NationStates Jolt Archive

(Regardless of what I say below, I still consider homosexuality to be a perfectly natural orientation)

I honestly wonder sometimes about the neverending homosexual debate. People have put forward two major arguments, both of which have problems.

Genetic: The theory that homosexuality is predetermined in our DNA. But if that is the case, then there must be a carrier, and with the near-completion of the human genome project, why have we not identified it yet? And how do you explain the few people who do, in fact, change their sexual orientation in mid-life?

Choice: Suggests that there is something wrong with the brain, which is a moot argument, since I know gay people who fuction fine. And if it is a true choice, that anyone can make from the time they come into their sexuality, why do we not have more homosexuals? Also, what causes a person to choose one sex over another?

So, I invite people to create alternative theories to what causes homosexuality, just so we may dig deeper and potentialy find the root of the debate.

w00t!

It seems that homosexuals, though they can be found worldwide, seem to be more prevalent in certain geographic regions. Even migration cannot completely account for this. Therefore, it seems likely that homosexuality is caused, or at least encouraged by Ley Line activity. *nod*

Like most things, it is most likely a combination of genetic, environmental, and even societal factors.

Meanwhile, do not be fooled when you hear that the genome project is almost complete. What that means is that we have sequenced most of the genome. It does not suggest in any way that we know what all (or even most) of the genes do - we do not.

Of course, the suggestion that sexuality is determined by a single gene is absolutely ludicrous. Like most traits which exist along a spectrum, it is most likely influenced by a number of genes, hormonal factors, etc.

As for people "changing their sexuality", this only comes into play if one thinks of sexuality as a black or white, gay or straight, thing, which it is not. Sexuality stretches from 99.9% homosexual to 99.9% heterosexual (I don't believe anyone is really 100% either).

There is quite a bit of evidence for a partial genetic factor. In addition, hormone balances in the womb have been shown to have an effect on sexuality in animals.

(Regardless of what I say below, I still consider homosexuality to be a perfectly natural orientation)

I honestly wonder sometimes about the neverending homosexual debate. People have put forward two major arguments, both of which have problems.

Genetic: The theory that homosexuality is predetermined in our DNA. But if that is the case, then there must be a carrier, and with the near-completion of the human genome project, why have we not identified it yet? And how do you explain the few people who do, in fact, change their sexual orientation in mid-life?

Choice: Suggests that there is something wrong with the brain, which is a moot argument, since I know gay people who fuction fine. And if it is a true choice, that anyone can make from the time they come into their sexuality, why do we not have more homosexuals? Also, what causes a person to choose one sex over another?

So, I invite people to create alternative theories to what causes homosexuality, just so we may dig deeper and potentialy find the root of the debate.

w00t!
based on the totality of current information, here's my opinion:

it is likely that there are at least some genetic factors involved in human sexuality. twin studies demonstrate the likelihood of some genetic aspect, but also simultaneously prove that sexuality cannot be 100% genetic or 100% based on womb environment. there is also substantial evidence that environmental factors have a serious impact, including (but not limited to): early childhood experiences, possibly even neonatal diet, cultural background, education exposure, societal pressures, and even possibly some factors like living in a city versus a rural area.

i believe that the vast majority of human beings will, under totally neutral conditions, be bisexual. this is based on my understanding of human neuropsychology and on the behavior of primates most closely related to humans.

i believe that choice applies to how we choose to express our innate sexuality. we do not have the power to simply change our innate sexuality, but we obviously may choose to express or suppress it just as we can express or suppress most of our individual behaviors. we may even be able to, over time, reverse many of the environmental impacts that we have been exposed to, particularly if we remove ourselves to a new environment. one cannot simply force oneself to find an unappealing person attractive, but it may be possible to learn to see a new kind of beauty if given enough time.

hormone influxes in the womb?

i believe that the vast majority of human beings will, under totally neutral conditions, be bisexual. this is based on my understanding of human neuropsychology and on the behavior of primates most closely related to humans.

i believe that choice applies to how we choose to express our innate sexuality. we do not have the power to simply change our innate sexuality, but we obviously may choose to express or suppress it just as we can express or suppress most of our individual behaviors. we may even be able to, over time, reverse many of the environmental impacts that we have been exposed to, particularly if we remove ourselves to a new environment. one cannot simply force oneself to find an unappealing person attractive, but it may be possible to learn to see a new kind of beauty if given enough time.

