# Gay genes or choice?



## voodoo predator (Feb 22, 2010)

Do you think being gay is a choice or part of your genetic makeup.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 22, 2010)

Is making lame threads like these part of peoples genetic makeup or a choice?


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 22, 2010)

a choice why?


----------



## pheonix (Feb 22, 2010)

Well I believe it's a portion of both. I was straight for the longest time without the smallest bit of attraction to the same gender but overtime I began to slowly have a growing attraction. Some people may have a choice while others are folly to there mental makeup. We can't pick and choose everything that makes us happy.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 22, 2010)

pheonix said:


> Well I believe it's a portion of both. I was straight for the longest time without the smallest bit of attraction to the same gender but overtime I began to slowly have a growing attraction. Some people may have a choice while others are folly to there mental makeup. We can't pick and choose everything that makes us happy.


 fair enough.


----------



## Melkor (Feb 22, 2010)

I dont know why people are gay... I say I will find someone I love and it doesn't matter whether they are male or female. I'm leaning towards genes though not necessarily hereditarily though


----------



## Tycho (Feb 23, 2010)

This poll is stupid.  It has no "both" option.

IMO there is most likely both a genetic predisposition (nature) towards being a homosexual and a mental identification, acknowledgement and acceptance of homosexuality (nurture).  Take note that engaging in homosexual behavior and BEING homosexual are NOT necessarily joined at the hip.


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> fair enough.



That's honestly an answer I never expected but hopefully what I said helped in some way to achieving whatever goal you had at making this thread. Also you should've made a both option.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 23, 2010)

Neither, and sorta both.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> This poll is stupid. It has no "both" option.
> 
> IMO there is most likely both a genetic predisposition (nature) towards being a homosexual and a mental identification, acknowledgement and acceptance of homosexuality (nurture). Take note that engaging in homosexual behavior and BEING homosexual are NOT necessarily joined at the hip.


 
Doctor Donald Hebb had it best on the topic of nurture vs nature;



> Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 23, 2010)

I hope you don't mind if I fixed your poll.

I think it's part both, likely not 50/50.


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Neither, and sorta both.



Can't make up your mind eh? I can see what you're saying though. The brain is just too complex too explain to people without them saying they're different then explained.



ArielMT said:


> I hope you don't mind if I fixed your poll.



Best fix ever.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

pheonix said:


> That's honestly an answer I never expected but hopefully what I said helped in some way to achieving whatever goal you had at making this thread. Also you should've made a both option.


 Well seeing as one just majicaly appeard (and I didn't do it) I don't think thats a problem. Also I didn't because most everyone would have it both completly destroying the point of this poll.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> Well seeing as one just majicaly appeard (and I didn't do it) I don't think thats a problem. Also I didn't because most everyone would have it both completly destroying the point of this poll.


 I stand corrected


----------



## MeTaLliOuS (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> Well seeing as one just majicaly appeard (and I didn't do it) I don't think thats a problem. Also I didn't because most everyone would have it both completly destroying the point of this poll.



You got that signature from BioShock didn't you! =3 luv that game. I think that Homosexuality is both in the genes and in choice, but does it really matter?


----------



## moonchylde (Feb 23, 2010)

I dunno, the whole "gay gene" thing never made a lot of sense to me... since gay couples rarely if ever have children, wouldn't that particular gene have been bred out years ago? Unless it's a random genetic mutation or something... I don't know, I'm not a geneticist. Then again, I'm not a psychiatrist, or a philosopher, for that matter, so I'm not really qualified to give any sort of answer. So I'll go with my old "who gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut" viewpoint, instead.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

Fuck you, ignorant OP. It's not a "one or the other" sort of issue


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> Well seeing as one just majicaly appeard (and I didn't do it) I don't think thats a problem. Also I didn't because most everyone would have it both completly destroying the point of this poll.



Well if the majority didn't think as such why even make the poll or thread in the first place? It will only get debated as much as it needs to be.



Jashwa said:


> Fuck you, ignorant OP. It's not a "one or the other" sort of issue



Kinda reminds me of something I would've said.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 23, 2010)

Whoops.  Sorry.

Why the extremes when it's likely neither one is completely accurate?


----------



## Jelly (Feb 23, 2010)

Map the genome, uncover the gene(s) in question without a shred of doubt - its genetics.

Until then, its a mixture of things which include choices, upbringing, and possibly genes; I'd rather not speculate which is the most important thing in that mess. It's human and holistic, being a virtually indivisible pile of mechanism and histories at this stage of our understanding of it.

and thats all


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 23, 2010)

IM PRO CHOICE!


oh wait..


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Fuck you, ignorant OP. It's not a "one or the other" sort of issue


 I love you to jashwa
PS: you still have my quote huh. lolz


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 23, 2010)

EDIT: the embarrassment killed me


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Fuck ignorant OP


 no please don't


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> no please don't


If you were going to misquote me, why wait until _after_ you already quoted me once correctly?


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> no please don't



fuck?

okay... 

bend over.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> If you were going to misquote me, why wait until _after_ you already quoted me once correctly?


 I don't know... didn't feel like it . lol


----------



## Seizure Puppy (Feb 23, 2010)

I do not understand this topic. Why would people choose to have gay genes? And how? By the time they are capable of making a conscious choice they would be born and have genes and therefore be incapable of making a choice to change them.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> fuck?
> 
> okay...
> 
> bend over.


 HELL NO!!! stay away from my asshole. lol


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> If you were going to misquote me, why wait until _after_ you already quoted me once correctly?





voodoo predator said:


> I don't know... didn't feel like it . lol



And life never stops surprising.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

pheonix said:


> And life never stops surprising.


 no it does not.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

This is one of those threads where you wonder if someone genuinely suffers from a developmental disability...


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> This is one of those threads where you wonder if someone genuinely suffers from a developmental disability...


 yeah I know right.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> This is one of those threads where you wonder if someone genuinely suffers from a developmental disability...


...or if they're just trolling.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> ...or if they're just trolling.


 
Any sufficently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> ...or if they're just trolling.



I tell myself the former over and over again, if for no other reason than I know that there are more idiots out there than there are trolls.


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> no it does not.



There's no need too reiterate what I've just said cause it's been said and stated. Please leave my posts out unless you have valid info to add to them.


----------



## moonchylde (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Any sufficently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling.



Indeed. 

BTW,  GAY JEANS.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

rip on me all you want guys your entitled to your opinions.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 23, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> Indeed.
> 
> BTW,  GAY JEANS.



Over the top much?


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Any sufficently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling.


Which is why it's such a hassle to have these people around :C


Tycho said:


> I tell myself the former over and over again, if for no other reason than I know that there are more idiots out there than there are trolls.


I don't know where I stand. Some days I'll assume people are just trolling to preserve faith in humanity, but others I'll just assume the worst.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Feb 23, 2010)

What you "think" determines homosexuality has nothing to do with what actually does. Good thing facts aren't based on consensus.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

Damn, I don't feel like getting flamed to day.

No, it is not genetic in anyway, and it is also not a choice.

Edit: And I know I'm going to get "You dumbass, redneck, republican, christian, don't you know there is one?"

And I'm going to say "They have not found one at all. That is an old, outdated theory from the late 60's and early 70's, when genetics was not really understood."

So they Google their hardest to find it. 

They can't find it, so now they start telling me about how gay people have longer fingers or more bumps on their head, unwittingly supporting Phrenology and palm reading.

I point out what they are doing.

Then they start telling this hormone theory, a theory they could have brought up in the first place, but didn't for some reason.


----------



## Darkwolfy502 (Feb 23, 2010)

It's all in the mind


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> No, it is not genetic in anyway, and it is also not a choice.



So you're basically saying it's just there? Fascinating.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Damn, I don't feel like getting flamed to day.
> 
> No, it is not genetic in anyway, and it is also not a choice.


 what makes you think you'll get flammed?


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

pheonix said:


> So you're basically saying it's just there? Fascinating.


You're forgetting the whole "it's based on how your brain reacts to the different stimuli in the environment that you were brought up in" angle that seems to be more logical than "That boy chose to be queer and can change any time he wants" or "sexuality is a set in stone thing that can never change".


----------



## torachi (Feb 23, 2010)

Its in my genes to fuck pussy. Its my choice to do it often, do it well and lick the sweet pussy juices that run down my chin.

but im not gay so i guess it doesnt count.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Damn, I don't feel like getting flamed to day.
> 
> No, it is not genetic in anyway, and it is also not a choice.



Please elaborate, because I'm confused.


----------



## Kanin (Feb 23, 2010)

I really don't care.

Does it really matter?


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> You're forgetting the whole "it's based on how your brain reacts to the different stimuli in the environment that you were brought up in" angle that seems to be more logical than "That boy chose to be queer and can change any time he wants" or "sexuality is a set in stone thing that can never change".



^ A large part of it.


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

torachi said:


> Its in my genes to fuck pussy. Its my choice to do it often, do it well and lick the sweet pussy juices that run down my chin.
> 
> but im not gay so i guess it doesnt count.


 Alright man good for you!


----------



## pheonix (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> You're forgetting the whole "it's based on how your brain reacts to the different stimuli in the environment that you were brought up in" angle that seems to be more logical than "That boy chose to be queer and can change any time he wants" or "sexuality is a set in stone thing that can never change".





Tycho said:


> Please elaborate, because I'm confused.



That quote pretty much sums it up. I want a deeper explanation cause it scratches my curiosity.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 23, 2010)

False dichotomy.  There's more that goes into your development than genes, and the effects of those factors can be just as immutable.  Just because something isn't genetic doesn't necessarily make it a choice.

As it is, though, twin studies have shown less than 100% concordance, proving it's not purely genetic, yet concordance was higher than random chance as well.  Take that as you will, it's all really irrelevant anyways.  The notion that homosexuality is only okay as long as you're "stuck" with it has always been a stupid one.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

voodoo predator said:


> what makes you think you'll get flammed?


 
Because I had five people jump on me, while having one tell me "I think I should be able to kill people like you."

In other words, I was being heretic and was not following board politics.

Edit: Which, I might add, was oaky with me. It just showed what kind of poeple the fandom attracts.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Because I had five people jump on me, while having one tell me "I think I should be able to kill people like you."
> 
> In other words, I was being heretic and was not following board politics.
> 
> Edit: Which, I might add, was oaky with me. It just showed what kind of poeple the fandom attracts.



This smells like a copout.

And since when have you been afraid of pissing people off, anyway?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> This smells like a copout.
> 
> And since when have you been afraid of pissing people off, anyway?


 
I don't feel like getting a bunch of hatemail tonight.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

furry turned me gay 

so neither


----------



## Runefox (Feb 23, 2010)

Sigh.

Nobody knows. The end.

...
...

Alright. Well, yes, there are genes. And yes, there is choice. Both possibilities exist within the realm of reality.

*Or*, a race of aliens bent on inter-galactic domination is secretly behind it by abducting straight men and making them openly and very stereotypically gay. That's probably the answer you were looking for. But don't tell anyone I said that, or they'll come after me next.

Isn't that just fabulous~?


----------



## Bando (Feb 23, 2010)

Runefox said:


> *Or*, a race of aliens bent on inter-galactic domination is secretly behind it by abducting straight men and making them openly and very stereotypically gay. That's probably the answer you were looking for. But don't tell anyone I said that, or they'll come after me next.
> 
> Isn't that just fabulous~?



^ it is just too FABULOUS too describe.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 23, 2010)

What gets me is that half of the people so far think it must be _either_ choice _or_ genetics. It's like they didn't even consider the possibility that more than a single variable can influence people's lives. But that's just me I am sure they thought of that.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 23, 2010)

Runefox said:


> *Or*, a race of aliens bent on inter-galactic domination is secretly behind it by abducting straight men and making them openly and very stereotypically gay. That's probably the answer you were looking for. But don't tell anyone I said that, or they'll come after me next.
> 
> Isn't that just fabulous~?



... 

You know too much. 

*summons mothership*


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Has it occurred to anyone that it may not be either choice in the poll? That it could be a mental issue?


----------



## lowkey (Feb 23, 2010)

I've got my gay genes on right now- low rise and tapered!


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Has it occurred to anyone that it may not be either choice in the poll? That it could be a mental issue?



Environmental has been brought up, yes, but it's not on the poll for some reason.


----------



## lowkey (Feb 23, 2010)

hey, do these genes make my ass look gay?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

lowkey said:


> I've got my gay genes on right now- low rise and tapered!



That joke was funny when I read it on the first page.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Has it occurred to anyone that it may not be either choice in the poll? *That it could be a mental issue*?


 
You got to watch out when you use that word, 'cuase people take it the wrong. When you hear stuff about being mental issues, people think of stuff like schizophrenia.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 23, 2010)

A little of Column A, a little of Column B.

With something as complex as sexual preference, genes predispose someone toward developing a certain way.  They don't guarantee it.

If sexual preferences were 100% genetic, I'd love to see what genes are responsible for my attraction to dragons and how _*those*_ evolved!


----------



## lowkey (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> That joke was funny when I read it on the first page.



so was your sig.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

lowkey said:


> so was your sig.



At least I have a sig.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You got to watch out when you use that word, 'cuase people take it the wrong. When you hear stuff about being mental issues, people think of stuff like schizophrenia.



That is not what I meant by it. What I mean is, is being gay just the way someones "brain is wired" so to speak.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Any sufficently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling.


*LOL*  OK, I'm stealing that for my sig.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

Telnac said:


> A little of Column A, a little of Column B.
> 
> With something as complex as sexual preference, genes predispose someone toward developing a certain way. They don't guarantee it.
> 
> If sexual preferences were 100% genetic, I'd love to see what genes are responsible for my attraction to dragons and how _*those*_ evolved!


 
Damn it, Telnac, keep that to yourself!

And there is nothing genetic about it, period, and this is a wonderful example of politics overruling science.



RandyDarkshade said:


> That is not what I meant by it. What I mean is, is being gay just the way someones "brain is wired" so to speak.


 
You were right, it's just people take stuff the wrong. I'm just telling what you will probably get with that.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Damn it, Telnac, keep that to yourself!
> 
> And there is nothing genetic about it, period, and this is a wonderful example of politics overruling science.



I've been thinking about this for the last hour and I do believe there is truth behind it not being genetic.

Which leaves the question, why are some men gay and some women lesbian. Lets not forget the lesbians.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Damn it, Telnac, keep that to yourself!


:twisted:



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> And there is nothing genetic about it, period, and this is a wonderful example of politics overruling science.


Politics?  What does politics have to do with any of this?  There's good evidence that sexual preference does have a genetic component.  The big question is: to what extent is that significant?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I've been thinking about this for the last hour and I do believe there is truth behind it not being genetic.
> 
> Which leaves the question, why are some men gay and some women lesbian. Lets not forget the lesbians.


 
Fine, I'll just say. It's psychological. When a male child is growing up they need to identify with the father. The father is suppose to help the male child feel masculine. In other words, they identify as male. When the father is dead, neglectful or not there, the child usually latches onto the mother and doesn't have an opportunity identify with a male. This doesn't guarantee homosexuality, but it has shown to more substantial than the so-called "gay gene."

Gays are so sexist, have you noticed that? Most studies on homosexuals deal with guys.



Telnac said:


> :twisted:
> 
> 
> Politics? What does politics have to do with any of this? There's good evidence that sexual preference does have a genetic component. The big question is: to what extent is that significant?


 
There is no "good evidence." You're just repeating popular opinion. Find me the gene and you'll get the Nobel prize, but you can't, because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Fine, I'll just say. It's psychological. When a male child is growing up they need to identify with the father. The father is suppose to help the male child feel masculine. In other words, they identify as male. When the father is dead, neglectful or not there, the child usually latches onto the mother and doesn't have an opportunity identify with a male. This doesn't guarantee homosexuality, but it has shown to more substantial than the so-called "gay gene."
> 
> Gays are so sexist, have you noticed that? Most studies on homosexuals deal with guys.
> 
> ...



I want to know why, when such subjects come up, it is always gay men that get talked about, it is gay men that nearly always get frowned upon, in discussions such as this one it is always, well you get the picture.

So lesbians are fine? Everyone is ok with two girls having sex? But not ok with gay men? That doesn't strike me as people being sexist but rather people being biased. I mean how many times do you hear people freak out of lesbians in the same way people freak over gay men?

I also don't think the reasons why people are gay even matter. what does matter is what they are like as a person.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that just because something has not been found, does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Scientists still have a lot to learn about genes and DNA.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

There is genetics linked with being homosexual, however it's also your choice.

I accidentally voted genes when I meant to click part both, so -1 +1.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> There is genetics linked with being homosexual, however it's also your choice.
> 
> I accidentally voted genes when I meant to click part both, so -1 +1.



I think influence should be added to the poll. Why? because I have been thinking about what crackers said and about one of my bisexual friends. He is bisexual male preference. However he never had a father as a role model (I wont go into details of why though) so he only had his mother to latch onto. 

I don't think there is one true answer for this, I think it depends on the person. Going back to lesbians I once new a lesbian who chose to be one due to something that happened to her, I don't remember what, could of been rape, but anyway due to this event caused by a male she chose to be a lesbian. So I guess what I am saying here is, men can also choose to be gay.

People can be influenced easily, I was watching Derren Brown recently and his act is a "psychic", he isn't really psychic it is just him influencing his volunteers decisions throughout the show and they don't even realize he is doing it, so what I am saying here is, perhaps some gay men/women are influenced by something in their life.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I want to know why, when such subjects come up, it is always gay men that get talked about, it is gay men that nearly always get frowned upon, in discussions such as this one it is always, well you get the picture.
> 
> So lesbians are fine? Everyone is ok with two girls having sex? But not ok with gay men? That doesn't strike me as people being sexist but rather people being biased. I mean how many times do you hear people freak out of lesbians in the same way people freak over gay men?
> 
> ...


 
The Human Genome Project is done. DNA mapped out and there was no gay gene. 

And why do people care? Look at it this way, if we're wrong about this, what else could we be wrong about? Gays can't afford to lose.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Feb 23, 2010)

There is no "gay gene".  But the cause of homosexuality is still undetermined.  Probably a mixture of factors, but no one really knows.

Furthermore, the last thing homosexuals should wish for is for it to be a genetic cause.  That could lead to it being considered a genetic disorder and give power to parents to use the rights of abortion to abort potentially gay offspring using genetic screening.


----------



## ADF (Feb 23, 2010)

Don't particular care which it is, intolerant people are the only ones who make it an issue.


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 23, 2010)

Poll: Who cares?

Let's say the answer is any one of those choices - so what?  What does it matter that a person is born gay or chooses to be gay, or bi, or asexual, etc.  I'm always amused that people spend so much time trying to figure out the cause of something who's end result is both acceptable and harmless.  It'd be like spending millions and thousands of hours of time to find out why some people smile when they see a classic car.

Better idea: Find out what sort of severe ethical, moral or religious issues are in place and why in people that cannot accept non-hetro sexuality, and correct it.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 23, 2010)

It's a choice, but yet I'm not technicaly gay so.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> It's a choice, but yet I'm not technicaly gay so.



It's not a choice to everyone.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Feb 23, 2010)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> It's a choice, but yet I'm not technicaly gay so.


Then if not technically gay, what are you?
Also, it is not must be a choice or genes, the poll is wrong.
There are hundred more reasons to be gay.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Then if not technically gay, what are you?
> Also, it is not must be a choice or genes, the poll is wrong.
> There are hundred more reasons to be gay.



Agreed. This has been said in this thread before.

What gets me is the number of non gay people that make out they _know_ what causes someone to be gay, yet they are not gay themselves, so how the fuck does a straight person KNOW what causes someone to be gay?


----------



## OTaintedLoveO (Feb 23, 2010)

no. so... if your parents are gay, then that's impossible!! >:[ you can't inherit their genes cuz you aren't here!!! XD

so i think it's by choice


----------



## Lobo Roo (Feb 23, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> I dunno, the whole "gay gene" thing never made a lot of sense to me... since gay couples rarely if ever have children, wouldn't that particular gene have been bred out years ago?



I don't know if anyone's responded to this - I'm too lazy to read through all the pages. Whatever.

 Gay couples rarely have children? I don't know what world you live in, but it ain't reality, honey. Gay couples are having children much more frequently now. Add in the gays-in-denial - the people who tried to be straight, got married, had children. Surely everyone has at least heard of a divorce because of one (or both, haha) of the people finally admitting that they wre gay, even if you haven't known anyone personally in that situation. You say the gay gene would have died out - that's pretty ridiculous. If gay people today are still in denial, marrying and having children - when it's more accepted in this age than ever before - imagine gays back when societal pressure meant you HAD to get married, you were expected to have children, etc. Of course the gene was carried on. All you have to do is actually think for a minute to figure that one out. (Not to mention someone can carry and pass along a gene - without that gene actually being dominant. My parents are straight. My uncle, however, is gay, and one of my cousins is bisexual. Just like you you may resemble your grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.)



Ahem. Right. Well, my position is pretty firmly in the "it's genetic" camp. Gay people have come from so many cultures, types of ubringing, classes, ethnicity....I find it hard to see why you would think it had to to with how you were raised. There are gay people in every culture, every country, historical figures from all over the world....there's simply not enough similarity of situations to say "he/she is gay because of how she was raised." I'm not saying there's a single gay gene - that's pretty stupid. Sexuality isn't like hair color - there's a spectrum. I'm just saying that it is something genetic, and that it's inborn, not a choice. Studies have shown differences in the brain in areas that control attraction between gays and straights. Sexuality isn't going to be found in a single gene - it's going to be a combination of so many things that frankly, it's not going to be easy to pin down and say "This causes the gay." I think we should stop wasting time trying to find it, anyways - it shouldn't matter. 

Now, does how you're raised effect whether or not you come out, or when? That, I'll say yes to. If you're gay in Uganda, you're probably closeted as hell, because you don't want to die. If you're gay in a extremely religious nutjob home, you may be closeted because you think you'll go to hell or be disowned. The fact that a person doesn't come out, for whatever reason, doesn't mean they aren't gay. You have to take that into account. 

As for it being a choice, that's so fucking stupid, I can't believe anyone even believes that anymore. Ok, look at  me - raised in Alabama, in a southern baptist family, where I had a gay uncle who while he wasn't quite shunned, was definitely the black sheep of the family and I knew how disgusting my family thought he was and how they talked about him when he wasn't around. I came out when I was 14 - really early at the time, now kids do it earlier and earlier - and was told that I was better off dead than gay. I was sent to reparative therapy, which did nothing but crush my self esteem and make me angry. I tried to commit suicide twice. 

Oh, yeah, I can see why I would choose that. Who wouldn't choose such a delightful life? Fuck that noise. Nobody chooses to be gay - I don't care if someone says they did, they're fucking idiots. You can't force yourself to be attracted to something. You just are. I didn't choose to be gay any more than someone who is straight chose that. Nobody wakes up and says "I'm going to be gay/straight today." That's just not how it works. Religious fuckwads want you be believe it's a choice, because then you feel justified in hating gay people, in killing them, in voting to take away their rights, in beating them up. If religious idiots had to face that it was completely natural and inborn - they'd have to face that maybe their religion is a total crock of shit, and they're too cowardly to face the truth.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> Gay couples rarely have children? I don't know what world you live in, but it ain't reality, honey. Gay couples are having children much more frequently now. Add in the gays-in-denial - the people who tried to be straight, got married, had children. Surely everyone has at least heard of a divorce because of one (or both, haha) of the people finally admitting that they wre gay, even if you haven't known anyone personally in that situation. You say the gay gene would have died out - that's pretty ridiculous. If gay people today are still in denial, marrying and having children - when it's more accepted in this age than ever before - imagine gays back when societal pressure meant you HAD to get married, you were expected to have children, etc. Of course the gene was carried on. All you have to do is actually think for a minute to figure that one out. (Not to mention someone can carry and pass along a gene - without that gene actually being dominant. My parents are straight. My uncle, however, is gay, and one of my cousins is bisexual. Just like you you may resemble your grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.)



This is true, like that lesbian a year or so back that stopped taking male hormones so she could carry a baby for her/him and hers/his partner.





> Ahem. Right. Well, my position is pretty firmly in the "it's genetic" camp. Gay people have come from so many cultures, types of ubringing, classes, ethnicity....I find it hard to see why you would think it had to to with how you were raised. There are gay people in every culture, every country, historical figures from all over the world....there's simply not enough similarity of situations to say "he/she is gay because of how she was raised." I'm not saying there's a single gay gene - that's pretty stupid. Sexuality isn't like hair color - there's a spectrum. I'm just saying that it is something genetic, and that it's inborn, not a choice. Studies have shown differences in the brain in areas that control attraction between gays and straights. Sexuality isn't going to be found in a single gene - it's going to be a combination of so many things that frankly, it's not going to be easy to pin down and say "This causes the gay." I think we should stop wasting time trying to find it, anyways - it shouldn't matter.



I love how you sound adamant it is genetic when scientists have proved that they can't find one single gene linked to it. I know you said you didn't mean a single gene but for it to BE a genetic problem the gene HAS to be there, if the gene is not there then it is not a genetic problem. You also DO NOT know every gay man on the planet to assume it is genetic and nothing else. 




> As for it being a choice, that's so fucking stupid, I can't believe anyone even believes that anymore. Ok, look at  me - raised in Alabama, in a southern baptist family, where I had a gay uncle who while he wasn't quite shunned, was definitely the black sheep of the family and I knew how disgusting my family thought he was and how they talked about him when he wasn't around. I came out when I was 14 - really early at the time, now kids do it earlier and earlier - and was told that I was better off dead than gay. I was sent to reparative therapy, which did nothing but crush my self esteem and make me angry. I tried to commit suicide twice.



What you and you uncle went through does not equal every gay man on the planet. As I stated previously I knew a lesbian who, because of some traumatic events in her life caused by a male, CHOSE to be a lesbian. And before you say "but she is lesbian" There is no difference, they both like their own sex, end of. The only thing I find "fucking stupid" is you for sitting here saying it is definately genetic without any proof of this and despite the fact scientists have said they can not find a genetic link, that's fucking stupid. Did you forget people have a thing called FREEDOM OF CHOICE?



> Oh, yeah, I can see why I would choose that. Who wouldn't choose such a delightful life? Fuck that noise. Nobody chooses to be gay - I don't care if someone says they did, they're fucking idiots. You can't force yourself to be attracted to something. You just are. I didn't choose to be gay any more than someone who is straight chose that. Nobody wakes up and says "I'm going to be gay/straight today." That's just not how it works. Religious fuckwads want you be believe it's a choice, because then you feel justified in hating gay people, in killing them, in voting to take away their rights, in beating them up. If religious idiots had to face that it was completely natural and inborn - they'd have to face that maybe their religion is a total crock of shit, and they're too cowardly to face the truth.



Here you go again, talking like you know every last gay/lesbian on the planet, like I said before, you and your life story is not the same as every other gay mans on the planet.

I very much doubt it is genetic, that to me is just an excuse gay people are using so it looks like they don't have a choice. They probably don't have a choice, and I agree where you say people don't choose to be straight, I certainly didn't choose to be bi (female preference). I believe it is to do with how an individuals brain is "wired" so to speak and nothing or little to do with genetics. 

I have no idea why I'm debating this at all, I don't really give two hoots if someone is gay, bi, lesbian, straight, transexual, black, pink, blue, tall, short, fat, skinny, stupid, intelligent all I'm interested in is what the person is like personality wise. I can think of far worse things out there and gay people is not one of them, I really don't see why people make such a big issue out of it, and again, why do they seem to only make an issue out of gay men? what about women? whats the difference apart from gender?


----------



## Lobo Roo (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> What you and you uncle went through does not equal every gay man on the planet. As I stated previously I knew a lesbian who, because of some traumatic events in her life caused by a male, CHOSE to be a lesbian. And before you say "but she is lesbian" There is no difference, they both like their own sex, end of. The only thing I find "fucking stupid" is you for sitting here saying it is definately genetic without any proof of this and despite the fact scientists have said they can not find a genetic link, that's fucking stupid. Did you forget people have a thing called FREEDOM OF CHOICE?



Oh, you are so fucking stupid, and I'm not sure why I'm even replying to you. Arguing with the mentally retarded is rather pointless...and yet, I can't help myself.

You friend from the example - she didn't choose to be attracted to women. I don't care if I don't know her - and no,  I don't know every homosexual on Earth - but it's a simple fact that you can't force yourself to be attracted to someone. You're either attracted, or you're not. She may have chosen not to be involved with men because of that traumatic experience - I can understand that. I've made a similar choice, even though I prefer women anyways. I didn't choose to be attracted to women, and neither did she. You can't choose who you're attracted to. You can choose who to date or not to date, you can choose to come out or be closeted, but taking this down to basic attraction - you don't choose who you're attracted to or who you fall in love with. If I'm not attracted to someone, I can't make the decision to be attracted. 

Use a different term than genetic, I don't give two shits - I simply mean that it is something hardwired, something you are born with, physically, not something you can choose or be raised to be.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> Oh, you are so fucking stupid, and I'm not sure why I'm even replying to you. Arguing with the mentally retarded is rather pointless...and yet, I can't help myself.
> 
> You friend from the example - she didn't choose to be attracted to women. I don't care if I don't know her - and no,  I don't know every homosexual on Earth - but it's a simple fact that you can't force yourself to be attracted to someone. You're either attracted, or you're not. She may have chosen not to be involved with men because of that traumatic experience - I can understand that. I've made a similar choice, even though I prefer women anyways. I didn't choose to be attracted to women, and neither did she. You can't choose who you're attracted to. You can choose who to date or not to date, you can choose to come out or be closeted, but taking this down to basic attraction - you don't choose who you're attracted to or who you fall in love with. If I'm not attracted to someone, I can't make the decision to be attracted.
> 
> Use a different term than genetic, I don't give two shits - I simply mean that it is something hardwired, something you are born with, physically, not something you can choose or be raised to be.



Whoa is there any fucking need to be so damn fucking rude? was there any fucking need to insult my intelligence in such manner? You obviously failed to read the last part of my fucking post where I AGREED with you.]\

And you are calling me stupid and retarded? 

Was I this un civil in my reply to you? No I wasn't. at least gay men aren't fucking jack asses in a debate.

EDIT: Forgot to mention YOU first mentioned genes and genetics in YOUR first post, it is YOU that needs tio find a better choice of words, not me.

EDIT: Oh and be warned people if you argue in disagreement with Mr lobo roo you will be called fucking stupid and retarded.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Whoa is there any fucking need to be so damn fucking rude? was there any fucking need to insult my intelligence in such manner? You obviously failed to read the last part of my fucking post where I AGREED with you.]\
> 
> And you are calling me stupid and retarded?
> 
> ...


 
Yeah. She does that.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Yeah. She does that.



Yeah but there is no need to be that rude just because I was making a counter argument "she" didn't like.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Yeah but there is no need to be that rude just because I was making a counter argument "she" didn't like.


 
I know, she's closed-minded when it comes to different opinions. She's a bitch.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 23, 2010)

Choice.
I've seen to much to believe otherwise.

I've seen Homos go Hetero and vice versa.

Besides, I believe only physical and personality traits are in our genes. Nothing more.
Sexuality is neither of these things.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> Choice.
> I've seen to much to believe otherwise.
> 
> I've seen Homos go Hetero and vice versa.



Just because you have seen a few change, does not mean the same apply's to everyone.

Stop generalizing.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 23, 2010)

I'd have to say mostly genes, and part envirenment.
I don't believe theres much of a choise involved. I mean, I never chose to be hetro.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Just because you have seen a few change, does not mean the same apply's to everyone.
> 
> Stop generalizing.


No, everyone I know has chosen.
Besides, everyone generalizes. Gene's having nothing to do with it.
At all.
Sexuality isn't a physical or personality trait. 
Two things make up what we are, genetics and environment.

If you put twins in two very different environments, despite having the same genetics, one can be gay while the other is not.

It's environmental.

By the way, subconscious choice.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> No, everyone I know has chosen.
> Besides, everyone generalizes. Gene's having nothing to do with it.
> At all.
> Sexuality isn't a *physical or personality* trait.
> ...


 
Actually, I'd say its a little bit of both.

And _environmental_ suggests its not a choise. You don't choose the environment you're brought up in.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> No, everyone I know has chosen.
> Besides, everyone generalizes. Gene's having nothing to do with it.
> At all.
> Sexuality isn't a physical or personality trait.
> ...



Did you "choose" you sexuality? Did you sit there one day and think to yourself "I think I will be hetero for the rest of my life"?

I fucking doubt it.

Choice doesn't exist, period.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 23, 2010)

> And _environmental_ suggests its not a choise. You don't choose the  environment you're brought up in.


But it suggests that it can be changed according to the environment. Therefore it's a subconscious choice, as you don't think about it, you can't actually decide it, but it isn't that you were already gay to begin with.



> Did you "choose" you sexuality? Did you sit there one day and think to  yourself "I think I will be hetero for the rest of my life"?
> 
> I fucking doubt it.
> 
> Choice doesn't exist, period.


Yes, I did actually.
And I'm not hetero.
It was a subconscious choice based on the environment I grew up in.

You're fucking wrong then.

Choice does exist, we all have choices in this world, our outcome depends on those choices.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> But it suggests that it can be changed according to the environment. Therefore it's a subconscious choice, as you don't think about it, you can't actually decide it, but it isn't that you were already gay to begin with.



If you can't actually decide it, it isn't a choice. To make a choice you have to decide.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If you can't actually decide it, it isn't a choice. To make a choice you have to decide.


Yes you can, as people do. 
Yes, and despite the common misconception, people can decide for themselves.

It's partially a choice, you never have to let your environment dictate your life.
In that sense, it's a choice. You can't choose your environment, but you can still choose how you turn out regardless of the environment.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 23, 2010)

Idk personally I know what an attractive woman looks like... but god they piss me off.....

Guys look way better anyways


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> Yes you can, as people do.
> Yes, and despite the common misconception, people can decide for themselves.



Only if it is a conscious decision.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 23, 2010)

Foxy_Boy said:


> Idk personally I know what an attractive woman looks like... but god they piss me off.....
> 
> Guys look way better anyways


I'll agree with that. Women are backstabbers by nature.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Only if it is a conscious decision.


In which case they can decide how they want to live. Everything is a choice aside from the circumstances that are out of our control.
The choice lies in how you run your life according to the circumstance.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> In which case they can decide how they want to live. Everything is a choice aside from the circumstances that are out of our control.
> The choice lies in how you run your life according to the circumstance.



You don't get a choice whether you will dream at night or not, again the subconscious mind has already "decided". What I am saying is gay people don't have a conscious choice, there mind (or sub conscious) has already pre determined it.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 23, 2010)

I still gotta say its both possibilities dude....


----------



## Lobar (Feb 23, 2010)

"Subconscious choice" is a weasel phrase if I ever heard one.


I'm gonna say it again, since you all missed it the first time: Twin studies.  They show concordance of homosexuality that is _higher_ than random chance.  That suggests there _is_ a genetic component.  But concordance is also less than 100%, so there are other factors at play, too.  Ultimately, the development of sexuality is a complex, chaotic system, which is pretty much what you'd expect for science being unable to pinpoint it thus far.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 23, 2010)

Lobar said:


> "Subconscious choice" is a weasel phrase if I ever heard one.
> 
> 
> I'm gonna say it again, since you all missed it the first time: Twin studies. They show concordance of homosexuality that is _higher_ than random chance. That suggests there _is_ a genetic component. But concordance is also less than 100%, so there are other factors at play, too. Ultimately, the development of sexuality is a complex, chaotic system, which is pretty much what you'd expect for science being unable to pinpoint it thus far.


