NationStates Jolt Archive

Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Looks like the Fundies' old standby is being dismantled slowly by science. Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

:D

My guess is that the next step for fundamentalists will be going back to looking for a "cure".

£5 says that they'll simply move onto "well whether they act on their desires is a choice!!!"

You're saying you don't control what happens in your own brain?

/kidding

I could be explained away by that because of their preference the brain adapts and begins to respond to the corresponding pheremone more.

I think it's called learned responses or something.

Actually I had the discussion with my friend Darren, now Abdul Ghafoor.

He was bisexual and has since converted to Islam and considers himself heterosexual.

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

His reply was that Allah deliberately did it in order to test the faithful. Giving temptation so that we may resist it and be all the stronger.

Actually I had the discussion with my friend Darren, now Abdul Ghafoor.

He was bisexual and has since converted to Islam and considers himself heterosexual.

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

His reply was that Allah deliberately did it in order to test the faithful. Giving temptation so that we may resist it and be all the stronger.
Yeah. Allah wants you to deny who you are and what makes you happy for no reason other than he finds it a little creepy. Gotta love religion.

Yup.

£5 says that they'll simply move onto "well whether they act on their desires is a choice!!!"

I'm going to guess that they'll take the "Gays control the Scientific Community" route instead. :p

I could be explained away by that because of their preference the brain adapts and begins to respond to the corresponding pheremone more.

I think it's called learned responses or something.

You could try, if that's how pheremones generally worked or you had evidence for it. The problem with that argument would be that you are trying to take it into a "the chicken or the egg," debate, when its pretty clear in this case what comes first. Pheremones are a sign of attraction. If a homosexual person did not already respond to pheremones of the same-sex, then they wouldn't actually be attracted to members of the same sex. Hence, they wouldn't actually be homosexual.

I suppose you could test the idea, if you could force animals to get jiggy with members of the sex they would not normally go after and then see if their pheremone response changed. Interestingly enough, however, you can't really force animals (or humans) to copulate. So I suppose we're just going to have to go with what we know of pheremone-response.

As it is, it's just an excuse to keep arguing a viewpoint that looks sillier and sillier as time goes by.

Hmm... I remember TV shows in which they would experiment with pheremones. Hardly scientific I know, but they seemed to show that pheremones weren't the strongest part of sexual attraction. It had a row of three of one gender and one person the of the other gender. Of the three, one would be the control, one would be dabbed with pheremones from a bottle, and the last would be dabbed with a sweaty towel. Invariable the one with the light dabbing of pheremones was chosen. However, this guy would be fairly ugly. So when the person came round a second time, but with their eyes open, they always chose the handsome bloke, whether he was the control or dabbed with a sweaty towel. So... yeah...

Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Looks like the Fundies' old standby is being dismantled slowly by science. Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

:D
I'm sure they'll find some other way of making it all "against the will of God." Perhaps they'll just use one of their own standbys like, "It's the result of original sin." Or maybe, "They have deamons!"

SIGH! :(

Hmm... I remember TV shows in which they would experiment with pheremones. Hardly scientific I know, but they seemed to show that pheremones weren't the strongest part of sexual attraction. It had a row of three of one gender and one person the of the other gender. Of the three, one would be the control, one would be dabbed with pheremones from a bottle, and the last would be dabbed with a sweaty towel. Invariable the one with the light dabbing of pheremones was chosen. However, this guy would be fairly ugly. So when the person came round a second time, but with their eyes open, they always chose the handsome bloke, whether he was the control or dabbed with a sweaty towel. So... yeah...

Unless they were changing gender in the middle, I'm not sure I see your point....

I never said that pheremones were the strongest part of attraction - especially not in humans. I said they were an indicator of it.

Hmm... I remember TV shows in which they would experiment with pheremones. Hardly scientific I know, but they seemed to show that pheremones weren't the strongest part of sexual attraction. It had a row of three of one gender and one person the of the other gender. Of the three, one would be the control, one would be dabbed with pheremones from a bottle, and the last would be dabbed with a sweaty towel. Invariable the one with the light dabbing of pheremones was chosen. However, this guy would be fairly ugly. So when the person came round a second time, but with their eyes open, they always chose the handsome bloke, whether he was the control or dabbed with a sweaty towel. So... yeah...

So....did they try one of the same gender with the pheremones of the gender your...chooser is atracted to, or something like that?

You could try, if that's how pheremones generally worked or you had evidence for it. The problem with that argument would be that you are trying to take it into a "the chicken or the egg," debate, when its pretty clear in this case what comes first. Pheremones are a sign of attraction. If a homosexual person did not already respond to pheremones of the same-sex, then they wouldn't actually be attracted to members of the same sex. Hence, they wouldn't actually be homosexual.

I suppose you could test the idea, if you could force animals to get jiggy with members of the sex they would not normally go after and then see if their pheremone response changed. Interestingly enough, however, you can't really force animals (or humans) to copulate. So I suppose we're just going to have to go with what we know of pheremone-response.

As it is, it's just an excuse to keep arguing a viewpoint that looks sillier and sillier as time goes by.Like I say in the next post, pheremones aren't the sole cause of sexual attraction. Smell is one reason, but sight and hearing could also be factors.

Researching the physical causes of sexuality seems pointless to me. Maybe reasearching the mental causes would be important in helping to treat those who, through trauma, have repressed their true sexuality for whatever reason.

Like I say in the next post, pheremones aren't the sole cause of sexual attraction. Smell is one reason, but sight and hearing could also be factors.

Researching the physical causes of sexuality seems pointless to me. Maybe reasearching the mental causes would be important in helping to treat those who, through trauma, have repressed their true sexuality for whatever reason.
From what science has been able to tell us, what we humans often refer to as "love" is, in fact, comprised of a number of different elements.

Pheromones, one of the basic components of smell, are picked up by receptors in the nose and converted to electrical impulses which tell areas of the brain that "here is someone to whom I could be attracted." "The evidence has now become quite strong that humans produce and detect pheromones," agreed Edward W. Johnson of Idaho State University in Pocatello. However, we should note that other researchers say more study is needed to find out if they are as powerful in humans as they are in other species.

Humans, particularly males, are visually oriented, and sights that please us cause what is known as "pupillary dilation" (your pupils dilate when you see something you like).



The parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system which mediates sexual arousal, induces such responses as pupillary dilation. When two people look at each other at the same moment, and both sets of pupils dilate, the result is what some people refer to as "love at first sight." We're reacting to the reaction of the other person, as well as to our own reaction to them.

Humans, particularly females, react strongly to the sense of touch. The outer covering of skin is our body's largest "part." Skin makes up about 15% of the body's weight, and occupies some 21 square feet of surface area. Being touched by someone lowers blood pressure, releases endorphins (the brain's equivalent of opium), and causes many other strongly positive reactions. One report of touch deprived women revealed that only a tiny percent had ever had an orgasm.

Taken together, all of these responses lead to sexual attraction, which affects our emotions, which many people translate as "love."

Unless they were changing gender in the middle, I'm not sure I see your point....

I never said that pheremones were the strongest part of attraction - especially not in humans. I said they were an indicator of it.Sorry, that wasn't a direct response to your post. It was just me remembering something and posting it.

