This thread can not help but begin with a massive disclaimer. Let's keep it clean and attempt to have a legitimate discussion about sexuality without it going anywhere un-Dakka-fied.
I'm assuming that the vast majority of users on this site identify as straight males, but regardless of orientation, how do you see sexuality? How significant is it to your daily life and do you feel it would be terribly different if you preferred another gender? Do you think people inherently have preferences or are they born out of environment and conditioning? We hear a lot about bullying as related to homosexuality and suicide; do you believe the two are related or is the sexual preference a side note?
I'll unashamedly peg myself knee-deep in psychosis, but I don't plan on changing it until I get bored or it starts to hurt someone. I know who I am and what I like but I don't believe I necessarily would have ended up with my particular set of likes and dislikes without certain environmental factors kicking in. I personally see some people who try to defend their preference so hard that you can't help but question whether they're trying to prove it to themselves as well. On the same level, I have always felt like I was repressing certain aspects of my personality (namely a fair amount of femininity) in the early years of my life. I have to default to the somewhat cliche stance that sexuality is fluid and evolves overtime for whatever reason, as nothing else makes sense to me. Anyone who's old have any wisdom to spread here?
However I personally see sexuality as a self imposed restriction.
Then again, if you were presented with something really bizarre and weren't into it, you wouldn't call that a "self-imposed restriction" would you? Adult Babies are one of the ones that still evade me and creep me out. Obviously there is some degree of hard-wiring for most people or else it wouldn't be that way.
Straight but after having been propositioned by several gay gentlemen I can't help but feel I give out a different vibe...
I'm good with that though...
I personally have never found penis to be attractive... mine or anyone else's. I believe the science, and that points to genetics and testosterone level in your mothers womb.
Did you know the later you are in a line of siblings the more likely you are to be LGBT? Its something like 17% increase in the third child and later.
Straight here. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, I just think its weird. I mean, I understand the emotional/psychological aspects of it (the people I'm closest with on this earth are male, I suppose you could say that I 'love' them, but I don't want to sleep with them, does that make me gay?), its the physical attraction I just don't understand....
corpsesarefun wrote:If you remove someones inhibitions completely they are likely into everything you throw at them.
I used to believe this, but there are some things like, say, putting your hand into fire or approaching snakes which our bodies themselves think are bad ideas.
@purplefood: Why purple, huh? I'm kidding. It's interesting to me being on both sides to hear gay used as an insult and how it just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me at all now. What exactly do people find threatening about it?
And this will end just fine! We need an intelligent opposed point here.
corpsesarefun wrote:If you remove someones inhibitions completely they are likely into everything you throw at them.
I strongly disagree that. I don't find men attractive at all. I can't see any scenario where I'd be in a man/man "situation". (Nothing wrong with it if that floats your boat, but it isn't for me.) I can certainly appreciate a guy that works out and has a toned body because I realize how much work and dedication it must take. But I still don't have any compulsion for physical contact.
Cannerous,
You ask some very interesting questions in that first post. I think it would take a Ph.D. in Psychology with a specialty in human sexuality to even have a chance at getting any of those questions right. Or even half right.
"We hear a lot about bullying as related to homosexuality and suicide; do you believe the two are related or is the sexual preference a side note?"
What are you asking here? Is homosexuality and suicide related?
If so, I don't think it's neccessarily related. There are plenty of cases of heterosexual kids that commit suicide after years of bullying. There's also the peer pressure to be straight, not being able to deal with the stress from parents that don't understand that their kid is homosexual (trying to fix little Johnny's problem and make him straight) and so on.
I'm certainly no expert, though. I have no data to back any of that up.
corpsesarefun wrote:If you remove someones inhibitions completely they are likely into everything you throw at them.
I used to believe this, but there are some things like, say, putting your hand into fire or approaching snakes which our bodies themselves think are bad ideas.
@purplefood: Why purple, huh? I'm kidding. It's interesting to me being on both sides to hear gay used as an insult and how it just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me at all now. What exactly do people find threatening about it?
And this will end just fine! We need an intelligent opposed point here.
I don't find it threatening myself but i can understand why a fairly standard man would find it a bit odd. People never really think about the social restrictions men face, admittedly they pale compared to physical restrictions (inability to vote and such) but they are still big ones.
Clthomps wrote:Did you know the later you are in a line of siblings the more likely you are to be LGBT? Its something like 17% increase in the third child and later.
I need the source for this because I find it very intriguing.
chaos0xomega wrote:Straight here. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, I just think its weird. I mean, I understand the emotional/psychological aspects of it (the people I'm closest with on this earth are male, I suppose you could say that I 'love' them, but I don't want to sleep with them, does that make me gay?), its the physical attraction I just don't understand....
I feel the same about being reserved around either If I can explain it this way at all accurately, it's like someone saying they like Dark Eldar but not Chaos Marines whereas I could enjoy either for their differences. For someone to say they don't like either just makes me wonder what they're missing and that I'm getting (not implying ones is better than the other).
@kronk: I'm not looking for a "right" answer, just discussion. I like intelligent (even clean) discussion about this sort of thing and I've been jonesing and thought I'd get the pulse here. I'm so rarely around this many straight people in anyone place anymore (internetically speaking).
That's the thing, I just have no interest in guys. I don't think there's any real societal inhibitions there; guys just aren't something I see and think, "I want to feth that."
It's about as natural a desire for me as trying to eat a doorknob would be. I don't stare at the handle to my bedroom door and think, "FOOD!" At least, not often.
daedalus wrote:That's the thing, I just have no interest in guys. I don't think there's any real societal inhibitions there; guys just aren't something I see and think, "I want to feth that."
It's about as natural a desire for me as trying to eat a doorknob would be. I don't stare at the handle to my bedroom door and think, "FOOD!" At least, not often.
Ah see. I can see why a guy would be attractive to girls but i wouldn't want to shag 'em.
purplefood wrote:
Ah see. I can see why a guy would be attractive to girls but i wouldn't want to shag 'em.
Absolutely. I recognize features that I understand would be ones women would be interested in, but they just don't evoke emotion for me. It's about as exciting (in that regard) as reading an automobile manual.
Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
@chaos: That particular one seems to be a hang up for a lot of people. I used to be in the same boat, but anything's more normal the more you're around it.
purplefood wrote:
Ah see. I can see why a guy would be attractive to girls but i wouldn't want to shag 'em.
Absolutely. I recognize features that I understand would be ones women would be interested in, but they just don't evoke emotion for me. It's about as exciting (in that regard) as reading an automobile manual.
corpsesarefun wrote:If you remove someones inhibitions completely they are likely into everything you throw at them.
I strongly disagree that. I don't find men attractive at all. I can't see any scenario where I'd be in a man/man "situation". (Nothing wrong with it if that floats your boat, but it isn't for me.) I can certainly appreciate a guy that works out and has a toned body because I realize how much work and dedication it must take. But I still don't have any compulsion for physical contact.
I'm a subscriber to the idea that personality in all its forms is a purely social construct and that without personality there is little remaining in a person other than the will to survive and raw hedonism.
By a social construct I mean something pieced together by yourself and those you interact with to better interact with people (including yourself), a patchwork that is constantly reworked and rarely shown all at once if you will.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
The presence of another man is a Libido killer for me. Nothing to do with "right or wrong".
Adult movies:
M/F = fine
F/F = fine
M/M = does nothing for me.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
The presence of another man is a Libido killer for me. Nothing to do with "right or wrong".
Adult movies:
M/F = fine
F/F = fine
M/M = does nothing for me.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
The presence of another man is a Libido killer for me. Nothing to do with "right or wrong".
Adult movies:
M/F = fine
F/F = fine
M/M = does nothing for me.
What about M/M/F? That still a libido killer or is it when purely males?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
@chaos: That particular one seems to be a hang up for a lot of people. I used to be in the same boat, but anything's more normal the more you're around it.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
The presence of another man is a Libido killer for me. Nothing to do with "right or wrong".
Adult movies:
M/F = fine
F/F = fine
M/M = does nothing for me.
M/F/M =?
do you like a female sandwich
depends? female what? mouse? deer? pig? I am partial to pork sandwiches with a bit of mustard and relish myself. but don't go for the gherkin jar, I keep pickled remains of dissected animal killed by my dog in there.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
I don't know. It's never happened to me. I've had friends who had sex while I was in the room, and it didn't necessarily bother me, but I wasn't really eager to join in. Pretty much, once again, indifferent. I was a little concerned I was 'interrupting' things, but apparently not enough.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Okay, for everyone who isn't attracted to men, is the presence of another man a libido killer completely (leaving out any interaction), or is it more a person of that gender being the focus that clashes with your sense of "that's not right"-ness?
The presence of another man is a Libido killer for me. Nothing to do with "right or wrong".
Adult movies:
M/F = fine
F/F = fine
M/M = does nothing for me.
M/F/M =?
do you like a female sandwich
depends? female what? mouse? deer? pig? I am partial to pork sandwiches with a bit of mustard and relish myself. but don't go for the gherkin jar, I keep pickled remains of dissected animal killed by my dog in there.
(this coming from a vet student)
since my post was on the topic adult movies, you asking whether the female is an animal makes me wonder what kind of porn were you watching
corpsesarefun wrote:However I personally see sexuality as a self imposed restriction.
Not really, sometimes being reserved prevents a person trying everything they would like, but you can't choose your orientation or in fact the things and activities you find stimulating. This is the issue I take with people who talk about 'choosing to be gay'. People can't choose the sex they are attracted towards and a straight person doesn't choose to like girls. The idea is absurd, yet some sorts, typically conservative christians, continue to push the idea of 'choice' in sexual orientation. Similarly there are certain sexual activities that revolt me, like scat play. This on no level does anything for me, it's not a self imposed restriction, I genuinely have no interest in it. But I've no issue with what others like to do, I won't pretend to understand the attraction to that sort of activity but I've no issues with it. I think this is a major problem with conservative sorts, they don't understand something, but rather than accept people are different and move on they think that there is something 'wrong' with them and that it needs to be prevented.
To address some points made by Cannerus. I'm heterosexual, my wife is bisexual. Sexuality does not define me. The one thing my wife comes across repeatedly is the idea that because she is married, she is no longer bisexual. This again, is ludicrous. Presumably because she is brunette people draw the conclusion that I cannot find blonds attractive
My idea of a good looking man is Gary Sinise, I don't knwo what that says about my 'taste' in men, it's probably not very good.
I think that homosexuality and bullying do go together, as bullying can take a homophobic angle. The victim need not actually be gay, but the torment of the bullying can destroy lives all the same - the fact that the rationale behind the bullying is flawed is cold comfort. The things that define sexual preferences in general are difficult to pin down, they are a combination of both genetic and environmental as are other aspects of personality.
I think a lot of people make too much of a fuss about it.
Personally, homosexuality is not for me.
However, people can do what they want (with another consenting adult) as long as they don't expect me to watch or join in.
What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody elses business.
I think that sexuality is a blend of gentic disposition and environmental/societal influences. There are people all around me that display different aspects of the spectrum and I've talked at length and have gotten to know each one.
All I know is that no matter what you prefer, as long as you're not hurting anyone its all good.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread can not help but begin with a massive disclaimer. Let's keep it clean and attempt to have a legitimate discussion about sexuality without it going anywhere un-Dakka-fied.
I'm assuming that the vast majority of users on this site identify as straight males, but regardless of orientation, how do you see sexuality? How significant is it to your daily life and do you feel it would be terribly different if you preferred another gender? Do you think people inherently have preferences or are they born out of environment and conditioning? We hear a lot about bullying as related to homosexuality and suicide; do you believe the two are related or is the sexual preference a side note?
I'll unashamedly peg myself knee-deep in psychosis, but I don't plan on changing it until I get bored or it starts to hurt someone. I know who I am and what I like but I don't believe I necessarily would have ended up with my particular set of likes and dislikes without certain environmental factors kicking in. I personally see some people who try to defend their preference so hard that you can't help but question whether they're trying to prove it to themselves as well. On the same level, I have always felt like I was repressing certain aspects of my personality (namely a fair amount of femininity) in the early years of my life. I have to default to the somewhat cliche stance that sexuality is fluid and evolves overtime for whatever reason, as nothing else makes sense to me. Anyone who's old have any wisdom to spread here?
Straight male, since I was born... I guess.
I had "puppy love" in elementary school with a girl in my class.
Never been attracted to the same sex. I believe people are born straight, gay or bi. There have been studies that strongly suggest external environments or preconditions can lead to a likelihood of a child being born gay.
