There have been twin studies in which they take identical twins and see if one is gay, what is the probability that the other is too? While such studies are imperfect, they suggest that the answer is about 50%. This suggests a strong genetic influence, but also leaves significant room for other factors. Note that this does not mean that the remaining 50% is choice, nor does it mean that the remaining 50% is upbringing or whatever. Things like prenatal development, which can be different even for identical twins, seems to play a significant role.
Also remember that the role of epigenetics is huge (talking in terms of general gene expression here). So just because two individuals share the same literal sequence of nucleotides, doesn't mean that their chromosomes are acetylated/methylated the same way, for instance.
The more we learn about genetics, the more we realize how hard it is to say that we can "predict" perfectly what will happen to an individual just because we know where all of the A's, T's, G's, and C's are, especially when we're talking about something as complicated as a behavior (i.e. sexuality) that undoubtedly is the product of interactions among many genes.
Would you say your environment (your raising, relatives, close friends, life experiences, etc.) contributed at all to your sexual identity, and by how much if so? Or did you just slowly realize that men made you horny as well as women, or vice versa, and your environment only contributed to value-development, i.e the characteristics you seek in a lover? Or am I missing the dart board completely?
As a bi-sexual man, who if it is important prefers men, I can remember being interested in boys as early as 9 or 10. I don't remember anything that gave me the suggestion or encouraged it. I think environment plays a role in a person's acceptance of who they are and their willingness to be open about their sexuality.
Where I grew up I knew I was attracted to men, but it was not an environment (external, not within my family) that would be very accepting of that.
In terms of characteristics I look for in partners, they are vastly different in men and women. I do know that the women and men that I find most attractive are physically most similar to friends I grew up with.
Not sure if that answered your question or not, or if it was person specific.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
*Thanks to Maelstrom Graphics and Numotflame96 for the awesome sig
"Someday, someone will best me. But that's not today and it won't be you."
DCI Level 2 Area Judge
The outlook of every blue player:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
My Motto:
"Everyone loves Tupperware." Visit my site here.
There have been twin studies in which they take identical twins and see if one is gay, what is the probability that the other is too? While such studies are imperfect, they suggest that the answer is about 50%. This suggests a strong genetic influence, but also leaves significant room for other factors.
How does this suggest a strong genetic influence? If anything I would think (having not done the math obv) that in identical twins, if the incidence of same orientation is only 50% that it would be primarily other factors. If there was a genetic component I would expect the incidence of same orientation to be much higher...
How does this suggest a strong genetic influence? If anything I would think (having not done the math obv) that in identical twins, if the incidence of same orientation is only 50% that it would be primarily other factors. If there was a genetic component I would expect the incidence of same orientation to be much higher...
It is much higher than the base rate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Would you say your environment (your raising, relatives, close friends, life experiences, etc.) contributed at all to your sexual identity, and by how much if so? Or did you just slowly realize that men made you horny as well as women, or vice versa, and your environment only contributed to value-development, i.e the characteristics you seek in a lover? Or am I missing the dart board completely?
I don't believe my environment really "made me" who I am sexually. Never had an experience such as abuse or "experimentation" when I was younger. Grew up in a big family and my parents divorced when I was 16, after I went through the whole "am I gay or bi" phase of my life.
As for who/why I am attracted to a certain person, before it was all just who I was sexually attracted to. It was both men and women from like 16-21 and it was mianly just a sexual thing. I am turning 27 next month and I am looking more for a relationship now and whether that is a guy or girl I do not know. As i said before it was a totally sexual thing but now I want someone with a good personality, I guess my "type" of bisexuality is whoever I am attracted to, I am attracted to.
It started off as guys but for a few years I was confused becuase I went out with a girl and liked it to. This was in the early 90s when bisexual wasn't a common used word, didn't even hear it until I was like 16. I thought there was only gay and straight, thus I was REALLY confused lol.
I'm on the fence about this topic. I think parts of it are a genuine genetic disorder...probably more of a condition..but eh...semantics. Homosexuality isn't something that is selected for in evolution. I mean...homosexuals can't diddly around and pop a baby out...especially dudes.
Bisexuality is occasionally present in some animals. Male dolphins occasionally "practice" on eachother and in sparta (ancient greece) getting better aquainted with youre shieldmate was an accepted practice. Why? For trust and more or less teamwork.
