Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Didn't that just prove my point? The genes are the same. Something has to happen through the process of living that changes the orientation of one twin but not the other. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no proof of a "gay" gene.

As far as differing physical features are concerned, fingerprints are formed by the environment of the womb, not DNA. Also, the shapes of ears, faces, hands ect. are heavily influenced by individual conditions of the womb as the DNA grows and expresses itself.

If identical twins can have different fingerprints, then they can also have different sexual orientations. The aspects of the womb that give twins slightly different hand shapes can also give them different sexual orientations. This is why most identical twins are the same sexual orientation. Identical twins always look the same, but genes can cause some of their non-physical characterisitics to be different.

How would you explain people who are attracted to the same sex before even knowing what sex is? This can't be a learned behavior because the people don't even understand what the sexual urges they feel are. Even if homosexuality was influenced by enviornmental factors, that wouldn't make it wrong. Sexuality is definitely not a conscious choice on a person's part. If unknown enviornmental factors caused someone to be gay, then it isn't his fault and he can't eliminate the feelings.

 

Didn't that just prove my point? The genes are the same. Something has to happen through the process of living that changes the orientation of one twin but not the other. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no proof of a "gay" gene.

Nope. See the above post.

 

So now you're saying it's not a gene, but the womb that determines whether you're gay or straight? Which do you believe?

 

I think there seems to be confusion here about the difference between "genetic" and "developmental."

 

No confusion, but he seemed to say that it can be a mixture of genetic and developmental.

 

I'm with the confusion theory. I think somebody's lost.

 

Perhaps. But then we would need a "gay" gene. There has not been one found.

 

Genes make up a tiny fraction of your genetic make-up. There's also the genome which they haven't entirely decoded yet.

 

There?s also the well established fact that most people?s lives are governed by telephone numbers...

 

No, I have no proof they are wrong... just as you have no proof they are right.

I don't think you realize how ridiculous your argument sounds.

You claim that there is always a possibility that people (and science) are wrong, even if they've been studying and observing something for decades and have done numerous anylizations and experiments. However, you don't have any proof that they're wrong.

Thus, the mere fact that the people who have been studying, observing and analyzing this for decades have reached the same conclusion that I have (that life-long homosexual relationships exist in nature) gives me more proof than you.

If you want to believe that they're wrong, you can believe that, but it's just your opinion. I actually have the people who study this on my side.

Yes, I am. When rabbit hunting, I have ran accross times when my beagle comes to a place with two rabbit holes... one of which, I have trapped and killed a rabbit in. The other has been there just as long with no disturbances. This is NOT the dwelling of the rabbit I am chasing. Why then, does the rabbit choose this hole to flee to? He recognizes the claw marks in the dirt and the smell of the dog at the other. He consciously makes the choice that the other hole is safest considering the fact that it has never been breeched by a hunter or his dog. Do you actually believe that animals are stupid and rely on nothing but "instinct?" On information from rabbits from hundreds of years ago? ...no. Do you have memories stored in your brain from past generations? No. So, why would the rabbit?

So a rabit choosing a safer hole to hide in = a rabit choosing that he'd rather spend his life with a partner that he's not attracted to and deviate from his natural sexual attractions? That's certainly logical...

Then, with that rational, you say abstinence is impossible because we cannot use rational thought when deciding whether or not to mate. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've chosen since I hit puberty to keep it in my pants. Sounds like rational thought to me.

You completely misinterpreted what I said, and I think you know it. I never said you can't use rational thought in deciding how to act upon your attractions (like staying abstinent), I just said that you don't use rational thought to decide those attractions. Attractions are unexplainable feelings, not anything that's based off rational thought. Sure, I can remain absinent all my life, but I will not get rid of the attractions that might make me want to have sex.

And you completely dodged my question. Do you use rational thought to tell "Pedro" to get turned on, or does it just happen when you see something that is erotic? I don't think you can honestly tell me that you have to actually tell yourself to get turned on for it to happen. No, your instinct does it for you.

...Many who stand up for gay rights ARE straight... and respect others' CHOICE to be gay.

I've never said that only gays stand up for gay rights.

No... please tell me your not as absent-minded as to say that you would just randomly have sex with a man... not being gay... And having sex "for the hell of it" is NEVER right. Even with women. People are not sex tools to be used at your every whim.

Again, you greatly misinterpreted what I said. "For the hell of it" was more refering to the fact that you wouldn't be naturally attracted to a guy.

So to put it another way, if it's just as simple as "choosing" to be gay, would you kiss a guy right now if someone paid you to or offered you a reward? If you don't like that example, fine, but don't respond by going on about how you would never do something like that just for money....

The point is, you're probably grossed out by the idea of kissing a guy, and it's not as simple as just waking up one day and saying "Hey, you know what? I'm going to be gay!"

 

So now you're saying it's not a gene, but the womb that determines whether you're gay or straight? Which do you believe?

Either one could be true. In both cases, homosexuality is a factor determined at birth that is beyond one's control. For this reason, there's no reason to view it as deviant behavior.

I think there seems to be confusion here about the difference between "genetic" and "developmental."

I understand the difference. If homosexuality is genetic, then it's the result of a person's biological makeup. If it's developmental, then same-sex feelings are the result of unknown social circumstances. Similar to my explanation above, neither scenario is a conscious choice. No one would deliberately condition himself to be gay.

