Sexual Orientation is Biologically Determined?

[Ender]

i'm back!!!..did i miss something??*LOL

ah!!..we got back to name calling...(scared bigoted people)...how very tolerant!..Actually we were having a discussion of the possible origins of Homosexuality. if anyone got offened they should prolly go back and re-read the posts. I think most were of the scientific nature.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The origins of homosexuality? Hmm.

I would define the discussion as largely pseudo-scientific, with lots of bias slipped in under the name of objectivity.

Cornel West makes an interesting point in "race Matters," appropos of African-Americans. He asks: why are they always the problem, the issue?

I'd argue it's because of their identification by "mainstream" (ha!) culture as Other.


Similarly...the object of much off the pseudo-science, here, is the Other of so-called normal sexuality. There is no "normal," sexuality.

Or to quote somebody I read a long time ago...sex is dirty---at least, if you do it right.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
The origins of homosexuality? Hmm.

I would define the discussion as largely pseudo-scientific, with lots of bias slipped in under the name of objectivity.

Well, sure...there are some biases because everyone has them, you included, regardless of how objective your trying to be. However, I disagree with the implication that people are using "psuedo science" just to blather around uneducated opinions. I don't feel that is the case, I think the discussion has been an honest attempt by most to discuss the biology behind homosexuality, of which we have limited information on.

I think that the only problem here is by certain folks who seem to be "overly sensitive" on the issue, impeding their ability to have an honest discussion regarding the science behind the subject.

Cornel West makes an interesting point in "race Matters," appropos of African-Americans. He asks: why are they always the problem, the issue?

I'd argue it's because of their identification by "mainstream" (ha!) culture as Other.

Racial Minority rights and homosexual rights have parellels politically, and socially. This has little to do with the discussion, which is the science behind homosexuality.

Similarly...the object of much off the pseudo-science, here, is the Other of so-called normal sexuality. There is no "normal," sexuality.

Again...we are not talking about the difference between one couple who considers the missionary position with the lights off to be normal, while another can only get off after peeing on each other.

These are psychological and emotional nuances which, I would agree, would be impossible to define a norm. We aren't talking about that, however. We are talking about Sex from a biological perspective, where (like it or not) homosexuality is not the norm.

Or to quote somebody I read a long time ago...sex is dirty---at least, if you do it right.

LOL

 

[rmcrobertson]

There is no such thing in human beings as sex from a wholly-biological perspective. What we have, reality, is sexuality.

 

[MA-Caver]

rmcrobertson wrote: The origins of homosexuality? Hmm.

As I understand it the origins go way back to our civilized beginnings... and probably even further. I recall reading that the ancient Greeks when they conquered a nation/country/town/whatever! symbolized their conquest by sexually pentetrating the male prisoners to in effect say "There! your **** is MINE! I won! Now, where are your wife and daughters?" Psychologically humiliating the defeated to let them know they're conquered.

There's also recorded instances I've read about long ago (and forgotten the source) about Alexander's armies being out on the road conquering the world for so long and only able to pillage, rape and loot whenever they came upon a town or village every now and again got lonely and thus turned to each other for solice. But did that mean they were Gay? Did Alexander have a "don't ask don't tell" policy going on then?

If there are older instances of recorded events involving homosexuality then I haven't seen them per-se but I'm sure they're out there. My ancient history isn't up to snuff.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson: I would define the discussion as largely pseudo-scientific, with lots of bias slipped in under the name of objectivity.

You're right it is, so ask yourself why is that. Why does the subject of homosexuality cause such ire and biased opinions? Still even to this day of modern science and modern values and morals and standards?
IMO because it strikes a chord deep down inside us. Especially males. Now take that and my example of the Greek Conquerors and look at it as a long line of the resistance to being defeated. A male dominated trait of refusing to submit which is what you're doing when you allow penetration. In effect saying I submit because you are stronger and I am weaker.
There's a wee bit of warrior-class in nearly every male on the planet. We and our ancestors fought battles for our survival. To lose those battles meant the destruction of you, your lifestyle, home, families...whatever!
We're at war with Terrorism...why because they INVADED our private territory and caused harm. Same goes for ancient civilizations and the symbolic representation they used to show they conquered their enemies. Our male egos have an aversion to such things going on. We can't help it we're men/male (w/all due respect to the women reading this discussion).
Thus you get the aversion that you read on this particular thread because the topic strikes chords deep down... most of us may not even be aware that we have them.
We may be going down the street and see two (gay) men holding hands while shopping and think nothing of it.
But subconciously we apply that to ourselves and the bias-ness and ill feelings come out and manifest themselves in bitter wordings... (of that I believe I may likewise be guilty).
It's called... insecurity of one's self.

oh yeah and denial is a river in egypt

 

[Rich Parsons]

MACaver,

I have seen your first two points you list there in history also. I just cannot remember the source either.



