Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

It is possible to condition a person to believe or think something that contradicts their nature.

But what about those who flit back and forth? I am thinking of a particular individual, for example, who now considers herself to be straight, but had considered herself gay in the past. I'm not sure if she had considered herself straight before that, but either way, according to what you had been saying before, she certainly would not have been conditioned to be gay (although, there certainly are times when I feel that this can happen -- after enough questioning and prodding, I think a person can be made to question their own sexuality enough to possibly convince themself that they are gay when they are not). If people who are "naturally" gay "turn straight again", how can their homosexuality be simply a breaking-free of a conditioned mindset?

There are some people that are straight that will participate in gay sex acts, but that is not the same as them turning gay then turning back to being straight.

Then why would they do it?

I'm also not sure, though, why you brought this up. Would you mind expanding upon it?

Except that pleasure is not necessary for reproduction and that is demonstrated across different species. Instinct drives most species to reproduce. For example, most fish propagate their species without any physical contact at all and they are abundant. Why was pleasure added unnecessarily?

Humans are different from animals, though, and on a number of levels. In the end, it seems to me that this comes down to the fact that we are much more intellectually advanced than animals, and we can think on rational planes that animals cannot. Indeed, instinct drives most species to reproduce. And this is certainly a good deal of what the human sex drive is composed of. However, we need more incentive than a mindless drive to carry on our species -- which, in the end, is what drives animals to reproduce. Animals don't decide that they "want to have children", for example -- they do it because that is their natural perogative, and for if not all non-human organisms, at least most, this is their purpose for living. It is especially apparent in the lifeforms with the shorter lifespans -- they essentially live to reproduce.

Humans, though, are living for a whole lot more. What that "more" is, is another philosophical discussion unto itself, however, I feel that most human beings do not believe that they are here solely to reproduce, and then they have fulfilled their life's purpose. Humans, due to their advanced intellectual state, have the ability to deny their more animalistic urges -- whether they be the instinct to have sex, to eat, to breathe, etc. We have much more control over ourselves than do animals. Therefore, it wuld make sense that we would need an added incentive to reproduce, since we could otherwise so easily choose not to do so.

If the organs are designed to be stimulated pleasurably only for reproductive sex acts, then they should not be able to be stimulated pleasurably in any other situation.

The organs are designed for having sex. The only way that humans can (naturally) reproduce is by having sex. The fact that sex is pleasurable, and that people have sex for more than reproduction does not change what its inherent purpose is.

I never said that the organs are designed to be stimulated pleasurably only for reproductive sex acts -- but I was saying that the male and female organs were designed to compliment each other. If the main reason for the existence of sex is reproduction, and this can only be completed using these perfectly complimentary parts, then it follows that sex in a different way, using different organs (for example, two of the same), is not following the natural template for the action.

Also, the ?form? of the anus or mouth does accommodate the penis.

Yes, but a fairly solid argument can be made for how that is not their purpose. If the purpose of the mouth was to accomodate the penis, then why would it have t

 

It's a choice. There are many factors that can contribute to that choice. The people you grow up around, for instance. But, still a choice.

 

Do you have proof to back up this assertion?

 

While by no means conclusive, there appear to be a number of scientific works that have been referenced many times -- here are a couple:

- HOMOSEXUALITY - An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr . Tahir I jaz, M.D.

- Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, by Socarides. (I couldn't find a link to the actual text, but it has been referenced in a number of papers and books.)

There are also a number of other web sources, one of which is Queer by Choice dot com, which is a website devoted to individuals who have chosen to be gay -- and it even has an entire section devoted to criticizing genetic studies trying to prove the genetic factors of homosexuality.

If there was no evidence, this would not really be as big of an issue as it is.

I'm a bit skeptical of a website that begins talking about the "gay political agenda" and the other being called "queerbychoice." Biased, maybe?

And here is a site talking about the genetic factor in homosexuality. It talks about the fruit fly study as well.

And this is from the website:

No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.

