by whom?
perhaps by a bunch of brainwashed people who are adamant that it must be, but certainly not by the scientific community. is this belief a new religion or what?
Are homosexuals born with this disorder or acquired?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
- Status
by whom?
perhaps by a bunch of brainwashed people who are adamant that it must be, but certainly not by the scientific community. is this belief a new religion or what?
thank you. with the emphasis on "most likely".
It's most likely that all important, hardwired, physiologically significant and behaviorally dominant attributes of adult human nature develop through the interactions of genetic constraints or biases and influential circumstances encountered.
Human height, for example. Eyesight. Food preferences. Musical and other auditory capabilities.
To exclude sexual orientation from that category would require a pretty good argument and seriously reliable evidence.
Violence and alcohol are beneficial in most human societies - within appropriate social bounds.chiller said:
Societies that punish and curb beneficial aspects of human nature suffer accordingly - and so do their members.
I believe you are wrong. A female was introduced to the penguins, and they formed a normal heterosexual pair bond. This means that the heterosexual drive is so strong that they will carry it out even if they cannot find a female. Simply being bi-sexual is not the same thing as homosexuality in humans, where someone will prefer a same sex partner to the exclusion of all others. This is a common misunderstanding of the science.
Are you sure bout musicality ? That is funny you say that . It is me struggle in life . A post is in order . Yeah maybe . some day the post will be if not today . So I got a genetic disposition to be a great musician and on the other hand the world tells me I am to vial . The division for Christ sake.
I am tangenting . Forget it . I got to go
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Perhaps if you could wrap your adult head around a fact that your baby head couldn't accommodate, you'll get over the trauma. The dog was not trying to mate with you. He was trying to make you yield to his superiority in the pack hierarchy. Remember what I said about the very limited repertoire of motions that a dog body is capable of!
As I mentioned earlier, it might have even been a female. Dogs live a substantially different life from wolves, so even though they are the same species they have evolved different instincts. Wolves are full-time predators so the strongest wolf is the pack leader, and that's almost always a male. Dogs have an easier life so anybody who's pushy enough can become pack leader. In our pack, over the past 20 years, it's more often been a female.
Perhaps not "equivalents" since we can't read their minds. But there are other species in which pairs mate for life, care for each other, raise their children together, and mourn when one dies. It's rather common in birds, since without mammary glands neither gender has any handicap when it comes to feeding the babies, so dual-parenting is a species-survival advantage.
None of us really knows what another individual human feels when they say they are "in love." So it stands to reason that we're just as much in the dark with other animal species.
Every primatologist who has written on the subject says the same thing. Moreover, one said that 75% of bonobo behavior is sexual! He or she called them "the free-lovin' hippies of the jungle," and made quite a big deal out of the fact that they are also gentle, peaceful creatures, unlike the "true" chimpanzees who actually commit murder.
Bonobos can be just as violent as chimps, that's also a misconception. Keep in mind that ape society is hierarchical, so if you don't have status, you aren't going to do it with the hot ladies. This has nothing to do with their personal preference.
Nope. There were females available; they ignored them and pairbonded. Even raised a chick. Years later they broke up. One of the males ended up pairing with a female. The other one didn't.
Sort of like people in that respect.
And in humans, sometimes the homosexual drive is so strong that humans will carry it out even after they have been in heterosexual relationships (sometimes because they were forced to do so by society.)
Agreed. And those behaviors are expressed in both heterosexual and homosexual pairbonds.
by whom?
perhaps by a bunch of brainwashed people who are adamant that it must be, but certainly not by the scientific community. is this belief a new religion or what?
Um, Lori, I've posted several links saying there's genetic factors...twice now.
Including the wikipedia entry which talks about which genes (multiple) might be involved.
But you are apparently going to keep ignoring it
It's not entirely genetic, very little is in humans.
But I suspect a lot of it is prenatal. The pheromone studies that the wiki talked about (I quoted them, you ignored that too) seems to indicate that gay men get turned on by the pheromones of other gay men.
So just because it is not entirely genetic doesn't mean it isn't hardwired at birth, or by a very young age.
And anyway, who is it hurting?
To quote a book title I once heard of: "Ain't nobody's business if you do."
Last edited:
Um, Lori, I've posted several links saying there's genetic factors...twice now.
Including the wikipedia entry which talks about which genes (multiple) might be involved.
But you are apparently going to keep ignoring it
It's not entirely genetic, very little is in humans.
But I suspect a lot of it is prenatal. The pheromone studies that the wiki talked about (I quoted them, you ignored that too) seems to indicate that gay men get turned on by the pheromones of other gay men.
So just because it is not entirely genetic doesn't mean it isn't hardwired at birth, or by a very young age.
