Debate: Sexuality: Natured or nurtured?

[hesaidhesaid]

Simple question. Is sexuality choice given to us before we are even born or influenced by the people we meet? Is it given by any G-d as a challenge for our lives (either on purpose or by accident)?

[Vlerchan]

Other: Epigenetic.

[sqishy]

Mostly 'natured'. I think it is more than just that though, lots goes on. It is complex, like all things psychological/related are.

[lliam]

Simple question. Is sexuality choice given to us before we are even born or influenced by the people we meet? Is it given by any G-d as a challenge for our lives (either on purpose or by accident)?


Do you examine a purely physical process from an imaginary meta-level?

I would say that we've no choice when it comes to choose our own sex ... at least not before we are born.

[Judean Zealot]

SCIENCE! has yet to deliver a verdict, but of course you can get stoned for mentioning the possibility of either way, depending on where you are. It seems pretty intuitive to me that it's a combination of the two, but the exact ratio is unknown.

Not that I think the question has any bearing on the overarching discussion on homosexual sex.

And OP, everything is a challenge from God to assist us in self-improvement:
Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. (Proverbs 30:9)

[northy]

Any person who isn't straight will tell you that it isn't a choice. I was born that way.

[Babs]

Why should I care? I fail to see why it matters whether or not it's a choice. I don't think it makes a difference, and I don't give a shit.

That said, I don't think it's a choice.

[Jinglebottom]

Oh, how I wish it was a choice...

[Judean Zealot]

Any person who isn't straight will tell you that it isn't a choice. I was born that way.

Not necessarily true. I know a homosexual guy pretty well who firmly believes that the all-boys school he went to brought out that aspect of himself. So many elements of our sexualities are defined and developed based on our environment, and only someone with a political axe to grind will deny that. That doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic aspect to homosexuality, that is highly probable as well.

Edit: that still may not be a choice, but I guess the point is that I don't see why ruling out social causes poses any sort of problem for defenders of homosexuality, nor how it's grounded in truth.

[phuckphace]

both, but it's a pointless debate I think. millennials are really really antsing for SCIENCE! to pull out some proof of a gay gene because they think nature = identity = positive good. wrong.

the existence of a gay gene or some other involuntary factor behind sexuality doesn't therefore mean that expression of this sexuality is always good or acceptable everywhere in all cases. there's definitely a genetic component to Down syndrome, but having the Downs is pretty awful as anyone who's been near a Downie can attest.

as a degenerate homo who didn't choose his sexuality, I'm perfectly willing to accept limitations on this expression for several reasons. while I don't think there's any validity behind "gay conversion therapy" which probably harms more than it helps, I also don't feel entitled to wave my schlong in people's faces because IT'S JUST THE WAY I AM. I think a lot of what bigots object to isn't so much the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, but rather the behavior of many homosexuals who've been sold a bill of goods by the social liberal krew and thus believe anything they do no matter how degenerate is fair game.

it's one thing to say "Dad, I'm gay" and then go on about your life and the duties you owe your society as a benefiting member, but it's entirely another to marry some lisping twink and order a brown baby off the Internet so you can L.A.R.P. as a family (that's a heterosexual institution, sorry).

[Uniquemind]

both, but it's a pointless debate I think. millennials are really really antsing for SCIENCE! to pull out some proof of a gay gene because they think nature = identity = positive good. wrong.

the existence of a gay gene or some other involuntary factor behind sexuality doesn't therefore mean that expression of this sexuality is always good or acceptable everywhere in all cases. there's definitely a genetic component to Down syndrome, but having the Downs is pretty awful as anyone who's been near a Downie can attest.

as a degenerate homo who didn't choose his sexuality, I'm perfectly willing to accept limitations on this expression for several reasons. while I don't think there's any validity behind "gay conversion therapy" which probably harms more than it helps, I also don't feel entitled to wave my schlong in people's faces because IT'S JUST THE WAY I AM. I think a lot of what bigots object to isn't so much the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, but rather the behavior of many homosexuals who've been sold a bill of goods by the social liberal krew and thus believe anything they do no matter how degenerate is fair game.

it's one thing to say "Dad, I'm gay" and then go on about your life and the duties you owe your society as a benefiting member, but it's entirely another to marry some lisping twink and order a brown baby off the Internet so you can L.A.R.P. as a family (that's a heterosexual institution, sorry).

Overall people just want to not be harassed by other people, especially in a sexual context. Then there's that religious subset who somehow feels they cannot share their planetary existence with those who are homosexual, and then feel their religion justifies shaming them into chosing another path via passive aggression, or physical blatant aggression or local-community economic and social leveraging.


My view is sexuality as a whole, heterosexual, homosexual, bi, pansexual--

(apparently this last label means you can be attracted to a transexual: that community prefers the term genetic girl or genetic boy as I recently had a one-on-one interview with a pansexual and transsexual friend)

-- is both a physical brain/DNA issue, along with a spiritual one.

I see it as this person's spirit, prefers to incarnate as a male or female, and sometimes they don't always get a choice given the availability of developing vessels (we know them as embryos from our side), and so then you get mismatches sometimes.

You also have to take into account physical-chemical pollution from industry, who are cutting corners for the sin of greed, (indirect spiritual warfare via the corporate domino effect sin of greed.

[james wolf]

I think most people would agree that it is a mix of genetics and environmental factors.

Certain genes can be triggered as you grow up which then determine if you are gay or not.

