Yeah but what about people who aren't incredibly flamboyant or butch from childhood and just happen to change their sexual preference?
Ma'am. You have a healthy gay baby boy!
Oh no! Well, another one for the adoption agency, I guess.
So basically great it's been proven that sexuality isn't a choice, so looks like you guys'll have to find another arguement!
If someone wants to be an engineer, you don't have people saying "GOD DIDN'T INTEND FOR YOU TO BE AN ENGINEER."Homosexuality and occupation are two entirely different things! (....in most cases)
Allthough the research is swedish and they are all crazy... so it's validity is blehg.
I remember someone once said that all people were inherently bisexual.
Heh
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
Which means that sexuality is determined at birth.Not necessarily. More research is needed to figure out whether this deviation present at birth. One theory (that seems a lot more logical to me personally) is that the brain "misses" or fails to properly undergo one of the many changes it goes through in preparation to adulthood. This same theory would also apply to other sexually deviant behavior.
What difference does it make? Why is anyone researching this? If someone wants to be an engineer, you don't have people saying "GOD DIDN'T INTEND FOR YOU TO BE AN ENGINEER."
This can ONLY lead to problems. People are going to start judging children because they're supposedly hardwired to be gay.
I for one think that you become a homosexual when you engange in homosexual activity, and then it becomes a choice, when you choose to do those actions. Just like murderers are murderers when they choose to murder people or engineers are engineers when they choose to engineer things. Cause you're not gay (or no one could tell if you are or not, so how would anyone else know/care) until you start doing gay things (ie dongs in the mouth.)
If other people didn't do anything, we wouldn't define them. How we define ourselves however.... thats much to philosophical to get into here, but in my own opinion the idea of people being inherently blameless for thier lifestyle/mindset based on physiology, eugenics, etc really REALLY should be viewed with the highest skepticism. Otherwise people will be like "I'm not lazy its the way my brain is shaped," and other things of that nature. Fatalism, boo.
haha ryan yep you're right. way to go blitzen for completely spitting in the face of facts.
I am just not one for such fatalistic arguments, because its like saying your brain physiology sets in stone the way you will behave and think, and I was always more optimistic, that people are capable of whatever they want to achieve in ways of doing or thinking or being, than we are supposed to be limited to by our physiology.
Really, my dislike for this theory has little to do with gays and more to do with the ability of one to shape his own psyche and self. It comes down the question that I have heard lots of gays pose, that we "can't change who we are", but I always have never given creedence towards that idea, and I think that people can change themselves in any way they like (short of growing back legs and stuff like that, but with science in the near future who knows).
Or worse, finding a way to change it some time down the road so there's no more homosexuals. I doubt we'd ever reach that, but I could see some backwards country doing it eventually.
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.Especially since the paper itself gave this little disclaimer:
The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial...Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.My apologies if I didn't cite the paper (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0801566105v1) correctly. Either way, how the heck did BBC draw the "gay from birth" argument when the paper itself clearly states that no such conclusions were made is beyond me. Expert opinion from a Dr. Qazi Rahman? That's still just conjecture - there is still no official citation that shows statistical evidence that this correlation is indeed before birth, during early stages of development, during the childhood years, or even during their adult years due to some nervous process.
I for one think that you become a homosexual when you engange in homosexual activity, and then it becomes a choice, when you choose to do those actions. Just like murderers are murderers when they choose to murder people or engineers are engineers when they choose to engineer things. Cause you're not gay (or no one could tell if you are or not, so how would anyone else know/care) until you start doing gay things (ie dongs in the mouth.)
If homosexuality is wrong and not natural, why do sheep have gay sex when they have no real sense of self, or of whats wrong or right morally or for themselves?
If homosexuality is wrong and not natural, why do sheep have gay sex when they have no real sense of self, or of whats wrong or right morally or for themselves?If it's anything like the reasons most animals do it, that's one sheep showing dominance over the other.
