CDB
Registered User
The statement of a true scientist, and why, as I said already, my part in this 'debate' is over.
Study seeks DNA clues on homosexuality
- Thread starter bombBoogie
- Start date
The statement of a true scientist, and why, as I said already, my part in this 'debate' is over.
jomi822
Banned
It isnt genetic, but it is a form of hypothalamic retardation caused by endocrine disrupting compounds during prenatal development. It is the result of a very physical and real organ retardation. Parts of the male homosexual brain are literally female in function and nature.
i dont see why you keep trying to tie morality into the issue. These people are acting, quite harmlessly, on one of the strongest instincts a person can possess (reproduction), though of course obviously skewed.
I don't understand why you feel they shouldnt act on this instinct. Who the **** cares man. You need to start thinking about this as more of a physcial and hormonal disease rather than a religious/moral issue. That being said, the homosexual pride movement is disgusting and a serious skewing of traditional family values and mother/father role.
DR.D
Well-known member
I agree completely, it may be inherent in the majority of cases, but it is not genetic. That is all I ever fought to maintain here!
I know what prenatal endocrine manipulation can do to a fetus later in adulthood. I made sure I knew before I had kids too, so as to modulate that as best I knew how. I know the role the hypothalamus plays, I know the role the corpus callosum plays, I understand why sex behavior is influence with the modification of neurotransmitter metabolism.
Where are my moral judgments that you reference though? I haven't quoted any scriptures, I haven't invited these homos to church (shi man, they might be molested there if it's a catholic church, lol) and I haven't personally attacked it either. So where is the moral issue in this for you? Homos are just silly IMO. Unless they have a concomitant issue of mental retardation, human intelligence should override primitive instinct to engage in fruitless behavior. They know they will not procreate, so where is the payoff in their efforts? I have the biological drive to hump every hot chick that walks by, so am I justified to act on that natural drive? Can I get some bills passed protecting me also, to act as my libido dictates? I am after all just pointing the finger, I can't own responsibility for my own behavior. That's just ridiculous man. I have to behave myself and control my flesh, just like everyone else with free will and intelligence must control that freedom too, and use some common fvcking sense.
CDB
Registered User
No, you haven't been moralizing at all...
Against my better judgement I have one more response. One, these 'homos' having relationships is not synonymous with irresponsible sexual behavior such as 'humping hump every hot chick that walks by.' That you equate them is fairly obvious evidence of your subjective opinion on the subject. Two, they, like some heterosexual couples, may not give two flying fvcks about kids nor define their existence based on their ability to add to the population. Your narrow minded focus on procreation is self serving nonsense. Three, your quote about 'behaving yourself', the implication being that gays are not behaving themselves by acting on their desires, also clearly implies to me what I think most here already know. That your BS underhanded pseudoscience attacks at 'homos' are a cover for a personal subjective bias against the practice you have.
Have whatever opinion you want, to be blunt you'd get more respect, from me at least, if you cut out the BS pseudoscience approach and just stated what is quite obviously your subjective opinion of gays. To pretend it's based on science is personal cowardice of the highest order. I wonder what your scripture says about that characteristic of men.
I am unsubscribing from this thread. The polite 'debate' of reprehensible ideologies that are shocking in their ignorance and hatefulness at this point in history is a waste of time.
DR.D
Well-known member
So you think gays should be sanctified in their gayness, not ever actually contributing to life's continuance? OK, well what if everyone followed suit and said "hey, this is great, let's be gay!" and became homosexuals starting now? Then what? That would literally start the clock on our extinction. You starting to have any second thoughts about your fundamentally flawed assertion? I bet you don't even have kids yourself. Kids that come home to show you this crap on their elementary school curriculums, or you might not be such an aloof, arrogant critic. You might see this for what it is, just another method of genocide and population control that has nothing to do with genetics at all. It has to do with dumping lots of estrogenic crap in the water supply and environment, and then outlawing androgens as we've seen, and convincing guys that "metro is ok, you were born like that, is cool." Well fvck that agenda! Or maybe you do know better, but you just don't like humans very much?
The way you defend homosexuality and try to interject extra meaning into my statements gives away your insincerity. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm tired of sifting your words for truth to separate the games and the lies. You have returned to this "debate" twice now after saying you wouldn't. If you're no good at keeping your word in small matters, you certainly can't be trusted in larger issues anyway. Don't run off and unsubscribe like an arrogant brat either. Be proud of your gay stance and defend it!
