Homosexuality

[Sorcerer]

Yes, but then I am sure he'd say they were more likely to have oedipal complexs..... Freud was a quack.

[Aardvark]

Not much of a choice is it, you either have homosexual or incestous tendencies.

 

Either way everyones got major 'issues' and needs a psychologist. Sounds like he was touting for business!

[Sorcerer]

Most of his theories were just made up by himself without any evidence..... I think this give us a look into his psychi.

[Aardvark]

And yet his theories were widely accepted and are still highly influential.

 

Not a good commentary on the human pysche in general either.

[Ophiolite]

Most of his theories were just made up by himself without any evidence..... I think this give us a look into his psychi.

His theories are likely wrong, in many cases very wrong, but he was a pioneer. Most pioneers are seen to be, in hindsight, wrong. Linnaeus is recognised as a brilliant scientist, yet he rejected any concept of evolution or change.

Freud's theories were based on evidence, but that derived from patients who were sexually repressed and neurotic. It's hardly surprising his ideas came out as they did.

[tecoyah]

Most of Freud has been placed on the back burner of Psycology, as it likely should be. But as with most of science, much groundwork was laid out by one persons ability to explore something new. Had it not been for his research, the field of psycology would likely be quite different, if not inferior, than the current state.

[Damion]

I've never posted a reply on this site before -- I just randomly stumbled on this thread during research for an essay on same-sex marriage -- and I'm not too familiar with sites like this, so I hope I'm replying correctly here. Forgive me if something gets messed up. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents.

 

Homosexuality is at least partly, some say entirely, genetic. Certain facts found by biologists: identical twins, who shared 100% the same genes, had a 55% likelihood of both being homosexual, and non-identical twins, who share half of the same genes, had a 22% likelihood of both being gay; Gays and lesbians tend to have short index fingers relative to their ring fingers, and 16% more homosexuals than heterosexuals show a surplus of fingertip ridges on their left hands (which seem to indicate that there’s some relation, and, since finger length and number of ridges are both determined before birth, indicate that perhaps homosexuality is determined before birth, also); in the mid-90’s gay men are likely to have older brothers, and each older brother increases the likelihood of homosexuality in the youngest brother by 33%, suggesting that some biological change, possibly an immune response in the mother during pregnancy, can cause homosexuality; homosexuality runs in families, and a man with gay relatives on his mother’s side was much more likely to be gay, whether or not the relatives resided in the household; a study showed that female relatives on the mother's side of homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side, suggesting there’s some genetic factor involved -- and those are just a few examples of possible evidence for a biological cause.

 

Also, homosexuality is found in many species of animal -- beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, penguins, ostriches, flamingos, macaques, bonobos, dogs, cats, elephants, seals... I doubt these animals (many observed in normal, natural circumstances by animal researchers) had early exposure to pornography or were molested or whatever psychological trauma you think may cause homosexuality. And such a pervasive sampling can't be limited to just humidity or population conditions. It's obvious that homosexuality is a natural condition.

 

I skipped from page 2 to page 6, so I hope I haven't said anything someone else has.

[Sayonara]

I skipped from page 2 to page 6, so I hope I haven't said anything someone else has.

Well, some bits of it yes, but you summarised it really well.

 

What do you mean by a surplus of fingertip ridges?

[Damion]

Well' date=' some bits of it yes, but you summarised it really well.

 

What do you mean by a surplus of fingertip ridges?[/quote']

 

More ridges than usual, I suppose. It can happen in straight people too, but it's noticeably more frequent in gays.

[Sorcerer]

Homosexuality is at least partly, some say entirely, genetic. Certain facts found by biologists:

 

Many of these facts counter the genetic determinism of homosexuality, some favour it.