 
^ This....very this


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 23, 2010)

lol we're science, we know everything, 10 years down the road we're gonna figure something out the proves everything we knew about something wrong...

We're fags :3


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 23, 2010)

And as I already said in my earlier post...

Who cares which one it is!

The whole reason anyone's even interested in finding out the answer is because there are groups of people that want to "fix" it because they are intolerant.  So the real problem is the intolerant, unethical people that cannot simply accept folks as they are.  That's the area you should all be focusing on.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 23, 2010)

Foxy_Boy said:


> lol we're science, we know everything, 10 years down the road we're gonna figure something out the proves everything we knew about something wrong...
> 
> We're fags :3


 
Well hey, science is a progressive thing. The more we know, the more we know were we went wrong.


----------



## xcliber (Feb 23, 2010)

I'm sure it's different for each person. I don't know if it's genetic or not, but for me, I HAD NO CHOICE.

I tried to force myself to like girls and was in denial about my homosexuality for years. If I had a choice, I would choose to be straight. I can't help the fact that I'm gay. 

I agree that intollerance of homosexuality is a far bigger problem than homosexuality itself.


----------



## cruncheweezy (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Did you "choose" you sexuality? Did you sit there one day and think to yourself "I think I will be hetero for the rest of my life"?
> 
> I fucking doubt it.
> 
> Choice doesn't exist, period.



Consciously, no.
No one (except maybe some attention ho's) chooses to be gay. At least, not in any sort of choice they purposely make.

It's a result. I thouhgt I was a lesbian for the longest time... For the plain and simple fact that EVERY man in my life up until that point had treated me like crap and made me feel horrible about myself. 

My father, mom;s first boyfriend... Mom's second boyfriend, every boy in class, every boy I ever liked...

It wasn't until I met the first guy who actually DIDN'T make me feel like that, that I started to see attractiveness in males in general. 

Now, I don't know the circumstances with everyone else, but with me and my life, it was entirely circumstantial. And I know almsot every single one of my gay friends has somewhat of the same situation... only moreso. (Raped by father @ 8 years old, abusive mother)

So... It's not a choice we make, so much as a result of the life we've lived.

But it's not genetic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

there is more than enough evidence supporting both theories. its probably a combination of both.
it might also depends with how many hormones your mom drugs you while she is pregnant with you :B
there are simply too many factors to decide what "causes" it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> there is more than enough evidence supporting both theories. its probably a combination of both.
> it might also depends with how many hormones your mom drugs you while she is pregnant with you :B
> there are simply too many factors to decide what "causes" it.



Why don't people just go and ask a gay person why they are gay?


----------



## cruncheweezy (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Why don't people just go and ask a gay person why they are gay?



People don't understand why they are the way they are.
Even the best psychologists don't always understand themselves.
Besides, people do that out here, actually to one of my closest friends.
His answer (His honest answer, I swear) "Because women are gross."

... Yeah.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

cruncheweezy said:


> People don't understand why they are the way they are.
> Even the best psychologists don't always understand themselves.
> Besides, people do that out here, actually to one of my closest friends.
> His answer (His honest answer, I swear) "Because women are gross."
> ...



I can't see how people can choose what turns them on and what doesn't. I mean it is not like we can control what arouses us. So if someone finds their own sex more arousing, then, I can't see how that's a choice. 

What I'm saying is, perhaps your friend just isn't sexually attracted to females whatsoever.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Saying it's a choice because you have the option to act on it or not is retarded.  It's like saying being hungry is a choice for anorexics.  They may choose not to eat but their bodies are still saying 'FEED ME!' and that demand isn't going away despite their will.


----------



## Hir (Feb 23, 2010)

Marietta said:


> No, everyone I know has chosen.
> Besides, everyone generalizes. Gene's having nothing to do with it.
> At all.
> Sexuality isn't a physical or personality trait.
> ...


Why would you _choose_ to be gay, exactly? I don't like being gay, but it's how I am.

I fail to see who you're attracted to as being environmental when my brother and two sisters grew up in the same environment and they're all straight.


Marietta said:


> If you put twins in two very different environments, despite having the same genetics, one can be gay while the other is not.


Of course they can, everyone is different. But statistics also show that if one twin is gay, the other is also gay 70% of the time - no matter what environment they may be in. Which in a world of a measley 4% gay population, is a very striking figure.

You may be able to blame a combination of choice/genes, but putting it completely on choice/environment is just idiotic.


Also, these threads never go anywhere and never end well. Bleh.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 23, 2010)

Aw you people offend me, "I don't like being gay" blah blah blah

Get used to it, its perfectly fine... just a variation in overall sexuality.

It's religious nutjobs who seem to have a problem with it...


----------



## Hir (Feb 23, 2010)

Foxy_Boy said:


> Aw you people offend me, "I don't like being gay" blah blah blah
> 
> Get used to it, its perfectly fine... just a variation in overall sexuality.
> 
> It's religious nutjobs who seem to have a problem with it...


Maybe saying "I don't like being gay" was a bit strong. If I had the choice, I wouldn't be gay - but I have no real problem with it.


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Feb 23, 2010)

women and men are different in their gayness, two women relate with one another on a whole other level than two guys do, with women its likened to recreating a mother daughter relationship, I dont really know how that works or the specifics but there is a difference. Ask DR Drew.   As for the "gay gene", explain why animals other than humans are gay?  I beleive its a adaptation for survival, because in the event that there is overpopulation, well I dont think I have to explain how being gay affects that, and in the event of a disaster where a large portion of the pop. was killed off, if two gay guys stumbled upon a single women, there is a good chance at least one of those males is fertile, ensuring the continuation of the species.... this looks like crap, I cant organise my thoughts this morning I hope this makes some sense


----------



## Hir (Feb 23, 2010)

Largentum_Wolf said:


> women and men are different in their gayness, two women relate with one another on a whole other level than two guys do, with women its likened to recreating a mother daughter relationship, I dont really know how that works or the specifics but there is a difference. Ask DR Drew.   As for the "gay gene", explain why animals other than humans are gay?  I beleive its a adaptation for survival, because in the event that there is overpopulation, well I dont think I have to explain how being gay affects that, and in the event of a disaster where a large portion of the pop. was killed off, if two gay guys stumbled upon a single women, there is a good chance at least one of those males is fertile, ensuring the continuation of the species.... this looks like crap, I cant organise my thoughts this morning I hope this makes some sense


Biggest flaw in the whole "adaption to overpopulation" arguement is that I don't see how the body could ever know that it's overpopulated - since the theory of evolution makes living things adapt to their own environment. Doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Feb 23, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> Maybe saying "I don't like being gay" was a bit strong. If I had the choice, I wouldn't be gay - but I have no real problem with it.


I used to feel the same.... until I got into it. I did have a choice I was bi origonally.... I can do without dem womens.


----------



## Hir (Feb 23, 2010)

Foxy_Boy said:


> I used to feel the same.... until I got into it. I did have a choice I was bi origonally.... I can do without dem womens.


Eventually being gay probably won't be a second thought in my head whatsoever.


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Feb 23, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> Biggest flaw in the whole "adaption to overpopulation" arguement is that I don't see how the body could ever know that it's overpopulated - since the theory of evolution makes living things adapt to their own environment. Doesn't make sense at all.


 It works because theres a percentage of fag? if one out of ten was predisposed geneticaly to being gay then the higher the population the more fags? I dont know, where's the dont give a fuck im gay 
I like dick option?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 23, 2010)

A lot of you seem to be assuming that every trait a person has has its own dedicated gene that acts as a binary switch.  Genetics isn't that simple, guys.  Consider the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, also makes people resistant to malaria, which is why that particular gene hasn't been eliminated by evolution.  Whatever genetic factors that contribute to homosexuality are probably linked to other positively-selected traits.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 23, 2010)

It's not a choice, but that doesn't make it genetic.


----------



## Dass (Feb 23, 2010)

Lemme put it to you this way. I did NOT wake up one day and go "I think I'll like men from now onward."

I'm saying at least partially genetic, because based on studies done on separated twins, the trait is about 63% heritable.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

DarkNoctus said:


> *Why would you choose to be gay, exactly? I don't like being gay, but it's how I am.*
> 
> I fail to see who you're attracted to as being environmental when my brother and two sisters grew up in the same environment and they're all straight.
> 
> ...


 
I know. Why would we want to be gay in a world like this?


----------



## voodoo predator (Feb 23, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Poll: Who cares?
> 
> Let's say the answer is any one of those choices - so what? What does it matter that a person is born gay or chooses to be gay, or bi, or asexual, etc. I'm always amused that people spend so much time trying to figure out the cause of something who's end result is both acceptable and harmless. It'd be like spending millions and thousands of hours of time to find out why some people smile when they see a classic car.
> 
> Better idea: Find out what sort of severe ethical, moral or religious issues are in place and why in people that cannot accept non-hetro sexuality, and correct it.


 I can accept gay or bi people as my friends but saying its both acceptable and harmless (maybe harmless but saying its acceptable) is a down right lie. Its not at all like spending millions of dollers to find out why some people smile when they see a classic car.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

The only thing bad about being gay is that Ben Browder, Chris Noth and David Boreanaz are straight, but I have a plan to fix that.

...Ever seen that movie 'Misery'?


----------



## footfoe (Feb 23, 2010)

Choice, but then again, once you are set in your ways, you can't change.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> The Human Genome Project is done. DNA mapped out and there was no gay gene.


The human genome project was mapping the genetic sequences and genes, they weren't finding out what every single bond meant but they got a lot from just knowing how it mapped out. 

*And yes, there is a gay gene.*
Dean Hamer was the person who discovered it and he helped write a book on it
The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior

You just showed you know nothing about the human genome project. You could of at least just used wiki and found out exactly what the human genome project was about, but you guessed instead.

Edit:


OTaintedLoveO said:


> no. so... if your parents are gay, then that's impossible!! >:[ you can't inherit their genes cuz you aren't here!!! XD
> 
> so i think it's by choice


That's not how all genes work, this one activates (cause of activation is unknown, they think it has to do with random chance as a form of population control).


So yes it is both, despite what people think there is genes involved and there is a choice involved. So there really is no discussion here, just fact and the opinions around it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> The human genome project was mapping the genetic sequences and genes, they weren't finding out what every single bond meant but they got a lot from just knowing how it mapped out. And yes, there is a gay gene.
> Dean Hamer was the person who discovered it.
> 
> You just showed you know nothing about the human genome project. You could of at least just used wiki at least.



of course there is gene that controls or at least influences your orientation^^ your most basic behavior (and your sexual orientation belongs to that) is heavily controled by your genes. influences from the outside can only change that a little and you are able to suppress it but you are what you are and you cant change that entirely :B


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> of course there is gene that controls or at least influences your orientation^^ your most basic behavior (and your sexual orientation belongs to that) is heavily controled by your genes. influences from the outside can only change that a little and you are able to suppress it but you are what you are and you cant change that entirely :B



Despite this proof I guarantee people will still say it is just a matter of choice.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> *And yes, there is a gay gene.*
> Dean Hamer was the person who discovered it and he helped write a book on it
> The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior
> 
> You just showed you know nothing about the human genome project. You could of at least just used wiki and found out exactly what the human genome project was about, but you guessed instead.


 
The Wiki that you suggest other people 'at least use' also notes that a lot of studies have failed to replicate his research, that his own research only puts the gene as an INDICATOR of homosexuality and was not exclusively effective in determining who was straight or not. Oh and it didn't work for women, only men.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> The Wiki that you suggest other people 'at least use' also notes that a lot of studies have failed to replicate his research, that his own research only puts the gene as an INDICATOR of homosexuality and was not exclusively effective in determining who was straight or not. Oh and it didn't work for women, only men.


As you say, but not show. So how about these other studies? And as I said, there's still a choice. Genetics are clearly involved in social interaction and your behavior, but you can still choose to act anyway you want.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Despite this proof I guarantee people will still say it is just a matter of choice.



sure. because it would destroy some of their ideals.
look at those who say that being gay is wrong. if they would understand that the orientation is mostly dictated by the genes they would have to accept homosexuality as normal or natural just to name one example of a group who wouldnt accept this!


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> The human genome project was mapping the genetic sequences and genes, they weren't finding out what every single bond meant but they got a lot from just knowing how it mapped out.
> 
> *And yes, there is a gay gene.*
> Dean Hamer was the person who discovered it.
> ...


 
But they did go looking for it when mapping it out. 

You also could have read it thoroughly, too. 



> In 1993 he published a paper *suggesting* the existence of genes that predispose men (but not women) toward homosexuality and presented evidence that one of these genes was associated with the Xq28 marker on the X chromosome.[1]


 
You jumped the gun there. There is no hard proof, it's the same 'ol "we think." If the gay gene was really found, people like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow would be talking about it non-stop. It would be on every gay blog out there. It would have been ground breaking. Gays would be in the streets celebrating the victory.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> As you say, but not show. So how about these other studies? And as I said, there's still a choice. Genetics are clearly involved in social interaction and your behavior, but you can still choose to act anyway you want.


 
I'm sorry Newf, I thought you could enter the word 'Dean Hamer' into the Wikipedia all by yourself. I'm sorry for grossly overestimating you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Hamer#Studies_on_sexual_orientation

I don't know if you'll be able to read this and not look at other related links, since you can't use the 'search' feature. So I'll link this article on the Xq28 gene for you as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

Note the part about a 1999 Canadian study that couldn't replicate Hamer's results.

However, in the future could you refrain from linking to books that you yourself have not even read? It doesn't make you look smart.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You jumped the gun there. There is no hard proof, it's the same 'ol "we think." If the gay gene was really found, people like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow would be talking about it non-stop. It would be on every gay blog out there. It would have been ground breaking. Gays would be in the streets celebrating the victory.


 
STOP APPLYING LOGIC IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING NEWF SAID! YOU COULD DESTROY US ALL!


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> But they did go looking for it when mapping it out.
> 
> You also could have read it thoroughly, too.


Yeah you don't know anything about the human genome project...sorry. That wasn't even on their goals at all, that project was mapping out sequences.



> You jumped the gun there. There is no hard proof, it's the same 'ol "we think." If the gay gene was really found, people like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow would be talking about it non-stop. It would be on every gay blog out there. It would have been ground breaking. Gays would be in the streets celebrating the victory.


Yeah it's not well known, clearly most people here don't even know about it. he's wrote a book but not many people are reading it or spreading it around, there's also mention about it in Bill Maher's religulous movie. But it's still not getting out in peoples faces because nobody's accepting the information. As CaptainCool said, people then couldn't hate fags because it really wouldn't be a choice.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 23, 2010)

god fucking dammit

brb quitting the fandumb furever


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> I'm sorry Newf, I thought you could enter the word 'Dean Hamer' into the Wikipedia all by yourself. I'm sorry for grossly overestimating you.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Hamer#Studies_on_sexual_orientation
> 
> ...



Now you're not even reading your own links at all. In several parts of these wiki's it say's the marker has a significant effect on sexuality, so which is it? You're agreeing with me now? It specifically says that it was disputed because in a group of homosexuals not all had their sexuality linked to this marker, but like I said choice is still very present. You don't need the marker to be gay, but it does influence you significantly which is repeated several times by the good Doctor Hamer himself.


> However, in the future could you refrain from linking to books that you yourself have not even read?  It doesn't make you look smart.


Because you know what books I've read now? Oh wow, I love your magic powers to know what books I've read, but unable to even read a wiki page properly. Super powers away~


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

to put it bluntly, there HAS to be a gene that controlls your orientation. anything else wouldnt make sense. as i said, reproduction is part of your most basic instincts. these are entirely controlled by your genes!
you cant control your boner! if you see something that gives the signal "hawt! :O" for your body the brain drops to the crotch. these basic images (that could be the shape of an ass or tits for example) are controlled by genes.
a good example to support this is arachnophobia. spiders have been a big threat to humans back in the day. the basic image of a spider (8 legs, big round body) is placed in our genetic code.
these images can be changed easily though! so if the image of "dat ass!" gets a little more narrow and the image for tits disappears completely you go for mans asses and not for women and tits anymore.
genes can be changed easily and the changes can be so small that you dont even recognize them or only very hard, thats what makes finding those genes very difficult


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> Now you're not even reading your own links at all. In several parts of these wiki's it say's the marker has a significant effect on sexuality, so which is it? You're agreeing with me now? It specifically says that it was disputed because in a group of homosexuals not all had their sexuality linked to this marker, but like I said choice is still very present. You don't need the marker to be gay, but it does influence you significantly which is repeated several times by the good Doctor Hamer himself.


 
Uhh...



AshleyAshes said:


> that his own research only puts the gene as an INDICATOR of homosexuality and *was not exclusively effective in determining who was straight or not.* Oh and it didn't work for women, only men.


 
Er



AshleyAshes said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28
> 
> Note the part about a 1999 Canadian study that couldn't replicate Hamer's results.


 
GOSH NEWF, YA GOT ME THERE. WAIT.

Do you even read when you post on these forums or do you just randomly and click on the quote button and just blindly respond, guessing at what someone said just for the joy of seeing your own text?


----------



## Liam (Feb 23, 2010)

I skipped a whole bunch of posts (Like from 10-150)  so this may have been mentioned earlier.

Fingerprints are formed in the uterus.  (Or so I heard)
Everyone is 'conceived' as a female, the males go under certain changes in the womb to become males.
It might be possible that homosexuality. may be due to something that happens in the uterus before birth, that isn't genetic.

Also, you can consciously choose to go gay.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

So you think that was proof enough to discourage Hamers original results, when he himself doesn't even agree with it and the wiki uses really bad terminology, saying it holds -significant- influence (note significant usually means pretty large) but isn't exclusive, just like -everything else- that is up to the person to act on or not. So I guess because loss of legs significantly limits mobility, however because it doesn't limit everybody equally then that's a false statement. Golly gee, you sure got me.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> So you think that was proof enough to discourage Hamers original results, when he himself doesn't even agree with it and the wiki uses really bad terminology, saying it holds -significant- influence (note significant usually means pretty large) but isn't exclusive, just like -everything else- that is up to the person to act on or not. So I guess because loss of legs significantly limits mobility, however because it doesn't limit everybody equally then that's a false statement. Golly gee, you sure got me.


 
So your arguement is that just because other studies have not replicated Hamer's results, that doesn't mean his own results should be in any way doubted?

Well, I guess Newf does win this arguement, cause if he's willing to ignore 'reason' in his arguements, how can I beat that?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> to put it bluntly, there HAS to be a gene that controlls your orientation. anything else wouldnt make sense. as i said, reproduction is part of your most basic instincts. these are entirely controlled by your genes!
> you cant control your boner! if you see something that gives the signal "hawt! :O" for your body the brain drops to the crotch. these basic images (that could be the shape of an ass or tits for example) are controlled by genes.
> a good example to support this is arachnophobia. spiders have been a big threat to humans back in the day. the basic image of a spider (8 legs, big round body) is placed in our genetic code.
> these images can be changed easily though! so if the image of "dat ass!" gets a little more narrow and the image for tits disappears completely you go for mans asses and not for women and tits anymore.
> genes can be changed easily and the changes can be so small that you dont even recognize them or only very hard, thats what makes finding those genes very difficult



DUDE

All a gene does is make a protein.  Well, more specifically it forms an amino acid sequence that codes a protein; other stuff such as the spacial conformation is the result of the oxidative environment in the golgi apparatus, etc.  Unless there is a protein that makes someone gay (like there is a protein responsible for making a firefly glow) there is no "gay gene" (read that as: _there is no gay gene_).

This doesn't mean genetics can't influence it but it would be the result of a stochastic system and not just a gene, otherwise there would be obvious patterns we would have already noticed.

Also, what the fuck are you talking about lol I don't even



Harmony said:


> So you think that was proof enough to discourage Hamers original results, when he himself doesn't even agree with it and the wiki uses really bad terminology, saying it holds -significant- influence (note significant usually means pretty large) but isn't exclusive, just like -everything else- that is up to the person to act on or not. So I guess because loss of legs significantly limits mobility, however because it doesn't limit everybody equally then that's a false statement. Golly gee, you sure got me.



If he said there's a gay gene he is wrong (see above).

I haven't spent time looking into it though and won't bother because I don't like quack science.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> So your arguement is that just because other studies have not replicated Hamer's results, that doesn't mean his own results should be in any way doubted?
> 
> Well, I guess Newf does win this arguement, cause if he's willing to ignore 'reason' in his arguements, how can I beat that?



The only question I'd ask here is: Why han't anyone been able to replicate Hamer's studies? did he fiddle the results?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The only question I'd ask here is: Why han't anyone been able to replicate Hamer's studies? did he fiddle the results?



They probably didn't bother because they know there isn't a gay gene.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> They probably didn't bother because they know there isn't a gay gene.



How would they know if they haven't done the studies to find out?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The only question I'd ask here is: Why han't anyone been able to replicate Hamer's studies? did he fiddle the results?


 
Before suspecting foul play, there's lots of other reasons. Two other studies replicated his results but several others could not.

Statistical variation, fluke, the unique itialian group he was looking at, maybe it's a limited gay gene only found in certian groups but in others isn't existant. Then there's the issue that no similar results were found amongst women AT ALL. Nothing, nodda.

Simply put 'it's interesting' it's something that certianly warrents more study but it is not absolute as Newf wishes to present it, because all he did was read the cover of the book.

Even if his results are right, it still only acts as a general indictor, one study that supported his reslts only came up with the gene in 64% of cases.  Meaning that even if it is true, it doesn't explain homosexual women, it doesn't explain what would be a large portion of gay men without the 'gay gene' nor the heterosexual men who have it.  (Presuming they arn't just huge closet cases)


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> DUDE
> 
> *All a gene does is make a protein*.  Well, more specifically it forms an amino acid sequence that codes a protein; other stuff such as the spacial conformation is the result of the oxidative environment in the golgi apparatus, etc.  Unless there is a protein that makes someone gay (like there is a protein responsible for making a firefly glow) there is no "gay gene" (read that as: _there is no gay gene_).
> 
> This doesn't mean genetics can't influence it but it would be the result of a stochastic system and not just a gene, otherwise there would be obvious patterns we would have already noticed.



true, a gene encodes a protein. but the creation of this protein has to be triggered by something. in this case it could be a visual signal. the protein is produced in a big cycle and you become horny. (i never said that it would be one gene! its very common that many genes are responsible for something)

what you want to fuck is simply way to big of a factor of your life to be controlled by choice!
and what about measurable reactions to visual sexual stimulation? you cant control your sweat! if you see something that turns you on you show measurable reactions that are controlled by your autonomic nervous system, you *CANT *fake that or *control *it by choice!


Ricky said:


> Also, what the fuck are you talking about lol I don't even



this kinda killed your post for me >.>


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> How would they know if they haven't done the studies to find out?



True.

I guess some dumbshit had to do it.



CaptainCool said:


> true, a gene encodes a protein. but the creation of this protein has to be triggered by something. in this case it could be a visual signal. the protein is produced in a big cycle and you become horny. (i never said that it would be one gene! its very common that many genes are responsible for something)
> 
> what you want to fuck is simply way to big of a factor of your life to be controlled by choice!
> and what about measurable reactions to visual sexual stimulation? you cant control your sweat! if you see something that turns you on you show measurable reactions that are controlled by your autonomic nervous system, you *CANT *fake that or *control *it by choice!
> ...



Sorry, I actually thought you were joking.

You mean you were serious about all that?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> True.
> 
> I guess some dumbshit had to do it.
> 
> ...



tell me what wasnt plausible about it then?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> So your arguement is that just because other studies have not replicated Hamer's results, that doesn't mean his own results should be in any way doubted?
> 
> Well, I guess Newf does win this arguement, cause if he's willing to ignore 'reason' in his arguements, how can I beat that?


Actually it's that other studies haven't proved his results wrong, just that it's not a 100% chance having the marker means your'e homosexual.


AshleyAshes said:


> Before suspecting foul play, there's lots of other reasons. Two other studies replicated his results but several others could not.


You've shown -one- and it was just studying gays and saying not all gays have this marker. So lol@u.
Clearly you don't understand how genetics work at all, which disappoints me because so far not one person posting has shown they understand it.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> tell me what wasnt plausible about it then?



Basically, like I said... there isn't a gay gene 

Genetics could influence it, however.

Your last post explains that many factors are not controlled by choice and you are correct but this isn't the same as saying it is controlled by a single gene.  "Becoming horny" is more a nervous response (sympathetic, I believe) than anything else but a large factor of what causes it is influenced by hormones.  A lot of hormonal responses are connected to environmental influences; I'm sure you could find a thousand examples if you looked.

Stating that something like this is controlled with a gene is about as silly as saying there is a "smart" gene that makes someone smart.

It simply doesn't work that way.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> You've shown -one- and it was just studying gays and saying not all gays have this marker. So lol@u.
> Clearly you don't understand how genetics work at all, which disappoints me because so far not one person posting has shown they understand it.



Wait, so you know about genetics?

Is there a gay gene?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> Actually it's that other studies haven't proved his results wrong, just that it's not a 100% chance having the marker means your'e homosexual.
> 
> You've shown -one- and it was just studying gays and saying not all gays have this marker. So lol@u.
> Clearly you don't understand how genetics work at all, which disappoints me because so far not one person posting has shown they understand it.



What Ashley is saying is, that the tests are just showing that this "gene" is not present in every gay person. Hence why some tests got the same results as Hamer's and some didn't.

All the studies are showing is, that it is there, but not in everyone, and seemingly only males.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Basically, like I said... there isn't a gay gene
> 
> Genetics could influence it, however.
> 
> ...



sure, there is not a single gay gene, i was aware of that^^ i just used the term because its generally being called that way 
and yeah, becoming sexually aroused is a HUGE process, this cant be controlled by a single gene!
and i never said that environmental influences couldnt be part of it, too  in my first post i said it might be a mix^^ that would be way more plausible anyways and matches with current reseach results.
but its DEFINITELY not only decided by choice! that wouldnt make sense at all


----------



## SnowFox (Feb 23, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> becoming sexually aroused is a HUGE process



:3c




My contribution to the debate.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> :3c
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh god i see what you did there X'D no wait, i see what *I *did there :B

AND you sig'd it! this day just got so awesome^^


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> sure, there is not a single gay gene, i was aware of that^^ i just used the term because its generally being called that way
> and yeah, becoming sexually aroused is a HUGE process, this cant be controlled by a single gene!
> and i never said that environmental influences couldnt be part of it, too  in my first post i said it might be a mix^^ that would be way more plausible anyways and matches with current reseach results.
> but its DEFINITELY not only decided by choice! that wouldnt make sense at all



yup


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

Just wanted to say to DarkNoctus and anyone else who believes environmental isn't a possible cause because their siblings aren't gay:

1) You weren't raised in the exact same environment, even if it was the same household.
2) Even if you were, every mind is unique and deals with things differently. Speaking about the environment influencing something is speaking about how your brain reacts to the stimuli from the environment around you.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> What Ashley is saying is, that the tests are just showing that this "gene" is not present in every gay person. Hence why some tests got the same results as Hamer's and some didn't.


 
No, I'm saying that even if Hamer's thesis is correct, there's large questions like why he couldn't find anything in women and that the gene was only found in 64% of cases. It's interesting results and warrents additional study, additional study which includes attempting to replicate his results and various other studies have failed to do that.

The issue is that there is doubt. There are studies which can not replicate previous results. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the original results either, but it creates doubt and it means additional study is required. This is how science is self-correcting, because you have to publish everything you did and then other parties will attempt to replicate your results. This either helps confirm or cast doubt on the original work.

What science doesn't do is debate which study is 'the right one', what science does is go out and do more research.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 23, 2010)

Ashley, you forgot an if in the first sentence. I figured I'd tell you before Newf quoted you and was all like " YOU SAID HIS THESIS IS CORRECT ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR STANCE AND AGREEING WITH ME AGAIN".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Just wanted to say to DarkNoctus and anyone else who believes environmental isn't a possible cause because their siblings aren't gay:
> 
> 1) You weren't raised in the exact same environment, even if it was the same household.
> 2) Even if you were, every mind is unique and deals with things differently. Speaking about the environment influencing something is speaking about how your brain reacts to the stimuli from the environment around you.



I think one key factor many in this thread are forgetting is the small fact that *everyone is different.*


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Feb 23, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Then if not technically gay, what are you?
> Also, it is not must be a choice or genes, the poll is wrong.
> There are hundred more reasons to be gay.



I'm bi. And I dunno, but for me it would be a choice, personnal prefference.
And 'cause of all the furfag aroun' here.

Edit: This would be my devil post number.


----------



## GoldenJackal (Feb 23, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> And as I already said in my earlier post...
> 
> Who cares which one it is!
> 
> The whole reason anyone's even interested in finding out the answer is because there are groups of people that want to "fix" it because they are intolerant.  So the real problem is the intolerant, unethical people that cannot simply accept folks as they are.  That's the area you should all be focusing on.



This.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> I'm bi. And I dunno, but for me it would be a choice, personnal prefference.
> And 'cause of all the furfag aroun' here.
> 
> Edit: This would be my devil post number.



Bisexual is not the same as being gay. Just because Bisexual people have the abillity to choose who they have sex with doesn't mean gay people can. If gay people could then they wouldn't even be gay.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> What Ashley is saying is, that the tests are just showing that this "gene" is not present in every gay person. Hence why some tests got the same results as Hamer's and some didn't.
> 
> All the studies are showing is, that it is there, but not in everyone, and seemingly only males.


Well yeah, but it's on the X chromosome so I'd say it's significant in females but hasn't been proven so I unno.


Ricky said:


> Wait, so you know about genetics?
> 
> Is there a gay gene?


There is a gene linked significantly to homosexual behavior.
And yeah I've studied genetics for a long time, it really fascinates me. How they did the human genome project and how it evolved into using computers from doing it by hand, if it wasn't transfered to computers it wouldn't be complete now act


----------



## Beastcub (Feb 23, 2010)

it is possible to be born a Hermaphrodite and phsically be both genders...so perhaps some one could be born physically one gender but emotionally/mentally/spirtually/(whatever unseen notion you want to pick) be the other gender...
i dunno...i mean it makes sense to me...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> And yeah I've studied genetics for a long time,


 
At what school? 

I know, we all know the answer to that question is "None" but I asked anyway.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Beastcub said:


> it is possible to be born Hermaphrodite and phsically both geners, and perhaps some one could be born physically one gender but emotionally/mentally/spirtually/whatever unseen notion you want to pick be the other gender.
> i mean it makes sense to me...



We are not talking about genders, we are talking about being GAY. Gay does not involve being confused about your own gender.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> We are not talking about genders, we are talking about being GAY. Gay does not involve being confused about your own gender.



Is there a tranny gene?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Is there a tranny gene?



I dunno. Though I personally believe people who are physically one gender but mentally another.......I think that's just a few wires got crossed in the brain at some point.

Bleh, I tried to put it nicely but I still think I sound insulting.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Is there a tranny gene?


 
$100 says if there was, Newf would test negative.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Bleh, I tried to put it nicely but I still think I sound insulting.



Your asshole gene made you post that


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Your asshole gene made you post that



There is one of those? XD


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 23, 2010)

i dont think i can answer that without sounding like a moron. all i can say is idk.

i used to be completely straight, then in high school i started getting an attraction to guys, but i still couldnt see myself fucking a guy. Then my JR year i started getting stronger and stronger feelings for guys, not just sexual. by the time i graduated i was fully bi, if thats the right way of putting it... that was in 2006, and now ive lost all attraction to women... im gay. and to be honest it used to scare me that i was having these feeling, and now ive come to accept and love the feeling i have.

AND i dont give a flying fuck what anyone els thinks. X3


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> At what school?
> 
> I know, we all know the answer to that question is "None" but I asked anyway.



You need to go to a school to study stuff now? Gee that must mean you have to pay people in order to learn anything now (lol). And actually I studied genetics for several months in high-school. Better than you, seeing as until today you knew nothing about the gay gene at all and guessed out of your ass after a brief (and very poor) read of a wiki article.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

LonelyKitsune said:


> i used to be completely straight, then in high school i started getting an attraction to guys


 
...High school is when the majority of people start seriously getting an attraction to ANYTHING...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> seeing as until today you knew nothing about the gay gene at all


 
You didn't know that there was signifigant evidence disputing the gene.  I highly question your ability to 'study' or really research anything.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> You didn't know that there was signifigant evidence disputing the gene.  I highly question your ability to 'study' or really research anything.


Significant evidence? I'm still waiting for you to link that. Because I can always say there was a hundred tests and they passed flawlessly, and if using your logic I'll be right too and also be able to insult anybody that says otherwise.

I still say there's a choice, even with or without the gene's significant impact.

And as for studying, I've done a lot of studying myself. Whenever I"m bored that's what I'll do, pick a topic and just read a ton of things on it. Mostly academic journals using the new googel scholar or notes from my boyfriends uni courses, though I haven't read his text books yet I don't understand a decent amount of it so I'm not bothering to just yet.

People can look anything up online, granted being taught by a teacher proficient in the subject is better than self-teaching and reading, but I can still become quite knowledgeable depending on the sources. To think otherwise is an insult to knowledge. For instance, in high-school my spelling and grammar was much less than sub-par, but since then it' grown substantially. I'm still not a Doctor in English, not will I ever achieve such a level without university assistance, but I'm still learning and I've become much better than most people I speak to.


AshleyAshes said:


> ...High school is when the majority of people start seriously getting an attraction to ANYTHING...


Oh look something he's said that's right.

Edit: Also you're questioning my ability to study something? When you couldn't even a read a very small wiki article all the way before posting it in attempt to prove the opposite of what it actually says.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> Significant evidence? I'm still waiting for you to link that.


 
I already did, I'm not relinking the content for you if you couldn't find it in the first place.

Hamer's study was small and the follow up studies were small, the Canadian study was on a larger scale and though other studies that could not replicate Hamer's results were smaller. If you can't acknowledge that a major study failed to replicate the results doesn't cast doubt on the original theory and that additional research is necessary, it's not my problem, it's yours.

What's creepy is, you act as if this gay gene thing's existence is somehow important to you. Your reaction is like that of a Christian who has had their belief in the existence of god challenged. All you can say is 'NUH UH!!!', it's disturbing.



Harmony said:


> Also you're questioning my ability to study something? When you couldn't even a read a very small wiki article all the way before posting it in attempt to prove the opposite of what it actually says.


 
I'm sorry but there's not much I can do here.  You're the only one who see's that article as saying Hamer's results are undisputed and showed that gene was present in every gay male it tested.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> I already did, I'm not relinking the content for you if you couldn't find it in the first place.


You linked a wiki article that said exactly what I've been saying and also simply said it was disputed, but not proved entirely wrong; it even said it still had a significant impact.


> Hamer's study was small and the follow up studies were small, the Canadian study was on a larger scale and though other studies that could not replicate Hamer's results were smaller.  If you can't acknowledge that a major study failed to replicate the results doesn't cast doubt on the original theory and that additional research is necessary, it's not my problem, it's yours.


You know nothing about his study or the follow-ups, please stop bullshitting all over the place. Taking gays and testing if they have this genetic marker isn't a study, seeing as it's a choice you should be taking people with this marker and finding out how many of them are gay. Even then it the numbers wouldn't be 100%.


> What's creepy is, you act as if this gay gene thing's existence is somehow important to you.  Your reaction is like that of a Christian who has had their belief in the existence of god challenged.  All you can say is 'NUH UH!!!', it's disturbing.