How it worked was that if the test subject was female and professed to be straight then male pheremones would be used. If she professed to be gay then female pheremones were used. (the sweaty towel corresponded to the pheremone as well). The whole thing was an attempt to see if pheremone perfumes worked well compared to a control, or someone who was covered in sweat and hence their own pheremones.

From what science has been able to tell us, what we humans often refer to as "love" is, in fact, comprised of a number of different elements.

Pheromones, one of the basic components of smell, are picked up by receptors in the nose and converted to electrical impulses which tell areas of the brain that "here is someone to whom I could be attracted." "The evidence has now become quite strong that humans produce and detect pheromones," agreed Edward W. Johnson of Idaho State University in Pocatello. However, we should note that other researchers say more study is needed to find out if they are as powerful in humans as they are in other species.

Humans, particularly males, are visually oriented, and sights that please us cause what is known as "pupillary dilation" (your pupils dilate when you see something you like).



The parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system which mediates sexual arousal, induces such responses as pupillary dilation. When two people look at each other at the same moment, and both sets of pupils dilate, the result is what some people refer to as "love at first sight." We're reacting to the reaction of the other person, as well as to our own reaction to them.

Humans, particularly females, react strongly to the sense of touch. The outer covering of skin is our body's largest "part." Skin makes up about 15% of the body's weight, and occupies some 21 square feet of surface area. Being touched by someone lowers blood pressure, releases endorphins (the brain's equivalent of opium), and causes many other strongly positive reactions. One report of touch deprived women revealed that only a tiny percent had ever had an orgasm.

Taken together, all of these responses lead to sexual attraction, which affects our emotions, which many people translate as "love."Good post. Very cynical about 'love', but good post.

It'd be interesting to see how young children responded to pheremones. Whether the preference is already set, or if a preference develops with the onset of puberty.

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

A defect? There is nothing defective about my sexuality. :upyours:

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

A defect? There is nothing defective about my sexuality. :upyours:
I agree. You're just one big defect! :D

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

A defect? There is nothing defective about my sexuality. :upyours:

Just brush it off. Keep in mind a lot of survival traits in living creatures tended to start off as highly improbable mutations that kept on going because it worked to the advantage of the host.

I agree. You're just one big defect! :DIs that sexual 'innuendo'? :confused:

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

I've never seen any evidence for that theory. On the other hand, there is evidence that a genetic factor on the X-chromosome that contributes to female fecundity may contribute to male homosexuality as well.

Just brush it off.

I will not. I am so fucking sick and tired of people like that, who are oh, so open-minded, but then just still view gay people as defective, as flawed, as "should have been straights who weren't." It pisses me the fuck off. :mad:

Is that sexual 'innuendo'? :confused:
Uh ... I don't think so. :confused:

The Nature Vs. Choice debate is a Red Herring. It draws attention from real debates. Whether someone chooses to be homosexual or is born homosexual has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they should be treated equally and fairly. It doesn't make a bit of difference if you choose to be with the same sex partner or if you are naturally attracted to same sex individuals.

Next time someone says that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals and that makes it ok for them to be discriminated against, remind them that they choose their religion, smile and walk away or punch them in the face and tell them they are sinning against (insert a god that is not thier's) and say that since they choose to be (insert thier religion) they deserve to be treated differently.

:headbang:

Good post. Very cynical about 'love', but good post.
Au contraire! It's not "cynical" at all. It's called "realistic." :p

Au contraire! It's not "cynical" at all. It's called "realistic." :p

Interestingly enough, it refers, from what I can tell, only to those who equate "sexual attraction" with "love". I would agree that sexual attraction is generally a physical thing. Love, on the other hand, goes deeper than that.

The Nature Vs. Choice debate is a Red Herring. It draws attention from real debates. Whether someone chooses to be homosexual or is born homosexual has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they should be treated equally and fairly. It doesn't make a bit of difference if you choose to be with the same sex partner or if you are naturally attracted to same sex individuals.

Next time someone says that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals and that makes it ok for them to be discriminated against, remind them that they choose their religion, smile and walk away or punch them in the face and tell them they are sinning against (insert a god that is not thier's) and say that since they choose to be (insert thier religion) they deserve to be treated differently.

:headbang:
Won't work. Irony and hypocrisy is lost on religious folks.

I'm gonna quote myself from another forum on this debate:

I find this conclusive enough (as proof) for me because homosexuality HAS to be genetic. What else could it be? Why wouldn't it be natural? Sexuality is one of the most basic things in a human. You cannot change it via psychological manipulation without ridiculously excessive amounts of it or extreme psychological tramau. To say that every gay person in the world has fallen prey to either one and/or both is just idiotic. Therefore, this test is--to me--the icing on the cake.

Au contraire! It's not "cynical" at all. It's called "realistic." :pIn the words of Sir Humprey Appleby, a fictional character that I just found was quoting H G Wells.

'A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.'

I'm gonna quote myself from another forum on this debate:

I find this conclusive enough (as proof) for me because homosexuality HAS to be genetic. What else could it be? Why wouldn't it be natural? Sexuality is one of the most basic things in a human. You cannot change it via psychological manipulation without ridiculously excessive amounts of it or extreme psychological tramau. To say that every gay person in the world has fallen prey to either one and/or both is just idiotic. Therefore, this test is--to me--the icing on the cake.
Homosexuality is a relationship between two people, and we do have control over that. It is not just "sexual attraction".

Won't work. Irony and hypocrisy is lost on religious folks.

I'm gonna quote myself from another forum on this debate:

I find this conclusive enough (as proof) for me because homosexuality HAS to be genetic. What else could it be? Why wouldn't it be natural? Sexuality is one of the most basic things in a human. You cannot change it via psychological manipulation without ridiculously excessive amounts of it or extreme psychological tramau. To say that every gay person in the world has fallen prey to either one and/or both is just idiotic. Therefore, this test is--to me--the icing on the cake.Oh I don't for second that heterosexuality and homosexuality are natural. I just speculate about the idea that sexuality is a sliding scale, and not a dichotomy. If so, are there environmental factors that when introduced early on in life will shift a persons sexual preference one way or another. Such as absence of a either parent, sexual abuse, living a in home which is predominantly one gender, how a child is encouraged to behave. I mean are there bisexual people out there who have repressed part of their sexuality because the other half is more socially accepted?

Some people say "OMG homos are good for over-population!!!11" ... Well apparently they're not because they are taking up precious space on this earth as well; let's just kill them! :mp5:

...Ok ok I'm kidding, I think.

Won't work. Irony and hypocrisy is lost on religious folks.

I'm gonna quote myself from another forum on this debate:

I find this conclusive enough (as proof) for me because homosexuality HAS to be genetic. What else could it be? Why wouldn't it be natural? Sexuality is one of the most basic things in a human. You cannot change it via psychological manipulation without ridiculously excessive amounts of it or extreme psychological tramau. To say that every gay person in the world has fallen prey to either one and/or both is just idiotic. Therefore, this test is--to me--the icing on the cake.

My point is that it doesn't matter if you choose or not, and that is the arguement that should be taken. Homosexuals shouldn't take the stand that its "natural" or that its thier choice. When someone brings up the matter, homosexuals should simply say that it doesn't matter.

The fact that you take a side in the debate, just perpetuates a nonsensical debate. Evertime a homosexual argues that its "nature" they are doing more harm then good. Even if you could convince people that it was "natural" do you think that is going to change anything?.

