LGBT Homosexuals..Born/made or both?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by EvilJediJ, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. EvilJediJ

    EvilJediJ Guest

    Do any of you know of any links to sites that have done research that would suggest the cause of homosexuality?
     
  2. Sam Gamgee

    Sam Gamgee Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    78,928
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Western MA
    there is no definite proof either way.

    There have been many studies on this, and both theories have their merit and neither theory has yet by proven or disproven.
     
  3. coma

    coma New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here you go, there are 545,000 sites listed for "the cause of homosexuality." http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=the+cause+of+homosexuality%3F&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1
    The general consesus is that there is no proven "gay gene" but that it is a combination of nature and nurture. IIRC, twins raised apart are both gay 25% of the time, so certainy genes come into play. Culling info from just one side of my family reveals homosexuality, and in fact my mother is a lesbian. She came from a hardcore Catholic family so that's why she felt she had to marry (to an abusive husband, no less) rather than live her true self, in case anybody is wondering how that's possible. Funny thing is that there is little intertest by gays to find the cause of homosexuality -- almost as if it's some kind of threat.
    I'd love to know the cause.:hay:
     
  4. EvilJediJ

    EvilJediJ Guest

    Can someone with no genetic background for homosexuality be turned gay? I would assume so.
     
  5. Sam Gamgee

    Sam Gamgee Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    78,928
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Western MA
    define "turned gay"
     
  6. Jobe

    Jobe keke ^_^

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Razorbackville
    No genetic background? Elaborate please
     
  7. EvilJediJ

    EvilJediJ Guest

    I mean completely behavioral reasons as to why they turned gay(born straight), how they were raised and there environment. I guess you would really have no way of testing for this.

    What do you guys think about Freud's theory that everyone is born inleast partly bisexual and boys are taught to suppress there feminine characteristics. Meaning homosexuals become homosexuals since they have failed to fully suppress there feminine characteristics.
     
  8. Jamien

    Jamien Sabotage. Overthrow. Disobey and Demolish.

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Finland
    I guess I was born straight. I was "interested" in girls, (hey, I wasn't even 8 then :rolleyes: ) but when I moved to my current town, I met the most amazing and cutest boy ever, and I still have a crush on him. I propably wouldn't have turned gay, if I would've stayed there...
     
  9. [Bartleby]

    [Bartleby] New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, Fl
    Ok being gay is not just about sex, turned gay would mean that a person would have to go from having a sexual AND emotional attraction to girls and then turnign that into an emotional and sexual attractiong to guys only.. How do you propose anyoen change an emotional attraction?

    The act of sex can be enjoyed no matter who is giving you please, that is mental, I mean peopel who masturbate are they "palmosexuals?" what about people who have sex with sheep? are they "Lambosexuals"? Being gay is not about just sex, being gay means that you are capable of having an emotional connection to men. Someone who has sex with men does not make them gay and If you can find away to change the emotions of someone and prove that you did infact rewire their emotions then you sir will be the most successful Psycologist the world has ever seen.

    I dont consider sexuality a black and white thing, I think that humans are capable of loving other personalities, it is the sexual attraction that places us on the spectrum, gay or straight. I imagine that the number of people actually capable of loving a member fo their own sex is way higher than the % of people currently identifying themselves as gay.
     
  10. RedGoober4Life

    RedGoober4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DTW
    I think the causes vary by person and make it impossible to pinpoint genetic or otherwise.

    Another good theory is what happens in the womb. Which wouldn't be genetic of course...

    And I don't make it a point to agree wit Freud very much. Much of his stuff is...well, crap.
     