[Hudor]

According to me, it is a combination of both. I'll take my own case to null the hypotheses of purely natural and purely nurtured each because i serve as an anomaly for both [-]as do countless others[/-]. I think it's fairly accepted that a combination of both forms a person's sexuality and don't really believe in "born this way" because I've pretty much felt myself change though to what extent I'm not sure. I agree though with the part that it's not possible to change someone's sexuality as of yet. So weirdly, even though i wasn't born this way and my sexuality gradually grew more and more prismatic, i can't change it because nature and nurture decided to say 'fuck you' together.

the existence of a gay gene or some other involuntary factor behind sexuality doesn't therefore mean that expression of this sexuality is always good or acceptable everywhere in all cases. there's definitely a genetic component to Down syndrome, but having the Downs is pretty awful as anyone who's been near a Downie can attest. @phuckphace (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=72511), that reminds me of a poltician who termed homosexuality as a genetic disability.

[northy]

Not necessarily true. I know a homosexual guy pretty well who firmly believes that the all-boys school he went to brought out that aspect of himself. So many elements of our sexualities are defined and developed based on our environment, and only someone with a political axe to grind will deny that. That doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic aspect to homosexuality, that is highly probable as well.

Edit: that still may not be a choice, but I guess the point is that I don't see why ruling out social causes poses any sort of problem for defenders of homosexuality, nor how it's grounded in truth.

I don't have a choice. I would like to be straight, but find the thought of doing that, disgusting.

[Exotic Babe]

I think it's mostly natured, it's definitely not a choice, but the environment and other influencing factors matter quite a lot. This is not the best example, but for example if you went to a girls only school and didn't ever really hang out with guys, you'd be less likely to get feelings for a guy and more likely to get a crush on a fellow girl, just because you see girls much more often? Or when your mom was lesbian and you had seen her with other females since you were little, it could easily influence you and you might start to think it's natural for a girl to love another girl, just like most kids grow up seeing their moms and dads.
Overall, I think it's much more complicated than to say it's either one or another. I believe it's probably a mix of both, and it also depends on people.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't have a choice. I would like to be straight, but find the thought of doing that, disgusting.

That still doesn't mean that it's genetic as opposed to acquired.

[northy]

That still doesn't mean that it's genetic as opposed to acquired.

Acquired when and how,? I have felt feelings for boys as long as I can remember. Definitely at the age of 6. What makes you think that straight is the natural way? Looking through your other posts, you seem to make comments like this often. Are you gay? I doubt it. If you were, you would agree.
Also, if it is nurtured, why do we observe homosexual behaviour in most species of animal?

[Jinglebottom]

I'm bi (leaning on gay) but I still think it's not entirely genetic.

[Judean Zealot]

Acquired when and how,?
Acquired through multiple experiences and stimuli from early childhood through puberty. Certain events or associations affect the sexuality of the child in a variety of ways.

I have felt feelings for boys as long as I can remember. Definitely at the age of 6.
You had sexual feelings for boys at six years of age? If not, this is completely irrelevant. I also had a 'no girls allowed' clubhouse when I was six.

What makes you think that straight is the natural way?
Whoever said I do? I personally believe that everyone is born bisexual, and subsequent upbringing determines the child's sexuality. Although, of course, the fact is that heterosexual sex is the most natural in terms of biological/evolutionary utility, what with the whole reproductive system and all

Looking through your other posts, you seem to make comments like this often. Are you gay? I doubt it. If you were, you would agree.

So you say. I disagree.

Forget about my other posts. Focus on what I'm posting now. First of all, it's good form, and second of all, I very often play the devil's advocate on this site.


Also, if it is nurtured, why do we observe homosexual behaviour in most species of animal?

You don't think animals can be affected by their environment?

[northy]

Acquired through multiple experiences and stimuli from early childhood through puberty. Certain events or associations affect the sexuality of the child in a variety of ways.


You had sexual feelings for boys at six years of age? If not, this is completely irrelevant. I also had a 'no girls allowed' clubhouse when I was six.


Whoever said I do? I personally believe that everyone is born bisexual, and subsequent upbringing determines the child's sexuality. Although, of course, the fact is that heterosexual sex is the most natural in terms of biological/evolutionary utility, what with the whole reproductive system and all



So you say. I disagree.

Forget about my other posts. Focus on what I'm posting now. First of all, it's good form, and second of all, I very often play the devil's advocate on this site.




You don't think animals can be affected by their environment?
Science is not an opinion, it is factual.

Stop speculating. I do not mind people being the devil's advocate as long as they have logical and justifiable reasoning, you don't.

[phuckphace]

@phuckphace (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=72511), that reminds me of a poltician who termed homosexuality as a genetic disability.

I don't think it's a disability per se but the potential for dysfunction is very high in our current social conditions, which is why I think open acceptance/tolerance is a bad thing (and I'd even go so far as to say tolerance caused more harm than good). I don't benefit in any way by shouting to the world that dick > vagina despite most of my fellow millennials insisting to the contrary. I'm also repulsed by the idea of gay couples adopting children to role-play as families, and they often do this literally by selecting a minority baby for status-signaling purposes. just...no.

[Vlerchan]

northy: If we can be sure of one thing about homosexuals it's that it's not steeped in pure genetics. Otherwise we wouldn't have identifical twins with different sexualities.

The fact that it's not steeped in pure genetics also doesn't make it a choice.

[Judean Zealot]

Science is not an opinion, it is factual.

