bush in power.
By instinct, I would agree with you, excepting that there will always be the question as to what constitutes a child (i.e. at what age may a young person be considered competent enough to have a say in their own life – is it 8, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25, 35, ...).
Incidentally, while we are down this road, what about adult incestuous relationships?
The reality is that society has always felt the need to manage sexual activity within its own domain, just as most societies have food taboos (whether they are enshrined in formal law, or merely by custom).
Maybe it is because sex is by its very nature an issue bound up in emotion, that people get very emotionally hung up about what is rightful sex and what is wrongful sex.
George
-
while I have ABSOLUTLY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being srtictly homosexual IS a disadventageous trait. so as ugly and vugar and policically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.
Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer
while I have ABSOLUTLY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being srtictly homosexual IS a disadventageous trait. so as ugly and vugar and policically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.
Is it?
Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?
George
-
I think this question has no place in science forum. The descision to be gay isnt in your genes and is highly dependent on environmental factors. Is another one of those things that is created by a series of electrical impulses in that mushy thing called our brains. Choice is something you cant explain or recreate, computors can make informed decisions, humans can make a choice and if we could ever explain how people make choices then we would be one step closer to creating authentic artificial inteligence. Which then poses the question, Could computors evolve to be gay??? Answer that one. go on just try it, I dares ya........
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ottehg Star
I think this question has no place in science forum.
Why not – are not studies such as that undertaken by Kinsey in the 1940's science?
quote:
The descision to be gay isnt in your genes and is highly dependent on environmental factors.
Again, this must depend upon what you mean by 'gay'?
Clearly, the decision to undertake a specific sexual act with a specific person who happens to be of the same biological sex as yourself is of itself a concious and deliberate action, and one that cannot be determined by genetic investigation.
On the other hand, the innate tendency to be attracted to someone of the same biological sex as yourself almost certainly has some genetic component.
quote:
Is another one of those things that is created by a series of electrical impulses in that mushy thing called our brains. Choice is something you cant explain or recreate,
Human choice, in a specific instance, cannot be predicted. On the other hand, a predisposition towards a given choice, something that will manifest itself when large population sizes are investigated, is something that can be predetermined.
quote:
Which then poses the question, Could computors evolve to be gay??? Answer that one. go on just try it, I dares ya........
Can computer have sex? Can you sex a computer – are there male and female computers?
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer
while I have ABSOLUTELY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being strictly homosexual IS a disadvantageous trait. so as ugly and vulgar and politically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.
Is it?
Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?
Ggeorge
No they are just sexually immature females.
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?
No they are just sexually immature females.
Not immature – infertile – not the same thing (a sterile woman is not a child).
George
-
infertile due to them being sexually immature [:)]
a sexually immature girl of say 2 years isn't fertile and she wont become fertile until she reaches the point or is near the point of sexual maturity
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
infertile due to them being sexually immature [:)]
a sexually immature girl of say 2 years isn't fertile and she wont become fertile until she reaches the point or is near the point of sexual maturity
Michael
Buy worker bees can never become queen bees, although they can become laying worker bees, but only in the absence of a queen. A worker may, or may not, become a laying worker at some future time (laying only drones), but this is not a sign of chronological age.
But the point is, for all practical purposes, a pure homosexual (i.e someone who only practices sexual activity with their own biological sex) can also be thought of, for practical purposes, as being infertile. It was this aspect of homosexuality that I understood Justin (MayoFlyFarmer) to refer to as being technically a disease (i.e. that they are unable to reproduce). In that respect, they are no different to worker bees who, within the social context in which they exist, are unable to reproduce.
George
-
One thing that I noticed reading this topic, especially some of the earlier posts, is the negative attitude towards gays. Talking of it as a disease, in a negative way does give the impression that it is thought of to be 'wrong'. I have several gay friends, a couple of whom were as straight as it gets, until they fell in love with people the same sex as themselves. I object to this negativity towards gayness.
Also, how can it be genetic, if for genes to be passed on, you have to reproduce, and the majority of gay people do not do this (for obvious reasons)? Is it 'genetic' in the same way one inherits an ability for music, or maths, or being good with words? Almost like a gene that is there if you encourage it to be there?
"I just set fire to the table!"
Bring on the chemicals!
-
Sorry but I disagree Parsley.
There are always examples of genetic flaws like 2 head on a snake but are sexual desires between gays genetic? No! Because facts would show that those tree lines would not exist since they cannot reproduce among their group.
Homosexuality is described in many forms with examples ranging from monkeys to dolphins but there are straight answers for the stresses that cause the events.
In our species there are a few examples of individuals that have chromosome issues but the ratio does not warrant normal. It represents unique and special attention.
The perversions of our species and the unabated desires of the group called homosexual is not of quality progression of the species. Allowing the open acceptance of this individual desires will set the tone for further attrition. As children develop with knowledge of the possibility, exploration becomes the cause of the developing snowball and not of genetics or physiological need but of individual desires. In fact to look at ratios a huge percentage of homosexual persons have had a bad sexual experience at a young age. This ratio will far exceed the ration of heterosexuals to homosexuals by a huge margin which reflects a need to suppress the acceptance as normal.
Nothing will ever support that 2 same sex human partners are sharing their bodies for anything other then personal desires. Love does not have to include sex and no where is sex among same sex partner a physical need without the specific personal desire.
It is basically a selfish pursuit and once one has been able to overcome the inhibitions there is nothing more but to pursue the fairness since to them it makes perfect sense as it is the pinnacle of their expression.
-
quote:
Originally posted by parsley
One thing that I noticed reading this topic, especially some of the earlier posts, is the negative attitude towards gays. Talking of it as a disease, in a negative way does give the impression that it is thought of to be 'wrong'.
Until the last post by Bishadi, I don't think I have seen a single post that could be considered negative.
Justin suggested that from, a very narrow technical perspective, it might be regarded as a disease; but that was not in any socially judgemental sense.
quote:
I object to this negativity towards gayness.
As I said, up until the post by Bishadi, the discussion was strictly technical, and there was no judgemental aspect to it.
quote:
Also, how can it be genetic, if for genes to be passed on, you have to reproduce, and the majority of gay people do not do this (for obvious reasons)? Is it 'genetic' in the same way one inherits an ability for music, or maths, or being good with words? Almost like a gene that is there if you encourage it to be there?
Even genes that have fatal outcomes, like haemophilia, are capable of surviving within the species.
The easiest way for such a gene to survive is either if it is recessive, and so remains dormant except when an individual happens to have two of the same gene (or, if the gene is on the X chromosome, as with haemophilia, it will only effect males, but can be inherited down the female line).
The other way it can survive is if it is not a single gene, but an interaction between several genes (such as with eye colour), and so the inheritance of any single gene will not cause homosexuality, but when someone inherits several genes that can interact in a certain way, they may develop homosexual tendencies.
There are also more complex genetic relationships, such as with thalassemia, where inheriting a single gene does not have a serious negative effect, but can have a beneficial effect; whereas inheriting two similar genes can have a deleterious effect.
From what I understand, there does appear to be some evidence that, not only is the tendency to homosexuality inheritable, but can actually be accompanied by certain advantages. There seem to be certain skill sets that appear to be more prevalent amongst homosexuals (as well as a reduced tendency to aggression); and there is some evidence that women born into families with a high proportion of homosexuals tend to have more children, and thus offsetting any disadvantage that the lack of children on the part of the menfolk within the family might have.
As you say, the gene can only provide a tendency; and like the tendency to be good at maths or music, it will only manifest its potential in certain social environments.
George
-
i just kind of skimmed this cause im in a hurry, so sorry if someone already said this..
has anyone heard of the tendency to be homsexual attributed to an instinct for controlling the population? more homosexuals= less breeding; and a thinning or stabilization of the herd. im not sure where i picked this up and wether it has any creedence, but it would make alot of sense.
some of you are playing ethics with science. you equate "whats best for the continuation of the species" with correct. it is true that homosexuality is argueably not best for propogating future generations, however, many of our common practices arent, as well; many illegal practices are!
coming from that darwinian standpoint, killing other able-bodies males and their children, to protect the success and propogation of MY genetic material, is ok. but this is not ok, just as homosexuality is not wrong or some sort of regressive genetic mutation just because it may not be in line with the drive to pass on genes.
the wants and desires of a single person dont HAVe to be in line with evolutionary wants and desires, and neither one is unnatural; they both exist and always have.
-
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
has anyone heard of the tendency to be homsexual attributed to an instinct for controlling the population? more homosexuals= less breeding; and a thinning or stabilization of the herd. im not sure where i picked this up and wether it has any creedence, but it would make alot of sense.
Not sure if I have seen that officially, but it is something that I have wondered about – although I suspect it is a little more complex than simply a matter of thinning the population – there is no obvious direct benefit of thinning the population as such.
The two main pre-modern civilisations where homosexuality was common are ancient Greece, and Japan; and both of these territories had sever population pressures (which, in the case of Greece, lead to the creation of its overseas colonies as a way of dumping its excess population).
As I said, I cannot see that in a situation where overpopulation occurs, that deliberate reduction of population is a logical benefit to the individual families, since even if there is mass starvation, it is logical that the greater the number of children you have, then the greater the likelihood that some of them will survive.
On the other hand, a more complex and subtle picture is that while it may not be of benefit to an individual, and their direct offspring, if the fail to reproduce; it may be of general benefit to a family if, when that family is under stress, rather than every member of that family having children, that a few members of the family have children, and all of the spare adults (those who have not reared their own children, but nonetheless are related to the children that have been born) the pool their efforts to maximise the likelihood of survival for those children who were born into the extended family.
George
-
I havn't read all the posts, but I definitly think that being gay is NOT a genetic error, but a psycological behavior that is developed over time.
