[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

So, is liking chocolate innate? Or is it molded? What about seafood?

If you grew up where you never saw fish, would you like it when exposed to it?
What about if you grew up in a fishing village and it was part of every meal?

Vegetarianism? Innate or molded?

Can you change your tastes? Can you grow to like what you once thought was distateful? Or grow to dislike what you once loved? (for example, hot dogs now make me ill, whereas as a kid I loved them)

Food likes and dislikes are in many ways hard wired in the same way sexuality is. We have basic taste receptors and olfactory receptors that express themselves in many ways. We all have a general predilection toward bitter foods. We generally like sweet foods. These apparently formed in part through evolutionary factors. Bitter being poisonous, sweet being nutritious, etc.

There are many things that can change what we eat however, that goes beyond the sweet/bitter. Allergic reactions (peanuts, hot dogs, etc), philosophical beliefs (vegetarianism, etc), wanting to lose weight (cutting out sweets), etc etc etc. These factors are different however than the way in which we process sexuality in that many people still love the foods that make them sick or fat or go against their philosophical beliefs.

I wouldn't be surprised if that hot dog you hate today that makes you ill, really is some allergic reaction that formed. Do you really hate the taste of hot dogs, or the reaction that hot dogs give you? One of my friends in college absolutely loved cheese, but it always made him break out and gave him a pretty nasty bout of gas. Every time he promised himself he'd never eat cheese again cause it caused him so much pain, but he always ate it afterwards.

Comparing this particular facet of food likes/dislikes to sexuality would be more akin to barebacking and getting some painful STD like gonorrhea. Sure you could grow to hate barebacking because of the results, but wouldn't the barebacking still feel good and you would still enjoy it? Ok that was a far out tangent but it's getting late and I'm tired. anywho...

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Was I molded into heterosexuality? No, I believe its the natural order of procreation; without it life doesn't continue.

I can procreate Russ. Does that make me beholden to form a life long relationship with a woman?

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

You show your formative life as anti-gay to show that it couldn't have molded you. My immediate thought was to question whether you suffer from "preacher's son/daughter syndrome".

I couldn't win either way. If I grow up in a very anti-gay life, I'm rebelling against that and I choose to be gay. If I grow up in a very pro-gay life, it was obviously the life style my parents introduced me to that led me astray. hehe.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Sorry, but I believe what I believe. I can see how you believe what you believe, though I tend to think its more out of need for self validation rather than any hard evidence. Of course, I fully recognize there's scant evidence behind my own beliefs.

We all have a need to validate the reasons we do the things we think and do. That need for validation doesn't make what we do or do not do any less or more "good" and is a different discussion altogether.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Or, my alternate theory on homosexuality is that its "God's way" of culling the herd. Feel free to replace God with nature, if you so desire to interpret my feelings in an agnostic manner.

Or it could be that homosexuality was a necessary precursor to stabilize male dominated societies. It's a theory that some socio-scientists are parroting today. If you want to know more I can pull it out of another thread I first brought it up in.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

But, then again, this is the third, if not fourth discussion about your undeniable right to be gay and force acceptance of it on others.

Hey you don't have to accept me being gay anymore than I have to accept you being straight. But just as long as that lack of acceptance doesn't extend to impinging on my life, then hey, more power to you.

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Since, this is a thread on freedom of speech, lets contain the discussion to that.

Mfa: Sure, only the state can take away freedom of speech, _however_, there are laws in the US that prohibit hiring practices based on race, religion, (in some places) sexual orientation, etc. Though most states (texas included) is a "employment at will" state (meaning they can fire for any reason), no large corporation with deep pockets would fire anybody for expressing ideas outside of work, especially when they border on religious ideology.

It depends on what that ideology entails. If it entails defamation of another group, then they could very well fire that person based on their anti-defamation employee policies. Granted they'll probably get sued, but it doesn't stop them from doing it.

[zurich]

Hah, criticizing Canada on lack of free speech? That's funny

Civil rights love-fest != curbed freedom of speech.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Damnit...there's that word again!

Hey now I thought you said you'd never return. Liar!!

[Silent_One]

We need to remember that free speech does not mean freedom for the speech we agree with. Such speech needs no legal protection. If free speech means anything, it means protecting the speech we find disturbing, abhorrent, offensive.

As a reminder.....

http://www.gwu.edu/~english/kaleidos...es/Essay10.htm

Yet, there are times when freedom of speech seems as if it can go too far. In 1978, in Skokie, Illinois, about two-dozen Neo-Nazis planned on having a demonstration. Skokie had a sizeable Jewish population, with nearly 5,000 Holocaust survivors. When the mayor of Skokie tried to put a stop to the demonstration, the group went to the American Civil Liberties Union for help. The ACLU lawyer who handled the case was Jewish, but he, along with the other members of the ACLU felt the case was clear-cut. The first amendment protected the rights of the Neo-Nazis to have a demonstration, and the court agreed. Still, with much public outcry, the Neo-Nazis moved the demonstration to Chicago, where they were still met by thousands of protestors (Strum). Although the first amendment upheld their right to demonstrate, should it have been this way? Does the first amendment guarantee the right to express hate-filled and prejudice ideals? The US District Court said it did, and this is the way it has to be. Even though the Neo-Nazis were allowed to have a demonstration, the thousands of protestors may have been a more powerful voice.

