hi all. i see that the subject of gay people has been tackled before but i think this is a slightly different twist on it. any comments?

Ah, the token gay thread, welcome back!

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
~Forever Fuzziesareourfriends~

http://www.freewebs.com/fuzziesareourfriends/index.htm

http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=mattnz99
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Ah hahaha!

Heh

Heh

Ahhhh the memories.

Fuzzie lives for these!

Of course it is nurtured! But don't get me started! Jesus no!

Eh?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeg:
Of course it is nurtured!
[QUOTE]

Has this question really been resolved to everyone's satisfaction? While Skeg's argument is undeniably compelling, I feel that he could have fleshed it out just a tad more.

Ask yourself, was homosexuality ever nurtured in you?

If not, could it have ever been nurtured in you? Did you instead have heterosexuality nurtured in you?

And what would happen to someone raised in the absence of such sexual-orientation nurturing? Would they exhibit any sexual orientation at all? And if so, what form would it take?

If homesexuality was not nurtured in you, what makes you think it is nurtured in others?

In my experience, people who blindly adopt the "nurture" side of this perennial (and pretty uninteresting) argument while completely dismissing the "nature" argument usually do so for the sole purpose of laying blame and therefore justifying their own prejudices. SOMEONE must be to blame for all that dirty, dirty wickedness - and because the "nature" argument would open to door to blaming you-know-who-upstairs (and we can't have that), that only leaves the "nurture" argument which blames it on human weakness and, by implication, all homosexuals. Gee, thanks a bunch for your judgement - which way to the gas-chamber?

Really, who among us would actually choose to be homosexual? "Oh, yes, what fun - today I think I'll decide to be discriminated against both personally and professionally, increase my risk of being assaulted, reduce my likelihood of ever having children to something approaching zero, increase my risk of becoming obsessed with ABBA, increase my risk of running afoul of the law and increase my chances of dying (eventually) from a nasty disease after which I will burn in hell." Joy.

Perhaps I should choose to be a necrophiliac instead (hetero of course) or perhaps a (definitely straight) copraphiliac - can anyone out there nurture me? Anyone?

Theme Song

would i be right to guess that the people who are following the nuture feild of thought are straight and therefore giving an opinion on something that they have only a second hand knowlege of?

The topic is difficult to debate especially for those who believe it is both (nature/nurture). Exactly how much percentage is nature or nurture cannot be determined with certainty.
Why do we have to dichotomize the cause of homosexuality? I think this is enormously complex phenomenon and to maintain otherwise is naivete and oversimplification.

Science has now discovered the role of genes in homosexuality. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss (without being unrealistic) the influence of the environment in moulding behaviour.

To me, the ecclectic view is more tenable and more realistic.

quote:

---

Science has now discovered the role of genes in homosexuality. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss (without being unrealistic)

---

I heard of that. But is that mean if you take every homosexual person on earth and test it, you would find this particular gene? I doubt it.

I think it could be both. I’m pretty sure if you have two groups of children (X and O). Let’s assume that everything is equal. For ‘X’ group, you raised them up very manly through out their lives. When they are older, they get to watch straight porn. For ‘O’ group, you raised them very girly wearing skirt, make ups and when they are older let them watch gay porn (I don’t know much about homosexual people elsewhere but here in Thailand, they acted very girly. And as people already know, Thailand is like the capital sex change of the World).

I think you’ll find a significant different between two groups. I am sure than ‘O’ would have more homosexual people than ‘X’

A question for you Fuzzie. Is it the same for a Homosexual man who acts manly and attracts to men comparing to a homosexual man who acts girly who also attracts to men and get a sex change?


"It's not premarital sex. If you don't plan on getting married"
From a guy who love his single status.

Knockout:

I take it that there would be more involved than simply sexual orientation if a gay guy wants to act like a girl... Maybe some other factor... I'm not sure, I haven't meet many femme gay guys...
I do know of a (horrible) drag-queen named Rudy, but she dresses up 'just for fun', so that's different...
I honestly couldn't say with any certainty, but I guess it's probably another factor other than homosexuality that causes that, after all, you get occasionally find 'girly' acting straight men.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
~Forever Fuzziesareourfriends~

http://www.freewebs.com/fuzziesareourfriends/index.htm

http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=mattnz99
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

quote:

---

I take it that there would be more involved than simply sexual orientation if a gay guy wants to act like a girl... Maybe some other factor... I'm not sure, I haven't meet many femme gay guys...

