Good post. I should probably reevaluate my opinions on the matter.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with homosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male homosexuals and three female homosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a homosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward homosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male homosexuals to be often overly emotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social stigma directed toward gays can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with gays as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
Weird.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with heterosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male heterosexuals and three female heterosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a heterosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward heterosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male heterosexuals to be often unemotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social superiority of straights can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with straights as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with heterosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male heterosexuals and three female heterosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a heterosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward heterosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male heterosexuals to be often unemotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social superiority of straights can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with straights as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
If you are trying to support the argument that homosexuality is a mental disorder, this is the way to do it.
why this statement becomes so controversial, it is just his openness, it is good if he was saying a truth in front of the audience and investor does have a faith in him.
Male homosexuality is a genetic defect. It serves no evolutionary purpose. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of it either.
How can homosexuality be a genetic anything? For that to be true a significant proportion of infants would need to be sired/delivered by at least one homosexual parent. What proportion of infants do you think are born of; gay sperm donors, gay surrogate mothers or sham marriages - it's not the 50s!
It's not nature, it's nurture. I think that's where the Russians are coming from; kids are groomed. Try this with a recent gay acquaintance:-
Q: when did you first realise you're gay?
A: I've always known.
Q: c'mon there must have been a point where you actually did something, an act.
A: (insert a tale of coercion & grooming by a, typically, older same-sex person culminating in an act of statutory rape)
You've got to get the delivery right but try a few times. Dead interesting.
I like The Ricky Gervais take in Politics; at the (then) recent rally to reduce the age of homosexual consent he didn't see to many 16-year old boys with there mothers but a lot of old men with backpack and moustaches.
Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think.
How can homosexuality be a genetic anything? For that to be true a significant proportion of infants would need to be sired/delivered by at least one homosexual parent. What proportion of infants do you think are born of; gay sperm donors, gay surrogate mothers or sham marriages - it's not the 50s!
You obviously haven’t ever heard of dominant and recessive genes. Not to mention that genetics is far more complicatied than what’s taught at high-school level. The current thinking is that sexual orientation is a result of the combination of genes and the environment in the womb. Various genes can be “activated” or not depending on specific conditions - so two embryos with identical DNA can turn out differently depending upon the specific immediate environment in the womb such as chemical concentrations and temperature, neither of which are uniform across the womb.
Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think.
So, you are saying that all gay people in the world, are gay because they were tricked into being gay by older gay people? So those older gay people must have, themselves, been tricked into being gay when they were younger, correct? Ad infinitum back to Adam? You’re saying Adam was gay, yes? Or was he tricked into being gay by God?
How can homosexuality be a genetic anything? For that to be true a significant proportion of infants would need to be sired/delivered by at least one homosexual parent. What proportion of infants do you think are born of; gay sperm donors, gay surrogate mothers or sham marriages - it's not the 50s!
You obviously haven’t ever heard of dominant and recessive genes. Not to mention that genetics is far more complicatied than what’s taught at high-school level. The current thinking is that sexual orientation is a result of the combination of genes and the environment in the womb. Various genes can be “activated” or not depending on specific conditions - so two embryos with identical DNA can turn out differently depending upon the specific immediate environment in the womb such as chemical concentrations and temperature, neither of which are uniform across the womb.
Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think.
So, you are saying that all gay people in the world, are gay because they were tricked into being gay by older gay people? So those older gay people must have, themselves, been tricked into being gay when they were younger, correct? Ad infinitum back to Adam? You’re saying Adam was gay, yes? Or was he tricked into being gay by God?
He's almost certainly right, though, at least to some extent.
We are all influenced by a combination of nature and nurture. It is simply impossible to tell the extent of each, as to do so, you would have to raise a substantial number of people in wholly alien surroundings, cut off from all outside influences.
The chance of anyone not being at all influenced by how they are brought up and all kinds of other influences other than their genes, I would suggest to be so small as to be zero. This is why this is likely to remain a vexed issue for the foreseeable future.
It is simply impossible to tell the extent of each
Depends what aspect of a person we are talking about. No amount of nurturing is going to change my skin colour, hair colour, or eye colour for example. There are some aspects of a person that are much more heavily influenced by genes than by their upbringing.
And, I note that you still haven’t told us when you chose to be straight.
I like The Ricky Gervais take in Politics; at the (then) recent rally to reduce the age of homosexual consent he didn't see to many 16-year old boys with there mothers but a lot of old men with backpack and moustaches.
