Study seeks DNA clues on homosexuality

[DR.D]

Mullet, every point you made is at least technically correct, but can't you simplify? Will you honestly not concede that heterosexual preference is more than culturally programmed, and less that situationally enforced? Whether it is the 'norm' or not is Western, or any culture, it is simply the natural state of sex. It is why you are here. It is how genetic material is conveyed from P to F1, over and over in animal species. Let's please call a spade a spade. Whether nipples and vaginas are cool or not is debatable, but it is undebatable that they are the only natural mechanism provided for reproduction, which is the primary purpose of sex right?

 

[Dr Packenwood]

(psst...i know ..... hehe. I was joking. Needed a reason to slap you for not spreading enough reps around before repping me again) :cheers:

LMFAO

sorry about that. I try to spread the reps, but I haven't been on as much lately.:frustrate

 

[Dr Packenwood]

Only if he survived that big vial of deadly poison! Never understood why it had to be that way, but oh well.

I guess technically, its both ways.

 

[DR.D]

I guess technically, its both ways.

Well yes, the potential is split equally 50/50 both ways, but it could be viewed as technically neither. Until it is observed, it is not even real, just a mathematical possibility. Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty is about the most solid point in all of quantum electrodynamics.

 

[Dr Packenwood]

Well yes, the potential is split equally 50/50 both ways, but it could be viewed as technically neither. Until it is observed, it is not even real, just a mathematical possibility. Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty is about the most solid point in all of quantum electrodynamics.

That pretty much sums up why I never bothered to go to college. Its all just too deep for me.

Or maybe I did. I just never observed myself going to college.

Wait wait...this means that right now I'm a billionaire porn star....or am I?

 

[DR.D]

That pretty much sums up why I never bothered to go to college. Its all just too deep for me.

Or maybe I did. I just never observed myself going to college.

Wait wait...this means that right now I'm a billionaire porn star....or am I?

College is just an excuse to move away and stay drunk man! (lol) I learned more skipping class and going to the library, seriously. I had to teach myself QED anyway. It's not something you can really expect somebody else to explain to you. I think you're doing just fine for yourself my friend.

 

[bioman]

And a grand debate it is. Likewise no ill will to anyone here as all have been civil. Let's keep it that way.

"Obviously, there is some negative and erroneous pathology involved if you desire that,.."

I don't tend to think of biology in terms of negatives or absolutes. We can even delve into D's premise that there are genotypes and resulting phenotypes that work and don't work. From my point of view, for whatever reason..the homosexual pheno/sociotype works within the context of human society and has for millenia.

It's been around and it's apparently going to stay around forever. There is no net gain in offspring but that does NOT matter as, if D asserts, the homosexual gene is a statistical outlier representing a tiny portion of our imaginary bell curve, because it is automatically produced as part of the entire human genotype as a whole.

There appears to be no real negative consequence imparted to the entire human genotype or phenotype as a result of the "automatic" generation of a homosexual subset.

Then you get into the area of bisexuals and from my studies on socio-sexuality, bisexuals are legion..far outnumbering homosexuals but able to remain undetected within the construct of society better than homosexuals...evidenced by the preponderance of "married male for married male" web sites across the globe. You're looking at way more than 10-13% of the populace.

Our closest living ancestors..the Bonobo chimps are totally, raging bisexuals. Genotype or social conditioning?

 

[MashedPotato]

College is just an excuse to move away and stay drunk man! (lol) I learned more skipping class and going to the library, seriously. I had to teach myself QED anyway. It's not something you can really expect somebody else to explain to you. I think you're doing just fine for yourself my friend.

Yeah.... APPARENTLY Dr D was a ladies man in college....

Invalid Link Removed

And APPARENTLY I have Breasts.....

APPARRENTLY..

:whip: :run:

(p.s college rules!)

 

[bioman]

LMAO..ahhhh gotta love the internets.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Mullet, every point you made is at least technically correct, but can't you simplify? Will you honestly not concede that heterosexual preference is more than culturally programmed, and less that situationally enforced? Whether it is the 'norm' or not is Western, or any culture, it is simply the natural state of sex. It is why you are here. It is how genetic material is conveyed from P to F1, over and over in animal species. Let's please call a spade a spade. Whether nipples and vaginas are cool or not is debatable, but it is undebatable that they are the only natural mechanism provided for reproduction, which is the primary purpose of sex right?