Look at Marijuana, it is 100% unequivically natural, yet they still send people to jail for it :rolleyes:

Oh I don't for second that heterosexuality and homosexuality are natural. I just speculate about the idea that sexuality is a sliding scale, and not a dichotomy. If so, are there environmental factors that when introduced early on in life will shift a persons sexual preference one way or another. Such as absence of a either parent, sexual abuse, living a in home which is predominantly one gender, how a child is encouraged to behave. I mean are there bisexual people out there who have repressed part of their sexuality because the other half is more socially accepted?

There is little evidence of the factors you claim causing a real change in sexuality. It may cause a change in sexual behavior, but while sexual behavior MAY evidence sexuality they are not the same thing.

His reply was that Allah deliberately did it in order to test the faithful. Giving temptation so that we may resist it and be all the stronger.

God tests his followers? What an asshole. So much for free will...

If being gay is genetic, please explain how gay people, people who dont normally you know, reproduce, pass on a "gay gene".

Your sexuality is pretty much set in stone before you are born. Do I really have to tell the Boys Dont Cry story again?

If being gay is genetic, please explain how gay people, people who dont normally you know, reproduce, pass on a "gay gene".

You don't have to express phenotypes to pass genotypes on. I suggest you learn a little bit about genetics before spouting off.

Oh, and it isn't true that gay people don't "normally" reproduce. Tonnes of gay people reproduce.

Tonnes of gay people reproduce.
:confused:
Seems like they'd have the perfect excuse to avoid it.

:confused:
Seems like they'd have the perfect excuse to avoid it.
For essentially all of history up till within the past fifty years, homosexuality was treated as a heinous crime, as it still is in much of the world. So, homosexuals often reproduced with wives and such and took misters on the side, risking life and limb.

Even nowadays you'll see homosexuals reproducing via proxy, either with a willing surrogote mother or in vitro(?).

Homosexuality is a relationship between two people, and we do have control over that. It is not just "sexual attraction".

No, it is just attraction. If you are attracted to members of the same sex, you are gay. If you deny your feelings and never act on them, and instead get married and have kids etc, you are still gay. and you do not have control over it.

Homosexuality is a relationship between two people, and we do have control over that. It is not just "sexual attraction".

So a celibate person has no sexuality? A virgin has no sexuality?

Sorry, Willamena, but you are wrong there. Sexuality describes sexual attraction. A homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual person can choose to be celibate, to be promiscuous, to be monogamous, or what-have-you. A person's sexuality is not dependent on what relationships they have had or currently have.

A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two people. Homosexuality is a trait of a given person who is attracted exclusively or almost exclusively to members of the same sex.


If being gay is genetic, please explain how gay people, people who dont normally you know, reproduce, pass on a "gay gene".

The fact that you would ask this question demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of basic biology and genetics. First of all, a genetic trait need not be controlled by a single gene. Something as complex as sexuality would most likley be affected by numerous genetic factors. As such, only certain combinations would result in homosexuality, while other combinations might result in bisexuality, or heterosexuality.

On top of that, homosexuals have parents, siblings, cousins, etc. - same as the rest of us. If a homosexual person's siblings, nieces, and nephews survive and reproduce, that homosexual has been just as reproductively successful as a person who had their own children and grandchildren, as just as much of his genetic material has been passed on.

Originally Posted by Kazus
If being gay is genetic, please explain how gay people, people who dont normally you know, reproduce, pass on a "gay gene".

To put it very simply: A gene that makes you think men are sexy aids reproduction when it is found in women. A gene that makes you think women are sexy aids reproduction when it is found in men. They don't need to be "gay" genes at all and as long as it helps one sex reproduce more than it hinders the other sex, it will spread.

Some people say "OMG homos are good for over-population!!!11" ... Well apparently they're not because they are taking up precious space on this earth as well; let's just kill them! :mp5:

...Ok ok I'm kidding, I think.
Nice rational thinking. Let's push it further:

-OMG, the poor are taking up precious space! Let's kill them!
-OMG, the blacks are taking up precious space! Let's kill them!
-OMG, the muslims are taking up precious space! Let's kill them!
-OMG, the jews are taking up precious space! Let's kill them!
-OMG, the white christian heterosexual males are taking up precious space! Let's kill them!

Where do we stop? Do we stop at all? By your reasoning, we'd better all commit honorable seppukku. I'm sure the planet would be better off without us humans anyway.

I will not. I am so fucking sick and tired of people like that, who are oh, so open-minded, but then just still view gay people as defective, as flawed, as "should have been straights who weren't." It pisses me the fuck off. :mad:
Wow, I wouldn't have taken you to be the kind of person prone to emotional outbursts.

Then again, hearing unfettered bigotry along the lines of homosexuality being a vile cancer to society is enough to yield such a result. If only most heterosexuals (primarily male) suffered the verbal abuse they dished out against us, maybe they would reconsider. Or, maybe not. It would fill me with sadistic pleasure either way.

:confused:
Seems like they'd have the perfect excuse to avoid it.
To me it is.

To me it is.
Amen to that. We'll have our arms full babysitting the little nephews and nieces already. No need for little brats of your own! :p

Actually I had the discussion with my friend Darren, now Abdul Ghafoor.

He was bisexual and has since converted to Islam and considers himself heterosexual.

I argued that you cannot change your sexuality, as it is a natural, chemical thing. I believe that homosexuality is suspected to be caused by a defect in one of the mothers X chromosome, though I heard nothing after the theories publication in a newspaper.

His reply was that Allah deliberately did it in order to test the faithful. Giving temptation so that we may resist it and be all the stronger.
Wow prime example of another reason to not worship such a being

Amen to that. We'll have our arms full babysitting the little nephews and nieces already. No need for little brats of your own! :p
Well I am just too selfish for kids. And I'll admit it. They annoy me.

Hah...all this "psychology" and look at the "brains" ain't nothin' but a lie! Just ask Tom Cruise!

For essentially all of history up till within the past fifty years, homosexuality was treated as a heinous crime, as it still is in much of the world. So, homosexuals often reproduced with wives and such and took misters on the side,

Still happens. I can't tell you how often I get hit on by "straight" married guys. And I'm talking guys in their 20s and 30s. Check out the online gay personal ads sometime. Tons of married guys there. And every one of them deserves to be outed as far as I'm concerned.

So take note straight women. You never know what your husbands are really up to when they are out fishing/camping with the guys.

If being gay is genetic, please explain how gay people, people who dont normally you know, reproduce, pass on a "gay gene".

The same way two brown eyed people can produce a blue eyed child. Or tow right handed people can produce a left handed child. You don't have to have a trait to pass it on to the next generation. You just have to carry it in your genes.

The same way two brown eyed people can produce a blue eyed child. Or tow right handed people can produce a left handed child. You don't have to have a trait to pass it on to the next generation. You just have to carry it in your genes.
It's thought that the gene that is potentially responsible for homosexuality is a recessive one, if my memory serves me well. Possibly some combination of genetics and nurture.

Amen to that. We'll have our arms full babysitting the little nephews and nieces already. No need for little brats of your own! :p

Yep. I've recently gone from taking care of my neices/nephews to taking care of their children. They had so much fun when I baby sat them, they're now handing me down to the next generation. *lol*

It's thought that the gene that is potentially responsible for homosexuality is a recessive one, if my memory serves me well. Possibly some combination of genetics and nurture.

