Open minds?

[nige1]

acquired how?

 

I know, I said I wouldn't post more in response to you, but this post made me laugh. Just how we do picture all these gays getting exposed to and experimenting with feeling attracted to people of the same sex?

 

Bear in mind that in many cultures today, being gay leads to extreme social discrimination, up to and including prison sentences, forced castration, and death sentences, yet somehow people in those countries still end up 'preferring' to be gay?

 

Even in 'enlightened' western society, gays are often the target of abuse from religious leaders (and followers) and politicians, and rejection by family, including parents and siblings.

 

So please, explain to us the evidence that leads you to the 'feeling' that homosexuality is an acquired preference?

 

The reality appears to be that many gay men, perhaps not as often these days where gay rights actually exist, would do almost anything to be straight, including living lives of quiet desperation, deep within the closet....including, all too often, taking political and religious stances decrying that very same 'preference' that you say they must have acquired.

 

Btw, I assume you identify as a straight male. Can you recall precisely when you made the intellectual decision that you'd rather be physically attracted to females than to other males? I mean, if same-sex attraction is an acquired preference, why is opposite-sex attraction any different?

 

Here's a wild guess: you aren't 'sure about anything', including your 'feelings' or your 'inability to believe' and it is ad hominem to claim that you are a not very well hidden homophobe, racist and sexist bigot, because all you say is that it is 'OK' to hold homophobic, racist and sexist beliefs, not that you hold them personally.

You're welcome to reveal more about yourself, mikeh. I've stated some of my views. I'm not the subject of this topic, however.

 

From Gene-survival principles, a heterosexual preference is likely to be innate. But more research might result in more evidence and less speculation. :)

[mikeh]

You're welcome to reveal more about yourself, mikeh. I've stated some of my views. I'm not the subject of this topic, however.

 

From Gene-survival principles, a heterosexual preference is likely to be innate. But more research might result in more evidence and less speculation. :)

ok, you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are in truth a despicable as well as a stupid person. Thanks for removing any doubt.

[billw55]

You're welcome to reveal more about yourself, mikeh. I've stated some of my views. I'm not the subject of this topic, however.

 

From Gene-survival principles, a heterosexual preference is likely to be innate. But more research might result in more evidence and less speculation. :)

Nigel, I do respect the tone in which you have chosen to conduct this discussion.

 

Still ... the point has been made that the research/evidence is both abundant and readily available. Despite that point, and indeed multiple times after that point was made, you continue to assert that you cannot believe it until you have more research/evidence.

 

I invite you to consider how this encourages the perception that this is not a case of cannot believe, but rather a case of will not believe.

 

 

[mike777]

Again guys there seem to be at least few, tiny few reported cases of gender preference switching after surgery and hormone and other therapy.

 

I fully grant the science on these incidents is open to discussion.

 

With all of the above said innate seems to be the science in 99%+

Again there seems to be a much wider sexual preference spectrum than 100% one or the other.

 

As for those selfish genes...they seem willing to jump species or populations.

[barmar]

Still ... the point has been made that the research/evidence is both abundant and readily available. Despite that point, and indeed multiple times after that point was made, you continue to assert that you cannot believe it until you have more research/evidence.

Reminds me of the politicians who still proclaim that "the science isn't conclusive" about climate change. They manage to find a few outlier scientists who disagree with the mainstream, and use them to support their views (which they probably hold mainly because it would be politically inconvenient for them to switch sides).

[barmar]

Warning: If I see the word "stupid" (or similar) used to refer to another poster again, I'm shutting down this thread. Ad hominem or not, personal attacks and insults are not acceptable here.

[MrAce]

Warning: If I see the word "stupid" (or similar) used to refer to another poster again, I'm shutting down this thread. Ad hominem or not, personal attacks and insults are not acceptable here.

 

I know you are trigga happy on doing this, but please do not.

 

If you really need to do something, just edit or move the replies that contains personal attacks and not punish the rest of the people who contributed to the topic. Diana is actually doing good job about this instead of not shutting down the whole thing just because she can.

[nige1]

Nigel, I do respect the tone in which you have chosen to conduct this discussion. Still ... the point has been made that the research/evidence is both abundant and readily available. Despite that point, and indeed multiple times after that point was made, you continue to assert that you cannot believe it until you have more research/evidence. I invite you to consider how this encourages the perception that this is not a case of cannot believe, but rather a case of will not believe.

When I wrote the OP, I added Homosexuality as an afterthought. I wish I hadn't. Before posting, I looked for relevant material and found general articles e.g.

Is homosexuality innate?

Is sexual orientation innate?

Environment and sexual orientation

Biology and sexual orientation?

Homosexuality

The latter contains general conclusions

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. [...] Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual

Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation.

