Howard Dean and the Gay Gene
- Thread starter Vince
- Start date
Not true. Your enviroment affects even from birth.
I am sure they have. This doesn't mean their work is at all accurate. notice it doesn't appear in acadamia today.
Can you provide me with their research so i may know who you are refering to and what their research was concerning? I have read quite a bit on this issue and have come to the rightful conclusion most of the so called evidence up to this point is bunk. The rest remains highly contested.
But that wasn't really the question i was asking you...I am wondering if genetics affects other forms of sexuality. Which logically, if it affects ones hetero/homosexuality there isn't any reason other rejected forms of sexual behavior couldn't be genetically influenced.
Again i disagree. If anything enviroment affects our views on attraction more so then genetics. I think you can do a simple cross section of world cultures and see exactly what i am talking about.
WHen you say silhouettes i will assume you are suggesting genes understand some cultural aspect of sexuality in correct proportions. I want you to explain this to me a little more indepth. Can you provide me for how genes conceive breasts, phallic objects, etc as sexual? How do genes translate this information to the working psyche of the mind?
Of course they won't develope attraction to random objects. They aren't incouraged to. It is much like learning the value of money. A purpose or worth has to be instilled in the object first. This may come through experience or through incouragements from peers/parents.
I would still like for you to provide a more indepth response.
Again i disagree. Whether it tends to be one way or the other has little barings on the subject. Many cultures of the past and present welcomed homosexuality and accepted it. Based on what you have said could i say that do to the fact most cultures frown on pedophilia there must be a genetic predisposition for those who practice it? As that could be the only explanation for it?
You wouldn't have to conduct unethical tests. Just check world cultures for references and you will see exactly what i am talking about. What is attractive veries quite a bit culture to culture. Whether or not Males/Females are generally attracted to the opposite sex is not immediate evidence of genetic predisposition. Infact, there is an undeniable and vastly important enviromental component to sexuality. Why couldn't enviroment completely explain sexual behavior? It is an absurd suggestion that most people within a culture will behave similiarly because they are all provided with similiar instructions?
You have even mentioned yourself that people can change their sexuality. WHy couldn't these people who are homosexual be as the disobendient children in your analogy? What good would a poll be? I could say it is as much an example of my enviromental hypothesis as it is your genetic hypothesis when taken at face value as you have presented it.
I will agree with the meassure of facial expressions only outside of this argument. There are probably a good portion of enviromental factors involved in our understanding of facial expressions as well. I will leave this matter in limbo for now...
However, i will firmly disagree with your analysis this is comparable to a human preconception of male and female without first providing evidence that children are born with this knowledge. Infact i have known many a child who was suprised to learn there are physical differences between male and female. Exploritory phases in child development are evidence enough of what i am saying.
Surely i have. IIRC do you realize a fruit fly share over 75% genetic similiarity in humans though obviously lacks cognition and a body structure which resembles ours? Do you realize most of these animals have sex which is related to various preprogrammed patterns or instincts humans don't have. For as much as scientists preach genetic similiarity there is clearly much structural and functional difference.
In deed i will make this argument and have the capacity to defend it. Since you can not establish which prior incarnations of sapiens had these preprogrammed rituals or behaviors it comes to me as father evident with the evolution of intelligence came with it the reduction of instinct. I am willing to argue NS rendered preprogammed sexual behavior obsolelete long before there were even humans.
Since you haven't provided for it being there in the first place i see no reason logically to assume the opposite.
Again i disagree. I think the drive to have sex is for pleasure. There is mounting evidence children discover this through masterbation at early ages.
To apply your very question to yourself how do genes relate to the human wor
Oh, you don't see culture enforcement IE religious ties as a motivating factor? Do genetics then provide for or sexual deviations ie necrophilia and pedophilia?
You haven't yet provided for how it is built in to any degree.
Actually Legion was arguing that very point in another thread. According to him, we don't learn anything about sex unless we're taught in sex-ed class. Which of course is bullocks because of the fact that the species has been procreating long before sex-ed ever came into being.
Is it really bullocks? Can you provide evidence humans are born with predetermined sexual behaviors? Again, enviroment explains this. Sexual pleasure is without a doubt the major drive to have sex.
Legion said:Precisely true. I can go out and have sex with a woman. Doesn't mean I've magically become a heterosexual. I've tried.
Years and years of reinforcing your belief you were predetermined to be homosexual has probably affected you negatively in this aspect.
Uhm, when I was 15 and doing my best to "get away" from being gay? Yea......