The Spartans, fearsome warriors of the ancient civilizations, recordingly encouraged their soldiers to have homosexual intercourse to increase the bonding between soldiers.
This raises questions as to what is considered "gay"?
Is the ability to identify attractive attributes of the same sex considered gay?
I've always been able to tell when another guy is good looking. In fact, makes me damn jeaous sometimes. Though I am able to see that he's good looking (most guys are just homophobic about it or are just jealous and wont get over it), but I am not sexually attracted to him.
"We're all gay, it's just to what extent" - Ron White, Comedian.
Is being fashionable gay? Is the ability to match colors brilliantly and speak sweet and softly gay?
You can look at it in a way of Nature, of religion, and in humanity itself.
Nature intends reproduction to ensure the survival of a species.
Religions believe that marriage and sex should be between Man and Woman.
Humanity believes it's disgusting, abnormal, strange, and a threat to children's minds.
Humanity also believes that no one should be able to tell you who you can love and who you can't.
I suddenly realized I'm too tired for this and much to distracted AND have a paper due tomorrow, so I'll leave this as is.
-
In my humble opinion (grovel grovel whine whine ! [:)]) I think gays are just as normal as heterosexuals are.
I'm not gay but do know quite a few gay people , in fact , probably more than I do straight !!...probably because gay people are really nice ! [:)]
It is my considered opinion that it's not a genetic flaw but a natural predisposition, as natural as anybody else feels towards any other person sexually. It is a perfectly normal and natural feeling,neither learned or forced. Though I do believe heterosexuals can be ' turned ' under the right circumstances...prison for instance....and probably the same applies to gays too under certain cirumstances.
In fact, I think life would be a lot better if it was a gay old world !! [:)]....instead of going to war...we could all go shopping instead !! [:D]..(sorry for the silly stereotyping..which of course is not accurate)
..I'd even go so far to say that we're all gay !!..except that some of us have proclivities towards the opposite sex...however, it is commonly known that at some point everybody (99%) has encountered a situation where they have been curious about same sex relationships/encounters etc.
Ask a gay person and , rightly so, they will say that they have always been gay, despite some torment as they discover the real selves...it's not a matter of choice...it's a natural instinct and I think gays would be offended at the hint that they have something wrong with them...in fact I'm offended and I'm straight.....
There are cases where gays feel completely torn though, they have been brought up in a strict religious household and despite their natural inclinations have been brainwashed that they are sinning. Such turmoil I would hate to experience, damned if you do...damned if you dont.....
...and that's what I have to say about that.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
The notion of normality is a distraction.
Having measles is normal; committing murder is normal.
This is not to say that being gay is equivalent to having measles, or committing murder; only that claiming that it is normal tells us very little about what it is, except that it wasn't invented by scientists or engineers.
There is a slightly related question, is autism 'normal', and is 'autism' a disease.
There are some autistics (particularly those with the milder form of Asperger's) who argue that they are normal, merely different, and misunderstood by everyone else in society. There are also people with inherited disabilities (such as inherited deafness), who would argue that they are 'normal', and it is just that the rest of the world makes assumptions of them that are inappropriate to their capabilities and preferences.
At what point do you treat an abnormality as a disease, and at what point do you simply allow people to be different?
Clearly, where a person is incapable of functioning within society, then maybe society needs to address that – but even then, there are times when one has to ask whether society needs to change the person to fit society, or change society to fit the person.
There are also those who regard having misaligned teeth, or the wrong sized breasts or wrong nose, as serious medical conditions. Who knows, given that a pretty girl is supposed to be able to earn more than an ugly one, and the difficulty for graduates in finding appropriate jobs, maybe money invested in cosmetic surgery is a better investment that money spent in university education?
Clearly, society cannot simultaneously adjust to fit every possible variation of human being, but exactly which variant it is able to allow, and which variant it must medicate in order to fit closer to the arbitrary norm, is itself a substantially arbitrary (if necessary) judgement.
George
-
Within the context of this topic, I think it's agreeable to say that the feelings of sexual attraction towards the same sex for a gay, is the same experience for a heterosexual attracted to the opposite sex, the only difference being the gender. In this case I would say that a gays sexual attraction feels normal to them akin to non gays......
......Of course Sexual orientation goes beyond sex. It is about relating to another person on many levels, there are gay people who don't have sex at all...just like any other sexual persuasion.
However, I am finding it difficult to comply with your opinion that murder is normal. I believe I may understand why I think you may state that and so that is why I am asking if you could elaborate please ? ...Stating Murder Is Normal is quite a citation....(hmm..perhaps another thread beckons)...I just need to understand the context.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
This is a delicate subject, and given the state of normalcy that I am presently feeling, I should be careful lest I express myself in a way that might be misread - but here goes, and i hope it doesn't end up too stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Within the context of this topic, I think it's agreeable to say that the feelings of sexual attraction towards the same sex for a gay, is the same experience for a heterosexual attracted to the opposite sex, the only difference being the gender. In this case I would say that a gays sexual attraction feels normal to them akin to non gays......
But, is 'feels normal' the same as 'is normal'?
One of the problems with many addicts (e.g. alcoholics) is that they feel 'normal'.
This is not to say whether they are or are not 'normal', only to ask whether self evaluation is the best way of determining normalcy?
quote:
However, I am finding it difficult to comply with your opinion that murder is normal. I believe I may understand why I think you may state that and so that is why I am asking if you could elaborate please ? ...Stating Murder Is Normal is quite a citation....(hmm..perhaps another thread beckons)...I just need to understand the context.
It is 'normal' in two ways.
Firstly, all that a human being does is normal, because it is normal for a human being to do that. It may be argued that it is not how an average human being might react; but by that token, since homosexuality supposedly effects only about 10% of the population, thus they themselves are deviant from the average (mean, modal, or median).
Secondly, that a human being should kill another human being (or that any animal should kill another animal) is normal (however unpleasant or unfortunate, wars are normal). It is the laws that prohibit certain types of killing that are by their nature artificial.
Ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that not all that is normal is acceptable within our society, but that is not to contradict the normality of it.
George
-
George, I hope you are OK....
I don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.
I do understand your reasoning. When you look at the statistics and percentages (using your figure of 10%) regarding sexuality then it is clear that homosexuality is in a minority. But a minority does not preclude normalcy...and I can see how this can apply to the act of murder....though calling it ' normal' just does not sit well....with me anyway IMO.
I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
I don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.
It rather depends upon what one regards as 'normal'.
Normal is a relative notion. What may be normal for a particular person, may not necessarily be regarded as normal for the species as a whole, or you could argue that anything that is normal for any member of the species must be regarded as normal for all of the species.
quote:
I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.
What do you mean by a 'gay embrace'?
Women, in western cultures, do embrace more than men – but in other cultures, that may vary. In Arab cultures, men will kiss and embrace, just as women might in the West, but there is nothing sexual in it (any more than one should interpret a parent kissing and embracing their child as being a sexual act).
This is ofcourse one of the problems with providing an objective definition of what homosexuality is. Do you define homosexuality by a specific set of acts (and if one includes same gender kissing amongst those acts, you will offend a great number of Arabs)?
Up until the Victorian era, there was no such notion as homosexuality. There was the crime of sodomy (which most modern cultures on any of the continents would consider a sexual act) , but this was as much a crime when applied to male/female relationships. Even the Victorians had a problem with defining female homosexuality (this was made the more complex by the fact that female masturbation was seen as a medical procedure that was undertaken by a physician to relieve 'hysteria', and the dildo was a medical tool; and was not seen as seen as a sexual act).
It is clear that looking through much renaissance art that there was a clear sensual pleasure taken in the young male body, although it is not at all clear whether they would have regarded this as a sexual desire or not. Were they homosexual paedophiles, or just people who appreciated the sensual beauty of the young male form?
This goes back to the question of who judges whether human behaviour falls into one category or another: the individual who commits the act? The society in which that individual belongs? Or does each society simply apply its own labels to the act even if they disagree with the labels either that person or their peers might apply to the act?
George
-
Good Afternoon George
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
I don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.
It rather depends upon what one regards as 'normal'.
Normal is a relative notion. What may be normal for a particular person, may not necessarily be regarded as normal for the species as a whole, or you could argue that anything that is normal for any member of the species must be regarded as normal for all of the species.
quote:
I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.
What do you mean by a 'gay embrace'?
Normal is difficult to define as I believe the answer is as unique to an individual as their fingerprints are. This is why I specifically cited that for self evaluation, to have to hand historical data that then portrays what is ‘ usual ‘ for the individual would be helpful.
The data could well be varied in the extreme compared to others but would be most probably considered ‘ normal ‘ for that person, if that person has been seen to behave and act accordingly 'normal'
quote:
Women, in western cultures, do embrace more than men – but in other cultures, that may vary. In Arab cultures, men will kiss and embrace, just as women might in the West, but there is nothing sexual in it (any more than one should interpret a parent kissing and embracing their child as being a sexual act).
This is ofcourse one of the problems with providing an objective definition of what homosexuality is. Do you define homosexuality by a specific set of acts (and if one includes same gender kissing amongst those acts, you will offend a great number of Arabs)?
Up until the Victorian era, there was no such notion as homosexuality. There was the crime of sodomy (which most modern cultures on any of the continents would consider a sexual act) , but this was as much a crime when applied to male/female relationships. Even the Victorians had a problem with defining female homosexuality (this was made the more complex by the fact that female masturbation was seen as a medical procedure that was undertaken by a physician to relieve 'hysteria', and the dildo was a medical tool; and was not seen as seen as a sexual act).
It is clear that looking through much renaissance art that there was a clear sensual pleasure taken in the young male body, although it is not at all clear whether they would have regarded this as a sexual desire or not. Were they homosexual paedophiles, or just people who appreciated the sensual beauty of the young male form?
