Gay Marriage - A Gathering Storm

[Kuya]

just here to /agree with Andarvi's post.

Work has been done investigating the biological basis of all sexual behavior, certainly some aspects of sexuality are learned and due to the influence of society, but sexuality is a fundamental issue in reproductive biology and evolution and it would be a major, major surprise if there were no (or only a weak) biological component.

I agree with Kuya to the extent that the origins of human sexuality are not deterministic and exclusively genetic. And from all the quotes that he prepared I think most of those people feel the same way. But it's a big leap saying no biological origin.

And of course, none of the quotes said that biology plays no role, just that it's weak to moderate at best with no clear explanation. It is also not learned, by the way, a study was done that pretty much proved that there is no real link between education and homosexuality (that is, the way their parents raised their kids). I don't know what you mean by influence of society. The only thing that has had consistent relationships was atypical behaviour (gender) and atypical sexual conduct. Of course, the previous isn't exactly absolute either.

[GeneJackit]

Yeah, it is sexist and/or mysognistic. I wouldn't refer to it as such in a serious conversation. There are various levels of language use and in the situation where I referred to the vagina as a cavernous maw, the language use was informal and used offensive language for the sake of comedy with like minded people (in this instance, guys).

My language use is dynamic so one should not jump to conclusions when certain words are used. I may have used a sexist and/or mysognistic word but that usage does not make me sexist and/or mysoginistic.

People are too sensitive about words anyways...just made me think of that column

[Andarvi]

Such as Firas is incapable of understanding the point of Westerners, Westerners, specifically Americans are hard pressed to do away with their biological determinism, it really doesn't surprise me nor did i intend to convince anyone.

Also, i'd be careful with what you said, because you just implied that science can make two contradictory claims based not on the way the research is done itself, but on what people's intentions are. Or course, you mellow that out by saying that science will eventually find the truth... which to you is that sexuality is biologically determined.

Well, stuff like Creationists with PHDs in the same fields as pro-evolution PHD doctors looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions.

Creationist: Look at the fossil record, there are missing links, we cannot connect that humans and other primates share a common ancestor.

Evolutionist: We have found many missing links, some are still missing, having not been found yet, but from what we already have it is already evident a common ancestor is the most plausible evidence.

Even when evidence strongly supports the basis of evolution they will interpret it different to satisfy their own opinions. You could say evolution is still a theory and hasn't been proven, but come on, there are too many other things that clearly make it more plausible than the basis of creationism (this was just an example, lets not let this debate go down the evolution road).

Also, I know from where Firas is coming from his beliefs are understandable, but it was borderline trolling to come on this highly liberal board, call homosexuality a disease, say a womans role is to take car of the house, etc... I acknowledge his beliefs but this was an interesting place to use some of terms he did, thats all.

[Tristam]

And of course, none of the quotes said that biology plays no role, just that it's weak to moderate at best with no clear explanation. It is also not learned, by the way, a study was done that pretty much proved that there is no real link between education and homosexuality (that is, the way their parents raised their kids). I don't know what you mean by influence of society. The only thing that has had consistent relationships was atypical behaviour (gender) and atypical sexual conduct. Of course, the previous isn't exactly absolute either.

I didn't mean homosexuality, I meant stuff like abstinence-only education etc.

edit: And the reassessment of female sexuality in light of the feminist movement is another good example.

[Kuya]

Well, stuff like Creationists with PHDs in the same fields as pro-evolution PHD doctors looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions.

Creationist: Look at the fossil record, there are missing links, we cannot connect that humans and other primates share a common ancestor.

Evolutionist: We have found many missing links, some are still missing, having not been found yet, but from what we already have it is already evident a common ancestor is the most plausible evidence.

Even when evidence strongly supports the basis of evolution they will interpret it different to satisfy their own opinions. You could say evolution is still a theory and hasn't been proven, but come on, there are too many other things that clearly make it more plausible than the basis of creationism (this was just an example, lets not let this debate go down the evolution road).

Also, I know from where Firas is coming from his beliefs are understandable, but it was borderline trolling to come on this highly liberal board, call homosexuality a disease, say a womans role is to take car of the house, etc... I acknowledge his beliefs but this was an interesting place to use some of terms he did, thats all.

Theory does not have the same meaning when applied to a scientific context, in a scientific context it has received sufficient evidence to be considered proven.