For instance, it is believed the more boys a mother has the more likely the last boy would be born. If a mother gives birth to 5 boys, the 5th boy is more likely to be gay than the previous 4. If a mother give birth to 4 girls then 1 boy, that boy is less likely yo be gay than the boy in a family of 5 boys.
Women under constant stress, particularly in war time are likely to give birth to a gay child. I'll see if I can find the German study that found this data of women pregnant during the bombings of WWII.
There are a lot of studies out there where people get there fetishes from. Most conclude it comes growing, there was (maybe is still exists?) of a British gentlemen's magazine of women in gas masks in the 50s and 60s. The Fetish came from young boys being surrounded by women with gas masks during the war.
the intolerant behavior of people and various families have forced people in the closet and "try" to be straight.
I often here people say homosexuality is comparable to murder, which is absolutely disgusting. I have not always been accepting of gays. I grew up in a religious house hold and taught the homosexuality means sin, they are disgusting and immoral. In short, most of my family are homophobic.
Then I grew up, met many people, wish I can say I never lived in that shell, but I can't go back in time.
Not sure if you are looking for tastes, but I love women with accents, especially Southern, English, French, Irish, Scottish and Australian.
nothing turns me on more.
I am total perv but guess I can share how disgusting I really am?
You're born with a disposition towards having a certain orientation, I think. But wether or not you act on it is entirely your own choice.
I see myself as a staight woman, but my boyfriend is bisexual and I am completely fine with that. Why would I want to dislike someone for something they simply -are-? It's untrue that bisexuals would be less loyal, if anything, it made my boyfriend more thoughtful of sexuality and relationships... we trust each other 100%... and hey, it's fun talking about boys together
When it comes to the fetish aspect of sexuality... to each their own!! keep that in mind! No-one has the right to judge someone else just because they're into.. say.. feet, latex, bdsm, etc. Fetishes form based on early childhood experiences, and unless you've been through it yourself, you'll never fully understand it. As long as you learn to accept "different strokes for different folks", it'll be fine
I think people are attracted to people. That means more than what parts you have. Social conventions determine what attractions people act on and in what ways they act on them.
Manchu wrote:I think people are attracted to people. That means more than what parts you have. Social conventions determine what attractions people act on and in what ways they act on them.
Piston Honda wrote:
I am total perv but guess I can share how disgusting I really am?
I'm wondering if anyone really is a perv or if most people just hide their tendencies better than others. There's probably just a healthy medium floating around somewhere that's ideal like everything else, but it's still interesting to think about.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm wondering if anyone really is a perv or if most people just hide their tendencies better than others.
For there to be perverts, there has to be something accepted as normal. Given what it turns out that people actually like sexually, regardless of what they are willing to talk about in public, I don't think we have an honest standard for normal. "Pervert" just ends up being a derogatory term. If you don't like a certain thing, you call people who do like it "perverts."
I too think the word pervert is silly and derogatory... it's not fair because who decides what is "normal"?
In a joking context however, I just mean people sometimes tend to like things that usually lie outside their zone of preference.. incidental sexuality if you like. Nothing wrong with that, but that would make everyone a "perv" from time to time.
It's interesting because people can even self-define as being perverted, which throws out using other people as a means of comparison. Stuff just that seems that way sometimes. Much to ponder.
And I agree completely if it weren't obvious that person to person many people would do different things they wouldn't have considered otherwise. Anecdotal evidence heavily supports this.
marv335 wrote:I think a lot of people make too much of a fuss about it.
Personally, homosexuality is not for me.
However, people can do what they want (with another consenting adult) as long as they don't expect me to watch or join in.
What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody elses business.
I don't care either. Just stay the hell off my lawn.
What sucks is that people make "rules" for themselves and then, when the opportunity presents itself, they feel all this guilt and hesitance because of that rule. But who made the rule in the first place? I think this is the cause of a lot of unnecessary self-loathing, regret, and anguish.
Of course. Every boyfriend for me was completely different..
But do you mean "I think it comes down to people not parts" as in bisexuality? I great support bisexuality, but I am straight myself and I know plenty of gay people. Only being attracted to one sex doesn't immediately make you close minded. I can find women attractive, yes.. beautiful, sexy.. but I only desire a relationship with a man, thus making me straight. I still remain open to the possiblity, but since I've never experienced it, I will still count myself as straight.
I don't think bisexuals are completely blind to gender either.. but the idea that one can love both sexes equally, is quite beautiful I must say Still, doesn't make straights or gays any more close minded.
I don't think terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and "bisexual" are too relevant to what people actually feel. I think these categories arise more for the sake of politics than trying to understand human sexuality.
I'm straight but I have my own idea of what makes a guy handsome or not, but I don't think I would ever be sexually aroused by it. I have no problem with the LBGT people.
Manchu wrote:I don't think terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and "bisexual" are too relevant to what people actually feel. I think these categories arise more for the sake of politics than trying to understand human sexuality.
That makes sense and is a good way to look at it.
it's not necessary to classify yourself... but it generally just gives a "direction".
Sexuality is a lot more than just orientation, anyway...
Amphsix wrote:
I don't think bisexuals are completely blind to gender either.. but the idea that one can love both sexes equally, is quite beautiful I must say Still, doesn't make straights or gays any more close minded.
I've seen either end of the bi spectrum before, from the dedicated pansexual that would always describe people from the inside out, to the bi-est of them all that could identify and thrive off the differences between the genders just for that (I'm not far from here fwiw). Even amongst the bis, there's a huge amount of diversity that I find fascinating. In my experience those that already fit outside the norm slip into other labels outside the norm much more easily though (i.e. some who identifies as bi is more likely to later identify as gay or trans than someone who identifies as straight).
I once met a homosexual who was very depressed that in order to be a part of the homosexual community at our university he was expected to talk and act and think a certain way, all of which didn't line up with how he actually behaved or thought. It's bizarre to think that you could take one aspect of your life, especially something as circumstantial as sexual attraction, and make your entire life about it. But gay people have been treated that way (people thought they were awful people because they wanted to have sex with someone of the same gender). It's just a pity that this gay movement has in some ways adopted that same style, making everything about being gay. I bet some gay people would even feel guilty if they started to be attracted to people of the opposite gender.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
(i.e. some who identifies as bi is more likely to later identify as gay or trans than someone who identifies as straight).
I think that's got a lot to do with that fact that people with differing orientations from the norm generally think about it a lot more. The thought and time they put into it sometimes leads to a "final" conclusion. Even though I'm not convinced sexuality is always rigid and changes all the time.
Jeez you really are a woman. Men just have an on/off switch.
Manchu wrote:I bet some gay people would even feel guilty if they started to be attracted to people of the opposite gender.
I run into this all the time. The world of gay politics is no different than any other group with a sense of exclusivity. I have to bat for both sides a large portion of the time, and even get a fair amount of hate for going both ways because "I'm just being greedy." People can be ridiculous. The gayest people I know have been with the opposite side at least once, many of them having a kid or two also.
When I said that my favorite anime are gay, I meant romance between two males, my avatar is of the two main characters of junjou romantica, which has a third series coming soon apparently.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The world of gay politics is no different than any other group with a sense of exclusivity.
How did people looking for liberation ever stumble upon these categories of guilt and expectation? I mean, it has to be a rhetorical question but it's no less sad.
Manchu wrote:I bet some gay people would even feel guilty if they started to be attracted to people of the opposite gender.
I run into this all the time. The world of gay politics is no different than any other group with a sense of exclusivity. I have to bat for both sides a large portion of the time, and even get a fair amount of hate for going both ways because "I'm just being greedy." People can be ridiculous. The gayest people I know have been with the opposite side at least once, many of them having a kid or two also.
And this is why people can give either the conservative straight -or- gay community the middle finger... your life is for yourself to decide.. That bisexuality doesn't equal promiscuity has been proven ages ago. As I have stated in a comment before, my boyfriend is bi and he's the most loyal partner I could wish for <3
Manchu wrote:I think people are attracted to people. That means more than what parts you have. Social conventions determine what attractions people act on and in what ways they act on them.
I think people's preferred gender is biologically determined, but what qualities they find attractive about that gender is socially determined. For example I'm sexually attracted to women, but the only women I
find sexually attractive are one's with large inviting eyes, slim hourglass figure, bee-stung lips, small nose and big baps (a female body image that the 50's popularized).
Manchu wrote:I think people are attracted to people. That means more than what parts you have. Social conventions determine what attractions people act on and in what ways they act on them.
I think people's preferred gender is biologically determined, but what qualities they find attractive about that gender is socially determined. For example I'm sexually attracted to women, but the only women I
find sexually attractive are one's with large inviting eyes, slim hourglass figure, bee-stung lips, small nose and big baps (a female body image that the 50's popularized).
That's what you find -most- attractive. I bet you would like other women too, if it really came down to things like "personality first"
Amphsix wrote:
That's what you find -most- attractive. I bet you would like other women too, if it really came down to things like "personality first"
I heard someone say "I can't have sex with your personality" at some point and I believe it. I will say that there are probably many people he'd click with who don't fit those standards, but it's not all personality at work there either.
Even though (or perhaps because of) I was raised in a very religious, very conservative family, I have always been fascinated by human sexuality. Like many young teenage boys who listed to new wave (yes I am old, most of my early favorite musicians were very gay - Bronski Beat, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, etc.) and since I had a fascination with art and poetry, I questioned if maybe I was a latent homosexual.
Turns out the answer was no, I was never really physically attracted to men but I was attracted to art. Go Figure
Living in Hollywood, I have and have had many gay friends (when you live in Hollywood you either have gay friends or friends who lie to you) and their sexuality never bothered me unless they hit on me and then I felt very uncomfortable.
I don't know what kind of vibe I give off, but I love dancing and when I went to mixed clubs (for alternative music) I got hit on by gay men at least 50% of the time (much to the amusement of many of my friends) even after I got fat. Weird.
Anyway, I think the argument about nature vs. nurture is very interesting. IMHO I think all people have genetic predispositions to certain emotional/behavoir traits that are outside the normal. So some people are predisposed to being attracted to the same sex, some people are predisposed to being violent. Some people are predisposed to cheating. Some people are predisposed to being lazy (guilty here).
Where nurture comes in determines how people react to their genetic predisposition. Just because soeone is born with a sexual predisposition or a violent predisposition does not mean that they will choose to live that life style. Which explains why it seems as though there are a lot more homosexuals now than there were 50 years ago, more people are acting on their predisposition now that their nurture is more accepting of it. Does that make sense?
Oh I meant to add that I think the level of genetic predisposition varies from person to person. For some the predisposition is so strong that they ignore their nurture, for some the expectations of their culture are such that they never consider indulging in their natural urges.
Anyway sexuality is fascinating, I think people who choose an alternative lifestyle are choosing a more difficult life TBH. I guess that difficulty could also make it more rewarding?
A question for the homosexual crowd, do you find you are more attracted to others who look similar to yourself? Curious because most of my gay friends always seem to be with guys that could be their cousins or something . . .
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
A question for the homosexual crowd, do you find you are more attracted to others who look similar to yourself? Curious because most of my gay friends always seem to be with guys that could be their cousins or something . . .
Absolutely. That particular folder is full of people that look like me. Most that I've interacted with look wildly different somehow, but if I could just pick an ideal I'd want another me. Preferably with opposite hair color so we'd have the best of both worlds. That would be really creepy actually... but only for everyone else.
Amphsix wrote:
That's what you find -most- attractive. I bet you would like other women too, if it really came down to things like "personality first"
I heard someone say "I can't have sex with your personality" at some point and I believe it. I will say that there are probably many people he'd click with who don't fit those standards, but it's not all personality at work there either.
People who I'm not sexually attracted to but click with there personality, usually become friends.
Amphsix wrote:
That's what you find -most- attractive. I bet you would like other women too, if it really came down to things like "personality first"
I heard someone say "I can't have sex with your personality" at some point and I believe it. I will say that there are probably many people he'd click with who don't fit those standards, but it's not all personality at work there either.
Of course it's not all personality. But you wouldn't fall in love with someone who fits the bill perfectly when it comes to looks, but is a total bitch.
I also think that if you fall in love with someone through having a strong basis of friendship first, you're more openminded to what kind of people you can like. For example, all my life I've felt most attracted to tanned men with dark, short hair and medium posture and lenght. But my current boyfriend is a fair skinned redhead who is also rather tall.
So what I mean to say is... you never know exactely what you like. The chances you'll find someone who fits perfeclty both phisically and mentally are -very- slim indeed.