How can homosexuality be a genetic anything? For that to be true a significant proportion of infants would need to be sired/delivered by at least one homosexual parent. What proportion of infants do you think are born of; gay sperm donors, gay surrogate mothers or sham marriages - it's not the 50s!
It's not nature, it's nurture. I think that's where the Russians are coming from; kids are groomed. Try this with a recent gay acquaintance:-
Q: when did you first realise you're gay?
A: I've always known.
Q: c'mon there must have been a point where you actually did something, an act.
A: (insert a tale of coercion & grooming by a, typically, older same-sex person culminating in an act of statutory rape)
You've got to get the delivery right but try a few times. Dead interesting.
I like The Ricky Gervais take in Politics; at the (then) recent rally to reduce the age of homosexual consent he didn't see to many 16-year old boys with there mothers but a lot of old men with backpack and moustaches.
Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think.
So I infer that you believe all Gay people were tricked into being so by dubiousl sexual encounters with other, mostly older, peers? Is that the only route that your theory of nuture suggests? In regards to male homosexuality specifically, I've read studies that show a statistically significant correlation between the number of male siblings and birth order. While this study does not suggest a genetic origin, it was argued that there were biological mechanisms at work. I haven't read any studies that have hypothesized a coherent theory about female homosexuality. My point is that the jury is still out on the causes and influences of it. Without much evidence to back it up, I would still suggest it is a complex inter play between nature and nuture.
To suggest homosexuality is a choice, implies that one can also reverse his decision after conscious deliberation. Many studies have rather convincingly shown that homosexuality- defined as sexual and/or romantic attraction- cannot be reversed. I have read no studies suggesting that ones sexuality in later years correlates with the sex of his/her abuser. Nor have I seen any empirical evidence that suggests homosexuals were victims of sexual abuse in their formative years is in greater proportion to heterosexuals.
Male homosexuality is a genetic defect. It serves no evolutionary purpose. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of it either.
Nothing requires you to be proud of Tim for being gay. Exactly what makes him proud about his own sexuality no one but he can articulate. Is he proud of being gay for its own sake, or is he proud of it because of the perspective it brings him? I don't know the answer. But if you view the statement in the context in which he said it, you might reasonably conclude for yourself. That's the strange thing about pride, only the person who has it can define how and why he feels it. Assigning your own value judgements on others experiences does not change them.
To suggest homosexuality is a choice, implies that one can also reverse his decision after conscious deliberation.
Choice is completely the wrong word to use because it implies a short timeframe and as you say conscious decision making - the only choice would be acting on attractions or not. Any influence on the attractions that wasn't pre-natal has to be external and long-term so conditioning is a more appropriate term. The question would be 'is sexuality conditioned or innate', more commonly worded nature vs nurture. The reason some people prefer to use 'choice' is that it would mean the choice can be changed quickly. Conditioning is not so easy. If someone realises they are homosexual after 10-20 years then it might take 10-20 years of reconditioning and people react differently to conditioning when they are young than when they are old. That's why religions try to get people while they are young, the following statement sounds distinctly devious when you consider it in the context of conditioning:
"And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"
Try to get people to believe in things without evidence when they are older and it's much harder.
If there is conditioning happening then it similarly influences heterosexuality and this is discussed here:
There's a reference to cases where children have been born male but had accidents that damaged their genitals so they were surgically made female and raised as female. Those cases didn't change their attractions from how they were born. There are cultures that have raised males who appear feminine when young as female and some have grown up to change into women, others not:
[VIDEO]
The above article also covers the points that humans aren't born with arousal patterns, women tend to have less rigid sexuality, there seems to be some indication (but small) of a fraternal birth order effect in males where it talks about a theory of mothers developing an immune response to male fetuses, it says there's no evidence of a link between abuse and sexuality.
It shows there are lots of unknowns about sexuality and there likely will be for a long time to come. Ultimately the reason these discussions take place is over the core issue of whether a form of sexuality is acceptable or unacceptable and that's really what needs to be addressed. Every point of contention has very similar stages whether it's about climate, evolution etc, it's the same process. One side says they need evidence (usually the side that believes things without evidence), another side scrambles for evidence and often fabricates evidence in order to gain some closure. If enough evidence is found, the original side usually still won't believe it because they've spent so long taking one side that it's too much of a step to overturn it all and so then it becomes a generational thing where those ideas die with them.
