Homosexuals

[Bubonic Plague]

Recently, the Singapore government has started relaxing rules, one of which is the allowance of homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs.

And just today, i read in the Straits Times forum that some people disagree with this move.

The article can be found here:Govt should rethink hiring of gays (http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/story/0,4386,199754,00.html?)

One of this person's reason is that "Gays are never born that way".

This brings up a few questions. Are gays really never born that way? Are there any scientific studies and related matter on this subject?

I'm interested in hearing some of your inputs.

[Iacchus32]

I think it's possible to have a genetic predispostion towards it (hormonal imbalance), but I think in a good majority of cases it's a psychological issue, for example of a young man being brought up by a domineering mother. Or, perhaps in young people who lack in self-esteem, or aren't particularly attractive, who seek out companionship of the same sex.

Then there's always the possibility of young children being molested as well, who get coerced into doing these things by means of a parent, a close member of the family, a teacher, a priest, etc. Or, if a child runs away from a broken home, and has to find a means by which to survive ... i.e., through child prostitution.

[Zero]

I think alot of people confuse homosexuality with gender issues. Like, if a man is gay, he wants to be a woman.

[Mentat]

Iacchus is right that it is usually a psychological issue. However, there is also the fact that, when a mother's hypothalamus doesn't produce enough testosterone, while pregnant of a boy, the boy will have a tendency for homosexuality.

BTW, there was a recent study that I heard of, which said that boys with older brothers are more likely to be born gay, because the mother's immune system could have built up antibodies to male hormones. I don't know how credible this is, but it seemed reasonable.

[eNtRopY]

Whatever happened to the gay gene theory?
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

eNtRopY

[Mentat]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Whatever happened to the gay gene theory?
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

eNtRopY

"Gay gene theory"? If there's already a theory, then yes, this should be in the Other Sciences Forum. In fact, it might be a little more comfortable there anyway. Maybe Kerrie will move it.

[Kerrie]

i firmly believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with...i have known several people from the time they were children into adulthood that displayed behaviors as children that tend to make one think they might one day display homosexual behaviors as adults...if only those who are biased against them could see it...

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i firmly believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with...i have known several people from the time they were children into adulthood that displayed behaviors as children that tend to make one think they might one day display homosexual behaviors as adults...if only those who are biased against them could see it...

I would like to clearify on this post, perhaps not to Kerrie's original intent.

Children that are born with, what Iacchus32 has said, homosexual imbalances would be able to be 'cured' (crude, I know and for a literal meaning, perhaps, incorrect, as homosexuality may or may not be 'bad'; let's say veered from the homosexual path?) of homosexuality through psychological means, such as counceling.

If the child was born with the disposition to be homosexual, one would think that the wiring of the brain would be inherently different from that of a heterosexual mind. This, in turn, would lead, me -among others I hope-, to believe that this 'homosexual trait' would not be 'curable' through counceling.

Now, as stated in another thread, studies (recent) have shown that there has been much success in 'treating' homosexuals and assimilating them into heterosexual attraction.

[RageSk8]

I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice. Why would someone want to be hated, ridiculed, fired from their job because of their sexuality, or denied the right marry who they wished?

Now, as stated in another thread, studies (recent) have shown that there has been much success in 'treating' homosexuals and assimilating them into heterosexual attraction.

What thread? And especially what studies? And who did these studies?

[Bubonic Plague]

Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

Hm....looks like i made a bad call. I created the topic here because i was anticipating people like George Lim Heng Chye, who wrote the article, to start using religion to back up their stand.

So far, i've heard mostly beliefs. But are there more hard facts? Mind sharing 'em?

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice.

if it is not a chemical imbalance or choice, then what is it? my reasoning of why i believe people are born with it is because of my own experience of knowing 2 different people from the time they were children into adulthood as i explained in my above post...not to drag this off topic too much, but do animals display homosexual behaviors as well?

[quantumcarl]

Fact: I'm a male lesbian.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice. Why would someone want to be hated, ridiculed, fired from their job because of their sexuality, or denied the right marry who they wished?


You don't think that children are born with any sexual orientation at all? This is a highly "Nurture"-istic viewpoint, isn't it?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Fact: I'm a male lesbian.

That's impossible (it's an oxymoron, or self-contradiction).

[RageSk8]

You don't think that children are born with any sexual orientation at all? This is a highly "Nurture"-istic viewpoint, isn't it?

Sure, children may be born with biological traits sympathetic to the creation of a sexual orientation, but I feel this says very little. The only way to make sense of "being biologically sympathetic or prone" is to have a full understanding of the cultural context of the individual with said biological traits. This is why I feel the whole nature/nurture distinction is useless.

[RageSk8]

my reasoning of why i believe people are born with it is because of my own experience of knowing 2 different people from the time they were children into adulthood as i explained in my above post...not to drag this off topic too much, but do animals display homosexual behaviors as well?

Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

[radagast]

Research I've run across, concerned at statistical larger number of homosexual males that were born, in England, during or shortly after the blitz. A more recent study, queried a number of mothers, of gay and straight males, about the emotional times during the late first trimester and early to mid second trimester of gestation. The initial results seemed to indicate that stress hormones were likely to be part of a cause in later male homosexuality. There was some specuation as to this trigger in combination with a homozygous recessive gene, was the cause.

While the correlations between prenatal stress and homosexuality of offspring were not high, the correlation between mothers of homosexual males having had stress during said pregnacy was high. This data does support the speculation, as to cause.

Similar to Mentat, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. [:)]

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
That's impossible (it's an oxymoron, or self-contradiction).

"Not even nothing is impossible." Carl [;)]

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

If you believe they are a species then you would also believe fully that they have inherent chemical and biological homosexual traits, which you say you don't believe.

What thread? And especially what studies? And who did these studies?

Do a search of PF and find the thread yourself.

You have also contradicted yourself by first saying you don't believe people are born homosexual and then agreeing they can be born with homosexual traits, but writing this off by saying these traits have no bearing on homosexual adults. It's like being born with a social disorder and saying that the chemical imbalance has no bearing on your bashfulness as an adult.

At least this is what your stance, as of this post, would appear to be.

What animals show homosexual behavior?, long term, not just the occasional female dog humping another female dog; this is odd but hardly qualifies the female dogs to be considered homosexuals.

The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

This is partly true, there are cases when we can identify the homosexual outcome due to childhood experiences, but not in all cases can we recognise the entire outcome of society on sexuality. Your choice of words [enculturation] makes me think the homosexual child (now adult) was raised in a gay bar or something[:)] Homosexuality isn't the majority, to my knowledge, in any society, so there is no possible way a child could pick up homosexual behavior through the assimilation of a society's culture; I will protect myself by narrowing the scope of society to the parties involved, I trust the children were not raised in a predominantly homosexual society.