BTW I just love Hobbes and the Avatar you have!

 

[MA-Caver]

Rich Parsons wrote: MACaver, have seen your first two points you list there in history also. I just cannot remember the source either.

Thanks... I suffer from occasional chronic foot in mouth disease, often times when I'm sure I'm right... and sometimes I am... most of the times I'm not. Nice to have confirmation.

BTW I just love Hobbes and the Avatar you have!

Thanks again... Hobbes is way cool.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
There is no such thing in human beings as sex from a wholly-biological perspective. What we have, reality, is sexuality.

Really? I am not sure what you mean, to be honest...if you have the time, could you explain further?

Thanks.

 

[rmcrobertson]

People don't experience reality without filters of any kind (aka, "education," and "knowledge"), and they don't manifest pure biology in any way.

It's always BOTH nature and nurture. There's always a biological substrate--but that is always expressed through culture.

So, there's no pure expression of biological reality like, "sex," in people; instead, we have biology rewritten centrally and fundamentally by culture--calling this, "sexuality," is just a convenient way to keep track.

This is why all the arguments about behaviour being "unnatural," are such a laugh. If the behaviour weren't natural at some level, we wouldn't be doing it. Further, what people really mean by all this poppycock about "unnaturalness," is that things like homosexuality offend their morality and what they like to describe as, "God's plan."

Which, to be sure, they're perfectly entitled to believe, to teach their kids, to say, to write about. It's just that some take that next lil' step...and start attacking the "alien," and "unnatural," Other. But it is fun watching these folks wobble helplessly between opposite positions--it's Nature! they're unnatural! no, it's Culture! they can make a choice!--and simultaneously call on evolution (homosexuality is unnatural because we didn't evolve that way) and creationism (homosexuality violates the way God designed us).

Oy.

 

[Cruentus]

LOL...I have this picture in my head of some buck-toothed, gun toten, southerner yelling, "dem gays is unnatural...wheeeeehooooo!" at some white-supremist's rally. :rofl: It's funny, but not at the same time considering that there are people like that out there...even in my own state (the militia state).

A buddy of mine who is gay... (yea, yea. I know. EVERY "conservative" [which I am not in the true sense] likes to throw around that they knew a guy who knew a guy who was gay, giving them credence to throw around biased crap. I am not doing that here, but I do in fact have friends who are gay, and I value his opinion on the subject). Anyways...we were hanging out last night for Monday night football, and I asked him about this subject.

His response was similar to yours, Robert, in that he feels that it is both nature and nurture. He said if it didn't feel natural for him to be gay, he wouldn't be. And all of his friends who are also gay has had someone in their family down the line who was gay as well. There has to be something chemical or genetic passed down somehow making him the way that he is, he believes.

It is in part nurture also. Our society lets him lead the lifestyle he wants to right now, a gay lifestyle, and he is happy about that. He said that if he had grown up in a time when being Gay ment execution or ostrocisation from his community, chances are he'd curb his 'natural' tendecies to be gay. He would be celabete, or just in the closet for the rest of his life. Since our society thankfully lets him lead the life he wants to lead, he is able to do what he wants.

In terms of "normalcy," being gay is not "normal" biologically speaking (his words, understand). If our sexual tendencies have been put in place for the purpose of procreation and survival of our species, then obviously homosexuality violates that. Also, homosexuality is not a dominating factor in our society; most people aren't gay. So, it goes against the norm in that case as well.

How does my friend feel about all this? For one...who wants to be normal, he says? "I wasn't born normal, my lifestyle isn't normal, and nor would I want to be." The rest, are just facts, and no matter what comes out scientifically explaining the issue, it won't change the fact that he prefers men.

I think we can all learn from what I gathered from my buddy, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote anything about it. I was suprised that what he said so frankly mirrors what I was thinking as well. I figured there would be some differences along any lines, especially considering that I know another one of my homosexual friends would debate me to death on the 'normalcy' issue. But, we both basically had the same thoughts on the issue.

