Your best friend.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by JC

Someone did find a locus on the Y chromosone that seemed to have some sort of link with homosexuality. It was a boring lecture so slept through most of it, but it was pretty controversial stuff and didnt explain lesbians because it was on the Y chromosome.

I am aware of that, but until something more definative is discovered we cannot really say one way of the other that it is responsible, even partially.

[Nusselt]

what do you consider hermaphrodites to be?

[KaneED]

i don't think there's any definitive lines of sexuality, just people you want to have sex with and people you don't.

ha

[KaneED]

oh, and i don't think bloomers' parents want him to be gay because they're conservatives, so how do you explain that. do you think anyone encouraged him to be gay?

[djbass]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If there's no reason for being gay apart from social conditioning and pressures (and individual choice, ofc) then why do some species of animals show homosexual tendencies (especially in instances of high population density)?

I still wouldn't say it is in any way genetic. I see it simply as the animal is horny and damned if the other animal is male or female it wants a root and it's going to get one, it's just a hormonal driven response.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by KaneED

i don't think there's any definitive lines of sexuality, just people you want to have sex with and people you don't.

ha

You've come over yahwe.

(Boom boom).

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If there's no reason for being gay apart from social conditioning and pressures (and individual choice, ofc) then why do some species of animals show homosexual tendencies (especially in instances of high population density)?

Am I a scientist who works in this field? No, so I cant answer that in any way other than based on my experience in life.

However, did you see the program last night on BBC about childrens behaviour and the way they learn? If you didnt, I will sumarise briefly as best I can.

It suggests that children learn certain skills and behavioural tendancies at certain ages and that in ordinary children this was pretty constant, yet at certain points in their development depending upon their environment and surroundings they were able to develop faster or slower than others. In the examples they showed it concentrated with shyness and interation between other children.

It showed that a childs environment (ie, the people in it) were able to change that childs personality and who/what they become as an adult. In cases where a child was very shy it was prooved that it could be reversed by environment change, in most cases that involves the parents behaving differently.

Now, apply this to sexuality and it cannot be that hard to understand that it is possible for that to be altered too. If for example a male child is around his mother all the time and has no other male influences then it is possible that during development (and it was shown that the period relating to certain characteristics could be just a matter of months) he may have female tendancies which are demonstrated through sexuality.

This could have been reversed with environment change and is not a genetic trait but as more and more people become open towards gays, children are more influenced by that kind of behaviour.

With regards to animals who display homosexual tendancies I would say the process is similar.

[Chef!]

Originally Posted by KaneED

oh, and i don't think bloomers' parents want him to be gay because they're conservatives, so how do you explain that. do you think anyone encouraged him to be gay?

i read somewhere a theory that homosexuality can be caused by not having a male role model or not respecting your only male role model and needing to fill that gap. Personally i dont agree with it but there is another theory for you to think about.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

what do you consider hermaphrodites to be?

A bit unfortunate.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Am I a scientist who works in this field? No, so I cant answer that in any way other than based on my experience in life, yadda yadda yadda (sorry to sum up a rather long post in such a way)

The nature vs nuture arguments are going on in most areas of biology (especially neurodevelopemental areas), but the general consensus appears to be 'a bit of both'.

[Dante Hicks]

There's more to biology than genetics, ffs.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's more to biology than genetics, ffs.

It all comes down to biochem or behavioral analysis in the end, really.

[Dante Hicks]

Perhaps, but there's quite a difference to saying "Homosexuality is biological" compared to "Homosexuality is a genetically inheritable trait".

If a pregnant woman is involved in a car accident and eventually gives birth to a brain damaged child (as a result of the accident) then obviously this is a "biological" condition of the baby. But equally obviously it is not a genetic problem either.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I doubt you can inherit homosexuality.

[edit]

Why do people always misinterpret my posts

I'm generally arguing for a moderate medium, instead of absolutes.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Why do people always misinterpret my posts

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was responding to Crashtester.

He's setting up two positions (either it's a gay gene or all individual choice) where it could either be some sort of mixture (as you've said) or some kind of other biological development thing (as I'm saying). Perhaps if you are subjected to "too much" oestrogen during gestation you are more likely to develop homosexual tendancies, or something similar.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Gay people do have a nice hormone imbalance (for the most part), although what link this has is unclear. It may be a result, or it could be a cause.

