|
Post by thatguy on Apr 25, 2007 18:17:32 GMT -5
I don't think that homosexuality is a personal choice or illness, a disorder perhaps. A gay friend of mine once said to me "Why would I choose to belong to one of the most hated groups in society?" He has a point. Genes do control most functions in our bodies like the structure of organs. If the genes form something in the brain that controls sexuality (probably true given the complexity of interactions in the brain) it could lend itself to a miswiring that would cause attraction to the same gender. There could also be other causul factors like diet during the developing stages of the fetus or first few years of childhood. Who knows.......yet. It is still young science. I agree with alienmind. Why do we have to have a purpose in life? Why can't we just be? I have no illusions that there is some great meaning or afterlife. I just want to take this opportunity in life and experience as much as I can and make others have a good time in thiers. As for the child thing I think that is just biological wiring. We are animals after all, we have a biological drive to procrate and protect our children, that is probably why we tend to make lifelong bonds with our mates. It was a strength that was naturally selected.
As for all of those stats. I think that I would drink alot, ect. if I was hated and oppressed by huge sections of society and perhaps my family for something that I could not help.
The promiscuity thing. Those stats are probably from the male homosexuals, not the females. I would put it this way. I love sex and would like to have it with far more women than I have. Now, if I was regularly put in a bar filled with women that felt the same way as I do (without the societal pressures to not give it up) I think that I would have been with hundreds of women by now. If you had a population like that you would probably see STD rates, ect like you do with the male homosexual population. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 26, 2007 22:40:54 GMT -5
I don't think that homosexuality is a personal choice or illness, a disorder perhaps. A gay friend of mine once said to me "Why would I choose to belong to one of the most hated groups in society?" He has a point. Genes do control most functions in our bodies like the structure of organs. If the genes form something in the brain that controls sexuality (probably true given the complexity of interactions in the brain) it could lend itself to a miswiring that would cause attraction to the same gender. There could also be other causul factors like diet during the developing stages of the fetus or first few years of childhood. Who knows.......yet. It is still young science. I do believe its a disorder, but one more connected psychologically then physically. There have been many cases where homosexuals started as straight people obsessed with pornography. Eventually the need to find more exciting images led to an exposure to homosexual pornography, which literally twisted the mind. I do not believe it is genes, since the one case of a man who found evidence of genes couldn't repeat his experiment, and his observations were rejected by the rest of the scientific community as false. When other geneticists say your not thinking genetically, I think its time to stop rushing back to "we were born that way". Thats your illusion, that your meaning is to have a good time and to make everybody have a good time. With all the powers and space in the universe you just want to have a good time. If it was naturally selected then why do we have the weakness of being selfish? Why do some parents not take care of their children? Why do some go halfway? If we are as predictable as animals in a habitat at the zoo your going to have to come up with more beef than this. Oppressed? I I walked outside with underwear over my head, and someone said they didn't like that would I go wailing through the streets saying I'm being oppressed? This is America, and we all have the right to an opinion. I choose mine against their lifestyle, so why say they are being oppressed by me? I'm not oppressing anyone I don't agree with here, so why would we feel they are oppressed? Because they say they are. This constant media coverage of gay events and these shows where gays are being stoned secretly and all this nonsense ends up making the public feel that they are an oppressed people. But thats another issue.... But your not regularly put in a bar, filled with women who think like that because normal human beings don't act like that. This proves my point. Wanting to have sex with hundreds of people might be odd, but having a compelling urge is a psychological disorder.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 27, 2007 15:56:14 GMT -5
Here's an important question:
Why is homosexuality, or are homosexuals, bad, or wrong? (Directed toward Voltage)
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on Apr 27, 2007 16:31:26 GMT -5
