Gay Parenting

[furie]

Okay Joey, just to put this straight ( ), I don't entirely disagree with your argument. I completely agree that there can be such a huge number of factors that dictate the way that we develop. The problem is purely that there's no evidence to point in any direction...

The thing that blurs the issue is that there's no clear collection of data. While estimates are 15% of people are homosexual, there are also "findings" that around 10% of people just don't care in a true bisexual sense.

You're right that we tend to try and mimic what we see as we grow up, and for those 10%, then they will almost certainly be more comfortable going "the way of their parents". It's not a choice, it's just a preference - like an ambidextrous person may favour one hand over another because the world makes life easier to be one way or the other (right handed ). Eventually habit and comfort make you unaware there was perhaps another way you could have gone.

Jake also brings up a good point. Under a highly emotional, psychological trauma, then I think that things like sexuality can be determined. It's not something that is common though, and it's certainly not something that I'd hope is relevant to the discussion about parenting At an age where you're emotionally vulnerable, then your psychological profile can be twisted into a psychosis. I doubt anyone that has ever been under the stress of rape or molestation will ever have a truly natural/normal attitude towards sex anyway -hmmm, if there is such a thing.

As for "sexual yearnings", I can remember being attracted to girls at a young age. Catching a glimpse of a naked woman on TV or something made it feel like the pit of my stomach was diving through the earth. I recently read Simon Pegg's autobiography, and he describes the same feelings at the same kind of age (7/8) and oddly over the same woman (Carrie Fisher). I know Ben has also described similar feelings over seeing men/boys at a young age. I'd be interested to know if there are any others here who have had it, but I always assumed (which means I must have some source of recognised group experience to draw from) that most people get these sudden yearnings and feelings before they have the emotional/biological capacity to understand or deal with them? Of course I may be wrong on this front and the three of us mentioned are the minority here :lol:

So anyway, I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying and Kim is right that it's an ambiguous argument you can't really have because nobody knows enough to be able to formulate a real argument for or against. There are gay people, there are straight people, there bisexuals and there are people with massive sexual issues. The only thing we can say for certain is that the latter group tend to be caused by psychological issues. The rest? My gut says that it's inherent because the majority of people just react completely naturally to their sexual awakenings and are (I think) aware of it before they're intellectually aware that there is a sexual world outside of their bodies.

 

[Intricks]

I love my dad's believe that "gay parents make gay kids". Well, based on that logic, he's gay

Just because a=b doesnt mean b=a. It makes logical sense that all kids brought up by gay parents turn out gay, but there are other things that can cause gayness too. A bit like how, all.. humans are mammals but not al mammals are human.

But, back to seriousness and not pettyness... I think there is a lot of truth in what your dad ignorantly believes. I think kids are, ultimately, mostly the product of their parents 90% of the time, and to be anything else takes a colossal spanner in the works and a very strong personality. I think that's depressingly rare. Most people are the religion of their parents, have the same political stance and share many personality characteristics with them.

I DO NOT think all kids brought up by gay parents would turn out gay, but I do think it would be a higher number than compared to straight couples. I think the very fact that homosexuality is on the rise as society becomes more accepting is evidence enough of this. It's not just down to people "coming out", it's down to people actually having different personalities, feelings and such BECAUSE of society changing. If parents are accepting and encouraging of any thought, feeling, behaviour it will grow, and not being accepting from day 1 will usually cause the child not to be too.

The fundamental question is, is this a bad thing? I don't see why it is. The only problem with being gay is how society treats gay individuals.

Here is your original post (for those too lazy to go back and read it). You have one set of beliefs, I have another. I horridly worded my opinion as compared to yours, and you called me "the stupidest person on the forums" (in a nutshell) that only has a black and white view of things and responds before thinking.

Joey, the problem is absolutely to do with the way to present your argument. You were insulting to Intricks and presented your argument as solid fact. That is why people got so wound up. Look...

Intricks deserves the insult because in every single topic where he's replied to me, he's twisted my words from the outset and thought in the most black and white manner. If you look at my ORIGINAL post, BEFORE intricks wound me up, there was no such problem. So, for the record, intricks and I have were having an argument where I deemed his inability to look at what I was saying without assuming it was negative BEFORE this topic. He presents the same kind of opinion in every topic. The issue is that when someone says "homosexuality is not a choice" (which, I never did, but for the purpose of this explanation lets use it because it's the best one) people seem to think that = "I hate gays and believe they should have no rights!!"

At the end there, you ask to be shown "some scientific evidence". Above you state your belief that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. Yet you lay that out as a conclusion to your thought process, yet back it up with no evidence.

That all happened after people were already assuming what I was saying and arguing against points I never made. But anyway...

You made your points then, and they reacted to your points. Your taking agreeing to someone elses opinion on the matter and seemingly taking as offense when they disagree with yours and state something else...or you tell them you misunderstood what has been going on when it seems to be you misunderstanding everyone else.