 

identical twins, who shared 100% the same genes, had a 55% likelihood of both being homosexual, and non-identical twins, who share half of the same genes, had a 22% likelihood of both being gay

 

If homosexuality was entirely genetic then you would expect where there was one gay identicle twin that the other would be gay in 100% of cases. Fraternal twins can actually share no genes at all, it is just statistically likely that they will share half their genes, you also would expect this statistic to be higher. I guess one way this argument could be countered would be to say that society is forcing the gay people to adopt heterosexuality because it is a social taboo..... thus skewing the figures, however it doesn't really hold well in todays more liberal society.

 

Gays and lesbians tend to have short index fingers relative to their ring fingers, and 16% more homosexuals than heterosexuals show a surplus of fingertip ridges on their left hands (which seem to indicate that there’s some relation, and, since finger length and number of ridges are both determined before birth, indicate that perhaps homosexuality is determined before birth, also)

 

This is supposedly due to the womb environment, the mothers hormone levels can alter the development of the foetus, thus again this does not support a genetic cause, but rather a pre-natal environmental one. The homosexuals can still claim "they were born like that", and, "have no choice though". However it should be noted that if you want to use the rhetort from the previous study, that they were forced to be heterosexual, then this actually counters the argument they have no choice.

 

in the mid-90’s gay men are likely to have older brothers, and each older brother increases the likelihood of homosexuality in the youngest brother by 33%, suggesting that some biological change, possibly an immune response in the mother during pregnancy, can cause homosexuality;

 

Again this seems to show that homosexuality is a product of the womb environment, not a genetic condition.

 

homosexuality runs in families, and a man with gay relatives on his mother’s side was much more likely to be gay, whether or not the relatives resided in the household;

 

Finally some evidence that homosexuality is genetic, however it can be noted, that not living in the household (or not) doesn't mean there was no environmental contact with these individuals, it does not control for this and shouldn't be shown as such. I does show that homosexuality could (possibly) be X linked, wether this is due to something on the X chromosome causing the mothers womb environment to differ, or if it is causing the individuals trait is another question though.

 

a study showed that female relatives on the mother's side of homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side, suggesting there’s some genetic factor involved -- and those are just a few examples of possible evidence for a biological cause.

 

Now we are talking, this is a clear benefit of homosexuals, they can help in family groups, even if they do not produce offspring of their own, thus increasing the fitness of the family group. If the gene which causes homosexuality is carried by the MOTHER rather than the individual, it is the mother who is controlling their childrens reproductive success/motivation, the first few males will more likely be 'normal' and go off and multiply, but the others will be more likely to be homosexual and thus help with child care and gathering of food for the group, while not burdening the group with their own offspring, this on the whole would make the group stronger especially during times when resources were scarce.

 

 

Also, homosexuality is found in many species of animal -- beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, penguins, ostriches, flamingos, macaques, bonobos, dogs, cats, elephants, seals... I doubt these animals (many observed in normal, natural circumstances by animal researchers) had early exposure to pornography or were molested or whatever psychological trauma you think may cause homosexuality.

 

Environmental causes need not be molestation.... it may be likely that molestation did cause homosexuality in some cases though. Where can I find evidence of these gay animals? Are they sexually active *shudder* (sorry).

 

And such a pervasive sampling can't be limited to just humidity or population conditions. It's obvious that homosexuality is a natural condition.

 

What isn't a natural condition?

 

I skipped from page 2 to page 6, so I hope I haven't said anything someone else has.

 

Check my post a few pages back.

[Damion]

If homosexuality was entirely genetic then you would expect where there was one gay identicle twin that the other would be gay in 100% of cases. Fraternal twins can actually share no genes at all, it is just statistically likely that they will share half their genes, you also would expect this statistic to be higher. I guess one way this argument could be countered would be to say that society is forcing the gay people to adopt heterosexuality because it is a social taboo..... thus skewing the figures, however it doesn't really hold well in todays more liberal society.

 

The statistic is extraordinarily high. On average, your likelyhood of being gay is around 2%-10% (depending on whose study you're looking at). Compared to that, 55% is incredible. Therefore, indicates some genetic (or otherwise unalterable, uncontrollable) factor.