I don't have an answer for your naturally selected selfish question as I am not any sort of social, psycological, brain/behaviour scientist. I can only find/review the studies as a layman. Anyway here is some beef. Check out www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.gangestad.htmlOr do you want me to cut and paste the whole thing? On the bar topic. This is admittedly anecdotal. However, I have a male relative that is gay. I have spent many nights out with him and his friends doing normal things as well as going to places like gay bars with them. I have discussed thier seeming promiscuity. Among my relatives social circle there was little stigma or cause for alarm about picking up someone for the night. I have seen them and others pick up people for the night or week. On a side note I have also witnessed this activity among my heterosexual friends. The analogy I was trying to make about the bar is that a bar full of promiscuous women is similar to a gay bar and would have similar statistics. It is admittedly not a scientific analysis just and off the cuff thought. The oppression bit... I personally believe in this country where all people are supposed to be on even footing. IE treated on all counts as equal. Now take for instance the LEGAL institution of marraige as opposed to the religious institution of marriage. Within the legal parameters of marraige there are a huge number of benefits, responsibilities, and powers that you get once you are married. I feel that all of these benefits, responsibilities, and powers should be granted to any two people that want to make a binding legal conctract like the legal contract of marriage. This is currently denied to same sex couples. I could care less what it is called as long as it is equal to all people that make the contract. Perhaps the word oppresion is a bit strong but denial of benefits is a form of oppression. Having hate mongers like Fred Phelps and free thinkers like Ted Haggard and Lonnie Lathan influence tens of thousands of people to hate a group and become politically active to keep you from reaching equality could be deemed oppressed. I really think there is a biological part to homosexuality. It has not been found yet but research is pointing that way. Here is some things to read if you want. I did not read more than the abstracts but wanted to provide some "Beef". 1) Bailey, J.M., Dunne, M.P., Martin, N.G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3) 2)LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in Hypothalmic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men 3)Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu and Pattatucci (1993) A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261(5119): 321-7 4)Hu, S., Pattatucci, A. M. L., Patterson, C., Li, L., Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., Kruglyak, L., & Hamer, D. H. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11, 248–256 5)THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF MEN WHO WERE BROUGHT UP IN GAY OR LESBIAN HOUSEHOLDS WILLIAM H. JAMES a1 a1 The Galton Laboratory, University College London Abstract Elsewhere the author has suggested that adolescent and adult male homosexual orientation is, in some cases, causally associated with sexual or quasi-sexual experience in childhood (James, 2004). Here it is argued that the available data on men raised by same-sex parents cannot validly be interpreted as supporting or refuting this suggestion. 6)Bocklandt, S.B., Horvath, S., Vilain, E., Hamer, D.H. (2006). Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men. Human Genetics, 118:691-694 How about some "beef" on the porn addict turned gay and the one guy who did a study.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 2, 2007 11:45:11 GMT -5
Anyone going to answer my question...?
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on May 3, 2007 15:39:23 GMT -5
Well here is my answer. Homosexuality nor Homosexuals are neither bad or wrong. They are just people with the same hopes and dreams as everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 4, 2007 14:07:36 GMT -5
Here's an important question: Why is homosexuality, or are homosexuals, bad, or wrong? (Directed toward Voltage) We procreate by a (male) fertilizing a (female)'s egg. This makes homosexuality wrong, scientifically since without adoption or artificial impregnation homosexuals cannot reproduce. I am surprised that those who believe whole-heartedly in evolution are supporting a partner system that cannot naturally procreate. I believe it morally wrong, because of Romans 1. Are they bad? Sounds like a loaded question. If a person was abused by there male role-model when they were growing up, then insisting on homosexual tendencies might be a 'bad' choice. All in all asking me if I think they are bad is a little silly, since I think through Christ everyone has the opportunity to change. I don't look at anyone as "bad", but merely misguided.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 4, 2007 14:21:57 GMT -5
When you admit you read that entire page, I will read it. I read the first paragraph and found that the article is based off things strictly speculative.
So your saying that a bar full of sexually promiscuous women is the same as a gay bar? I believe prostitutes are sexually promiscuous women. Perhaps you should have said that a whorehouse is no different than a gay bar. *shrug*
Then I suggest we should give marriage benefits to men marrying themselves, or men marrying multiple wives, or how about men marrying animals? We shouldn't deny rights to gays, but what about all the other wackos who want to get married. I think America isn't ready to give up the natural commitment of marriage to whoever wants the benefits!
I read a few of these, but they say no more than someone agreeing with something, all in all its mostly incomplete and hard to follow. Perhaps if you gave me a real article instead of bits of pieces of abstract jargon.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 4, 2007 14:30:09 GMT -5
Progression of Porn Addiction: Source: Dr. Victor Cline, Salt Lake City therapist So (in the case of males) when those images of naked girls isn't satisfying, and you progress to escalation, needed more deviant images, and then desensitization, homosexual porn offers a "new" and/or "fresh" method of satisfying the addiction. When you progress to Acting it out in real life, you find people picking up gay prostitutes and going to gay bar for a weekend pick-up. Thats pretty beefy.
