Social Question

Rsam's avatar

Why should it matter if homosexuality is biological?

Asked by Rsam (586 points ) April 18th, 2010

Let’s say the scientific community comes across what might be labeled, “the gay gene,” or say “the gay marker,” figure out that sexuality is in fact %100 genetics or what have you (there are lots of scientists actively trying to do this).

OK so now homosexuals are “absolved” of all that “sin” of “choosing” their “lifestyle” of enjoying the same sex.

My question: Why do we need the stamp of science to allow ourselves to accept (or worse, ‘tolerate’) other individuals?
In other words, even if homosexuality is a chosen “lifestyle,” or what have you, why should that make me less likely to accept them as a human being whom is just as deserving of rights and respect that I am?

If you want to say it’s because they “choose” this “lifestyle” that makes them “culpable,” I ask: of what? Their difference allows you to make decisions about their life? I think not.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

248 Answers

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

It shouldn’t. Makes no difference to me why people are they are – they still deserve respect and acceptance like anyone else. Someone should find a straight gene and call it a mutation, we’ll see how the homophobes like that. But, in all seriousness, no it doesn’t matter to me.

OpryLeigh's avatar

In my opinion, it shouldn’t matter at all.

Rarebear's avatar

I was talking to a gay friend of mine about this and his comment to me was, “Why the hell would I CHOOSE to be gay?”

TexasDude's avatar

It would be great if people just left other people alone, wouldn’t it? That’s such a novel idea, I wonder why it doesn’t catch on?

dpworkin's avatar

It doesn’t matter, nor should it, but there are plenty of peer-reviewed data which indicate an unmistakable aspect of heritability to homosexuality. (These studies usually depend upon separated monozygotic twins who have not shared a learning environment.)

So as long as we know that it is a biological trait, why not acknowledge it? If it were a choice, it would be fine with me too, but now we know that it happens not to be.

Anon_Jihad's avatar

I don’t support gay rights per se, as I don’t see gay people as any different from straight people, peoples should do as they’d like as long as no one else is being harmed or there life is being complicated.

But also I believe if people feel homosexuality is wrong, they’ve got the right to preach it and even scream it from the roof tops if they so feel like it. As long as they don’t go out and cause problems for homosexuals.

I don’t think anyone has a right to not have there feelings hurt, I don’t think anyone has a right to be tolerated, I don’t think anyone has a right to not be shunned, and I don’t think anyone should.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Anon_Jihad I don’t know, the last time someone shouted on their rooftops about us being faggots, it mattered to me.

dpworkin's avatar

@Anon_Jihad Do Jews have a right to go to the same resort as you? Do Afro-Americans have the right to sit at the same lunch counter? These issues were settled for good a long time ago, whether or not it pleases you. There is no room for discrimination based upon so-called “race”. or gender, or sexual orientation. None.

Anon_Jihad's avatar

@dpworkin I feel segregation should be a criminal. But a right to opinions no matter how ignorant, should always be protected.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Anon_Jihad okay, I don’t think that’s what we’re discussing here, though.

syz's avatar

It shouldn’t matter, but if it has any possibility of reducing the vitriol of homophobics, then so be it.

MissAnthrope's avatar

@Anon_Jihad – I think you have a mistaken idea about gay rights. All the gay rights struggle is is to obtain the same rights as straight people. It has nothing to do with being special. We just want to be treated the same, to have the same protections, privileges, and legal rights.

As for the original question, it shouldn’t matter, but having scientific proof that it’s not a lifestyle choice would be helpful in combating certain viewpoints and misconceptions.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@syz Yeah, but I feel like it’ll only make ‘em say ‘well they can’t help it, those poor lepers

syz's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Some people are gonna be haters, no matter what. Hopefully, they’ll all eventually die off.

Anon_Jihad's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Of course it is, I’m saying no, I don’t feel it matters, because people have a right to dislike, disagree, and hell, hate, as long as the opinions do not evolve into harmful actions. If a gene was found or not, we’d be as wrong to tell them off, as they are to tell off gays.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Anon_Jihad Tell how off, if the gene was found? The homophobes?

dpworkin's avatar

There is some unity of opinion among psychologists that virulent homophobia (not just quotidian misunderstanding of homosexuality) is a product of homosexual panic, a form of internalized self loathing called a “reaction formation”, and that those who are the most hostile are most likely to be homosexuals who are for some reason unable to come to terms with that reality.

janbb's avatar

To get back to the main question, it shouldn’t make a difference, but I agree with @dpworkin, if it has been found that there is genetic causation, why hide the fact? I also can see it as a positive in helping some reluctant parents accept the inevitability of their gay child’s orientation.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@janbb @Rsam It’s a fun research topic and all but money can be better spent elsewhere, in my opinion.

Chongalicious's avatar

I just read an article on this (go to page 2).

It’s a combination of factors that determines sexuality. But really, it shouldn’t matter who you love or sleep with to other people, because they are not involved in your private life! I don’t need science for shit besides providing knowledge, to an extent. I form my own opinioins and accept all people for who they are.

Scientists who are trying to do that actively…why?? I don’t even see a point. They’re wasting money. People who hate gay/bisexuals need to either get over themselves or go check out Hell, since they want to send others there for their sexual orientation.

Parrappa's avatar

It doesn’t matter to those of us open minded and smart individuals. It does matter to those who say people choose to be gay and therefore deserve all the hate that they receive. Therefore if scientists determine that it is a biological thing, all those ignorant people will have nothing else to whine about.

dpworkin's avatar

(I’m sorry, @janbb, I didn’t mean to suggest that it is always inherited. It is really always much more complex than that, but we do know for certain that it is a biophysiological trait and not “chosen” behavior for the most part, although there is some history of politically induced lesbianism. I would consider that behavior, though, not an actual trait. I have had sex with a man, and I am not in the least gay. I just felt like trying it. It was interesting. It wasn’t sexy.)

CyanoticWasp's avatar

It’s pretty easy to perform a simple thought experiment to demonstrate that homosexuality isn’t a choice.

Imagine choosing to be homosexual if you aren’t already. Consider the types of behaviors and bodies that will “turn you on”. Imagine being turned on by a member of the same sex… and choosing to do that to the exclusion of the sex you now ‘choose to prefer’. Can you even start?

Another consideration to make, if you think that our sexual preferences are chosen… tell us when you first “decided” to be heterosexual.

janbb's avatar

@dpworkin Oh – I didn’t mean that I thought it was simply that.

Anon_Jihad's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yes. People have a right to dislike that I smoke that marijuana everyway, and they have a right too. Sure I wish they’d all die in a fire, them and their self-righteous belief that they’re right, and that I’m a loser. I work 50+ hours a week, I have a healthy relationships with friends and family, and I’m studying business law in hopes of starting a marketing company in a few years. I’m happy with my life, in fact I love it, if that’s what a loser is, I hope I never win,

So I see nothing wrong with it, I know I’m not hurting anyone, directly or indirectly with these actions. Same with gays. But some people are assholes, and they feel they can tell people how to live there lives. And they’re all wrong. Anyone who tries to tell anyone how to live their life if they’re not hurting anyone, besides themselves is wrong. But they’ve a right to be wrong, and their difference in opinion should be as protected as mine.

bobloblaw's avatar

You’re absolutely right: it shouldn’t matter whether it’s nature or nurture or any combination thereof. Maybe it’s just b/c of my legal background, but I see the problem lies in law.

In the US, part of the analysis for any group to get “suspect classification” requires a court to look at whether a trait for which a group is being discriminated against is “immutable.” So, in the case of gays, the question of whether being gay is a choice or not becomes relevant. The immutability factor isn’t conclusive of suspect classification, but it does affect the analysis. It pushes a particular group one step closer to being a “suspect class.”

What does suspect classification get a group? If a group has suspect classification, then a court will analyze laws that regulate that group’s behavior using a highest level of scrutiny. Thus, the issue of genetic predisposition to being gay is relevant in securing and protecting the rights of gays.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

It shouldn’t matter but it does because a vast number of humans are religious to relgions that don’t condone homosexuality. People want to know they are ok and healthy but also welcome on spiritual levels. Science will go against a lot of what humans have written down as “holy word”.

plethora's avatar

Let’s take the word “homosexual” and/or gay out of the question completely.

….even if (removing all hair from one’s body) is a chosen “lifestyle,” or what have you, why should that make me less likely to accept them as a human being whom is just as deserving of rights and respect that I am?

The answer has nothing to do with “accepting as a human being” and to phrase it that way makes the assumption that just because we have all body parts (for the most part) in common, we should ignore differences.