MashedPotato
Well-known member
Getting a little scared of this "fictitious character" named "dr. d"
I've been watching this debate for a while now (bah!...cant type with the stupid hand).....but i dont see where its going.
The same versions of the same questions and answers are being thrown around again and again.
Basically I agree that:
- Homosexuality is both based on bilogical roots, i.e starts from development in the womb and is either encourage or discouraged by society. That is, if you were not born with a biological (defect is not the right word here, more alteration) society could not convert you into being attracked to the same sex. You could be involved in same sex relationships to conform to a homosexual society, but you would still have sexual attraction towards the opposite sex. no?
Now switch that round, and our society is a hetrosexual society (or a neutral society) and opposite sex relationships are the "norm/standard" and encouraged, however if you were born with that bilogical alteration, you would be attracted to the same sex but not act on it based on how society views homosexuality. As Dr.D mention (i think) that society now neither really promotes or discourages homosexuality (to some extent) more people with the biological alteration are inclined to act on their sexual instincts (which are towards the same sex).
Hence.... more approving society = more homosexual relationships.
DR.D
Well-known member
Don't be, lol. He's the best friend you could ever meet! Unless you start crap with him.
MashedPotato
Well-known member
No not really, just confirming your sexual preference. I already had a feeling that liked chocolate cake rather than cherry pie anyway.....
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
You didn't.
As a way to clarify my position and my reasoning behind it I'm saying that in order for our species to have ever existed for more than one or two generations our species would have to have heterosexual preference programmed into our biology (along with other "behavioral" factors such as altruism).
I understand that "our conduct is no longer linked in a deterministic relationship with biological advancement". But, I'm not referring to sexual "conduct". I don't disagree that one can learn sexual behaviors through a variety of means, most of which are social in some manner.
What I'm saying is that this past few thousand years of civilization have most definitely NOT removed the millions of years of biological programming which dictates the most fundamental of all characteristics for a species survival: reproduction.
Heterosexual preference isn't a behavior or a conduct, it is biological. If it wasn't, adam and eve may not have ever had grand kids.
I fully understand environment's role in social conduct. I've spent time in those damn sociology courses, too. :lol: And, I believe that most behaviors are a combination of "nature" and "nurture" (that's another topic). However, there are certain aspects of any organisms being that some people may refer to as behaviors (and they really aren't) which are entirely biological.
Society effects our sexual behaviors, but biology determines a predisposition toward a sexual orientation. Tthis is a necessity because it is absolutely essential that sexual reproduction happens at a rate that will allow for the species to survive. Prior to our technologically advanced state humans required a LOT of reproduction to survive.
Look at the following fertility rate vs. GDP per capita graph. Note that the less money (and less technology) available to people the more kids they have? Sometimes upwards of 8-9 kids on AVERAGE! This rate of reproduction is absolutely essential for a number of reasons that hopefully your anthropology courses covered for you. Take this data back to when we only had a 30-40yr life span and when we didn't have societies and cultures larger than the tribe and you'll see how critical it is that we had high levels of reproduction, levels that "chance" (the chance that would be associated with a sexual orientation that isn't biologically determined) couldn't possibly dictate.
Invalid Link Removed
You're defining human sexual orientation as a social behavior and using many words to say little else. That's why it's so grey area for you. :lol: I'm sorry, but hetero/bi/homosexuality is not something you pickup from friends like the flu or a bad fashion trend.
Millions of years of sexual reproductive evolution have led to the current state of our species where the vast majority of people have a biological predisposition toward heterosexual orientation because sexual reproduction is the single most important factor to our species (and any sexually reproductive species) survival. To leave sexual orientation up to "chance", as it would be if it were a societal artifact, would have surely led to a quick end to our species.
I'm not so ignorant as to believe that "everything" is biological in nature. I have a great appreciation for the effects of society on biological predisposition's. However, certain "behaviors" (as you would know them) are entirely biological.
Note: the research you may have read in regards to genetics and homosexuality has to do with "genes" not the expression of those genes! Those are totally different! E.G. You can 100% identical have twins carrying the EXACT same genetic material, HOWEVER they can turn out different! How that genetic material is expressed is a function of development which happens after the monozygotic identical twins begin to develop independently of one another. Its essential that you understand this so that you can put genetic research in this area, or any area, into context.
