Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

cap'n queasy wrote: One does not choose to be normal, they might choose to be abnormal, however.
Lot's wrong with this from a purely logical standpoint.

Premise A: One does not choose to be normal.

In context, this means that one does not choose to be heterosexual.

Premise B: A person might choose to be abnormal.

In context, meaning a person might choose to be homosexual. But if sexual orientation can't be chosen, as implied by premise A, how can premise B possibly be true? The obvious answer is that it can't.

Implied Conclusion: Homosexuals choose to be abnormal.

Even if we accepted premise B as true, there is an attempt here to draw a positive conclusion from a premise expressing doubt: That a person might choose to be abnormal. They also might not choose to be abnormal; that state of being may or may not be a matter of choice. As this applies to homosexuality, we should conclude that it is not a matter of choice if we accept the truth that sexual orientation cannot be chosen, as implied by the first premise. At the very least, we must reject the formation of a conclusion that doesn't logically flow from premises that admit doubt.

What is really going on here is that Cap'n is arguing that heterosexuality is a person's natural state and that all people start out being heterosexual. Which is of course circular - the whole argument is over whether or not homosexuality might be the natural state for some people, and even if it is not - it would be a tremendous leap to conclude that a change from heterosexuality to homosexuality is something a person chooses for themself - it very well might take place as a consequence of something going wrong during gestation or after birth as the result of some as yet unknown environmental influence over which the individual in question has no control.

Consider this: All people start out in the womb with the appearance of being female. Males become males as the result of hormonal changes during gestation, presumably due to them having a 'Y' chromosome (and yes, I realize I may be oversimplifying here, but I don't believe it's to the point of outright error - I welcome the input of someone with a more in depth understanding of biology as it relates to the process of sex development at this point). For some people, things go awry during this process and they wind up 'intersexed'. That brings me to ponder whether something similar but considerably more subtle could likewise be happening in the womb to produce a person predisposed toward developing an homosexual orientation. At this point, that's mere conjecture and we'd need to focus considerable research on the question to verify or eliminate any attending theories that arise. As someone else pointed out, do we really think this is important enough to devote our limited resources to such discovery? I'm inclined to think we have more important stuff to worry about, but that in no way excuses people drawing their own unsupported conclusions on the matter and putting forth erroneous arguments that call homosexuality a 'choice' and assess blame for it.

The idea that everyone's 'natural state' is to develop as exclusively male or female and to develop an attraction to the opposite sex in tandem with this is open to question, given what we know about the complexities of sexual and gender identity development.

Bottom line: We don't know why people develop strong homosexual attractions in apparent contradiction of what is presumed to be the most basic purpose of sex. We do know that the overwhelming majority of people who are homosexual report that they felt strongly attracted to members of the same sex well before that attraction went on to develop a sexual element in adolescence and that they don't recall making a conscious choice to feel that attraction.

Arguments which therefore seek to place blame on homosexuals for 'choosing' their sexual orientation are suspect at best.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
The real question is does it need to be changed? If the answer is 'yes', should we go so far as to force that change upon people against their will? Continue to persecute those who refuse this 'change'?

To me, this smacks of eugenics, and I have no desire for our society to revisit the same kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust.


Stop reading too much into my posts. I was asked if I think it could be changed, and it can. I would be a crappy libertarian if I believed in forcing change on someone against their will.

A cure being available would be both positive and negative. On the positive, it would mean people who want to change, could. On the negative, however, many people tolerate gays only because it cannot be changed. If one chooses to stay gay NOT because they can't change it, but because they don't want to, the opinion of gays to the public will lessen.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote: Attention drawing behaviors such as you describe above are NOT the same thing as sexual orientation. Certainly some gay people do adopt odd behavior in a sort of retaliation against being outcast - the idea being that if one is going to be ostracized anyway, why not behave as outrageously as possible to throw it back in people's faces, to 'get their goat'? I'm not saying I condone that - far from it. But I do understand whence it comes.

What you're describing is NOT representative of how the majority of gay people behave. People just think it is because it's behavoir that stands out, gets noticed. I find it nearly as irritating as the average straight person probably does.

Most gay people don't want that kind of attention. The next question we usually get in response to that assertion is 'why don't you do something about it and get the 'flamers' under control, then? The answer is that there isn't a 'gay mafia' that goes around controlling the public behavior of other gay people. I don't have a whole lot of control over what other people do or say, nor do I want that kind of control. To the extent I can apply peer pressure, I do. But the notion that those of us gay people who are basically minding are own business and just trying to get through the day to day grind of life somehow have the time and energy to go around policing 'our own kind' is just plain ludicrous.