Relationships are still based on personality first and foremost, the stronger you fit together mentally, the longer a relationship will last. That looks play a secondary but also important role is undenyable.. but someone's "taste" is usually a bit stretchy.
Amphsix wrote:
That's what you find -most- attractive. I bet you would like other women too, if it really came down to things like "personality first"
I heard someone say "I can't have sex with your personality" at some point and I believe it. I will say that there are probably many people he'd click with who don't fit those standards, but it's not all personality at work there either.
Of course it's not all personality. But you wouldn't fall in love with someone who fits the bill perfectly when it comes to looks, but is a total bitch.
I also think that if you fall in love with someone through having a strong basis of friendship first, you're more openminded to what kind of people you can like. For example, all my life I've felt most attracted to tanned men with dark, short hair and medium posture and lenght. But my current boyfriend is a fair skinned redhead who is also rather tall.
So what I mean to say is... you never know exactely what you like. The chances you'll find someone who fits perfeclty both phisically and mentally are -very- slim indeed.
Relationships are still based on personality first and foremost, the stronger you fit together mentally, the longer a relationship will last. That looks play a secondary but also important role is undenyable.. but someone's "taste" is usually a bit stretchy.
Well, of course if I don't get along with the gal on a personal level then a relationship isn't even going to be possible. Also I don't care much for hair, skin or eye colour I more concerned about the body
shape and facial features than anything, but still personality is #1.
For the most part, sexuality is an unimportant factoid to my life right now, as I am focused on education and finding a job first.
As for how the two are related? Born as I am, but my family had plenty of influence on me as well, what with me having the luck of having a caring, accepting father figure rather than some religiosu nutjob.
I imagine if I had a religious nut as a father I'd be far more sexualized than I am now simply out of rebellion.
But I can't even stand beer, even the supposedly "good" beers that people on this forum recommend are just nasty pisswater. Or wine for that matter, which is slightly better tahn beer but I still can't stand its taste much.
As well as that... I'm a nerd. A total nerd, probably nerdier than hafl the people on this forum and that's saying something given that this is a wargaming forum.
I've always found the term " perv" somewhat amusing , as with the exception of being a pedo, groping some animal or diving out of the bushes and forcing yourself on someone ( which has nothing to do with sex anyway)...I don't see very much as being " perverted"....just simple choices as to what does and doesn't " turn you on".
Amphsix wrote:
That's what you find -most- attractive. I bet you would like other women too, if it really came down to things like "personality first"
I heard someone say "I can't have sex with your personality" at some point and I believe it. I will say that there are probably many people he'd click with who don't fit those standards, but it's not all personality at work there either.
Of course it's not all personality. But you wouldn't fall in love with someone who fits the bill perfectly when it comes to looks, but is a total bitch.
I also think that if you fall in love with someone through having a strong basis of friendship first, you're more openminded to what kind of people you can like. For example, all my life I've felt most attracted to tanned men with dark, short hair and medium posture and lenght. But my current boyfriend is a fair skinned redhead who is also rather tall.
So what I mean to say is... you never know exactely what you like. The chances you'll find someone who fits perfeclty both phisically and mentally are -very- slim indeed.
Relationships are still based on personality first and foremost, the stronger you fit together mentally, the longer a relationship will last. That looks play a secondary but also important role is undenyable.. but someone's "taste" is usually a bit stretchy.
You see, our disconnect is that you were talking about relationships. I never assume that's what anyone means
Melissia wrote:I'm sure.
But I can't even stand beer, even the supposedly "good" beers that people on this forum recommend are just nasty pisswater. Or wine for that matter, which is slightly better tahn beer but I still can't stand its taste much.
As well as that... I'm a nerd. A total nerd, probably nerdier than hafl the people on this forum and that's saying something given that this is a wargaming forum.
A minor observation: I've worked with/for a fair number of L-G-B people. I have noticed that people of alternate sexualities tend to have much more stable relationships then straight people. The 'married' couples have all been together for decades, where many straight couples I have met have since divorced.
Although I'll grant you that a) I don't have any real L-G-B friends, probably because I've never met one who was also a gamer, and b) the half-dozen or so I've worked with hardly represents a statistically significant sampling of the overall community.
As far as 'is it acceptable' goes, I've always thought 'it's none of my business what happens between two consenting adults' is the most applicable way to handle it. As far as my own sexuality goes, well, I'm just not attracted to guys, and am VERY attracted to women, so my decision was pretty easy to make.
On the subject of 'types' and physical attraction: if I were to describe my type in terms of physical attaction, it would come nowhere near the description of my wife of 15 years who I would die for if need be*. The physical is not the whole of the relationship - although if there is no physical attraction, there can be no physical relationship, can there?
*Although I have to admit I initially was (and still am) quite attracted to her huge... tracts of land.
Cheesecat wrote:I think people's preferred gender is biologically determined
To me, this is as silly as saying that person's preferred color is biologically determined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote: I've always found the term " perv" somewhat amusing , as with the exception of being a pedo, groping some animal or diving out of the bushes and forcing yourself on someone ( which has nothing to do with sex anyway)...I don't see very much as being " perverted"....just simple choices as to what does and doesn't " turn you on".
And in those case, "criminal" is a better term than "pervert." (At least when you actually do those things.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:For the most part, sexuality is an unimportant factoid to my life right now, as I am focused on education and finding a job first.
To me that is strange. It's like saying, "I'll worry about listening to music or what foods I like or what I think about the world after I have a degree and a job." Of course, I can't understand how one's sexuality could be described as a "factoid," either.
I have no issues with homosexuals, heterosexuals, transgender, or transexual, but bisexuals, as we all know, are just terrible, awful people. Unless it is a chick than it is ok. Pretty sure that is the law.
Manchu wrote:To me that is strange. It's like saying, "I'll worry about listening to music or what foods I like or what I think about the world after I have a degree and a job." Of course, I can't understand how one's sexuality could be described as a "factoid," either.
1: That's a rather jaded way to look at sex. Is it just me that associates sex and romance? Putting off sex/relationships/romance until I believe I'm able to have a happy life not harmed by financial problems is hardly unheard of.
2: This objection makes little sense, either.
If sex isn't all that important to me at the moment, why would I be so totally defined by it? I guess you could say I'm defined by caring about more important things?
Meh, sex can be romantic but by the same token sharing a meal can also be romantic.
Hell just about any mutually enjoyable activity can be romantic.
As for things not being important, what about gaming? you define yourself as a geek yet geeky activities are just as important as sex in the grand scheme of things.
Manchu wrote:To me that is strange. It's like saying, "I'll worry about listening to music or what foods I like or what I think about the world after I have a degree and a job." Of course, I can't understand how one's sexuality could be described as a "factoid," either.
1: That's a rather jaded way to look at sex. Is it just me that associates sex and romance? Putting off sex/relationships/romance until I believe I'm able to have a happy life not harmed by financial problems is hardly unheard of.
2: This objection makes little sense, either.
If sex isn't all that important to me at the moment, why would I be so totally defined by it? I guess you could say I'm defined by caring about more important things?
Love sometimes just overcomes you. Even if you don't focus on it on this point in your life, you can't "switch off" your sexuality/attraction
I'm in the same group as Melissa right now. Don't really care right now.
I'm content being in a dimly lit room, cursing like a sailor because I just superglued my hand to my xbox controller.... again.
Will this change one day? Prolly. Am I in a hurry to find the person for me? Nope. Am I googling how to remove superglue (again)? Yes. Did I just glue my wrist to my Laptop? Yes
Manchu wrote:That's a rather jaded way to look at sex.
The discussion is about sexuality, not sex. Talking about sexuality as something that can be prioritized along with your job and degree seems.jaded ... Or really just nonsensical.
If sex isn't all that important to me at the moment, why would I be so totally defined by it? I guess you could say I'm defined by caring about more important things?
You must be arguing with yourself because nothing I have posted could reasonably be responded to this way.
Melissia wrote:But right now, it is trivial to my life.
What I mean is that it is not the sort of thing that can be called trivial. Just because something is not trivial doesn't make it the center of your identity. It's like saying "my personality is trivial to who I am." It just doesn't make sense. You can say, however, "sex is trivial to me" and that makes sense.
Melissia wrote:Factoid: "A brief or trivial item of news or information."
Sexuality is not a brief item of information.
But right now, it is trivial to my life.
But...even if you choose to not have a "partner" or be " in a relationship"...I would think it nigh impossiable to just switch ones sexuality " off".
Sure ,but you can always ignore it.
Hell my urge to strangle people is far stronger (and comes up more often, along with shin-kicking and face-punching) and I ignore that.
That actually makes sense, however where satisfying the desire to strangle some jackass would most likely lead to incarceration ..and thus " should" be surpressed ( however difficult it may be), the satisfaction of carnal needs is by and large " legal"...so, and here I simply speak for myself, I see no need to suppress them.
People know it. Because I stare at a girls arse for half a period. sigh
But yes. I am straight as you can get. Me F/F is fine.
F/M/Me No.
My women!
thats just how i see things. If I (ever) have a girlfriend I will keep her to myself >.< My sound selfish but I don't want someone's donky in my woman.
Of course in my case I would be her boy in that I would follow her word exactly.
Damn I forgot how much the opposite sex uses me like a puppy dog.
FITZZ wrote:That actually makes sense, however where satisfying the desire to strangle some jackass would most likely lead to incarceration ..and thus " should" be surpressed ( however difficult it may be), the satisfaction of carnal needs is by and large " legal"...so, and here I simply speak for myself, I see no need to suppress them.
Possibly because at the time they may seem a distraction that you know you don't really have the time to indulge in? Then again, I wonder how much work one must have to do to well.. not.
FITZZ wrote:That actually makes sense, however where satisfying the desire to strangle some jackass would most likely lead to incarceration ..and thus " should" be surpressed ( however difficult it may be), the satisfaction of carnal needs is by and large " legal"...so, and here I simply speak for myself, I see no need to suppress them.
Possibly because at the time they may seem a distraction that you know you don't really have the time to indulge in? Then again, I wonder how much work one must have to do to well.. not.
Edited to remove quote monstrosity.
Well again, I'm not so much discussing " relationships and romance" which would of course require a great deal of time and attention..
Perhaps so, however I've always been very much against the " double standard" that tends to be used against women.
If a man is openly sexual and has a lot of experiance ...well he's a " stud" or at least it's not particularly frowned upon...where as if a woman does the exact same thing she is often labeled "loose" or what have you, which I personally think is absolute BS.
Women should be as free as men to express their sexuality ...with out any crap " moral judgement". being thrown in their faces....just my two cents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:I thought you were merely boys.
Or possibly boyz.
...I'm 42, I haven't been a " boy" in quite some time...hell I'm halfway to dead or senile.
Perhaps so, however I've always been very much against the " double standard" that tends to be used against women.
If a man is openly sexual and has a lot of experiance ...well he's a " stud" or at least it's not particularly frowned upon...where as if a woman does the exact same thing she is often labeled "loose" or what have you, which I personally think is absolute BS.
Women should be as free as men to express their sexuality ...with out any crap " moral judgement". being thrown in their faces....just my two cents.
I didn't mean anything like that FITZZ, I also get pretty annoyed that crap. I can also see where you're coming from with the repression due to fear of moral judgement.
I mainly meant it in a "We're men, how could we hope to understand women eh?" way.
I could live with being called a boy, so long as the plural was the z.
Perhaps so, however I've always been very much against the " double standard" that tends to be used against women.
If a man is openly sexual and has a lot of experiance ...well he's a " stud" or at least it's not particularly frowned upon...where as if a woman does the exact same thing she is often labeled "loose" or what have you, which I personally think is absolute BS.
Women should be as free as men to express their sexuality ...with out any crap " moral judgement". being thrown in their faces....just my two cents.
I didn't mean anything like that FITZZ, I also get pretty annoyed that crap. I can also see where you're coming from with the repression due to fear of moral judgement.
I mainly meant it in a "We're men, how could we hope to understand women eh?" way.
Oh...I didn't mean that you yourself held those sorts of belifes Dwhitey...sorry if it came of that way.
...As far as men not " understanding women"...meh..I think both men and women actually understand more about one another than they think they do...while at the same time not knowing gak...if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Radiation wrote:I'm going to put on my Spiderman costume and see if I can find Catwomen or a Vampire Lady. All weekend.
Yeah...have to admit it...I love Halloween for that reason as well...along with the horror movie marathons.