Last edited:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
I'm absolutely convinced that homosexuality is biological in nature. Whether or not your mechanism for homosexual behavior is correct, I don't know. However, for the sake of argument I'll accept it to make this point: if it is a hypothalamic retardation, that doesn't mean there isn't a genetic component. There could most definitely be a genetic component in this respect: genes that predispose a person to that hypothalamic retardation may exist (and IMHO twin studies show too high a correlation between gay twin brothers to ignore the genetic predisposition component).
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Beautifully put.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Refuting any of what you just said would just be rehashing and repeating the same arguments, so that is pointless; however, where did I speak of genetics such that you felt I had a lack of understanding how genes are expressed?
And I have no idea which sociology courses you have taken, but you should consider retaking them. A little less basic and more developed understanding of how the societal organism works would no doubt assist you.
And I have no idea which sociology courses you have taken, but you should consider retaking them. A little less basic and more developed understanding of how the societal organism works would no doubt assist you.
natedogg
Well-known member
Care to reconsider. :lol:
Attachments
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
I am not sure why I am doing this, but for your sake Kwyck I'll make one more point on this issue.
I think your misunderstanding lies in the fact you are misinterpreting what I mean when I say 'sexuality'. Biological 'sex' is predisposed (obviously our 'sex' [male/female] is biologically predetermined with a predisposition towards heterosexuality). However, 'sexuality' (the collective pathologies and behaviours which constitute a person's sexual conduct), and 'sex' are two different things. You are not making this distinction, that is wrong.
For you to truly grasp what I am saying though, you must do as such.
As well, you and I have a vastly different view of what constitutes 'societal influence'. You no doubt feel that intimate peer group communication dictates in a linear-causal fashion an individual's personality traits and sexuality. I am not 100% sure you feel that way, though that is the impression I get, in which case you would be wrong.
Gender roles are renegotiated daily such that a hegemony of masculinity is created which states, and I'm grossly oversimplifying here, "all that is heterosexual man is good, all the rest is bad". Which, when it pervades every societal institution, helps us to 'do male'. While the predisposition towards having sex with a female existed while you were in the womb, it was not until you were developed that the 'behaviours' [starting to understand how I'm using these words?] which accompany that biological drive are realized. I.e., while the predisposition to heterosexual mating exists as a function of survival, it does not dictate a person's 'sexuality' (once again, reiterating for you, sexuality is not simply biological sex).
I used less big words that time, in hopes I would be more clear.
I think your misunderstanding lies in the fact you are misinterpreting what I mean when I say 'sexuality'. Biological 'sex' is predisposed (obviously our 'sex' [male/female] is biologically predetermined with a predisposition towards heterosexuality). However, 'sexuality' (the collective pathologies and behaviours which constitute a person's sexual conduct), and 'sex' are two different things. You are not making this distinction, that is wrong.
For you to truly grasp what I am saying though, you must do as such.
As well, you and I have a vastly different view of what constitutes 'societal influence'. You no doubt feel that intimate peer group communication dictates in a linear-causal fashion an individual's personality traits and sexuality. I am not 100% sure you feel that way, though that is the impression I get, in which case you would be wrong.
Gender roles are renegotiated daily such that a hegemony of masculinity is created which states, and I'm grossly oversimplifying here, "all that is heterosexual man is good, all the rest is bad". Which, when it pervades every societal institution, helps us to 'do male'. While the predisposition towards having sex with a female existed while you were in the womb, it was not until you were developed that the 'behaviours' [starting to understand how I'm using these words?] which accompany that biological drive are realized. I.e., while the predisposition to heterosexual mating exists as a function of survival, it does not dictate a person's 'sexuality' (once again, reiterating for you, sexuality is not simply biological sex).
I used less big words that time, in hopes I would be more clear.
DR.D
Well-known member
All sarcasm aside, what does this tell you then about our societal institutions? Have you achieved any special insights in regard to the ultimate significance of homosexuality? If so, you don't seem to concerned.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
You never made arguments, you just said "its not that way" and told me I'm being a "reductionist" in your characteristically condescending manner. So, I figured I'd repeat myself in a more clear/concise manner so that you had an opportunity to address those points. However, it seems as if my post was once again in vain because you once again resorted to an attempt at belittling the person you're debating.