While i think everyone has homosexual tendencies, its the strength of that expression is the real key. If everyone was hetero... your best buds would all be of the opposite sex. Also the enviornment the child is brought up in will have a considerable effect. If a child was brought up in a house that reading was highly looked down upon and exercising was considered disgraceful, the child would likely endup uneducated and overweight (if food was a good thing). If you don't eat healthy while your a kid, you'll probably grow up relativly short and excessivly overweight or underweight. If your parents beat you as a child (sorry for the analogy, just reinforcing a point) you'll most be fairly violent or quite. If a child grew up with homosexuals, there is a significantly increased chance that the child well follow the same path. (off topic a bit, but thats why many are significantly opposed to the whole adoption issue, while homophobia does play some part)
There is also the "fakers" in a better or worse term. They act that way for whatever...perversion i guess. They're not turly gay they just want to act that way. Some people i've seen it in just because they can't get well...any. Generally getting with the same sex is alot easier if they homosexual to i suspect. Also alot of them say because "all of this [sex] are bunch of ☺☺☺☺s or pigs or slimeballs etc." I don't find that a legitiment excuse more of a pathetic reason not to go out looking for someone more closely to your personality.
If you see someone playing a control deck, the following strategy is considered acceptable: 1) Slowly reach upward 2) Grab your opponent firmly by the throat 3) Squeeze 4) ???? 5) Profit...and a fountain of red Kool Aid!!!
I'm on the fence about this topic. I think parts of it are a genuine genetic disorder...probably more of a condition..but eh...semantics. Homosexuality isn't something that is selected for in evolution. I mean...homosexuals can't diddly around and pop a baby out...especially dudes.
This doesn't mean it cannot be selected for in nature. There are plenty of theories involving kin selection describing homosexuality as a form of altruism that are perfectly plausible.
For instance look at social insects like bees or ants. Many of these insects willingly do not attempt to have sex with the queen. They don't try to pass on their genes at all. Yet this kin selective behavior has evolved as described by Hamilton's Rule, and is quite common in nature. In theory, human homosexuality could function as an evolutionary adaptation under this paradigm.
If a child grew up with homosexuals, there is a significantly increased chance that the child well follow the same path.
This is completely and patently false.
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents," by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley, San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551 (1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44 Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133 (1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience: Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris & Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review (Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek & Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992)
Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal, 24, J. Child Psychology and Psychiatry 551, 568 (1983)
Green, The Best Interests of a Child with a Lesbian Mother, 10 Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry and Law, 7, 13, (1982)
Green, Mandel, Hotveldt, Gray, & Smith, Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children, 15 Archives Sexual Behav., 167, 181 (1986)
Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparative Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 545, 551 (1981)
Bozett, Children of Gay Fathers, in Gay and Lesbian Parents, F. Bozett ed. (1987)
Further, many major studies suggest that homosexual parents are just as likely to raise well adjusted kids as heterosexual ones:
(It is my sneaking suspicion that homosexual parents on average actually raise smarter, healthier, and better adjusted kids, because homosexual parents are always ready for them and cannot "adopt accidentally", but this has yet to be proven)
I think something has to be pointed out that for thousands of years mammals in general have been able to procreate because they wanted to, not just because they have the ability to.
I don't look at homosexuality as a disorder genetically, it certainly seems hard to say that it isn't a different genetic route.
Its just too hard of a subject to discuss, because no one knows for sure, someone is going to get angry, someone is going to think one person is assuming one thing while they really mean something else.
I just think a lot of people who are homosexual are so held up on not getting the same rights as others (and I cannot blame them, its bull☺☺☺☺ for real), and thinking that just because science wants to find out why people are homosexual that it means they are trying to "fix it". We've always been a society that wonders why things are the way they are.
The survival of a species depends on individual survival and procreation.
Both homosexuality and down syndrome fail one of those.
I don't see how you equate that to red hair.
That's true that homosexuality doesn't directly help something survive, but people who are still homosexual can still reproduce. It's only when you lack the capacity at all that it's a disorder. Does posting on this site help you survive? Doesn't being argumentative help you survive? No, but curiosity and desire to find out answers to questions as well as asking questions is part of how your brain works and yet you don't need it to survive. You don't need to ask questions to survive. Not every vestigial genetic thing is a disorder. A whale doesn't need a pelvis at all but it still has one. Is that a disorder? No.
Also why is this in philosophy? Shouldn't it be in the normal debate section?