We all have preferences in life about almost everything under the sun. Doesn’t mean we treat people badly. But don’t even try to force down my throat the illusion that you and I have the same preferences about anything (nor should we)....and talk as though they don’t exist. If you do, that’s the point at which I start to vomit. Oh, you don’t want me to do it on you? Sorry, didnt know you were so picky and disrespectful of “just another human being”.

ps….you can clearly tell, I’ve heard this sort of thing so much that it just pisses me off to hear it again.and again…and again.

ezywho's avatar

Homosexuality is a threat for life, just like communism is a threat for freedom. If everyone begins to accept homosexuality and it begins to influence the youth, there will be no more procreation, or very limited amounts which will end the same bad way. Therefore, science tells you it’s a choice of life that is not natural, so the public response is to reject it and get rid of it.

absalom's avatar

@ezywho

You are a fool.

inb4moderation

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho Do you really think these things? You sound like a cartoon

gemiwing's avatar

People like to use biology as a handy tool. Unfortunately, those who lean the most upon the most base understanding of biology are usually misinformed.

phillis's avatar

I don’t hold it against a person if they want to figure out why something exists, or why something works the way it does. We have an entire discipline with hundreds upon thousands of people engaging in it, that does this. We call it science.

I couldn’t care less if a person is gay. But for heaven’s sake, if you want to be treated normally, then act normal. Society does not require that you pre-emptively, or otherwise, announce your gayness while making a statement, offering an opinion, or having a conversation.

The only person whose sex life concerns me, is my husband’s. As my children mature, their sex life will definitely concern me, until they are mature enough to make safe decisions. What somebody does with the 5% of their life while engaging in sex has absolutely zip to do with me. I’m not fucking them! So, what do I care? It’s the remaining 95% of thier time that is all anybody ever need be concerned with.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@phillis Being gay is no more ONLY about sex than being straight. If this were so, nobody would give a shit about courting, marriage, having kids, etc. I don’t know anyone that announces their gayness anyway but I do want to point out that it’s important to name one’s sexuality sometimes in case others assume them to be straight. It’s about visibility and about being true to reality.

ezywho's avatar

absalom, I’m a “fool” because I speak the truth & you are insulting the “fool”, so what does that make you?

Simone De beauvoir, Yes, I think these things through. What do you think caused the fall of the roman empire? Homosexuality. That’s besides the point. If science shows that there is no gay gene and that it’s a possible cultural thing (upbringing, environment) or X amount of reasons & life only goes on through procreation, put the two together, and you have threat for life. Beside the scientific, whenever it was condoned in history it was the downfall of the people. What does that tell you?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho my god, I am so tired to do this
You have an issue with queer people – that makes me have an issue with you. No, I don’t think it’s a threat to life – I am a queer person having loved people of all genders and sexes yet last time I checked my two children came into this world through my vagina and there is no better representation of life out there. But that’s besides the fact that if you care about making of humans (what you don’t think we’re overpopulated?) then you go ahead and join the Duggars clan but you are simply not right for saying these hurtful and homophobic things – I have zero, listen to me, zero tolerance for it.

ezywho's avatar

Simone_De_Beauvoir , homosexuality is not being condoned now. You still can’t get legally married everywhere. That’s why the populaton, for now, is still overpopulating, but if it becomes condoned by nations, well then we shall see what happens as the years go by & less and less amounts of child birth is produced to continue life because of the same sex lifestyles. You are a lesbian and you have two kids? Explain the details?

Chongalicious's avatar

@ezywho Uhm, just condoning something won’t make everyone do it. Homosexuality is not the same as armageddon. Otay?

DominicX's avatar

Ugh, homosexuality questions…

Yeah, it doesn’t make much of a difference and it shouldn’t. The thing is, religious people want homosexuality to be a choice in their minds because then we can just “choose” the correct option and “save ourselves”. It’s about convenience. Homosexuality being a choice means that there doesn’t have to be a “flaw” in God’s plan; it means it’s all on the person.

I don’t see a scientific quest for knowledge about the origin of homosexuality as trying to legitimize it (although some people feel that way), I see it as…well…a quest for knowledge. That’s never a bad thing.

filmfann's avatar

If there was a gay gene, that would be pretty shocking to me. I always assumed homosexuality was neither a choice nor a destiny, but a condition. I can’t imagine anyone choosing that lifestyle, since they are so heavily abused by a closed minded portion of society. I also don’t think it is predetermined. I don’t know what to call this, other than a condition.
Should there be a gay gene, it would be horrifying. Can you imagine how this would be misused? Doctors could perform genetic testing on a fetus to determine if they have the gay gene, like they do with Down’s Syndrome, and they could tell the parents. Parents would then be given a choice to abort a child that they see as unnatural.
It chills me to the bone.

ezywho's avatar

Chongalicious, that’s what they said about communism, yet it started taking over the world until it collapsed ffrom within because of corruption. Plus look at the history as i mentioned before, roman empire condoned homosexuality and it was the main reason for its downfall.

MissAnthrope's avatar

@ezywho – I agree that I find it foolish to believe (and trumpet) such a hugely illogical argument. I have a background in biology, if you are wondering about my credentials.

First of all, homosexuality is not a “threat” to life for several reasons. Nor is it “unnatural” as a lot of anti-gay people like to say. Homosexuality appears widely in nature. If I had to hypothesize why, I would guess that it is an innate form of population control, a sort of buffer against a population crash.

Homosexuality is not a threat to human life for more than one reason. One, population grows exponentially and there are quite a few more heterosexual people on the planet than homosexual. The evidence is fairly common knowledge, that even despite terrorist attacks and natural disasters, we are making more than enough babies every day. In fact, we’ll likely trigger a population crash in our own species, but you won’t be able to blame that one on the gays.

A second point to the “threat to life” idea is that homosexuality is not catching. It is not a disease. So, I don’t understand this idea that if it were socially tolerated, that all of a sudden everyone would be gay and not reproducing anymore. You would still have roughly 90% of the global population naturally breeding, and a portion of the remaining 10% finding alternative means.

Which brings me to my last point, which is that gay people also procreate. So, just because two women can’t naturally have children together doesn’t mean they aren’t having kids. In addition to that, a lot of gays are adopting children, which goes even further into being kind of a social help in terms of getting parentless kids with loving parents.

absalom's avatar

@ezywho

No informed person would ever argue that homosexuality was the cause of the fall of the Roman empire. Of course, you are not informed by anything but your bigotry.

No informed person would make any of your arguments. It doesn’t matter what ‘science’ finds, whether it’s a choice or not. It occurs and it is natural regardless of what you say and, I’m sorry, but if you think that homosexuality is a threat to procreation then you are severely overestimating the frequency with which it occurs and severely underestimating humanity’s willingness to survive (as if, when the last man and the last woman are looking at each other at the end of the world, they’re going to forgo procreating because they’re gay and doing so would just be too icky). Give me a break.

Meanwhile, I see no correlation between homosexuality and communism, except that you were probably taught to fear both of them growing up.

phillis's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir You don’t seem to understand. I don’t care if a person is gay. I don’t care that the mentality is different from straights, or the lifestyle is different, the way of life is different, or clothing or hairstyles are different. My level of care registers at zero on my Indiffro-Meter. In fact, my message wasn’t for your consumption, because lookit – you’re gay. You’re true to your reality every day, right? So, the message is clearly not to gays.

It was to introduce a valid, rock-solid, unarguable position that addresses the very heart of the objections from the straight community. I can work up from there, but there has to be a starting point somewhere. You dont throw a bunch of crap a person doesn’t like in their face and expect them to say thank you for it. My post is to show why it behooves those who currently do care, to not care. That’s all you guys wanted all along – to be treated normally. Seems to me that you folks could use a lot more people like me in your corner.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@phillis I don’t really have that ‘us vs. them’ mentality but I’ll take any non-homophobe, queer or straight in my corner.

DominicX's avatar

@phillis

The problem with that is that we keep saying that we want to be treated “normally”, but we aren’t. For me it’s less about normally as much as it’s about equally. If you’re not allowed to marry or thrown out of a prom or bullied because of your sexuality, then it is a problem and it does have to be known that you are gay and trying to change things for gay people.

phillis's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Congratulations. We’re now friends based on a shared belief.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@phillis let’s just say we have a shared belief. Friendship takes more than that (nothing about you, personally..it’s like that in general for me
@DominicX Agreed.