What's even stranger is you can't accept it, as if you fear your own life isn't entirely in your control. Genetics are proven to exist and hold significant (and somewhat still unknown) impacts in everybody's personality and appearance. Comparing them to belief in gods is just another "I win attempt"; "you're wrong because you're arguing against me and that's just like Christians. They argue all the time so you're just as wrong as them" and any idiot that reads this post will probably agree with you; "oh hey, she is arguing against this guy like Christians do. HE MUST BE RIGHT"

You said there was "lots" of studies proving Hamer's wrong. I have seen this one Canadian one that is flawed heavily, basing all of their research on just gays to see if you need this marker in order to become gay. That is heavily flawed.


AshleyAshes said:


> I'm sorry but there's not much I can do here.  You're the only one who see's that article as saying Hamer's results are undisputed and showed that gene was present in every gay male it tested.


Please quote the exact post where I say those words, kthxbai.
(More attempted absolute wins by the AshleyAshes; if he can't show me all these studies and just one flawed one then he has to put words into my mouth, or attempt to attack me instead of my argument)


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> Better than you, seeing as until today you knew nothing about the gay gene at all


_*
THERE IS NO GAY GENE*_


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> _*
> THERE IS NO GAY GENE*_



Clearly there is, I mean...are you a doctor in gentics part of the US national institute of health? With a Ph.D from  Harvard Medical School that's done research in this field?
No? Well, can you show me research that actually does prove this wrong instead of something randomly studying a flawed sample?

I mean come on there's seven billion people and they take 52?
Seriously? That's a sample?
Okay, maybe I'm missing something then.
Or, how about taking people with this genetic marker (a large sample) and finding out how many of them are gay, that might be a much better way of doing it rather than taking a small sample of gays and seeing how many have this marker. 

Edit: If only 0-30% of them turned out to be gay then I would say this gene has nothing to do with it. However, seeing as there's only a 10%-20% gay population and even the Canadian sample showed 63% of their pure gay sample had this marker that's pretty significant in my opinion. Now if they took a sample of people without knowing sexuality, just shooting for this marker and having it above 30% homosexual then I'm still going to believe this gene holds significants. And if the sample was 63% then wow, that's quite a significance.


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> ...High school is when the majority of people start seriously getting an attraction to ANYTHING...



good point


----------



## Hir (Feb 23, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Just wanted to say to DarkNoctus and anyone else who believes environmental isn't a possible cause because their siblings aren't gay:
> 
> 1) You weren't raised in the exact same environment, even if it was the same household.
> 2) Even if you were, every mind is unique and deals with things differently. Speaking about the environment influencing something is speaking about how your brain reacts to the stimuli from the environment around you.


Fair point, but I still think blaming it solely on an environment you're in is silly.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> You linked a wiki article that said exactly what I've been saying and also simply said it was disputed, but not proved entirely wrong; it even said it still had a significant impact.


 
I'm going to explain this to you, very slowly.



> This finding was replicated in two studies in the United States but not in several others, including a study performed by researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada; meta-analysis indicated Xq28 has a significant but not exclusive effect.[2] [3] [4]


This single sentance covers both success and failure to replicate the results.  The punctuation seperates these points.  Do you see those numbers at the end Newf?  Those link to the actual documents that the sentance is based on.  They link you to the bottom of the page.  This is called a 'citation'.

Citation 2 is an article by Hamer et al expanding on their first work, where they point out that nothing on homosexuality in women.  Citation 4 is Hammer himself publishing an article in response to Rice's results.  This 'signifigance' is in the last paragraph by Hamer in this article.  You got confused while reading.

Citation 3 is Rice et al's work that says the found no linkage.

I'm sorry Newf but you simply got confused.



Harmony said:


> What's even stranger is you can't accept it, as if you fear your own life isn't entirely in your control. Genetics are proven to exist and hold significant (and somewhat still unknown) impacts in everybody's personality and appearance.


 
Oh, I never said there couldn't be a gay gene.  Infact I challenge you to find where in this thread I ever said that.  Maybe you missed this post even?  http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=1581498&postcount=10  You do seem to miss a LOT when you try to read things it seems.  Have you considdered seeing a specialist about that issue?

My point is only that serious doubt on Hamer's work has been seriously cast, any reasonable person wouldn't take it as absolute, and additional research is warrented and welcomed.

I've repeatidly said in this thread that the work of both Hamer and Rice cleary make the issue in need of additional research.  Heck even in on article Hamer himself admits all involved studies had small sample basis.

Heck, Rice's work never even said there couldn't be a gay gene.  You say you read the entire article, so I figured you caught this part in the abstract, right?



> These results do not preclude the possibility of detectable gene effects elsewhere in the genome.


 
You can read it in the ENTIRE publication here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5414/665

Agian, you seem to have become rather confused.



Harmony said:


> What's even stranger is you can't accept it, as if you fear your own life isn't entirely in your control. Genetics are proven to exist and hold significant (and somewhat still unknown) impacts in everybody's personality and appearance. Comparing them to belief in gods is just another "I win attempt"; "you're wrong because you're arguing against me and that's just like Christians. They argue all the time so you're just as wrong as them" and any idiot that reads this post will probably agree with you; "oh hey, she is arguing against this guy like Christians do. HE MUST BE RIGHT"


 
Would you feel less distressed had I used video game fanboyism as the analogy instead?  You are reacting as if a core value of yours has been threatened, that's all.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> I mean come on there's seven billion people and they take 52?
> Seriously? That's a sample?


 


> Sharing of alleles at position Xq28 was studied in *52 gay male sibling pairs*


 
I'm going to skip quoting the definition of the word 'pair' to you but point out that 52*2 = 104.

Oh wait, ha ha, I bet you're gonna say 'BUT THAT'S NOT A BIG SAMPLE'.

Let's read Hamer's work WHICH YOU SURELY READ IN DETAIL...



> DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of *40 families in which there were two gay brothers*


 
AWWW SNAP! D:


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 23, 2010)

Asshole_85 said:


> It is a choice to be gay and make this thread. =3 Faggot. X3



oh hey a troll! =D this will be good^^ i bring the popcorn, ok guys?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> I'm going to explain this to you, very slowly.


Maybe you should read your own shit more. lol.


> This single sentance covers both success and failure to replicate the results.  The punctuation seperates these points.  Do you see those numbers at the end Newf?  Those link to the actual documents that the sentance is based on.  They link you to the bottom of the page.  This is called a 'citation'.
> Citation 2 is an article by Hamer et al expanding on their first work, where they point out that nothing on homosexuality in women.  Citation 4 is Hammer himself publishing an article in response to Rice's results.


So you're solely going off what a wiki says, when it doesn't even prove anything? It links to Hamers study and the Canadian one? I'm going with Hamers, sorry. Reading that Canadian one made me lol at how flawed it was and how piss-poor a sample they took.


> This 'signifigance' is in the last paragraph by Hamer in this article.  You got confused while reading.


Yeah clearly, even though it mentions the significance linked to homosexuality in many other parts of both wiki pages on Dean himself and the gene.


> Citation 3 is Rice et al's work that says the found no linkage.


So...this is you're "lots" of evidence against it? A flawed study that still showed that majority of gays have the gene. You simply saying no you're wrong. Using logical fallacies, ad hominem (much more than what I'm putting out, I might add even though I did a little myself), and saying that by arguing with you my argument is as valid as Christians argueing existence of a god.


> I'm sorry Newf but you simply got confused.


I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about, were unable to provide me with little more than a wiki when I posted a book on the subject wrote by a famous doctor in genetics with ph.d from Harvard.


> Oh, I never said there couldn't be a gay gene.  Infact I challenge you to find where in this thread I ever said that.  Maybe you missed this post even?  http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=1581498&postcount=10


This is a pointless quote that literally is meaningless. You sure like to sound fancy, without saying anything at all but "you're wrong".


> You do seem to miss a LOT when you try to read things it seems.  Have you considdered seeing a specialist about that issue?


Clearly, I'm not the one that linked pages proving myself wrong.


> My point is only that serious doubt on Hamer's work has been seriously cast, any reasonable person wouldn't take it as absolute, and additional research is warrented and welcomed.


My point is you haven't shown this. You've literally only gave me one (very very very piss-poor) of the studies you mention. How is it you feel one flawed and unrecognized study allows you to use terms like "lots" and "seriously"?


> I've repeatidly said in this thread that the work of both Hamer and Rice cleary make the issue in need of additional research.  Heck even in on article Hamer himself admits all involved studies had small sample basis.


No you have not, but I do agree more research is needed. More research is always a good thing. Lets say more basic generalizations!


> Heck, Rice's work never even said there couldn't be a gay gene.  You say you read the entire article, so I figured you caught this part in the abstract, right?


Yeah, so because I didn't mention it i didn't read it. And because I didn't read it what I'm saying can all be thrown out the window? that's what you're trying to put across, again? Wow. here we go again with that "I'm better than you" attitude you constantly put out in almost every post you've ever made.


> You can read it in the ENTIRE publication here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5414/665
> Agian, you seem to have become rather confused.


Again, really bad at debating. You don't have access to that page, just the abstract. And it's that very same, heavily flawed study you keep linking over and over and over and over and over. I've already said, 52 gay men isn't a good sample at all. Looking for markers in gays is wrong, looking for gays in markers is right. No they're not the same.


> Would you feel less distressed had I used video game fanboyism as the analogy instead?  You are reacting as if a core value of yours has been threatened, that's all.


And you're not? I'm not the one constantly spewing out insults, I've made a few but nowhere near half of what you're spit out. And unlike you, I'm simply asking for the "lots" of studies you're claimed to know about, and that Hamer is an authority figure with much more knowledge in the field than me, you, or any of the people involved in this constantly-linked, flawed Canadian study.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Newf, notice how no one see's me linking to things that go agianst my point but you?  If I'd made suck a fuck up, it'd be more than you here pointing that out.  ...You should be concerned about that.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Newf, notice how no one see's me linking to things that go agianst my point but you?  If I'd made suck a fuck up, it'd be more than you here pointing that out.  ...You should be concerned about that.


So you're saying that because nobody but me notices your errors, so you're not wrong?
Oh boy, you spurt out more logical fallacies than I honestly can number.


AshleyAshes said:


> I'm going to skip quoting the definition of the word 'pair' to you but point out that 52*2 = 104.


Yeah, actually that's much more. 40 families with at least two gay brothers, that's at least 160 people, more than likely there's more as well. So yeah, it is a larger sample, about 55% larger. Though flawed slightly still, I still feel it's much better than the Canadian's version; however like you said, more research needs to be made, so lets have you post all these studies you've read and talk about constantly.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> So you're saying that because nobody but me notices your errors, so you're not wrong?


 
There's also that everyone else thinks you're being stupid too.

Let's be realistic here Newf, I'm not always the most popular person, if I was fucking up hard and posting things that disagreed with my own statements, there are some characters that would EAGERLY jump on that.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> There's also that everyone else thinks you're being stupid too.


Yes. You're right because nobody is disagreeing with you and I'm wrong because nobody is disagreeing with me.


> Let's be realistic here Newf, I'm not always the most popular person, if I was fucking up hard and posting things that disagreed with my own statements, there are some characters that would EAGERLY jump on that.


And here I am. Not everybody is online, in this sub-forum, or cares enough.

Do you honestly think that because other people haven't laughed at you, that you're right? Wow. That's...wow.

So, by your logic running out into the woods and screaming 2+2=5 is a breakthrough in mathematics.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Feb 23, 2010)

I think it is definately the mercury in vaccines that is causing ADHD, Homosexuality, and Autism. 

Or it could just be that the mothers have increased estrogen levels or develop cells while the hypothetical homosexual is still in the womb that might cause him to adapt more, well, womanly characteristics. 

So, the ultimate solution would simply be Abortion.

I think that argument would go well.

Legalize abortion to end Homosexuality.

Or just beat your kids for jacking off to Calvin Klein ads.

...
...
Wait, what happens if I am attracted to everything that is human that is generally healthy, but lack the drive to really want to do anything to them?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> Clearly there is, I mean...are you a doctor in gentics part of the US national institute of health? With a Ph.D from  Harvard Medical School that's done research in this field?
> No? Well, can you show me research that actually does prove this wrong instead of something randomly studying a flawed sample?



lol...  um, no and neither are you.

Funny you ask that though because I used to work at Harvard Medical School at the NERPRC.  I was actually getting paid by Tufts (we did our research with them) but I wasn't a PhD, I was just a lowly lab technician doing...  get this -- molecular biology.  Still, I'm sure that is better qualified than you 

Also, I don't have to prove you are wrong.  I am under no obligation.  If what I already posted doesn't explain to you why the idea "there is a gay gene" is completely idiotic you are beyond hope.  Either that or you are just blindly trying to argue a point.  Nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science would claim there is a single gene that controls whether or not you are gay.


----------



## Viva (Feb 23, 2010)

being gay isn't a choice you retard.  Was that even a serious fucking question?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> lol...  um, no and neither are you.
> 
> Funny you ask that though because I used to work at Harvard Medical School at the NERPRC.  I was actually getting paid by Tufts (we did our research with them) but I wasn't a PhD, I was just a lowly lab technician doing...  get this -- molecular biology.  Still, I'm sure that is better qualified than you


But I wasn't talking about myself, but instead Dean Hamer. So point taken, but moot.


> Also, I don't have to prove you are wrong.  I am under no obligation.  If what I already posted doesn't explain to you why the idea "there is a gay gene" is completely idiotic you are beyond hope.  Either that or you are just blindly trying to argue a point.  Nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science would claim there is a single gene that controls whether or not you are gay.


Words.
Yeah Dr. Hamer is a idiot and beyond hope then, because I'm simply quoting him. Psst, he's far more intelligent than you or anybody else on this forum combined.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> But I wasn't talking about myself, but instead Dean Hamer. So point taken, but moot.
> 
> Words.
> Yeah Dr. Hamer is a idiot and beyond hope then, because I'm simply quoting him. Psst, he's far more intelligent than you or anybody else on this forum combined.



From what I understand reading the thread he never said there was a gene that caused homosexuality but rather he found a gene that correlated with homosexual tendencies.  If that's the case you simply misinterpreted him.

Either way, I don't really care.  I'm not going to dispute the research because I haven't even read it.  I was just stating that there isn't a "gay gene" and saying a single gene is responsible for homosexuality is stupid.

Lemme put it this way -- is there a *bi* gene?

Is there a dogfucker gene?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> From what I understand reading the thread he never said there was a gene that caused homosexuality but rather he found a gene that correlated with homosexual tendencies.  If that's the case you simply misinterpreted him.


He specifically calls the gene he found "The Gay Gene", so yeah...pretty much; it doesn't make you gay, it just tends to correlate with homosexual tendencies.


> Lemme put it this way -- is there a *bi* gene?
> Is there a dogfucker gene?


Do these things have to be on the same level? And about bi, it could be nothing causing it, or perhaps this gene causing it. I don't know.


----------



## Viva (Feb 23, 2010)

One theory is that the mother's ambiotic fluid has an enzyme or an antibody of sorts that targets genes in the developing embryo that make a boy masculine.  This would only explain for gay guys, not lesbians though.  I read it in Psychology Today

Another theory is that some women contain a so-called "man loving" gene (aka, she's a biological whore) and that gets passed on to her son.  Again, Psychology Today.

I don't really have my own theory.  Maybe if moms didn't smoke or drink during pregnancy....:V


----------



## Ricky (Feb 23, 2010)

Harmony said:


> He specifically calls the gene he found "The Gay Gene", so yeah...pretty much; it doesn't make you gay, it just tends to correlate with homosexual tendencies.



OK, I thought I made it pretty clear and stated several times my argument was that there is no single gene that causes homosexuality.  If that wasn't clear enough my apologies.  Still, I'd be surprised if a single gene had much influence, at all.



Harmony said:


> Do these things have to be on the same level? And about bi, it could be nothing causing it, or perhaps this gene causing it. I don't know.



It was a rhetorical question.


----------



## Viva (Feb 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> OK, I thought I made it pretty clear and stated several times my argument was that there is no single gene that causes homosexuality. If that wasn't clear enough my apologies. Still, I'd be surprised if a single gene had much influence, at all.


 
Wait oops nvm.


----------



## JackalTeeth (Feb 23, 2010)

Wowee, look at all the generalizations in here.

I'm going to have to go with what the majority has said, mixture of both with plenty of other things thrown into it.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 23, 2010)

My opinion is that people need to stop getting their information about sexuality from wikipedia.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> There is no "good evidence." You're just repeating popular opinion. Find me the gene and you'll get the Nobel prize, but you can't, because it doesn't exist.


http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/index.html

A good overview (and critique) of various twin studies on the subject.  These studies provide a good evidence that there is a genetic component... but they don't prove that such a component is the cause of homosexuality.

I don't believe there is a "gay gene."  I do believe there are variety of genes that affect our predisposition toward things other than strict heterosexuality.  In fact, that's why I believe so many furs are gay or bisexual... because those same genes may also affect our tastes in other things too, such as being a furry!


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 23, 2010)

Telnac said:


> http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/index.html
> 
> A good overview (and critique) of various twin studies on the subject.  These studies provide a good evidence that there is a genetic component... but they don't prove that such a component is the cause of homosexuality.
> 
> I don't believe there is a "gay gene."  I do believe there are variety of genes that affect our predisposition toward things other than strict heterosexuality.  In fact, that's why I believe so many furs are gay or bisexual... because those same genes may also affect our tastes in other things too, such as being a furry!


I think you're forgetting how 70% of furries are teens.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 24, 2010)

Telnac said:


> http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/index.html
> 
> A good overview (and critique) of various twin studies on the subject. These studies provide a good evidence that there is a genetic component... but they don't prove that such a component is the cause of homosexuality.
> 
> I don't believe there is a "gay gene." I do believe there are variety of genes that affect our predisposition toward things other than strict heterosexuality. In fact, that's why I believe so many furs are gay or bisexual... because those same genes may also affect our tastes in other things too, such as being a furry!


 
There is no genetic factor, and the twin studies back it. By theory if one twin is gay, then the other one must be gay, too. Twin studies have shown that not to bet the case. 

I know "but I said..." But you didn't show me any proof what so ever, and you practically said "oh yeah, I agree, buuuuuut this is why I think you're wrong." 

Btw, _all_ studies suggest something that points to the study being right.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 24, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> There is no genetic factor, and the twin studies back it. By theory if one twin is gay, then the other one must be gay, too. Twin studies have shown that not to bet the case.
> 
> I know "but I said..." But you didn't show me any proof what so ever, and you practically said "oh yeah, I agree, buuuuuut this is why I think you're wrong."
> 
> Btw, _all_ studies suggest something that points to the study being right.



That doesn't prove there is no genetic component, just that there isn't a single gene or something obvious like that (but we already knew this).

My opinion is people are probably predisposed to certain things through genetics, but something as complex as this can't be looked at so simply.  I'm sure there are many, many genes involved and environmental factors as well.

It is possible that genetics causes people to be predisposed to certain things but emotions aren't physical traits but rather abstractions we use for complex mental processes (in my boyfriend's words; he explains it better than me).  Things like that simply can't be explained in terms of genetics but that doesn't mean heredity can't influence you in one way or another.

So I agree with Telnac a bit in that respect, however I don't think it would have any obvious impact.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 24, 2010)

So yeah how about those prenatal hormones guys


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> So yeah how about those prenatal hormones guys


You subconsciously chose to receive those hormones :V


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> My opinion is that people need to stop getting their information about sexuality from wikipedia.



Word.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> You subconsciously chose to receive those hormones :V



Your genes made you more predisposed to being exposed to those hormones.



Xipoid said:


> Word.



Someone's feeling black today.


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> Someone's feeling black today.



You should see my dick.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> You should see my dick.



That's what I keep telling you


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> So yeah how about those prenatal hormones guys



That would fall under "environmental factors."

Also, I'd like to add that I didn't vote because the poll is invalid.  Genes and choice are not the two possible options, here.  It is nature vs. nurture and this dichotomy is nothing new.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> That would fall under "environmental factors."



uh

no it doesn't

that would fall under "biological factors"

do you know what the term "prenatal" means?

are you retarded? should I even waste my time talking to you?


----------



## Leon (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> should I even waste my time talking to you?


 
Yes, becuase it will make me luagh.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

leon said:


> Yes, becuase it will make me luagh.



but it will make me cry ):

is it worth it to you ):


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> That doesn't prove there is no genetic component, just that there isn't a single gene or something obvious like that (but we already knew this).
> 
> My opinion is people are probably predisposed to certain things through genetics, but something as complex as this can't be looked at so simply. I'm sure there are many, many genes involved and environmental factors as well.
> 
> ...


 
Okay, I'll go with that. As long as you're not saying you are born gay.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 25, 2010)

I'm sure this has been said already... but the debate isn't between genes and choice.  It's between genes and _environment._ 

So far, most studies have  shown that both are somewhat involved.  However, there are always those extremists who say that gay people are consciously trying to sin against God.  There are also those who think that babies are 'born gay'.  This is possible, but still probably not completely true, at least in most cases.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Feb 25, 2010)

Lets have a fun debate... If homosexuality had a genetic component, would you be against parents screening potential offspring for that component before making a decision to abort said offspring?


----------



## Qoph (Feb 25, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Lets have a fun debate... If homosexuality had a genetic component, would you be against parents screening potential offspring for that component before making a decision to abort said offspring?



Well, since the only parents that would not want a gay son/daughter would also be morally abliged to NOT abort their children... that would be interesting.  I guess there would really be no legal argument against it.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Feb 25, 2010)

Qoph said:


> Well, since the only parents that would not want a gay son/daughter would also be morally abliged to NOT abort their children... that would be interesting.  I guess there would really be no legal argument against it.



What makes you think the only parents would be the type to be morally obliged to be against abortion?  Plenty of folks support legalized abortions but not homosexuality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 25, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Lets have a fun debate... If homosexuality had a genetic component, would you be against parents screening potential offspring for that component before making a decision to abort said offspring?



I'd be against it. Being gay does not physically affect someones way of life. I mean they are quite capable of free thought and able to do everything a straight person can. If being gay was a mental or physical handicap that meant they couldn't do any of the above, then I might consider an abortion. But to abort someone just because they will be gay is stupid.


----------



## Fuh (Feb 25, 2010)

It's both, yet neither. It's a combination of the nature/nurture thing. 

Nobody chooses who they are sexually attracted to, or who they love. So by that, it's a nature thing. But sexuality can be repressed, or brought out. 

And to follow on from that, it's not like most people wake up and say "I'm straight". To a lot of people, they just _are_. Furthermore, it occurs in nature, among animals, and in humans, goes back as far as human history goes back. 

Um, to save getting into a big psychology dissertation, I'll just say "It's both, but mostly comes from nature, more so than nurture".


----------



## Hyenaworks (Feb 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'd be against it. Being gay does not physically affect someones way of life. I mean they are quite capable of free thought and able to do everything a straight person can. If being gay was a mental or physical handicap that meant they couldn't do any of the above, then I might consider an abortion. But to abort someone just because they will be gay is stupid.



Being gay severely impacts your reproduction desires which some couples hoping to someday be grandparents may not wish to deal with.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 25, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Lets have a fun debate... If homosexuality had a genetic component, would you be against parents screening potential offspring for that component before making a decision to abort said offspring?


 
If they were going to end up being a Prez hiltin, then maybe.

I'm kind of picking on him tonight. Every time I think of him, I rage for a little bit.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 25, 2010)

Qoph said:


> So far, most studies have  shown that both are somewhat involved.  However, there are always those extremists who say that gay people are consciously trying to sin against God.


Uh... according to Christian Theology, anyone performing any sin whatsoever is rebelling against God.

...of course, this is the case for homosexual sex as it is for two unmarried heterosexual people who get it on; not like THAT will ever be taught in Sunday School!

Back on topic, I really don't understand the whole Nature vs Nurture debate.  Study after study after study show that BOTH have an important role to play in how people develop.  Children are no more "born gay" than they are "born alcoholic."  There may be some genes that predispose someone toward a certain behavior set, but that hardly means anything's set in stone.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 25, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Uh... according to Christian Theology, anyone performing any sin whatsoever is rebelling against God.
> 
> *...of course, this is the case for homosexual sex as it is for two unmarried heterosexual people who get it on; not like THAT will ever be taught in Sunday School!*
> 
> Back on topic, I really don't understand the whole Nature vs Nurture debate. Study after study after study show that BOTH have an important role to play in how people develop. Children are no more "born gay" than they are "born alcoholic." There may be some genes that predispose someone toward a certain behavior set, but that hardly means anything's set in stone.


 
Of course not, you wean kids into stuff like that.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Lets have a fun debate... If homosexuality had a genetic component, would you be against parents screening potential offspring for that component before making a decision to abort said offspring?



Eugenically selecting against such insignificant traits to make "designer babies" is wrong.  The means of how you carry out the selection are irrelevant, and specifically naming abortion is just loading the question.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

-


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 25, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Being gay severely impacts your reproduction desires which some couples hoping to someday be grandparents may not wish to deal with.




Just because someone is straight DOES NOT INSTANTLY  mean they want kids. I have a friend who is straight and he hates the idea of having his own kids. 

So that is BS excuse. Also if people want to abort a child just because it wont make them grandparents is also highly selfish of the parents.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 25, 2010)

slorrel said:


> I completly agree with what you're saying.
> But I just wanted to point out that, in the future, abortion may not be the only option.
> I think science is quite close to allowing us to "pick and choose" what genetic traits our children have (eg eye clolur, gender, ect.). Of course, at the moment, we do not know the full extent of this, if giving someone one trait will unintentionally affect another, and to what digree.
> 
> But yeah, I totally agree with you.



Didn't scientists already say that in the future that may be very possible to do? I am sure I once watched on the news sometime ago that scientists wanted to pick and choose genes to fix genetic disorders like down syndrome.


----------



## lacygunner (Feb 25, 2010)

I started to read this thread, and then decided about 1/2 way through that it has been a waste of time.  Everything here has been as retarded at watching the special Olympics.  
You have one particular idiot who just seems to spout BIG fancy words, while using a slightly snobby demeanor to it, so he can call people straight fu*%ing idiots, w/out really calling them that right out.
Granted there is some interesting theories here, but all the B.S. in between will give anyone a splitting migraine and major regrets for trying to read through this in the first place.  
So why don't people stop posting threads about big debatable topics, such as this one, and find something that can have more evidence and research to put behind it.
There is still WAYYY to much out there that isn't known about this topic, and so there for it should not be debated in the first place.  Honestly, debating such a mysterious topic is like trying to spit into the wind.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

-


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 25, 2010)

lacygunner said:


> I started to read this thread, and then decided about 1/2 way through that it has been a waste of time.  Everything here has been as retarded at watching the special Olympics.
> You have one particular idiot who just seems to spout BIG fancy words, while using a slightly snobby demeanor to it, so he can call people straight fu*%ing idiots, w/out really calling them that right out.
> Granted there is some interesting theories here, but all the B.S. in between will give anyone a splitting migraine and major regrets for trying to read through this in the first place.
> So why don't people stop posting threads about big debatable topics, such as this one, and find something that can have more evidence and research to put behind it.
> There is still WAYYY to much out there that isn't known about this topic, and so there for it should not be debated in the first place.  Honestly, debating such a mysterious topic is like trying to spit into the wind.



It's called getting peoples opinions. The OP was just asking what our thoughts were on the subject. Just because there is still much to learn does not mean we can not have our own thoughts and ideas.

If you don't like that, then gtfo.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It's called getting peoples opinions. The OP was just asking what our thoughts were on the subject. Just because there is still much to learn does not mean we can not have our own thoughts and ideas.
> 
> If you don't like that, then gtfo.


 
Agreed!


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

I changed my mind.  It's both

There are gay geneS, and they do cause feminine and homosexual behavior.

But

You can choose to ignore your homosexual impulses, or retrain yourself through straight camp or whatever the hell else they have these days, but you will wind up unhappy.

So...it's both


----------



## Telnac (Feb 25, 2010)

lacygunner said:


> You have one particular idiot who just seems to spout BIG fancy words, while using a slightly snobby demeanor to it, so he can call people straight fu*%ing idiots, w/out really calling them that right out.


There's only one?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> uh
> 
> no it doesn't
> 
> ...



The baby is in its mother's womb.

That's its environment, you dumbshit.


----------



## Yrr (Feb 25, 2010)

I've been having an argument with a Jehovah's Witness lately, he says that gays can simply stop being gay if they try hard enough, but they just don't, his citation for this was a book written by Jehovah's Witnesses.

He keeps trying to stop the argument, saying I'm just wrong.

But yeah, I say sexuality is as much a choice as skin colour, I figure if everyone knew this, there wouldn't be laws against it.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

VivaLaPh!va said:


> I changed my mind. It's both
> 
> There are gay geneS, and they do cause feminine and homosexual behavior.
> 
> ...


 
I guess you're right, in the same way that a straight person can choose to ignore their impluses and become selebate. (or go to gay camp).


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

slorrel said:


> I guess you're right, in the same way that a straight person can choose to ignore their impluses and become selebate. (or go to gay camp).


 
Exactly


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

slorrel said:


> I guess you're right, in the same way that a straight person can choose to ignore their impluses and become selebate. (or go to gay camp).



That would only matter if you thought homosexual acts were wrong.

There are some sexual impulses you should not act on, such as pedo urges or _*wanting to fuck a dog*_ but in my opinion there's nothing wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex.


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

So...I get the feeling AshleyAshes and Harmony argue like this in every thread. How accurate is that impression?

On-topic: Personally, I tend to agree with Freud's idea of innate bisexuality. I'd say  there probably isn't really a gene, no matter how convenient it might be for explaining other orientations, but it still isn't a choice.

Then again, I--like most of you--have no background in genetics or psychology, so please don't quote me on that.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> *So...I get the feeling AshleyAshes and Harmony argue like this in every thread. How accurate is that impression?*
> 
> On-topic: Personally, I tend to agree with Freud's idea of innate bisexuality. I'd say there probably isn't really a gene, no matter how convenient it might be for explaining other orientations, but it still isn't a choice.
> 
> Then again, I--like most of you--have no background in genetics or psychology, so please don't quote me on that.


 
Actually, no


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> So...I get the feeling AshleyAshes and Harmony argue like this in every thread. How accurate is that impression?



I think they are just argumentative people, like myself.



> On-topic: Personally, I tend to agree with Freud's idea of innate bisexuality. I'd say  there probably isn't really a gene, no matter how convenient it might be for explaining other orientations, but it still isn't a choice.


Despite Freud being a nutjob I agree that most people are probably bisexual up to a point.  Maybe most guys have preferences for girls but look at situations like prison where they turn to guys for sex.  There has to be at least some desire there or they wouldn't do it in the first place.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I think they are just argumentative people, like myself.
> 
> Despite Freud being a nutjob I agree that most people are probably bisexual up to a point. Maybe most guys have preferences for girls but look at situations like prison where they turn to guys for sex. There has to be at least some desire there or they wouldn't do it in the first place.


 
You are a very agreeable person on AIM :/


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> *That would only matter if you thought homosexual acts were wrong.*
> 
> There are some sexual impulses you should not act on, such as pedo urges or _*wanting to fuck a dog*_ but in my opinion there's nothing wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex.


 
Wut?


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I think they are just argumentative people, like myself.


Could be. The fact that they're both apparently "girly" may factor in as well.



> Despite Freud being a nutjob


Oh, "nutjob" is putting it mildly. Unfortunately, even a stopped clock's right twice a day.



> I agree that most people are probably bisexual up to a point.  Maybe most guys have preferences for girls but look at situations like prison where they turn to guys for sex.  There has to be at least some desire there or they wouldn't do it in the first place.


Exactly! Aside from the power aspect, I suppose--but since arousal is an involuntary reaction...


----------



## Atrak (Feb 25, 2010)

I find this idea of everyone being innately bi to be accurate :V . While I don't feel any sort of attraction to males or male parts, I am completely comfortable with gays. *shrug*


----------



## lowkey (Feb 25, 2010)

only a fag would choose to be gay.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

slorrel said:


> Wut?



If you want me to elaborate on something please let me know what that is.  "Wut?" doesn't give me any useful information in that regard.



atrakaj said:


> I find this idea of everyone being innately bi to be accurate :V . While I don't feel any sort of attraction to males or male parts, I am completely comfortable with gays. *shrug*



That's why I made sure to clarify and say "most people".  I think some people really only have preferences to one gender.  Whether or not it is possible for this to change, who knows.


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

lowkey said:


> only a fag would choose to be gay.


You should join the Tautology Club, because it's the club you should join.



Ricky said:


> That's why I made sure to clarify and say "most people".  I think some people really only have preferences to one gender.  Whether or not it is possible for this to change, who knows.


I think Freud's theory says that everyone _starts_ bi and then most move away from that as they grow up, depending on whether they'd rather conform to social norms (heterosexual) or avoid intimate relationships with the opposite sex (homosexual).

And some people don't end up feeling strongly either way.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

lowkey said:


> only a fag would choose to be gay.


 
I'm probably making a mistake by responding to this, but you're a retard


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

Qoph said:


> I'm sure this has been said already... but the debate isn't between genes and choice.  It's between genes and _environment._



oh my god no it's not anyone who keeps saying genes is an idiot it's a debate between _biology_ and environment

there's a fucking difference



lacygunner said:


> snip



What a valuable post!



Ricky said:


> The baby is in its mother's womb.
> 
> That's its environment, you dumbshit.



lol you're wrong

not wasting my time with you if you don't know what the term "environmental factors" and "biological factors" are referring to



lowkey said:


> only a fag would choose to be gay.



OH YOU o/`


----------



## Gight (Feb 25, 2010)

I chose to be Bi.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

Gight said:


> I chose to be Bi.


 

Over...what?


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> If you want me to elaborate on something please let me know what that is. "Wut?" doesn't give me any useful information in that regard.


 
Well, I was wondering how seeing homosexuality as being wrong would relate to a hetrosextal choosing to become selebate. 
As for "wut?" not giving enough information, I kinda took it for granted that it showed I was wondering what you meant by your statement.


----------



## Atrak (Feb 25, 2010)

VivaLaPh!va said:


> Over...what?


 
Straight, gay, eunich.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 25, 2010)

atrakaj said:


> Straight, gay, eunich.



It's not really a choice to be Bi is what Viva was saying, I think.


----------



## Atrak (Feb 25, 2010)

Jelly said:


> It's not really a choice to be Bi is what Viva was saying, I think.


 
Ah. Well, those would still be his options, whether it was a conscious choice or involuntary.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> lol you're wrong
> 
> not wasting my time with you if you don't know what the term "environmental factors" and "biological factors" are referring to



YOU ARE A MORON



slorrel said:


> Well, I was wondering how seeing homosexuality as being wrong would relate to a hetrosextal choosing to become selebate.
> As for "wut?" not giving enough information, I kinda took it for granted that it showed I was wondering what you meant by your statement.



Ah, ok -- sorry, I meant for homosexuals to want to be celibate.

It wasn't very clear the way I quoted that.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 25, 2010)

atrakaj said:


> Ah. Well, those would still be his options, whether it was a conscious choice or involuntary.



There's more options.
But okay.

And being a eunuch is either a choice or a command from an outside person.
so yeah


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

-


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

slorrel said:


> Ah, I see. You mean like if a Homosexual decided to become celibate due to him/her believing that homosexuaility is wrong?
> 
> And sorry, guess I could have elaberated a little more (I can have a little bit of a bad habbit of that, its happened before).



There's no other reason I could see that would make them want to become celibate, aside from maybe trying to hide their desires to avoid persecution.


----------



## slorrel (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> There's no other reason I could see that would make them want to become celibate, aside from maybe trying to hide their desires to avoid persecution.


 
That would make sence. Then again, many people become celibate for relighious reasons.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> lol you're wrong
> 
> not wasting my time with you if you don't know what the term "environmental factors" and "biological factors" are referring to


 
are you stupid?  or have you just realized that you are wrong and are trying to keep up your arguement to make yourself look good?