From what I've read of the first and second page here is the OP's thought process:
1. Given: Disorder - lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
2. Given: Down's syndrome is inordinate.
3. Transative Property: Down's syndrome is a Disorder.
4. Given: All disorders are unnatural.
5. Transative Property: Down's Syndrome is unnatural.
6. Given: Homosexuality is unnatural.
7. Transative Property: Homosexuality is a Disorder.
This argument uses several fallicies, but its able to clear up this mess by only pointing out one.
Mis-context: A quick dictionary.com search shows that the first result is:
lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion: Your room is in utter disorder.
Now, lets look at that last part. Yes, "Your room is in utter disorder." This is clearly not talking about a genetic disorder, but merely disorderly as in ruckus.
If you scroll down a little bit you'll see a much better definition:
a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction: a mild stomach disorder.
This scientific definition is the one that best suits our context. Does Down's Syndrome affect one's mental health or functions? Yes. Does Homosexuality affect one's mental health or functions? Hell no.
Now, its easy to see that in light of this better definition that his whole argument is thus invalid.
Does Homosexuality affect one's mental health or functions? Hell no.
Reproductive viability.
And to everyone saying they can still reproduce... do you honestly think gay people have as many children as straight people? If I was born with one testicle, I may still be able to have children, but it would certainly hinder me, and would be considered a reproductive disorder.
I guess playing Magic must be a genetic disorder, huh?
Quote from LogicX »
And to everyone saying they can still reproduce... do you honestly think gay people have as many children as straight people?
No, we're just bright enough to realize they have the ability and that sexual orientation in no way hinders the reproductive process. That homosexuals don't tend to reproduce because they generally aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex is just a given.
Quote from LogicX »
If I was born with one testicle, I may still be able to have children, but it would certainly hinder me, and would be considered a disorder.
Depends on the circumstances of your solitary testicle; it wouldn't be a genetic disorder by default.
No, we're just bright enough to realize they have the ability and that sexual orientation in no way hinders the reproductive process. That homosexuals don't tend to reproduce because they generally aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex is just a given.
A given...which is the entire point. Yes their sexual function is intact, but that means squat if their psychology inhibits them from reproducing.
Depends on the circumstances of your solitary testicle; it wouldn't be a genetic disorder by default.
Yes it would be. At the least, you would not have the redundancy of two, meaning if you got cancer or something then you definitely would not be able to have children. You are really over thinking this. A person with two testicles in general will be more reproductively viable than someone born with one.
Just like in general, although homosexuals can reproduce, they are less reproductively viable than a heterosexual.
A given...which is the entire point. Yes their sexual function is intact, but that means squat if their psychology inhibits them from reproducing.
Yes it would be. At the least, you would not have the redundancy of two, meaning if you got cancer or something then you definitely would not be able to have children. You are really over thinking this. A person with two testicles in general will be more reproductively viable than someone born with one.
Just like in general, although homosexuals can reproduce, they are less reproductively viable than a heterosexual.
The bold'ed statement is incorrect. If you think this perhaps you should refresh your memory on what homosexuality actually is.
Here is my definition of Homosexual:
You are Homosexual if you are physically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while not being physically and/or sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.
I think we can all agree that that definition is O.K. for this debate. Now in this definition, do you see anything about how a to be a homosexual one must not want to reproduce? Many Homosexuals may not be inclined to reproduce, but I have met just as many Heterosexuals that don't want to have kids either.
If homosexuality is a disorder because a small percentage of them do not feel inclined to have children, doesn't that also make heterosexuality a disorder since there is a small percent of heterosexuals that don't want to have children? No, it doesn't.
Most homosexual women, for example, even though they may be homosexual still have hormones (progesterone/pregnazone I think???) that make them have the urge to "have a baby", exactley the same as many heterosexual females feel if they are nearing menopause without having any offspring yet.
A given...which is the entire point. Yes their sexual function is intact, but that means squat if their psychology inhibits them from reproducing.
Except their psychologies don't inhibit them from reproducing. That's like saying that a person who dislikes cheese has a psychology that inhibits her from eating cheese.
Also, although the Magic comment was in jest, why not address that? Clearly there are many things people do by choice and otherwise that hinders our reproductive viability; why does this make homosexuality a disorder in your eyes as opposed to any other action?