[Sabastian]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

As a reminder.....

http://www.gwu.edu/~english/kaleidos...es/Essay10.htm

Hi, Silent_One,

While I share your distain for Neo-Nazi's I have real quarrels with ideals that would negate their right to voice their opinions. Granted, these race haters are of no real service to any country. However, we ought to tolerate their dissent, just as we do for any other group. The idea behind Freedom of speech is that people be allowed to speak their thoughts and convictions so that they may be compared and weighed out. People must to be able to articulate their thoughts without fear of reprisals from the state. Yes that includes people we hate and disagree with utterly, otherwise you settle for thinking and politics that don't think outside the box, so to speak. Freedom of Speech is in all probability the single most important human right in the constitution and if you make a precedent ruling against that liberty mechanism it creates a situation where by other cases may be put in place against it and inadvertently against all. For example it may set a precedent where anyone whom is offended by another's convictions may take court actions against them. It truly is a slippery slope and once you embark on such politics where do you draw the line?

Instead what we ought to do is leave the right to Freedom of Speech alone. Let the citizens determine social mores and political aspirations by means of competing ideas what is good public policy and what is not. But the only way we can have such an environment is to restrict the powers of the state to effect what can be said publicly and what cannot. We must to keep in mind all the while for the sake of innate human freedom that free dialogue does not stand for freedom for the speech we consent to and it is as Hunter said if we agree with the speech it does not need protection. Free speech means shielding the speech we find hateful or even insulting. In truth the reason that free speech is in the constitution is because the creators of the constitution were wise enough to realize that in reality they cannot control the thoughts and opinions of people. Law that limit free speech are the sort of lawmaking is indicative of a controlling top down model. (Collectivist.) Free Speech is an innate primary right of humanity and there is no paper anywhere that can in reality take it away from individuals.

I have to laugh at MFA's veiled threat that there will be consequence to my speaking my opinion. I could only suppose that he means to ban me because of my opinions. Ironically he will only prove my point about Freedom of Speech in doing so. The only thing that can apply a consequence is the authority or state in charge of allowing for Freedom of Speech by taking it away, then who is next? Boy is that ever a prescription for tyranny. In the context of a simple web page message board it is really of little consequence and as opposed to exhilarating debate about real issues that matter there will be less disruption to what is argued. Everyone agree and move on, yawn. But in the larger political realm of the globe it is a considerably more serious consequence particularly in terms of human liberty. It is not that such lawmaking would ever be tolerated by all for ever or anything of the sort but rather it would seriously delimit individuals ability to effect their environment to an even greater extent but not entirely, that is impossible.

To criticize of human rights law making, its grounds or its aggressive advocates, has come to be considered as socially improper antiquated at best and at worst racist. Often if you speak out against Affirmative Action type legislation for example you are labeled and unfairly so, a racist. To speak against human rights is to blaspheme against Equality, the new established religion of our time. The appeal of human rights is essentially theological. In modern civilization, the pursuit of equality is an withered edition of past centuries craving for God. The religious revelation of Heaven has been substituted by a utopian delusion of an egalitarian society that can be achieved through charter law, human rights tribunals and legislated conduct. Freedom of speech is not included there in, particularly should someone disagree with absolutist morality of equality for all. Two hundred years ago, the perceptive Tocqueville documented the theological appeal of the concept of Equality he calculated that the democratic pursuit of equality would in the end would effect individual liberty. He was right. Infringements on Freedom of Speech in terms of constitutional precedent rulings would most definitely set in motion liberty killing state imposed laws. The modern utopian welfare state is just that. I oppose these proponents of these kinds of governments that would take the cause of Human rights over the right to Freedom of Speech, a primary right of any free people.

So as a reminder a prerequisite of a free society is that all can express their opinions without fear of state reprisals. Otherwise there is no freedom. Some have said that the state is the protector of Freedom of Speech but in the case where courts rule against it in anyway based on egalitarian principles of absolute equality because some were offended…[shakes head, roles eyes ..etc.] This sets precedent where by the state is the taker of Freedom of Speech, in such a case we need to remember that government needs to be told to just "shut up and sit down" else we become slaves to bureaucrats rather then them being our paid servants. Freedom of Speech is the single most important liberty… by a long shot.

[Silent_One]

Sabastian,
Just to make sure you understand......I agree with you. My post was to remind everyone that free speech must be protected, even the KKK's, the Neo-Nazis's, ....everyones. As the post said "Does the first amendment guarantee the right to express hate-filled and prejudice ideals? The US District Court said it did, and this is the way it has to be."

[Legion]

Natoma sexual orientation has never bene proven to be hardwired in the slightest. In fact I myself have demostrated why the bulk of research proclaiming such is bunk. Why do you keep aspousing sexuality as an innate inborn characteristic?

Food likes and dislikes are in many ways hard wired in the same way sexuality is.

Well since you have never demonstrated how sexuality is hardwired i'll take then comment with a grain of salt.

We have basic taste receptors and olfactory receptors that express themselves in many ways. We all have a general predilection toward bitter foods. We generally like sweet foods. These apparently formed in part through evolutionary factors. Bitter being poisonous, sweet being nutritious, etc.

However our taste can change. They can be altered. This is a fact. Much of a desire to eat is born from the hypothalamus. Our likes and dislikes can be changed easily by our exposure to certain types of food. Natoma i would say evolution in the sense you are viewing this has little or nothing to do with this. What you are suggesting is more of a intelligent observation by primitive cultures. Genes do not understand how things taste Natoma. Your mind does. Look at culture today! The variety of food is endless ranging from sweet to sour to bitter. Texture (which has almost as much if not as much to do with enjoyability) ranges provides as many examples. I find it hard to believe these likes and dislikes could be completely ingrained and unable to change

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Legion

Natoma sexual orientation has never bene proven to be hardwired in the slightest. In fact I myself have demostrated why the bulk of research proclaiming such is bunk. Why do you keep aspousing sexuality as an innate inborn characteristic?