Excuse me, no. Most of science is falsifiable (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), which means that the narratives we go with are simply those we see as the most likely. Also, see Ockham's Razor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). I'm not going to say I know with absolute certainty whether the sex drive exists independent of external sexuality, as currently science doesn't have the data and tools to conclusively prove either way, but it does seem very likely (if I recall correctly this was Freud's opinion).

Stop speculating. I do not mind people being the devil's advocate as long as they have logical and justifiable reasoning, you don't.

What the fuck are you rambling about? Be specific.

[Vermilion]

I strongly believe we are born gay straight bi trans ect. I do believe influence can change the way people act but that's it. I had a uncle who was gay both him and my dad grow up without a father in there life's. I have another uncle mums brother who is gay. And they grow up with both parents and very religious ones. So different up brings but same thing. I have more gay family on my mum's side to. I guess I'm gay but I'm not camp at all I live with both parents. And siblings. I believe it's to do with dna/ genetics

[northy]

Excuse me, no. Most of science is falsifiable (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), which means that the narratives we go with are simply those we see as the most likely. Also, see Ockham's Razor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). I'm not going to say I know with absolute certainty whether the sex drive exists independent of external sexuality, as currently science doesn't have the data and tools to conclusively prove either way, but it does seem very likely (if I recall correctly this was Freud's opinion).



What the fuck are you rambling about? Be specific.

Firstly, I wasn't rambling.

Secondly, there have been studies where twins are studied in the same environments growing up. There are cases where one is gay and one isn't. Explain that with your shitty presumptive argument where you are talking about a field that you don't know about. I shall find a link to the paper for you.

[Judean Zealot]

Secondly, there have been studies where twins are studied in the same environments growing up. There are cases where one is gay and one isn't. Explain that with your shitty presumptive argument where you are talking about a field that you don't know about. I shall find a link to the paper for you.

The same general environment means nothing - unless they somehow managed to arrange that the exact same micro-experiences occurred to each one, which is impossible. And no, I'm no expert in genetics, but from this conversation's progression I can say one thing: I know a hell of alot more about it than you. For example, you've just disproved your own position that homosexuality is entirely determined by genetics - in case you were unaware, identical twins share the same genetics at birth.

I mean, you're attacking me with an amount of ferocity which makes me suspect that you're too dumb to understand that my position in this thread is in no way a position which holds back - in any sort of way - acceptance of homosexuals.

[Exotic Babe]

Firstly, I wasn't rambling.

Secondly, there have been studies where twins are studied in the same environments growing up. There are cases where one is gay and one isn't. Explain that with your shitty presumptive argument where you are talking about a field that you don't know about. I shall find a link to the paper for you.

Did the twins go to exactly the same places? Did they meet exactly the same people? Did they see exactly the same things on the internet etc? They could've still been influenced differently. I think this thread was made for people to share their opinions, or debate, but even when debating, I don't think it's very mature to call someone else's argument/opinion shitty... Just my personal opinion tho.

[Jinglebottom]

northy
http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah286/bobyo01/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-04/BB4BBDE3-6AFE-488C-B141-15E75998DCAC_zpspwyagaol.jpg (http://s1383.photobucket.com/user/bobyo01/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-04/BB4BBDE3-6AFE-488C-B141-15E75998DCAC_zpspwyagaol.jpg.html)

[northy]

northy
image (http://s1383.photobucket.com/user/bobyo01/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-04/BB4BBDE3-6AFE-488C-B141-15E75998DCAC_zpspwyagaol.jpg.html)
This subforum is intended for debates. I was not being 'salty'.
The same general environment means nothing - unless they somehow managed to arrange that the exact same micro-experiences occurred to each one, which is impossible. And no, I'm no expert in genetics, but from this conversation's progression I can say one thing: I know a hell of alot more about it than you. For example, you've just disproved your own position that homosexuality is entirely determined by genetics - in case you were unaware, identical twins share the same genetics at birth.

I mean, you're attacking me with an amount of ferocity which makes me suspect that you're too dumb to understand that my position in this thread is in no way a position which holds back - in any sort of way - acceptance of homosexuals.
I don't believe your opinion is valid as there is no evidence for it. There is also no evidence against it.
Therefore there is an invisible flying teapot orbiting the earth.
As for my intelligence, my iq is 146. I am also a member of Mensa. Consider that before calling someone dumb. NB: I know that isn't relevant to this thread, I'm just defending being called dumb.

[Judean Zealot]

This subforum is intended for debates. I was not being 'salty'.

I don't believe your opinion is valid as there is no evidence for it. There is also no evidence against it.
Therefore there is an invisible flying teapot orbiting the earth.
As for my intelligence, my iq is 146. I am also a member of Mensa. Consider that before calling someone dumb. NB: I know that isn't relevant to this thread, I'm just defending being called dumb.

Which claim of mine (in this thread) has no evidence backing it? Write it out for me, please.

[Vlerchan]

northy: The fact that one twin is gay and the other isn't would indicate that it's not down to pure genetics because identical twins share the same set of genes.

Like was said: You've literally disproven yourself.

[amgb]

Sexuality, and the mind in general is complex and our ways of thinking are both subjective and influenced by external factors. There is no right and wrong. This actually brings up a recent discussion I was having with my cousins about psychology and science, and how some people don't view psychology as a real science because you can't see or prove it. It's in the mind and you can't - see or measure what makes, for example, a bisexual person bisexual. My view is that although we can take brain scans and spot the neurological patterns and movements, we can't really prove anything because every single person has a mind unique and distinct from each other. Nothing is consistently consistent.