I don't understand why you call it borderline trolling when at the same time you acknowledge that his beliefs are due to his background.

edit: i don't disagree with the idea that in science two scientists can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, in fact, i brought up that point during the religious debate thread, to quell the positivists and their near dogmatic claims. I just think that if you claim it, you're going to attract a lot of flack for it.

[Andarvi]

Theory does not have the same meaning when applied to a scientific context, in a scientific context it has received sufficient evidence to be considered proven.

I don't understand why you call it borderline trolling when at the same time you acknowledge that his beliefs are due to his background.

edit: i don't disagree with the idea that in science two scientists can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, in fact, i brought up that point during the religious debate thread, to quell the positivists and their near dogmatic claims. I just think that if you claim it, you're going to attract a lot of flack for it.

OK, we agree then, and I don't care if I catch flack. You have a scientific background from the way you speak, I have a BS in biology, if someone doesn't understand what we are talking about, oh well.

And perhaps trolling wasn't the right word, just that coming into a thread about gay marriage where 9/10 people are asking why it isn't allowed and support it and then calling homosexuality a "disease," especially when many of the people are open about being gay, was asking for trouble. I don't discourage it though, it is entertaining, and now that I think of it, its pretty much the same thing as the whole data interpretation thing you and I agree on potentially catching flack. He knew it would cause a stir, perhaps what I said will too.

[spd]

Really, it all comes down to: What harm does it do to allow two gay people to marry?

pretty much /thread for me

[Kuya]

As for the research itself, we should take into account that the people saying that biological explanations for sexuality don't actually have much weight, in other words, that homosexuality is in fact, according to research not biologically determined (solely) are the very same people who went in to research with the intention of finding proof for a biological cause, and others are homosexuals themselves!

Levay, a gay neuroscientist, himself has said that his research has been used to claim that there is a biological cause, when in fact, and he has admitted it, his research was flawed. Ann Fausto-Sterling, a famous lesbian biologist, herself, having looked at most of the data, has concluded that there is no biological cause for homosexuality, in the sole sense. And Hammer, who was behind the genetic research for homosexuality, has himself asserted that the research does not prove homosexuality is biological, and he is currently being investigated for scientific fraud in this specific research. It has also been noted by many scientists, that the media has given favorable time to biological theories of homosexuality, and when the theories are debunked or lose dominion, these findings are almost never reported:


Science reporting to the public: Does the message get twisted? -- Condit 170 (9): 1415 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/7/13/1203.pdf

Some have blamed the media, and others have blamed the scientists themselves, but is it pretty much true that biological theories for homosexuality have been popularly presented to the public as proof that homosexuality is biological.

[Penthesilea]

there's all kinds of research to suggest a theoretical biological model of homosexuality.

just found this one, in like 2 seconds. Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relat...[J Theor Biol. 2004] - PubMed Result

er I can't upload pdfs, and unless you have access to elsevier full texts, not going to bother.

At this point in time and how far into the genetics of it that we've gone, it will be difficult to isolate any specific gene (I don't believe we'll find one gene) but rather quantitative locii that give rise to homosexual attributes.



I think the main thing that needs to not be forgotten is that while there may be a biological basis, we can not let it be used to impinge upon civil liberties.

[Skjie]

All orgies, all the time?

Sorry I'm late. Friday and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is more what I was thinking. Family Corporations.

[Andarvi]

As for the research itself, we should take into account that the people saying that biological explanations for sexuality don't actually have much weight, in other words, that homosexuality is in fact, according to research not biologically determined (solely) are the very same people who went in to research with the intention of finding proof for a biological cause, and others are homosexuals themselves!

Levay, a gay neuroscientist, himself has said that his research has been used to claim that there is a biological cause, when in fact, and he has admitted it, his research was flawed. Ann Fausto-Sterling, a famous lesbian biologist, herself, having looked at most of the data, has concluded that there is no biological cause for homosexuality, in the sole sense. And Hammer, who was behind the genetic research for homosexuality, has himself asserted that the research does not prove homosexuality is biological, and he is currently being investigated for scientific fraud in this specific research. It has also been noted by many scientists, that the media has given favorable time to biological theories of homosexuality, and when the theories are debunked or lose dominion, these findings are almost never reported:


Science reporting to the public: Does the message get twisted? -- Condit 170 (9): 1415 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/7/13/1203.pdf

Some have blamed the media, and others have blamed the scientists themselves, but is it pretty much true that biological theories for homosexuality have been popularly presented to the public as proof that homosexuality is biological.

