Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[ZQrn]

Well many people do actually have feelings of revulsion, but there is no "biological basis" for these feelings - they arise purely from irresponsible parenting and/or people growing up in a corrosively conservative (read: homophobic) environment/society.

Yes, so what of it? I'm just pointing out how it is from their perspective, what you need to know to successfully argue with them.

And there is hardly ever a biological basis for moral dogma. Why do we think killing is bad, slavery is bad, female oppression is bad? Because we were raised / brainwashed to believe it. Upbringing is brainwashing and there is really no way to differentiate between which morals are 'good' and which aren't without delving into 'I'm right, you're wrong'.

And to be quite fair, there is a certain evolutionary explanation slash justification for homophobia, they don't reproduce that much, but they still take up resources, if reproduction is your axiom, then expulsion of homosexuals is a consequence thereof.

Of course, it should be pointed out that modern human democracies display all the characteristics of a hive, a homosexual still has a job, with that job he fulfills a specialized purpose that serves a function in the hive that enables the heterosexuals to reproduce better. If a homosexual man is a baker, then the provides bread for young children from heterosexuals for instance. So the argument from reproduction can be refuted.

And ofcourse, we all know that homophobia is basically a narcissistic, male rape anxiety which itself stems from ridiculous, socially constructed gender roles...

Do we know this? This seems fairly speculative to me.

Is fair of paedophiles the believe that your own children are some-how so attractive that any random paedophile would develop sexual feelings for them?

Is fair of incest the narcissism that your own first degree relatives find your attractive?

I still can't understand their sexual orientation and the intricacies of their sexual behavior. Its quite alien to me. But it's not required to understand. If you accept that they are healthy human beings, you can't deny them the same rights straight ppl have.

Given your forum name, I shall assume you male (for sake of argument), correct me if I'm wrong.

A: Can you understand your own attraction to females?
B: Can you understand it if another male has the same attraction?
C: Can you understand t if a female has the very same attraction?

D: Can you understand a female having attraction to male?
E: Can you understand a male having the very same attraction?

F: Can you understand the position that some one does not notice / does not care for the quality of 'gender' and as such consequently is attracted to either gender without really being consciously aware of which it is [this time].

 

[Al68]

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

One thing that seems obvious is that a "gay gene" if it exists, would be eliminated by evolution. A preference for brunettes doesn't hinder reproduction. A brunette can have your baby.

Of course societal pressure to marry and reproduce may allow a "gay gene" to survive, but if that's the case, and homosexuality is genetic, that will become obvious in a few generations.

 

[Al68]

It is natural to have an aversion to any activity that does not promote reproduction.

I would think the natural aversion would be to things that don't perpetuate one's own genes. It would make sense genetically for a man to be averse to lesbian activity but not male homosexuality of others, since the former would reduce one's reproductive opportunities, while the latter would increase them. It seems this is the opposite of reality for most straight men.

Personally, I would like nothing more than for every man on Earth except me to be homosexual, while every woman on Earth is straight. (Except the ugly ones). That would be very beneficial to the perpetuation of my genes.

 

[ZQrn]

One thing that seems obvious is that a "gay gene" if it exists, would be eliminated by evolution. A preference for brunettes doesn't hinder reproduction. A brunette can have your baby.

Well, there is still a gene for haemophilia around, surely it hinders reproduction a lot, yet it has survived, it is not common, but it survived.

Evolution can do no more than minimizing in general, at least, when the gene is recessive.

What I find preposterous is that in the 50's the consensus of 'specialists' was that homosexuality was due to bad parenting and all those things, while in the 80's-90's they all thought it was 'born' and there was even a gene that caused it, while neither of both hypotheses have ever seen a solid proof. Indeed, the gay gene obviously does not exist because of identical twins of which one of both is gay.

Another thing is that there is no objective way to define or 'diagnose' homosexuality but the claims of the subject. Which leaves me to assume that it's not as hard as some people may think. Together with the documented existence of societies which treated sexuality quite fluid, I am quite sceptical to homosexuality as such a 'hard' category as many western 'specialists' assume it is.

Of course societal pressure to marry and reproduce may allow a "gay gene" to survive, but if that's the case, and homosexuality is genetic, that will become obvious in a few generations.

Interestingly, there are a lot of documented societies where homosexuality was pretty much accepted, nay, encouraged.

