Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

It's probably a combination of both. (Nature vs. Nurture) In just about all aspects, human personality and behavior is guided and altered by the two. Perhaps genetics primes someone for thinking about sexuality in varied ways (gay, bi), while the environment and life experiences affect what they ultimately choose to settle on.

Which means, genetically speaking, some people are just 100% incapable of viewing sexuality from anything other than a heterosexual perspective. The environment and life experience has taught them to deal with it as a rational, accepting human being though.

Or they're as above, but the environment and life experience has taught them not only to reject homosexuality on an intellectual basis, to but hate and fear it as well on a visceral level. 

On the flip side, someone might, at a genetic level, have arousal pathways for both sexes...but life experience and the environment made the choose heterosexuality or homosexuality ultimately.

And then there's those that have a genetic predisposition, and the environment totally affirmed their choice, the so-called and oft-feared "ROBO-GAY"

I think this is actually pretty close to it. We have evolved and been conditioned as a species to become aroused by very specific features. There's no reason that genetic underpinning can't change or mutate (and I say that with complete neutrality), and be further augmented by the very crazy world we live in.

I mean...is it just me, or has casual lesbianism and bi-sexuality among women gone up in recent years? In high school I didn't know many girls who said they dug on other girls....but in the last few years, I know tons that are like "Yeah, if she was hot, I would totally make out with her. Hot is hot."

[Jackrabbit]

I guess it'd help the discussion if I said that I never chose. I'm leaning towards the genetics side of things.

[Mishy]

I once told my dad i was gay and he wouldnt even say it. He just kept saying "Its okay if youre.. [sigh, eye roll] 'that'".
Felt bad, but my dads a cunt anyway.

[Zangi]

Yeah, okay, I could have phrased that better. Like, "Is it distasteful to you because you think that building your life around any one thing is odd? And if so, why do you think that?"

I'm Catholic, just so you know I'm not trying to insult you. As for what makes it a sin, I mean, I know it's there in the Bible but I was hoping for more justification than that. I mean, Thou Shalt Not Kill is in the Bible and because murder being legal and moral would lend to a lot of deaths and be totally against our instinct of self-preservation, why would you believe it to be a sin? What other justification do you have? Basically:

Right, because of religious dogma.

I was under the impression this thread was about reasoning behind prejudice against homosexuals.

What he said.

When being gay is referred to as a sin, its religious, in my viewpoint.  (Do you ever see sin being used outside of religious viewpoint/context?)

As for why, their are sorts of people who push their self-viewed-persona at other people as a way of self-empowerment or whatever have you... and using it as a platform to easily get pissy and offended.  No thanks.


But yea, insert generic arguments of scary and different from the normal that is right, public perception trickling down, and perception of close relatives/friends/people trickling down.  And with their powers combined... Homophobia!  Well, I'm along that line of thinking with why.  Its a hell of a lot of small things adding up.  Ignorance being a major enabler...

[Leafsnail]

Even if it is a choice, why not let people make it?  It doesn't harm anyone.  Genetics is entirely irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality being a sin or not.

All arguments about it being more dangerous are irrelevant.  Riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than riding a car.  It is a choice to ride on a motorcycle.  Therefore all motorcyclists should be forced to drive cars instead?

Arguments about non-reproduction are equally invalid.  Priests don't have children, nor do people who choose to remain childless.  Both of these are choices, so should we force them to have children with people?

Arguments that depict homosexuality as some kind of worm that will eat away society and the very concept of family make me want to hit my own head with a brick.  They're just so... ugh.

[nenjin]

Genetics is entirely irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality being a sin or not.

Well, there is the Naturalistic Fallacy, and while I don't support it, it's one of those beliefs that's really, really hard to convince people to believe otherwise. Even when there are hundreds of examples against it.

[Leafsnail]

Whether animals practise homosexuality is also completely irrelevant.

It is unnatural to use a computer.  No animals do it.  On the same logic, it's unnatural to talk, write or form a religion.

So, yeah.  I'd be interested if someone could come up with a decent argument.

[Euld]

I'll be very happy when the term "man caves" dies out.  Despite my best efforts to keep my thoughts clean... ARRRGGH.

[smigenboger]

If it hasn't already been mentioned, are your attractions taught to you through what you've been told, plus what you like about people, or are they ingrained? Some people go crazy over poorly dyed blue hair, which I'd guess wouldn't be natural. Others love certain body shapes that just wouldn't be available even 400 years ago, man or woman. I don't know if this logic could be stretched to another gender though. I have no sexual attraction to men, so I don't really understand the attraction in the first place. (This also carries over in a way to women, that I can't quite vicariously understand how women can be attracted to a man, other than that they'd be attracted to the opposite sex)

[RAM]

There are different ways of looking at sexual motivation.