I am just not one for such fatalistic arguments, because its like saying your brain physiology sets in stone the way you will behave and think, and I was always more optimistic, that people are capable of whatever they want to achieve in ways of doing or thinking or being, than we are supposed to be limited to by our physiology.
Really, my dislike for this theory has little to do with gays and more to do with the ability of one to shape his own psyche and self. It comes down the question that I have heard lots of gays pose, that we "can't change who we are", but I always have never given creedence towards that idea, and I think that people can change themselves in any way they like (short of growing back legs and stuff like that, but with science in the near future who knows).
Yes, yes! Why didn't we think of it before?! All those lazy fucks that have Down's Syndrome and autism, all they've got to do is shape their psyche and get out of the house!
Do you really think that something wrong IN THE BRAIN, which by the way is where your self and psyche comes from, can be fixed by some training program? Will this require a Rocky Balboa montage of people saying I CANT DO IT as "Push It To The Limit" plays in the background?
I'm not arguing that homosexuality is a disorder like autism, but if a person has some funky brain structure that causes them to be attracted to the opposite sex, there's not much you can do about it unless, I don't know, you perform some MAJOR brain surgery or something.
maybe...This is my new theory.
maybe God is homosexual??
and his CHOSEN PEOPLE are the homosexuals while heterosexuals are just meant for reproduction so that human race (actually all mamals) can keep producing homosexuals?????
Do you really think that something wrong IN THE BRAIN, which by the way is where your self and psyche comes from, can be fixed by some training program? Will this require a Rocky Balboa montage of people saying I CANT DO IT as "Push It To The Limit" plays in the background?
The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial...Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.The research (not Dr. Rahman, who has nothing to do with this) makes no conclusions about causality.
Handsome lamb what about people who have different standards of beauty? (for example, they don't like big breasts)
Obviously it's different from person to person
Still, that doesn't refute the idea that someone can learn behaviours that are contrary to thier innate dispositions (ie gay men being straight, straight men being gay). In ancient Athens, most free men would have practiced some form of pederasty (erotic ideas about young men) , but is that attributed to thier brain size or the societal conditioning that gave rise to the self-replicating institution and that also ensured that people would fight more passionately for their fellow free men (because of the mess of romantic feelings that were stirred up in there). What we would have percieved as homosexual or bisexual behavious were considered normal for a majority of the male population, which most probably didn't have the brain-size difference ratio that this researcher was talking about.
The study suggests that gays are born gay because of brain structure, but who is to say that the subjects brain structure wasn't influenced to shape itself in its formative years due to reinforcement of homosexual behaviours (or other behaviours that are associative with the cognitive processes that take place with homosexuality) that stimulated and encouraged growth in those parts of the brain?
But it's still basic primal instincts, so for the majority, eh.
I've yet to see a culture where big breasted women with large hips aren't the symbol of beauty
But what about cultures that have other standards, are you sure they're not just invented by them instead of being "instinct"?
So DN, were the Roman Soldiers all born gay? Or were they born straight, but changed their way of thinking what with gayness be so open?
What about those peoples who don't wear clothes. They don't really care about big breasts.
What about anorexics. They think looking like you came from auschwitz is pretty.
What about body builders. They think they're pretty.
So I think beauty is invented.
I guess I just don't understand this mentality that some people have that we have no control over who we are (and in that sense, I mean who we are as a collection of thoughts, feelings, attitudes and behaviours). I know that I can shape who I am as an individual, when it comes to these things, and so others probably can too, in various respects. Yeah, so to me, you do have the power choose your attitudes, behaviours, feelings through self conditioning and self reasoning, in spite of the fact that that your brain size says you "should" do different. People learn, and I really do think because of this reasoning that sexual behaviours are learned (or at the very least can be learned or re-learned) and not entirely innate.