That is the issue I am trying to elucidate here D, sexual preference cannot be viewed through a reductionist lens of biology or sociology/psychology; rather, an intricate interplay of both.

You are arguing sexual ability, which, as I have tried to illustrate, does not in a linear-causal relationship dictate sexual preference.

 

[xjsynx]

College is just an excuse to move away and stay drunk man! (lol) I learned more skipping class and going to the library, seriously. I had to teach myself QED anyway. It's not something you can really expect somebody else to explain to you. I think you're doing just fine for yourself my friend.

Thanks for the informative posts Dr. D

:clap2:

 

[kwyckemynd00]

That is the issue I am trying to elucidate here D, sexual preference cannot be viewed through a reductionist lens of biology or sociology/psychology; rather, an intricate interplay of both.

I disagree. If humans, or any other sexually reproducing animal without the ability to asexually reproduce, did not prefer male-female intercourse as part of their biology we simply wouldn't exist. Especially humans. Our generation time is very important to our survival, and especially so in the first 200,000yrs of our existence, and we need reproduction rates that homosexual preference wouldn't allow for. Sexual preference has to be a part of our biology for us to even exist.

Sexual behavior in humans, I believe, is a result of sociology and biology, however.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I disagree. If humans, or any other sexually reproducing animal without the ability to asexually reproduce, did not prefer male-female intercourse as part of their biology we simply wouldn't exist. Especially humans. Our generation time is very important to our survival, and especially so in the first 200,000yrs of our existence, and we need reproduction rates that homosexual preference wouldn't allow for. Sexual preference has to be a part of our biology for us to even exist.

Sexual behavior in humans, I believe, is a result of sociology and biology, however.

I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree then.

Viewing sexual preference, or any socio-morphological activity for that matter, as merely a function of biology is far too reductionist, in my opinion.

I am not arguing that heterosexual preference reproduced our species to the point of advanced development; however, we are also far too advanced to view human behaviour through a strictly biological lens.

 

[nelix]

After we discover the secret to homosexuality, I would like to see the secret to tubgirl... Is that genetic too?

 

[psychospic]

Late to the conversation.

Reminder: homosexual genes are reproduced via "heterosexual" activity. How ironic.

Most other creatures have sex strictly for reproduction/survival. Humans are among the few Mammals who have sex for reproduction AND/OR pleasure. So, clearly homosexuality is not ideal when attempting to reproduce however, it can meet the other human need of sexual pleasure and fulfillment.

I say as long as it involves two consenting individuals who are aware and respectful of their own rights, limitations, and needs as well as their partners'. AND as long as they are not harming anyone physically, emotionaly, or mentally AND you are not banging little kids or animals, then go for it and get your sh!t off.

Oh that reminds me, as long as you are not sh!tting on people either, that's just gross.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree then.

Yes sir.

I am not arguing that heterosexual preference reproduced our species to the point of advanced development; however, we are also far too advanced to view human behaviour through a strictly biological lens.

I understand your logic here, but I believe it is flawed. Because it turns out that most things we thought could be explained simply were far more complex than we previously imaged you apply this idea to everything, and I believe that's taking the idea too far.

Factors that are essential to our species survival have to be biologically programmed, and that's just all there is to it E.G. altruistic behavior is biological in nature. Without altruism humans would be pretty screwed due to our extremely long generation times and the slow development of our children. There are critical rates associated with population survival--take an ecology course and you'll understand this better. If things like homo/hetero sexual preference (hetero being hugely predominant) were not biological in nature it would be pretty much impossible for our population to have ever survived because our rate of reproduction would be superseded by our death rates.

IMHO the only grey area in this entire debate (one which wasn't mentioned) is bisexuality. Bisexuals have a sexual preference, however (especially in women), cultural "norms" (in 2k7 these are the norms according to the media) may contribute to the bisexual behavior of people. This is a complex socio-biological phenomena.

EDIT: Let me make a clarifying statement. I don't mean to say that there is necessarily a single gene that codes for a predetermined homosexuality and that it has nothing to do with the biological development of an organism. If I were to describe what I mean by "genetic" it would be this:
* There are genes that predispose (not predetermine) an organism to developing homosexual physiology.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Late to the conversation.

Reminder: homosexual genes are reproduced via "heterosexual" activity. How ironic.

Its ironic, but not surprising or abnormal by any means.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes sir.


I understand your logic here, but I believe it is flawed. Because it turns out that most things we thought could be explained simply were far more complex than we previously imaged you apply this idea to everything, and I believe that's taking the idea too far.