I think, Robert, that no matter what we say, some bigoted @$$ is going to use the 'reasoning' behind homosexuality to show how 'gay' behavior is wrong and should be 'corrected.' Some will believe that they should be corrected by force, whether through lack of privilages, violence, discrimination, or what have you. However, we can't use this fact to avoid trying to find answers, such as biological, sociological, or psychological reasoning behind homosexuality. I, personally, won't let other bigoted behavior prevent me from comfortably discussing the issue. We can't force bigoted @$$holes into changing, but I feel that the more educated we are on the subject, the better off we'll all be.

Now...in terms of biology, I see what your saying. It seems (correct me if I am wrong) that your saying that the reasoning for sex cannot be purely biological, because you cannot seperate psychology and sociology from the biology behind sex. I see what you mean, and understand. I can't really argue that point either, but I can say that I do feel that w/o sex, obviosly our species would not survive. I don't think I can ignore that fact as well. So this leads me to believe that Biologically, sociology, and psychologically speaking, much of sexuality is geared towards basic survival of our species, which still puts Homosexuality outside of the norm. That is just my take on it, anyhow.

 

[Ender]

right!..lets get rid of reasoning and logic!.....and it's only bigoted when they don't agree with you!*LOL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
right!..lets get rid of reasoning and logic!.....and it's only bigoted when they don't agree with you!*LOL

I didn't way that...where you refering to me....?

 

[Ender]

I think, Robert, that no matter what we say, some bigoted @$$ is going to use the 'reasoning' behind homosexuality to show how 'gay' behavior is wrong and should be 'corrected.' Some will believe that they should be corrected by force, whether through lack of privilages, violence, discrimination, or what have you. However, we can't use this fact to avoid trying to find answers, such as biological, sociological, or psychological reasoning behind homosexuality. I, personally, won't let other bigoted behavior prevent me from comfortably discussing the issue. We can't force bigoted @$$holes into changing, but I feel that the more educated we are on the subject, the better off we'll all be.


well it sounds like circular reasoning to me. "They are bigoted a$$holes that we can't force to change", but on the other hand, they (gays) should not be forced to change or "corrected"....so if one doesn't change there are "ok"...but if the other doesn't change they are "bigoted".......too funny.*chuckles

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
People don't experience reality without filters of any kind (aka, "education," and "knowledge"), and they don't manifest pure biology in any way.

It's always BOTH nature and nurture. There's always a biological substrate--but that is always expressed through culture.

So, there's no pure expression of biological reality like, "sex," in people; instead, we have biology rewritten centrally and fundamentally by culture--calling this, "sexuality," is just a convenient way to keep track.

This is why all the arguments about behaviour being "unnatural," are such a laugh. If the behaviour weren't natural at some level, we wouldn't be doing it. Further, what people really mean by all this poppycock about "unnaturalness," is that things like homosexuality offend their morality and what they like to describe as, "God's plan."

Which, to be sure, they're perfectly entitled to believe, to teach their kids, to say, to write about. It's just that some take that next lil' step...and start attacking the "alien," and "unnatural," Other. But it is fun watching these folks wobble helplessly between opposite positions--it's Nature! they're unnatural! no, it's Culture! they can make a choice!--and simultaneously call on evolution (homosexuality is unnatural because we didn't evolve that way) and creationism (homosexuality violates the way God designed us).

Oy.

Robert, Are you sitting down? I agree with almost everyting you have said, and even the difference is not worth discussing.




Sexuality or Sex. Sex for procreation only. Hmm I would have to argue against this, since we have chosen for some form of birht control. Also, the Human species is not the only species to have sex for fun. The Dolphins do also, and as the 'experts' state they believe it has something to do with their and our large brains and frontal lobes, they believe the dolphins enjoy it even more than humans do.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh jeez, we're actually discussing this like civilized people.

Clearly, not many of the posters of the moment on this thread are in kenpo.

Oh well..."so long, and thanks for all the fish."

 

[Nightingale]

Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects.

Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

interesting, huh...

its not like we can say "well, the penguin never observed a normal heterosexual relationship" or "the penguin was molested as a child"

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender


well it sounds like circular reasoning to me. "They are bigoted a$$holes that we can't force to change", but on the other hand, they (gays) should not be forced to change or "corrected"....so if one doesn't change there are "ok"...but if the other doesn't change they are "bigoted".......too funny.*chuckles

Ender...it's not circular reasoning, man...

In my opinion a "bigoted @$$hole" is someone who A. Discriminates against others because of race, gender, religion, etc.....OR B. Someone who believes they can force change upon someone because they don't agree with an aspect of their life (whether it be Sexuality, religion, or whatever).

I can't force change on a Bigoted @$$hole, nor should I try too. Educate...maybe....so they can choose to change themselves, but force? That would make ME a bigoted @$$hole against bigoted @$$holes.

