NationStates Jolt Archive

I love polls. This one was a kinda random idea.

I would say at birth that we are heterosexual.

This is an interesting question.

I believe that people are blank slates at birth, and that their sexual preference is developed later. Babies and small children are asexual, and their sexual preferences are determined later.

It doesn't mean that I think sexuality is a choice, though. It is merely a desire that you can't control or change, much like the way a person who likes chocolate can't force themselves to like vanilla.

I would say at birth that we are heterosexual.


I order to be hetero, you must (exclusively or mainly) desire the opposite gender.

Babies and children do not desire any gender. How can they be hetero, then?

I order to be hetero, you must (exclusively or mainly) desire the opposite gender.

Babies and children do not desire any gender. How can they be hetero, then?

Uhh....Hey! A penny!

By the way, what does myrthsexual mean?

I'd guess Heterosexuality is the norm (well it is statistically, but that's not what I mean). Heterosexuality is the most efficient route to reproduction and thus survival of a species. This would cause heterosexuality to be inherited. Sexuality that is not constructive to reproduction would be caused by unusual circumstances.

What are omnisexual and myrthsexual?

:confused:

What are omnisexual and myrthsexual?

:confused:

"Omni" means all. "Myrth" is the username of a moderator.

well, seeing as how heterosexuality leads to reproduction, (as does bisexuality, but...yeah) I'm inclined to say that. Of course, I don't know what mythsexual (sp?) or omnisexual are...

omni means all. So everysexual. Or attracted to everything
Myrth is a mod. So you want him.

Omnisexual...Hmm..

Whoa...That would mean that you'd want to screw trees, lamp posts, computer monitors, etc.

I've never met anyone like that, but I think it'd be interesting.

I'd say it varies, as there is little scientific evidence to go on right now, but just last week a study was put out that says homosexual males DO respond more to the scent of testosterone and hetrosexual ones, more to estrogen.

Also, signs of sexualities other than hetero- are found in preschoolers even.

Many have asked what "omnisexual" and "Myrthsexual" are supposed to be.

"Omnisexual" is generally considered a synonym to "bisexual" but may also include other sexual behaviors such as bestiality, necrophilia, etc. I could have added the term "pansexual", but... heh... I guess I thought more people would have heard of the term "omnisexual".

I added "Myrthsexual" as kind of a joke-it would be defined as sexual desire for Myrth, the most popular poster on the forum. :D

Babies and children do not desire any gender.

Can you provide proof to back up that asertion?

Can you provide proof to back up that asertion?

When's the last time you saw a little kid trying to get sex?

When's the last time you saw a little kid trying to get sex?I remember hearing a news story about some kid who kept trying to do some sexual stuff in class. I forget the details, but it might have included trying to hump his kindergarten teacher.

It turns out that the kids grandfather had a habit of watching porn while babysitting. His excuse? "I didn't think that he'd understand what was going on."

It's too bad I can't remember where I heard this; if I did, then I'd link a source.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

"Omni" means all. "Myrth" is the username of a moderator.
im staright...but seriously..i'd do myrth....

I remember hearing a news story about some kid who kept trying to do some sexual stuff in class. I forget the details, but it might have included trying to hump his kindergarten teacher.

It turns out that the kids grandfather had a habit of watching porn while babysitting. His excuse? "I didn't think that he'd understand what was going on."

It's too bad I can't remember where I heard this; if I did, then I'd link a source.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation


hahahaha. That's more funny than depraved... Hilarious!

When's the last time you saw a little kid trying to get sex?

Me at age 5.

Or at least I had a basic understanding of human sexuality, even though all I had ever been told is 'boys like girls'.

Yet I had managed to figure out 'some boys like boys, some girls like girls, some people like both'... and that's a pretty good start on human sexuality. :D

Humans instinctively and naturally are attracted to the opposite sex at birth, but through personal choice they change their sexuality later in their life.

Humans instinctively and naturally are attracted to the opposite sex at birth, but through personal choice they change their sexuality later in their life.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one, though I do respect the fact that this may be your belief. I am homosexual, and through personal experience, I didn't choose to change my sexuality, to stop liking girls, and to start liking guys.

To be completely honest, I'm not too sure on how ones' sexuality is determined at birth, but I do honestly think that part of it has to do with genetics (not entirely), as well as your upbringing. I don't think its determined at birth.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one, though I do respect that fact that this may be your belief. I am homosexual, and through personal experience, I didn't choose to change my sexuality, to stop liking girls, and to start liking guys.


Yeah, I'm bisexual and I distinctly remember being attracted to boys and girls, though even too young for it to be sexually, in kindergarten. I'm still attracted to guys and gals.

Humans instinctively and naturally are attracted to the opposite sex at birth, but through personal choice they change their sexuality later in their life.

