Homosexuality, nature or nuture - Page 4

mididoctors · 10-14-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I don't choose which girls I'm going to like. The type of girls to which I am attracted is not "genetic" (Freud would say that it's based on how I perceive my mother). Some guys' type of girl ... is a guy. Does that make sense to anyone?

It fucking baffles me that people actually debate this shit. Ugh..

you do seem to be debating it

there's a lot of argument in this attractiveness thing..

your argument is not thorough enough because the basis of attractiveness is controversial.. your using one poorly understood facet to prove in invalidity of another poorly understood thing

there are studies than immune responses are displayed in body order ad we are attracted to smells that exhibit immunities we do not have so as to maximise the immunity of any child we may have...

if we are attracted to mother look alikes then i suggest that may well be genetically based as a response...

it comes down to semantics to some degree... is the basic unit of selection the gene or not and are higher orders of behavior genetic selection by proxy..

I am more inclined to your way of thinking as reduction to genetics isn't that helpful.. though the reasons why it isn't helpful really stem from alack of knowledge rather than "it is not"

Boris
london

Dumpy Dooby · 10-14-2006, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by mididoctors

stem from a lack of knowledge rather than "it is not"

In science, those terms are one and the same. If we don't know, then it is not. Science makes no affirmations based on hunches. There's no evidence to suggest that it's a gene; therefore, science says it's not a gene. If science doesn't know something to be true, then science doesn't claim it to be true. The "debating" comes from political bullshit, pseudo-science, and propaganda, not actual science.

The "gay gene" thing came from some magazine article's headline that was written by a layman; it was titled "The Gay Gene?" (or something similar).

imind · 10-14-2006, 10:45 PM

In science, those terms are one and the same. If we don't know, then it is not. Science makes no affirmations based on hunches. There's no evidence to suggest that it's a gene; therefore, science says it's not a gene. If science doesn't know something to be true, then science doesn't claim it to be true.

they are not the same. if no evidence exists to suggest its genetic, science says 'there is no evidence its genetic', and not 'its not genetic'.

Diesel66 · 10-15-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Then, considering the illegality of being able to marry a fellow gay person, why don't they just make it easier on themselves and just choose to be straight? If it's that simple, you'd think most of them would just choose to be straight and make their lives easier.

People choose to have sex with kids, animals, relatives, use whips and chains, married people, etc....

SICKGUY · 10-15-2006, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

What the hell is wrong people? "Gay gene"?!?! I thought that shit went out of style in the 90's.

like you somehow have more proof than anyone else on this forum to back up your argument? are you a scientist? do you have a vast knowledge of genetics that qualifies you as an expert?

or are you just like the rest of us, and rely on information thats available online?

SICKGUY · 10-15-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

People choose to have sex with kids, animals, relatives, use whips and chains, married people, etc....

naturally you drag in the most obvious extreme example. pedophiles and beastiality is obviously the same as being gay.

SICKGUY · 10-15-2006, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I don't choose which girls I'm going to like. The type of girls to which I am attracted is not "genetic" (Freud would say that it's based on how I perceive my mother). Some guys' type of girl ... is a guy. Does that make sense to anyone?

It fucking baffles me that people actually debate this shit. Ugh..

i think that even though you dont choose a certain type of girl in looks, shape, personality, whatever, you are still drawn to them simply because they are female. maybe a gay gene isnt reality, but the idea that all gays have made this ridiculous choice to be lifelong partners with the same sex is stupid. i wont deny that there probably are those queers that act gay for whatever reason. and there are guys like john holmes, who obviously wasnt gay, but simply dont care what they are sticking their dick into. guys like that are probably a very small percent of the actual gay community.

the idea that society somehow nurtures a person into a gay lifestyle is even more idiotic. i sort of remember the gay lifestyle being frowned upon by most cultures, so why would people consistently make this “choice” since the dawn of man?

Diesel66 · 10-15-2006, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

naturally you drag in the most obvious extreme example. pedophiles and beastiality is obviously the same as being gay.

Didnt make any type of comparison, nice try at avoiding the issue though.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-15-2006, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by imind

they are not the same. if no evidence exists to suggest its genetic, science says 'there is no evidence its genetic', and not 'its not genetic'.

touche.

There is no evidence to suggest that it's genetic.

mididoctors · 10-15-2006, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

touche.

There is no evidence to suggest that it's genetic.

I think you have already offered evidence it is!

the consensus is there is unlikely to be a single "gay gene"

this is not the same as saying genetics play no part

moreover a genetic component to sexuality is understood by everyone even those who strongly oppose the view homosexuality has a genetic component..

the fact someone is born male or female is a genetic component of sexuality.. unless there is some mis-understanding sexuality has to be learnt..