---

If it’s up to this many factors and you don’t know what they are (especially coming from a smart homosexual man) then homosexuality is not nature. I can’t imagine variety of homosexual genetic genes that differentiate girly gay dude like in Thailand and manly gay dude like in New Zealand.

For me it’s the culture here. Thai homosexual men act extremely girly with their body language and voice. I also believe that the life of being a man is too hard for some of these homosexual people that is why they want to be gay. I understand that you think homosexual life is harder. But here, you don’t have to do a lot of hard work if you are gay. If you get a boob job or sex change then you’ll not be in the army. Most of them do not have a family and hate to have family therefore it’s not a burden to raise a family.

If you say "I do not meet many homosexual men who act girly". I do see them all the time. Why is that? Is it becuase of my culture? If so then homosexuality is nurture.


"It's not premarital sex. If you don't plan on getting married"
From a guy who love his single status.

My personal feelings on this are really quite simple: there is no simple answer.

I find that anyone who tries to argue that "nature" is the sole cause of homosexuality is usually looking to absolve homosexuals of blame in much the same way (but with the opposite intention) as those who insist that "nurture" is the one-true cause are trying to lay blame for homosexuality with homosexuals. The fundamental problem with both arguments is that they attempt to support a pre-existing position (i.e. homosexuals are not to blame because they/we were made this way versus the old chestnut where homosexuals are to to blame).

A different approach involves examining the facts and attempting to explain them with one or more hypotheses, i.e. the scientific method, more or less.

The biggest problem I have observed with applying scientific method with respect to this issue involves the same problems - too often people set out on such as quest with an agenda other than the pursuit of the truth, for example, to prove that one (and only one) of these two broad factors is the basis of homosexuality. This mistake is commonly made with scientific studies into the biological bases of human behaviour (such as homosexuality, substance abuse and criminal behaviour), for example, genetics, neurological structure, pre-natal hormone delivery etc.

While such biological factors can undoubtedly influence a person's behaviour as surely as having a frontal lobotomy (or a bottle in front of me) can, behaviour can also be defined by the choices an individual makes based on their own thoughts, perceptions and values. And without doubt, those things can be influenced and defined by a persons upbringing and surroundings - after all, how similar are most people's core values to their parents?

A very high proportion of homosexuals claim that they "knew" of it (or at least that they were different than their peers) from a very early age. Many insist that this is evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality - while that theory is not inconsistent with such early knowledge, it merely suggests that sexual orientation is already defined at an early stage of development (i.e. < 4yo). While that may be due to one or more genes or pre-natal issues, it may be due to post-natal environmental factors. Or maybe a combination of these things - but most certainly not because of either an adolescent or adult decision.

Either way - nature or nurture - it seems that the entire idea of someone choosing to be homosexual is just another flawed mechanism of blame used to justify a prejudice while ignoring the facts: nobody chooses to be a homosexual any more than anyone else chose to be heterosexual or which they prefer, apples or oranges. Quite frankly, if it really was a choice, who among us would choose homosexuality?

I guess my real point is that the entire issue of human behaviour (including homosexuality) is a vastly more complex beast than is suggested by those who say "oh, it's my genes that make this way so don't blame me" or conversely "you chose your immoral lifestyle, you dirty pervert". I feel it much more likely that, for any given person, sexual orientation (and indeed, many other behavioural patterns) may be produced by a complex combination of factors including genes, brain structure and chemistry, early psychological development, upbringing, social values plus many more things I have probably forgotten or don't even know about. To dismiss such factors out of hand simply because they don't support a particular position seems just a little short sighted to me.

I just choose to accept that, from well before they are able to know any different, this is just the way some people are and that is that. On the other hand, people who choose bigotry, hatred and a closed mind really disappoint me.

Theme Song

quote:

"I heard of that. But is that mean if you take every homosexual person on earth and test it, you would find this particular gene? I doubt it."


If the "human genome" project was able to pinpoint genes responsible for certain behavioral inclination such as drunkiness, risk aversion, substance abuse etc. there is good reason to believe that homosexual orientation would have a gene responsible for it.