This pretty much sums up what I said earlier - that science strongly suggests there is a strong genetic factor in homosexuality, but it's not exactly "proven."

I was not talking about a person choosing whether or not they experience a desire or not. There is a separation, however -- which you said yourself -- between the desire and how the individual decides to act based on that desire. Having the desire to take a candy bar from a store without paying for it does not make someone a robber, nor does it mean that they must steal the item. As I have said before -- many people have at least thought about things that are sexually deviant, but they have controlled those thoughts and continued on with their lives without acting upon them.

Oh my god. You're comparing a stealing to being gay? Stealing actually harms people.

Furthermore, it's unfair to expect gays to remain celebate all their life like it's a crime to be gay. And you cannot expect gays to be straight when they're not. So essentially, you can compare race and sexuality.

Can you prove this?

I was actually just using a mosquito as an example of an insect, so I can't prove that specific case. I can prove that insects can be gay, though. Just look at the fruit fly study I provided earlier.

No. What they found was that if they "artificially endowed" a female fruit fly "with a single male-type gene", then the female fly would start sexually pursuing other females. This means that they took a male gene, and put it in the female, and the female started acting sexually like a male.

That must be a different study from the one I was refering to here.

Odenwald and Zhang do not pretend to have any easy answers. In fact the type of gene they've been studying in fruit flies could not begin to acc

 

One can certainly choose to enter a same-sex relationship or sexual activity. But being attracted to one gender or another is not something you can turn on or off like a faucet. That's innate. Did you choose to be attracted to women? No, you simply are attracted to women. Being gay is no different.

 

Yeah, I'm sure all those homosexual animals picked it up from that effeminate friend who lived next door!

 

I'm a bit skeptical of a website that begins talking about the "gay political agenda" and the other being called "queerbychoice." Biased, maybe?

What do you mean, exactly? What "other"?

This pretty much sums up what I said earlier - that science strongly suggests there is a strong genetic factor in homosexuality, but it's not exactly "proven."

But, as you quoted:

- "But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners."

And, in the same article, it also said:

- "Scientists caution against jumping to conclusions about the meaning of the NIH studies. To complicate the picture, some of the work shows that environment, along with genetics, influences sexual behavior. In one experiment, a small group of "straight" flies was mixed with a larger group of genetically altered "gay" flies.

While the gays formed their conga lines, the straights stayed to the side -- but only temporarily. After a few hours, the straights joined in and, for the time being, acted gay. "

It seems that there is some suggestion -- but none quite as strong as what you are saying is there. And, if anything, the last quoted sentence points to peer pressuring and conditioning, which has been brought up before. As I had mentioned, this conditioning can go both ways, and shows that it is not only by breaking out of a conditioned mold that has been imposed on an individual by society that someone can "become" gay. And it supports the view that it is a psychological thing, not a biological one.

Yeah, I'm sure all those homosexual animals picked it up from that effeminate friend who lived next door!

Look at the fruit fly study you've referenced -- that's exactly what happened!

Oh my god. You're comparing a stealing to being gay?

No. I was pointing out that one is not required to act on any and all desires that are felt. You had said "So you cannot separate the individual and their behavior, as they have no control over the attractions and desires that inspire that behavior", and I was responding that while we do not control our desires, we do control our actions.

And you cannot expect gays to be straight when they're not. So essentially, you can compare race and sexuality.

This, of course, is what this thread is about -- whether or not gays are indeed naturally gay or not. With your first sentence, you are stating one side of the debate as a fact, and using that to justify your point.

And no, you cannot compare race and sexuality. Race is a physical characteristic, and is not expressed through behavior. Sexuality is a characteristic that determines your sexual preferences, and how you act on them. Race is a physical characteristic, and sexuality is not. Denying rights to people based on how they look is wrong, and is what the civil rights movement was about. Denying "rights" based on behavior -- that is something else, and is how our judicial system works -- people's actions determine what they are allowed to do, or not do.

That must be a different study from the one I was refering to here.