I am not completely on either side of nature or nurture. I believe our sexuality is deeply biologically rooted, but also fluid as we grow with experience. The changes in our minds and bodies do greatly influence how we feel about and perceive our sexuality. There's changes in sexuality too; in one stage we can think so strongly that we are heterosexual, and in the next stage we might all of a sudden or slowly shift into feeling bisexual. And what puzzles me is that it changes as we grow older, or sometimes it doesn't change. That's why so many people experience conflict when it comes to working out and recognising their sexuality.

[Judean Zealot]

Nothing is consistently consistent.

Nothing? Like not even mathematics and physics?

[phuckphace]

As for my intelligence, my iq is 146. I am also a member of Mensa.

Hermann Göring's IQ was 138

[amgb]

Just looked this up on wikipedia.."human sexuality is driven by genetics and mental activity". I said I wasn't on either side, but reading that I'd like to say that I agree and am on both sides. I'm not sure about the existence of the homosexual or all the different genes, but if they do exist I guess it can be argued that for example despite having the homosexual gene a child turned out being bisexual, which counters sexuality being natured. If it was because of the environments they grew up in that the child turned out being bisexual, that would support sexuality being nurtured.

Nothing? Like not even mathematics and physics?

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, without consistency we wouldn't be alive right now. Sorry, yes there has to be consistency in our feelings and thoughts for us to be able to be sure and certain about them. We do need to continually feel attracted to both sexes to identify ourselves as bisexual. What I mean to say is that one person's psychological and emotional journey to recognising themselves as bisexual is not the same as another person's journey...which does show that through different courses and experiences we can reach the same place - yes, consistency.

[northy]

Hermann Göring's IQ was 138

Not relevant. Nicht maßgeblich.

[phuckphace]

Not relevant. Nicht maßgeblich.

the point you should take away is that people of measured high intelligence are capable of doing and saying ridiculous things, QED.

[amgb]

What also puzzles me is this.

The fact that one twin is gay and the other isn't would indicate that it's not down to pure genetics because identical twins share the same set of genes.

Because both twins started out with the same conditions (their genes) and ended up with different results (their sexuality), wouldn't it mean that sexuality is in fact nurtured and not based on genetics??

[Vlerchan]

Because both twins started out with the same conditions (their genes) and ended up with different results (their sexuality), wouldn't it mean that sexuality is in fact nurtured and not based on genetics??
Environment regulates gene expression. In other words our environment - and a number of other channels - act to turn our genes 'on' and 'off'.

[Uniquemind]

Well I'm gonna say this for environment.

Environment can damage or alter DNA, and that altered DNA if it's sexually replicated in the gametes can appear and now is a genetic inheritance.


Also in other animals, frogs for example, it has been shown pollution in their habitat (mainly plastics too cause this problem) have made frogs not develop the right gender, or both genders.

Their reproductive systems aren't forming right, which means frog puberty doesn't form or undergo it's normal process due to physical changes.

Humans have a lot of plastic in their diet, and it has been shown that certain plastics behave like estrogen in the human body.

Processed foods are something kids love (I loved), they haven't hit puberty yet, they eat a lot of it and plastic and other chemicals exist in those processed foods. Is it affecting a subset of humanity's pre-pubescents to experience puberty differently?

[northy]

Well I'm gonna say this for environment.

Environment can damage or alter DNA, and that altered DNA if it's sexually replicated in the gametes can appear and now is a genetic inheritance.


Also in other animals, frogs for example, it has been shown pollution in their habitat (mainly plastics too cause this problem) have made frogs not develop the right gender, or both genders.

Their reproductive systems aren't forming right, which means frog puberty doesn't form or undergo it's normal process due to physical changes.

Humans have a lot of plastic in their diet, and it has been shown that certain plastics behave like estrogen in the human body.

Processed foods are something kids love (I loved), they haven't hit puberty yet, they eat a lot of it and plastic and other chemicals exist in those processed foods. Is it affecting a subset of humanity's pre-pubescents to experience puberty differently?

I was going to leave this thread, but.
I infere from this that you might think that queer people have some sort of disease or disability. Is this so? Homosexuality was observed long before processed foods.

[Vlerchan]

Uniquemind is discussing possible environmental influences on gene expression. I also ask whether it's been demonstrated that increased post-natal estrogen exposure affects sexual orientation.

I'd be interested in whatever paper that was reported in.

[phuckphace]

I have a theory that latent genetic inclinations to homosexuality can be flipped on via exposure to porn. if you've ever ventured into P101 (and I don't recommend doing so without a HAZMAT suit) a common theme is seeing porn at a very young age followed by confusion as to one's sexual orientation. there's a disturbingly high number of posts recommending that people show porn to confused younger siblings to "teach" them about sex.

it's certainly not the case for everyone (personally I never encountered sexually explicit material until I was about 16 - 17, by which time I already knew I was gay). but I have to wonder if many of these cases would've turned out as a temporary phase in puberty if not for the porn exposure.

I'm sure BPA exposure also doesn't help, as it's my understanding that it can mimic female hormones or reduce testosterone circulation.

[Uniquemind]

I was going to leave this thread, but.
I infere from this that you might think that queer people have some sort of disease or disability. Is this so? Homosexuality was observed long before processed foods.