[RageSk8]

If you believe they are a species then you would also believe fully that they have inherent chemical and biological homosexual traits, which you say you don't believe.

I don't believe they are a species and either did Foucault. Foucault's volumes on the History of Sexuality detail the social creation of sexual categories, the implicit discourses that led to modern conceptions of sexuality. Before for Foucault the popular intelectual theory of sexuality was a "repressive hypothesis", that the gay movement and sexual promescuity were signs of peoples true sexual nature coming out finally after hundreds of years of repression. Foucault, to many, showed how these movements were nothing but continued discourses of old, socially created. Foucault, and other "good" social constructivists, do away with the idea of a human nature (a very good thing). This however does not mean they promote a purely "nurture" stance, our behavior always deals with biology. The difference is that the individuals behavior is always put in terms of both biology and society - biology is never given the role of a blueprint. The way I read Foucault (and many others) leads to the rejection of the nature/nurture distinction because no line can ever be drawn (biology doesn't do one thing and society another, they are completely intertwined and dependent on each other).

You have also contradicted yourself by first saying you don't believe people are born homosexual and then agreeing they can be born with homosexual traits, but writing this off by saying these traits have no bearing on homosexual adults. It's like being born with a social disorder and saying that the chemical imbalance has no bearing on your bashfulness as an adult.

Read above and and my reply to Mentat.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Sure, children may be born with biological traits sympathetic to the creation of a sexual orientation, but I feel this says very little. The only way to make sense of "being biologically sympathetic or prone" is to have a full understanding of the cultural context of the individual with said biological traits. This is why I feel the whole nature/nurture distinction is useless.

Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

[Zantra]

I personally lean towards the phsychological theory. Regardless of weather a baby is born with homosexual traits, it's the environmental influences that ultimately determine the sexual orientation. The studies on prenatal hormonal imbalance are interesting, but I think ultimately will prove to be false.

[RageSk8]

Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

Easily explained: The woman's hypothalamus didn't produce enough testosterone for both of them. No mystery here; you just have a woman whose hypothalamus wasn't prepared for more than one boy at a time.

[RageSk8]

Easily explained: The woman's hypothalamus didn't produce enough testosterone for both of them. No mystery here; you just have a woman whose hypothalamus wasn't prepared for more than one boy at a time.

Not necessarily. Just because hormone levels in pregnency coincide to sexuality does not mean there is a mapping. Yes a lack of testosterone can make a male child more likely to be gay, but most gay males still recieved plenty of testosterone. There is no single cause of homosexuality, there is a plethora of interactions. We have discovered a few of them, but not nearly all of them.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

[RageSk8]

Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

But organisms do many other things besides reproduce. All are caused by the interaction between their environment and their biology - I see no way to deviate one behavior caused by this interaction from another. We get inputs and shoot out outputs. Our outputs are determined by the contingency of our inputs.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
But organisms do many other things besides reproduce. All are caused by the interaction between their environment and their biology - I see no way to deviate one behavior caused by this interaction from another. We get inputs and shoot out outputs. Our outputs are determined by the contingency of our inputs.

You're still missing my point: If all things are "caused by the interaction between their environment", then homosexuals can only be considered as dead-ends in a biological process. It doesn't appear that it can be natural for biological processes to have such a dead-end.

[RageSk8]

You're still missing my point: If all things are "caused by the interaction between their environment", then homosexuals can only be considered as dead-ends in a biological process. It doesn't appear that it can be natural for biological processes to have such a dead-end.

You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by RageSk8
My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

Being gay doesn't make you impotent. People have often not been gay their entire lives. Also, some people marry members of the opposite sex to be more culturally-acceptable. Remember "The Birdcage"? Robin Williams's gay character had a son.



Originally posted by RageSk8
You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.


Good points. It is all too common a false belief that evolution has a purpose.

Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.


How is a chemical imbalance an "unnatural" imbalance?
There is no "point" to sex, other than what an individual ascribes to it, and then that's only the point for that individual having sex. If the only "point" of sex was reproduction, then we'd either have an incredible reproduction rate or a lot less sex going on.

The only definition of what "natural" really means that I can come up with is "the way things have been for a long time." Homosexuality has been around for a LONG time, whether or not it was in the majority.

Finally, whether or not something is considered "unnatural" is irrelevant. That's just an arbitrary criterion for a value judgment.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zantra
I personally lean towards the phsychological theory. Regardless of weather a baby is born with homosexual traits, it's the environmental influences that ultimately determine the sexual orientation. The studies on prenatal hormonal imbalance are interesting, but I think ultimately will prove to be false.

IMO, a baby born with homosexual traits would be mutually exclusive with environmental influences determining sexual orientation. Whether that orientation was acted on, or even acknowledged by the individual in question would, most likely, be psycological, but if you state a baby has homosexual traits, then, almost by definition, that is defining their future orientation. The reason I say this is sexual orientation isn't detectable until after puberty starts (certainly not at birth), so by saying a baby was born with homosexual traits - this had to be inferred from later [observed] orientation.

On a different note -
Being the ideas of a domineering mother have been fairly well discounted [as a cause of homosexuality], and children raised of homosexual parents have no higher probability of being homosexual. I'm curious as to what leads you to believe environmental experiences would influence sexual orientation.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

This completely discounts two things -

1) is homosexuality could be, at least partially, carried as a recessive gene, so passing the genes on is quite possible. By your reasoning, there would be no sickle cell anemia, given homozygous SC patients all died before puberty (until the 20th century), thus unable to pass on their genes. A number of other recessive diseases, which kill before puberty (some prenatally) would also fall into this category. Beta Thallassemia Major comes to mind.


2) You assume homosexual individuals do not procreate. Until fairly recently, in many cultures most homosexuals were so perscuted that they would 'act straight' to survive. They would marry and have children, just to prevent persucution. That they were not as attracted, sexually, to their mate didn't prevent their sperm/egg from combining to form a new little human.

There has also been some research having to do with the possible beneficial aspects for the species, of lowering reproductive rates (therefore preventing the expenditure vital resources fruitlessly), during times of stress - which fits with the prenatal stress hormone research. If this seems not to make sense, think about prey-preditor communities. When normal predation is evident in deer, the community thrives (given no other pressures), if something [like man] severely reduces predation, the deer population explodes and mass starvation ensues. The population swings are greatly accentuated - leading to the greater possiblitity that the community could be wiped out, if a population trough hits simultaneously with a different stressor.

