[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

it comes down to an organization choosing a group of people and saying that as a group they are less desirable and that should be changed.

There are so many groups and organizations that we can apply that sentiment to. People seem to get upset when I say it though. So, thanks.

[Brenda]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brenda Brenda:

. Why is "being gay" such a point? Why should that have to be proven?

Because bigoted moron, ignorant morons think it's a "lifestyle choice", that's why

Just like being straight is a lifestyle choice... God, I hate superficial, bigoted, ignorant f*cks.

[Unsound]

This question was answered for me a long time ago when someone asked me if i could choose to be gay. The answer was an instant emphatic NO!.

Besides the fact that I don't see how someone could choose to be gay, why would they? Even with all the changes in society over the last 10-20 years, it's still a rough road.

[Khar]

@ Gunnair: Likewise, great comments from your post as well!

Mustang1 Mustang1:

No evidence? Interesting. I'd say that homosexuality as a largely innate sexual orientation is hardly predicated on "anecdotal" information. Besides, if it's learned, why does it transcend culture, ethnicity and history? That's a little bit more objective.

Yeah, I actually responded about the fact that no "gay gene" or gene trend has been identified not too long ago, since it's been a sticking point in this discussion for years. The article which I was responding to was from a religious site so my response was more driven to remove the incorrectly applied information and conclusions derived from the lack of solid quantitative results, but it's basically along the same lines as what I said here, and I actually mention some similar things to what you said in that quote above.

The ideas behind why people think it's genetic or innate, such as Gunnair seeing homosexuality manifest at early ages, are along the lines of the reasons why I feel it is genetic. However, there is no "actual" evidence that it is -- nothing which creates a higher frequency or rate of homosexuality in those with a specific gene or gene set has been identified.

Keep in mind that I said "anecdotal/qualitative," meaning either/or. What Gunnair says from personal experience, for example, is anecdotal evidence. Likewise, someone claiming to be "cured" would also fall under anecdotal evidence. Qualitative evidence, which identifies if a person is homosexual (and by "how much") using various nebulous definitions, on the other hand, is more in line with what you said, and in those cases there is data exclusion bias and other issues.

For example, what if an uncle or aunt remained closeted, or decided they don't define themselves as homosexual, or feel they have "repented" for their homosexuality and don't identify as such? That would impact the information in numerous papers I've read. You can still see trends and I personally believe that they are there, but this is not the sort of evidence you'd have if real, hard genetic (quantitative) evidence had been found. Tie this into the fact that sexuality is often more ambiguous for some groups (for example, sexuality in women is more ambiguous than it is for men) and you can see why evidence of a "gay gene" is still a sticking point.

Personally, I think bringing up the "gay gene" is going to cause conflict in that debate. We can't say with relative certainty that it IS genetic, but we can say we believe evidence which suggests it probably is. I'm not saying it's evidence is based entirely on anecdotal information, I'm saying there's a very real difference between being able to say it's genetic and being able to say we believe it's genetic in the context of the discussion here. That's really the only point I wished to make in regards to that quote of mine and it's worth keeping in mind since the "no gay gene" discussion appears fairly often on the net these days (and I've ended up arguing there's "no gay gene" is incorrect more often than I care to admit, haha!).

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

This question was answered for me a long time ago when someone asked me if i could choose to be gay. The answer was an instant emphatic NO!.

Besides the fact that I don't see how someone could choose to be gay, why would they? Even with all the changes in society over the last 10-20 years, it's still a rough road.

Exactly. Though I don't believe (and I could be wrong) that there is hard evidence to prove that it is genetic or wiring (which I think it is) it does pass the - Who in their right mind would choose it test because of the treatment one would recieve.

[Brenda]

Funny thing... A lesbian friend of mine tried to "turn" me gay Didn't work... I "chose" to stay straight

[raydan]

Brenda Brenda:

Funny thing... A lesbian friend of mine tried to "turn" me gay Didn't work... I "chose" to stay straight

Do you have a video... or photos?

[Bodah]

So what if someone is gay.