"Biological" includes intra-uterine environmental factors. IMO, the most telling argument for innate determination was

(Comparing the results of eight different twin studies) All but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.

Some quotes were amusing

(They) altered the sexual preferences of female mice by removing a single gene linked to reproductive behavior. Without the gene, the mice exhibited masculine sexual behavior and attraction toward urine of other female mice. Those mice who retained the gene fucose mutarotase (FucM) were attracted to male mice.

I've read some original papers but they're old and controversial. Hence, i'd be interested to read contemporary peer-reviewed original research (or abstracts). But as of now, it seems to me that the jury is still out.

[barmar]

I think the reason some people are reacting so vehemently to the claim "it's not innate" is that to many people this is interpreted as "it's a choice". Or worse, that it's "caused" by too much exposure to gay culture, which has been used as justification for discrimination against gays (e.g. until civil rights laws were enacted, schools would routinely prohibit gay teachers). But as indicated in those quotes, it's not anywhere close to that simple.

 

Sexual orientation is innate in much the same way that intelligence and height are. You could have the genes to be tall, but if you're malnourished during your childhood you probably won't be. You could have genes for high intelligence, but if you don't get a decent education you probably won't exhibit it.

 

But if you have the Down Syndrome gene, you're not likely to become a genius no matter how good the school you go to is. Similarly, if you don't have the genetic tendency towards homosexualilty, no cultural factors are likely to make you gay.

 

Genetics is just one factor that goes into a person's physical and personality makeup. But for many attributes, it's a necessary prerequisite.

[hrothgar]

I think the reason some people are reacting so vehemently to the claim "it's not innate" is that to many people this is interpreted as "it's a choice". Or worse, that it's "caused" by too much exposure to gay culture, which has been used as justification for discrimination against gays (e.g. until civil rights laws were enacted, schools would routinely prohibit gay teachers). But as indicated in those quotes, it's not anywhere close to that simple.

 

 

My understanding is that the issue is two fold

 

1. This idea is WRONG

2. If sexual orientation is a choice, then the "wrong choice" can be beaten out of you...

[mikeh]

Warning: If I see the word "stupid" (or similar) used to refer to another poster again, I'm shutting down this thread. Ad hominem or not, personal attacks and insults are not acceptable here.

OK, mea culpa.

 

Despicable is ok, tho?

 

:P

[kenberg]

I think the reason some people are reacting so vehemently to the claim "it's not innate" is that to many people this is interpreted as "it's a choice". Or worse, that it's "caused" by too much exposure to gay culture, which has been used as justification for discrimination against gays (e.g. until civil rights laws were enacted, schools would routinely prohibit gay teachers). But as indicated in those quotes, it's not anywhere close to that simple.

 

Sexual orientation is innate in much the same way that intelligence and height are. You could have the genes to be tall, but if you're malnourished during your childhood you probably won't be. You could have genes for high intelligence, but if you don't get a decent education you probably won't exhibit it.

 

But if you have the Down Syndrome gene, you're not likely to become a genius no matter how good the school you go to is. Similarly, if you don't have the genetic tendency towards homosexualilty, no cultural factors are likely to make you gay.

 

Genetics is just one factor that goes into a person's physical and personality makeup. But for many attributes, it's a necessary prerequisite.

 

 

In a case I know quite well, a mother of a gay woman regards it as very important that no choice is involved. She is a good Catholic, she wishes her daughter to be a good Catholic. If her daughter were to choose the gay lifestyle, this would be a serious sin. if there is no choice in the matter, then she can see this as not a sin.

 

I absolutely do not mean to take her to task for this. She has a daughter who is gay, she wants desperately to reconcile this with her religion, this is her path.

 

I know another woman who faced the same issue. She gave up on her church. If her daughter is someone the church sees as a sinner, she will find a church that sees it differently. She is still religious, but she has made changes.

 

People have to deal with their lives. I know some would say that the answer is simple, just scrap religion. I did exactly that in my early adolescence. But this way is not for everyone.

 

At any rate, in the two cases I mention and maybe in others if I gave it some thought, seeing it as innate (and yes, this is equated to not having a choice) is driven by religious needs.

[Vampyr]

 

At any rate, in the two cases I mention and maybe in others if I gave it some thought, seeing it as innate (and yes, this is equated to not having a choice) is driven by religious needs.

 

Most of the gay people I know are atheists. But then, I know very few people who are not atheist.

[kenberg]

Most of the gay people I know are atheists. But then, I know very few people who are not atheist.

 

You gotta get around more :)

[nige1]

I think the reason some people are reacting so vehemently to the claim "it's not innate" is that to many people this is interpreted as "it's a choice". Or worse, that it's "caused" by too much exposure to gay culture, which has been used as justification for discrimination against gays (e.g. until civil rights laws were enacted, schools would routinely prohibit gay teachers). But as indicated in those quotes, it's not anywhere close to that simple.