And anyway, who is it hurting?
To quote a book title I once heard of: "Ain't nobody's business if you do."
i didn't say it was hurting anyone, and i didn't read the entire thread so i didn't see your links. but "genetic factors", "which genes might be involved"? what i'm saying is that there is no conclusive or exclusive genetic cause for any particular type of sexuality, but to hear some people talk here, you wouldn't think that's the case. and it's disturbing to me. particularly on this "science forum", where these same people are typically adamant about scientific proof. it disturbs me because i really believe that this desperate "need" for it to be "hardwired" as you put it, or genetic, stems from homophobia. like i said in a previous post, people seem too compelled to want to think that homo and heterosexuals are soooo different, like they're practically different species or something. it's ridiculous imo. why can't it be a choice? why can't it be a different perspective? who would that be hurting?
you know what i mean? it bugs me.
my opinion is that any and all sexuality is a bunch of romanticized bullshit, so no one here is going to agree with me. i think it's silly the way a lot of people are so attached to their precious sexualities. i think the attachment is fear-based and at best the result of being close-minded.
i've had experiences that challenge what you're saying here...with food, and with sexual attraction.
If so, it's still a pretty stigmatized one in this country.
Way less so then when I came out in '91, but still very much so, such that the big social forum I go to has lots of kids who post about contemplating suicide because they are gay.
So there's a lot of people who still figure out they are gay and don't want to be...which rather says it's a hardwired affair.
hm...and what i'm inclined to think is that the stigma is what makes people so desperate to think it's hardwired. if it's not a choice, then the stigma goes away. when the stigma is fucking bullshit to begin with.
i don't know. what the fuck do i know, i'm a practicalsexual.
I have had many gay and lesbians friends over the years. I have no beef with gays or lesbians. Where my beef is, is with the so-called science. The reason I am not willing to just go along with the consensus science is; can you think of any other area of science, which if you disagree or challenge, means you have a pathology; homophobe? Maybe this science must be the most perfect in the universe, like from the mouth of an atheists God, so if you challenge it, you must have lost you sanity. Why does good science need a mind trick to silence free thinking and open discussion?
Although phobia means fear, in the case of a homophobe (anyone who dares to question the most perfect of all science), means you secretly wish to become gay. It is like saying if you have a fear or phobia of bees, you secretly want them to sting the crap out of you. If you question this most perfect science you are insane, with that insanity like a magic spell, that will turn you gay. Run away and join the perfect science.
I am old fashion and believe science is about truth and not being politically correct in terms of emotional ambiance. To seek truth you need to turn over every stone and compare all the results. You do not start with the conclusion you want and then fill in the science. Then after it is done, you find ways to censor opposition with mind gimmicks. Truth does not need mind gimmicks.
There is a logical way to explain how this happened in a way that made it easier for some in science to sell out the truth. It has to do with the difference in approaches used within pure and applied science. Turning over all the stones, is a good pure science approach, with opposition ideas part of the complete brain storming needed to make sure everything is fully considered before any final judgement. This allows the truth.
In applied science, it is not necessarily about truth but about meeting very specific goals. Management comes up with a need , such as a very tasty brownie that everyone will love. Tasty brownie is not true or false ,but based on [popular appeal. The result is already there before the solution. The R&D staff, who will do the science, already has the management goal in mind and needs to reach this milestone already set in advance.
It is not important about the truth of the archetypical brownie, like in pure science, since the task is only about making a good brownie that will sell. I used to do applied science in industry and if I had been asked to make homosexuality appear like this way or that way, I could come up with something very unique and appealing. It does not have contain all natural ingredients. it just has to sell subjectively.
Once the product concept is created, another group we will need over to test market the brownie before the scale-up. Luckily liberals use emotional valances, so warm brownies will sell. PC is about politics, which in turn is about marketing and spin into a liberal utopia.
The marketeers only needed a good warm brownie to sell, and the politiccal machine would do the rest. Mudslinging is important to political marketing. This explains why the homophobe was invented; mud to sling at the competition. All the other brownies have kooties, which we will call homophobic tendencies. If you eat them you will become gay. Only our brownies are made from pure ingredients.
The question I have for homosexuals is what is more important, truth or being told what you wish?
I don't know the whole truth about homosexuality, since it is hard to brain storm openly, since I might go mad with homophobic pathology that could magically make me gay. Although I am comfortable as I am, the truth is worth the risk.
Although phobia means fear, in the case of a homophobe (anyone who dares to question the most perfect of all science), means you secretly wish to become gay. It is like saying if you have a fear or phobia of bees, you secretly want them to sting the crap out of you. If you question this most perfect science you are insane, with that insanity like a magic spell, that will turn you gay. Run away and join the perfect science.