The problem with the rest of your point is that any "non choice" element of homosexuality would require scientific proof. The points I were making don't/can't be proved in the same way, because they are to do with the mind. It's reasonable to ask for proof of the geneticness of homosexuality if someone is going to assert it as a fact. I wasn't asserting anything as a fact, I was challenging everyone else who was doing it.

Who made the argument of it being genetic? I know people have said choice, someone else said you are born that way, others said something different. Also, where is YOUR scientific proof that outside influences are major in determining ones sexuality? Hell, look at your first post (quoted)! You are trying to claim an observation as a fact, when it most likely isnt (kids behaving like their parents, having same political/religious views). I agree that kids mimic their parents, but only at a young age. We, as humans, want to be different from everyone else. We hate similarity, and we enjoy our own uniqueness. While an adult may have some of their parents characteristics, morals and personality traits, they also have their friends, strangers and societal trend traits as well. Thats my opinion on that matter.

As for the "I don't care" comment... Does that not suggest that it is of no relevance what causes homosexuality? And then you start to think "oh, I wonder why if Joey has this point of view is everyone arguing at him, maybe we should go back and see if Intricks had any reason to get wound up".

My pov actually has a lot more scientific evidence behind it anyway. There isn't enough evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is just genetic. Homosexuality should be thought of as a symptom of various "problems", for want of a better term. In nature, it is primarily documented as a behavioural thing in social animals, NOT as a "genetic" thing.

They apparently have a seperate opinion from yourself, and are arguing against your opinion of the matter, just like I do. You have all this claim of "black and white" viewing everyone else is doing, and even had the balls to claim to be the most OPEN MINDED person here. You clearly arent if you are getting this worked up by a different opinion than your own.

Again, I ask you, WHAT scientific evidence has there been? I dont believe it is genetic, but I believe our mind is wired that way rather. "Homosexuality should be thought of as a symptom of various "problems", for want of a better term.". Note, bad wording on your end as that sounds more like a religious 'its a curable disease' statement than what you actually mean. You meant something along the lines of "homosexuality should be thought of as an occurance based on outside infulences and major events in one life"? Corrdct me if Im wrong, but that is what your statement reads as to me.

a = hetero male, b = hetero female, c = gay male, d = gay female.

We know (using rough figures from studies) that around 15% of the population is gay. In terms of couples bringing up children, we know that:
a+b = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
a = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
b = 85% a/b and 15% c/d

We have no other evidence at all. You're suggesting (for example) that:
c + c = 80% a/b and 20% c/d
d + d = 80% a/b and 20% c/d

What we would expect though is that if parental factors caused sexual preference changes, above we'd see:
a+b = 85% a/b and 15% c/d
a = 80% a/b and 15% of c/d and 5% of a who never really have a sexual preference.
b = 80% a/b and 15% c/d and 5% of b who never really have a sexual preference.

Wait, "and 5% of b who never really have a sexual preference."? I'm **** with reading data in this format, so if I misunderstood, correct me... But, your argument is based on the idea that 5% of people should have "no sexual preference"? Erm, they'd not be gay, but they wouldn't lack a "sexual preference?" That's like saying that if someone never became depressed, they's completely lack a personality. I don't even know where to begin with this it's so stupid. I must have misunderstood your argument. So I'll let you re-explain, lmao.

Im not going to touch the mathematics behind this, but "lack of a sexual preference" here doesnt mean asexual, but mosy likely bisexual. Dont twist words mr. kettle :lol:

Okay, the numbers are made up, but that is the logical kind of play through of your theory. We should see variations depending on parental upbringing, but we don't have figures to support any of this, yet we do know that the majority of people have a sexual preference that is inherent from when they are incredibly young. Whatever the sexuality switch is, it's turned on very early.

Really? See, I'd have thought from just worldly experience and speaking to people that most people first are attracted to others at around puberty age. So I wanna know how we "know that the majority of people" are turned on, as you put it, earlier.

Its easy to understand what he was implying. As a kid, you lean towards whatever makes you happy and feel good. He explained it further in his retort to you.

Of course, we do have evidence that you can't "reverse" sexuality. Programs designed to turn gay men to heterosexual ones invariably fail, and the ones that succeed are due to psychological and sexual repression rather than "removing gayness". No evidence points towards a psychological environmental factor creating sexual preference.

You seem to miss the point that my entire point is that homosexuality has a variety of causes. One exception to your rule (me? I'll do) would prove my point. So that's all we need.

But it doesnt set the rule or standard, as it seems you are once again implying. What were the outside influences that made you switch from girls to boys? Based on your argument alone, we coukd easily assume that under the proper circumstances and influences, you could turn yourself straight like you would a switch.

The very fact that homosexuality is on the rise shows that with acceptability, more people are coming out. Now, I'd say a fair number of people who would have been gay today, didn't allow themselves to even go there mentally in the past. The mind is most certainly powerful enough to make "sexual repression" look the same as "removing gayness" enough to question is there really is a distinction at all.

They went there mentally in the past, but repressed the sexual urges to do so. The mind is powerful enough to cause sexual repression, but it also makes great associations. If pain is equated to homoerotic feelings, then the mind will want nothing to do with it as it doesnt get pleasure from it anymore.