Sexual orientation is innate in much the same way that intelligence and height are. You could have the genes to be tall, but if you're malnourished during your childhood you probably won't be. You could have genes for high intelligence, but if you don't get a decent education you probably won't exhibit it.

But if you have the Down Syndrome gene, you're not likely to become a genius no matter how good the school you go to is. Similarly, if you don't have the genetic tendency towards homosexualilty, no cultural factors are likely to make you gay.

Genetics is just one factor that goes into a person's physical and personality makeup. But for many attributes, it's a necessary prerequisite.

The following is speculation, unsubstantiated by evidence or argument from the web or elsewhere:

 

Genes influence human characteristics, including predisposition to most tastes and behaviours. As far as sex is concerned, there seems to be an innate general sex-drive -- an urge to obtain sexual release in any convenient way. Also an innate heterosexual orientation. What about other sexual manifestations and orientations like sado-masochism, homosexuality and fetishism? Sado-masochistic impulses might well be innate but is there a distinct genotype behind every shade of gray? Some kinds of homosexual orientation might be innate in other species but what about in man?

 

How does this kind of argument relate to the genesis of other human behaviour? e.g. Are some belief-systems innate? Human beings appear to be born mathematicians and scientists. Is there is an innate mathematics-drive to relentlessly seek out pattern -- to mentally construct models of reality? Consciousness might be the ability to include ourselves as distinct active agents in such models. Is there an innate science-drive to encourage us to check those models, inducing "laws" from further observation and experiment? Such knowledge aids survival.

 

Given any random set of dots on a piece of paper, however, a human will mentally organise them into shapes and symmetries. Might this partially account for the genesis of superstition and religion? Also, arguably, in order to make conscious moral decisions, we must rely on unproveable hypotheses. because there is no other logical path from "is" to "ought". Religious preferences are passed from generation to generation, reinforced by social interaction, often before the convert is old enough for rational thought. Religious belief usually relies on blind-faith rather than conscious choice (although the purity of the line is sometimes preserved by the practice of culling apostates). Nevertheless, countless people have died for their religions in crusades or as martyrs. Even today, Islam fundamentalists enthusiastically sacrifice themselves, in the hope that by so-doing, they can kill those of rival beliefs.

 

Does all this mean that religious-beliefs are innate? Does the willingness of believers to die (and to kill) for their beliefs have any bearing on the existence of religious genotypes? Is Atheism just another irrational belief or is it roughly equivalent to asexuality? Is there a "chosen" race? Does each religious preference depend on a separate genotype? Although it might be possible, it all seems a bit unlikely, for several reasons e.g. there are many different religions/sects and they "mutate" unfeasibly quickly: It's hard for a non-theologian to work out the precise philosophical difference between competing factions (e.g. Catholic-Protestant, Sunni-Shia). Anyway, many regard religious-beliefs as an acquired characteristic (although, conceivably, they might be mistaken).

 

Similar arguments can be made about whether there are distinct genotypes underlying other preferences (e.g. like/dislike of Marmite or sprouts). If so, to what extent do genes determine preferences, compared with environmental influences? More research might help to resolve such issues.

[mikeh]

The following is speculation, unsubstantiated by evidence or argument from the web or elsewhere:

 

size="2"]Is Atheism just another irrational belief or is it roughly equivalent to asexuality? [/size]

 

I don't want to be banned or see the thread closed, therefore I shall let the 'thinking' behind this absurd proposition stand for itself, lol.

 

Ok, I can't stand it. lol. Atheism is the absence of belief....it is not that I believe there is no God. After all, while it seems improbable that there is, and vanishingly impossible that, if there is, it matches the description of any god invented by humans, it isn't possible to prove that no god-like entity, whatever that means, exists. No, I do not believe in the absence of god....I just don't possess any belief in its existence. This proposition, so straightforward to most secular people, seems somehow to be beyond the ability of most religious believers to grasp.

[barmar]

Does all this mean that religious-beliefs are innate?

In fact, many scientists think that the tendency to believe in some form of religion is a part of human nature. Religion has been part of almost all human societies for as long as we know. There are many ways in which it improved the condition of primitive human societies. It also likely comes from our ability and need to recognize cause and effect -- before we had sufficient understanding of science, we attributes the "cause" of things in nature to supernatural beings in our own image, because we were the only thing we could imagine that could create such complexity.

 

Similarly, a craving for sugar and the propensity to overeat when food was plentiful was also critical to humans at that time. But with modern lifestyles, it leads to type 2 diabetes. Our genes are littered with needs and tendencies that served us well thousands of years ago, but are now obsolete.