I can't force change on someone who is gay either...nor should we try (it's been tried way before our time). Let's say (for arguements sake) that we find out that homosexuality is purely chemical, and can be corrected with 1 shot in the arm of a concoction of the right hormones. So....should we round' up all dem gays and cure them of their unnatural behavior (tounge and cheek )? Of course not...they can change if they want, but it shouldn't be forced.

Now...I think you misunderstood me. IF I thought that all Bigoted @$$holes should be "forced" to change...then my reasoning would be flawed. Since I don't think anyone should be "forced" to change....my reasoning is not flawed. That's why I was suprised at your comment, because I thought you directed it towards me, but it didn't seem to apply. I hope we are on the same level of understanding now.

 

[Ender]

Then why are they "Bigoted a$$holes"?...maybe they are the enlightened ones? maybe they have researched the issue and determined the being gay isn't justified?..or at least not as right as others may think. Thats one of the problems I have with the left, when someone disagrees with them they try to "label" them or call them names. (homophobes).....maybe gays are "vagina-phobes"?..*L

the other tactic is to attack the speaker. these two tactics usually come from a weak position.

the other thing is when all the "justifications" used for being gay can be used for pedophilia. "maybe it's nurtured, or chemical, or in the genes" take every argument you used for gay and put in the word pedophile. in fact, those argument would prolly work better, because of procreation issues. try it.
*s

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Nightingale
interesting, huh...

its not like we can say "well, the penguin never observed a normal heterosexual relationship" or "the penguin was molested as a child"

I have heard about this study...and it is interesting. I would like to look into it more though. I know that certain male animals (like hyenas and dogs) will "hump" weaker males in the pack. However...this is not "sexual" because these animals are doing it to show dominance, not because they want to 'get intimate' with another male. Also...some animals (like hyenas again) have incredible sex drives at certain times a year, where they'll hump ANYTHING....female, male, inatimate objects, or whatever. But this is mostly because they are wanting a release and will look for anything that will give them it, NOT because they prefer males over females. If there was another female available that would let them...they'd be all over that preferably.

Plus...these seemingly "homosexual" traits is usually male on male. Although I am not an expert and I'd be curious to know more about this, in truth I have never heard of female on female sex in the animal kingdom. This leads me to believe that it isn't "homosexuality," at least not most of the time, but rather other factors (such as male dominance) that comes into play.

This is comparable to humans. A group of guys' who gang rap another guy in jail, for instance. The rapists aren't necisarily "gay"...they are just overly aggressive, showing dominance (and psychologically "sick" by our societies standards that thankfully doesn't condone rape). They still could prefer women.

So...I am curious to know what Dr. Bagimihl means by his definition of "gay behavior." What defines it for him, specifically. Does he mean that 5% of penguins waddle gay, or interior decorate well? I am being facetious here, but in all seriousness...if he means "traits" then I am very skeptical. If he means actual "sex," then I think we need to narrow down further because there is a difference between a dog humping another to show dominance, and a dog only prefering to "have sex" with other male dogs. I think to truly define homosexuality in the animal kingdom, we would need to find observed examples of animals who consistantly "prefer" same sex over the opposite sex for sexual release, both on the male side and female side. I am skeptical in that I don't think these studies have defined that yet.

Now...I am skeptical about the studies, but not the idea in itself. If Homosexuality truely exists in the animal kingdom, then this further supports my idea that homosexuality is biological as well as environmental, and that people can be "born gay" just like in the animal kingdom. However...I don't think we have conclusive evidence yet to support this from the animal kingdom.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, it would also work if you linked together words like, "Republican," and "greedy warmonger."

I think the objection, Ender, is that words like "gay," on these forums always get immediatedly linked to other words--like"pedophile," or "pervert," or, "abnormal."

If I were consistently to link together--even in passing--certain words, so that every time words like, "Condoleeza," came up, I used words such as, "horse-toothed," or, "dismissive," or, "ignorant and arrogant," or, "in way over her head," well, it wouldn't be long before--quite properly--folks started noting that whatever I consciously thought I thought, there sure seemed to be an unconscious pattern of ideas that deserved a little interrogation.

In other words--the prob is the repeated linkage of concepts. As you can perhaps see from my examples here, it's kinda visible--and kinda annoying.

Oh, and on the whole "vagina-phobe," jazz--I strongly recommend going to Borders and flipping through a copy of Klaus Thelwielt's, "Male Fantasies," or reading Freud on the Medusa. It ain't the GAY guys who seem to have the problem...