Joey, stop taking others opinions on the matter as either a direct attack, or a supposed missunderstanding between your and my debacle. They have their own opinions, just like you have yours. I may not agree with your thoights and belief on where homosexuality stems from, but I see it as it is and present my own counter arguments and valid input. Dont you ever call me a **** idiot for my own beliefs as I have never done so to yours. Accept my beliefs as they are (not asking you to believe in them or make them your own), and move on with it.

Now, back to the topic at hand and to get this away from a more religious esque debate as kimhari has pointed out that this topic has been turned into.

Switching between the hideouts'...

 

[furie]

Okay, I think I've unravelled Intrick's quotes there to make it say what he meant and stuff :lol:

Just to cover this:

Wait, "and 5% of b who never really have a sexual preference."? I'm **** with reading data in this format, so if I misunderstood, correct me... But, your argument is based on the idea that 5% of people should have "no sexual preference"? Erm, they'd not be gay, but they wouldn't lack a "sexual preference?" That's like saying that if someone never became depressed, they's completely lack a personality. I don't even know where to begin with this it's so stupid. I must have misunderstood your argument. So I'll let you re-explain, lmao.

Im not going to touch the mathematics behind this, but "lack of a sexual preference" here doesnt mean asexual, but mosy likely bisexual. Dont twist words mr. kettle :lol:

It's kind of a mix. If by seeing heterosexual parents being together in a relationship gives you an 85% chance of being straight and if your parents in a homosexual relation ship gave you a (say) 20% chance of being gay (this going by Joey's nurture argument), then what does being brought up by a single parent do for you? That's what I was trying to ask. DOES it make you asexual? Uninterested in relationships? Disinterested in sex? Only interested in incest?

We only have three points of reference, heterosexual parents together, single Dad or single Mum (for this argument if your parents get into a long term relationship or frequent opposite relationships we'll class them as heterosexual parents). Yet we only ever see the same kind of numbers (I think, I have no evidence - I don't think anyone does). However, we certainly see sexually healthy kids come out of all three environments. There just doesn't seem to be correlation, but we're not seeing all the data. Still, at a rate of 15% or higher, you'd expect somebody to notice and draw a conclusion? I just don't know, but it was whimsy on my part anyway :lol:

 

[Mark]

For example, I had a VERY normal upbringing/childhood and turned out a fag. I'm guessing it's the same for you, Mark.

Hmmmm, not exactly.

As for gay parenting, I'm really not sure. I do think about eventually having kids every now and again, but I really don't think it's going to happen for me to be honest.

Obviously I'm all for gay rights, but I think me having kids would just be selfish. I'd feel too guilty about the stigma the kid would get, and I wouldn't be happy with any of the ways to 'obtain' a child;

1) Adopt - Nah. If I were to bother I'd HAVE to have my own.
2) Surrogacy - Too messy. They always end up wanting to keep it in the end. I wouldn't trust a randomer to do it, and a close friend doing it would just ruin the friendship eventually. It's a delusional idea.
3) Turn straight and do it the 'real' way - Ha. Have you met me?

So... yeah. Unless I randomly fall in love with a woman, it's not happening. I'd never rule anything out completely, but it's very unlikely .

But yeah, those are basically my thoughts on the idea of being a parent too. I can see where you are coming from in terms of it being selfish. I too think I'd feel too guilty about those stigmas but part of me feels that guilt is also slightly indulgent and selfish in the sense that I am worrying more about my own guilt rather than anything else.


I agree, never say never, but I can never EVER picture you with a woman

 

[SaiyanHajime]

It's kind of a mix. If by seeing heterosexual parents being together in a relationship gives you an 85% chance of being straight and if your parents in a homosexual relation ship gave you a (say) 20% chance of being gay (this going by Joey's nurture argument), then what does being brought up by a single parent do for you? That's what I was trying to ask. DOES it make you asexual? Uninterested in relationships? Disinterested in sex? Only interested in incest?

I think you're making a confusion here about why, I feel, gay parents would have a higher percentage of gay children. It's not relevant how many parents of each sex there are, it's relevant what their opinions are. If your parents are gay, then the idea of homosexuality is going to be normal in your environment. I think it's absurd to think that this huge environmental factor won't effect those who've grown up in it.

Here's the part where I need to remind everyone, again, that I see no problem with the number of gay individuals rising. Who cares if gay parents produce a higher percentage of gay kids? It doesn't matter.

Also, where is YOUR scientific proof that outside influences are major in determining ones sexuality?

Psycholoical matters such as this are inherently impossible to proove, everyone knows that! That said, there is evidence out there in the animal kingdom. Almost all cases of homosexuality in nature are social phenomenon. If you want me to spew off a list of examples, then let me know.

If it's not environmental, it must be genetic - there is no other option. And if it's genetic, there must be proof because that IS testable.

In some people it's both, in others one or the other - that's what I recon. It's so blatantly obvious that there are a heck of a lot more than 1 causes for the symptom, I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone freaks out over the choice thing.