Read my fricking posts please. I already stated that these people are not truly gay since there is no attraction, and are in the minority.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: One does not choose to be normal, they might choose to be abnormal, however.
Lot's wrong with this from a purely logical standpoint.

Premise A: One does not choose to be normal.

In context, this means that one does not choose to be heterosexual.

Premise B: A person might choose to be abnormal.

In context, meaning a person might choose to be homosexual. But if sexual orientation can't be chosen, as implied by premise A, how can premise B possibly be true? The obvious answer is that it can't.

Implied Conclusion: Homosexuals choose to be abnormal.

Even if we accepted premise B as true, there is an attempt here to draw a positive conclusion from a premise expressing doubt: That a person might choose to be abnormal. They also might not choose to be abnormal; that state of being may or may not be a matter of choice. As this applies to homosexuality, we should conclude that it is not a matter of choice if we accept the truth that sexual orientation cannot be chosen, as implied by the first premise. At the very least, we must reject the formation of a conclusion that doesn't logically flow from premises that admit doubt.



He's good.

[Rico]

Who cares if it's a choice or not? Plenty of things are choices in this world that deserve to be protected and respected. I choose what religion to believe in, I choose what political party to vote for, I choose what kind of job I want, and I choose which state I want to live in.

Why then can I not choose what sex to be intimate with? To me, it is no different than any other little choice in our world. And just to state it, I don't recall ever choosing to be attracted to any gender. I like what I like, and that's what I'm given by nature. I do, however, choose who to embark on a relationship with.

Frankly, I don't think there exists such a thing as gay or straight. I think every human being on this Earth is attracted to both men and women in varying degrees. Most straight men won't admit it, but they know damn well that there are some guys that catch their eye. However, like I said, it's up to them to choose who to embark on a relationship with, and it's not in my authority to tell them they've made a bad choice.

Some people like vanilla. Some people like chocolate. Just deal with it and stop complaining.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Frankly, I don't think there exists such a thing as gay or straight. I think every human being on this Earth is attracted to both men and women in varying degrees. Most straight men won't admit it, but they know damn well that there are some guys that catch their eye. However, like I said, it's up to them to choose who to embark on a relationship with, and it's not in my authority to tell them they've made a bad choice.

Some people like vanilla. Some people like chocolate. Just deal with it and stop complaining.



You have absolutely no idea what we're talking about. It's not a choice based on attraction, it's a choice based on the idea of wanting to stand out and be different.

[floridaguy]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
Frankly, I don't think there exists such a thing as gay or straight. I think every human being on this Earth is attracted to both men and women in varying degrees. Most straight men won't admit it, but they know damn well that there are some guys that catch their eye. However, like I said, it's up to them to choose who to embark on a relationship with, and it's not in my authority to tell them they've made a bad choice.

Some people like vanilla. Some people like chocolate. Just deal with it and stop complaining.



You have absolutely no idea what we're talking about. It's not a choice based on attraction, it's a choice based on the idea of wanting to stand out and be different. You are the one that has no idea what they are talking about. One question though, how do you explain gays that are in the closet? Are they hiding from their secret desire to bring attention to themselves? Makes about as much sence as you do.

[floridaguy]

cap'n queasy wrote: floridaguy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: People make all sorts of poor lifestyle choices all the time - what we have here is people unwilling to take responsibility for their choices and instead wanting to blame it on Mother Nature. Who says its a poor lifestyle choice? You? When did you choose to be heterosexual?

One does not choose to be normal, they might choose to be abnormal, however. For what ever reason that may be, I don't know why anyone would choose that. It doesn't make much sense to me.

I feel sorry for them actually. It must be a emotionally painful life. Maybe your on to something here. Why would one CHOOSE to be gay? HMMMMMM. I couldn't tell you. And its only emotionally painful if you listen to what certain groups of people say.

[Demonic Spoon]

Sigh. You're not understanding what the hell I'm saying.

People who make the choice to be "gay" are not gay at all, since it's based on the want to be different, not attraction. Read my posts before you make a judgement on what I'm saying damnit.

[floridaguy]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Sigh. You're not understanding what the hell I'm saying.

People who make the choice to be "gay" are not gay at all, since it's based on the want to be different, not attraction. Read my posts before you make a judgement on what I'm saying damnit. Are you saying some people are gay, not by choice, just how they are. And others just want to stand out and be different? If so, how do you explain that? I always thought certain things happened based on attraction, not wanting to stand out and be different. So can these people control hormones through something in them by knowing they are now different?