So no, the scientists didn't give the females the male sex-drive gene invaliding the study, like you said.

The study you are referencing was reported on eleven years ago. The one I had brought up was reported on last year. Like you said, they must be different studies. This does not invalidate my point.

But since animals cannot give consent, huamans and animals cannot be in a sexual relationship with each other. So how can they get married if they can't actually be in a relationship together?

But they can have sex. You had said that they cannot. I have also stated that I am not trying to suggest that they could get married, but am using the shared unnatural-ness as a parallel between bestiality and homosexuality. As I said: "What had been said before was that desire should be enough of a qualifier for two people t

 

You cannot define sexuality solely by behavior. A man is not heterosexual because he has sex with women, but because he is attracted to women. No straight man would put up with the implication that because he's a virgin he's not really straight. You cannot treat homosexuality different. It's not a question of the sexual act, but the innate attraction to one sex or another--one which, as the failure of the ex-gay movement shows, has proved incredibly resistant to external attempts to change.

 

It has been proved that animals are not gay. They may attempt things with the same gender, but they do not isolate themselves (sexually) from animals of the opposite gender. I believe it's caused through confusion (in animals).

 

I predict the mention of penguins and flamingos

 

By all means. We are all civilized people here. I am no different. I can stand a debate. Mention what you wish.

 

I do believe I'm probably on your side D-I

I said what I said because your probably going to hear about the gay penguins in the zoo who are said to prefer the same sex. And the case of the flamming flamingos that also only mix with their same sae and even want to adopt flamingo chicks.

Non-sense stuff realy.

 

lol. yes, I agree.

 

Non-sense stuff realy

Yet shown to exist through research. Weird huh?

 

TOTALLY!

Nobody here is, or has ever denied the existence of homosexual behavior in animals. Interesting huh?

 

This was stated:

It has been proved that animals are not gay. They may attempt things with the same gender, but they do not isolate themselves (sexually) from animals of the opposite gender. I believe it's caused through confusion (in animals).

To which you replied:

I predict the mention of penguins and flamingos

Then you clarified with this:

I said what I said because your probably going to hear about the gay penguins in the zoo who are said to prefer the same sex. And the case of the flamming flamingos that also only mix with their same sae and even want to adopt flamingo chicks.

Non-sense stuff realy.

And called it nonsense when there is actual documentation against the poster?s first statement. Your decree of it being non-sense was actually a denial of the first statement.

 

Regarding the fruit fly genetic experiments :- Surely that proves it isn't a choice. You take male fruit flies, then alter a single gene and they start to exist female sexual characteristics.

If they were choosing to exhibit female sexual characteristics then why did it only happen after genetic interference?

 

Regarding the fruit fly genetic experiments :- Surely that proves it isn't a choice. You take male fruit flies, then alter a single gene and they start to exist female sexual characteristics.

Right, but they altered the genes by replacing the gene with one from the opposite sex. All this proves is that it is natural for the sex drive of one sex to frive the organism to be attracted to the opposite sex -- which, if anything, is a case against homosexuality being natural.

If they were choosing to exhibit female sexual characteristics then why did it only happen after genetic interference?

The genetic interference turned the flies, with regards to sex drive, into the opposite sex.

Also, with the other set of flies, it showed that the flies were not homosexual -- they chose to pursue the same sex only when there was no other alternative.

If one bases one's case for homosexuality being natural in unnatural genetic interference, that is like saying that if a human had their sex drive genetically replaced with that of a turtle, and that person was then sexually attracted to turtles, that being attracted to turtles is natural. Our getting to the point where we can do almost anything if we mess with an organism's genetic code has shown that these things are unnatural. If it takes human genetic interference to make something happen, how can it be natural?

Take care,
Sojourn

 

That wasn't my interpretation of the study, or it's conclusions.

The study describes a male version of a single protein, and a female version of a single protein. Your sexual preference depends on which of the two versions of the same protein you express.

Hence males born with the female version would most likely pursue homosexual relationships, whereas male born with the male version would most likely pursue heterosexual relationships.