Chongalicious's avatar

@ezywho I seriously don’t see how a few gay people would bring an end to an empire. Especially seeing as how I happen to be a descendant of the poeple from that same damn empire! Anywho, being straight is also “condoned”, but there are still gay/bi people. So your points don’t really hold water.

dutchbrossis's avatar

There is nothing wrong with being gay, it should be up to everyone to choose who they sleep with and spend their lives with. What does it matter if it is a choice or not what sex they are attracted to ?

phillis's avatar

@DominicX I know that. Who do you think my original comment was to?

As I just wrote, you have to start somewhere. You can’t heap a big pile of steaming dog poo onto a person’s plate, then expect them to say thank you for it. Its unrealistic as hell. People don’t like things crammed down their throats. No one is the exception to that rule. I’ve said it before…..there have been mistakes made on both sides. Until that is acknowledged, nobody will win, no matter what the issue.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@ezywho whew… at least it wasn’t communism and homosexuality that did in the Romans.

ezywho's avatar

MissAnthrope, First of all, something to make clear, if science clearly shows you are not born with any inclination for the same sex,(no gay gene) that means the habit was adopted through a cultural means (upbringing, environment). Undisputable. Just like you wouldn’t dispute the laws of gravity. It’s a science. You can’t say science doesn’t matter because it does, it’s based on facts. If homosexuality was condoned the straight adults will have more understanding and resistence due to the many years of conditioning of there upbringing & environment. However, a child of thinking age, will befriend gay peers because he doesn’t know any better. The environment the child is in, is a possible risk for him to adopt the culture of the other party who is gay. Overtime, it is the youth that gets effected & the youth is the future. Look what I wrote before, it’s not a threat as of yet, because it is not being tolerated & if it does get tolerated, it will be the straight youth who will have to make the choices when they befriend the gay peers. You say it is natural among nature. Perhaps in the wild kingdom but we are a thinking animal and we aren’t born with such inclinations. The reason gays still have kids is because straight families who have these kids are unfit to raise their children, so the child is forced into a foster home, to possibly be a candidate for a homosexual couple. Which is pretty unfair for the child unless they inform him and let him decide instead of enforcing the lifestyle upon him.

absalom, All you do is tell me that science doesn’t matter and history is bogus. You are a philistine sir.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

No, he’s telling you that you don’t understand history. Which you don’t.

And you really are a fountain of information about homosexuality. I mean, who knows more about homosexuality than a straight homophobic person who knows fuck all about history and science?

I bow to down to thee, sir.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho If being queer is learned, so is being straight. The reason gays still have kids is because a straight families who have these kids are unfit to raise there children, so the child is forced into a foster home, to possibly be a candidate for a homosexual couple. – did you not hear about my two children or would you like to see my scars? And, ‘phillistine’ bwahahhaha, you really must be from the dark ages.

ezywho's avatar

Simone De beauvior, I asked you to explain your entire situation. You are just telling me you had kids. Explain the details. How? Who? What?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I don’t even really know what to do when questions like these, valid as they are, get derailed (and I too get sucked into it, as you see) by sheer ignorance and intolerance. I am simply disgusted but it’s hardly surprising that people think these things…but what more can I say other than such drivel shouldn’t be tolerated, at all, ever. @Rsam I am sorry there is intolerance on your q

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho I am sure you know how kids are made.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m not so certain. He may really need the information. You and I have differences on what some words mean, but I think we can safely agree who is the philistine here.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@CyanoticWasp No, na ah – this isn’t someone looking for information, I’ve looked at a number of other qs- this one’s got a very clear agenda looking for anything gay-related and then opening a big wide mouth and just vomiting this attack out

cockswain's avatar

well i saw this question and the number of responses and said to myself “I bet someone said something stupid.” Sure enough, @ezywho stepped up.

ezywho's avatar

I am still waiting for a response on how you had kids if you say you are a lesbian. Did you ask someone? Was it done through labs?

dpworkin's avatar

Why do we continue to engage this person? Now it’s on two threads. It’s metastasizing. Jesus, just hold the conversation without @ezywho. Why do we care what someone like that thinks or doesn’t think?

MissAnthrope's avatar

@ezywho – There is strong scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological predisposition and many, many gay people will tell you the same thing. If you lived in a world where homosexuality was the predominant way of living, could you change your own innate desires and wiring to go along with the cultural norm?

Perhaps in the wild kingdom but we are a thinking animal and we aren’t born with such inclinations. Um, you are quite evidently wrong, considering humans do have homosexual inclinations, “thinking species” or not. I would go so far as to say we’ve probably had them since time immemorial. As much as some folks just love to raise humans to a superior level above all other living things, from a biological point of view, we are exactly that: animals. We can rationalize and are aware of our impending deaths and we can theorize and debate and all of that is wonderful, special, and marvelous, BUT at the end of the day, we are just animals with animal instincts. You cannot escape your biology, however that may manifest in you as an individual.

ezywho's avatar

Instead of name calling, why not argue the facts? Oh, because you don’t have any. I see.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho oh, of course it was through labs – they were communist labs, using atheist technology for impregnating heathens with sperm of religious men…see in order to properly stage the apocalypse, we need to figure out how our feminist ova can neutralize the holy spirit but we’re still running tests

ezywho's avatar

MissAnthrope show me the study showing a gay gene please?

Arisztid's avatar

Here you go:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071130165501.htm
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html

Get done reading those and, if you ask and I care enough to bother (I have had my fill of your ilk), I shall flood you with links pointing to a genetic cause for homosexuality.

Just because an actual gene has not been found yet does not rule out anything. Just because facts are not found yet does not mean they do not exist.

Everyone knew that the world was flat way back when. Guess what.

They were wrong.

This is the extent of my playing into your shit stirring.

The big thing is this does not matter. Rights should be rights. Biological cause is moot.

ezywho's avatar

Simone_De_Beauvoir, since you avoiding the arguments & enjoy being sarcastic you lost all credibility.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho Yes, it’s me who lost all credibility. I don’t need credibility – my sexuality is what it is, yours is what it is – it matters little to me whether or not either of our sexualities are genetic or socially constructed and I don’t get why it matters to you. I will say this again: you have NO right telling others their sexuality isn’t right. No one is telling you that you’re an abnormal freak of nature for wanting someone of the opposite sex, are they?

phillis's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Well, there you have it. What can top that?

ezywho's avatar

Simone_De_Beauvoir, they don’t because I don’t pose a threat with my actions for the survival of mankind. Homosexuality does.

phillis's avatar

@ezywho Wait…..what?? How can what amounts to a handful of any population possibly threaten the survival of humankind? Please tell me you misspoke.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho Oh, do you have children?

MissAnthrope's avatar

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7..

I couldn’t find the one journal article I really wanted to cite, which studied sexual orientation of rats after manipulating sex hormones in utero, which correlates to the strong familial link of homosexuality (twins are more likely to be homosexual, then siblings, parents, and outward). Anyway, there are tons of articles and studies out there that show a large biological component.

ezywho's avatar

phillis, If the wrong steps are set in play, then it happens over a period of time, not over night.

ezywho's avatar

MissAnthrope, I will read it & get back to you.

ezywho's avatar

Missanthrope, some of the sites you sent have no sources..

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

Honestly, I think if homosexuality was proved biological it would instigate something really horrible. Not that it’s not already a horrible thing, just that it’ll become worse so. The persecution would be horrendous.

MissAnthrope's avatar

Okay, if you want journal articles..1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on.. just use Google Scholar to find loads more studies.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho I’m still waiting to find out as to how many children you have…

anartist's avatar

Choosing a homosexual lifestyle, if one believes any inherent tendencies are from nurture not nature, would be akin to choosing religious beliefs and should be treated no differently.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

It really doesn’t matter what the basis of a persons sexual orientation is. The only “sin” that exists is in the filthy minds of religious bigots.

ezywho's avatar

Simone_De_beauvior, I told you you lost all credibility. I’m done having this conversation with you, you just avoid it & become sarcastic about it. Sorry.

Arisztid's avatar

The debate rages in this thread about nature vs. choice.

In reality, that question is moot.

In a world that is grossly overpoopulated, people who do not have children, from homosexuals who choose to not reproduce (there are ways), to women in menopause, to men and women sterile for various reasons, to heterosexual and bisexual men and women who choose to not have children for various reasons… do not threaten the continuation of the species and, thus, harm nobody, including humanity.

laureth's avatar

And all this time I thought it was the conversion of Rome to Christianity, declining harvests, rampant immigration, attacks by the Huns and the Germans, and getting tied up in a 300 year long war with Persia that sucked the resources dry, that led to the fall of Rome. But what do I know – I’m just the daughter of a lesbian! Technically, I don’t even exist!

