Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #321
I never said that homosexuality was unnatural in the sense that it is not observed in nature. I was simply trying to get across my belief that it is not a normal human characteristic, but rather a genetic "disorder" of sorts.
the entire issue is a very multifaceted affair that cannot be explained with a simple paragraph or two. There are surely several conditions that can cause homosexual or bisexual behaviors, but the similarities they share with other genetic abnormalities cannot be ignored.
Also, a homosexual cannot naturally reproduce. Surrogacy is not a natural occurance in the same way that radiation treatment is not a natural treatment for cancer (though I'm not at all trying to say that the two are related somehow, please don't get upset), and, while one may be physically able to reproduce, the mental aspect doesn't fall into line with normal homosexual behavior. Sure, a homosexual could reproduce with the opposite sex, but that's not homosexual behavior.
my avatar suits me right now. That's about the face I'm making whenever I'm posting in Mass Debate.
-
-
What similarities could you possibly be talking about? Homosexuality is as much of a disorder as being left handed is. I agree LGBT cannot reproduce naturally, but that is the only visible side effect I can perceive. Care to describe any others?
-
I flirt with Homophobes.
(User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))
-
What? A gay person can still do it with a woman and still have children. Just because they'd prefer not to, doesn't mean they can't if they put their mind to it.
-
But it isn't a homosexual tendency. I could jump off a cliff and flap my arms in the air really hard in a vain attempt to fly if I really wanted to, but it's not a a normal human tendency.
-
You didn't address my last comment.
-
Given the current society we live in, "natural human characteristics" are pretty irrelevant. Case in point, people with vision difficulties - they can nip down to Specsavers and get some glasses, rather than being eaten by lions on the savannah. Homosexuality doesn't impact the ability of the individual to function in society. Whether or not an individual can naturally reproduce is at this point immaterial, as we are post natural.
What similarities do you feel homosexuality shares with genetic disorders?
Edited:
Having sex with someone of the opposite gender due to sexual desire is not a homosexual tendency. Having sex with someone of the opposite gender that you don't find attractive specifically to impregnate/get pregnant could be a homosexual tendency. Humans are complicated social creatures and it's not uncommon for people to use sex as a bargaining tool to obtain resources - e.g. a poor woman having sex with a wealthy man she finds unattractive so she may obtain the status of a kept woman. Other primates have been observed using sex as a bargaining tool in this manner; 75% of bonobo sex is non-reproductive (bonobos being an entirely bisexual species) and some experts have observed bonobos using sex to resolve conflict.
Hence, having sex with someone you find unattractive to exploit the situation/resources could be a human trait. Allegedly this sort of thing would go on in Sparta, with men taking wives specifically to have children, and the woman shaving her head and making herself look as masculine as possible on the wedding night.
-
You mean incredibly difficult for humans to understand at this stage in our existence. Never mind the whole UFO thing; I don't want this thread to go off-topic.
In any case, my statement still stands. The majority of a person's personality, behavior, etc. is determined by who/what they were around. That's proven. I understand that there are personality disorders that are based on genes, but that doesn't mean that being homosexual is the same way (even though I do believe nature is the major cause of homosexuality). I also understand there are different stages in a child's development. For example, the social relationships stage begins at age twelve and ends at age eighteen. This could explain why people realize they are gay in this stage seeing as how you are figuring out who you are in this stage. Again, I bring up the badly raised child as an example to support my statement:
It's been proven that if you are raised in an abusive environment, you have a high chance of becoming abusive yourself. This obviously isn't always the case seeing as how some abused children end up being quite successful. But those children who ended up not being abusive must have had some sort of support to keep them from becoming abusive. See how that works? Now switch that situation around with sexual orientation:
If you have gay parents and were adopted at a young age, and you don't see much of society (because society is heterosexually based), and you are around your parents more than anything else, you will end up homosexual. Why? Again, because that's what the norm is to you. You've seen love in a homosexual way for the good majority of your life. Now if all these things were the exact opposite, you would not be homosexual because you have seen heterosexual love as the norm instead of homosexual love. That is, unless you were born gay due to nature and nurture wasn't involved whatsoever. Obviously, becoming homosexual in this fashion is not nearly as common seeing as how most children will observe a heterosexual society.