This is the kind of stuff that sociologists probably talk about on the highest level. Because of popular attitudes towards homosexuality being more accepting, people are more willing to find reasons that make gays "faultless". (I didn't want to say it cause it sounds bad but its the only way I can think of describing it.) But yeah, we define each other by the behaviours we observe (you're not gay until you choose to do something gay) and we can define ourselves by our thoughts and feelings and behaviours (which as far as I am concerend can be chosen, learned, and re-learned through external and self-conditioning). Because we define homosexuality in these ways, if you agree that people can shape these things themselves, then you can see why I think choice is involved in the development of homosexuality in the individual.
The study suggests that gays are born gay because of brain structure, but who is to say that the subjects brain structure wasn't influenced to shape itself in its formative years due to reinforcement of homosexual behaviours (or other behaviours that are associative with the cognitive processes that take place with homosexuality) that stimulated and encouraged growth in those parts of the brain?
You missed his point. Just about every culture ever worships big breasts & big hipped women because instinctively men see big breasted women & large hipped women as better moms and mates, big breasts for the child feeding process, big hips for the child bearing process (and iirc they have a slightly better chance of getting preggers too)
What about them? People can be different, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, which obviously exists because if the majority didn't like big breasted & big hipped women, they wouldn't be worshipped.
I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.
I kinda see what you're saying about believing that each person has the ability to change certain aspects of himself/herself. I don't see how this has any application whatsoever to a concept that is purely scientific. A person who is inherently gay could very well self-condition himself to suppress those urges, but would it be healthy? Would it be right? It seems to me that consciously working to change a fundamental aspect of your body that was determined before you were even born might not be one of the most fruitful pursuits one could undertake.
I think there would be a choice as well, only not in the way you're describing it. You seem to think that just about every aspect of human development is something that is learned and thus subject to change on a relative whim. You also think that a person cannot be considered to possess a specific trait until he has formally participated in an activity that is popularly associated with that trait. This is wrong in several ways.
If an 18-year-old male finds himself with no attraction whatsoever to the opposite sex but still has not officially participated in a sexual act with another male, does that make him some sort of invalid? What title do you propose we give to these individuals, if not homosexual? Furthermore, does that imply that he should "self-condition" himself to rid his being of these urges and simply fit in with the crowd?
Also, I don't believe that there is in any way an effort to make the homosexual community appear "faultless" or however else you want to put it. It's a good thing that society is coming to accept homosexuality as a valid way of life for some people and not something that should be discriminated against. You seem to think that there's some sort of FAGGOT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION thing going on when the only real concept people are trying to uphold is equality.
If this were the case then it would also follow that heterosexuality could have its roots as a learned process. If sexual orientation is so subjective in relation to environmental stimulus, why has the human race propagated itself to the point of overpopulation? Who was there to reinforce heterosexuality during the infancy of the human race as a species? Sounds to me like science just isn't something that should be applied to those silly gays. Or, you know, JESUS GUIDES MY TOOL.
I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.
--
PS: Like Alec said it most people like just normal looking women/men etc for the reasons you said, but this "Venus of Willendorf is beautiful", "Pamela anderson is beautiful" is what is invented and not really instinct at all
--
PS2: I'm done arguing
And I wonder, if at any given point in history that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals has increased or descreased with the social atmosphere of any given place and time towards homosexual/bisexual behaviours. They never did keep statistics on that kind of thing though (which is a shame because it would be pretty interesting.)so you're saying people are more open to their homosexuality/bisexuality depending on the social climate and other circumstances (no shit)
it has nothing to do with being able to change yourself to the extent of being able to choose your sexual orientation. the whole argument you guys are having about WELL DIFFERENT PLACES THINK BEAUTY IS THIS has nothing to do with this shit. differences in the perception of beauty are the result of external influences that become deeply ingrained in a person's mind. and once there, they can't really be removed or OVERWRITTEN as you're suggesting. you gather these perceptions of the world as you're growing up and removing them is most likely impossible. and of course there's no evidence that sexuality is at all the same as perceptions of beauty and suggesting it is is pretty ignorant in itselfOk you realize that nobody but Blitzen is saying that you can overwrite your preferences. A lot of us are agreeing that it's not a choice, but is also not a birthed attribute.
so you're saying people are more open to their homosexuality/bisexuality depending on the social climate and other circumstances (no shit)
this doesn't support your theory at all.
your idea that it doesn't become homosexuality until it's acted upon comes from the fundamentalist standpoint. they need to say this to believe that it is a choice to be homosexual. however, homosexuality is defined as sexual desire within the same sex (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+homosexuality&btnG=Google+Search) and pretty much everyone who isn't a bigot acknowledges this.