 

This is supposedly due to the womb environment, the mothers hormone levels can alter the development of the foetus, thus again this does not support a genetic cause, but rather a pre-natal environmental one. The homosexuals can still claim "they were born like that", and, "have no choice though". However it should be noted that if you want to use the rhetort from the previous study, that they were forced to be heterosexual, then this actually counters the argument they have no choice.

 

The point isn't whether it's genetic or caused by womb conditions, the point is it can't be chosen. These are things entirely out of the control of the individual. Discriminating against someone because they're homosexual is as wrong as discriminating against someone born blind. They're different than the norm, but they can't help it.

 

Finally some evidence that homosexuality is genetic, however it can be noted, that not living in the household (or not) doesn't mean there was no environmental contact with these individuals, it does not control for this and shouldn't be shown as such. I does show that homosexuality could (possibly) be X linked, wether this is due to something on the X chromosome causing the mothers womb environment to differ, or if it is causing the individuals trait is another question though.

 

That's the point. It's likely linked to the X chromosome. And, whether they were in the home (though they weren't) is irrelevant. You can't catch "the gay."

 

Now we are talking, this is a clear benefit of homosexuals, they can help in family groups, even if they do not produce offspring of their own, thus increasing the fitness of the family group. If the gene which causes homosexuality is carried by the MOTHER rather than the individual, it is the mother who is controlling their children’s reproductive success/motivation, the first few males will more likely be 'normal' and go off and multiply, but the others will be more likely to be homosexual and thus help with child care and gathering of food for the group, while not burdening the group with their own offspring, this on the whole would make the group stronger especially during times when resources were scarce.

 

*nod* And, thus, homosexuality is actually, despite the obvious draw back of not producing offspring, evolutionarily viable.

 

Environmental causes need not be molestation.... it may be likely that molestation did cause homosexuality in some cases though. Where can I find evidence of these gay animals? Are they sexually active *shudder* (sorry).

 

1) The common arguments are sexual molestation or exposure to pornography. The thinking is, sexual perversion must come from sexual perversion, and homosexuality is considered (if considered a choice) sexual perversion. Either way, whatever environmental causes may cause homosexuality in humans are likely not going to be found in, say, a beetle's environment. And, homosexuality seems to be pretty evenly distributed, from everything I've read, so climate, pollution, radiation, etc. aren't a factor. The only possible explanation: it's just a common condition.

 

2) Yes, they're sexually active. You shudder, but hot lesbian action is hot lesbian action, be it human, penguin or whatever. (It's a joke, it's a joke) As for evidence, just Google it. Set your filter, though. "Gay animals" might bring up some stuff you might not want to inadvertently click on.

 

What isn't a natural condition?

 

Someone (I forget who, but it was an earlier comment) had tried to blame dense lab conditions, which is implausible if there’s such a wide array of homosexual animals.

 

Check my post a few pages back

 

Too lazy.

[Sorcerer]

Dense lab conditions you say, well this is exactly the kind of environment that homosexuality would be favourable in, this is where production of excess offspring would just lead to famine and loss of more offspring than necessary, if instead only some breeders were present and a few homosexual "helpers", then the population on a whole would be more viable.

 

Regarding the whole "its genetic, so it can't be a choice", thing, genes do not 100% determine a humans phenotypic potential, it is a combination of genes and the environment which produce a phenotypic trait, when we are discussing a trait as complex as sexual attraction I would suggest that the environment plays a major role.

 

You have conceeded that the womb environment isn't a genetic factor, but you state it means they were also born with it and have no choice, I think you may be oversimplifing the case since there may be other ways in which people can become gay. Do you doubt that there may be some people who have chosen to be gay and just use the whole "I was born with it" thing to justify it. What about examples of gay people being married and having children and then several years later "deciding" they are gay and getting a divorce?

 

Personally I think the genes for homosexuality are X linked and are not expressed by people carrying them unless they are exposed to the right womb environment which is determined by environmental factors effecting the same gene in the mother, then post-natal the environment must also be conducive to homosexuality, say if all the older brothers have died or the population was small then homosexuality would not be expressed because it then would be deleterious.