Legion said:Actually Legion was arguing that very point in another thread. According to him, we don't learn anything about sex unless we're taught in sex-ed class. Which of course is bullocks because of the fact that the species has been procreating long before sex-ed ever came into being.
Is it really bullocks? Can you provide evidence humans are born with predetermined sexual behaviors? Again, enviroment explains this. Sexual pleasure is without a doubt the major drive to have sex.
Of course it's bullocks. How else would you explain the continuation of the species, nay, all species on this planet, that don't have access to sex-ed 101 and procreate sexually?
Lol, but now you are quite the opposite.
Plenty of people attempt at stopping what they view to be deviant sexual behavior. Take for instance pedophiles who find stopping their behavior extremely difficult. This isn't really any different from many other human habits. Should we determine them all to have genetic predispositions?
Of course I'm quite the opposite. I realized there was nothing wrong with who I am.
Your continued allusions to pedophilia are not applicable. Pedophilia is outlawed in our society because of the belief that an adult of either sex interacting sexually with a child of either sex is harmful to the child. In many psychological studies of children who have been sexually molested by adults, this has been found to be true.
Pedophilia in our society is about control, both physical and psychological, and can be heterosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality is not about those things anymore than Heterosexuality is about those things.
The Romans are well known for having practiced pedophilia, but not what we would call pedophilia today. That practice was built into their society and was not seen as deviant in any way shape or form, rather it was a means of passage into manhood. It wasn't secretive, nor was it controlling. In the Roman society, it was merely homosexuality, but with younger persons.
There is a difference in the interpretations of the two.
Your continued allusions to pedophilia are not applicable. Pedophilia is outlawed in our society because of the belief that an adult of either sex interacting sexually with a child of either sex is harmful to the child. In many psychological studies of children who have been sexually molested by adults, this has been found to be true.
Pedophilia in our society is about control, both physical and psychological, and can be heterosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality is not about those things anymore than Heterosexuality is about those things.
The Romans are well known for having practiced pedophilia, but not what we would call pedophilia today. That practice was built into their society and was not seen as deviant in any way shape or form, rather it was a means of passage into manhood. It wasn't secretive, nor was it controlling. In the Roman society, it was merely homosexuality, but with younger persons.
There is a difference in the interpretations of the two.
Why? Because you refuse to consider any other possible explanations?
Easily. Taking matters back to eras prior to sapiens we had animals who's existance was heavily based in instinct. As these animals evolved they grew more and more intelligent and become more and more, gathing cognisants and awareness and less influenced by instinct. As time progressed sex was undoubtedly handed down. Being that sapiens more than likely had sex for political/religious/pleasure reasons one is left to assume motive rather than predisposition. Human procreation became tied to about every primitive culture as a magical ritual. This is an example of reasoning not genetics.
The argument you have presented has yet to provide evidence for how genetics relates to the human cognicants what male/female are and what sex is. Children often ask questions ie "where do babies come from." If they were born with this knowledge why ask the question? Remember, simply providing a counter attack doesn't reinforce your position when so many could be correct.
I for one, have no interests in having my own children. None. Plenty of others are like myself. Hense we have abortion. Now, if we were ruled without any reason by some sort of genetic predisposition to procreate why would things such as condoms and abortion exist?
You just solved your own quandry.
In the "eras prior to sapiens," as you put it, animals sexually reproduced, without having a higher intelligence. Instinct certainly isn't taught Legion. It merely exists.
Somehow that drive to sexually reproduce had to be around then at a lower level since higher intelligence did not exist at the time. That automatically leads one to conclude that sexuality is an instinct, or maybe even "less evolved" than even instinct itself. But the fact of the matter is that it is there at our very core.
p.s.: I didn't become sexually aware until I was 12 years old Legion. But once I was sexually aware, I certainly knew what I wanted and what it felt like. Was I necessarily aware of sexuality and its "purpose" on a conscious level before that point? No. I just knew that I was sexually aroused by other boys. I knew I liked boys before I became sexually aware, but I didn't know what it was, and there wasn't a sexual arousal. I became consciously aware of what I was feeling and what it meant when I became sexually aware.
You have heard stories about boys who when they're young do things that would suggest they like girls, but they certainly don't know that. But when they enter puberty, they certainly realize what they're feeling and then seek out girls. Homosexuals just happen to seek out members of the same sex.
Legion said:
In the "eras prior to sapiens," as you put it, animals sexually reproduced, without having a higher intelligence. Instinct certainly isn't taught Legion. It merely exists.
