posted
I believe the question here is phrased too vaguely. It almost doesn't matter whether or not your sexuality is a choice - although I figure most people lie somewhere along the spectrum.
The ACTIONS we take are definitely, definitely a choice. I may or may not be attracted to someone who's unavailable - married, a professor, a cousin, whatever - but doing something about it takes an act of will.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you, 100%, Suneun. It sounds reasonable to me, and I think something along those lines is closer to true than either party line.
Some people seem to think that proving a genetic factor in homosexuality will somehow make people more accepting, and I don't think that is true. Even if it was as simple as the XY/XX chromosomes (which if there is a genetic factor, to won't be that simple) people will still have their faiths and their fears and their squicks and some of them will choose to be bigoted. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the God argument, why should we force one person to make a harder choice than another has to and force them to pursue something they don't want?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do we ask people to be faithful to their spouses? Even the ones who aren't attracted to their spouses, have people throwing themselves at them, and aren't doing anything that has a chance of getting someone pregnant. Why do condemn these people for not controlling their sexual impulses?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that biology controls specific aspects of behavior like sexual orientation. Biology certainly provides hormones for sexual drive, and the female biology is certainly evolved and of nature to be receptive to the male biology, but that is evolutionary physical tailing, and coding to follow it is not implicit in the genome. The reason why most people are probably straight is because heterosexuality is the most obvious and easiest way to express sexual drive. But, like I said, your genome does not determine specific aspects of behavior that are either modern or have no biological use (ie evolution kills off unproductive behavior)(being gay COULDN'T be biological since most gays don't have biological children and could NOT pass on the gene. Claiming it's a mainstream mutation of the normal genome would be out of line for the simple fact that there aren't even close to 30% gays in the population).
quote:But, like I said, your genome does not determine specific aspects of behavior that are either modern or have no biological use (ie evolution kills off unproductive behavior)(being gay COULDN'T be biological since most gays don't have biological children and could NOT pass on the gene.
Evolution does not kill off unproductive behavior. There are many diseases in which the affected patient dies before maturity. Those diseases are often correlated with genetics. Simple mendelian genetics only exists in textbooks. Even recessive traits explain the existence of "unproductive behavior." New mutations, multifactorial inheritence, and sex-linked traits are other examples of complexity that adds to the picture.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun, it does kill it off when the behavior is behavior specifically subverting and preventing normal reproduction and passing on of genes.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do we ask people to be faithful to their spouses?
Because spouses become the victim.
In the secular world, a sexual relationship between two consenting (and mentally capable) adults has no victims.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cystic fibrosis is the most common lethal genetic disease in the United States, striking 1 in every 2,500 Caucasians (it is much rarer in other races).
The cystic fibrosis allele causes excessive secretions of mucus from the pancreas, lungs, and other organs which lead to blockage of the digestive tract, cirrhosis of the liver, pneumonia and other infections.
If untreated, most children with cystic fibrosis die by the age of four or five years.
Special diets, daily doses of antibiotics to prevent infection, and other treatments can prolong life into the adolescent years.
A small percentage of patients live to adulthood. If they reproduce, there is a 100% chance of transmitting one copy of the cystic fibrosis allele to their children.
Antibiotics for CF are a fairly modern invention. Why didn't CF die out a long, long time ago?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adultery is bad because it breaks a vow made, it destroys faith and trust in a relationship, it breaks down the bond between the people in the marriage.
What does that have to do with homosexuality?
[ February 24, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, why is adultery bad? What if there is tacit approval from the spouse?
Aside from God? Suneun had it--it's a vow. A written, legal vow. Not like saying you'll wash the dishes then forget--it's like not paying rent or taking steriods before the Olympics.
Frowned upon, yes. Practiced? Definitely.
If there's approval from the spouse? Then I'd wager that it's only the God people who are condemning it.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack, Brian M I strongly disagree with what I feel is your warped biological perspective. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it. The fact that there are homosexual behaviors in many species of animals does lead one to believe in genetic inclinations. There are even fish that change gender on a regular basis as part of their lifecycle. Genetics is far more complicated and messy than you are infering.
