Are we complete at birth or are we made

[kvnchrist]

 

 

 

 

1. Extremist ranters? Who is a extremist ranter? I know people who oppose gays may be considered extreme, but who is extreme on the other side of things?

 

What I am referring to are those who feed the haters. They are like the vigilantes that the staff here often speak of, here. These are the one's that resort to the same tactics as those on the right and essentially fan the flames,

Like who? I really don't get why it is a problem to speak up for someones rights.

 

It is a problem if these people cause problems for those they claim to speak for. An example of these are politicians that claim to quote/unquote feel their pain, but are only interested in their vote. If we were talking about race, I would point at the race baters that run around the nation, looking for anything they could turn into a racial situation.

But we are not talking about race.

 

If a politician says to support someone, and does it for a vote, but still tries to get legislation out to help them, that is not a problem.

 

I am giving you some of the best examples I can think of. This is getting way off the direction of the main topic. I will give you this little bit of history to try to clear this up. From what I've heard in my travels, The issue of gay rights aren't an outstanding issue with a lot of people. What irritates many are those who try to preach to them, either by advertisements or message movies, like the one's Michel Moore throws out every so often. Most people want to just live their lives, pay their bills, raise their kids and don't bother others. It is the one's that throw insignificant issues, to them, up in their faces are the one's that cause more harm than good.

 

The moralists will always be waving their flag and most of Americans just ignore them, but when they turn on their Tv's or go to a movie to relax and get blindsided by propaganda, they tend to get irritated.

[Vagrant0]

Your saying if any straight man wanted to, they could just decide to switch to men?

It's not a choice... like deciding to give up meat because you disagree with slaughterhouse practices.

 

I don't know from personal experience mind you, but a good amount of the quality research (non-biased or funded by pro-gay/pro-straight agendas) done in recent years and all the cases complete enough to study suggests that human sexuality is in fact a fluid thing, impacted mostly by life experiences particularly those early on when the brain is still maturing, but with the built in capability to change over time based on the environment.

 

In Western, it is wholly unthinkable because there are countless social pressures, stigmas, conflicts which try to force people to identify one way or the other simply for the sake of labeling.

 

The closest comparison I can make to it without going into excessive detail and having to spend hours fact checking, is like political parties... Just deeper ingrained and a more overt part of who we are in society. If you aren't part of a particular party, people look down on you, say things about you, wonder what the hell is wrong with your way of thinking, blame you for all of society's problems, attack you for your beliefs, gather up a mob and burn effigies in your yard, calling you unfit for any position where your beliefs might somehow affect the beliefs of others. The parallels are there not only in how others deal with you, but also in how one person identifies one way or the other or finds themselves unsure with where they fit (research Communism in America before arguing against this).

 

Any label you place on a person based on sexuality almost certainly is not telling the whole story, people are quite simply more complicated than that, and if they weren't, we wouldn't have to spend so much freaking time as a society trying to come to terms.

[marharth]

I disagree. There is no evidence to support your statements. I have known men that were straight, and after a bad experience with women, decided to be gay. I have also known both men and women, that were gay/lesbian, and then DECIDED to be straight. There IS choice involved. It isn't hard coded that one person is gay, while some other person is hetero. (which is one of the major arguments AGAINST gay marriage. It doesn't technically meet the criterion for 'discrimination'.)

 

That said, I think the whole 'gay marriage' thing is blown WAY out of proportion. Don't call it "marriage", call it "civil union", let them have the same benefits as a 'normal' married couple, and call it good.

Your saying if any straight man wanted to, they could just decide to switch to men?

 

You are not straight if the above is true, you would be bisexual.

 

Why not call it marriage? They should get the exact same benefits, and calling it a different name is just a form of discrimination.

And once again, your supposition has no supporting evidence, nor any basis in fact. The whole situation is all based on various folks perceptions. That's it. There isn't any conclusive evidence one way or the other.

 

 

Because calling it marriage is what a great deal of the hullaballoo is about. Don't call it 'marriage', because, technically, it doesn't fit with the definition that is currently accepted......

Not backed up by facts? Where is your evidence for your claims? Sexual preference is determined by genetics and brain structure. We do not know for sure what causes sexual preference, but we do know you can't change it.

 

For a few links (PDF downloads)

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/ex-gay.pdf

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

 

Mainstream science agrees that you CAN NOT change sexual preference, and attempts to forcefully do so can be damaging to mental health.

 

Calling it marriage is what is right to do. If it causes issues then get rid of the issues. Should be of just given up and forcefully renamed marriage between blacks and whites something different? That is not how it works.

 

If it doesn't completely match the law, then change the damn law.

 

@Vagrant

Claiming to be straight for society to accept you does not make you straight.

Edited September 13, 2011 by marharth

[Vagrant0]

Mainstream science agrees that you CAN NOT change sexual preference, and attempts to forcefully do so can be damaging to mental health.