This goes back to the question of who judges whether human behaviour falls into one category or another: the individual who commits the act? The society in which that individual belongs? Or does each society simply apply its own labels to the act even if they disagree with the labels either that person or their peers might apply to the act?
George
LOL …yes, I expected you would pick me up on that as my use of ‘gay embrace ‘ was way too subtle…it was a very mild subtle innuendo to maintain an air of etiquette which in this case plainly misfired ! [;)]
I meant for the term to be seen in the excess of it’s it’s definition and has been taken too lightly.
When I say ‘ gay embrace’ I mean sex, I meant the act of having sex, I meant, not a kiss on the lips or the cheek (well..not the face cheek...[;)])…but if I may be blunt, two people of the same sex going at it ‘ hammer & tongs ‘ In this regard I understand it is easier and far more acceptable for women to display and experiment with this ‘ gay embrace’ as it is for men. I am sure this is true. It is borne out by my experiences with my gay girly friends and just by observation (not that I am a voyeur…..well …oh gawwwd !!)
I certainly do not define homosexuality by a specific set of acts. As I mentioned in my earlier post sex does not define the sexuality, and that one can be gay on a whole number of different levels without even ever having sex !
I am sure you are right about the notion of homosexuality in Victorian times but it of course was just as prevalent then as it is now. Except today it has very much come out of the closet.
It is difficult subject as there is no clear foundation to base the premises on, however, I would still maintain that for a gay whose life you would not know was any different to yours or mine, would state that their proclivity to feel ‘at one’ (subtle innuendo) across all levels and sexually towards the same sex does ‘ feel ‘ and is completely normal......for them.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
whats the percentage of gay poeple in the population?
Laith
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laith
whats the percentage of gay poeple in the population?
Laith
That's what I'd like to know. I'd be even more interested in the figures relating to gender. I see that you're in Canada, which is nice[;)]....
...It would be of further interest to see how the figures pan out internationally from one country to another.
The problem there is that figures like this are based on peoples honesty and in some cultures we will never know the facts.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
I new a chap who claimed he was born gay. He told me he hit the nurse with his handbag before screaming for a facial. I think he was having me but you never can tell.
[:D][:)][:D] [:D][:)][:D]
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
'normal' and 'abnormal' is not what science should judge. thats a value judgement. 'typical' and 'atypical' is all that can be said when talking facts.
-
Most figures are around 10% (but i want to point that they are mostly coming from gay organizations websites), i used to think its more like 2 or 3! 10% is a lot, don't you think so?
In Canada they legalized gay marriage in some churches last year (+ adopting kids), now I hope im not being ignorant here but i find this really wrong and totally "abnormal" unlike what some people would probably argue.
neilep are you sure 99% of people have sexual tendencies towards the same sex? I’m one of the 1% and this freaks me out[:p][:D]
Laith
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laith
Most figures are around 10% (but i want to point that they are mostly coming from gay organizations websites), i used to think its more like 2 or 3! 10% is a lot, don't you think so?
In Canada they legalized gay marriage in some churches last year (+ adopting kids), now I hope im not being ignorant here but i find this really wrong and totally "abnormal" unlike what some people would probably argue.
neilep are you sure 99% of people have sexual tendencies towards the same sex? I’m one of the 1% and this freaks me out[:p][:D]
Laith
Nope !!..absolutely not sure !!...
...what I meant is that in some part of your life you MIGHT well consider the possibility of just entertaining the idea of wondering what it may be like !!....I can't really put it more diluted as that statement !![:D]
You may have misunderstood me when I cited the 99%...read it again and I was stating it as a possible situation....I grant the figure is high but it was meant to represent a high figure. My apologies for the confusion....and stop freaking out !!
[:)]
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
Before dealing with these answers, we need to establish clearly what human behaviour or condition we mean, when we talk about homosexuality. To establish that we need to understand the human reproductive process, usually referred to as "sex".
The natural human reproductive process consists of a human male injecting seminal fluid discharged from his penis into the vagina of a human female. This leads to fertilization of the eggs within the womb of the female and eventual birth of a human child. This natural reproductive process of the human species determines the physiological and psychological characteristics of men and women, which are different and reflect their roles in this natural reproductive process. Similar differences between sexes exist in other animal species.
One of the characteristics of this reproductive process is that from time to time men and women feel a strong desire to perform this mutual act of reproduction. This is accompanied by strong emotions of attraction to the opposite sex, love, desire to possess or to belong, envy, jealousy, protectiveness. Often people find it difficult to resist or control these desires and emotions. Similar strong emotions are exhibited in relations of parents to their children. Similar emotion or instinct based reproductive process prevails among other animal species.
But, in addition to emotions and instincts, the human species is endowed with reason and will, which allows it to control emotions and instincts. Human behaviour is a complex interaction between instincts, emotions, reason and will. And the human reproductive process is also affected by this complex interaction.
This complex behaviour within each human individual is also affected by the fact that humans live in social groups. And behaviour of the individuals need to be adapted to life within the group. Thus, in all groups there emerges a moral code (formal or informal) which approves of some forms of behaviour and disapproves of other forms. This also applies to the reproductive process. In most human societies from the early times and up to the second half of the 20th century, all forms of sex related behaviour outside of the framework of heterosexual family were strongly disapproved of, and some forms of sex behaviour, and in particular homosexuality even criminalized. Often this was based on religious teachings, which provided the basis of social morality. Thus, in addition to instincts, emotions, reason and will another factor affects human behaviour - morality.
In the 20th century religion-based morality began to be questioned, and the idea was advanced that homosexuality is not a sin or a crime for which a person is responsible and should be punished, but a "mental illness or personality disorder", for which a person is not responsible, and from which he should be cured.
And towards the end of the 20th century the idea was promoted that homosexuality is not a "mental illness or personality disorder", but a normal form of human behaviour - or "alternative life style".
So what is homosexuality?
It is a behaviour in the course of which a person satisfies his sexual instincts and emotions by interacting with another person of the same sex. Among men this is done by one man using another man's anal passage, mouth, or hand, as if it were a woman's vagina. Homosexual women use their tongues, fingers, or similar objects as a substitute for a male penis. These activities produce sensations and emotions similar to those, experienced during the normal reproductive process. But normal reproductive process it is not. The anal passage is meant for discharge of the products of human digestion, and the mouth for intake of food, not for childbirth, and a finger or tongue cannot make a woman pregnant. This is clearly self-deception and behaviour contrary to that intended by Nature or its Creator.
So why do people engage in such unnatural behaviour? Are people born that way, or do they choose this form of behaviour consciously and voluntarily?
Although it is normal for people to be born with clearly distinct sexual characteristics, it is possible for people to be born with abnormal sexual characteristics. This is similar to people with other congenital abnormalities, like absent, deformed or additional limbs, Siamese twins, etc. Some people are born with underdeveloped, malformed or missing sexual organs. Sometimes the sexual organs of a child are such that it is not clear whether it is a boy or a girl. Some people have inborn behavioral abnormalities. In some cases these abnormalities can be harmless both to the person and others, like a person with six fingers. Sometimes these abnormalities can present a serious handicap to the person, but not to others, like missing limbs. And sometimes a person with congenital abnormalities can be dangerous to others, like a person with violent uncontrollable behaviour.
Yes, people can be born abnormal, but they are not born homosexual. It is meaningless to call a homosexual a person who by virtue of his birth is neither a man, nor a woman - in fact, such people are called hermaphrodites.
Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a physiological characteristic. It is an abnormal behaviour of normal people. It is a result of lack of correct education, and often of corruption by others.
Unlike animals, Man cannot rely exclusively on his instincts and emotions, his instincts and emotions must be controlled by his reason. This control by reason is not inborn, but develops through a prolonged learning process. Usually this happens in a social setting and starts within the family. Even simple instinctive acts like urination are subject to a lengthy learning process. Unlike animals, people do not urinate wherever they feel the urge, they do it in special places. The same applies to the procreational process (sex).
A human person needs to learn to play correctly his role in the procreational process from early childhood. If by the time a person reaches sexual maturity, he has failed to learn his correct role in the procreational process, he can become a victim of his sexual drives which he will misuse, and this can adversely affect the course of his life and can cause harm to others. Rape, marital problems, child molesting, extramarital sex and homosexuality are results of such failure.
In Europe and the Americas, where the social morality in the past was based on the Christian religion, the sex role training was performed by treating sex as a forbidden subject, but girls were expected to follow in the footsteps of their mothers, while boys of their fathers. Sex began at marriage. Sex outside of marriage was condemned, and homosexuality was a crime. Because sex was a taboo, and people were ignorant of anything relating to sex until they were married, young people who developed early or stayed unmarried for a long time were vulnerable to sexual misbehaviour, and could get involved in extramarital sex, or homosexual practices. This lead to some social scandals.
With the religious morality in Europe and the Americas being abandoned in the 20th century, which lead to spread of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education was introduced in European and American schools. This, however, was conducted by people, who having liberated themselves from the restrictions of the morality of the past, have failed to develop an understanding of the role of the reproductive process in human life. The sex lessons were mostly concerned with prevention of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, and ignored the psychological, emotional and social aspects of sex. The approach was "safe sex" - "enjoy yourself, but use a condom or a pill". Homosexuality was safe from the point of view of unwanted pregnancies and children were encouraged to "discover their sexual orientation" experimentally. The issue of "safe sex" did not arise in respect of homosexuals until the epidemic of AIDS broke out. Again the answer was "play safe - use a condom".
One of the characteristics of sex is, that having tried it once, people want more - it becomes addictive. People also develop emotional dependence on their partners. It is not unknown for professional prostitutes to use this feature of sex to lead their "clients" to financial destitution. This is also true of "gay" sex. Once a male is subjected to anal sex, he often develops a behavioral dependency. In the past, when homosexuality was criminalized, this was often used to blackmail people in public life and for recruitment of spies during the Cold War.