Hmm.....well I don't know why anyone would purposely set themselves up for being treated like shit....that's one argument conservatives often forget.

Humans instinctively and naturally are attracted to the opposite sex at birth, but through personal choice they change their sexuality later in their life.

To the uninformed and uneducated, this would seem obvious. But once you start to understand human sexuality on a biologic and more importantly on a neural level, you find that this simply is not the case at all.

SIMPLE TERMS HERE

The brains of Males and females are different. The parts controlling sexuality are not the same from a male and a female. What has been found is that in homosexual males, the part of the brain that is normal more active in males is not, and infact the normally inactive "female" part is mroe active. And vice-versa for homosexual females. Basically, physically their brain is abnormal. This is NOT personal choice. Sexuality is not a choice. If you think so, you have never once talked to a homosexual. None of them believe that it is a choice: You cannot choose who your are attracted to.

Simply put, you can be homosexual not necessarily at BIRTH(Due to the fact that at birth your brain is only capable of the most basic of action), but as you develop later in life, you physiology decides hetero/homosexuality.

Tried the bisexual thing some time back. It just did not stick. Heterosexual now, and with proud, baby!

I'd say it depends on the sex of the child, maales are hetero, femals homosexual. The defining thing here being there tendencies to go towards boobies. I understand that this has something to do with the reproductive process, but I am not sure (The last time I tried to purchase a tome on the reproductive process, I was denied access by the charlatan running the vehicular fuel depot based on the fact that I possessed neither an ID or money, or pants for that matter.)

Now then, if that doesn't make sense I want you to consider the following:

I am sexually attracted to LIFE (both the board game and the cereal)
At least one American is killed each year in an accident that involves sheep, but doesn't involve Michael Jackson
4 out of 5 dentists agree that having your face removed with a razor might not be the best cure for hiccups

Now then how, pray tell, can you or your mother or her mother or her mother honestly disagree with my profound assessment of the facts?

Babies are attracted to their mothers, especially her breasts. So babyboys are straight, babygirls are lesbians. This boobiefixation often does not go away, and this theory also explains why women are more willing to try out lesbian sex than males are to try out gay sex ;)

*Anyone who thinks that this theory has any basis in scientific research is recommend to look up words like "critical thinking" *

I'm not sure I know what you mean by the question. By 'default' do you mean the sexuality that everyone is born with? If so, I don't think there is any such thing, because I think people are born with whatever dormant sexuality they will come to realise is theirs in adolescence (or sometimes even later with some people).

'Normal' gets used to mean a lot of different things. If you used it to mean 'common, usual', then it could be said that heterosexuality is normal because it is the most common, but I don't think it's a 'default'.

When's the last time you saw a little kid trying to get sex?

I've never seen a kid 'try to get sex' but I have seen very young children masturbate, which is a way of exploring your own sexuality. Sexuality can also manifest itself in young children in the form of crushes on other children (be they male or female). This doesn't mean they want to have sex, since they probably don't even know what it is yet, but it is an early manifestation of their sexuality.

Yeah, I'm bisexual and I distinctly remember being attracted to boys and girls, though even too young for it to be sexually, in kindergarten. I'm still attracted to guys and gals.

Likewise.

I've never seen a kid 'try to get sex' but I have seen very young children masturbate, which is a way of exploring your own sexuality. Sexuality can also manifest itself in young children in the form of crushes on other children (be they male or female). This doesn't mean they want to have sex, since they probably don't even know what it is yet, but it is an early manifestation of their sexuality.

Someone give this zombie a cigar.

It isn't that children lack sexuality. It is just that their sexuality hasn't been activated yet. It is like a new credit card before you call that 1-800 number. Only, insted of a 1-800 number sexuality is activated by massive amounts of mood-altering hormones.

I didn't think babies regarded boobs as sex objects, they just regard them as food. I had to chuckle when a friend of mine told me how her 2 year old grandson latched onto her boobs because he was hungry. Unfortunately for him Grandma wasn't lactating.

Boobs are a source of food, foremost. There's also the theory that human breasts are hemispherical to mimic the arsecheeks, which would be visible during doggy-style coitus, as is the habit of most mammals. The fact that we humans have established a habit of facing each other during coitus means that the boobs become the pseudo-arse, to enhance the male's viewing pleasure.

Babies simply don't get sexual about breasts. In other cultures where women's breasts are frequently exposed, they have lost their appeal as sexual beacons, with preference going to elaborate body art, ankles, hair, labia, etc. We forget that the fixation on breast fetishism is a Western habit. It's by no means applicable to all babies in all cultures, and thus the argument that babies learn their sexual orientation because of boobs is void.

Well since there are so many other zany theories in this thread, may as well post mine: We're naturally pre-disposed to hump rocks, but when we're about 9 or 10, Jesus whispers in our ear whether or not we'll hump men or women.