... false arguments based on evolutionary selection.. ie homosexuality is anti adaptive and anti procreation and therefore should be bred out of the gene pool is a rather poor use of evolutionary science.

evolution does not actively choose traits in a conscious manner instead its a process of differential rates of advantages compared to disadvantages set against environmental space (changing or static)

there are numerous anti adaptive traits in human biology..

ideas of pre natal modifications is genetic by proxy if true as the adaptation in females to produce homosexual males due to a lack of female births (the young brother theory) is the result of a adaptation and must have been selected for...

if true the extra hetrosexual brother must have had a discordant effect on the community and reduced the chances of survival for the genes of the mother and must have been selected against...

this would indicate that male homosexuality is a pro adaptive modification of genetic origin in females.

Boris
London

Dumpy Dooby · 10-15-2006, 06:53 AM

Sorry if I'm being confusing. I obviously believe that it's something that comes from the mother (the young brother theory), but I don't believe that there is a gene in males that could be identified as "gay." I believe it's due to nurture (prenatal or otherwise), but it's not a choice that is made and it generally cannot be changed. It's like how feral children that don't learn to talk by a certain age can never possibly learn to talk ... it is literally impossible for them to ever talk. I think there's probably many things about us that are like that, and sexual orientation can be one of them.

mididoctors · 10-15-2006, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Sorry if I'm being confusing. I obviously believe that it's something that comes from the mother (the young brother theory), but I don't believe that there is a gene in males that could be identified as "gay." I believe it's due to nurture (prenatal or otherwise), but it's not a choice that is made and it generally cannot be changed. It's like how feral children that don't learn to talk by a certain age can never possibly learn to talk ... it is literally impossible for them to ever talk. I think there's probably many things about us that are like that, and sexual orientation can be one of them.

well maybe.. early days in understanding all this is my main concern.. its a vastly complex issue

surprisingly given this thread I think a lot of gay behavior is choice..

eg; men in prison will engage in homosexual activity despite being heterosexual on the outside.. obviously the urge to have sex is strong in some individuals they are willing to give it a go due to the lack of females

if these men carry on homosexual practices once they leave jail are they gay?

human sexual behavior is a book still being written IMO

Boris
London

motivez · 10-15-2006, 02:58 PM

My question over this issue is... why does it matter?

I choose many things for my life that don't hurt anyone else. What type of clothes I wear, whether or not I have a beard, how to get my hair cut.. what product of this or that I purchase.

If it's a choice, who cares? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to choose who they have sex with based on what they get off on as long as no one gets hurt and it's consenting adults making the decision?

If it's a natural thing, which I believe as I don't remember ever making a concious decision to say, "You know what, I'm going to be attracted to girls,".. then again, I don't see why it's a big deal.

While I have no problem with people disagreeing with someone elses choices for their own reason, it seems like in this country which puts so much emphasis on personal freedom.. we should be far more accepting of people who are different than us.

7960 · 10-15-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

My question over this issue is... why does it matter?

I choose many things for my life that don't hurt anyone else. What type of clothes I wear, whether or not I have a beard, how to get my hair cut.. what product of this or that I purchase.

If it's a choice, who cares? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to choose who they have sex with based on what they get off on as long as no one gets hurt and it's consenting adults making the decision?

Because if you look at it this way the religious douchebags* don't have *any* argument against it, rather than the weak one they have now.

*and by douchebags I mean the "I'm anti-gay because my church says so" crowd.

Kytro · 10-15-2006, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Natural predisposition? yes, in some (probably most) instances.
Genetic? No.

It is possible that some combinations of genes could cause predispositon.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Evolutionarily speaking, it would have to be caused by the mother. Gay men don't exactly procreate. It would not have lasted all these years in humans.

Certainly if it were a single gene then no. It could be that some combinations that crop up make it more likely. Since these combinations do not always lead to people being gay (and not all gay people act gay) it is possibl they have survived.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

There's evidence to suggest that it has to do with occurances in the womb. It depends on the intervals between births given to male siblings, youngest of male offsprings is more likely to be gay than the oldest ones. Seeing as how most pack animals have natural biological methods for controlling their immediate population, that makes sense. Foxes can control the size of their litters. Sparsely populated areas will produce large litters, while densely populated areas will produce small litters. Kangaroos can halt the growth process of an embryo for a good six months before deciding to giving birth.

This is also a possible explanation. What leads me to believe there is a possible genetic basis somewhere is the twins study.