In fact, hold up a second, can you all explain why you get so fired up about the idea that your sexuality might be partially if not entirely environmental?

As for everything else you spouted in that paragraph I grabbed that from, just no. You have no idea how much environment effects the development of people. You have no idea how many people plod through life in their parents shoes.

They apparently have a seperate opinion from yourself, and are arguing against your opinion of the matter, just like I do. You have all this claim of "black and white" viewing everyone else is doing, and even had the balls to claim to be the most OPEN MINDED person here. You clearly arent if you are getting this worked up by a different opinion than your own.

You came along and said "umm sorry but" in a way that suggested that what I was saying was so stupidly wrong it was shocking to you. Then several others shouted at me and said being gay is not a choice. I then got immensely fed up.

What, exactly, is black and white about saying "homosexuality has a variety of causes, it doesn't matter if you're gay and it doesn't matter if gay parents cause more gay kids" exactly?

Again, I ask you, WHAT scientific evidence has there been? I dont believe it is genetic, but I believe our mind is wired that way rather. "Homosexuality should be thought of as a symptom of various "problems", for want of a better term.". Note, bad wording on your end as that sounds more like a religious 'its a curable disease' statement than what you actually mean. You meant something along the lines of "homosexuality should be thought of as an occurance based on outside infulences and major events in one life"? Corrdct me if Im wrong, but that is what your statement reads as to me.

If sexuality is down to our "mind is wired that way", then that's genetic. Everything physical about yourself is genetic, everything not physical is either a reaction to the physical OR environmental.

Your rewording didn't capture what I meant. Perhaps.... "Sexuality is caused by various things, some of which are environmental some of which are genetic" works better? But I don't understand why people get so stressed over wording anyway. Even if homosexuality WAS a condition that was curable, there is no reason to want to cure it, nor would curing it be moral. If aspergers was curable, would it be moral to cure it? Would it be moral to completely change someone in order to fullfill some idealised concept of "normal?" Of course not.

But it doesnt set the rule or standard, as it seems you are once again implying. What were the outside influences that made you switch from girls to boys? Based on your argument alone, we coukd easily assume that under the proper circumstances and influences, you could turn yourself straight like you would a switch.

What causes it... Who the **** knows? It's not that simple. It's a magnitude of all your life experience that makes you who you are, not one specific thing. What causes anyone to be like anything? It can't all be inherent from birth. The more you think about it the more you see that you're thinking in black and white and the world is more colourful than you know. Your use of "proper" makes me wonder why on earth you attacked me for "symptoms" of "problems" before. I don't think "switch" makes any sense, either. Whilst theoretically possible to change your mind like that, I think the likleyhood of it happening is slim. I think your development throughout your life makes you whoever you are at your current point in time, but your childhood years are the most impacting.

Joey, stop taking others opinions on the matter as either a direct attack,

Haha, wtf, Jake and I are the only gays in here that haven't.

And you still don't understand why I called you an idiot?
Head.Desk.

These topics get to me when people start saying it's choice,

Can I ask why? I really want to know what on earth it is that gets people so wound up.

And don't forget to define what you mean by "choice"...

 

[Mark]

Joey, stop taking others opinions on the matter as either a direct attack,

Haha, wtf, Jake and I are the only gays in here that haven't.

But the rest of us have?

Perhaps it is the way you word your responses that makes people think you have taken it as a direct attack?

If I am guillty of taking someone elses opinion as a direct attack, you are too Joey (or so your responses would suggest)

 

[Intricks]

I'm against the phrase of "It is a choice to be gay" because of the fact that in this day and age, a lot of **** hate crime still happens to those that are queer. Just because we are in a new era, with an abundance of gay rights protests and activists fighting for equality everywhere, doesn't stop gay bashing from happening.

To be honest, it was best described by someone else on a separate forum:
"Why would someone choose to have to possibly watch their backs all the damn time? To wonder if their family and friends are going to turn their back on them, kick them out and outright disown them, ignore all please for help? Why would someone make a choice for something that can get you killed with seemingly little to no repercussions?"

Granted I can't remember the proper wording, but the logic is still there. Why would you choose to be hated and spited upon just for loving someone of the same gender?

To add to my utter dislike of the "It's a choice" mentality, I know people who do it just to be different. They want their parents to hate them, so what better way to piss them off? Tell them you want to bang the same gender.

I claim that you have a black and white view of things because you have utterly tarnished everyone else's opinions based on the fact of "there is no scientific data". What I'm saying is, you have the mentality of a 6 year old not getting his way of being right.

Your rewording didn't capture what I meant. Perhaps.... "Sexuality is caused by various things, some of which are environmental some of which are genetic" works better? But I don't understand why people get so stressed over wording anyway. Even if homosexuality WAS a condition that was curable, there is no reason to want to cure it, nor would curing it be moral. If aspergers was curable, would it be moral to cure it? Would it be moral to completely change someone in order to fullfill some idealised concept of "normal?" Of course not.