You haven't provided any research that would show that sexuality isn't hardwired Legion. Oh, the research that shows how gay men and women "change" after undergoing psychotherapy and intensive trials at christian camps? Yea.....

Originally Posted by Legion

Well since you have never demonstrated how sexuality is hardwired i'll take then comment with a grain of salt.

There's much empirical evidence to support this, as I've given time and time again. I'll probably end up restating this stuff anyways, so I'm all geared up for it.

Originally Posted by Legion

However our taste can change. They can be altered. This is a fact. Much of a desire to eat is born from the hypothalamus. Our likes and dislikes can be changed easily by our exposure to certain types of food. Natoma i would say evolution in the sense you are viewing this has little or nothing to do with this. What you are suggesting is more of a intelligent observation by primitive cultures. Genes do not understand how things taste Natoma. Your mind does. Look at culture today! The variety of food is endless ranging from sweet to sour to bitter. Texture (which has almost as much if not as much to do with enjoyability) ranges provides as many examples. I find it hard to believe these likes and dislikes could be completely ingrained and unable to change

I wasn't debating that. All I said was that we have a natural (quiet joe) inclination toward certain kinds of foods, based on evolutionarily learned responses (sweet is nutritious, bitter is poisonous, etc), and that inclination gets expressed in myriad ways. That in and of itself is what is hardwired. For instance, I used to eat Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches all day every day when I was a kid. Now I can only eat maybe one every once in a while. I still love taste, but I prefer different types of food and I don't like eating that same food over and over again. As you said, my palette has expanded and my tastes have as well. My liking that food hasn't changed, merely how much I like to sample it, based on my experiences, as you've stated.

There is a small but perceptible difference there.

[Natoma]

One wonders if in the case of these neo-nazis, or similar cases, if freedom of speech has been impinged for fear of public distress. For instance, would a city be within its rights to deny the march of a black power group through a white supremacy town? Would a city be within its rights to deny the march of the KKK through Brownsville, NYC? What about the right of a pro-abortion/anti-gun group to march through a bible-belt fundamentalist anti-abortion town that also believes in owning guns?

While I would like to say that the cities would not have the right to block those marches, at what point does common sense for the "common good" override free speech? That's something I've never really given thought to, but that neo-nazi example made me think about it...

[zurich]

Legion,

You seem happy to jump on Natoma whenever you get the chance, but you've never once offered up your own personal experiences wrt being bisexual (as you said you were a few threads back).

Do you do it because you watched too much QAF? Or how about because its the cool thing that all those raver-types are doing these days? Or perhaps you're innately attracted towards men? Have you had sex with a man? Have you been in a LTR with one? If so, what made you do it?

As you've said you're engaged, it'd seem you're the 'bi now straight later' type, but I find it amusing that you can dish out truckloads of criticism without giving up any support from your own (reported) bisexual personal life.

[Legion]

You haven't provided any research that would show that sexuality isn't hardwired Legion. Oh, the research that shows how gay men and women "change" after undergoing psychotherapy and intensive trials at christian camps? Yea.....

Natoma, do you honestly not see that onus is on you? There is not evidence in your court. None. There is no reason to believe sexual orientation is beyond the bounds of eviromental factors. Clearly not all human aspects are deteremined by genetics. There is no reason to presume any are. Unless of course you enjoy entertaining the concept some humans are sexually attracted to children and animals because of their genetics.

natoma if it is demonstrated that individuals can change their orientations there is no reason to believe at all any genetic predisposition made them make the choices they made.

There's much empirical evidence to support this, as I've given time and time again. I'll probably end up restating this stuff anyways, so I'm all geared up for it.

Natoma if there is so much empiracle evidence why have you yet to provide any irrefutable evidence for your argument? Are you refuring to such excellent examples and Dean Hammer's XQ gene set or perhaps the "gay fingure test" ? Yes such excellent evidence indeed natoma.

I wasn't debating that.

oh? seemed to me you were drawing a correlation between your view of ingrained sexuality and ingrained flavor preferences.

All I said was that we have a natural (quiet joe) inclination toward certain kinds of foods, based on evolutionarily learned responses (sweet is nutritious, bitter is poisonous, etc), and that inclination gets expressed in myriad ways.

I don't agree with this entirely. You can go ahead and say it as i don't care to object much to it.

That in and of itself is what is hardwired. For instance, I used to eat Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches all day every day when I was a kid. Now I can only eat maybe one every once in a while. I still love taste, but I prefer different types of food and I don't like eating that same food over and over again. As you said, my palette has expanded and my tastes have as well. My liking that food hasn't changed, merely how much I like to sample it, based on my experiences, as you've stated.

Your tastes have remained the same i can not say the same though for my tastes which, as i have said, changed with exposure.

There is a small but perceptible difference there.

Again since you haven't proven anything you can't make this statement. Secondly, as i have demonstrated, though you believe tastes preferences to be ingrained by evolution people defy your presuppositions quite regularly. Why? Well if you are right they have demonstrated the ability to enjoy foods they shouldn't be liking do to their resemblence to poison in taste. So if we are to believe there is but a small difference in sexuality and ingrained taste preferences one could argue that ingrained sexuality also can be changed. This raises even more questions; if the later is true how do you really know the behavior is a inborn trait? If it can be changed exactly how much of an affect does it really have?

