Well name one environmental factor that could honestly turn you gay?

No , there aren't any. It's genetic

Your jeans are very gay

I found out something of a buddy Orlando yesterday...
(We're not friends in the sense that we're close... we see each other frequently and make pleasant conversation... and then part our ways.)

He has a son.

That shocked me because he's gay as gay can be... plus a bag of gay-flavored-chips.
He had him when he was 16 and still figuring out his sexual identity.

Anyways,
the son grew up with the mom. He never told his son that he was gay, but a few days ago... his son told him that he was gay after his graduation. The son was afraid to tell his mom.

Orlando's son still doesn't know that Orlando is gay (although, I can't see why not...)
Now, I won't say this is a gene...

but I will say that if we have to lean one way of the nature versus nurture argument, I think the inclination should be on the nature part of it.

Infertile women can't reproduce. Should they be deprived of marriage?

At 5/25/09 09:39 PM, fli wrote: That shocked me because he's gay as gay can be... plus a bag of gay-flavored-chips.

i should really start recording awesome quotes.

At 5/25/09 05:25 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 5/25/09 05:21 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I personally think homosexuality is not genetic. I believe it all has to do in the environment you grew up in. Either that or it's a choice thing.

But how you interpret your environment and the choices you make are affected by your genes.
So isn't it both?

well you do have a point but the enviorment you grew up in can also affect the choices you make and how you interperet things

i would lean towards enviromental influences, i know a few lesbians and from speaking with them would go as far to say that suffering abuse from older male authority figures from early puberty onwards untill they "rebel" into lesbianism. Gay couples i know tend to fall into dominant and subordinate relationships with a "Bitch" and a "Butch" figure head (mirroring there hetrosexual counterparts) which can be potrayed either with charecter or physical traits.

Though having said that genetics could play a part also, Bonobo Chimps fuck each other senceless and engage in samesex forplay and intercouse when greeting eachother or getting excited over other outside influences or stimulae.

Would somebody like to explain to me how ANY social or cultural situation could POSSIBLY turn a heterosexual male such as myself gay?

I mean, does anybody presenting that argument REALLY think they could turn gay if they wanted to?

At 5/26/09 09:49 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Would somebody like to explain to me how ANY social or cultural situation could POSSIBLY turn a heterosexual male such as myself gay?

A cultural influence would be the most plausible, to which a social influence would naturally be attached. We're aware of the myriad of cultures on this planet, and it wouldn't be too far-fetched to consider one that is tolerant or encouraing of homosexuality. I don't have a specific example that could turn you personally gay, but one can be most certainly be out there. Again, if you were raised in a particular culture, it'd be much easier for you.

I mean, does anybody presenting that argument REALLY think they could turn gay if they wanted to?

I doubt that it would be a sudden decision. Like I don't believe you wake up one day, have breakfast, and on your way to work all of a sudden you think to yourself "Gee, I'd like some dick today." No, more likely than not it's a gradual process that spans years ifit's not a cultural or social occurence. But ultimately I can only speak for myself, as I'm not gay, so I could be full of it.

Not too long ago a scienist found the gay gene. It's when you are born to be male and your Y hormones overpowers your X hormones in stead of the other way around, causing you to act like a fairy.

Same goes for gay women.

It's also a recessive gene, so if a gay guy pumps into a tube for the sperm bank; the woman who picks it up might have a gay baby.

It can also be caught, like a deadly disease. If you are raised my two parents of the same gender (especially if you are the same gender as them) theory proves that the chances of you turning homo are substancially increased.

However, regular men can also become faggots by having their opinions forced too much on them by homophobic parents.Teenage angst really.

At 5/27/09 05:29 AM, Strategize wrote: Not too long ago a scienist found the gay gene.

no they didn't.

At 5/27/09 05:29 AM, Strategize wrote: Not too long ago a scienist found the gay gene. It's when you are born to be male and your Y hormones overpowers your X hormones in stead of the other way around, causing you to act like a fairy.

so when the male chromosome (y) overpowers the female chromosome (x) a man is born more feminine? this no compute.

At 5/27/09 12:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 5/27/09 05:29 AM, Strategize wrote: Not too long ago a scienist found the gay gene. It's when you are born to be male and your Y hormones overpowers your X hormones in stead of the other way around, causing you to act like a fairy.

so when the male chromosome (y) overpowers the female chromosome (x) a man is born more feminine? this no compute.

Say again:

"It's when you are born to be male and your Y hormones overpowers your X hormones in stead of the other way around, causing you to act like a fairy."

"It's when you are born to be male and your Y HORMONES overpowers your X HORMONES in stead of the other way around, causing you to act like a fairy."