As a disability or disease? No, I'm only discussing it's possible causes for the phenomena, not it's moral standing of it's existence or not.

The fact that you're talking in linear terms about, right/wrong, able/disabled, implies our point of view on the subject is a bit skew because I'm approaching this topic without any moral bias or personal implication.

I also add that I have said in past posts here I have a very very comprehensive and unique view of how I see the world which delves into very deep interlocking physical-spiritual matters, to address moral issues and dilemmas on various social subjects, which I request a PM correspondence only if you want a glimpse into my mind and how I see the world.

This topic, the existence of homosexuality versus heterosexuality or whatever sexuality is a fragment of a larger philosophy that I have, which I am not going to share here because the definitions of this thread is niche and specific rather than grandiose.

I have in the past said, that bodys are vessels and from what I've learned in school, the body-brain-spine, seems more machine to me, than that of conscious choice. It can be edited (surgery etc.) and whatnot and even personality and memory can be altered if the brain is altered or toyed with.
Traumas can change a persons core personality and behavior entirely, and emotions and all urges are electro-chemical impulses that can probably be simulated or created at a technological whim if science progresses that far.

Therefore I ask, what are you? And if I ask what are you? Then what are such topics like this? IS something a disease or disability or not takes on a more equal tone to what is not disease or fully able, they're just one in the same, just different.

So don't see insult in what I say, understand I'm bouncing between the specific, and exploring the full grand picture of big and small, and how they inter-play with each other.

This includes psychological concepts, religious/faith concepts, scientific theories and facts all mashed up together to explain what each in of themselves cannot describe alone.

---

To clarify I am only speaking about the physical tier of my philosophy, since it's what most people agree is most sane to discuss due to it's ability to be vetted by science of the physical world via observation.

What has been found is what I stated above, we know urges and sexual matters are due to the physical body, a lot of that behavior is by physical design and stages of physical development in one's life cycle. Some of that is naturally occurring, and then within that natural realm of what occurs naturally, is it increasing or decreasing in the context of pollution.

What animal studies have shown, is that yes, pollution is messing with a whole bunch of what occurs naturally, on various levels of just influencing things, or accelerating it, to outright wiping out entire ecosystems.

Some species having a higher tolerance to levels of pollution other species in the same ecosystem might be wiped out by.


- edit: So can I take it that these last 2 days of silence have meant I've clarified my position on the topic northy?

[northy]

As a disability or disease? No, I'm only discussing it's possible causes for the phenomena, not it's moral standing of it's existence or not.

The fact that you're talking in linear terms about, right/wrong, able/disabled, implies our point of view on the subject is a bit skew because I'm approaching this topic without any moral bias or personal implication.

I also add that I have said in past posts here I have a very very comprehensive and unique view of how I see the world which delves into very deep interlocking physical-spiritual matters, to address moral issues and dilemmas on various social subjects, which I request a PM correspondence only if you want a glimpse into my mind and how I see the world.

This topic, the existence of homosexuality versus heterosexuality or whatever sexuality is a fragment of a larger philosophy that I have, which I am not going to share here because the definitions of this thread is niche and specific rather than grandiose.

I have in the past said, that bodys are vessels and from what I've learned in school, the body-brain-spine, seems more machine to me, than that of conscious choice. It can be edited (surgery etc.) and whatnot and even personality and memory can be altered if the brain is altered or toyed with.
Traumas can change a persons core personality and behavior entirely, and emotions and all urges are electro-chemical impulses that can probably be simulated or created at a technological whim if science progresses that far.

Therefore I ask, what are you? And if I ask what are you? Then what are such topics like this? IS something a disease or disability or not takes on a more equal tone to what is not disease or fully able, they're just one in the same, just different.

So don't see insult in what I say, understand I'm bouncing between the specific, and exploring the full grand picture of big and small, and how they inter-play with each other.

This includes psychological concepts, religious/faith concepts, scientific theories and facts all mashed up together to explain what each in of themselves cannot describe alone.

---

To clarify I am only speaking about the physical tier of my philosophy, since it's what most people agree is most sane to discuss due to it's ability to be vetted by science of the physical world via observation.

What has been found is what I stated above, we know urges and sexual matters are due to the physical body, a lot of that behavior is by physical design and stages of physical development in one's life cycle. Some of that is naturally occurring, and then within that natural realm of what occurs naturally, is it increasing or decreasing in the context of pollution.

What animal studies have shown, is that yes, pollution is messing with a whole bunch of what occurs naturally, on various levels of just influencing things, or accelerating it, to outright wiping out entire ecosystems.

Some species having a higher tolerance to levels of pollution other species in the same ecosystem might be wiped out by.


- edit: So can I take it that these last 2 days of silence have meant I've clarified my position on the topic northy?

No, I just strongly disagree with every word of your last statement, find it slightly offensive and was not responding as I deemed it to be a waste of my time and intellect.

[phuckphace]

No, I just strongly disagree with every word of your last statement, find it slightly offensive and was not responding as I deemed it to be a waste of my time and intellect.

I'd like to have some more intellect if you can spare any

[Judean Zealot]

No, I just strongly disagree with every word of your last statement, find it slightly offensive and was not responding as I deemed it to be a waste of my time and intellect.

We're sorry. We assume that when somebody walks in a bar they've come for a drink, not just to take a shit.

If you run away anytime someone says something you disagree with, then you've got no business being here in the first place. Find a 'safe space', not a debate forum.

[Vlerchan]

C'mon, he's new, play nice.