I am a straight male, but due to my manner, most people think I'm homosexual, as I am not afraid of jokingly saying "I was abusive because it called me fat" or something like that. As for my stance on homosexual people, I honestly don't care about it unless he starts hitting on me, after which I have a problem.
I don't care if your humping a man, woman, or goat, as long as the other party is willing and your not trying to involve me in any sort of way.
I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD
It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.
I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD
It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.
Well of course I enjoy(ed) M/F/F...
But wasn't really against M/M/F....so long as it was understood the M's wouldn't be....engaging with one another.
I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD
It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.
Well of course I enjoy(ed) M/F/F...
But wasn't really against M/M/F....so long as it was understood the M's wouldn't be....engaging with one another.
Just don't stray onto anything labelled "bisexual" and you should be fine then :O
M/M/F... or more like... M/F/M.... hmmmm... spitroast.
I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD
It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.
Well of course I enjoy(ed) M/F/F...
But wasn't really against M/M/F....so long as it was understood the M's wouldn't be....engaging with one another.
Just don't stray onto anything labelled "bisexual" and you should be fine then :O
M/M/F... or more like... M/F/M.... hmmmm... spitroast.
*didn't say anything*
Well...I really can't " stray" into much anymore...as I now have a Missus and 2 kids...
I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD
It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.
Not always adorable, same goes for women, it really depends on context and quality of the physique. That being said I don't like guys because they don't interest me, I like girls though and sometimes they like me. I like girls who like me.
Well yeah obviously it depends on the people involved.
I was really just referring the the fact that men really seem to like lesbians a loooot, if you know what I mean :V
Just saying it counts the same for girls, just the other way around, with gay guys.
Delicious stereotypes...
I like guys who like me too haha! Though I am already taken so I recently had to turn this guy down.. I felt bad for him becasue he's really nice ):
I find that talking about sexuality varies person by person and that one's taste in activities varies person by person. I find myself kind of bland actually, but then again I never cared enough to think about other possibilities or methods and when I think about it to this day I still don't care enough about sex because to me it isn't all that important right now. I know that some guys will say that its because I have yet to have sex and I still tell them that I just don't care about it, I would rather have a meaningful relationship versus one concerned with just intercourse. Now that I'm in college its even harder to find a girl I like because sure they look pretty but there's nothing there besides wanting to get into their pants. Most of the girls in my school are there because their daddy has enough money to pay for them to join a sorority and get wasted.
Now back to the topic of discussing sex, I find that people who boast about it as if its some sort of contest rather distasteful. Now if you tell me that you banged some chick it doesn't bother me, but as soon as you start acting like its your biggest accomplishment and start to go into detail I lose interest quickly.
It is somewhat amusing how once one is " taken" ..their "potential partners" seem to increase by at least 50%..
I'll run into women now who...express a great deal of interest...and I'm like " where the hell were you when I was single"...I believe that it's the " forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some...perhaps.
Cheesecat wrote:I think people's preferred gender is biologically determined
To me, this is as silly as saying that person's preferred color is biologically determined.
I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.
A person's tastes are usually tied to genetics. If you have ever heard of someone who has an "addictive personality" its because they have some sort of hard wiring in their brain that predisposes them to becoming addicted to something. This hard wiring is tied into genetics and the amount and types of hormones being released. You can try to modify behaviors by creating associations between pleasure and certain conditions, for example you can create a fetish for a person if you can get them to experience that fetish when they do that thing that adults do when they're alone at home.
For example if I wanted to have a guy fantasize about covering people with chocolate I would have to flash images or videos of people being covered with chocolate when they achieve the end of that thing they are doing. Over time this creates a stimulus-response situation similar to Pavlov's Dog, but much dirtier.
Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.
Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." Insisting that homosexuality is "biological" is just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."
Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.
Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." Insisting that homosexuality is "biological" is just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."
I don't know man, I knew I liked girls from a very early age...no one really had to point me in that direction...and my cousin knew she like girls from a very early age ( like 7 or 8) and as this was in the South in the 70's...she clearly had no one pointing her in that direction.
A lot of people who are homosexual or are transsexual are that way because they were born that way, in fact there are a lot of homosexuals who protest based on the fact that its not a choice.
Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.
Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." That's just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural."
I still don't think any amount of social pressure would change my sexual orientation, even in societies where gay people are being repressed you think gay people that occur in those types of societies are doing it
to be nonconformist/rebellious or do you think they're doing it because it's what seems natural to them something integral to there being, something that was never chosen?
There are a lot of non-biological aspects to a person that we wouldn't call choice. "Choice" and "born like that" constitute a false dichotomy. It's a political slogan. The evidence is plain: The moment I say that being homosexual is non-biological, everyone here assumes I mean it is some kind of choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:A lot of people who are homosexual or are transsexual are that way because they were born that way, in fact there are a lot of homosexuals who protest based on the fact that its not a choice.
So if there are other homosexual people who said "however I was born, this is who I am" should they not be allowed to protest too? Because they don't think they were "born that way" their preferences are bad and unnatural?
Manchu wrote:There are a lot of non-biological aspects to a person that we wouldn't call choice. "Choice" and "born like that" constitute a false dichotomy. It's a political slogan. The evidence is plain: The moment I say that being homosexual is non-biological, everyone here assumes I mean it is some kind of choice.
The thing is when you look at societies full of homophobic social pressure homosexual people still occur so I wonder how much social pressure actually plays in sexuality especially when it comes to preferred
No... but what I am saying is that the majority of all this is hard wired into a person. If you take a boy and raise him as a girl because he had an accident when he was a baby that caused great harm to his genitals then that "girl" will probably blow his brains out because that is what happened to this one guy. Any time you have a person who says that they are a woman in a man's body or a man in a woman's body its not a choice that they made, its a psychological belief and that stems from genetics. Perhaps it was a hormone imbalance, perhaps it was something else biological, but it normally is caused by something in a person's biology. Now if a person gets drunk and "experiments" then he really isn't a homosexual is he? Men are less likely than women to be bisexual. Men also have a higher base hematocrit level and more erythropoietin than women. Its all biological somewhere down the line.
Its nature versus nurture and most of the time nature beats nurture. That's basic biology and genetics.
Well, social pressure isn't always easy to trace. Direct relationships are not the only real ones. When we talk about other kinds of sexual attractions we explain them with early age associations. Wasn't it someone in this thread who posted about British men in the 60s liking ladies in gasmasks because as tykes they saw women going around in gasmasks all the time? Again, I don't think homosexual attraction is magically privileged just because there is this political issue going on. Gay people are really selling themselves short with the "born this way" argument. They're saying, listen we're not bad because this is all biological. Well, what if some evidence shows up that definitively proves that it's not biological at all? Do we then say, well, gay people really are unnatural and therefore bad? No, of course not. What's tolerable in society has nothing to do with mere biology.
We did't tolerate homosexuality for the most part and we saw it as unnatural and said that it was a choice for them to be homosexual so that they should change the way they are instead of being homosexual. The result was a lot of unhappy people who either led miserable lives or killed themselves.
The thing is, there is a lot of new evidence suggesting that it is genetic.
US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.
While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.
A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.
What scientists call "the fraternal birth order effect", the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother's body to each male foetus in her womb.
halonachos wrote:We did't tolerate homosexuality for the most part and we saw it as unnatural and said that it was a choice for them to be homosexual so that they should change the way they are instead of being homosexual. The result was a lot of unhappy people who either led miserable lives or killed themselves.
So is the answer is to keep the old mentality that natural/biological = good? No, it is not.
Sexuality, like everything else to our human existence, is a sliding scale with different factors affecting different people to different degrees. Some preferences are born, some are chosen and some are repressed.
If the gender aspect of sexuality is 'genetic' then what about other factors? body type? hair colour? age? outfits?
Amphsix wrote:Well yeah obviously it depends on the people involved.
I was really just referring the the fact that men really seem to like lesbians a loooot, if you know what I mean :V
Just saying it counts the same for girls, just the other way around, with gay guys.
Delicious stereotypes...
I like guys who like me too haha! Though I am already taken so I recently had to turn this guy down.. I felt bad for him becasue he's really nice ):
Actually, from what I've heard, the reason men like F/F so much is because we don't see two girls making out with eachother, we just see two girls who are ready and willing to act sexually.
halonachos wrote:We did't tolerate homosexuality for the most part and we saw it as unnatural and said that it was a choice for them to be homosexual so that they should change the way they are instead of being homosexual. The result was a lot of unhappy people who either led miserable lives or killed themselves.
So is the answer to keep the old mentality that natural/biological = good? No, it is not.
You don't get it do you Manchu? The old mentality is that homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals could be changed, the new belief is that it is as genetic as being born straight.
Now the genders involved tend to be determined genetically while other things like hair color can change so much as the preferred gender doesn't. Typically the person in question chooses something familiar to them, if it seems like a girl wants you because you're with another girl its probably due to the fact that she sees you as a successful mate and wants to get with you in order to increase the human population. Jealousy stems from that basic biological impulse.
... no. No it is not. You haven't actually done any research on the topic, have you? But never mind the actual research done on the topic. Let's talk a hypothetical.here.
Imagine if you would someone whom was raised in a normal, healthy "nuclear" family. Their father is a working dad, their mother a stay-at-home mom. They live in normal suburbs that haven't yet fallen to suburbian decay, and attend a decent, indeed above-average public school. Perhaps (as is the case in this day and age) both parents work, but they're very loving parents, and try to provide the best for their child. And really, all's going well... but then puberty hits.
They find that they simply are not attracted to the opposite gender that way, no matter how hard they try to be normal and fit in. Instead, their dirty thoughts and dreams and daydreams are about the same gender-- looking at the other gender doesn't get their loins all worked up. It's the same gender that does it for them. They try hard to reverse it but can't... because it wasn't a choice for them. It was biological.
Why do you find this scenario unbelievable? Even if you think it is though... even if you're in denial of it (so to speak)... it's what has really happened with quite a few homosexuals in their early life.
No, halonachos, you don't get it and you're substituting political slogans for real understanding.
The old belief was that homosexuals were unnatural. One way of explaining that was "choice" but it wasn't the only way. Some people thought of it as a sickness or deformity. You know, some people are born with only one limb, for example. They're not going to get better nor did they choose to be born with one limb. And, in the old days, these people were shut away because they were "unnatural" and thus embarrassing or bad. Some people didn't think gay people actively wanted to be gay. In fact, their experience of gay people and gay people's own experience confirmed that was not the case. Gay people faced with those attitudes desperately wanted to not be gay and of course they told people this. But, according to that mentality, it was still abnormal and so bad.
Now, we're keeping that stupid attitude with the "born this way" slogan. Now we're saying that because people are born this way then it must be natural -- "what God intended" or whatever. The real answer is to say, look, it's not a bad thing. There actually is no harm. Whether this is genetic or not doesn't matter at all -- what matters is that this is simply not harmful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:You haven't actually done any research on the topic, have you?
Melissia, the research you're implying that you've done has only led you to believe a political slogan. I'm not impressed with it or your presumption that my disagreement means that I am ignorant.
Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.
Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." Insisting that homosexuality is "biological" is just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."
I don't know man, I knew I liked girls from a very early age...no one really had to point me in that direction...and my cousin knew she like girls from a very early age ( like 7 or 8) and as this was in the South in the 70's...she clearly had no one pointing her in that direction.
While I thought girls were icky prior to grade 3 after that I started getting school crushes, but it wasn't till about grade 10 that I started getting real intense sexual impulses around women (probably puberty
The most interesting thing I can respond to here, not to get too personal, but whenever I see someone vigorously defending their right to be a non-sexual being or just trying to downplay it, it seems like the exact same thing as people who go out of their way to brag about it. It comes off as a sort of self-righteousness whether intended or not. I think balance is healthy and ignoring any part of one's self is a little stunting.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The most interesting thing I can respond to here, not to get too personal, but whenever I see someone vigorously defending their right to be a non-sexual being or just trying to downplay it, it seems like the exact same thing as people who go out of their way to brag about it. It comes off as a sort of self-righteousness whether intended or not. I think balance is healthy and ignoring any part of one's self is a little stunting.
Ladies, nothing but the finest ones
The lavishist ones, the ain’t hard to findest ones
From the boldest to the shy-ist ones
Which city got the livest ones
Detroit, san fran
Ladies, nothing but the finest ones
The lavishist ones, the ain’t hard to findest ones
From the boldest to the shy-ist ones
Which city got the livest ones
Chi-town, boston
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I think balance is healthy and ignoring any part of one's self is a little stunting.