As is yours. I am not applying this logic to everything, merely the issue of sexual preference in our contemporary generation; and I am using the historically specific cultural conditions in which he arrived at this point in social history to guide my logic.

Factors that are essential to our species survival have to be biologically programmed, and that's just all there is to it E.G. altruistic behavior is biological in nature. Without altruism humans would be pretty screwed due to our extremely long generation times and the slow development of our children. There are critical rates associated with population survival--take an ecology course and you'll understand this better. If things like homo/hetero sexual preference (hetero being hugely predominant) were not biological in nature it would be pretty much impossible for our population to have ever survived because our rate of reproduction would be superseded by our death rates.

Oh Kwyck. Where did I argue that mating heterosexually was not the determinant factor in advancing humanity to this point? What you are failing to realize here, which I would imagine is a function of the biological focus of your education is, our conduct is no longer linked in a deterministic relationship with factors of biological advancement. Take a Sociology/Anthropology class, and you'll understand this better.

You have a tendency to view social conduct as a direct representation of biology. It isn't. Sorry dude.

IMHO the only grey area in this entire debate (one which wasn't mentioned) is bisexuality. Bisexuals have a sexual preference, however (especially in women), cultural "norms" (in 2k7 these are the norms according to the media) may contribute to the bisexual behavior of people. This is a complex socio-biological phenomena.

lmao..This entire debate is a gray area. If I could be as self-assured as you are in a reductionist and deconstructionist view on human social behaviour, my life would be much easier.

 

[jomi822]

I did a 20 page published study on this last year.

Homosexuality doesn't have a direct base soley in genetics. Certain genes have a specific vulnerability to outside endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC's). The prenatal development of a fetus is heavily dependant on pulsatile hormone baths that activate certain sex specific genes and organ function. The hypothalamus is programmed in this fashion.

If these hormonal "baths" fail to activate predetermined sexual functions in the hypothalamus (the bodies sexual and hormonal monitoring center), you get homosexuality....among a slew of conditions (transgender...lack of sexual interest...retarded sexual development.....reproductive problems....)

EDC's are friggin' everywhere. you simply can avoid them in todays age of plastics and carbon based compounds. Fertilizers, plasticizers, medications, industrial waste (DIOXINS), pesticides...

The Y chromosome is responsible for male hypothalamic development. Even a small amount of xenoestrogen activity can cause it to maintain female characteristics and function.

 

[DR.D]

... If these hormonal "baths" fail to activate predetermined sexual functions in the hypothalamus (the bodies sexual and hormonal monitoring center), you get homosexuality....among a slew of conditions (transgender...lack of sexual interest...retarded sexual development.....reproductive problems....) ...

Exactly. The majority of the homos that say "I was born this way" very well could have been, but it is still a choice one makes, like choosing the ice-cream flavor they prefer. However, while many cases may have an inherent predisposition, it simply can't be a genetic trait. It conveys no survival advantage, so it cannot be dominant and it cannot result in even dysfunctional offspring so it couldn't be recessive either. Regardless if it is social or chemical in any specific case, it is at least a personal choice based on unnatural pathology. This is really a no-brainer, I don't see why the debate continues.

 

[jomi822]

Im not sure what youre saying D.

If your biological programming instructs you go pursue a man even if you are a man, it is not a choice. The impulse itself is completely inherent. No choice or morality involved.

The act of participating in homosexual sexual activity is a choice. is it your opinion that it is wrong?

If someone, on the other hand, wasn't biologically programmed to seek a same-sex partner, i would indeed call that dude ****ed up.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Im not sure what youre saying D.

If your biological programming instructs you go pursue a man even if you are a man, it is not a choice. The impulse itself is completely inherent. No choice or morality involved.

The act of participating in homosexual sexual activity is a choice. is it your opinion that it is wrong?

If someone, on the other hand, wasn't biologically programmed to seek a same-sex partner, i would indeed call that dude ****ed up.

I am sorry, I just cannot reconcile a view of biological determinism with reality. If our social conduct is predetermined by biology, than somebody in this thread needs to inform Sociologist, Psychologists, and Anthropologists that they have been barking up the wrong tree for a few centuries.

 

[CDB]

Exactly. The majority of the homos that say "I was born this way" very well could have been, but it is still a choice one makes, like choosing the ice-cream flavor they prefer. However, while many cases may have an inherent predisposition, it simply can't be a genetic trait. It conveys no survival advantage, so it cannot be dominant and it cannot result in even dysfunctional offspring so it couldn't be recessive either. Regardless if it is social or chemical in any specific case, it is at least a personal choice based on unnatural pathology. This is really a no-brainer, I don't see why the debate continues.