For example, I have studied the color genetics of the Cardigan Welsh Corgi extensively, and am as educated as just about anyone else on the subject. But they still have recessive genes that we suddenly find out exist, when an oddly colored puppy shows up. And a trait known as merleing that we know is dominant was still lost after WWII and re-discovered. This means dogs that *shouldn't* have been carrying the merling gene because there was nothing visible about it, actually were. (We still don't know where the gene marker is either.) And color genetics are the "easy" tip of the iceberg.
AJ
(Suneun said it much better than my simple example!)
posted
Suneun, all the examples you gave were of diseases caused by recessive genes. That is, both parents must be carriers.
No idea how that relates (if at all) to homosexual tendencies, but it IS why they have stayed in the population.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both of the diseases you listed have a lower incidence than the occurance of homosexuality, therefore it would be the simplest conclusion that those problems are not mainstream mutations or defects that can be carried by others. There could be many reasons why some animal species engage in homosexual behaviors, maybe it's because they don't have much mental capacity so they just make a reproductive mistake and it sticks (almost like the way its a choice with humans).
I'm not saying it's wrong, but it IS a choice. Even if it were genetic, it is best to assume it's a choice until we know for sure because the modern generation has too much of a tendency to victimize themselves with their biology. Biology is not destiny. However, I still don't believe that it is the case. You can call me warped, but you can't explain how a behavior more prevalent than most reproductively-dehibilitating diseases but yet not prevalent enough to be shown to carried as a mainstream mutation has managed to be passed on in the genetic code even though the behavior itself subverts and works against reproduction of genes.
Those are the reasons it's probably not genetic. Now lets look at reasons why it's probably a choice. Sensitization to a million different societal factors occurs for most people while they are still young, before you can explain away behavioral influence, you would have to go through the momunemental task of going through each person's experience and proving why it should be discounted as a reason to why they are the way they are now. That seems much harder to me than understanding how biology does not control specific aspects of behavior, it merely offers potential for types of behavior that can go several different ways.
posted
The study on monozygotic and dizygotic twins cited in the earlier thread suggests that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental components.
I don't think it can be successfully argued that homosexuals have refrained from reproducing for the last hundred thousand years. Or even the last 10 thousand years. Or the last 1 thousand years. Obviously, they _are_ reproducing, re: lesbian couples with children, married men with children, famous men like Oscar Wilde who had children and were gay.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you claiming that the majority of homosexuals reproduce? I don't believe that. I DO, however think that the advent of gay adoption will prove this once and for all. As it becomes more and more allowable and societal pressures on the children wear down, un-interfered-with influence from the gay parent will be able to be shown that it would be a behavioral choice if even a small amount of those chuldren chose homosexuality in consistent methods.
posted
Either way, let me return to my initial statement and reason behind the statement: Evolution does not kill off unproductive behavior.
I just want you to be clear on that, because the wording in the other post sounds like you believe that any unproductive trait must be weeded out in finite time. That premise is untrue.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am claiming that a higher-than-0, probably higher-than-you-think number of pure homosexuals have reproduced in recent and past history.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously I don't since I understand people can be carriers of various objects within their codon organization, or have minimally defective codon organization and not be affected by it.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
what you seem to be suggesting is that if homosexuality is genetic, then it must be Dominant and expressed by a single gene.
That seems highly unlikely. In fact, I bet it's not true.
I'd love to search up stats on lesbians having children, but I really have to go. If someone else wants to pick this up, go for it.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You missed my point, because of the controversy and societal pressures, it's not possible to know right now whether gay parents have behavioral effects on their adopted children.
I never suggested it had to be a single dominant gene.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So did my adultery question get dropped? "Open" marriages are not considered socially acceptable. Why not?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I finished my lunch and have five mins till I get picked up.