[Legion]

Originally Posted by zurich

Legion,

You seem happy to jump on Natoma whenever you get the chance, but you've never once offered up your own personal experiences wrt being bisexual (as you said you were a few threads back).

Is that so? When was the last time i have directly spoken to Natoma before this thread? Can you tell me? I don't honestly remember.

Exactly what are you wanting to know Zurich? You haven't related your experiences with being canadian. Would you suddenly assume such is important enough to discuss in a forum?

Do you do it because you watched too much QAF?

No. I do it because the gene Xr304 on Exon A tells me to.

Or perhaps you're innately attracted towards men?

Perhaps so. Just as paedophiles are innately attracted to children, priests are innately attracted to little boys, germans are innately attracted to beer, jews are innately attracted to money, etc etc.

Have you had sex with a man? Have you been in a LTR with one? If so, what made you do it?

I simply chose to try it.

As you've said you're engaged, it'd seem you're the 'bi now straight later' type, but I find it amusing that you can dish out truckloads of criticism without giving up any support from your own (reported) bisexual personal life.

Both my fiance and I are bisexual. We have nothing against an open relationship. I hope I have answered your questions.

[Natoma]

Legion:

As I've said before, sexual orientation is not hardwired. You won't find a gay gene anymore than you'd find a straight gene. Sexuality, however, is most certainly genetic. There is a perceptible difference there that you, sabastian, and silent_one have generally not been able to see when I've explained this wrt sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual arousal, and sexual attraction, etc.

As you know, we all start off as female fetuses. It is testosterone that masculinizes our bodies and our brains. It is known that lesbians are more likely to have been showered with testosterone levels far greater than heterosexual women while in the womb, but not enough to masculinize the fetus. It has also been shown that gay men are more likely to have older brothers, or a mother who has low levels of testosterone, which are enough to masculinize the fetus, but not necessarily the sexual centers of the brain. It has been shown that the sizes of the sexual centers in gay men's hypothalamus generally fall in line with heterosexual women, and the sizes of the sexual centers in lesbian hypothalamus generally fall in line with heterosexual men. That area of the brain is known as INAH-3, fyi.

So as I was saying before, we all possess genes for basic functions. Hunger, Sex, Color, Height, Weight, etc. There's a general template there for each of us. Most of these are affected by hormonal levels in the womb and during puberty, which are a direct result of the instructions our bodies receive from our genes. Sometimes there is too much, other times there is not enough, hormonal release. During puberty, our sexual tendencies become active and begin to express themselves. Most people see this as a sudden mental and emotional sexual awakening in their pre-teens or early teens. My sexual awakening happened to be directed toward other boys. Most other people get directed toward those of the opposite sex. Was this a learned behavior or genetically influenced? I dare say it wasn't learned. I never had any homosexual influence in my life, nor did I even know it was possible, until I began researching for myself what my feelings meant. I was never abused as a child, and I had very strong and supportive male influences in my tightly knit family and church environment. So you take my life and try to find some environmental factor that could explain how I found myself very sexually attracted to boys when I didn't even know what sex was. Yes, I was very naive as a child.

To get off the subject a little bit, my genetic template follows very closely to my biological father. 6'-6'4, 180 - 260 lbs, brown skin, eyes and hair, etc. However the range in which I vascillate in weight varies depending on how much I eat and exercise, so that would be an environmental factor. Yet the structure of my body which allows that weight range is certainly genetically passed on to me as it is almost identical to my fathers. I also have a metabolism that is just like his, which is certainly genetic. I walk like him and possess the same inflections and tones in speaking that he does. I have the same eating habits, and apparently if he were my age we'd have been identical twins. All this, and I didn't grow up with him in my life at all. Wouldn't you think that walking, talking, and eating habits would be something learned, rather than genetically passed down? I met him twice, and people tell me these things based on their own recollections of him, and who I am today. There are many things that seem to be environmental, but in fact are very much genetic. For instance, many species of birds, butterflies, moths, whales, sharks, fish, etc, migrate thousands of miles to mate and have offspring, yet they were never taught the routes. And yet, generation after generation follow those paths to their mating grounds. How else is this knowledge passed down?

But alas this will probably all get ignored sometime later in the thread. I'll probably get another post saying that I haven't stated my case in any way shape or form.

p.s.: The gay men/women changing their sexual behavior after undergoing psychotherapy at christian camps has nothing to do with changing the underlying sexual arousal response, but the behavior that stems from that response. You can't change your sexual arousal patterns. But you can change how you act upon them, obviously.

I could go out and start dating women and sexing women. It wouldn't be something that I would enjoy, but I could do it. I've done it before, or at least tried and didn't get very far before puking.

Again, this is the small but perceptible difference that you're missing. You say that you chose to try having sex with a man. Did you enjoy it? Simply engaging in sexual activity doesn't change your orientation or make you bisexually aroused.

p.p.s: The laws that we have wrt sexual activity are in place to protect those who are deemed incapable of offering up informed opinions and decisions on the matter. That's why pedophilia and zoophilia will probably never be legalized. These laws (minors and animal rights) prevent non-consensual sexual abuse of other beings.

[EDIT]

One other thing to consider. Homosexuality is found in every culture around the world, even in those that are vastly different from one another. If the environmental variable is thrown out of the window because millions of homosexuals around the world do not experience the same situations growing up, there has to be some other reason for the prevalence of homosexuality in the human species.