Does throwing oneself off a cliff convey a survival advantage? Hmm, got to tell the lemmings they're an evolutionary impossibility. Of course their sometimes odd behavior of jumping into the ocean and swimming themselves to death is one response to their wild population swings and, while it does not necessarily help those who die to survive, the behavior itself helps the whole species survive and spread. Until the issue is studied and actual causes and reasons for the behaviors are known, it's presumptuous to say homosexuality and/or bisexuality 'convey no survival advantage'. For all you or anyone else knows it serves to stop large population booms leading to human offspring decimating their environments and out growing the food supply. The sexual behaviors could also serve social functions without which human society would be much differrent or perhaps even non existent.

Or, in other words, it's a bit ridiculous to say the behaviors convey no survival advantage when: 1) No study yet knows the specific causes and possible reasons for the behaviors in human populations; 2) The presence of the behaviors implies at least evolutionary neutrality and likely some utility over time given their prevelance in the population; and; 3) In light of the social taboos surrounding the behaviors relative to actual knowledge on the subject, it's likely any judgement concerning what if any 'survival advantage' they may or may not convey is more likely the result of learned social bias one or the other on the part of the person making the pronouncement and not actual knowledge.

 

[psychospic]

My biggest concern when sicentists attempt to identify genes affecting specific populations is what they plan to do with that information. If the information is being used to enhance the life of that population because they are predisposed to certain conditions then it serves a purpose. However, if the information is used to eliminate traits belonging to that population and subsequently eliminating that segment of society then that IMHO is tantamount to genocide.

We should keep in mind that our prejudice and attitudes toward homosexuals is rooted in religious ideology. Religious fanatics should ask scientists to identify the gene for premarital sex as this too, according to what is presented to us as the bible, was condemned in the same verse as men laying with men.

 

[jomi822]

I am sorry, I just cannot reconcile a view of biological determinism with reality. If our social conduct is predetermined by biology, than somebody in this thread needs to inform Sociologist, Psychologists, and Anthropologists that they have been barking up the wrong tree for a few centuries.

what?

are you saying you dont believe homosexuality can be biologically determined through endocrine disruption and retardation of hypothalamic development?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

what?

are you saying you dont believe homosexuality can be biologically determined through endocrine disruption and retardation of hypothalamic development?

Yes, hence:

I just cannot reconcile a view of biological determinism with reality

The view you are expounding completely disregards social conditioning. That is like saying a child cared for, though never linguistically socialized, would have the ability for speech; though the capacity for speech is genetically inherent, only through socialization and through 'social triggers', in this case, language, is that ability realized.

If an individual is born with a genetic predisposition towards a certain pathology or ability, that does not mean they will execute that pathology or ability.

Your view would be validated if we copulated solely for reproductive purposes, thereby negating any societal influence in the selection of a mate; if we procreated and procreated only, then solely biologically deterministic factors would come into play. However, that is not the case.

I.e, if someone is born with "homosexual gene X" that does not dictate their homosexuality.

 

[jomi822]

Yes, hence:



The view you are expounding completely disregards social conditioning. That is like saying a child cared for, though never linguistically socialized, would have the ability for speech; though the capacity for speech is genetically inherent, only through socialization and through 'social triggers', in this case, language, is that ability realized.

If an individual is born with a genetic predisposition towards a certain pathology or ability, that does not mean they will execute that pathology or ability.

Your view would be validated if we copulated solely for reproductive purposes, thereby negating any societal influence in the selection of a mate; if we procreated and procreated only, then solely biologically deterministic factors would come into play. However, that is not the case.