  11. Stevo 22

    Stevo 22 this is how the world ends

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    tempe, az
    Up until a few days ago, I was the strongest believer that homosexuals didn't have a choice, but I think they do... and they don't. Here's how I see it... nobody's BORN gay, but they become gay, not by choice. Subconciously, they like the idea, or it feels right, or other... but it's a subconcious choice that changes them. I'm almost 100% positive this is it, as both of the others have their own good points, it seems perfectly logical that a common ground could be the truth. :coolugh:
     
  12. [Bartleby]

    [Bartleby] New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, Fl
    I think straight people made the choice to be straight, and that they are born gay. I think all men are born and grow up wanting to be with men, but society has conditioned them to breed and only love the opposite sex.

    From this point on that will be the reason I give.. As insane as it sounds I am going to join the 'choice' bandwagon, why? Because I think I am right.

    Maybe if enough people take this opposite view the two crazy viewpoints will cancel eachother out.

    :bowdown::bowdown::squint:
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2004
  13. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    :mamoru: :rofl: :mamoru:
     
  14. EvilJediJ

    EvilJediJ Guest

    bartleby,

    Are you denying that you believe that people are born straight and society can turn them gay?

    It only makes sense from a Darwinian standpoint that people are born hetero and it makes complete sense that they can be turned gay from the identical twin studes.
     
  15. [Bartleby]

    [Bartleby] New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, Fl
    I am saying everyone is born gay and society turns them straight, I will use your throey and run with it.. All entertainment, books, and pretty much every aspect of life is geared around heterosexuality, soo using your argument there is no way to disprove that people have been conditioned all their life to be straight instead of embracing their natural homosexual instincts..

    :bowdown::mamoru:

    Since I have not seen this 'gay' influence that changes so many kids into homosexuals, but I can see the influences that could change people straight, my theory has more supporting evidence than yours. so

    *neener neener neener* *naanaa naanaa naaa naaaa* *rasberry*

    Prove me wrong, you cant, its unprovable unless you wan tto lock a generation of babies in a sensory deprevation room until they mature and see who turns out what. The sad thing is though that upon further thought my theory is nearly as sound as yours.
     
  16. RedGoober4Life

    RedGoober4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DTW
    you're saying that making pointless sounds to a baby is making them gay? I don't knwo if you've ever been around a baby very long but if you just hold them and look at them they get pretty freaked out. I found this out the hard way that you have to talk to them about...nothing. hahaha
     
  17. [Bartleby]

    [Bartleby] New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, Fl
    lol.. no!

    I was just typing that to make sure no one actually thought I believed inw hat I was saying.. I like a good discussion but I dont want anyoen to really think I believe that crap I just wrote in my last 2 posts..

    Man id admit myself into bellview if I thought that.

    Just making a point that when you flip an argument, and change homo to hetro and vice versa the argument for "made gay" supports homo-to hetro better than hetro-to homo.
     
  18. EvilJediJ

    EvilJediJ Guest

    Man..you need to take a Logic class or reasoning and argument and you definetely need take a biology class.

    We are animals and we are programmed genetically to reproduce. Society doesn't tell us to reproduce it is in our instincts.

    "REPRODUCTION
    Nature has designed life, from the smallest microbe to the largest whale, to have one basic purpose. That purpose is to reproduce. Whatever else an organism does, reproduction is its basic goal. All else, from dolphins frolicking to the Pyramids, is gravy.

    You may question this. So let's ask some questions:

    "What do you mean by 'reproduction'?"

    Basically, it's life making copies of itself. An organism is a combination of elements such as carbon, iron, hydrogen, potassium, sodium, etc.. How the elements combine into molecules, and how those molecules are arranged, determines what the organism is, whether a bacterium, bedbug or buffalo. The instructions for this arrangement are in the organism's genes. They provide the guidelines for everything from eye color (or even if there are eyes and if so how many) to the hard-wired instincts on how to react to stimuli. To make a copy of itself, the organism must create another organism that contains the same genes. This can be done asexually or sexually, but that's a topic for later in the chapter.

    "But surely the basic purpose of life is to stay alive. Right?"