[skiddy]

Well, if it helps...
I'm a very outgoing person. I'll talk to anyone. I've had a good disiplined upbringing although I'm now 20 years old and slightly reckless. I've got very little in the way of intelligence and, to an extent, little common sense but I know the difference between right and wrong. I'm generous and try to make others happy.

No, this is not a personals ad. That is what my upbringing has made me.

I don't believe it made me gay. That was my choice. I can look back and see things in my past which now make me think "well that was a sign..." but nothing I can think of pushed me to being this way. It was just my choice.

As for CrashTester saying there are no bisexual people - that is utter shite. Sorry, harsh I know, but true.

If I were to go out clubbing tonight and start dancing with some attractive young lady, then very possibly one thing would lead to another. It's not something I would be bothered about and may even see them again. On the other hand, I could go clubbing tonight on the gay scene and meet someone, one thing leads to another and I might see them again.

So, looking at it, there are bisexual people. My one aim is to be happy with someone - be it male or female. I have no problem with sleeping with either sex, and enjoy both.

(Sorry haven't replied earlier, been at work...)

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was responding to Crashtester.

He's setting up two positions (either it's a gay gene or all individual choice) where it could either be some sort of mixture (as you've said) or some kind of other biological development thing (as I'm saying). Perhaps if you are subjected to "too much" oestrogen during gestation you are more likely to develop homosexual tendancies, or something similar.

No, I am saying my position is that I belive homosexuality is a condition of a persons environment during development, i.e., you are not born gay but become gay.

The example I gave above was to demonstrate that it is already proven that children are influenced by environment and the interaction between other humans at key stages in their development. I was using this so that the reader can imagine if characteristics like shyness can be altered in this way then the same could happen with sexuality, the result being homosexuality.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

...so it might as well be inheritable.

Excuse me, I must go and have harsh words with my father/mother.

[Evergreen]

You love a person not a gender.

On another note, Tell him your a bottom not a top person, see how he reacts, he could just be using you cause his gf is inept at bj's (A lot of women are but we don't tell em otherwise is a ticket out of full intercourse city). If he isn't intrested in bottom then he isn't bisexual is he?

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by skiddy

So, looking at it, there are bisexual people. My one aim is to be happy with someone - be it male or female. I have no problem with sleeping with either sex, and enjoy both.

You are gay. I said that I do not recognise any alternative sexuality other than homosexuality. If you shag men you are gay, regardless of whether or not you also shag women.

[Grimble v2.0]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

You are gay. I said that I do not recognise any alternative sexuality other than homosexuality. If you shag men you are gay, regardless of whether or not you also shag women.

You get funnier every time you post

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Grimble v2.0

You get funnier every time you post

Or closer to a ban, though that is funnier.

[Bloomers III]

this is perhaps the best thread ever, it has everything in it!

on the issue I would say yes, but then after realising he had kids thought it would be bad. wouldn't you feel more comfortable if you got into a relationship that wasn't all about sex, so when it did get to that level if you weren't FANTASTIC it wouldn't really matter? I would but that didn't stop me lolz. i thinkt he fact you're asking means you're not sure, and if you're not sure then you shouldn't.

ALSO the most recent topic of discussion is interesting too. i was thinking about it the other day and I am sure that my argument is flawed somewhere...but if homosexuality is caused by upbringing and environment then why aren't any of my siblings gay? we have all been brought up by the same parents in the same house under the same condition, been to the same school and have similar friends and live very similar lives. it is just something that bugs me and makes me think that it is likely to be genetic or a hormonal imbalance in the womb or something (the latter would actually count as 'environment' though wouldn't it?).

anyway this thread is cool so . also just google for some cool technique websites, liek the guide on superdrewby becuase i've read that ¬_¬

[skiddy]

Although I may not agree with CT, he is entitled to his point of view.

It's still wrong

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

so it might as well be inheritable.

except it isnt.

[Evergreen]

This is what crashtester would have people like skiddy do

[Evergreen]

However a serious argument for homosexuality in nature being genetic can be found here

When the insects were warmed above 30 Celsius, communication between a particular set of nerve cells was disrupted.

This made the mutant males less interested in courting female flies and open to the advances of other males.

The flies reverted back to heterosexual courtship behaviours at cooler temperatures.