But K.O. pls. don't get me wrong on this. It does not necessarily follow that if you inherited a gene from a drunkard father you will automatically become a drunkard yourself. I know of some people who came from a family with diabetes but did not develop the illness even though, it is an established fact that the disease is passed on from parents to the offsprings. In the same manner, one who has inherited a gene from a homosexual parent would not automatically become a gay. A hospitable environment could trigger the behavior and this is where "nurture" comes into play.

Geneticists say that what you inherit is actually not the disease but a "predisposition" towards it. For example, a person who inherited a cancer gene would not automatically develop cancer but will have a higher than average probability of developing the illness given his/her kind of environment or lifestyle. That is to say that if he continuously expose himself to smoking and other cancer-triggering activities then he is most likely to have cancer than most people.

Now, let's go back to the gay issue. Notwithstanding the fact that one has inherited a gay gene, it would not necessarilly make the person a gay. However, as I have stated he would be more likely to develop gay behavior given the right circumstances (nurture) than someone who does not have the gay genes.

Exactly how much is influenced by genes (nature)and how much by environment (nurture)? Given the fact that each situation is unique, I think it would differ from person to person.


Bye for now. 'Til your next reply.

quote:
________________________________________________
"I heard of that. But is that mean if you take every homosexual person on earth and test it, you would find this particular gene? I doubt it."
________________________________________________

Maybe not, if you take it on per individual basis. But not if you take "homosexuality as a general phenomenon. For example, a person may have just chose the lifestyle, not because of genes, but just as a matter of choice.


quote:


_______________________________________________-
"I’m pretty sure if you have two groups of children (X and O). Let’s assume that everything is equal. For ‘X’ group, you raised them up very manly through out their lives. When they are older, they get to watch straight porn. For ‘O’ group, you raised them very girly wearing skirt, make ups and when they are older let them watch gay porn (I don’t know much about homosexual people elsewhere but here in Thailand, they acted very girly. And as people already know, Thailand is like the capital sex change of the World).

I think you’ll find a significant different between two groups. I am sure than ‘O’ would have more homosexual people than ‘X’"
________________________________________________

True. That could be possible. The science of Genetics merely suggests that if you inherited this particular gene, you will be more "predisposed" than others towards a particular behavioral inclination.

For example, some individuals who inherited a cancer gene will not automatically develop cancer but they will have a higher than normal probability of getting the illness especially so if they pursue a lifestyle that will trigger it such as smoking or being exposed to carcinogens.

What you inherit, therefor, is just the "predisposition" towards a particular behavioral orientation but it does not mean that if have a gay gene you will automatically become gay. And this is where the environment (nurture) comes into play.

We can no longer dismiss (with impunity) the important role played by genes. The Human Genome Project has sucessfully advanced our understanding of Genetics. For example, they have been able to pinpoint DNA strand responsible for one's inclination towards gambling, alcoholism and even melancholia.

Exactly how much of human behavior is determined by genes (nature) and how much by environment (nurture), I can only speculate. This only proves the complex interplay of various factors in moulding human behavior.

This thing only proves one thing; that the dynamics involved is vastly more complicated than has been previously understood.

you both are doing a very good job. I got nothing more to add. Thank you for showing me a wider perspective on this topic.


"It's not premarital sex. If you don't plan on getting married"
From a guy who love his single status.

I'm not taking the same path as I did on the last gay thread.

How do you plan to explain every homosexual (or heterosexual) with the same terms. Everyone is drastically different, and such labeling is dangerous. It's like trying to define the entire universe with one theory (the research of Dr. Stephen Hawking); you're getting in way over your head. Every human being is different. You can say the physical attraction between homosexuals is false; but it is undeniable. There is no reality, only perception. Who cares if it is fake (which I don't feel it is)? There is an obvious attraction because why else would they mate?

It's a clichéd notion, but homosexuals aren't hurting anyone (not any more than heterosexuals), so why is this topic even here?

Of course I can understand why. Humans have to analyze and define everything they don't understand. But it is illogical.

Can't we all just see people as people, and not as gay, straight, black, white, Asian, male, female, Christian or Jew?