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho No, thank you…I am glad to no longer speak to you

dpworkin's avatar

@Zuma is writing a novel. Actually, I can’t wait to see what he has to say.

DominicX's avatar

@Arisztid

Not to mention “nature vs. choice” is a false dichotomy to begin with. No gay person will ever tell you that they “chose” to have their orientation. Most people say “nature vs. nurture” about homosexuality where “nurture” is the influence of the environment (often viewed as the only cause of homosexuality by some people). Of course, I would guess that like most issues, nature and nurture play a part in it.

Most people who say it’s a choice aren’t even thinking about the mechanics of willing yourself to get an erection because of thoughts of the same sex even though you weren’t originally that way. Yeah, that’s what I did when I was 13 alright. Spent every day trying to brainwash my body into being homosexual and finally got it right. What a wonderful choice I made. :)

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@DominicX hmm, that sounds like a good idea…I think I should go do that…I suddenly got this image of washing myself with other body parts rubbing up against me
@laureth do not speak of our labs

plethora's avatar

@ezywho I soooooooooooooooooo agree with you

plethora's avatar

@gemiwing

People like to use biology as a handy tool. Unfortunately, those who lean the most upon the most base understanding of biology are usually misinformed

Excellent point!!!!

plethora's avatar

I do love to mix it up with the Pro-homosexuality group.

Arisztid's avatar

@DominicX I have to wonder about that too. I mean, do they think that homosexual people sit up some bright sunny morn after a lifetime of heterosexuality and say “gee, I want to be homosexual!” then completely change what turns them on. I do not know much success with “deprogrammers” and homosexuality, rather suppression, so the average Joe and Jane on the street being so good at personal brainwashing is quite the feat.

DominicX's avatar

@plethora

What are you talking about exactly?

@Arisztid

Agreed. The other thing that bothers me is the term “lifestyle”. It’s a sexual attraction, not a lifestyle…

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@plethora Yeah that makes one of us…in that I don’t mix it up with the anti-homosexuality group

Arisztid's avatar

@DominicX Exactly. No matter what our sexuality, our lives go on. Gays, bis, and straights pay the bills, work, worry about their loved ones, and all the rest. Sexually, there are lifestyles of all three groups that are not dependent on sexual orientation, such as the BDSM lifestyle. Straight people would never think of saying that straight is a “lifestyle.”

Zuma's avatar

Speaking as a scientist, I can tell you that we don’t deal with questions of “sin,” “absolution,” “lifestyle,” or even “preferences.”

Nonetheless, I would find it absolutely fascinating to discover to what factors are involved in determining the strength, direction, and persistence of a person’s sexual orientation. No doubt, some factors are genetically or hormonally programmed (i.e., inborn). Others probably depend on the “luck of the draw” in terms of how much the person enjoys what happens to him or her in his first few experiences—or the stimuli that give rise to his first sexual fantasies—and to classical and operant conditioning which follow when these fantasies are used in masturbatory fantasy. In our culture, boys are expected to masturbate from the age of about 10 years old until they can obtain legal sexual partners around the age of 18 years old.

In other words, on top of everything else, male sexuality is subject to at least 3 to 9 years classical and operant conditioning, which every sick and twisted masturbatory fantasies the Internet has to offer has been habituated and ingrained into his “turn-ons,” kinks and fascinations. All this, of course, is modified by various forms of peer pressure, commercial manipulation, exploitation, and the social marketing of buy our stuff an get your anorexic (almost boyish) dream girl. And there is also a declining notion that homosexuality an homosexuality are mutually exclusive (which was introduced in our culture around the 1870s).

Look at the HBO Series “Rome” or the Starz series “Spartacus” Blood and Sand” for contrast between those societies and ours.

What I see from my admittedly limited point of view is that when people say “I don’t care about when others say they are “gay” or “straight” what they are really saying is that these distinctions are becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern times. There are plenty of straight men who, under certain conditions, will have sex with men. You might even be able to get them to admit to being “technically bi” in order to humor you.

In species where there is homosexuality, it is not because that there are “straight” and “gay” individuals or couples. About 20% of the population mixes it up—not because they are programmed at some sub-volitional level, but because there is something like volitional choice going on at the aesthetic level.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1288633.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Chongalicious's avatar

@ezywho I haven’t lost my credibility with you, so…do you have children?

ezywho's avatar

Chongalicious, Yes, I have a son.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I have two, I win. I think I can remain queer now. Woot.

dpworkin's avatar

@Zuma You don’t accept that there is some polygenetic set of factors that has something to do with it? It’s kind of hard to explain the strong correlations in separated monozygotic twins otherwise, isn’t it? Also birth order seems to play a role: each successive male born to the same parents has a measurably greater liklihood of being homosexual than did the previous boy. I don’t think these metrics are seriously in question, unless the University courses I have been taking on the relationship between genetics and psychology have been empty shells.

Chongalicious's avatar

@ezywho Thanks for answering :)

ezywho's avatar

Any course in psychology is a empty shell. It’s a pseudoscience.

gutterpanda's avatar

IT DOESN’T MATTER, plain and simple. Its just a distraction for the general US population so we don’t notice the real problems with our country.

Zuma's avatar

@dpworkin I don’t deny or wish to appear to be diminishing any of the biological factors you’ve mentioned. I think we’ve both read both cited that literature in earlier similar discussions when the subject of genetics and homosexuality have come up. Usually you are the one who points out that not only is there is very likely no single “gay gene” but, if homosexuality has any genetic basis of all, it is likely a complex of genes, or multiple redundant complexes of genes with no particularly obvious connections among them. And, on top of that, there are metagenetic factors—interactive switches and triggers whose poorly-understood relationships between the environment and the vast bulk of “junk DNA” we are made of make any talk of finding a particular gene for anything sound like a vast overstatement of our current state of understanding.

My point is that whatever contributing factors we are likely to find are not likely going to be determinants. For example, in environments like prisons, where there are no sexually available females, this can bring other variables into play that might otherwise lay latent. It’s well known among some in prison that meth addicts have very little inhibition when it comes to sexual orientation. People make all sorts of situational exceptions for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t necessarily make them “homosexual.”

It certainly didn’t in Roman society, where a homosexual relationship might be sought by any handsome man for the advantages of patronage that might ensue, rather than out of a personal preference.

ezywho's avatar

MissAnthrope, what the heck did you link me? All these studies are old… 2003? and have been disproved with newer studies. Since you can’t do any modern research, let me do it for you. For starters, read this current study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19387815 I’m assuming you are a college student, so you will be able to access the full archives.

anartist's avatar

[Choosing a homosexual lifestyle, if one believes any inherent tendencies are from nurture not nature, would be akin to choosing religious beliefs and should be treated no differently.]
If it is determined beyond a doubt to be nature not nurture, it would be considered by some to be a medical illness like schizophrenia and by others to be a mere part of someone’s charistics “skinny, redheaded, goodnatured, gay guy.

Whether nature or nurture, there will be those that damn it and those that accept it, including those who embrace it.

plethora's avatar

Would it be ok if I just didnt give a shit about it?

Pandora's avatar

@Rsam To answer you question. I wouldn’t know personally why you would care to get a scientific stamp of approval. But I guess some gay people will like to know so they know without a doubt that its something they ever had a real choice in and perhaps gain approval from some family and friends of their sexuality whom may have a hard time accepting them for who they are. It may (a big May) possibly end the ideas from some that it can be something that can be cured by counseling and therapy. Some gay people actually torture themselves with therapy hoping they can be free from being gay because they want to fit into the society and not feel like an outcast. People do this all the time. They try to change who they are to fit in. Maybe once a gene is discovered than they may give up realizing they can no more change their sexual preferences than they can change their height.

jrpowell's avatar

@ezywho :: It seems like part of your argument is that making homosexuality legitimate would result in a significant decline of population. Isn’t that kinda like saying, “I would be gay if I could”?

ezywho's avatar

johnpowell, I said after it gets condoned, over a period of time population will decline.

jrpowell's avatar

@ezywho :: Why do you think that is?

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

It’s been awhile since it was on tv, but there was a BBC show called the Making of Me and an episode with John Barrowman, a gay actor. He took a DNA test that was compared with his straight brother. There wasn’t anything really different from his brother’s genes. He’s still adamant, though, that it’s biological.