Yes, that's correct... You cannot FORCE someone to change their sexuality without damaging their 'mental health'... Not any more than you can force someone to believe themselves a fish without damaging their 'mental health'. Forced abuse and direction for change, even when partially willing, does not work on any level without causing emotional and mental anguish. Again... That political party analog. You wouldn't have much luck forcing someone to accept your political views, and most of those aren't an integral part of their being.

 

That is however not to say that emotional or mental anguish, or merely time can't change someone's sexuality. Only that you cannot force a desired outcome without incurring the other.

 

@Vagrant

Claiming to be straight for society to accept you does not make you straight.

Right... no more than claiming yourself a Republican does not make you one.

 

What I am saying however is that there is no such thing as 100% straight, or 100% gay for that matter... Outside what people tell themselves. And frankly, why does it matter what people actually are? Even the definition of "Straight" doesn't exactly encompass all behaviors which might be seen as heterosexual. And are we talking about an emotional attraction, a visual one, or merely a physical attraction. If a woman is only attracted to masculine acting women and only takes the feminine role, is she gay just because her partner has similar chromosomes? Would she then be straight if her partner had a sexchange operation? Or is a guy gets a sexchange operation to make himself into a woman, but is involved with a natural born woman, does that make him/her gay or straight? What about if the guy loves the girl, but also likes being the bottom and on the receiving end of any sexual act? Would that still be straight just because his preferred partner was female, despite the fact that he was taking a feminine sexual role? And how does one empirically judge "straightness" anyway?

 

Even the simple definition of sex for procreative ends doesn't work since it would not take into account non-procreative sex, persons with fertility issues, and would by default probably have to label everyone without atleast one confirmed child parented by a life partner as being gay simply because there would be no other definitive measure... And even then, there are those who have had a long term 'heterosexual' procreative relationship, but have engaged in 'homosexual' acts.

 

The common labels simply do not work once you even start to scratch the surface of what is out there. The fact that one has to use ' ' or " " to even account for all those cases that might not fit, but are being included for the sake of argument (or spend hours establishing new terms) should tell you that the labels and terms are inadequate for any higher discussion.

 

Really, what it all really comes down to on a personal level is how we choose to define ourselves socially... Everything other than that is such a quagmire that even those really smart types have not even begun to unravel in any clearly defined way, and which would almost certainly conflict with ones that people identify with and would want to accept. People like things in simple terms so they can have that feeling of normalcy, being right with themselves, and so that they can form groups to oppress and hate everyone who is different... Anything that would potentially jeopardize that tends to be met with strict opposition with anyone who happens to have a prestige status.

[stars2heaven]

When it comes to what influences sexual orientation the available scientific evidence heavily favors biological factors over environmental ones as being the primary determining factors.

[Vagrant0]

When it comes to what influences sexual orientation the available scientific evidence heavily favors biological factors over environmental ones as being the primary determining factors.

Not really. Most of those studies only take into account late life measurements and link them with how that person identifies. Many of them are also peppered with political motives since the only way that anyone with an alternative lifestyle has gotten any acceptance is with the standpoint of "being born this way". It may not be the whole truth, but it is the truth that people on both sides want simply because it's harder to condemn and easier to get evidence for.

 

There have been relatively few studies which don't measure solely around personal identification... Which is essentially the problem. It's not that people might lie, or not know, it's that their personal identification is based on their own experiences. Up until recently they didn't even acknowledge the possibility of bisexuality in males. And on the other side of things, you still have groups taking just a MRI of people's brains and concluding that just because a man has some features similar to a 'typical' female brain and dissimilar to a 'typical heterosexual' male brain, they have proof that homosexuality is biologically linked. There is just too much bad science out there and nothing that ever looks at evidence in depth.

 

This is not to say that there might not be a biological link, just that it is more of a predisposition to a certain grouping of impulses that happens to have a biological link. But, just like predispositions to alcoholism, violence, they are not an absolute cause, and are not the only reason for an end behavior.

 

 

The bottom line is this... Sex for most people, once they get past all those problematic thoughts of who, what, and how, still feels pretty damn good or else we wouldn't have it. Sexuality however is pretty much all those thoughts of who, what, and how, and since are internalized thoughts, can be very hard to measure or even draw meaning even when they are your own.

[Ghogiel]

Then conversely where is the evidence to support a counter theory? Both sound like conjecture.

[Flintlockecole]

People are people. We are who we are through all the stuff we've been through whether it's an extremely coddled lifestyle to fighting day in day out. I don't think we're complete at birth, but everything we see and do molds us into who we really are.

[lemonfan1]

I'll start by saying that I've only skimmed half the replies to this thread. The following is my own personal belief. I may be wrong, I may be right. I'm just throwing in my point of view.