And you've said more than enough to highlight your lack of biological understanding. When you don't understand how intensely our biology effects us, that's more than enough evidence.
Okay, so you want me to retake sociology courses until I agree with your point and believe everything about our lives is shaped by society, ignoring millions of years of evolution, so that you don't have to extend your argument past making arrogant and condescending comments about the person you're debating?
Sounds like a plan.
Last edited:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
If you can't see me making the distinction between what I call sexuality and sexual orientation then you need to take a reading comprehension course. I didn't use your preferred terms, but I repeatedly referred to sexuality and predisposition toward a sexual orientation as two different things saying that the former is influenced every day by society and the latter is entirely biological.
And what the hell does pathology have to do with our genetically determined predisposition toward sexual orientation?
I grasp what you're saying, but obviously there reverse is not true.
And I'd love to see you illustrate what constitutes a linear-causal relationship between intimate peer group communication (and I'm sure you meant to include all other influences which would have an effect) on an individual's personality traits and sexuality and how this relates to our discussion. :rofl:
Oh, and please stop putting words in my mouth and/or actually read what I post! Nowhere did I ever say that society didn't influence sexuality (sexual feelings/behavior). I've repeatedly addressed that issue agreeing that a persons sexual behaviors can be societally influenced. Oh, and I most definitely never said anything to the effect that societal influence (on all levels) do not effect our personality traits!
Since when were we discussing gender roles? If it makes you feel better, I'll say it: gender roles are highly socially influenced and the various gender roles spatially and temporally distributed across different cultures and ones own life reflects that.
But, it has nothing to do w/ the topic
I've repeatedly made the distinction between sexuality and a biological predisposition toward a sexual orientation. It just turns out that, despite your education, you lack the capacity to comprehend what you're reading!
I won't take it personally. In order for you to lack reading comprehension skills like you do and still feel confident about your argument you've got to be an arrogant SOB--its a necessary psychological defense mechanism.
Last edited:
jasonschaffin
Well-known member
Ok I think I want to add a little to my earlier post.
If you want to have sex with the same gender, you are a homosexual.
If you want to have sex with the same gender society could make it so you feel it is wrong and you have sex with the opposite gender, still homosexual.
If you want to have sex with the opposite gender, you are a heterosexual.
If you want to have sex with the opposite gender, it would be possible (theoretically) for society to make you feel that is wrong and you have sex with the same gender, you are still heterosexual(barely
).
Biology=Sexual Preference=Homo/Hetero
Society+Biology=Sexual Relationships
Do I have it?!
If you want to have sex with the same gender, you are a homosexual.
If you want to have sex with the same gender society could make it so you feel it is wrong and you have sex with the opposite gender, still homosexual.
If you want to have sex with the opposite gender, you are a heterosexual.
If you want to have sex with the opposite gender, it would be possible (theoretically) for society to make you feel that is wrong and you have sex with the same gender, you are still heterosexual(barely
).Biology=Sexual Preference=Homo/Hetero
Society+Biology=Sexual Relationships
Do I have it?!
DR.D
Well-known member
Ok I think I want to add a little to my earlier post.
If you want to have sex with the same gender, you are a homosexual.
If you want to have sex with the same gender society could make it so you feel it is wrong and you have sex with the opposite gender, still homosexual.
If you want to have sex with the opposite gender, you are a heterosexual.
If you want to have sex with the opposite gender, it would be possible (theoretically) for society to make you feel that is wrong and you have sex with the same gender, you are still heterosexual(barely
Biology=Sexual Preference=Homo/Hetero
Society+Biology=Sexual Relationships
Do I have it?!
I still say a man is what he does. How can you be a homosexual, if you have never had sex with a man? There are many things in life I'd still like to do, like go to Europe and see the sites, but just because I think about it am I a world traveler? Of course not. Not until I actually do it would I qualify for that title, right? Thoughts are purely pathological. Homosexual ideation at the most, which interestingly corresponds to a twofold increase of suicide risk! But hey, let's call it "gay" to mask how unhappy and dysfunctional these people really are, it'll be an easier sell to the public that way... whatever.
jasonschaffin
Well-known member
Get a chub when a cute guy walks by...