[Uniquemind]

No, I just strongly disagree with every word of your last statement, find it slightly offensive and was not responding as I deemed it to be a waste of my time and intellect.

Fair enough, you want to leave the discussion.

Keep in mind while I acknowledge the subject matter is pointed, I don't see where it is deliberately offensive.

If you are offended, I suggest it's because you misunderstood my post above.

--

Since I'm here I might as well add a spiritual component to this.


What got me started on this point of view has been the supernatural phenomena of some individuals having memories of past lives.

Some parents, have stated online that their children have verbally indicated to them they have been reincarnated memories from past lives.

This is not a scientific study, but the phenomena has been so large it has touched mainstream news stories when claims by these kids do check out factual muster. Some of these are clips on youtube.

It relates to this topic because, some of these kids have dropped statements like "why am I a girl or boy this time? I used to be a girl/boy".

So that made me attach the concept of gender identity and sexual orientation to a spiritual phenomena to a degree.


Now if you find it offensive, I'm sorry. But this is the path of understanding about life that I've been led down. Also given that science hasn't actually pinpointed the cause for homosexuality or even heterosexuality or any other type of attraction leanings.

I have to expand to other realms of thought.

The intention of the post was meant to provoke thoughtfulness and wonder, not offend anybody.

Part of me wants to actually know how it was offensive too, as I attempted to write the post as inclusive as possible rather than exclusive.

[Judean Zealot]

C'mon, he's new, play nice.

Lol. Stressful week.

[northy]

I'd like to have some more intellect if you can spare any

Sure! Postal address?
We're sorry. We assume that when somebody walks in a bar they've come for a drink, not just to take a shit.

If you run away anytime someone says something you disagree with, then you've got no business being here in the first place. Find a 'safe space', not a debate forum.
Continuing your analogy, you assume that the bar door isn't locked the moment you go in. Also, I hope that was a South Park reference. If so, haha.
Fair enough, you want to leave the discussion.

Keep in mind while I acknowledge the subject matter is pointed, I don't see where it is deliberately offensive.

If you are offended, I suggest it's because you misunderstood my post above.

--

Since I'm here I might as well add a spiritual component to this.


What got me started on this point of view has been the supernatural phenomena of some individuals having memories of past lives.

Some parents, have stated online that their children have verbally indicated to them they have been reincarnated memories from past lives.

This is not a scientific study, but the phenomena has been so large it has touched mainstream news stories when claims by these kids do check out factual muster. Some of these are clips on youtube.

It relates to this topic because, some of these kids have dropped statements like "why am I a girl or boy this time? I used to be a girl/boy".

So that made me attach the concept of gender identity and sexual orientation to a spiritual phenomena to a degree.


Now if you find it offensive, I'm sorry. But this is the path of understanding about life that I've been led down. Also given that science hasn't actually pinpointed the cause for homosexuality or even heterosexuality or any other type of attraction leanings.

I have to expand to other realms of thought.

The intention of the post was meant to provoke thoughtfulness and wonder, not offend anybody.

Part of me wants to actually know how it was offensive too, as I attempted to write the post as inclusive as possible rather than exclusive.

Firstly, I didn't think your post was intended to be offensive, I just happened to interpret it in that way. I guess that we have completely different attitudes to life. You seen very spiritual and I'm a devout atheist who believes only in things that have been proved scientifically.
In regards to your previous lifes thing, I have a friend who said things like that. It's somewhat curious, but I think it is a phenomenon of the developing brain. Also, sexuality is not a memory, I think it's instinctual.

[Uniquemind]

Sure! Postal address?

Continuing your analogy, you assume that the bar door isn't locked the moment you go in. Also, I hope that was a South Park reference. If so, haha.


Firstly, I didn't think your post was intended to be offensive, I just happened to interpret it in that way. I guess that we have completely different attitudes to life. You seen very spiritual and I'm a devout atheist who believes only in things that have been proved scientifically.
In regards to your previous lifes thing, I have a friend who said things like that. It's somewhat curious, but I think it is a phenomenon of the developing brain. Also, sexuality is not a memory, I think it's instinctual.

We'll agree to disagree then. Obviously you have not had the experience I've had. And you dismiss the supernatural exists.

[Abhorrence]

both, but it's a pointless debate I think. millennials are really really antsing for SCIENCE! to pull out some proof of a gay gene because they think nature = identity = positive good. wrong.

the existence of a gay gene or some other involuntary factor behind sexuality doesn't therefore mean that expression of this sexuality is always good or acceptable everywhere in all cases. there's definitely a genetic component to Down syndrome, but having the Downs is pretty awful as anyone who's been near a Downie can attest.

as a degenerate homo who didn't choose his sexuality, I'm perfectly willing to accept limitations on this expression for several reasons. while I don't think there's any validity behind "gay conversion therapy" which probably harms more than it helps, I also don't feel entitled to wave my schlong in people's faces because IT'S JUST THE WAY I AM. I think a lot of what bigots object to isn't so much the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, but rather the behavior of many homosexuals who've been sold a bill of goods by the social liberal krew and thus believe anything they do no matter how degenerate is fair game.

it's one thing to say "Dad, I'm gay" and then go on about your life and the duties you owe your society as a benefiting member, but it's entirely another to marry some lisping twink and order a brown baby off the Internet so you can L.A.R.P. as a family (that's a heterosexual institution, sorry).
I was just going to respond to this with "I love you" but I thought that would be weird so I'm just going to say I wholeheartedly agree.