I would say heterosexual, since it's required for our existance. But if you mean what sexuality babies have before they 'grow' into others, I wouldn't know, but I'd guess none.

I'd say it depends on the sex of the child, maales are hetero, femals homosexual. The defining thing here being there tendencies to go towards boobies. I understand that this has something to do with the reproductive process, but I am not sure (The last time I tried to purchase a tome on the reproductive process, I was denied access by the charlatan running the vehicular fuel depot based on the fact that I possessed neither an ID or money, or pants for that matter.)

Now then, if that doesn't make sense I want you to consider the following:

I am sexually attracted to LIFE (both the board game and the cereal)
At least one American is killed each year in an accident that involves sheep, but doesn't involve Michael Jackson
4 out of 5 dentists agree that having your face removed with a razor might not be the best cure for hiccups

Now then how, pray tell, can you or your mother or her mother or her mother honestly disagree with my profound assessment of the facts?
That was the weirdest post ever.

Babies are attracted to their mothers, especially her breasts. So babyboys are straight, babygirls are lesbians.
Babies go for their mothers' breasts not because of attraction but because they need the milk for nourishment. Nothing sexual about it.

As a baby, I think humans are asexual. For the simple fact that as a baby, they don't yet have any concept of their own sex, so how could they be attracted to the other? Or their own?
Kids discorver that only later on, the age depending on the situation. If you put brother and sister in the bathtub together, they will soon discover that, hey, there's something different, Mommy, why's that?
After that, I would guess that naturally humans are bisexual, but that education and the example of their environment will very soon teach them that heterosexuality is the norm.
The reason why I think that biologically humans are bisexual are our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos. They all are bisexual.

I would think that the "natural" state of sexuality is to be bisexual. Animals on the whole don't really care about the gender of their partner. ;)

It's been argued that we are all bisexual, with, in most cases, one attraction strongly predominating. That would tie in with the idea that only bisexuality is really "natural".

(I'm heterosexual, btw. So that would make me unnatural. ;) )

When's the last time you saw a little kid trying to get sex?
What is your definition of a "little kid"?

I was attracted to both boys and girls as young as four years old.

I was sexually harrassed by a six year old when I was only five years of age myself.

I could go on, would you like that?

I think bisexuality is our "default"/"normal" sexuality, and as we get older, we may or may not lean further one way or the other, though we may convince ourselves we are most definitely homosexual or heterosexual.

Of course, that's a fairly biased point of view. :p

hetrosexual:

anything outher would be counter to natural selection found in nature and thus a defect.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one, though I do respect the fact that this may be your belief. I am homosexual, and through personal experience, I didn't choose to change my sexuality, to stop liking girls, and to start liking guys.

To be completely honest, I'm not too sure on how ones' sexuality is determined at birth, but I do honestly think that part of it has to do with genetics (not entirely), as well as your upbringing. I don't think its determined at birth.


It has been proven to be mostly biological. Thru PET and other scans.

Babies are asexual, children are mostly Gay because of "Cooties" (Tom-boys ect. are Straight), then the Gay boys and girls become Straight men and women, and the Tom-boys and the oppisite for boys become Gay.

Omnisexual...Hmm..

Whoa...That would mean that you'd want to screw trees, lamp posts, computer monitors, etc.

I've never met anyone like that, but I think it'd be interesting.

Isn't that called being a teenager? ;)

Can you provide proof to back up that asertion?
All babies desire their mothers for sustance. All babies have the urdge to suckle their mother So we "default" as Matryosexual?(desire for the mother I don't know if that is the real term for it or not) Freuds oiedipus complex backs this up. But then there is the Weber Electra complex as well.
Thats my best answer. I really am not fond of the question though.

I didn't think babies regarded boobs as sex objects, they just regard them as food. I had to chuckle when a friend of mine told me how her 2 year old grandson latched onto her boobs because he was hungry. Unfortunately for him Grandma wasn't lactating.

Boobs are a source of food, foremost. There's also the theory that human breasts are hemispherical to mimic the arsecheeks, which would be visible during doggy-style coitus, as is the habit of most mammals. The fact that we humans have established a habit of facing each other during coitus means that the boobs become the pseudo-arse, to enhance the male's viewing pleasure.

Babies simply don't get sexual about breasts. In other cultures where women's breasts are frequently exposed, they have lost their appeal as sexual beacons, with preference going to elaborate body art, ankles, hair, labia, etc. We forget that the fixation on breast fetishism is a Western habit. It's by no means applicable to all babies in all cultures, and thus the argument that babies learn their sexual orientation because of boobs is void.
Babies suckle for comfort as well. What the hell do you think pacifers are for.

Obviously...

Heterosexual people are heterosexual at birth
Homosexuals are homosexual at birth
Bisexuals are bisexual at birth.

varies between bi and asexual

Someone give this zombie a cigar.