Lets go through what you've posted.
quote:your genome does not determine specific aspects of behavior that are either modern or have no biological use (ie evolution kills off unproductive behavior)
I argue that a genome can determine unproductive behavior, or have an hand in unproductive behavior. Listed three genetic lethal diseases. Those diseases are unproductive yet are coded by genes.
quote:Are you claiming that the majority of homosexuals reproduce? I don't believe that.
Many homosexuals reproduce. For history, I point to famous gays who had families (Oscar Wilde, the one to come to mind), and for current events, I point to the parenting resources for lesbians and gays who _birth their own children_. I'm not talking about adoption. here is a book from a lesbian who birthed her own child and her experience. family pride coalition. a website for lesbian mothers, listing alternative fertilization methods.
On the genetics of homosexuality.
The 100% correlation would only occur if "gayness" were entirely genetic and passed down through simple mendelian genetics. However, environmental factors likely play a part.
Bailey and Pillard look at homosexuality in 1991, and find "52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual."
If it were entirely environmental, monozygotic and dizygotic twins should have a similar incidence of homosexuality, as they were brought up in similar environments.
---- now i really have to go.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think our need for labels has skewwed our sense of reality.
I apologise for just budding in and I didn't get to read all the replies here but this struck a chord. In more than one occasion do I feel that this is the case. It's almost as if someone is trying to stack us like a bunch of books in a library and I'm afraid of where I'll end up. Will anyone be able to find me?
Posts: 35 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, in general, though, they're not only not considered acceptable, they're so weird that you almost have to be aggressive about it if you want to avoid ridicule.
My first marriage was "open". In our circle of friends it wasn't unusual, but I most definitely did not share the information with my coworkers or family. I learned the hard way not to talk to coworkers about it, as I took a lot of flack for it, mostly in a curious joking kind of way, but it got tiresome quickly. And I never felt that people could look at me without thinking about how I had an open marriage.
Kat, there are probably lots of reasons it's not acceptable to people. First is that it's not all that common so like anything weird or different, it incites a certain amount of curiosity. Beyond the curiosity, though, I think it hits many people at a visceral level, calling into question the person's integrity for keeping promises. If they could sleep around on their spouse, even with the spouse knowing about it, what other commitments would they bend or break? I also think that wives in particular (rightfully so, IMO) find it threatening.
But that's just my take from learning the hard way why open marriages are incredibly stupid social experiments. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Open marriage and open relationships are very interesting. For many, it's in the name of polyamory which I linked to a few days ago (and no one commented on).
I have friends in open relationships, and I know one couple in an open marriage. I wouldn't say it always works, but it has successfully worked for some couples.
There is no victim in a poly relationship. Honesty and consent are central to this lifestyle.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think consent is a fallacy unless you have a complete knowledge of someone's sexual history and the history of everyone they've ever slept with. I know that makes anything short of monogamy non-consensual, that that is my point. Likewise if my husband cheats on me and transmits a venereal disease to me, he has violated me even if the act when the transmission occured was not technically rape. Setting aside the trust issues. And I think he violated himself in taking on the disease, even as a carrier. If he becomes a carrier of cervical cancer, he would doom himself to a life of sorrow.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I never put my vote in on the initial question, which is that I do think sexual orientation is a choice for most. I can't say that there aren't some cases where it isn't, probably both hetero and homo.
I think in addition to genetics and environment, individual determination is a third factor, very important given the degree to which it is overlooked. I think that if one's determination, or belief system, aligns with either genetics or environmental input, the other can be overcome. Again, for either homo or hetero.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that I'm entering this thread late, but I would like to share my opinion. I believe that people look at the issue in a way that is fundamentally flawed. I believe that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are entirely choices.