Rather than homosexuals having to justify why they are homosexual with evidence validating it, the evidence needs to come to justify reasons to be against it. Just not liking it isn't any more valid a reason than it was for issues with race e.g interracial relationships. Nor is saying that a book that other intolerant human beings wrote a long time ago justifies being intolerant now. If homosexuality is a mental disorder, more likely to harm children or any of the other things people say then the burden of proof lies with the people making the claims to back up those assertions. Until that evidence is produced, the statements aren't justified.
The following aren't that clip mentioned but in the same series. There's 4 episodes: Animals, Politics, Fame, Science. If you google 'Ricky Gervais Politics online', it'll come up with links to watch it. This is why video needs to be more social IMO. It should be possible to link directly to video content, even just clips, legitimately through social media.
You obviously haven’t ever heard of dominant and recessive genes. Not to mention that genetics is far more complicatied than what’s taught at high-school level. The current thinking is that sexual orientation is a result of the combination of genes and the environment in the womb. Various genes can be “activated” or not depending on specific conditions - so two embryos with identical DNA can turn out differently depending upon the specific immediate environment in the womb such as chemical concentrations and temperature, neither of which are uniform across the womb.
This is utter bullshit.
As I’ve asked many other people in this thread, all of whom have notably refused to answer:
When did you choose to be straight?
So, you are saying that all gay people in the world, are gay because they were tricked into being gay by older gay people? So those older gay people must have, themselves, been tricked into being gay when they were younger, correct? Ad infinitum back to Adam? You’re saying Adam was gay, yes? Or was he tricked into being gay by God?
Yes, even back then we covered dominance & recession, it turns out genetic expression is a sliding scale (of convenience perhaps). In the case of homosexuality it's an odd one; it has to be recessive enough to permeate through the global population yet at the same time being expressed in an alleged 10% of the (male) population of whom very few will pass any genetic material on!
If you could reign in the blind rage for a minute and read my post; your 2nd point has nothing to do with mine. I didn't ask about their choice, I asked when they realised. I don't believe I 'chose' to be straight, it was the done thing and heterosexuality was all around me, If the prevailing sentiment were homosexuality perhaps I would have turned out differently?
The sway of contemporary scientific thinking renders it little more than a fickle parlour trick and a curiosity. Even you sway between science & faith. We're all part of God's trick!
If you could reign in the blind rage for a minute and read my post; your 2nd point has nothing to do with mine. I didn't ask about their choice, I asked when they realised.
My point has quite a lot to do with yours. You are suggesting that all gay people are coerced into being gay by older gay people. This very much implies that sexuality is not innate, hence my repeated questions about when people chose to be straight.
I know that I did not choose to be straight. I was not coerced into being straight. I just am straight. As I said before, the thought or sight of attractive naked women makes me horny and I enjoy having sex with women. It would appear to be beyond some people’s comprehension that a man could find the thought or sight of attractive naked men arousing and that they could enjoy having sex with men. Why, if you didn’t choose to be straight, can a man who is gay also not have chosen to be that way, but just is - no coercion, just is?
It often appears that people who cannot accept that some people are just gay, actually have insecurities or doubts about their own sexuality. You say that heterosexuality is the “done thing" and maybe you could have turned out differently. I know that there is no way that anything could have made me turn out differently. It makes me sad that anyone should feel uncomfortable or ashamed of their own sexuality - if you sometimes feel aroused by the same sex you shouldn’t be afraid or ashamed of it; I know my life would be seriously awful if I felt ashamed of my sexuality.
I feel bad for this guy because he's not being true to himself and he's definitely not raised to understand that his feelings are natural or that they only [I]abominations[/I] come from these acrimonious culture in which he was raised, but I also can't help but laugh at this video.
I didn't ask about their choice, I asked when they realised. I don't believe I 'chose' to be straight, it was the done thing and heterosexuality was all around me, If the prevailing sentiment were homosexuality perhaps I would have turned out differently.
So, despite heterosexuality being all around me and it being the done thing, then why did I 'choose' to be gay?
I was never coerced into sex by an older man. Despite TV messages, advertisements, my best mate endlessly trying to set me up with a girlfriend, my parents hoping I'd "bring home a nice girl", sitting at my friend's party in my teens feeling lost and confused as they vanished into rooms with a girl and I wasn't interested but didn't know why. ... I was and am a very happy gay man who is also lucky enough to have a wonderful partner.