Why do so many people look for absolutes: nature/nurture aren't mutually exclusive for a start. We are all the result of our innate natures and the processes which have nurtured us and thus combined with or modified our natures. And why, too, do so many people seem to believe that there is a hetero/homo dichotomy? Most people seem strung along a continuum between wholly straight - wholly gay, with very few at either extremity. IE most straights have some possibility of gay behaviour in the right circumstances, and vice versa. Many people, too, switch during their lifetimes. Middle aged fathers or mothers run off not with a lover of the opposite sex but the same sex; people confined in same-sex institutions find outlets for their sexual drives and relief for their emotional hunger with the same sex: notoriously nuns, English public schoolboys, prisoners, sailors on long voyages. So where's this absolute division?

you can't just teach someone to be gay. it's something that just is. it's all nature. like you can't help what skin color you have or how smart you are. it is nothing but nature. a person can't choose who they are attacted to and they can't just choose to be gay.

I've read a number of times (though granted I've not examined the study itself) that about 70% of humans are biologically predisposed to be bisexual, capable of attraction to either sex, with the remaining 30% either exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. Of course, obviously some would not accept this premise, but let's see where it takes us.

Now. If you buy the "nature" argument, and the above statistic is so, then why isn't 70% of the the world's population, or Germany, or Ben Wheeler, Texas, bisexual? Because, within many modern societies, children are socialized to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Further, historically (in the last 700 years or so) there is a more or less explicit notion within much of Western society that homosexual acts are morally reprehensible. Given these two layers of social pressure (and there are others), many fewer of those who have the biological capacity to be bisexual or homosexual will do so than would devoid of social pressures in any direction.

Within Western culture itself, homosexuality has at other times been much more common, or at the very least less vehemently condemned, than it is today. If it's just nature, did the gay gene get diluted? If it's just nurture, and society turned against homosexual practice, why are there still so many homosexuals, including quite a few who grew up in households and societies in which homosexuality is very strongly condemned?

A big problem with my argument, and one for which I cannot account without a great deal of time consuming, expensive research (and maybe not then, either) is that in historical and present times, when the prevalence of homosexual practice seems to be greater or lesser, the discrepancy could simply be reflections of how much open homosexual practice takes place. Thus, if you buy the exclusive nature model, you could just argue that, in times and societies when homosexual activity was/is more strongly condemned than in others, more homosexuals were homosexual in secret. Ergo, I suppose the only argument I can decisively make is that the prevalence of open homosexuality has a huge social (nurture) component.

And Fly, I very much disagree. I think there are some persons who could not, without losing their lunch, be heterosexuals or homosexuals. But there are a great many others who do have that choice. Myself, I think that, if I wanted to, I could find some men physically attractive. Given the social factors influencing my expressed sexuality, and the fact that my life is easier if I'm just plain straight, though, I've never seriously considered finding out whether I would enjoy physical relations with men. I very much believe that I could choose to be gay tomorrow if I wished, and that a great many more people share this flexibility with me than will admit it.

"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..." - Jack Kerouac, On the Road

i do have to disagree with you though, grinch. if you were meant to be a bisexual or a homosexual then i think that you would be. but (if i'm not mistaken) your not. you prefer women and not men. i will tell you now that i can't imagine that i would want to be with a chick and it's not because of what i think and what society thinks about gays either. i'm not because i was meant to be straight. i was meant to like men and i think that it is nature that does decide how we feel.

quote:
"i was meant to like men and i think that it is nature that does decide how we feel."

To say that nature alone determines "how you feel" is to totally deny (accross the board) the role of society in influencing human bahavior. It is naive and "polyannish" to suppose that human behavior is that clear-cut and simple. Human behavioral inclination in general and homosexuality in particular is a more complex issue than that. The dynamics involved (multifarious factors) is vastly more complicated than has been previously thought.

People of the past used to believe that homosexuality is a form of psychological aberration and so ancient societies ostracized the gays as if they are afflicted with a mental illness. But advances in the fields of Genetics e.g. Human Gnome Project and sociology have helped us understand that it is a bi-product of some complex interplay of several factors (genes&environment included).

I beg to disagree. Fly, I think your argument is an oversimplication of the issue.

quote:

---

ancient societies ostracized the gays as if they are afflicted with a mental illness.

---

No, no... Many 'ancient' societies accepted homosexuality...
It's the more modern ones that have adopted Christian-Judeo morality that have problems with it for the most part...

~Forever Fuzziesareourfriends~
http://www.freewebs.com/fuzziesareourfriends/index.htm
JOIN THE PACT: If you break grammar rules then explain what
you've done and why, or be prepared to answer those questions.
If you cannot do these, then do not post your writing.