Somehow that drive to sexually reproduce had to be around then at a lower level since higher intelligence did not exist at the time. That automatically leads one to conclude that sexuality is an instinct, or maybe even "less evolved" than even instinct itself. But the fact of the matter is that it is there at our very core.
p.s.: I didn't become sexually aware until I was 12 years old Legion. But once I was sexually aware, I certainly knew what I wanted and what it felt like. Was I necessarily aware of sexuality and its "purpose" on a conscious level before that point? No. I just knew that I was sexually aroused by other boys. I knew I liked boys before I became sexually aware, but I didn't know what it was, and there wasn't a sexual arousal. I became consciously aware of what I was feeling and what it meant when I became sexually aware.
You have heard stories about boys who when they're young do things that would suggest they like girls, but they certainly don't know that. But when they enter puberty, they certainly realize what they're feeling and then seek out girls. Homosexuals just happen to seek out members of the same sex.
Natoma said:
oF course. The only reason why you thought there was is because of a cultural standard. Unless of course you believe were predispositioned to be homosexual then you might as well refer to yourself as a deviant mutation...
Lol, how do you equate irrelevance to the behavior being illegal? Nonsense. It is a sexual orientation/behavior just as is homosexuality or heterosexuality. Same with lusts for animals and the dead, or for that matter anything else. If you are willing to perceive sexuality is predetermined then all forms of it are as well.
Oddly, none of you have provided evidence as to how it is predetermined...
Same with a lot of homosexuals. Malestation at young ages can leave individuals confused concerning their orientation. I am sure you have heard this before. If not for massive enviromental factors why would malestation affect them at all?
How does this rule the behavior out?
Not true. Control is largely apart of every relationship. Varying forms of sexual behavior reflect this. For example sadomasocism. Would you argue this not to be sexual behavior? If so i'd love to know more of your understand of psychosexuality.
Lol, what is this but an elaborate straw man? What on earth do legalities have to do with any of this?! Homosexuality has been largely outlawed and forbidden in many cultures throughout the world as wicked and evil. WOuld not then your same reasoning apply? Many cultures have practiced pedophilia. Not just the romans. Infact most older cultures by our standard could be said to have condoned such behaviors. Girls were often married at the age of 13 or even sometimes younger. This is part of the point i am making to you. Pedophilia, as are all forms of sexuality, is largely product of human reason.
If we wish to believe sexual orientation can be determined by genetics then why not any other forms of behaviors or orienations outside of hetero/homosexuality? No one has yet provided an answer to this question.
This seems to out right refute your original assertion my allusions to pedophilia do not apply. If you admit control wasn't a factor (and what but the human mind invented this factor as some basis to decide authenticity of the behavior
) then you likewise must entertain the possibility some people can be born with the predisposition to be pedophiles. I doubt this is so. Infact IIRC pedophiles are often found to be only sexual concerned with young children. They often lead double lives trying to appear normal all the while craving sex with children. Seems to me much like homosexuality was in past eras of history...
I disagree. I just see this as an attempt to differentiate homosexuality from other deviant behaviors.
Natoma said:
I doubt your reasoning from the start.
Indeed. But, as i said, as time progressed instinct became less and less of a factor leaving in its place cognition.
We have had this debate before. Drives are not instincts.
Yes this is exactly what i a saying. That as time progressed this behavior continued for matters of reason and not instinct.
No it doesn't nor was that what i was suggesting. You are extrapolating.
What i was attempting to describe was that at its origins it was likely instinct based. But as our ancestors (species) evolved it became increasingly less to do with instinct and more to do with reason. This leads us up to today when it is clearly reason based.
Can we please drop the self references Natoma? They serve no purpose and are more than likely tainted in various fashions. I can not accurately debate with you your past nor can you debate mine because we aren't providing the full picture of what happened to us in our lives.
Provided the information i could give you a number of enviromental explanations for your supposed experience. However, without a full picture of your life i couldn't possibly be accurate, nor could you.
Indeed i have heard the stories yet they have no place in psychology as their accuracy can not be judged at face value. There is no reason to consider them as evidence.
You are well aware that i am bisexual. I have pointed out in the past that i made a choice to be so. I could present my own story but it would serve no purpose. SInce neither can be refuted or debated at facevalue they have no purpose in this conversation.
Legion said:
When I was about 5 years old, my step uncle and some members of my church told my mother that I was going to "grow up to be gay" because of the way I acted. Obviously my behavioral patterns at the time gave off some "vibe" to the adults around me. I didn't find out about this until a couple of years ago.
Predispositioned? Certainly. Mutation? Certainly not. Deviant? Certainly not.
Throughout human history, homosexuality has existed at a relatively constant rate as far as we know. That would not be explained by a mutation.