If it's so natural to be straight, then how am I here? If it's a choice, then why did I take the path of greatest opposition instead of the absolutely obvious and easy heterosexual path rolled out before me by society at every opportunity? Why would anyone 'choose' to be gay in Uaganda, for example?
I have absolutely no interest in knowing why straight people are attracted to members of the opposite sex and I have no desire to convert them into being gay. What I really don't understand is why so many heterosexual people are so unhealthily interested in the why and wherefore of my sexuality - what has it to do with them, any more than my liking for spicy curry or Pink Floyd?
What I really don't understand is why so many heterosexual people are so unhealthily interested in the why and wherefore of my sexuality - what has it to do with them, any more than my liking for spicy curry or Pink Floyd?
When people see it as a choice, then they'd assume it can be imposed on others. There's a religious site here where they are trying to align homosexuality with the coercion of children and picked out the following videos:
The second video is about a gay Australian couple who adopted a Russian boy and abused him across their network of contacts and were sentenced to 30-40 years in prison. The problem with trying to align homosexuality with child abuse is that the same thing happens with heterosexuals. The same route is taken with abortion:
They are similar to the tests done by Pavlov where they condition a response by giving a reward or punishment for a conditioned stimulus. Men were conditioned there to be aroused by women's boots under the conditioning that they would see women naked as a result. So eventually, men were being aroused by nothing more than footwear. This happens all the time where people have subsets of sexual attractions defined by conditioning and similarly people are aroused by underwear or scents.
Before anyone expresses sexual attractions, there are a few years of some kind of conditioning. Perhaps ill feelings towards the opposite gender (parent, sibling) conditions an aversion to it or overly positive feelings, a preference to it. There's a case here where a father found his young daughter kissing another girl because she'd seen her mother (who came out as lesbian) kissing her female partner:
That's not necessarily going to influence the sexuality but instead the experimentation.
It seems clear there's a complex mixture of biological and external influence on sexuality of any kind. The core issue people have is about harm. Some people have already decided homosexuality is harmful and that would go some way to explaining their interest in someone else's sexuality. There's no evidence that there's any more potential for harm from being attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex though. The only thing that would skew is that because ~99% of sex offenders are male then a male-male coupling increases the likelihood one of them is or will be an offender, which is not a direct consequence of the sexuality.
As long as that perception of harm exists, people will always take an interest in different sexualities. I suspect this will only change the more that people are aware of homosexual relationships and see they aren't causing anyone harm - positive conditioning. The more that people make others aware that they are homosexual and not affecting anyone else, the more that people will accept it.
In the case of homosexuality it's an odd one; it has to be recessive enough to permeate through the global population yet at the same time being expressed in an alleged 10% of the (male) population of whom very few will pass any genetic material on!
Homosexuals do pass genes on at times. Robert De Niro said his father was gay although lived a heterosexual lifestyle his whole life. But there doesn't necessarily have to be gay parents to pass on genes that influence homosexuality.
To suggest homosexuality is a choice, implies that one can also reverse his decision after conscious deliberation. Many studies have rather convincingly shown that homosexuality- defined as sexual and/or romantic attraction- cannot be reversed.
You did write, "Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think," which unfortunately will get lost on people who fail to understand the implication of the second half of that sentence.
My point has quite a lot to do with yours. You are suggesting that all gay people are coerced into being gay by older gay people. This very much implies that sexuality is not innate, hence my repeated questions about when people chose to be straight.
I know that I did not choose to be straight. I was not coerced into being straight. I just am straight. As I said before, the thought or sight of attractive naked women makes me horny and I enjoy having sex with women. It would appear to be beyond some people’s comprehension that a man could find the thought or sight of attractive naked men arousing and that they could enjoy having sex with men. Why, if you didn’t choose to be straight, can a man who is gay also not have chosen to be that way, but just is - no coercion, just is?
Your first paragraph appears to harbour a binary argument; either sexuality is innate or it's a conscious choice. My argument doesn't assume the victim knows what's happening. Grooming can be achieved subconsciously or, even more effectively, by empowering the victim to believe it reached it's own conclusions. Perhaps even playing upon the imposition of 'normal' sexuality and using the momentum of the inevitable defiance that incites to 'turn' them. Either way whether the coerced believes they have made a choice the coercion is subconscious or the victim realises they are being played.