You know jack shit about genes, huh? No worries, You are forgiven. Just don´t ever, ever, EVER again be present in the politics forum. Remove yourself as quickly and quietly as possible from politics, and I swear no action shall be taken against you.

But seriously. Assuming that queers are more "emotional" than the average man, more "empathetical" than the average man, then there is perfectly reasonable ground to assume that a string of genes are present in fags, that causes them to act more "feminine". That much makes a bit more genetic sense, to me, than to say "Oh, fags are the way they are, cause, you know, they have this, possibly defect, specific gene that makes them fags!". As for lesbians, I actually haven´t got a clue. Maybe they have triple chromosomes, something like XXY. Hey, what if ALL homosexuals have some kind of extra chromosomes that affect their sexual disposition? Now there´s a thought.

All of the above bitching and ranting is not to be directed at Sol. Sol has had his fair share of bitching and ranting for this week, you could say he has filled his quota. Which just so happens to be perfectly zero. He is, after all, the one true deity.

At 5/27/09 02:15 PM, zephiran wrote: Say again:

after much searching, i found no references to y or x hormones anywhere except for this site. enlighten me or go fuck yourself you pompous ass.

At 5/26/09 09:49 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Would somebody like to explain to me how ANY social or cultural situation could POSSIBLY turn a heterosexual male such as myself gay?

I mean, does anybody presenting that argument REALLY think they could turn gay if they wanted to?

Homosexual charms will sway you. After all, it's fairy magic.

MuHaHaHa...

At 5/27/09 03:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 5/27/09 02:15 PM, zephiran wrote: Say again:

after much searching, i found no references to y or x hormones anywhere except for this site. enlighten me or go fuck yourself you pompous ass.

Oh buggerations that post of mine became a structural failwreck. I´m sorry for offending you dude, you were not the person I tried to humiliate. I made an attempt at ridiculing Strategizes statement (probably a bad idea to begin with, you really shouldn´t feed the troll, and I REALLY ought to know better than to do so), but it ended up looking as if I was making a mockery out of your "poor" genetics skillz. And I made myself look like a bloody fool too. What I really meant to bring forth in that post was that Strategize had no clue whatsoever about how genes and genetics work, and that there was no mystery why none of his statements made little to no sense.

A formal apology on my behalf is in it´s rightful order:

I sincerely apologise, SolInvictus. It was never my intention to attack you or your statement, yet I came off as appearing to do so. For this, I am truly sorry.

Will you forgive me? Or do I have to perform certain "services" to make amends?

Back to back, like an old buddy of mine used to do in tetris. That thing I said about how surplus gender chromosomes might have something to do with homosexuality? Yeah, I can´t find anything that would even remotely support this statement, so that hypothesis is pretty much out the window.

well gays have been a long time from now, loads of greks were bisexual

yuck!

At 5/28/09 02:02 PM, zephiran wrote: I sincerely apologise, SolInvictus. It was never my intention to attack you or your statement, yet I came off as appearing to do so. For this, I am truly sorry.

its all right, i was afraid i had missed some sarcasm after i posted my response.

i had a feeling something was up with that post.

I personally think it has to do with a variety of factors...
1. Gay gene(s).
The gene(s) that control hormones throughout developement, before and after birth, have a chance of being programmed to release to much of one hormone or not enough of another. This would upset the chemical balance and result in varying stages of sexual preference.
2. Starting point.
Since we start in the middle and then move to either a boy or a girl, it's possible for the body to develope one direction and the mind another, resulting in a "trapped in the wrong body" situation, to varying degrees. This could result in simple homosexuality, gender confusion, an operation to correct the situation, or any number of steps inbetween.
3. Choice.
Naturally we all have the right to make any choice at all regarding our preferences, (save non-consent or child abuse (possibly some others...)) and any number of reasons could be given to choose homosexuality. Abuse by the opposite sex, being exposed to and experimenting with it and finding it more enjoyable, etc.

So homosexuality could be caused by any or all of these conditions, and probably several others.

The 3 most Viable theories (well at least to me) are

1. It is due to hormones getting messed up whilst the Baby is in the womb and that whether the hormones get to the right place and that it is completely Nature a pure mess up (Sources on this: Bruce becomes Brenda and researches in Sweden cutting up Transexual brains)

2. Sigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality: that all human beings are innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others

3 Genetics it's all in your genes...

The most recent studies on gay twins I could find show that if one identical twin is gay, the other is gay about 50% of the time (should be close to 100% if it was purely genetic), while fraternal twins (who share about 50% of their genetics with each other but are raised in essentially the same environment) are both gay about 20% of the time, and adopted siblings are both gay about 10% of the time, showing that environmental factors also play a role in homosexuality.

In conclusion, it's a mix of genetics and upbringing.