I am old fashion and believe science is about truth and not being politically correct in terms of emotional ambiance. To seek truth you need to turn over every stone and compare all the results. You do not start with the conclusion you want and then fill in the science. Then after it is done, you find ways to censor opposition with mind gimmicks. Truth does not need mind gimmicks.
There is a logical way to explain how this happened in a way that made it easier for some in science to sell out the truth. It has to do with the difference in approaches used within pure and applied science. Turning over all the stones, is a good pure science approach, with opposition ideas part of the complete brain storming needed to make sure everything is fully considered before any final judgement. This allows the truth.
In applied science, it is not necessarily about truth but about meeting very specific goals. Management comes up with a need , such as a very tasty brownie that everyone will love. Tasty brownie is not true or false ,but based on [popular appeal. The result is already there before the solution. The R&D staff, who will do the science, already has the management goal in mind and needs to reach this milestone already set in advance.
It is not important about the truth of the archetypical brownie, like in pure science, since the task is only about making a good brownie that will sell. I used to do applied science in industry and if I had been asked to make homosexuality appear like this way or that way, I could come up with something very unique and appealing. It does not have contain all natural ingredients. it just has to sell subjectively.
Once the product concept is created, another group we will need over to test market the brownie before the scale-up. Luckily liberals use emotional valances, so warm brownies will sell. PC is about politics, which in turn is about marketing and spin into a liberal utopia.
The marketeers only needed a good warm brownie to sell, and the politiccal machine would do the rest. Mudslinging is important to political marketing. This explains why the homophobe was invented; mud to sling at the competition. All the other brownies have kooties, which we will call homophobic tendencies. If you eat them you will become gay. Only our brownies are made from pure ingredients.
The question I have for homosexuals is what is more important, truth or being told what you wish?
I don't know the whole truth about homosexuality, since it is hard to brain storm openly, since I might go mad with homophobic pathology that could magically make me gay. Although I am comfortable as I am, the truth is worth the risk.
It is simple . People do the things that feel good and right for them . You don't have to be gay if don't want to, but if you are gay then what do you expect . People to hide in a closet just you can't comprehend some ones desires .
There was a reason consenting adults was made a law in California. I think it was a wonderful law . You know oral sex use to be a crime . Might even be still in some bible belt states . Can you imagine life with out oral sex ? Suck all the fun out of life why don't you. I still think labeling sexuality as a disorder is so wrong on every level . The poster would have done better to say Homosexuals born with or acquired . That would have taken the notion of dysfunction out of the equation . Better yet as many heterosexuals are dysfunctional .
Sexuality born with or acquired. Me one son was caught masturbating in the womb . Caught on ultra sound . Does that suggest sexuality starts in the womb . I wonder what he was thinking . Natural crotch grab of the male species at rest . Maybe . There was no T.V. in the womb though
There was a reason consenting adults was made a law in California. I think it was a wonderful law . You know oral sex use to be a crime . Might even be still in some bible belt states . Can you imagine life with out oral sex ? Suck all the fun out of life why don't you. I still think labeling sexuality as a disorder is so wrong on every level . The poster would have done better to say Homosexuals born with or acquired . That would have taken the notion of dysfunction out of the equation . Better yet as many heterosexuals are dysfunctional .
Sexuality born with or acquired. Me one son was caught masturbating in the womb . Caught on ultra sound . Does that suggest sexuality starts in the womb . I wonder what he was thinking . Natural crotch grab of the male species at rest . Maybe . There was no T.V. in the womb though
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Violence can lead to crime and alcoholism (not alcohol) can lead to bad judgement and harm to oneself. Your reply was basically non-sequitur and intellectually dishonest.
by whom?
perhaps by a bunch of brainwashed people who are adamant that it must be, but certainly not by the scientific community.
Well Lori, seeing as you feel you can speak for the scientific community, please provide scientific references to substantiate your assertion. Otherwise you will retract your assertion.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
by whom?
perhaps by a bunch of brainwashed people who are adamant that it must be, but certainly not by the scientific community. is this belief a new religion or what?
I should have said many say that homosexuality is genetic.
Pathology does not equal homophobia, nor does it equate to someone who disagrees with science. The strict definition of homophobe is someone who fears homosexuals, and the more common usage is someone who has a variety of negative feelings, expressed in words and actions, towards homosexuals.
You are once again engaging in a strawman debate. Only you have claimed that science must be perfect.
Why do you feel that homophobia involves a secret wish to become gay?
You have some very serious misconceptions about science. I don't know if you truly believe them, or are just using them as another strawman argument to push your political opinions. In either case your perceptions of how science works are woefully incorrect.
- Status