I guess you really want to believe that it's a choice to be gay (which is what you're saying, believe it or not!), but there's absolutely no way you can prove or even test this. you just don't know how other people's minds work, regardless of how much LOGICAL REASONING and pseudopsychology you toss around. as is, you're just telling everyone how weird you think gay folks are and how much you want to believe that they don't have to be gay if they didn't want to, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back this up and you're really just giving yourself a bad image
the whole argument you guys are having about WELL DIFFERENT PLACES THINK BEAUTY IS THIS has nothing to do with this shit. differences in the perception of beauty are the result of external influences that become deeply ingrained in a person's mind. and once there, they can't really be removed or OVERWRITTEN as you're suggesting. you gather these perceptions of the world as you're growing up
HMMM I don't know about that, man. Recently I've been consciously kinda re-evaluating my standards for beauty a bit, trying to open my mind (since there are a lot of girls I thought were cool but didn't think were attractive per se) and all the girls that I've thought were attractive were kinda shits!yeah you're right that who you're attracted to can change, it has changed for me numerous times but I've just assumed it's hormones/growing up. I'm mostly talking about cultural things like neck rings, bound feet, oval faces and no eyebrows, black teeth. even then it's not absolute, but generally ingrained stuff like this is very difficult to change. it's really difficult to tell even what is going on inside yourself, it's possible this is more of a revelation for you than something you're conciously controlling idk.
Blitz it's because we don't really have control over certain things, if you were schizophrenic you could take medicines but you would still remain schizophrenic, you can't learn to be it or learn to not be it. You can't learn to be gay or to stop being it either.This is a big false analogy. Schizophrenia is not related to homosexuality or attraction by any means.
blitzen let me know the moment you are able to control 100% who you're attracted to. you talk about attraction as if it's a strictly conscious choice which is clearly not true!Not being 100% able to flexibly and instantaneously control who you're attracted to (and by the way you define 100% it seems to be that you can change your preferences at a snap) does not imply that no part of attraction is cognitive, social, or by choice. This argument is a fallacy of composition.
But it's still basic primal instincts, so for the majority, eh.
I've yet to see a culture where big breasted women with large hips aren't the symbol of beautyAncient China. The part (modern first world) does not hold true for the whole.
you have nothing to back up your opinion, where on the other side, even though there is no PROOF there are several things that seem to point at the fact that there are biological and physical differences between straight and gay people.Correlation does not imply causation. For that matter, correlation is not even strong evidence for causation; if we're allowed to give that line of argument, I could site the decrease in pirates and the increase in global warming, draw a graph with massive statistical significance, and imply that this obviously silly argument is supported by "some evidence."
I change the physical functions of my brain with will, I can also grow a third arm on my chest by conditioning, and will my eyes into sprouting stalks.Now you're just trolling instead of makign a proper debate. GG Raven2k.
I mean, you don't just go, OH SHIT THIS CHICK TOTALLY HAS THIS AWESOME HEREDITARY TRAIT IM GONNA TAP THAT SHIT SOOOO HARD. I mean, it's not something you inherently think about it, it's just there.You also don't just go, "oh shit the guy is being hung on a pole and mutilated hmm I'm going to check the laws of western ethics and conclude that the action is barbaric" or "oh shit he is eating dogs dogs are pets give me a while and let me use logic to draw a conclusion." Those are things that you don't inherently think about, but if you make the argument "it's just there," tons of cultures and people will disagree with you. Short reaction time can very well be a result of environment and habitual behavior, not just NATURAL.