Also, homosexuality in nature seems to correlate with a higher intelligence. And let's face it, sex in human beings isn't all about reproduction, it fulfills a social role, a way to communicate as well. If homosexuality is a disease, then so is being willing to use a condom.

 

[Al68]

If homosexuality is a disease, then so is being willing to use a condom.

Plus gay sex is probably more reliable as a birth control method. What are the odds of getting a male partner pregnant?

Seriously, I never referred to homosexuality as a disease. I just pointed out that evolution discriminates between behavioral tendencies based on their effect on reproduction. So if homosexuality is genetic, it seems likely that societal pressure to "stay in the closet" ironically would increase the actual percentage of homosexuals in a society, while societal acceptance would decrease the percentage.

 

[ZQrn]

Seriously, I never referred to homosexuality as a disease.

I never said or implied or intended that you did.

I just pointed out that evolution discriminates between behavioral tendencies based on their effect on reproduction. So if homosexuality is genetic, it seems likely that societal pressure to "stay in the closet" ironically would increase the actual percentage of homosexuals in a society, while societal acceptance would decrease the percentage.

It's really not that simple there in the case of a social species.

Let us assume for sake of argument that homosexual men are more caring than heterosexual men, then for instance, if your older brother is a homosexual, who then cares more for you, your chances of survival increase. Of course, siblings, statistically, are genetically as identical as a parent and a child. Thereby, by being homosexual, that brother ensures the survival of his siblings, who share some of his genetic material, that when combined with another partner may also induce the oldest brother of that offspring to be homosexual...

Evolution really is not that simple as often posited.

 

[Al68]

Let us assume for sake of argument that homosexual men are more caring than heterosexual men, then for instance, if your older brother is a homosexual, who then cares more for you, your chances of survival increase. Of course, siblings, statistically, are genetically as identical as a parent and a child. Thereby, by being homosexual, that brother ensures the survival of his siblings, who share some of his genetic material, that when combined with another partner may also induce the oldest brother of that offspring to be homosexual...

Evolution really is not that simple as often posited.

I never said it was simple. If there were any reason to believe that homosexuality was connected with a higher likelihood of sibling survival in the way you mention, then sure it would be a factor. But even then, it would seem pretty unlikely to outweigh the factor of whether or not he has sex with women.

 

[ZQrn]

I never said it was simple. If there were any reason to believe that homosexuality was connected with a higher likelihood of sibling survival in the way you mention, then sure it would be a factor. But even then, it would seem pretty unlikely to outweigh the factor of whether or not he has sex with women.

Not at all, if he can ensure that 2 of his siblings survive to have children themselves where they would not without his aide, then he has done the same as creating two children basically.

Let us not forget that a lot of species have evolved to a system where only the queen can reproduce and all the others serve only to guard the queen so that she may do so.

 

[DanP]

A: Can you understand your own attraction to females?
B: Can you understand it if another male has the same attraction?
C: Can you understand t if a female has the very same attraction?

D: Can you understand a female having attraction to male?
E: Can you understand a male having the very same attraction?

F: Can you understand the position that some one does not notice / does not care for the quality of 'gender' and as such consequently is attracted to either gender without really being consciously aware of which it is [this time].

Whats your point ?

 

[ZQrn]

Whats your point ?

Nothing, I'm just curious, and I can't see that if you're attracted to women, how you can then not understand a random woman having the exact same attraction.

 

[vertices]

And there is hardly ever a biological basis for moral dogma. Why do we think killing is bad, slavery is bad, female oppression is bad? Because we were raised / brainwashed to believe it. Upbringing is brainwashing and there is really no way to differentiate between which morals are 'good' and which aren't without delving into 'I'm right, you're wrong'.

Absolutely.

Do we know this? This seems fairly speculative to me.

Men are seen as hunters and women are seen to look after babies - and these gender roles, which put power in the hands of men, have been ingrained in our minds. Society tells us that it's plainly unacceptable for a camp gay guy to rape a straight male because that would seriously undermine his "masculinity". These are stupid ideas that we must socially deconstruct.

Is fair of paedophiles the believe that your own children are some-how so attractive that any random paedophile would develop sexual feelings for them?

Is fair of incest the narcissism that your own first degree relatives find your attractive?

Paedophilia and incest are wrong because they are damaging to children (in the case of the former) and damaging to the offspring of incestuous couples.

 

[DanP]

Nothing, I'm just curious, and I can't see that if you're attracted to women, how you can then not understand a random woman having the exact same attraction.