As long as their not hurting themself or anyone else, what ever floats their boats.

Non-issue.

[Mustang1]

Khar Khar:

@ Gunnair: Likewise, great comments from your post as well!

Mustang1 Mustang1:

No evidence? Interesting. I'd say that homosexuality as a largely innate sexual orientation is hardly predicated on "anecdotal" information. Besides, if it's learned, why does it transcend culture, ethnicity and history? That's a little bit more objective.

Yeah, I actually responded about the fact that no "gay gene" or gene trend has been identified not too long ago, since it's been a sticking point in this discussion for years. The article which I was responding to was from a religious site so my response was more driven to remove the incorrectly applied information and conclusions derived from the lack of solid quantitative results, but it's basically along the same lines as what I said here, and I actually mention some similar things to what you said in that quote above.

The ideas behind why people think it's genetic or innate, such as Gunnair seeing homosexuality manifest at early ages, are along the lines of the reasons why I feel it is genetic. However, there is no "actual" evidence that it is -- nothing which creates a higher frequency or rate of homosexuality in those with a specific gene or gene set has been identified.

Keep in mind that I said "anecdotal/qualitative," meaning either/or. What Gunnair says from personal experience, for example, is anecdotal evidence. Likewise, someone claiming to be "cured" would also fall under anecdotal evidence. Qualitative evidence, which identifies if a person is homosexual (and by "how much") using various nebulous definitions, on the other hand, is more in line with what you said, and in those cases there is data exclusion bias and other issues.

For example, what if an uncle or aunt remained closeted, or decided they don't define themselves as homosexual, or feel they have "repented" for their homosexuality and don't identify as such? That would impact the information in numerous papers I've read. You can still see trends and I personally believe that they are there, but this is not the sort of evidence you'd have if real, hard genetic (quantitative) evidence had been found. Tie this into the fact that sexuality is often more ambiguous for some groups (for example, sexuality in women is more ambiguous than it is for men) and you can see why evidence of a "gay gene" is still a sticking point.

Personally, I think bringing up the "gay gene" is going to cause conflict in that debate. We can't say with relative certainty that it IS genetic, but we can say we believe evidence which suggests it probably is. I'm not saying it's evidence is based entirely on anecdotal information, I'm saying there's a very real difference between being able to say it's genetic and being able to say we believe it's genetic in the context of the discussion here. That's really the only point I wished to make in regards to that quote of mine and it's worth keeping in mind since the "no gay gene" discussion appears fairly often on the net these days (and I've ended up arguing there's "no gay gene" is incorrect more often than I care to admit, haha!).

Frankly, bringing up the "gay gene" or whatever biological evidence (whether it's neuroscience or genetics) isn't my concern as it possesses scientific legitimacy and isn't grounded in a "belief structure" nor does it require others to accept it for it to be authentic. Moreover, by even assuming there's a debate present grants unnecessary credence to the other "side" that this is any means a "learned" trait. It isn't. If this was simply "nurture" then why has it manifested itself throughout human history, despite massive cultural, intellectual, ethnic, religious and social differences? In short, i'm confident in stating homosexuality is not simply a "lifestyle choice" nor is it a "learned" behaviour. It's too bad others murky the waters with semantics, fallacious logic and intellectual relativism

[andyt]

ASLplease ASLplease:

There are genetically stupid people,

stupid people that are a product of their envirement,

and potentially smart people that choose to be stupid.

I think the later is the most common.

I know, but don't put yourself down like that. You can choose to act intelligently - just start with baby steps.

[andyt]

To all the people that maintain homosexuality is a choice - let's see you make that choice then. Do you really think people would put themselves thru the shit that gays go thru (no pun intended) if it's just a choice?

But with gays being fashionable now, I'm sure there are some guys who are bi who identify totally as gay. And some straight guys who act gay - probably to get next to chicks. I used to have a boss who identified as a lesbian. She used to run a safe house for women, so it was probably a career choice, like Anne Heche. She also had an alcohol problem. When we'd go out to staff dinners, she'd get pissed and try to take me home.