    On the surface, it may appear so. Certainly most living things go out of their way to stay that way. They devote a lot of time and attention to self-preservation. However, what basic reason is there for staying alive? If nature just wanted life, everything could be immortal -- just do it once and leave it at that. But nothing is immortal; everything eventually wears out (or more accurately for life, dies). For life to continue, it must make fresh copies of itself. The purpose of self-preservation is to stay alive long enough to make those fresh copies. If an individual's death contributes to that individual's reproduction, it dies. For example, the male preying mantis is eaten by the female while inseminating her, providing her with nourishment she needs to produce and lay her eggs. However, in his sacrifice he passes on that part of his life that's important to nature -- his genes.

    "What about all those other things organisms do? Eating, sleeping, building, travelling, etc.?"

    Almost everything an organism does enhances its ability to stay alive, at least long enough to reproduce. An extreme example is the Pacific salmon, which devotes years to staying alive. It then engages in "kamikaze reproduction," (technically, semelparity) literally committing suicide in its efforts to reproduce. (Daly, 1978) All of its activities, from eating to dodging predators to travelling thousands of miles, aim at that final, fatal return to its original stream to spawn.

    Other things that an organism does are attempts to increase its chances at reproducing. For example, among animals that reproduce sexually, males compete with each other to gain access to females. The competitions may be physical, such as butting heads, or psychological, by having the loudest roar. In any case, the competition is to get the status or prove the fitness that will entice the female to choose the winner.

    "Well, that may apply to other animals, but how about us humans? We paint pictures, watch television, go jogging. What possible effect could these have on reproduction?"

    An excellent question. The answer is very little. And what little effect there is subtle. Here we turn from the biological to the sociological basis of behavior. The more complex an organism, the more of its environment it can apprehend and try to manipulate to its own advantage. Often it does this through cooperation with other organisms. Humans, the ultimate in environmental manipulators, do more things, with more others, to more effect, than any other creatures on earth. You may watch television to relax; relaxation can benefit your health; the healthier you are the longer you may live; the longer you live the greater your chance to reproduce. Do humans think this way when they sit down to watch Gilligan's Island? Of course not. But the body might be saying, "Take a strain off," and, with many ways to relax, television may be the choice. Painting pictures may be relaxing, or provide money to buy food and shelter or prove fitness to a potential mate. Looking at the pictures may be soothing, or provide a more relaxing atmosphere, or be an investment. Jogging can improve health, and perhaps provide opportunities to meet healthy potential mates.

    Humans are as much biological creatures as aphids or elephants. And, although humans have a conscious overlay of intelligence and culture, deep down in the subconscious, we have the same drive to reproduce our kind.

    REPRODUCTION -- HOW DOES IT WORK?

    The earth teems with thousands of species of creatures, all doing their best to continue teeming. As discussed above, a species continues by reproducing, by making copies of the members in that species. Species that don't reproduce, for whatever reason, don't survive.

    Samuel Butler once said, "The hen is the egg's way of making another egg." There is a much truth in this adage. In the natural world, the egg's vehicle, be it fish, fowl or flower, doesn't matter. What does matter is that the vehicle gets the egg fertilized, hatched, and far enough along in development to have a chance of producing another egg. The egg contains the hen's genes, which combine with the rooster's genes. The genes create from the raw materials of organic life another chicken. That chicken then has another egg. It is not the egg, but the genetic material that the egg nourishes and brings to fruition that is important. It is the genes that must be passed on if a species is not to become extinct.

    In addition, the egg wants to have another egg as much as possible like itself. A species is a collection of genetically similar individuals. Since it's the genetic material, the genes, that makes each egg an individual member of a species, the egg wants to pass its own genes on to the next generation.

    Of course, to nature the individual isn't important; what is important is the species to which the individual belongs. An examination of nature shows this to be true. Herbivores that are susceptible to predation often herd in large numbers. Fish and insects may eggs in the thousands and millions. Plants produce seeds and spores in the millions and billions. In this way, although individual members of a species may fall to predators or bad luck, the species is safe from extinction.