I am not a woman. I cannot understand the sexuality of a being I am not. I can't completely understand straight women, much less so gay females. Or the sexuality of gay males for that matter. I cannot fathom whatever happens in their brains. Homosexuals are different, probably both biologically and in their social psychology.

But is not required to understand their sexuality. Live and let live. Many of them are valuable members of the society. They don't do anything wrong. They deserve hapiness as much as the rest of us do.

Btw, I am not talking about scientific understanding. I am sure there are enough psychologists and whatever else who studied homosexuality and have a great deal of scientific understanding of the phenomena.

 

[ZQrn]

Men are seen as hunters and women are seen to look after babies - and these gender roles, which put power in the hands of men, have been ingrained in our minds. Society tells us that it's plainly unacceptable for a camp gay guy to rape a straight male because that would seriously undermine his "masculinity". These are stupid ideas that we must socially deconstruct.

I'm sure sure this is all true, or at least, I'm highly sceptical to this being nature rather than nurture.

Paedophilia and incest are wrong because they are damaging to children

To have sexual fantasies about a child without the child knowing damages the child nowadays?

Also, the idea that children cannot consent to sex is a fairly new idea, the idea used to be that you have to be married and if you're married at 9 years old then having sex is okay. Many US states used to have an age of consent as low as 9 or nonexistent as little as two centuries back, provided you were married of course. Of course, looking at Greece or the Aztecs ...

And if you look at the controversy Rind et al. stirred, it becomes clear that if anything, this is a moral idea, not a scientific or rational idea.

(in the case of the former) and damaging to the offspring of incestuous couples.

What about homosexual incest? Or contraception? And the same could be said about the adopted children of homosexuals who will face some struggle because it's not normal.

Also, the risks of inbreeding are overstated (mostly as a political tool of course to justify banning incest), the point is that, yes, there is a slightly higher chance that children coming from incest have things like haemophilia, but the chances is a lot higher if one of the parents simply has haemophilia. From this argument you can say that people having any inheritable disease having babies to begin with is immoral and damaging to their children, as such you are back at eugenics.

Let's not forget that the European royal house is basically a swamp of incest, for instance, Elizabeth and Philip are related via two different paths, it is such an incestuous business there that they are actually related via multiple paths often.

I'm just saying, these arguments are largely invented to justify a moral, not a rational idea. The only reason it is wrong, is 'because it is wrong', the same reason murder is wrong, it's an axiom, a primitive. And the same reason that to some homosexuality is wrong.

I am not a women. I cannot understand the sexuality of a being I am not. I can't completely understand straight women, much less so gay females. Or the sexuality of gay males for that matter. I cannot fathom whatever happens in their brains. Homosexuals are different, probably both biologically and in their social psychology.

So you can understand heterosexual women, who like men, but not homosexual women, who essentially like what you like?

If anything, what is the furthest removed from you is the heterosexual woman, for she is both what you are not, and is attracted to what you are not attracted to. What's close to you is a homosexual man, for he is what you are. Or a homosexual woman, for she is attracted to what you are attracted to you.

Btw, I am not talking about scientific understanding. I am sure there are enough psychologists and whatever else who studied homosexuality and have a great deal of scientific understanding of the phenomena.

Not at all really, there are a lot of hypotheses, some hypotheses have even been mainstream consensus due to the parrot effect, but no one really knows what's going on, and I think that's because people think there is 'anything' going on and overlook what is in plain sight, that it's just 'taste'.

 

[DanP]

A
Paedophilia and incest are wrong because they are damaging to children (in the case of the former) and damaging to the offspring of incestuous couples.

In the case of incest this type of reasoning is somehow wrong. We live in an age with extremely efficient contraceptive solutions. So why is it still wrong to sleep with you sister ?
You both can use contraceptive measures, so no offspring will result.

There are couples who do not wish to have children. So if you and your sister decide not to have babies, who has the right to sya anything about whatever or not you can marry her ?

 

[DanP]

So you can understand heterosexual women, who like men, but not homosexual women, who essentially like what you like?

If anything, what is the furthest removed from you is the heterosexual woman, for she is both what you are not, and is attracted to what you are not attracted to. What's close to you is a homosexual man, for he is what you are. Or a homosexual woman, for she is attracted to what you are attracted to you.

.

You see, you are debating with me what I should feel more or less remote, and you are amazed of what I can relate to or I can not. You are different. You will not understand me, unless you are like me. Leave it at that.