Same goes the other way in a question to you.
If a man goes to prison and is raped by another male. Is he a homosexual? He had sex with a man. But didn't want to.
I would imagine that if you were given a viagra and had a gun pointed to your head you would put it up a guys poopshoot. Does that make you a homosexual?
Obviously very extreme examples, but this goes to Mullet's argument. Prison is the only environment I can think of that would promote homosexuality over heterosexuality.
jomi822
Banned
Kwyk, a key component to this argument is that D and mullet are defining a homosexual as someone who participates in same-sex intercourse or sexual activity.
To them, a person with the predisposition is not a homosexual, just predisposed.
They are inserting "self-control" and "decision" in order to throw in an entire morality aspect. Therefore
predisposition- ok
acting on it- homo
they are just looking to marginalize the gay population as immoral. they are bigots using fancy words and pseudo-science to advance some twisted view of how these people think and act (immorally). Im quite disgusted with them really.
To them, a person with the predisposition is not a homosexual, just predisposed.
They are inserting "self-control" and "decision" in order to throw in an entire morality aspect. Therefore
predisposition- ok
acting on it- homo
they are just looking to marginalize the gay population as immoral. they are bigots using fancy words and pseudo-science to advance some twisted view of how these people think and act (immorally). Im quite disgusted with them really.
jasonschaffin
Well-known member
Homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homosexuality can refer to both attraction or sexual behavior between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. When describing the latter, it refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex, but not necessarily to sexual behavior
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homosexuality can refer to both attraction or sexual behavior between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation. When describing the latter, it refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex, but not necessarily to sexual behavior
ArnoldIsMyIdol
Member
This thread is gay.
DR.D
Well-known member
Dude, look at this like a scientist and develop some black and white assertions to build from! There must be a solid equation first, them you can start inserting variables. I would still call the prison sex guy a homosexual. Did he have sex with a man? OK then, he qualifies! A "reluctant" homosexual for certain, but quite literally a homosexual nonetheless.
I will give you this much, if it was an isolated situation of rape, causal experimentation, or anything that is purely in the past, I would not call that man a homosexual since he no longer practices that behavior actively. You could call him an ex-homosexual I suppose, but that just sounds superfluous so what would be the point?
natedogg
Well-known member
:lol:
The way I see it. If you have homosexual ideations or if you fantasize about it, that doesn't exactly make you homosexual. I believe what makes you "gay" is acting upon those thoughts. If I think about killing someone does that make me a murderer? I haven't read all of what's been said but from what I have read I do agree with Dr. D.
DR.D
Well-known member
Are you joking? It's not a question of OK or not OK. It's about optimal classification. Is it amoral to only gain 5lbs on a cycle? You knew you should have gotten more rest and ate more, so is that a sin? You can call it amoral, I call it suboptimal. Look man, we're all suboptimal in some way, yes even you J man! So don't get me wrong, I'm just calling it what it is. I am making no judgments beyond that. I just view it as off the peak.
I do detest the agenda aspect of it though, and how it's been institutionalized as yet another form of genocide. The methodology is quite insidious! How come everything that causes catabolism and death is allowed to slide (cigs, alcohol, rec drugs), but androgens and things that improve human performance are outlawed? It's population control and money calling the shots. How come estrogen is biologically at least 1000x more inherently toxic than testosterone, but (not ironically) it's a quite common ingredient in BIRTH CONTROL?! Because pop control is on check my man. Estrogen is a known human carcinogen, but they ban test instead and anything else andro-genic or promoting masculinity/man, why? This whole role reversal BS you bought into is part of the feminization plan and I don't know why you've accepted it and relinquished your natural role. Take the chip off your shoulder and realize we're in the same boat and humanity is the target.
jasonschaffin
Well-known member
homosexual
From: The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2007
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English
* Digg
* del.icio.us
homosexual / hmsekshl/ • adj. (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. ∎ involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex: homosexual desire. • n. a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. DERIVATIVES: homosexuality / -sekshalit/ n. homosexually adv.
© The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English 2007, originally published by Oxford University Press 2007.
why must we keep arguing with what makes one a homosexual?
jasonschaffin
Well-known member
That's queerish. I'll think for myself and come to my own conclusions.
Just don't be thinking about :bb2: lol