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: Attention drawing behaviors such as you describe above are NOT the same thing as sexual orientation. Certainly some gay people do adopt odd behavior in a sort of retaliation against being outcast - the idea being that if one is going to be ostracized anyway, why not behave as outrageously as possible to throw it back in people's faces, to 'get their goat'? I'm not saying I condone that - far from it. But I do understand whence it comes.

What you're describing is NOT representative of how the majority of gay people behave. People just think it is because it's behavoir that stands out, gets noticed. I find it nearly as irritating as the average straight person probably does.

Most gay people don't want that kind of attention. The next question we usually get in response to that assertion is 'why don't you do something about it and get the 'flamers' under control, then? The answer is that there isn't a 'gay mafia' that goes around controlling the public behavior of other gay people. I don't have a whole lot of control over what other people do or say, nor do I want that kind of control. To the extent I can apply peer pressure, I do. But the notion that those of us gay people who are basically minding are own business and just trying to get through the day to day grind of life somehow have the time and energy to go around policing 'our own kind' is just plain ludicrous.

Read my fricking posts please. I already stated that these people are not truly gay since there is no attraction, and are in the minority.
I have read your posts, very carefully. I understand what you are trying to say, and it's clear to me that you're talking out of your ass on this because contrary to what you'd like to claim, you don't understand thing one about why some people adopt flamboyant behavior, and how that relates to the social pressures one faces for having a sexual orientation that is different from the majority.

The idea that someone would choose to be homosexual just to stand out is beyond ludicrous, and if it weren't for this false idea being mistakenly seized on by so many people who think they understand stuff that they don't, I wouldn't be spending an iota of time addressing such a ridiculous notion in the first place.

People who 'get in your face' by being as blatant about their sexuality as possible are doing so in an act of defiance against society's demand that they 'keep it in the closet'.

It's just one way that people deal with being different. Not a very productive way in my opinion, but some people's way, nonetheless.

[F'losrix]

floridaguy wrote: how do you explain gays that are in the closet? Are they hiding from their secret desire to bring attention to themselves?
:rotf:

Excellent point! :tu:

[F'losrix]

Rico wrote: Frankly, I don't think there exists such a thing as gay or straight. I think every human being on this Earth is attracted to both men and women in varying degrees.
On this we agree. The ideas of 'gay' vs. 'straight' are human constructs that attempt to impose order upon our understanding of human sexuality. As such they can be both useful and harmful concepts; it all depends upon how they're applied.

The only 'choices' that apply to 'gay' people - those more strongly attracted to their own sex - are as follows:

1) Whether or not to be honest with ourselves about the fact that we are more strongly attracted to members of our own sex;

2) Whether or not to be honest with others about the fact that this difference exists within us;

3) Whether or not to pursue sexual behavior that reflects our true orientation.

Straight people don't have to worry about any of this stuff - society is very much supportive of their 'choices' surrounding their sexuality. Gay people on the other hand have to struggle to figure out just what it is that makes them different, then figure out how to live with being different - and being reviled by the majority of society for it.

Celibacy isn't a suitable option for most heterosexuals, nevermind the idea of demanding that they pursue a relationship with someone of the same-sex in direct contradiction of their sexual orientation; yet this is exactly the kind of thoroughly unreasonable thinking that people spew at homosexuals, demanding that we should either try to 'change' our orientation (laughable) or remain celibate 'for the good of society' (which I translate as meaning 'so that greater society won't have to adapt their thinking to accept the reality of our existance and treat us with respect and dignity as fellow human beings'.)

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: You have absolutely no idea what we're talking about. It's not a choice based on attraction, it's a choice based on the idea of wanting to stand out and be different.
Now I've heard everything. Heterosexuals choose heterosexual behavior because of attraction, but homosexuals choose homosexual behavior just to be different? Unbelievable.

[Prole]

Statistical analysis of twins of various genetic similarity can give us confirmation (in the vaguest sense) that homosexuality has a genetic component, but that it is not the sole factor.

Among identical twins, there is about a 50% rate of both identifying themselves as homosexual if one does. Among non-identical twins, the rate is about 25%. Among adopted siblings of the same sex and age (but different families) the rate is about 10%. This is true for both sexes. Ergo, we can conclude (seeing how there are no confounding variables, at least none which I know of) that (homo)sexuality is partly determined by genes, and partly by environment.