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on May 4, 2007 16:46:06 GMT -5
When you admit you read that entire page, I will read it. I read the first paragraph and found that the article is based off things strictly speculative. I skimmed it. This is what is called a literature review. It is a paper that is written using peer reviewed published papers on a subject. It is generally used to develop ideas or questions for further study. Science is speculative in a way. What will happen if I throw this ball off the building? What if I throw two. You would then go design and experiment that tries to remove as many external factors as possible and then test your idea. Or are you saying that they are just wildly guessing at stuff? In this paper they were looking at human mating strategies, like monogamy, or promiscuity. It also discussed how this may affect mate selection and ability to raise children. IE attentive parents, indifferent parents, or neglectful parents. So your saying that a bar full of sexually promiscuous women is the same as a gay bar? I believe prostitutes are sexually promiscuous women. Perhaps you should have said that a whorehouse is no different than a gay bar. *shrug* I suppose if you ignore the money changing hands and the business aspect of it. I would personally differentiate between people that engage in something because they want/like to and people who do something because they have no choice/alternative. I acknowledge that some people are prostitutes because they want to but many more do it because they have no choice. Goggle human trafficking to see what I mean. Then I suggest we should give marriage benefits to men marrying themselves, or men marrying multiple wives, or how about men marrying animals? We shouldn't deny rights to gays, but what about all the other wackos who want to get married. I think America isn't ready to give up the natural commitment of marriage to whoever wants the benefits! I think that the legal part of marriage is a contract between two people (most states man and woman), so marrying yourself would not qualify. This also make no sense as you would still claim 0 or 1 on your taxes, you would only get the one person deduct, you would will your stuff to yourself when you die, if you were incapacitated you would have to make medical decisions for yourself, when you died your social security entitlement you have to go to yourself. I mean really marrying yourself is kinda silly. I personally have no problem with people marrying more than one person as long as all involved go into it knowingly and understand the ramifications. I personally would not want to pay alimony and child support to a whole bunch women but thats just me. I think that animals are considered property not people so again marriage to an animal would be silly. Besides I don't think that anyone wants their pet llama deciding if they should be pulled off of life support. Or are you just being inflammatory? I read a few of these, but they say no more than someone agreeing with something, all in all its mostly incomplete and hard to follow. Perhaps if you gave me a real article instead of bits of pieces of abstract jargon. Define "real article". Those are real articles out of peer reviewed scientific publications. If you want the whole paper you need to go to a college and look it up or pay each publication a fee to read the article. I am sorry that they are difficult and hard to read. I have a hard time with papers in the field I studied never mind a different discipline. That is why the media frequently overstates or just misses the whole idea of a scientific finding. They don't know what is being said. Regardless, by looking at the titles you can see that there is a significant quantity of research that has been conducted on homosexuality and that it is pointing to biological factors. I did not think that anyone would actually read the papers as they are not as easy to access as just googleing them and they are hard to read unless you have the vocabulary to understand what is being discussed. However, if a person is so inclined they can read the papers and see how the experiment was designed, the problems, the successes, the results, and the conclusions about the results. I do think that evolution is currently the best theory for the development of us and the organisms that inhabit the world with us. I do not see how this has anything to do with homosexuals being "bad" or "wrong" or supporting something that gives them similar legal rights to heterosexuals in our democratic society. They fit within natural selection and evolutionary theory, there are mutations and some will prove beneficial, some will do nothing, many will not be beneficial. Assuming there is a biological basis for homosexuality (like the papers discussed earlier are starting to point to) then homosexuality is a normal, natural occurrence that has no benefit, and will be self limiting because they cannot reproduce. What you are suggesting, is to me, like thinking that someone with some other biological anomaly, for example, being born without a hand, a genetic disease like cystic fibrosis, or down syndrome is wrong and should be excluded from the benefits that the "normal" people have. Does that make it morally wrong that someone that was born with one hand should be denied the opportunity to marry and have children? After all, they may pass it on to their kids. Is it morally wrong that someone who is heterosexual and married does not have children even if they can? It is ironic that you used Dr. Victor Cline, Salt Lake City therapist for your beef as I am teaching in Salt Lake this week. Anyway, he did not make the connection between pornography addiction and homosexuality. I am sure that there is some minority of people that have had homosexual experiences because of porn. But I am not sure that those people would change their identification from heterosexual to homosexual because of porn or a few experiences. So, you did provide some beef for porn addiction you provided none for people changing their self identification from heterosexual to homosexuality because of porn addiction. I will accept papers from peer reviewed scientific papers only. Titles, authors, and abstracts. That way I can at least verify that it is a creditable publication from my hotel room. Secondly, even if there are people who have changed their self identification from heterosexual to homosexual because of porn addiction it does not address the vast majority of homosexuals that identify themselves as homosexuals from a young age or most lesbians since they like the majority of women are not as interested in porn like men are.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 5, 2007 16:45:40 GMT -5