For it to express itself in only 10% or so of the population, it would have to be recessive I think. However, it's irrelevant how we got here. The fact is we are here, have always been here, and are here to stay. So people just need to come to terms with it and move on IMO.

It's thought that the gene that is potentially responsible for homosexuality is a recessive one, if my memory serves me well. Possibly some combination of genetics and nurture.

I have yet to see any evidence at all for a single "gay gene", recessive or not. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of evidence for genetic factors that influence sexuality.

Skin color, a rather simple trait, is controlled by no less than five genes, plus factors such as diet, hormones, and UV exposure. Why on Earth would anyone think that sexuality, a much more complex trait, would be controlled by a single gene?

I have yet to see any evidence at all for a single "gay gene", recessive or not. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of evidence for genetic factors that influence sexuality.

Skin color, a rather simple trait, is controlled by no less than five genes, plus factors such as diet, hormones, and UV exposure. Why on Earth would anyone think that sexuality, a much more complex trait, would be controlled by a single gene?
That is my view on the matter as well. Narrowing it down to a singe gene seems a little too convenient.

Still happens. I can't tell you how often I get hit on by "straight" married guys. And I'm talking guys in their 20s and 30s. Check out the online gay personal ads sometime. Tons of married guys there. And every one of them deserves to be outed as far as I'm concerned.

So take note straight women. You never know what your husbands are really up to when they are out fishing/camping with the guys.
Just out of curiosity, where do you live? It must be noticeably closed-minded towards homosexuality, because I honestly can see nothing other than fear of rejection and social stigma to make a gay man marry a woman.

I live in eastern Canada, and married gay men are all of older generations, 40s and above, from times where homosexuality was still very looked down upon. However, a gay guy in his 20s and married to a woman is nearly unheard of.

It's thought that the gene that is potentially responsible for homosexuality is a recessive one, if my memory serves me well. Possibly some combination of genetics and nurture.

Not nurture, but as a result of the stimulus that cause genes to manifest themselves. Some of that stimulus occurs in the womb and some in the early years of life.

Not nurture, but as a result of the stimulus that cause genes to manifest themselves. Some of that stimulus occurs in the womb and some in the early years of life.
More or less what I had in mind.

More or less what I had in mind.

I was pretty much just clarifying. I didn't really disagree with what you said.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live? It must be noticeably closed-minded towards homosexuality, because I honestly can see nothing other than fear of rejection and social stigma to make a gay man marry a woman.
Does sound like a lot like Texas, doesn't it? :)

Does sound like a lot like Texas, doesn't it? :)
Well, I didn't dare say it out loud, for fear of having negative prejudice toward Texan's openness towards differing sexual orientation.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live? It must be noticeably closed-minded towards homosexuality, because I honestly can see nothing other than fear of rejection and social stigma to make a gay man marry a woman.

I live in eastern Canada, and married gay men are all of older generations, 40s and above, from times where homosexuality was still very looked down upon. However, a gay guy in his 20s and married to a woman is nearly unheard of.

At the moment I'm in Texas (near Dallas). Though I've lived in other parts of the US as well and have found this to be the case pretty much everywhere.

They marry for a variety of reasons. Some do it to make their families happy. Some do it because it is expected of them in their churches. Some do it because they want children (even though there are other ways to do that, marrage seems easier to them). Some were just young and stuipd (think 17-18) and knocked up their high school "girlfriend" and now don't want to hurt their wives. Some do it because they don't think there is any real alternative. It's what they're "supposed" to do. And yes, some do it out of fear of being seen as gay in a generally hostile society.

This is why it is so important for us to come out. So those around us realize it is ok and no big deal. This is doublely so of those of us in rural areas.

Years ago I worked in a rural Wal*mart. I made no atempt to hide who I was. Over several months, everyone came to realize that I was gay. And not one person gave me any crap about it. I got a lot of questions. Sometimes very weird ones. But I feel that by being open, I helped a lot of people (who otherwise wouldn't have) realize that gay people are just like everyone else. Hell, a lot of them asked me to take them to the bars so they could see what it was like. Being out and open is the best thing you can do to foster gay rights and acceptance.

They marry for a variety of reasons. Some do it to make their families happy. Some do it because it is expected of them in their churches. Some do it because they want children (even though there are other ways to do that, marrage seems easier to them). Some were just young and stuipd (think 17-18) and knocked up their high school "girlfriend" and now don't want to hurt their wives. Some do it because they don't think there is any real alternative. It's what they're "supposed" to do. And yes, some do it out of fear of being seen as gay in a generally hostile society.

So, as I suspected, it's all about societal pressure. No gay man in his right mind would purposefully marry a woman just for the fun of being stuck with someone he's not attracted to for what's supposed to be the rest of his life.(but will most likely finish in a legal and emotionnal mess when he inevitably can't sustain the lies any longer)

This is why it is so important for us to come out. So those around us realize it is ok and no big deal. This is doublely so of those of us in rural areas.

Years ago I worked in a rural Wal*mart. I made no atempt to hide who I was. Over several months, everyone came to realize that I was gay. And not one person gave me any crap about it. I got a lot of questions. Sometimes very weird ones. But I feel that by being open, I helped a lot of people (who otherwise wouldn't have) realize that gay people are just like everyone else. Hell, a lot of them asked me to take them to the bars so they could see what it was like. Being out and open is the best thing you can do to foster gay rights and acceptance.
Hey, I agree wholeheartedly. No later than this afternoon, I did some volunteer work where I went into a highschool class to teach the kids about
sexual diversity, and what it is gays and lesbians go through during their life.

I also happen to have developped the habit of holding my boyfriend's hand in public, too. Now if only I could find myself a nice, handsome, intelligent lad to hold hands with again... :(

Well, I didn't dare say it out loud, for fear of having negative prejudice toward Texan's openness towards differing sexual orientation.

Texas, in general, has very little openness towards sexual minorities. Or anyone else for that matter. :p This creates an interesting phenomena in our large cities. They gay getto.

Dallas/Fort Worth has a very large and thriving gay community concentrated into fairly small enclaves. At last count I think they had around 40 gay clubs, 2 bath houses, and a slew of gay owned businesses and apartment complexes/condos. It's odd. Inside these communities, you wouldn't know the straight world existed. But outsid of them, bigotry reigns and is made much easier by the fact that we a gettoized and not a welcome part of the community at large.

I also happen to have developped the habit of holding my boyfriend's hand in public, too.

Same here (though it was in the previous century). We occasionally got crap thrown at us from passing cars. We also wore matching wedding bands. I had to explain that to more than a few co-workers. :p

Now if only I could find myself a nice, handsome, intelligent lad to hold hands with again... :(

Ditto.

Texas, in general, has very little openness towards sexual minorities. Or anyone else for that matter. :p This creates an interesting phenomena in our large cities. They gay getto.

Dallas/Fort Worth has a very large and thriving gay community concentrated into fairly small enclaves. At last count I think they had around 40 gay clubs, 2 bath houses, and a slew of gay owned businesses and apartment complexes/condos. It's odd. Inside these communities, you wouldn't know the straight world existed. But outsid of them, bigotry reigns and is made much easier by the fact that we a gettoized and not a welcome part of the community at large.
Well, I wish you a time of acceptance in the very near future. I'm personally against ghettoisation myself. I refuse to be "disposed of" in a nice little sandbox and expected to never show myself as who I am outside of it. I strive for acceptance, not tolerance. And so far, it's working quite well.