No, that re-wording doesn't make much more sense to me than what your entire argument of choice does to be completely honest. You stress that wording doesn't matter, then why make a **** re-iteration and not just say "**** off, my wording says what I meant". Plain and simple dear Watson.

You came along and said "umm sorry but" in a way that suggested that what I was saying was so stupidly wrong it was shocking to you. Then several others shouted at me and said being gay is not a choice. I then got immensely fed up.

Not stupidly wrong, was just summing up the few posts that were ahead of yours that my post had to land after, which you took offense to. Go back and read, something they taught you at whatever age you were mentally coherent enough to understand what the hell was going on. As I've admitted, my original post was horridly miss-worded and now I'll add in unorganized. Several others shouted at you because you insulted someone for having a separate belief that your own opinions. They coincidentally, have a similar train of thought to the "it is a genetic trait" theory than that "it's a choice" theory (Please other posters, correct me if I'm wrong). When you "immediately got fed up", shows that you took it as an attack or a provoke of some form. Again, they have a separate opinion than you.

For the whole comment of homosexuality being a social behavior in the animal kingdom, now I'm going to call you an idiot. You are tying preconceived human ethics to a group that isn't exactly wired the same way as we are. They follow the basis of "Feels good = good, Feels bad = not good". We follow the same notion, but we have many more outside influences that affect our decisions, regardless if they will make you feel good, or hurt you. Here, I'll list an example of some nature for you as well:
Animals, when hungry, go hunt.
Humans, when hungry, either go look for food, push it away until they can't stand the feeling anymore, or starve themselves because of some media forced "Perfect image".
Animals, when wanting to have sex, will go hump the nearest creature of the same species (hopefully), regardless of sex. Mentality of: If it feels good and I'm alpha, do it.
Humans, when wanting to have sex, will question EVERYTHING about who they want as a sexual partner (so long as alcohol and drugs isn't involved), and question what gender they prefer based off of their upbringing and what has been deemed bad and good.
Seriously, as you said earlier, all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs, is rightfully applied here.

Joey, stop taking others opinions on the matter as either a direct attack,

Haha, wtf, Jake and I are the only gays in here that haven't.

And you still don't understand why I called you an idiot?
Head.Desk.

Wow, you are once again having you and someone else being set up as the standard! Why don't you do the same thing you suggested I do, but rather put something sharp down instead, as it might make the point get through that thick skull of yours.

As a last note, just so you don't go off on a rant about me not defining my definition of choice, here it is:
Choice is when you mentally evaluate all the GIVEN situations, the pros and the cons, and set yourself on certain pathway of life.

For your argument against scientific proof for genetics...we are still barely tapping away at the iceberg known as the genetic coding of our DNA and Chromosomal patterns.

Balls in your court jackass

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Joey, stop taking others opinions on the matter as either a direct attack,

Haha, wtf, Jake and I are the only gays in here that haven't.

But the rest of us have?

Perhaps it is the way you word your responses that makes people think you have taken it as a direct attack?

If I am guillty of taking someone elses opinion as a direct attack, you are too Joey (or so your responses would suggest)

Mark, to be honest I just think that a lot of people set themselves up on a defence (rightly so about a subject that is often an attack?). Again, I got so particularly pissed off with Intricks because in another topic I'd already experienced the way he argues and then could see it going the same way here. I'm certainly guilty of taking someone else's opinion as a personal attack, but not in this topic. I have no reason to in this topic. My responses suggest nothing other than being infuriated by the way everyone jumps on the "its not a choice!" bandwagon.

I claim that you have a black and white view of things because you have utterly tarnished everyone else's opinions based on the fact of "there is no scientific data". What I'm saying is, you have the mentality of a 6 year old not getting his way of being right.

No, that is NOT why I say everyone else has a black and white view. I said you have a black and white view long before the concept of scientific evidence was added and it has nothing to with the narrow point of view. The inability to see that there is more to "environmental" than plain old choice is what's so narrow minded.

No, that re-wording doesn't make much more sense to me than what your entire argument of choice does to be completely honest. You stress that wording doesn't matter, then why make a re-iteration and not just say "**** off, my wording says what I meant". Plain and simple dear Watson.

You were bothered by terminology, terminology you were seeing as negative, so I offered you one that avoided medical terminology that you were finding so offensive.

Not stupidly wrong, was just summing up the few posts that were ahead of yours that my post had to land after, which you took offense to. Go back and read, something they taught you at whatever age you were mentally coherent enough to understand what the hell was going on. As I've admitted, my original post was horridly miss-worded and now I'll add in unorganized. Several others shouted at you because you insulted someone for having a separate belief that your own opinions. They coincidentally, have a similar train of thought to the "it is a genetic trait" theory than that "it's a choice" theory (Please other posters, correct me if I'm wrong). When you "immediately got fed up", shows that you took it as an attack or a provoke of some form. Again, they have a separate opinion than you.