Legion said:
As I said in my prior post, I made the distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality in the way that pedophilia is largely defined as a controlling sexual behavior, much in the way that practicing homosexuality in prison, or rapists, is in large part about control, and less about the sexual act.
That's why we outlaw pedophilia, rape, and beastiality, because all of those are about control and power. Regular Homosexuality is not, nor is regular Heterosexuality.
Legion said:
Molestation affects individuals because they feel violated. That violation would cloud anyone's thinking. Some heterosexual women who are raped are not able to feel the touch of a man without cringing because it reminds them of the violation. Does their sexuality change? Certainly not. But it does make it difficult to express their sexuality.
Legion said:
I don't know what relationships you've had, but control certainly isn't a large part of my relationship in that way. Sadomasochism for all its worth is still mutually agreed upon Legion. That's why people have "safety" words in order to stop.
Legion said:
The point I was making is that what the Romans practiced is not pedophilia as we define it today. The Romans didn't have such a term. They interacted sexually with boys who were pubescent or near that point, but it had none of the connotations that we instill upon pedophilia today.
Legion said:
This seems to out right refute your original assertion my allusions to pedophilia do not apply. If you admit control wasn't a factor (and what but the human mind invented this factor as some basis to decide authenticity of the behavior
Legion, stop breaking up what I'm saying. I was saying that what the Romans practiced, if they knew what we call Pedophilia today, would not have that definition. It would be homosexuality with younger persons, because of how we define pedophilia and what it means.
Legion said:
In some cases, the roman child, once an adult, would stay with his adult lover and the relationship would continue. In other cases they would move on and marry and have children.
But it was part of the society for this to happen, and very widespread. It was in large part divorced from sex, and more about bringing the boy into adulthood.
Anyway, what you stated wrt how we define pedophilia today is precisely the point I was making earlier, that there is a difference between how we define pedophilia today and what the Romans practiced. They would not call it pedophilia if they used the modern definition, because that was not the purpose of what occurred back then, nor was it the intent.
It's often said today that introducing a child to sports, or getting their first car, or graduating, are parts of moving into adulthood. That is how the romans viewed their sexual interactions with their proteges. It was built as passage into adulthood, not pedophilia.
As I said before, there is a very succinct distinction.
Legion said:
No one has said that there was no teaching of sexual interactions in the past Legion. Everyone is saying that you don't have to be taught in order to have sex. The species will survive, and has survived, without teaching the birds and the bees. If you notice, only prepubescent kids ask about the birds and the bees. Pubescents just do it.
If you place opposite sex heterosexuals, or same sex homosexuals, on an island as children and they survive to puberty, they will be drawn to one another simply as a matter of their sexual awakening at puberty. They find out that genital stimulation is very pleasurable and find ways of enabling that. One leads to another basically. I had never had sex when I entered puberty, but I certainly knew that I wanted to be "closer" to other boys, feelings that I had never experienced before.
Legion said:
It still exists as instinct Legion. We still have the lower brain structures that control aspects of our physiology and pysche that we don't think about on a conscious level.
Legion said:
Legion, intelligence doesn't destroy instinct. It's merely another layer on top of it, to filter it. Sexual Instinct and the drive to act on that instinct exists in all of us, no matter how highly evolved we are.
You want to have sex do you not? Can you make a decision whether to procreate? Certainly. But you still do at your core want to sexually interact with others no?
I'm homosexual, but I certainly want to have children before I leave this earth. That is something that is very dear to me not because of any intellectual feeling, but simply something I feel deep down, as deeply as I feel my homosexuality. The "reason" aspect comes into play where I can decide whether or not to have sex with a woman or use technology as a means to an end.
Legion said:
Legion, everything we do is colored by our own experiences and perceptions. When did you become sexually aware? There's nothing tainted about entering puberty and experiencing the sexual awakening that every other human being experiences where they go "Oooooh" when looking at someone else in a way that they've never done so before. Puberty is something we all go through.
Legion said:
1) I was never molested.
2) I was never abused.
3) I never had any contact with homosexuals. I was pretty sheltered actually.
4) I grew up in a deeply religious family.
The first three are usually the first "oh that's why you're gay" reasons many anti-gay people give. However I certainly don't fit that bill. My boyfriend was never molested, abused, or in contact with homosexuals, yet he's even more "gay" than I am.
In one of the first threads I responded in over a year ago, Vince swore up and down that he knew I had been molested or that "something" had happened to me because then I wouldn't be gay.