[Vampyr]

The following is speculation, unsubstantiated by evidence or argument from the web or elsewhere:

 

Genes influence human characteristics, including predisposition to most tastes and behaviours. As far as sex is concerned, there seems to be an innate general sex-drive -- an urge to obtain sexual release in any convenient way. Also an innate heterosexual orientation.

 

"Innate"? So we all have it? Including homosexuals?

[nige1]

In fact, many scientists think that the tendency to believe in some form of religion is a part of human nature. Religion has been part of almost all human societies for as long as we know. There are many ways in which it improved the condition of primitive human societies. It also likely comes from our ability and need to recognize cause and effect -- before we had sufficient understanding of science, we attributes the "cause" of things in nature to supernatural beings in our own image, because we were the only thing we could imagine that could create such complexity.

 

Similarly, a craving for sugar and the propensity to overeat when food was plentiful was also critical to humans at that time. But with modern lifestyles, it leads to type 2 diabetes. Our genes are littered with needs and tendencies that served us well thousands of years ago, but are now obsolete.

Completely agree. That fits my speculation. It's also realistic to allow that "there are more things in heaven and earth..." But is there evidence for separate genotypes for specific beliefs?

[nige1]

"Innate"? So we all have it? Including homosexuals?

IMO there's a heterosexual-orientation genotype. Some argue that homosexual-orientation is innate. Is there persuasive evidence for a human homosexual-orientation genotype?

[hrothgar]

I agree -- that fits my speculation. But is there evidence for separate genotyopes for specific beliefs?

 

Depends what you mean by "specific"

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/

[barmar]

Completely agree. That fits my speculation. It's also realistic to allow that "there are more things in heaven and earth..." But is there evidence for separate genotyopes for specific beliefs?

It might be difficult to determine this. The predominant religion in Asia is Hinduism, which I think is more spiritual and less "prescriptive" than western religions. And there's clearly a number of genes that are predominant in Asian people (producing smooth black hair, flatter faces, epicanthic fold), so there's an obvious Asian genotype. But does the correlation come from genetics or thousands of years of shared culture?

[RMB1]

Why does it matter is sexual orientation is innate or choice?

Most people choose who they sleep with, who they live with, who they marry.

Why do we care if some people are going to choose people of the same sex (or sometimes people of the same sex)?

[MrAce]

Why does it matter is sexual orientation is innate or choice?

Most people choose who they sleep with, who they live with, who they marry.

Why do we care if some people are going to choose people of the same sex (or sometimes people of the same sex)?

 

To those of us who don't care who other people sleep with, have sex with and marry to, it does not matter whether it is innate or not. But you know very well that it matters to a lot of people in the world and we can not pretend like everyone see it as "it does not matter"

.

Now back to your question why it does matter to them whether it is innate or not

 

A logical person would think that religious people would be more tolerable to homosexuals if they knew that it is innate . This is common sense but a very naive expectation imo.. Among multiple reasons, the most powerful reason is, in my own opinion, if it is accepted as "innate" it leads to accepting that the person had no choice and if you are a believer it means that it is given by GOD. Now this is one hell of a big brown and smelly thing for a believer to accept and swallow. Shortly accepting it to be innate contradicts with all the other jambo mambos a believer has already accepted to be true. It threatens the main fundamental structure of what they believe. It is yet another smack on the face about the image of GOD for them. It is acceptable ONLY if those people are sick and there is some sort of disorder about them or they chose to be sinners. Basically it is more about their image of their GOD and about themselves rather than being about homosexuals. And as a result they will argue to death that it is not innate despite the science. As we witnessed in this very topic.

 

If it is chosen by a person and not innate, they will still hate/judge that person but not as much as they would hate when it is decided to be godgiven. Even the idea of it terrorizes them.

[kenberg]

There is an excellent chance that this is of interst to no one but me but I figure that as along as I don't call anyone a moron I am home free.

 

My wife Becky knows that I liked Jennifer Beals in Flashdance so she mentioned that she will be in a tv show called Proof . The story involves confronting the possibility of life after death. Actually the story-line sounds a bit far-fetched but I like Ms. Beals and it is being directed by Kyra Sedgwick who I also like.

 

This gave me an opportunity to read about Ms. Beals. Her father was African American, her mother Irish American. After her father died her mother married Edward Cohen and I will guessing that he was Jewish. So she has a varied background.

 

Under personal life the Wik says:

Beals has described herself as a "spiritual person".^[37] She has expressed interest in The Bible and Catholicism, as well as Judaism, which she once considered conversion to, and is a practicing Buddhist.

 

As to the other theme of this thread, we find

She has been a vocal advocate for gay rights saying, "I think after playing Bette Porter on The L Word for six years I felt like an honorary member of the community.

 

She also likes kickboxing and ballet. I doubt anyone finds this woman dull.

 

Anyway, I know nothing of the series but it's a relaxed day, I just blew several hands at bridge, and I thought I would mention it.