Being a lesbian may be genetic, but acting on it? Well, that's just a mitzvah.

Being a lesbian may be genetic, but acting on it? Well, that's just a mitzvah.
Yeah like all thoes dirty strait people acting on their genetic predispositions

Yeah like all thoes dirty strait people acting on their genetic predispositions
Yeah, damn those breeders, look where they've gotten us now, with world overpopulation!

[/sarcasm]

Yeah like all thoes dirty strait people acting on their genetic predispositions

Do you know what a mitzvah is?

Do you know what a plethora is?

Do you know what a mitzvah is?

Do you know what a plethora is?
Enlighten me as to the meaning of mitzvah, please.

As for plethora, it roughly means "a damn lot".

1. A commandment of the Jewish law.
2. The fulfillment of such a commandment.
2. A worthy deed.

Also, loosely translated to a "blessessed deed" as in bar mitzvah

Plethora: excess or overabundance

As in: "Do you know what a plethora is, Heffe?" from The Three Amigos. In context (from the movie) I assure you that my comment was very amusing and self-deprecating.

1. A commandment of the Jewish law.
2. The fulfillment of such a commandment.
2. A worthy deed.

Also, loosely translated to a "blessessed deed" as in bar mitzvah

Thank you very much for the precision.

Plethora: excess or overabundance

As in: "Do you know what a plethora is, Heffe?" from The Three Amigos. In context (from the movie) I assure you that my comment was very amusing and self-deprecating.
It may surprise you, but I understood the reference to the movie. I watched it a lot when I was little. Funny little movie indeed. I probably wouldn't have had an inkling what a plethora was if I hadn't seen it :p

I agree. I don't think I'd know what it was if not for the movie. I was just being a smartass.

My real statement on this issue is that sexuality is best seen as a contiuim. I think that gay men are pretty much born that way and that lesbians are to a lesser degree. Those that experiment (less common w/ men) are mostly straight. However, I think there is a greater element of choice with many women. I would never admit this to a social conservative b/c they would likely use it as ammo in calling "the gay lifestyle" a sin. I think that it is a sin to wear white after labor day, but I don't opporess people who do.

Yeah, damn those breeders, look where they've gotten us now, with world overpopulation!

[/sarcasm]
Whoa, not really sarcasm! You've got a good point!

1. A commandment of the Jewish law.
2. The fulfillment of such a commandment.
2. A worthy deed.

Also, loosely translated to a "blessessed deed" as in bar mitzvah

Plethora: excess or overabundance

As in: "Do you know what a plethora is, Heffe?" from The Three Amigos. In context (from the movie) I assure you that my comment was very amusing and self-deprecating.
I was confused about the first part :) the second part

I wore out two coppys of the three amigo's tape as a child :)

Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Looks like the Fundies' old standby is being dismantled slowly by science. Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

:D

Don't waist your breath. You simply can not convince them with logic. It's better to do the it's a monster and it's going to get us thing. They seem much more ready to act on that.

1. A commandment of the Jewish law.
2. The fulfillment of such a commandment.
2. A worthy deed.

Also, loosely translated to a "blessessed deed" as in bar mitzvah

Plethora: excess or overabundance

As in: "Do you know what a plethora is, Heffe?" from The Three Amigos. In context (from the movie) I assure you that my comment was very amusing and self-deprecating.

Jefe, not heffe. It means chief.

Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Looks like the Fundies' old standby is being dismantled slowly by science. Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

:D
I think they're more likely to use it as 'proof' that homosexuality is a sign of a brain disorder.

That's probably already been said, but I'm feeling too lazy to read the whole thread.

I think they're more likely to use it as 'proof' that homosexuality is a sign of a brain disorder.

That's probably already been said, but I'm feeling too lazy to read the whole thread.
Yeah but it is good to bring it up again, only to show what asshats they are

For essentially all of history up till within the past fifty years, homosexuality was treated as a heinous crime, as it still is in much of the world.

Actually, homosexuality was fairly accepted in various parts of history. Ancient Greek and Japanese culture were particularly open to it.

Actually, homosexuality was fairly accepted in various parts of history. Ancient Greek and Japanese culture were particularly open to it.

When ancient powers were overthrown, their successors often made homosexuality a crime as part of destroying all traces of the old power structure.

Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

So someday we may be able to cure things like homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual disorders with gene therapy. In the near term if we can isolate the gene we can just abort them.

Actually I'm just kidding about that, I'm against genetic engineering and abortion, just adding a twist to your position.

I think clearly behavior has a genetic component but it also has an environmental component. I believe someone could have a genetic predisposition to be a homosexual but I don't believe it's pre-ordained. People have predispositions to all sorts of things - some are healthy some are not.

It's someone's right to engage in whatever sexual activities or lifestyles they choose to engage in, so long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. And it's equally people's rights to say that they believe a behavior to be unhealthy or immoral or whatever they want to say.

And again, just because something is genetically predisposed doesn't make it good...again, pedophiles, I think it will be found, have a genetic predisposition - or thieves or alcoholics, etc.

So someday we may be able to cure things like homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual disorders with gene therapy. In the near term if we can isolate the gene we can just abort them.

Actually I'm just kidding about that, I'm against genetic engineering and abortion, just adding a twist to your position.

I think clearly behavior has a genetic component but it also has an environmental component. I believe someone could have a genetic predisposition to be a homosexual but I don't believe it's pre-ordained. People have predispositions to all sorts of things - some are healthy some are not.

It's someone's right to engage in whatever sexual activities or lifestyles they choose to engage in, so long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. And it's equally people's rights to say that they believe a behavior to be unhealthy or immoral or whatever they want to say.

And again, just because something is genetically predisposed doesn't make it good...again, pedophiles, I think it will be found, have a genetic predisposition - or thieves or alcoholics, etc.


I have never seen any information as to a genetic predisposition of pedophilia care to share it with us?

(Some of the others you listed have shown some but if you are trying to lump homosexuality with pedophilia you best be prepared to back it up)

My guess is that the next step for fundamentalists will be going back to looking for a "cure".

A wonderfull cure has been found for homosexuality and other paraphilias as well addiction and other psychological disorders: d-lysergic acid diethylamide 25. It was used with success in the 1950s and 1960s (under the brand name Delysid by Sandoz Laboratories) but unfortunately it's been outlawed.

Somearea

There is no such thing as a sexual disorder.

A wonderfull cure has been found for homosexuality and other paraphilias as well addiction and other psychological disorders: d-lysergic acid diethylamide 25. It was used with success in the 1950s and 1960s (under the brand name Delysid by Sandoz Laboratories) but unfortunately it's been outlawed.

Did it modify the genes?

If not - you are offering a 'palliative', not a 'cure'.

A wonderfull cure has been found for homosexuality and other paraphilias as well addiction and other psychological disorders: d-lysergic acid diethylamide 25. It was used with success in the 1950s and 1960s (under the brand name Delysid by Sandoz Laboratories) but unfortunately it's been outlawed.
Well yeah, if you've got people tripping so hard they think they're a potato chip, then they're probably not going to be having as much sex (gay or otherwise). If you give a person enough acid for them to believe magical gnomes are swimming out of the walls, then their depression isn't going to be as serious a problem as finding a net big enough to catch those damn gnomes.