I heard they just discovered its not

so all you homos can go soak your heads

At 5/29/09 09:28 PM, Grammer wrote: WHY DO YOU PEOPLE ARGUE WITH HIM IF IT'S SO OBVIOUS HE'S A TROLL

I MEAN, FUCK

Don't type in all caps, it's not making your point any clearer. Seriously.

I don't tend to think he's a troll, I think he's just a bit of a dumbass, therefore I feel free to debate him until he slithers away in defeat (which has happened more then a few times, and this seems like evidence to me he's not just a troll)

At 5/13/09 11:25 PM, EmoNarc wrote: I don't claim to know much about politics. Neither do I claim knowledge of science. And it certainly beats me how a scientific question became political. But the following is a fallacy I've been thinking about for quite some time that -- while I don't claim it to be profound -- has been bothering me: If homosexuality is genetic, then why does homosexuality exist? I mean, those who are homosexual have a huge disadvantage in passing their gay genes to the next generation, so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

Homosexuality is genetic. Why it exists is something we can not answer. Some species have a trait where "helpers" exist. They can help raise the young, but do not procreate themselves. The benefit to the species is apparent, even as the individual doesn't procreate. Usually though the "helper" is related, so a portion of their genes is being passed on to a new generation (that which they share with their parents). This could mean that the family that has "helpers" is more prone to have a larger amount of offspring that survive to maturity (thanks to the "helper") so that the genetic trait of "helping" when one can't find a mate continues.

It's all just theory. Evolution isn't perfect, so there is no "why" except random occurance, but if you want to know how it continues in the species, consider all the diseases humans can have. Many diseases are genetic, someone may be born autistic or with weak bones, or diabetes. These things can kill a person or ruin their chance of ever procreating, yet there are enough people that do manage anyway, and many times it is recessive enough that maybe only one out of several children will be born with the recessive trait, and the same for their children. In this way, the harmful genetics will never go away, and the same could be said for homosexuality, you have enough kids, and one of them is gay, the other kids may have kids, and one of those kids might be gay, but the others have kids, and so on. Also many gay people have kids anyway.

There's evidence that homosexuality is genetic, but not enough to draw any conclusions.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in many other mammals, but scientists are often afraid to report these claims until they had tenure, so there may be even more animals with homosexual behavior that have gone unreported. Since we are evolutionarily related to these mammals and you have this correlation, this could imply a genetic link. It would be difficult to explain such a correlation without genetics. But this is not enough evidence to strongly conclude anything, though it is a perplexing bit of evidence for anyone arguing homosexuality is not genetic.

Source: Thirteen Things That Do Not Make Sense (Homosexuality was not one of them; this was actually in the chapter concerning how sex evolved in the first place.)

At 5/23/09 03:54 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Um, no? Genes are things that determine physical characteristics, what ailments you may or may not be prone to. You're giving genes far too much credit here.

That's funny, considering you failed to give them credit for things that allow you to live period. You know, your organs. Your brain is an organ right? Thought so.

Yes, you really will, because it is YOU who doesn't understand what you're talking about and you're giving genes far more credit then they deserve in terms of the makeup of an individual. The mere fact that life experience can change how people view the world around them PROVES that it is not all down to what you're genes tell you at birth.

I will then. Life experience is different for everyone. Why? Your genes tell you how to interact from that. If life decided how you were affected, everyone would look at a painting and see the same thing. The mere fact that we're different at all proves that all of our mental processes and thought patterns stem from genetics.

Again, without them you wouldn't be here. That little fact right there makes everything that organisms do genetic.

There is an element of nature vs. nurture, but this is NOT a genetic dichotomy. This is an instinct vs. intellect argument. BOTH of which form their basis thanks to genetic evolution. That's how animals exist.

I think I'm beginning to grasp what you're saying here, that because genes are the starting point everything therefore must come from genes by default but this is really an oversimplification of very complicated processes and the way the human animal and indeed other creatures on the planet develop.

Yeah that is what I'm saying. And it's not simple, did you just call simple a gene? Please. I'm sorry if I made it sound simple because it isn't, the way your genes interpret things, the way your brain functions, isn't even understood yet. Same can be said about everything. So perhaps an oversimplification is necessary to understand the big picture.

There is no gay gene. But its still not a choice. Its just your preference. Can you explain why you choose PS3 over the Wii (or vice versa) or why your faverite color is ______? Nope. Its just how you are, and nobody knows why.

Think about all the things that you prefer and try and figure out why. You don't consiously make the desicion, its based on who you are.

At 5/30/09 06:44 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: That's funny, considering you failed to give them credit for things that allow you to live period. You know, your organs. Your brain is an organ right? Thought so.