What do we all share in common? What is the one piece of ourselves that we share in entirety with every other human on the planet? DNA.

[/EDIT]

[Silent_One]

There is a perceptible difference there that you, sabastian, and silent_one have generally not been able to see when I've explained this wrt sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual arousal, and sexual attraction, etc.

When have I ever stated anything regarding sexual arousal and sexual attraction, or sexuality for that matter? We may have had discussions regarding consistency, or natural (oh God I said that word ), or instincts. Even a discussion on the aging of female eggs, but if I recall correctly I never disagree with your definition of the differences between sexuality and sexual arousal.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

When have I ever stated anything regarding sexual arousal and sexual attraction, or sexuality for that matter? We may have had discussions regarding consistency, or natural (oh God I said that word ), or instincts. Even a discussion on the aging of female eggs, but if I recall correctly I never disagree with your definition of the differences between sexuality and sexual arousal.

It was in the dontamend thread. It wasn't the difference between sexuality and sexual arousal. It was the difference between sexual arousal and sexual attraction, i.e. the vast majority of the human species is bisexual wrt to attraction, but heterosexual wrt arousal. That only 1-2% of the human population is purely homosexual or heterosexual wrt attraction, i.e. unable to see anything physically attractive about someone of the same sex if you're hetero, or someone of the opposite sex if you're homo. Yadda yadda yadda.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Legion:

As I've said before, sexual orientation is not hardwired. You won't find a gay gene anymore than you'd find a straight gene. Sexuality, however, is most certainly genetic. There is a perceptible difference there that you, sabastian, and silent_one have generally not been able to see when I've explained this wrt sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual arousal, and sexual attraction, etc.

That would be that you have never explained your position well or correctly. I have seen your argumentatioon sexual orienation, sexual arousal etc hence the reason why i disagreed with you.

As you know, we all start off as female fetuses. It is testosterone that masculinizes our bodies and our brains. It is known that lesbians are more likely to have been showered with testosterone levels far greater than heterosexual women while in the womb, but not enough to masculinize the fetus.

Many have argued (Macke et al, 1993) hormones directly effect sexual orientation however no one has shown links between androgens and sexual orienation. Exactly which androgen are required for a person to be sexualy attracted to an animal? How much in quantity is required to make an individual homosexual?

It has also been shown that gay men are more likely to have older brothers, or a mother who has low levels of testosterone, which are enough to masculinize the fetus, but not necessarily the sexual centers of the brain.

It is highly unlikely you will find a psychologist who will agree with this line of reasoning. There just isnt a foundation for it. Test have been done. None have ever been replicated. I have spoken to you directly concering a couple (ie finger length test)

It has been shown that the sizes of the sexual centers in gay men's hypothalamus generally fall in line with heterosexual women, and the sizes of the sexual centers in lesbian hypothalamus generally fall in line with heterosexual men. That area of the brain is known as INAH-3, fyi.

No actually it hasn't. Are you really provoking me to show you again how completely flawed Simon Levay's research was Natoma? Have you even looked up the bulk of his research? It was bunk through and through. He couldn't replicate his findings in following tests nor could any other reseracher. He fudged numbers (lumped bisexuals into the gay chategory) and completely disregarded the inconsistancies within the female brains he researched. The INAH-3 is a neural set of pathways in the hypothalamus fyi.

So as I was saying before, we all possess genes for basic functions. Hunger, Sex, Color, Height, Weight, etc. There's a general template there for each of us.

Natoma "human nature" consist of both genetic and enviromental factors. No psychologist in his right mind would ever suggest the core of our being is control or predetermined by genetics.

Most of these are affected by hormonal levels in the womb and during puberty, which are a direct result of the instructions our bodies receive from our genes.

You aspouse this as if it were fact though no one in academia supports this reasoning say but the most biased.

But alas this will probably all get ignored sometime later in the thread. I'll probably get another post saying that I haven't stated my case in any way shape or form.

And it should be. You haven't provided the slightest by of evidence for your argument.

p.s.: The gay men/women changing their sexual behavior after undergoing psychotherapy at christian camps has nothing to do with changing the underlying sexual arousal response,

How in God's name can you make such a bold and general statement Natoma? Have you completely deluded yourself into believing you have the truth concerning these matters?

These individuals often demonstrate complete sexual orienation change. What are you trying to say Natoma? Are you completely denying any enviromental factors that many play into one's choice of sexual orientation? Were these people who made alterations not truly homosexuals? What guidelines define a "true homosexual"?

but the behavior that stems from that response. You can't change your sexual arousal patterns. But you can change how you act upon them, obviously.

Natoma you can infact change your sexual arousal patterns. It has been done often. On what grounds do you deny this?

I could go out and start dating women and sexing women. It wouldn't be something that I would enjoy, but I could do it. I've done it before, or at least tried and didn't get very far before puking.

There is no reason i will entertain that would incourage me to believe you.

Again, this is the small but perceptible difference that you're missing. You say that you chose to try having sex with a man. Did you enjoy it? Simply engaging in sexual activity doesn't change your orientation or make you bisexually aroused.

Prove to me that sexual orientation, or sexual arousal patterns can not be altered.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Legion

That would be that you have never explained your position well or correctly. I have seen your argumentatioon sexual orienation, sexual arousal etc hence the reason why i disagreed with you.

What exactly don't you understand. This isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by Legion

Many have argued hormones directly effect sexual orientation however no one has shown links between androgens and sexual orienation. Exactly which androgen are required for a person to be sexualy attracted to an animal? How much in quantity is required to make an individual homosexual?