So someday we may be able to cure things like homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual disorders with gene therapy. In the near term if we can isolate the gene we can just abort them.

Actually I'm just kidding about that, I'm against genetic engineering and abortion, just adding a twist to your position.

I think clearly behavior has a genetic component but it also has an environmental component. I believe someone could have a genetic predisposition to be a homosexual but I don't believe it's pre-ordained. People have predispositions to all sorts of things - some are healthy some are not.

It's someone's right to engage in whatever sexual activities or lifestyles they choose to engage in, so long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. And it's equally people's rights to say that they believe a behavior to be unhealthy or immoral or whatever they want to say.

And again, just because something is genetically predisposed doesn't make it good...again, pedophiles, I think it will be found, have a genetic predisposition - or thieves or alcoholics, etc.

If the predisposition is genetic, then the environment can ONLY effect whether or not the inherent predisposition is DISPLAYED.

Did it modify the genes?

If not - you are offering a 'palliative', not a 'cure'.
lysergic acid diethylamide = LSD. AKA Acid, Trips, Blotters, Microdots, Tabs, Doses, Hits, Sugar Cubes

Somearea

There is no such thing as a sexual disorder.
sure there are plenty

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/disorders/dis_category.php?catID=36

I have never seen any information as to a genetic predisposition of pedophilia care to share it with us?

I said in my post "I think it will be found". There has been nothing conclusive found on homosexuality either.

(Some of the others you listed have shown some but if you are trying to lump homosexuality with pedophilia you best be prepared to back it up)

Clearly pedophilia, necrophilia, homosexuality, foot fetishes, lingere fetishes, BDSM, exhibitionism...all sorts of sexual desires are related. Some are disorders, some are down right crimes, some are harmless fun...but they all would have the same roots, and it cannot be purely genetic, because it is evident we are minds with free will that can make choices.

Somearea

There is no such thing as a sexual disorder.

Well then you're arguing semantics. I disagree with you.

So you consider pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, etc. etc. as perfectly fine and normal behavior?

Well then you're arguing semantics. I disagree with you.

So you consider pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, etc. etc. as perfectly fine and normal behavior?
Just a note before you argue this path DN does concider pedophilia to be perfectly fine.

Just to warn you

Did it modify the genes?

If not - you are offering a 'palliative', not a 'cure'.

Your assumption being that it is purely a genetic issue which I reject (and is not scientific).

A wonderfull cure has been found for homosexuality

Why would one want to "cure" it?


and other paraphilias as well addiction and other psychological disorders:

Sorry, dear, but homosexuality is not a paraphilia.

Your assumption being that it is purely a genetic issue which I reject (and is not scientific).

Why do people always assume that something must be "purely genetic" to be affected by genetics?

lysergic acid diethylamide = LSD. AKA Acid, Trips, Blotters, Microdots, Tabs, Doses, Hits, Sugar Cubes

(Psst... 'Chemist':). I was trying to find out how our erstwhile colleague believed it to be a 'cure'.)

Your assumption being that it is purely a genetic issue which I reject (and is not scientific).

You didn't read my other posts, you made what you wish of the post you are 'replying' to, and I don't believe that your comment is consistent with the evidence presented in the Original Post.

Three strawmen in one post? Some kind of record?

Well yeah, if you've got people tripping so hard they think they're a potato chip, then they're probably not going to be having as much sex (gay or otherwise). If you give a person enough acid for them to believe magical gnomes are swimming out of the walls, then their depression isn't going to be as serious a problem as finding a net big enough to catch those damn gnomes.

Your ignorant and fundamentally misguided view of psychedelics is an unfortunate consequence prohibition and anti-drug hysteria. :(

What is a spiritual sacrement and one of the greatest boons for psychotherapy on the planet has been religated to this view of LSD as just some far out recreational drug. Please read Dr. Albert Hofmann's "LSD: My Problem Child" available on the internet.

I said in my post "I think it will be found". There has been nothing conclusive found on homosexuality either.


I'm sorry, my friend... but "I think it will be found" is neither a logical argument, nor based on any kind of evidence, apparently.


Clearly pedophilia, necrophilia, homosexuality, foot fetishes, lingere fetishes, BDSM, exhibitionism...all sorts of sexual desires are related.


Why? Because you say so?

A foot fetish, for example, IS 'conventional' sexual desire, fetishised. Homosexuality seems to be a different 'coding' of the brain gender-orientation program.

The two show no relation.


Some are disorders, some are down right crimes, some are harmless fun...but they all would have the same roots, and it cannot be purely genetic, because it is evident we are minds with free will that can make choices.

You veer off into religious speculation. We have no empirical evidence that we are anything more than very advanced stimulus-mirrors. Your argument of 'free will' is a subjective assumption that cannot be demonstrated 'beyond a doubt'.

Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Looks like the Fundies' old standby is being dismantled slowly by science. Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

:D

Don't want to rain on the fundie bashing, or break the general PC cycle, but someone needs to question the actual meaning of the science, which should be above politics and liberal issues.

Is this chemical difference a cause, or an effect? Practice and habit can change brain chemistry, as can enviromental (read social) effects. So does this difference lead to actual prediction value? If female x, has condition y, she will be a lesbian in the future (with p, probability, of course). Or does this condition come from actual practicing being a lesbian for some amount of time.

Also, this could be the case of "correlation does not imply causation". Though, in the end, I will wait until there is more research proving, or disproving this result. Science does not thrive on single studies with big (in reguards to social conditions) results.

Your ignorant and fundamentally misguided view of psychedelics is an unfortunate consequence prohibition and anti-drug hysteria. :(

What is a spiritual sacrement and one of the greatest boons for psychotherapy on the planet has been religated to this view of LSD as just some far out recreational drug. Please read Dr. Albert Hofmann's "LSD: My Problem Child" available on the internet.

You mistake 'flippant' for ignorant.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "Don't think because I understand, I care".

If the predisposition is genetic, then the environment can ONLY effect whether or not the inherent predisposition is DISPLAYED.

Um, yea? OK. That probably goes without saying. :confused:

People have predispositions to violence and theft and alcoholism and narcotic dependance and over eating and working too much and organization and all sorts of behaviors...and the environment is where the rubber hits the roads.

Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Looks like the Fundies' old standby is being dismantled slowly by science. Wonder what'll happen to them as it seems like the Almighty has pre-programmed these dispositions in us all?

:D

How dare you blaspheme so. Everyone knows that they're the spawn of Satan and could not possibly be God's doing. God could never possibly envision such an abomination as a woman being able to survive without a penis in her life! :eek:

Well then you're arguing semantics. I disagree with you.

So you consider pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, etc. etc. as perfectly fine and normal behavior?

Who said anything of behaviors.

They are all witches burn them at the stake.

Sorry, dear, but homosexuality is not a paraphilia.

Politically speaking.

Why do people always assume that something must be "purely genetic" to be affected by genetics?

No, my point was that behavioral therapy (including psychedelic therapy as I mentioned) can have an effect without affecting the genes because it is not purely genetic.