I agree. I've seen people do this in all sorts of ways but especially putting off any exploration of their sexuality for the sake of "what's important." It's not just hurtful to the person themselves but then, when they do get around to addressing this part of their life, they already assume it's kind of trivial and their choices with regard to others reflects this.
DukeBadham wrote:I have but one thing to say:
"If its cute, legal and human, bang it."
EDIT: since I don't know why I am being called a sick man, lets play this safe.
Melissia wrote:I believe you are ignorant because you are ignorant
And yet you have failed to demonstrate that by actually addressing my points.
*looks up at my post above*
No, Manchu, I most assuredly have addressed your point. Perhaps you should go read the hypothetical I put forth for you. You can associate a political slant all you want, but really, that casual dismissal just smacks of either disrespect (IE looking down on them saying "you only believe that because you're deluded by politics", and really, if this is the case then shame on you, you're a mod, you should act better than that) or paranoia (in which case I pity you because that's really a sad state of mind to be in), and certainly it doesn't strike me as the mindset of one interested in honest discourse.
Human sexuality is a complex thing, Manchu, and no geneticist will go on record saying there's a "gay gene". Just like they won't go on record saying there's a "black gene" and no "asian gene". Like any complex biological function, there are many, many genes which control sexuality, and it is influenced by hormonal levels throughout life even as early as the early weeks of pregnancy (often beyond the mother's control, even if they eat right and follow doctor's orders in ensuring they provide all they can for the foetus in their body). For some people it undoubtedly is a choice, and bully for them. But not for everyone.
Because there IS a genetic factor to it. That is rather beyond dispute; if there was no genetic factor behind sexuality there would be no human race to begin with. We'd have died off when our ancestors didn't mate.
halonachos wrote:Most of the girls in my school are there because their daddy has enough money to pay for them to join a sorority and get wasted.
According to college prowler, only 3% of women enrolled at Old Dominion are members of a Greek organization.
No offense, but I heard this argument from people all the time when I was in undergrad, and still hear it now that I'm in graduate school. Whenever you say "Most X just do Y, and Y is bad." you're probably better off looking at the way you're presenting yourself such that you only find yourself around X doing Y, rather than bemoaning the fact that you believe most X do Y.
No, Melissia, you most certainly did not address my point. My point has nothing to do with genetics causing homosexuality at all. My point is that it does not matter whether it does or not insofar as homosexuality being morally right or wrong is concerned. The slogan "born this way" is a continuation of outmoded thinking. It's reshuffling the same deck of cards.
Melissia wrote:For some people it undoubtedly is a choice, and bully for them. But not for everyone.
Because there IS a genetic factor to it. That is rather beyond dispute; if there was no genetic factor behind sexuality there would be no human race to begin with. We'd have died off when our ancestors didn't mate.
Well, there may be a genetic component to sexuality in general, but that doesn't mean the relevant genes determine how that sexuality is directed, not totally anyway.
As you say, it is very likely that the specifics of attraction are determined, at least in part, by the environmental conditions in which a person is placed. Though, to be clear, that doesn't imply that sexuality is built around choice, it isn't, though like anything that results from conditioning (environmental or otherwise) it is likely that choice could influence it given enough dedication to doing so.
Manchu wrote:No, Melissia, you most certainly did not address my point. My point has nothing to do with genetics causing homosexuality at all. My point is that it does not matter whether it does or not insofar as homosexuality being morally right or wrong is concerned. The slogan "born this way" is a continuation of outmoded thinking. It's reshuffling the same deck of cards.
Its also predicated on a very weak understanding of genetics, and the role the environment plays in shaping a person.
Huh...I looked at the title of this thread and expected it to be locked by now...fething miracles...
I'm straight male...in the...forgive me I'm trying to find a categorization that wont be taken the wrong way...(hurr hurr... )
Traditional sense? I guess...
Homosexuality...not a fan...if you wanted me to be really honest it just seems unnatural to me...but I wont judge you for being so, I wont walk up to you and say its wrong, if that's who you are then more power to you...I know plenty of friends who roll that way and I don't have a problem with them as long as they respect me as well...
So pretty much what others have said...don't have a problem with it but keep it off my lawn please...
Lord Rogukiel wrote:I'm a straight male too. One of my good friends is Bi (she's a girl), and I'm ok with the homosexuality stuff, especially for women.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:
But I can't stand gay guys, though maybe that's just because I'm also a guy and it repulses me.
Sorry, but that rediculous. I'm a straight girl and I can "stand" lesbian woman.
Why not just let people be? It doesn't affect you in any way. It's not like most gay people are so insensitive they would blindly hit on a straight guy, they would know that would feel uncomfortable for the other party. Even if it happens, a simple no is usually sufficient.
Saying it "repulses" you is the main reason why gays are still not accepted.
Can't hold double standards either. you can't be ok with gay women and not with gay men. Just sayin'
But amphsix, all straight men and women can't help but jump on every member the opposite sex they see right? so SURELY gay guys want to bone every guy that goes near them?
But I can't even stand beer, even the supposedly "good" beers that people on this forum recommend are just nasty pisswater. Or wine for that matter, which is slightly better tahn beer but I still can't stand its taste much.
Ineptus agrees with this statement. He hates alcohol to hell and back. and then back to hell again. (it tastes awful)
Melissia wrote:As well as that... I'm a nerd. A total nerd, probably nerdier than hafl the people on this forum and that's saying something given that this is a wargaming forum.
Party girl just isn't me.
no one is nerdier than Ineptus! No one! he even refers to himself in third person!
Coolyo294 wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I'm loving than cannerus slipped his name into the title, like the whole thread is a book of some kind
Or a perfume/cologne.
Ineptus just had the entire commercial play through his head...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:
Radiation wrote:I'm going to put on my Spiderman costume and see if I can find Catwomen or a Vampire Lady. All weekend.
I'm the Joker. The only action I'll be getting is 400 pound Batmen running up to me and screaming "I'M BATMAN!" Then running shuffling off.
Ineptus will be going as a guy not going at all...*sob* we have no halloween here...
MrDwhitey wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:It is fair enough to be honest, some people aren't that into sex just like some people aren't really into food.
I make a LOT of comparisons between sex and eating, is that bad?
Not really, both are pretty much the most pleasurable things ever (well, I certainly know food is ).
Also, looking this up enlightened me to
"Bikini bottom made out of edible candy beads"
Do't you dare eat Spongebob's town.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:I am a straight male, but due to my manner, most people think I'm homosexual, as I am not afraid of jokingly saying "I was abusive because it called me fat" or something like that. As for my stance on homosexual people, I honestly don't care about it unless he starts hitting on me, after which I have a problem.
I don't care if your humping a man, woman, or goat, as long as the other party is willing and your not trying to involve me in any sort of way.
This makes Ineptus wonder.
if it as a female human and a male (inert animal) is that consensual? (Note: Ineptus is just curious)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:Huh...I looked at the title of this thread and expected it to be locked by now...fething miracles...
I'm straight male...in the...forgive me I'm trying to find a categorization that wont be taken the wrong way...(hurr hurr... )
Traditional sense? I guess...
Homosexuality...not a fan...if you wanted me to be really honest it just seems unnatural to me...but I wont judge you for being so, I wont walk up to you and say its wrong, if that's who you are then more power to you...I know plenty of friends who roll that way and I don't have a problem with them as long as they respect me as well...
So pretty much what others have said...don't have a problem with it but keep it off my lawn please...
same here on that fact. I have to say it is a bit, well, strange and unnatural, possibly a bit disgusting in my point of view. but if whoever is this just keeps it in their house and does not flaunt it to the world, no problems.
ITT: Homophobic people not admitting their true feelings on homosexuality. 00shotty00 also described Homosexuality as "strange" and "unnatural"...keep that in mind.
Pretty damn funny, actually. That if someone likes dick instead of vagina, you can no longer interact with them socially.
ineptus astartes wrote:I have to say it is a bit, well, strange and unnatural, possibly a bit disgusting in my point of view. but if whoever is this just keeps it in their house and does not flaunt it to the world, no problems.
Do heterosexual people keep it in their homes or to they 'flaunt' it? Given the number of straight couples draped over each other in public and sometimes quite overtly making out I would say that in general they are easily worse for public displays.
WARORK93 wrote:Homosexuality...not a fan...if you wanted me to be really honest it just seems unnatural to me...
Better remember that next time you get in a plane or wear clothes then, unless you know what natural behaviour actually is.
Never flown on a plane...
you got me on the clothes thing though...
furthermore, the perception of what the word "natural" and "unnatural" varies on its meaning from person to person...sorry mine's different than yours
But perhaps the way I worded it was wrong, if I'm truly honest I would say that when I think about the subject it makes me grimace and think something along the lines of "that's not right"
I can't help that, its something I've tried to change about myself based on the many friends I've had that were homosexual or bisexual, I've seen and felt their pain when they were ostracized by the rest of my highschool, hell, I was sexually awkard for the first half of high school and knowing most American teenagers' cruelty, I was thrown into the "cigarette" category of their consideration that didn't end until I had the guts to get a girlfriend in senior year...
What I'm trying to say is that I'm sorry I feel that way about the subject but I just do.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:I'm a straight male too. One of my good friends is Bi (she's a girl), and I'm ok with the homosexuality stuff, especially for women.
But I can't stand gay guys
Yeah, a lot of guys are hypocrites like that...
Me a hypocrite please.
Gay people are awesome they tell me how to look better and attract the attention to my speaking.
Then Bi-girls I am fine with.
Bi-guys, as long as he is not interested in any of my friends I am fine with it.
Gay girls I support fully.
Mostly because I read the demographic of how many gay guys commit suicide at high schools which is pretty damn high. Why would I want to be responsible for something like that? I say to people that are gay don't be afraid, guys at this school will always be bastards so you need to be the better man and ignore them and just have fun in high school. ^.^ my advice to all gay people.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:I'm a straight male too. One of my good friends is Bi (she's a girl), and I'm ok with the homosexuality stuff, especially for women.
But I can't stand gay guys
Yeah, a lot of guys are hypocrites like that...
Me a hypocrite please.
Gay people are awesome they tell me how to look better and attract the attention to my speaking.
Then Bi-girls I am fine with.
Bi-guys, as long as he is not interested in any of my friends I am fine with it.
Gay girls I support fully.
Mostly because I read the demographic of how many gay guys commit suicide at high schools which is pretty damn high. Why would I want to be responsible for something like that? I say to people that are gay don't be afraid, guys at this school will always be bastards so you need to be the better man and ignore them and just have fun in high school. ^.^ my advice to all gay people.
Hang on...
If a bi-guy is interested in one of your friends you automatically hate him?
corpsesarefun wrote:Yep, just like if a bi-girl fancies one of your female friends you hate her.
Actually yeah. I don't like seeing my friends dating each other. Unless If I know they are wanting to, plus there is a strict christian in my group. Who basically says "THIS IS THE DEVILS WORK!"
And then I start to hate him and the people that started him to do that. Sometimes I like punching the bastard in the face, but that is the only reason why I hate having my friends date each other as sometimes a bad break sometimes breaks up a group. Happened with some other groups over time. It happens. No.1 rule of dating never date your friends friend. as the girl will take him as a friend and you lose a friend common sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:Someone said o0shotty0o, my mortal enemy?
Amphsix wrote:Yeah but you can hardly forbid your friends to date, it's their life really
Yeah but they all know that it causes friction in the group, we did have a successfully dating in our group. But thats like 15% of us. the other 85% of us have dated other girls because we all want to stay friends. So we all fear for our friendships.
corpsesarefun wrote:Yep, just like if a bi-girl fancies one of your female friends you hate her.
Actually yeah. I don't like seeing my friends dating each other. Unless If I know they are wanting to, plus there is a strict christian in my group. Who basically says "THIS IS THE DEVILS WORK!"
And then I start to hate him and the people that started him to do that. Sometimes I like punching the bastard in the face, but that is the only reason why I hate having my friends date each other as sometimes a bad break sometimes breaks up a group. Happened with some other groups over time. It happens. No.1 rule of dating never date your friends friend. as the girl will take him as a friend and you lose a friend common sense.
corpsesarefun wrote:Yep, just like if a bi-girl fancies one of your female friends you hate her.
Actually yeah. I don't like seeing my friends dating each other. Unless If I know they are wanting to, plus there is a strict christian in my group. Who basically says "THIS IS THE DEVILS WORK!" And then I start to hate him and the people that started him to do that. Sometimes I like punching the bastard in the face, but that is the only reason why I hate having my friends date each other as sometimes a bad break sometimes breaks up a group. Happened with some other groups over time. It happens. No.1 rule of dating never date your friends friend. as the girl will take him as a friend and you lose a friend common sense.