Except their psychologies don't inhibit them from reproducing. That's like saying that a person who dislikes cheese has a psychology that inhibits her from eating cheese.
I for one don't see anything wrong with either statement. Are you perhaps confusing inhibition with prohibition?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The bold'ed statement is incorrect. If you think this perhaps you should refresh your memory on what homosexuality actually is.
Here is my definition of Homosexual:
You are Homosexual if you are physically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while not being physically and/or sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.
I think we can all agree that that definition is O.K. for this debate. Now in this definition, do you see anything about how a to be a homosexual one must not want to reproduce? Many Homosexuals may not be inclined to reproduce, but I have met just as many Heterosexuals that don't want to have kids either.
If homosexuality is a disorder because a small percentage of them do not feel inclined to have children, doesn't that also make heterosexuality a disorder since there is a small percent of heterosexuals that don't want to have children? No, it doesn't.
Most homosexual women, for example, even though they may be homosexual still have hormones (progesterone/pregnazone I think???) that make them have the urge to "have a baby", exactley the same as many heterosexual females feel if they are nearing menopause without having any offspring yet.
So yeah, no.
So you really think not being attracted to the opposite sex means that you still have the same amount of children? If we found a study of birth rates among heterosexual people and homosexual people, you would expect homosexuals to have just as many children?
Except their psychologies don't inhibit them from reproducing. That's like saying that a person who dislikes cheese has a psychology that inhibits her from eating cheese.
Also, although the Magic comment was in jest, why not address that? Clearly there are many things people do by choice and otherwise that hinders our reproductive viability; why does this make homosexuality a disorder in your eyes as opposed to any other action?
We are talking about genetic disorders. Magic playing is not genetic. Unless you could find some chemical imbalance in the brain that causes us all to play magic, and in doing so we have less children, I don't see how that is comparable.
Being predisposed to nerdiness, shyness, etc. Various psychological traits make one less likely to get kids.
Predisposed to nerdiness? Do you have anything that supports this being nature as opposed to nurture?
Also this whole thing is a red herring. The debate is whether homosexuality (which is genetic) is a genetic disorder (it causes lower birth rates with no benefit).
Predisposed to nerdiness? Do you have anything that supports this being nature as opposed to nurture?
Also this whole thing is a red herring. The debate is whether homosexuality (which is genetic) is a genetic disorder (it causes lower birth rates with no benefit).
There is a benefit, to help stabilize our population growth. If there is too much population growth most people don't get enough food so the species dies out, but with factors like homosexuality that is proved to appear more in times of a higher population growth then it helps keep our population at its carrying capacity and not any more than that.
So you really think not being attracted to the opposite sex means that you still have the same amount of children? If we found a study of birth rates among heterosexual people and homosexual people, you would expect homosexuals to have just as many children?
We are talking about genetic disorders. Magic playing is not genetic. Unless you could find some chemical imbalance in the brain that causes us all to play magic, and in doing so we have less children, I don't see how that is comparable.
This is a mis-representation of my argument. I am saying that if you ask all homosexuals who do not have children, "do you want children" they would show roughly the same reply to the answers of heterosexuals without kids who were asked that same question.
I say that the same percentage of homosexuals and heterosexuals want children to prove that it is not actually a psychological difference in terms of wanting children.
Are you really saying that a Homosexual's brain functions at a lesser level than a heterosexual's brain, much like an autistic child's brain functions at a lesser level than a non-autistic child's brain?
There is no way that a homosexual's body functions are lesser than any of any given heterosexual's body functions. Most can produce children the same way, but some just choose not to.
I for one don't see anything wrong with either statement. Are you perhaps confusing inhibition with prohibition?
Well seeing as how manydictionaries interchange the two, I think it would be hard to confuse them.
But that's besides the point, because a person who doesn't like cheese isn't being psychologically inhibited from liking cheese; she just doesn't enjoy the taste, or texture, or what have you. These are inherent traits of the cheese that she finds undesirable--she is not being prevented from enjoying it. Specifically referring to psychological inhibition typically entails some sort of subconscious suppression.
That's too broad of a statement to be entirely accurate. There are genetic factors that contribute to a person's inclination to enjoy a game like Magic as much as there are genetic factors that contribute to sexual orientation. But if you subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is entirely genetic, as you seem to here:
Quote from LogicX »
homosexuality (which is genetic)
then you're just plain wrong. That idea has been addressed and disproven multiple times in this thread.