Hah...all this "psychology" and look at the "brains" ain't nothin' but a lie! Just ask Tom Cruise!

Tom Cruise is a lunatic and I could care less if he is straight or gay.

Tom Cruise, much like Mel Gibson has gone off the deep end and his opinions are usually fairly extreme and unreliable.

Mel Gibson is a jackass too, but for different reasons.

(Psst... 'Chemist':). I was trying to find out how our erstwhile colleague believed it to be a 'cure'.)

Dr. Timothy Leary talked about it (I believe in the Politics of Ecstasy) before he realized it was not hip to say that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.

Basically we have a lot of psychological garbage and obsessions and deep seated emotional traumas that affect our behavior, desires, obessions, etc. The psychedelic experience, in the right environment, with the right guidance and preperation can help with lots of these types of issues.

Addictions, criminality, sexual issues, depression and more. It doesn't have a predictable sequence of events and doesn't alone target any symptoms...and can in fact benefit healthy and happy people with no discernable problems - and so it doesn't jive with western medical orthodoxy.

You didn't read my other posts, you made what you wish of the post you are 'replying' to, and I don't believe that your comment is consistent with the evidence presented in the Original Post.

Three strawmen in one post? Some kind of record?

Well don't beat around the bush, tell me what you are trying to say, tell me what you think I missed, and I'll address it directly. :)

I just thought of something. If it were a choice, wouldnt they choose to be straight to avoid all the ridiculous amounts of ridicule and discrimination?

Um, yea? OK. That probably goes without saying. :confused:

People have predispositions to violence and theft and alcoholism and narcotic dependance and over eating and working too much and organization and all sorts of behaviors...and the environment is where the rubber hits the roads.

Thus - the person who has a 'homosexual' brain, genetically, can be moulded by environment to 'act straight' or to 'act homosexual'... but their natural orientation IS mapped, before they are born.

Dr. Timothy Leary talked about it (I believe in the Politics of Ecstasy) before he realized it was not hip to say that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.

Basically we have a lot of psychological garbage and obsessions and deep seated emotional traumas that affect our behavior, desires, obessions, etc. The psychedelic experience, in the right environment, with the right guidance and preperation can help with lots of these types of issues.

Addictions, criminality, sexual issues, depression and more. It doesn't have a predictable sequence of events and doesn't alone target any symptoms...and can in fact benefit healthy and happy people with no discernable problems - and so it doesn't jive with western medical orthodoxy.

You are assuming that I endorse 'western medical orthodoxy' on this issue... purely because I disagree that LSD is a 'cure'?

Well don't beat around the bush, tell me what you are trying to say, tell me what you think I missed, and I'll address it directly. :)

Your comment was: "Your assumption being that it is purely a genetic issue which I reject (and is not scientific)".

1) I didn't state anything about 'purely' genetic issues. The 'issue' is MUCH MORE complex than predispositions and expressions.

2) The post I had been responding to, claimed that 'homosexuality' could be 'cured'. My argument was that, if you inhibit exhibition of symptoms... you are applying a palliative, not a cure.

3) The original article suggests that this is a 'biological' behaviour, rather than a 'learned' behaviour. While it is possible that the biological behaviour MIGHT be impacted in some fashion, it is not unreasonable to suggest that biology is mostly inherent. Thus - a biological 'behaviour' is most likely to be rooted in genetics. That doesn't make the exhibition of gender orientation 'entirely genetic' - but it does suggest a STRONG link.

Thus - I believe your claim misrepresented the 'arguments' it is allegedly 'against', on at least three points.

I'm sorry, my friend... but "I think it will be found" is neither a logical argument, nor based on any kind of evidence, apparently.

Well first of all this is not a scientific journal, this is a somewhat obscure internet forum. :p

Secondly I disagree that it is not logical. While I don't have empiracle evidence to present to you I'm basing my position on my experience, education and understanding. I'm not saying it's God's truth, I'm saying "I think"...

I believe, I suspect, that it will be discovered that pedophilia, all conscious human behavior in fact, is both genetic and environmental. That's all I'm saying.

Why? Because you say so?

No, not because I say so. Because of the nature of reality. Based on my finite understanding with my finite mind that is what I think.

And just becaue a member of the scientific priesthood (people with their own philisophical and political motivations just like everyone else) says something I don't feel compelled to follow blindly.

A foot fetish, for example, IS 'conventional' sexual desire, fetishised. Homosexuality seems to be a different 'coding' of the brain gender-orientation program.

The two show no relation.

They are both sexual desires.

You veer off into religious speculation. We have no empirical evidence that we are anything more than very advanced stimulus-mirrors.

Expiricle evidence is not the only source of knowledge. It is only a source of knowledge about material processes. Human behavior is not a purely material process.

If you beleive that material reality the sum total of reality or the only valid source of knowledge is from studying material processes then that is your religious belief as to the true nature of reality and you have no more grounds (or as much I should say) in citing that in this discussion as someone citing their religion's doctrines.

Your argument of 'free will' is a subjective assumption that cannot be demonstrated 'beyond a doubt'.

I know I have free will, I know I exist, I know that I love...I cannot prove them to you. I cannot demonstrate them to you, only you can realize it for yourself.

You mistake 'flippant' for ignorant.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "Don't think because I understand, I care".

I don't know what you know, but I presume the flippancy stems from ignorance (which is not meant to be offensive BTW). In my view if someone understood the experience as I understand it they would care about it and they wouldn't perpetuate the ideas your "flippant" post perpetuates.

So my assumption is that you don't know. :confused:

Thus - the person who has a 'homosexual' brain, genetically, can be moulded by environment to 'act straight' or to 'act homosexual'... but their natural orientation IS mapped, before they are born.

OK, I accept that that is your belief and position. I disagree with you.

Well then you're arguing semantics. I disagree with you.

So you consider pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, etc. etc. as perfectly fine and normal behavior?

Pedophilia is generally not found in homosexuals, there have been some exceptions I know, but it is predominantly an issue the heterosexual community must bear.

Is pedophilia "normal" behavior? Although not precisely pedophilia, in previous societies, adults taught minor children about sexuality and gave the first sexual experience to that child, but there were rules associated with it.

Do I think it is normal now? No. But normal has always been a social perception and who knows what the future holds?

Necrophiliacs (sex with corpses) and coprophiliacs (someone who likes being shat upon during sexual acts) are certainly gross in my mind, and I certainly do not think their behavior can be called "normal" at all. I hesitate to open the door to mental illness, but in these cases there very well might be mental illness contributing to the behavior. But I am not learned enough to comment any further and I could be wrong.

I know that scent of a man turns me on, and the sight of a handsome man is comforting to me.

To me, it is simple common sense that the predisposition (for sexual attraction) is genetic.

You are assuming that I endorse 'western medical orthodoxy' on this issue... purely because I disagree that LSD is a 'cure'?

That wasn't an argument against your positions or anything, it was just a statement on the subject I was makeing. So you could have said, "I agree with you somearea on the point that western medical orthodoxy is too narrow minded," and then we could be friends. :)

Your comment was: "Your assumption being that it is purely a genetic issue which I reject (and is not scientific)".

1) I didn't state anything about 'purely' genetic issues. The 'issue' is MUCH MORE complex than predispositions and expressions.

OK, well we agree on that. I think the disagreement is about the word "cure".

2) The post I had been responding to, claimed that 'homosexuality' could be 'cured'. My argument was that, if you inhibit exhibition of symptoms... you are applying a palliative, not a cure.

OK, you are probably right here, I'm using the term "cure" incorrectly. I'm saying psychedelic therapy may reduce and eliminate undesired behaviors.

3) The original article suggests that this is a 'biological' behaviour, rather than a 'learned' behaviour. While it is possible that the biological behaviour MIGHT be impacted in some fashion, it is not unreasonable to suggest that biology is mostly inherent. Thus - a biological 'behaviour' is most likely to be rooted in genetics. That doesn't make the exhibition of gender orientation 'entirely genetic' - but it does suggest a STRONG link.

Thus - I believe your claim misrepresented the 'arguments' it is allegedly 'against', on at least three points.

There's studies all over the place on this. It is a politically and culturally charged issue so one study isn't going to be definitive and as it inarguably involves consciousness it won't be resolved in a widely satisfying way in our lifetimes.

I have to get back to work, I'll check back later. :)

Well first of all this is not a scientific journal, this is a somewhat obscure internet forum. :p


You believe that logic is optional in debate, depending on your perceived audience?


Secondly I disagree that it is not logical. While I don't have empiracle evidence to present to you I'm basing my position on my experience, education and understanding. I'm not saying it's God's truth, I'm saying "I think"...

I believe, I suspect, that it will be discovered that pedophilia, all conscious human behavior in fact, is both genetic and environmental. That's all I'm saying.


You are welcome to 'believe' that - but that still doesn't make it a 'logical' debate point. Should we debate issues of race that assume negroes are genetically inferior to caucasians, because a debator present believes such a thing 'will be discovered'?


No, not because I say so. Because of the nature of reality. Based on my finite understanding with my finite mind that is what I think.

And just becaue a member of the scientific priesthood (people with their own philisophical and political motivations just like everyone else) says something I don't feel compelled to follow blindly.


Which is good. One should never accept anything without question... and one should certainly never 'follow blindly'.

On the other hand, the way the scientific 'community' is structured, specifically favours what IS empirically demonstrable, rather than suggested by bias. That is what 'peer review' is all about.


They are both sexual desires.


No. One is an expression of sexual desire, the other might or might not have a 'sexual' component.


Expiricle evidence is not the only source of knowledge. It is only a source of knowledge about material processes. Human behavior is not a purely material process.

If you beleive that material reality the sum total of reality or the only valid source of knowledge is from studying material processes then that is your religious belief as to the true nature of reality and you have no more grounds (or as much I should say) in citing that in this discussion as someone citing their religion's doctrines.


You make too many assumptions. You seem to be implying that a religious person can never truly observe the 'scientific method'. I have encountered SOME religious persons of whom this is true, but I have also encountered other individuals in which the 'belief in a higher power' and the 'adherence to the scientific method' are not seen as conflicting.

As to your comment about valid sources of knowledge, you construct another strawman. I have not said the 'only valid source of knowledge is from studying material processes'. But - if we ARE studying material processes, and we are doing so scientifcally, then we must accept that only those results will be logically applicable to the technique and the subject-matter.


I know I have free will, I know I exist, I know that I love...I cannot prove them to you. I cannot demonstrate them to you, only you can realize it for yourself.

You know none of those things. You believe you know them. You assume them to be true, because you believe them to be true.

That wasn't an argument against your positions or anything, it was just a statement on the subject I was makeing. So you could have said, "I agree with you somearea on the point that western medical orthodoxy is too narrow minded," and then we could be friends. :)

I do believe that western medical orthodoxy is too narrow-minded. But, what you suggested is not 'a cure'.

You cant pick and choose what sexually arouses you. Take a straight man for example. He looks at a pair of boobies and gets turned on. Theres no switch you can control to turn yourself on. He doesnt sit there and say "Im looking at boobies, time to flip the switch." It automatically and uncontrollably arouses him. Gay people in the same way think "penis" and are turned on. Its not voluntary, so how can you think its a choice?

OK, you are probably right here, I'm using the term "cure" incorrectly. I'm saying psychedelic therapy may reduce and eliminate undesired behaviors.


This is true - but then who gets to decide what is 'undesired'?

Should paedophilia be reduced and/or eliminated? I'd argue 'yes' - as it must involve 'harm' - since a child CANNOT give reasonable consent.

On the other hand, if homosexual partners are mature and consenting, where is this 'behaviour' undesired?

Now - if Candidate X feels that his/her homosexuality is a problem FOR THEM, perhaps THEY should have access to the medication you propose.


There's studies all over the place on this. It is a politically and culturally charged issue so one study isn't going to be definitive and as it inarguably involves consciousness it won't be resolved in a widely satisfying way in our lifetimes.

I have to get back to work, I'll check back later. :)

This isn't a topic centred around 'one study'... this is another in a series of related studies, that shows evidence that has already been suggested in earlier studies.

You cant pick and choose what sexually arouses you. Take a straight man for example. He looks at a pair of boobies and gets turned on. Theres no switch you can control to turn yourself on. He doesnt sit there and say "Im looking at boobies, time to flip the switch." It automatically and uncontrollably arouses him. Gay people in the same way think "penis" and are turned on. Its not voluntary, so how can you think its a choice?

Of course, not all 'straight' men are aroused by 'boobies'...

Of course, not all 'straight' men are aroused by 'boobies'...

Further proving my point...

OK, I accept that that is your belief and position. I disagree with you.

I wouldn't use the word 'belief'. It's a conclusion I'm coming to, and willing to accept, until better evidence is provided.

Do I 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow? No - I just accept it as the most likely premise, based on observed 'history'.

Further proving my point...

Indeed - I wasn't arguing 'against' your point.... you are quite right, we don't 'choose' what trips our triggers.

Um, yea? OK. That probably goes without saying. :confused:

People have predispositions to violence and theft and alcoholism and narcotic dependance and over eating and working too much and organization and all sorts of behaviors...and the environment is where the rubber hits the roads.

I do not claim to be learned in this area, so forgive me the errors I will without a doubt commit.

But it seems to me that genetic predisposition to gender orientation is in a different category than, for instance kleptomania, bulimia, anorexia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Alcoholism is a disease, in point of fact, my family is predisposed to the disease. Just like some families have a history of cancer and heart disease.

Drug addiction is a disease.

You see, the problem with a lay person like myself or you discuss this topic, we have no frame of reference as to why some things are mental disorders, why some things are mental illnesses, and why some things are diseases.

I think discussing this will be fundamentally unsatisfying for the both of us because we do not have the full expertise to discuss it properly.

I did not consciously choose my attraction to men. My personal experience tells me the difference between my body's reaction when having intercourse with a man and having intercourse with a woman. With equally experienced and enthusiastic partners, one was heavenly (with the man), the other was an exercise in hydraulics (with a woman). One felt "right" (with a man), the other felt "wrong" (with a woman).

I cannot explain the difference except to tell you what feels right and what feels wrong to me.

In the end, I do not agree with you on much of anything except that Western Medicine is insular and opinionated against the practice of medicine any other way than theirs.

OK, you are probably right here, I'm using the term "cure" incorrectly. I'm saying psychedelic therapy may reduce and eliminate undesired behaviors.

So does a lobotomy.