Cannot even believe what I'm reading tbh. When I went back and read over it all, that isn't what I saw at all, and every thing I read from you showed you have an inability to understand human behaviour. You twist and invent intentions for me all the time. I told you how I feel, you ignore it and make you own **** up.

For the whole comment of homosexuality being a social behavior in the animal kingdom, now I'm going to call you an idiot. You are tying preconceived human ethics to a group that isn't exactly wired the same way as we are. They follow the basis of "Feels good = good, Feels bad = not good". We follow the same notion, but we have many more outside influences that affect our decisions, regardless if they will make you feel good, or hurt you. Here, I'll list an example of some nature for you as well:
Animals, when hungry, go hunt.
Humans, when hungry, either go look for food, push it away until they can't stand the feeling anymore, or starve themselves because of some media forced "Perfect image".
Animals, when wanting to have sex, will go hump the nearest creature of the same species (hopefully), regardless of sex. Mentality of: If it feels good and I'm alpha, do it.
Humans, when wanting to have sex, will question EVERYTHING about who they want as a sexual partner (so long as alcohol and drugs isn't involved), and question what gender they prefer based off of their upbringing and what has been deemed bad and good.
Seriously, as you said earlier, all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs, is rightfully applied here.

There's no "trying to preconceived human ethics" in observing social structure and homosexual acts in the animal kingdom. You're going to have a heard time understanding all this because it requires you to not think in black and white, just warning you. WE follow the basis of "feels good = good, feels bad=bad" as much as any other life on Earth, we are no different. But it's much more complicated than that. There's all sorts of things to consider like "well this feels bad but if I don't do this I will have no food which is VERY bad". Most species don't literally think like this, but the act of it is rewarded. We have no more outside influences acting upon us than any other animal, especially not other social animals. In fact I'd go as far to say we have less than most, because the willingness to act on a situation tends to reflect the likleyhood of it causing a problem, we suffer far less problems in our modern world.

Your nature examples are poor. They can't even examples, they are generalised comments. Almost all cases of homosexuality in nature occur in social species, including us. A social species is one that spends it's life living in groups such as most primates, dolphins, many birds, hyenas, lions, etc. Social species need to be nice to each other more so than solitary ones, and they need ways to bond and to hold a group together. I'l scratch your back if you scratch mine is a fundamental. All the great apes (including ourselves, obviously) have been reported to engage in sexual activity. Bonobo chimps are fully bisexual species, perhaps the only one on the planet. Sexual activity is a fundamental part of their social structure and it's been observed as a tention release to avoid agressive conflicts seen in other chimp species. I'm not saying that humans have sex with other humans for the same reason (in humans it seems to cause agression and tension lol), I'm just saying that to deny the social place of sex is pretty absurd. There are tonnes more examples.

As a last note, just so you don't go off on a rant about me not defining my definition of choice, here it is:
Choice is when you mentally evaluate all the GIVEN situations, the pros and the cons, and set yourself on certain pathway of life.

Then, with a few exceptions I'm sure, homosexuality is not a choice. But it is often environmental.

Wow, you are once again having you and someone else being set up as the standard!

That doesn't even make any sense. You were having a go at me, ME for taking the opinions of others as an attack, and I said I haven't. What has that got to do with standards?? ...I won't even ask, I think you're a bit confused.

 

[furie]

Okay Joey, I'm not getting involved in whole mass argument thing here, but I think there's not a clear definition of what you're classing as environmental.

For me, what makes us develop as "the adult we become" are down to three things, not two. Yet the latter I think are being bundled by you into the "environmental" clause.

We certainly have genetics. They define our eye colour, size and shape of our noses and even if we are likely to have psychopathic or empathic personalities (this has been proven). How many legs will a dog be born with?

We then have chemical/biological influences. At a certain point in the womb, you will get certain nutrition, certain chemicals and hormones flooding your body, all from your mother. These shape the way in which our bodies actually grow. A dog may be destined genetically to have 4 legs, but at the precise time it comes to grow them, a chemical, nutritional or hormonal shift in its mother causes on three to grow. This goes on probably right through our lives, but I suspect that by the time we're 18 or so, we're pretty much "complete" and anything we then get into our bodies is more medical condition than body changing.

Finally, we have true social/psychological/environmental factors that determine how we actually deal with the world. It's true that this can change the way we act towards each other and it certainly makes a difference to how we go about in the world. A dog born with three legs can still learn to walk and can still bark kind of thing.

However, I believe that these factors are a sliding scale. Genetics is hard code and your body will always try to follow that code. Chemical/biological issues may interrupt this process and may change development to a degree, but in a "perfect chemical environment" we will grow according to our genes (and I think most animals do). Finally we have the real world which we have the greatest flexibility in and our brains can alter the way in which we fit into the world to make life easier. It's malleable and we go on changing all through our lives.