Sex related activities are not restricted to sexual cravings and sensations in the course of the reproductive act, they have a continuous effect on general behaviour and life of the person. It affects thinking, dreams, attitude to life, manners, view of oneself. A man can start dreaming of being a woman, or imagining himself as one. People can develop cravings to inflict pain on their sexual partners, or to suffer pain being inflicted by their partners on themselves. Some people develop desire to drink other people's urine, or to be urinated or defecated upon. Failure to control sexual urges can lead to mental disorders, drug addiction, and alcoholism. Thus failure to control ones' sexual life, and to correctly fulfill one's role in the reproductive process can be seen as a disease of the soul.
People who fail to control their sex behaviour usually seek to satisfy their unnatural cravings by involving other people. Often their victims are children, or vulnerable young people. It is common for people having control of young people to corrupt them by sodomization. There were many cases of such practices in Britain and the US - in boarding schools, orphanages, and penal institutions. The present scandals involving Catholic priests in the US and Britain are examples of this.
As the number of homosexuals in Europe and America grew, politicians saw them as a new "constituency" - this became known as "chasing the gay vote". Some politicians themselves are "gay". Homosexuality became a kind of "political" movement. There even is a "gay culture", "gay press", etc. Thus, homosexuality came to be seen as an alternative, fashionable, and often preferred lifestyle.
This is clearly not a "mental illness or personality disorder" as it was thought of in the earlier part of the 20th century. Homosexuality is a form of social behaviour, which is caused by failure of governments to educate the people on the correct use of their reproductive process.
http://www.truth-and-justice.info/homosexuality.html
-
sorry neil, my bad :)
Laith
-
Mikey !!...I have to say I totally disagree with ..well...most definitely your final statement where you say , and I quote " Homosexuality is a form of social behaviour, which is caused by failure of governments to educate the people on the correct use of their reproductive process "...so, are you saying that where governments should have got it right, that there would be no homosexuality of any sorts ?
I find this stance abhorrent and offensive if that is what you indeed are saying. I have clicked on your link and I gather you are coming for a strict religious stance...is this correct ?
Let me just make it clear, I am not gay but have great friendships in gay people. I have never ever seen their being gay as a result of society getting it wrong !
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
It certainly has been the case that in the past various societies has tried to maximise reproductive capacity, and thus placed taboos on non-reproductive 'sexual' activity (I put 'sexual' in quotes, because it could be argued that the activity is stimulation of the sexual organs, but not sexual in nature, and is more akin to intimate social grooming – i.e. it is designed more to build social bonding than to reproduce). Such societies have placed taboos upon contraception, and have considered it wrong for a man to have sexual intercourse with a women during her menstrual bleeding (i.e. when there is no possibility of the egg being fertilised).
To argue that homosexuality is wrong because it does not cause reproduction is only sustainable if one also prohibits all other non-reproductive sexual activity.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by mikey
One of the characteristics of this reproductive process is that from time to time men and women feel a strong desire to perform this mutual act of reproduction. This is accompanied by strong emotions of attraction to the opposite sex, love, desire to possess or to belong, envy, jealousy, protectiveness. Often people find it difficult to resist or control these desires and emotions. Similar strong emotions are exhibited in relations of parents to their children. Similar emotion or instinct based reproductive process prevails among other animal species.
Not all sexual activity is possessive in nature, and not all animals have the same inter-sexual relationships (in fact, most species will have a particular variant of such relationships that is different from any other species – and in some species, the partners do not necessarily even survive the sexual act).
quote:
But, in addition to emotions and instincts, the human species is endowed with reason and will, which allows it to control emotions and instincts. Human behaviour is a complex interaction between instincts, emotions, reason and will.
I would disagree with statement totally.
All animal (whether human or otherwise) activity must be driven by emotion/instinct, and only that. Reason will allow you the means to implement emotional desires, so that if you desperateley want something, reason will give you the means to attain it; but reason cannot of itself give you the desire to achieve one goal over another.
quote:
This also applies to the reproductive process. In most human societies from the early times and up to the second half of the 20th century, all forms of sex related behaviour outside of the framework of heterosexual family were strongly disapproved of, and some forms of sex behaviour, and in particular homosexuality even criminalized. Often this was based on religious teachings, which provided the basis of social morality. Thus, in addition to instincts, emotions, reason and will another factor affects human behaviour - morality.
In the 20th century religion-based morality began to be questioned, and the idea was advanced that homosexuality is not a sin or a crime for which a person is responsible and should be punished, but a "mental illness or personality disorder", for which a person is not responsible, and from which he should be cured.
This was actually something that came about in the late 19th century, rather than the 20th century.
Prior to that, the very notion of 'homosexuality' did not exist. The term was originally coined as a medical term. The law up to that point only dealt with sodomy, and made no distinction regarding gender.
quote:
And towards the end of the 20th century the idea was promoted that homosexuality is not a "mental illness or personality disorder", but a normal form of human behaviour - or "alternative life style".
As I have tried to point out earlier, it is very difficult to define what normality is – normality can be almost anything you choose it to be.
I think the more pertinent argument was that society (whether rightly or wrongly) no longer considered that the maximising of the birth rate of the population was any longer a primary requirement for society, and so has decided that sexual activity that did not contribute to the maximisation of the birth rate was no longer anti-social.
Society does not care about what is normal, because it defines its own normality; it cares about what is functional, which depends upon the needs of society at the time, which may vary from one time to another.
quote:
So what is homosexuality?
It is a behaviour in the course of which a person satisfies his sexual instincts and emotions by interacting with another person of the same sex.
This is clearly self-deception and behaviour contrary to that intended by Nature or its Creator.
By this criteria, consuming drugs such as alcohol or tobacco, or using artificial sweeteners, or other food substitutes, are also self-deception.
quote:
So why do people engage in such unnatural behaviour? Are people born that way, or do they choose this form of behaviour consciously and voluntarily?
Although it is normal for people to be born with clearly distinct sexual characteristics, it is possible for people to be born with abnormal sexual characteristics. This is similar to people with other congenital abnormalities, like absent, deformed or additional limbs, Siamese twins, etc. Some people are born with underdeveloped, malformed or missing sexual organs. Sometimes the sexual organs of a child are such that it is not clear whether it is a boy or a girl. Some people have inborn behavioral abnormalities. In some cases these abnormalities can be harmless both to the person and others, like a person with six fingers. Sometimes these abnormalities can present a serious handicap to the person, but not to others, like missing limbs. And sometimes a person with congenital abnormalities can be dangerous to others, like a person with violent uncontrollable behaviour.
Yes, people can be born abnormal, but they are not born homosexual. It is meaningless to call a homosexual a person who by virtue of his birth is neither a man, nor a woman - in fact, such people are called hermaphrodites.
If he is neither man nor woman, then she (for the default gender is female) is asexual, not hermaphrodite. A hermaphrodite is both male and female, which is not the same as being neither.
quote:
Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a physiological characteristic. It is an abnormal behaviour of normal people. It is a result of lack of correct education, and often of corruption by others.
Unlike animals, Man cannot rely exclusively on his instincts and emotions, his instincts and emotions must be controlled by his reason. This control by reason is not inborn, but develops through a prolonged learning process. Usually this happens in a social setting and starts within the family. Even simple instinctive acts like urination are subject to a lengthy learning process. Unlike animals, people do not urinate wherever they feel the urge, they do it in special places. The same applies to the procreational process (sex).
The distinction you make between humans and other animals is wholly erroneous.
Many non-human animals will also learn from their social environment, and many non-human animals will carefully leave their waste product outside, or at the boundary, of their home territories – thus indicating that they too will control where they do and do not urinate/defecate.
This does not prove that either human or non-human animal acts against their instinct, only that they have many instincts, and some of those instincts will modify the natural behaviour induced by other instincts.
Ofcourse, there is an educational process involved in determining one's sexual behaviour (this is where one learns the appropriate courtship rituals for the social group). But, as we know with all forms of learning, it is not exact, and human beings are not robots to be programmed with exact instructions. It is natural that there will be some variability in human behaviour (as there is in all animals, and the more complex the animal, the greater the variability). The question one has to ask is whether a particular variance is tolerable to society or not. If no variance were permitted, then I for one would long ago have been a criminal. Clearly, a variance that is permissible in one context, and at one moment in time, may be intolerable in another.
quote:
With the religious morality in Europe and the Americas being abandoned in the 20th century, which lead to spread of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education was introduced in European and American schools.
Religious belief has been on the decline, but that is not to say that religious morality has been on the decline.
Nor am I aware of any increase in unwanted pregnancies – on the contrary, there has probably been an increased use of contraception, leading to a decline in unwanted pregnancies.
There has been an increase in extra-marital pregnancy, but this is not the same as unwanted pregnancies. These days, it is perfectly acceptable to desire an extra-marital pregnancy, while it is also acceptable for a wife to choose not to become pregnant.
Sexually transmitted diseases come and go in cycles, but I am not aware of any long term increase in them (the history of Syphilis in the 15th and 16th century is no different to the history of AIDS in the 20th and 21st).
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Normal is difficult to define as I believe the answer is as unique to an individual as their fingerprints are. This is why I specifically cited that for self evaluation, to have to hand historical data that then portrays what is ‘ usual ‘ for the individual would be helpful.
But, as I indicated earlier, this is a very personal notion of normality.
One may say that it is normal for a particular person to commit murder, and one may also say that it is normal for society to contain murderers, but is this the same as saying it is normal for people to commit murder?