 

[ZQrn]

You see, you are debating with me what I should feel more or less remote, and you are amazed of what I can relate to or I can not. You are different. You will not understand me, unless you are like me. Leave it at that.

Maybe, but I'm more or less pointing out that it's not the reasons you say it is that you don't understand the attraction.

As in, you said you didn't understand the attraction because you didn't feel or yourself, or because you are not a woman yourself. Yet you do understand the attraction of heterosexual women strangely.

So there seems to be an ulterior reason* for it.

* this is the first time in my life that I saw the word 'ulterior' without being directly followed by 'motive'.

 

[DanP]

As in, you said you didn't understand the attraction because you didn't feel or yourself, or because you are not a woman yourself. Yet you do understand the attraction of heterosexual women strangely.

So there seems to be an ulterior reason* for it.

* this is the first time in my life that I saw the word 'ulterior' without being directly followed by 'motive'.

It may seem so, but there ain't any. Remember, I am wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. For me this is a "biological imperative", much like I drink water and eat.

What makes lesbian different from straight women is exactly the fact they are attracted to the same sex. It makes no difference they like the same thing I do, namely other women. The gap created by the same sex attraction, which is not present in me, is much larger than the "relatedness" created by the fact they like the same thing as me, females.

 

[Monique]

Indeed, the gay gene obviously does not exist because of identical twins of which one of both is gay.

This reasoning is not correct, there is a large amount of literature that shows that monozygotic twins can have discordant phenotypes for 'simple' Mendelian inherited disorders. The reasons for that are diverse, you can check this review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20468073"

Monozygotic (MZ) twins show remarkable resemblance in many aspects of behavior, health, and disease. Until recently, MZ twins were usually called "genetically identical"; however, evidence for genetic and epigenetic differences within rare MZ twin pairs has accumulated. Here, we summarize the literature on MZ twins discordant for Mendelian inherited disorders and chromosomal abnormalities. A systematic literature search for English articles on discordant MZ twin pairs was performed in Web of Science and PubMed. A total number of 2,016 publications were retrieved and reviewed and 439 reports were retained. Discordant MZ twin pairs are informative in respect to variability of phenotypic expression, pathogenetic mechanisms, epigenetics, and post-zygotic mutagenesis and may serve as a model for research on genetic defects. The analysis of single discordant MZ twin pairs may represent an elegant approach to identify genes in inherited disorders. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 

[Al68]

Not at all, if he can ensure that 2 of his siblings survive to have children themselves where they would not without his aide, then he has done the same as creating two children basically.

Based on that logic, one could just as easily claim that evolution favored sterile men if sterile men were more caring toward their siblings. The siblings saved would never outweigh the lack of procreation.

Of course this is all moot, since we have no evidence of any link between sexual orientation and sibling survival anyway.

 

[DanP]

Based on that logic, one could just as easily claim that evolution favored sterile men if sterile men were more caring toward their siblings. The siblings saved would never outweigh the lack of procreation.

Of course this is all moot, since we have no evidence of any link between sexual orientation and sibling survival anyway.

Read kin selection theory. It can explain how such genes have a chance of propagation.

 

[Al68]

Read kin selection theory. It can explain how such genes have a chance of propagation.

I never said the genes wouldn't propagate. I said that they would propagate more in intolerant societies in which homosexuals married and had children than in tolerant societies in which they didn't marry and have children.

It's not an all or none situation, it's more vs less situation.

 

[vertices]

To have sexual fantasies about a child without the child knowing damages the child nowadays?

It is sometimes unhealthy to fantastise.

Let me share an example: I recently discovered this website called foodporn which basically has pictures of irresistible foods - the other day, I couldn't restrain myself, I literally walked down to the supermarket and grabbed a million calorie snack item... I have since deleted that website from my favourites!

Also, the idea that children cannot consent to sex is a fairly new idea, the idea used to be that you have to be married and if you're married at 9 years old then having sex is okay. Many US states used to have an age of consent as low as 9 or nonexistent as little as two centuries back, provided you were married of course. Of course, looking at Greece or the Aztecs ...

And if you look at the controversy Rind et al. stirred, it becomes clear that if anything, this is a moral idea, not a scientific or rational idea.

It is scientific insofar as we've learned a lot about child psychology and physiology since the 18th Century. Children are simply not able (physically and emotionally) to consent to sex.

What about homosexual incest? Or contraception? And the same could be said about the adopted children of homosexuals who will face some struggle because it's not normal.

There is a very simple moral principle that is relevant here: namely, you can do whatever you like as long as you don't harm anyone else. It's not for me or anyone else to pass judgement on anyone who sticks to this principle...

Also, the risks of inbreeding are overstated (mostly as a political tool of course to justify banning incest), the point is that, yes, there is a slightly higher chance that children coming from incest have things like haemophilia, but the chances is a lot higher if one of the parents simply has haemophilia. From this argument you can say that people having any inheritable disease having babies to begin with is immoral and damaging to their children, as such you are back at eugenics.

I disagree. Basic genetics tells us that children of incestuous parents have a much greater risk of having a range of diseases (because there is a greater likelihood of recessive alleles for disease coming together). Furthermore, I do believe human beings should endeavour to diversify their gene pool as much as possible - this makes us stronger and fitter.

I'm just saying, these arguments are largely invented to justify a moral, not a rational idea. The only reason it is wrong, is 'because it is wrong', the same reason murder is wrong, it's an axiom, a primitive. And the same reason that to some homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, indeed. I don't get why moral values are seen as synonymous with religious values. Homosexuality has nothing to do with morality...

 

[Monique]

Just to add to the discussion of sexual differentiation, did it ever occur to you that the mother (the womb) might have a large effect on the development of the brain and the sexual orientation?

If not, you should read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403051"

During the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[Gokul43201]

They truly dedicate their lives to the service of others. They sacrifice everything based on a philosophy of kindness, love, and public service - service to God. Try spending a month with a priest. Priest and nuns are some of the most selfless people you will ever find.

Thanks for the explanation.

Making a moral judement based on biblical teachings, is not the same as disputing scientific facts based on faith. Are we not still free to draw our own conclusions about morality? Or is this too subject to the whims of the court of popular opinion?

If I understand this correctly, the implication is that it is not brainwashing so long as the teachings are of a moral nature rather than a factual nature. I'd like to point out, by the same argument, that teaching people that it is morally superior to martyr themselves by strapping on a bomb and setting off an explosion in a crowded public square is similarly not a form of brainwashing.

 

[ZQrn]

It is sometimes unhealthy to fantastise.

Let me share an example: I recently discovered this website called foodporn which basically has pictures of irresistible foods - the other day, I couldn't restrain myself, I literally walked down to the supermarket and grabbed a million calorie snack item... I have since deleted that website from my favourites!

This is equivalent to keeping paedophiles away from children as, in, not reminding them of their existence, which is infeasible.

It is scientific insofar as we've learned a lot about child psychology and physiology since the 18th Century. Children are simply not able (physically and emotionally) to consent to sex.

Well, the burden of proof here is yours, so:

- Define what 'not able to consent to sex' means, itself a pretty vague thing, as in, define it in such a way that this can be scientifically tested
- Proof that children within an age you specify (statistically) cannot do this

The reason I am sceptical to the fact that this was ever scientifically documented is that such a research would be highly unethical to conduct of course, you cannot use controlled conditions, you may be able to establish a correlation between for instance neurological problems like depression and sex at an early age, but at the same time you can also say that it's likely that depressed children simply use early sex as an outlet, it's no big secret that some depressed people basically use sex as an antidepressant.

To truly establish this, you would have to use controlled conditions, which is unethical.

Other than that, Rind et al. actually established that even a correlation was pretty weak, and basically stirred a lot of controversy and even hatred and even making the research illegal literature in some places.

Also, the 'age of consent' is different throughout the world, essentially in the Netherland it is considered okay to lose one's virginity at 12-13, it's low here, but not frowned upon per se. In Britain or the US, that would be considered 'not ready'.

And lastly, I don't really know what to think of sciences like 'child psychology', the science revises itself so damned often. 25 years back porn was bad for kids, now it's part of a teenager's natural development for instance, methinks that child psychology is just a vessel for contemporary morals really. A lot of the things child psychologists also claim cannot be tested scientifically without unethical research.

Also, child psychology is a science that deals with 'ought' too much, it seems to be used mainly to tell people how to raise their children, rather than being descriptive.

There is a very simple moral principle that is relevant here: namely, you can do whatever you like as long as you don't harm anyone else. It's not for me or anyone else to pass judgement on anyone who sticks to this principle...

Maybe, maybe not, as I said, I'm at least very sceptical that a 15 year old guy can some how not 'consent' (what ever that means) to sex, especially because it's above the Dutch age of consent. But below that in many other countries. These ages and laws really seem to be made at whim rather than the product of actual research. Also, currently, the trend seems to be over and world wide the age of consent is actually gradually starting to lower again, as do voting ages and all. Same with alcohol, in the US, it's 21, here, it's 16. That's really too much of a deviation for me to still buy that any of those is the product of scientific research, these ages were never investigated and were just produced at whim methinks.

I disagree. Basic genetics tells us that children of incestuous parents have a much greater risk of having a range of diseases (because there is a greater likelihood of recessive alleles for disease coming together). Furthermore, I do believe human beings should endeavour to diversify their gene pool as much as possible - this makes us stronger and fitter.

'much greater' is a ridiculous overstatement. If you have a random illness that you have a chance of P to get if both parents don't have it that is recessive. That means that the chance Q of a random person being a carrier is found by solving: P = (Q/2)^2, so 2*sqrt(P)

So, the chance of a random person having incest being a carrier is of course the same, if that person is a carrier, than the chance is simply 1/2 that first degree family is also a carrier. So, the chance is sqrt(P)/2 that you this one condition if you come from an incestuous union of first degree relatives.

Of course, since chances are smaller than 1, so generally: generally sqrt(P)/2 > P. But say the chance is 10% you get it if your parents are unrelated, it now becomes 15%, that's not that much a difference. Also, as the chance increases you normally got it, it can actually reduce the chance if you come from an incestuous union. After all, if a carrier alele is very common, it implies that if one by chance doesn't have it, so does the likelyhood the other doesn't either.

Also, this still doesn't change the fact that the chance is rediculously higher if you already have such a disease yourself, but children with haemophilia are allowed to have children, whose children are very likely to inherit it. It's a dual standard. It's an argument used to justify it, not an argument that lead to this conclusion.

Also, again, the burden of proof is yours, show me evidence of your unconventional claim that inbreeding has a higher chance of inheritable deficits than simply people with those deficits breading themselves. (which is legal)

Yes, indeed. I don't get why moral values are seen as synonymous with religious values. Homosexuality has nothing to do with morality...

Moral is basically an organized religion.

To be honest, I have more understanding if a man says 'But this is wrong, because some being far more powerful than us that knows all and created this world says it's wrong, and who are we to contest with that?' than if a man says 'This is wrong, it just is.' which is what people without a religion put forth as argument to why certain things are wrong like stealing and killing et cetera.

Monique:

"There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.", I'm just wondering? Why is there no proof for this? We all know that SPARTAAANS essentially were mostly at least bisexual and probably simply homosexual. It seems far fetched that this was caused by hormones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan#Military_same-sex_love

Also, it seems to me that all male military cultures at least seem to correlate with homosexuality. Also, my cousin, a psychologist once told me that it was a statistical correlation that asymmetry in gender count heavily correlates with occurrences of homosexual behaviour, hell, it even seems that prison makes men at least slightly more homosexual. I see an abundance of things that make it hard to just rule out that society can influence once 'orientation' and in fact make it not that much a stone cold fact that such a thing as 'orientation' can even exist.

 

[NeoDevin]

ZQrn,

Is it not possible that environment can influence expression of sexuality, rather than preference? For example, if a guy is more attracted to women than men (but still somewhat attracted to both), then given a sufficient supply of willing women, he need never turn to men. Eliminate the supply of women, and he may engage in homosexual acts. Thus his sexual preference isn't necessarily influenced by the environment, but his actions are. (Hypothetically, I'm not a behavioural psychologist or anything similar)

 

[ZQrn]

ZQrn,

Is it not possible that environment can influence expression of sexuality, rather than preference? For example, if a guy is more attracted to women than men (but still somewhat attracted to both), then given a sufficient supply of willing women, he need never turn to men. Eliminate the supply of women, and he may engage in homosexual acts. Thus his sexual preference isn't necessarily influenced by the environment, but his actions are. (Hypothetically, I'm not a behavioural psychologist or anything similar)

What is the difference between this and influencing preference?

Also, an interesting point to be raised is that even after females are added, it may take significant time, if ever, for it to 'turn back'.

The whole ungrounded assumption that homosexuality is some how more special than all the other tastes could have hampered the research thereto. Of course, if you like a certain type of music for instance, this is hard to change and one doesn't 'choose' to like a certain type of music. But we can all agree that which music one likes has both a nurture and a nature component and may indeed shift with time and definitely is related to culture.

 

[Monique]

ZQrn,

Is it not possible that environment can influence expression of sexuality, rather than preference?

I have already supplied an answer, given by respected scientists in the field:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403051" There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[ZQrn]

I have already supplied an answer, given by respected scientists in the field:

You have given the opinion, which is asserted without evidence of two scientists, respected or not, it is argument from authority, and indeed, a lot of 'respected scientists' http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html.

Searching the scientists from your pubmed though, they don't at all seem to be that well known. Certainly not to just take their word for it, when other scientists seem to disagree.

Seeing that I have provided an example of the indications they claimed did not exist, I would basically call their axiom errant. If environment could not influence homosexuality, it would be extremely unlikely for military societies such as Sparta and Japan to practice and encourage it with success. We would have to assume that via some inexplicable mechanism, Spartans were all born homosexual, while their genetic closests of other Greek states were not...

 

[DanP]

Spartans were all born homosexual, while their genetic closests of other Greek states were not...

Its pretty possible that this is similar to "prison rape", which is not a homosexual act psychologically, but one of power. The distinction is important.

 

[Monique]

You have given the opinion, which is asserted without evidence of two scientists, respected or not, it is argument from authority, and indeed, a lot of 'respected scientists' http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html.

? Who is R.D. Johnson and why does he cite some random websites of which most links are broken? Is Geocities a respectable source? I cite a peer-reviewed article. You really need to come up with something more respectable.

 

[ZQrn]

Its pretty possible that this is similar to "prison rape", which is not a homosexual act psychologically, but one of power. The distinction is important.

In Sparta though, this was hardly the case, it wasn't rape, it was basically paederasty and homosexuality.

? Who is R.D. Johnson and why does he cite some random websites of which most links are broken? Is Geocities a respectable source? I cite a peer-reviewed article. You really need to come up with something more respectable.

http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/homosexuality-nature_or_nurture.html

Both APA's and the AAP reputable enough for you?

I googled the quotes by the way if you don't believe that site, they do seem to trace back to them.

Homosexuality most likely has a nurture and nature component I especially agree with this part: and the reasons may be different for different people., this is the naïve error people tend to make, they see a category, and implicitly assume it has only one cause. While in fact, it could have many unrelated different causes that just collide towards similar symptoms.

Also, since the only way to 'diagnose' homosexuality is really just to ask people how they identify, I don't believe it exists as a 'category' per se. For it to exist as a category, there should be more than self-report out there. You are also hampered by the fact that one person would identify as 'straight' while another at least as 'bi-curious' under the same division of attraction to either gender. It used to be only 'gay' and 'straight', then came 'bisexual' then came 'bicurious' to the mix, then even 'a little bicurious' and so on, most likely it's a continuum, which makes it even harder to justify that it's completely nature.

 

[Evo]

You have given the opinion, which is asserted without evidence of two scientists, respected or not, it is argument from authority, and indeed, a lot of 'respected scientists' http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html.

"allpsych online" is not a peer reviewed journal.

"integratedsociopsychologogy.net" is not a peer reviewed journal.

 

[ZQrn]

"allpsych online is not a peer reviewed journal".

If you think things are true because they are in a peer reviewed journal... peer reviewed journals often contract each other and themselves and so they should, it's not a place that collects facts, it's a place where new ideas battle until mainstream consensus can be established.

Anyway, read above, I trust the APA's and the AAP are enough for you.

Edit: and before you go complain about that it's just an article, the APA's and the AAP really said those things and you can easily verify this and so did I before I posted it. Now quick as hell revoke that 'infarction' becuase I used 'just an article', you can easily check that the APA's and AAP made that official position, so did I before I posted it, I let know in my post that I checked it, and I made it quite clear that I was more interested in the quotes from the APA's and the AAP than the article itself and only addressed the quotes in my post.

As hell you're just using your mod powers (again) to simply take down opinions you don't agree with. Have you ever in your life called some one 'misinformed' if you agreed with their points?

 

[Gokul43201]

If you think things are true because they are in a peer reviewed journal... peer reviewed journals often contract each other and themselves and so they should, it's not a place that collects facts, it's a place where new ideas battle until mainstream consensus can be established.

This is not about whether a claim is "true". The Guidelines for PF require that anyone making scientific claims be able to support them with references to standard textbooks or peer-reviewed journal papers. You agreed to these guidelines, so you need to follow them.