-
Jesus christ, are you seriously still arguing that something is "proven" after we've shown that you are in fact wrong, and that most of science disagrees with you?
-
You continue to make posts based off of nothing but personal opinion that you tout as logic and fact. I'd like to also point out that in the case of an abusive parent, you have no reason to believe that a good role model must be present in order to have a non-abusive child.
Edited:
I'm not going to reply to any more posts like these; you have essentially said the same false statement many times over in an attempt to make us believe you through repetition.
-
Ask anyone who is gay if they have gay parents, and more than likely they'll say no.
deaded38, I don't' see where you are going with that point of view
You don't have to see homosexual things to become gay.
-
To add on to this, seeing homosexual things doesn't make you gay, either.
-
Uhh... how have you proven anything contrary to what I've said? You have said that there are personality disorders that are linked to genes, but even then, the same personality disorders can also be due to nurture.
And again, science isn't the ONLY form of logic. Stop thinking that way, it's ignorant as all hell.
Edited:
You do that. My statements are not false, just reinforced differently than what most people prefer. I'm sorry that I forgot that you're one of those people that believe in purely scientific reasoning and any other form of logic is "bullshit". I'll try and remember that next time I say something to you.
Edited:
Of course you don't. Becoming gay can be purely biological as well.
-
You mean as a disorder or genetic mutation/defect right? Because it's not possible through genes.
-
That doesn't make any sense... what we are attracted to is in ingrained in our minds not some kind of limb.
I sincerely think it's not a mutation or defect since (even if they don't admit it) 1 out of 10 people (or more) have homosexual tendencies.
I'd like to think that our genetic makeup isn't that prone to "mutation."
Also saying it isn't possible through genes with one very non descriptive sentence doesn't help the debate and shows homophobia.
-
High school biology.
-
I'm not sure what causes homosexuality biologically. I assume it's not genes seeing as how all the sources posted were pointing towards other biological factors.
Edited:
How is what he said homophobic whatsoever? I didn't see anything in his post even hinting that he dislikes homosexuals...
Are you one of those people that think because a person says something you disagree with regarding the topic of homosexuality, it instantly makes that person homophobic?
-
Excuse format issues, I'm on my iPod.
Proven how? I grew up in an abusive household, but I couldn't hurt a fly.
Stop posting stupid shit if you can't prove it. I'm sick of you.
Edited:
I didn't really know what homosexuality was until I was like 11 or 12. I still remember feeling weird because all my friends looked at girls whilst I was completely uninterested.
-
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that only seeing gay people will result in you becoming gay. The evidence really points in the opposite direction since most gay people have heterosexual parents and were probably not exposed to homosexuality until they were older, so it's not unreasonable to assume that sexual orientation is mainly influenced in the womb.
Although I question you definitions of logic and science ("There's other forms of logic than science" - wtf does this mean? Science isn't logic, science is researching things using a empirical and logical approach) and disagree with your idea that being raised in an exclusively homosexual environment would make you turn gay, I think we're on the same page. The evidence seems to suggest a large genetic component but like most behavioural traits, there's probably a confluence of different factors at play.
Edited:
You might like to think that, but you'd be wrong. Cancer is caused by a cascade of mutations - when a cell replicates its DNA slightly wrong, it can grow out of control because genes that are supposed to stop it growing out of control stop working and genes that tell it to grow get overexpressed. Your immune system can recognise this and deal with the cells - tumours can only really grow when several mutations occur to the DNA and disguise the cells. These mutations - caused by changing the genetic code, either by skipping over one of the letters, adding in another letter or just changing one of the letters -also happen to other cells with different results, including the cells that make sperm or egg cells. As a result you can inherit mutations.
Genetic variation is a direct result of gene mutation; people with blue eyes have mutated genes that underproduce melanin in part of the iris, meaning the light scatters through it differently and looks blue. But we don't call those mutant genes, we call them "alleles" because all the different versions of genes are mutants. People with light skin have different skin genes to people with dark skin.
However, the genes associated with homosexuality probably have more to do with inheriting several genes in the right combination and having the genes expressed.
Edited:
He's not saying everyone who grows up in an abusive home will be abusive, or that only people who've grown up in abusive homes will be abusive. The research generally shows that if you've been abused, you're more likely to become abusive than if you've not been abused. Similarly, if there's someone being abusive, they're more likely to have been abused in some manner than the average person on the street.