 

Didn't read the thread at all, but I just felt I had to let you all know that my dog was being taken in the ass by another dog this morning.

And yes, they're both male.

Seems pretty natural to me.

 

And if they were the last two male dogs (out of three) on the planet. 2 males, 1 female. The end of a species.
Of course, that is, if it is left up to nature. Meaning no human intervention.

You would have to become a cat person. and that's how it ends for "Man's Best freind."

 

Sorry for the very late resonse, guys, it's just that I've had a couple game bans, and I was relectant to use this other account of mine to respond. (this is DARTH-SHREDDER's sock)

What do you mean, exactly? What "other"?

The other website.

It seems that there is some suggestion -- but none quite as strong as what you are saying is there. And, if anything, the last quoted sentence points to peer pressuring and conditioning, which has been brought up before. As I had mentioned, this conditioning can go both ways, and shows that it is not only by breaking out of a conditioned mold that has been imposed on an individual by society that someone can "become" gay. And it supports the view that it is a psychological thing, not a biological one.

No, because the only reason the straight flies grabbed on the the homosexual chain is because the "gay flies" on that chain were genetically attracted to each other in the first place. So obviously, if anything, that proves that homosexuality can not occur at all without genetic roots being present in some form and quantity.

And also, although nobody has come with a complete theory of how the genes affect homosexality in humans, they've found traces. This is also from the article.

And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation.

[This, of course, is what this thread is about -- whether or not gays are indeed naturally gay or not. With your first sentence, you are stating one side of the debate as a fact, and using that to justify your point.

Earlier to seemed to imply that homosexuals have desires that they can't help, wherever those desires came from. So just to clarify, do you believe homosexuality is a flat-out choice, or do you also believe in factors that are beyond their control?

If it's not a choice, it's absolutely unfair. Because denying someone marriage and still saying they have the same rights because they can still marry someone of the opposite (I gather this is where you're coming from) is unfair, because they're still not allowed to marry someone of the sex they're attracted to, so it would be unequal. (if you didn't mean this, please tell me)

But they can have sex. You had said that they cannot.

I never said they couldn't have sex. I said that an animal cannot give consent to having sex with a human, so any sex between an animal and a human is rape.

Marriage is the setting in which families are developed, and homosexual couples cannot do this.

I technically agree with this, although just to be clear, I don't believe that letting homosexuals get married will change the current "setting in which families are developed."

I would like to point out that this is incorrect -- the flies are not bisexual, they are just gay when there are no female flies around. Bisexuality is an attraction to both sexes equally -- the flies are only acting in a homosexual manner when there are no alternatives.

No, you are actually reversing what the article said. It said that when given the choice (both sexes present), the flies choose the same sex, but when there are no males around, and just females, they will go ahead and mate with the females. They don't only choose males when there are no females around, it's that they only choose females when there are no males around.

So if anything, the flies are not bisexual, (using your definition) because they are only straight when there are no alternatives.

 

PPOR.

Although you really can't. There is no proof that no animals prefer one sex over the other. There have been many accounts of animals of the same gender doing more than just "attempting things," but actually forming relationships. (apes)

So, besides the fact that you say so, how is it nonsense? Do you actualy have an argument for why a pengiun choosing the same sex over the other is invalid or "non-sense"?

 

Let's not get carried away. Dogs do that to also show dominance, not only to reproduce. We can more certainly know that your dog is a wuss than if he if gay.

My pooch, Harley-Ann, humps other dogs and she's a female. And spaid. So go figure.

 

No, they showed a preference when flies from both sexes were present.

No, they didn't replace anything. They altered the expression of a gene and thus what is produced from it. This is something that actually can and does happen in nature and in humans more often than people would like to believe.

Given an example in a novel model system, identification of similar neural scent recognition pathways in humans can lead to a supposition that there is a genetic component to sexual preference. Nothing that has been discovered is proof of anything, but it is evidence that lends credibility to notions that genetics could play a part in human sexuality.