Homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs

[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]

I chose my orientation

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 separately, 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 argument 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, regardless 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 "acquired 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, regardless 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.