Your second paragraph reinforces the idea you are conscious of the reasons you make a choice. We would all like to belive it but there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you were unaware of the coercion how can you know if it's your choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
It often appears that people who cannot accept that some people are just gay, actually have insecurities or doubts about their own sexuality. You say that heterosexuality is the “done thing" and maybe you could have turned out differently. I know that there is no way that anything could have made me turn out differently. It makes me sad that anyone should feel uncomfortable or ashamed of their own sexuality - if you sometimes feel aroused by the same sex you shouldn’t be afraid or ashamed of it; I know my life would be seriously awful if I felt ashamed of my sexuality.
I do? Just because I invoked Adam and God to illustrate the downright absurdity of your hypothesis, doesn’t mean I believe in them.
You may have a point about intolerance being born of insecurity, who knows. I don't have an issue with people being Gay, indeed I'm glad Tim Cook is - such campness & good dress sense would be wasted on a straight man. My opinions are, of course, from first hand experience (forgive the pun) as a young lad I realised what was happening to myself an others - I suspect many don't.
Comments
Weird.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with heterosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male heterosexuals and three female heterosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a heterosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward heterosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male heterosexuals to be often unemotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social superiority of straights can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with straights as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
Weird.
Personally, I have had very few encounters with heterosexuals.
In total I have been aquainted with only five male heterosexuals and three female heterosexuals.
In all cases except one there has been no significant impact on my personal quality of life. In the one instance, I was approached in a deceptive manner, unknowingly allowing a heterosexual into my hotel room as a massage therapist who tried to offer sex which of course If declined. It did freak me out at the time.
I just want to be clear that I have no hatred toward heterosexuals although based on my limited exposure to them, in a social context, I can say, I have found male heterosexuals to be often unemotional and also at times, difficult to work with in a professional environment. I'm sure that the prevalent social superiority of straights can manifest itself in creating difficulty in social and employment interactions, so I try to be understanding in that regard.
I have no problems with straights as long as they don't get bitchy in the workplace or try to have sex with me.
If you are trying to support the argument that homosexuality is a mental disorder, this is the way to do it.
why this statement becomes so controversial, it is just his openness, it is good if he was saying a truth in front of the audience and investor does have a faith in him.
How can homosexuality be a genetic anything? For that to be true a significant proportion of infants would need to be sired/delivered by at least one homosexual parent. What proportion of infants do you think are born of; gay sperm donors, gay surrogate mothers or sham marriages - it's not the 50s!
It's not nature, it's nurture. I think that's where the Russians are coming from; kids are groomed. Try this with a recent gay acquaintance:-
Q: when did you first realise you're gay?
A: I've always known.
Q: c'mon there must have been a point where you actually did something, an act.
A: (insert a tale of coercion & grooming by a, typically, older same-sex person culminating in an act of statutory rape)
You've got to get the delivery right but try a few times. Dead interesting.
I like The Ricky Gervais take in Politics; at the (then) recent rally to reduce the age of homosexual consent he didn't see to many 16-year old boys with there mothers but a lot of old men with backpack and moustaches.
Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think.
You obviously haven’t ever heard of dominant and recessive genes. Not to mention that genetics is far more complicatied than what’s taught at high-school level. The current thinking is that sexual orientation is a result of the combination of genes and the environment in the womb. Various genes can be “activated” or not depending on specific conditions - so two embryos with identical DNA can turn out differently depending upon the specific immediate environment in the womb such as chemical concentrations and temperature, neither of which are uniform across the womb.
This is utter bullshit.
As I’ve asked many other people in this thread, all of whom have notably refused to answer:
When did you choose to be straight?
So, you are saying that all gay people in the world, are gay because they were tricked into being gay by older gay people? So those older gay people must have, themselves, been tricked into being gay when they were younger, correct? Ad infinitum back to Adam? You’re saying Adam was gay, yes? Or was he tricked into being gay by God?
He's almost certainly right, though, at least to some extent.
We are all influenced by a combination of nature and nurture. It is simply impossible to tell the extent of each, as to do so, you would have to raise a substantial number of people in wholly alien surroundings, cut off from all outside influences.
The chance of anyone not being at all influenced by how they are brought up and all kinds of other influences other than their genes, I would suggest to be so small as to be zero. This is why this is likely to remain a vexed issue for the foreseeable future.
Yes.
Depends what aspect of a person we are talking about. No amount of nurturing is going to change my skin colour, hair colour, or eye colour for example. There are some aspects of a person that are much more heavily influenced by genes than by their upbringing.
And, I note that you still haven’t told us when you chose to be straight.
That sounds hysterical. Do you have a link?
