View Poll Results: Being a homosexual
Oh ya! i suport! 251 91.94%
ew... 22 8.06%
Voters: 273. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools

HenryFBP
Dead Account Holder
215.72
HenryFBP is offline
 
#376
Old 04-17-2010, 02:15 AM

It has already been proven that gays are born gay. (still support them, never didn't)


Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal

Facade
Ticking Time Bomb of Titillation
8850.01
Facade is offline
 
#377
Old 04-17-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Fang View Post
Now your argument asserts that someone has their sexuality determined by their genetics. But such a position is dependent on what it means to be a male or female as remaining clear and constant. Unless you are asserting that a persons sexuality has nothing to do with beauty, the role someone has in society, or even their personality. As all of those are determined very heavily by culture. I would personally be quite surprised if I met someone who was homosexual based on nothing more than the physical genitalia of their partner. Quite commonly this homosexuality is coupled with them having a certain conception of what a male and female are. As males and females differ so greatly from society to society, a person can not be attracted to one gender over the other before they have acquired an understanding of what a "male" or "female" are.
Um. Yeah, this makes no sense.
The meanings of 'male' and 'female' ARE constant - I don't understand why people associate gender roles with sexuality.
I can bluntly attest to being attracted to male genitalia. Isn't that what sexuality is, or does my physical arousal while I look at naked men lie? I'm pretty sure you're looking at sexuality in some sort of twisted, conceptual way that totally warps what it means to be sexual.
Sexuality and sex are not dainty ideals of what love is. Love is irrelevant when sex is on the table - now, I'm not saying you can't love the person you have sex with, but they're two separate elements; you don't have to love the person you have sex with. There's an immeasurable record of prostitution to prove THAT much.
What a "male" is, therefore, is a penis; what a "female" is, therefore, is a vagina.
Men may come in different sorts, like flamboyant, masculine, blah blah blah, but that's separate from sexuality.
Women may come in different flavors, like tomboyish, girly, blah blah blah, but that's separate from sexuality.

In order to comprehend what "man" and "woman" are, you'd have to entirely eradicate the modern foundation of society and its gender roles. After doing so, what do you have?
A plethora of penises and vaginas.

Inertia
My heart and soul entwine my Lov...
1102.26
Inertia is offline
 
#378
Old 04-17-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryFBP View Post
It has already been proven that gays are born gay. (still support them, never didn't)


Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal
Firstly, it hasn't been proven.

Secondly, it doesn't matter either way.


Also

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc View Post
Ugh....another reddeath26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Fang View Post
I am reddeath26

That was effin epic.

Crimson Fang
*^_^*
7236.94
Send a message via AIM to Crimson Fang Send a message via MSN to Crimson Fang
Crimson Fang is offline
 
#379
Old 04-17-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
Um. Yeah, this makes no sense.
This doesn't particularly surprise me, as I am well aware I have difficulties in communicating anthropological theories to the general public. Indeed I even have some difficulties in communicating them to people who have some grasp over anthropology. As I have done several times already, I advise you to check The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture
by Roger N. Lancaster. He does an infinitely better job at expressing the position than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
The meanings of 'male' and 'female' ARE constant
The meanings of male and female are cultural constructions and thus particular to whatever culture we happen to be referring to at any given time. It is the incredible variety which we observe when we begin to look cross culturally which can not be explained by genetic explanations of sexuality. Indeed as Lancaster asserts any attempt to explain sexuality as being caused strictly by genetics is dependent on a very particular understanding of gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger N. Lancaster
Vernacular understandings of gender infuse scientific models of sexuality – now, no less than in the nineteenth century – the “science” of homosexuality invariably rests on, refers to, and reinforces a broader set of cultural conceptions: notions of what a real man is and what a natural woman ought to be, understandings of what a man does and how a woman feels, ideas about reproduction and its role in human life: thoughts, in short, in which “identity” refers to otherness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
I don't understand why people associate gender roles with sexuality.
When discussing something such as sexuality which exists cross culturally, it becomes of the utmost importance to explore the way in which various culture perceive and understand both gender and sexuality. As sexuality is linked to the gender of the actors involved, it does become quite crucial to look at how said actors interpret gender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
What a "male" is, therefore, is a penis; what a "female" is, therefore, is a vagina.
Such a reductionist explanation is incapable of explaining the wide variety of functions and roles that we can observe sexuality serving cross culturally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger N. Lancaster
Anthropological studies of other cultures have shown that human sexual practices are remarkably varied – that there's more than one way to organize the institutions of family, kinship, and sexual life. Some societies even require every male to engage in same-sex relations for extended periods of time. What all of this means is that nothing in 'human nature' gives us a heterosexual norm and a homosexual minority. Sexuality is largely what we make of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
Love is irrelevant when sex is on the table
I would agree, although I am confused at you suddenly raising this point. In expressing said surprise it is always nice to agree on something. I hope you do not mistake this for sarcasm, as it does genuinely please me to reach an agreement with someone here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
I'm pretty sure you're looking at sexuality in some sort of twisted, conceptual way that totally warps what it means to be sexual.
I look at sexuality as a highly complex phenomena which has high levels of variety both historically and cross culturally.

Facade
Ticking Time Bomb of Titillation
8850.01
Facade is offline
 
#380
Old 04-17-2010, 03:28 PM

I'm now immensely confused as to which side of the argument you're on.
I originally thought you were trying to say that homosexuality is unnatural, that gender roles are unnatural, and therefore sex itself is unnatural.

And now... I've no clue which side you're on.

Might be the overall scientific quality of your posts, which makes your voice in a debate sort of muddled behind all of the purported science crap. Not to sound offensive or anything... I just really don't comprehend what you're getting at. At all. Which, in my opinion, sort of defeats the purpose of a debate.

Poppet
⊙ω⊙
0.20
Poppet is offline
 
#381
Old 04-19-2010, 04:24 PM

I am not gay, but I absolutely ADORE gay people. Men or women alike. I respect them, honestly, because sometimes society gives them a hard time about it and they get through life with their heads held high. Bravo for them. They're fantastic (:

MidnightWolve
Hi...
0.45
Send a message via MSN to MidnightWolve
MidnightWolve is offline
 
#382
Old 04-21-2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mau5ie View Post
thank you midnight wolve! ^^

what i said was very incomplete. but that is because i suck at articulating what i want to say. D:
i edited my post. lol.
It was finely put. I couldnt have put it better lol. I have a hard time sometimes putting my thoughts into words.

Breillxega
285.28
Breillxega is offline
 
#383
Old 04-23-2010, 01:23 AM

I think that there is nothing wrong with being gay or whatever. It's something with your brain chemicals that like the same gender. It's also who you fall in love with... and I think everyone should deserve love. It's not a sin to fall in love. I think if people think that then they are wrong... does God day "It's a sin/or wrong to fall in love."? I mean look at some famous people... Adam Lambert, Drew Berimore, etc. Do you like them? Yes. Because it doesn't matter what there sexuality is! I SUPPORT THE GAYS! BE DIFFRENT! :heart:

amam2217
⊙ω⊙
582.26
amam2217 is offline
 
#384
Old 04-23-2010, 10:09 PM

God loves everybody, and people are obviously gay for a reason. If they weren't meant to be gay, then God wouldn't have made that so. I remember learning in my Human Sexuality class that Lesbians and Gays are born with an extra chromosome that belongs to the opposite sex, which probably helps explain why people are attracted to members of the same sex. I fully support Homosexuality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Gay or a Lesbian. I'm not a Lesbian, but I am aware that they are constantly being picked on or teased simply because they love somebody of the same sex. What a sad world we live in that humans can't be nice to each other.

fiarra
seeking proof on the roof
2951.85
Send a message via AIM to fiarra Send a message via MSN to fiarra
fiarra is offline
 
#385
Old 04-24-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:
I remember learning in my Human Sexuality class that Lesbians and Gays are born with an extra chromosome that belongs to the opposite sex, which probably helps explain why people are attracted to members of the same sex.
I don't normally participate in these sorts of debates, but I HAD to jump in here. Whoever taught you this is DEAD wrong. There are genetic disorders that take the form of extra chromosomes, but they have NO correlation to the issue of whether a person is gay or not. If you take the genetic profile of someone who identifies as gay, straight, trans, asexual... they will have the SAME number of chromosomes.

Saying that someone is gay simply because of a extra chromosome is tantamount to saying that being gay is a genetic DISORDER and therefore un-natural. Which.. :| is all I can say to that.

Crimson Fang
*^_^*
7236.94
Send a message via AIM to Crimson Fang Send a message via MSN to Crimson Fang
Crimson Fang is offline
 
#386
Old 04-24-2010, 09:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
I'm now immensely confused as to which side of the argument you're on.
As I have already acknowledged, communicating theories and concepts is something I struggle with. I furthermore acknowledge here that this is a fault on my part, but I will none the less attempt once more to explain my position. In attempting to find a way to better articulate my position, my searches saw me stumble upon the concept of sexual scripts. Please note that I do not profess to have any level of mastery at all over any concepts or theories which I draw upon. Disclaimer aside, I start by looking back at the last point I made on my previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Fang
I look at sexuality as a highly complex phenomena which has high levels of variety both historically and cross culturally.
Sexuality as a phenomena does not exist as some static unchanging concept, but rather it shows high levels of variety cross culturally and historically. What I meant by this is that understandings of sexuality be limited to particular contexts (historical and/or cultural). That these understandings are so dependent on the particular context a person happens to find themselves in is central to any discussion on the possible causes of sexuality. This can also be reinforced by the sexual scripts theory which holds

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Richardson
People behave in certain ways according to the meanings that are imputed to things; meanings which are specific to particular historical and cultural contexts; meanings that are derived from scripts learnt through socialization and which are modified through ongoing social interactions with others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facade View Post
And now... I've no clue which side you're on.
I guess you could by and large say that I am on the social constructionist side. It was furthermore my understanding that you were on the essentialist side. I am not entirely sure whether or not that is the case now.

Edit: I would also like to clarify that I am not arguing from a scientific perspective. Indeed my previous post included criticisms of the scientific perspective on sexuality. As the stance that sexuality is caused by gender is guilty of reductionism, and ethnocentrism. Something which the following quote also identifies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Stein
Generally, most biological research on sexual orientation accepts without argument a quite particular picture of sexual orientation. For example, many studies in the emerging research program unquestioningly accept the inversion assumption, according to which lesbians and gay men are seen as gender inverts and many studies assume the direct relevance of animal models of sexual behavior to human sexual orientation (Stein 1999, pp. 164–79). More crucially, such studies typically accept that a person’s sexual orientation is a deep scientific property about her and that sexual orientation is a ‘window into a person’s soul.’ This view of the centrality of sexual orientation to human nature is neither culturally universal nor scientifically established. (Stein 1990, Stein 1999, pp. 93–116).

Last edited by Crimson Fang; 04-24-2010 at 10:01 PM..

 



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

 
Forum Jump

no new posts