There is a benefit, to help stabilize our population growth. If there is too much population growth most people don't get enough food so the species dies out, but with factors like homosexuality that is proved to appear more in times of a higher population growth then it helps keep our population at its carrying capacity and not any more than that.
Source?
This is a mis-representation of my argument. I am saying that if you ask all homosexuals who do not have children, "do you want children" they would show roughly the same reply to the answers of heterosexuals without kids who were asked that same question.
I say that the same percentage of homosexuals and heterosexuals want children to prove that it is not actually a psychological difference in terms of wanting children.
Whether you want something or not doesn't matter.
Are you really saying that a Homosexual's brain functions at a lesser level than a heterosexual's brain, much like an autistic child's brain functions at a lesser level than a non-autistic child's brain?
You are being childish now. Stop trying to inject emotion into this argument. I'm saying it function differently, in a way that handicaps them sexually. "Lesser" in the sense of autism implies they are not as smart or something.
There is no way that a homosexual's body functions are lesser than any of any given heterosexual's body functions. Most can produce children the same way, but some just choose not to.
Exactly. And that is my argument. Whether you want to do something or not doesn't matter. All that matters is there is a genetic factor preventing them as a whole to have less children.
That's too broad of a statement to be entirely accurate. There are genetic factors that contribute to a person's inclination to enjoy a game like Magic as much as there are genetic factors that contribute to sexual orientation. But if you subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is entirely genetic, as you seem to here:
then you're just plain wrong. That idea has been addressed and disproven multiple times in this thread.
Homosexuality is genetic. Get over it.
This entire debate really is just semantics... I can't believe it exploded into what it is now.
The problem with LogicX's argument is that Homosexuals can have children if forced to. All the parts still work.
Having to be forced in order to procreate seems like reproductive inferiority to me.
(before you say for the hundredth time "all the parts still work, therefore they are reproductively the same!" I'm talking about it in a holistic sense. In the way that a peacock with brighter feathers is reproductively superior to one that is not so attractive to a female peacock. His feathers are not his reproductive system, but they influence his reproductive viability.)
But that's besides the point, because a person who doesn't like cheese isn't being psychologically inhibited from liking cheese; she just doesn't enjoy the taste, or texture, or what have you. These are inherent traits of the cheese that she finds undesirable--she is not being prevented from enjoying it. Specifically referring to psychological inhibition typically entails some sort of subconscious suppression.
You may be right about what "inhibition" typically means - I don't necessarily interpret it that way, but you may be right. Then the real question is this: Does it matter for this debate whether the cheese-disliker's aversion to cheese, or the homosexual person's aversion to heterosexual intercourse, constitutes "inhibition" as you understand it? What is this objection supposed to accomplish? If we stipulate that "inhibition" in this conversation doesn't entail subconscious suppression, or simply switch to a more general near-synonym like "aversion", does anyone's position actually change?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Having to be forced in order to procreate seems like reproductive inferiority to me.
(before you say for the hundredth time "all the parts still work, therefore they are reproductively the same!" I'm talking about it in a holistic sense. In the way that a peacock with brighter feathers is reproductively superior to one that is not so attractive to a female peacock. His feathers are not his reproductive system, but they influence his reproductive viability.)
The peacock example is called non-random mating. Its one of the few things that influences natural selection.
But you're forgetting the biggest thing, that having homosexuality does not impair anybody phisically or mentally. For example I could show you look-alike twins and with all the doctoral examinations and Ex-rays in the world you could not tell me with any accuracy over 50% which one is gay.
Because it does not actually impair you, it is not a disorder.
Also remember that the role of epigenetics is huge (talking in terms of general gene expression here). So just because two individuals share the same literal sequence of nucleotides, doesn't mean that their chromosomes are acetylated/methylated the same way, for instance.
The more we learn about genetics, the more we realize how hard it is to say that we can "predict" perfectly what will happen to an individual just because we know where all of the A's, T's, G's, and C's are, especially when we're talking about something as complicated as a behavior (i.e. sexuality) that undoubtedly is the product of interactions among many genes.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
As a bi-sexual man, who if it is important prefers men, I can remember being interested in boys as early as 9 or 10. I don't remember anything that gave me the suggestion or encouraged it. I think environment plays a role in a person's acceptance of who they are and their willingness to be open about their sexuality.
Where I grew up I knew I was attracted to men, but it was not an environment (external, not within my family) that would be very accepting of that.