It also depends upon whether one regards the term 'normal' as a synonym for 'typical' or as a synonym for 'acceptable'. Clearly, in the latter case, one may make a distinction between murder and homosexuality, but then one has to also has to accept that what may be acceptable in one society may not be acceptable in another society, and so that definition of normality becomes totally defined by the society one is in.
quote:
LOL …yes, I expected you would pick me up on that as my use of ‘gay embrace ‘ was way too subtle…it was a very mild subtle innuendo to maintain an air of etiquette which in this case plainly misfired ! [;)]
Sorry is that one flew over my head [:I]
I cannot say that I have a great deal of observation in the matter. One thing I would ask is whether you believe this reflects an actual different in acceptability of the nature of the relationship, or is it more that women are generally more demonstrative in public (and even in private) than men?
quote:
I am sure you are right about the notion of homosexuality in Victorian times but it of course was just as prevalent then as it is now. Except today it has very much come out of the closet.
This is a debatable point.
What is certain is that homosexuality (whatever it is) has always been with us, but we simply do not have the data available to provide any quantitative comparisons.
If the earlier speculation that levels of homosexuality vary with population density have any merit, then one would expect that the modern high population densities should have a higher number of homosexual persons in the population than was true in past times with lower population densities.
George
-
so you say pedophelia amongst catholic priests is a result of them "not controlling their sexual urges"? id say quite the opposite. they put way TOO much control on their sexual urges, since they enter the priesthood they cannot marry or even maturbate! this frustration of "controlling" their urges because they are "unnatural" creates great harm to a persons well-being and more chance for perversion.
people cannot will themselves to change theyre sexuality. they just cant. homosexuality is not self deception, trying to be straight because its "natural" when you dont feel that way is self-deception.
i also dissagree with almost all of your other points, but im sure someone else will break you down for that.
free love, sexual education taught by openminded adults, and free sexual expression are our best chances of having a happy and balanced population.
get blown church boy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
so you say pedophelia amongst catholic priests is a result of them "not controlling their sexual urges"? id say quite the opposite. they put way TOO much control on their sexual urges, since they enter the priesthood they cannot marry or even maturbate! this frustration of "controlling" their urges because they are "unnatural" creates great harm to a persons well-being and more chance for perversion.
people cannot will themselves to change theyre sexuality. they just cant. homosexuality is not self deception, trying to be straight because its "natural" when you dont feel that way is self-deception.
Are not the two statements above mutually contradictory.
You say that paedophilia is a consequence of the environment that the priests find themselves in, but in the next statement you say that people's sexual preferences cannot be changed.
If, in your second paragraph, one replaced the word 'homosexuality' with 'paedophilia', how would it make your first paragraph look?
George
-
quote:
The natural human reproductive process consists of a human male injecting seminal fluid discharged from his penis into the vagina of a human female. This leads to fertilization of the eggs within the womb of the female and eventual birth of a human child. This natural reproductive process of the human species determines the physiological and psychological characteristics of men and women, which are different and reflect their roles in this natural reproductive process. Similar differences between sexes exist in other animal species.
One of the characteristics of this reproductive process is that from time to time men and women feel a strong desire to perform this mutual act of reproduction. This is accompanied by strong emotions of attraction to the opposite sex, love, desire to possess or to belong, envy, jealousy, protectiveness. Often people find it difficult to resist or control these desires and emotions. Similar strong emotions are exhibited in relations of parents to their children. Similar emotion or instinct based reproductive process prevails among other animal species.
So, am I understanding you correctly? The only time men and women have sex is really when they feel the need to reproduce? Well, I can assure you that even if I had the ability to reproduce again, I sure as heck wouldn't want to. You can bet that doesn't stop mine or hubbys sex drive, in fact, I believe we both enjoy it and "do it" alot more than we used to.
quote:
Homosexual women use their tongues, fingers, or similar objects as a substitute for a male penis.
Let's say that for some reason my husband was no longer able to perform his husbandly duties[;)]. If I were to go out and purchase myself an adult toy (and I would in a New York Minute, actually, hubby would probably buy it for me[:D]), would that make me a lesbian?
Mikey - I don't have the time or the energy to argue every ridiculous statement in your post, although George and Neil have done a fantastic job of it. I would, however, like to know where you've gotten your information, other than that silly website. If you're going to tell me the Bible is your source of information, then please include the scripture.
Carolyn
-
another_someone: if it seems contradictory, let me try to explain.
i think in the case of catholic priests, sexual repression and limitation during sexual maturation cause their pedophilia. i dont think, however, pedophiles can change their sexuality after its been developed, any more than homo or heterosexuals. and relieving the environmental factors of not being able to marry or masturbate, wouldnt make a difference after someone has been repressed initially.
so, the environment one grows in might determine sexuality, but no one can just will their sexuality one direction.
-
quote:
Originally posted by gecko
another_someone: if it seems contradictory, let me try to explain.
i think in the case of catholic priests, sexual repression and limitation during sexual maturation cause their pedophilia. i dont think, however, pedophiles can change their sexuality after its been developed, any more than homo or heterosexuals. and relieving the environmental factors of not being able to marry or masturbate, wouldnt make a difference after someone has been repressed initially.
so, the environment one grows in might determine sexuality, but no one can just will their sexuality one direction.
The problem I have with this is that you seem to suggest this might be a problem for people who become priests during their adolescent years, yet to my knowledge training for the priesthood does not start until after that point in time. On the other hand, there are a great many people who pass through a Catholic upbringing who will never become priests, but will be influenced by the doctrines of the Church at precisely the period of time where they would be most sensitive to such formative influences.
Let me put to you another hypothesis why so many priests are paedophilia's.
Let me suggest that these people were latent paedophilia's long before they entered the priesthood. The (whether consciously or subconsciously) were aware that there sexual preferences were taboo. Given this fact, they already felt the need to repress their native sexual desires, and were thus attracted to an institution that would institutionalise such a repression of sexuality, as it gave them a sense of safety; unfortunately, a false sense of safety, since (at least for some of them) there sexual desires proves more powerful than the institutionalised taboo could repress.
Paedophiles are not easy to turn around even with the proper medical infrastructure at your disposal, and the Catholic Church is not really geared to either seek out those who are entering the Church because they are running away from their sexuality, nor to give these people the specialised support they need.
George
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep#Behavior
quote:
Homosexuality in male sheep (found in 6–10% of rams) is associated with variations in cerebral mass distribution and chemical activity. A study reported in Endocrinology concluded that biological factors are in play; this study replicated similar findings in humans. It shows that approximately 10% of males are homosexual and that the brains of homosexual males are different.
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478
quote:
The Volume of a Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus in the Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies with Sexual Partner Preference
Sheep are one of the few animal models in which natural variations in male sexual preferences have been studied experimentally. Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes. This cell group was labeled the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN). In addition to a sex difference, we found that the volume of the oSDN was two times greater in female-oriented rams than in male-oriented rams. The dense cluster of neurons that comprise the oSDN express cytochrome P450 aromatase. Aromatase mRNA levels in the oSDN were significantly greater in female-oriented rams than in ewes, whereas male-oriented rams exhibited intermediate levels of expression. Because the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus is known to control the expression of male sexual behaviors, these results suggest that naturally occurring variations in sexual partner preferences may be related to differences in brain anatomy and capacity for estrogen synthesis.
George
-
it is possible that priests are pedophiles before they enter the priesthood, and theres a high percentage because they are ashamed. i hadnt really considered that.
i saw an interesting documentary on celibacy that had a long bit on the priesthood. some priests do enter the priesthood at about puberty, and there was confessionals of the grief it caused. however, this might not be a majority, and it mightve have been pure sensationalism...
-
I feel this new study says it all:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/05/08/lesbian.brains.ap/index.html
no surprise, Like anyone would chose to be gay. But I like this study because one can extrapolate that sexual identity is a sliding scale. That very few of us are exclusively hetero in our hormonal sensitivity, although most of us are in our sexual behavior. That hetero, bi, and homo are very coarse and stigmatizing labels.
Erich J. Knight
-
quote:
Originally posted by erich
I feel this new study says it all:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/05/08/lesbian.brains.ap/index.html
no surprise, Like anyone would chose to be gay. But I like this study because one can extrapolate that sexual identity is a sliding scale. That very few of us are exclusively hetero in our hormonal sensitivity, although most of us are in our sexual behavior. That hetero, bi, and homo are very coarse and stigmatizing labels.
Not sure it proves that much.
It does prove that there is a correlation between brain chemistry and behaviour – but then, why should there not be – the brain controls behaviour, so any change in behaviour should correspond with a change in brain activity The report does not seem to make any attempt to show to what degree the change in brain chemistry is genetic or environmental in origin.
George
-
or maybe an inborn succeptability to cancer makes people smokers!
no, im just kidding i agree with anoth_some
-
i still reckon its a genetic flaw :)
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
i still reckon its a genetic flaw :)
In evolution, there is no such thing as an error, only random variation. That the traits continue at around 10% of the population (very similar to that monitored in sheep), indicates that the genes that create such a predisposition are not of themselves harmful to the species (at least, not at the level it exists).
Whether one takes a religious, or an evolutionary, perspective; to assume it to be an error is to assume that your own design of nature is superior to that which was created by nature or by God (whichever you would prefer). Nature has no concept of error or correctness, whereas God is supposed to be incapable of error.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
i still reckon its a genetic flaw :)
In evolution, there is no such thing as an error, only random variation. That the traits continue at around 10% of the population (very similar to that monitored in sheep), indicates that the genes that create such a predisposition are not of themselves harmful to the species (at least, not at the level it exists).
Whether one takes a religious, or an evolutionary, perspective; to assume it to be an error is to assume that your own design of nature is superior to that which was created by nature or by God (whichever you would prefer). Nature has no concept of error or correctness, whereas God is supposed to be incapable of error.
