I read an article in a science magazine, forget which one, on sexuality. The article surmised that contrary to what most people think, sexuality may be a trait that is a range like height, not an on off like ten fingers.

For example, people are born short, medium, and tall, in  a range of heights. This is considered normal. We dont' expect everyone on the planet to be exactly 5'11" tall, or we say they are abnormal.

However, the amount of fingers you have is not a range. It does not vary from 1-10. It's an on off switch. When on, you get 10 fingers. Otherwise something went wrong.

What if sexuality is a range like Height, and not like fingers? It's not on off, gay straight. Instead it is somewhere between 100% Gay, and 100% Straight.

If that is the case, then what about the person that is in the middle, at 50% ? This person would be comfortable with either sex. This person could be happy being straight, or they could be happy being gay.

If you try to indroctinate the 100% person, you are wasting your time. If you try to make the 100% gay person into straight, or vice a versa, it's going to fail.

But, if you try to indoctrinate the 50% person, you can be successful. You can turn someone that appeared to be straight into gay, or someone that appeared to be gay into straight, if they fall in this middle.

It's just a theory, and it wasn't proven, but it made sense to me that sexuality may be a range, not an on off switch.

One other study I read said the bisexual women tend to stay bi. They did a study fo girls that said they were bi, and they found it wan't just a phase they went through, they didnt' grow out of it, they didn't settle down ot gay or straight. They remained attracted to both men and women.

So, this is what people waste money to research.

If people werent such hypocritical bigots this wouldnt be an issue, 100%, 75%, 50%, who cares if a man wants to sleep with another man why is it an issue that needs to be studied.

Yeah maybe a 50% gay person would be happy being gay or happy being straight, but thats all speculation, im quite certain they would be happy not having to justify their lifestyle.

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

So, this is what people waste money to research.

 

If people werent such hypocritical bigots this wouldnt be an issue, 100%, 75%, 50%, who cares if a man wants to sleep with another man why is it an issue that needs to be studied.

 

Yeah maybe a 50% gay person would be happy being gay or happy being straight, but thats all speculation, im quite certain they would be happy not having to justify their lifestyle.

I wouldn't call it wasted research. I posted the rough outline, but the basis was on genetic studies that were way over my head.

I does make a difference. If science proved that being gay or straight is a genetic trait then the argument that sexual preference is a mere choice would be conclusively refuted.

This research is just one more possible piece of the puzzle, since scientist have not yet found the exact chromosomes or whatever that determine sexual preference. If they are looking for genetic off on switches, but sexuality is a range trait instead, then they may be looking in the wrong spot.

I think people learn to look at eachother differantly by how others percieve others and by how glamorized certain types are. 

For instance, if a poster has a women half nude with the word beautifull on it on a busy street then little girls are more welcoming to the experience when they are grown of a woman necked alluring them to sex.  basically desensitization is the only word I can use to describe it. 

Now whether a person is truly comfortable in that situation is something totally differant and people don't usually say how they feel based on what they feel, but based on what is acceptable to say and what they are expected to say. 

I remember hearing on the radio one night, I think it was on Loveline or something. Some doctor was saying a man could have sex with another man and not be gay because they don't have the emotional attachment. They are just performing a physical act. Same goes for chics i guess. So someones sexual preference is which ever sex they decide to connect with on an emotional level.

 I have a real problem with attributing human behavior and personality traits to genetics. It's a form of thinking that allows all kinds of racists and elitist ideas fertile ground to grow in. There is no slippery slope here. Start attributing human actions to genetic disposition and you're basically make an arguement for the adoption of a caste system of society.

There's more to humanity than flesh and blood. There is experience and knowlege as well.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

 I have a real problem with attributing human behavior and personality traits to genetics. It's a form of thinking that allows all kinds of racists and elitist ideas fertile ground to grow in. There is no slippery slope here. Start attributing human actions to genetic disposition and you're basically make an arguement for the adoption of a caste system of society.

There's more to humanity than flesh and blood. There is experience and knowlege as well.

I think it's generally accepted that people are born with a biological make up that allows for a range of development based on their environment (experience and knowledge).

Unfortunately, there probably isn't a more complex (or hidden) aspect of a person’s makeup than their sexuality. The idea that it is hard coded in someway at birth is simplistic at best.

However, there is one thing that is certain. Most men will seek to reproduce and most women will seek to find the most successful way to make this happen, what every the environment.

I the idea of indoctrination, in the end is folly.  As it relates to sexuality anyway.


 

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

If that is the case, then what about the person that is in the middle, at 50% ? This person would be comfortable with either sex. This person could be happy being straight, or they could be happy being gay.

If you try to indroctinate the 100% person, you are wasting your time. If you try to make the 100% gay person into straight, or vice a versa, it's going to fail.

But, if you try to indoctrinate the 50% person, you can be successful. You can turn someone that appeared to be straight into gay, or someone that appeared to be gay into straight, if they fall in this middle.

Does 'successful' mean 'happy'? Even if someone in the middle were persuaded to one end of the spectrum or the other, would they necessarily be happy? I'd conjecture that there would also be a chance that they would never be completely happy and would want to, ahem, try out the other lifestyle.