In terms of characteristics I look for in partners, they are vastly different in men and women. I do know that the women and men that I find most attractive are physically most similar to friends I grew up with.
Not sure if that answered your question or not, or if it was person specific.
*Thanks to Maelstrom Graphics and Numotflame96 for the awesome sig
"Someday, someone will best me. But that's not today and it won't be you."
DCI Level 2 Area Judge
The outlook of every blue player:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
My Motto:
"Everyone loves Tupperware." Visit my site here.
How does this suggest a strong genetic influence? If anything I would think (having not done the math obv) that in identical twins, if the incidence of same orientation is only 50% that it would be primarily other factors. If there was a genetic component I would expect the incidence of same orientation to be much higher...
It is much higher than the base rate.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As for who/why I am attracted to a certain person, before it was all just who I was sexually attracted to. It was both men and women from like 16-21 and it was mianly just a sexual thing. I am turning 27 next month and I am looking more for a relationship now and whether that is a guy or girl I do not know. As i said before it was a totally sexual thing but now I want someone with a good personality, I guess my "type" of bisexuality is whoever I am attracted to, I am attracted to.
It started off as guys but for a few years I was confused becuase I went out with a girl and liked it to. This was in the early 90s when bisexual wasn't a common used word, didn't even hear it until I was like 16. I thought there was only gay and straight, thus I was REALLY confused lol.
Bisexuality is occasionally present in some animals. Male dolphins occasionally "practice" on eachother and in sparta (ancient greece) getting better aquainted with youre shieldmate was an accepted practice. Why? For trust and more or less teamwork.
While i think everyone has homosexual tendencies, its the strength of that expression is the real key. If everyone was hetero... your best buds would all be of the opposite sex. Also the enviornment the child is brought up in will have a considerable effect. If a child was brought up in a house that reading was highly looked down upon and exercising was considered disgraceful, the child would likely endup uneducated and overweight (if food was a good thing). If you don't eat healthy while your a kid, you'll probably grow up relativly short and excessivly overweight or underweight. If your parents beat you as a child (sorry for the analogy, just reinforcing a point) you'll most be fairly violent or quite. If a child grew up with homosexuals, there is a significantly increased chance that the child well follow the same path. (off topic a bit, but thats why many are significantly opposed to the whole adoption issue, while homophobia does play some part)
There is also the "fakers" in a better or worse term. They act that way for whatever...perversion i guess. They're not turly gay they just want to act that way. Some people i've seen it in just because they can't get well...any. Generally getting with the same sex is alot easier if they homosexual to i suspect. Also alot of them say because "all of this [sex] are bunch of ☺☺☺☺s or pigs or slimeballs etc." I don't find that a legitiment excuse more of a pathetic reason not to go out looking for someone more closely to your personality.
Not a fan or supporter of New Magic
For instance look at social insects like bees or ants. Many of these insects willingly do not attempt to have sex with the queen. They don't try to pass on their genes at all. Yet this kin selective behavior has evolved as described by Hamilton's Rule, and is quite common in nature. In theory, human homosexuality could function as an evolutionary adaptation under this paradigm.
This is completely and patently false.
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents," by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley, San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551 (1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44 Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133 (1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience: Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris & Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review (Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek & Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992)
Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal, 24, J. Child Psychology and Psychiatry 551, 568 (1983)
Green, The Best Interests of a Child with a Lesbian Mother, 10 Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry and Law, 7, 13, (1982)
Green, Mandel, Hotveldt, Gray, & Smith, Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children, 15 Archives Sexual Behav., 167, 181 (1986)
Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparative Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 545, 551 (1981)
Bozett, Children of Gay Fathers, in Gay and Lesbian Parents, F. Bozett ed. (1987)
Further, many major studies suggest that homosexual parents are just as likely to raise well adjusted kids as heterosexual ones:
http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/press/2009/09/Ryan-study-in-SSW.php
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
(It is my sneaking suspicion that homosexual parents on average actually raise smarter, healthier, and better adjusted kids, because homosexual parents are always ready for them and cannot "adopt accidentally", but this has yet to be proven)
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
I don't look at homosexuality as a disorder genetically, it certainly seems hard to say that it isn't a different genetic route.
Its just too hard of a subject to discuss, because no one knows for sure, someone is going to get angry, someone is going to think one person is assuming one thing while they really mean something else.