[Damion]

Dense lab conditions you say, well this is exactly the kind of environment that homosexuality would be favourable in, this is where production of excess offspring would just lead to famine and loss of more offspring than necessary, if instead only some breeders were present and a few homosexual "helpers", then the population on a whole would be more viable.

 

Regardless of how favorable the conditions would be to homosexuality, they can't be blamed. With humans, in industrialized countries, population rarely affects food supplies or survivability. And, all of these species -- hundreds -- that have been documented as being homosexual or, at least, having homosexual trysts, many in zoos where they're well fed and well taken care of... survival needs don't play into it.

 

Regarding the whole "its genetic, so it can't be a choice", thing, genes do not 100% determine a humans phenotypic potential, it is a combination of genes and the environment which produce a phenotypic trait, when we are discussing a trait as complex as sexual attraction I would suggest that the environment plays a major role.

 

Sex isn't complicated. It's the most basic of instincts. If it wasn't ingrained in the genes somewhere, our earliest ancestors wouldn't have reproduced. Environment may play a role, but it's not a major one.

 

What about examples of gay people being married and having children and then several years later "deciding" they are gay and getting a divorce?

 

I actually know a man who did that, and I know his boyfriend. He was always gay, but because of social pressures he hid his sexuality, denied it, and, having been taught it was a choice by ignorant peers, tried to become straight. In the end, he ended up hurting his wife, his children, and himself. He didn't just decide to be gay one day. He decided to stop lying.

 

Personally I think the genes for homosexuality are X linked and are not expressed by people carrying them unless they are exposed to the right womb environment which is determined by environmental factors effecting the same gene in the mother, then post-natal the environment must also be conducive to homosexuality, say if all the older brothers have died or the population was small then homosexuality would not be expressed because it then would be deleterious.

 

What environmental factors? Do you have anything, anything at all, to use as evidence for this hypothesis?

[Sorcerer]

Regardless of how favorable the conditions would be to homosexuality, they can't be blamed. With humans, in industrialized countries, population rarely affects food supplies or survivability. And, all of these species -- hundreds -- that have been documented as being homosexual or, at least, having homosexual trysts, many in zoos where they're well fed and well taken care of... survival needs don't play into it.

 

This trait is one which was formed before modern society, it becomes prevalent when the population size grows large, this is a result of it being recessive and also part of the evironmental conditions needed to trigger it. Before we had argriculture, large population size meant short resources. Homosexuality is an advantageous trait where a family member gives up his reproductive fitness to altruistically enhance the fitness of close kin.

 

I would like to look at that study where they found a correlation between older brothers and homosexuality, then see if there was any significant difference where the older brothers were still alive, or alive at the time of sexual maturity of the homosexual individual. Because males have a very different reproductive strategy to females and perhaps with a little statistics the optimum ammount of reproducing sons could be calculated.

 

Sex isn't complicated. It's the most basic of instincts. If it wasn't ingrained in the genes somewhere, our earliest ancestors wouldn't have reproduced. Environment may play a role, but it's not a major one.

 

Thats a great way to contradict your argument, homosexuality isnt exactly conducive to reproduction, unless you look at it latterally, I'm not trying to argue morals or ethics, I am just pointing out how it can logically fit with evolutionary theory. Behavioural traits are never 100% deterministic in humans, in fact you give me an example below.

 

I actually know a man who did that, and I know his boyfriend. He was always gay, but because of social pressures he hid his sexuality, denied it, and, having been taught it was a choice by ignorant peers, tried to become straight. In the end, he ended up hurting his wife, his children, and himself. He didn't just decide to be gay one day. He decided to stop lying.

 

Yes, he may say that, and perhaps I could take that as the truth. BUT it still means that he can override his urge and make a choice to do something different. I am a rampant heterosexual, whenever I see a hot chick bend over I get this urge.... I don't act on that now do I.

 

What environmental factors? Do you have anything, anything at all, to use as evidence for this hypothesis?