So I infer that you believe all Gay people were tricked into being so by dubiousl sexual encounters with other, mostly older, peers? Is that the only route that your theory of nuture suggests? In regards to male homosexuality specifically, I've read studies that show a statistically significant correlation between the number of male siblings and birth order. While this study does not suggest a genetic origin, it was argued that there were biological mechanisms at work. I haven't read any studies that have hypothesized a coherent theory about female homosexuality. My point is that the jury is still out on the causes and influences of it. Without much evidence to back it up, I would still suggest it is a complex inter play between nature and nuture.
To suggest homosexuality is a choice, implies that one can also reverse his decision after conscious deliberation. Many studies have rather convincingly shown that homosexuality- defined as sexual and/or romantic attraction- cannot be reversed. I have read no studies suggesting that ones sexuality in later years correlates with the sex of his/her abuser. Nor have I seen any empirical evidence that suggests homosexuals were victims of sexual abuse in their formative years is in greater proportion to heterosexuals.
Nothing requires you to be proud of Tim for being gay. Exactly what makes him proud about his own sexuality no one but he can articulate. Is he proud of being gay for its own sake, or is he proud of it because of the perspective it brings him? I don't know the answer. But if you view the statement in the context in which he said it, you might reasonably conclude for yourself. That's the strange thing about pride, only the person who has it can define how and why he feels it. Assigning your own value judgements on others experiences does not change them.
Q: when did you first realise you're gay?
A: I've always known.
Q: c'mon there must have been a point where you actually did something, an act.
A: (insert a tale of coercion & grooming by a, typically, older same-sex person culminating in an act of statutory rape)
You've got to get the delivery right but try a few times. Dead interesting.
Q: when did you first realise you're straight?
A: I've always known.
Q: c'mon there must have been a point where you actually did something, an act.
A: (insert a tale of coercion & grooming by a, typically, older opposite-sex person culminating in an act of statutory rape)
You've got to get the delivery right but try a few times. Dead interesting.
Choice is completely the wrong word to use because it implies a short timeframe and as you say conscious decision making - the only choice would be acting on attractions or not. Any influence on the attractions that wasn't pre-natal has to be external and long-term so conditioning is a more appropriate term. The question would be 'is sexuality conditioned or innate', more commonly worded nature vs nurture. The reason some people prefer to use 'choice' is that it would mean the choice can be changed quickly. Conditioning is not so easy. If someone realises they are homosexual after 10-20 years then it might take 10-20 years of reconditioning and people react differently to conditioning when they are young than when they are old. That's why religions try to get people while they are young, the following statement sounds distinctly devious when you consider it in the context of conditioning:
"And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"
Try to get people to believe in things without evidence when they are older and it's much harder.
If there is conditioning happening then it similarly influences heterosexuality and this is discussed here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-straight-people-born-that-way/254592/?single_page=true
There's a reference to cases where children have been born male but had accidents that damaged their genitals so they were surgically made female and raised as female. Those cases didn't change their attractions from how they were born. There are cultures that have raised males who appear feminine when young as female and some have grown up to change into women, others not:
[VIDEO]
The above article also covers the points that humans aren't born with arousal patterns, women tend to have less rigid sexuality, there seems to be some indication (but small) of a fraternal birth order effect in males where it talks about a theory of mothers developing an immune response to male fetuses, it says there's no evidence of a link between abuse and sexuality.
It shows there are lots of unknowns about sexuality and there likely will be for a long time to come. Ultimately the reason these discussions take place is over the core issue of whether a form of sexuality is acceptable or unacceptable and that's really what needs to be addressed. Every point of contention has very similar stages whether it's about climate, evolution etc, it's the same process. One side says they need evidence (usually the side that believes things without evidence), another side scrambles for evidence and often fabricates evidence in order to gain some closure. If enough evidence is found, the original side usually still won't believe it because they've spent so long taking one side that it's too much of a step to overturn it all and so then it becomes a generational thing where those ideas die with them.
Rather than homosexuals having to justify why they are homosexual with evidence validating it, the evidence needs to come to justify reasons to be against it. Just not liking it isn't any more valid a reason than it was for issues with race e.g interracial relationships. Nor is saying that a book that other intolerant human beings wrote a long time ago justifies being intolerant now. If homosexuality is a mental disorder, more likely to harm children or any of the other things people say then the burden of proof lies with the people making the claims to back up those assertions. Until that evidence is produced, the statements aren't justified.