You can come up with whatever "reason" you think would "do this" Legion, but you're really just grasping at straws. I have been gay as long as I can remember.
Legion said:
The major difference between heterosexual boys and homosexual boys during childhood is what happens after puberty. Heterosexual and Homosexual boys both make strong friendships and bonds with their same sex friends during pre-pubescent age. Heterosexual boys however imprint sexually on girls, while homosexual boys imprint sexually on boys, once puberty hits.
Legion said:
The definition of bisexuality is the ability to have sex with either gender and enjoy it Legion. There would be no "choice" for you to make. You have access to 100% of the population and thus you can choose who you want to have sex with on any given day, but that is the nature of bisexuality. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are patently different.
Natoma this is rather lame. Their realizations are mainly subjected to cultural perceptions of homosexuality.
Again you haven't proven predisposition. You have just provided a rendition of your life story as some justification for your preconceived notion. Rather circular logic.
At rather constant rate? Natoma how could you possibly know this? Please provide to figures demonstrating homosexuality in all populations in terms of constant percentages. Pedophiles along with other sexual deviants have existed just as long i'd wager as any of our conceptions of hetero/homosexuality. Yet you do not consider pedophilia to be predispositioned...
And as i did in my other post i reject your supposed basis of determining authenticity of the relationship. All relationships involve control. Its completely irrelevant to the topic of the dicussion.
This is irrelevant. We outlaw them for enviromental reasons (reason i might add take human cognition to be determined). This has nothing to do with the possibility said behaviors being genetically predispositioned.
You appear to be making a highly subjective argument with the intention of stating the human mind decides what can be considered true forms of sexuality. I think, if you reflected on what you were saying, you'd realize this.
Thank you for admitting this. Many of them do infact turn to homosexuality when malested at young ages. This is an obvious choice which comes as a response to an enviromental stimulus.
Natoma, this is jsut flat out wrong. Many homosexuals who were malested in the past have been determined to have had malestation as the determining factor which lead them to their later sexual choices. I would say yes, their orientation did change.
Aside from this the APA has conducted research, which i have presented to you in the past demonstrating people, under therapy can change their sexual orientation.
ah, so you are judging the validity of relationships by your own experiences?
So you admitt sadomasochism is a form of sexual expression just as i have stated? You have in your own speach, refered to it as a relationship.
Whether is mutually agreed apon is irrelevant. Control is apart of the sexual experience of it. You can't have relationships without control. There has to be some terms on which you reside, ergo controls.
Of course not. They considered it natural behavior much like you consider homosexuality to be. The same rules that apply to your argument concerning sexual predisposition ultimately appeal to pedophilia as well. Whether they called having sex with children pedophilia or not is moot. The fact remains that is what they were doing.
I was trying to point out to you that this is a moot point. The matter we are discussing is if genes or hormones can decide the object of your sexual affection why can't it assign children as the object as well as men or women.
It is true that not all people suffer from the issues of malestation in the same way. However, there is mounting evidence that childhood malestation has been the determing factor to many's homosexuality.
I highly doubt this and am wondering why you don't either. This comes from the same logic a preist must sleep with your fiance for your relation to work prior to marriage.
Do you really think all families practiced this or for that matter it was in the majority as a culturally understood norm? I highly doubt this.
THe difference is inherently moot as i describe pedophilia as having sex with children, as it is defined. Stating that Roman societies held a belief that what they were doing was for the child's best interest hardly encompasses the depth of the sexual behavior. Needless to say i feel it was as much bullshit then as religious stipulations on sex are now. They re simply ways of promotting the perversion as an attempt to normalize it.
Again, you can't possibly know what they were thinking. However, i can tell you, as a student of history, many of these enforced sexual ideologies were nothing more than ways by which the behavior could be normalized.
You are wrong though.
Natoma, that is not what was implied. What was implied was that people would obtain the knowledge of having sex without having to be taught.
The species will survive, and has survived, without teaching the birds and the bees. If you notice, only prepubescent kids ask about the birds and the bees. Pubescents just do it.
You haven't support this assertion anywhere. Repeating won't justify it.
You state humanity has existed without teaching the birds and the bees but you haven't provided an example of a society which hasn't taught their children the ways of the world.
I have major problems with how you have written this statement. I am not sure you are meaning to be vague or not but simply discovery of sexual organs and the pleasures of masturbation would more than likely lead to sexual interactions.
I think it would be good at this time to refer to studies done on ferel children.