This post makes very little sense.
How may I ask? Having a Radical Christian, a Radical Mormon, and a Radical Atheist in my group they all fight each other over other things and 2 of them hate gays and the other one is fine with them.
Though my question is why are we even friends with him
My group is confusing. We aren't all nerds. We have conflicts, around 90 of us in total
Friction is caused by people dating their friends which is a nono. I rather have a girl that is a friend than a Girlfriend, espeically if, I hardly have the time
Okay as everyone couldn't make sense of it here we go....
You like a girl but she is your best friend, your friends don't want you to date your best friend because they say you need to keep as a friend and nothing else. You like her but against your friends wishes you try and date her. Before hand she had made up her mind and didn't want to date you. You try and ask her out. She says no saying you already know too much and she wants to keep you as a really good friend.
She then dates one of your friends. Rivalry begins. People in the group start to take sides. Group is seperated by this issue. Civil war basically begins.
After many months of trying one of your good friends basically says "Gak this, Okay this is stupid okay everyone, lets all make-up and deal with this stupidity." Then the group is reformed but group is a little fractured.
What, 90 people? that's not a group. that's a society.
I still stand by my opinion that you shouldn't let others pressure you into not starting a relationship with a friend if you really want to. The only people I ever fell in love with were friends, because there's an underlying connection already.
Date freely is you think it will work out. if it doesn't, you gotta be a grown up and just handle it in a mature way. It would be silly to let little squabbles sit in ther way
corpsesarefun wrote:Sorry but there are 90 people who you expect not to date eachother at all?
You are mental.
We have 1,000 kids in my grade alone. O.O It may be a society but is a group of people that see everything differently. Plus I am in several groups and dating your friends is a big nonono.
Though in my inner ciricle of friends I have told them no dating each other. I am fine with outside people but the inner circle that we have is to important to jepordize our opinions. Plus there's like 8 of us, 2 really cute girls with an actual brain, and 6 guys. It just matters on two friends that are dating. As I said if I know they want to date each other for so long, then go ahead its not my problem its just group separation is the worst. Of Course i am a teenager so what do i Know.
corpsesarefun wrote:Sorry but there are 90 people who you expect not to date eachother at all?
You are mental.
We have 1,000 kids in my grade alone. O.O
It may be a society but is a group of people that see everything differently.
Plus I am in several groups and dating your friends is a big nonono.
It's different for my group...
If both people are willing then it's fine.
Though you have to be prepared for lots of innuendo and jokes.
Clthomps wrote:Did you know the later you are in a line of siblings the more likely you are to be LGBT? Its something like 17% increase in the third child and later.
I need the source for this because I find it very intriguing.
Here is the wiki, if you check the links at the bottom you can find some good scientific data.
Friction is caused by people dating their friends which is a nono. :
That's simply not always the case, it really depends on the mindset of the " friends" in question...
I've dated several of my friends at one time or other, known a lot of FWB...and never encountered any " group destroying friction"....if a situation isn't seen as a problem...then it seldom becomes a problem.
....I also find the " so long as they don't hit on me...I don't have a problem" frame of mind displayed by some of the posters here concerning gay men somewhat amusing...it just makes no sense to me that someone, unless their very confused about their own orientations, would have a problem if some one of the same sex approached them for a date ( whatever)...a simple " I'm flatered ..but I'm straight" is all that is needed in this situation.
corpsesarefun wrote:However homosexuality is pretty common in nature, many species practice it.
Okay then lets look at this from a scientific standpoint...
Many animals can reproduce asexually in nature...humans, naturally, cannot...
According to your implication, there are some animals which can reproduce homosexually...humans, naturally, cannot.
Take away all modern, societal, whatever contexts for humanity and get back to the basics and what you are left with is humans while they were still becoming the apex predator of the earth; a caveman, neanderthal, whatever...that's as natural as you get; the concept of evolution and natural selection.
Now do you think from an evolutionary perspective that a human is going to pick a mate of the same sex? No, it will pick one of the different sex because that's how they reproduce, that's how bloodlines are formed, that's how the species survives, the ones that pick a same sex partner will die off and their genes will not be passed on. Therefore from a natural selection viewpoint, homosexuality is not natural...
This is not the end all of arguments, just a theory...please wont somebody come up and prove me wrong? Give me a reason to believe otherwise...
corpsesarefun wrote:Sorry but there are 90 people who you expect not to date eachother at all?
You are mental.
We have 1,000 kids in my grade alone. O.O
It may be a society but is a group of people that see everything differently.
Plus I am in several groups and dating your friends is a big nonono.
It's different for my group...
If both people are willing then it's fine.
Though you have to be prepared for lots of innuendo and jokes.
read the edit. I am fine with my friends dating, but I won't personally date my friends, and I will make jokes about them. I don't control them the girls in the group control me XD
That's simply not always the case, it really depends on the mindset of the " friends" in question...
I've dated several of my friends at one time or other, known a lot of FWB...and never encountered any " group destroying friction"....if a situation isn't seen as a problem...then it seldom becomes a problem.
....I also find the " so long as they don't hit on me...I don't have a problem" frame of mind displayed by some of the posters here concerning gay men somewhat amusing...it just makes no sense to me that someone, unless their very confused about their own orientations, would have a problem if some one of the same sex approached them for a date ( whatever)...a simple " I'm flatered ..but I'm straight" is all that is needed in this situation.
true but it has been in the case many other groups. What makes us different? Because we are highly intelligent and talented people?
I am fine with anyone hitting on me actually makes me feel better to be honest. I then tell them I am actually straight not gay and that in order to prove it I do something stupid with the opposite sex. Just my frame of mind and also because everytime, i feel like redeeming myself in some really way to punishing ways.
Hence why my parents don't want to punish me, ever since I punish myself for my own failures.
corpsesarefun wrote:However homosexuality is pretty common in nature, many species practice it.
Okay then lets look at this from a scientific standpoint...
Many animals can reproduce asexually in nature...humans, naturally, cannot...
According to your implication, there are some animals which can reproduce homosexually...humans, naturally, cannot.
Take away all modern, societal, whatever contexts for humanity and get back to the basics and what you are left with is humans while they were still becoming the apex predator of the earth; a caveman, neanderthal, whatever...that's as natural as you get; the concept of evolution and natural selection.
Now do you think from an evolutionary perspective that a human is going to pick a mate of the same sex? No, it will pick one of the different sex because that's how they reproduce, that's how bloodlines are formed, that's how the species survives, the ones that pick a same sex partner will die off and their genes will not be passed on. Therefore from a natural selection viewpoint, homosexuality is not natural...
This is not the end all of arguments, just a theory...please wont somebody come up and prove me wrong? Give me a reason to believe otherwise...
He isn't saying that species re-produce homosexually just that they do practice it.
Giraffes for example...
There are a lot of gay giraffes.
However, there are 2 ways of looking at your statement.
1) Everything we do, have done and everything we have created are a product of our ;intelligence' and is therefore natural.
2) Nothing we do is natural and so if something else is unnatural it doesn't really matter.
corpsesarefun wrote:However homosexuality is pretty common in nature, many species practice it.
Okay then lets look at this from a scientific standpoint...
Many animals can reproduce asexually in nature...humans, naturally, cannot...
According to your implication, there are some animals which can reproduce homosexually...humans, naturally, cannot.
That is some pretty spurious reasoning. You make some odd leap from acknowledging that animals can act in a homosexual manner to asexual reproduction to homosexual reproduction. I don't even need to post a truth table to show why that is invalid.
WARORK93 wrote:the concept of evolution and natural selection.
Snipped a bit for space. You seem to confuse evolution and Social Darwinism. Darwin put humans in a state of civilization, and not nature. Survival of the fittest applied to the rough and tumble natural world of lions and such. Humans rely on empathy as the primary engine of survival and forward progress.
corpsesarefun wrote:However homosexuality is pretty common in nature, many species practice it.
Okay then lets look at this from a scientific standpoint...
Many animals can reproduce asexually in nature...humans, naturally, cannot...
According to your implication, there are some animals which can reproduce homosexually...humans, naturally, cannot.
That is some pretty spurious reasoning. You make some odd leap from acknowledging that animals can act in a homosexual manner to asexual reproduction to homosexual reproduction. I don't even need to post a truth table to show why that is invalid.
The thought that animals can be homosexual did not lead to my thinking that animals reproduce asexually. There was no "reasoning" behind that...its a fact that some animals reproduce asexually and its a fact I chose to use to lead into my point.
The same thing with my statement about homosexually reproducing animals...I can't name you an animal that does it but I felt that the statement I quoted implied that there were animals that do that. Again it was to make a point which I got to later...
Why animals that cannot reproduce homosexually sometimes pick homosexual partners? Search me...I can't think of how such a relationship benefits either animal in a survival point of view
WARORK93 wrote:
The same thing with my statement about homosexually reproducing animals...I can't name you an animal that does it but I felt that the statement I quoted implied that there were animals that do that. Again it was to make a point which I got to later...
The statement you quoted implied nothing like that.
WARORK93 wrote:The thought that animals can be homosexual did not lead to my thinking that animals reproduce asexually. There was no "reasoning" behind that...its a fact that some animals reproduce asexually and its a fact I chose to use to lead into my point.
So you accidentally strung all those points together.
You also seem to be confusing sexuality and sex with reproduction.
WARORK93 wrote:
The same thing with my statement about homosexually reproducing animals...I can't name you an animal that does it but I felt that the statement I quoted implied that there were animals that do that. Again it was to make a point which I got to later...
The statement you quoted implied nothing like that.
Well then name me a reason that animals mate homosexually other than to reproduce...because I was of the standing that that was the entire reason two animals mate...
Ahtman wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:The thought that animals can be homosexual did not lead to my thinking that animals reproduce asexually. There was no "reasoning" behind that...its a fact that some animals reproduce asexually and its a fact I chose to use to lead into my point.
So you accidentally strung all those points together.
You also seem to be confusing sexuality and sex with reproduction.
No, I strung those points together to form an argument...how does what my train of thought was while thinking of those facts have anything to do with said argument?
Now I'm confusing sex with reproduction? How do you describe how an animal reproduces? Heterosexually, homosexually, asexually, bisexually...all words used to describe how animals reproduce...
Sex itself can be defined as a method of reproduction, the two are linked by meaning, I don't see how I've confused either...
corpsesarefun wrote:However homosexuality is pretty common in nature, many species practice it.
Okay then lets look at this from a scientific standpoint...
Oh please.
Now do you think from an evolutionary perspective that a human is going to pick a mate of the same sex? No, it will pick one of the different sex because that's how they reproduce, that's how bloodlines are formed, that's how the species survives, the ones that pick a same sex partner will die off and their genes will not be passed on. Therefore from a natural selection viewpoint, homosexuality is not natural...
Quite simply, sex is about more than reproduction. Humans use contraception and take infertile or sub-optimal partners. Sex between individuals fulfils a complex role in society particular in groups on animals where there is a hierarchy of dominance required. The role of homosexuality within evolution is a very complex one and it is far far to crude to claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural' because it does not lead to offspring. Sex serves more roles than mere reproduction in complex organisms.
People who talk about evolution and science in relation to homosexuality not being 'natural' or 'right' make me laugh. They invariably don't know much about the subject.
WARORK93 wrote:
The same thing with my statement about homosexually reproducing animals...I can't name you an animal that does it but I felt that the statement I quoted implied that there were animals that do that. Again it was to make a point which I got to later...
The statement you quoted implied nothing like that.
Well then name me a reason that animals mate homosexually other than to reproduce...because I was of the standing that that was the entire reason two animals mate...
I wouldn't be able to tell you why they do it. They just do and they can't reproduce that way so go figure.
Melissia wrote:Oh, that one's easy purplefood. It's social, not reproductive.
Exactly, sexual relationships between humans has long since gone past something done for procreation...in fact...it's never been solely about producing offspring...ever.
See, this is all why I added the "just a theory" statement to the bottom of my first argument...I knew I wanted to make a point but it seems I left out a few factors...you do raise a decent point though...
WARORK93 wrote:No, I strung those points together to form an argument...
First you claim that none of those ideas were connected, now they are all connected again. Make up your mind.
WARORK93 wrote:how does what my train of thought was while thinking of those facts have anything to do with said argument?