It isn't that children lack sexuality. It is just that their sexuality hasn't been activated yet. It is like a new credit card before you call that 1-800 number. Only, insted of a 1-800 number sexuality is activated by massive amounts of mood-altering hormones.

Nice analogy.

*puffs cigar*

My $0.02:

For most people, heterosexual or bisexual is the default. For a smaller minority, the default is asexual, homosexual, or other.

I love polls. This one was a kinda random idea.
Higher primates appear to be innately bisexual, and I believe this holds true for humans if you look at a completely isolated case. However, I think it's probably a bell curve (like most complex human behavior), with the vast majority falling somewhere in the middle and only a relative few being innately heterosexual or innately homosexual.

Of course, completely natural environmental influences can skew this. Both biological and psychological events can exert "pressure" that changes our natural sexual orientation, and thus humans tend to be predominantly heterosexual in practice. I don't think that's "unnatural" per se, though I do think that there are many psychological pressures that force humans to believe they must be one thing or the other. The very notion that humans are either gay OR straight seems very silly to me, but most people believe that's the case.

Crap, I picked bisexual, but then I saw the "varies" - so that should be my vote.

omni means all. So everysexual. Or attracted to everything
Myrth is a mod. So you want him.

So the English in here would assert that the Welsh are omnisexual, right?

I think myrth because animals will generally fuck anything that moves and enjoy it all the same

I've always wondered whether we get confused over sexual 'peversion' and reproductive sex.

Genetically we want to pass on our genes. This is one of the basic proofs of life. Apparently many gay people still like to mother/father a child, regardless of their partner.

It is inbuilt in all mammals (and EVERYTHING else that aint stone) to want to reproduce with the opposite sex to create "'mini-me's'".

Perversions are that which stimulate us mentally. Porn is a perversion in the strict sense of the word. So is masturbation. As is bestiality, paedophillia, and dare I say it, Homosexuality (give me your hate...). All these acts stimulate us sexually without creating children. Strictly they serve no biologically neccesary function. Simple copulation, not reproduction.

No problems here with benign peversion (i.e. that don't cause pain) but I see no logical argument for this homo-hetero argument in any scientific sense.

If one is born a homosexual surely that means equally that a person who 'cop's off' with sheep is only born that way - and the same can be said for kiddy-fiddlers. And necros.

As far as I can see people tend to be most aroused by the thoughts i. their heads - responding off stimuli admittedly, but ultimately our highly creative brains contribute dramatically to our enjoyment of the situation. And our brains can be falliable in terms of biolgical/real basics.

No I'm not a gay-basher, or a vigilante paedo-hunter. I just think that logically men and women want to reprduce together to pass their genes on, but our minds, developing in isolation and with a million different life influences, often develop harmless, or otherwise tangents. Remember an orgasm was originally a tool to make you expend energy to reproduce (otherwise why bother...).

If non-hetero sexual preferences were in our genes then WHY DID THEY NOT DIE OFF?

(And before you say it Christianity et al, have not had cultural domiance over the 100,000 years of B.C. evolution)

I reckon its Political Correctness getting caught up with liberalism and misinforming a generation...

Of course its okay to do ANYTHING that is consensual with all other involved parties...(S&M...Euthanaisa...-actuall: not too sure about the euthanasia, or the S&M, but the point stands). That is natural freedom. But nothing has shown it to be a biological actuality.

Perversions are that which stimulate us mentally. Porn is a perversion in the strict sense of the word. So is masturbation. As is bestiality, paedophillia, and dare I say it, Homosexuality (give me your hate...). All these acts stimulate us sexually without creating children. Strictly they serve no biologically neccesary function. Simple copulation, not reproduction.

Biologically necessary? Maybe not.

Biologically useful? Absolutely. Reproduction is not the only biologically useful function of the body.

If one is born a homosexual surely that means equally that a person who 'cop's off' with sheep is only born that way - and the same can be said for kiddy-fiddlers. And necros.

Find me creatures in the wild who only copulate with other species, sexually immature animals, or dead animals, and you'll have a point.

If non-hetero sexual preferences were in our genes then WHY DID THEY NOT DIE OFF?

*shakes head* All genetic influences are not an all-or-nothing thing. There is also evidence that a gene which helps induce homosexuality in a male actually increases fertility in a female who gets the same gene - thus it would be useful.

Biologically necessary? Maybe not.

Biologically useful? Absolutely. Reproduction is not the only biologically useful function of the body.

No. Biologically neccessary. Without reproduction there would be no future life. It is part of our instincts, our bio-chemistry, our social structures, our intellectual/communicative abilities, as it is with evey other life form. From grass (whichever kind) or oaks; to dolphins, to amoebas, to us.