The following aren't that clip mentioned but in the same series. There's 4 episodes: Animals, Politics, Fame, Science. If you google 'Ricky Gervais Politics online', it'll come up with links to watch it. This is why video needs to be more social IMO. It should be possible to link directly to video content, even just clips, legitimately through social media.
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
You obviously haven’t ever heard of dominant and recessive genes. Not to mention that genetics is far more complicatied than what’s taught at high-school level. The current thinking is that sexual orientation is a result of the combination of genes and the environment in the womb. Various genes can be “activated” or not depending on specific conditions - so two embryos with identical DNA can turn out differently depending upon the specific immediate environment in the womb such as chemical concentrations and temperature, neither of which are uniform across the womb.
This is utter bullshit.
As I’ve asked many other people in this thread, all of whom have notably refused to answer:
When did you choose to be straight?
So, you are saying that all gay people in the world, are gay because they were tricked into being gay by older gay people? So those older gay people must have, themselves, been tricked into being gay when they were younger, correct? Ad infinitum back to Adam? You’re saying Adam was gay, yes? Or was he tricked into being gay by God?
Yes, even back then we covered dominance & recession, it turns out genetic expression is a sliding scale (of convenience perhaps). In the case of homosexuality it's an odd one; it has to be recessive enough to permeate through the global population yet at the same time being expressed in an alleged 10% of the (male) population of whom very few will pass any genetic material on!
If you could reign in the blind rage for a minute and read my post; your 2nd point has nothing to do with mine. I didn't ask about their choice, I asked when they realised. I don't believe I 'chose' to be straight, it was the done thing and heterosexuality was all around me, If the prevailing sentiment were homosexuality perhaps I would have turned out differently?
The sway of contemporary scientific thinking renders it little more than a fickle parlour trick and a curiosity. Even you sway between science & faith. We're all part of God's trick!
My point has quite a lot to do with yours. You are suggesting that all gay people are coerced into being gay by older gay people. This very much implies that sexuality is not innate, hence my repeated questions about when people chose to be straight.
I know that I did not choose to be straight. I was not coerced into being straight. I just am straight. As I said before, the thought or sight of attractive naked women makes me horny and I enjoy having sex with women. It would appear to be beyond some people’s comprehension that a man could find the thought or sight of attractive naked men arousing and that they could enjoy having sex with men. Why, if you didn’t choose to be straight, can a man who is gay also not have chosen to be that way, but just is - no coercion, just is?
It often appears that people who cannot accept that some people are just gay, actually have insecurities or doubts about their own sexuality. You say that heterosexuality is the “done thing" and maybe you could have turned out differently. I know that there is no way that anything could have made me turn out differently. It makes me sad that anyone should feel uncomfortable or ashamed of their own sexuality - if you sometimes feel aroused by the same sex you shouldn’t be afraid or ashamed of it; I know my life would be seriously awful if I felt ashamed of my sexuality.
I do? Just because I invoked Adam and God to illustrate the downright absurdity of your hypothesis, doesn’t mean I believe in them.
[VIDEO]
So, despite heterosexuality being all around me and it being the done thing, then why did I 'choose' to be gay?
I was never coerced into sex by an older man. Despite TV messages, advertisements, my best mate endlessly trying to set me up with a girlfriend, my parents hoping I'd "bring home a nice girl", sitting at my friend's party in my teens feeling lost and confused as they vanished into rooms with a girl and I wasn't interested but didn't know why. ... I was and am a very happy gay man who is also lucky enough to have a wonderful partner.
If it's so natural to be straight, then how am I here? If it's a choice, then why did I take the path of greatest opposition instead of the absolutely obvious and easy heterosexual path rolled out before me by society at every opportunity? Why would anyone 'choose' to be gay in Uaganda, for example?
I have absolutely no interest in knowing why straight people are attracted to members of the opposite sex and I have no desire to convert them into being gay. What I really don't understand is why so many heterosexual people are so unhealthily interested in the why and wherefore of my sexuality - what has it to do with them, any more than my liking for spicy curry or Pink Floyd?
When people see it as a choice, then they'd assume it can be imposed on others. There's a religious site here where they are trying to align homosexuality with the coercion of children and picked out the following videos:
http://shoebat.com/2014/02/27/putin-right-sodomites-must-go/
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
The second video is about a gay Australian couple who adopted a Russian boy and abused him across their network of contacts and were sentenced to 30-40 years in prison. The problem with trying to align homosexuality with child abuse is that the same thing happens with heterosexuals. The same route is taken with abortion:
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/22/shock-report-44-year-old-man-gets-13-year-old-daughter-pregnant-uses-abortion-to-hide-his-crime/
They align it with abuse in order to get people to feel opposition to it. This is a form of conditioning in itself.