I.e, if someone is born with "homosexual gene X" that does not dictate their homosexuality.

speech is a learned skill. sexuality is not, it is an inherent and unchanging instinct dictated by a part of the brain. no amount of conditioning will change that instinct. ask any gay guy brought up in a normal family. and yes, we do copulate solely for reproductive reasons.

theres no way to tell you you're completely and totally wrong without sounding like a ****. so, you're completely and totally wrong. nor is this a matter of opinion. You are saying the equivalent of "a person born with testicles is not a man". The hypothalamus dictates the sexual urge itself, period. I put in a couple of months of studying on the subject mullet, i am not talking out of my ass here.

there have been attempts at changing the homosexuality through hormonal treatments....namely heavy androgen therapy. that is what they do to homosexuals they discover in Iran. I have never heard any news of the results

 

[Mulletsoldier]

speech is a learned skill. sexuality is not, it is an inherent and unchanging instinct dictated by a part of the brain. no amount of conditioning will change that instinct. ask any gay guy brought up in a normal family. and yes, we do copulate solely for reproductive reasons.

theres no way to tell you you're completely and totally wrong without sounding like a ****. so, you're completely and totally wrong.

there have been attempts at changing the homosexuality through hormonal treatments....namely heavy androgen therapy. that is what they do to homosexuals they discover in Iran. I have never heard any news of the results

Language is a learned skill, the capacity for speech is genetically inherent. Go back and read my post.

And you have sex solely to produce a child? I find that hard to fathom.

I'd accept you telling me I was wrong if you understood what I was saying. I don't feel you did, not saying you lack the ability to, just you missed the point. Severely.

 

[jomi822]

Language is a learned skill, the capacity for speech is genetically inherent. Go back and read my post.

And you have sex solely to produce a child? I find that hard to fathom.

I'd accept you telling me I was wrong if you understood what I was saying. I don't feel you did, not saying you lack the ability to, just you missed the point. Severely.

Language? Speech? now we are mincing words mullet. If you never learn a language or how to talk, you arent going to be speaking too much.

Your sexuality is determined before you are born. There is nothing to be learned. The desire just isnt going to change no matter what your conditioning is.

 

[DR.D]

... If your biological programming instructs you go pursue a man even if you are a man, it is not a choice. The impulse itself is completely inherent. No choice or morality involved.

The act of participating in homosexual sexual activity is a choice. is it your opinion that it is wrong?

If someone, on the other hand, wasn't biologically programmed to seek a same-sex partner, i would indeed call that dude ****ed up.

Yes it is. It's still a choice. No matter if I am predisposed to a particular preference of not, I have free will. I can choose to act on that or remain celibate, or even engage in sex that I do not what for whatever erroneous pathological reason. I have free will, and nobody can live my life but me. I take responsibility and I choose for myself bottom line. Unless, we are wrestling with a different definition of 'homosexuality'. I am assuming you mean having sex with a person of the same sex.

No, I am not taking a moral side at all, wrong or right is irrelevant to my point. I am saying some genes may predispose, all other things being favorable (like your endocrine development and disruptors premise) but there is certainly not a "gay gene". We developed over millions of years, when natural selection and biology were the ONLY things governing this. I'm sorry, but if there is a gay gene, it indicates a fundamental flaw and violates the principle of evolutionary economy. You don't develop wings unless you need to fly. You don't desire a member of the same sex, unless it conveys a reproductive advantage, and it doesn't (just the opposite.) That's how genetic traits operate.

I wouldn't say it was anymore f/d up for somebody who wasn't 'programmed' to engage in homosexuality that it is for somebody who is. For example, if you're stuck in a situation were options are severly limited, you may consider things that you wouldn't under alternate conditions. I am sure many a man has faced some situation like that and made a choice in desperation that they were not programmed for. Is that f/d up, I mean under the circumstances? That's why I say, you always have a choice. Fvcked up idsfvcked up, no matter how you slice it. As arguably the most intelligent species on the planet, don't tell me you cannot overcome your biological urges. You have a choice because you know better.

 

[DR.D]

... Or, in other words, it's a bit ridiculous to say the behaviors convey no survival advantage when: 1) No study yet knows the specific causes and possible reasons for the behaviors in human populations; 2) The presence of the behaviors implies at least evolutionary neutrality and likely some utility over time given their prevelance in the population; and; 3) In light of the social taboos surrounding the behaviors relative to actual knowledge on the subject, it's likely any judgement concerning what if any 'survival advantage' they may or may not convey is more likely the result of learned social bias one or the other on the part of the person making the pronouncement and not actual knowledge.

OK, well let's come from the opposite angle then. Can you list some redemptive or positive contributions that homosexuality offers society? I am unaware of any gene that has been linked to natural population control, is this the first perhaps? That is a bit far fetched IMO.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Language? Speech? now we are mincing words mullet. If you never learn a language or how to talk, you arent going to be speaking too much.

Your sexuality is determined before you are born. There is nothing to be learned. The desire just isnt going to change no matter what your conditioning is.