I don't think this is much of a stretch considering its been theorized the reason humans don't have a baculum (penis bone) like other mammals is because of sexual selection from females causing us to lose them. By removing the baculum, human males rely on blood pressure, and thus gives human females a way to determine how healthy their mate is. I believe sexuality is something completely based in birth and instinct.It's a hypothesis and is currently unproven. The selection could very well be correlative or accidental, and even if it is a result of selection by some off-chance, you still can't generalize it to other modes of attraction OR to modern times. In the end, what you proposed is still only a hypothesis and an opinion - nothing more than what Blitzen has given.
If I read the article correctly, this particular researcher believes that his findings occur during the development of the fetus. If there is any substantial scientific evidence to back this it would effectively rule out your suggestion that sexual orientation is not a predetermined default.My reply is ignored =/. The researchers implied nothing because of post hoc ergo propter hoc; in fact, it explicitly warned that such conclusions cannot be drawn, and it's only a random professor who has nothing to do with the research that made the comment (and, thanks to media bias, ended up on the news article). This makes your next statement petitio principii and thus invalid in discrediting Blitzen's position.
What about them? People can be different, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, which obviously exists because if the majority didn't like big breasted & big hipped women, they wouldn't be worshipped.Addressed before, but besides attempting proof by example, this is an argumentum ad populum. How would you justify that the overwhelming majority of people throughout time indeed possess the same attraction specifications that you specified? (Note that popular opinion is not statistical evidence).
I guess you really want to believe that it's a choice to be gay (which is what you're saying, believe it or not!), but there's absolutely no way you can prove or even test this. you just don't know how other people's minds work, regardless of how much LOGICAL REASONING and pseudopsychology you toss around. as is, you're just telling everyone how weird you think gay folks are and how much you want to believe that they don't have to be gay if they didn't want to, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back this up and you're really just giving yourself a bad imageSteve, BLITZEN is not the one that is trying to forcefully present his beliefs. This is what I saw from the thread's progression:
blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!Even in the end, Blitzen's statement is this:
I don't think the answer is ever as simple as being "born gay".No one is saying that you can instantaneously change your behavior; unfortunately, no conclusive proof is offered to the contrary, so you cannot simply say "being homosexual is physical and cannot be changed even through psychological conditioning and all that!!"
This is a big false analogy. Schizophrenia is not related to homosexuality or attraction by any means.
this is actually a great analogy. this article provides evidence for homosexuality being a brain problem, blitzen said sexuality is probably mostly conditioning or taste, seemingly ignoring the article.I forgot how many times I quoted the same line in the ORIGINAL PAPER, but for your sake I'll do it again:
if homosexuality is a brain abnormality like schizophrenia then conditioning techniques won't work too well, that's why cognitive behavioural therapy works like crap on schizophrenics and they just dose em up.
The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial...The paper provides evidence that there is a correlation. The article provides no conclusions about causality.
Marcus: I know you're joking, but being born certain way doesn't allow you kill anyone, but maybe being born gay would make being gay more acceptable since it doesn't hurt anyone. It's only a moral problem.
Do you know anyone who became homosexual by choice?No. Do you know anyone who unquestionably became homosexual because of genetics? I'd be quite surprised if you did, since that would mean that you're ahead of scientists and must immediately write a paper and publish it for $$$.
So, someone sum this up because I'm pretty dumb. Does this test prove that people are born into specific ways of thinking?It proves very little. It only proves that there's a correlation between comparitive hemisphere size (and the size of certain factors, apparantly); it doesn't conclude whether homosexuality is by birth or even directly caused by/causes the difference.