As I understand it, that's not genetics, that's just the most basic bits of DNA that make those things possible. Anybody really good with science here that can correct me if I'm wrong? You're trying to boil everything back to genetics but because you don't have a great grip on this sort of science you're making assumptions as fact that just aren't the case. You can't be ruled by biological or genetic processes and we know you can choose not to be in the very simple realm of reproduction. According to your genes, they want to be passed, they want you to reproduce. You only exist to pass on your parents genes, but people can, and do conciously choose NOT to do so. You're reaching on this one and you're not doing a very good job of it. Genes don't determine everything.

I will then. Life experience is different for everyone. Why? Your genes tell you how to interact from that. If life decided how you were affected, everyone would look at a painting and see the same thing. The mere fact that we're different at all proves that all of our mental processes and thought patterns stem from genetics.

How? Again you aren't giving me any evidence to prove this. Also don't most people look at a painting and see the same thing? I mean, is there anybody looking at the Mona Lisa and not seeing it as the painting of a severe yet pretty french woman? The only thing that's debated is her famous smile. That's not genetics though, that's common patterns of recognition, it comes down to how we've been taught to label and process information. Also I think you're getting genetics (which is specific familial traits passed on) confused with basic human DNA (which of course genetics are a part of, but not the whole, I'm talking about the very most basic bits). DNA forms the brain and what it can do, but what you are taught during the course of your life will determine how you label things. Plato had an interesting allegory about this, but I'll make it simpler. Let's say we have a child that walks up to the Mona Lisa, you're standing there and you ask the child what they see, and they say they see a dog. You're curious as to why the child says that when it's clearly a woman and what you find out is that the child at a very young age was told by their parents that you label a woman as a dog. Kids learn what the names and labels for things are by what they pick up from their parents, it's how we learn language too, we mimic. We're blank slates when born, we have the capacity and ability to receive knowledge, but it's not inherent. If you're taught to label something (in this case the female form) with a label (in this case, the word dog) in a way that's different from society, then yes, life experience has made it possible for this child to look at the same thing, and label it differently then 99% of the population. Argument defeated.

Again, without them you wouldn't be here. That little fact right there makes everything that organisms do genetic.

No it doesn't, you're reaching again and you're thinking genetics is the be all end all in building an organism, no it isn't, there's still the basic road map built into DNA that isn't genetic in nature.

Yeah that is what I'm saying. And it's not simple, did you just call simple a gene? Please. I'm sorry if I made it sound simple because it isn't, the way your genes interpret things, the way your brain functions, isn't even understood yet. Same can be said about everything. So perhaps an oversimplification is necessary to understand the big picture.

No, we actually do understand how these things work pretty well. Just because you and other layman (of which I also am one) aren't entirely sure how stuff works doesn't mean nobody knows. By oversimplification my point is that you're trying to say only one factor in the complicated process of creating a human being in both physical and mental characteristics, which includes personality, is all down to one factor. THAT is an oversimplification, and worse, it's just plain WRONG.

At 5/31/09 01:06 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
As I understand it, that's not genetics, that's just the most basic bits of DNA

same diff

How? Again you aren't giving me any evidence to prove this.

Uhm. The process of birth?

No it doesn't, you're reaching again and you're thinking genetics is the be all end all in building an organism, no it isn't, there's still the basic road map built into DNA that isn't genetic in nature.

Explain to me then the difference between DNA and genes.

Genes are just in the sex organs I suppose?

No, we actually do understand how these things work pretty well.

Yeah. Just pretty well. You're satisfied with that? I'm not.

Just because you and other layman (of which I also am one) aren't entirely sure how stuff works doesn't mean nobody knows. By oversimplification my point is that you're trying to say only one factor in the complicated process of creating a human being in both physical and mental characteristics, which includes personality, is all down to one factor. THAT is an oversimplification, and worse, it's just plain WRONG.

Universe began at one point, didn't it? We grow from one point. What's so wrong about that?

At 5/31/09 02:42 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: same diff

In some respects. But it still doesn't help your point because you're still discounting environmental factors.

Uhm. The process of birth?

Nope, also you've completely ignored my very simple explanation about how environmental processes can teach people to define their environment in a way that is abnormal from others.

Yeah. Just pretty well. You're satisfied with that? I'm not.

I'm satisfied with my understanding enough to feel that yours is flawed here and that you're putting too much stock into biology as the be all end all answer.

Universe began at one point, didn't it? We grow from one point. What's so wrong about that?

Now I just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Also, our whole tangent here is horribly off the main topic about homosexuality now and has become a nature vs. nurture in GENERAL argument. Which is not what this topic is about. So I suggest we wrap it up, or take it somewhere else so as not to distract from the main point anymore.