[heresjohnny]

I definitely think you're born gay. I mean, with the mindset of people using the word "gay" as an insult like "I don't like these gay rules" and with gay people being shunned and protested against, why would anyone choose to be gay?

With that said, a little bit of me thinks that if two gay people raise a child in a pro-gay neighborhood, maybe there's a slightly higher chance of that child being gay than if he or she was raised by two straight people in a conservative, anti-gay area...IDK.

With all that said...there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay.

[phuckphace]

just posting with a DAILY REMINDER that being gay back in...oh, say...the 1950s was much more betterer

a quick recap of the facts:


pornography was much more difficult to obtain due to suppression, and what porn they did have was much less depraved in nature. I actually have a gay "porn" film from the 1950s (you're probably not surprised) featuring a Wally Cleaver lookalike fooling around with an older guy and even that seems quaint and innocent by today's standards. in the film they don't actually have sex or even get fully naked, just a little shirtless wrestling between a couple of racist shitlords ("golly gee Mr. Smith, that was swell!" :lol3: )

tying into my point above about porn exposure being a possible trigger to latent homo tendencies, the difficulty in obtaining and hiding porn likely helped minimize the amount of sexual deviancy or "acting out" by a given individual.


the social taboo against open homosexuality was a very strong incentive for gays to hide their inclinations and maintain a facade of normalcy. anything done regularly becomes a habit, so if you're forced to behave normally for long enough, it eventually becomes a regular thing.

these limits on behavior had the effect of eliminating most of society's most troublesome elements, which basically means there was a fewer total number of degenerates running around who could influence you in their direction. nowdays a kid with a dysfunctional fetish can just hop on Google, type in "are there other weirdos like me?" and then discover that their dysfunction is actually a "lifestyle." needless to say there weren't very many bronies having sex with Fluttershy plush toys back in ye olde days.

the authoritarian social controls didn't just apply to gays - it was also the case that heterosexual men risked prison time for adultery. being known as a adulterer/adulteress in most circles would've been "mortifying" for those involved. word spreads quickly in a small community - even the switchboard operator at the local telephone exchange was probably someone you knew.


tl;dr - time machine when????

[Vlerchan]

Also given that science hasn't actually pinpointed the cause for homosexuality or even heterosexuality or any other type of attraction leanings.

I have to expand to other realms of thought.
You don't 'have' to. You might believe based on prior experience it's a good idea. But there's no reasonable basis to it.

However I realise the aim is probably to transcend 'reason'.

I definitely think you're born gay. I mean, with the mindset of people using the word "gay" as an insult like "I don't like these gay rules" and with gay people being shunned and protested against, why would anyone choose to be gay?
You don't have to be born gay for it to not be a choice. Nurture doesn't ask for your permission to do what it does.

If there's one thing we can conclude from the evidence it's that you're not born gay nonetheless.

I'm a devout atheist who believes only in things that have been proved scientifically.
Like the lack of existence of a god or gods?

You realise that science isn't built to deal with the supernatural right. It literally can't make claims about that realm.

[northy]

Vlerchan, This thread isn't about science, religion and the supernatural; but, I would like to point you towards Russell's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). That is why science is relevant and I think that supernatural stuff is bullshit and always has a logical, scientific explanation even if we can't see it at first.

[phuckphace]

Vlerchan, This thread isn't about science, religion and the supernatural; but, I would like to point you towards Russell's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). That is why science is relevant and I think that supernatural stuff is bullshit and always has a logical, scientific explanation even if we can't see it at first.

teapots in space therefore god doesn't exist, checkmate theists

serious question do you own a trilby? perchance does it rest atop your nonpareil head at this very moment?

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan, This thread isn't about science, religion and the supernatural; but, I would like to point you towards Russell's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). That is why science is relevant and I think that supernatural stuff is bullshit and always has a logical, scientific explanation even if we can't see it at first.

Excuse me, Russell's methodology also precludes any truth to science, in that he also denies the universals of causality and order.

I gather you never actually read Russell.

[Cadanance00]

I used to think it was result of early experiences but I talked to so many gay guys who said they knew as far back as they could remember that I changed my mind.

[Vlerchan]

Vlerchan, This thread isn't about science, religion and the supernatural; but, I would like to point you towards Russell's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). That is why science is relevant and I think that supernatural stuff is bullshit and always has a logical, scientific explanation even if we can't see it at first.
This doesn't address the point made at all.

To repeat in perhaps less ambiguous terms: being an atheist precludes "believ[ing] only in things that have been proved scientifically".

The claim I quoted originally was a non-sequiter.

You are correct I'm dragging this off topic though: so I'll excuse myself at this point.

---

e: I'll add though that the discussion had shifted more towards methodologies at that stage. I quoted you when I did to demonstrate that yourself and Uniquemind aren't as different as you think.

[northy]

Why has this become a debate about religion? We can start another thread for that if you want?

[Judean Zealot]

Why has this become a debate about religion? We can start another thread for that if you want?

You were the first to bring it up here.

[northy]

You were the first to bring it up here.
No, it was you actually. Go back and read the posts.

[Vlerchan]

It was in fact the OP. But it doesn't really matter all honesty.

To take the thread somewhere:

... but I talked to so many gay guys who said they knew as far back as they could remember that I changed my mind.
I have read that whilst your sexual orientation can begin to emerge at age 6 it doesn't consolidate until around 10 or so.