There are some psychological conditions that can arise from abuse in childhood, which manifest as decreased empathy (being able to tell what people are feeling, or how people would feel in a situation) or increased aggression.
Put it this way, if a young person takes a lot of drugs it can affect how their brain develops - it can rewire their brain so they're more impulsive or less able to judge the long term effects of actions. When you're abused, your brain squirts out a bunch of different chemicals to deal with the stress, and these chemicals can have similar effects on brain development as the drugs. It's not a case of "If you're abused, you will be abusive" but more "If you're abused, you're more likely to be put through neurochemical situations that will change how your brain develops".
-
I don't recall ever talking about homosexuals in high school biology.
-
^That is the high school biology he's talking about.
-
I know what a mutation is... but mutation involves some kind of physical fuck up
Mutation in someone's attraction? That is the part that doesn't make sense to me.
Everyone has different tastes in what they like to get off to, some people like not so attractive fat people... some like big boobs on a girl or barely anything their... all kinds of different things that could go on and on and on with
Just because you are attracted to something not everybody likes doesn't make you a defective/mutated person.
1/10 = 700,000,000 'mutated' 'defective' people... The ratio is most likely higher than that but you can't really tell for sure since people don't like discussing what they get off too to random studies.
Of course no one can prove what the real ratio is, but it's just a rough estimate thrown out their several hundred billion times, so I'm sticking with it.
-
"We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
April 2007
6,864 Posts
It is important for people to realize that even if homosexuality is not caused by genetics, it does not at all imply that it is a choice. Factors in a child's environment within the the first three years of their life has a tremendous impact on their life. The human brain is capable and does typically adapt to any environment, and this adaptation primarily takes place in the first three years. This process even takes place in the womb. To go further with this, many genes turn off and on in response to environmental stimuli, meaning that it is quite likely that a certain upbringing might turn on a gene, while another might not. For example, there is a certain gene that is correlated with violent crimes. What is interesting is that this correlation is only prevalent among those with abusive childhoods. The conclusion from this observation is quite reasonable as when the brain was in the stages of forming during childhood, it structured itself in a way to deal with an environment of violence and aggression.
Whether homosexuality is purely genetic in that there is no on or off switch in regards to environment, or if there is, or if it is purely environmental, or some combination, it is important to realize that genetic or environmental factors when extremely young can't be claimed to be a choice.
I am open as to the ability for people to make a choice to take part in homosexual activities despite having no disposition for doing so. It is not as though that a straight person has anything stopping them from taking part in homosexual relationships, just as a homosexual person has nothing stopping them from taking part in straight relationships. It is quite possible for someone who should not be homosexual to be attracted to the same sex to take part in same sex sex and enjoy it. By some definition this would be considered a "choice", but so what?
What would it mean if all homosexuals chose to be homosexual? Should this affect your opinion of them, how they should be treated or perceived? Hopefully it should not. Sexuality is certainly an extremely interesting topic, but it is important to realize that whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant to whether it is ok to be gay.
-
That is false. Mutations do not require a physical fuck up. Most mutations do not have a visible effect because they occur in one of the regions of DNA that do not code for anything.
-
Well the point I'm trying to make is that I feel that the amount of people who have homosexual tendencies is too high to be considered some kind of defect or determined by a 'gene.'
edit: Mutations of such similarities happening so often is very unlikely
-
Your posts reflect a poor understanding of biology; you should refrain from discussing anything genetic until you take a few more classes.
-
You are missing my point
Besides, I shall not have to have a PhD in biology to discuss whether or not being gay is a choice/mutation/etc
Edited:
Also, being gay doesn't have to be a gene or choice or any kind of malfunction of sorts... studies haven't shown anything significant in the 'gene' area and it's pretty damn obvious people dont' choose to be attracted to the same-sex
A quote I read somewhere was something like this that sums it up pretty well
"It's neither a malfunction or choice, it's simply a variation in theme"
Everyone has their own tastes in things such as grown men watching a kid's show called My Little Pony or grown men getting plastered on the weekend after rocking hard at a strip club
That doesn't really have any relevance but it's a forum board and I'm spewing my mind ^^
-
its hormones and chemicals n shit that fuck up their brains n crap and make them gender bendered
-
Ummm...Those all look like bad chemicals for when a mother is expecting a child or raising one. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Ok. So getting plastered on a weekend and watching shows is not a choice, but a "variation in theme"? Explain this and why its different from choosing to do something. It is relevant though since you are trying to add a new variable into our debate by using a quote I think has nothing to do with this.