Find me creatures in the wild who only copulate with other species, sexually immature animals, or dead animals, and you'll have a point.

Why do I need to prove this further with other species? Sexually immature animals are usually protected by HIGHLY aggressive mothers (or fathers) and so no animal would even bother (and their minds are not creative enough to mix up children with sexual idoltry - which I assume is the mindset of a paedo). Dead animals are invariably eaten (ditto about the mind) and thus not shagged - but then how do we know that some monkey somewhere hasn't learnt that the recently dead are still warm?.



*shakes head* All genetic influences are not an all-or-nothing thing. There is also evidence that a gene which helps induce homosexuality in a male actually increases fertility in a female who gets the same gene - thus it would be useful.


So someone has proven the link between homosexuality and a specific gene. I don't think so. IF 'induce' IS correct then I am absolutely right about it NOT being set in stone, but rather the product of mental conjecturing, overrulling the normal behavioural pattern.

And my bigger beef is that if Homosexuality is caused by Genes (which I think is bloomin unlikely) then so we must hypothesise that all deviant behavioural patterns (wich homosexuality is in a strictly biological sense) are genetically determined.

So next time, spare a thought for poor Mr. Smith when you find him humping your dog. It isn't his fault, he was just born that way. Stand back and let nature take its course (though, of course, it won't).

*shakes head" I reckon I am either going to be reviled or pitied for my stand. But then christians often think the same way about agnostics. And as an agnostic I take this happily.

Oh I just thought:

Consequently because our sexuality (or sexual deviancy) is controlled so much from our minds it can be controlled and reasoned. And as we all react to stimuli I think it is inevitable that if liberalism (read: BASIC FREEDOM - no falliable dogma) takes its course we will become a bi-sexual society (though still appreciative of the essential NEED of hetero-sexual sex), an enlightened mind cares not for how he/she reaches his/her orgasm - providing that no human rights are being broken.

However, I also have to say that it seems that there are a lot of highly promiscuous gay men out there who don't think twice about trying their luck even on public transport - STOP IT. ITS BLOODY ANNOYING. EVEN THE VERY WORST SLAPPERS DONT DO THAT.

No. Biologically neccessary. Without reproduction there would be no future life. It is part of our instincts, our bio-chemistry, our social structures, our intellectual/communicative abilities, as it is with evey other life form.

Which, again, is irrelevant. All biologically useful behaviors are not biologically necessary. Sexual contact is biologically useful, especially in social animals, outside of its reproductive role. Nor is reproduction a biological necessity for every single organism. To keep a species going, you need some to reproduce. If all did, you would likely run into problems with overcrowding.

Why do I need to prove this further with other species?

If something occurs naturally, especially if it is largely genetically or hormonally controlled, we would expect to see evidence of it in other animals. We would at least expect to see it in our nearest relatives. We do not.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, we see in many species. Bisexuality in even more. Homosexual pair-bonds occur in numerous mammal and bird species, as does homosexual sex.

So someone has proven the link between homosexuality and a specific gene. I don't think so.

Science does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, someone has shown a genetic correlation in families with homosexual men. The exact gene is not known, but the pedigree shows evidence for it.

And my bigger beef is that if Homosexuality is caused by Genes (which I think is bloomin unlikely) then so we must hypothesise that all deviant behavioural patterns (wich homosexuality is in a strictly biological sense) are genetically determined.

(a) This is a logical fallacy. One type of behavior being caused by genetics would not, of necessity, mean that all behaviors must be as well.

(b) Very few would argue that sexuality, which is not confined to heterosexuality and homosexuality by the way, is completely genetically defined. Sexuailty, like most traits that exist along a spectrum, is most likely influenced by a number of things - genetics simply being one of those things. Regardless, psychological research has suggested that sexuality is set in stone between age 3-6, well before there is much sexual fantasizing.

(c) Homosexuality is a deviant behavior pattern? Never mind that it is rather prevalent in the animal kingdom? Never mind that in species like the bighorn sheep, there is much, much more homosexual sex than heterosexual sex?

I reckon I am either going to be reviled or pitied for my stand.

I pity the fact that you have taken a stand without doing your research. *shrug*

Oh I just thought:
[snip]

*Tries to resist urge to comment on this... struggles... sorry, can't do it.* Is that unusual for you? :p

Which, again, is irrelevant. All biologically useful behaviors are not biologically necessary. Sexual contact is biologically useful, especially in social animals, outside of its reproductive role. Nor is reproduction a biological necessity for every single organism. To keep a species going, you need some to reproduce. If all did, you would likely run into problems with overcrowding.



If something occurs naturally, especially if it is largely genetically or hormonally controlled, we would expect to see evidence of it in other animals. We would at least expect to see it in our nearest relatives. We do not.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, we see in many species. Bisexuality in even more. Homosexual pair-bonds occur in numerous mammal and bird species, as does homosexual sex.