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> YOU ARE A MORON



ok

I was definitely talking about PRENATAL HORMONES which are definitely considered a BIOLOGICAL FACTOR by anyone that isn't getting their information off of one article that you read on the internet that doesn't cite its sources and has ads by google all across the top that's hosted by JRANK

I'm pretty sure I was NOT talking about DRUGS and DISEASES, which of course are environmental factors

But those aren't even relevant to what we're talking about as those are going to make your baby retarded or miscarry, not make it GAY

Also that article has nothing to do with the development of sexuality, I have no idea why you're linking to it other than to show that you have no idea what you're talking about

Meanwhile I've gone to university and learned from professionals with experience in the field and done volunteer work in said field

Pretty sure that I know more about it than you do but you can just assume that you're right because you read some irrelevant articles on the internet.  Maybe if you're lucky, whoever wrote those articles didn't just copy and paste from wikipedia (which at this point would have been a better source, since they actually cite their sources) and they actually read some books. :3



VivaLaPh!va said:


> are you stupid?  or have you just realized that you are wrong and are trying to keep up your arguement to make yourself look good?



[teeheeface]


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> ok
> 
> I was definitely talking about PRENATAL HORMONES which are definitely considered a BIOLOGICAL FACTOR by anyone that isn't getting their information off of one article that you read on the internet that doesn't cite its sources and has ads by google all across the top that's hosted by JRANK
> 
> ...



No, I did a 2 second web search for prenatal + environmental factors.  I'm sure you could do more research on your end but I'm not wasting any more of my time investigating what I already know.  Your argument was that it's not an environmental factor (I was referring to nature vs. nuture where this is a relevant point) and you are wrong.  It is a factor of the fetus's environment.

I skimmed through the article and it explains why.

If you don't want to admit you're wrong that's fine but I'm not wasting any more of my time with this.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> No, I did a 2 second web search for prenatal + environmental factors. I'm sure you could do more research on your end but I'm not wasting any more of my time investigating what I already know. Your argument was that it's not an environmental factor (I was referring to nature vs. nuture where this is a relevant point) and you are wrong. It is a factor of the fetus's environment.
> 
> If you don't want to admit you're wrong that's fine but I'm not wasting any more of my time with this.


 
He obviously doesn't understand psychological development


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> No, I did a 2 second web search for prenatal + environmental factors.  I'm sure you could do more research on your end but I'm not wasting any more of my time investigating what I already know.  Your argument was that it's not an environmental factor (I was referring to nature vs. nuture where this is a relevant point) and you are wrong.  It is a factor of the fetus's environment.
> 
> I skimmed through the article and it explains why.
> 
> If you don't want to admit you're wrong that's fine but I'm not wasting any more of my time with this.



Ok

I'm just telling you how the terms are actually defined as they are used in the field of sexual research

If you don't want to admit you're wrong that's fine but I'm not wasting any more of my time with this. :V



VivaLaPh!va said:


> He obviously doesn't understand psychological development



Shouldn't you be in school, kid?

PS: how does Ricky's breakfast taste


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> Oh, "nutjob" is putting it mildly. Unfortunately, even a stopped clock's right twice a day.


I like this saying a lot.


----------



## Atrak (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I like this saying a lot.



Yeah, it's actually not overused like most good sayings.


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I like this saying a lot.


Me too, as it so happens.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> Me too, as it so happens.



You don't fucking say.

That wasn't like...  completely obvious or anything, seeing how you are the one who said it :roll:

Just sayin'


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You don't fucking say.
> 
> That wasn't like...  completely obvious or anything, seeing how you are the one who said it :roll:


You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.



I aim to please.


----------



## Viva (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.


 
You certainly feel comfortable here already


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

VivaLaPh!va said:


> You certainly feel comfortable here already


I suppose it's because this isn't the first forum I've been on.


----------



## SnowFox (Feb 25, 2010)

The Aeroplane said:


> I suppose it's because this isn't the first forum I've been on.



I get the feeling it's not the first time you've been on this forum either. wink wink.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 25, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> I get the feeling it's not the first time you've been on this forum either. wink wink.


SnowFox knows all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> SnowFox knows all.



Does this mean we have to bow down and worship skyfox?


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Does this mean we have to bow down and worship skyfox?


No, skyfox is retarded. 

Proof.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No, skyfox is retarded.
> 
> Proof.



Sorry I meant snowfox.

Fuck if I know why I typed skyfox. Perhaps being ill is fogging my concentration......Oh wait, that is fogged anyway.


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No, skyfox is retarded.
> 
> Proof.


Well, if he wasn't _before_ that incident...


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No, skyfox is retarded.
> 
> Proof.



I believed it all the way till the unconscious part.


----------



## Dyluck (Feb 25, 2010)

AEROPLANE EVERYONE IS ON TO YOU

BE LESS OBVIOUS I MEAN CONSPICUOUS


----------



## The Aeroplane (Feb 25, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> AEROPLANE EVERYONE IS ON TO YOU
> 
> BE LESS OBVIOUS I MEAN CONSPICUOUS


I really have no idea what you're talking about. Go away, you pesky person.


----------



## Ratte (Feb 25, 2010)

My curiosity has been raised.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I believed it all the way till the unconscious part.


Pretty sure it actually happened.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> This poll is stupid.  It has no "both" option.
> 
> IMO there is most likely both a genetic predisposition (nature) towards being a homosexual and a mental identification, acknowledgement and acceptance of homosexuality (nurture).  Take note that engaging in homosexual behavior and BEING homosexual are NOT necessarily joined at the hip.


How so?  (just for the sake of knowing your position.)

@OP: Both.

I was nine years old at around the time I started liking members of the same sex. I don't think it was a genetic predisposition so much as it was curiosity; still attracted to females, so I would identify myself as bisexual.


----------



## SnowFox (Feb 26, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> SnowFox knows all.



Actually that was a wild guess. If that was who I think it was I'm *FUCKING PISSED OFF* that they're banned. :x

I wish I hadn't said anything


----------



## Tycho (Feb 26, 2010)

Bambi said:


> How so?  (just for the sake of knowing your position.)



Animals demonstrate "homosexual behavior" quite frequently, though it almost ALWAYS has more to do with dominance than relief of sexual tensions.  Rape in prisons is an example of homosexual behavior without actual homosexuality (usually) amongst humans.  "Jailhouse gay" (supposedly very common in the fandom) is the result of environmental circumstances that precipitate homosexual behavior - but there isn't any great deal of genetic/biological influence on the matter, mostly psychological (little "nature", lots of "nurture").  The Kinsey scale would seem to indicate that there is almost ALWAYS a tiny bit of homosexuality present within humans, but I personally don't think that makes sense when applied to "nature" as it's seemingly being portrayed (gay genes, no gay genes, biological homosexuality is binary :V ), only "nurture".

If you REALLY wanted to, you could demonstrate strong homosexual behaviors and by all outward appearances be "gay", but I think it would ultimately be mostly a facade, almost PURELY psychological.

Now, as to how bisexuality fits into all this, I haven't a clue.  Maybe the "biological" factor is just like the "psychological" factor, with varying degrees of homo/hetero tendency? I dunno.  I'm not an expert on this shit, I'm pretty much just giving OPINION, and would therefore be considered by most to be talking out my ass.  I've heard of a number of studies on the matter and I'm formulating my opinion based upon what I can glean from those studies.  They might find out that homosexuality is linked to a high concentration of some yet-undiscovered substance lurking within our physiologies, maybe a kind of gay midichlorian thing.  Until then, I'm spitballing based upon whatever information I can find.  Mildly-educated guessing.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 26, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> Actually that was a wild guess. If that was who I think it was I'm *FUCKING PISSED OFF* that they're banned. :x
> 
> I wish I hadn't said anything


It was someone who deserves it and is completely bipolar.


----------



## Damian (Feb 26, 2010)

I think it's a little of both...


----------



## Atrak (Feb 26, 2010)

Damian said:


> I think it's a little of both...



You just lost the Game.


----------



## Revy (Feb 26, 2010)

this discussion is bullshit in many ways.


----------



## Atrak (Feb 26, 2010)

Revy said:


> this discussion is bullshit in many ways.



It's also horse shit, cat shit, and cow patties.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 26, 2010)

Revy said:


> this discussion is bullshit in many ways.



Care to list them?


----------



## Revy (Feb 26, 2010)

cba


----------



## Tycho (Feb 26, 2010)

Revy said:


> cba





You're no fun.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Animals demonstrate "homosexual behavior" quite frequently, though it almost ALWAYS has more to do with dominance than relief of sexual tensions.  Rape in prisons is an example of homosexual behavior without actual homosexuality (usually) amongst humans.  "Jailhouse gay" (supposedly very common in the fandom) is the result of environmental circumstances that precipitate homosexual behavior - but there isn't any great deal of genetic/biological influence on the matter, mostly psychological (little "nature", lots of "nurture").  The Kinsey scale would seem to indicate that there is almost ALWAYS a tiny bit of homosexuality present within humans, but I personally don't think that makes sense when applied to "nature" as it's seemingly being portrayed (gay genes, no gay genes, biological homosexuality is binary :V ), only "nurture".



I think in order for prison inmates to want to rape someone there has to be at least some kind of sexual attraction there.  They might not chose to do it in other circumstances but like you said about the Kinsey Scale I don't think any of them can really be considered 100% straight.

I think sexuality is more abstract than that.  I think there is some innate, probably instinctual attraction to a basic human form (and even this can be diluted as shown by members of this very forum).  I'm sure at least part of this has some genetic roots but I think a lot of sexuality is based simply on what people find aesthetically pleasing which probably varies from person to person as much as any other preference such as taste in food.  I also believe these tastes can change which follows this analogy as well.

So yeah, I think most of it is probably nurture however the instinctual basis for sex is probably based on genetics.


----------



## Pain-the-wolf (Jan 29, 2013)

um i think i would be both but more likely a choice (i have no fuckin idea because i'm not gay)


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Pain-the-wolf said:


> um i think i would be both but more likely a choice (i have no fuckin idea because i'm not gay)



First of all: This thread is so old I thought it had already decomposed.

Second of all: More likely to be a choice? Why would ANYONE willingly be part of a group that is harassed by others? Why would anyone want to be considered a second class citizen? Why would any one give up upon the right to get married?
And most importantly: *When the BLOODY FUCK did you choose to be straight?!* If homosexuality was a choice then heterosexuality would be one as well. So please do kindly shut the fuck up about this being a choice, especially if you aren't even gay yourself!


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 29, 2013)

FAF

i am disappoint


----------



## BRN (Jan 29, 2013)

:I



Revy said:


> this discussion is bullshit in many ways.


​


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

It's choice. If you are gay, you're choosing to be gay. No such thing as gay genes.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> It's choice. You make the decision, it isn't decided for you. Do you become a doctor because you have doctor genes? No, you become a doctor because you chose to be a doctor.



So being a doctor is the same as a sexual orientation? Oh please tell me you are joking... Because otherwise this might just be the most retarded thing any one has ever said here on FAF.


----------



## Machine (Jan 29, 2013)

In a world where homosexuality is persecuted, outlawed in some places or punishable by death, why would anybody CHOOSE to be gay?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Machine said:


> In a world where homosexuality is persecuted, outlawed in some places or punishable by death, why would anybody CHOOSE to be gay?



My point exactly. Based on that little factoid alone saying it is a choice makes you look like SUCH a massive fool...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> It's choice.



You're retarded if you think it's a choice.

If it's a choice then I challenge you to choose to be gay and to have gay sex. Cause I bet you you can't fucking do it.


----------



## Namba (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You're retarde3d if you think it's a choice.



Wow, that _really_ changes people's minds.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

It's difficult to voice any viewpoint without it sounding like complete BS. 

Here's what I think.

-Given that the pattern of homosexuals in a lineage is not as simple as the distribution of other genetic traits, like blond hair, I think it is safe to say that a single gene is not responsible.
-Given that our closest genetic relatives, bonobo chimps, are almost entirely bisexual I think it's probable our genome is open to fluid sexual orientation.
-The interaction of a series of genes and or psychological influences in formative years may then clarify orientation, perhaps even epigenetic influences or the balance of chemicals in amniotic fluid. 

It could be like the markings on tabby cats, determined in the womb rather than directly by the cat's own genes and certainly not by the cat's choice. 
I think the idea of homosexuality being a clear choice is bull. Try deciding you're going to turn gay for a year or to make any other arbitrary change in your sexuality. Not exactly easy to force yourself to change orientation, not a choice. Many gay people have tried to change their orientation through pseudo-psycho therapies. It's a futile effort that only goes to show we aren't the ones who decide what our orientation is, however much we would prefer it one way or t'other.

I think the main issue in this thread is a confusion between 'nurture' and 'choice'. If you have a fetish for instance, which you view as psychological*- as a product of nurture, you don't get to decide whether or not you find it sexually arousing. 

*[unsure, but seems likely in a large number of cases]


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So being a doctor is the same as a sexual orientation? Oh please tell me you are joking... Because otherwise this might just be the most retarded thing any one has ever said here on FAF.



Nah, the retards who think that FAF is a hugbox and come to complain have said much more retarded things.
Anyways, sorry. I say retarded things when I haven't had anything to eat in the morning.


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You're retarded if you think it's a choice.
> 
> If it's a choice then I challenge you to choose to be gay and to have gay sex. Cause I bet you you can't fucking do it.



You're retarded if you think there's such thing as gay genes.

If it does exist, I'd like you to show me. Just go ahead. Use your SUPERIOR DOCTOR SKILLS to tell me that I'm wrong and you're right. Cause I bet you can't fucking do it. So stop trying to rattle me bones.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> You're retarded if you think there's such thing as gay genes.
> 
> If it does exist, I'd like you to show me.



And you are delusional and making a logical fallicy.
Delusional because there is evidence that suggests that is ISN'T a choice.
Argumentum ad populum because you just assume there there isn't one because no one has found a specific gene yet.

In short: It's not a choice and it is not controlled by just one gene. There are many factors that control your sexual orientation.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> You're retarded if you think there's such thing as gay genes.
> 
> If it does exist, I'd like you to show me. Just go ahead. Use your SUPERIOR DOCTOR SKILLS to tell me that I'm wrong and you're right. Cause I bet you can't fucking do it. So stop trying to rattle me bones.



I never said in my post there was a gene, I just said it isn't a choice. So why don't you use you superior doctor skills and show me it is just a choice. You know, like you go and choose to be gay for a week and have lovely gay sex. Then I'll believe it's a choice.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I never said in my post there was a gene, I just said it isn't a choice. So why don't you use you superior doctor skills and show me it is just a choice. You know, like you go and choose to be gay for a week and have lovely gay sex. Then I'll believe it's a choice.



When I am involved it isn't a choice. It's an inevitability ;3


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> You're retarded if you think there's such thing as gay genes.
> 
> If it does exist, I'd like you to show me. Just go ahead. Use your SUPERIOR DOCTOR SKILLS to tell me that I'm wrong and you're right. Cause I bet you can't fucking do it. So stop trying to rattle me bones.



Fruit flies' courtship roles can be switched with the exchange of genes. Fruit flies might seem a world away from humans but we do share a lot in common genetically; it as research on those little critters that discovered the biological clock. 
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/news050531-9.html#B1 

Now, the scientists who performed the study said it wasn't a complete analogue to human sexuality and that human sexuality is not irreversibly cast in our genes. However genes do play their role.

Aside from this though, if it's not genetic this does not limit us to 'choice', there are numerous other explanations apart from 'choice'. It's like saying 'well, if the sun doesn't go round the earth, the only other explanation is that it goes round the moon,'.


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I never said in my post there was a gene, I just said it isn't a choice. So why don't you use you superior doctor skills and show me it is just a choice. You know, like you go and choose to be gay for a week and have lovely gay sex. Then I'll believe it's a choice.



Yeah, no thanks, I've got better things to do than argue to you about how people have free will and that sexual orientation isn't chosen by fate, but is mostly the choice of the person. However, there's also other variables that can influence the person's choice, such as where the person lives and who they hang out with.

I think this thread is better off locked, because all that will happen is constant arguing that goes nowhere.



Fallowfox said:


> Fruit flies' courtship roles can be switched with the exchange of genes. Fruit flies might seem a world away from humans but we do share a lot in common genetically; it as research on those little critters that discovered the biological clock.
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/news050531-9.html#B1
> 
> Now, the scientists who performed the study said it wasn't a complete analogue to human sexuality and that human sexuality is not irreversibly cast in our genes. However genes do play their role.
> ...



Oh. Well, looks like I'm partially wrong then.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

You still have to explain why someone would actively choose to belong to a group of people with limited rights and severe persecution.
Also, you still have to tell us when you chose your own sexual orientation.


----------



## BRN (Jan 29, 2013)

gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained but gay must be a choice because gay genes don't exist but nobody would choose to be gay so it must be ingrained
[yt]tRVUOGUmxJI[/yt]​


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 29, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Why would ANYONE willingly be part of a group that is harassed by others? Why would anyone want to be considered a second class citizen? Why would any one give up upon the right to get married?



CaptainCool,

I can marry whoever I want.
I can adopt a child should I so choose.
I can not be fired for my my sexuality.
I am respected by my peers as a driven, neurotic, go-getter, who accomplishes feats my college program doesn't even teach and who sub-contracts classmates in the field we study before we've even graduated.
I'm an effeminate homosexual, who owns no mens underwear, 95% of strangers think I'm a girl, and I'm pretty open about my sexuality, even joking about it and turning 'That's what she said' comments and the like around when said.

I'm not considdered to be a second class citizen, I am not harassed, I see no reason to not be who I am or why anyone else should feel ashamed to be like me and you can go *fuck* yourself.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> Yeah, no thanks, I've got better things to do than argue to you about how people have free will and that sexual orientation isn't chosen by fate, but is mostly the choice of the person. However, there's also other variables that can influence the person's choice, such as where the person lives and who they hang out with.
> 
> I think this thread is better off locked, because all that will happen is constant arguing that goes nowhere.
> 
> ...



Lol. So you can;t actively sit there and choose to be gay for a week? Then you just proved me right in that it isn't a choice. I suggest you go back to your little basement.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> You still have to explain why someone would actively choose to belong to a group of people with limited rights and *severe persecution*.
> Also, you still have to tell us when you chose your own sexual orientation.


A persecution complex is a possible explanation, but it doesn't fit much of the evidence, especially since homosexual behaviour exists in situations* without fear of persecution. 

Certainly though I know people who thought they were gay, probably out of the desire to be a bit different and unique, but ultimately realised they were not. Though that falsifies any non-choice aspect of homosexuality as much as the reverse situation in which gay people want to be straight.

*





AshleyAshes said:


> CaptainCool,
> 
> I can marry whoever I want.
> I can adopt a child should I so choose.
> ...



Like this one, although captain cool making a generalisation was hardly an admission that he thinks you should be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> CaptainCool,
> 
> I can marry whoever I want.



Actually no you can;t, in most places gay marriage is forbidden.



> I can adopt a child should I so choose.



That is a given right to any couple be them a gay couple or not so long as the social services deem them to be fit parents.



> I can not be fired for my my sexuality.



Only because if a company fires you for that reason you can have them in court for unfairly firing you.



> I am respected by my peers as a driven, neurotic, go-getter, who accomplishes feats my college program doesn't even teach and who sub-contracts classmates in the field we study before we've even graduated.



Not everyone is this lucky. Some gay people get disowned by their family just because they are gay. I knew a gay man that had no family because they disowned him so he changed his name legally via depole. Sadly though he passed away last november after having a fatal heart attack at home.



> I'm an effeminate homosexual, who owns no mens underwear, 95% of strangers think I'm a girl, and I'm pretty open about my sexuality, even joking about it and turning 'That's what she said' comments and the like around when said.
> 
> I'm not considdered to be a second class citizen, I am not harassed, I see no reason to not be who I am or why anyone else should feel ashamed to be like me and you can go *fuck* yourself.



This is just you though. This doesn't mean it's the same for every other homosexual out there.



CaptainCool said:


> You still have to explain why someone would  actively choose to belong to a group of people with limited rights and  severe persecution.
> Also, you still have to tell us when you chose your own sexual orientation.



He can't. His argument has been "It's just a choice so there nya" no more, no less. So he;s either A: trolling us or B: an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> CaptainCool,
> 
> I can marry whoever I want.
> I can adopt a child should I so choose.
> ...



Way to turn my comment back on myself. Not bad.jpg!
When did I imply that homosexuality is something you should be ashamed of? And I am happy for you that people accept you for who you are! But when I was holding hands with my ex I heard people laugh about us. I saw them look at us in a weird and judging way. It hurt. It hurt like hell.
I am glad that you didn't have to go through that yet as it seems. But just because you can live your life like that that doesn't mean that others can.
I can't marry a guy.
I can only adopt a child by myself, not together with a male partner.
As FF said above, I can't really be fired for being bisexual.
And I am certainly not tolerated by all people for my sexual orientation. My father was devestated for example.

Consider yourself lucky and don't be a bitch about it. This might hurt others who are in an entirely different situation.


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Lol. So you can;t actively sit there and choose to be gay for a week? Then you just proved me right in that it isn't a choice. I suggest you go back to your little basement.



I suggest you go get your hands chopped off, and have one of them stuck up your ass while the other one gets stuck down your mouth.

EDIT: Oh, nevermind, I read it wrong. Looks like I should just get out of this thread before I cause any more shitfests. But still, CaptainCool, you should watch what you say.



CaptainCool said:


> Way to turn my comment back on myself. Not bad.jpg!
> When did I imply that homosexuality is something you should be ashamed of? And I am happy for you that people accept you for who you are! But when I was holding hands with my ex I heard people laugh about us. I saw them look at us in a weird and judging way. It hurt. It hurt like hell.
> I am glad that you didn't have to go through that yet as it seems.



WELL, you did say "Why would ANYONE willingly be part of a group that is harassed by others? Why would anyone want to be considered a second class citizen? Why would any one give up upon the right to get married?"

"You still have to explain why someone would actively choose to belong to a group of people with limited rights and severe persecution.
Also, you still have to tell us when you chose your own sexual orientation."

People would choose to be part of the gay group because they like to be in relationships with men and to have sex with men.
Also, I didn't choose my sexual orientation. I haven't yet, and I probably won't know for a while.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> I suggest you go get your hands chopped off, and have one of them stuck up your ass while the other one gets stuck down your mouth.
> 
> Same for you, CaptainCool, you insufferable cunt. Being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. If you think it is, then you are a fucking idiot.
> I hope that your bones are rattled by now.



Retro, complaining that this thread should be locked because it's just inflammatory and then telling people to chop off their hands?
If you don't want inflammatory and insulting discussion don't be party to it. 

Captain *did not *suggest homosexuality was something to be ashamed of; that was an obvious straw man fallacy.


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Retro, complaining that this thread should be locked because it's just inflammatory and then telling people to chop off their hands?
> If you don't want inflammatory and insulting discussion don't be party to it.
> 
> Captain *did not *suggest homosexuality was something to be ashamed of; that was an obvious straw man fallacy.



I know, that's why I went ahead and edited that part out because I realized that I read it wrong.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> He can't. His argument has been "It's just a choice so there nya" no more, no less. So he's either A: trolling us or B: an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about.



I can, you can't say that I can't because you are not me. Stop thinking you know everything.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jan 29, 2013)

...You're kidding, right?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Obviously homosexuality isn't a choice in the standard semantics we view choice in. You don't sit down and write a list of pros and cons and if you're choosing between male and female mates because you're attracted to both- if you feel there is a choice to be had- then you are bisexual. 

If you think any homosexual attraction is 'nurtured' then this is not choice either as much as I have no choice over the fact my mother tongue is english.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> People would choose to be part of the gay group because they like to be in relationships with men and to have sex with men.
> Also, I didn't choose my sexual orientation. I haven't yet, and I probably won't know for a while.



But that is the point! You can't choose to like men!  You either do or you don't! And homosexuality is defined as the attraction towards members of the same sex...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 29, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> When did I imply that homosexuality is something you should be ashamed of?[/QUOTE
> 
> You did, you expressed that it was something so horrid that no one would wish to be gay.  To say that someone would never choose it is to say that they would choose not to if they could.  That's shame.  And you applied those feelings, your personal feelings and experiences, to apply to all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> I know, that's why I went ahead and edited that part out because I realized that I read it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I can, you can't say that I can't because you are not me. Stop thinking you know everything.



So why not start explaining why it's a choice then?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't see why the choice argument even exists. We have plenty of- as far as is understood- superficial and arbitrary preferences that we cannot decide to dispense of. 

I like pasta and olives, I can't decide not to, for instance. 
Such tastes are especially prevalent in sexuality, many of us have kinks that we haven't a clue why we like but which we can't decide not to.



AshleyAshes said:


> CaptainCool said:
> 
> 
> > When did I imply  that homosexuality is something you should be ashamed of?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> So why not start explaining why it's a choice then?


If I bothered to explain why, you'd just disagree, call me a retard, and then this thread would become a bigger shitfest than it already is.

I think this thread should be abandoned and put out of its misery.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> If I bothered to explain why, you'd just disagree, call me a retard, and then this thread would become a bigger shitfest than it already is.
> 
> I think this thread should be abandoned and put out of its misery.



Whatever you think randy will do I'll give you a fair hearing.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> If I bothered to explain why, you'd just disagree, call me a retard, and then this thread would become a bigger shitfest than it already is.
> 
> I think this thread should be abandoned and put out of its misery.



Right now we are only calling you retarded because you have yet to tell us why you believe it's a choice


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro is not retarded, his/her [sorry!] view is merely not justified.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> If I bothered to explain why, you'd just disagree, call me a retard, and then this thread would become a bigger shitfest than it already is.
> 
> I think this thread should be abandoned and put out of its misery.



What CC said. All you have done is come in here and stated "It's a choice" yet you haven't backed that claim up. Yet both CaptainCool and FalowFox has. I have but those two guys did a better job than I.


----------



## BRN (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm more incensed at the quality of the arguments here than I am at the brevity of them.

That's saying something.


----------



## BRN (Jan 29, 2013)

Double posting because I'm bored on a train.

Arguing that orientation is a choice simply defies established tenets of biology, just as arguing Creationism defies basic tenets of physics. The argument don't even boil down to "but why would you choose"; they simply stop making sense when they're first said. 

You're human.
You don't choose to boner.
We as humans boner over this or that.


I quite contentedly realise what it is that I boner over, but at no point did choice enter those three statements. It's simply biological - I do not communicate with my dick or send it instructions. Doy.



Now let's move onto the logical part of things.

The *null* statement is "I have sexual attractions".
"I have sexual attraction to only one sex" is a *claim*.

It doesn't matter, logically, which sex you talk about; it's still a logical claim. Therefore any claim that attractions to the same sex are a choice is also a claim that attractions to the opposite sex are a choice; and that's something that I think a straight person would deny, right? 

I mean, it's enter that or you start claiming that being straight is a logical null hypothesis and go to the "what nature intended" idiocy.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

I think if homosexuality was truly genetic you wouldn't have been naturally conceived. I think it is natural to be homophobic from an evolutionary point of view, however, homosexual rejection can better ensure a species' continuation (this is a hard fact of gentility). Choice? More like conditioning, before the media started to condition young people to be gay, there was far less homosexuals. The question of homosexuality being right or wrong in the eyes of public opinion gets in the way of many homosexuals respecting this, however, in this society I think people have a right to be gay but to parade it is ridiculous, most people don't want to hear about your sex life whatever your fetish or "sexuality". You don't see many straight pride movements... I think that says it all about this. I don't trust to confuse homosexuality and gender identity issues, you can be born looking female but if you're male (same for vice versa) that doesn't make you homosexual, if being lead to be respected more as a homosexual seems beneficial to such persons this is not choice or genetics but also conditioning. You can show stereotypical traits of your biological sex but it doesn't mean you will remain straight, either. It's all woo, really, sometimes it makes me wonder if homosexuals get more out of protecting their sexuality than actually acting it out.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> I think if homosexuality was truly genetic you wouldn't have been naturally conceived.* I think it is natural to be homophobic from an evolutionary point of view,* however, homosexual rejection can better ensure a species' continuation (this is a hard fact of gentility). Choice? More like conditioning, before the media started to condition young people to be gay, there was far less homosexuals. The question of homosexuality being right or wrong in the eyes of public opinion gets in the way of many homosexuals respecting this, however, in this society I think people have a right to be gay but to parade it is ridiculous, most people don't want to hear about your sex life whatever your fetish or "sexuality". You don't see many straight pride movements... I think that says it all about this. I don't trust to confuse homosexuality and gender identity issues, you can be born looking female but if you're male (same for vice versa) that doesn't make you homosexual, if being lead to be respected more as a homosexual seems beneficial to such persons this is not choice or genetics but also conditioning. You can show stereotypical traits of your biological sex but it doesn't mean you will remain straight, either. It's all woo, really, sometimes it makes me wonder if homosexuals get more out of protecting their sexuality than actually acting it out.


Ehhhh no. Homosexuality has been confirmed in over 1500+ species on this planet including some of our closest relatives, yet homophobia exists in only 1. So I don't know where you got that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> I think if homosexuality was truly genetic you wouldn't have been naturally conceived. I think it is natural to be homophobic from an evolutionary point of view, however, homosexual rejection can better ensure a species' continuation (this is a hard fact of gentility). Choice? More like conditioning, before the media started to condition young people to be gay, there was far less homosexuals. The question of homosexuality being right or wrong in the eyes of public opinion gets in the way of many homosexuals respecting this, however, in this society I think people have a right to be gay but to parade it is ridiculous, most people don't want to hear about your sex life whatever your fetish or "sexuality". You don't see many straight pride movements... I think that says it all about this. I don't trust to confuse homosexuality and gender identity issues, you can be born looking female but if you're male (same for vice versa) that doesn't make you homosexual, if being lead to be respected more as a homosexual seems beneficial to such persons this is not choice or genetics but also conditioning. You can show stereotypical traits of your biological sex but it doesn't mean you will remain straight, either. It's all woo, really, sometimes it makes me wonder if homosexuals get more out of protecting their sexuality than actually acting it out.



This is substantially wrong. 

Sickle cell anaemia is genetic, it's not a pleasant disease, so why does its presence in the gene pool persist; why does evolution not weed it out? 
Because sickle cell anaemia is a recessive trait, so you require two sets of the gene in order to suffer the disease. If you only get one dose of the gene then it's actually really beneficial because it increases your immunity to malaria. 

Genetic traits which appeare to be undesireable actually can have multiple functions within a gene pool which justify their presence. [for instance genes which increase the probability of homosexuality- and thus decrease heterosexual breeding potential- may also increase the likelihood of promiscuity, a better immune system, sharper vision or any such benefit that would mitigate the issue of a small sector of the gene pool refraining from heterosexual reproduction]

Now, before we blame media for homosexuality we should take note that in ancient societies, like the ancient greek states, there wasn't a media presence like there is today. Homosexuals still existed in large numbers. In our closest genetic relative, the bonobo chimp, homosexual behaviour exists in much greater quantities than in humans eventhough they have no media at all. In giraffes homosexual behaviour is more common than heterosexual behaviour!

Conditioning within the sexually formative years may be involved in the manifestation of orientation and fetishism, but clearly homosexuality is neither evolutionarily undesireable or media-lead, otherwise it would not exist in such vast quantities in the natural world.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jan 29, 2013)

I say epigenetic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

DJ-Fragon said:


> I say epigenetic.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm




I have to protest the claim that darwinian evolution 'should weed homosexuality out' there are numerous reasons that homosexuality plays an advantageous role in the gene pool overall, if we need to go into them. 


Otherwise It's an interesting suggestion and possibly correct.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

There's enough evidence to point that people cannot change their sexuality therefore it is not a choice. Anyone that disagrees is beyond retarded.


----------



## Rasly (Jan 29, 2013)

There is all kinds of crap in our genes, broken multiply function is very possible.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

As well as being epigenetic homosexuality may well manifest through the combination of many different genes, that in different combinations and ratios may produce hundreds of permutations describing a plethora of sexual orientations. 

I know such a claim is verging on an argument out of ignorance- given that it would be very difficult to discover if this were the case, but I think it's a plausible explanation and it's already understood that such a scenario determined eye colour, rather than there being just a blue gene/brown gene lots of different ones interact to produce myriad eye colours.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Ehhhh no. Homosexuality has been confirmed in over 1500+ species on this planet including some of our closest relatives, yet homophobia exists in only 1. So I don't know where you got that.



It's not genetic, though. Also, that study was only created to butter up the appeal of homosexuality, just saying. It's like interspecies activity, http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html the concept of everything other to man being of "natural norm" is a bit unbalanced, accidents happen and this doesn't make it genetic, it's incidental.



Fallowfox said:


> This is substantially wrong.
> 
> Sickle cell anaemia is genetic, it's not a pleasant disease, so why does its presence in the gene pool persist; why does evolution not weed it out?
> Because sickle cell anaemia is a recessive trait, so you require two sets of the gene in order to suffer the disease. If you only get one dose of the gene then it's actually really beneficial because it increases your immunity to malaria.
> ...



Sickle cell is a disease from genetic corruption in (prominently) Negroids, are you trying to call homosexuality a disease, genetic corruption? It's a race's duty to sort its own issues out, it's a part of survival yet some cultures are affected by cultures and only aid or cull can really benefit. It's not related. Breeding is hap, if the right sexes happen to mate, reproduction occurs, hormones only serve as a motivation there is no knowledge of what's right or wrong, animals are eukaryotes, sexuality is governed by gamete types there's not some whimsical magical phenomena (not denying the fact of life is magic into itself). DNA does not think and it's not an electronic mechanism, either, it doesn't really "select" it's, like said, hapchance.

"Now, before we blame media for homosexuality we should take note that in ancient societies"
Ancient societies had media, too, the media of a smaller size was just about as accessible because the human population was much smaller, just think of religion and how widespread that was (and still is). If homosexuality can be conditioned out, it can also be conditioned in, thus homosexuality is purely conditional. Of course, like with other species there has been "accidents" but these often gets resolved, heard about that penguin couple? They eventually lost interest in each other and returned to normal sexual function, part due also to the fact the race attempted to sort itself out. Life has issues and corrects itself. Also, I know giraffe lovers that can reassure that giraffes are not mostly homosexual and the studies around this that say they are are not true whatsoever and I have to agree to note that the majority of studies discuss heterosexual behavior - why was homosexuality not mentioned in these more reputable surveys? Regardless, it doesn't make it genetic.



Aleu said:


> There's enough evidence to point that people cannot change their sexuality therefore it is not a choice. Anyone that disagrees is beyond retarded.



Much like alcohol addiction. Unless we are supposing this genetic, too?

However, until a gene is found this no evidence of genetic cause and thus it is out of fact to say otherwise.
Eventually I can see these beliefs in genetics as being held in regard for various fetishes to condone acceptance of such, pedophiles will be arguing about regression in their genes, zoophiles claiming mutant genes disarming special context and dendrophiles reckoning its genetic because it's observable in other species.

I think people are forgetting what sexuality is here, it's not an abstract it's a governor in the method of breeding.
Beyond all the ridiculous pseudo-science, the real science behind sex is right here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLG-Ari9NA everything else is recreational.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 29, 2013)

It's choice, but I think that some people are born more feminine or masculine than others, and this might lead to them deciding to become gay. Just a thought. 
Also, why the hell would anyone bring back a thread from 2010? Check the last f'ing post, check the date. If it's over 1 month, start a new damn thread.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> It's choice, but I think that some people are born more feminine or masculine than others, and this might lead to them deciding to become gay. Just a thought.
> Also, why the hell would anyone bring back a thread from 2010? Check the last f'ing post, check the date. If it's over 1 month, start a new damn thread.