Considering that they share a lot of common on the genome front with humans etc etc...*

* in other words throw a cold bucket of water on him everytime he wants his knob sucked and see how he feels.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Bloomers III

but if homosexuality is caused by upbringing and environment then why aren't any of my siblings gay? we have all been brought up by the same parents in the same house under the same condition, been to the same school and have similar friends and live very similar lives. it is just something that bugs me and makes me think that it is likely to be genetic or a hormonal imbalance in the womb or something (the latter would actually count as 'environment' though wouldn't it?).

well if you had watched the program I am referring to last night it showed that all siblings will not develop in the same way merely because of their parents and housing, conditions for each child are never the same. Each new sibling alters the environment and the way parents interact to all siblings and it is how the environment is for the individual during crucial stages of development as to how that child thinks and responds to others.

Using the example of shyness again, if the first sibling was shy andf didnt have other children around them to play/interatc with the second may not necessarily also qrow up being shy as it has had the benefit of another child to interact and respond to during its development.

As i say though, I am only using this as an example as it more or less backs up what I believe makes gay people gay, it was not a program dealing with homosexuality.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

But you spoke about individual choice as to being gay. Now you have retreated a position where it is not a choice but you maintain just isn't genetic.

No you totally misunderstand the concept of what was being explained.

If a person grows up to be sky they are shy, they will know it and so will people around them. But since shyness is not an instinct and something that can be changed it becomes a choice to either be shy or take steps to overcome it.

In the case of homosexuality, I believe it is the same thing, you can either live a homosexual life or you can take steps to over come it.

Equally, I am a heterosexual male because that is how I developed but if I wanted to I could have sex with a man, I would just have to overcome some hurdles and make the choice.

[Evergreen]

CT, I have given you ammo. Use it wisely.

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

well if you had watched the program I am referring to last night

Was it Child Of Our Time? I watched that. Lets hope that in 14/15 years one of them turns out to be gay and then Robert Winston will settle the argument once and for all!

and you can believe what you like becuase neither side of the argument have solid proof.i don't think we'll know for a long time because we simply don't understand enough about our brains (both psychologically and genetically/physically)

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Bloomers III

Was it Child Of Our Time? I watched that. Lets hope that in 14/15 years one of them turns out to be gay and then Robert Winston will settle the argument once and for all!

and you can believe what you like becuase neither side of the argument have solid proof.i don't think we'll know for a long time because we simply don't understand enough about our brains (both psychologically and genetically/physically)

Child of our Time is comedy, lest I quote some really good stuff from his series.

However, overall we are getting fatter and - as IQ results have shown over the last 100 years - cleverer.

I think we can prove that professor winston is a quack here and that Television is not very educational.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Bloomers III

Was it Child Of Our Time? I watched that. Lets hope that in 14/15 years one of them turns out to be gay and then Robert Winston will settle the argument once and for all!

and you can believe what you like becuase neither side of the argument have solid proof.i don't think we'll know for a long time because we simply don't understand enough about our brains (both psychologically and genetically/physically)

Yep, that was it - I couldnt remember the name.

Did you watch it fully to understand what he was saying about the effects of enviroment during key development stages and am I being so unreasonable in using this research as some kind of example to help me explain why I believe what I believe?

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

This is correct and in such a situation we turn to people who are gay and ask them what they think and accept their view on the matter.

it's wise to turn to them, but you don't have to necessarily accept their views. a gay person is raelly as in the dark as to the causes of their sexuality as any scientist or psychologist or heterosexual. they base their opinion of being gay on nothing more than their personal feelings towards the matter, which is the same as everybody else does at the end of the day. i don't personally think their opinions are of any more value than anybody elses, becuase they really don't know anymore even if they are gay.

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Yep, that was it - I couldnt remember the name.
am I being so unreasonable in using this research as some kind of example to help me explain why I believe what I believe?

well ti was trivial research and also the link is pretty weak because homosexuality is probably a lot more complicated than shyness.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

In the case of homosexuality, I believe it is the same thing, you can either live a homosexual life or you can take steps to over come it.

Why would they try to overcome it? You're only going to want to overcome it if you think it's morally or socially wrong or something.

I like certain types of women for instance. I am only going to try and overcome this desire if they are way out of my league (and thus my unrealistic desires causes me unhappiness) or if desiring them would be morally wrong (e.g. if I desired my best friends girlfriend).

Obviously people can overcome their natural desires - but the desires themselves are not a matter of choice.

[Evergreen]

I Have Provided Resources And Material To Discuss This New Tangent Here And You All Ignore It.

Fools Cursable Fools!

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Bloomers III

well ti was trivial research and also the link is pretty weak because homosexuality is probably a lot more complicated than shyness.