You want to know how the way you form and present an argument has anything to do with the argument? Because that is what an argument is.
WARORK93 wrote:Now I'm confusing sex with reproduction?
Yes.
WARORK93 wrote:How do you describe how an animal reproduces?
Intercourse could be one way. You keep trying to go down the science route but scientifically speaking the word sex would refer to biology, not as a verb to describe intercourse.
WARORK93 wrote:Heterosexually, homosexually, asexually, bisexually...all words used to describe how animals reproduce...
The only one that list used to describe reproduction is asexual.
WARORK93 wrote: I don't see how I've confused either...
Then it would seem the distinction between sexuality, sex, and reproduction isn't the only thing you are confused about.
WARORK93 wrote: And I ask myself why I never post in OT...someone always has a problem with how something's worded...
I've said my piece...made my points...they're wrong...I'm done...carry on please
Yes, you are wrong, I'm glad you realize that.
You never had a point, and if you think that homosexuality is anything but the preference of a dick over a vagina, or vice versa, then you are terribly misguided.
WARORK93 wrote: And I ask myself why I never post in OT...someone always has a problem with how something's worded...
I've said my piece...made my points...they're wrong...I'm done...carry on please
Yes, you are wrong, I'm glad you realize that.
You never had a point, and if you think that homosexuality is anything but the preference of a dick over a vagina, or vice versa, then you are terribly misguided.
Who sees it like that? Wait Warork93? YOU DO? WHAAAAAAAAAAAA??????
Yes I am idiot when it comes to relationships with other people with me involved in the equation its just removing myself from the equation is when things get interesting.
WARORK93 wrote: And I ask myself why I never post in OT...someone always has a problem with how something's worded...
I've said my piece...made my points...they're wrong...I'm done...carry on please
Well if you're going to claim that you are looking at something from 'a scientific viewpoint' and then start throwing terms like theory around you're going to trip up.
Karon wrote:You never had a point, and if you think that homosexuality is anything but the preference of a dick over a vagina, or vice versa, then you are terribly misguided.
Now that's just uncalled for...never once did I try to define what homosexuality is...only what I felt about it and how I viewed it which are two different things...
Howard A Treesong wrote:Well if you're going to claim that you are looking at something from 'a scientific viewpoint' and then start throwing terms like theory around you're going to trip up.
Is the word "theory" not scientific now? I tired to make a point based on the education I've received so far and I made a mistake because I didn't consider the social repercussions of sexual preference...not because I used certain words...
WARORK93 wrote:Is the word "theory" not scientific now? I tired to make a point based on the education I've received so far and I made a mistake because I didn't consider the social repercussions of sexual preference...not because I used certain words...
Most people don't understand what a scientific theory is. I'm not sure you do...
What you are referring to is not a theory-- but a hypothesis. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation; A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth." A scientific theory explains scientific observations, specifically, a scientific theory is one that is formed from many tested hypotheses.
WARORK93 wrote:Is the word "theory" not scientific now? I tired to make a point based on the education I've received so far and I made a mistake because I didn't consider the social repercussions of sexual preference...not because I used certain words...
Most people don't understand what a scientific theory is. I'm not sure you do...
What you are referring to is not a theory-- but a hypothesis. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation; A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth." A scientific theory explains scientific observations, specifically, a scientific theory is one that is formed from many tested hypotheses.
Yes I'm aware of the difference between hypothesis and theory...thank you for clearing that up...
corpsesarefun wrote:However homosexuality is pretty common in nature, many species practice it.
Okay then lets look at this from a scientific standpoint...
Many animals can reproduce asexually in nature...humans, naturally, cannot...
According to your implication, there are some animals which can reproduce homosexually...humans, naturally, cannot.
Take away all modern, societal, whatever contexts for humanity and get back to the basics and what you are left with is humans while they were still becoming the apex predator of the earth; a caveman, neanderthal, whatever...that's as natural as you get; the concept of evolution and natural selection.
Now do you think from an evolutionary perspective that a human is going to pick a mate of the same sex? No, it will pick one of the different sex because that's how they reproduce, that's how bloodlines are formed, that's how the species survives, the ones that pick a same sex partner will die off and their genes will not be passed on. Therefore from a natural selection viewpoint, homosexuality is not natural...
This is not the end all of arguments, just a theory...please wont somebody come up and prove me wrong? Give me a reason to believe otherwise...
LoL that is not thought out well at all. Homosexuality in nature is usually a dominance thing, and has nothing to do with reproduction.
Secondly people genetically programmed to be homosexual are beneficial to the species in many ways, first as a population control (read the article on birth order an sexuality and you will see why) second it is a really good way to remove dysfunctional genes from a gene-pool. Third having Aprox 17% of your species not rearing young improves the stability of your herd, think about what would happen if everyone in a tribe had a 2 year old child, there is a good chance that the whole tribe would die off.
I've never understood why homosexuality being found in animals is meaningful one way or the other. Who cares what animals do? I've never seen a dog eat it's own gak and thought, well, that must be okay for humans, too.
DukeBadham wrote:Guys, lets not talk about the sexual and reproductive urges of animals please, it slightly freaks me out.
Theeeen shouldn't you leave this thread?
Humans are animals.
Let me rephrase this:
Guys, lets not talk about the sexual and reproductive urges of wild animals in nature please, it slightly freaks me out.
That better.
Manchu wrote:I've never understood why homosexuality being found in animals is meaningful one way or the other. Who cares what animals do? I've never seen a dog eat it's own gak and thought, well, that must be okay for humans, too.
People claim it's unnatural.
Others point to animals as evidence that it isn't unnatural.
As I mentioned extensively in this thread, the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not the same thing as saying "it's not found in nature." A dog eating its own gak is found in nature but a human eating her or his own gak could easily be called "unnatural" in the sense that being homosexual has been labeled "unnatural." When people say being gay is "unnatural" they're not making a biological argument. They're not going to be convinced by a biological or animal behaviorist answer. Rather, they are making a moral argument.
Manchu wrote:As I mentioned extensively in this thread, the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not the same thing as saying "it's not found in nature." A dog eating its own gak is found in nature but a human eating her or his own gak could easily be called "unnatural" in the sense that being homosexual has been labeled "unnatural." When people say being gay is "unnatural" they're not making a biological argument. They're not going to be convinced by a biological or animal behaviorist answer. Rather, they are making a moral argument.
I didn't claim otherwise.
I was simply saying why homosexuality in animals is 'of consequence' to some people...
Saying something is "unnatural" in a moral sense is a subjective claim; it doesn't have to make sense in an objective way. Morality is going to be either more or less convincing; not just correct or incorrect. You can't just say to a bigot "homosexuality is not morally wrong, deal with it" and expect her or him to get on board -- you have to explain why it's not morally wrong. "Look, monkeys do it," is not a meaningful moral explanation. Monkeys do lots of things that are not okay for humans to do, after all. Same thing with "look, it's a genetic thing." So what? Lots of diseases are genetic -- that doesn't make them good. The best argument, IMO, is "there is no harm to either society or individuals." All the research about brain structure or genes is never going to make for a more just and equitable society, regarding sexuality. Rather, the research about how gay people do not undermine society, etc, is more important.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Humans use contraception and take infertile or sub-optimal partners.
Especially around last call.
Am I right, fellas?
Lol, well what I mean is that ideally you want a fit and healthy mate for reproduction, but many many partnerships demonstrate this not to be the case because we put so much on personality and lots of people never have children.
Manchu wrote:As I mentioned extensively in this thread, the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not the same thing as saying "it's not found in nature." A dog eating its own gak is found in nature but a human eating her or his own gak could easily be called "unnatural" in the sense that being homosexual has been labeled "unnatural." When people say being gay is "unnatural" they're not making a biological argument. They're not going to be convinced by a biological or animal behaviorist answer. Rather, they are making a moral argument.
Well, they're making a moral argument, and couching it in terminology which is elevated, aesthetically, above distaste.
Its a convenient way of justifying your beliefs to yourself without having to actually confront the substance of what you believe, and why you believe it.
Melissia wrote:I believe you are ignorant because you are ignorant
And yet you have failed to demonstrate that by actually addressing my points.
Ahem, Manchu the old belief was that sexuality was a choice and this was mainly due to the fact that at those times all understanding on psychology was kind of wonky, however there are now(as in current and new) examples of cases that indicate homosexuality and sexuality itself are genetically inherited. There is a strong correlation between twins both being being homosexual which means that there is strong evidence that there is some type of commonly inherited trait that makes them homosexuals. If you look at a series of 3 brothers then the youngest is most likely to be a homosexual and all of this is also linked to the whorl of a person's hair and their preference of what hand they are dominant in.
This is NEW science that is disproving the previously held belief that it was a lifestyle choice. No this isn't some political slogan, this is actual science, actual psychology, actual biology, and actual case studies compared to people like Sarah Palin who say that it is a choice. Now if a person is going out with a woman and is unhappy with it but marries and has kids due to social pressure then they really aren't straight if they end up preferring men. All that is, is the person finally realizing what his body and mind was telling him to do and allowing it to happen.
halonachos wrote: There is a strong correlation between twins both being being homosexual which means that there is strong evidence that there is some type of commonly inherited trait that makes them homosexuals.
Not necessarily. It is strong evidence that something which the twins have in common caused their homosexuality, but it doesn't need to be genetic.
halonachos wrote:
If you look at a series of 3 brothers then the youngest is most likely to be a homosexual and all of this is also linked to the whorl of a person's hair and their preference of what hand they are dominant in.
Many scientists believe that hand preference isn't genetically determined.
Once again, prejudice against homosexuals does not necessarily entail thinking that homosexuality is a choice.
Many people who are prejudiced against homosexuals do not think it is a choice but rather a disease or mental disorder. Diseases and mental disorders are both found "in nature" and are the result of genetics, biology, etc.
halonachos wrote:
Actually your point was that homosexuality shouldn't be called genetic because its a poor politically motivated battle cry for homosexual rights.
It is a good point, given that the majority of people taking that stance have a poor grasp of genetics, and the way political considerations influence them.
Actually your point was that homosexuality shouldn't be called genetic because its a poor politically motivated battle cry for homosexual rights.
No, I believe he accepts that it's genetic. His point, which is largely correct, is that it is an irrelevance. Arguing the 'naturalness' of homosexuality to argue against claims of immorality merely panders to the belief that what is 'right' is only what is 'natural'. In fact it should not matter if something is 'natural' or not, this is an irrelevance regarding morality. It should not even matter whether a person can 'choose' their sexuality or if it is the way they are born.
The question is whether it is harmful. It isn't, so there is nothing wrong with it, it isn't immoral. Even if people could choose to be gay, why would that make a difference? You shouldn't say "this is okay because they are born that way", you should say "this is okay because it's harmless and consensual".
You don't really need to argue the naturalness or genetics of it, regardless of its basis (choice, environment, genetics), it's a harmless, freedom of expression for an individual - and that should quash any claims of wrongness or immorality alone.
Albatross wrote:What about the other question? How is homosexuality unnatural?
To quote myself:
Its a convenient way of justifying your beliefs to yourself without having to actually confront the substance of what you believe, and why you believe it.
I remember when I asked my mother when I was a child if she believed in God, and she said yes. When I questioned her why she believed this, she couldn't give me a real answer, aside from "how can you not?"
Albatross wrote:What about the other question? How is homosexuality unnatural?
To quote myself:
Its a convenient way of justifying your beliefs to yourself without having to actually confront the substance of what you believe, and why you believe it.
I just quoted you, quoting yourself in answer to my question. Which you quoted.
Yeah, I know the answer, which is of course that homosexuality is evidently part of human nature and therefore natural. It is not introduced from outside of human nature. It naturally occurs.
The problem, as you alluded to, is 'unnatural-to-mean-bad'. I wish people would just be honest and use the word 'bad' instead. It's marginally less embarrassing for them.
It isn't unnatural. It's also not immoral either, really...
Religious stuff here:
Spoiler:
None of the canon gospels discuss homosexuality (dunno about the mormon ones). The other examples of homosexuality in the bible concern themselves with other things, not homosexuality itself-- the Sodom incident for example, was that the men wanted to rape the angels, and indeed raped the man's daughters instead when he refused to do so. They tried to rush Lot an the angels to rape the angels, but the angels blinded them so they couldn't find the door. Their sin wasn't homosexuality, but their lustful desire to force themselves upon the angels.