As six pointed out as we do not have the capacity to control what we get aroused by, how _on earth_ can sexual orientation be a choice? Needless to say there's strong anecdotal evidence to the contrary [eventhough anecdotes are weak evidence] because so many gay people explicity would decide _not_ to be given the opportunity.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> It's choice, but I think that some people are born more feminine or masculine than others, and this might lead to them deciding to become gay. Just a thought.
> Also, why the hell would anyone bring back a thread from 2010? Check the last f'ing post, check the date. If it's over 1 month, start a new damn thread.



I'll tell you this, I never chose to be bisexual, it was just there, it was just inside me, I never woke up one day and said "Well fuck I think I'll be bisexual from now on" No, my sexual orientation was just there when I hit puberty. If being gay is a choice then so is being straight. Because by claiming being gay is choice you are saying we choose our sexuality, which means you must have chose your own sexuality too. But I bet you didn't.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> As six pointed out as we do not have the capacity to control what we get aroused by, how _on earth_ can sexual orientation be a choice? Needless to say there's strong anecdotal evidence to the contrary [eventhough anecdotes are weak evidence] because so many gay people explicity would decide _not_ to be given the opportunity.



You feel you don't have a capacity to control it because it's conditioned into you, much like many things, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with homosexuality all I'm saying is there is no evidence showing it is directly genetic. Like Lev1athan said, you could be more likely to become homosexual with traits other to your biological sex, but it could also not. So, regardless, hap and incidence are what causes non-procreative sexuality.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Much like alcohol addiction. Unless we are supposing this genetic, too?
> 
> However, until a gene is found this no evidence of genetic cause and thus it is out of fact to say otherwise.
> Eventually I can see these beliefs in genetics as being held in regard for various fetishes to condone acceptance of such, pedophiles will be arguing about regression in their genes, zoophiles claiming mutant genes disarming special context and dendrophiles reckoning its genetic because it's observable in other species.
> ...



Alcohol addiction is a disease because it is detrimental to the person's way of life. 
Just because there is no gene found does not mean that it is not genetic. I didn't choose to be straight but I certainly get hot and bothered over a guy with some nice abs. People cannot choose their orientation. Choosing to act on their orientation does not equate in all of this.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> You feel you don't have a capacity to  control it because it's conditioned into you, much like many things, but  it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with homosexuality all I'm  saying is there is no evidence showing it is directly genetic. Like  Lev1athan said, you could be more likely to become homosexual with  traits other to your biological sex, but it could also not. So,  regardless, hap and incidence are what causes non-procreative  sexuality.



This is such bullshit I could fertilize my yard with it. You can't  raise someone to be homosexual any more than you can raise someone to be  heterosexual. If that were the case there'd be absolutely no homosexual  children with homophobic parents.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> It's not genetic, though. Also, that study was only created to butter up the appeal of homosexuality, just saying. It's like interspecies activity, http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html the concept of everything other to man being of "natural norm" is a bit unbalanced, accidents happen and this doesn't make it genetic, it's incidental.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no one "gay gene" but rather suspected a combination of different genes:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007 - "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of *genetic factors *and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." - http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf



> Sickle cell is a disease from genetic corruption in (prominently) Negroids, are you trying to call homosexuality a disease, genetic corruption?


I wouldn't reccommed putting words into other people's mouths.

Sickle cell is a mutation in the haemoglobin gene but that doesn't make it all that bad if you're heterozygous (carry a pair of haemoglobin genes where one is a sickle cell gene and one is a normal gene) as it brings about the benefits Fallow just listed. Besides, if both parents carry the sickle gene (not suffers) then there's a 1 in 4 chance the child will suffer from sickle cell (double recessive), 2 in 4 chance they'll be carriers and be fine, and another 1 in 4 chance they won't be carriers (double dominant genes). There's a purpose to some mutations for some people, but not to others.

No, obviously homosexuality is not a disease, as the definition of a disease is:

"A *disease* is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. It is often construed as a *medical condition* associated with specific symptoms and signs." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease



> Much like alcohol addiction. Unless we are supposing this genetic, too?


Do you choose to take the first drink? Yes. So it's irrelevent.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> You feel you don't have a capacity to control it because it's conditioned into you, much like many things, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with homosexuality all I'm saying is there is no evidence showing it is directly genetic. Like Lev1athan said, you could be more likely to become homosexual with traits other to your biological sex, but it could also not. So, regardless, hap and incidence are what causes non-procreative sexuality.



Since homosexuality occurs in scenarios without human-made conditioning I do not think this is the soul cause for homosexuality in humans. Either this or the conditioning you speak of is incredibly widespread in Giraffes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Giraffes


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> I think if homosexuality was truly genetic you wouldn't have been naturally conceived.



What? Why?  That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard! If you don't know anything about genetics then don't post in a thread about whether or not something is genetic or a choice!
You are saying this like homosexuality would be some sort of spreading disease if it was genetic...



Lev1athan said:


> It's choice, but I think that some people are born more feminine or masculine than others, and this might lead to them deciding to become gay. Just a thought.



And yet another contender for stupidest post on FAF... Holy heck, what is happening here?! O_O
You are saying that it is a choice as if you know this like a fact. Facts are meaningless without evidence, so please do demonstrate how it is a choice!
Also, please tell us at what point you personally decided what turns you on. Spoiler alert! You never did.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jan 29, 2013)

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/34013828.jpg


----------



## Symlus (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I'll tell you this, I never chose to be bisexual, it was just there, it was just inside me, I never woke up one day and said "Well fuck I think I'll be bisexual from now on" No, my sexual orientation was just there when I hit puberty. If being gay is a choice then so is being straight. Because by claiming being gay is choice you are saying we choose our sexuality, which means you must have chose your own sexuality too. But I bet you didn't.



Don't just make assumptions, sir. I was bisexual, thinking about becoming gay, but I realized that that was not the way that I swung, and chose to be straight. I still have gay moments, but for the most part, it doesn't happen anymore.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> Don't just make assumptions, sir. I was bisexual, thinking about becoming gay, but I realized that that was not the way that I swung, and chose to be straight. I still have gay moments, but for the most part, it doesn't happen anymore.



So... heteroromantic bisexual.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

What I find interesting is more than one person claims it's a choice but they can't seem to back up that claim and explain in depth why it is a choice.



Lev1athan said:


> Don't just make assumptions, sir. I was  bisexual, thinking about becoming gay, but I realized that that was not  the way that I swung, and chose to be straight. I still have gay  moments, but for the most part, it doesn't happen anymore.



Being bisexual doesn't really count because someone who is bisexual (like me) CAN choose whether to have a gay relationship or a heterosexual one. Hence why it's called bisexual. Being gay means that that person is ONLY attracted to the same gender as themselves.

What you're saying is then, everyone on the planet is born bisexual and chooses which way to swing when the time is right?

(I also reported the thread as a thread necro 8 hours ago (ish) so either the mods haven't seen it or are okay with it being open)


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 29, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And yet another contender for stupidest post on FAF... Holy heck, what is happening here?! O_O
> You are saying that it is a choice as if you know this like a fact. Facts are meaningless without evidence, so please do demonstrate how it is a choice!
> Also, please tell us at what point you personally decided what turns you on. Spoiler alert! You never did.


There's a word for hypotheses passed off as facts that I like.

"Hypothotheories" - Hank Green

To other fellow nerdfighters, - DFTBA!


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jan 29, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> What I find interesting is more than one person claims it's a choice but they can't seem to back up that claim and explain in depth why it is a choice.



I didn't choose to be bisexual, either. I just didn't accept that I was attracted to folks of the same sex until later in life, even if I had such feelings far earlier.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 29, 2013)

Everyone should know by now that the real answer is a combination of genetic predisposition, hormones/etc, and the environment you were raised in.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 29, 2013)

@CC: this is what I believe. This is what I think, and I might be wrong. I might be right. What YOU have to understand, is that this is my OPINION on the subject, not a factual statement, and I have a right to my opinion.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> @CC: this is what I believe. This is what I think, and I might be wrong. I might be right. What YOU have to understand, is that this is my OPINION on the subject, not a factual statement, and I have a right to my opinion.



"I am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion on any subject is worth a damn unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know what he's talking about."

-HP Lovecraft


----------



## Dokid (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> Don't just make assumptions, sir. I was bisexual, thinking about becoming gay, but I realized that that was not the way that I swung, and chose to be straight. I still have gay moments, but for the most part, it doesn't happen anymore.



You still are bi though technically.  The definition of sexual orientation is "The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by *physiologic rather than sociologic forces*. Replaces _sexual preference in most contemporary uses." (medical dictionary) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Orientation
_
you have your "gay" moments but if you find some guys hot and get the same reaction to them as if you were with a woman then you are still bi. You may not choose to pursue the same sex gender but you still get the same reaction from them occasionally.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> @CC: this is what I believe. This is what I think, and I might be wrong. I might be right. What YOU have to understand, is that this is my OPINION on the subject, not a factual statement, and I have a right to my opinion.



So you're basing your opinion on "no facts yet" yet those of us who are saying it isn't a choice actually have some facts to base our opinions on. Who's more likely to be right out of us? I don't see how anyone can make an opinion on something without any facts to back it up. That's just stupid imo.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> Everyone should know by now that the real answer is a combination of genetic predisposition, hormones/etc, and the environment you were raised in.



Some people are genetically predisposed to not understanding this, or maybe it was their upbringing.

Also I'm going to dispute parenting's role. I doubt parenting has any relevance.


----------



## Dokid (Jan 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Some people are genetically predisposed to not understanding this, or maybe it was their upbringing.
> 
> Also I'm going to dispute parenting's role. I doubt parenting has any relevance.



I don't think parenting even has any effect. Gay parents =/= gay children.

Same thing goes with who you hang out with. Roughly over half my friends are bi or gay but I don't even find any interest romantically or sexually with other women.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 29, 2013)

Dokid said:


> I don't think parenting even has any effect. Gay parents =/= gay children.
> 
> Same thing goes with who you hang out with. Roughly over half my friends are bi or gay but I don't even find any interest romantically or sexually with other women.


Statisticly a child brought up with gay parents is actually more likley to be heterosexual.

"...However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual." - The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 29, 2013)

I made a bad decision by posting here. I'm signing off for the day.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> I made a bad decision by posting here. I'm signing off for the day.



Now why is he the second user to do this today. Are they scared of being wrong or something? Or is it the fact they can;t back up their claims when asked to do so.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Alcohol addiction is a disease because it is detrimental to the person's way of life.
> Just because there is no gene found does not mean that it is not genetic. I didn't choose to be straight but I certainly get hot and bothered over a guy with some nice abs. People cannot choose their orientation. Choosing to act on their orientation does not equate in all of this.
> 
> 
> ...



Alcohol is not genetic, nor is homosexuality, scientists have not found a genetic link. Sickle cell disease is, however, genetic, it is literally a corruption of genes.
If there is no genes, it is not genetic, genetic means to pertain to genes. People may not be able to choose their orientation on the grounds of how conditioned they are. If you find someone with "nice abs" attractive you could well be experiencing aesthetic envy, you subconsciously feel this only plays part in sexuality whereby you think this quality is worth breeding with to continue but the course of mating is not for you, but your envy can take appeal to perhaps improve your own physique. Aesthetic attraction should not be confused, although conditioned thought can cause sexual confusions.

You can raise someone to be homosexual, if it was inherited, the parents would be homosexual and since homosexuals cannot breed the result is you never get to exist. This is all purely logical, I don't know why you're arguing, I'm not even anti-gay.



Raptros said:


> There is no one "gay gene" but rather suspected a combination of different genes:
> 
> The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007 - "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of *genetic factors *and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." - http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf
> 
> ...



Genetic plethora has no strength in decisions, perhaps you are talking about about gender defects? Gender defects doesn't cause different to attraction, because sexuality does not actually exist, it is a man-made construct regarding ones' "object choice". It has been shown in studies that only humans and dolphins are capable of constructed object-choice and thus are regarded the only species that seek recreational sex as a life choice, although all animals are believed to have sexual pleasure, only these two species are known to go out their way for it. As I'll say again, any other homosexual behavior in other animals is accidental. And I didn't bring up "sickle cell" disease nor compare it to "homosexuality". And I didn't say alcoholism was genetic, myself.



Fallowfox said:


> Since homosexuality occurs in scenarios without human-made conditioning I do not think this is the soul cause for homosexuality in humans. Either this or the conditioning you speak of is incredibly widespread in Giraffes
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Giraffes



As I said above, wild homosexuality activity is accidental and 94% a stated is not a legitimate figure, I had a google, people were claiming there was an article summarizing before the initiation of the survey, so that is obviously a lie. Note wikipedia is no reliable source of serious information. The real article is https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...cDoA3b&sig=AHIEtbSmMmeyL4UVFLn10sTxDwAjU8nWaw the only research Pratt & Anderson had was on herds, that was cited even in this article. I've heard about males dominating males but this is not to actually mate, but to hold them down and tell them "who's boss", basically.



CaptainCool said:


> What? Why?  That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard! If you don't know anything about genetics then don't post in a thread about whether or not something is genetic or a choice!
> You are saying this like homosexuality would be some sort of spreading disease if it was genetic...
> 
> 
> ...



I did not say that. Are you saying homosexuals can breed naturally? If so, please offer citations.
What makes you say I have no understanding of genetics? Sex spreads genes, yes, but sexuality has very little to do with genes, as psychoanalysis will show, sexuality is object choice, objects are set to subjects, subjects are selected through conditions (environmental), this can even be shown computationally. Sex is the act of a male and female mating to create offspring, male on male and female on female leads to only pleasure and no breeding. You cannot say otherwise because that's how it works. Nobody knows why it works like that, it just happened to be the case, genes don't contain behavior data, but chemicals that can cause the want of such behavior, mechanically. Everything is made from chemicals, chemicals react, this causes a chain of reactions, processes occur, and you can describe these processes with abstracts (these are regarded as biological processes).


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Why am I getting a large headache?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

I just want to point out Kio that many, many , many heterosexual couples also have sex just for pleasure so that point about gay couples only getting pleasure and straights do it to reproduce is to a point complete crap and moot.


----------



## Dokid (Jan 29, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Why am I getting a large headache?




Don't worry Ozriel, we all are. This thread should of died a long time ago.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio you are a god damn moron if you think homosexuality equates sterility.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

I feel like the thread is turning into a flame war, I'm already seeing ad hominem.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I just want to point out Kio that many, many , many heterosexual couples also have sex just for pleasure so that point about gay couples only getting pleasure and straights do it to reproduce is to a point complete crap and moot.



That's conditioned, too, contraceptives are not genetic and if one is unable to procreate that is accident.



Lev1athan said:


> I made a bad decision by posting here. I'm signing off for the day.



I think I did, too. I didn't mean to cause offense to anyone.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Kio you are a god damn moron if you think homosexuality equates sterility.



And the fact that there's so much pseudo-psychology in the post that I may have an aneurysm at any moment.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> That's conditioned, too, contraceptives are not genetic and *if one is unable to procreate that is accident.*



AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?




Kio Snowfyre said:


> I think I did, too. I didn't mean to cause offense to anyone.


Then go open a few biology and psychology books to rid us of your ignorance.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?
> 
> 
> 
> Then go open a few biology and psychology books to rid us of your ignorance.



I should look through my computer and my jump-drives for my reports. I have a shitton of papers and articles from my Social, behavioral, and adolescent psychology classes.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 29, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> I should look through my computer and my jump-drives for my reports. I have a shitton of papers and articles from my Social, behavioral, and adolescent psychology classes.


I'm guessing that you feel insulted by all the ignorance of actual psychology being shown by some people in here?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I'm guessing that you feel insulted by all the ignorance of actual psychology being shown by some people in here?



In part, yes.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I'm guessing that you feel insulted by all the ignorance of actual psychology being shown by some people in here?



I sure as hell am.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 29, 2013)

So now I'm looking at my post from three years back.
I'm still trying to figure why I voted "choice".

It cannot be caused by one gene because the change or removal of one protein or two proteins, even with chain reactions, is too rare for the percentage of the homosexual population.
There must be several variations in similar, functional genes between homosexuals and heterosexuals - a difference that can be executed in many areas with a relatively small change of a few nucleotides. That way several types of "homosexuals" are created - all together under one category, even if there's more than 'one gene distance'.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 29, 2013)

My favorite color is blue, genetic or choice?  No other cause may be considdered or discussed!  Oh sure, some people irrationally and 'just like' the color blue, but for others they may have been influenced by the color blue during childhood.  In some cases though, I just hear all the color colors did something bad to them so they made a choice to only like blue because it remained innocent.  I heard about a guy, his entire family was killed by a rainbow, that rainbow didn't contain the color blue however.  He fucking loved the color blue, so much so that he set out to marry Sailor Mercury.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Afterimage said:


> So now I'm looking at my post from three years back.
> I'm still trying to figure why I voted "choice".
> 
> It cannot be caused by one gene because the change or removal of one protein or two proteins, even with chain reactions, is too rare for the percentage of the homosexual population.
> There must be several variations in similar, functional genes between homosexuals and heterosexuals - a difference that can be executed in many areas with a relatively small change of a few nucleotides. That way several types of "homosexuals" are created - all together under one category, even if there's more than 'one gene distance'.



The research in the field of homosexuality is divvied up between genetics and epigenetics, so my opinion would be that it is inconclusive. On the other hand, we are animals in a sense so I'd have to guess that once the population reaches it's "Peak", that a switch turns on. Don't take my word for it.


Addictive behaviors and sociological influence is a different matter and I can only explain it by linking a bunch of crap.
http://www.italianacademy.columbia.edu/publications/working_papers/2010-2011/laura_01-11.pdf

Or just one link at the moment. Still surfing through 3 TB of crap.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> My favorite color is blue, genetic or choice?  No other cause may be considdered or discussed!  Oh sure, some people irrationally and 'just like' the color blue, but for others they may have been influenced by the color blue during childhood.  In some cases though, I just hear all the color colors did something bad to them so they made a choice to only like blue because it remained innocent.  I heard about a guy, his entire family was killed by a rainbow, that rainbow didn't contain the color blue however.  He fucking loved the color blue, so much so that he set out to marry Sailor Mercury.



What ever you're smoking, please share it.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Jan 29, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> The research in the field of homosexuality is divvied up between genetics and epigenetics, so my opinion would be that it is inconclusive.



Could be both.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

DJ-Fragon said:


> Could be both.



Could be...
Maybe more research could be done with furries, since most of the ones I know go "jailhouse".


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> My favorite color is blue, genetic or choice?  No other cause may be considdered or discussed!  Oh sure, some people irrationally and 'just like' the color blue, but for others they may have been influenced by the color blue during childhood.  In some cases though, I just hear all the color colors did something bad to them so they made a choice to only like blue because it remained innocent.  I heard about a guy, his entire family was killed by a rainbow, that rainbow didn't contain the color blue however.  He fucking loved the color blue, so much so that he set out to marry Sailor Mercury.


That isn't really choice, just external influence, but if I can't discuss anything else, then...


Homosexuality =/= favorite color
You get to choose out of two. Not RGB. No "red pill"-"blue pill" case either. That orientation seems to be more than plain reference.

What I agree on is that childhood experience affects future choices. I don't know whether it's up to the levels of "hey i was molested as kid now i like sex guy ;]". Similar cases are relatively uncommon though, so I doubt it's the lead cause for homosexuality in humans.



Ozriel said:


> The research in the field of homosexuality is  divvied up between genetics and epigenetics, so my opinion would be that  it is inconclusive. On the other hand, we are animals in a sense so I'd  have to guess that once the population reaches it's "Peak", that a  switch turns on. Don't take my word for it.
> 
> 
> Addictive behaviors and sociological influence is a different matter and I can only explain it by linking a bunch of crap.
> ...


I don't understand the "population reaches peak" idea. Humanity doesn't  have a peak of population. We are in an endless cycle of growing crops  and increasing in population.

I cannot read this at the moment but I would like you to send more links  if possible. Perhaps edit the post and add them at a later time.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Afterimage said:


> That isn't really choice, just external influence, but if I can't discuss anything else, then...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality =/= favorite color
> ...



I should have said "population overshoot", the point where we reach a capacity where it becomes difficult to sustain the population without destruction to other habitats for growth. Like I said, I consider it to be my theory that it may have some correlation to homosexuality. :/

I'll see what else I can churn up.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

Lev1athan said:


> @CC: this is what I believe. This is what I think, and I might be wrong. I might be right. What YOU have to understand, is that this is my OPINION on the subject, not a factual statement, and I have a right to my opinion.



I don't care about fucking opinions. I care about facts.
And fact is that homosexuals don't freaking choose to be gay. Just like I never chose to be bisexual and just like a straight person never chose to be straight!
So fuck off with your cute little opinions. When you are wrong you are wrong, no matter what you believe in!



Kio Snowfyre said:


> genes don't contain behavior data



Then why the fuck does a person who has been blind since their birth know how to smile? >_>


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

Some of the comments on this thread...particularly 'procreation v pleasure' are _painful_ to read. 



Ozriel said:


> I should have said "population overshoot", the point where we reach a capacity where it becomes difficult to sustain the population without destruction to other habitats for growth. Like I said, I consider it to be my theory that it may have some correlation to homosexuality. :/
> 
> I'll see what else I can churn up.



Some fish species secrete a chemical into the water, which controls their growth. The more concentrated the chemical the more their growth is inhibited, so that fish in small ponds do not grow far too large. 

Could it be that human populations inhibit their growth in an analagous fashion by increasing the incidence of homosexuality? Perhaps...but it should be considered that a certain number of homosexuals in a population can increase the breeding efficiency just like having infertile old people, who cannot reproduce directly but who sement the care and protection of offspring so that a greater number reach adult hood.


Another idea I have, which I can only entertain as a curiosity, is that homosexual behaviour increases the spread of symbiot life in our microbiomes. The microbiome consists of the bacteria and other organisms that live on and in you providing services in exchange for a place to live, they outnumber our own cells 10 to 1. 

Homosexual behaviour provides a possible vector for these organisms to migrate from one host to another. Healthy people with healthy microbiomes get more sex and more sex means the microbiome could spread to other people. 

In order to share microbiomes any sex or intimate behaviour will do, heterosexual or not, and homosexual behaviour may in fact be beneficial because it has a higher probability of sharing organisms tucked away in hard-to-reach areas in the case of males.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Some fish species secrete a chemical into the water, which controls their growth. The more concentrated the chemical the more their growth is inhibited, so that fish in small ponds do not grow far too large.



Same goes for large species of fish in smaller tanks that are used to larger bodies of water, like Polypterus ornatipinnis.  /observation




> Could it be that human populations inhibit their growth in an analagous fashion by increasing the incidence of homosexuality? Perhaps...but it should be considered that a certain number of homosexuals in a population can increase the breeding efficiency just like having infertile old people, who cannot reproduce directly but who sement the care and protection of offspring so that a greater number reach adult hood.



Maybe, but that's a more concrete explanation than saying "Ppl want smecks all teh time so dey turn jailhouse ghey".


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

What is jailhouse gay?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> What is jailhouse gay?



It's a term coined for those seeking sexual gratification in prison turning to the same sex to "relieve that itch". 
it also goes for those who turn gay out of social pressures or misogyny.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 29, 2013)

The best part about this thread is that either side assumes sexuality in absolutes and ignores things like 66% of males having *at least* one homosexual experience in their lives or the entire kinsey scale altogether.  Attractions shift over time for many people as well.

Sexual attraction, weather it's men, women, dogs or children, is likely formulated by a combination of subtle genetic traits, life experience, total randomness of how parts of the pscyhe assemble themselves, the social environment they live in at the moment.

A friend of mine once told me of a tale of a man who considdered his ideal mate would be a tall, strong, body building shemale, who'd top him, let him sit in her lap and pin him down with her superior body strength.  Wanna peg that one to just 'genetics' or 'choice'?  ...He apparently remained single, so I heard.  Big suprise.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> The best part about this thread is that either side assumes sexuality in absolutes and ignores things like 66% of males having *at least* one homosexual experience in their lives or the entire kinsey scale altogether.  Attractions shift over time for many people as well.
> 
> Sexual attraction, weather it's men, women, dogs or children, is likely formulated by a combination of subtle genetic traits, life experience, total randomness of how parts of the pscyhe assemble themselves, the social environment they live in at the moment.
> 
> A friend of mine once told me of a tale of a man who considdered his ideal mate would be a tall, strong, body building shemale, who'd top him, let him sit in her lap and pin him down with her superior body strength.  Wanna peg that one to just 'genetics' or 'choice'?  ...He apparently remained single, so I heard.  Big suprise.



I'm not making this assumption. I agree with your assessment, apart from your last example because specific fetishism doesn't quite equate to orientation [although I grant you that's a semantic mess and a half]




Ozriel said:


> It's a term coined for those seeking sexual  gratification in prison turning to the same sex to "relieve that itch".
> it also goes for those who turn gay out of social pressures or misogyny.



Now I'm worried that's me, but I can console myself knowing that eitherway I don't get any.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Sexual attraction, weather it's men, women, dogs or children, is likely formulated by a combination of subtle genetic traits, life experience, total randomness of how parts of the pscyhe assemble themselves, the social environment they live in at the moment.



That is essentially what I said one or two pages ago :T
And since I saw my own sexual preferences shift during the last couple of years I also know that sexual orientation is never fixed. No one is 100% straight or 100% gay either.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 29, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not making this assumption. I agree with your assessment, apart from your last example because specific fetishism doesn't quite equate to orientation [although I grant you that's a semantic mess and a half]



I submit that it's a valid example in that when you look beyond the simple catagorization of 'fetishism', he's attempting to seek heterosexuality while COMPLETELY inverting the gender roles.  Like, COMPLETELY, not in a 'Daddy stays home and mommy goes to work' kinda way.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 29, 2013)

http://youtu.be/xXAoG8vAyzI

I think we can all agree with this.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> I submit that it's a valid example in that when you look beyond the simple catagorization of 'fetishism', he's attempting to seek heterosexuality while COMPLETELY inverting the gender roles.  Like, COMPLETELY, not in a 'Daddy stays home and mommy goes to work' kinda way.



Meaning he wants a female with "masculine traits" rather than a cross-dresser? :V


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

The next time someone brings up jailhouse gay as a reason why homosexuality is a choice I'm going to hand out slappings to some bitches.
You can have sex with the same sex but that does not mean you are attracted to them.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 29, 2013)

I believe that sexual orientation is something which is heavily influenced by genetics, but which is only established after years of conditioning. I believe that experience, environment, and personal choice has a role to play in the individual affirming their sexual orientation.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> The next time someone brings up jailhouse gay as a reason why homosexuality is a choice I'm going to hand out slappings to some bitches.
> You can have sex with the same sex but that does not mean you are attracted to them.



Black people call that "down low". 

I consider jailhouse in the realm of attachment issues, or social issues dealing with the opposite sex. Mind you, not all gay people are jailhouse. 
A LOT of furries I know turn jailhouse because either they've been rejected from the opposite sex, developed a loathing for the opposite sex, and/or want attachment and figure that the same gender is easy to deal with.


----------



## Toshabi (Jan 29, 2013)

Gay people don't wear jeans, so therefore it's by choice! ^_^


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 29, 2013)

I think it's both, but I don't have time to read 17 pages, so I'ma just give my 2 cents and explain myself.

I think both genetics and environment play a part on it. It's a spectrum, really, there's no on-off switch that explicitly "turns on the gay." Thus someone could be genetically inclined to be homosexual but have early life (read: childhood) experiences that cause them to lean heterosexual and the result could really be anywhere on the spectrum depending how strong each factor is. The issue is these experiences don't even have to be overtly sexual at all in order to turn that part of their personality on, particularly at very young ages, so idk if we'll figure out just what external stimuli cause what sexual tendencies to take root in people.

That being said I wish people would stop coming out like they're the center of the goddamned universe.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Black people call that "down low".
> 
> I consider jailhouse in the realm of attachment issues, or social issues dealing with the opposite sex. Mind you, not all gay people are jailhouse.
> A LOT of furries I know turn jailhouse because either they've been rejected from the opposite sex, developed a loathing for the opposite sex, and/or want attachment and figure that the* same gender is easy to deal with*.


Just reading that as "men are easier to deal with" :V



TeenageAngst said:


> That being said I wish people would stop coming out like they're the center of the goddamned universe.



You know what would help? If society stopped treating gays like lepers


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 29, 2013)

This old thread sure has gained new life.



			
				AshleyAshes said:
			
		

> Sexual attraction, weather it's men, women, dogs or children, is likely formulated by a combination of subtle genetic traits, life experience, total randomness of how parts of the pscyhe assemble themselves, the social environment they live in at the moment.


From what I know on the subject, I think this about sums it up.  Forgive me for not citing sources, as these are just memories of facts learned long ago, but there are a few things I recall that make me think sexual development in general is just a hugely complex subject.
Okay, one, studies done using grouping algorithms based on levels of testosterone vs. levels of estrogen in homosexual/heterosexual males/females (comparing the four groups) seem to consistently find that homosexual males have significantly more estrogen than heterosexual males and that homosexual females consistently have more testosterone than heterosexual females.  Of course it's to varying degrees but the general trend looked pretty damn clear to me in these studies.  So that tells me there simply must be a biological component, because I wouldn't have any idea how I would go about picking the amount of estrogen in my body at any given time, aside from maybe taking supplements (but those have other effects, too).

But then when you think about natural selection, homosexuality is something that just doesn't at all seem to fit.  Why in the world would a subset of people who have MINIMAL chances of passing on their genes persist so long and in such large numbers?  If you do the math, it would only take maybe a few dozen generations for homosexuality as a genetic trait to just disappear entirely from the gene pool (homosexuals don't produce offspring, ergo), and yet obviously homosexuals have been around for thousands of years.  I read an article about this once, but they gave a rather confusing argument regarding the "grandmother clause" and how homosexuals might persist because they serve as an extra set of unhindered hands for helping raise children, or something, but I didn't fully grasp what they were getting at.  So maybe that's it, or maybe it's more that what 'sexuality' you actually end up with is partly genetic, but said genes are extremely sensitive to environment.  Like, maybe everyone has the potential to be homosexual from birth, but the exact circumstances that bring homosexuality to the forefront is just much less likely than the heterosexual ones.

Which brings me to the idea of sexuality itself.  Apparently (and this one is really old... I think it was Newsweek some number of years back or something where I read this, so don't take it too seriously), purely heterosexuals males and females are much rarer than everybody thinks.  I almost feel like I read that the majority of females (over 50%) have at least some level of bisexual tendencies, and that not quite the majority of men have the same.  Even ignoring those numbers (which are probably wrong), the general conclusion of that article seemed to be that sexuality is pretty fluid, or at least is incredibly hard to define when you get down to the nitty gritty (granted, so is everything else when it comes to classification, so that by itself isn't that surprising).

So it sort of sounds like nobody understands sexuality yet, but that the idea that it's purely a choice is debunked rather thoroughly at this point.  I think it's just way more complicated than anybody ever thought.  You know... like most things.


----------



## Toshabi (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Just reading that as "men are easier to deal with" :V



I think you're too kawaii to deal with, but I'd still make the effort! ^_^


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Just reading that as "men are easier to deal with" :V



Easier to deal with =/= Sexual orientation

it just means they do not know how to relate to the opposite sex. In part, it's just the fear of rejection.


----------



## badlands (Jan 29, 2013)

personally i don't think it's genetic but neither is it a choice, rather something that develops in gestation.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

badlands said:


> personally i don't think it's genetic but neither is it a choice, rather something that develops in gestation.



Wha?


----------



## badlands (Jan 29, 2013)

there is no evidence if a genetic cause as of yet. if one comes to light i will stand corrected. however i have heard of the possible influence of hormone levels while the fetus is in development.

i don't think it is a choice but with there being no evidence of the 'gay gene' there is only the embryonic and early life stages left as an option.


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Toshabi said:


> Gay people don't wear jeans, so therefore it's by choice! ^_^


Ooh! I didn't know that! ^_^

Do they wear capris? =D


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 29, 2013)

Retro said:


> Ooh! I didn't know that! ^_^
> 
> Do they wear capris? =D



They wear assless chaps.



badlands said:


> there is no evidence if a genetic cause as of yet. if one comes to light i will stand corrected. however i have heard of the possible influence of hormone levels while the fetus is in development.
> 
> i don't think it is a choice but with there being no evidence of the 'gay gene' there is only the embryonic and early life stages left as an option.




Please explain and I shall listen.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Kio you are a god damn moron if you think homosexuality equates sterility.



I didn't say it equates homosexuality but using real genetic statistics see it like this:
If you adopt homosexuality from your parents, doesn't that imply they have those same homosexual genes making them homosexual (if dormant then their grandparents or whatever)? If they are homosexual, then why did they just have you? Because if you are homosexual why would you want to be in a heterosexual relationship? If you're saying culture forced them to change, but then didn't they need to inherit the sexuality, as well? It seems highly unlikely. I've also heard if you are identical twins your core hormonal set will be exactly the same, yet there is only a 10% chance of both of the twins being homosexual. Which, again, makes homosexuality via genetics unlikely.

I don't understand why you call me a moron for just possessing a school of thought that is different from your own.



Aleu said:


> AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?
> 
> 
> 
> Then go open a few biology and psychology books to rid us of your ignorance.



Which books state empirical evidence that homosexuality is genetic? I'd be more than happy to read them.



Afterimage said:


> That isn't really choice, just external influence, but if I can't discuss anything else, then...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality =/= favorite color
> ...



Color preferences may be somewhat genetic, if your eyes are sensitive to certain parts of the color spectrum and not others then you might prefer certain colors, I note cooler colors can have an effect with people with hereditary Goldman Favre syndrome or heightened effects of Scheerer's phenomenon, some may dislike warmer colors as can cause visual migraines in some affected persons. More middle wavelength colors such as yellow and green may be more appealing with people who are slightly more affected by the extremes.

As for the homosexuality, I do think your gender identity that is partially what your born with can potentially have a factor on your sexuality (in fact this is current mainstream scientific opinion http://www.ejhs.org/volume11/Newman.htm not there is mention of a lack of data so nobody really knows, it's a big "may be" which leads me to my conclusion it is conditioned - biologically and/or socially, just not directly genetically) but I haven't seen a single reputable source showing homosexuality as genetic and since these sorts of sources seem to variate the since every few years I do not trust them whatsoever. It just shows to me they are trying to prove something using the tiniest details they can find to prove that somehow homosexuals are unable to control their desires. Conditioning can change your existent sexuality so I can see that it could quite easily have gotten your previous one(s) in the first place.


----------



## Retro (Jan 29, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> They wear assless chaps.


Wow! The more you know! ^_^


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> I didn't say it equates homosexuality but using real genetic statistics see it like this:
> If you adopt homosexuality from your parents, doesn't that imply they have those same homosexual genes making them homosexual (if dormant then their grandparents or whatever)? If they are homosexual, then why did they just have you? Because if you are homosexual why would you want to be in a heterosexual relationship? If you're saying culture forced them to change, but then didn't they need to inherit the sexuality, as well? It seems highly unlikely. I've also heard if you are identical twins your core hormonal set will be exactly the same, yet there is only a 10% chance of both of the twins being homosexual. Which, again, makes homosexuality via genetics unlikely.
> 
> I don't understand why you call me a moron for just possessing a school of thought that is different from your own.
> ...


You are beyond stupid here. Just because one is homosexual #1 doesn't mean that they cannot have kids. In case you didn't notice, homosexuality has been taboo for quite some time. Homosexuals can, have, (and some do still) marry the opposite sex and have children BECAUSE of that taboo. 
Also I'm not necessarily arguing that it's genetic. I'm arguing that it's not a choice.