Science does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, someone has shown a genetic correlation in families with homosexual men. The exact gene is not known, but the pedigree shows evidence for it.



(a) This is a logical fallacy. One type of behavior being caused by genetics would not, of necessity, mean that all behaviors must be as well.

(b) Very few would argue that sexuality, which is not confined to heterosexuality and homosexuality by the way, is completely genetically defined. Sexuailty, like most traits that exist along a spectrum, is most likely influenced by a number of things - genetics simply being one of those things. Regardless, psychological research has suggested that sexuality is set in stone between age 3-6, well before there is much sexual fantasizing.

(c) Homosexuality is a deviant behavior pattern? Never mind that it is rather prevalent in the animal kingdom? Never mind that in species like the bighorn sheep, there is much, much more homosexual sex than heterosexual sex?



I pity the fact that you have taken a stand without doing your research. *shrug*


What is biologically useful and what is neccessary?

It seems that the human mind, intelligent as it is, clouds itself with so much pap. Obviously our concious/analytical minds do more for our behaviour than any single genetic actuality. How many animals (not human-owned pets...)become anorexic, bolemic, obese, suffer vertigo, pray, philosophise, etc.

However, I fail to see any evidence to suggest that genes determine our sexual preference. I see immense amounts of evidence showing how animals are preoccupied with mating with the opposite sex (from a genetic level up), be it the evolution of the G-spot, male plummage (why do women decorate themselves - because genetically women are less visually striking than men), estrogen, testosterone, my birth, your birth, social constructs such as marriage, innate sexual difference (Political correctness aside - men and women are NOT the same).

Overcrowding (before the arrival of high-technology) was usually solved by disease, war or famine (Malthusian theory?).


And how do you know in the dark of night monkeys (who display similar traits with humans such as the killing of their own speices and clan) dont shag children, or weaker primates.


Find me a plant or a fish that has homosexual tendancies and I'll concede the point.


I love this as a one off quote: "Science does not prove anything."

If that is the basis of your logic, well... (fair enough - each to their own)


Perhaps men pick up behavioural traits from their fathers... Do you also claim that gays and lesbians come from different genetic keys?


a) I know. Hence the use of the word hypothesis. Which is as good as your argument.

b) I concur. Read my argument.

c) I don't know the sex life of sheep. But If they have cottoned on to the fact that they can copulate (orgasm) without reproduction then why not? Good for them (they can't masturbate...). Simple social-behavioural science. Oops. Used that word.


And remember: I ain't saying that homosexuality (or whatever) isn't natural. I'm just saying that it aint determined at birth.


I pity the fact that you are a product of a politically correct society. <shrug>

*Tries to resist urge to comment on this... struggles... sorry, can't do it.* Is that unusal for you? :p


No. Unfortunately not. If I wanna say something relevant to the discussion on the thread the I feel that I should say it if I can be bothered.

I like debate. And I like to air my views.


<thinks>"Not sure whether meant as insult or not...hmmm."

It seems that the human mind, intelligent as it is, clouds itself with so much pap. Obviously our concious/analytical minds do more for our behaviour than any single genetic actuality.

Do you really think that the way our consciousness works is not affected by our genetics?

However, I fail to see any evidence to suggest that genes determine our sexual preference.

If you are looking for evidence that there is a "gay gene", you won't find it. However, if you have seen no evidence that genetics play a role in sexuality, then you haven't been looking.

I see immense amounts of evidence showing how animals are preoccupied with mating with the opposite sex (from a genetic level up),

And ignore the evidence that many of them are actually preoccupied with mating with the same sex.

Were you aware that some bird species have a different mating ritual depending on whether they are looking to mate with a same-sex or oppostite-sex partner?

And how do you know in the dark of night monkeys (who display similar traits with humans such as the killing of their own speices and clan) dont shag children, or weaker primates.

I don't know this for sure. But I do know that many primate species have been observed (yes, even in the dark of night) and neither pedophilia nor necrophilia has been documented.

Find me a plant or a fish that has homosexual tendancies and I'll concede the point.

This is silly. Are you next going to ask that I demonstrate bacteria that reproduce seuxally?

I love this as a one off quote: "Science does not prove anything."

If that is the basis of your logic, well... (fair enough - each to their own)

It is a fact. Science cannot logically prove anything. It can support a hypothesis or theory to the point that the layperson may see it as proven, but nothing is ever actually proven. This is the way the scientific method works. Sorry if that bothers you.

Perhaps men pick up behavioural traits from their fathers... Do you also claim that gays and lesbians come from different genetic keys?

"Different genetic keys?" What exactly are you asking?

And remember: I ain't saying that homosexuality (or whatever) isn't natural. I'm just saying that it aint determined at birth.