@ezywho Maybe it’s because I’m tired; it’s late. But I’m having trouble making the connection between the possible population decline and homosexuality being condoned. Explain please?

ezywho's avatar

py_sue, johnpowell, I explained it in detail in one of my other comments. Just scroll up and find it. I don’t know if i’m allowed to repaste it.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

@ezywho I did read the post, it still doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.

plethora's avatar

@py_sue I don’t think this requires any explanation unless we are dealing with limited mental capacity. It’s straightforward. Homosexuals do not reproduce. GIVEN #1, GIVEN #2, less and less kids.

@ezywho Don’t let these guys pull your chain anymore. You’ve explained ad infinitum. These are the usual suspects who show up on homosexual threads and babble on. They’re not worth your time or effort.

ezywho's avatar

Alright, what happens when a innocent child of thinking age is born or hangs out in the ghetto part of town? He befriends the people who are in that part. He socializes with them, learns their culture, gets use to it, and finally adapts. What is the culture of the ghetto? Violent delinquent behavior. How does this child grow up? The way the upbringing & environment was that surrounded him. The same thing happens, when you condone homosexuality. Use the same scenario, just put a straight child having gay friends. Instead of him growing up as a violent felon as in the pervious scenario, instead he will grow up with a homosexual lifestyle. This is what similarly happend with the Roman Empire, it was one of the main effects along with the other factors that led to the downfall of Rome.

“Historian Polybius attributed the fall of ancient Rome to pedophilia progressed from rampant homosexuality among aristocrats. During the reign of Justinian, homosexuality and bestiality were acceptable as Roman entertainment.

However, many historians, including Edward Gibbon, in The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, suggest that the fall of Rome was assured only when the depravity of Roman society transcended to the military’s legions, where such self-indulgences replaced disciplines that made Rome’s legions so formidable. Moral corruption of the legions left the people unprotected from the crude armies that ultimately sacked Rome.”

DominicX's avatar

@plethora

You don’t seem to understand that homosexuality doesn’t “spread”. Homosexuals are born to straight parents (duh). This notion that if we accept homosexuals, they’ll be more of them doesn’t make any sense either. Homosexuality doesn’t arise from general acceptance of it. There will always be and there has always been the same percentage of homosexuals in the population. Nowadays, however, people don’t have to hide it like they did in previous times. Not to mention homosexuals can have kids and many of them do. Ever heard of a surogate? Sperm donation? Adoption?

You aren’t contributing much of anything to the thread, so before you start criticizing other people who are actually discussing the topic, how about contributing something with some substance to the thread?

augustlan's avatar

Also, straight kids are born to homosexual parents.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

Ok, I understand the reproductive capabilites of the homosexual community. I’m not stupid. What I mean’t was that I didn’t understand how a sudden rise in homosexual activity because it is accepted could induce a decline in population. It’s not like it straight people will start to become extinct or anything. Which to me is what is being implied. Acceptance of murder, however, will probably induce a population decline.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Um, no, that is not how homosexuality works. Homosexuality does not come from being around people who condone homosexuality. My parents never mentioned homosexuality once while I was growing up. They never talked about it and I never knew anyone who was homosexual. The same goes for my boyfriend and we both ended up homosexual. Homosexuality is not a product of parents’ acceptance, rather, parents’ acceptance results from homosexuality.

HOMOSEXUALITY DOESN’T SPREAD. I can’t stress that enough.

A straight child with gay friends will be straight. Because he is straight. Sexuality doesn’t change based on whom you are friends with. I was friends with all straight people growing up. They didn’t make me straight. I showed signs of being homosexual from a very early age. Nothing my friends did could affect it.

Again, you are demonstrating to me that you don’t know much of anything about homosexuality. I just love how people who haven’t experienced it and don’t have any first hand observation of it act like they know all there is to know about it. It’s fucking ridiculous.

ezywho's avatar

If it becomes condoned, the straight culture(mainly the youth) keeps socializing with the gay culture, they eventualy get influenced &adapt to the evironment, they become gay. You lose the future straight lineage and the straight youth gets corrupted.As in the example with Rome. Since science is showing no sign of a gay gene that means any person who is gay has picked it up based on the upbringing & or environment.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

No, that’s not how it works. Do you even know what a sexual attraction is? Do you feel a sexual attraction? A sexual attraction doesn’t change based on whom you are around. A sexual attraction simply is. You’re just regurgitating the same meaningless shit over and over again.

And you really lose credibility when you begin to act like pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing.

thriftymaid's avatar

It was very relevant when the choice/no choice conversation was going on.

ezywho's avatar

DominicX, I just gave a short quote, there was more then pedophilia happening there, homosexuality was a big role to. You obviously don’t know what a bad habit is do you? Biting nails when nervous? Are you born that way or do you suddenly do it one day?

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

No, you claimed that pedophilia arose from homosexuality, when the two have nothing to do with each other. It’s a common misconception that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked.

A sexual orientation cannot be compared to a “habit”.

ezywho's avatar

Yes it can, and science shows it. Like my example with the ghetto. You keep hanging out with a foreign sexual conduct and it will become automatic to you just like one day you were biting nails when nervous, when you originally didn’t.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

The ghetto example is not a valid comparison, again, you can’t compare a sexual orientation, an extremely personal part of the inner workings of someone, to outward mannerisms that a community share. Hanging around gay people will not make you gay. That’s a completely ignorant and outdated statement. Hanging around straight people didn’t make me straight. How come that didn’t work?

An attribute of a person like that cannot change from being around people that possess that attribute. It’s a lot like claiming that hanging around black people will make you black. It’s not possible.

ezywho's avatar

Hanging around black people makes you black. Go look at society these days and how white kids in black neighborhoods act black, dress black Stop putting sexual orientation on a pedstal, it applies just like anything else. Plus there is scientific backing for it. Science sir. Undisputable. Unless you got some science telling me otherwise?

matty82's avatar

The question itself is flawed. Sex is empirically biological, so it can’t be more or less biological. Attempting to judge the moral suitability of a thing by trying to measure its “inherent naturalness” is foolishness. Is a breakfast of oatmeal and honey more natural than Corn Flakes with soy milk? Is something unworthy of pursuit because it wasn’t wanted for the right reason?

Society values safety, prestige, and fair play. In modern cosmopolitan cities, the sex lives of consenting adults do not threaten those values. And the passage of time is only broadening that view.

absalom's avatar

@ezywho

And they can act and dress ‘black’ all they want, but they’re still not black.

I see that arguing with you is an impossible enterprise.

Arisztid's avatar

Hanging around black people makes you black??

I hang around white people and it does not make me white (I am neither white nor black). I have not changed in any way because I hang around white people.

That was amongst the most flawed “logic” I have ever heard.

Associating with any group of people does not make you like the group of people. You might share mannerisms but you do not just turn into the other group. So, if you, Mr. ezywho, started associating with gay people, would you start being turned on by men?

Why is being homosexual bad for @DominicX ? Exactly what damage has he suffered?

I am really bored to be bothering with this. Talking to you is like banging my head against a brick wall. You are not interested in an exchange of opinion. You are only interested in driving your beliefs into the minds of others.

ezywho's avatar

You are an adult. I said it’s harmful for the straight youth who are the future generations. They are the ones that are easily influenced.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

I have a friend who grew up in a black neighboorhood and has gay friends. She’s as straight as any straight person can be, she doesn’t exude the characteristics of the black culture.
You’re stressing that as though it is something someone is manipulated into, like they have no free will because of their environment. It’s a gross assumption. Has there been an experiment where homosexuals have “turned” a straight person simply by environment? One recognized by the scientific community? Please show me a link if there is.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Homosexuality isn’t an “influence”. One’s sexuality does not come from being around homosexuals. Being around straight people didn’t make me straight. I was around them all my life without knowing any gay people. How come that didn’t work?

I keep asking this question and you keep not answering it.

Arisztid's avatar

You seem to really think that by being around gay people it is going to rub off. Just plain “wow.”

I am an adult. My high school had 1800 students, all but 7–8 of us were white, I was the only one of my ethnicity. I still am not white… whiteness did not rub off on me.

Neither does sexual orientation. Being tolerant and non judgmental just might, or so I hope, but what turns you on does not. Most children of homosexual parents do not turn out homosexual. Most children of straight parents do not turn out homosexual.

The fact that you used the wholly inaccurate black analogy shows that you do not have a leg to stand on in this debate.

ezywho's avatar

Dominic what age?

ezywho's avatar

I have a question for you guys. If there is no gay gene that means people are not born gay. Tell me how else would it be possible for them to become gay?

Arisztid's avatar

I am running out of interest but, before I go, I shall turn this around.

“If there is no straight gene that means people are not born straight. Tell me how else it would be possible for them to become straight?”