A dog born with four legs, who develops four legs naturally can still learn to walk if one is chopped off in a lawn mower incident

My belief is that sexuality occurs in one of the first 2 stages. Like my dislike of Marmite or the positive reaction my body has to danger. It's just there in the way I'm made up. I didn't learn to dislike Marmite, I didn't learn to enjoy fear. There is just something either genetic or in the way my brain developed that makes me this way. We have scientific proof that this kind of chemical/hormonal reaction in the brain is something that is hard wired in there from an early age. A gene may say "make Furie's brain react positively to fear", but unless I get the right nourishment to develop enough dopamine producing cells, I won't. Then once that part of my brain has stopped developing, I'll never be able to develop a positive reaction to fear. I'll hate rollercoasters - no matter how much my parents, family, friends and everyone else loves them. Even if I grew up in Blackpool Pleasure Beach, I'd still never like them.

Hence why I don't believe there's a parental factor in if you'll be gay or not. If you're gay, bi or straight; it's already in there. The real world just allows or suppresses these feelings using psychology.

The reason people get hot about the word "choice" is because for hundreds of years (at least), homosexuality has been considered a psychological disorder that can be 'cured'. Like giving somebody serotonin if they're depressed, can we give a gay person some magical chemical that will turn them straight? This has essentially led to homosexuals being treated as mad people for a long time. Whereas understanding about depression and the like has led to medical breakthroughs that can combat it with drugs, nothing can be done about "gayness". By keeping alive the notion that there can be a choice, or "it was something we did as parents that made our child gay" you perpetuate the idea that it's medically wrong and can be fixed. We know it can't. We have signals in our brain that say "you will be attracted to: a- Humans, b-x Sex". We can suppress chemically the "attraction" signals (chemical neutering), but not the information they carry.

This is a good example too, we know what causes depression and can combat it by taking over the role of the part of the brain that isn't working correctly. We can't fix it though. If you have a misfiring chemical release valve, then you've got it for good (or bad ).

It's a bit like giving the dog born with one leg an artificial limb. It now has four legs and can get about its doggy way. You've never regrown the limb, just supplemented it the body with an adequate replacement. You've changed the environment the dog functions in to its benefit, but it's still a three legged dog.

That's how I see it anyway. It is a very complex set of issues and factors that gets us to what we are, but psychology and direct environment are lowest on the list...

 

[kimahri]

TLDR VERSION:

1. "I'm right!"
2. "No, I'm right"
*Repeat 2 until endless wall of text*

 

[Mark]

TLDR?

 

[Hixee]

Too Long, Didn't Read.

 

[Mark]

Eurgh. So basically a SPAM post then?

Seriously guys, if people can't be bothered to read the posts then why comment at all?

 

[Intricks]

Because kimahri summed it up basically.

Joey feels it a choice made by oneself to be a homosexual based on environmental events (both past and present), parental nuturing and social behaviors.

I believe you are born the secuality you are and that outside influences dont have any affect on the matter.

We are bickering back and forth and it has resulted into name calling on both sides now. He seems to, imo, be taking any form of thought not garnered to his opinion as something outside of your opinions and personal beliefs. What it is, I dont know.

Switching between the hideouts'...

 

[kimahri]

Eurgh. So basically a SPAM post then?

Seriously guys, if people can't be bothered to read the posts then why comment at all?

I did read the posts. It just got boring after the 7th time and nearly doubled in size. Then I just shortened it to a easy managable bite size chunk.

I do have something other to say but since I'm on my phone it'll be a pain.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

We then have chemical/biological influences. At a certain point in the womb, you will get certain nutrition, certain chemicals and hormones flooding your body, all from your mother. These shape the way in which our bodies actually grow. A dog may be destined genetically to have 4 legs, but at the precise time it comes to grow them, a chemical, nutritional or hormonal shift in its mother causes on three to grow. This goes on probably right through our lives, but I suspect that by the time we're 18 or so, we're pretty much "complete" and anything we then get into our bodies is more medical condition than body changing.

I'd call that environmental, but I think you knew I'd think that.

My belief is that sexuality occurs in one of the first 2 stages. Like my dislike of Marmite or the positive reaction my body has to danger. It's just there in the way I'm made up. I didn't learn to dislike Marmite, I didn't learn to enjoy fear. There is just something either genetic or in the way my brain developed that makes me this way. We have scientific proof that this kind of chemical/hormonal reaction in the brain is something that is hard wired in there from an early age. A gene may say "make Furie's brain react positively to fear", but unless I get the right nourishment to develop enough dopamine producing cells, I won't. Then once that part of my brain has stopped developing, I'll never be able to develop a positive reaction to fear. I'll hate rollercoasters - no matter how much my parents, family, friends and everyone else loves them. Even if I grew up in Blackpool Pleasure Beach, I'd still never like them.

...

That's how I see it anyway. It is a very complex set of issues and factors that gets us to what we are, but psychology and direct environment are lowest on the list...

It's the most complexed thing I can think of outside of quantum physics... Which is what I was trying to explain, at least you get that much.

But here's the way I see it, which is probably the same thing you're talking about, almost. The only blatant difference is the emphasis on the distinction between what is inherent and how that relates to what we end up enjoying, or not enjoying.