This alone shows how little you know. The masculinization of the human fetus through the use of testosterone in the womb is a reproductive fact. Testosterone affects the centers of the brain directly responsible for sexuality, not to mention our physicality in the womb as well.

It has direct influence on our aggression and our sex drive. For instance rapists have been shown to have inoordinately high levels of testosterone, and in cases where castration occurred (at the request of the offender), the behavior ceased. You can all you like but it doesn't change the basic biology of human reproduction.

Originally Posted by Legion

It is highly unlikely you will find a psychologist who will agree with this line of reasoning. There just isnt a foundation for it. Test have been done. None have ever been replicated. I have spoken to you directly concering a couple (ie finger length test)

I'm not talking about the length of someone's finger. What next, we find a corrolation in dick size? Please.

I'm not offering up psychobabble that a psychologist would have any reason to refute. Testosterone levels in the womb are not in the realm of psychology, but biology, so why you bring up a psychologist refuting this is bemusing.

Originally Posted by Legion

No actually it hasn't. Are you really provoking me to show you again how completely flawed Simon Levay's research was Natoma? Have you even looked up the bulk of his research? It was bunk through and through. He couldn't replicate his findings in following tests nor could any other reseracher. He fudged numbers (lumped bisexuals into the gay chategory) and completely disregarded the inconsistancies within the female brains he researched. The INAH-3 is a neural set of pathways in the hypothalamus fyi.

Simon Levay wasn't the only one who conducted this research. You're completely wrong. Dean Hamer produced the same results 2 years later (1993) in a different and unrelated experiment with a sample of 40 gay brothers. They collaborated afterward and wrote the papers that PBS.org, among other sites, reference.

Originally Posted by Legion

Natoma "human nature" consist of both genetic and enviromental factors. No psychologist in his right mind would ever suggest the core of our being is control or predetermined by genetics.

Predetermined, in some cases yes. Solely influenced? No. As I said before we are a compilation of our genes, hormones released by those genes, and in some cases environmental factors, as I gave examples of in my post but you ignored.

Originally Posted by Legion

You aspouse this as if it were fact though no one in academia supports this reasoning say but the most biased.

Heh. So you're saying that our height and weight aren't encoded in our genes, which then get expressed during puberty? What about our sexuality, both physical and mental? We all just happen to grow hair on our groins and our bodies just happen to start getting doused with hormones for 8-10 years which cause tremendous change. Nope, these reactions aren't genetic in any way shape or form. They just happen.

Originally Posted by Legion

How in God's name can you make such a bold and general statement Natoma? Have you completely deluded yourself into believing you have the truth concerning these matters?

These individuals often demonstrate complete sexual orienation change. What are you trying to say Natoma? Are you completely denying any enviromental factors that many play into one's choice of sexual orientation? Were these people who made alterations not truly homosexuals? What guidelines define a "true homosexual"?

I've read excerpts from these "camps" Legion. They all say the same thing. The sexual arousal by those of the same sex is still there, quite strongly. They learn how to suppress those urges and live heterosexually. Some "relapse" and begin living their lives homosexually again, others do not.

And that is all I stated. The underlying sexual arousal response is still there. There is a difference between altering behavior and altering sexual arousal.

Originally Posted by Legion

Natoma you can infact change your sexual arousal patterns. It has been done often. On what grounds do you deny this?

See above, as stated earlier.

Originally Posted by Legion

There is no reason i will entertain that would incourage me to believe you.

Your predilection toward believing me is rather moot Legion. It's merely fact.

Originally Posted by Legion

Prove to me that sexual orientation, or sexual arousal patterns can not be altered.

Did you enjoy having sex with the guy you said you had sex with? Do you wish to continue having sex with guys? Do you find yourself sexually aroused by guys to where you want to sex them? You didn't answer the question.

You also didn't address the chunk of my post summed up by this edit:

Originally Posted by Natoma

One other thing to consider. Homosexuality is found in every culture around the world, even in those that are vastly different from one another. If the environmental variable is thrown out of the window because millions of homosexuals around the world do not experience the same situations growing up, there has to be some other reason for the prevalence of homosexuality in the human species.

What do we all share in common? What is the one piece of ourselves that we share in entirety with every other human on the planet? DNA.

[Silent_One]

It was in the dontamend thread. It wasn't the difference between sexuality and sexual arousal. It was the difference between sexual arousal and sexual attraction, i.e. the vast majority of the human species is bisexual wrt to attraction, but heterosexual wrt arousal. That only 1-2% of the human population is purely homosexual or heterosexual wrt attraction, i.e. unable to see anything physically attractive about someone of the same sex if you're hetero, or someone of the opposite sex if you're homo. Yadda yadda yadda.

Nope. I never said anything in any thread that differs from your opinion regarding sexual arousal and sexual attraction. And it's not that thread either. Retraction please

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Silent_One

Nope. I never said anything in any thread that differs from your opinion regarding sexual arousal and sexual attraction. And it's not that thread either. Retraction please

Meh. All of these threads merge and stew into one big never ending quagmire. Retracted.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

quagmire

Good word. =)

Dr. Ffreeze

[Legion]

What exactly don't you understand. This isn't rocket science.

This isn't a matter of what I don't understand.

This alone shows how little you know.

I wonder if Macke felt the same about himself when his tests demonstrated little if any difference in androgen exposure to the brain and sexual orientation.

Since you have done little to support your argumentation other than to prattle on with mere anecdotal reference i take little offense to your attack.