George
I dont agree with you george and there are lots and lots of people much cleverer than me who also disagree with you
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030516083103.htm
I also do believe (according to peter tatchell) that in the UK the BMA class homosexuality as a mental illness.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N62/cancer.62w.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1998/153-17/15317-18.pdf
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282176.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE7D8123FF932A05752C0A963958260
quote:
There are a number of different causes of SCID. Each is caused by a different genetic defect, and each develops along a different pathway:
X-linked SCID, the most common type, a genetic flaw damages molecules that allow T cells and B cells to receive signals from crucial growth factors.
ADA deficiency results from the lack of an enzyme called adenosine deaminase (ADA) that helps cells, especially immune cells, to get rid of toxic byproducts. Without ADA, poisons build up and kill the lymphocytes.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25154
quote:
WHAT ARE THE FORMS OF LIMB-GIRDLE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY?
There are at least 13 forms of LGMD, and they’re classified by the genetic flaws that appear to cause them (see “Known Forms of Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy”). By 2005, 11 genes that lead to production of muscle proteins had been implicated as definite causes of LGMD when they’re flawed. MDA research was behind much of the work that identified these LGMD genes.
http://www.mdausa.org/publications/fa-lgmd-qa.html
quote:
Some 7.9 million children a year are born with serious birth defects caused at least partly by a genetic flaw, such as heart defects, spina bifida and other neural tube defects, sickle cell anemia and Down syndrome.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11101963/
so gene's which predisposes families to cancer or Schizophrenia for example are not genectic flaws. They are to me ..we are born to live and any genetic abnormality/mutation which prevents someone from living, doing the most basic thing in life is a flaw.
We are given working reproductive organs for a reason to Procreate and anything which we are born with which prevents us from do this is a flaw and in my opinion gay people are born gay .
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
I dont agree with you george and there are lots and lots of people much cleverer than me who also disagree with you
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030516083103.htm
I also do believe (according to peter tatchell) that in the UK the BMA class homosexuality as a mental illness.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N62/cancer.62w.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1998/153-17/15317-18.pdf
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282176.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE7D8123FF932A05752C0A963958260
quote:
There are a number of different causes of SCID. Each is caused by a different genetic defect, and each develops along a different pathway:
X-linked SCID, the most common type, a genetic flaw damages molecules that allow T cells and B cells to receive signals from crucial growth factors.
ADA deficiency results from the lack of an enzyme called adenosine deaminase (ADA) that helps cells, especially immune cells, to get rid of toxic byproducts. Without ADA, poisons build up and kill the lymphocytes.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25154
quote:
WHAT ARE THE FORMS OF LIMB-GIRDLE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY?
There are at least 13 forms of LGMD, and they’re classified by the genetic flaws that appear to cause them (see “Known Forms of Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy”). By 2005, 11 genes that lead to production of muscle proteins had been implicated as definite causes of LGMD when they’re flawed. MDA research was behind much of the work that identified these LGMD genes.
http://www.mdausa.org/publications/fa-lgmd-qa.html
quote:
Some 7.9 million children a year are born with serious birth defects caused at least partly by a genetic flaw, such as heart defects, spina bifida and other neural tube defects, sickle cell anemia and Down syndrome.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11101963/
so gene's which predisposes families to cancer or Schizophrenia for example are not genectic flaws. They are to me ..we are born to live and any genetic abnormality/mutation which prevents someone from living, doing the most basic thing in life is a flaw.
We are given working reproductive organs for a reason to Procreate and anything which we are born with which prevents us from do this is a flaw and in my opinion gay people are born gay .
Michael
You are confusing a medical perspective with an evolutionary perspective.
What I said was that in evolutionary terms, there is no such thing as a genetic error. In medical terms, clearly there are; albeit, what is determined to be a genetic error is totally arbitrary, since it depends upon an arbitrary human notion of what is the 'correct' genetic code. The medical profession could as easily decide that having dark skin is a genetic flaw (perfectly reasonable if they make the assumption that all people should be pale skinned).
George
-
I think the argument that homosexuality is detrimental to the population growth has been well established here, so I won't waste time reiterating it. I will tell you I believe it to be an erroneous, detrimental, and therefore undesireable aspect of our culture.
I personally believe it to be a mental illness- in exactly the same sense that epilepsy and dyslexia are mental illnesses. I fail to see how anyone could define them as anything else.
That's not to say I have any prejudices- I truly do not, someone's sexuality is an irrelevance when it comes to contributing to society, but I do believe that nature clearly did not intend on giving these people children to care for (enter the political arguments over same sex couples as adoptive parents... fight amongst yourselves, I'll be over here...).
There is an argument that homosexuality is a result of hormone levels in the womb - 'the fight to be male' - and the various issues that come with transforming an embryo into a fully functioning Wayne Rooney (hell he's so straight he sleeps with old hookers). Maybe it is testosterone related, or maybe it is just a wiring problem, exactly like dyslexia. It seems there could very well be a direct correlation between dyslexia and homosexuality, because it is all about perception, after all. To be honest I doubt we will ever know - who in their right mind would pursue funding for the necessary research with todays PC climate? One cannot offend the sexually dyslexic, even in the name of science [:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by tanian
Maybe it is testosterone related, or maybe it is just a wiring problem, exactly like dyslexia.
Testosterone is capable of rewiring the brain (it has been shown that testosterone actually rewires the brains of male songbirds that allows them to sing).
quote:
It seems there could very well be a direct correlation between dyslexia and homosexuality, because it is all about perception, after all.
I don't know of, and would doubt, that there is any correlation between homosexuality and dyslexia. The areas of the brain effected would be very different.
Nonetheless, I do agree that there are some similarities (although not necessarily in the way you suggest). The point is that in an illiterate society, dyslexia carries no cost. In the same way, in a world that is overpopulated, homosexuality carries little cost. In a world that is capable of massive human expansion, homosexuality would carry significant cost, and hence why most pre-modern societies tended to be intolerant of homosexuality.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by tanian
I think the argument that homosexuality is detrimental to the population growth has been well established here, so I won't waste time reiterating it. I will tell you I believe it to be an erroneous, detrimental, and therefore undesireable aspect of our culture.
I personally believe it to be a mental illness- in exactly the same sense that epilepsy and dyslexia are mental illnesses. I fail to see how anyone could define them as anything else.
That's not to say I have any prejudices- I truly do not, someone's sexuality is an irrelevance when it comes to contributing to society, but I do believe that nature clearly did not intend on giving these people children to care for (enter the political arguments over same sex couples as adoptive parents... fight amongst yourselves, I'll be over here...).
There is an argument that homosexuality is a result of hormone levels in the womb - 'the fight to be male' - and the various issues that come with transforming an embryo into a fully functioning Wayne Rooney (hell he's so straight he sleeps with old hookers). Maybe it is testosterone related, or maybe it is just a wiring problem, exactly like dyslexia. It seems there could very well be a direct correlation between dyslexia and homosexuality, because it is all about perception, after all. To be honest I doubt we will ever know - who in their right mind would pursue funding for the necessary research with todays PC climate? One cannot offend the sexually dyslexic, even in the name of science [:)]
Can I ask you something?... For arguments sake, humour me will you ?....If it could be proved that being gay is NOT an illness would you then accept that ?...
Are you saying that like Dyslexia and mental illness's, that homosexuality is then treatable?...
Who in their right minds is going to try and get homosexuals to be treated...I've never heard such a bizarre notion...they feel just as normal as you and I do !!....
Is there really some truth that dyslexia can be correlated with homosexuality?
In MY opinion...It sickens me that homosexuality is compared to a mental illness
I do not agree that homosexuality is detrimental to the population growth....What about all the straight people who decide to not be parents? ...should they be forced to procreate?
I question ones statement when people say they are not prejudiced and then go on to state that gays are gay because they are ill !!
Your final statement where you say one can not offend the sexual dyslexic IS offensive !!....I think in this regard funding for research as to the nature of heterosexuality AND homosexuality could be beneficial so that misguided prejudiced people with their so called 'non prejudiced ' points of view may benefit from the results.
C'mon...to put homosexuality in the same bracket as a mental illness (or any illness) is offensive ! in MY opinion !!
I am not attacking you but asking you to assist me in helping me to unbderstand your statements.
This whole thread has me rasing my arms skyward sometimes
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Are you saying that like Dyslexia and mental illness's, that homosexuality is then treatable?...
I would question whether dyslexia is either a mental illness, nor treatable.
Dyslexia is to reading what tone deafness is to music. No-one would suggest that tone deafness is a mental illness.
The only difference between the two is that we have created a society where being able to play and listen to music is optional, but being able to read and write is not.
We can help people to read inspite of their dyslexia, but we cannot cure dyslexia, any more than we can cure tone deafness.
George
-
I would also question whether dyslexia is either a mental illness or treatable......Hmm..well maybe treatable but perhaps not curable !!
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
The previous post was written in haste. The hope was to explain, but clearly I failed to do that.
I agree wholeheartedly that 'illness' is the wrong word in this context, and I hope you will accept my apologies.
I do not believe at this time that homosexuality would be, or should be curable, and I regret the inference that I am so bigoted that I would feel that way.
The word I meant to, and should have used, is 'aberration'.
I believe homosexuality to be an aberration. It is a disorder in exactly the way that dyslexia, epilepsy, colour blindness, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a whole host of other ailments are considered disorders.
If you have issue with either the term 'aberration' or 'disorder' then I suggest, most strongly, that you look them up. They do have very nasty, negative connotations attached to them, and are as a result quite nasty words- but this does not change their literal meanings.
Homosexuality is an aberration. Literally.
As for the question of prejudice- I assure you I am not prejudiced. At all. I think no more of homosexuality than I do of dyselxia, colour blindness or epilepsy. I honestly feel they must in some sense seem a handicap to those affected by these conditions, but hey, as I said, they are no barriers to leading full and productive lives. And nor should they be.