 

Overpopulation, the ammount of older siblings and thus the relative ammount of available resources for the next generation. All the evidence has been given, including the argument for how homosexuality can be a favourable trait.

[Sayonara]

Yes, he may say that, and perhaps I could take that as the truth. BUT it still means that he can override his urge and make a choice to do something different.

So?

 

 

I am a rampant heterosexual, whenever I see a hot chick bend over I get this urge.... I don't act on that now do I.

For exactly the same reasons - because of social pressure. Take that away and you would.

[Damion]

This trait is one which was formed before modern society, it becomes prevalent when the population size grows large, this is a result of it being recessive and also part of the evironmental conditions needed to trigger it. Before we had argriculture, large population size meant short resources. Homosexuality is an advantageous trait where a family member gives up his reproductive fitness to altruistically enhance the fitness of close kin.

 

Which would explain why homosexuality wasn't deleted completely through the evolutionary process, but it doesn't explain why it still pops up. And, the rate of homosexuality doesn't change, no matter what the population size, economic conditions, etc. 2%-10% is the norm, all over the globe, in every place there have been studies or census that I've heard of. It becomes more prevalent with population growth, yes, but not more common.

 

I would like to look at that study where they found a correlation between older brothers and homosexuality, then see if there was any significant difference where the older brothers were still alive, or alive at the time of sexual maturity of the homosexual individual. Because males have a very different reproductive strategy to females and perhaps with a little statistics the optimum ammount of reproducing sons could be calculated.

 

Most reliable statistical information on homosexuality is found on accident. The only people who seem to study only homosexuality are usually doing do for personal reasons and produce data that's skewed in their favor. As a result, most study results are very specific, and are often found out accidentally or as an afterthought question on a survey. I don't know of any studies that have the information you want.

 

Thats a great way to contradict your argument, homosexuality isnt exactly conducive to reproduction, unless you look at it latterally, I'm not trying to argue morals or ethics, I am just pointing out how it can logically fit with evolutionary theory. Behavioural traits are never 100% deterministic in humans, in fact you give me an example below.

 

It doesn't contradict in the least. Sexual habits are largely genetic. I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a genetic quirk. You can have a genetic, forgive the expression, abnormality that affects your "wiring" in a major way, like causing you to be born homosexual. It doesn't make it a choice.

 

Yes, he may say that, and perhaps I could take that as the truth. BUT it still means that he can override his urge and make a choice to do something different. I am a rampant heterosexual, whenever I see a hot chick bend over I get this urge.... I don't act on that now do I.

 

No offense, but that was retarded. I'm sorry -- you're obviously intelligent, but that was really... Rape and homosexuality are two completely different things. If you can't see the distinction, I don't think explaining it further would do any good.

[Sayonara]

No offense, but that was retarded. I'm sorry -- you're obviously intelligent, but that was really... Rape and homosexuality are two completely different things. If you can't see the distinction, I don't think explaining it further would do any good.

Not to mention the fact that his coming out in this instance was clearly not due to an inability to override urges.

[Sorcerer]

Which would explain why homosexuality wasn't deleted completely through the evolutionary process, but it doesn't explain why it still pops up. And, the rate of homosexuality doesn't change, no matter what the population size, economic conditions, etc. 2%-10% is the norm, all over the globe, in every place there have been studies or census that I've heard of. It becomes more prevalent with population growth, yes, but not more common.

 

2-10 is an 8% variation, my hypothesis would suggest it was effected by local population size, more specifically the size of the family group, the number of older brothers.

 

It doesn't contradict in the least. Sexual habits are largely genetic. I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a genetic quirk. You can have a genetic, forgive the expression, abnormality that affects your "wiring" in a major way, like causing you to be born homosexual. It doesn't make it a choice.

 

I still maintain that behavioural traits are not 100% deterministic based on genes, the enivronment plays a large part in sculpting the phenotypic expression of the trait.

 

No offense, but that was retarded. I'm sorry -- you're obviously intelligent, but that was really... Rape and homosexuality are two completely different things. If you can't see the distinction, I don't think explaining it further would do any good.