I agree with you there. I've noticed in myself over the years that I have gone from the "Gays? EWW!" phase, to the "Gays? Meh..." phase, to the "I'll try anything once!" phase.

So from my own personal experience, homosexuality might be environmental. It could be that deep down, everyone is homosexual on some level.

it is likely that there are at least some genetic factors involved in human sexuality. twin studies demonstrate the likelihood of some genetic aspect, but also simultaneously prove that sexuality cannot be 100% genetic or 100% based on womb environment.

Just to be pedantic (you guys are used to that from me, right?), twin studies do not demonstrate that it is not 100% womb environment, as many things exist along a gradient and it is perfectly possible that one twin may be exposed to a different overall environment than the other due to such gradients.

That said, I don't actually think that it is 100% any one factor, so it doesn't really matter. =)

Just to be pedantic (you guys are used to that from me, right?), twin studies do not demonstrate that it is not 100% womb environment, as many things exist along a gradient and it is perfectly possible that one twin may be exposed to a different overall environment than the other due to such gradients.

That said, I don't actually think that it is 100% any one factor, so it doesn't really matter. =)
well, okay, in biology there is pretty much nothing that is 100%...but you knew what i was getting at...the likelihood of sexuality being determined completely by womb environment is so unbelievably tiny that i don't give it much consideration. sure, it probably plays a role, but claiming it plays THE ONLY ROLE would be ludicrous (IMHO).

Homosexuality is not a choice. I can't say it's genetics, but it's not a choice. You would have to be crazy to choice a lifestyle of persecution.

Im not sure if its genetics, but I know its not choice. I dont have a choice over who im a attracted to and neither does anyone else.

First, science has not hammered down anything yet. Period. Studies on hormone influence, pre-birth development, twin studies etc, etc have had scientifically documented inconsistencies. People that "should" have been gay based on experimenting with different theories turning out straight and vice versa. There is quite literally not a single scrap of finite, irrefutable evidence for Homosexuality being pre-defined genetically. None what so ever, if anyone claims that it has been proven they are lying.

There are however, a good number of sociological explanations to account for it. For instance, gays can often be seen claiming that they "knew" they where gay from a young age. They will claim that they knew they were "different" from the other boys, etc, etc at as young an age as six. Well hehe, I challenge you to find a single child that hasn't felt "different" from other kids. No such child exists (except twins) because quite frankly everyone is different. We are individuals. However, coming to terms with this in a social environment that encourages conformity can be extremely difficult. Those that can adapt will do so, live ordinary lives and do what a human is expected to do (get married, raise a family, etc. You know regular human stuff.) Those that can not or will not adapt walk a different path. They reject conformity (which in its defense is vital to ANY society and in this instance the perpetuation of the human race) and become more profoundly pronounced individuals; this will often draw scorn which only serves to further isolate the individual. These people then have a tendency to embrace that which is most familiar (studies have shown that this is more pronounced in children with many brothers), someone of the same sex, someone they are most comfortable with. This stance often breeds contempt for everyone else, and from this comes the often rabid idea of "I can’t change who I am and neither can you, if you don't like it then fuck off!" They build up a defense mechanism against the world that in turn serves to totally convince them that this is who they are. Also, it gives them a since of righteous pride in their persecution which just about any idea that puts you against the norm will do.

Now, in mirror opposition to this is the Spartans.