As for raising children to be homosexual, homosexuals do have children that they have adopted. Guess how the children turned out? NOT HOMOSEXUAL.

I'm not calling you a moron for being different. I'm calling you a moron because you are ^_^


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> You are beyond stupid here. Just because one is homosexual #1 doesn't mean that they cannot have kids. In case you didn't notice, homosexuality has been taboo for quite some time. Homosexuals can, have, (and some do still) marry the opposite sex and have children BECAUSE of that taboo.
> Also I'm not necessarily arguing that it's genetic. I'm arguing that it's not a choice.
> 
> As for raising children to be homosexual, homosexuals do have children that they have adopted. Guess how the children turned out? NOT HOMOSEXUAL.
> ...



"Just because one is homosexual #1 doesn't mean that they cannot have kids", wouldn't that be "bi"-sexual? You can bounce between sexualities, they aren't static, still there is no genetic evidence but I've no clue why you're using this an argument.
I didn't say it was a choice, I said it was conditioned.

Original post:



Kio Snowfyre said:


> I think if homosexuality was truly genetic you wouldn't have been naturally conceived. I think it is natural to be homophobic from an evolutionary point of view, however, homosexual rejection can better ensure a species' continuation (this is a hard fact of gentility). Choice? More like conditioning, before the media started to condition young people to be gay, there was far less homosexuals. The question of homosexuality being right or wrong in the eyes of public opinion gets in the way of many homosexuals respecting this, however, in this society I think people have a right to be gay but to parade it is ridiculous, most people don't want to hear about your sex life whatever your fetish or "sexuality". You don't see many straight pride movements... I think that says it all about this. I don't trust to confuse homosexuality and gender identity issues, you can be born looking female but if you're male (same for vice versa) that doesn't make you homosexual, if being lead to be respected more as a homosexual seems beneficial to such persons this is not choice or genetics but also conditioning. You can show stereotypical traits of your biological sex but it doesn't mean you will remain straight, either. It's all woo, really, sometimes it makes me wonder if homosexuals get more out of protecting their sexuality than actually acting it out.



"As for raising children to be homosexual, homosexuals do have children that they have adopted. Guess how the children turned out? NOT HOMOSEXUAL."

Depends on the conditions, I've heard of homosexuals teaching their children to be homosexual, but a pure homosexual cannot breed so the genes cannot be actually passed down. It seems unlikely for such genes to be passed, anyway, but until I see a citation of this I refuse to believe it. I might as well believe in leprechauns, because there's just as much the same amount of facts so far in that. I already also stated that gestation "may" have some relation but this is still a big may be for even scientists. Unless you are saying you know more than professional scientists, because if you do I regard that as stupid.

"I'm not calling you a moron for being different. I'm calling you a moron because you are ^_^" [citation needed] cut down on the ad hominem attacks, please, it's immature. You can call me as many names as you want, it won't change the lack of solid proof.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

What? What? How are homosexuals sterile? Do you even know what homosexuality is?


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> What? What? How are homosexuals sterile? Do you even know what homosexuality is?


Not sure if trolling...

If a person is purely homosexual they only have sex with the same sex, so they can't breed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality - homo=same, sex=coitus


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Not sure if trolling...
> 
> If a person is purely homosexual they only have sex with the same sex, so they can't breed.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality - homo=same, sex=coitus



Homosexuality is the attraction of the same sex. It has nothing to do with breeding dumbass.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't care what it is.
It just is. No point in debating this.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Homosexuality is the attraction of the same sex. It has nothing to do with breeding dumbass.


If you're attracted with the same sex, why would you be in a heterosexual relationship? And I meant "pure" mode homosexual, someone who doesn't pretend to be heterosexual. Did you read my post? I was pertaining to say that it would be unlikely for homosexual genetics to exist, and furthermore, there is no proof of them. And I'm still waiting on a citation that there genetics involved. I already provided that the only biological hypothesis plausible is in gestation, as I'll say again, which governs gender roles, as Lev1athan said, gender identity could be a player but scientists only say may be.

This thread is bordering on having the http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=False Consensus Effect


----------



## Aleu (Jan 29, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> If you're attracted with the same sex, why would you be in a heterosexual relationship? And I meant "pure" mode homosexual, someone who doesn't pretend to be heterosexual. Did you read my post? I was pertaining to say that it would be unlikely for homosexual genetics to exist, and furthermore, there is no proof of them. And I'm still waiting on a citation that there genetics involved. I already provided that the only biological hypothesis plausible is in gestation, as I'll say again, which governs gender roles, as Lev1athan said, gender identity could be a player but scientists only say may be.
> 
> This thread is bordering on having the http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=False%20Consensus%20Effect


Did you miss my post about the whole society dubbing it taboo? A homosexual is no less homosexual by pretending to be heterosexual.
Come back when you've learned some psychology.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 29, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Did you miss my post about the whole society dubbing it taboo? A homosexual is no less homosexual by pretending to be heterosexual.
> Come back when you've learned some psychology.



Did you just miss my last post? It's right above yours.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Could it be that human populations inhibit  their growth in an analagous fashion by increasing the incidence of  homosexuality? Perhaps...but it should be considered that *a  certain number of homosexuals in a population can increase the breeding  efficiency just like having infertile old people, who cannot reproduce  directly but who sement the care and protection of offspring so that a  greater number reach adult hood.*



 The bold statement is true, but let me think about it again.
 Let's say you have a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. The  heteros decide to have a kid. Their occupation as parents is deemed to  fail as they're found to be mentally XYZ/dead. The homosexual couple  takes the child in. Result - one child reaches adulthood safely, 4  parents in total. 1 parent per quarter child. 
If the parents were  healthy(and alive, of course), then it would end with one child that  reaches adulthood with the aid of just two parents. 1 parent per half a  child. 

So homosexuality "increases efficiency" of living  children that are bound to never reach adulthood, but slows the growth  of population(In a world with 50% heteros and 50% homosexuals, the  growth rate decreases by 50%, it seems). 
Our world isn't 50/50, but the growth rate is still impaired. 
[I  don't like growth rate at all. A 50/50 world could work really well in  order to... delay worldwide overpopulation, something that won't be a  problem the day we stop farming and grow our crops in  towers/laboratories - something we already do on a much smaller scale.]   Humans don't exactly follow rules of the animal kingdom on social  levels. You can blame speech and imaginative minds for that. Human  population more likely delays, slows or stops growth by killing each  other in wars.



Also let me sum up why homosexuality must genetic:
Human actions are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. In order to move information between each neuron, you have to use chemical transmitters. The release of other similar molecules in the space between neurons affects the behavior of the information that goes through.
In order to monitor the number, location, rate and duration of those molecules, we use proteins(also fats).
The same protein has similar information about number, location, rate, duration and type, of course - all stored inside genes.

If homosexuality was plain choice, then we could say that it is also some sort of a disease, or brain damage(it may just be that, but I'd call out a very large population if I supported it) - because it essentially damages the well being of some proteins, molecules, and the transmission of electrical impulses in the brain, in ways that defy the inner instinct of assuring the safety(existence) of a future generation. Now, that isn't completely true in our current society, but it wasn't really endorsed last century, was it? It took quite some time for [large portion of society] to stop stoning homosexuals.
If homosexuality was caused by exterior influence, then wouldn't all the people who caused it be criminals that break human rights of safety? 

It makes me wonder...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Depends on the conditions, I've heard of homosexuals teaching their children to be homosexual, but a pure homosexual cannot breed so the genes cannot be actually passed down. It seems unlikely for such genes to be passed, anyway, but until I see a citation of this I refuse to believe it. I might as well believe in leprechauns, because there's just as much the same amount of facts so far in that. I already also stated that gestation "may" have some relation but this is still a big may be for even scientists. Unless you are saying you know more than professional scientists, because if you do I regard that as stupid.



You obviously have not heard of artificial insemination and surrogate moms. Not to mention gay men who have tried to hide it by marrying and even having kids only to later end the relationship.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> If you're attracted with the same sex,* why  would you be in a heterosexual relationship?* And I meant "pure" mode  homosexual, someone who doesn't pretend to be heterosexual. Did you read  my post? I was pertaining to say that it would be unlikely for  homosexual genetics to exist, and furthermore, there is no proof of  them. And I'm still waiting on a citation that there genetics involved. I  already provided that the only biological hypothesis plausible is in  gestation, as I'll say again, which governs gender roles, as Lev1athan  said, gender identity could be a player but scientists only say may be.
> 
> This thread is bordering on having the http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=False Consensus Effect



Read my above statement.

You really are coming across as rather naive about life.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> Not sure if trolling...
> 
> If a person is purely homosexual they only have sex with the same sex, so they can't breed.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality - homo=same, sex=coitus



Obviously they can;t breed with the same gender, but you're making it out to be that they can;t breed AT ALL because they are gay. Did you not hear of the lesbian who had a sex change to be a male, she wanted a child, she still had the internal woman parts to do so so was artificially inseminated by a sperm donor and 9 months later gave birth.

There is nothing preventing a gay man from donating his sperm to a sperm bank. In fact some gay men probably do. I am also 90% certain that Elton John was also married to a woman before he came out as being gay. 

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

I was right he married a woman, later divorced her saying he was comfortable being gay and later had a child via a surrogate mother. To claim gay people can not breed at all (which is the impression you have repeatedly given in this thread) is utter bullshite.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Afterimage said:


> The bold statement is true, but let me think about it again.
> Let's say you have a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. The  heteros decide to have a kid. Their occupation as parents is deemed to  fail as they're found to be mentally XYZ/dead. The homosexual couple  takes the child in. Result - one child reaches adulthood safely, 4  parents in total. 1 parent per quarter child.
> If the parents were  healthy(and alive, of course), then it would end with one child that  reaches adulthood with the aid of just two parents. 1 parent per half a  child.
> 
> ...



The 50 50 world is very contrived. In a natural setting we might consider that like a degenerate code having 'redundant parents' ,such as the elderly or non-heterosexual, would increase the resillience of a gene pool and hence its likelihood of increased efficiency in reproduction and longer term evolutionary survival.

A mother who has a gran and a gay brother to help take care of her brood can reproduce with more certainty than one who has only one of these or neither. Even the gay brother benefits evolutionary because his sister, who shares many of his genes, is passing them on more effectively than they both could as heterosexuals. 

Why exactly so much of the human species is homophobic at this point in time is a msytery to me, and I suspect it's a manifestation of _memetics_ over genetics.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Did you just miss my last post? It's right above yours.



Have you learned more about psychology? No? Well fuck off then :V
A person can't be trained to be a homosexual any more than a person can be trained to be heterosexual. That's almost more of a retarded argument than "It's a choice".


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> If you're attracted with the same sex, why would you be in a heterosexual relationship? And I meant "pure" mode homosexual, someone who doesn't pretend to be heterosexual. Did you read my post? I was pertaining to say that it would be unlikely for homosexual genetics to exist, and furthermore, there is no proof of them. And I'm still waiting on a citation that there genetics involved. I already provided that the only biological hypothesis plausible is in gestation, as I'll say again, which governs gender roles, as Lev1athan said, gender identity could be a player but scientists only say may be.
> 
> This thread is bordering on having the http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=False Consensus Effect



Numerous citations concerning possible genetic or epigenetic influences have been posted already in this thread, such as studies upon fruit flies* demonstrating their gender specific mating behaviours can be swapped with the exchange of a single gene. 

This doesn't mean that all of human sexual behaviour is geneticaly determined by virture of the fruitflies' genetic-based behaviour, it doesn't mean that gestation can't play any role either, but it _does _show that animal sexuality is likely to have genetic influences.

*http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/news050531-9.html


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

So really what the experts are saying is, it is possible it is a genetic trait but as of yet can not confirm it in humans.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The 50 50 world is very contrived. In a natural setting we might consider that like a degenerate code having 'redundant parents' ,such as the elderly or non-heterosexual, would increase the resillience of a gene pool and hence its likelihood of increased efficiency in reproduction and longer term evolutionary survival.
> 
> A mother who has a gran and a gay brother to help take care of her brood can reproduce with more certainty than one who has only one of these or neither. Even the gay brother benefits evolutionary because his sister, who shares many of his genes, is passing them on more effectively than they both could as heterosexuals.
> 
> Why exactly so much of the human species is homophobic at this point in time is a msytery to me, and I suspect it's a manifestation of _memetics_ over genetics.



I'm aware of this thought, but I don't know about how it works in reality.
Such a case of productivity is more complex than just "the elderly and the homos love helping their families!!!! pay now".
It's kind of like "quality over quantity" with many more variables.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Afterimage said:


> I'm aware of this thought, but I don't know about how it works in reality.
> Such a case of productivity is more complex than just "the elderly and the homos love helping their families!!!! pay now".
> It's kind of like "quality over quantity" with many more variables.



I've realised an example which contradicts this hypothesis anyway. [please correct me if I am wrong] Orangutans are fertile after their maturation for their entire lives, so there are no oldies. They also exhibit homosexual behaviour in males, but males don't play any significant role in raising offspring. 

In orangutans males can surpress their full maturation to 'play the long game' too. 

It's possible that a diverse range of strange sexual qualities like these could exist in various different species, as we know they do, but fulfill a host of different functions, or merely be residual. 

With this in mind I am wondering whether behaviours like homosexuality are emergent, popping out as a perhaps useful but inevitable byproduct of the complexity of a species' reproductive habits. 

...I think it might be a good idea to get occam's razor out. x3


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 30, 2013)

badlands said:


> there is no evidence if a genetic cause as of yet. if one comes to light i will stand corrected. however i have heard of the possible influence of hormone levels while the fetus is in development.
> 
> i don't think it is a choice but with there being no evidence of the 'gay gene' there is only the embryonic and early life stages left as an option.



You are kind of right. There is no evidence for the existence of a gay gene yet. But that might just be because a) there are multiple genes responsible for it and not just one so it's more difficult to locate and/or b) that it is a mix of other factors which may also include a genetic factor.
Personally I never agrued that it is purely genetic. We don't know that yet so I think it doesn't make sense to argue about it like we are doing right now.
Fact is that it isn't a choice.
I think many people just think it is a choice because they give our own free will a little too much credit.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> So really what the experts are saying is, it is possible it is a genetic trait but as of yet can not confirm it in humans.



Pretty much. But as I said above, since we have yet to find specific genes that are responsible for it it is probably a mix of a number of different factors. When we are talking about something as comlex as our own behavior that probably makes more sense than attributing it to one specific factor like it seems to be the case with animals that are similar to us but not as complex when it comes to their mental faculties.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

There didn't use to be any evidence that there was a gene for being left handed but we found it. It's certainly been proven it's not a choice. The whole "conditioned" argument makes no lick of sense.

I'm just still wondering how the hell parents would condition their kids to be homosexual (or when anything would condition kids to be homosexual) in a time when it was looked down on.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> There didn't use to be any evidence that there was a gene for being left handed but we found it. It's certainly been proven i*t's not a choice.* The whole "conditioned" argument makes no lick of sense.
> 
> I'm just still wondering how the hell parents would condition their kids to be homosexual (or when anything would condition kids to be homosexual) in a time when it was looked down on.



On this subject the administrator on the other forum I frequent has very strict catholic parents who believe that left handedness is a sin. 

They punished his left handed brother until he learnt to use his right hand instead. 

I do not understand how this didn't merit a criminal sentence for child cruelty.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On this subject the administrator on the other forum I frequent has very strict catholic parents who believe that left handedness is a sin.
> 
> They punished his left handed brother until he learnt to use his right hand instead.
> 
> I do not understand how this didn't merit a criminal sentence for child cruelty.



Religion.

Need I say more?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I'm just still wondering how the hell parents would condition their kids to be homosexual (or when anything would condition kids to be homosexual) in a time when it was looked down on.



Using this form of torture?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On this subject the administrator on the other forum I frequent has very strict catholic parents who believe that left handedness is a sin.
> 
> They punished his left handed brother until he learnt to use his right hand instead.
> 
> I do not understand how this didn't merit a criminal sentence for child cruelty.





Randy-Darkshade said:


> Religion.
> 
> Need I say more?



No, you don't because you are exactly right.
"If you want to get good people to do wicked things, you need religion." -Christopher Hitchens.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 30, 2013)

It may not have happened this particular page, but cut it out with the flaming/personal attacks/needless abrasiveness. I believe you're able to disagree with telling the other person they're a fucking retard, etc.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> On this subject the administrator on the other forum I frequent has very strict catholic parents who believe that left handedness is a sin.
> 
> They punished his left handed brother until he learnt to use his right hand instead.
> 
> I do not understand how this didn't merit a criminal sentence for child cruelty.



Wait, they STILL believe that? That died out even in Catholic schools didn't it?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Wait, they STILL believe that? That died out even in Catholic schools didn't it?



Idiocy is rather hard to weed out. It just keeps coming back and you just can't get rid of it all without the use of extreme methods :T


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Wait, they STILL believe that? That died out even in Catholic schools didn't it?



So did geocentrism, the church having finally apologised a couple of years ago, but people still believe in that rubbish. 

The psychological torment a child must experience for being punished for such an arbitrary difference as being left handed is just sickening. 
I would expect even the most religiously astute parents to love their children more than silly religious trivialties, but alas not. :\

On the subject though I think this relates to the thread's discussion. I think that the 'it's a choice' argument is used by people who have an agenda, such as a homophobic religious belief, so that they can rationalise criticism, punishment and insist that their efforts to deconstruct same sex attraction aren't futile.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Oh yay a genetics thread. I am a zoologist and biologist - oh and gay. I have never met a single gay animal in all of my work but met my fare share of men!  Being gay is not genetic, but gender confusion might and that might lead to you being gay. We are all born pseudo-asexual, it is only body language and pheromones that make you select the right partner to mate.

Identical twins are very rare to be both gay but their sex-related genes are both the same (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/01/31/the-genetics-of-same-sex-attraction/) this seems to correlate to the media boost in recent years, too, so conditioning does have an affect on "coming out of the closet", at least.

Although there is no evidence of homosexuality being genetic, there is some evidence of conditioning and the most popular hypothesis is that it starts in the womb. Don't be confused by the use of the term "epigenetics", though, what it means is that how male or female your physical traits are, this doesn't affect your sexual preferences, but if you are, say, "a man" and grow up feeling "womanly" you are more likely to be "gay", and if you are, say, "a woman" and grow up feeling "manly" you are more likely to be "lesbian".

The point you accept your feelings of being "opposite sex" like is the point you determine that you are homosexual, society can condition this in or out of you it is up to culture, but besides that there is no subconscious identity, sex on the lowest level is about spreading your seed and creating offspring, this is (of course) known as "sexual reproduction".

So there you have it, with pure science, homosexuality is not really a choice or genetic 
But then if you have enough cultural preferences yourself, doesn't that mean you can choose? Thus my conclusion is it's wedged between conditioning (social / gender identity (perhaps governed in the womb)) and choice. However, it is definitely not hereditary (so thus not genetic as gene=genesis=origin=hereditas=heir=origin) you can say epigenetics but that is contradictory when it comes to congenital (con=not geni=beget=generate=genesis=genetic) development as it is congenital nor genital so epigenetics are not actually real genetics by the actual meaning of genetics in itself.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

If sexual orientation is determined by the uterine envrionment, this is at a dissonance with the observation that both of identical twins are rarely homosexual, as they share the same uterus. 
Unless the environment being considered differs between each amniotic sack. 

If sexual orientation can be psychologically conditioned, and I'm going to suppose in formative years, can you post the studies detailing these relationships please?


Also if we're discussing observations of homosexual behaviour in animals I noticed guineapig female-female mounting and male-male mounting when my family used to own a herd, however they were often segregated by sex.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If sexual orientation is determined by the uterine envrionment, this is at a dissonance with the observation that both of identical twins are rarely homosexual, as they share the same uterus.
> Unless the environment being considered differs between each amniotic sack.
> 
> If sexual orientation can be psychologically conditioned, and I'm going to suppose in formative years, can you post the studies detailing these relationships please?
> ...



That's because they can be both gender-confused but it takes conditioning to find acceptance or rejection, rendering gay between choice and conditioned. You can even choose to be asexual or be conditioned as such, like said, in a way, everything is born pseudo-asexual.

Animals can seek alternative partners when suppressed but actual homosexual-specific activity is extremely rare. Animals can also resort to other species it doesn't make it genetic. Besides pheromones and body language there is nothing to govern sexual attraction. In humans an "illusion" of preference can be created by the likes of fetish that makes you lean towards certain preference and an aesthetic attraction through cultural idealism such as "strength", "style", "health" and/or "wealth" plus social acceptance you know in regards to certain sexes (for example, some women turn lesbian because of their ex-husbands beating them).


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Oh yay a genetics thread. I am a zoologist and biologist - oh and gay. I have never met a single gay animal in all of my work but met my fare share of men!  Being gay is not genetic, but gender confusion might and that might lead to you being gay. We are all born pseudo-asexual, it is only body language and pheromones that make you select the right partner to mate.
> 
> Identical twins are very rare to be both gay but their sex-related genes are both the same (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/01/31/the-genetics-of-same-sex-attraction/) this seems to correlate to the media boost in recent years, too, so conditioning does have an affect on "coming out of the closet", at least.
> 
> ...


Ok there's a few problems I have with this:



> Oh yay a genetics thread. I am a zoologist and biologist - oh and gay. I have never met a single gay animal in all of my work


Huh? Just because you've never seen them in your line of work doesn't mean they don't exist.



> "a woman" and grow up feeling "manly" you are more likely to be "lesbian".


There're very many "manly" women that are heterosexual. EDIT - Just seen "more likely", but citation needed on that point.



> Being gay is not genetic, but gender confusion might and that might lead to you being gay. We are all born pseudo-asexual, it is only body language and pheromones that make you select the right partner to mate.


Ok I'll bring back a quote from a couple of pages ago:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007 - "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of *genetic factors and* the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." - http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submiss... England.pdf

Also, gender confusion _can't really_ be used as an excuse. I bet there're transgender female------>male people out there that are interested in relationships with males, this may not be common, but they most likely do exist.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't think gender identity has anything to do with orientation. There are men that know they are men that are attracted to men. I'm also a pretty masculine female who has a strong attraction to men. That's not science. That's stereotypes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> That's because they can be both gender-confused but it takes conditioning to find acceptance or rejection, rendering gay between choice and conditioned. You can even choose to be asexual or be conditioned as such, like said, in a way, everything is born pseudo-asexual.
> 
> Animals can seek alternative partners when suppressed but actual homosexual-specific activity is extremely rare. Animals can also resort to other species it doesn't make it genetic. Besides pheromones and body language there is nothing to govern sexual attraction. In humans an "illusion" of preference can be created by the likes of fetish that makes you lean towards certain preference and an aesthetic attraction through cultural idealism such as "strength", "style", "health" and/or "wealth" plus social acceptance you know in regards to certain sexes (for example, some women turn lesbian because of their ex-husbands beating them).



What do you mean by pseudo-asexual? 
As a point of fact male and female babies exhibit characteristically different behaviours, such as wanting to be around babies of their own gender. Male babies refrain from looking at human faces whilst female babies prefer to look at them as opposed to other distractions. 

If homosexuality has its roots in conflicted assessment of gender then can it be shown that men and women who grow up to be homosexual exhibited behaviour characteristic of the _opposite_ sex as infants?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Oh yay a genetics thread. I am a zoologist and biologist - oh and gay. I have never met a single gay animal in all of my work but met my fare share of men!  Being gay is not genetic, but gender confusion might and that might lead to you being gay. We are all born pseudo-asexual, it is only body language and pheromones that make you select the right partner to mate.



I am pretty certain gender confusion has nothing to do with sexual orientation.



> Although there is no evidence of homosexuality being genetic,



Obviously you didn't see in this thread where it was stated that the fruit flies had there sexual orientation adjusted using a gene.



> there is some evidence of conditioning and the most popular hypothesis is that it starts in the womb.



Please explain to me how conditioning can start inside the womb. When you're in the womb you are not subjected to anything, you are growing. Also please provide this so called evidence of conditioning.



> The point you accept your feelings of being "opposite sex" like is the point you determine that you are homosexual, society can condition this in or out of you it is up to culture, but besides that there is no subconscious identity, sex on the lowest level is about spreading your seed and creating offspring, this is (of course) known as "sexual reproduction".



Could you please give some examples of what in everyday life could influence a person to become gay. 

When I hit puberty I started having sexual thoughts, amongst those were thoughts of men and women. Nothing in my life influenced it, it just happened. I was brought up exactly the same way as all three of my siblings and they are straight. 




> But then if you have enough cultural preferences yourself, doesn't that mean you can choose?



If you're bisexual, yes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Conditioning could feasibly occur in the womb. Sound and light is transmitted into the uterine environment as well as chemicals from the outside environment. 

This doesn't say that hypothesis is right though.


----------



## Dokid (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Conditioning could feasibly occur in the womb. Sound and light is transmitted into the uterine environment as well as chemicals from the outside environment.
> 
> This doesn't say that hypothesis is right though.




True, but it is much harder to condition while inside of the womb. It's kinda like how people say if you put speakers on your lower half and played Mozart you'll have a smarter child. 

Anyways I have a huge problem with how he says that a "masculine" woman will more likely to be gay. I've seen a lot of really "girly" lesbian women. I've also seen gay men who are very much masculine, more so than most people i've met.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Raptros:

"Huh? Just because you've never seen them in your line of work doesn't mean they don't exist."
I didn't say that wasn't the case?

"There're very many "manly" women that are heterosexual. EDIT - Just seen "more likely", but citation needed on that point."
That's what I just said, why do you need a citation? Do you have one saying otherwise?

"Ok I'll bring back a quote from a couple of pages ago:"
The link is not functioning and there is substantive evidence, I have even studied this.

" Also, gender confusion can't really be used as an excuse. I bet there're transgender female------>male people out there that are interested in relationships with males, this may not be common, but they most likely do exist. "

*they're
What makes you say this?
May be you should pick up a few biology books and see how sex/gender works, that should help you understand this better.

@Aleu:
Re-read my entire post before jumping to conclusions.

Has nothing to do with sexual orientation? Do you not even know how sexual reproduction works? Man impregnates female, female gets pregnant. If you feel manly and you're female you "might" be lead into being lesbian, if you are womanly and you're male you "might" be lead into being gay. Are you saying gamete roles are stereotypes? That's not how sex works.

@Fallowfox:
"Pseudo-asexual" was a term introduced by Alfred Kinsey referring to the fact most animals are born with near to no complete sexual behavior traits and only realize these once they reach maturity (i.e. puberty), yet we use the term "pseudo" because it may not last throughout life. Upon puberty, Obviously, therein sexual trial causes a subject to test out sexual activity, it is the point of "sexual exploration" so they do not very often show these traits as infants.

@Randy-Darkshade:
"I am pretty certain gender confusion has nothing to do with sexual orientation."
Gender determines the sexual role so yes, it does. If you mean "invented" gender, that can be choice, but gender isn't necessarily so solid, or are you denying the existence of gender-fluid individuals?

"Obviously you didn't see in this thread where it was stated that the fruit flies had there sexual orientation adjusted using a gene."
Humans aren't fruit flies and this has been stressed as a possible defect, especially considering that flies are an extremely primitive species.

"Please explain to me how conditioning can start inside the womb. When you're in the womb you are not subjected to anything, you are growing. Also please provide this so called evidence of conditioning."
Conditioning (verb): Have a significant influence on or determine (the manner or outcome of something).
Except it is non-genetic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
God you can't be this stupid.

"Could you please give some examples of what in everyday life could influence a person to become gay. "
Culture/religion, dynamic factors of a person's life / psychology, deviancy and media.

" When I hit puberty I started having sexual thoughts, amongst those were thoughts of men and women. Nothing in my life influenced it, it just happened. I was brought up exactly the same way as all three of my siblings and they are straight. "
The brain doesn't contain visual data to determine what sex would be like, if you imagined it you were influenced by something else, perhaps porn or some media realization. And thought is no connection to sexual roles, either, one can think of something entirely imaginative it doesn't mean there is a genetic connection.

"If you're bisexual, yes. "
You can force a strictly gay person into a heterosexual relationship through cultural aspects (enforced preferences via psychology) since everything you think is derivate of your cultural ways, object choice if not sexuality (which is a man-made construct, I remark) itself could well be governed by that.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

> The link is not functioning and there is substantive evidence, I have even studied this.


http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf

I have to ask, what is your position in your uni and what part of zoology are you studying?

EDIT: The link is a .PDF, and the forums don't seem to like linking to them for some reason.
EDITx2: Should be fine now though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Chemical Conditions in the womb=/= 'conditioning' as it is refered to in psychology, like pavlov's dogs. I think this is where the dissonance arose. 

Brains *do* contain intrinsic visual data. Some bird species innately recognise the shape of predators for instance, even if they have never seen them before and the shape is artificial, for example a silhouette. 

You do further realise that despite your accusations of media and cultural involvement your own source you just posted specifies sexuality has a biological origin? It even describes sexuality as inherent, rather than being discovered later. 

You are instructing people to read the literature, but your claims and the literature you yourself post... are a plethora of dichotomies.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Conditioning (verb): Have a significant influence on or determine (the manner or outcome of something).
> Except it is non-genetic.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
> God you can't be this stupid.



I didn't say give me the dictionary definition of conditioning. I asked you to explain how it can start inside the womb. As in what things could influence it.

[/QUOTE]Culture/religion, dynamic factors of a person's life / psychology, deviancy and media.[/QUOTE]

You're still being vague. I also don;t accept religion as an example that people would turn gay as most religions (if not all) are heavily against gay men to the point in some countries it is illegal to be gay. What sort of dynamic factors in life? What sort of psychology?




> The brain doesn't contain visual data to determine what sex would be like, if you imagined it you were influenced by something else, perhaps porn or some media realization. And thought is no connection to sexual roles, either, one can think of something entirely imaginative it doesn't mean there is a genetic connection.



There is a difference between thinking something and feeling attracted to someone be it the same gender or opposite. I feel attracted to men, as such I have gay thoughts, this was not influenced by porn as I had that feeling and thoughts before I even watched porn. And even then the first porn I watched was either lesbian or straight.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Chemical Conditions in the womb=/= 'conditioning' as it is refered to in psychology, like pavlov's dogs. I think this is where the dissonance arose.
> 
> Brains *do* contain intrinsic visual data. Some bird species innately recognise the shape of predators for instance, even if they have never seen them before and the shape is artificial, for example a silhouette.
> 
> ...


AKA "cherry picking" or "confirmation bias".


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Raptros
I am a vet for the most part, I am also a post-grad student of zoology/biology in general.

Article is somewhat correct, there is no explicit genetic/congenital evidence as there is only this showing in gender-identity (governed cited in epigenetics), but it says sexual orientation exists in nature but it doesn't mention that this existence is due to mispairing.
Cultural dilemma was completely ignored, it is quite obvious culture is an influence on a person regardless of any underlying psychology or biological preferences if any exist, you can see this yourself, empirically.

@Fallowfox:
There are many various forms of conditioning.
The visual data is not solid, to recognise predator shape is more of an optical phenoma that creates a shock stimulus, the corruption of which is observed in humans in various optical disorders and via the use of hallucinogenic drugs.

"You do further realise that despite your accusations of media and cultural involvement your own source you just posted specifies sexuality has a biological origin? It even describes sexuality as inherent, rather than being discovered later."
This is no accusation, at least not a false one, it is observable throughout history, culture does have a large impact, and for a long time homosexuality has been consider a taboo.

"dichotomies"
There is no solid evidence on your behalf nor mine that overrides certain schools of thought, conclusions are subjective to the school of thought. Others here post dichotomies yourself, but those I cited were from reputable professional studies that have been long followed in media.

@Randy-Darkshade:
I am being vague because the environmental elements are numerous and vary subjectively. Are you saying subjective opinion and cultural beliefs are non-extant?
Religion may be pro-gay or anti-gay, many religions such as Native American and other tribal religions trust in "brotherly love" and condone same-sex marriage, this is also observable in some other more ancient cultures.

"There is a difference between thinking something and feeling attracted to someone be it the same gender or opposite. I feel attracted to men, as such I have gay thoughts, this was not influenced by porn as I had that feeling and thoughts before I even watched porn. And even then the first porn I watched was either lesbian or straight. "
You mean, you think you are attracted, the brain thinks, the brain governs, this can be altered by cultural aspects, to the point you didn't even notice you had any homosexual feelings. The first porn you watched, you watched it, why? Because everyone is born "pseudo-asexual", as stated so you did not fully map out your sexuality yet, may be there was a kink you saw in gay porn that lead you to favor it.

@Raptros:
I think that's moreover what you are doing, not I. The fact you feel to defend yourself to such a degree just shows how close-minded you are, especially considering that I am speaking from academic knowledge and all notable institutes say exactly what I have said for those specific points, as I have cited.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Raptros
> I am a vet for the most part, I am also a post-grad student of zoology/biology in general.
> 
> Article is somewhat correct, there is no explicit genetic/congenital evidence as there is only this showing in gender-identity (governed cited in epigenetics), but it says sexual orientation exists in nature but it doesn't mention that this existence is due to mispairing.
> ...



I wouldn't bother arguing anymore, I agree with said but they'll keep re-arguing your points with no or outdated / unrelated citations, even while you offer proof.
We have a "false consensus" going on in here, mostly in favor of homosexuality being genetic despite there being absolutely no citation of this. Obviously it is conditioned in the mind there has not been a found gene, the only genes found relate to gender, yet even that is rejected here with claims gender is nothing to do with sexual orientation, which is complete bullshit because being male or female governs the roles of sexuality, which is the whole process of sexual reproduction. At least someone else is unbiased, I was beginning to lose faith.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> I am being vague because the environmental elements are numerous and vary subjectively. Are you saying subjective opinion and cultural beliefs are non-extant?
> Religion may be pro-gay or anti-gay, many religions such as Native American and other tribal religions trust in "brotherly love" and condone same-sex marriage, this is also observable in some other more ancient cultures.



Brotherly love does not compare to being gay.



> You mean, you think you are attracted, the brain thinks, the brain governs, this can be altered by cultural aspects, to the point you didn't even notice you had any homosexual feelings. The first porn you watched, you watched it, why? Because everyone is born "pseudo-asexual", as stated so you did not fully map out your sexuality yet, may be there was a kink you saw in gay porn that lead you to favor it.



I don't think I am, I know I am. Don't sit there and tell me what I think and don't think, you're not me. The fact I have a BF is quite a good indication I know I swing both ways. In my high school years I had homosexual urges, even masturbating to homosexual thoughts. So like I said, don't tell me "I think" I am bisexual, at 29 years old and with a BF I bloody well know I am bisexual. And before you ask, I have dated girls and what not in the past as well.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> I wouldn't bother arguing anymore, I agree  with said but they'll keep re-arguing your points with no or outdated /  unrelated citations, even while you offer proof.
> We have a "false consensus" going on in here, mostly in favor of  homosexuality being genetic despite there being absolutely no citation  of this. Obviously it is conditioned in the mind there has not been a  found gene, the only genes found relate to gender, yet even that is  rejected here with claims gender is nothing to do with sexual  orientation, which is complete bullshit because being male or female  governs the roles of sexuality, which is the whole process of sexual  reproduction. At least someone else is unbiased, I was beginning to lose  faith.



What evidence did you provide? You didn't provide any links or citations to back up your claims.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> I wouldn't bother arguing anymore, I agree with said but they'll keep re-arguing your points with no or outdated / unrelated citations, even while you offer proof.
> We have a "false consensus" going on in here, mostly in favor of homosexuality being genetic despite there being absolutely no citation of this. Obviously it is conditioned in the mind there has not been a found gene, the only genes found relate to gender, yet even that is rejected here with claims gender is nothing to do with sexual orientation, which is complete bullshit because being male or female governs the roles of sexuality, which is the whole process of sexual reproduction. At least someone else is unbiased, I was beginning to lose faith.