Because there's a couple of guys I want dead and if I get caught this test proves that I'm a natural born killer and should be let off the hook.
you're right, it's not a proof, but so far we have this, on one side we have certain studies that indicate some relations between sexuality and biological traits, nothing conclusive, but enough to at least be open to the possibility, while on the other side there is nothing, blitzen has just said his opinion without anything more than "I think that.." that's the main difference.I have said this before, though; I could prove a very positive correlation between a lot of things, and they would not really make the other side wrong. For example, in a recent experiment that I did for a stat class, I found that there's a negative correlation between smoking/drinking and death in dialysis patients. It certainly doesn't mean that smoking makes you live longer; it simply meant (which I found out after diagnostics) that more young people smoke and if you're a young person right now, you will be more likely to live for 30 more years than if you're a 100-year old man.
And at least I'm not attacking anyone, and I hope my opinions haven't sounded too harsh or anything, I'm just trying to debate.
What I don't agree with him is that most gay people didn't want to be gay at the begining, do you honestly think no one tried to NOT be gay? we all did, we all have been there, and failed miserably. So now you're telling us that we didn't try hard enough?It's fine to disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that without evidence, his opinion is as valid as yours. As for your last few questions, appeals to emotion is not a good way to argue, nor is misinterpreting my argument. I'm not implying that you're not trying hard enough; I merely believe that homosexuality may not be entirely hereditory.
No. Do you know anyone who unquestionably became homosexual because of genetics? I'd be quite surprised if you did, since that would mean that you're ahead of scientists and must immediately write a paper and publish it for $$$.
That question is not an argument. We're debating the scientific validity of a person becoming homosexual partially/fully due to social and unknown personal factors; whether I know anyone who became homosexual by choice is not even answerable by current technology. I can't look into a person's subconscious.
Marcus: the line is very well defined, even with both of them being born that way, only one actually hurts other people, while the other doesn't. so it''s a fairly easy question.
Because there's a couple of guys I want dead and if I get caught this test proves that I'm a natural born killer and should be let off the hook.
I'll be the first to admit that I have an unhealthy attraction to LITTLE GIRLZ and I can't help it. It's not like I can suppress the feelings but fuck I know if I touch someone I'll be tossed in jail and raped by big burly men.
But I can still argue that it's inhumane to suppress my desires while another demographic gets away with it.
But you say you believe it is influenced by choice.My apologies for using the word "genetics." Anyway, you misinterpretted my conclusion. I NEVER said that homosexuality was due to a conscious, direct, immediate, and apparant choice - that is, unless if you define choice to include indirect choices due to our environment and lifestyle; if you do, then we're back to square one. How do you know that someone didn't become homosexual because some choices and environmental factors influenced them? How do you know if that decision was made once or subconsciously during some point of their lives and then forgotten?
So If I say the big bang theory is as much valid as "I think a giant barney dinosaur made the world by defecating it" are just as valid? neither of them has been proven, but there are several studies pointing in one direction, so I have to disagree with your point.You're mistaking "correlation" with "evidence." A correlation is when the change in one factor correlates with the change in another - i.e. hemisphere sizes with gender preferences or drug use with death rate. An observed evidence is a piece of data that increases the likelihood of a conclusion, such as an observation that an object dropped from the air accelerates at the gravatational constant. Observations are data, which are the central points of statistics: multiple observation of Hubbe's law concluded expandable space, which supported the big bang theory if you work backwards through the equations. Expandable space and the big bang theory are NOT correlations.
My apologies for using the word "genetics." Anyway, you misinterpretted my conclusion. I NEVER said that homosexuality was due to a conscious, direct, immediate, and apparant choice - that is, unless if you define choice to include indirect choices due to our environment and lifestyle; if you do, then we're back to square one. How do you know that someone didn't become homosexual because some choices and environmental factors influenced them? How do you know if that decision was made once or subconsciously during some point of their lives and then forgotten?
You don't, not to mention that you've made an unsupported argument. My argument never was "oh, they must have said 'henceforth I shall love my own gender' and that was the cause of it." My argument was that homosexuality can be caused or affected by a non-physical factor, such as environment, upbringing, social influence, or even as a result of other choices.