Ok, boredom overwhelming now. Have fun.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

See, the thing about you is you don’t care about real people’s stories and experiences. You just care about your own agenda that has no basis in reality.

I have spent time on forums for gay teens and I’d say about 90% of them felt gay attraction from the time they first started experiencing puberty, because that’s when you start to discover your sexual nature and your orientation. As soon as I started going through puberty, I felt attraction to the same sex. I was around no gay people, I didn’t know any until I was 17. I am 18 now and I have been attracted to the same sex ever since I was a young kid. Most gay teens I met were like that.

Gay people are not “straight people turned gay”, they are gay people. It’s not the same thing as straight people.

ezywho's avatar

Arisztid, There is a straight gene, therefore, your question of how else it would be possible to be straight is not valid.

Dominic, to you though, I asked you a question. If you aren’t born gay and you say at puberty you felt a urge for same sex. Then explain where the urge came from? Most likely you are lying to make a stronger point. The truth most likely is something in your life went wrong, perhaps a really bad breakup, a rejection from a girl, etc, whatever it is that is what caused your urges, because you are not born gay.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

@ezywho RESPECT!!! There’s making a point and being a dick. You’ve crossed the line and you need to go to bed now.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

I was 11-fucking-years old when I first started liking boys. I had had no relationships. I was never attracted to girls. Never. Most gay guys I have met are like that. Some tried to pretend they were attracted to girls in hopes that they would be some day, but it never happened because they were gay. I didn’t have my first relationship until I was 17 (and yes, it was with a guy). I had girls like me all throughout school; never wanted to pursue them because I wasn’t attracted to them.

I don’t know where the urge came form. It just came. And that drives you insane, doesn’t it? You should see the smile on my face right now.

I can tell you’re about to break, man. I feel sorry for you. When something doesn’t go your way, the other person must be lying. Of course. How convenient for you.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

@DominicX Perfect answer! I, as well am finding this exhausting. Re-read the question. WHY should it matter if homosexuality is biological? not HOW.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
ezywho's avatar

Why don’t you argue the facts instead of saying “i donno”

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Why don’t you accept the fact that I know my own life better than you do?

ezywho's avatar

Because you just said you don’t know the reason for your actions in the previous comment.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

A sexual attraction is not an action, my friend. There you go again.

absalom's avatar

@ezywho

He knows that he doesn’t know why, which is more than you know.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

I don’t mean to interrupt this, but I think we’ve strayed from the point of the question.

ezywho's avatar

This is going back and fourth forget it. Agree to disagree. Go read my nice poem to your aesthetics philosophy,

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Your poem is a piece of shit.

ezywho's avatar

I’m glad you understood it.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
ezywho's avatar

The poem is actually a very deep critique of your aesthetic philosophy points of view which you clearly defined you believed in.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

@ezywho Fluther is pretty big on respecting other people’s view’s. Why don’t you try it for 5 minutes? See how it feels.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

No, I didn’t. You understood nothing about what I explained to you. All you did was twist it to fit your own agenda and then accuse me of lying when it didn’t fit your worldview.

And I don’t think you even know what aesthetics are.

ezywho's avatar

Let it go dude. I did already. We are getting no where fast. Agree to disagree. Points where made.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

You already said that and you kept responding to me. If you’re done, then be done.

absalom's avatar

———————————:/—
This devolved.
@ezywho
How can you say ‘agree to disagree’ after failing to do exactly that for the 80-some responses you’ve written since joining Fluther?
Don’t pretend that’s a ‘poem’, please, because it’s insulting to people who have actually had the experience of reading real poetry.
If it reveals anything it’s your (post-) Freudian slip-ups and fascinations with the scatological and the phallic, which in all your detail exceed that of any gay person I’ve ever known (and I am gay). Your ‘poem’ is basically a ‘meditation’ on dicks and shit and assholes. It’s like the verbal equivalent to watching gay porn just so you can feel vindicated in the disgust you tell yourself you have to feel. Are you sure you’re straight?
———————————:/—
I am sad for you.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

Problem solved. Let’s get back to the question and move on.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

Seriously now, if people want to talk trash to each other, message the profiles. Let’s move the hell on.

ezywho's avatar

absalom, I didn’t fail anything. I showed all the backings to what I said. Go read the link for the studies. The reason I said agree to disagree is for dominic, not the topic. He had his own understanding. The poem was in response to dominics aesthetic philosophy. The reason you found it vulgar was because in essence that’s what aesthetic philosophy means.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Um, that’s not what aesthetics is, but okay…

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Personal attacks (including really insulting homophobic “poetry”) are not permitted, and have been removed. Let’s get back on track.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

@ezywho I’m not gay, but have no children. Does that make me a sociopath also? My choice is based on the fact that I have Aspergers Syndrome and do not want to bring a child into the world with the same curse I’ve lived under. As @Arisztid said, the problem now is overpopulation, not survival of the species.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir @DominicX @Arisztid Solidarite, mes amies!!

dpworkin's avatar

Does anyone recall what I said about reaction formation and self-loathing homosexuals? Ipso facto.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@plethora It is incorrect to think that homosexuals do not reproduce – you are living in an alternate reality then.

dpworkin's avatar

@plethora is merely leaving out the tilde, @Simone_De_Beauvoir. On the other hand, @ezywho does not know what a tilde is.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@dpworkin sure hope you’re right

alive's avatar

the whole discussion about whether being gay is biological or a choice is just rhetoric. either you are anti-gay or you are gay-friendly and you can take either claim (biology or choice) and make it work for your own argument.

the science doesn’t “prove” anything to anyone, it only backs up what people already want to believe.

to me, more than whether being gay is biology or choice, if the fact that gay people DO IN FACT EXIST. so we shouldn’t be debating why they are gay. as people, we should be acknowledging their existence and treating them fairly.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@alive that makes far too much sense. ~

Obviously you are a communist. ~~

Disc2021's avatar

@ezywho If hanging out with black people makes a person “black” and hanging out with gay people makes you gay – then why haven’t all of my straight friends “converted” to homosexuality by now?

What evidence do you have to support that being gay is something that’s caused by a traumatic incident – such as being rejected by a girl or a bad break up? All of my straight friends have had traumatic experiences like so and they haven’t yet “converted”.

If you’re not born gay then you can’t be born straight, so how does the majority of the population become straight? By reading the Bible and playing “House” as a child? There isn’t strong supporting evidence for this way of thinking either – that people are somehow raised to become gay or straight.

Above all it should be understood that we simply just dont know why, what, or how it happens, but the claim that gay people are converted or somehow traumatized into behavior is just misguided hogwash that lacks any compelling demonstration.

To the original question – I agree with you 100%, it should not matter but because most people probably wouldn’t agree, it does matter in a sense. I think it would be an interesting breakthrough in science if finally it could explain homosexuality after the years and years of heated argument.

alive's avatar

@ezywho

if i don’t at least mention this before leaving this thread it will bug me for the rest of the day… Christianity, decadence, lead, monetary trouble, and military problems caused the Fall of Rome.

sources: cliff notes wiki and About

homosexuality is not even mentioned as a slight possibility for the decline of the roman empire.

it can be argued (and i am about to argue that) homosexuality actually helped the roman empire because they were a patriarchy. it encouraged male bonding and was especially helpful to (and encouraged) in sparta because warriors were trained from a very young age on through adulthood, and had little to no contact with women until they were out of the military

Arisztid's avatar

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Solidarite indeed. :)

I am bisexual and had myself snipped in the 80’s. I guess I can be added to the list of people who are destroying humanity. Oh, I am tossing in the bisexual bit because it should be interesting to see how our homophobic friend speaks to me now. I find this entertaining to do. We shall see how tight his control is.

In fact, the vast majority of people I associate with are heterosexual whites and have all of my life. For some reason, how I was born has not changed on either the bisexual or not white part.

Ezywho said to me that being straight is genetic. My point in this quip, obviously missed by said person, is that why would being straight be genetic and the others not? I am, actually, uncertain that sexuality is necessarily always carried on the genome itself, sometimes being a result of in utero factors (I have a theory that population density influences the incidence of homosexuality… among other influences, including genetic). It could easily be a combination of genetics and in utero influences. No, I have nothing to back up my theories so I shall leave it at that.

Genetic or otherwise biological, I believe fully that sexuality is biological, not learned or chosen.