I should have clarified. By speech, I meant the genetically inherent structures which allow us to speak. I.e., the ability for speech. You are conflating language, an abstract social phenomena, with the ability to speak, a genetic trait. My point was, we are born with the ability for speech, to interpret language. We are not born with a language inherent within our brain, we must be socialized into it.

You are very unfortunately conflating conceptualizations of sexuality with biological sex capacity. We are constantly renegotiating our sexuality on a continual basis. Unless you know something Foucault didn't?

 

[jomi822]

Unless, we are wrestling with a different definition of 'homosexuality'. I am assuming you mean having sex with a person of the same sex.

That is not the definition i am using. I am defining a homosexual(man) as a person with the biological instinct to desire men sexually.

 

[jomi822]

I should have clarified. By speech, I meant the genetically inherent structures which allow us to speak. I.e., the ability for speech. You are conflating language, an abstract social phenomena, with the ability to speak, a genetic trait. My point was, we are born with the ability for speech, to interpret language. We are not born with a language inherent within our brain, we must be socialized into it.

You are very unfortunately conflating conceptualizations of sexuality with biological sex capacity. We are constantly renegotiating our sexuality on a continual basis. Unless you know something Foucault didn't?

what is your point? i am not discussing language or foucault. i am discussing how endocrine disrupting compounds prevent the hypothalamus from developing normally in men, which in turns causes them to desire other men. it is a very very very very simple concept.

it seems to me that you are trying to over-complicate the issue to the point where homosexuals still have some kind of choice of whether they are going to be homosexuals or not. Possibly so you can still place some type of blame on them for it?


that is all i am getting out of this little pissing match.

 

[DR.D]

That is not the definition i am using. I am defining a homosexual(man) as a person with the biological instinct to desire men sexually.

OK, that's what I thought might be the confusion. I was considering it as the literal act of, as a qualifying event to justify the definition.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

what is your point? i am not discussing language or foucault. i am discussing how endocrine disrupting compounds prevent the hypothalamus from developing normally in men, which in turns causes them to desire other men. it is a very very very very simple concept.

it seems to me that you are trying to over-complicate the issue to the point where homosexuals still have some kind of choice of whether they are going to be homosexuals or not. Possibly so you can still place some type of blame on them for it?


that is all i am getting out of this little pissing match.

Blame? Quite the opposite.

I would argue you are over-simplifying. I often find individuals trained in the biological sciences have a tendency for extreme biological reductionism. You think biology is the sole determinant factor in sex and sexuality. It isn't. A very, very, very, very simple concept. There are even entire disciplines based on the fact it isn't.

As I stated, you feel biology = sexual determinism. You are wrong. There is apparently nothing I can say to bring you towards that point. You should possibly look into the unfathomably large body of work devoted to the societal influence on gender, sex, and sexuality.

EDIT:

Impressive as I am sure it is, your one twenty page paper is not going to dissuade me from a solid half century of published socio-psychological inquiry into how are sexuality is constantly molded by society.

 

[jomi822]

Blame? Quite the opposite.

I would argue you are over-simplifying. I often find individuals trained in the biological sciences have a tendency for extreme biological reductionism. You think biology is the sole determinant factor in sex and sexuality. It isn't. A very, very, very, very simple concept. There are even entire disciplines based on the fact it isn't.

find me one that discovered something as relevant as modern biology and ill consider your argument against my simplification.

I understand your argument mullet. The desire might be there, but there is a conscious choice to act on it right? A person may have the desire, but they can choose not to act on it and be straight...right?

fine. i agree it is a decision to act on an instinct

but i pose a question to you. if you were to have sex with another man (i assume you are straight?), would that then make you a homosexual?

 

[jomi822]

hm didnt answer that one so quickly

 

[Mulletsoldier]

find me one that discovered something as relevant as modern biology and ill consider your argument against my simplification.

I understand your argument mullet. The desire might be there, but there is a conscious choice to act on it right? A person may have the desire, but they can choose not to act on it and be straight...right?

fine. i agree it is a decision to act on an instinct

but i pose a question to you. if you were to have sex with another man (i assume you are straight?), would that then make you a homosexual?

You'd be hard pressed to find a more accepting individual than myself. I believe I stated that somewhere in this thread. I have been arguing the moral sentiment of deviant pathology inherent within the 'unnatural argument'.

My point is that biological sex and sexual inclination is not the same as gender and sexuality. [which is the point you are making] Desires, I suppose that is an adequate word for our discussion, are incredibly subversive. Sexual inclination is the sum total of a very complex web of socio-biological relations, not simply social conditioning, or simply biological predetermination. I do not feel either/or dictate our sexual conduct, that is my point.