Oh, and the 'sexual dyslexic' thing was simply a play on words. I did intend it to be humorous, but I clearly misjudged the audience. I sincerely hope I did not offend anyone.
-
quote:
Who in their right minds is going to try and get homosexuals to be treated...I've never heard such a bizarre notion...they feel just as normal as you and I do !!....
Thinking about it, some homosexuals must have a truly horrific time of it. Imagine having a totally prejudiced, BNP voting family and then 'coming out' to them. For some it must be a terrible thing, the cause of much distress, heartache and unhappiness. Some homosexuals must certainly wish there was a cure.
quote:
I do not agree that homosexuality is detrimental to the population growth....What about all the straight people who decide to not be parents? ...should they be forced to procreate?
heterosexuals actually have a choice.
The key word here is choice.
Nature denies homosexuals of a choice.
quote:
Your final statement where you say one can not offend the sexual dyslexic IS offensive !!....
Humbly accepted. See above post.
quote:
I think in this regard funding for research as to the nature of heterosexuality AND homosexuality could be beneficial so that misguided prejudiced people with their so called 'non prejudiced ' points of view may benefit from the results.
Agreed. That is a fantastic idea. I feel quite sure many, many people would benefit from the results. We would be able to adequately raise awareness of such issues in society as a whole, and challenge ignorance everywhere. Even if it comes from homosexuals.
Sexuality is, after all, no barrier to ignorance or bigotry.
To be completely honest, many homosexuals and transexuals would probably opt for a cure if there was one available. It is certainly a damning condemnation of our society that people would feel the need, but it also is a distinct possibility.
"These are my opinions... If you don't like them, I have others"
Groucho Marx
-
Oh why do you have to go and make me feel all guilty now ? [:)]
I apprecaite your clarification and assistance in helping me understand your point of view.
OK..I can see why you might state that homosexulaity is an aberration...at the same time...there are just as many heterosexual practices (or is is practises?) which could also be deemed an aberration too !......however...I DO understand what you are saying now [:)]
I know a few gays, in my dialogues that I enjoy with them I can't say I have ever heard them say that their homosexuality in itself has given them reason to feel handicapped in any way.....but that certain aspects of society may treat them as such.
Thank you for clearing your points up. I too apologise for my tone.
I suppose I have a lot of time for gays and almost feel an affinity because in the capacity that I have of my experience of dealing with them in business and work and social gatherings, I have only ever witnessed from my perspective what is clear to me as a completely normal application towards life, like you and me. I honestly see them as equal in every respect and it just upsets me that ' they ' should be discussed so.
So, I am bringing personal experience here which perhaps , maybe this thread would then be different if we all had a whole bunch of gay friends too !...and I don't mean the odd acquaintance ![:D]
Thanks again.
Neil
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
No probs neil [:D]
Tell you what tho, there's no way we'd get this hot and bothered if we were talking about bloody colour blindness.
Hey, great... Ok, we've done gays, lets get onto politics and religion... Hey, did you just spill my pint? What did you say about Neil's mum???
Honestly, its a minefield in here [;)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by tanian
I truly do not, someone's sexuality is an irrelevance when it comes to contributing to society, but I do believe that nature clearly did not intend on giving these people children to care for (enter the political arguments over same sex couples as adoptive parents... fight amongst yourselves, I'll be over here...).
In how many species does nature actually promote adoption, no matter what the sexuality of the adoptive parents?
What nature often does support is shared parenting (i.e. parental duties shared between the natural parents and the siblings of the parent – i.e. the child's aunts and/or uncles). In such a scenario, the actual sexuality of the aunt's and uncles scarcely matter.
George
-
Neil please dont take any of this the wrong way.
Hi Neil this part isn't in response to you post so please don't take it personally it just that I felt the need to be truthful and let everyone know my personal views on the gay issue as I am going to answer some of your questions.
Firstly before I start let me say I have no hatred or dislike for anyone just because they are lesbian or gay as they harm nobody and because I believe rightly or wrongly gay people are born gay, they are what they are born to be and therefore should not be persecuted in any way.
However I personally find the act of homosexual penetrative sex between two males disgusting and wrong, and therefore find the people who do this act as disgusting and wrong, but the same has to be said about penetrative anal sex between a man and a woman which I find equally abhorrent.
Anal sex is not something that evolution has designed the human body to do and has in fact caused the death of a number of individuals participating in it. In my view its nasty, horrible, dirty and disgusting and I wouldn't argue against it being outlawed.
Legally anal sex and separately homosexuality has been deemed to be an acceptable practice in todays society, but that doesn't mean it cant be argued or spoken out against as is often done by a large percentage of today's society who still find the idea of it as wrong,they are legally and morally allowed to have those views just like people who agree with it are allowed to have their views and so neither side should be attacked if they wish to politely express themselves. Everyone has a right to there own opinions. im not saying you have [:)]
On a side issue in regards to the acceptance of homosexuality, it's weird how women seem to accept it more than men.
Now in answer to some of your questions
quote:
can I ask you something?... For arguments sake, humour me will you ?....If it could be proved that being gay is NOT an illness would you then accept that ?...
____________________
Yes I would, however what is a mental illness. One definition is someone having a personality disorder, which I feel could easily be argued either way in the case of homosexuality. But there are many definitions with different countries having differing views. I suppose it comes down to your personal view as even The BMA state that
"The term "mental illness" is undefined and its operational definition and usage is a matter for clinical judgement in each case".
These days psychiatrists are however trying to be less speculative and look for medical evidence to aid their diagnosis such as gene and neurotransmitter abnormalities the same things which they believe could be part of the reason for people being homosexual. So why cant homosexuality be a mental disorder, a mental disorder doesn't in my book nessesary mean something bad.
(I thought i would sneak this bit in) On the issue regarding whether genetics has anything to do with people being gay there has been a number of studies that found just that. There have been a number of studies which found that if one Monozygotic) genetically identical twin was gay then the other had on average 50% chance of being gay too. Whereas (dizygotic twins) Twins who are not genetically identical had only a 22 % chance of having the identical sexual orientation.
quote:
Who in their right minds is going to try and get homosexuals to be treated...I've never heard such a bizarre notion...they feel just as normal as you and I do!!....
It sickens me that homosexuality is compared to a mental illness
It doesn't sicken me because a mental illness doesn't have to be something bad.
One of the reasons homosexuality was dropped as a mental illness in the USA was because of the stigma which comes unfairly with term "mental illness". Many people think that someone with a mental illness is bad for society or someone who should be shunned ,and so they figured therefore that people would then feel that if homosexualarity remained a mental disorder then homosexuals would also recieve some of the prejudeces people recieve through having a mental condition.
but in the real world they believe 1 in 4 people are diagnosed with a mental illness of form or another and most lead normal happy productive lives .
Lots of people do not even know that they have a mental disorder until it is diagnosed and up to then felt like there was nothing wrong with them, they felt normal and even after diagnosis they still felt normal. But what is normal?
Many people live with mental conditions which don’t require treatment but i suppose it would depend on whether the condition was deemed undesirable or detrimental to the sufferer or society and as homosexuals have not been deemed so in the UK your point is pointless. HA[:)]
quote:
I do not agree that homosexuality is detrimental to the population growth....What about all the straight people who decide to not be parents? ...should they be forced to procreate?
The population is getting older and not enough children are being born but I'm not qualified to give an opinion on this one so thats as far as i will go. I will leave it to people like George who are better at the stats etc.[:)]
quote:
I question ones statement when people say they are not prejudiced and then go on to state that gays are gay because they are ill !!
Most of us have a little bug (or virus not sure which) running around our brains slowing down our responses and lowering our IQ’s so in theory most of us are ill [:)].
One question if I may my friend[:)] I HOPE WERE STILL FRIENDS.
Given the fact that most of us parents would like our children to find a partner and have children in the future
if the doctors came up with a simple tablet which you only take once which would remove the small chance of any of your children being gay and was totally safe to take would you take it.
And if you wouldn’t take it would you protest against other people taking it.
Michael
-
Hi Chum (BTW..I really hate you [:D])
In light of no (open) gays on the site....I think I am taking on the role as 'token gay' here. It does make for an interesting discussion.....and I would call it a discussion as I am not treating this as a debate.
Michael (My mate [:)]), I appreciate your words regarding the nature of what a ' mental illness' is...but my point is not just the reference to a mental illness it is the fact that homosexuality is considered a 'condition' in the first place !
To be a condition it must be something other than what is generally accepted as being the norm. Now , I know that homosexuality is in the minority but whichever way you label it, to the gays that I know, it would be deemed a prejudicial term as it demonstrates that it is being labelled ' Not Normal '....THAT...is my point. Now I am not debating the definition of ' normal ' in this case , I am expressing a point of view from the gays perspective.
..So my point is not the ' mental illness' but the labelling in the first place.
I think , unless one is gay, which as you know I am not, or has close association with gays then it is really difficult to see where I am coming from.
Regarding the population growth...what ever the raw data is it makes no difference...there is as far as I know, no Government program to ' treat ' gays on the basis of their effect on the population growth..or on anything for that matter.....in fact, a generation of gays in the majority might do the World .......a world of good !! [:)]
Your pill question. (I’m not too sure if it’s a fair question !!![:)])
CRIPES !!...Could it happen ?...Boy would that be controversial in the very least.
I am not going to be pedantic here and I shall assume that this drug is 100% safe to all parties, OK, got that out of the way.
Good question. ….To be honest…I just can not answer it yet…..my gut instinct tells me that I might want to take the pill…but…the chances of my child being gay is slim anyway,. Y’see I have an issue here as to what is natural…..I truly believe that gay love is natural, it’s as natural as straight love is in MY opinion….I know in yours, it is not…….I would not wish to participate in gay love but I could if I wanted to, and so could you and everybody else……..