Interesting read, especially the bolded part, because that is almost always the case. There is rarely a case in science at the highest level where it is split down the middle, and an example like the origins of homosexuality is extremely gray because of the personal and subjective stake that the researchers and the media take in its interpretation, recording, and presentation. I think that, outside of the religious community, where at least contemporarily the most objective research is conducted IMO, scientists WANT to prove that homosexuality is biological. This could certainly be problematic in that, unlike the neurologist you posted, not all of them would be ready to concede on such a sensitive topic.

[Ksandra]

tbh I think it's both biological and social reasons for homosexuallity. I have met homosexuals that I feel are they way they are naturally. I knew them long enough to feel that they didn't have anything life-wise happen to them to "make them gay". It's just the way they are. Take that teenager that got the sex change. If you look at the vids, there seems to be no madness in their life, he/she just insisted that all their life they felt they were a girl. I do think that these triggers are based on something biological.

There are those that I know are homosexuals by choice, whether they are subconcious or not. I had a friend in HS who was a lesbian. When she was only 10 years old, she was raped by her own uncle. You can imagine that her brain was terrified of men thereafter. I am not sure if in her head she dated women as a choice because of this, or if the event caused her to want to date women. I would not fault her for either.


As I have mentioned before, the big thing about this country, is it's supposed to be based on freedom and protection. There are laws put into place to protect people from each other, but equally are laws to prevent discrimination. Your life does not get effected by two men marrying. We are supposed to protect their rights, not stick them back in the closet.

Also @ the adoption thing, it's known that homosexuals help a lot in this category because they can't have kids. Anyone who is so homophobic hat they think that a kid with NO parent is better than a kid with two moms or two dads, boggles my mind. You go to an orphanage and ask those kids which they'd prefer, and I highly doubt it's to stay there, which sadly happens to most.

In all honesty, people who don't adopt have no right to say that others shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

[Atreides]

If scientists discovered a gay gene...and found it in a fetus in utero, would you (general question...not to anyone specific) approve parents aborting their kids b/c they didnt want them to be gay?

That was the part that I always found kinda humorous, that if conclusive scientific evidence of a 'gay gene' was ever discovered, typically anti-gay conservatives would be forced to either A) accept homosexuality as God's will or B) relax their stance on abortion and genetic research to prevent homosexuality from occurring.

[Andarvi]

That was the part that I always found kinda humorous, that if conclusive scientific evidence of a 'gay gene' was ever discovered, typically anti-gay conservatives would be forced to either A) accept homosexuality as God's will or B) relax their stance on abortion and genetic research to prevent homosexuality from occurring.

Wow, I never thought of that. Very interesting indeed.

Many years in the future when/if we can genetically screen more effectively in utero:

Doctor: "Well Mr. and Mrs. Cooper, your son will have brownish hair, be roughly between 5'11-6'2, his expected muscle development pegs him to be in the top 10% of strength and agility, his brain development is expected to place his IQ at 160, and our facial projector estimates him to be very handsome. He will also be homosexual."

Parents: "ITS A TRAP. TAKE EVASIVE ACTION. GREEN GROUP, STAY CLOSE TO HOLDING SECTOR MD-7."

[Penthesilea]

You've never heard of Eugenics before?

[Kuya]

tbh I think it's both biological and social reasons for homosexuallity. I have met homosexuals that I feel are they way they are naturally. I knew them long enough to feel that they didn't have anything life-wise happen to them to "make them gay". It's just the way they are. Take that teenager that got the sex change. If you look at the vids, there seems to be no madness in their life, he/she just insisted that all their life they felt they were a girl. I do think that these triggers are based on something biological.

There are those that I know are homosexuals by choice, whether they are subconcious or not. I had a friend in HS who was a lesbian. When she was only 10 years old, she was raped by her own uncle. You can imagine that her brain was terrified of men thereafter. I am not sure if in her head she dated women as a choice because of this, or if the event caused her to want to date women. I would not fault her for either.


As I have mentioned before, the big thing about this country, is it's supposed to be based on freedom and protection. There are laws put into place to protect people from each other, but equally are laws to prevent discrimination. Your life does not get effected by two men marrying. We are supposed to protect their rights, not stick them back in the closet.

Also @ the adoption thing, it's known that homosexuals help a lot in this category because they can't have kids. Anyone who is so homophobic hat they think that a kid with NO parent is better than a kid with two moms or two dads, boggles my mind. You go to an orphanage and ask those kids which they'd prefer, and I highly doubt it's to stay there, which sadly happens to most.