The quotes from Leviticus discuss "toevah", the Jewish concept of ritual impurity (as I understand it). Homosexuality is "toevah" like pork is "toevah" or rare steaks are "toevah"-- so if you ate bacon for breakfast you're just as "unclean" as a homosexual would be. But most Christians don't believe that they have to follow these rules. I mean, if they did, they'd never shave or cut their hair.
And then we get to Paul-- but even then, what is constantly translated to "sodomite" is probably better translated to "man with many beds" or "man who likes to [bleep]", rather than homosexual. Really, even this fits in with the "sodomite" translation, given what I said about the Sodom incident before-- Paul was attacking promiscuous men, and certainly men who find someone attractive and immediately think "let's gang-rape them" would fit under that definition.
Paul's final mention of homosexuals is also up for interpretation. "“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." In otherwords, God punished them by having the mostly heterosexual population become homosexual, which felt degrading and unnatural to them-- because they're heterosexuals. The punishment was from the shame they felt from having to do a sex act that they did not like. Imagine what it'd be like to have to perform homosexual acts even though you're not interested in them-- many straight people would feel unclean from it, I imagine.
This is what many homosexuals feel like thinking about heterosexual acts.
In the end, though, it's all sort of not relevant. Jesus stood up for those who are being oppressed and persecuted, not to those who were doing the persecution. He stood for love, not hatred and oppression. The two most important, the greateast commandments were to love god, and love your neighbor as if they were your brother. If your brother felt sick at the idea of having sex with a woman, would you force him to have a relationship with a woman or noone at all-- either suffering in an unhappy relationship or suffering in loneliness, a zero-sum game for him?
I know it's not a biblical source, but at this point, I can't help but think of Huckleberry Finn. He had the choice between freeing his slave friend and, in his mind, damning his own soul to hell for eternity... or letting his friend suffer and be miserable the rest of his life, but saving his own soul.
His decision? "All right, then, I'll go to Hell!"
And so the angels in heaven rejoiced.
Perhaps you are uncomfortable at the sight of homosexuality. But is saving yourself from that discomfort really worth enforcing a lifetime of loneliness upon loving, consenting homosexual couples? Somehow I doubt that Jesus would agree with that... then again, I don't come from a background where homosexuality is considered a sin, despite growing up in the bible belt-- my father came from California and my mother is just too nice a person to really believe in such hateful rhetoric. I don't see the condemnation of homosexuality that others see in the bible...
I do see, however, that "without love, I am nothing"...
Manchu wrote:I think people use words like "unnatural" because at some level it is embarrassing for an adult to go around pointing at things, crying "baaaaaad!"
I don't know, I thought it had a couple good songs on it.
Manchu wrote:I think people use words like "unnatural" because at some level it is embarrassing for an adult to go around pointing at things, crying "baaaaaad!"
Essentially, yes. Though once the veil is lifted the two sound essentially the same.
I'm going to say this; human nature is all sorts of bundles of fun and certain actions are signs of irregular human nature while others are similar but represent different aspects of human nature. People can be born a homosexual and if they are raised against that natural mindset they tend to lead unhappy lives. All of this is newer science and psychology which has been given some credibility thanks to case studies.
Right now i'm bi leaning more towards other guys, and a furry
Both my parents were gay so if it is in fact genetic and I am guessing its recessive gene then Im likely gay so right now I am treating my self as an experiment. Though it's not very good science if I know i am studying myself
youbedead wrote:Though it's not very good science if I know i am studying myself
It is also not good psychology since you can't actually get good enough perspective outside yourself to form honest opinions or conclusions.
Precisely, but there is an effect on people being watched if they know they're being watched. Hawthorne Effect it is called and it means that a test subject will usually modify their behavior if they know that they're being watched. Now as to count yourself as a case study I am not sure how you would do that, if your parents are both homosexual then one would think that they are of the same sex which means it would be biologically impossible. However you were conceived so somewhere in the past there was a spermatocyte and oocyte that came together to form a mass of cells that is now you. Now there are several ways to accomplish this, but this would involve taking either the spermatocyte or oocyte from somebody outside of the family. Now if you have a homosexual male and homosexual female as parents then that would be interesting. But this is a web forum so we don't need specifics, because we're not a science research center.
However I think it would be moderately safe to assume that if there was a specific gene responsible for homosexuality it would indeed be recessive merely out of the fact that if a species like us consisted entirely of homosexual individuals we wouldn't last too long on this planet because there would be no procreation. Now there are asexual species and species that can "switch" sex, but humans normally don't and need a male and female gamete to interact with one another.
youbedead wrote:Though it's not very good science if I know i am studying myself
It is also not good psychology since you can't actually get good enough perspective outside yourself to form honest opinions or conclusions.
Precisely, but there is an effect on people being watched if they know they're being watched. Hawthorne Effect it is called and it means that a test subject will usually modify their behavior if they know that they're being watched. Now as to count yourself as a case study I am not sure how you would do that, if your parents are both homosexual then one would think that they are of the same sex which means it would be biologically impossible. However you were conceived so somewhere in the past there was a spermatocyte and oocyte that came together to form a mass of cells that is now you. Now there are several ways to accomplish this, but this would involve taking either the spermatocyte or oocyte from somebody outside of the family. Now if you have a homosexual male and homosexual female as parents then that would be interesting. But this is a web forum so we don't need specifics, because we're not a science research center.
However I think it would be moderately safe to assume that if there was a specific gene responsible for homosexuality it would indeed be recessive merely out of the fact that if a species like us consisted entirely of homosexual individuals we wouldn't last too long on this planet because there would be no procreation. Now there are asexual species and species that can "switch" sex, but humans normally don't and need a male and female gamete to interact with one another.
No, my parents are opposite sexes. A combination of social pressure and traditional jewish parents caused them to either repress their sexuality or they merely didn't realize until later in life. Now that I think about it though it's far more likely that the 'gay gene' or allele is not a straight up recessive/dominant and the phenotype is probably an expression of multiple different alleles or a sliding scal rather then a gay/not gay switch.
I'm interested in bio-engineering as possible career choice which is one reason why im interested in it.
halonachos wrote:
However I think it would be moderately safe to assume that if there was a specific gene responsible for homosexuality it would indeed be recessive merely out of the fact that if a species like us consisted entirely of homosexual individuals we wouldn't last too long on this planet because there would be no procreation.
Since our understanding of genetics has long since moved beyond the idea of "X genes" (1 gene being responsible for any one characteristic) I think its safe to say that such a condition is unlikely.
youbedead wrote:Both my parents were gay so if it is in fact genetic and I am guessing its recessive gene then Im likely gay so right now I am treating my self as an experiment. Though it's not very good science if I know i am studying myself
It probably isn't a single gene though, if you look at the spectum of sexual orientation and all the nuanced forms of sexuality it's more likely to be a polygene complex. Then there's the possibility for epigenetic genes which are only activated under certain specific environmental circumstances (hormones in the womb) and then you have to factor in general environmental and psychology conditions (upbringing) overall.
Manchu wrote:I think people use words like "unnatural" because at some level it is embarrassing for an adult to go around pointing at things, crying "baaaaaad!"
I don't know, I thought it had a couple good songs on it.
Hilariously, these are the lyrics to 'Bad' by Michael Jackson:
Your Butt Is Mine
Gonna Take You Right
Just Show Your Face
In Broad Daylight
I'm Telling You
On How I Feel
Gonna Hurt Your Mind
Don't Shoot To Kill
Come On, Come On,
Lay It On Me All Right...
I'm Giving You
On Count Of Three
To Show Your Stuff
Or Let It Be . . .
I'm Telling You
Just Watch Your Mouth
I Know Your Game
What You're About
Manchu wrote:I've never understood why homosexuality being found in animals is meaningful one way or the other. Who cares what animals do? I've never seen a dog eat it's own gak and thought, well, that must be okay for humans, too.
Of course you're correct that the most important point of homosexuality not being a bad thing is that it is not harmful.
That being said, people who oppose it do so on a variety of grounds. One of the pseudoscientific reasons bigots or misguided people (as we have seen in this thread) use is the claim that it is "unnatural", which is linked to the idea that it is a volitional thing; a choice humans make to engage in a sinful and harmful behavior. One easy way to counter such a position is to point out that a wide variety of species also engage in homosexual behavior, and that it is used for social cohesion and emotional bonding independent of reproduction. As we've discussed before, the unitive value of sex.
The person that thinks it's an abomination isn't likely to be persuaded by the evidence of homosexuality in animals. I think a much more empowering stance to take would be "Hey, we're gay and we're not going anywhere. As human beings we'd like to have the same rights as everyone else."
I look forward to the time that we can just put the whole debate to bed, at least in a political sense. Then, when someone starts ranting with the Anti-Gay stuff we can all just say "Shh... Adults are talking."
Seriously. As though we don't have more pressing issues for our representatives in government to be discussing.
There is, of course, a wide range of positions between "open minded and tolerant" and "thinks it's an abomination." You never really know which argument, piece of rhetoric or evidence will crack a hole in someone's shell of ignorance, or make a little rip in the web of lies and hatred they've been taught and are trapped in.
I wish we didn't have to talk about it too. But even in this thread, you've got kids still thoughtlessly relaying the false ideas they've been taught.
Monster Rain wrote:The person that thinks it's an abomination isn't likely to be persuaded by the evidence of homosexuality in animals.
Or any disconfirming evidence at all.
Monster Rain wrote:
I look forward to the time that we can just put the whole debate to bed, at least in a political sense. Then, when someone starts ranting with the Anti-Gay stuff we can all just say "Shh... Adults are talking."
Monster Rain wrote:The person that thinks it's an abomination isn't likely to be persuaded by the evidence of homosexuality in animals. I think a much more empowering stance to take would be "Hey, we're gay and we're not going anywhere. As human beings we'd like to have the same rights as everyone else."
I look forward to the time that we can just put the whole debate to bed, at least in a political sense. Then, when someone starts ranting with the Anti-Gay stuff we can all just say "Shh... Adults are talking."
...
Rainie, that last "Shh... Adults are talking" deserves a little heart-smiley-thingy... So here goes:
Can't we all just get along. Well, all of us except Justin beiber fans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:The person that thinks it's an abomination isn't likely to be persuaded by the evidence of homosexuality in animals. I think a much more empowering stance to take would be "Hey, we're gay and we're not going anywhere. As human beings we'd like to have the same rights as everyone else."
I look forward to the time that we can just put the whole debate to bed, at least in a political sense. Then, when someone starts ranting with the Anti-Gay stuff we can all just say "Shh... Adults are talking." <3
Seriously. As though we don't have more pressing issues for our representatives in government to be discussing.
Monster Rain wrote:The person that thinks it's an abomination isn't likely to be persuaded by the evidence of homosexuality in animals. I think a much more empowering stance to take would be "Hey, we're gay and we're not going anywhere. As human beings we'd like to have the same rights as everyone else."
I look forward to the time that we can just put the whole debate to bed, at least in a political sense. Then, when someone starts ranting with the Anti-Gay stuff we can all just say "Shh... Adults are talking."
...
Rainie, that last "Shh... Adults are talking" deserves a little heart-smiley-thingy... So here goes:
@CheeseCat
Well, uhm... I'm not really sure the Ork with hearts for eyes puts things "into perspective" the way i'd imagined...
... Then again, i'm not really sure what perspective that is.
Anyways; of what concerns the Topic at hand (and a great part of the rest of the world aswell); People need to open their minds some more, if you ask me.
- People often have this bad habit of criticize what isn't part of their own (be it groups or else). If it isn't like me, it's most likely s**t. Well... Something like that..?
Mannahnin wrote:There is, of course, a wide range of positions between "open minded and tolerant" and "thinks it's an abomination."
Is there?
Do people oppose it for other than religious reasons? "Abomination" is the word used in the Pentateuch. I'm genuinely asking; I've never seen someone opposed to homosexuality on other than religious grounds. I'm not dumping on religious folks, since I am one myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Billinator wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:The person that thinks it's an abomination isn't likely to be persuaded by the evidence of homosexuality in animals. I think a much more empowering stance to take would be "Hey, we're gay and we're not going anywhere. As human beings we'd like to have the same rights as everyone else."
I look forward to the time that we can just put the whole debate to bed, at least in a political sense. Then, when someone starts ranting with the Anti-Gay stuff we can all just say "Shh... Adults are talking."
...
Rainie, that last "Shh... Adults are talking" deserves a little heart-smiley-thingy... So here goes:
I'm kidding. It's interesting to me being on both sides to hear gay used as an insult and how it just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me at all now. What exactly do people find threatening about it?
We need an intelligent opposed point here.
)