Skeptical Mystic wrote: People who 'get in your face' by being as blatant about their sexuality as possible are doing so in an act of defiance against society's demand that they 'keep it in the closet'.
Perhaps. But the "look at me, look how proud I am of my sexual orientation" is a practice that exists among the entire spectrum of sexual orientations (and genders); I would agree some minority people show pride as a means of individualising themselves, but I suppose there are a fair amount who are just proud of themselves and we be so regardless of their status as a minority or not.

demonic spoon wrote: Why have the "gay genes" not been filtered out via natural selection?

And as for it being polygenic, it would still be filtered out of the gene pool in the manner I described above. It would take a longer time, but we've had millions of years of evolution to do it. Why hasn't it happened? Why has no animal's homosexuality been eliminated from the gene pool?
A fair question. Without further ado, I submit to you my summary/interpretation of the "Gay Uncle Theory" which I posted in another thread that promptly died.

Prole wrote: I do see your premise; that homosexuality is, from a stictly evolutionary perspective, undesirable. Skeptical Mystic is right to point out how homosexuals can and do procreate, even without "artificial" assistance. But I can agree that, at the very least, being attracted to the same rather than opposite gender would make one less likely to procreate with the opposite sex, resulting in offspring.

*Long post warning*

Evolution is not simply about having viable offspring of one's own, but about furthering one's genes. This is a subtle but hugely important difference. In relation to sexuality/reproduction, it means that even if one does not reproduce and pass on their genes directly, a characteristic which helps those with genes similar to their own does effectively the same thing.

In many if not most insect colonies, we see that the vast majority of individuals do not reproduce themselves. Yet they do benefit their society, and in doing so protect their own genes. In ant colonies, very few individuals get to have sex with the queen, thus very few have their own genes directly passed on. But ants are among the most successful and prolific species on the planet. They easily outnumber humans a million to one.

How does this pertain to humans, though? Ants show that a trait can exist (namely, to be less likely or completely unlikely to reproduce personally), but it may be difficult to see why exactly this is so. Furthermore, human society and evolution is and has been quite different from that of ants in many respects. How can we explain that homosexuality may have a genetic cause, if it does apparently make the individuals less likely to reproduce?

I point you to an idea affectionately known as the "gay uncle theory". (I don't know where I picked this up, and it is probably a colloquialism, but oh well).

Humans being able to protect and raise young with plentiful resources is, from an evolutionary perspective, a very recent occurance. Thus most of our evolution has taken place in a time which people often did not have enough to eat, and could not devote as much time and attention to their offspring as they wanted to, but still went and had offspring anyway. The child mortality rate was certainly pretty high, a factor aggragated by the fact that they had often less time and resources to devote to their offspring than would have been optimal, but the high birth rate overcame this. Still, having additional care for the offpsring would be a huge evolutionary advantage.

Enter the "gay uncle." (Or aunt, but for the sake of simplicity let us presuppose that he is a man). He, as a homosexual, does not, or is less likely, to have his own offspring to care about. He can therefore devote his time to other people's offspring. His nieces and nephews will therefore benefit hugely. When offspring of other individuals may die out during famine, those of kinfolk may survive with his additional care. Whereas a seven-year-old who loses his/her parents and chief providers would almost certainly die, the uncle is available to step in as a provider.

A gay uncle is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a net provider to the society in which he lives. He will never have offspring which will be a burden on him or others, so whatever instictive altruism he possesses is directed towards other people, and other offspring with genes similar to his own. Not as similar as his own offspring's genes would have been, but his net benefit causing and increased likeliness of survival can outweight this. The offspring that survive will have genes less similar to his own than would have been had he had his own, but they will have a much higher likeliness of survival. His genes can easily be furthered, albeit in a less through a greater number of offspring with genes less similar to his own per individual.

"But the kids don't have same same sexual orientation genes as him, so that gene would be lost," could be a typical response to this. But homosexuality, if it is genetic (which I believe it is, in part) is likely caused by a combination of genes, and is likely a recessive gene. Consider blood type, where the "A" and "B" genes are both dominant, and the "O" gene is negative. A pairing of "A" and "A" genes produces one who is "A" positive, as does a pairing of "A" and "O" genes; the same is true for "B". A pairing of "A" and "B" genes produces an AB (positive?) blood type, and a pairing of two "O" genes produces one who is double O negative.

Assuming that there is no innate advantage to any of the blood types (which AFAIK there is not), A and B blood types are much more likely to be the exhibited trait than an O blood type, but that does not mean that the O blood type gene does is less likely to exhist, just to be exhibited. There are likely several recessive genes at work just like blood type which determine sexuality, which could easily and even likely be present in offspring with similar genes to the "gay uncle."