Of course they do. This is an example of enviromental stimulus. They learn through exploration, not genetic predisposition these things occur. Infact in the infantile period of human developement children ingage in masterbation apon discovering it gives them pleasure. I have used this same argument in defense of my position now you are trying to use it in defense of yours...oh the irony
In any affect i am glad we agree and you no longer perceive my position as bollucks.
Prove it.
We still have many vestages, they are just for show (tail bone, appendix). This hardly reinforces your argument and should be considered a rather weak debating strategy for you to take. Your argument that humans are affected by instincts comes to me as rather dubious. Since the definition of instinct is a species oriented behavior which can not be altered or changed i'd say your perception of what is instinct is a matter worth debating itself.
Indeed it does. The two can't well coexist. This wasn't even my argument though.
What i stated was that as time progressed the species grew more away from instincts and more to intelligence. This is evident the diversity of human behavior which can not possibly be described as reflections of genetic predisposition. Take for instance the debate we are having now...
You opinion is noted though obviously not fact. You do not know to what degree instincts affect your behavior nor do psychologists agree. Your argument thus far seems to be a throw back to an era of more primitive thinking in psychology.
Wants are not instincts.
I want to have a Radeon 9800 XT, does that mean i have an instinct to obtain one? Of course not. Again an instinct can not be changed or altered. If so it would cease to be an instinct.
Here is the more scientific definition of instinct:
Here is the definition you are using:
The two are not the same thing.
Again i want the Creative Gigaworks 750. Do i have an instinct which forces me to obtain one inresponse to enviromental stimuli?
Just like how christians know god exists because they feel him deep down inside...Please do not resort to pathos arguments thinking you are making anything but an emotion plee outside of reason.
I am tempted to cut this out as its inherently irrelevant but i will respond just one more time to this accussation
I am bisexual, i choose to be bisexual. If you choose to use your experiences as evidence then i will use mine as counter evidence reducing this debate to a meaningless stalemate.
Natoma, the experience argument is bunk. You know. I know it. It i took what you were saying as evidence of your argument i might as well accept christian testinomy as evidence of God and miracles. They know, by golly, they experience God! Who is to disagree with such undeniable evidence?
I will not reflect on this material as i have no way of gauging your experiences, your reactions, your understandings etc.
Again, your argument is identical to the christian use of testinomy in the defense of the existance of God.
And you can come up with whatever reason for why your were predispositioned to be gay...and be grasping at straws.
Of course the argument for your enviromental influence would be grasping at straws. We have no way of meassuring your life experiences. This is a logically fallacy and by no means reinforces your argument.
You can not hope to prove this. Your use of subjective material can not allow you to come to any verifiable conclusions. You are merely refering to your own "experience" to contrive an explanation.
As i was raised and taught homosexuality in any form is a damnable offense it was indeed a choice to persue sex from men. Stop trying to playing with definitions of words in order to escape explaining my choice to be sexually attracted to men and women. You are dodging.
Come now, now this is a strawman. I was raised to be hetereosexual. I made cognative choices to bisexual. There is nothing patently different about the behaviors, there are just different in there forms.
Legion said:
Cultural perceptions, i.e. stereotypes, are in large part based on truth Legion. The bad that comes from it when people try and paint an entire segment of society based on a tiny sliver of experience.
Legion said:
My life story. My boyfriend's life story. Other gay friends life stories. Many have a common denominator. The parents and other family members "knew" that person would be gay. Whether or not they admitted it to themselves is another story.
Legion said:
You're not reading again. I said as far as we know, the rate of homosexuality in the human population has been constant. Based on what we know, that prevalence cannot be explained by mutation.
Legion said:
Sigh. I thought you would have rightfully concluded that "control" is that which is not mutual, i.e. forced. Why would I talk about rapists, prison homosexuality, and pedophilia in the same breath? Because they are forced sexual acts
Legion said:
We outlaw them because they are not mutually agreed upon. We do not believe an animal can make a decision to have sex with a human. We do not believe a child can make a sexual decision to have sex with an adult. And we certainly know that those who charge "rape" did not want that sexual encounter forced upon them.
If you notice, sexual encounters that are mutually agreed upon are not illegal in our society. Sadomasochism is the most obvious example of this.
Legion said:
There was nothing to admit. It's an obvious conclusion that something that violating would change your perspective on things. Look, you're always asking for "proof" about other people's assertions. I want proof of your statement that many of those who are molested as children magically become homosexual. From what I've seen, especially in public cases such as priest abuse, that was certainly not the case. And in cases of rape, that is certainly not the case either.
So please, enlighten me on this regard.
Legion said:
Back it up with what and where please?