Sparta was a Greek City State renowned for its brutally effective soldiers. The education of males consisted almost entirely of Military training. Young men sent to Military Academies where encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students. Their reasoning for this? The Spartan Army was based around the Hoplite Phalanx, a formation of spearmen shoulder to shoulder in ranks of varied depth that would face off against the opposition. One soldier was expected to cover half of his body with his shield and half of the body of the man next to him. The idea was that a man would be more likely to protect the man next to him and have personal attachment to the survival of fellow soldiers if the man next to him was his lover.

As such, the Spartan conformity was geared towards homosexuality, basically the polar opposite to our society. Sure enough, the Spartans effectively mass produced armies of homosexuals. They lived and loved like gay men, they where intentionally made this way. Of course after graduating from an Academy the men went through a period where they were expected to take a wife and raise a family in the interest of perpetuating the Spartan culture. This effectively made an entire nation of bisexuals all through cultural manipulation. While it certainly sets a precedent for gays in the military :D the gayest nation in history does jack shit for the genetic homosexuality camp.

Alright, I'm done.

First, science has not hammered down anything yet. Period. Studies on hormone influence, pre-birth development, twin studies etc, etc have had scientifically documented inconsistencies. People that "should" have been gay based on experimenting with different theories turning out straight and vice versa. There is quite literally not a single scrap of finite, irrefutable evidence for Homosexuality being pre-defined genetically. None what so ever, if anyone claims that it has been proven they are lying.

There are however, a good number of sociological explanations to account for it. For instance, gays can often be seen claiming that they "knew" they where gay from a young age. They will claim that they knew they were "different" from the other boys, etc, etc at as young an age as six. Well hehe, I challenge you to find a single child that hasn't felt "different" from other kids. No such child exists (except twins) because quite frankly everyone is different. We are individuals. However, coming to terms with this in a social environment that encourages conformity can be extremely difficult. Those that can adapt will do so, live ordinary lives and do what a human is expected to do (get married, raise a family, etc. You know regular human stuff.) Those that can not or will not adapt walk a different path. They reject conformity (which in its defense is vital to ANY society and in this instance the perpetuation of the human race) and become more profoundly pronounced individuals; this will often draw scorn which only serves to further isolate the individual. These people then have a tendency to embrace that which is most familiar (studies have shown that this is more pronounced in children with many brothers), someone of the same sex, someone they are most comfortable with. This stance often breeds contempt for everyone else, and from this comes the often rabid idea of "I can’t change who I am and neither can you, if you don't like it then fuck off!" They build up a defense mechanism against the world that in turn serves to totally convince them that this is who they are. Also, it gives them a since of righteous pride in their persecution which just about any idea that puts you against the norm will do.

Now, in mirror opposition to this is the Spartans.

Sparta was a Greek City State renowned for its brutally effective soldiers. The education of males consisted almost entirely of Military training. Young men sent to Military Academies where encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students. Their reasoning for this? The Spartan Army was based around the Hoplite Phalanx, a formation of spearmen shoulder to shoulder in ranks of varied depth that would face off against the opposition. One soldier was expected to cover half of his body with his shield and half of the body of the man next to him. The idea was that a man would be more likely to protect the man next to him and have personal attachment to the survival of fellow soldiers if the man next to him was his lover.

As such, the Spartan conformity was geared towards homosexuality, basically the polar opposite to our society. Sure enough, the Spartans effectively mass produced armies of homosexuals. They lived and loved like gay men, they where intentionally made this way. Of course after graduating from an Academy the men went through a period where they were expected to take a wife and raise a family in the interest of perpetuating the Spartan culture. This effectively made an entire nation of bisexuals all through cultural manipulation. While it certainly sets a precedent for gays in the military :D the gayest nation in history does jack shit for the genetic homosexuality camp.

Alright, I'm done.

I'd really like to see these "sociological studies" and who wrote them. :rolleyes:

I'd really like to see these "sociological studies" and who wrote them. :rolleyes:

Feel free to search for them. Personally I don't think my liver an tolerate the abuse of painkillers to dull the headache from looking through countless two bit gay bashing/queer ass sucking website devoted to bringing you the opinion of total morons and the discussion of their stupidity. Do your own damn research.