So, there ya go. Homosexuals may be less likely to further their genes directly, but more likely to further their genes indirectly. The presence of this gene may make it equally or more likely for offspring possessing it to further that gene, meaning that homosexuality is, from a evolutionary perspective, conceivably a desirable trait to have in some individuals, and a perfectly feasible gene for a genetically fit individual to have.

[Demonic Spoon]

...

No, gays that "choose" are not gay. THat is my point. You are reading way, way too much into this. You cannot choose your attractions. And yes, it is ludicrous that someone would invite such behavior unto themselves. However, this behavior is also ludicrous.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

That does not mean it doesn't exist. People who 'choose' to be gay are rare, and are idiots. That does not mean they don't exist. People DO 'choose' to be heterosexual. You've never heard of a gay 'in the closet'? As in pretending to be straight because they don't accept that they are gay?

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: ...

No, gays that "choose" are not gay. THat is my point. You are reading way, way too much into this. You cannot choose your attractions. And yes, it is ludicrous that someone would invite such behavior unto themselves. However, this behavior is also ludicrous.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

That does not mean it doesn't exist. People who 'choose' to be gay are rare, and are idiots. That does not mean they don't exist. People DO 'choose' to be heterosexual. You've never heard of a gay 'in the closet'? As in pretending to be straight because they don't accept that they are gay?
You're playing at semantics, here. Pretending to be gay just to get attention is not even remotely the same thing as the allegation that people are choosing to be gay. I'd have to say what you're suggesting is so exceedingly rare that I'm forced to ask why you would even bring it up in the first place.

Consider: There are considerable benefits to be had from faking a heterosexual orientation. To suggest that there are equivalent benefits to faking a homosexual orientation is outrageously false.

Finally - what you're talking about is people choosing behavior in order to appear gay, NOT choosing an actual orientation and becoming gay.

I deeply resent you leading us on this wild goose chase of a discussion over something so completely silly. What was your end goal? To see how stirred up you could get the gay members and their allies in the forum?

Well, I hope you're satisfied, 'cuz I'm pretty pissed off right now. :1evil:

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH ENERGY WE SPEND HAVING TO COMBAT THIS RIDICULOUS NOTION THAT GAY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE ATTRACTED TO PERSON'S OF THE SAME SEX? For you to purposely confuse the issue by introducing this red herring that some people pretend to be gay and phrasing it as 'choosing to be gay' is thoroughly reprehensible.

People that do crap like that ought to be boiled in their own pudding. :twisted:

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Finally - what you're talking about is people choosing behavior in order to appear gay, NOT choosing an actual orientation and becoming gay.


No s**t ,that's what I said

Quote:
Consider: There are considerable benefits to be had from faking a heterosexual orientation. To suggest that there are equivalent benefits to faking a homosexual orientation is outrageously false.


I never said there were benefits. People do it because they are stupid


Quote:
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH ENERGY WE SPEND HAVING TO COMBAT THIS RIDICULOUS NOTION THAT GAY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE ATTRACTED TO PERSON'S OF THE SAME SEX? For you to purposely confuse the issue by introducing this red herring that some people pretend to be gay and phrasing it as 'choosing to be gay' is thoroughly reprehensible.

EVERY SINGLE TIME I MENTIONED IT I SAID IT WAS NOT TRUE HOMOSEXUALITY!

[George W Bush]

i always have thought it was not a choice, not genetic
but a way someone was raised.
NARTH.ORG

not saying ALL, but probably alot. I base this on the fact that many "gay" people had similar familial backgrounds (lack of same sex parent either emotionally distant, or never there)

many books written onthe topic. unfortunately, the pro-gay movement has successfully labeled any research as HATE.
Have catagorized anyone citing the facts as BIGOTED, or with a christian agenda.

there is nothing wrong with being gay.
there is alot wrong with accepting something you dont like being.
www.NARTH.org

[Demonic Spoon]

George W Bush wrote: i always have thought it was not a choice, not genetic
but a way someone was raised.
NARTH.ORG

not saying ALL, but probably alot. I base this on the fact that many "gay" people had similar familial backgrounds (lack of same sex parent either emotionally distant, or never there)

many books written onthe topic. unfortunately, the pro-gay movement has successfully labeled any research as HATE.
Have catagorized anyone citing the facts as BIGOTED, or with a christian agenda.

there is nothing wrong with being gay.
there is alot wrong with accepting something you dont like being.
www.NARTH.org

If it is chemical, then it could easily, in part, be caused by the way one is raised.