To what extent it is an ad-hoc phenomenon is probably worth asking.

[Uniquemind]

I always thought that when a conversation about sexual orientation or gender identity issues comes up, religion and god almost always is part of the same discussion because the anti- side or even the historical nature in how non-heterosexual people were treated stems from religion in the first place.

So the topics always cross paths, the line for where it gets inappropriate is when it comes to using religious based arguments to justify a personal attack, that has no academic merit.

--

Ironically I don't think science has made any progress into what makes one heterosexual versus homosexual, or bi, or pansexual.

I make a claim to draw a parallel, that like many supernatural phenomena.

Both are stuck at the observational stage of the scientific method.

They happen, they exist, but then we're left to prove why and where it comes from.

You also can't discount they don't exist because you can't prove it either.

So that's why I am not an atheist, I can't be personally consistent.

[tovaris]

Both
We know there is a gay geen, but is only activated under for now unknown circumstances

[Uniquemind]

It could be polygenic.

Not all traits are controlled by a single gene.

[Awakened Sin]

Both. If you want to hear my reasons why then ask.

[Miserabilia]

Most people are atleast slightly sexualy fluid, unless they have an absolute phobia or sexual aversion of the same gender.
I wish people could accept this simple fact instead of trying to label themselves.

I think we should realize that people who have or have had sex with the same sex aren't automaticaly gay or bi, or the other way around, people who haven't or claim they haven't aren't 100% straight.

We should differentiate between the vast majority of people that are mostly straight with some fluidity depending on situation, and people that are exclusively gay.

The people that are truly exclusively gay have something different in their brains I guess, it's not a choice at that point. I think this is a difference too big too normal to bi people that it pretty much has to be born, maybe because hormones for example.

[hesaidhesaid]

I was going to leave this thread, but.
I infere from this that you might think that queer people have some sort of disease or disability. Is this so? Homosexuality was observed long before processed foods.

I want you to all be reminded that sexuality's question in this debate was/is a question of whether it is a natural occurrence or whether it is dependent on the environment you grow up in. I would like to think that everyone in this forum has the damn decency to accept others whatever sexuality they are. We are not testing whether it was a disability or not BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

By the way, thank you for all your points. We will address some of these points in a column that will appear on my page: Facebook.com/hansleephotojournalism in the coming weeks. Do check it out.

Thanks guys.

Double posts merged, next time, please use the "Edit" button-Giygas

[Zachary G]

In simple terms I say its nature because we have no control over who and what we are attracted to.

[northy]

I want you to all be reminded that sexuality's question in this debate was/is a question of whether it is a natural occurrence or whether it is dependent on the environment you grow up in. I would like to think that everyone in this forum has the damn decency to accept others whatever sexuality they are. We are not testing whether it was a disability or not BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

I think you have misinterpreted my post, judging by the capital letters in your post. You also seem to think I am homophobic, which I am not. If you go through my other posts, you will find that I am gay and am struggling to live happily in an environment full of homophobic people. Please don't jump to conclusions, I actually find what you gave said quite hurtful.

[Uniquemind]

The problem with the debate is that the word "natural" has no root fixation in meaning. It is a vague qualifier term, which is why the framework of the conversation shifts over time.

There are many obstacles that challenged people in the 1800's, where science now grants control of those "natural" obstacles of life, some tragic, others not.

Hypothetically if 90% of the population was homosexual, at that point the phenomena might be considered a disability because it would hinder the species ability to tolerate the act of reproducing and creating offspring.

There must be a reason scientifically and in sociology that also explains why homosexual communities are in a minority.

It's not a disability in the sense that it hinders one's quality of life, but it can be fairly argued without losing respect that clinically if that orientation where to suddenly dominate, it would be a problem.

It would also be a problem because we don't know it's cause.

Albeit granted the Earth could benefit from a reduction in the human species but that's me getting sidetracked.

[Bluebyrd]

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular since what I've read so far has been pretty reasonable but let me just pose a question to straight people who say sexuality is a choice. When did you decide that you are straight?

[Vlerchan]

When did you decide that you are straight?
The presumption is that heterosexuality is the natural inclination of man and all other expressions of sexuality are degenerate deviations.

Inherent to the argument is that heterosexuals don't need to justify themselves.

---

[I also don't support this argument. I'm just explaining why it won't get anywhere.]

[ImCoolBeans]

Why not both? The two work together in harmony, not against each other.

[Thunderstorm]

I can't speak for others. Everyone feels differently, sexually speaking. All I know is that it absolutely was not a choice for me, I was getting erections for men prior to puberty. And female body parts (busts, etc.) just don't have an effect on me. Being gay is all I have ever known. Maybe for some people it's more nurture, maybe for some it is a mix of both, but I just know that it wasn't a choice for me.

[northy]

I can't speak for others. Everyone feels differently, sexually speaking. All I know is that it absolutely was not a choice for me, I was getting erections for men prior to puberty. And female body parts (busts, etc.) just don't have an effect on me. Being gay is all I have ever known. Maybe for some people it's more nurture, maybe for some it is a mix of both, but I just know that it wasn't a choice for me.

I don't think it's a choice for anyone. This thread is about whether it's genetic or caused by the environment.

[Thunderstorm]

I don't think it's a choice for anyone. This thread is about whether it's genetic or caused by the environment.

That's what I am implying. It is genetic for me and I think it's that way for most people. No one would choose to put themselves in the path of discrimination.