I think I have every right to argue something that I have been outright told in studies. Am I supposed to reject education to the worthless opinions of people trying to say it's "genetic" purely to massage their sexual "purity" ego?
I definitely see a false consensus in here, several are attacking defense, you can't facts with numbers, but only spread propaganda more heavily. It's ignorance.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> I think I have every right to argue something that I have been outright told in studies. Am I supposed to reject education to the worthless opinions of people trying to say it's "genetic" purely to massage their sexual "purity" ego?
> I definitely see a false consensus in here, several are attacking defense, you can't facts with numbers, but only spread propaganda more heavily. It's ignorance.



Umm, at what point have I or anyone else even said it was definitely genetic? I personally NEVER once said it was definitely genetic.

I was purely saying I never chose my sexuality, it just came too me at the right time. I never once claimed my sexuality was a result of genes. As for your claims on conditioning and influence I have been trying to find out what kinds of things may influence people to be gay when they hit that age.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Randy-Darkshade:"Brotherly love does not compare to being gay."
I don't think you realize that they made to be gay, regardless of what preference they may have had with some other basis, they were coerced. For some it was often considered a "joke".​ It only serves to prove cultural conditioning could well play a big effect. But since you are no doubt brainwashed, you probably won't dare to realize this. For what citations do you have? Because until I see these hard facts, your opinion is nothing to me, I like to talk facts not opinions.

"I don't think I am, I know I am. Don't sit there and tell me what I think and don't think, you're not me. The fact I have a BF is quite a good indication I know I swing both ways. In my high school years I had homosexual urges, even masturbating to homosexual thoughts. So like I said, don't tell me "I think" I am bisexual, at 29 years old and with a BF I bloody well know I am bisexual. And before you ask, I have dated girls and what not in the past as well."
You, on the lowest level, are a slop of chemical compounds that just so happens, in all the randomness in the universe, happens to be as you are after a period of evolution, a fraction of a dot in the endless void that is space. I am gay, you are gay, right? ​ Let's go by your logic. The fact you swing both ways and that, although gender is fluid and sex itself is a biological process between a male and female to create offspring just goes to further show that you are not homosexual but rather "gender-fluid" it's like a fetishism, it might be somewhat a mild gender identity issue but you are thinking to serve to protect yourself, this is not hormonal it is mental. You can see this because so many gays like to follow it like a trend, if it can be a followed like a trend, culture obviously has an impact on a person's preferences. Your sex drive does not have a double role, you were born with the genitals you have, humans don't even follow pheromones, you base on visual cues. It's like gay men who like to sodomize men but refuse to have sex with women, why if there sexual role is obviously male and they feel it is make them select "men"? Obviously that isn't how things work in reproduction, the real issue  is there is no doubt the person has some cultural basis not to like girls for that and probably has a fetish for penetrating a rectum instead of a vagina. If you want to say otherwise, we might as bring up fetishes, why some are so popular, yes, because you're on that level of logical fallacy.

"Umm, at what point have I or anyone else even said it was definitely genetic? I personally NEVER once said it was definitely genetic."

Then why are you even arguing?


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Then why are you even arguing?



Because they have psychological self-protection issues and now can't find a reason to argue your sub-arguments, rendering the debate against your post entirely pointless because resulting conclusion is identical due to lack of genetic data.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

> @Raptros:
> I think that's moreover what you are doing, not I. The fact you feel to defend yourself to such a degree just shows how close-minded you are, especially considering that I am speaking from academic knowledge and all notable institutes say exactly what I have said for those specific points, as I have cited.


Oh you are. You say that "it has nothing to do with genetics" yet the sources you cited say that there is at least some evidence to suggest genetics plays a role in it. If you walk on over to my FA you'll see that I'm a supporter of the skeptical movement, which is out to promote and encourage critical thinking. I agree, we all have moments where confirmation bias is used (knowingly or unknowingly) especially when the topic at hand is one you are very passionate about. We have to keep on reasearching this area untill a conclusion is met but in the meantime, to outright rule out the role of genetics is a mistake because of the reasearch that has been put into it.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> I wouldn't bother arguing anymore, I agree with said but they'll keep re-arguing your points with no or outdated / unrelated citations, *even while you offer proof*.
> We have a "false consensus" going on in here, mostly in favor of homosexuality being genetic despite there being absolutely no citation of this. Obviously it is conditioned in the mind there has not been a found gene, the only genes found relate to gender, yet even that is rejected here with claims gender is nothing to do with sexual orientation, which is complete bullshit because being male or female governs the roles of sexuality, which is the whole process of sexual reproduction. At least someone else is unbiased, I was beginning to lose faith.


"Proof" is the key word here. No one has offered proof here, only theories as to why with differing amounts of evidence.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Raptros said:


> "Proof" is the key word here. No one has offered proof here, only theories as to why with differing amounts of evidence.



Then the whole discussion would be pointless, but despite that there is academic mention of no data, thus if there is no statistical link, there would be little to no genetic link. Despite that, links were offered, the more updates reviews stating homosexuality is conditional, perhaps starting in the womb.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Then the whole discussion would be pointless, but despite that there is academic mention of no data, thus if there is no statistical link, there would be little to no genetic link. Despite that, links were offered, the more updates reviews stating homosexuality is conditional, perhaps starting in the womb.



Key word there is "perhaps" starting in the womb.

The bottom line is, no one fucking knows exactly why someone becomes gay, lesbian or bisexual. It's all a bunch of theories and possibilities and maybes.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Raptros:

No, the only signs are gender determination if you read.
Note that there is more research showing that culture is entirely responsible for homosexuality, but I won't reject that gender identity doesn't come into effect. In some cultures homosexuality is neither condoned nor condemned but rather completely unknown, there was an interesting documentary I watched once I had a google and a few articles have made mention of these empirical studies http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...bation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/ And the fact masturbation and other fetishes seem also cultural just makes me come to the conclusion, more and more it is a wedge between conditioning (gender/social) and choice.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Key word there is "perhaps" starting in the womb.
> 
> The bottom line is, no one fucking knows exactly why someone becomes gay, lesbian or bisexual. It's all a bunch of theories and possibilities and maybes.



And we posted from our background knowledge, no? Now you are saying to agree to disagree, yet I was no one to take offense or am I just not allowed to have my say now in case homosexuals/bisexuals get frustrated?


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Raptros:
> 
> No, the only signs are gender determination if you read.
> Note that there is more research showing that culture is entirely responsible for homosexuality, but I won't reject that gender identity doesn't come into effect. In some cultures homosexuality is neither condoned nor condemned but rather completely unknown, there was an interesting documentary I watched once I had a google and a few articles have made mention of these empirical studies http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...bation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/ And the fact masturbation and other fetishes seem also cultural just makes me come to the conclusion, more and more it is a wedge between conditioning (gender/social) and choice.


Masturbation is cultural? Lets go back to the other members of the animal kingdom...

"It appears that many animals, both male and female, masturbate, both when partners are available and otherwise.[35] It has also been observed in dogs.[36]" - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#section_5

Anyway, why are people adamant that culture and "the media" are to blame for homosexuality, even when the species that homosexuality has been observed don't have either of those things? Homosexuality has been seen in humans no matter what culture is deemed the dominant one at the time.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Raptros:
> 
> No, the only signs are gender determination if you read.
> Note that there is more research showing that culture is entirely responsible for homosexuality, but I won't reject that gender identity doesn't come into effect. In some cultures homosexuality is neither condoned nor condemned but rather completely unknown, there was an interesting documentary I watched once I had a google and a few articles have made mention of these empirical studies http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...bation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/ And the fact masturbation and other fetishes seem also cultural just makes me come to the conclusion, more and more it is a wedge between conditioning (gender/social) and choice.



That's very true, actually, I couldn't find it on Google Scholar but I managed to find it on the NZ homosexual research website, actual refs are supplied, no bs, etc.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch6.pdf

It's like I read someone is "into abs" they are like "zomg I must be naturally gay, I can't help it", yet this attraction, like many other aspects is entirely cultural, and heterosexual selection governs what continues in a culture because only heterosexual sexual activity leads to offspring.

Like said
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/epigenetics.htm"The paper really discusses sexually dimorphic genitalia, not homosexuality"
is exactly correct, it discusses gender aspects and shows no connection to sexual attraction and sexual attraction has only so far only been mapped out as being mentally constructed. There is no weird magic between it, this universe is made of chemicals, sure, but it doesn't come from your genes, plenty statistics show it.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Masturbation is cultural? Lets go back to the other members of the animal kingdom...
> 
> "It appears that many animals, both male and female, masturbate, both when partners are available and otherwise.[35] It has also been observed in dogs.[36]" - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#section_5
> 
> Anyway, why are people adamant that culture and "the media" are to blame for homosexuality, even when the species that homosexuality has been observed don't have either of those things? Homosexuality has been seen in humans no matter what culture is deemed the dominant one at the time.



Sexual masturbation has not once been observed as non-cultural behavior in any species, masturbation can occur to release hormones related to stress as the genitalia is at the core of body and very obvious to the limb positions, it's not genetic, it is just physically suggestive.

"Anyway, why are people adamant that culture and "the media" are to blame for homosexuality" because they are and you can't blame other things like genetics because there is no evidence of that. 

"Homosexuality has been seen in humans no matter what culture is deemed the dominant one at the time." [citation needed], some cultures, not all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> And we posted from our background knowledge, no? Now you are saying to agree to disagree, yet I was no one to take offense or am I just not allowed to have my say now in case homosexuals/bisexuals get frustrated?



Who said I took offense to anything? Where am I getting frustrated? Where have I said you're not allowed to have a say? and where have I actually said agree to disagree? Seriously are you actually reading whats written? Or making shit up as you go along.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Who said I took offense to anything? Where am I getting frustrated? Where have I said you're not allowed to have a say? and where have I actually said agree to disagree? Seriously are you actually reading whats written? Or making shit up as you go along.



No, not you specifically but I haven't had plenty ad hominem thrown at me itt, but you obviously offended by the idea of you being able to choose, yet nobody said this which is why I have no idea why you are arguing, that isn't how most normal people debate, it's close-minded.


----------



## Grimpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

People who aren't gay can't really say that it's a choice unless they have overwhelming evidence.  After all they're not gay.  I'm not saying that it's 100% not psychological, but it's definitely not a choice. (I know that 100% for me personally).  Sources: I'm a massive homosex.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> No, not you specifically but I haven't had plenty ad hominem thrown at me itt, but you obviously offended by the idea of you being able to choose, yet nobody said this which is why I have no idea why you are arguing, that isn't how most normal people debate, it's close-minded.



I have to admit, the thread seems more of a flurry in favor of homosexual interest and not so much about empirical / doctrinal facts, frustration has lead to this bias.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Grimpkin said:


> People who aren't gay can't really say that it's a choice unless they have overwhelming evidence.  After all they're not gay.  I'm not saying that it's 100% not psychological, but it's definitely not a choice. (I know that 100% for me personally).  Sources: I'm a massive homosex.



By that logic people who aren't another person can't really say anything to understand that person, yet in reality the universe is mechanical and we can round of abstracts to describe things and their workings as logically as possible.

I am gay, the level of choice is just about the same level of choice of how much I love certain foods, you could say this is genetic but if was it all it would be extremely modest, it's more of a cultural thing. Although, homosexuality is slightly different, sexuality and confusions around it can cause frustrations (plenty of which is observable in this thread). A lot of pro-homosexual propaganda seems in favor homosexuality being accepted as pure rather than hard evidence, yet now they are finding it more and more hard to stretch the truth and the theories are far more limited. As for the food, I refuse to change liking certain dishes as I do with my sexual preference. But I'm not stupid enough to pretend that homosexuality is not hereditary genetic when there is no evidence of this.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

Ok I'm not getting frustrated with the fact that some people have different interpretations of the same research as me, but rather the notion that people don't understand that nothing has been proven, nothing has been concluded and nothing has been completely and utterly ruled out. We're talking about a topic here that is still of fairly big importance to science. We're not the ones researching this in a lab/out in the field, we're not qualified to say anything definitive, we can only discuss the hard work that people have put into researching this topic and base our own arguments on them, we can debate the available evidence and say why we THINK one theory is wrong and back up our points. I, personally, will spin on a fucking dime if someone of credible position and is researching the topic showed me that one theory, with near certainty is the reason. Untill then, this argument is only going to go round in circles.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> I think I have every right to argue something that I have been outright told in studies. Am I supposed to reject education to the worthless opinions of people trying to say it's "genetic" purely to massage their sexual "purity" ego?
> I definitely see a false consensus in here, several are attacking defense, you can't facts with numbers, but only spread propaganda more heavily. It's ignorance.



You quotes studies which stipulated homosexuality had a biological origin, not one of social conditioning, and then repeated your claim that social conditioning and media were a root cause. 

...do you not see that your claim is mutually exclusive with the very studies you are quoting _in order_ to flaunt it? 

I'd like to avoid an ad hominem argument but you also implied a confusion between uterine conditions and psychological conditioning, having quoted an article on uterine conditions' relevance and then gone further to make a claim concerning media influence...are you really studied in this? 


In general I try to not to make claims that are refuted by the very sources I quote when I am constructing a case. 



Tigre-Monster said:


> I have to admit, the thread seems more of a  flurry in favor of homosexual interest and not so much about empirical /  doctrinal facts, frustration has lead to this bias.



This is not so. My bone with you is that your claim, that cultural conditioning is to blame, remains unsupported and in fact is ridiculed by the citations you yourself brought up.

This is an evidencial gripe. I'm open to believing cultural and social influences change the raw level of same sex attraction [*not* the manifestation of people openly admitting their orientation] provided that strong evidence is supplied.

However the source you quoted on uterine development specifically isolated the suspected social influence- large numbers of brothers, and showed it was irrelevant. It then identified a root biological concordance- the number of times a uterus had carried a male foetus. 

Uterine conditions are not psychological conditioning. This is prenatal development and determination of future adult sexuality in the womb.

We have clearly ascertained homosexuality is, for many users reporting it but for homosexuals at large, not a choice they are aware of making. They may choose to hide or express it depending on media influence but this is *superficial and irrelevant *to whether these people actually feel same sex attraction. 

A biological correlation is not defenitive proof that uterine environment is the only cause of male homosexuality, however it's a damn site better than the evidence proponed in favour of homosexuality being a psychological meme. [this idea dating back to sigmund freud who thought homosexuality was the result of over/under mothering of male children]


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> You quotes studies which stipulated homosexuality had a biological origin, not one of social conditioning, and then repeated your claim that social conditioning and media were a root cause.
> 
> ...do you not see that your claim is mutually exclusive with the very studies you are quoting _in order_ to flaunt it?
> 
> ...



Biological, not genetic, lrn2read.
They are a big cause, there's studies that show this, and history.

Please, read some books you don't seem to know anything about genetics.
If you are claiming otherwise, please cite.

I didn't say just cultural conditioning, I said cultural and gestation conditions, it is also called conditions, as well, which is why I supplied the dictionary term for conditioning, and there is far more evidence of cultural influence than not, prove otherwise. How is what is cited not strong? There's no fucking gene that's been found, get over it. You tell me to cite, I have cited, you have yet to cite, yourself.

"A biological correlation is not defenitive proof that uterine environment is the only cause of male homosexuality"

Statistically speaking, yes it is.

"under-mothering"

It is a parent's duty to tell their offspring's what's right or wrong and thus that does actually have some basis, just because you don't share this school of thought doesn't mean the evidence supplied doesn't support it enough to seem true. But you haven't given anything reputable.
​


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Homosexuality is not genetic until there is hard evidence otherwise (of which there isn't because statistics) /thread


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Biological, not genetic, lrn2read.
> They are a big cause, there's studies that show this, and history.
> 
> Please, read some books you don't seem to know anything about genetics.
> ...



*I'm not suggesting that biological equates to genetic, if you think I am you misread my post.
*
If there are studies. Please post them. Otherwise the Royal college's word, that it's not cultural, remains unchallenged. 

Perhaps if you realised I'm arguing that uterine conditions don't equate to cultural factors and not that 'it's genetic!', you would address my concern. 


Statistically speaking correlation does not imply causation [a founding mantra of statistics], a different mechanism undetected by the test could be responsible, so until a mechanism is shown true the proof is not definitive, just considered a plausible working hypothesis meriting further research.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> Homosexuality is not genetic until there is  hard evidence otherwise (of which there isn't because statistics)  /thread



That's a very nice statement, but if you didn't notice...I'm _not_ talking about genes.


----------



## Golden (Jan 30, 2013)

I always thought homosexuality was environmental...


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

RaichuOPs said:


> I always thought homosexuality was environmental...



Is heterosexuality environmental also?

If it is not, and that people have an intrinsic desire for heterosexual sex why does this not apply to homosexuals? Has an environmental experience vetoed a biological imperative or is the cause biological in nature instead?

Tigre's reference, outline a biological correlation, suggests it _is_ indeed biological, but this is not necessarily the last word. 


*I am assuming environment = upbringing, please correct if assumption is wrong


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Fallowfox:
These were already provided, and that link doesn't correlate the references, plus there are studies that say otherwise, are often mentioned in media.
Like said in some cultures it doesn't even exist because there's no realization, in others it is simply forbade
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...bation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/
The citations here are official
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch6.pdf
In that article stated it points out studies that do not even involve studies of that, bullshit much?


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Is heterosexuality environmental also?
> 
> If it is not, and that people have an intrinsic desire for heterosexual sex why does this not apply to homosexuals? Has an environmental experience vetoed a biological imperative or is the cause biological in nature instead?



Heterosexuality is a component in a natural process, homosexuality has no process and in nature is an error.
But it doesn't mean it's wrong, because we like who gives a fuck. No need to bullshit about it, though.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Homosexuality is not genetic until there is hard evidence otherwise (of which there isn't because statistics) /thread


Homosexuality is not caused caused by culture, media or [insert any other theory here] untill there is hard evidence otherwise. /thread

See how that can be spun? There is not enough data to give us a definitive answer yet so just please stop that.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Homosexuality is not caused caused by culture, media or [insert any other theory here] untill there is hard evidence otherwise. /thread
> 
> See how that can be spun? There is not enough data to give us a definitive answer yet so just please stop that.



Ok, by the way, I am an extraterrestrial alien from several trillion years into the future until proven otherwise.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Raptros:
No, because there is no evidence in genetics, some possibility around congenital development and plenty in cultural studies.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Fallowfox:
> These were already provided, and that link doesn't correlate the references, plus there are studies that say otherwise, are often mentioned in media.
> Like said in some cultures it doesn't even exist because there's no realization, in others it is simply forbade
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...bation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/
> ...



This is going to be tedius, but here we go. 

If bizare sexual patterns manifest in one culture this does not mean that the whole plethora of sexual patterns which exist outside of it are of a cultural origin.

Just as the fact this tribe has dark hair and samoans have blond hair does not prove that natural hair colour is cultural. [the gene for samoan blond hair was only recently discovered too]

What you're doing is making a correlation implies causation fallacy. You observed that some cultures have different sex lives and assumed sexual attraction must therefore be caused by culture. This is not so, a variety of other factors could be responsible such as diet, population size, practices during gestation or even genetics [yes, the g word] it's even possible that people experience same sex attraction but lie because it's tabboo or don't pusue interests because the population density is too low for the probability of two homosexuals meeting. 

Correlation is nothing without a *mechanism*, otherwise we could assume global warming is caused by a global decrease in pirates since 1800. 


Furtheremore...you might want to read about the man who is behind that article on mygenes.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/About Us.htm

*'We hope these research findings will be elucidating. They have tended to  be used by people wanting to change their orientation because they show  that the homosexual orientation is not innate. '*

I detect a bias. 

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

This is pseudoscience. 



Tigre-Monster said:


> Heterosexuality is a component in a natural  process, homosexuality has no process and in nature is an error.
> But it doesn't mean it's wrong, because we like who gives a fuck. No need to bullshit about it, though.



This is the point. If heterosexuality has an innate biological cause, being a required natural process for species to survive. Why does this biology not manifest in gay people?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Aleu:
> Re-read my entire post before jumping to conclusions.
> 
> Has nothing to do with sexual orientation? Do you not even know how sexual reproduction works? Man impregnates female, female gets pregnant. If you feel manly and you're female you "might" be lead into being lesbian, if you are womanly and you're male you "might" be lead into being gay. Are you saying gamete roles are stereotypes? That's not how sex works.


Obviously you know nothing about gender. Sex doesn't determine gender nor does gender determine sex.
Stop confusing transgender with homosexuality. It's annoying.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

This is what it comes down to? A newspaper article and a book written to prop up pseudoscientific conversion therapies? 

Really?

Whatever institution you studied at. *Go. and. demand. your. money. back.*


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

I ninja'd your double-post and saved you :>


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I ninja'd your double-post and saved you :>



and I am forever greatful. Still it doesn't lessen the tragedy of what's happened here. 

A user has come to this thread, claimed they are a qualified professional who studied this area, and then used newspaper articles and recognised pseudoscience to support their arguments. 

I'm not even starting my degree until october and even I know that sources need to be checked for bias and validity, and was able to expose the disturbing agenda in the second source in a matter of minutes. Usually it takes hours.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Fallowfox:
"Low density" and yet if the culture expanded would it be subject to homosexuality? If so was this homosexuality genetically obtained? Ha, no.

Cultural studies are not pseudoscience, the author is highly reputable but the lack of censorship in NZ makes the studies far and wide, read the goddamn references. The author also helped legalize gay marriage so don't give the anti-gay bullshit, he's probably even gay himself. Furthermore, "climate change" has existed since the dawn of time and the theories there are flaky and forever changing, not to mention it is a lie that the overall surface temperature has increased, you can use local weather websites of these regions, work out the average for yourself, it's decreased in the past ten years. But I'm not going to go off-topic.

"Conversion therapy" does in fact work, it's been used for a long time so it isn't really a pseudo-science it's a form of therapy, this only goes to show further that with enough influence, the external world can affect a person's preferences. Much like, say, a person's interests. Some people (many people) are into automobiles, it doesn't make it genetic.

You claim bias, yet you are all for pro-gay bias, so what's better pro-gay or "neutral"-gay bias?
You're the biased one here, studies discover new things, just because these things are new doesn't make them incorrect.


----------



## Golden (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Is heterosexuality environmental also?  If it is not, and that people have an intrinsic desire for heterosexual sex why does this not apply to homosexuals? Has an environmental experience vetoed a biological imperative or is the cause biological in nature instead?  Tigre's reference, outline a biological correlation, suggests it _is_ indeed biological, but this is not necessarily the last word.    *I am assuming environment = upbringing, please correct if assumption is wrong


  Yes, I am referring to upbringing. And yes, heterosexuality is also environmental. I believe that the heterosexual/homosexual paradigm is socially constructed, and your sexuality is deeply embedded in yourself. I also believe biological urges to reproduce are irrelevant on a person scale.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Obviously you know nothing about gender. Sex doesn't determine gender nor does gender determine sex.
> Stop confusing transgender with homosexuality. It's annoying.



Obviously I don't? Obviously YOU don't. I bet I'm way more qualified than you here.
Gender governs the fucking role in sex, you are absolutely retarded.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> "Conversion therapy" does in fact work, it's been used for a long time so it isn't really a pseudo-science it's a form of therapy, this only goes to show further that with enough influence, the external world can affect a person's preferences. Much like, say, a person's interests. Some people (many people) are into automobiles, it doesn't make it genetic.



Okay, okay any self-respecting scientist knows that conversion therapy is absolute bullshit. Are you getting this from religious sources?

BTW kio, I am not into just anyone with nice abs. I'm into GUYS with nice abs. If a girl came by with nice abs, I wouldn't care because...


wait for it

....i'm straight.

No one conditioned me to be straight. I haven't even read/watched any sort of porn so it definitely wasnt' media involvement. Even now when I DO show an interest in porn...it's yaoi.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Fallowfox:
> "Low density" and yet if the culture expanded would it be subject to homosexuality? If so was this homosexuality genetically obtained? Ha, no.
> 
> Cultural studies are not pseudoscience, the author is highly reputable but the lack of censorship in NZ makes the studies far and wide, read the goddamn references. The author also helped legalize gay marriage so don't give the anti-gay bullshit, he's probably even gay himself. Furthermore, "climate change" has existed since the dawn of time and the theories there are flaky and forever changing, not to mention it is a lie that the overall surface temperature has increased, you can use local weather websites of these regions, work out the average for yourself, it's decreased in the past ten years. But I'm not going to go off-topic.
> ...



His studies were designed to lend weight to conversion therapy, which is a pseudoscientific medical treatment. He *explicitely states* his book gives people justification to attempt changing their orientation. 

Oh god you're one of _those _people. :\ Whilst the overall surface temperature average of earth has been statis for 10 years this is due to a la nina effect, and since 1800 the temperature has increased. Stop believing whatever bullshit you find on the internet. 

It's like believing in homeopathy or crystal healing 'because brian from newzealand made a book about it' eventhough reputable societies, like the royal college, dispute his claims. 

I suppose if I criticised homeopathy I'd have a 'pro evil medicine' bias. For god's sake.



Tigre-Monster said:


> Obviously I don't? Obviously YOU don't. I bet I'm way more qualified than you here.
> Gender governs the fucking role in sex, you are absolutely retarded.



Where did you get your degree and what subject was it in? Go on.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Obviously you know nothing about gender. Sex doesn't determine gender nor does gender determine sex.
> Stop confusing transgender with homosexuality. It's annoying.



Nobody mentioned transgender, only how gender-identity may affect your social stance if you don't look or feel like your biological sex.
Gender may in convo mean the same as sex, as gen in gender stems from gene, anyway.

Sex determines your genitalia, but the pseudo-gender mentioned in mainstream culture is actually a gay-invented term used to act like "I'm a man in a woman's body" or "I'm a woman in a man's body", that's what you call pseudo-science.

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

You can only be a real man or a real woman, that's the biology, stop making things up, you are biased to the T, and the fact that you are lesbian with no cited qualification or evidence says it all. You are proving nothing to anyone, just taking yourself through the same cycle of ignorance every time you post.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Nobody mentioned transgender, only how gender-identity may affect your social stance if you don't look or feel like your biological sex.
> Gender may in convo mean the same as sex, as gen in gender stems from gene, anyway.
> 
> Sex determines your genitalia, but the pseudo-gender mentioned in mainstream culture is actually a gay-invented term used to act like "I'm a man in a woman's body" or "I'm a woman in a man's body", that's what you call pseudo-science.
> ...



Who in the fuck said I was a lesbian?

Oh right. Because I'm a masculine female means that I'm a lesbian :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Nobody mentioned transgender, only how gender-identity may affect your social stance if you don't look or feel like your biological sex.
> Gender may in convo mean the same as sex, as gen in gender stems from gene, anyway.
> 
> Sex determines your genitalia, but the pseudo-gender mentioned in mainstream culture is actually a gay-invented term used to act like "I'm a man in a woman's body" or "I'm a woman in a man's body", that's what you call pseudo-science.
> ...



Aleu is straight...



Aleu said:


> Who in the fuck said I was a lesbian?
> 
> Oh right. Because I'm a masculine female means that I'm a lesbian :V



I'm afraid so, but don't worry- not for long. 

Doctor brian is here with an elongated instrument to begin your feminisation therapy!  Happy days!


----------



## Golden (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Nobody mentioned transgender, only how gender-identity may affect your social stance if you don't look or feel like your biological sex. Gender may in convo mean the same as sex, as gen in gender stems from gene, anyway.  Sex determines your genitalia, but the pseudo-gender mentioned in mainstream culture is actually a gay-invented term used to act like "I'm a man in a woman's body" or "I'm a woman in a man's body", that's what you call pseudo-science.  http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html  You can only be a real man or a real woman, that's the biology, stop making things up, you are biased to the T, and the fact that you are lesbian with no cited qualification or evidence says it all. You are proving nothing to anyone, just taking yourself through the same cycle of ignorance every time you post.


  And third gender people do not exist :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

This thread has progressed exactly as I expected, dissolving claims of a 'gay culture' into a steaming hot pile of bullshit.

If you're going to use threads like this as a floor to propone your belief in scientific conspiracies and alternative medicines you will be torn to shreds. The users here are not fools.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This thread has progressed exactly as I expected, dissolving claims of a 'gay culture' into a steaming hot pile of bullshit.



I'm surprised the claims haven't come from Americans.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Who in the fuck said I was a lesbian?
> 
> Oh right. Because I'm a masculine female means that I'm a lesbian :V



Feminine females can be lesbians so uhm no, but oooh sorry :V I gathered you were a lesbian from memo, perhaps I was just summarizing quickly for jest. It's quite late here and the thread is pretty much circular.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

RaichuOPs said:


> Yes, I am referring to upbringing. And yes, heterosexuality is also environmental. I believe that the heterosexual/homosexual paradigm is socially constructed, and your sexuality is deeply embedded in yourself. I also believe biological urges to reproduce are irrelevant on a person scale.



But in all reality, sexual attraction doesn't exist, not like pheromones don't but animals can ignore them, for example, humans ignore them all the time. I am gay and unbiased, gays that claim bullshit are just ridiculous wooers, wishing one day that homosexuality will be accepted as everyone as pure. This is known as the false consensus effect. Any human who has experienced sex know it feels good, it's like gays who enjoy prostate orgasm, it's not a natural phenomena to experience this, it's actually abuse of the position of the nervous organs in the body, in that respect homosexuality is utter hedonism.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I'm surprised the claims haven't come from Americans.



I suspect this is the product of concern trolling. Someome pretending to be gay [because this of course legitimises any generalisations they make about homosexuality] to sound like they're free of bias and then dumping their load of horse shite everywhere. 

I would not be surprised if said user recieved their education at 'loveinchrist-university' and is typing from Kansas rather than bangladesh.



Tigre-Monster said:


> But in all reality, sexual attraction  doesn't exist, not like pheromones don't but animals can ignore them,  for example, humans ignore them all the time.* I am gay and unbiased,*  gays that claim bullshit are just ridiculous wooers, wishing one day  that homosexuality will be accepted as everyone as pure. This is known  as the false consensus effect. Any human who has experienced sex know it  feels good, it's like gays who enjoy prostate orgasm, it's not a  natural phenomena to experience this, it's actually abuse of the  position of the nervous organs in the body, in that respect  homosexuality is utter hedonism.



Human pheromones is a controversial subject, some biologists don't even consider our age specific odours to be pheromones. 

Oh and way to prove my point.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Feminine females can be lesbians so uhm no, but oooh sorry :V I gathered you were a lesbian from memo, perhaps I was just summarizing quickly for jest. It's quite late here and the thread is pretty much circular.



So saying that I like guys = lesbian.

Do you even know what a lesbian is?


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

RaichuOPs said:


> And third gender people do not exist :V



No, of course it doesn't. Unless that third gender is no gender. What does the third constitute?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> But in all reality, sexual attraction  doesn't exist, not like pheromones don't but animals can ignore them,  for example, humans ignore them all the time. I am gay and unbiased,  gays that claim bullshit are just ridiculous wooers, wishing one day  that homosexuality will be accepted as everyone as pure. This is known  as the false consensus effect. Any human who has experienced sex know it  feels good, it's like gays who enjoy prostate orgasm, it's not a  natural phenomena to experience this, it's actually abuse of the  position of the nervous organs in the body, in that respect *homosexuality is utter hedonism*.


*
RELIGIOUS BIAS DETECTED

*


Kio Snowfyre said:


> No, of course it doesn't. Unless that third  gender is no gender. What does the third constitute?



Androgyny.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> No, of course it doesn't. Unless that third gender is no gender. What does the third constitute?



Gender is a diverse range of psychological states that may or may not be male and female. Some people are transgendered, genderfluid or occupy no gender at all.



Tigre-Monster said:


> But in all reality, sexual attraction  doesn't exist, not like pheromones don't but animals can ignore them,  for example, humans ignore them all the time. I am gay and unbiased,  gays that claim bullshit are just ridiculous wooers, wishing one day  that homosexuality will be accepted as everyone as pure. This is known  as the false consensus effect. Any human who has experienced sex know it  feels good, it's like gays who enjoy prostate orgasm, it's not a  natural phenomena to experience this, it's actually abuse of the  position of the nervous organs in the body, in that respect  homosexuality is utter hedonism.



Arguing with strangers on the web isn't natural. PURE HEDONISM. 

But anyway, anal sex occurs outside of humans, many animal species practice it, including orangutans.


----------



## Golden (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> No, of course it doesn't. Unless that third gender is no gender. What does the third constitute?


  People who are neither male nor female, in socially accepted terms.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> So saying that I like guys = lesbian.
> 
> Do you even know what a lesbian is?



No, where did I say?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Jan 30, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Is making lame threads like these part of peoples genetic makeup or a choice?


 both


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigres you can stop pretending to be gay now, okay? Your arguments should stand up whatever sexual orientation or religion you are, we don't care if you're 'on team pink'.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> No, where did I say?



I stated before that I liked guys.

You called me a lesbian.

Lesbians are women that like WOMEN in case you didn't know.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Gender is a diverse range of psychological states that may or may not be male and female. Some people are transgendered, genderfluid or occupy no gender at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Psychological, yes, genetic, no.
"Some animals" accidents happen, it's called getting the wrong hole, nothing genetic.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Psychological, yes, genetic, no.
> "Some animals" accidents happen, it's called getting the wrong hole, nothing genetic.



AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Oh god you have to be kidding.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Fallowfox:
It's not controversial because humans don't even have the capability of smelling/sensing enough range to find a mate.

@Aleu:
I'm not religious.

@Fallowfox:
Where did I say I was anti-gay?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Just in case it looks like we're practicing an ad hominem fallacy, by accusing tigres of 
-making up his qualifications
-pretending to be gay in order to sound unbiased
-having a homophobic religious viewpoint
-believing climate change is a conspiracy of some sort

we should also remember he
-references a _news paper article_ as proof
-references pseudoscience as proof
-propones pseudo science


These are the reason his argument is wrong, and this is what I now expect him to address. If you want to sway my view, do it with proper papers published in reputable journals like NATURE or the Royal College.



Tigre-Monster said:


> @Fallowfox:
> It's not controversial because humans don't even have the capability of smelling/sensing enough range to find a mate.
> 
> @Aleu:
> ...



Your comments that homosexuality is unnatural hedonism and that people should be open to conversion therapies that actual scientists describe as degrading pointless and harmful. 

It's like saying 'I'm not racist, but french people should be sent to some sort of camp away from the rest of us,'.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Tigres you can stop pretending to be gay now, okay? Your arguments should stand up whatever sexual orientation or religion you are, we don't care if you're 'on team pink'.



Lol that strawman.



Aleu said:


> AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
> 
> Oh god you have to be kidding.



Prove me wrong.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Lol that strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong.



The moon's interior has waffles in it. Prove me wrong. 

Doesn't work that way, sonny boy.

Furthemore this is not a strawman, you yourself saif 'I'm gay so I'm not biased'. You're not really gay and you are biased. You were pretending to be gay so that people swallowed your BS.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Aleu:
> I'm not religious.


You claimed homosexuality is hedonism. That's primarily a religious view. You claim you're not religious. I call epic bullshit on that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

To bring this back to topic, realising that the opposition's arguments are grossly..well just gross...

I think it's safe to go with the Royal college and conclude sexuality is most likely to have a _biological_ causation.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The moon's interior has waffles in it. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Doesn't work that way, sonny boy.
> 
> Furthemore this is not a strawman, you yourself saif 'I'm gay so I'm not biased'. You're not really gay and you are biased. You were pretending to be gay so that people swallowed your BS.



