Homosexuality

[*YoungGuyver]

Now that I have your attention, let's see whom wants to weigh in on this video:

[*Jess♥]

it is no secret that if a dog is horny, he'll hump anything, including your leg.

the fact is, sexual acts result in pleasure. what drives a creature to a sexual act? all manner of criteria.

In my own view, many men who are considered homosexual, are merely gaining their sexual pleasure from men.

why is it this way? could be a number of factors. could be genetic (although I do not think this is very common/likely) or psychological.

my view is that it is more commonly due to the relationships between parent and child.

but aside from this, societal pressure, results in many men or women who would normally be considered bisexual, identify as straight for fear of being judged etc.

Roman soldiers used to 'lie' with each other all the time.

personally, I find some men to be very attractive. does it go beyond the aesthetic appeal? no. I've explored my own feelings enough to know that I don't generally enjoy being that close to a man, whether he looks nice or not. hugging can be good. if you have a good friend, and he is very affectionate then you can have that kind of bro-mance.  sort of like JD and Turk on the tv series 'scrubs'. due to societal pressure, it is something that a lot of men find difficult to approach but I think that is wrong.

I think it's something a lot of men struggle with.

 

but going back to whether or not I think it is something that is wrong or right, or if there is some form of sickness involved...

I think it is something that is normal to start with, to seek this type of gratification.

how much, and in what ways to seek this gratification, is then combined with self control and level of desire.

 

I want to consider this question, and it is linked to a work of art I did a while back.

NOTE : this link is NOT safe for work, I include it for academic purposes, this type of link is not normally OK. http://tremault5.deviantart.com/art/Which-do-you-162396482

The question is, if a person looks like a woman, moves like a woman, speaks like a woman, has the genitalia of a woman, but was born a man, then would a man having a relationship with her, make him gay?

what if the genitalia were not even part of the equation?

if the subject looks like a woman etc, but has a penis? is a man gay for going out with him/her? what if the subject looks like a man but has a vagina?

It has to be mostly about perception and psychology in my view.

[LordSpleach]

I'm in favor of the genetics arguments myself considering it does makeup the base value of someone's personality. Though sociological and psychological factors must always be considered since sexual orientation begins to form during puberty. Now I admit I have found some transgender females physically attractive, but have never had the urge to sleep with them, no. Now to answer to your question, Ryuki, I don't think that makes me gay. For those who are sexually attracted to transgenders whose have the same genitalia, I honestly think there needs to be a new word cause it's not man/woman with man/woman, but man/woman with man into woman/woman into man.

My problem is most people confuse the LGBT community with their personal orientation with morality. That's a problem! They always religion as a excuse that is a tired and bullshit idea to explain their fear of their lack of understanding. I have heard the procreation arguments with usually stating the extreme of what if everyone became gay, and no baby were made. Well I say there are too many different personality types to let that happen, and cloning is now possible.

 

Of course, those same people also think Transvestites and being gay is the same thing. Look at Eddie Izzard, he only likes women but still likes their clothes. Or how he explains it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_kvXeMv-2k'>

 

 

[durendal]

What's wrong with being gay?  Last time I checked, gay meant happy.  

[*Kenji Murakami]

Yes, more people should be merry and gay; it'd solve so many problems in the world.

[*YoungGuyver]

but I don't want to marry gay, I've already got a wife.

 

hehe

Kidding aside, I'm surprised that we have someone putting out what the scientific RESEARCH has shown (32% genetics 60% something something) as the cause for lgbt, and people are still speculating in their own minds as if it is a complete mystery.  Interesting, another video was pointing out that scientific research gets better and better, but the common man is further and further removed from it.  No one here is talking about hormones during pregnancy, and if we should be 'trying' to control and prevent this, or simply let the chips land where they may.

[LordSpleach]

"Control"?

[*Jess♥]

Kidding aside, I'm surprised that we have someone putting out what the scientific RESEARCH has shown (32% genetics 60% something something) as the cause for lgbt, and people are still speculating in their own minds as if it is a complete mystery.  Interesting, another video was pointing out that scientific research gets better and better, but the common man is further and further removed from it.  No one here is talking about hormones during pregnancy, and if we should be 'trying' to control and prevent this, or simply let the chips land where they may.

Because for many people it isn't a scientific issue, it is a very personal issue.

Research means nothing to a person who is considering their own sexuality and thinking about who they are.

Personally, I've got most of it figured out, I would say I'm 98% sure of myself.

So now I study other people, watch their behaviour, listen to what they say, analyse etc.

who is to say that MY research is less valid than 'scientific research' ?

I am just as capable as any psychologist at studying people and analysing patterns and correlations.

One could even say that their conclusions are coloured by past prejudice of past psychologists.

 

as for genetic research etc.. I don't know anything about that. But I do know that romantic and sexual attachments to certain things are not due to genetics. a person with sexual fetish doesn't get that fetish from genetics. a fetish for cars? how could that find its way into our genetic code? how much evolution would it take to evolve a creature that is sexually excited by cars?  taking the absurdity out of the situation though, I have seen studies on fetishism and unusual sexual preferences. it is usually a matter of association. association and strengthening of sexual desire with a  particular situation or object. I'd also like to add that I have seen twins where one is gay and the other is straight.  if it were so much due to genetics, then this would be fairly unlikely.

 

I can't say if genetics has a big effect or not. after all, men generally are attracted to women and women are generally attracted to men, there is of course a part of our genetic code that will lead to sexual preference. that much is undeniable. but this is where it starts to get messy. gender identity starts to play a big part here and we have the cases of men born in female bodies and women born in male bodies. then there is also gender ambiguity. But I believe in this scenario, there is a different situation at play. if a person has genetic code that results in them being a female born in a male body, that person does not identify as gay or bisexual.  which sort of suggests that our definitions of gay lesbian etc are not concerning genetics?  in my view, this is a philosophical issue, not purely a scientific issue. because it includes social, personal psychological and other issues all working in unison.

 

should we be working to prevent homosexuality? is that what the question was?

no. homosexuality is a state that a person exists in and is usually satisfied with who they are.  if you change that, it is no longer that person.

If it were to be viewed as a disease (which it shouldn't) then I always believe in treating the cause not the symptom.

in case A where it is purely a genetic cause, then that is evolution and should not be meddled with unless we want to control nature to that degree.

then we can concentrate on turning humanity into a homogeneous mass of automatons.

in case B where it is a psychological issue, we need to work together to address our various social issues.

But that is something we ought to do for pursuit of happiness and let the chips fall where they may. If being gay is an unhealthy result of psychological issues cause by social pressures, then it will naturally correct itself. That is a big IF.

[*YoungGuyver]

You are watching people to form your opinion.  Scientists are pooling resources to watch people.  Like th video said, they have a much better sample size.  And their work must be peer reviewed.

 

Interesting contradiction you made about genetics though.

 

I agree, we should NOT be trying to 'cure' people.  But as we understand why this is biologically happening, some people will suggest it.  That's why I want to explore it.  Ignorance leads to suffering.  Let us talk and make everyone smarter (which includes what actual research tells us).  After all, how many religions have been formed because people just sat around and picked answers they 'felt' were correct?

Because for many people it isn't a scientific issue, it is a very personal issue.

 

as for genetic research etc.. I don't know anything about that. But I do know that romantic and sexual attachments to certain things are not due to genetics.

 

I can't say if genetics has a big effect or not. after all, men generally are attracted to women and women are generally attracted to men, there is of course a part of our genetic code that will lead to sexual preference. that much is undeniable.

[*Jess♥]

Interesting contradiction you made about genetics though.

I don't think I made a contradiction but obviously I didn't communicate what I meant.  

I'll try again.

 

I think that genetics determines our basic attractions, but then after we are born, our environment starts to shape our personality, our preferences etc.

Many people like fishing because they spent a great deal of time bonding with their father while fishing throughout childhood.

Men who are born hardwired to find women attractive, may not grow up that way. Various events in their childhood will result in adult men who may be gay, bisexual, frigid, or something else. psychological studies showed that men or women who experienced repeated sexual arousal around a particular theme or object, will relive that arousal when they see that thing in the future. a young boy who took 'shop' with a very attractive female teacher may end up aroused by cars in the future. a young boy who got punched in the groin every time he was sexually attracted to a woman, then emotionally tortured by other women... may start to become less attracted to women. and so on. This is the difference between genetically coded sexuality and psychological. this is what I was getting at.

[*YoungGuyver]

I can see what you are saying about environment.  So you disagree with what this guy was pointing out in the video?  You say that our genetics can program us for something, but you are not allowing any variation in the code.  Your position suggests that everyone is exactly the same, as if from a cookie cutter.  The odds of my fingerprints being exactly like yours are not good, and it's not all life experience.  I can agree with you to a point that experience makes you the person you are, but then so does the construction of your body.

 

Homosexual Science research shows (from the video):

-37% genetically programed for same sex

-63% environmental factors (not upbringing, but chemical or hormonal influences during embryonic development-called neurohormonal or neuroendocrynal)

 

Science is pointing out that there is more than one cause, and is understanding it on a mechanical level

 

Should we maintain our position on NO CURE for all causes?  Or prevention during pregnancy? (not prevention via abortion, but hormone and such regulation).  You know someone will eventually suggest it; what do you think

[*Jess♥]

no, no, that's not what i'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that our genetics can define us to a certain extent from the beginning. this goes for people who are born hetero, or born homo or at a varying point along a sliding scale.

 

I'm pretty much agreeing with the premise, just have a different idea of the ratio. I am under the impression that the percentage of people who may be genetically homosexual, is a lower ratio than what some may think.

I realise that research has been done, but I am of the opinion that catchments are not always reliable.

it's very hard to get a really good representation of the world population past and present and psychological studies are even more tricky.

Did they study people from all different cultures, religions, race, country, intelligence level etc. ( I'm also thinking about genetic memory as a factor)

 

I don't think a 'cure' ought to be considered for foetus etc. I think the only time it could be acceptable is if the adult is experiencing distress and they can use advanced genetics to alter the adult body and hormonal system and brain chemistry. I don't think people should consider fiddling with an individual's make-up before they are able to properly say the word 'no'.

[*YoungGuyver]

The video explained the sample and culture.  I think they had 3000 twins for the study (I'd recheck the video to be sure, I glossed over the big number to try and get the chemical names and I'm a bit tired now (awake for 17 hr with only 3 hr sleep).  When it comes to chemical based studies such as genetics and hormones, It almost sounds like you are grouping them in the same league as 'questionaires'.  I trust genetics and blood tests more than peoples answers about their own sexuality.  And true, the actual number of genetically homosexual within the ENTIRE human population is different from the sample size, just as it is different from generation to generation.  A larger sample size is always a more accurate representation of the truth, and 3000 is pretty nice compared to what most people have access to.  I think it gives us a good place to set the benchmark for now.

 

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about women who take huge doses of cocaine during pregnancy?  Do those drugs not affect the fetus?  Would you cure that child by having the mother avoid those drugs if you could?  Or would you let the child grow with the resulting illnesses and decide at a later date how to deal with the stresses?  Speaking of stress, mothers stressed out during pregnancy (such as in abusive or violent situations) usually give birth to children prone to addictions due to (which was it?  cordosol?  I'm very tired right now).  How about fetal alcohol syndrome, where a mother whom drinks too much during pregnancy can result in deformations during development (my foster brother had a brain with chunks missing, akin to swiss cheese; because that's what was forming while she was drinking).  Is it even possible to 'cure' that after the fact?  And no, he was not resilient enough to compensate for that much damage.  Many FAS people end up in prison because they can't adhere to rules, and they impulsively do whatever they're told as anyone with a smile is their friend (hanging with the wrong crowd).

 

So to me, I'd like to know what's causing the hormone and chemical influences before I say we ban ALL treatment.  If the mother naturally produces those hormones, then no treatment.  If homo/bisexuality is genetic in nature, then no treatment.  But if there is an external factor causing the hormone/chemical influence, then look into treatment.  I'd like more information before making a blanket statement.

 

What about everyone else?  Surely the opinion of others matter.  This can't just be between Ryuki and myself

[*Jess♥]

It's a difficult subject you've brought up.

now we are in the territory of interfering with parenting styles or a person's lifestyle choices.

It always concerns me when people talk about controlling how parents look after their children. If a parent has a strong faith and strong spirituality, it's almost like they are not respected enough to raise their child in a manner that they believe to be best.

I don't have a lot of faith in doctors, mainly because they try to treat the symptoms not he cause in many cases. Does my honest and best interests for my own child, get overridden because people don't hold my views?

Don't get me wrong, taking an abundance of a chemical that clearly damages a growing baby, this can be dealt with.

But we are in danger of taking too much control over a persons life and that is a threat to liberty in general.

It's also like the argument over abortions. can we say on one side, it is ok to kill a foetus by use of abortion, but not ok to allow a mother to have habits that may damage the foetus? it is the issue of pro choice vs pro life.

I struggle with it myself.

I have strong liberal views so I would not want to interfere with a person's life and their choices.. at the same time, if I see a child suffering, I am strongly inclined to rescue the child. I think in these cases, the best way to judge the situation is to watch and see if the parent is acting out of love or acting out of neglect.

 

if there were a case of people having a lot of high fructose syrup for example, if this actually caused an increase of homosexual people, do we go to the parents and tell them and let them make a choice, or do we go to corporations and tell them and let them make a choice, or do we make it law that no mother can eat products with HFS in it, or do we make it law for corporations to not use HFS in products?

[*YoungGuyver]

I really like what you are saying Ryuki.  Problem is, people are ALREADY stepping on the toes of freedom.  They've been doing it since the dawn of time.  In the name of spirituality even, as an excuse.  So these are questions that we should have clear cut answers for in order to make a retort for those that would take the freedom from us.  Exploring it now is a very damn good idea as far as I'm concerned.

 

For instance, there's a country in South America that has not only made being gay illegal (like so many other countries), but it is a martial offence.  Your sexual prefrence may get you executed.  Granted, people protested, and it was merely commuted to life imprisonment.  Is this what we allow 'spirituality' to get away with?  Someone has to simply claim 'god' gave an edict, and we allow them full power over our own lives?  For what?

 

As far as i'm concerned, if someone is genetically gay, or a mother's hormones naturally tweak the baby that way, then it is fine and we shouldn't interfere.  If there is some chemical pollution, or food additive that is going astray, then maybe clean it up (cure the patient if possible), and try to regulate it in our foods like we do caffeine and nicotine.  But in no way to I think we should have any regulation or restrictions on gay/lesbian/whatever human relationships.