 

To Op's starting post; I think it's a little of both. We're a product of our environment. Given that our population has been increasing greatly for many, many years, and that homosexuality exists in nature itself, I believe homosexuality to be, in part, a form of natural population control. Humans are highly adaptable. We can take harsher weather, disease, and can defend ourselves against the greatest creatures this planet can throw at us. So our population grows. Greatly. That small percentage of humans born with the desire for same-sex partners increases as the overall population increases. It's roughly the same percentage, just a greater overall number. The fact that many societies these days are more tolerable and accepting of homosexuality, people are more comfortable letting it become public as well.

 

Then there's the other factor. CHOOSING homosexuality. Again, this goes along with "we're a product of our environment". People who are raised in a way which would be accepting and embracing homosexuality would likely have a greater chance of at least having an EXPERIENCE of it. I could refer to this culture or that ancient civilization, but I'll save you the same old same old you've all likely heard a hundred times before in these types of discussions.

 

When it comes to bisexuals, it's probably still a bit of both. While not really one way or the other, curiosity overcomes them and they try it both ways. A man, perhaps, whom enjoys anal intercourse, decides that he will continue that part of his lifestyle while still enjoying the feeling of having and being with a woman. A woman, perhaps, finds that another woman knows how to satisfy her sexually since she is also a woman and knows just the right spots and will continue that lifestyle while still being able to enjoy having and being with a man.

 

Opportunist? Mm...perhaps. At least in the sense of the examples I gave in the above paragraph. But no one is being hurt, and everyone is enjoying their time, so I'd really see nothing wrong with it. Then again, it could be that they simply cannot decide. Confusion, more than curiosity, overwhelms them, so they keep trying both sides in an attempt to find themselves.

 

There's also the possibility that some people are homosexuals because they are too shy of the opposite sex to give it a try, so, being more comfortable hanging around members of their own gender, they become homosexual due to a lack of confidence in themselves in relation to the opposite sex.

 

There are a lot of possibilities. Some could be right, some could be wrong. Again, the above is just what I believe. "We are a product of our environment." Whether it's social or evolutionary, this is what I believe.

Edited September 14, 2011 by lemonfan1

[Vagrant0]

Both sound like conjecture.

Pretty much.

 

There simply is nothing to empirically measure to judge "straightness" when you think about it hard enough.

 

You cannot get a true measure of sexual preference by asking people to identify as straight, gay, bi, pan, or anything else since it relies on their own ability to self-identify and becomes culturally based (in some cultures males are not considered homosexual if they top, and female homosexuality is not even possible due to how they define it). This, outside of any social pressures related to how one might identify.

 

You cannot measure how one reacts to visual stimulus against brain stimulation since many of those things that people find attractive are culturally defined and in many cases the features which trigger an attraction response are not exclusive to a particular gender. Various trends towards androgyny in modern cultures has also led to a degree of blurring about what features are attractive or not rather than the individual's gender. And, most people would have their own reservations about being flashed images of naked persons or merely their sexual bits to judge such a response. Also... such a study would only judge the visual response, not any physical or emotional one.

 

The physical response part of things poses a rather significant moral quandary... Not to say that there have not been some college studies done which pair off people of various genders and rotate them with a scorecard of the experience... Just that most of those studies tend to be rather contrived by any scientific measure (the gender of the person you're partnered with would usually be something easy to notice and therefore would be impacted by previous bias), reliant on willing participants (make your own assumptions here), and in some cases illegal due to various sodomy laws. Most everything else is either open to other biases, or could fall under crimes against humanity.

 

The emotional one is actually the least telling from a definitive gay or straight measure. Ever since the age of computers began, people have been able to connect with eachother and form bonds based not on physical or visual attraction, but an emotional one. You cannot always tell gender by words alone, and any reported gender is merely an indication of how the other person wishes to be responded to instead of any actualized gender identity. Love is blind. The people you like to be around and care for are the people you like to be around and care for regardless of any differences in chromosomes, anatomy, or social distinction. It's not necessarily sexual love, but it is a matter of intimacy. However, intimacy itself is not considered by the same measure globally. In many cultures it is more normal for men to have a strong, deeply intimate connection with other men, stronger than even with their wife. In other cultures, men who show any sentiment of intimacy with anyone are seen as weak and effeminate. Again, there is a cultural or social bias.

 

 

Essentially, there is no good evidence either way because pretty much all you are testing is responses to various cultural variables and trying to find a biological link, meanwhile agonizing the point of making certain classes of individuals different from a subjective norm. But, short of cloning 10,000 biologically identical individuals, dispersing them secretively amongst the population, and keeping track of the majority of them to chart their sexual development and run occasional head scans... And repeating this using several different genetic combination to get both cross-sectional data as well as inter-group data... There is no real way to get any solid evidence one way or another. And at that point, you're pretty much having to violate more ethical codes than just saying "f*** it, people are people, let's just stop wasting our time on this meaningless s***, let people live their lives as they see fit, and maybe spend our time and money trying to cure that cancer thing."

 

I mean, really... Does it actually matter?