I suspect that some preferences are inherent, but not as simply as people would believe. For example, it's obviously absurd to think that someone would be born with a love for roller coasters, but it's not absurd that someone would be born with a brain which naturally enjoys some aspect of roller coasters - and that aspect coud be wildly unrelated. I certainly couldn't tell you what it is about them that turns me on. There's a fascinating study done with monkeys where they offer a group two types of toys. Some of the toys have moving parts, such as cars, whilst others are soft things, such as dolls. Most males will favour the mechanical toys whilst most females will favour the softer ones. Gender is generally accepted as a social construct these days, but that study suggests otherwise. The problem is that some monkeys respond equally to both toys and some do the opposite of what you'd expect. Even the most feminine of women may enjoy mechanical things, for example. It's not black and white. What's this got to do with anything? Well, I suspect that there are a lot of people who have the right brain to be into the opposite sex, but aren't through environmental causes, and the same for the opposite too. I think environmental, social and psychological is stronger, and that's where we differ. I think the power of our minds is strong enough to do the most crazy of things against the odds. I know this from personal experience, which means nothing, but I also know it from the most incredible cases of humans living in extraordinary environments. I suspect that it varies between people, some are more susceptible to external factors than others, and maybe I'm just one of them.

I don't honestly know how you can so adamantly feel that your hate for Marmite isn't environmental. To have that kind of confidence in something like this is alien to me and I would think myself ignorant to think I knew that, under different circumstances, I couldn't have been completely different.

Worth mentioning something else I'd consider "environmental" - anything that is caused by something genetic. Say, for example, being in a wheelchair because you were born without legs due to a genetic condition. The act of being in the wheelchair is environmental, regardless of how you got there. It's not as if whatever genetically caused the lack of legs had a quick debriefing with the relevant parts of the brain. (I realise it's probably more likely to lack legs through environmental causes in the early stages of development, but that's besides the point, just an example.)

Eurgh. So basically a SPAM post then?

Seriously guys, if people can't be bothered to read the posts then why comment at all?

For real. We agree on that. (Lol, in fact we tend to agree and disagree in unusually equal measures, how often are we arguing in one topic and enthusiastically in agreement in another at the same time? We're a bit odd aren't we.)

This **** is interesting, if you don't find it interesting, **** off.

 

[kimahri]

So was the Saw series...

 

[marc]

But there is proof its a hormone thing though, gay guys have too much of the female one and gay women have to much of the male one.

I don't know why we have to keep going over the same thing again and again.

I actually find it all rather insulting why it has to be looked at in such detail, we don't keep on about why straight people are straight etc.

Would I have gone through years of being picked on because I chose it? I don't think so. It took me years to come to terms with it, if I could have changed it I would have but could not. So for me it has nothing to do with bloody choice.

I tried the whole dating girl thing but it did not work, and I don't really want to go into my private life here but I knew at the age of 5. How did I know? Well Luke Skywalker did not kiss the girls he kissed Han when I was playing with my Star Ward figures lol.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

But there is proof its a hormone thing though, gay guys have too much of the female one and gay women have to much of the male one.

Whilst I'm sure that might be a case for some people, most... no. Otherwise, all gay men would have gynecomastia amongst other things... And all gay women would be hairy.

I don't know why we have to keep going over the same thing again and again.

It interest me. If it doesn't you, don't come in and read it. What's the problem?

I actually find it all rather insulting why it has to be looked at in such detail, we don't keep on about why straight people are straight etc.

Yes we are? It's the same discussion. Being offended by that is silly Marc.

Would I have gone through years of being picked on because I chose it? I don't think so. It took me years to come to terms with it, if I could have changed it I would have but could not. So for me it has nothing to do with bloody choice.

You haven't been paying attention to the debate. No one at any point said it was a choice. Words were put in my mouth.

I tried the whole dating girl thing but it did not work, and I don't really want to go into my private life here but I knew at the age of 5. How did I know? Well Luke Skywalker did not kiss the girls he kissed Han when I was playing with my Star Ward figures lol.

Hahahaha, wtf Marc. <3

 

[Ben]

I see it as slightly enviromental too...

A "freer" enviroment will breed more outrageous behaviour. It's why you see so many more different types of outwardly expressing yourself (like clothes, hair) here than in a strict Muslim state. I bet those people if they were born here, would express themselves more outrageously. Weird analogy, but, a "gay" person genetically might repress that mentally if their enviroment doesn't allow it. I bet in strict Muslim countries there are less men who like cock, because people will mentally repress it. There ARE still people that do it (going on Grindr in Qatar proved that), but, there are less of them. Repressive enviroments breed repressive behaviour.

It's amazing in some people how they can convince themselves they're one way until one day someone cracks open that door to the idea of taking cock, and they go all confused and off the deep end.

The opposite then is true. A freer enviroment breeds freer thinkers. It's always been true. It's happened throughout history, and now it's happening with gays.

I'm really not quite sure what Joey's getting at, but, I think we're on about the same wave-length. I'm not sure choice is the word I'd use, it's too much of a buzz-word when it comes to this topic, but, enviroment has a factor for some people.