In all honesty, people who don't adopt have no right to say that others shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

You are using pathological explanations for people who aren't homosexuals by "nature", which is ironic. What do i mean? Well, look at what i bolded. You are implying that something bad has to happen for them to become homosexuals, if it's not biologically determined, and that is regrettable.

For example, for one to have erotic feelings towards the same sex or something other than humans, they do not necessarily have to experience notable or life changing events. Take the biopsicosocial theory of Daryl Bem.

Just when we thought the nature-versus-nurture debate concerning sexualorientation was leaning toward nature--with the search for a "gay gene" ongoing--here comes a new theory of sexual development from Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem, Ph.D.

Despite the finding that at least one part of the brain is larger in heterosexual men than in gay men, Bern believes biological factors such as hormones, genetic makeup, and brain anatomy don't influence our sexual preferences directly but rather determine our temperament. And temperament, in turn, influences the activities and playmates children prefer.

So while an aggressive boy might relish rough sports, a girl with a gentle disposition may prefer hopscotch. And just as these two will feel different from each other, so too will a rough-playing tomboy feel different from girls who prefer Barbie dolls. Bern says that feeling unlike your same-sex peers makes you perceive them as "exotic," producing physiological arousal--faster heartbeats, increased blood pressure--that's later transformed into sexual attraction. As Bern puts it, "the exotic becomes erotic."

In a detailed article in Psychological Review, Bern supports his claims by pointing to studies that show the vast majority of gender-nonconforming boys wind up gay or bisexual, while most who conform do not. Whether or not the theory is accepted--and thus far it has earned both praise and pans from other experts--it's sure to add fresh fodder to the debate over whether sexual orientation is born or bred.

http://www.muzi.com/library/pdf/125821.pdf

So, the way by which one could become attracted to the same sex does not have to involve a large event in one's life that is somehow the sole determinant of one's sexuality, just like you probably don't know why you like certain colours, certain looks on the sex you like, certain foods, or certain musics, this works the same way for sexuality, you don't know how it happened, but because you don't know you assume it must have been innate. The implications for a more complex system that determines sexuality could very well be systematic and not singular. Just as Penthesilea says that it could involve multiple genes, it could very well go beyond the genes and involve multiple events and their interaction, both conscious and unconscious with your own cognition.

[Andarvi]

You've never heard of Eugenics before?

No, I have, but never really thought of the compromise a pious person would have to make reconciling their desire to have a straight child with their anti-abortion stance.

[Faris]

thank you for pointing those interesting links.
So if homosexuality isnt biological, how come it exists in animals too? culture doesnt exist in animals.

If scientists discovered a gay gene...and found it in a fetus in utero, would you (general question...not to anyone specific) approve parents aborting their kids b/c they didnt want them to be gay?

thats a nice question

[Kuya]

thank you for pointing those interesting links.
So if homosexuality isnt biological, how come it exists in animals too? culture doesnt exist in animals.


thats a nice question

Actually, animals may not have culture, but they do socialize. Furthermore, animals... fuck a lot of things.

[Penthesilea]

Just when we thought the nature-versus-nurture debate concerning sexualorientation was leaning toward nature--with the search for a "gay gene" ongoing--here comes a new theory of sexual development from Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem, Ph.D.

Despite the finding that at least one part of the brain is larger in heterosexual men than in gay men, Bern believes biological factors such as hormones, genetic makeup, and brain anatomy don't influence our sexual preferences directly but rather determine our temperament. And temperament, in turn, influences the activities and playmates children prefer.

So while an aggressive boy might relish rough sports, a girl with a gentle disposition may prefer hopscotch. And just as these two will feel different from each other, so too will a rough-playing tomboy feel different from girls who prefer Barbie dolls. Bern says that feeling unlike your same-sex peers makes you perceive them as "exotic," producing physiological arousal--faster heartbeats, increased blood pressure--that's later transformed into sexual attraction. As Bern puts it, "the exotic becomes erotic."

In a detailed article in Psychological Review, Bern supports his claims by pointing to studies that show the vast majority of gender-nonconforming boys wind up gay or bisexual, while most who conform do not. Whether or not the theory is accepted--and thus far it has earned both praise and pans from other experts--it's sure to add fresh fodder to the debate over whether sexual orientation is born or bred.

Um... so he's saying that physiological functions determine our attitudes and behaviour, and those behaviours can lead to homosexuality? Kinda sounds like there's some linkage there.