All evidence points to it being partially, perhaps even mostly, determined at or before birth. And psychological evidence points to it being completely determined by age 3-6. You can read the papers yourself if you like.

I pity the fact that you are a product of a politically correct society. <shrug>

I can actually read scientific papers and that makes me a product of society? *shrug* Ok.

I added "Myrthsexual" as kind of a joke-it would be defined as sexual desire for Myrth, the most popular poster on the forum. :D
Actually, I think we have one of them around here somewhere.

A)Do you really think that the way our consciousness works is not affected by our genetics?



B)If you are looking for evidence that there is a "gay gene", you won't find it. However, if you have seen no evidence that genetics play a role in sexuality, then you haven't been looking.



C)And ignore the evidence that many of them are actually preoccupied with mating with the same sex.

D)Were you aware that some bird species have a different mating ritual depending on whether they are looking to mate with a same-sex or oppostite-sex partner?



E)I don't know this for sure. But I do know that many primate species have been observed (yes, even in the dark of night) and neither pedophilia nor necrophilia has been documented.



F)This is silly. Are you next going to ask that I demonstrate bacteria that reproduce seuxally?



G)It is a fact. Science cannot logically prove anything. It can support a hypothesis or theory to the point that the layperson may see it as proven, but nothing is ever actually proven. This is the way the scientific method works. Sorry if that bothers you.



H)"Different genetic keys?" What exactly are you asking?



I)All evidence points to it being partially, perhaps even mostly, determined at or before birth. And psychological evidence points to it being completely determined by age 3-6. You can read the papers yourself if you like.



J)I can actually read scientific papers and that makes me a product of society? *shrug* Ok.



A) No I don't think that. What I am saying is that Genetics do not determine our conciousness. Determine - Influence. Different words.


B)Genetics is a fundamental part of our sexual nature. Genetics has, for example, given us the ability to orgasm when sexually stimulated. This has obviously influenced patterns of "deviant" (my use of the word, not yours) behaviour as it grants pleasure. Apparently a type of female monkey that has big clitorouses (spelling?) get off with each other. Bit like when male monkeys masturbate. The genetic/evolutionary tool to encourage animals to reproduce has created its own niche within our beings. Why do we mythologise our sexual organs so much, etc etc? Why give them names?

Again I am just saying that Genetics does not determine your sexuality. (Though still inclined to think that sexual deviancy is almost purely social on the basis of the scientific (do you like that word or not? I'm unsure) evidence).


C) Mating does not happen with the same sex. You know this because children do not arrive x months later. Copulation happens with the same sex. With the hand. With the dead body.


D) They are not seeking to mate. Perhaps they want a helpful friend... Result: different call sign. (Do birds display homosexuality - doesn't change anything though).


E) I know that our video and journalistic evidence of these animals is miniscule next to the entirity of their own personal worlds. I am also not relying on this fact for the argument. How many times do you see a necro? Or a sheep shagger?


F) Unfortunately Bacteria DO reproduce sexually. They reproduce asexually. This is classified under sex. Hence the poll's use of the word asexual. They probably don't orgasm, but then their genetic design doesn't really need it. They gain energy, and so divide, rather than grow larger. Efficient transfer of biomass and genetics. The basis of reproduction (again rmembering that copulation is different).

G) So why do you say something is a fact. Prove it. If science proives nothing except to the layman then why do nuclear reactors operate under the same rules. This statement of yours is pretty wierd considering we are trying (I think) to debate with reason, and thereofre logic, and therefore 1 + 1 = 2, and therefore science...

And if you are right it also proves every point you have raised as wrong, just as much as it has proved mine. Back to square one with no means of moving on.


H)Genetic Keys. I.e. the part of the genetic information that turns on or off a particular trait. Usually paired up with another strand of DNA to create reccessive and dominant genetic types. I was asking if you also think that the gene that makes a man gay is different from the gene that makes a woman gay?


I) Interesting. What papers? (I won't even bother if it is one book by a gay author).


J) I really don't know what you are trying to argue with. You now read scientific papers. But you just said they prove nothing. I think more importantly you read too many opinion pieces. And they print absolute crud, written by oppurtunistic jouranslits, for cheep thrills.

No offense is meant... But I do not see what your point is other than to try and refute me.

<hmmmm...>

A) No I don't think that. What I am saying is that Genetics do not determine our conciousness. Determine - Influence. Different words.

And you are arguing against a strawman. No one with any understanding of biology has ever claimed that consciousness or sexuality is completely determined by genetics.

B)Genetics is a fundamental part of our sexual nature.

And yet you make the silly assumption that only heterosexuality can possibly have a genetic component, regardless of the fact that homosexuality is a form of sexual nature..

scientific (do you like that word or not? I'm unsure) evidence).

Of course I like that word - I am a scientist. You even used it correctly this time, by saying evidence instead of proof.