I do not feel we 'choose' our sexual inclinations because choice presupposes a cognitive recognition and negotiation of our sexuality, which, as I am trying to say, is negotiated and renegotiated very much sub-cognitively.

The point I have been trying to make this entire time, is that biology does not dictate sexuality.

 

[jomi822]

EDIT:

Impressive as I am sure it is, your one twenty page paper is not going to dissuade me from a solid half century of published socio-psychological inquiry into how are sexuality is constantly molded by society.

The sarcastic patronizing is not appreciated.

And i didnt say i wrote a 20 page paper. I wrote a PUBLISHED 20 page paper, that was subjected to peer review by quiet a few scholars and plenty of criticism, and support.

it is obvious to me at this point that you are not comfortable with the idea of your sexuality being determined by an instinct, and that you are completely not in control of altering or suppressing this instinct. Both you and D seem to be basing your argument on the act of homosexual sex....making someone with the instinct not yet a homosexual? that is the drift im getting here

What did that make you before your first woman? asexual? I am done with this discussion. I know d's religious views, and i have heard every single member of the clergy (cleary homophobes) make the same exact argument whenever subjected to it. You are looking for a crack to insert the word "blame" or even better "sin". whatever floats your boat guys.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

hm didnt answer that one so quickly

Waiting for Silva/Franklin to start dawg, don't flatter yourself.

:study:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The sarcastic patronizing is not appreciated.

And i didnt say i wrote a 20 page paper. I wrote a PUBLISHED 20 page paper, that was subjected to peer review by quiet a few scholars and plenty of criticism, and support.

it is obvious to me at this point that you are not comfortable with the idea of your sexuality being determined by an instinct, and that you are completely not in control of altering or suppressing this instinct. Both you and D seem to be basing your argument on the act of homosexual sex....making someone with the instinct not yet a homosexual? that is the drift im getting here

What did that make you before your first woman? asexual? I am done with this discussion. I know d's religious views, and i have heard every single member of the clergy (cleary homophobes) make the same exact argument whenever subjected to it. You are looking for a crack to insert the word "blame" or even better "sin". whatever floats your boat guys.

Dude...Seriously...What the fvck are you talking about?

I started this argument against the blame aspect of homosexuality. Literally, the entire time I have been arguing the exact opposite of what you say I have been.

I was not being sarcastic. I am impressed your paper was published. The point I was making, is I have read hundreds of papers by world-renowned sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, which utterly refute what you are saying.

 

[jomi822]

You'd be hard pressed to find a more accepting individual than myself. I believe I stated that somewhere in this thread. I have been arguing the moral sentiment of deviant pathology inherent within the 'unnatural argument'.

My point is that biological sex and sexual inclination is not the same as gender and sexuality. [which is the point you are making] Desires, I suppose that is an adequate word for our discussion, are incredibly subversive. Sexual inclination is the sum total of a very complex web of socio-biological relations, not simply social conditioning, or simply biological predetermination. I do not feel either/or dictate our sexual conduct, that is my point.

I do not feel we 'choose' our sexual inclinations because choice presupposes a cognitive recognition and negotiation of our sexuality, which, as I am trying to say, is negotiated and renegotiated very much sub-cognitively.

The point I have been trying to make this entire time, is that biology does not dictate sexuality.

you just spent 4 paragraphs not answering my question

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I'll say this one more time:

There are entire branches of social thought predicated on the fact that what you are saying [biology determines sexual inclination] is wrong. I cannot be anymore clear, and I am done with this argument.

 

[jomi822]

you still havent answered my question

 

[jasonschaffin]

So even though I am not as smart as all of you here, I must bring up this painfully obvious IMO point.
If you are sexually attraced to another human of the same sex and choose to use your "free will" to not have sex with that person and instead have sex with the opposite gender so you can procreate, you are still a homo.
I think Jomi said kinda the same thing but mine might be easier to understand for us less educated.

 

[jomi822]

So even though I am not as smart as all of you here, I must bring up this painfully obvious IMO point.
If you are sexually attraced to another human of the same sex and choose to use your "free will" to not have sex with that person and instead have sex with the opposite gender so you can procreate, you are still a homo.
I think Jomi said kinda the same thing but mine might be easier to understand for us less educated.

yes, that is exactly my point

 

[CDB]

OK, well let's come from the opposite angle then. Can you list some redemptive or positive contributions that homosexuality offers society?