Many people have sexual feelings for the same sex before they even know what sex is. This indicates that homosexuality is more likely to be genetic than developemental. I don't see what could possibly influence a young child to be attracted to the same sex, other than his biological makeup.

 

I think he was saying that the womb can alter genes that might make you gay but the genes themselves are the basis and root for everything?

 

FID said...Genes make up a tiny fraction of your genetic make-up. There's also the genome which they haven't entirely decoded yet.

Didn't we decode the genomes of some animals? Like a cat or sheep or something? I think I had heard something about that. No "gay" gene.

But we have isolated the gene that causes alcoholism. Ironically, it is also the same gene that causes the craving for chocolate. At any rate, it is known that not all drunks have that gene and not all people with that gene become drunks. It is merely an indication of their susceptibility to addiction.

farrellg said...Either one could be true. In both cases, homosexuality is a factor determined at birth that is beyond one's control. For this reason, there's no reason to view it as deviant behavior.

Simply being born with an urge to behave a certain way doesn't mean that that behaviour is not deviant.

I understand the difference. If homosexuality is genetic, then it's the result of a person's biological makeup. If it's developmental, then same-sex feelings are the result of unknown social circumstances.

While social circumstances counts as "developmental", I was referring to something a little different:

All embryos are female until a certain point in their development. A hormone is introduced to some that makes the embryo male. I ain't a Dr, so I don't know the details. But that's how it works.

But sometimes there is a problem and unintended conditions result. Morphodites(SP?) for instance. They have both sex organs. And, IMO, homosexuality. The genitalia of one gender, and the drive of the other.

Also, I believe much homosexual behaviour is a result of childhood trauma.

Similar to my explanation above, neither scenario is a conscious choice. No one would deliberately condition himself to be gay.

Alcoholics don't make a conscious choice either. I certainly never did. But it didn't make my behaviour any more "normal."

 

I would suggest that people look into the diathesis-stress model - there is a genetic predisposition that is triggered by an environmental stimulus (e.g., the chemical environment of the womb). This doesn't make it a choice. Further, the issue of twin studies is made more difficult by the kind of twins under consideration: monochorionic monozygotic twins > dichorionic monozygotic twins > dizygotic twins in terms of concordance rates (i.e., identical twins sharing an umbilical cord > identical twins with different umbilical cords > fraternal twins).

 

Alcoholics don't make a conscious choice either. I certainly never did. But it didn't make my behaviour any more "normal."

Come on, J, you're not seriously equating alcoholism with homosexuality? There's a huge difference. Alcoholism actually harms people. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults and doesn't effect anyone else.

 

Didn't we decode the genomes of some animals? Like a cat or sheep or something? I think I had heard something about that. No "gay" gene.

Human, cat, human, cat...nooo...they're not any different at all. Get your head out of your rear.


But we have isolated the gene that causes alcoholism. Ironically, it is also the same gene that causes the craving for chocolate. At any rate, it is known that not all drunks have that gene and not all people with that gene become drunks. It is merely an indication of their susceptibility to addiction.

Riight, this proves what? There's an alcoholic gene? "No...I am not responsible for the copious amounts of alcohol I drink...it's all in my genes. Please don't arrest me for drunk driving." I'm sure that'll go over real well with the judge.

 

Come on, J, you're not seriously equating alcoholism with homosexuality? There's a huge difference. Alcoholism actually harms people. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults and doesn't effect anyone else.

No. I wasn't. I was just, using myself as an example, demonstraiting that "born with" doesn't mean "normal behaviour."

Human, cat, human, cat...nooo...they're not any different at all. Get your head out of your rear.

We were discussing animal behaviour and saying that because they do it, it's normal. But no "gay" gene in animals is suggestive that there are no "gay" gene. If the left can use animals as evidence, can't I?

 

We were discussing animal behaviour and saying that because they do it, it's normal. But no "gay" gene in animals is suggestive that there are no "gay" gene. If the left can use animals as evidence, can't I?

I never said you couldn't. Yet you've offered no proof, and what does a gay gene look like anyhow? Is it pink and flamboyant? Does it attend gay pride parades? We know what a gay animal looks like, he humps other males. But what does a gay gene look like and how do we know if we've found it?

 

But what does a gay gene look like and how do we know if we've found it?

Dunno. I lack 12 - 16 years of education required to know. Ironicly, I don't know what an alcoholic gene looks like either.

 

I do. It's stumbling over at parties and making really bad jokes that are funny only to it. Oh-ho-ho! I'm a comic genius.

 

No. I wasn't. I was just, using myself as an example, demonstraiting that "born with" doesn't mean "normal behaviour."

Then what makes something a natural behavior?

Perhaps. But then we would need a "gay" gene. There has not been one found.

Actually, they have found traces, just not a completely obvious rainbow-colored gene.

We were discussing animal behaviour and saying that because they do it, it's normal. But no "gay" gene in animals is suggestive that there are no "gay" gene. If the left can use animals as evidence, can't I?

Well, since animals rely on purely on instinct anyway, is there really a need to find this "gay gene"?

 

Then what makes something a natural behavior?

Nature's intention.

 

Yeah, I'm cruel. But at least you didn't get offended. Twas not my intention.

 

Then what makes something a natural behavior?

Nature's intention.

So if homosexuals are born gay, then nature intended for them to be gay.

 

So if homosexuals are born gay, then nature intended for them to be gay.

Again, we go to my "3 legged dog" example. Natural, yes, normal, no. Nature does not intend for dogs to have 3 legs.