I've read them already but I'm a bit confused why'd you cite them if you regard them as the junk science they are.

Feel free to search for them. Personally I don't think my liver an tolerate the abuse of painkillers to dull the headache from looking through countless two bit gay bashing/queer ass sucking website devoted to bringing you the opinion of total morons and the discussion of their stupidity. Do your own damn research.

Having cited the sociological studies, the above is your response to a request for your sources. :rolleyes:

And your cute little Sparta example -- bullshit. Setting aside the many flaws in your description, it at most shows that men can conform to pressure to have sex with other men -- not a change in sexual orientation.

I do think we are all born with a certain sexual preference, but I don't nessecarily believe that genetics totally determines it for you. I think that it is probably some scientific factor that hasn't even been discovered yet. I also think that you can choose to live your life a certain way, but your true sexual nature is something you cannot change. I believe that most if not all of us are mostly bisexual (of course, I am severely biased).

I've read them already but I'm a bit confused why'd you cite them if you regard them as the junk science they are.

You misunderstand me, if you search for actual viable studies you will find shit loads of websites made by any moron with an opinion or web forums filled with unintelligible bullshit coming from every bias imaginable. I have spent several hours rooting through search results on a previous occasion. For the sake of my health I do not wish to do it again. There is some good information out there; it is just totally covered in shit.

Having cited the sociological studies, the above is your response to a request for your sources.

And your cute little Sparta example -- bullshit. Setting aside the many flaws in your description, it at most shows that men can conform to pressure to have sex with other men -- not a change in sexual orientation.

Ah Cat-Tribe, lovely... :rolleyes:

This is not a attack, really it isn't but... are you THICK? I ask in all honesty because I honestly can't see how someone could so utterly miss my point or be so utterly convinced of one's own belief to not even retain reading comprehension ability. I don't know whether to invoke caps or not, I honestly don't think it will help but perhaps I can compromise with bold

Here goes...

There is NO scientific information that even comes close to conclusively stating that homosexuality is somehow innate. No researcher on the subject would even dream of seriously stating that science has proven anything. Those charged with making a conclusion on homosexuality near universally look for a sociological explanations simply because their is nothing to seriously back the stance on genetic homosexuality despite the countless hours of research looking for one. Orientation is NOT a pre-defined yes/no dichotomy. Period. You can claim that with the spite you regularly post with but it doesn't amount to anything but closed minded head-in-the-sand approach to understanding something.

You may pick apart my statement concerning Sparta to the end of reaffirming your own beliefs, denial is your own matter of insecurity and you are welcomed to have it. However your conclusion that the strong and enduring homosexual relationships formed by men numbering in the thousands are somehow artificial because they do not fit into your narrow minded conclusion is quite frankly and I do apologies for my honesty, stupid.

*snip*

So, in short, you have no sources you will reveal.

You will hurl insults at anyone that dares to question your lack of sources or your anecdotes.

I don't actually have a strong opinion about the "cause" of sexual orientation. You are quite right to assert we have no conclusive answer either way. You jumped to a lot of assumptions in order to berate a strawman. Hope you enjoyed it.

First, science has not hammered down anything yet. Period.

This is true. Science never "hammers anything down."

Studies on hormone influence, pre-birth development, twin studies etc, etc have had scientifically documented inconsistencies.

I've read some pretty elegant papers. What are the inconsistencies?

People that "should" have been gay based on experimenting with different theories turning out straight and vice versa.

Are you telling me that we have genetically engineered people and injected hormones into the womb during pregnancy on humans? Last I checked, that was considered pretty unethical.

There is quite literally not a single scrap of finite, irrefutable evidence for Homosexuality being pre-defined genetically.

Well, if it were irrefutable, it wouldn't be scientific, now would it?

None what so ever, if anyone claims that it has been proven they are lying.