Steve, BLITZEN is not the one that is trying to forcefully present his beliefs. This is what I saw from the thread's progression:been looking at people's profiles??? it's ok you can call me renderSo, Blitzen is simply offering an opinion like many other people are, and a bunch of people tell him that his opinion is incorrect, so he defends his opinion. In this case, burden of proof falls on the attackers; they are trying to justify Blitzen's belief as being incorrect, while he's maintaining the stance that it's stimply his opinion. I don't see why he would need proof simply to hold an opinion in a completely open-ended topic where no one has concrete evidence to support their side, or why he's giving himself a bad image for stating an opinion. Does not agreeing with the majority suddenly make you have a bad image?
- Topic starter presents BBC article. Some people agree with the article's implicit conclusion, and some people abstains. People offer their opinions
- Blitzen offered an opinion that contradicts the majority of the population. Blitzen offers his opinions
- People attack Blitzen's belief and start a debate. People debate Blitzen's opinions.
- Blitzen defends his belief's validity while maintaining that it is HIS OPINION. Blitzen defends the validity of his belief
- People get angry and harshly debates Blitzen's opinions.
I forgot how many times I quoted the same line in the ORIGINAL PAPER, but for your sake I'll do it again:The paper provides evidence that there is a correlation. The article provides no conclusions about causality.
For your reading pleasure. Go nuts. (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0801566105v1)
maybe my example wasn't the best, but there are lots of things that aren't fully proven and are somewhat accepted in society, right? what if I took a new theory completely out of my ass and said it was just as valid as the one before? I'm sure no one would agree with me, right?We're getting a bit off-topic here, but meh.
Well then please explain what kind of environmental factors and "choices" you think causes homosexualityHere's the two sides of our little debate:
jesus christ, I hate when people pull the ITS AN IOPINION shit. you can't post horrible 'opinions' that have no basis on reality and expect no one to get pissed and start arguing. in my post, I was explaining to him why his OPINION isn't a valid stance to have. he didn't even post that it'd still be conceivably possible to change your sexual orientation, he flat out stated 'I think you can choose to be gay or straight' in so many words. and no one is supposed to disagree! -azurefenrirI see. Since you've been here for longer than I have, let me ask you one question. When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic? Are they all opinions justified by unparalleled and undoubtable facts that leave no doubt to disagreement, or do they simply post opinions? I think you know the answer to that question yourself. At least since 2003, people have been posting just opinions that are not backed by concrete facts, and now you're suddenly saying that certain people has no right to post an opinion that isn't backed by unpalleled and undeniable facts even as other regulars do so even in THIS thread?
hey thanks for explaining the difference between correlation and causation again, how about next time you explain the difference between evidence and proof oh wait someone else would be better suited for this.Now you're just trolling.
This is what I saw from the thread's progression:
- Topic starter presents BBC article. Some people agree with the article's implicit conclusion, and some people abstains. People offer their opinions
- Blitzen offered an opinion that contradicts the majority of the population. Blitzen offers his opinions
- People attack Blitzen's belief and start a debate. People debate Blitzen's opinions.
- Blitzen defends his belief's validity while maintaining that it is HIS OPINION. Blitzen defends the validity of his belief
- People get angry and harshly debates Blitzen's opinions.
Now you're just trolling.
When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic? Are they all opinions justified by unparalleled and undoubtable facts that leave no doubt to disagreement, or do they simply post opinions?
I merely stated
Social factors are complex, and if I can actually give an infallible, provable, and correct answer (or even a highly probably and researchable event), then I would be contacting the Madison psychology department and publishing this in a psychology journal. I won't be debating on a internet forum.
When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic?
Note that I did not say that "no one is supposed to disagree" - I merely stated that none of the people that disagreed with him has offered supportive evidence to the contrary, which renders his opinion as valid. It would be like you saying "I think there's a God," and me saying "No, you're wrong," and you having to GIVE PROOF to back up that statement even though I never proved my dissent.the heck? I don't get why you're so confused about this. I told him that his stance on this matter is not a valid one to have, and I explained why. this isn't about providing proof of the contrary, it's about exposing the holes in an unfounded position.