-
Obviously you had some sort of support to not be abusive.
If you say you didn't have any support to not become abusive, you're lying. The only counter-argument you could possibly use is saying that biological factors made you not abusive. And are you seriously going to say that?
Edited:
Of course most gay children have heterosexual parents - which reinforces my statement that the majority of gay children become gay at birth. But this doesn't mean that there isn't a minor percentage of homosexuals that become gay due to conditioning. As for evidence to support this, I know there are a few famous theorists that are majorly accepted in the field of psychology that state that a child's personality is almost exclusively formed based on the people and things they were around. I don't see how you can possibly deny this seeing as how children are obviously not born with a personality. That is, unless they have a personality disorder (which even then the majority of personality disorders can be conditioned to a child as well).
You said it yourself when you explained the abused child example. Being raised in an abusive environment raises the odds of the abused child to become abusive. The same can be said for sexual orientation, just in a different way.
-
I said that part wasn't relevant... and I explained in other posts what I mean
People saying it's a defect or choice just allows people further into their homophobic bubble.
-
Reading the entire thread, you keep changing on your beliefs. Earlier you stated that seeing more homosexual events than heterosexual would make the child gay because that's all they've seen, which is further compounded by
What ARE you trying to say?
Added more, other people have posted proper evidence backed with tons of research in opposition of you, and you post evidence that you barely scratched up as your evidence that you even admitted to.
If you want a solid argument, you need to actually research the evidence you are posting in the future instead of telling others to go find it. That gets nothing done and really isn't debating.
As for me, I believe that homosexuality is a combination of factors, many of which have been debated endlessly and is likely to continue until it's just completely flame induced posts. I really doubt it would just be one factor, as everyone is different and acts different. If it was dependent on one factor, we wouldn't have people on varying degrees on bisexuality and trans-sexuality.
If this post seems harsh, I'm just trying to help him have a proper counter argument, because right now I see none at all. In no way at all am I trying to flame anyone here.
-
I don't think it's a defect at all, but that it can be a major influenced choice in some cases. There is no homophobic bubble though. It's a step into progressive advances in our society and we need people to be educated on what's what so prejudice doesn't happen to these types of subjects.
-
His reasoning is that he doesn't claim that only nurture results in homosexuality. He claims that his nurture argument is correct, and when it isn't, biologic factors are the cause. Seems rather convenient.
-
Jesus... I'm not "changing" my beliefs. You need to read closer. I'm not the best at explaining things, but seriously.
Also, the "proper" evidence they posted is a bunch of shit. If that research is so true, then we might as well just forget everything we know about human behavior (which it appears to me, you guys don't know anything about human behavior anyway).
-
What? Fuck, yes he's correct in saying that you don't need support to not be abusive. I don't give a shit that this is ad hominem, but holy shit you have no fucking idea at all what you are talking about do you? You seem to keep spouting the same, constantly counter-argued, argument in this thread, Are you purposefully being a moron or was this a "environmental factor" for you? Christ.
People who are raised by abusive parents, and have no support from others do not necessarily become abusive themselves. People are inclined to certain behaviours, which can be effected by how they were raised. But that doesn't mean that the effect of this will make them abusive. Some people with abusive parents and upbringings will resent this, and try to avoid doing it because of how they felt during their upbringing. Others will latch onto it and continue it because the upbringing took their sense of empathy away.
Fuck. Did you seriously just call someone out for lying, then post the dumbest shit I'm pretty sure I've ever read in this section as a counter argument? Just leave, you aren't fit for arguing in this thread as you've proven.
-
"I'm right. If I'm not, I'm going to make wild claims without support against other arguments and exaggerate."
-
I wouldn't call it a choice but that wouldn't make it completely genetics. Most of are actions are both genes and environment so it would be some form of combination of both.
-
I share this opinion with you. Some one is either attracted to some of the same gender or isnt. That being said, there are still lots of people who are attracted but still choose to be straight.
-
Yeah fuck science and research. Seriously all the research that has been done with professionals disagree with every point youre making.