When rats are kept in extremely over-populated environments, their offspring show a much higher probability toward homosexual traits, once they reach puberty.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.


Uhh, I hate to shot fish in a barrell, but...

Homosexuals don't always reproduce, but they can reproduce and are quite capable of doing so. Until extremely recently, it was not uncommon for homosexuals to deny [often to themselves] that they were gay, in turn getting married and raising families.

[radagast]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

I disagree. Though I hate to argue such subjective terms as 'natural', I'll make the effort here. Before I do, I'll qualify 'natural' to a fairly specific meaning (one I assume you mean). Natural, used here, is to mean anything which will not seriously decrease a species ability to survive and continue it's genetic line.

There is some research that gives possible species benefits to a stress triggered increase in homosexual traits. [see previous post]

Eating, procreating, and motion are natural, but Bears have adapted to reduce them during seasons where food is scarce and the environment is more hostile (winter). Does that mean bears aren't natural? Spore forming bacilli have a similar response to environmental stress.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Eating, procreating, and motion are natural, but Bears have adapted to reduce them during seasons where food is scarce and the environment is more hostile (winter). Does that mean bears aren't natural? Spore forming bacilli have a similar response to environmental stress. No, but it could mean it's "a-bear-rational." Hmm ... that sounds about right, because as I understand, a bear in the "spiritual sense" signifies "ignorance." [;)]

Which brings up a piece I wrote about called The Bear and the Garbage Can (http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html#bear), which involves a man's ignorance -- both sexually and spiritually -- and his attempts to "sanitize" his relationship with his wife (i.e., so he doesn't wimp out and possibly become homosexual). The piece is fairly brief so I would recommend reading the whole chapter (also fairly brief), just to give you an idea of who this "Roy Masters" character is.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

[radagast]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
People have often not been gay their entire lives.

While I agreed with most of what you said, the above seems to contradict common experience, assuming your using definitions where gay means a homosexual type sexual orientation. I've never heard of someone changing sexual orientation. In these discussions we need to clarify between 'One who has sex with same gendered partners' and those who are 'attracted to the same gender'.

In arguing with fundamentalists, it took me a while to realize they always meant the former, while most in common society nowadays, tend to mean the latter.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.

No, I know all of this; my point is that species cannot continue existing, unless there is replication. Replication was the most glorious (from a human perspective) accident of Evolution. If replication doesn't occur, a species goes extinct (obviously). So, while it may be "natural" for one to be homosexual (as nature allows for anything, and cares not about the continuation of species), it is a biological dead-end, and is not something that is to be considered in anyway desirable to the species. IOW, while Nature doesn't care if species continue existing, the organisms in the species do, and they have devised ways of continuing their species' existence. Anything that challenges the arrangement invented by the species might as well not be part of the same species, and their own species should die off with them.

Also, while - if you take my (above) point to be correct - you can thus consider homosexuals to be another step in Evolution from Homo Sapiens Sapiens, seperated by a mutation, they are still a species that, if left on their own, would die out quickly.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by radagast
Uhh, I hate to shot fish in a barrell, but...

Homosexuals don't always reproduce, but they can reproduce and are quite capable of doing so. Until extremely recently, it was not uncommon for homosexuals to deny [often to themselves] that they were gay, in turn getting married and raising families.

Please see my response to RageSk8, about the different species, that is incapable of reproducing without help from it's "ancestor species".

[Dissident Dan]

Homosexuals are not a different species. Species is a biological classification. It is a classification that says nothing about whether you choose to reproduce, only if you can. Ask any biologist.

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

eNtRopY

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Homosexuals are not a different species. Species is a biological classification. It is a classification that says nothing about whether you choose to reproduce, only if you can. Ask any biologist.

But that's my point. No matter whether you choose to reproduce or not, a homosexual is attracted to members of the same sex. So, if you let them go with how "nature" has made them, they will die off. They have to violate their own "nature" to continue their genetic line.

It'd be as though all humans died, except for one, and that human had to mate with a chimp (closest relative to humans). This humans would be going against his/her nature, just to continue his/her genetic line.

Do you see my reason for calling homosexuals a "different species".

Note: I don't have anything against homosexuals, as people. When I argue that it isn't natural, I'm doing so from a purely scientific standpoint, as I personally couldn't care less whether someone happens to be attracted to others of the same sex.

[Ejderha]

I believe -I don't know if it is smt to believe or not 'cause I remember reading an article on this long ago- homosexuality related with genetic profile of an individual. I know 3 gay people. Not much to talk about all may be, but one of them is really close to me since we were 15 and I don't remember him -ever- attracted to a woman. But I know they love each other 'cause they are the 'same' and they really don't have any differences when compared with heterosexual couples.

Is it natural or unnatural?

Evolution does not have a goal. It consists of chain mutations. So to claim there is something natural or unnatural in it, would be wrong I guess. It is about the human rules. Law, social, moral, religious...culture. But people in even harsh cultures and environments also stand for their sexual tendencies... No matter what the law or the accepted religion say...
They should have the very same rights as any other people... Including raising children...

[nevagil]

I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

Actually you bring up a good point. I've heard that before. Something about us all being innately bisexual, or at least curious. Of course if genetics is a factor, that means we're all born bisexual (or asexual) and change according to societal norms. Kind of a scary thought[;)]

[Zantra]

Originally posted by radagast
While I agreed with most of what you said, the above seems to contradict common experience, assuming your using definitions where gay means a homosexual type sexual orientation. I've never heard of someone changing sexual orientation. In these discussions we need to clarify between 'One who has sex with same gendered partners' and those who are 'attracted to the same gender'.

In arguing with fundamentalists, it took me a while to realize they always meant the former, while most in common society nowadays, tend to mean the latter.

I'll put forth a theory that it is indeed BOTH genetics and environment that can play a part. Thusfar everyone has drawn lines across the board and picked a side. But it's quite possible that under certain conditions, a mental choice can be made, and under others there is a disposition towards it. At times it could be due to both disposition and experiences/environment.

Certainly from the evidence we have, the suggestion is there that both could cause it. I know of people leading the typical "pefect life" who have chosen this lifestyle, and I also know of some witth questionable lives (mental health problems, family issues, traumatic experiences) who have become gay. Since there is no clear cut evidence that one or the other is key, they both must be a factor, logically.

Then there is the theory of everyone being innately bisexual and chooing a preference. Social ramifications lead us to make the easier lifestyle choice, but left unchecked would a larger percentage of the population choosee both if not influenced by social acceptance and population of the species? As gay,lesbian and bisexuality gain more and more social acceptance, we will eventually see the outcome of that freedom, and perhaps it will amount to 60 percent of the population becoming bisexual, while still maintaining population growth? Then of course triple couples would emerge as a norm. It does sound extreme, but I'm speaking from a logical scientific perspective that this is a possibility, given our current continual progression of sexual freedoms and expression. in time, say over 500 years, that could be an eventuality.