I just think a lot of people who are homosexual are so held up on not getting the same rights as others (and I cannot blame them, its bull☺☺☺☺ for real), and thinking that just because science wants to find out why people are homosexual that it means they are trying to "fix it". We've always been a society that wonders why things are the way they are.
Genetics are a fickle whore.
That's true that homosexuality doesn't directly help something survive, but people who are still homosexual can still reproduce. It's only when you lack the capacity at all that it's a disorder. Does posting on this site help you survive? Doesn't being argumentative help you survive? No, but curiosity and desire to find out answers to questions as well as asking questions is part of how your brain works and yet you don't need it to survive. You don't need to ask questions to survive. Not every vestigial genetic thing is a disorder. A whale doesn't need a pelvis at all but it still has one. Is that a disorder? No.
Also why is this in philosophy? Shouldn't it be in the normal debate section?
1. Given: Disorder - lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
2. Given: Down's syndrome is inordinate.
3. Transative Property: Down's syndrome is a Disorder.
4. Given: All disorders are unnatural.
5. Transative Property: Down's Syndrome is unnatural.
6. Given: Homosexuality is unnatural.
7. Transative Property: Homosexuality is a Disorder.
This argument uses several fallicies, but its able to clear up this mess by only pointing out one.
Mis-context: A quick dictionary.com search shows that the first result is:
Now, lets look at that last part. Yes, "Your room is in utter disorder." This is clearly not talking about a genetic disorder, but merely disorderly as in ruckus.
If you scroll down a little bit you'll see a much better definition:
This scientific definition is the one that best suits our context. Does Down's Syndrome affect one's mental health or functions? Yes. Does Homosexuality affect one's mental health or functions? Hell no.
Now, its easy to see that in light of this better definition that his whole argument is thus invalid.
QED.
Joboman, Paranoid Noob Town RRRU
Mafia Record:
5-1-2 (Alignment)
1-6-3 (wins/incomplete/lose)
Reproductive viability.
And to everyone saying they can still reproduce... do you honestly think gay people have as many children as straight people? If I was born with one testicle, I may still be able to have children, but it would certainly hinder me, and would be considered a reproductive disorder.
I guess playing Magic must be a genetic disorder, huh?
No, we're just bright enough to realize they have the ability and that sexual orientation in no way hinders the reproductive process. That homosexuals don't tend to reproduce because they generally aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex is just a given.
Depends on the circumstances of your solitary testicle; it wouldn't be a genetic disorder by default.
A given...which is the entire point. Yes their sexual function is intact, but that means squat if their psychology inhibits them from reproducing.
Yes it would be. At the least, you would not have the redundancy of two, meaning if you got cancer or something then you definitely would not be able to have children. You are really over thinking this. A person with two testicles in general will be more reproductively viable than someone born with one.
Just like in general, although homosexuals can reproduce, they are less reproductively viable than a heterosexual.
The bold'ed statement is incorrect. If you think this perhaps you should refresh your memory on what homosexuality actually is.
Here is my definition of Homosexual:
You are Homosexual if you are physically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while not being physically and/or sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.
I think we can all agree that that definition is O.K. for this debate. Now in this definition, do you see anything about how a to be a homosexual one must not want to reproduce? Many Homosexuals may not be inclined to reproduce, but I have met just as many Heterosexuals that don't want to have kids either.
If homosexuality is a disorder because a small percentage of them do not feel inclined to have children, doesn't that also make heterosexuality a disorder since there is a small percent of heterosexuals that don't want to have children? No, it doesn't.
Most homosexual women, for example, even though they may be homosexual still have hormones (progesterone/pregnazone I think???) that make them have the urge to "have a baby", exactley the same as many heterosexual females feel if they are nearing menopause without having any offspring yet.
So yeah, no.
Joboman, Paranoid Noob Town RRRU
Mafia Record:
5-1-2 (Alignment)
1-6-3 (wins/incomplete/lose)
Except their psychologies don't inhibit them from reproducing. That's like saying that a person who dislikes cheese has a psychology that inhibits her from eating cheese.
Also, although the Magic comment was in jest, why not address that? Clearly there are many things people do by choice and otherwise that hinders our reproductive viability; why does this make homosexuality a disorder in your eyes as opposed to any other action?