Women seem to be able to swing back and forth more than men. But even for men, sexuality lies on a spectrum. Even all us manly men on this forum are likely at least a little bit gay, and many men who say they're gay are also at least a little bit straight.

It's all good. I used to wish I was more bisexeual. Way easier to score that way, and threesomes with two guys, one girl aren't a problem.

[Lemmy]

Primates are bi-sexual, all of us. It's just that most of us choose not to act out the homosexual part of our being. All other primates do. Rape is also a behaviour practised by all other male primates. We are all bi-sexual rapists, genetically speaking, whether we act on it or not. Carl Sagan wrote a fair bit on this in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors".

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Primates are bi-sexual, all of us. It's just that most of us choose not to act out the homosexual part of our being. All other primates do. Rape is also a behaviour practised by all other male primates. We are all bi-sexual rapists, genetically speaking, whether we act on it or not. Carl Sagan wrote a fair bit on this in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors".

Interesting. Except it plays into the homosexuality is a choice crowd. I really doubt that some guy in Iran or Saudi Arabia just decides "hey, let's give buttfucking a whirl, what's the worst that can happen?" So there must be more going on than we are just all bi.

[Khar]

We're going on a bit of a tangent here, Mustang, and because I tend to ramble a bit I'm going to cut myself short.

I'm not sure what you are responding to, to be honest, but I most definitely recognize your viewpoint and understand it, and this is more to just finish off my own viewpoint (since I never intended to tangle with someone else's in this thread, apologies if anyone feels slighted for what I have written). There is a difference between actual biological evidence and indications of potential biological evidence. The platforms indicated by both sides are analogous to similar debates involving religion, except in this case such positions are somewhat reversed. This was aptly summarized by Gunnair in one of his previous posts. Declarative statements such as "it is genetic" are positive statements which must be reinforced, not declared scientifically valid or given credence over dissenting opinion until factual evidence is provided. Ironically, what we see here is the opinion of necessary falsifiable hypothesizes in conflict and hence the entire discussion does actually play a bit of a role in that regards.

I tend to agree with your stance that the indicators are important, scientifically gathered bits of information, but this does not imply that what I initially replied to, the absolute position of genetic disposition has not been proven. It does not excuse this group or similar groups, nor am I disagreeing with what you are saying otherwise on the topic, as I agree it is not a choice. I am merely saying that bringing biology into this takes it no where.

Also, unfortunately there have been instances where assumptions were made like the ones you make and they have turned out to be false. Analogous evolution and development of analogous structures has occurred around the world, where species totally different from each other which never interacted developed in a similar manners (biological parent term is "Homology"). Evolutionary biology is full of these examples. Likewise, anthropological and paleontological evidence (weapon use, familial structures, caste systems, patriarchal/matriarchal societies) has instances where it supports or refutes similar assumptions that you have made in various other animals. It does not help in regards to homosexuality that much information retained from those periods are inferred today to mean something different based on certain expected traits or stereotypes of homosexuality. Personally, I think what you said is a weighty example of why it is genetic, but I simply cannot view it as the end-all of the discussion for myself and leap to the conclusion that it is genetic based on that and other forms of evidence provided alone, I can only assume that it's indications thereof and I personally feel that's where definitive scientifically verified positions end and interpretations begin.

Hence, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but more expanding on my own personal stance on the issue in regards to the veracity of evidence. I more or less agree with the opinions of, well, basically everyone who has posted (and am an ardent believer of homosexual equality and an even more ardent opponent to such things like this church is doing than most folks) otherwise. I guess I feel people are too ready to leap to conclusions, even if the conclusions are correct in my view, and prefer to air the details too.

[raydan]

I read a piece a while ago (can't find it) where they presented sexual preference on a bell curve, with heterosexuality on one side and homosexuality on the other. This would mean that the middle (high point) of the curve is bisexuality. This suggests that there are few 100% purely homos and heteros and that "most" people could swing both ways (they DO have a choice), although most would "lean" one way or the other.

Social acceptance and upbringing plays a very large part in the number of people who lean towards their homosexual side.