And yes, it is a slippery slope. Either way, you're going to wind up with people trying to 'cure' the group in the minority, either through psychology, pharmacology, or gene therapy-type stuff.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

contrary to what most people think, sexuality may be a trait that is a range

That's what almost every prominent sexual researcher in the last fifty years has said, actually.  In fact, by most accounts, a person's sexuality is something that constantly evolves over their lifetime.  These beliefs are not anything even remotely resembling news, nor would any science magazine possibly publish it as any kind of breakthrough.  In fact, no reputable science publication would even use the term "homosexual indoctrination".

I'm curious as to the actual publication where you read about this.

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

Epic fail was pretty epic. 

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

As I see it, you MIGHT this genetic little difference but it DOES NOT make you automatically gay.

I mean, there are for example genes that affects your skill with balls and such but does it mean that you automatically become a good soccer player? 

Damn straight you don't.

I hope that the "homosexual gene" doesn't exist.  If it did, you bet your ass there would be some bill introduced somewhere allowing that gene to be altered before birth to ensure heterosexuality.

Oh, but what if that advancement required substantial stem cell research.......that would be an extremely hillarious conflict of interests for conservatives.

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

If it's so abnormal, then how come it's a process that so many people have found impossible to "reverse".  And how come despite some people never being around anything that ever taught them that confusion (as you call it) they still turn out gay anyway?  It seems that if it were such an abnormality or a step towards a confused state, then someone would have figured out how to fix it by now or at least taught people how they can have their children most definitely not turn out that way.

The things you say confuse people.  And they hurt gay people. 

Originally posted by Efrath

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

As I see it, you MIGHT this genetic little difference but it DOES NOT make you automatically gay.

I mean, there are for example genes that affects your skill with balls and such but does it mean that you automatically become a good soccer player? 

Damn straight you don't.

Well, Efrath, we only have one really solid way to determine the influence of nature versus nurture in developing individual traits.  Identical twins provide us with this opportunity, since we basically have two people who are identical on the nature side at birth, whose divergent lives we can then examine with their permission.  Some twin studies have been truly massive undertakings, and though they haven't been without their flaws from a procedural standpoint, they're still informative.  To give you an idea of what the big ones have been like, check out the Minnesota twin studies.

Ultimately, according to a few studies, the odds of a non-heterosexual twin's sibling (the other twin) also being non-heterosexual are very roughly 50%.  This is significantly higher than the same chance seen in non-identical twin siblings.

So you are probably right.  There is no single gene that definitely makes a person homosexual.  Instead, there are likely many genes that each contribute towards predisposing a person to homosexuality.  The environment then does the rest.

I think the danger in this idea is that many believe they can "prevent" homosexuality by eliminating what they perceive to be "homosexual influences".  We have no idea what the influences are which influence a person's sexuality.  In fact, we've seen evangelists who have grown up in perhaps the most anti-homosexual environment possible, who themselves repeatedly lambasted homosexuals in the worst terms possible on national television, turn out to be gay.  The relevant environmental factors probably even vary for each person.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected, kicked out of the pack and in some cases attacked.  It's perceived as weak and not fit for survival. 

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected by idiots, kicked out of the pack by idiots and in some cases attacked by idiots.  It's perceived by idiots as weak  and not fit for survival.  

Fixed.

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected, kicked out of the pack and in some cases attacked.  It's perceived as weak and not fit for survival. 

 

 

 

Bald men don't transfer the trait for baldness to their offspring. That is done on the female side. So if you didn't allow bald men to reproduce, you would have no affect on baldness being passed down as a trait.

Similarly, it may be that heterosexuals are the ones that pass on the traits for homosexuality. Which would make sense, since heterosexuals are more likely to reproduce than homosexuals. In that case, your "natural reaction" would make no sense.

It would also make little sense to "kick the homosexuals out of the pack", if they aren't reproducing anyway.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

I was not basing things upon animals. To do so would be absolutely retarded logic, afterall, animals rape, kill, steal, eat their young, if that was the basis for my "natural world", I would be dead or in prison.

What is right in the world of nature, is that which most fully helps us advance and propagate our species.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

I was not basing things upon animals. To do so would be absolutely retarded logic, afterall, animals rape, kill, steal, eat their young, if that was the basis for my "natural world", I would be dead or in prison.

What is right in the world of nature, is that which most fully helps us advance and propagate our species.

People rape kill and steal.  Most don't, but some do.

Most animals don't have homosexual tendencies, but some do.

See where I'm going with this, or do I need to bust out the powerpoint?  Do you prefer the cash register or glass breaking sound?

Originally posted by altairzq

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected by idiots, kicked out of the pack by idiots and in some cases attacked by idiots.  It's perceived by idiots as weak  and not fit for survival.  

Fixed.

 

If you stoop low enough to start comparing humans to animals and if you seriously believe in evolution and natural selection, that's the kind of rationalization you should expect to get.  The only idiots are the people who think they can have it both ways.

What is the big deal here?   Why are humans so hung up on petty things?   Seriously, omfg!   This is why we are doomed as a species.   We just have to meddle in everything!   Stupid. 

Originally posted by Teala

What is the big deal here?   Why are humans so hung up on petty things?   Seriously, omfg!   This is why we are doomed as a species.   We just have to meddle in everything!   Stupid. 

That kinda a funny thing to say when the motivation of many is to push an agenda that offers no benefits to the species.

Is posting in thread I don't care about because the arguements are so silly.