I believe that all people can and do feel attracted (not just phsically, but emotionally, spiritiually, etc.) to members of both sexes. The question is how do they interpret this attraction. For example, I adore one of my psychology professors. I find everything he says immensely fascinating and I come to class solely to listen to him speak. And for me, quality conversation is a sexually attractive aspect of a person. Yet, I would never say that I am sexually attracted to my professor. Why? Because that's not how I choose to interpret the attraction.
Futhermore, I agree with OSC that most children tend to pattern their lives after their parents and that it takes a concious effort to break away from the pattern. Children learn how to interpret their attraction for people from their parents. On some level, usually subconcious, most learn that attractive people of the same sex are to be regarded only as friends, whereas attractive people of the opposite sex have the potential to be seen as more than friends. I believe that this is why the vast majority of people choose to be heterosexual, because it is what they learn from parents who were clearly somewhat heterosexual at some point (since they had kids).
In fact, (I could be reaching out on a limb here, but...) every one of my friends who is gay or bisexual has had some sort of jarring experience that made them reevaluate their learned way of interpreting attraction. One, started out dating girls, but after years of being tormented for dressing well, enjoying dancing, and speaking somewhat effeminately, he decided that he was gay. Some would argue that he was always gay, but it took him a while to realize it. But I argue that once he started considering the idea that he could be sexually attracted to other males, and realized that he could, he felt that that must mean he was gay.
I believe that the failure of society to recognize the importance of interpretations of attraction causes many people who would like to be straight dillemas because they believe that only a gay or bi person would be capable of feeling sexually attracted to another.
My theory says nothing about the morality of choosing to be straight, gay, or bisexual, because I believe that is a seperate issue entirely.
If anyone disagrees with this theory or sees flaws in it please let me know.
:-) Laura :-)
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So did my adultery question get dropped? "Open" marriages are not considered socially acceptable. Why not?
Kat, maybe you missed it. Chris answered your question and asked one of his own. Will you answer it?
quote:Adultery is bad because it breaks a vow made, it destroys faith and trust in a relationship, it breaks down the bond between the people in the marriage.
Actually, Chris's answer doesn't address open marriages, since presumably adultery in those cases does not "break a vow made, destroy faith and trust in a relationship." As for breaking down the bond between people in the marriage, this seems like something best decided by the couple, doesn't it?
Seems to me that consensual sexual behavior outside the mainstream of societal mores is exactly relevant to homosexuality.
Since you brought up the subject of answering questions posed in threads, I've been asking you a question in almost every homosexuality thread you've participated in for several weeks. Will you answer it?
posted
Laura, the problem I have with your anecdotal "evidence" is that it completely contradicts MY anecdotal evidence. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the "jarring" scenario, you can also wind up heterosexual, just not married to someone like your opposite gendered parent. In fact, I know a lot of people who marry folks who have personalities like their same gendered parent. For example, I married someone who is a lot like my mom. But I think it's because my mom used to do the good cop/bad cop thing, so my idea of a "nice person" was modeled on that.
Now I know that everyone has their drawbacks, no matter how nice they seem.
Edit to add: I would be hard pressed to think of someone who never had a jarring experience. Though one gay friend I knew seems to have been put off women by a communications class in which they showed how the vocal chords look when you're talking. He actually said "I'm never going to have sex again" and the next time I heard about him, he was living with a man. Though it seems like really weird logic. If you are going to be repulsed by something. Anyway...
posted
Dag, I have answered your bigotry question, and several times over. When I return, I'll get it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- I'm unfamiliar with your anecdotal evidence, I looked through this thread and didn't see it. If it's in the other current thread on homosexuality, I find the ten pages a little daunting, so if you wouldn't mind copying and pasting, I'd appreciate it. However, I wouldn't say that my example is evidence. It was only an example that I thought helps present the theory.
Pooka- I agree that most people have jarring experiences of various sorts and this is why we aren't perfect copies of our parents. However, I was referring to jarring experiences concerning one's sexuality that lead to questioning our perceptions of how to interpret attraction.
:-) Laura :-)
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It sounds reasonable to me, and I think something along those lines is closer to true than either party line.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