 

I'm just saying that it is possible to overcome urges, it was an example, I don't really often feel this way and would never act on it in a way which harms another person.

 

So like I can overcome an urge to rape and even abstain from sex. Why is it that homosexuals can't overcome the urge to sodomise.... the point is its not that they have no choice, its that they don't want to make the choice.

 

Not saying theres anything wrong with that, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However it still shows that its a CHOICE.

[Sayonara]

So like I can overcome an urge to rape and even abstain from sex. Why is it that homosexuals can't overcome the urge to sodomise.... the point is its not that they have no choice, its that they don't want to make the choice.

Any particular reason why they should make that choice?

 

 

Not saying theres anything wrong with that, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However it still shows that its a CHOICE.

And the punchline is that you have only shown that anyone (not just homosexuals) has the ability to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity.

 

You have not shown that gay people have the ability to choose to be "not gay".

[ed84c]

Technically speaking most people are gay due to a part of their brain (its either larger or smaller in different sexes) being in the wrong sexed brain. It is the same for people who want to change sex.

 

This will be explained in next thursdays Horizon

[Mokele]

However it still shows that its a CHOICE.

 

You can hold your breath. Does that make breathing a choice?

[Ophiolite]

So like I can overcome an urge to rape and even abstain from sex. Why is it that homosexuals can't overcome the urge to sodomise.... the point is its not that they have no choice, its that they don't want to make the choice.

Rape and abstention are aberrant forms of genetically determined, though environmentally modified, sexual behaviour patterns.

These behaviour patterns may be heterosexual or homosexual. The choice lies in whether or not you follow an aberrant pattern (rape or abstention in your examples), not in whether you are inherently (yes, deliberate word choice) homo or hetero.

Damion and Sayonara have laid this out in detail. Which part are you failing to understand? Additionally, there seems to be an undercurrent in your posts that is based on the following beliefs: homosexuality is wrong; homosexuals could change if they just tried hard enough. If you are not homophobic you do a pretty good imitation of someone who is. You are entitled to such a world view, but don't try to justify if with bad science.

[Sorcerer]

The points I am making is:

 

"Homosexuality isn't predetermined by genes" : this is because no behavioural trait is predetermined by genes, it is a combination of genes and the environment that produces a phenotype. Therefore just because you have a homosexual gene doesn't mean you will express this phenotype; ie it doesn't mean you will be gay. Likewise, not having the homosexual gene doesn't mean you won't be gay.

 

"Homosexual behaviour is a choice" : this is because even if the desire to do an action is there, we have control of our choices, the example was of a man who was supposedly "gay" not showing this behaviour untill after a long marriage and having children. Thus he chose to show heterosexual characteristics even though he was always supposedly "gay"......

 

Ophiolite, I don't care what you think, one ad hominem attack deserves another (insert insult here). I never said such things and was very careful to show that I wasn't implying them, learn reading comphrension, Mr read between the lines thinks hes a psychoanalyst.

[Sorcerer]

You can hold your breath. Does that make breathing a choice?

 

By comparing the parasympathetic fuction of breath and sexual arousal you point out that these are involuntary, however everytime I get an errection I do not use it, this is where the choice lies.

[Ophiolite]

The points I am making is:............

 

learn reading comphrension' date=' Mr read between the lines thinks hes a psychoanalyst.[/quote']Reading comprehension can be enhanced when the writer uses correct grammar. [When I fail to convey my argument, in writing or speech, I generally attribute that failure to myself, rather than my audience. It works for me.]

I have no psychoanalytic skills; never thought I did. If you don't want people to read between the lines, stop writing between them with such large letters!

For the rest, your clarifications seem to have added nothing to your arguments. I have clearly failed to make mine clear to you, so I shall abandon that attempt.

 

As a final point I am intrigued that you should consider this as a personal attack, to the point that you have to let me know that you 'don't care what I think'. I never imagined that you did. Harden up.