The masculinization of the human fetus through the use of testosterone in the womb is a reproductive fact. Testosterone affects the centers of the brain directly responsible for sexuality, not to mention our physicality in the womb as well.

Natoma why is it you continue to shout these specifics at me when i have already addressed tests by the researchers who introducted these ideas that failed to substantiate their claims? Why is it that none of my psych books from 101 to 103, psych bio, etc ever mention Macke et al findings as fact? Instead of assertions of their accuracy i find statements such as this

"Macke et al., (1993). Examined DNA sequence variation in androgen receptor gene, reasoning that some variants may affect sexual differentiation of the brain. No significant differences in the distributions of mutations in homosexual and heterosexual men. Using linkage analysis, they showed that sibling pairs concordant for homosexuality were no more likely than chance to share the same androgen receptor allele."

Natoma from what science has discovered it is best said that testosterone effects the developement of parts of the brain commonly accepted to be linked to pleasure and sexual arousal. Last i checked there wasn't a part of the brain that decided sexual orientation. If in fact it does exist please point it out to me. Oh, and please don't call it the libido.

It has direct influence on our aggression and our sex drive.

Natoma there is clearly something here you aren't understanding. No one is disagreeing with on this. What is in question is your usage of sex drive and sexual orientation. Sex drive has been clearly demonstrated to have genetic/neurological components. However what is sexy and human sexual orientation are still demonstratably widely affected by one's enviroment. Would you have us all believe that sexual attraction to body peircings and septum spikes are the direct cause of genetics? I should hope not. The belief that all of our "nature", or even many parts it, is some how predetermined/controlled by genetics is baseless and founded entirely on circuitous logic. There is no reason to entertain the notion that the dynamics of human sexuality are inborn without any supporting evidence.

For instance rapists have been shown to have inoordinately high levels of testosterone,

So do many people involved in road rage. The mere fact we these hormones incourage us to react in certain ways to stimuli doesn't at all influence our end decision. We can choose what we believe is the moral just thing.

and in cases where castration occurred (at the request of the offender), the behavior ceased. You can all you like but it doesn't change the basic biology of human reproduction.

Did i ever deny this?

Hormones can incourage us to react in certain ways. That is apart of the purpose for which they exist. However the cause of their release is often also enviromental. Outside stimuli can cause, for example, adrenalin to be released. Intense emotions have been demonstrated to cause such.

However the manner in which you speak is more of a question of which came first; the chicken or the egg.

Did the hormone cause one's sexual orientation or did one's orientation, sexuality, or life style cause the hormone imbalance?

Natoma, can hormones see, smell, hear or have access to any other of our senses? Are they intelligent beigns some how aware of male and female? Would a deaf/blind man be officially labeled homosexual if he were exposed to a high level of estrogen androgen in the womb? If asked would he have any clue as to what male and female are? If he were africa would he find a septum spike attractive even without knowing what one is? Would or could he indentify with each sex? What would arouse him?

It is rather clear at this time no human is born with a developed understanding of gender or what it entails. Hormones themselves have no idea what male and female are or what is considering culturally sexually attractive. Humans lack the developed mating instincts of other animals.

I'm not talking about the length of someone's finger. What next, we find a corrolation in dick size? Please.

I think you are finding humor in the exact nature of the body of research you claim supports your belief. Researchers on your side of the argument have been willing to disregard all tenants of modern psychology in hopes of providing even a nebulous explination in favor of genetic predeterminism.

I'm not offering up psychobabble that a psychologist would have any reason to refute. Testosterone levels in the womb are not in the realm of psychology, but biology, so why you bring up a psychologist refuting this is bemusing.

You comments act as double edged swords. You call their refutations psychobabble based on your reasoning they are nitpicking what some psychologist hastely slapped together as evidence. If you disregard one then disregard the other.

Simon Levay wasn't the only one who conducted this research. You're completely wrong. Dean Hamer produced the same results 2 years later (1993) in a different and unrelated experiment with a sample of 40 gay brothers.

No shit. Check their findings to see if they correlate using objective methods. None have been able to replicate his findings. This is rather common sense as his hypothesis was formed from his belief humans have "mating sectors" in their brains related to mating instincts much like the rats he generally tested had . He merely took a part of the brain that carried on some of the functions of the rat brain and correlated by region and took a wild stab in the dark.

Predetermined, in some cases yes.

I disagree. I would prefer the term "predispositioned" and flexible.

Solely influenced? No.

Why is it thne you have such a hard time entertaining the possibilit you are wrong? For a minute i would like for you to reflect on this. What would you have to lose if you were wrong?

As I said before we are a compilation of our genes, hormones released by those genes, and in some cases environmental factors, as I gave examples of in my post but you ignored.

You are quite the optomistic biological reductionist.

Heh. So you're saying that our height and weight aren't encoded in our genes, which then get expressed during puberty?

I don't recall saying height and weight aren't affected or directly caused by genetics. I think those two quite obviously are.

What about our sexuality, both physical and mental?

What about it? What definition of "sexuality" are you using now? Sexual orientation? gender?

We all just happen to grow hair on our groins and our bodies just happen to start getting doused with hormones for 8-10 years which cause tremendous change. Nope, these reactions aren't genetic in any way shape or form. They just happen.

Just like being attracted septum spikes? thats genetic too right?

I think we are both well aware that pubic hair's growth is affected by hormones.

I've read excerpts from these "camps" Legion. They all say the same thing.