[Ejderha]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

I exactly agree with you nevagil! I will go further and say, it will be the most common thing in the far future.

Ejderha

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please see my response to RageSk8, about the different species, that is incapable of reproducing without help from it's "ancestor species".

I could redefine men and women as different species, as well, making reproduction impossible without help from outside the species, but this is a bizzarre definition of 'species'.

[radagast]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

This completely clouds the discussion. I, and I think many others, were working under the presumption that the term homosexuality, used here, referred to those with a primary sexual attraction to those of their own gender, vs heterosexual, which refers to primary attaction to other gender.

Bisexuals still have this primary attraction, only they have learned sexual experiences can be enjoyable, even in the absence of their optimal gender type. The bisexuality definition goes back to the old definitions based on sexual practices of an individual, not sexual orientation.

When discussing sexual orientation, there is homosexual and heterosexual. Until I read of individuals with primary sexual attractions (or orientations) toward both sexes, I will consider bisexuals to be homo or heterosexual, depending on their primary hormonal motivations.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
This completely clouds the discussion. I, and I think many others, were working under the presumption that the term homosexuality, used here, referred to those with a primary sexual attraction to those of their own gender, vs heterosexual, which refers to primary attaction to other gender.

Bisexuals still have this primary attraction, only they have learned sexual experiences can be enjoyable, even in the absence of their optimal gender type. The bisexuality definition goes back to the old definitions based on sexual practices of an individual, not sexual orientation.

When discussing sexual orientation, there is homosexual and heterosexual. Until I read of individuals with primary sexual attractions (or orientations) toward both sexes, I will consider bisexuals to be homo or heterosexual, depending on their primary hormonal motivations. And yet everybody is bisexual to the degree that we have both a male and female side, which is probably why it doesn't take more than a little "nudge" to set the inertia going in either direction. Especially since as children we tend to develop bonds towards children of the same sex, and don't develop an attraction towards the opposite sex until after puberty. While some of us may not be prepared to "take the plunge" so to speak, and fall back on our former bonds, which may ultimately develop into a homosexual relationship. Indeed, there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty (and pressure) that goes along with being an adolescent.

[radagast]

One correction - we do not develop attractions toward our respective 'orientation' gender after puberty, but at the onset - that's part of the definition of puberty.

As children we don't have sexual urges, so this is completely out of scope. If you mean we all have a male and female 'sexual' side, then you may need to elaborate. If you mean we have male and female aspects to our personalities, then that too is outside the scope of this discussion. Certainly, Gay or Straight, we can form lasting bonds of freindship that are outside the domain of sexual attraction. Prior to puberty I had no feelings of sexual attraction. At the onset of puberty I found girls/women taking up much more of my thoughts and triggering sexually based hormonal reactions, just at the sight of them. At the core of this debate we are discussing the origins/triggers of these urges.

I get an immediate, internal reaction from seeing an attractive woman. While I can recogize the characteristics of an attractive guy, the corrosponding internal reaction doesn't take place. I've had several friends (male and female) who are bisexual. They had a definite physical response to the sight of an attractive partner of a particular gender. They could get aroused at the idea of sexual intimacy with either, but only one gender would illicit the immediate, unmistakeable arousal reaction.

When we narrow the debate to this definition of homosexual/heterosexual, then there is no research I'm aware of, that shows this orientation could be influenced by social conditions or experience. If you are I'd be more than interesting in reading it.

No person I have ever talked to has ever remembered, at the onset of puberty, choosing an orientation. Persuming you are straight, do you remember choosing an attraction toward women? You propose that, somehow, being afraid of interacting with the opposite sex may shift our desires back to toward the same sex. This I find truly unlikely. Most kids of that age are afraid of the opposite sex (at least in that way) - hell I was terrified of them. That didn't change the fact that the urges come first. Guys, at puberty, gain the urges before they start thinking in terms of leaving childhood. Girls may think about relationships and things, before puberty, but it's from a 'playing house' POV, which is still firmly in the child/play mentality. It is this sexual awareness that force you out of childhood.

If it was possible to 'make the choice' on orientation, then it still should be. One thing that I have absolutely no control over is how I react, internally, at the site of a pretty woman. There would be no way in hell I could possibly 'change' this so that I had the same response to a man. Perhaps if society was different and I had a different sum of social experiences which formed my personality, I could be bisexual - but this doesn't mean I could develop a biological mechanism for being attracted to someone of the same gender (or were I gay, the opposite gender).

[Zantra]

Originally posted by radagast
As children we don't have sexual urges, so this is completely out of scope. If you mean we all have a male and female 'sexual' side, then you may need to elaborate. If you mean we have male and female aspects to our personalities, then that too is outside the scope of this discussion. Certainly, Gay or Straight, we can form lasting bonds of freindship that are outside the domain of sexual attraction. Prior to puberty I had no feelings of sexual attraction. At the onset of puberty I found girls/women taking up much more of my thoughts and triggering sexually based hormonal reactions, just at the sight of them. At the core of this debate we are discussing the origins/triggers of these urges.

I get an immediate internal reaction from seeing an attractive woman. While I can recogize the characteristics of an attractive guy, the corrosponding internal reaction doesn't take place. I've had several friends (male and female) who considered themselves bisexual. They had a definite physical response to the sight of an attractive partner of a particular gender. They could get aroused at the idea of sexual intimacy with either, but only one gender would illicit the immediate, unmistakeable arousal reaction.

When we narrow the debate to this definition of homosexual/heterosexual, then there is no research I'm aware of, that shows this orientation could be influenced by social conditions. If you are I'd be more than interesting in reading it.

No person I have ever talked to has ever remembered, at the onset of puberty, choosing an orientation. Persuming you are straight, do you remember choosing an attraction toward women? You propose that, somehow, being afraid of interacting with the opposite sex may shift our desires back to toward the same sex. This I find truly unlikely. Most kids of that age are afraid of the opposite sex (at least in that way) - hell I was terrified of them. That didn't change the fact that the urges come first. Guys, at puberty, gain the urges before they start thinking in terms of leaving childhood. Girls may think about relationships and things, before puberty, but it's from a 'playing house' POV, which is still firmly in the child/play mentality. It is this sexual awareness that force you out of childhood.

If it was possible to 'make the choice' on orientation, then it still should be. One thing that I have absolutely no control over is how I react, internally, at the site of a pretty woman. There would be no way in hell I could possibly 'change' this so that I had the same response to a man.

And what about the cases of extreme trauma? Things such as sexual abuse, traumatic childhood, other major betrayals of trust as a child by someone of the opposite sex? These have been shown to be factors in many people who've chosen homosexuality. These social factors can indeed lead someone to consider an alternative to a heterosexual relationship when thee is a trust issue with the opposite sex.

As far as less extreme circumstances, we exist primarily as a heterosexual society,through function and design. To say that it's impossible not to choose the alternative, is to say that you're a victim of conformism. If our society were more ambigious on sexual preference, it's entirely possible that someone could choose homosexuality if influenced from a young age. Sexual preference is a social one, not genetic. Last I heard they hadn't found the "gay gene" yet [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
It is this sexual awareness that force you out of childhood. And yet there's a lot of peer pressure, a lot of uncertainty, and a great deal of fear (as you say), and some of us just aren't ready to deal with it -- in fact I'm not even sure why teens should even consider messing around with sex? -- in which case many of us will fall back on what we're most familiar with, relations with the same sex which, may ultimately develop into something homosexual.

I also remember becoming extremely attracted to girls at the "onset" of puberty, and yet there was a tremendous amount of fear too -- "the fear of rejection." Both of which are very powerful emotions, one of which is going to rule over the other or, in the process it will tear you to pieces. This is essentially what happened to me as a youth, and it was also about the time that I began to notice homosexual tendencies in myself, which was equally unsettling. A person can only suffer going through "the guantlet" so many times before it begins to take its toll.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet there's a lot of peer pressure, a lot of uncertainty, and a great deal of fear (as you say), and some of us just aren't ready to deal with it -- in fact I'm not even sure why teens should even consider messing around with sex? -- in which case many of us will fall back on what we're most familiar with, relations with the same sex which, may ultimately develop into something homosexual.


But what you say seems to fly in the face of everything I've heard from gay individuals. Gay individuals, because the number of gays is a so much smaller portion of the populace, feel extremely alone and outcast, social pressures to conform are immense. This idea that the comfort of those of the same gender leads you to seek sex with them puts the cart before the horse - the desires come before the rational/prefrontal brain has a say. This is controlled at a very primative part of the brain - a part that evolved millions of years before social parts of the brain. In truth (at least for guys) we start discussing sex long before it becomes a possibility - so the desire to socially be with those of your own gender isn't a factor, that's when most social pressure begins to push a person toward the most common.

If social interaction is the cause, the culture would play a strong part. In human cultures, the percentages of homosexuals (not simply those who interact homosexually, but those attracted to the opposite sex) doesn't vary but an extremely small percent. The only corrolations with a change in this percent corrosponds to specific instances of high stress in the culture (specifically when the stress to the mother is in the late first trimester and early second trimester).

It seems that if your proposed cause were true, then populations where girls and boys grow up together and play together would show marked differences in the numbers of homosexuals who arise, compared to cultures where the boys and girls are kept quite seperate. These percentage disparities don't exist - from all I've read.

In answer to your wondering, teens start considering messing around with sex for the same reasons adults do - their bodies are guiding them in that direction, with hormones that trigger strong desires. The desires lead the psycology, in this case, not the other way around.


I also remember becoming extremely attracted to girls at the "onset" of puberty, and yet there was a tremendous amount of fear too -- "the fear of rejection." Both of which are very powerful emotions, one of which is going to rule over the other or, in the process it will tear you to pieces. This is essentially what happened to me as a youth, and it was also about the time that I began to notice homosexual tendencies in myself, which was equally unsettling. A person can only suffer going through "the guantlet" so many times before it begins to take its toll.

But did you become homosexual? I've talked to nobody who has had early heterosexual feelings, then became homosexual in orientation. What I have heard of and read about is the experimentation some guys do early on. This can be more easily explained by the strong desire to be sexually active, but with no opposite gender partner available.

Social pressures may force one into homosexual (or more likely heterosexual practices), against the directives of your hormones, but they don't alter which gender you find attractive. Of everything I've seen, social pressures are all in the direction forcing one to become heterosexual.

I've read several papers speaking to the possible genetic links and about the hard research done with rats (experiments inspired by the London Blitz data), which support prenatally environmental stess triggers with a possible genetic co-trigger. I've read nothing relating to social pressures.

Do you know of research to support your proposed cause?

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zantra
And what about the cases of extreme trauma? Things such as sexual abuse, traumatic childhood, other major betrayals of trust as a child by someone of the opposite sex? These have been shown to be factors in many people who've chosen homosexuality. These social factors can indeed lead someone to consider an alternative to a heterosexual relationship when thee is a trust issue with the opposite sex.


As I've been saying all along, when I use the term homosexual/heterosexual, I speak of who we find attractive (in the sexual sense). What you practice isn't part of that definition. The idea that our experience and psycology would grossly override these feelings is completely within the sphere of the expected. Girl 'a' may have a portion of her that finds guys attractive, but because of abuse, the psycological areas relating to survival completely prevent her from acknowledging this. To a lessor extent we (as guys) tend to have to override feelings of attraction, when around nieces, attractive wives of good friends and family.

Just because we may have a primary attraction directive in our brains doesn't mean we are a slave to it.


As far as less extreme circumstances, we exist primarily as a heterosexual society,through function and design. To say that it's impossible not to choose the alternative, is to say that you're a victim of conformism. If our society were more ambigious on sexual preference, it's entirely possible that someone could choose homosexuality if influenced from a young age. Sexual preference is a social one, not genetic. Last I heard they hadn't found the "gay gene" yet [;)]


Again, your mixing actions with primary attractive desires. These are two different definitions of homosexuality.

The truth is, cultures where homosexuality was considered a personal thing, but without the stigma generally seen in say the US culture, the percentages of long-term, practicing homosexuals doesn't vary much from the US. [specifically in feudal Japan - homosexuality was not considered shameful or looked down upon, Ancient Roman and Greek cultures are also examples, though certain cultural ideas of dominance do cloud the issue].


If you've read my early writing, you will realise I carefully distinguish between behaviour, which can be driven by choice, social pressures, psycological reasons, et. al., and when primative area of the brain starts sending lust hormones into your bloodstream just because you become aware of a potential partner's secondary sexual characteristics.

--- I used the idea of a long-term, practicing homosexual as an indicator of someone who primary attractive directives are in the direction of same gender relations.

You are completely correct in the current lack of any evidence for a 'gay gene'. There is growing evidence to support that exposure to prenatal stress hormones increases the percentage of offspring who will go onto to be homosexual. There is speculation that genes may be a co-factor along with prenatal stress hormone exposure.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by radagast
[B]As I've been saying all along, when I use the term homosexual/heterosexual, I speak of who we find attractive (in the sexual sense). What you practice isn't part of that definition. The idea that our experience and psycology would grossly override these feelings is completely within the sphere of the expected. Girl 'a' may have a portion of her that finds guys attractive, but because of abuse, the psycological areas relating to survival completely prevent her from acknowledging this. To a lessor extent we (as guys) tend to have to override feelings of attraction, when around nieces, attractive wives of good friends and family.

Just because we may have a primary attraction directive in our brains doesn't mean we are a slave to it.

Ok then let me clarify, because I guess it was ambiguous. Ok you have this theory that we are "born" with a primary heterousexual preference and that external factors can ifluence us. My theory is that we're actually born bisexual- or even asexual, and that our choice is naturally determined by social and personal circumstances. So in essence there is no primary preference. It seems more likely of a scenario given that the only influence of sexual preference is primarily a social one. Also read my above post on my theory that it's a combination of factors.







Again, your mixing actions with primary attractive desires. These are two different definitions of homosexuality.

The truth is, cultures where homosexuality was considered a personal thing, but without the stigma generally seen in say the US culture, the percentages of long-term, practicing homosexuals doesn't vary much from the US. [specifically in feudal Japan - homosexuality was not considered shameful or looked down upon, Ancient Roman and Greek cultures are also examples, though certain cultural ideas of dominance do cloud the issue].


If you've read my early writing, you will realise I carefully distinguish between behaviour, which can be driven by choice, social pressures, psycological reasons, et. al., and when primative area of the brain starts sending lust hormones into your bloodstream just because you become aware of a potential partner's secondary sexual characteristics.

--- I used the idea of a long-term, practicing homosexual as an indicator of someone who primary attractive directives are in the direction of same gender relations.

You are completely correct in the current lack of any evidence for a 'gay gene'. There is growing evidence to support that exposure to prenatal stress hormones increases the percentage of offspring who will go onto to be homosexual. There is speculation that genes may be a co-factor along with prenatal stress hormone exposure.

One word stands out to me...speculation. It is an interesting theory, and while I can't discount it, I can neither confirm it. Again read my first post, a few above the one you responded to, about my theories on combining the two theories.

When the human body sends a signal to your body to illicit an response to a female or male, it's all beginning at the brain. So if we're arounsed by men or women preferrably, It's due to external stimuli, or "training" that the brain has recieved on how to deal with human sexuality. From a very young age we're taught that "boys and girls are different" and this to an air of mystery about the opposite sex, so right there the mystique is implanted about the opposite sex. The curiosity is already begun. from there innate social conformism takes over and it's all an downhill roller coaster ride from there.

[Iacchus32]

Why is it that people who are born and raised in Japan turn out differently than people who are born and raised in the United States? And please don't tell me it's not a matter of social conditioning. Why is it that most people who are in prison were abused as little children? Children are very impressionable, and tend to mimic the behavior they see around themselves. And if they come from an environment which tends to promote and/or expose them to homosexual activity, then they're very likely to adopt it themselves.

[RageSk8]

But that's my point. No matter whether you choose to reproduce or not, a homosexual is attracted to members of the same sex. So, if you let them go with how "nature" has made them, they will die off. They have to violate their own "nature" to continue their genetic line.

"Nature" did not make them homosexual. Culture created a niche for individuals with various biological dispositions and experiences to become homosexual. "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are cultural categories, nature does not divide people up into groups, cultures do. There may, and often is, general biological trends within a cultural group, but those "biological trends" can only make sense under cultural categories. This is why I feel the nature/nurture distinction is of no use. Most cultures do not have "homosexuality" and many don't even have people who partake in homosexual relations. Are the sodomists in prison homosexual even if they only have heterosexual feelings? Now, on being a dead end, even with a whole society that only had homosexual sex nowadays they could still reproduce (invetro).

There is nothing wrong with being a "dead-end" biologically - the unit of evolution is the population, not the individual. If you feel natural "behavior" most continue evolution, than there is no problem with being homosexual. The gene pool (which must include all those in a population) would still continue as long as there was heterosexual sex or even just test-tube babies.

[RageSk8]

And if they come from an environment which tends to promote and/or expose them to homosexual activity, then they're very likely to adopt it themselves.

Actually the social category "homosexual" only was birthed during the Victorian period, one of the most sexually confining eras in Western history. You are partly correct though, in that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to experiment with the same sex. However, there is barely a difference statistically in adult sexual identification.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok then let me clarify, because I guess it was ambiguous. Ok you have this theory that we are "born" with a primary heterousexual preference and that external factors can ifluence us. My theory is that we're actually born bisexual- or even asexual, and that our choice is naturally determined by social and personal circumstances. So in essence there is no primary preference. It seems more likely of a scenario given that the only influence of sexual preference is primarily a social one. Also read my above post on my theory that it's a combination of factors.


My theory? This is not my research, but research that's been conducted over the past 15 years. It supports the hypothesis (not theory), that prenatal stress hormones can trigger a particular sexual orientation once that child reaches puberty.

Do you have research evidence to support you're hypothesis/speculation?

One word stands out to me...speculation.

Perhaps you should reread my statement - the speculation was on the gene co-factor, not the prenatal stress [co-]factor. That currently has enough support, as I understand it, to be considered a hypothesis.



It is an interesting theory, and while I can't discount it, I can neither confirm it. Again read my first post, a few above the one you responded to, about my theories on combining the two theories.

When the human body sends a signal to your body to illicit an response to a female or male, it's all beginning at the brain. So if we're arounsed by men or women preferrably, It's due to external stimuli, or "training" that the brain has recieved on how to deal with human sexuality. From a very young age we're taught that "boys and girls are different" and this to an air of mystery about the opposite sex, so right there the mystique is implanted about the opposite sex. The curiosity is already begun. from there innate social conformism takes over and it's all an downhill roller coaster ride from there.

If things are trained, then why, exactly, is it that only secondary sexual characteristics, or the hint thereof, illicit the above reaction. If sexual response was trained, then the factors that are in common, among all humans, which dictate a human sexual arousal response, wouldn't always come down to secondary sexual characteristics. While some cultures hide these characteristics, the idea of them can trigger the response in a human. If these responses were trained, then they would be culturally dependent and vary from culture to culture.

You seem to assume something as basic as reproduction has little hardwired support. Prenatal hormones dictate whether we have male or female genitalia. The basic structures are there, then elaborated when the correct hormones are released. Why is it so hard to accept research which indicate hormones are affecting later sexual orientation?

While the things you say are interesting, do they have research based evidence to support them or are they conjecture. If they have no research to back them up, then common sense dictates which hypothesis to accept, at this time.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why is it that people who are born and raised in Japan turn out differently than people who are born and raised in the United States? And please don't tell me it's not a matter of social conditioning. Why is it that most people who are in prison were abused as little children? Children are very impressionable, and tend to mimic the behavior they see around themselves. And if they come from an environment which tends to promote and/or expose them to homosexual activity, then they're very likely to adopt it themselves.

Extended Analogy argument flaw. It is common knowledge that hormones control much related to sexual reproduction, characteristic expression, and desire - few of the above can make analogous claims. AGAIN, I ask, do you have research based evidence to back up your beliefs or are they something that supports a belief outside the domain of science?

What I voiced, in terms of a hypothesis, is strongly supported by research evidence.

[radagast]

And if they come from an environment which tends to promote and/or expose them to homosexual activity, then they're very likely to adopt it themselves.


This has been shown to be a blatantly incorrect belief. Exposure to homosexual activity has never increased the probability that individuals would be more attracted to their own gender. The research was done with a large number of children of openly gay parents.

This sounds like something certain theist would say to defend biblically oriented beliefs. Unless you can justify this with research evidence, I consider it both an unsupported statement and contradicted by research.

[nevagil]

As a 53 yr old man I have dozens of sexual thoughts of women most days.
Thats adds up to about 400,000 in my adult life.
I have about 20 sexual thoughts about men a year. Thats less than 1000 in my life. I quickly dismiss these thoughts because in this society I don't want to develop any homosexual relationships.
I was happy to see many agree that there may be 60 percent of our population that can choose if culture was differant, but there obviously isn't anywhere that homosexual behavior is admired with heterosexual behavior shunned.
When I said 60 percent could be bisexual I was really thinking it could be 80 or 90 percent, but then Radagast made a great point about primary attraction and I started to thinking 30 percent might be a better number because if primary attraction decides one's sexuality then we should lower the number. If we include secondary attractions then we could raise the number.

Psychology has many studies that show how intermitent reinforcement is a strong shaper of behavior, and the sex I've had with women over my lifetime has been intermitently reinforcing, good most the time, bad sometimes but more good than bad and not extremely bad. So I think when we are talking about sexual attractions we should realize that it has been influenced by many things. Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, hormones, social pressures, etc.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
This has been shown to be a blatantly incorrect belief. Exposure to homosexual activity has never increased the probability that individuals would be more attracted to their own gender. The research was done with a large number of children of openly gay parents.

This sounds like something certain theist would say to defend biblically oriented beliefs. Unless you can justify this with research evidence, I consider it both an unsupported statement and contradicted by research. Have you ever been hit on by a homosexual? It's not like the urge (on the part of the homosexual) doesn't arrive out of nowhere. In which case you, have become the object of someone else's desire or "conquest," which is to say it may not be just a chance encounter.

While all you have to do is respond one time, and then another, and another ... until what you've begun to do is form a habit. Indeed if somebody is persuasive enough, they can probably talk you into doing just about anything. And who's to say how many homosexuals that are out there are homosexuals for having been preyed upon for being gullible? All it takes is "one moment" of weakness. [;)]

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by nevagil
As a 53 yr old man I have dozens of sexual thoughts of women most days.
Thats adds up to about 400,000 in my adult life.
I have about 20 sexual thoughts about men a year. Thats less than 1000 in my life. I quickly dismiss these thoughts because in this society I don't want to develop any homosexual relationships.
I was happy to see many agree that there may be 60 percent of our population that can choose if culture was differant, but there obviously isn't anywhere that homosexual behavior is admired with heterosexual behavior shunned.
When I said 60 percent could be bisexual I was really thinking it could be 80 or 90 percent, but then Radagast made a great point about primary attraction and I started to thinking 30 percent might be a better number because if primary attraction decides one's sexuality then we should lower the number. If we include secondary attractions then we could raise the number.

Psychology has many studies that show how intermitent reinforcement is a strong shaper of behavior, and the sex I've had with women over my lifetime has been intermitently reinforcing, good most the time, bad sometimes but more good than bad and not extremely bad. So I think when we are talking about sexual attractions we should realize that it has been influenced by many things. Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, hormones, social pressures, etc.

Interesting, I have had sexual thoughts about only one male (I am male) in my life, a few thoughts but I would not have actually wanted these thoughts to be acted out, as you say, they were quickly dismissed.

Simply thinking sexual thoughts of a male, as long as they don't linger or have desires you consider worth pursuing, in no way qualifies you for being a 'possible' homosexual in different circumstances. I would agree that the rate of possibles is pretty low if both were accepted, but I would think it would be lowered to 10-15%.

It would be interesting to get some stats on homosexuals in prisons of prisoners with long-term sentences. That would be a society where heterosexuality would be shunned (due to the impossibility) and homosexuality would be the majority.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by radagast
My theory? This is not my research, but research that's been conducted over the past 15 years. It supports the hypothesis (not theory), that prenatal stress hormones can trigger a particular sexual orientation once that child reaches puberty.

Do you have research evidence to support you're hypothesis/speculation?



Well while there is no specific research in this area, logic says that if someone is exposed to an aspect of sexuality, that they will explore that sexuality, if not influenced by an alternative. So in theeory someone who was exposed only to a homosexual lifestyle(or even had limited exposure to a heterosexual lifestyle),would become gay simply from the lack of an alternative. So in that way, someone can be influenced. Granted, it's an extreme example, but as you step down in degres of exposure to homosexuality vs heterosexuality, you simply naturally step down in degrees of influence, percentage of people influenced, and include various other factors such as succeptability, strength of character, and intelligence(those who are easily influenced, for example).

Also, I might add, your theory and my theory(conjecture-tomayto,tomahto) are not set at odds, because I believe there is room for both to occur seperately, or in combination. So someone could become gay either from traumatic childood experiences, or from a predisposition towards homosexuality-or both. Don't mistake my arguement as opposing yours-it's actually including it.


Perhaps you should reread my statement - the speculation was on the gene co-factor, not the prenatal stress [co-]factor. That currently has enough support, as I understand it, to be considered a hypothesis.


I stand corrected


If things are trained, then why, exactly, is it that only secondary sexual characteristics, or the hint thereof, illicit the above reaction. If sexual response was trained, then the factors that are in common, among all humans, which dictate a human sexual arousal response, wouldn't always come down to secondary sexual characteristics. While some cultures hide these characteristics, the idea of them can trigger the response in a human. If these responses were trained, then they would be culturally dependent and vary from culture to culture.

You seem to assume something as basic as reproduction has little hardwired support. Prenatal hormones dictate whether we have male or female genitalia. The basic structures are there, then elaborated when the correct hormones are released. Why is it so hard to accept research which indicate hormones are affecting later sexual orientation?

While the things you say are interesting, do they have research based evidence to support them or are they conjecture. If they have no research to back them up, then common sense dictates which hypothesis to accept, at this time. [/B]

Again, I incorporate both beliefs into my theory. Genetically we are all predispositioned towards heterosexuality both through natural design for procreation, and hereditary and genome influences. That isn't to say we can't be born with a few extra female chromosomes making us effeminate or predisposed to same sex preference. But we are ultimately influenced by our surrounding environment, in some cases despite genetic influences, if certain criteria are met- such as lack of exposure to socially common practices, IE heterosexuality. Therefore, while I don't have specific scientific resarch to back up my claim (there my be some, and I'm just not familiar with it) I believe it is a natural and logical conclusion to assume that both influences are possible given the available evidence.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Have you ever been hit on by a homosexual? It's not like the urge (on the part of the homosexual) doesn't arrive out of nowhere. In which case you, have become the object of someone else's desire or "conquest," which is to say it may not be just a chance encounter.


Yes. Many times. When I was in my twenties, I shared an apartment with a gay relative. I try to turn the ideas around in my head - why should I get offended when someone finds me attractive just because I don't find them attractive, the same way a woman shouldn't be offended if I find her attractive, just because she doesn't find me attractive.


While all you have to do is respond one time, and then another, and another ... until what you've begun to do is form a habit. Indeed if somebody is persuasive enough, they can probably talk you into doing just about anything. And who's to say how many homosexuals that are out there are homosexuals for having been preyed upon for being gullible? All it takes is "one moment" of weakness. [;)]

You're trying to redefine homosexuality, from the definition I have previously stated I was arguing from - this makes the above an argument flaw. Since I don't believe it was intentional, I'll restate my ideas here.

Assume I was seduced by a homosexual, and found that homosexual sex was fun. That still wouldn't make it so I found guys attractive. I may get excited over the idea of sex with them, because I found the sex fun, but that's a different thing. Unlike most fundamentalists, I have and am defining, for the sake of this argument, homosexuality as one who is sexually attracted to members of their own gender, NOT simply those who have engaged in sexual activity with members of their own gender.

In talking to some of my relatives 'friends', I found many had had heterosexual sex - some before they admitted to themselves that their feelings were different than almost everyone elses, some just to see what it was like. Most found the sex fun, but [still] didn't find the women attractive, sexually.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zantra
Well while there is no specific research in this area, logic says that if someone is exposed to an aspect of sexuality, that they will explore that sexuality, if not influenced by an alternative. ...

Perhaps you should do a literature search, there is quite a bit of research out there. One hard to argue with was published in the 1966 April edition of Scientific American - which gives the laymen version of a study on how it was fairly simple to increase the percentage of mice offspring exhibiting homosexual [later in their life, at puberty]. There has been much research, since, that supports and elaborates upon this. Some which contradicts what you say that logic states [which by the way isn't at all logical, without a boatload of assumptions, many of which have been repudiated].

It has to be made extremely clear, that when I use the term homosexual, I am referring to those who's attactions are toward those of the same gender, irregardless of their sexual practices. If the definition used is different [practice vs attraction], then I am sure that what you say could and probably does occur.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
You're trying to redefine homosexuality, from the definition I have previously stated I was arguing from - this makes the above an argument flaw. Since I don't believe it was intentional, I'll restate my ideas here.

Assume I was seduced by a homosexual, and found that homosexual sex was fun. That still wouldn't make it so I found guys attractive. I may get excited over the idea of sex with them, because I found the sex fun, but that's a different thing. Unlike most fundamentalists, I have and am defining, for the sake of this argument, homosexuality as one who is sexually attracted to members of their own gender, NOT simply those who have engaged in sexual activity with members of their own gender.

In talking to some of my relatives 'friends', I found many had had heterosexual sex - some before they admitted to themselves that their feelings were different than almost everyone elses, some just to see what it was like. Most found the sex fun, but [still] didn't find the women attractive, sexually. But don't these things usually begin by one person approaching another? And, where the "initiate" may not be so willing to participate initially, the other will find ways to try and reinforce the behavior? And, to the degree that this is successful -- you know, much as if you were training a horse -- that the barriers drop and before long it becomes a matter of habit.

So at what point are you going to make the distinction between that which is exploratory and that which is an "aquired taste?" Doesn't it usually begin with that which is exploratory?

[radagast]

Iacchus32,
You still seem to miss what I've tried to point out, though someone may be 'indoctrinated' or convinced that homo or heterosexual sex is fun, though it is outside their orientation, that doesn't change the lowest level arousal triggers. Full lips and big hips will always arouse some hormones in my body (assuming I'm not in a life or death situation). If I saw them on a transexual or female impersonator, the reaction would still be there. The research starting in the early sixties shows that this response is somehow wired into the brain prenatally.

Just as you cannot 'learn to talk' past the age of five, the pathways formed by hormones prenatally, cannot be changed well past birth. That doesn't mean someone cannot learn to enjoy a type of sex, just that they won't have the sexual response at the exposure to the secondary sexual characteristics of 'non-oriented' gender.

I've seen data that supports what I've said. Other than a belief, have you seen data to support what you believe - within the definition of homosexual as I've stated?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by radagast
Perhaps you should do a literature search, there is quite a bit of research out there. One hard to argue with was published in the 1966 April edition of Scientific American - which gives the laymen version of a study on how it was fairly simple to increase the percentage of mice offspring exhibiting homosexual [later in their life, at puberty]. There has been much research, since, that supports and elaborates upon this. Some which contradicts what you say that logic states [which by the way isn't at all logical, without a boatload of assumptions, many of which have been repudiated].

It has to be made extremely clear, that when I use the term homosexual, I am referring to those who's attactions are toward those of the same gender, irregardless of their sexual practices. If the definition used is different [practice vs attraction], then I am sure that what you say could and probably does occur.

Yes I do get what you're saying. That heterosexuality is innate regardless of other external factors that may influence that. I'm not debating that specific point because I haven't seen the study on that, so I can't say. It's down to somantics.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zantra
Yes I do get what you're saying. That heterosexuality is innate regardless of other external factors that may influence that. I'm not debating that specific point because I haven't seen the study on that, so I can't say. It's down to semantics.

Actually, no. I'm arguing that the research points to orientation (hetero or homo) being determined prenatally.