……..so we’re at an impasse really…….and I was thinking before…that everything we say here regarding love, god, sexuality, emotions etc etc.....…well, it’s really all based on personal opinion whereas the sciences are mostly dealt with by facts and data etc. …I realise that is a generic statement but I honestly believe the nature of human behaviour is so wide and varied that we may never understand it and that any ‘ mental ‘ condition is not as clear cut as a scientific experiment where the results will always be the same for example.
Semantics are a real problem…….
I know you may think I have gone off down Tangent Avenue here but I have been letting my mind wander because I really want to answer your question, and I was hoping that by the time I type THIS far I will know what to say….
Michael (my chum ! [:)]), unless faced with the choice in a real situation I don’t think I can ever answer that question with complete honesty. I would like to think that I would let ‘ nature ‘ takes it’s course though I can also see the temptation of taking that pill.
Sorry…best answer I can give…for now…….MATEY !! [:D][:)]
I would not protest against others taking it..I may think negatively though if the reason for consumption of such a pill is based on homophobia though.
...and in case someone asks, I would not be devastated if one of my children was gay....we would talk, discuss at length, but I would never love that child any less.
Michael.....we're mates ! [:D]
Men are the same as women, just inside out !
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
However I personally find the act of homosexual penetrative sex between two males disgusting and wrong, and therefore find the people who do this act as disgusting and wrong, but the same has to be said about penetrative anal sex between a man and a woman which I find equally abhorrent.
Anal sex is not something that evolution has designed the human body to do and has in fact caused the death of a number of individuals participating in it. In my view its nasty, horrible, dirty and disgusting and I wouldn't argue against it being outlawed.
I would go along with that, but then I also don't like eating broccoli or cauliflower (and many other foods besides), so I'm not sure why my taste in one thing or another is particularly relevant in the wider scheme of things.
quote:
On a side issue in regards to the acceptance of homosexuality, it's weird how women seem to accept it more than men.
Is that so, or is it that women are more tolerant of male homosexuality, but not so of female homosexuality (i.e. they don't see male homosexuality as a threat because it does not involve women – in the same was as heterosexual men are generally more tolerant of female homosexuality than they are of male homosexuality)?
quote:
It doesn't sicken me because a mental illness doesn't have to be something bad.
I cannot see this. By definition, an illness is bad (not the person, just the illness itself).
You may talk of a mental condition not necessarily being bad, but the moment to apply the term 'illness' to a condition (mental or otherwise), it must indicate a judgement of something bad happening to a person (it makes no sense to say a person is ill, but there is nothing wrong with them).
quote:
One of the reasons homosexuality was dropped as a mental illness in the USA was because of the stigma which comes unfairly with term "mental illness". Many people think that someone with a mental illness is bad for society or someone who should be shunned ,and so they figured therefore that people would then feel that if homosexualarity remained a mental disorder then homosexuals would also recieve some of the prejudeces people recieve through having a mental condition.
but in the real world they believe e 1 in 4 people are diagnosed with one form or another of mental illness and most lead normal happy productive lives .
Lots of people do not even know that they have a mental disorder until it is diagnosed and up to then felt like there was nothing wrong with them, they felt normal and even after diagnosis they still felt normal. But what is normal?
There is also often controversy about diagnosing anything that is outside the normal. There is much controversy about over diagnosis of things such as ADHD.
quote:
The population is getting older and not enough children are being born but I'm not qualified to give an opinion on this one so thats as far as i will go.
While this is true, this is far more concerned with a reduction of the number of children born to heterosexual couples, and the small number of people who do not have children because they are homosexual really has little impact on the matter.
N any case, if there is an impact that homosexuality would have on this matter, it would only be female homosexuality, since the number of children born is very little influenced by the number of heterosexually active men, and far more by the number of pregnancies each women has.
Furthermore, in past times, men were often taken out of the pool of sexually active by entering a monastic or priestly life. We may have very much fewer priests, and almost no monks, but probably about equal numbers of homosexuals.
The main difference in the past was the generally regarded public duty for people in general, and women in particular, to have children. These days, a very large number of heterosexuals (myself included) do not have children at all. In the past, that would have been seen as a very selfish lifestyle to undertake.
quote:
If they could find a way too prevent any child of yours from being born gay by giving you a simple tablet which was totally safe to take would you take it.
And if you wouldn’t take it would you protest against other people taking it.
If one could take a pill that would guarantee that your child would be male, then a great number of people in India, China, and no doubt many other countries, would choose to take that pill (there is already evidence of extensive gender based selective abortions in those countries).
George
-
quote:
If one could take a pill that would guarantee that your child would be male, then a great number of people in India, China, and no doubt many other countries, would choose to take that pill (there is already evidence of extensive gender based selective abortions in those countries).
quote:
they could find a way too prevent any child of yours from being born gay by giving you a simple tablet which was totally safe to take would you take it.
And if you wouldn’t take it would you protest against other people taking it.
Dogging the issue george[;)] i said gay not male[:)]
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
And if you wouldn’t take it would you protest against other people taking it.
My own instinct would be that I would be reluctant to distort the natural spectrum of behaviour unless there is an overwhelming clinical need to do so. That about 6%-10% or people are homosexual is the natural order of things. If we distort this, what would be the secondary ramifications?
I would have no problem with one or two people taking such a pill, because that number would not have a population wide statistical significance; but if there was any risk that a substantial proportion of the population would be taking such a pill, and hence creating a distortion in the natural spectrum of sexual orientation in the population, then I would start to be concerned.
George
-
If we are to say homosexuality has something to do with geneiics then sexual intercourse has the same tendercy.like sexual intercourse it has to do with feelings but which are unnatural,thats why i often say gays are inhuman.To become a gay has to do with choice and desire and i believe has nothing to do with genes.People could only be born gays if there was a possibility of choosing during birth which is impossible.to conclude people can't be born gays
-
And that was brought to you by someone who has no idea.
Desire yes, choice no.
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by veteran
If we are to say homosexuality has something to do with geneiics then sexual intercourse has the same tendercy.like sexual intercourse it has to do with feelings but which are unnatural,thats why i often say gays are inhuman.
The terms 'unnatural' and 'inhuman' are meaningless in this context.
If it happens, then it is natural that it should happen (and that it can be observed in other species, such a sheep, only goes to reinforce the notion that it is natural).
To say it is inhuman is to suggest that they are a distinct and separate species to humans. This clearly in not a supportable position to take.
quote:
To become a gay has to do with choice and desire and i believe has nothing to do with genes.
If taken at face value (and ignoring the contrary evidence), this would imply that the converse, heterosexuality, is also purely a matter of choice, and that neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is an innate and natural state, but each a deliberate and artificial choice.
George
-
quote:
On the issue regarding whether genetics has anything to do with people being gay there has been a number of studies that found just that. There have been a number of studies which found that if one Monozygotic) genetically identical twin was gay then the other had on average 50% chance of being gay too. Whereas (dizygotic twins) Twins who are not genetically identical had only a 22 % chance of having the identical sexual orientation.
To sum up:
There is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is linked to genetic factors.
Conclusion:
People are born gay.
Well now we know.
-
hope not cause i a have a wife and 2 kids [:D]
-
Hi there. Your "open" gay man has arrived (Ooh Matron!)
I've just joined this forum this morning, found this topic, read right through it, and should have been in bed 2 hrs ago.
First of all, thanks to all those people in here who've been rallying to our cause, and to the others, thanks for being honest & not turning this topic into a flame war. It's good to know there's somewhere to have these kinds of discussions sensibly and dispassionately.
I am both gay and a Christian, which may come as a surprise to both sides. I have to say, right now, that my experience has been that people on the Gay scene have been far more intollerant of my faith than Christians have been of my sexuality. More than once, I've heard the words "Here comes the vicar" on entering a gay bar!
Anyway, to give you just a little insight, I always knew I was "different", right from when I was a toddler. It took me until way through puberty to put a name to that "difference", and then maybe another 20 yrs to realise that the name, "gay", was something of an arbitrary pidgeon-hole anyway.
I can honestly say that I don't think I have EVER met anyone who was 100% in their sexuality. By that, I'm not trying to say "the whole world is gay", anymore than I would say "the whole world is straight". I'm simply alluding to the fact that nature, God, science, logic and the world in general doesn't work that way. You can no more find a 100% heterosexual or homosexual than you can find a 100% frictionless surface or a 100% solution of alcohol! In all but the most theoretical of sciences, there is no black or white, merely shades of grey, and in the same way that my dress socks LOOK black, but don't absorb all the radiation of the universe, there are those people who FEEL completely oriented in their sexuality (and for all human purposes probably are).
For those reasons, I tend to agree with the "combined theory" that there are elements of genetics, chemistry, environment and societal influences all stacking up together on this one, and I think we have rather less chance of finding a "unified theory" of sexuality than we do a unified theory of physics!
I'm definately convinced that population has a part to play. In fact, I seem to remember seeing a study, some years ago, which claimed that the instance of homosexuality was statistically higher in closely populated areas. Hence, if you REALLY don't like us, live in a rural area! [;)]
Finally, for those who come from a religious, particularly Jewish or Christian, standpoint, I would recommend you read the book of "1 Samuel" in the Old Testament. The relationship between David and Jonathan is regarded by many gay Christians and Jews as being the template for a wholesome and godly same-sex relationship. I'll be glad to expand on this if anyone is interested, but you really need to read the book first (and give me permission to drift a little off-topic).[:0] (It's notable that you won't find this scripture on the readings list in many fundamentalist churches!)
Anyway, I hope I've given you a bit of food for thought.
I welcome your comments, even if you disagree! [:D]
"What's a unified theory, daddy?"...
"Ask your mother!"
-
THANK YOU DYNAMIX for your valuable contribution and very interesting post.
Men are the same as women, just inside out !