I for one don't see anything wrong with either statement. Are you perhaps confusing inhibition with prohibition?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So you really think not being attracted to the opposite sex means that you still have the same amount of children? If we found a study of birth rates among heterosexual people and homosexual people, you would expect homosexuals to have just as many children?
We are talking about genetic disorders. Magic playing is not genetic. Unless you could find some chemical imbalance in the brain that causes us all to play magic, and in doing so we have less children, I don't see how that is comparable.
Predisposed to nerdiness? Do you have anything that supports this being nature as opposed to nurture?
Also this whole thing is a red herring. The debate is whether homosexuality (which is genetic) is a genetic disorder (it causes lower birth rates with no benefit).
There is a benefit, to help stabilize our population growth. If there is too much population growth most people don't get enough food so the species dies out, but with factors like homosexuality that is proved to appear more in times of a higher population growth then it helps keep our population at its carrying capacity and not any more than that.
This is a mis-representation of my argument. I am saying that if you ask all homosexuals who do not have children, "do you want children" they would show roughly the same reply to the answers of heterosexuals without kids who were asked that same question.
I say that the same percentage of homosexuals and heterosexuals want children to prove that it is not actually a psychological difference in terms of wanting children.
Are you really saying that a Homosexual's brain functions at a lesser level than a heterosexual's brain, much like an autistic child's brain functions at a lesser level than a non-autistic child's brain?
There is no way that a homosexual's body functions are lesser than any of any given heterosexual's body functions. Most can produce children the same way, but some just choose not to.
Joboman, Paranoid Noob Town RRRU
Mafia Record:
5-1-2 (Alignment)
1-6-3 (wins/incomplete/lose)
Well seeing as how many dictionaries interchange the two, I think it would be hard to confuse them.
But that's besides the point, because a person who doesn't like cheese isn't being psychologically inhibited from liking cheese; she just doesn't enjoy the taste, or texture, or what have you. These are inherent traits of the cheese that she finds undesirable--she is not being prevented from enjoying it. Specifically referring to psychological inhibition typically entails some sort of subconscious suppression.
No, we aren't. We're talking about homosexuality.
That's too broad of a statement to be entirely accurate. There are genetic factors that contribute to a person's inclination to enjoy a game like Magic as much as there are genetic factors that contribute to sexual orientation. But if you subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is entirely genetic, as you seem to here:
then you're just plain wrong. That idea has been addressed and disproven multiple times in this thread.
Source?
Whether you want something or not doesn't matter.
You are being childish now. Stop trying to inject emotion into this argument. I'm saying it function differently, in a way that handicaps them sexually. "Lesser" in the sense of autism implies they are not as smart or something.
Exactly. And that is my argument. Whether you want to do something or not doesn't matter. All that matters is there is a genetic factor preventing them as a whole to have less children.
Homosexuality is genetic. Get over it.
This entire debate really is just semantics... I can't believe it exploded into what it is now.
The problem with LogicX's argument is that Homosexuals can have children if forced to. All the parts still work.
Joboman, Paranoid Noob Town RRRU
Mafia Record:
5-1-2 (Alignment)
1-6-3 (wins/incomplete/lose)
Having to be forced in order to procreate seems like reproductive inferiority to me.
(before you say for the hundredth time "all the parts still work, therefore they are reproductively the same!" I'm talking about it in a holistic sense. In the way that a peacock with brighter feathers is reproductively superior to one that is not so attractive to a female peacock. His feathers are not his reproductive system, but they influence his reproductive viability.)
You may be right about what "inhibition" typically means - I don't necessarily interpret it that way, but you may be right. Then the real question is this: Does it matter for this debate whether the cheese-disliker's aversion to cheese, or the homosexual person's aversion to heterosexual intercourse, constitutes "inhibition" as you understand it? What is this objection supposed to accomplish? If we stipulate that "inhibition" in this conversation doesn't entail subconscious suppression, or simply switch to a more general near-synonym like "aversion", does anyone's position actually change?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The peacock example is called non-random mating. Its one of the few things that influences natural selection.
But you're forgetting the biggest thing, that having homosexuality does not impair anybody phisically or mentally. For example I could show you look-alike twins and with all the doctoral examinations and Ex-rays in the world you could not tell me with any accuracy over 50% which one is gay.
Because it does not actually impair you, it is not a disorder.
Joboman, Paranoid Noob Town RRRU
Mafia Record:
5-1-2 (Alignment)
1-6-3 (wins/incomplete/lose)