    However, this does not mean that the individual doesn't care about reproduction. In fact, it is the reason for the individual's existence. It isn't the species that carries the genes, it's the individuals in that species that do. This desire to pass on its own genes is why an individual is so concerned with self-preservation. It must personally survive to pass on its genes.

    An organism wants to pass its own genes on to offspring. If it didn't want to, it wouldn't care if it reproduced or not. Enough of these individuals, and the species dies out. However, that event is unlikely. Without an instinct to pass on its own genes that individual doesn't, and its lack of an instinct to reproduce dies with it. Those individuals that have the instinct are the ones that continue the species, and therefore breed the instinct into future generations."

    http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/biosex1.html


    So there, that is the proof that most people are born heterosexual, if they weren't they wouldn't survive. We are just like all other animals...we need to reproduce and sex is the instrument that was given to do this.

    So now that we have established that most people are born heterosexual...

    The Identical twin studies is proof that you can be made gay. Identical twins have the exact same DNA, the exact same genotype. So if Bob is gay, and since you say that he was born gay (since your theory is that we are all born gay) his brother would also be gay. But in only 25% of the cases are identical twins both gay. Therefore ...it is not the case that they are born gay, but instead have some sort of genetic disposition that with the right societal influences they can become gay.
     
  19. [Bartleby]

    [Bartleby] New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, Fl
    Your right My logic doesnt make sense, It wasnt supposed to make sense. I just repeated what you said. And nothing I said meant anything, so why is what I said definitive proof when its hetrosexuals turning into homosexuals?

    Reproduction is rooted in genetics, I have zero urge to reproduce, no part of me looks at a woman and says "I want to knock her up and propigate the species". Societal influences would not contratict biology so strongly, if people were 'turned' gay then you would see alot more gay men knocking up women.

    Societies influence the last time I checked was not a means of genetic engineering. Its damn near impossible to get a republican to become a full fledged democrat, as hard as that is how hard would it be to get someone to abandon a million years of instict.
     
  20. EvilJediJ

    EvilJediJ Guest

    Then explain the identical twin study Bartleby..do it..its proof you can be turned gay.

    Your logic still isn't making any sense. Yes changing a 50 year old from a republican to a democrat is a hard thing to do. But try changing a 3 year olds mind. Not very hard at all.....Ever heard of feral children? There children that are raised by animals and they basically adopt the behavior of animals. I've seen shows a girl that spent years 1-5 being raised by homeless dogs and even now at the age of 20 she still acts more dog than human...that is a lot bigger difference than simply liking the same sex...but thinking you are a different animal all together...wow..

    think of a serial killer ..they aren't born with any gene that says kill/rape/ and mutilate little kids( well perhaps if they are schizophrenic) its usually the case that they come from a very abusive childhood.

    I think it was the famous psychologist B.F Skinner who said that he could take an infant have him grow up to be whatever he wanted that child to be...gay/straight/serial killer/nazi/christian /buddhist

    Societal influences can contradict biology. You saying otherwise is ludicrous. Think of monks or priests(the good ones anyway) that have absolutely no urge to have sex with women. They used to..but through years of training they no longer have this desire. That right there is proof of societal influence contradicting there genetic biology. You probably didn't need years of training since you were probably changed somehow when you were a little kid.

    What about Kamikazee pilots or in more modern terms suicide bombers? That completely contradicts biology, yet through society....

    How about a son who kills his father for inheritance money or his brother for the right to the throne...etc..etc..or a parent who kills his or her children


    These are all simple and easy examples that any 8th grader not in the LD program could come up with. I find it rather embarassing (for your) that I had to come up with these to show you the fallacy in your thinking. I hope it is the case that it is not that you are too stupid..but just that you have an emotional attachment to the idea of being born gay and not made gay that is blinding you from such obvious reasonng. Why? why do you have this emotional attachment? What about the idea of being born gay instead of made gay makes you feel better about yourself?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2004

Share This Page