Oh really? Knowing you Natoma you probably read this excerpt from a biased source no doubt. I have read excerpts from the APA's findings on tested individuals back in 2000. They seemed thurougly convinced over 1/3 of these individuals had demonstrated complete sexual orientation change.

I think it ought to be common sense that individuals sexual appetites can be changed quite readily. Of course in defense of your reasoning you would most likely say these individuals always were interested in bondage or child porn, they just weren't aware of it or were in complete denial of it. Would it be that easy for you to generalize the entire category of people?

The sexual arousal by those of the same sex is still there, quite strongly. They learn how to suppress those urges and live heterosexually. Some "relapse" and begin living their lives homosexually again, others do not.

You and I must be reading entirely different accounts. I have no doubts some of these "cured" individuals were in fact bsing. However when when the APA conduct's research on these inviduals before and after and determines some made complete or drastic changes i inclined to believe them.

And that is all I stated. The underlying sexual arousal response is still there. There is a difference between altering behavior and altering sexual arousal.

One of my favorite things about blanket statements natoma is they are so useful for covering shakey ground.

Your predilection toward believing me is rather moot Legion. It's merely fact.

To the contrary i find it to be to the point. I believe you could change your sexual orientation.

Did you enjoy having sex with the guy you said you had sex with? Do you wish to continue having sex with guys? Do you find yourself sexually aroused by guys to where you want to sex them? You didn't answer the question.

Do you enjoy dodging answering my questions?

Honestly, if you believe people's homosexuality is predetermined the act of sex itself is unecessary to your final conclusion. Just think i might point that out.

You also didn't address the chunk of my post summed up by this edit:

Yes i removed the filler. You have brought this exact statement up to me in the past and i addressed it. However since you seem so inclined to regurgitate it i will address it once again.

Originally Posted by Natoma

One other thing to consider. Homosexuality is found in every culture around the world, even in those that are vastly different from one another. If the environmental variable is thrown out of the window because millions of homosexuals around the world do not experience the same situations growing up, there has to be some other reason for the prevalence of homosexuality in the human species.

The entire objection itself isn't based on sound reasoning. Why? The conclusion rests on the presupposition similar enviromental factors are required for a human to become homosexual. No two humans should be expect to react the same way to stimuli. Ergo there is no reason to presume sexual malestation, emotional abuse, etc are required to engineer Avg. Joe Homosexual.

Do to the fact people react differently to stimuli they may demonstrate similiar developing behaviors as homosexuals we have seen who's life style choice was pressured by identity crises caused by emotional abuse or emotional instability. Believe it or not some are more sensative than others.

Being that all of this is so how could a representative test be engineered? How could one demonstrated such consistancies in emotionally inconsistant humans?

[RussSchultz]

Humans lack the developed mating instincts of other animals.

I personally would disagree with this.

You could take two children and separate them from humanity at birth. They'd eventually figure out how to mate. I imagine right around the time they hit puberty.

Of course, that's pure speculation, but I really don't think there's any reason to suspect that humans have some how evolved past our genetic instincts for survival.

[Natoma]

I'm in the middle of folding clothes so I'll have to be brief on this one. Just so you know, you just settled the entire matter in one fell swoop.

Originally Posted by Legion

Natoma from what science has discovered it is best said that testosterone effects the developement of parts of the brain commonly accepted to be linked to pleasure and sexual arousal. Last i checked there wasn't a part of the brain that decided sexual orientation. If in fact it does exist please point it out to me. Oh, and please don't call it the libido.

My bolds. Well gee Legion, how do we determine what orientation we are? By the pleasure and sexual arousal response that we get from either sex. If sexual arousal is linked to the same sex, we figure out *bingo* that we're gay. If sexual arousal is linked to the opposite sex, we figure out *bingo* that we're straight. If it's both sexes then we say we're bisexual.

You just shut off your own attempts at rebuttal.

[Legion]

[quote="RussSchultz"]

Humans lack the developed mating instincts of other animals.

I personally would disagree with this.

You could take two children and separate them from humanity at birth. They'd eventually figure out how to mate. I imagine right around the time they hit puberty.

Care to try?

Care to demonstrate to me human instinctual sexual posturing?

They'd eventually figure out? Would the idea suddenly pop in their heads say at the age of 13? If so then why on earth bother with sex ed. Hell, all the info is right there is just has to wait for their biological clocks.

Would the whole experience be well summed up by astral planning, a horrific demonic voice in the child's head named Phallus cry forth from regions beyond begging the child to listen? Or would it be more like A Christmas Carrol where enlightenment comes at the hands of three wandering spirits?

Of course, that's pure speculation, but I really don't think there's any reason to suspect that humans have some how evolved past our genetic instincts for survival.

I think your explination lies in adolescent masterbation. Children at young ages explore their bodies ultimately dicovering their genitals. The feeling of pleasure they receive when they are touched is stored. The older the child becomes the more sensative the genital area becomes. I think be mere association a sexually capable couple on a deserted island could begin engaging in mutual masterbation on up to coitus.

These later years also mark the rise of another male instinct which exposes him to the inevitability of alimony and child support. Woe, woe to the poor monkey on the deserted island.

[RussSchultz]

If I could only get grant money to take two infants and separate them from the rest of humanity for 20 years to see what happens...

And yes, I think that 2 infants separated from humanity would eventually stumble upon coitus and hence, by accident, children. (Assuming they could get past the whole completely helpless part of being an infant)

We as a species don't need sex ed so that we can have offspring. We need sex ed so that we make correct/informed choices.