It might, but unlikely, until proven otherwise. When did I say I'm gay?


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Just in case it looks like we're practicing an ad hominem fallacy, by accusing tigres of





Fallowfox said:


> -making up his qualifications
> -pretending to be gay in order to sound unbiased
> -having a homophobic religious viewpoint
> -believing climate change is a conspiracy of some sort
> ...




Why  do you think the Royal College's bullshit is anymore reputable than a  NZ' institute's studies, of which samples citations from much reliable  studies?

" that actual scientists describe as degrading pointless and harmful. "
Scientists  like you? Hmm? Nope. You are just trying to promote homosexuality as  pure when there is no governing agent that makes things universal pure  so [citation needed]


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> To bring this back to topic, realising that the opposition's arguments are grossly..well just gross...
> 
> I think it's safe to go with the Royal college and conclude sexuality is most likely to have a _biological_ causation.



Where does it say this? It just to summary but doesn't say by what evidence so it really is "pseudo-science". There is no biological evidence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> Why  do you think the Royal College's bullshit is anymore reputable than a  NZ' institute's studies, of which samples citations from much reliable  studies?
> 
> " that actual scientists describe as degrading pointless and harmful. "
> Scientists  like you? Hmm? Nope. You are just trying to promote homosexuality as  pure when there is no governing agent that makes things universal pure  so [citation needed]



One is a world-recognised beacon of scientific enlightenment, the other is made up twaddle.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> Where does it say this? It just to summary  but doesn't say by what evidence so it really is "pseudo-science". There  is no biological evidence.




YOU POSTED BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. 

The role of the uterine history on the probability of a male child's adult sexual orientations IS BIOLOGICAL. 

I'm not a scientist, although I will be in about 4 years time. I'm not trying to say homosexuality is good or bad, I'm trying to ascertain its etiology, as is the thread topic.



Kio Snowfyre said:


> It might, but unlikely, until proven otherwise. When did I say I'm gay?



Please excuse me if this is a double post

My comment was directed at Tigres

and no, the moon's interior is not made from waffles, this is silly. The  Russel's teapot fallacy explains why if you google 'russel's teapot'


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

deleted post/


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> " that actual scientists describe as degrading pointless and harmful. "
> Scientists  like you? Hmm? Nope. You are just trying to promote homosexuality as  pure when there is no governing agent that makes things universal pure  so [citation needed]



http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy
*Research on the Impacts of Reparative Therapy, Harms Caused by Societal Prejudice*

      In 2007, a task force of the American Psychological Association  undertook a thorough review of the existing research on the efficacy of  reparative therapy. Their report noted that there was very little  methodologically sound research on sexual orientation change efforts  (SOCEs) and that the "results of scientifically valid research indicate  that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex  attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE." In  addition, the task force found that "there are no methodologically sound  studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a  definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful  and for whom." Read the full report.
      In short, there is clear evidence that reparative therapy does not  work, and some significant evidence that it is also harmful to LGBT  people.
      In contrast, there is ample evidence  that societal prejudice causes significant medical, psychological and  other harms to LGBT people. For example, research on the issue of family  acceptance of LGBT youth conducted at San Francisco State University  found that "compared with LGBT young people who were not rejected or  were only a little rejected by their parents and caregivers because of  their gay or transgender identity, highly rejected LGBT young people  were:
More than 8 times as likely to commit suicide
Nearly 6 times as likely to report high levels of depression
More than 3 times as likely to use illegal drugs
More than 3  times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and STDs

inb4 "biased source lawl"


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> One is a world-recognised beacon of scientific enlightenment, the other is made up twaddle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Alright, I'm getting tired, I meant genetics not biological in general. The sexual orientation is not created in the womb, this is not even expressed until maturity, in the womb the genitals are created and male/female traits start to exist, inside and out, which may effect a person's sexuality later in life. This must be about the billionth time I've said this now.

And I said it might be because we don't actually know without empirical evidence, but unlikely.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Alright, I'm getting tired, I meant genetics not biological in general. The sexual orientation is not created in the womb, this is not even expressed until maturity, in the womb the genitals are created and male/female traits start to exist, inside and out, which may effect a person's sexuality later in life. This must be about the billionth time I've said this now.
> 
> And I said it might be because we don't actually know without empirical evidence, but unlikely.



My true haircolour was not expressed until I reached toddlerhood. I was blond, then my pigment genes were activated and my hair turned brown. This is common in europeans and austral-asians, but different genes are involved. 
My hair changing _after _I was born is not proof that it can't be a result of an earlier encryptian in my biology.

Sexuality may not be obviously expressed until adolescence but this does not mean its origin cannot be uterine. Evidence is to the contrary.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Jan 30, 2013)

moonchylde said:


> I dunno, the whole "gay gene" thing never made a lot of sense to me... since gay couples rarely if ever have children, wouldn't that particular gene have been bred out years ago? Unless it's a random genetic mutation or something... I don't know, I'm not a geneticist. Then again, I'm not a psychiatrist, or a philosopher, for that matter, so I'm not really qualified to give any sort of answer. So I'll go with my old "who gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut" viewpoint, instead.


 No offence, but, since when were LGBT couples able to have children? Unless a Bi-sexual has sex with his wife maybe. Or a straight person carrying thousand year old genes that contain that sexual information? Or maybe it's just how they ended up born. I was born with Aspergers as people/family and psychologists told me, and my dad's side of family have autism. So genes can carry similar information to another off spring or generation i should say? Not to mention the other stuff that runs in my family. I know sexual orientation is different than disorders, but that doesn't mean other parts of the brain can't be affected with genes.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> No offence, but, since when were LGBT couples able to have children? Unless a Bi-sexual has sex with his wife maybe. Or a straight person carrying thousand year old gay genes? Or maybe it's just how you were born. I was born with aspergers as people/family and psychologists told me, and my dad's side of family have autism. So genes can carry similar information to another off spring or generation i should say? Not to mention the other stuff that runs in my family. I know sexual orientation is different than disorders, but that doesn't mean other parts of the brain can't be affected with genes.


Surrogacy.
Marrying/child-bearing out of social pressure.
Etc.


----------



## Tigre-Monster (Jan 30, 2013)

@Aleu
That's just doctrines against doctrines, I didn't even bring up therapy,  but I acknowledge it's existence.  But if there is such an affect there, what makes you think there isn't  in regards to homosexuality? This has nothing to do with the thread. And  I do detect some corruption there, why would the APA attempt to  investigate or halt something experimental? That's very fishy.

Ugh, I'm going to bed, remind me not to register on a board full of circle-jerking ignorant idiots again. As if FA itself hasn't enough drama, jesus you get more intelligence on lulz.net.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> My true haircolour was not expressed until I reached toddlerhood. I was blond, then my pigment genes were activated and my hair turned brown. This is common in europeans and austral-asians, but different genes are involved.
> My hair changing _after _I was born is not proof that it can't be a result of an earlier encryptian in my biology.
> 
> Sexuality may not be obviously expressed until adolescence but this does not mean its origin cannot be uterine. Evidence is to the contrary.



Those genes are already there during the change of hair color so it was still maturing.
I didn't say it cannot be from the womb, where did I say that?



Aleu said:


> Surrogacy.
> Marrying/child-bearing out of social pressure.
> Etc.



Surrogacy is a very new thing, a stupid one at that, you talk about cultural aspects but how about the ones that push heterosexuals and undecided to be homosexual?
The moment you show science in this regard, the moment you might have some basis of argument, until then, either nothing can be said or the most obvious can be substituted, as I have stated for the last I don't know how many pages.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Tigre-Monster said:


> @Aleu
> That's just doctrines against doctrines, I didn't even bring up therapy,  but I acknowledge it's existence.  But if there is such an affect there, what makes you think there isn't  in regards to homosexuality? This has nothing to do with the thread. And  I do detect some corruption there, why would the APA attempt to  investigate or halt something experimental? That's very fishy.
> 
> Ugh, I'm going to bed, remind me not to register on a board full of circle-jerking ignorant idiots again. As if FA itself hasn't enough drama, jesus you get more intelligence on lulz.net.



You don't understand science at all. Experiments are supposed to be ethical. Conversion therapy is not and it is proven time and time again.
So there is corruption in AMA, APA, AAP, ACA, American Psychoanalytic Association, PAHO and such?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Surrogacy is a very new thing, a stupid one at that, you talk about cultural aspects *but how about the ones that push heterosexuals and undecided to be homosexual*?
> The moment you show science in this regard, the moment you might have some basis of argument, until then, either nothing can be said or the most obvious can be substituted, as I have stated for the last I don't know how many pages.



You mean right-wingers that think that homosexuals are going to spread teh ghey to their kids? That's a load of crap. Again. Where are you getting this from? The Onion? The National Enquirer? Fox News?


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> You don't understand science at all. Experiments are supposed to be ethical. Conversion therapy is not and it is proven time and time again.
> So there is corruption in AMA, APA, AAP, ACA, American Psychoanalytic Association, PAHO and such?



On that note, the AMA and APA wants to protect animal and child molestation, in fact, they did. I cite H.R. 1913 (Hate Crimes Bill), S. 909.
Such a reputable institute, very reputable, ah yes. No propaganda there at all :V
I don't think you realize that Narth actually the more scientific ones in all of this, what makes you think the APA are so much more superior? They don't even show us their survey figures.

This is ridiculous, 



Aleu said:


> You mean right-wingers that think that homosexuals are going to spread teh ghey to their kids? That's a load of crap. Again. Where are you getting this from? The Onion? The National Enquirer? Fox News?



You are against right-wingers? Left-wing bias detected. How it a load of crap. Where am I getting this from? I've cited plenty articles from reputable institutes and media, who have you cited? Old news? Articles don't even show references to things accessible on Google Scholar and the like? And you state no propaganda? The media is full of references to homosexuality these days, and homosexuality has been more dominant than ever, totally genetic. I'm left or right, I'm middle, because I don't look for bias, I look for facts.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

NARTH???????????

FUCKING NARTH REALLY? 






AHAHAHAHAHHAHA


----------



## Machine (Jan 30, 2013)

This thread is dumb, guys.

Like, really.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> NARTH???????????
> 
> FUCKING NARTH REALLY?
> 
> ...



See citations, no need to be patronising, you still haven't provided any proof yourself. The cite to Narth is that they show you that the survey offered by the Royal College actually covers gender trait development of the physique besides the genitals, not sexual orientation, check out the Royal College's citation, it is just a wall of text summarizing no facts and doesn't even appear in the catalog. I can laugh at your use of Royal College citation because of the fact it welcomes web-learnt students to become lecturers.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> See citations, no need to be patronising, you still haven't provided any proof yourself. The cite to Narth is that they show you that the survey offered by the Royal College actually covers gender trait development of the physique besides the genitals, not sexual orientation, check out the Royal College's citation, it is just a wall of text summarizing no facts and doesn't even appear in the catalog. I can laugh at your use of Royal College citation because of the fact it welcomes web-learnt students to become lecturers.



I didn't use RC. Fallowfox did.

I already posted my sources and NARTH is one of THE most biased sources with a huge anti-gay boner. The fact that you take it seriously is just so god-awful and you people claim to be unbiased an pro-fact?
I POSTED THE GOD DAMN FACTS.

FACT: Conversion therapy is harmful
FACT: Homosexuality is biological.


----------



## Machine (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> FACT: Conversion therapy is harmful
> FACT: Homosexuality is biological.


The case of David Reimer brought this to light for me, and now conversion therapy is yet another thing on my list of "Awful Stuff That Needs To Stop."


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Also, how is Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act in relation to pedophilia and zoophilia at all? It's nowhere in that bill. Like at all. Here
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text

This is who it protects
"(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race,  color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender  identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem"

Neither child molestors or animal abusers are included. WHERE'S YOUR FACTS NOW?


----------



## Machine (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Also, how is Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act in *relation to pedophilia and zoophilia* at all?


Oh, you don't know? Homosexuality leads to pedophilia and bestiality! :V

I think that's some of Freud's weirdo analyses, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I didn't use RC. Fallowfox did.
> 
> I already posted my sources and NARTH is one of THE most biased sources with a huge anti-gay boner. The fact that you take it seriously is just so god-awful and you people claim to be unbiased an pro-fact?
> I POSTED THE GOD DAMN FACTS.
> ...



Actually, a person of Narth was found with a male prostitute, they are pretty much gay accepting if not pro-gay, where are you getting this from?
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/meet-geo-male-prostitute-hired-by-narth.html (butthurt blogger)

All and no therapy is harmful, it depends on the person's psychology.
Culture can be therapeutic to the point one disregards any homosexual, people can go from thinking they are full on homosexual to full on heterosexual.
I'm not rejecting some biological possibilities, I am saying may be that's true, but culture has a big part in the acceptance or rejection of who you are. If this was not the case non-natural interests and fetishes may never exist. You might as well be arguing zoosexuality is biological because there's about the same level of evidence so far.

I want evidence of:
a) there being a gene(s)
b) the primary coding elements (chemicals) of the gene(s)
and
c) the process

Because until then everything in this thread is irrelevant and I'm leaving the thread for now.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Machine said:


> Oh, you don't know? Homosexuality leads to pedophilia and bestiality! :V
> 
> I think that's some of Freud's weirdo analyses, but I could be wrong.



Just speaking about the APA's reputation, not the relation. Hmm I wonder, does homo-bestiophilia involve genetics? Because I've heard of them taking this as a life style choice.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Also, how is Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act in relation to pedophilia and zoophilia at all? It's nowhere in that bill. Like at all. Here
> http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
> 
> This is who it protects
> ...



It is included as a sexual orientation if you read the former. I had a link somewhere, I'll see if I can find it sometime.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Actually, a person of Narth was found with a male prostitute, they are pretty much gay accepting if not pro-gay, where are you getting this from?
> http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/meet-geo-male-prostitute-hired-by-narth.html (butthurt blogger)
> 
> All and no therapy is harmful, it depends on the person's psychology.
> ...


NARTH is the exact opposite of pro-gay. They're a Catholic based organization built on "curing" homosexuality.


Kio Snowfyre said:


> It is included as a sexual orientation if you read the former. I had a link somewhere, I'll see if I can find it sometime.



Pedophilia nor zoophilia is a sexual orientation.

Regardless of all that,  murder is murder. There's no protecting anything.


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> NARTH is the exact opposite of pro-gay. They're a Catholic based organization built on "curing" homosexuality.
> 
> 
> Pedophilia nor zoophilia is a sexual orientation.
> ...



No they aren't.
Murder is murder? What are you trying to say, homosexuality is murder?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 30, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> No they aren't.
> Murder is murder? What are you trying to say, homosexuality is murder?


Do you not even know what the hate crime bill is?

It's saying you can be charged with a hate crime if you kill anyone because of their race, sex, religion, etc. However if you kill a pedophile, you'll still be charged with fucking murder so how are they protected?


----------



## Kio Snowfyre (Jan 30, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Do you not even know what the hate crime bill is?
> 
> It's saying you can be charged with a hate crime if you kill anyone because of their race, sex, religion, etc. However if you kill a pedophile, you'll still be charged with fucking murder so how are they protected?



It's so the family of the pedophile can be protected, also obviously not all pedophiles act out on their actions and the hate crime bill serves to protect them in general with raised concerns of attack.
But the thing is APA seems to work with the likes of NAMBLA and you dare say NARTH is strewn in bias? Furthermore, I don't give a damn about NARTH, the summary was important because it relates to the references, references are provided and the information was determined rightly.

So now you're using ad hominem attacks in the thought that NARTH is anti-gay. Citations, please.
Now you're just being a complete jerk, stop misrepresenting the data and doctrines associated.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm done talking with a troll. I hate to go the furfag route and cry "troll" but god damn NO ONE can be that ignorant. It even states in a link YOU had provided that one of the members is anti-gay. I'm not misrepresenting shit. You're the one that is claiming all kinds of shit with nothing but biased sources and ridiculous claims.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Jan 31, 2013)

Seems to me that if there is a "gay gene", some scientist somewhere would have found it by now. Also, to say that one has a choice in who they are sexually attracted to is just asinine. So the answer for the poll is clearly neither.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 31, 2013)

Llamapotamus said:


> Seems to me that if there is a "gay gene", some scientist somewhere would have found it by now. Also, to say that one has a choice in who they are sexually attracted to is just asinine. So the answer for the poll is clearly neither.


Technically the current theory is that it is epigenetic, markers on DNA that are inherited from the opposite-sex parent. Normally this doesn't happen, but the frequency of such a thing aligns with the frequency of homosexuality. In homosexual males, the mother's markers lower receptivity to prenatal testosterone and feminize the male. In homosexual females, it's the reverse with the father's raising receptivity and masculinizing. This has not been proven yet, but it shouldn't take much more than a number of months to test.

As for the "choice" option, a better term would be development and experiences impacting a youth's developing sexuality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

Why haven't the mods locked this shit storm? 

This thread turned into a bigger pile of bullshit after I went to bed last night.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 31, 2013)

Kio Snowfyre said:


> Those genes are already there during the change of hair color so it was still maturing.
> *I didn't say it cannot be from the womb, where did I say that?*
> 
> 
> ...





Kio Snowfyre said:


> Alright, I'm getting tired, I meant genetics  not biological in general. *The sexual orientation is not created in the  womb,* this is not even expressed until maturity, in the womb the  genitals are created and male/female traits start to exist, inside and  out, which may effect a person's sexuality later in life. This must be  about the billionth time I've said this now.
> 
> And I said it might be because we don't actually know without empirical evidence, but unlikely.




...erm?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> ...erm?



Am I the only one that sees his statements as contradicting? Or am I just being thick.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 31, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Am I the only one that sees his statements as contradicting? Or am I just being thick.



I think he's the one being thick, or just _conveniantly forgetting _he said anything that ends up being shown to be wrong. 

This doesn't help us answer the question, it's pretty clear kio and tigres want to spread ideas about homosexuality that turn it into discussion that makes us morally involved. If they can show it's culture then it means we- being in control of the content of said culture- can be attributed responsibility and an insentive [given that homosexuality is a hedonism comparable to paedophilia and zoophilia] to dissaprove and attempt to limit homosexual tendencies, presumeably through the conversion therapies tigres is praising. 

Unfortunately in their haste they accidentally posted sources which contradicted some of their fundamental claims, so they're pretending they don't remember doing this.


----------



## ZerX (Jan 31, 2013)

voted for choice because no one is born with sexual preferences. those develop later, also people willing choose their partner


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> voted for choice because no one is born with sexual preferences. those develop later, also people willing choose their partner



So you chose to like your favorite dish? And you are willingly falling in love with someone like "Hey you! I decided to love you now!"?
That simply isn't how it works.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> voted for choice because no one is born with sexual preferences. those develop later, also people willing choose their partner



You're born pretty much bald too. Is hair growth a choice now? Also choosing a partner is NOT the same as choosing attraction. I can go out and probably hook up with any lesbian out there that would want me. Does that mean I'm a lesbian as well? No. Why? Because I'm not attracted to women.


----------



## Dokid (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> voted for choice because no one is born with sexual preferences. those develop later, also people willing choose their partner



Just cause it comes out later doesn't mean that it isn't genetic and lays dormant till later in life. 

Some people are more sensitive to different kinds of food. It doesn't just appear later when they first try it. They've always liked that kind of food. Same thing goes with Sexual Orientation. 

I don't choose to like guys. My friend doesn't choose to like girls. She gets a physical and chemical reaction from girls. I get the same thing but with guys. We didn't choose to like who we like.


----------



## Machine (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> voted for choice because no one is born with sexual preferences. those develop later, also people willing choose their partner


You can't control what you love. Sexuality is not a decision in the least.


----------



## ZerX (Jan 31, 2013)

yes you can control who or what you love. you also choose if wanna be a good person or not and other similar stuff,...
While I was in school we had both boys and girls in classes and I was and I am still I'm uninterested in both parties. I had both sexes available and some girls were maybe interested in me but I was still uninterested in both.
As a person you can choose if you wanna have a relationship with another person or non at all. this is a choice. you also choose your partners sexuality


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> yes you can control who or what you love. you also choose if wanna be a good person or not and other similar stuff,...
> While I was in school we had both boys and girls in classes and I was and I am still I'm uninterested in both parties. I had both sexes available and some girls were maybe interested in me but I was still uninterested in both.
> As a person you can choose if you wanna have a relationship with another person or non at all. this is a choice


Can you control who you're sexually aroused around?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> yes you can control who or what you love. you also choose if wanna be a good person or not and other similar stuff,...
> While I was in school we had both boys and girls in classes and I was and I am still I'm uninterested in both parties. I had both sexes available and some girls were maybe interested in me but I was still uninterested in both.
> As a person you can choose if you wanna have a relationship with another person or non at all. this is a choice. you also choose your partners sexuality



You can choose whether or not to *express *your attractions...but whether you have them in the first place is not a choice. 
Sexual attraction is obviously much more fundamental to biology than sentient choice, as creatures without the capaicty for informed choice _still _have sex drives.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> yes you can control who or what you love. you also choose if wanna be a good person or not and other similar stuff,...
> While I was in school we had both boys and girls in classes and I was and I am still I'm uninterested in both parties. I had both sexes available and some girls were maybe interested in me but I was still uninterested in both.
> As a person you can choose if you wanna have a relationship with another person or non at all. this is a choice. *you also choose your partners sexuality*



Choosing who to have a relationship does not mean you're choosing your fucking sexuality, idiot.


Did you seriously just say that? Oh my fucking god I thought I said some stupid things but that takes the cake.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> yes you can control who or what you love. you also choose if wanna be a good person or not and other similar stuff,...
> While I was in school we had both boys and girls in classes and I was and I am still I'm uninterested in both parties. I had both sexes available and some girls were maybe interested in me but I was still uninterested in both.
> As a person you can choose if you wanna have a relationship with another person or non at all. this is a choice. you also choose your partners sexuality




You do realize that not wanting to have a relationship doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation, right? >__>
At this point I'm not convinced that you know the definition of sexual orientation...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> You do realize that not wanting to have a relationship doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation, right? >__>
> At this point I'm not convinced that you know the definition of sexual orientation...



I'm not convinced that he knows anything about the subject at all.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 31, 2013)

ZerX said:


> you also choose your partners sexuality



Well that explains why my partners all went suddenly gay. Oh wait, no it didn't because it can't happen.


----------



## powderhound (Jan 31, 2013)

I think sexual preferences are learned and acquired through life experience. The brain is a dynamic and adaptable system that will seek out chemical rewards whether they are from food, sex, skydiving, heroin, whatever. Your brain doesn't know what skydiving is when you're born, but after experiencing it, reward pathways may develop that drive you to pursue it in the future. Certainly there will be a genetic component that influences reward seeking behavior. Some people are sexually attracted to a whole bunch of crazy stuff other than men/women therefore I have a hard time arguing that such behavior was hardwired at birth. Plus even surveys within the fandom show that such preferences are dynamic, evolving, and change frequently.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 31, 2013)

powderhound said:


> I think sexual preferences are learned and acquired through life experience. The brain is a dynamic and adaptable system that will seek out chemical rewards whether they are from food, sex, skydiving, heroin, whatever. Your brain doesn't know what skydiving is when you're born, but after experiencing it, reward pathways may develop that drive you to pursue it in the future. Certainly there will be a genetic component that influences reward seeking behavior. Some people are sexually attracted to a whole bunch of crazy stuff other than men/women therefore I have a hard time arguing that such behavior was hardwired at birth. Plus even surveys within the fandom show that such preferences are dynamic, evolving, and change frequently.



The biological necessity of sex drive and the immense improbability of entire generations finding out they enjoy sex within approximately the same age range just by psychological conditioning? 

This is my suspicion
-the existance of a sex drive at all, genetic.
-orientation, biological, of non-specific nature as far as I know.
-fetishism, probably psychological

overall degree of expression, psychological.


----------



## Venu.Shade (Jan 31, 2013)

Homosexuality - God's way of saying STOP FUCKING BREEDING YOU'RE OVERPOPULATED

yes there are surrogates and what not but still :V most homosexual couples adopt which also gets kids out of the foster system


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

Venu.Shade said:


> Homosexuality - God's way of saying STOP FUCKING BREEDING YOU'RE OVERPOPULATED
> 
> yes there are surrogates and what not but still :V most homosexual couples adopt which also gets kids out of the foster system



Yeah, cause gay couples are the only ones able to adopt.


----------



## powderhound (Jan 31, 2013)

" the immense improbability of entire generations finding out they enjoy sex within approximately the same age range just by psychological conditioning? "

I don't think you can say much about the age range.  In fact I think there is a biologic argument for the opposite of what you suggest. Many women are attracted to older men and many older men are attracted to younger women. Women have a large investment pregnancy and therefore may be genetically wired to seek out older partners who are able to support and provide for that. Younger women are more likely to have successful pregnancies without genetic problems therefore men maybe biologically wired to seek them out in favor of their older counterparts.

It's freeking heartless I know, just sayin.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

powderhound said:


> " the immense improbability of entire generations finding out they enjoy sex within approximately the same age range just by psychological conditioning? "
> 
> I don't think you can say much about the age range.  In fact I think there is a biologic argument for the opposite of what you suggest. Many women are attracted to older men and many older men are attracted to younger women. Women have a large investment pregnancy and therefore may be genetically wired to seek out older partners who are able to support and provide for that. Younger women are more likely to have successful pregnancies without genetic problems therefore men maybe biologically wired to seek them out in favor of their older counterparts.
> 
> It's freeking heartless I know, just sayin.



What does pregnant women and man seeking women and vice versa, have to do with a topic about gay genes?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 31, 2013)

powderhound said:


> " the immense improbability of entire generations finding out they enjoy sex within approximately the same age range just by psychological conditioning? "
> 
> I don't think you can say much about the age range.  In fact I think there is a biologic argument for the opposite of what you suggest. Many women are attracted to older men and many older men are attracted to younger women. Women have a large investment pregnancy and therefore may be genetically wired to seek out older partners who are able to support and provide for that. Younger women are more likely to have successful pregnancies without genetic problems therefore men maybe biologically wired to seek them out in favor of their older counterparts.
> 
> It's freeking heartless I know, just sayin.



I was disputing suggestions that sexual orientation was psychological. This isn't relevant.


----------



## Venu.Shade (Jan 31, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Yeah, cause gay couples are the only ones able to adopt.



I wasn't saying theyre the only ones, just that most of the time if a homosexual couple wanted to raise a child or two they would likely adopt. not everyone can afford to hire a surrogate mother :V


----------



## powderhound (Jan 31, 2013)

Oh, "within" not "with." Sorry, I didn't read close enough.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 31, 2013)

Venu.Shade said:


> I wasn't saying theyre the only ones, just that most of the time if a homosexual couple wanted to raise a child or two they would likely adopt. not everyone can afford to hire a surrogate mother :V



I know what ya meant lol I'm just yankin ya chain.


----------



## Saiko (Jan 31, 2013)

... Does it ever occur to people that a non-genetic/non-biological influence does not by definition mean "choice?" :/

Yes, my sexuality developed. I didn't identify as gay until I was seventeen or even really notice anything until sixteen, but I did not choose to be gay so much as concede that I am. Hell I even wholeheartedly chose to try to change it to straight... it didn't work! >_<

For clarification, I say it is both. Genetics produce a predisposition, and life experiences compound it.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 31, 2013)

Saiko said:


> ... Does it ever occur to people that a non-genetic/non-biological influence does not by definition mean "choice?" :/
> 
> Yes, my sexuality developed. I didn't identify as gay until I was seventeen or even really notice anything until sixteen, but I did not choose to be gay so much as concede that I am. Hell I even wholeheartedly chose to try to change it to straight... it didn't work! >_<
> 
> For clarification, I say it is both. Genetics produce a predisposition, and life experiences compound it.



Non-genetic/non-biological insinuates that homosexuality can be "overcome" like PTSD or some shit.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jan 31, 2013)

Can someone help me become gay? My life would be a lot easier if I was. I have several potential boyfriends who make lots of money already lined up. I'd settle for bisexual if that's easier.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 31, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Can someone help me become gay? My life would be a lot easier if I was. I have several potential boyfriends who make lots of money already lined up. I'd settle for bisexual if that's easier.



Well seeing as you're a furry, that's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Kazooie (Feb 1, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Can someone help me become gay? My life would be a lot easier if I was. I have several potential boyfriends who make lots of money already lined up. I'd settle for bisexual if that's easier.


"hello, I am a mostly straight male. Huh, faf seems neat, I will post on i- wait why is there something in my mouth, how did that get there" has basically been my experience with the furry fandom.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Feb 1, 2013)

If I was gay I could literally be driving a BMW right now working for a retro clothing store.


----------



## Jijix (Feb 1, 2013)

A simple way to get the OP to answer their own question is just to ask them to become the sexual orientation "opposite" to them.
No seriously, just "choose" to be straight for five minutes, or gay, or whatever. 
Doesn't really work does it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 1, 2013)

It also can't be a choice because The Lord made us the way we are.

*:V*


----------



## BRN (Feb 1, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Can someone help me become gay? My life would be a lot easier if I was. I have several potential boyfriends who make lots of money already lined up. I'd settle for bisexual if that's easier.




'sup ;3


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 1, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Can someone help me become gay? My life would be a lot easier if I was. I have several potential boyfriends who make lots of money already lined up. I'd settle for bisexual if that's easier.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsVg0fFaO0Q


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 1, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsVg0fFaO0Q



Grey bloke is best bloke :3


----------



## Llamapotamus (Feb 2, 2013)

Jijix said:


> A simple way to get the OP to answer their own question is just to ask them to become the sexual orientation "opposite" to them.
> No seriously, just "choose" to be straight for five minutes, or gay, or whatever.
> Doesn't really work does it.



You can try and act like you're the opposite orientation. Could actually be fun seeing how long you can manage staying in character...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 2, 2013)

It seems the conversion therapy might actually be bullshit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/un-conversion-therapy_n_2600742.html

I emphasize on the word might. It seems that not much in the way of research has been carried out to determine whether or not such therapy actually works or causes more harm than good. To be honest I wouldn't put my trust into something that hasn't been researched. So for now I'm calling bullshit on this conversion therapy until proven otherwise.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 2, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> It seems the conversion therapy might actually be bullshit.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/un-conversion-therapy_n_2600742.html
> 
> I emphasize on the word might. It seems that not much in the way of research has been carried out to determine whether or not such therapy actually works or causes more harm than good. To be honest I wouldn't put my trust into something that hasn't been researched. So for now I'm calling bullshit on this conversion therapy until proven otherwise.



Good. They need need to destroy this nonsense. "Therapy" my ass...


----------



## Aleu (Feb 2, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> It seems the conversion therapy might actually be bullshit.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/un-conversion-therapy_n_2600742.html
> 
> I emphasize on the word might. It seems that not much in the way of research has been carried out to determine whether or not such therapy actually works or causes more harm than good. To be honest I wouldn't put my trust into something that hasn't been researched. So for now I'm calling bullshit on this conversion therapy until proven otherwise.



I just posted a link on how it's bullshit a bit ago >:C


----------



## skyelar (Feb 2, 2013)

Choice is the wrong word for sure, but I'm not sure we've found a strand of our DNA that defines sexuality yet.

Why is it important?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 2, 2013)

skyelar said:


> Why is it important?



You've gotta be kidding.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2013)

skyelar said:


> Choice is the wrong word for sure, but I'm not sure we've found a strand of our DNA that defines sexuality yet.
> 
> Why is it important?



-Epistemological curiosity
-Of important merit to Biology and or Psychology
-To refute the premature and simplistic claims of some homophobes by exposing a more complex truth, whatever it may be


----------



## skyelar (Feb 2, 2013)

Aleu said:


> You've gotta be kidding.


 
Definitely not kidding. I mean that in a very strong, "Why would it be important to you which one is true?"



Fallowfox said:


> -Epistemological curiosity
> -Of important merit to Biology and or Psychology
> -To refute the premature and simplistic claims of some homophobes by exposing a more complex truth, whatever it may be



^ Decent answer.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 4, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> Can someone help me become gay? My life would be a lot easier if I was. I have several potential boyfriends who make lots of money already lined up. I'd settle for bisexual if that's easier.


 lmfao

Okay i'm gonna say this right now. I have had sexual attractions since in was 3 years old, including furry characters. I don't think people just simply choose to be something, not like it's a big deal anyway.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 4, 2013)

This issue is very complicated. I regret that this thread has gotten to 25 pages. Wish I could've said something on the first page. It seems like most people have preferences but the vast, vast majority of them never explore the full potential of sexual/romantic feelings they are capable of. They let their anxieties dominate and limit their lives. It is too difficult for them to get past their hangups--which have been socially ingrained since they were children.

As for the preferences that are programmed, those are caused by epigenetic regulation. There is no 'gay' gene. Everyone has genes for an attraction to men, and an attraction to women. Everyone. You have to have both, so that your offspring (which could be male or female) get the set of genes they need. Ideally your sex hormones activate the right set of genes, but the way your brain interprets that information can change over time*, and supposedly things can happen in the womb that cause the wrong set of genes to turn on, or both sets, or neither.

*The human brain has a lot of plasticity. When you were 14, you were attracted to other 14-year-olds. Most of us shift to be attracted to our age group. Over time, the parts of the body you were gravitated to at first shift around. Fetishes that you have might shift as well. There is enough room in this shifting for someone to shift from an opposite-sex interest to a same-sex one, and vice versa, especially since there is a huge emotional component to attraction. Plenty furries can attest to this. I know way too many furries that started out straight and ended up gay, and their stories all seem very different from the 'kinsey 6 born this way' type of gay that my non-furry gay friends tend to be. I don't think that's a coincidence. A fetish for anthropomorphs can make it easier to cross that gap--if someone's primary attraction isn't gender but a non-gender feature, then secondary sexual characteristics can become more like a flavoring or a 'seasoning' for them as opposed to a programmed hard attraction.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 4, 2013)

Spatel said:


> This issue is very complicated. I regret that this thread has gotten to 25 pages. Wish I could've said something on the first page. It seems like most people have preferences but the vast, vast majority of them never explore the full potential of sexual/romantic feelings they are capable of. They let their anxieties dominate and limit their lives. It is too difficult for them to get past their hangups--which have been socially ingrained since they were children.
> 
> As for the preferences that are programmed, those are caused by epigenetic regulation. There is no 'gay' gene. Everyone has genes for an attraction to men, and an attraction to women. Everyone. You have to have both, so that your offspring (which could be male or female) get the set of genes they need. Ideally your sex hormones activate the right set of genes, but the way your brain interprets that information can change over time*, and supposedly things can happen in the womb that cause the wrong set of genes to turn on, or both sets, or neither.
> 
> *The human brain has a lot of plasticity. When you were 14, you were attracted to other 14-year-olds. Most of us shift to be attracted to our age group. Over time, the parts of the body you were gravitated to at first shift around. Fetishes that you have might shift as well. There is enough room in this shifting for someone to shift from an opposite-sex interest to a same-sex one, and vice versa, especially since there is a huge emotional component to attraction. Plenty furries can attest to this. I know way too many furries that started out straight and ended up gay, and their stories all seem very different from the 'kinsey 6 born this way' type of gay that my non-furry gay friends tend to be. I don't think that's a coincidence. A fetish for anthropomorphs can make it easier to cross that gap--if someone's primary attraction isn't gender but a non-gender feature, then secondary sexual characteristics can become more like a flavoring or a 'seasoning' for them as opposed to a programmed hard attraction.


 I am barely homosexual, because my feelings for guys are more emotional than sexual. I have both sexual and emotional feelings for woman, while men i can have emotionally.


----------