Yes but I havent said that shyness is the same as homosexuality but what I am trying to say is that if it is possible for things like shyness to be affected in such a way then why not sexuality? It may be more complex as a reult but at an early stage in children (we were talking about 3/4 year olds) sexuality is very basic.

I believe it could be altered just as easily which is why I dont think it was a bad example to use.

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Gay people maintain that they are "just gay" so we have to accept that its not a choice which is what Crashtester was asserting.

i don't think it's a choice because nobody decides 'i think i'm going to bum men all my life because it would annoy my parents' and a straight person doesn't ever choose to be straight. also how can i choice make a gay guy have butterflies or go red if sees a cute guy, that is pure natural instinct and is nothing to do with choice. the only way sexuality is really a choice is if a homosexual decides to try and live a straight life, but that doesn't change their sexuality only their perceived one.

i don't really think that CT was saying it's a choice, it seems to me he's arguing that people become gay rather than born gay. you're all giving him a bad time, i think his opinion is valid even if he isn't supporting it well but no side has much to work off.

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Yes but I havent said that shyness is the same as homosexuality but what I am trying to say is that if it is possible for things like shyness to be affected in such a way then why not sexuality? It may be more complex as a reult but at an early stage in children (we were talking about 3/4 year olds) sexuality is very basic.

I believe it could be altered just as easily which is why I dont think it was a bad example to use.

okay okay. so what would you think of the suggestion that perhaps genetics etc. makes certain people more susceptible to enviornmental conditions that would lead to homosexuality? it seems feasible

[JonnyBGood]

No.





PS Is crashtester attention whoring again in this thread?

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is was he said. The imprtant point is the "and can be reversed"

yes, i accept that what he said there was rubbish. somebody who's shy (which is the example he likes to use) can make themselves speak to epople and be sociable, but that's a forced choice and it doesn't stop them being any less shy mentally. a homosexual can choose to be straight, but they're still a homosexual living a lie. i did say above that is the onyl choice involved in homosexuality, everything else is hard wired so to speak

[sayonara]

If homosexual behaviour were the product of social pressures, we'd see a correlation between different types of society (across the world and through history), and prevalence of homosexuality. Nothing really stands out in that respect.

If homosexual behaviour were the product of family and upbringing, we'd see a very strong correlation between homosexuals and backgrounds. We don't. Therefore it clearly is more complex.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be "justified" and it certainly doesn't need people mincing about telling us they "consider" it the only alternative sexuality (whatever that's supposed to mean, it doesn't really go anywhere society hasn't covered before).

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why would they try to overcome it? You're only going to want to overcome it if you think it's morally or socially wrong or something.

I like certain types of women for instance. I am only going to try and overcome this desire if they are way out of my league (and thus my unrealistic desires causes me unhappiness) or if desiring them would be morally wrong (e.g. if I desired my best friends girlfriend).

Obviously people can overcome their natural desires - but the desires themselves are not a matter of choice.

But how you deal with them, that is the choice. Its all I am trying to say on that matter.

[JonnyBGood]

Homosexuality and left-handedness have a significant prevalence among extremely intelligent people. What does this tell us about the world? Certain things happen and people make up reasons for them out of nowhere.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Bloomers III

okay okay. so what would you think of the suggestion that perhaps genetics etc. makes certain people more susceptible to enviornmental conditions that would lead to homosexuality? it seems feasible

Yes I agee. I said in my first post though that I didnt think that had been proven so at this time I personally do not take that to be the case. But feasible none the less.

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by sayonara

If homosexual behaviour were the product of family and upbringing, we'd see a very strong correlation between homosexuals and backgrounds. We don't. Therefore it clearly is more complex.

not even private boarding schools?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

But how you deal with them, that is the choice. Its all I am trying to say on that matter.

OK. But then all you can say see is :

Having gay sex is a free choice.
Having gay tendencies is not.

Which as T&F has noted, is quite a step back from your original point. If you had said the above originally then I think everyone would have accepted it as a fairly banal truism. But then, that wouldn't have prompted lots of replies would it?

[queball]

Originally Posted by sayonara

If homosexual behaviour were the product of social pressures, we'd see a correlation between different types of society (across the world and through history), and prevalence of homosexuality. Nothing really stands out in that respect.

If homosexual behaviour were the product of family and upbringing, we'd see a very strong correlation between homosexuals and backgrounds. We don't. Therefore it clearly is more complex.

Rubbish. All Spartans were gay for example. And randomness doesn't make things "complex".