Legion said:
Can they change their behavior? Yes. Is that changing sexual orientation? No. I can change my behavior tomorrow and become the straightest of the straight men you'd ever know. Would I still be sexually oriented toward men? Yes.
Legion said:
No just making a sarcastic comment about your alluding "control" in a relationship as no different than that expressed in rape or pedophilia.
Legion said:
I never argued that sadomasochism wasn't a form of sexual expression.
Legion said:
There is an obvious difference between the control exerted upon someone by a rapist or a sexual molester, and the mutually agreed upon give and take in a healthy relationship Legion. Sadomasochism is indeed healthy in a relationship as long as both parties agree and enjoy it. If one party forces another into sadomasochism then a crime has been committed.
Have you ever had a successful relationship? I don't ask that condescendingly or sarcastically. I'm just shocked that you could equate a healthy relationship in any way to forced sex.
Legion said:
There are different connotations with it Legion. Much is made of pedophilia today as an abuse of the child. In that society, it would have not been taught as such.
Legion said:
That wasn't the point I am discussing with you.
Is that what you're discussing with zidane1strafe? Certainly not me as I haven't made any statement on that matter in the first place. But since you ask, I think sexual arousal of the child form is certainly possible, but most accepted forms of molestation/pedophilia are about forced sexual control and power, just as rape is about the forced sex, and not the actual sexual act.
Legion said:
I simply do not understand why you continue to try and equate what happened in Roman society with what goes on in our society in the same terms.
As for this "mounting evidence", please provide some. If that were the case, homosexuals would be a growing population, and I don't think you'll find evidence of that anywhere.
Legion said:
Actually yes, it was a culturally understood norm. I learned about this activity in Roman culture in AP European History in text books.
It was as accepted in Roman culture as the bequeathing of pubescent girls to males much older than themselves, or pre-arranged marriages whereby the participants would be married as soon as they were born.
It was just another part of society.
Legion said:
Who are you to say what one culture does is right or wrong? I don't agree with bequeathing a child girl to an adult man as some cultures do today, but that doesn't mean it's perversion or that it isn't normalized. You should watch how you categorize things you don't agree with.
Legion said:
The society as a whole condoned and participated in those activities Legion. As I said just above, you should watch how you categorize them.
Legion said:
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Natoma said:
My gosh man!
While this argument is nolonger Biological in nature, I'll still comment just because.
Psychology defined a Behavor as an "aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation." If we do away with any fairytale of a mind-brain duality, we could reduce the problem to one of dynamically assigning (by whatever mechanic) a given output per stimuli recieved - this output is manifested in a person's Behavor.
So, if you truely changed your behavor - by definition you would have changed your responce to a given input at a more fundimental level. What you're doing in this case is mimicing a fundimental change and then proclaiming, "Hey, look! I still like guys!"
Just because an American kid adopts the mannerisms and idiosyncrasies of, say, an Italian Mafia Boss - doesn't make him one. Similarly, there is no information construct in the genome that I've seen which dicates someone as a Mob Boss - but it's something you grow into because of the enviroment and mentality which surrounds you since the sperm and egg did their thing.
What you're doing - pretty god damn often to boot - is playing off fallicious arguments rooted in pseudo-semantic games and blatent inaccurancies such as this to give the illusion of a counter argument.
The 'outspoken' 50% said:
I'm not stating this as a true argument or counter-point, but I wonder about this. For example, it's pretty clear to myself that pop culture has been breeding a sub-group of the current adolescent female demographic into believing that bisexuality is acceptable at any age.
Now, while I have no problem with bisexuals of either gender myself, I can't help but feel that the media and entertainment sectors have really hyperinflated the concept into the mainstream at a younger age.
Legion said:
:?
I just said that everyone is saying you don't have to be taught in order to have sex. Two beings that are sexually attracted to one another will sexually interact with one another and figure it out. But no one has implied that there wasn't some form of sexual education in our history. You've been saying that animals have to have that in order to procreate when there is proof in practically every species to the contrary.
Legion said:The species will survive, and has survived, without teaching the birds and the bees. If you notice, only prepubescent kids ask about the birds and the bees. Pubescents just do it.
You haven't support this assertion anywhere. Repeating won't justify it.
You state humanity has existed without teaching the birds and the bees but you haven't provided an example of a society which hasn't taught their children the ways of the world.
All species have existed without teaching sex at some point Legion. How do spiders know how to procreate? How do Lions know how to procreate? How do butterflies that migrate thousands of miles know where to go and how to procreate? They certainly aren't taught by their parents and the society around them.
Human beings haven't always lived in societies. There was a time when our ancestors, if you believe in evolution and not creation, were completely instinctual.