It can be viewed as a mental entity, which can be manipulated for pleasure. As far as pleasure is concerned the nature of the parties involved doesn't really have any significance. Of course, there can be other considerations, such as the exploitation of children, seniors, celebrities, animals, plants, the ground, monuments, historically-significant artefacts, Extra-terrestrial naturalists, and/or significant sections of continental coastlines and/or airspace. But the pleasure itself is dependant solely upon satisfying the individual.

There are also social elements. Depending upon the traits that are considered effeminate or masculine, sexual activity can associate people with various traits and social positions. Now societies often involve a great many different relationships between a great many individuals and groups and are largely dependant upon the nature of the entities involved. So it isn't really practical to make generalisations, so all I can really say is that it could have a significant social effect, depending upon the societies it takes place in.
 For example, a society that regards one gender as dominant, may regard activity between those who share that gender as an extension of this, garnering them even greater respect.
 Alternatively, a society that values lineage may regard such activity as a failure to perpetuate the lineage, and therefore a failure to the community.

It can also be viewed as a biological imperative to perpetuate the species. An imperative that does not exclusively perpetuate the species is wasteful. An imperative that fails to perpetuate the species is a disability. The evolutionary implications are obvious...

[smigenboger]

It can also be viewed as a biological imperative to perpetuate the species.

I agree with a lot of that, but I'll dispute this now. I don't think there's a drive to perpetuate the species anymore, I think the drive is to just get that pleasant feeling as much as possible. I mean, if the associated pleasure was gone, would people still be as crazy to have sex all the time? As this is on topic of homosexuality, I'd assume there's little to no drive to continue the species through this, unless it somehow attracts an opposite gender mate in the process?

[RAM]

My mistake, it would be better to say that it motivates the perpetuation of the species, rather than saying that it motivates individuals to perpetuate the species.

[G-Flex]

I don't really know where to stand on the "personal choice" versus "genetic" debate. They both have their good qualities, but they both also pose some risks. Particularly the belief that homosexuality is a genetic thing.

I've met some gays who have said "no way, it's totally a personal choice, and anyone that tells you different has an agenda about homosexuality and genetics." And then I've heard others say "No way, it's totally genetic, and anyone that tells you different is just trying to downplay people's commitment to their lifestyle, or suggest that it's easily changed."

It's human sexuality. It's complicated. There's likely no single determinant there, or even one that has a tendency to override the others, except perhaps in extreme cases.

Sexual orientation isn't rigid/constant and determined at birth/conception, nor is it something you can decide on a whim. It would be like saying that you can decide what kind of food or music you like, or that those things are genetic or up to choice. Genetics are involved, choice is involved on some level (obviously how you choose to deal with things will affect you), and so are a ton of other things.



Also, homosexuality is in no way a threat to us maintaining population. This view has a few problems with it.

• It assumes exclusive or near-exclusive homosexuality. Sort of a nitpick, but hey, it's relevant.
• More importantly, humans are a social species; reproduction is not something demanded of everyone, because there are other ways to contribute. If homosexual relationships/tendencies can serve a valid social role, then that is good for society, and thus, in the evolutionary sense, good for the genetic material in the group. This stuff gets kind of iffy when you have to deal with societies and culture, because it's no longer competition/selection solely between individuals.
• Even if homosexuality served no purpose at some other point in history, homosexuality is demonstrably natural and has existed in our species for as long as anybody can tell. Furthermore, there is definitely no reason now for everybody to try to have as many kids as they can, so that reason isn't particularly relevant. In other words, homosexuality is still natural and harmless in modern culture.
• With regards to the above points, some people might make the misguided statement that "if everyone were gay, we'd die out" - except that will never be the case, so it's irrelevant, and you could say that about all sorts of things. If humanity were entirely made out of really meek super-science nerds, or giant dumb guys who can carry things and use a shovel really well, we'd also die out; it doesn't make those things bad either.

So yeah, there really aren't "evolutionary implications" here. If anything, the fact that humans aren't solely heterosexual is probably good for us evolutionarily.

[smigenboger]

Say a heterosexual person took extacy or some other sexual drug and did things he normally wouldn't do. Do you think they are acting in accord to a genetic trait released from inhibition, or would that be an environmental reason?

[RAM]

is demonstrably natural and has existed in our species for as long as anybody can tell

Could refer to a great many things that are all but universally reviled. Also I feel that there is a difference between, 'occurs naturally' which refers to individuals and 'is natural' which tends to be used to refer to a broader category.