C) Mating does not happen with the same sex. You know this because children do not arrive x months later. Copulation happens with the same sex. With the hand. With the dead body.

Most opposite-gender sex doesn't lead to children either. Most of the papers on this subject refer to it as mating. *shrug*

D) They are not seeking to mate. Perhaps they want a helpful friend... Result: different call sign. (Do birds display homosexuality - doesn't change anything though).

Yes, birds display homosexuality. Some form life-long homosexual pairbonds and raise offspring together.

Unfortunately Bacteria DO reproduce sexually. They reproduce asexually. This is classified under sex. Hence the poll's use of the word asexual. They probably don't orgasm, but then their genetic design doesn't really need it. They gain energy, and so divide, rather than grow larger. Efficient transfer of biomass and genetics. The basis of reproduction (again rmembering that copulation is different).

Your incorrect use of biological words is putting me into convulsions.

(a) Asexual reproduction is just that - asexual - without sex. It is simply cloning.

(b) The poll's use of the word asexual has nothing to do with asexual reproduction. Asexuality in humans is a form of sexuality in which the person has no interest in sex whatsoever.

G) So why do you say something is a fact. Prove it.

Logic is created by human beings and is thus a structure in which things can be proven. By definition, the scientific method cannot prove anything. We do experiments and they support our hypothesis. If I hypothesize that if I let go of a five pound weight, gravity will pull it to the ground -I can test that. Every time I drop the weight and it falls, I have supported my hypothesis. However, I can do this one million times and not prove that it will always fall or that the theory of gravity is correct. I cannot say with absolute certainty that, on the one million and twentieth time I do this, it won't float in midair.

If science proives nothing except to the layman then why do nuclear reactors operate under the same rules.

Nothing has yet occurred that does not support the theory.

And if you are right it also proves every point you have raised as wrong, just as much as it has proved mine.

Wow, your lack of logic is astounding. If I say that you have not proven something, that does not mean that you have been proven wrong.

H)Genetic Keys. I.e. the part of the genetic information that turns on or off a particular trait.

You mean....genes?

Usually paired up with another strand of DNA to create reccessive and dominant genetic types.

All DNA is paired up with another strand - at least in the body. And all genes, in fact, not even most genes, fall into a simple recessive and dominant category.

I was asking if you also think that the gene that makes a man gay is different from the gene that makes a woman gay?

I don't think that there is a single gene for either. Like most traits that exist along a spectrum, I think there are likely several genes that contribute. Do you really think a trait as complicated as sexuality could be controlled by a single gene?

I) Interesting. What papers? (I won't even bother if it is one book by a gay author).

Do a pubmed search. And read Biological Exuberance, a book which is not, to my knowledge, by a gay author.

J) I really don't know what you are trying to argue with. You now read scientific papers.

I have to read scientific papers. It's part of my job.

But you just said they prove nothing.

They don't. They simply support ideas or reject them. That is how science works.

I think more importantly you read too many opinion pieces. And they print absolute crud, written by oppurtunistic jouranslits, for cheep thrills.

I am aware of this - which is why I avoid them. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers out there on the subject, both from a biological point of view and a psychological one.

No offense is meant... But I do not see what your point is other than to try and refute me.

My point is that you have obviously done no research into this subject, have an abominable understanding of biology, and yet still want to correct others and "take a stand." If you wish to form your own opinions - great - but at least do the research first.

If non-hetero sexual preferences were in our genes then WHY DID THEY NOT DIE OFF?

Why did cystic fibrosis, congential adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell anaemia etc. not die off? Because they're caused by recessive mutations.

Now this is a vastly oversimplified model (since it's highly unlikley that a single gene alone would determine homosexuality, and the genetic factors which could influence homosexuality are likley to be different in men and women), but bear with me and suppose there was a recessive homosexual gene (h), and a dominant heterosexual gene (H). A man and a women, both heterozygous for this (having one heterosexual and one homosexual gene each i.e. Hh) have kids together. Their kids genotypes could be HH, Hh, hH, or hh. The hh kid is gay.

I'm not saying there is a single recessive gay gene (that's highly unlikley), the point I'm trying to make is that the "why did they not die out if it's recessive??" point is silly. Also, we must take into account psychosocial and physiological factors, as well as factors which influence gene expression.

Find me a plant or a fish that has homosexual tendancies and I'll concede the point.


I have yet to see a plant or a fish that has arms. By your logic then having arms must be a learned behavior.

As a researcher myself, I just want to say that Dempublicents1 is correct in all his statements about science here. If one don't understand the very basics of science, then that person certainly shouldn't use it in a debate...

Myrthsexual? WTF?

Wow, Demi, thanks for your patience and stamina with that chap...just reading him is making me nuts, so I'm glad another scientist is willing and able to take care of him.