We procreate by a (male) fertilizing a (female)'s egg. This makes homosexuality wrong, scientifically since without adoption or artificial impregnation homosexuals cannot reproduce. I am surprised that those who believe whole-heartedly in evolution are supporting a partner system that cannot naturally procreate. What's wrong with the inability to reproduce? Do we really need even more babies being born when there are plenty already alive without proper homes that could be adopted? I'm probably going to get a vasectomy when I get married, so my wife doesn't get pregnant, and if we want kids, we'll adopt some of the ones who really need it. Is there something morally wrong with preventing sperm from fertilizing eggs? What about masterbation, or nocturnal emissions. Menstruation? Are those wrong because they waste valuable gametes as well? Progression of Porn Addiction: Source: Dr. Victor Cline, Salt Lake City therapist So (in the case of males) when those images of naked girls isn't satisfying, and you progress to escalation, needed more deviant images, and then desensitization, homosexual porn offers a "new" and/or "fresh" method of satisfying the addiction. When you progress to Acting it out in real life, you find people picking up gay prostitutes and going to gay bar for a weekend pick-up. Thats pretty beefy. Are you suggesting something is wrong with exploring sexuality? A lot of people just call that being kinky, and think of it as a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 7, 2007 9:22:49 GMT -5
When you admit you read that entire page, I will read it. I read the first paragraph and found that the article is based off things strictly speculative. I skimmed it. This is what is called a literature review. It is a paper that is written using peer reviewed published papers on a subject. It is generally used to develop ideas or questions for further study. Science is speculative in a way. What will happen if I throw this ball off the building? What if I throw two. You would then go design and experiment that tries to remove as many external factors as possible and then test your idea. Or are you saying that they are just wildly guessing at stuff? In this paper they were looking at human mating strategies, like monogamy, or promiscuity. It also discussed how this may affect mate selection and ability to raise children. IE attentive parents, indifferent parents, or neglectful parents. I'm not sure, thatguy, because I am very used to discussing concepts rather than broken up and/or incomplete articles. I looked up a few links and found one or two sentences from who knows in regards to a study I have to pay for? I am going to have to reject your qualifications for information, simply because I am not going to pay for anything just to settle a debate. Now if you wish to bring out these peer reviews, thats fine. But my point is simply that the original article would have more use here. Human trafficking is a different subject, and it alone could derail the point. I posted a set of statistics which displayed an alarmingly high percentage of homosexuals who had sexually transmitted diseases, which one can assume means that homosexuals participate in a lot of sexual activity. How can you make up the rules? By your terms, anyone can get married and if your not allowed, you are having your rights taken away. And the idea that polygamy is a good thing is rather disturbing and I hope you didn't accept that just to demonstrate your agreement with that view. I define a real article as one which is original, not a bunch of small one-two sentence "abstracts" which don't really say anything other than "I agree". There is as much homosexual research going on right now as the article permits, and I'll take your word on it that there is more. But to say that it's all pointing to biological factors is too far a jump since no test subjects and/or observation seems to have been recorded. Do we give those with Down syndrome the same rights as others? I'm not sure. But we do take care of them, and treat them as human beings who need the help of others because they were born with an extra chromosome. I believe more and more each day that homosexuality is a mental problem, and has deep connections with sexual and/or pornographic addiction. We should be attempting to help these people regain there actual sexual orientation rather than fighting for their "rights". Once more, I cannot attain the resources you request, and I do not believe that a few abstracts would help at all. I am not going to go to a college and purchase the original work because I have other things to do with my time. If you want to buy the article and post it here (pending copyright regulations) than I will be happy to read it. About pornographic progression, I would like you to read what I said about the progression from heterosexual to homosexual, since I believe you missed it.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 7, 2007 13:42:14 GMT -5
Who says these people have changed sexuality? I believe they simply come to a better understanding of it.
And what's so wrong with it? You didn't exactly address my last post. They don't hurt anyone, they aren't a threat to themselves, and not having babies is probably a good thing at this point.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 8, 2007 8:50:45 GMT -5
Who says these people have changed sexuality? I believe they simply come to a better understanding of it. And what's so wrong with it? You didn't exactly address my last post. They don't hurt anyone, they aren't a threat to themselves, and not having babies is probably a good thing at this point. I am not going to recite the 'birds and the bee's' because I am going to assume you are intelligent and mature enough to know what sex makes.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2007 18:43:04 GMT -5
Who says these people have changed sexuality? I believe they simply come to a better understanding of it. And what's so wrong with it? You didn't exactly address my last post. They don't hurt anyone, they aren't a threat to themselves, and not having babies is probably a good thing at this point. I am not going to recite the 'birds and the bee's' because I am going to assume you are intelligent and mature enough to know what sex makes. Do you actually have a real response to Paragon's post? Most people have a higher level of conscience then most animals. And people do not always just have sex for the purpose of passing on their genes. Alot of times people have sex just for fun or pleasure; hence protected sex, oral sex, bondage, homosexuality and whatever other forms of sex there are. I can't believe that you, the ultimate human-centric, animal hating member of this forum would make such an ignorant post...
|
|