Anyone who ever claims that science has proven anything is either wrong or lying. So?

There is NO scientific information that even comes close to conclusively stating that homosexuality is somehow innate.

No, but there is quite a bit that leads to the conclusion that it is somehow partially innate.

Orientation is NOT a pre-defined yes/no dichotomy.

And, as such, is most likely determined by a myriad of factors, up to and including genetics.

However your conclusion that the strong and enduring homosexual relationships formed by men numbering in the thousands are somehow artificial because they do not fit into your narrow minded conclusion is quite frankly and I do apologies for my honesty, stupid.

He didn't say artificial. He simply stated that the men may or may not have been homosexual. They may have been bisexual. They may have felt pressured into a relationship that was "normal" just as many homosexuals feel pressured and endure heterosexual relationships. There are all sorts of factors your example nicely glosses over.

Homosexuality is caused by a net raise in global temperature. It is also clearly evident that gay marriage causes global warming. This means that allowing gay marriage will cause more homosexuals to be born and to marry, until the Earthh explodes in a giant ball of flame!
:eek:

...okay, I'm done with the paranoid ranting.

Homosexuality is caused by a net raise in global temperature. It is also clearly evident that gay marriage causes global warming. This means that allowing gay marriage will cause more homosexuals to be born and to marry, until the Earthh explodes in a giant ball of flame!
:eek:

...okay, I'm done with the paranoid ranting.

Sources? :p

Choice: Suggests that there is something wrong with the brain,I may have the wrong end of the stick here, but what? :\ Are you saying that anybody who'd choose to be gay must be wrong in the head?

ok, im not going to claim i know what causes sexual preferance, but i will say homosexuality is completely natural. There are many animals in nature that partake in homosexuality. Take the penguin for example, this is another social animal that lives in very large groups. Now a portion of the animals are innexpliccably homosexual, but as the numbers grow, more of these animals become homosexual. It seems that nature has its own way of curbing populations.

On a side note: there is also a species of monkey that all its members are bisexual, to the point where a massive "monkey orgy" is common practice. Generally, when a female monkey bears from, her babies are often killed by another male higher in the hiearchy. Now, this particular group of monkeys mates with everyone in the group, as no one will know whos child is whos and the group thrives because no monkey will risk killing its own gene pool. Also, males will often fellate each other to relieve tensions amungst the group. Which would lead me to believe bisexuality and swinging for that matter are perfectly normal parts of mammal behavior, and are actually beneficial

This is true. Science never "hammers anything down."



I've read some pretty elegant papers. What are the inconsistencies?



Are you telling me that we have genetically engineered people and injected hormones into the womb during pregnancy on humans? Last I checked, that was considered pretty unethical.



Well, if it were irrefutable, it wouldn't be scientific, now would it?



Anyone who ever claims that science has proven anything is either wrong or lying. So?

In regards to the unethical studies I read in a book (please don't quote Ii can not remember the title) that such hormone studies where undertaken by the east germans and russians, although I am not disciminating agaianst these and I'm sure other nations have people willing to do it

The book also states that hormones almost definitely have an effect but the dosage and circulation processes are not known. also the studies above noticed that if injected with the same amount of hormones the sexuality would vary

In regards to the unethical studies I read in a book (please don't quote Ii can not remember the title) that such hormone studies where undertaken by the east germans and russians, although I am not disciminating agaianst these and I'm sure other nations have people willing to do it

I'll look for that. All of the studies I have seen are more recent and carried out in animals.

The book also states that hormones almost definitely have an effect but the dosage and circulation processes are not known. also the studies above noticed that if injected with the same amount of hormones the sexuality would vary

Makes sense. Hormone balances are likely only a part of the cause, so they wouldn't get the same results in every case unless *every* variable was the same.

It's not genetic u morons it's just as natural as saying ur something that's not true so get off the topic of it being unnatural and a genetic miss fire cause i say that any one who says it's unnatural and wrong are genetic backfires!!! :sniper: :p :headbang: