@Kithias : In my opinion, for homosexuality to be a choice, it would mean that everyone in the world was omnisexual and that each person who is considered 'gay' actually decided to focus on the same gender. That isn't necessarily a wrong idea, but it doesn't make much sense at the same time.

I personally don't care about gender period. Neither mine, nor anyone else's. I never really chose to be this way, it's just how I am. I admit that I didn't realize this until later in life, but I was always like this...i just didn't really know how to put it into words. I used to wish I was normal, or at LEAST that I was gay because of the fact that things are complicated for me. But I can't choose those lifestyles, it would never truly work out and I would always feel weird.

I don't think that a homosexual person can just decide to be straight. It just doesn't work that way. If you think that you can change it over time,(meaning you think that you could become straight) than you probably aren't actually a lesbian. If you were, than you'd know that it would be extremely hard and would never truly work out. You'd always still have those feelings for the same sex, and you'd never be able to genuinely be heterosexual.

Reading over what you said again, I notice that a lot of the stuff you said are conflicting. If homosexuality is a choice then why did you say "I didn't think I'd end up lesbian. I didn't plan on it. I just did." ? If it was a choice, than didn't you choose that lifestyle? Doesn't that mean you didn't just end up a lesbian?

Originally Posted by Kris

If it is not genetic, then how do you explain its strong patterns in families and twins? If one twin is gay, the other twin is usually gay; most gay men have many older brothers, etc, etc.

...I dunno...maybe the twins were influenced by their brothers? Ever gave that a thought?

I think either A) everyone needs to take a deep breath
or B) This needs to be moved to debate.

I think it's like anything else for attraction. Do you like light hair or dark? Blue eyes or green? your own sex or the opposite?
It's not really choice, just what you prefer. I like long hair on guys. Love guys with bright blue eyes. I like light haired girls, with green or brown eyes. It's not a choice (I didn't choose to be attracted to both sexes), it's not a defect (there is nothing wrong with my brain), it's mental preferance. But this is just my opinon!

Get over myself? How rude of you, Kris.

I now hate your narrow minded attitude as much as I hate a homophobe's. And I am entitled to it.

Personally, I find being attracted to a gender is a stupid and shallow thing. It's the person's soul, who the person is, that really matters. Not who they are physically.

I AM lesbian per the default I have never been with a guy. I am not single and won't be single so I won't be looking at guys or girls because once you're with someone you stop looking (or you're supposed to, anyway). I am not bisexual because I am not single. You "are" what you "are" as defined by who you with, not by what you like. I like her and only her. I don't quite find myself lesbian, either. I find myself very who-I'm-with-centric. As any non-single person should be.

I solidly DO NOT believe a person is born gay. YOU get over YOURSELF. There is nothing wrong with being gay. But you are only as strict as you think yourself to be. Preferences are hardly absolute, there are always exceptions. You may eventually find one. >/

Since apparently I got bashed for stating my opinion on the topic... yes, this very well should be moved into a debate forum rather than general chat. It's being treated like a debate instead of an open-minded discussion. Some people are just too closed-minded to handle it.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.
I don't want to dive into the whole gender identity - attraction - sociobiology - blah blah blah.

I am a gay man. Since adolescence, I found that I had a strange curiosity in the same gender, I like the way they looked, the way they talked ... all that jazz ... I day dreamed about being with boys ... and all that mushy gooshy teenage crap. ( This is what I define as an attraction. )
For this part, I want to say that I did not make a choice to be attracted to my same gender, it just happened.

I did choose to start dating boys though.
That's a choice.
So you can do what you want with that.

What I want to say is the following:
I think this discovery is actually kind of cool
... i just hope, if it turns out to be credible [for lack of a better word] that people don't try to reverse homosexuality ...

That's all I got.

Originally Posted by Kithias

Since apparently I got bashed for stating my opinion on the topic... yes, this very well should be moved into a debate forum rather than general chat. It's being treated like a debate instead of an open-minded discussion. Some people are just too closed-minded to handle it.

THANK YOU! Someone who understands that opinions are opinions, and not people trying to say this and that should be this way and that way. I also got jumped on because of my opinions, and I agree on moving it to the debate thread, because some people can't be open-minded for about five seconds. >_<

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

For this part, I want to say that I did not make a choice to be attracted to my same gender, it just happened.

I did choose to start dating boys though.
That's a choice.
So you can do what you want with that.

Thanks for saying this. This is how I feel too, and I think people get confused with it. It's obviously a choice to date the same sex. Duh. But it wasn't a choice to be attracted to the same gender.

@Kithias
I don't think that your sexuality is based on who you're with. No matter what we say, things aren't really like that. I personally don't care about gender, I like whoever I like. But I know that there are people in this world who are only attracted to the same gender. Now even if they dated someone of the opposite sex, they would never truly be straight. Perhaps they dated the opposite gender because they couldn't accept that they were homosexual. But they really can't call themselves heterosexual because the attraction to the opposite gender is missing. I hope you get what I'm saying. I'm not saying you're wrong for believing in what you believe, I'm just saying that I don't agree with it and providing you with my reasons.

That's interesting. I never really thought about it like that. I just wonder, what about people who start out straight and then realize that they aren't? Does that still count too as being born with it, or would it be considered something completely different? Just wondering.

Oh!
i have one more itsy bitsy comment left.
( that might contradict my former statement XD)

I think people associate 'being born with it' as a negative thing.
Such as Tay Sach's disease or a parasitic twin ( which could be cool) .

To me ... if it was found that homosexuality is something you're born with ... it would be no different that than being born with blue eyes or high cheek bones.

Tah - Dah
I posted another comment without attacking another user
( Yeah ... I had to get that dig in )

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

Oh what a tangled web we weave.
I don't want to dive into the whole gender identity - attraction - sociobiology - blah blah blah.

Sociobiology presents a heavily flawed approach to any discussion on sexuality. It's problems stem from its inability to account for the role which society and culture plays in actively creating and maintaining Gender and Gender roles. Instead of acknowledging this, it starts off with 'our' culturally defined understandings of Gender and Gender roles then proceeds to fallaciously project them onto completely unrelated cultures and societies. Which is quite simply bad science.

Thanks for that definition
...

i'll make sure to never use sociobiology in any of my argument on sexual orientation.
... never have never will ...
My comments weren't even about sociobiology ... so i have no idea why you referred to them other than to ... show me your knowledge of a cool science term.

But!
isn't this what the whole thread is about? ( me ... having never known the term before )
sociobiology and the possibility of using it to determine a root cause for homosexuality ( in gay males anyways )
And I'm not getting the whole

'it starts off with 'our' culturally defined understandings of Gender and Gender roles then proceeds to fallaciously project them onto completely unrelated cultures and societies.'

... explain?




But oops, that's me off-topic again :offtopic:

Why would a gay man's brain be similar to a females?
Is the study suggesting that gay men are more like females based solely on their attraction to men? Or is it implying they're feminine?


... meh maybe i'll just watch the stupid documentary ...

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

Thanks for that definition

More sarcasm? I am almost tempted to accept the thanks, as it makes me very happy when people thank me. Possibly a lot more than it should. :|
Although it was not so much a definition, but rather a mini rant critiquing its relevance to any discussion on sexuality.

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

i'll make sure to never use sociobiology in any of my argument on sexual orientation.
... never have never will ...
My comments weren't even about sociobiology ... so i have no idea why you referred to them other than to ... show me your knowledge of a cool science term.

I would like to apologize here. As I mistook your mention of them as an assertion that they hold significant authority over any discussion on sexuality.

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

But!
isn't this what the whole thread is about? ( me ... having never known the term before )
sociobiology and the possibility of using it to determine a root cause for homosexuality ( in gay males anyways )

You are correct in asserting that one of the key discussions in the thread is the possibility that sexuality is the result of our genetics. I however strongly disagree with the explanations offered by sociobiology.

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

And I'm not getting the whole



... explain?

It was a criticism in regards to how the sociobiological approach falsely presents heteronormativity as being the universal condition. Furthermore it also takes our culturally defined understandings of Gender, and Gender roles and also attempts to assert these are universal. In direct contrast to this, if you are to look at various cultures you will quickly be confronted with how much of a social construction they really are. Not only will the roles which are assigned to Genders differ greatly from culture to culture, but how many Genders are present in society will also differ. Some cultures hold there are 3, 4 or even more cultures present in society. As sexuality is dependent on the gender of the individual in question, how can one assert it is purely the result of genetics when Gender is not constant?

Originally Posted by Sir.Spoon

Why would a gay man's brain be similar to a females?
Is the study suggesting that gay men are more like females based solely on their attraction to men? Or is it implying they're feminine?


... meh maybe i'll just watch the stupid documentary ...

This is a highly valid criticism which I would very strongly agree with. It is based on the highly unusual idea that there are inherent differences between a male and females brain. Something which is not possible to test for. As it has been demonstrated that our brains are responsive to our social experiences. This difficulty is enhanced by the detail that our experiences are dictated by the identity which society deems fit to apply to us.

The argument that females and males brains are inherently different becomes quite circular. Much like arguments on the differences between race. Females are treated in X way. This differential treatment causes their brains to respond and develop differently. This different development is then presented as justification for the differential treatment.

Quite similar to the arguments which used to support slavery. In a sad way it makes me laugh that they would assert Blacks are intellectually inferior. To support this thesis they went to farms and observed that they were most commonly slaves. This led them to conclude it was because they had inferior intellect. As a result of such an observation they asserted that Blacks were best suited to be slaves. O.o

You win.
This time.
:)


I just like who i like.
... they just happen to have facial hair and a lower voice ...
[ that rosie o'donnell really gets me going ]

I like what you said about the gender in other cultures.
Like in the Philippines where the gender is based on sexuality not on sexual organs. ( Or so I've heard ... running on no research here )

And bringing sexuality out in contrast with the race card. I love it. ( i am not being sarcastic ) It reminded me of the Tuskegee syphillis study ... oh wow off topic ...

So in conclusion.
... my thoughts on this gay vs breeder brain ...
don't offer much of a discussion.

I would so take part in this study, just to see what my brain is like.
CT scans just don't do it for me anymore.
xd

Originally Posted by LenGe

...I dunno...maybe the twins were influenced by their brothers? Ever gave that a thought?

If this was true, the same correlation would be found in friends, nonidentical siblings, and even between parents and children. This is not the case.

Rather, there is no correlation between fraternal twins like in identical twins.

Here's a relevant quote from a study:

For the dizygotic twins, Kallman found a concordance rate of 11.5% (3/26) for predominant homosexuality (Kinsey ratings 3-6), and 42.3% (11/26) for any homosexuality (Kinsey ratings 1-6). These figures exclude 19 of the 45 dizygotic index twins, 14 of whom had female twins, and 5 of whom had unclassified male twins (deceased or otherwise unavailable).

For the monozygotic twins, a very different picture emerged. Of the 37 index cases whose cotwins were classified, all were concordant for homosexuality (Kinsey ratings 3-6); a concordance rate of 100%. Kallman noted that "the majority of one-egg pairs not only are fully concordant as to the overt practice and quantitative rating of their aberrant sex pattern, but they even tend to be very similar in both the part taken in their individual sex activities and the visible extent of feminized appearance and behavior displayed by some of them" (Kallman's italics). He also pointed out that most of these twins had "developed their sexual tendencies independently and often far apart from each other, and that all of them deny categorically any history of mutuality in overt sex relations."

Twin Studies of Homosexuality

Originally Posted by Kithias

Get over myself? How rude of you, Kris.

I now hate your narrow minded attitude as much as I hate a homophobe's. And I am entitled to it.

Personally, I find being attracted to a gender is a stupid and shallow thing. It's the person's soul, who the person is, that really matters. Not who they are physically.

I AM lesbian per the default I have never been with a guy. I am not single and won't be single so I won't be looking at guys or girls because once you're with someone you stop looking (or you're supposed to, anyway). I am not bisexual because I am not single. You "are" what you "are" as defined by who you with, not by what you like. I like her and only her. I don't quite find myself lesbian, either. I find myself very who-I'm-with-centric. As any non-single person should be.

I solidly DO NOT believe a person is born gay. YOU get over YOURSELF. There is nothing wrong with being gay. But you are only as strict as you think yourself to be. Preferences are hardly absolute, there are always exceptions. You may eventually find one. >/

Since apparently I got bashed for stating my opinion on the topic... yes, this very well should be moved into a debate forum rather than general chat. It's being treated like a debate instead of an open-minded discussion. Some people are just too closed-minded to handle it.

Saying that sexuality is based on who you are with or who you have been with is a silly thing to say. If this is true, then virgins are asexual. This is not the case. If you are attracted to men, and would be willing to have with men, then you are not a lesbian. If you are attracted to agendered and bigendered individuals, and you would have sex with agendered and bigendered individuals, then you are not a lesbian. This is okay. This is fine. But, you are still not a lesbian.

Your opinion is rather narrow-minded. "It was a choice for MEEEEE, so it is a choice for EVERYOOOONNNNE.". This is not correct. You made a choice, good for you. However, it is very close-minded of you to think that a choice for you means that it is a choice for everyone, and it is not based off of any logical order of thinking.

I have been in a relationship with a man for two years now. But, I am not straight. He is the first person I've ever been with. I am not straight because I have felt attractions to girls and other genders in the past, and being in a heterosexual relationship for two years does not negate these attractions.

I can handle debates just fine. I pointed out a major flaw in your argument, and you chose not deal with that. Sorry that you can't handle some criticism of your beliefs.

I'll be moving this on over to the Debate forum, as I think it's more appropriate there. :yes:

they only did this for 90 people? that's hardly enough to base a conclusion on. and for lack of a better term, I'd go so far to say that it's bullshit!
they did a similar brain study with criminals in prison and 'found'

In particular, he thinks that criminals can lack or have defects in the capacities for deliberation, conceptual thinking, awareness of options, and choices that are characteristic of noncriminals, who act responsibly and with self-restraint. This defect can be traced in the brains of criminals to a hyperactive amygdala, which interferes with the operation of other cortical areas that seem to be essential for deliberation, choice, and change. To support this hypothesis, Sander cites the psychological research of Yochelson and Samenow that demonstrates criminals’ inability to think conceptually with appreciation of options and choices, and he links this research with the studies of Raine and his colleagues showing that the brains of 41 criminals displayed less-active cortical function in the part of the brain that seems to control conceptual thinking and choices.

From:

Exploring the Criminal Mind and subtitled Advances of Brainscience and Mental Procedures of the Criminal Personality: A Unified Brain-Mind Theory. The author and publisher, Jens-Jacob Sander, is a judge in the Norwegian Courts of Justice

.

so basically they are trying to find something to find a disease or something as a scape goat, to blame, for something as simple as likeing the same sex, that they can not seem to understand.

Originally Posted by chumley

they only did this for 90 people? that's hardly enough to base a conclusion on. and for lack of a better term, I'd go so far to say that it's bullshit!
they did a similar brain study with criminals in prison and 'found'



From: .

so basically they are trying to find something to find a disease or something as a scape goat, to blame, for something as simple as likeing the same sex, that they can not seem to understand.

I agree on this stance quite strongly. Like sociobiology, they start of with fallacious assumptions about the nature of Gender and Gender roles. Indeed any study into whether or not genetics determine sexuality is dependent on Gender and Gender roles being distinct and constant. Something which is far from true. So what we have is the claim that it is our genes which determine which socially defined identities we are attracted to. While our genetics will no doubt have some impact, as we are dependent on how the society we live in defines Gender, I would assert that it is our environment which has the bigger impact.

Roger N Lancaster, covers this very well in his work The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture. Your critique that this research actively aids in the discrimination of people is something which I agree with very strongly. The impact this has not only on sexuality but also gender rights is also explored in the book by Roger N Lancaster. Where he identifies the role it has in maintaining the hegemonic position of Heteronormativity and Gender Roles.

Originally Posted by Sun

I've not heard of that specific theory behind orientation, but my own beliefes tend to lie in that direction. During psychology a couple years ago, we disscussed it, and explored the possiblilty that the amount of hormones - oestrogen & testosterone, among a few others - that a unborn child is exposed to has an effect upon on the eventual orientation of that child. Before hand other behavioural, physical or personality trait effectors come through, such as tone of voice and things like that.

I've never really held with the hereditory thing, although i do think that genes must have an influence on the amount of each effecting hormone produced during pregnancy. This would ultimatly sway eventual orientation one way or the other.

I love that you brought up physical conditioning through hormones. In a lot of conversations it seems they are at times overlooked. In my own experience I know that chemical inbalances can change behaviours/emotions as much as behaviours/emotions can alter chemicals produced in the body.

I think if there are any actual physical differences, in this case, I believe is a side affect of initial conditions. Perhaps there is a physical defect that creates an intitial tolerance. In the end I believe it's entirely a choice on the individual's part as to their ultimate orientation and what further affects they undertake.

Otherwise, it would be something we could "cure" and as my boyfriend loves to put it, what about beastiality? If someone wants to make love to a cow, wouldn't we all go....well we can fix that. And give them a shot? No, we view it as a choice. A wrong and strange choice, but it is one that can be corrected behaviorally.

Another point, is that if there is an actual brain difference, what's to keep us from locking away a child with a particular brain defect because it's show they'll become a pedophile?

There was something else, I can't remember.....since now I'm discussing politics with the boyfriend. <3 If I remember the point I'll edit this out in favor of substance!

Originally Posted by Sinziana

I love that you brought up physical conditioning through hormones. In a lot of conversations it seems they are at times overlooked. In my own experience I know that chemical inbalances can change behaviours/emotions as much as behaviours/emotions can alter chemicals produced in the body.

I think if there are any actual physical differences, in this case, I believe is a side affect of initial conditions. Perhaps there is a physical defect that creates an intitial tolerance. In the end I believe it's entirely a choice on the individual's part as to their ultimate orientation and what further affects they undertake.

Otherwise, it would be something we could "cure" and as my boyfriend loves to put it, what about beastiality? If someone wants to make love to a cow, wouldn't we all go....well we can fix that. And give them a shot? No, we view it as a choice. A wrong and strange choice, but it is one that can be corrected behaviorally.

Another point, is that if there is an actual brain difference, what's to keep us from locking away a child with a particular brain defect because it's show they'll become a pedophile?

There was something else, I can't remember.....since now I'm discussing politics with the boyfriend. <3 If I remember the point I'll edit this out in favor of substance!

What the hell? Did you just liken bestiality, the relationship with an uncontentious, unknowing animal to homosexuality, which constitutes relationships between two consenting people? ...seriously?

Just because something isn't a choice, doesn't mean we can fix it. That is, to be put bluntly, a stupid assumption.

There's a difference between pedophilia and child molestation. Even if we can identify pedophiles through brain scans, which we can't, then being a pedophile does not make them guilty of any crime. And, once again, you are comparing homosexuality, a relationship between two consenting people, and something which is twisted and between someone who is forcing something on an unknowing or uncontentious person. That is not right.



There is nothing to "cure" about homosexuality. It is not a disease, it is an attraction. The rampant homophobia in your post is disturbing.

I think you are confusing being in relationships and being gay. You can choose to be out when you are gay, you can choose to be in a relationship, etc., but you cannot choose what you attracted to. For instance, I never stopped and thought "you know, I should think arms are sexy", and did it. No, I just have an attraction to muscular arms through no choices of my own. Same with red hair, strong builds, etc., etc. Tell me, when did you sit down and decide that you're straight? When did you sit down and decide that, today, you'll think x, y, and z are sexy?

I've heard of this debate and I personally think that it is complete and utter bullshit! I think it's people who aren't comfortable about homosexuality trying to make homosexuals seem more inferior. Not every single part of a person's behavior is based on biology. I will admit that there are some things that are more part of a person's biology, but not all of it. And I personally resent the fact that they call it a birth defect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuals, I'm bisexual myself, and I have family members that are homosexual. I see nothing "defective" about it at all. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, the only difference is the gender their attracted to. There's nothing biologically different ibetween someone who is gay/lesbian and someone who is straight.

Originally Posted by TheYaoiButterfly

I've heard of this debate and I personally think that it is complete and utter bullshit! I think it's people who aren't comfortable about homosexuality trying to make homosexuals seem more inferior. Not every single part of a person's behavior is based on biology. I will admit that there are some things that are more part of a person's biology, but not all of it. And I personally resent the fact that they call it a birth defect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuals, I'm bisexual myself, and I have family members that are homosexual. I see nothing "defective" about it at all. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, the only difference is the gender their attracted to. There's nothing biologically different ibetween someone who is gay/lesbian and someone who is straight.

Behaviour may not be completely determined by biology, but until there's a-symmetrical reproduction capabilities in the human race, it really isn't the appropriate biological response. Morality, free will aside, in a purely biological manner it is not right or normal. Therefore it is a defect, or you could look at is as a variance on the species that could ultimately result in a-symmetrical reproduction.

I just don't always think an immediate attraction to someone/ something necessitates who you are. You cannot really separate the attraction from the choice and then not say that it lies in either biology or free will. Either it is a conscious decision or it's a biological abnormality.

If it is biological, it is abnormal. And in the same way we'd want want to rid our species of disease to keep it verile, why wouldn't we want to rid it of the uninterest of natural reproduction? It vageuly reminds me of The Happening. A plant toxin emmitted in the air caused people to become so ultimately depressed they all killed themselves. What happens if it is biological and everyone through generations become homosexual? What would that really mean for reproduction and the survival of the species? Are we resigned to test tube babies or unpleasant encounters with the opposite sex?

If it is a choice, fine, let it be a choice. Stop trying to determine if it's physical or not. Just say, I want to be gay, and move on.

Insofar as attractions go. I can trace all my physical attractions to others back to thoughts/ memories/ etc. It's a very causal thing. Certain things give us pleasant feelings and we seek those pleasant feelings. Growing up, I liked to nap on the carpet where the sun shone through the windows for a while. It was fuzzy and warm and it always calmed me down. I thoroughly believe it's why I love when I was the sheets and put them on the bed straight from the dryer. It's soft and warm. Same reason I love my boyfriend's tummy. It's fuzzy and warm. It doesn't mean I'm going to ever replace him for that warm blanket, even though it gives me the same feelings as his warm tummy.

What I want to say is that being a homosexual is a choice. I'm not trying to comment on it's morality. I'm not trying to tell a homosexual that they are going to Hell, or should be persecuted for their choice. I'm just saying that it is a choice and nothing but. I also believe that pedophilia and beastiality are choices. Again, I am not commenting on whether they are right or wrong, JUST that they are also choices people make.

That being said, my personal belief is that attractions are inevitably fickle. What really matters is the compatability between two people. We are not just the sum of our physiques, but we also incorporate an intelligence and arguably a soul. I think those things are just as important to match with another or moreso than just whether one is a male and one is a female.

So, I am sorry if I offended many of you. It's possible I did. Whenever I argue these things I tend to separate my emotions on the subject from the facts I see. And I don't think I could call these things any different and still maintain my original thoughts. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

Behaviour may not be completely determined by biology, but until there's a-symmetrical reproduction capabilities in the human race, it really isn't the appropriate biological response. Morality, free will aside, in a purely biological manner it is not right or normal.

Although the problem with this assertion is that it does not describe 'the' purpose of sex. But rather it provides 'a' purpose for sex. While I am not flat out asserting it is incorrect, it should be recognized that this is but one of the many culturally defined understandings of sex. This one itself is very heavily dependent on heteronormativity being correct.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

I just don't always think an immediate attraction to someone/ something necessitates who you are. You cannot really separate the attraction from the choice and then not say that it lies in either biology or free will. Either it is a conscious decision or it's a biological abnormality.

That is a false choice. There is also the option that it is a result of culture. As people do not play an active role in deciding their culture, this would also hold that it is not a choice.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

If it is biological, it is abnormal. And in the same way we'd want want to rid our species of disease to keep it verile, why wouldn't we want to rid it of the uninterest of natural reproduction?

This has been demonstrated to be a false assertion. If sexual encounters were entirely random, we would still see overall increases to the human population.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

What I want to say is that being a homosexual is a choice.

As sexuality is ultimately a cultural construction I would very much challenge the notion homosexuality is a choice. What would make someone a homosexual in one culture, may not make them a homosexual in another culture.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

Although one of the problems with this, is that in all these cases they exist in the same culture. As such they are living with the same culturally defined understandings of Gender, Sexuality and Gender Roles. I am not asserting genetics has nothing to do with sexuality. But rather as it is reactive, it is very much dependent on the culture which the individual lives in. I have a good quote, which looks at the question of whether we can separate nature from nurture in our research. While it is talking specifically about IQ, it is equally applicable here. After all like IQ, sexuality is a social construct.

What do cultural understandings of sexuality, gender, and gender roles have anything to do with being homosexual? Unless you are questioning the actual definition of homosexual? Penis meets Penis, Vagina meets Vagina, in other words. If it is shown that twins and "family members through generations" have patterns indicated to represent what is understood as homosexuality, then it very well could be a genetic predisposition.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

As sexuality is ultimately a cultural construction I would very much challenge the notion homosexuality is a choice. What would make someone a homosexual in one culture, may not make them a homosexual in another culture.

This of course only becomes true if it is applied only to humans, and disregards all other homosexual animals in existence.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

What do cultural understandings of sexuality, gender, and gender roles have anything to do with being homosexual?

How can one be homosexual if they do not actively identify certain people in society as belonging to the same gender? Lets say person A is attracted to persons B, C and D. If they live in a culture which defines these people as belonging to the same gender, then they are quite possibly homosexual. If they do not belong to a culture which assigns them with the same gender they are no longer homosexual. How does this work? As their genetics are not changing from example to the next. All that is changing is the Genders they identify as being present in society. Which is the first reason why even if genetics has an impact on who you are attracted to, on its own it does not make someone homosexual.

Gender roles, explains the attraction part of it. After recognizing that certain people in society share the same gender as you, the next question becomes why it is you are attracted to them. Quite commonly when you think of a person's gender this will bring up certain ideals and images about the nature of said person. Indeed many a culture apply certain roles and characteristics to people based on their assigned gender. As such your attraction is influenced in large part not by the actual people themselves, but the way in which society so happens to describe their nature.

Sexuality comes into it, because the act in itself does not make the person homosexual. What makes it homosexual is the active process of identifying it as such. Not all cultures have differentiated between heterosexual and homosexual relations like we do.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

This of course only becomes true if it is applied only to humans, and disregards all other homosexual animals in existence.

The same applies very much to the rest of the animal kingdom. As we do not have sufficient means of communicating with them and discovering their understandings of sexuality we are dependent on the person/people observing them to assigning values. As such any observed instance will be very much dependent on the culturally defined understandings held by the person who is observing said behaviour.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

Although the problem with this assertion is that it does not describe 'the' purpose of sex. But rather it provides 'a' purpose for sex. While I am not flat out asserting it is incorrect, it should be recognized that this is but one of the many culturally defined understandings of sex. This one itself is very heavily dependent on heteronormativity being correct.

Yes, it is -a- purpose, the biological purpose of having sexual encounters in order to reproduce. Attractions, etc. stemming from physical means in order to procure a verile mate. And as far as the biological sense goes, our species is hetero, no if ands or butts. It is. A natural birth has to involve a male and a female.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

That is a false choice. There is also the option that it is a result of culture. As people do not play an active role in deciding their culture, this would also hold that it is not a choice.

People don't get to choose their initial doctrinations, no. However, our actions are our choices alone. As much brainwashing, teaching, imprinting, coersion, whatnot, and whatever, it's still ourselves making these actions. If someone tells you to do something or die, chances are you'll do what they ask you to do. Most people do not wish to die. However, it's still their choice. There are times when people choose death because they cannot live with the option they're given. It's a choice, even if you are predisposed to a particular response.

Also, as far as I know, most cultures do not and have not looked at homosexual activity as anything serious, and most current first world cultures are struggling to understand and deal with it as a whole. It's really hard to swallow that modern American culture, for example, indoctrinated anyone into becoming homosexual. At least not in the beginning. Budding homosexual families change those dynamics. And the more shouting raised the more the issue is pressed and people form their social consensuses on the subject. It's a bit like saying which came first, the chicken or the egg, a bit. I don't know when the first homosexual acts took place, but it wasn't really pressed to be so acceptable until now.

That being said, I do sometimes wonder if there are unconscious societal causes.... my budding alternate theory is that the pressing in females for certain character traits in men, understanding, compasion mixed with strength, etc. over generations hasn't cultivated certain physical characteristics as well. Those characteristics then confusing animal attraction somewhat in giving off and receiving mixed or skewed signals on a biological level. It can explain why there might actually be physical differences that would liken a male more closely to a female than not. We do already describe some men as being more effeminite and some women more butch.

However, the line being drawn, the preciously dictated social decorum was to marry the opposite sex and have a family. We've strayed farther from the necessity to have family, however we hold onto the idea of a male/female marriage. With the blurred line between distinctly female and male along with a growing tolerance to various ideas, a somewhat homosexual environment was created. This allowed people to begin making the choice to go with their tendencies and refuse to play with what was previously socially acceptable.

Again, we return to the basic choice. There may be various bias given in the decision, but there is still the final choice of belief and action.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

This has been demonstrated to be a false assertion. If sexual encounters were entirely random, we would still see overall increases to the human population.

If encounters are entirely random, then yes there'd still be increases in population. However, the more the equation is skewed toward homosexual tendencies the smaller the increase will become tending toward zero. Even if it doesn't reach zero, the tendency on the rise will severely weaken the progress of any culture it strikes. And actually looking at many of the ancient cultures that did begin to openly practice homosexualism, none of them survive that retained the practice.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

As sexuality is ultimately a cultural construction I would very much challenge the notion homosexuality is a choice. What would make someone a homosexual in one culture, may not make them a homosexual in another culture.

A homosexual is someone who prefers a mate of their own gender. This isn't cultural, it is definite. It's the meaning of the word, homo meaning homogenous, the same. If a male bear has sex with another male bear it'll still be a homosexual act. Even if it's okay in a culture for homosexualism to exist, it'll still be homosexualism.

It is a choice.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

How can one be homosexual if they do not actively identify certain people in society as belonging to the same gender? Lets say person A is attracted to persons B, C and D. If they live in a culture which defines these people as belonging to the same gender, then they are quite possibly homosexual. If they do not belong to a culture which assigns them with the same gender they are no longer homosexual. How does this work? As their genetics are not changing from example to the next. All that is changing is the Genders they identify as being present in society. Which is the first reason why even if genetics has an impact on who you are attracted to, on its own it does not make someone homosexual.

Gender roles, explains the attraction part of it. After recognizing that certain people in society share the same gender as you, the next question becomes why it is you are attracted to them. Quite commonly when you think of a person's gender this will bring up certain ideals and images about the nature of said person. Indeed many a culture apply certain roles and characteristics to people based on their assigned gender. As such your attraction is influenced in large part not by the actual people themselves, but the way in which society so happens to describe their nature.

Sexuality comes into it, because the act in itself does not make the person homosexual. What makes it homosexual is the active process of identifying it as such. Not all cultures have differentiated between heterosexual and homosexual relations like we do.


The same applies very much to the rest of the animal kingdom. As we do not have sufficient means of communicating with them and discovering their understandings of sexuality we are dependent on the person/people observing them to assigning values. As such any observed instance will be very much dependent on the culturally defined understandings held by the person who is observing said behaviour.

According to all this....I'm gathering that a person's stereoptypical behaviour has to do with their gender? As in, if a male acts female, then he is female for all purpose necessary?

From what I'm seeing, if a male were to be attracted physically to my father, he wouldn't be homosexual, because my father has the stereotypical female's roles of keeping house and raising the children.

That's just.....creepy. I do understand this though, if a homosexual man feels himself a woman, carries himself as such, and proceeds to alter himself physically to become more and more woman, then for all general purposes he becomes woman, although infertile. No science has yet to allow a man or male crossover the ability to bear children, to my knowledge. This then would allow a male attracted to this female/ male-crossover to remain his heterosexual status. I can conceed this, but there's a significant amount of change necessary for this.

And again, it comes from choices. The choice to become the other gender and the choice to act on an attraction to what you perceive as the other gender. I think that's the kind of union where you'd have a homosexual and a heterosexual together.

And I know, I keep using male plus male examples. Females with females are the same situation. If a female alters herself continually to become more and more masculine in appearance and behaviour than a female attracted to her/ use-to-be-him would retain their heterosexual status.

This is all a bit quibbly over terms though, defining and such. It still doesn't show how any of this isn't a choice.