As far as reproduction, it is pointed out repeatedly that homosexuals can and do procreate but that continues to be used against them. I say… this world is so overpopulated that, basically, so what?

ezywho's avatar

I originally wrote in my first comment. “Homosexuality is a threat for life, just like communism is a threat for freedom. If everyone begins to accept homosexuality and it begins to influence the straight YOUTH, there will be no more procreation, or very limited amounts which will end the same bad way. Therefore, science tells you it’s a cultural & or a choice of life that is not natural. So the public response is to reject it and get rid of it.” The title of this thread is invalid to begin with because homosexuality is not biological, it’s sociology. That’s where I brought in the science to show that the title is invalid & to support in explaining how homosexuality is a threat to life. Unless you can show me there is a gay gene? MissAnthrope tried but her research is outdated and was since then disproved. I sent her a modern 2009/2010 study. Yet the title being invalid is not that much of a concern. The concern which I original wrote, was showing you how it is a threat to life. After that, people took it out of context. I was showing how it is a threat to life in detail in my newer comments but people where taking it off topic. Now you keep saying that homosexuality has nothing to do the fall of Rome & Greek. Well instead of me explaining that it did, here are two links instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

My question comes back to all of you. If science shows that there is no gay gene, that people are born straight. Then how do you explain how people become homosexuals? If you’re going to answer this question with “i don’t know it just does” well then you don’t really have an answer & the science shows it’s cultural, upbringing, environmental, etc. (see link to scientific study.) The science of no gay gene, the question I asked, and the fall of Rome & Greek due to a major role of homosexuality is my bases for saying that homosexuality is a threat to future life. If it becomes condoned and if it is not a gay gene then it can only occur culturally. This is how it went down in Rome & Greek. Culturally excepted, thats where adaptation takes place, the straight youth gets influenced as indicated by science (because you are not born with it according to modern scientific studies.) Therefore, eventually, no more procreation and major population decline. I also mentioned biting nails when nervous. You are not born to react to bite your nails when you are nervous. You see others do it and eventually it becomes natural to you. The same applies to homosexuality, you aren’t born gay, yet if it gets condoned, the young youth of thinking age, where reasoning is not so strong, get easily influenced and adapt to homosexual conduct as being a natural means as in the case of biting nails when nervous.

DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Since you seem to know everything, tell me why I am homosexual.

plethora's avatar

@dpworkin I confess….I did have to look up “tilde”

plethora's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m kinda liking this alternate reality…:)

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho If there is no gay gene, there is no straight gene
@plethora since you looked up its meaning, can you start to use it? thanks

ezywho's avatar

Simone_De_Beauvoir, there is a straight gene, when they unmapped the human gnome project. Though the gay gene, they searched, they could not find.

ezywho's avatar

DominicX, I can’t give you an answer due to lack of details. I don’t know your life.

alive's avatar

@ezywho it doesn’t matter if being gay is biological or not. gay people exist. your armageddon like fear that the world will end is unfounded. gay people have always existed. they don’t have to be “accepted” by society to exist.

i am going to go out on a limb here and say that you do not know any gay people. because according to your own logic, if you did know a gay person you would suddenly be feeling attracted to people of the same sex.

so until you branch out and meet people who are different from you, i don’t think you should talk about/ judge their “lifestyle”

even the simplest of things, like thinking that gay people can’t/don’t have kids. gay people still have working sexual organs with the same ability to reproduce as straight people.

ezywho's avatar

alive, you really didn’t read what I wrote. Otherwise you wouldn’t be saying what you just did. I know it’s not going to happen,(armageddon). I am telling you why society won’t allow it. It is a threat of life. No according to my logic, I said straight YOUTH. Do you not know what youth means? Youth = Kids.

Arisztid's avatar

@ezywho , if I thought that you actually were interested in doing more than bash away against homosexuality, I would answer the question in the long quip of yours. Genetics, biology, and sociology actually are areas of fascination and speculation to me.

However, you have ignored everything said so far, including by me, so I have no reason to believe you would not do the same with this.

I had started to write out an answer to your question, was heading off into my bookmarks to bring in backup, when I deleted my answer because of my realization.

If you are ever interested in an intelligent give and take of ideas, I shall participate. As I said, however, I have not seen a scrap of evidence that you do. Your pulling out that absolute garbage about white people being around black people making them black shows that you are not interested in logic in any fashion.

alive's avatar

but it is not a threat to life, and it IS happening!

ezywho's avatar

alive, it’s a threat to life when it’s not contained. Just like prisoners in jail. If the walls of the prison break. You will have chaos.

alive's avatar

and i DO know youth. did you know there are gay mormons. do you think they were raised in an environment that was gay friendly, NO. there are gay muslims. again not a gay friendly unbringing

Keysha's avatar

Wow. @ezywho why don’t you take this to PM’s with alive,since you are ignoring everyone else. You are, by the way, being rude.

ezywho's avatar

Arisztid, scroll up and read the website of scientific study for evidence..

alive's avatar

it doesn’t have to be contained. that is the same as saying that “sexuality needs to be contained” they thought that in the 50’s and all that did was make people sexually dysfunctional

ezywho's avatar

Well we both have different views on it, so lets leave it at that instead of this back and fourth, you have your mind set, I have mine. Points where made. Take it how you want.

alive's avatar

@ezywho read my first response to this question

the whole discussion about whether being gay is biological or a choice is just rhetoric. either you are anti-gay or you are gay-friendly and you can take either claim (biology or choice) and make it work for your own argument.

i really don’t mean this to be rude, i just don’t know how else to put this. the simple fact that you think a debate about nature vs. nurture on the topic of being gay, shows that you only believe the rhetoric.

Arisztid's avatar

@ezywho You ignore anything I post, including my links which indicate a biological, be it genetic or in utero, cause. Your large post above this one is about culture, not biology. You also cited wikipidea in your last one. Resorting to wiki in a debate means that you are grasping at straws.

The one you posted way up indicates a biological cause. It is not indicating a genetic cause, but it is indicating a biological cause, not choice or lifestyle, or anything the individual can influence.

From your link: Compared to heterosexual men, homosexual men had both more relatives, especially paternal relatives, and more homosexual male relatives. We found that the familiality for male sexual orientation decreased with relatedness, i.e., when moving from first-degree to second-degree relatives. We also replicated the fraternal birth order effect. However, we found no significant correlations among handedness, hair whorl rotation pattern, and sexual orientation, and, contrary to some previous research, no evidence that male sexual orientation is transmitted predominantly through the maternal line.

That is in favor of a biological cause, not against. So, you have proven my point with your link. The only disproval of biology in this article is that male homosexuality does not run along the maternal line. I am adding that to my links collection. It feeds into my pet theory… thankyou.

You ignore what I, and everyone else, has to say, regurgitating your platform again and again, reaching for straws as this thing degrades.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho That is incorrect – evidence to your misinformation? I am aware that they found a gene in fruitflies that when turned off makes for more male on male fruitfly fun but that’s pretty much it….maybe it’s because they’re called fruitflies, ya know?

cockswain's avatar

I’ve worked in genetics for 10 years and it is ridiculous to state there is no gay gene because it hasn’t been identified. There are many disease causing genes, like in cancer or Alzheimer’s, to which there is a genetic link but the exact pathway hasn’t been fully identified. Hence the research continues. Mapping the genome did not identify the function of every single gene.

@ezywho You are not a scientist. You do not know for a fact there is not a gay gene, but you build your arguments from that premise. There is no way you can know this, because the scientific community does not know this. At this point I doubt your ego will allow you to admit there is even a chance you could be wrong. How likely is it all of us are wrong, and only you are right? Sure, it’s possible, but unlikely.

absalom's avatar

I was going to write a long response detailing why @ezywho is wrong, but I decided to watch gay porn instead because I’m such a degenerate and a threat to modern society (a society that survives depressions and recessions and terrorism but will surely be undone by buttsex); I can only hope no children and/or ‘youth’ were harmed and/or influenced by my private life and/or orgasm(s) which as far as I know did not infect anybody with the STD (Socially Transmitted Disease) and/or CTD (Culturally Transmitted Disease) [terminology interchangeable] known scientifically as Homosexuality/AIDS/HIV and colloquially as the fall of the Roman empire and/or a threat to life (never mind the less global and immediate phenomena like world hunger or war or self-consumptive materialistic societies or global warming) because, thank Yahweh et al, I managed to contain the spermatozoa (as if they were ‘criminals in a prison cell’) in a semi-transparent glass vial that will be placed in a freezer in a lab somewhere until a woman without a man wants to have a child and chooses my flamboyant semen for the process of her impregnation and then has a baby that grows up gay, although not because he’s a chip off the old proverbial cock or anything but because he’s just too damn tragically young and easily influenced, and all the homoerotic imagery and advertising and the glamorous gay Gagaesque lifestyle that has seized the nation in its powerful sparkly legs will be just too much for the poor boy, will force him to make the choice of turning gay (all his friends are doing it), or so he’ll probably think because of coprolallative imbeciles like @ezywho until he grows up and becomes a famously gay geneticist and discovers, beyond a shadow of a gout, what is referred to scientifically as the gay gene and colloquially as the still gay gene and most famously as the it-was-only-a-matter-of-time gene and everyone can shut the fuck up about the cause of homosexuality, which they’ll realize never really mattered anyway, and begin arguing about how to legally eugenically finally do away with these recessive faggots.