There's a book here that talks about conditioning of sexual responses:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=x-u5Mp2sJssC&pg=PA351
They are similar to the tests done by Pavlov where they condition a response by giving a reward or punishment for a conditioned stimulus. Men were conditioned there to be aroused by women's boots under the conditioning that they would see women naked as a result. So eventually, men were being aroused by nothing more than footwear. This happens all the time where people have subsets of sexual attractions defined by conditioning and similarly people are aroused by underwear or scents.
Before anyone expresses sexual attractions, there are a few years of some kind of conditioning. Perhaps ill feelings towards the opposite gender (parent, sibling) conditions an aversion to it or overly positive feelings, a preference to it. There's a case here where a father found his young daughter kissing another girl because she'd seen her mother (who came out as lesbian) kissing her female partner:
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Child-Behavior/Caught-my-5-yr-old-daughter-kissing-another-girl/show/2114910
That's not necessarily going to influence the sexuality but instead the experimentation.
It seems clear there's a complex mixture of biological and external influence on sexuality of any kind. The core issue people have is about harm. Some people have already decided homosexuality is harmful and that would go some way to explaining their interest in someone else's sexuality. There's no evidence that there's any more potential for harm from being attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex though. The only thing that would skew is that because ~99% of sex offenders are male then a male-male coupling increases the likelihood one of them is or will be an offender, which is not a direct consequence of the sexuality.
As long as that perception of harm exists, people will always take an interest in different sexualities. I suspect this will only change the more that people are aware of homosexual relationships and see they aren't causing anyone harm - positive conditioning. The more that people make others aware that they are homosexual and not affecting anyone else, the more that people will accept it.
Homosexuals do pass genes on at times. Robert De Niro said his father was gay although lived a heterosexual lifestyle his whole life. But there doesn't necessarily have to be gay parents to pass on genes that influence homosexuality.
I didn't suggest it was a choice.
You did write, "Homosexuality is indeed a choice, just not of the one you'd think," which unfortunately will get lost on people who fail to understand the implication of the second half of that sentence.
My point has quite a lot to do with yours. You are suggesting that all gay people are coerced into being gay by older gay people. This very much implies that sexuality is not innate, hence my repeated questions about when people chose to be straight.
I know that I did not choose to be straight. I was not coerced into being straight. I just am straight. As I said before, the thought or sight of attractive naked women makes me horny and I enjoy having sex with women. It would appear to be beyond some people’s comprehension that a man could find the thought or sight of attractive naked men arousing and that they could enjoy having sex with men. Why, if you didn’t choose to be straight, can a man who is gay also not have chosen to be that way, but just is - no coercion, just is?
Your first paragraph appears to harbour a binary argument; either sexuality is innate or it's a conscious choice. My argument doesn't assume the victim knows what's happening. Grooming can be achieved subconsciously or, even more effectively, by empowering the victim to believe it reached it's own conclusions. Perhaps even playing upon the imposition of 'normal' sexuality and using the momentum of the inevitable defiance that incites to 'turn' them. Either way whether the coerced believes they have made a choice the coercion is subconscious or the victim realises they are being played.
Your second paragraph reinforces the idea you are conscious of the reasons you make a choice. We would all like to belive it but there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you were unaware of the coercion how can you know if it's your choice?
Quote:
It often appears that people who cannot accept that some people are just gay, actually have insecurities or doubts about their own sexuality. You say that heterosexuality is the “done thing" and maybe you could have turned out differently. I know that there is no way that anything could have made me turn out differently. It makes me sad that anyone should feel uncomfortable or ashamed of their own sexuality - if you sometimes feel aroused by the same sex you shouldn’t be afraid or ashamed of it; I know my life would be seriously awful if I felt ashamed of my sexuality.
I do? Just because I invoked Adam and God to illustrate the downright absurdity of your hypothesis, doesn’t mean I believe in them.
You may have a point about intolerance being born of insecurity, who knows. I don't have an issue with people being Gay, indeed I'm glad Tim Cook is - such campness & good dress sense would be wasted on a straight man. My opinions are, of course, from first hand experience (forgive the pun) as a young lad I realised what was happening to myself an others - I suspect many don't.