"Redemptive"? Gee, and I thought you were coming at this from a strictly mathematical, non biased angle. Redemptive has no meaning scientifically. As for 'positive' contributions I can list several:

1) Relief of sexual aggression/frustration in situations where pregnancy and birth are best minimized for various reasons, such as food shortage or immediate or medium term peril where a smaller group is more likely to survive.

2) Same said relief to stave off social tensions as used in the Bonobos, who essentially screw to stay together in peace.

3) Satisfaction of the sex drive in males when females are in short supply, so they don't tear each other to pieces.

4) Interior decorating.

I am unaware of any gene that has been linked to natural population control, is this the first perhaps? That is a bit far fetched IMO.

Tell that to the lemmings who dive off cliffs and attempt to swim across oceans to breed and to keep populations in line in areas where they've exploded. The point of my post was to point out that neither you nor anyone else truly knows the answer to such questions, which is what makes broad statements concerning the behaviors presumptuous, and asking me for answers I have already stated aren't available rather strange. Unless of course you already think you have them, in which case you must have access to a large body of research previously unknown to science.

In any event I have nothing more to say on the issue. Your repeated slips in language, such as asking for 'redempetive' qualities, make it pretty clear to me where you are coming from on the matter. Of course if you truly are a rational, science inclined person you might want to question the idea of making such pronouncements regarding survival benefits in light of the almost total lack of evidence on the subject. Your focus on the procreative possibilities is narrow and short sighted in the extreme, and in no way encompasses the enormity of developed characteristics and behaviors evident in all animals that help them survive, individually and as a species, aside from having as many kids as possible. Procreation is slaved on the back of pleasure, and pleasure can serve a lot more purposes individually and socially than leading people and other animals to populate as much as possible.

Beyond that there's not much more to say on the topic. And, in my experience, those who continually harp on such subjects in an attempt to marginalize or otherwise detract on any level from the humanity of certain portions of the population have other agendas they're following, and that aren't worth humoring.

 

[DR.D]

... 1) Relief of sexual aggression/frustration in situations where pregnancy and birth are best minimized for various reasons, such as food shortage or immediate or medium term peril where a smaller group is more likely to survive.

2) Same said relief to stave off social tensions as used in the Bonobos, who essentially screw to stay together in peace.

3) Satisfaction of the sex drive in males when females are in short supply, so they don't tear each other to pieces.

4) Interior decorating.

1. OK, so what's wrong with birth control pills or abstinence, or any of a number of other, less complicated methods of pop control? You're seriously reaching trying to justify it on that one.

2. That's a piss poor comparison. Females run the society in that group. Role reversal is the downfall of man, not it's salvation. You're not pushing that metro crap are you?

3. I don't buy that either. I've never felt compelled to bat for the other team just because I wasn't getting any. When females are scarce, I can hand my own biz in the shower a few times a week and I'm good to go. I don't have to sacrifice my self-control and free will to a man or woman. If it's not there, it's just not there. Take a benzo for cryin' out loud, if you refuse to control yourself otherwise.

4. OK, you got me on that one, lol. That's a legitimate contribution.

... Unless of course you already think you have them, in which case you must have access to a large body of research previously unknown to science.

In any event I have nothing more to say on the issue. Your repeated slips in language, such as asking for 'redempetive' qualities, make it pretty clear to me where you are coming from on the matter. ...

I don't need access to such evidence CDB. It is self-evident! Stop for a minute and check that you're being sensible with yourself. Surly I don't need to draw you a picture of how these mechanisms work, that whole birds and bees talk? You are so full of knowledge, you've cycled back onto yourself and gone silly with your applications. Knowledge and good intent are both great, but you must have the ability to discriminate to apply it in any intelligent fashion.

We are not born with instructions, yet organisms have instinctual known what to do with sex, as self-apparent by the fact that life is still here! Do I need a study to see what's right in front of me? You make eloquent excuses to justify your luke-warm position, and accuse me of moral prejudice or special agenda, but all I ever stated was this is not genetic. That's it. It can't be.

 

[DR.D]

lets just donate nyc to science, find out why hes so damn gay

Some mysteries of life are better left unanswered! :toofunny:

That's like Chad and his farm animals. Is he encoded genetically to seek out sheep by some fluke chromosomal anomoly, or is it purely pathological? I know that boy didn't grow up on a farm though, lol.