tl;dr i masturbated and wrote a story about it for you, @ezywho.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@absalom Am completely turned on – I am a bad lesbian

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@absalom I think I just became gay from your response. Is there an application form or anything that I need to fill out now?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@CyanoticWasp Yes, I feel like this is why I became a patient navigator

OpryLeigh's avatar

It makes me laugh that there are so many orphans in the world and yet there are still people who claim that homosexuality is a “threat to the human race”. @ezywho When there are no more children left for adoption then you can worry about the downfall of the human race. Oh and by the way, I am a mostly straight wman who has no intention to have children naturally, I also have straight friends who can’t have children due to poor health, does that make people like us a threat to the human race also?

Response moderated
DominicX's avatar

@ezywho

Oh, great, the slippery slope fallacy. You really aren’t that impressive, you know that? You are saying nothing that hasn’t been said before and nothing that hasn’t been disproved and spat upon before. Wake up and realize your own logical fallacies.

laureth's avatar

Wow, @ezywho – you have a non-standard fantasy life.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

I’m sorry, @ezywho. I didn’t realize until you said it in your own response that you were a victim of pedophilia:
And if we are disgusted at the thought of a pedophile manipulating and seducing a mind weaker than itself, by using false pretenses and leis, then we should also outlaw all seduction founded on lies and pretenses or the manipulation of another by using guile and falsehood.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ezywho Look, I don’t know who brainwashed you into being so hateful but they were wrong to do it. You can learn to love yourself.

alive's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir to be fair, @ezywho isn’t necessarily being hateful, it seems that he (is it bad that i am assuming “he” is a “he”?) is just one of the many victims of the fear mongering done in this country by people in power who want to create wedges between fellow country people.

Arisztid's avatar

@alive I know that was not to me but I am going to comment. I think that @ezywho is just a shit stirrer and he has done a good job. He is definitely not interested in an exchange of ideas. I have no doubt that he has a problem with homosexuality, however, I think the shit stirring is his main focus. I am guessing it is male because I have seen more vehemence against male homosexuality from males than females, although it is hardly limited to males.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@alive Oh sure, he‘s the victim and I‘m a pink-loving girly girl.

dutchbrossis's avatar

I dont know if this point was made here because I don’t have time to read through everything.

@ezywho you said this “Arisztid, There is a straight gene, therefore, your question of how else it would be possible to be straight is not valid.”

So you are saying that there a biological reason why people are straight. So therefore if someone was born without that straight gene due to whatever birth reasons there may be then you just answered your own question. If you are born without the straight gene, then you will be gay, therefore conversation over. It is biological, which means NOT a choice.

Response moderated
cockswain's avatar

Really the coup-de-grace of this guy’s idiocy.

janbb's avatar

Removed ^^ – and not a moment too soon!

augustlan's avatar

ezywho has left the building.

janbb's avatar

He/she was deliberately asking for it. Wen out with a bang – not a whimper!

dpworkin's avatar

Oh! What a shame. So erudite.

DominicX's avatar

What did his last response say? I wanna know… :(

cockswain's avatar

He attacked the mods, then put up some sort of weird poem attacking “niggers” and “fags” I didn’t read it close enough to determine if there was some subtle intelligence behind it, but it looked pretty stupid. In all, I’d say he exposed himself to be a hateful freak and invalidated himself as a person with a useful viewpoint even further (if that was possible).

dpworkin's avatar

It’s been pretty clear all along that he wasn’t the sharpest chisel in the tool box.

cockswain's avatar

Could you imagine going on a roadtrip with that guy? Sheesh.

absalom's avatar

Seemed like he was also condemning believers in God / gods, and he said there is no heaven, there is only ‘Natural’, and he kept saying that he would ‘correct’ gays and other people who ‘come here’ to try to argue that their sexuality is natural. He used the words ‘fucking idiot’, ‘stupid nigger’ and some others, referred again to homosexual activities in detail (‘fill your mouth with cock’ and ‘have your ass torn’ and things to that effect). And he was essentially daring mods to ban him after what would be his last quip. At the end he fell back on the slippery slope bullshit again and said something about sex with children.

It was actually much more coherently written than all of his other posts, but I think that’s because it was so filled with the ugly kind of profanity he’s mastered that he had an easier time constructing sentences with racial slurs and fuck and shit, et cetera.

His poor son.

janbb's avatar

It was absolutely vile and I flagged it with an “all of the above” for why it was objectionable.

dpworkin's avatar

But, gee, guys, he seemed so reasonable in the rest of his posts.

janbb's avatar

This was much, much worse even than the others.

dpworkin's avatar

Just unimaginable that a wingnut would suddenly, and with ample warning, begin acting cuckoo.

mattbrowne's avatar

It matters very much. It’s quite likely that the so-called third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus in our brains does have a significant influence on our sexual behavior and preferences. So if a young man eventually realizes that he gets sexually aroused by talking to an attractive man, the reason is not that he’s a victim of some strange movement spreading strange ideas, but that his sexual arousal has a biological reason. In the 50ies some doctors were searching for cures offering treatments. Today they know it’s normal. Like there are short and tall people.

The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus has been reported to be smaller on average in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and in fact has approximately the same size as the ones in heterosexual women. A scientific paper authored by Simon LeVay and published in the prominent journal Science suggests that the region is an important biological substrate with regards to sexual orientation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3

laureth's avatar

@mattbrowne – but surely they chose to have a different brain, right? ;)~~

cockswain's avatar

the sinning brain

dpworkin's avatar

There is a correlation between certain observable anomalies in the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus and some homosexual men, but correlation does not equal causation, and we are not even sure of the directionality of that correlation. The genetic evidence is stronger. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

cockswain's avatar

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

That was funny.

mattbrowne's avatar

@dpworkin – I agree, the whole thing is far more complex and researchers have barely begun getting an accurate understanding. But there seem to be biological/genetic factors. Perhaps epigenetic factors as well. The “cure” nonsense of the 50ies has been exposed as nonsense.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@absalom I don’t see him here anymore correcting the people arguing that gay is natural. :-)

janbb's avatar

I think he was banned after his last rant.

dutchbrossis's avatar

I know. I didn’t see it, was just being funny with that last comment

Rsam's avatar

was this a bigot who got kicked off by chance?

Rsam's avatar

@augustlan glad i could help

Jabe73's avatar

Well my brother was “gay”, and being the former fundamentalist i used to be i feel so horrible for the way i treated him about it, we were still very close but he knew i didn’t approve of it and i let him know. I think it was for more selfish reasons than anything, it made my life harder because i always found myself getting in fights with a—h—- pieces of s—t for saying bad things about him for, unlike me however, he was very outgoing, had many friends, and was never afraid to hide it, but ironically i was the only one in the end who would stick up for him. Now he’s not here with me anymore because he decided to drink too much one night and do something stupid that cost him his life.

I believe god makes everyone different for a reason, including homosexuals. I know my bro is in heaven now because god showed me him riding in glory with Jesus. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be gay knowing how they will treated by an intolerant society. That’s why so many still don’t come out with it. Hang around a barn or even multiple dogs for that matter and you will see ALOT of homosexual behavior between different animals. There will always be plenty of hetersexuals having babies, i don’t think our planet is in danger of becoming “underpopulated” with people unless something really drastic happened.

Ron_C's avatar

There are only two types of people that hate and want to punish gays. The ultra religious and people that are afraid that they may be gay. Often, these groups merge.

The best we can do is ignore them or shout them down when the get out of hand.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@ezywho I’m a history buff. I really dig the history of ancient Rome. You know, Gibbon, Burns,Abbott, Goldsworthy. I would really like to read your writings here on how homosexuality brought down the Empire. I keep hearing about this on the net, but nobody ever seems to really elaborate. Please. It’s an interesting statement and I’d like to know more.

I’m serious and I won’t argue with you.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Oh. I just read the complete thread.. Oh, well. Never mind.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther