Homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubonic Plague
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Civil Jobs
Click For Summary
The recent relaxation of hiring rules for homosexuals in Singapore's civil service has sparked debate, with some opposing the move based on beliefs about the origins of homosexuality. Key points of discussion include whether individuals are born gay or if sexual orientation is influenced by psychological or environmental factors. Some participants argue for a genetic predisposition, citing studies on prenatal hormonal influences and the "gay gene" theory, while others emphasize psychological aspects, such as upbringing and societal pressures. The conversation also touches on the nature versus nurture debate, with differing opinions on the role of biology and environment in shaping sexual orientation. Additionally, there are discussions about the implications of homosexuality on reproduction and societal norms, with some asserting that homosexuality is a natural variation within human behavior, while others view it as a deviation from reproductive norms. Overall, the thread reflects a complex interplay of scientific, psychological, and cultural perspectives on homosexuality.
  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
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." :wink:

Which brings up a piece I wrote about called The Bear and the Garbage Can, 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
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
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, separated by a mutation, they are still a species that, if left on their own, would die out quickly.
 
  • #39
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".
 
  • #40
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.
 
  • #41
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
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
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...
 
  • #44
peer and culture pressure

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.
 
  • #45


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:wink:
 
  • #46
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #47


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
 
Last edited:
  • #48
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'.
 
  • #49


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.
 
  • #50
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.
 
  • #51
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).
 
Last edited:
  • #52
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 :wink:
 
  • #53
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #55
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 :wink:


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 realize 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Originally posted by radagast
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 realize 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 preferably, It's due to external stimuli, or "training" that the brain has received 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.
 
  • #57
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.
 
  • #58
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
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.
 
  • #60
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 preferably, It's due to external stimuli, or "training" that the brain has received 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K