Legion said:
And when do people generally start masturbating and interacting sexually with one another? After they enter puberty.
Legion said:
Do you have any?
Legion said:
Of course they do. This is an example of enviromental stimulus. They learn through exploration, not genetic predisposition these things occur. Infact in the infantile period of human developement children ingage in masterbation apon discovering it gives them pleasure. I have used this same argument in defense of my position now you are trying to use it in defense of yours...oh the irony
In any affect i am glad we agree and you no longer perceive my position as bollucks.
Legion, the majority of people do not engage in masturbation or other sexual stimulation until they're in puberty. The point I was making before you split up the two paragraphs is that children enter puberty. They begin masturbating and interacting sexually with one another. Sex will happen between them anyways if they're sexually aroused by one another.
I don't agree with your position that they wouldn't know what to do and would never sexually engage because they haven't been taught what to do by society.
Legion said:
Sigh. Let's take this step by step Legion.
1) Did humanity always exist in societies like today? No.
2) Has humanity been procreating since the beginning of our species? Yes.
3) Do "lower" animals such as spiders, crocodiles, butterflies, lions, whales, sharks, et al procreate and go through extensive sexual rituals for the purpose of procreation without ever teaching their progeny how to do it? Yes.
How else do you explain this constancy through all species on this planet whether they have a society or not?
Legion said:
Uhm, the hypothalamus, thalamus, brain stem, and other "primitive" parts of our brain are far more than just vestiges Legion.
Legion said:
Sex is the instinct Legion. As I've said before in other discussions. Sex itself is genetically linked. How that gets expressed is dependent on many different factors.
Instinct does indeed coexist with Intelligence. Sex (lust) and Hunger are both instincts that are handled by the primitive portions of our brain, for instance. We can decide when we want to have sex because we are not completely beholden to our instincts as lower animals are. But we are strongly influenced by those instincts.
Legion said:
It is a fact that our intelligence, our capacity for intelligence, is a filter of our instinct. I never said to what degree that occurs. I just said our intelligence is a layer on top of it.
Legion said:
They arise from the instinctual part of our brain Legion.
Legion said:
They are indeed very much the same. Every human being is born with a sexual instinct. That motivation or impulse, that inborn pattern of behavior of all human beings to be sexually active, activates during puberty. Most people speak of it as becoming sexually aware when they hit puberty. You're just reading the definitions incorrectly.
Legion said:
You get hungry and want food. Does anything in the environment tell you that you need to eat, or does your body just let you know and you know that you have to get something, anything?
You're making all of these allusions when they're not pertinent at all to this discussion.
Legion said:
There have been a few studies chronicled in TIME and Newsweek last year that show that Meditation, irregardless of Religious affiliation, changes brain chemistry and has a calming effect on the human body.
Christians 'feel' that sensation as God. Muslims 'feel' that sensation as Allah. Yogis 'feel' that sensation as inner self, or whatever. There is a very strong biological component to this.
Legion said:
Simply because you derive sexual pleasure from both men and women doesn't mean that everyone else can choose either sex equally. I can't choose to derive sexual pleasure from women anymore than any of the heterosexuals here can choose to derive sexual pleasure from the same sex.
Bisexuality in and of itself is not the end all be all of sexual choice. Not everyone is aroused by both sexes and can choose whoever they please.
Legion said:
As I've said earlier, there is a proven biological component to religious belief.
Legion said:
There is one irrefutable aspect regarding homosexuality Legion. It exists in every species that we have documented. It is not a human only activity in any way shape or form that is determinate on environmental influences such as being molested or whatever.
In every case of homosexuality, there are different environmental circumstances. Not every homosexual has been molested just as not every heterosexual has been molested. Not every homosexual has been abused just like not every heterosexual has been abused. If you take away environmental factors and go to the lowest common denominator inherent to everyone for our sexuality, it is our DNA.
Legion said:
I'm actually not referring to any experience wrt this. I learned about this in the Human Sexual Response portion of Psychology 110 in college.
Legion said:
You can't choose who you're aroused by. Either you get a woody in your pants looking at a chick or you don't. Either you get a woody in your pants looking at a guy or you don't.
If people could choose their sexuality there wouldn't be any homosexuals in this world. Why? It just isn't worth it to deal with all the societal problems that come with being homosexual.
You can choose who you want to have sex with because you are bisexual. I am not bisexual. I am not sexually oriented towards women. I am only sexually oriented toward men. You obviously have it both ways. Most people do not.
Legion said:
So you just woke up one morning and decided that you would be aroused by men? Right.....