At least since 2003, people have been posting just opinions that are not backed by concrete facts, and now you're suddenly saying that certain people has no right to post an opinion that isn't backed by unpalleled and undeniable facts even as other regulars do so even in THIS thread?um nope?? I came back in 2006/2007, and since I left in 2004 GW as a whole has matured a lot. somewhere along the line we realized that people should be able to back up their claims, and that actual discussion and debate is a lot better than WELL I BELIEVE THIS. seriously I don't know where you've been hanging around because GW hasn't been about mindless spamming of baseless opinions for a long time. are you sure you aren't thinking of RM network???
that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!
I never said it's because of genetics, I said it's not a choice you can make.
But you say you believe it is influenced by choice.
Nobody choses to become homo.
If they do it won't work just like a homosexual trying to be straight. If it works they were gay already and just came out of the closet.
They may act straight but their sexual desires etc are still homosexual.
"oh gee he really got me, there's noway i can counter his attack. whatever shall i do? i know, i'll just dismiss it with an internet label"*sigh* Then why not just drop the flaming and insulting people and argue like mature adults?
You're just using rhetorical questions.Incorrect. I answered those questions later in the same argument. I won't use any terms; rather, quoting incomplete portions of my argument and calling it a fallacy is itself a fallacy.
That's an example of minimisation.There is no such fallacy.
This is a hypothetical situation.First, this is not used to support an argument. Second, it is a situation in relation to I, a reference to myself; therefore, it is not a fallacy.
This is an attempt to sound academic....
So now that I've proven your arguments to be invalid I would appreciate if you would quit your debauchery.I should note that never once in this thread did I insult you or anyone else. I would greatly appreciate it if you gave me the same level of respect that I give to you, though the only thing you did in this thread is to make snide inflammatory remarks to me. Tell me, though: what do you want me to do in this thread? It can't be "remain silent, do not argue, and acknowledge that we're right," can it?
the heck? I don't get why you're so confused about this. I told him that his stance on this matter is not a valid one to have, and I explained why. this isn't about providing proof of the contrary, it's about exposing the holes in an unfounded position.
it has nothing to do with being able to change yourself to the extent of being able to choose your sexual orientation. the whole argument you guys are having about WELL DIFFERENT PLACES THINK BEAUTY IS THIS has nothing to do with this shit. differences in the perception of beauty are the result of external influences that become deeply ingrained in a person's mind. and once there, they can't really be removed or OVERWRITTEN as you're suggesting. you gather these perceptions of the world as you're growing up and removing them is most likely impossible. and of course there's no evidence that sexuality is at all the same as perceptions of beauty and suggesting it is is pretty ignorant in itselfThe argument stated against Blitzen's support for his theory, which I agree on. Other than the statement that removing perceptions about the world is most likely impossible (which is also an opinion), you did not invalidate the belief at all. Therefore, Blitzen's stance has not yet been proven invalid. Your second post.
blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!This is an assertion of your opinion, and an attempt to call Blitzen's ideas "american sort of bootstrapping...which has been proven inaccurate countless times." Since the rest of your arguments are with me, you haven't exposed holes in his position; you merely showed that Blitzen has no concrete evidence for his argument - which no one in this thread currently does.
um nope?? I came back in 2006/2007, and since I left in 2004 GW as a whole has matured a lot. somewhere along the line we realized that people should be able to back up their claims, and that actual discussion and debate is a lot better than WELL I BELIEVE THIS. seriously I don't know where you've been hanging around because GW hasn't been about mindless spamming of baseless opinions for a long time. are you sure you aren't thinking of RM network???
Homosexuality is not a choice in the same way pedophilia isnt one either. however acting upon your homosexual impulses is a choice and i think this is what the mildly intelligent homophobes use to support their statement. acting upon your pedophile impulses is also a choise but the latter is a horrible thing to do the former is not bad at all (the former involves two concenting adults)I don't mean to pick on Marmot (since I do believe that you are allowed to state your opinions on a forum), but Rendar, your post and Marmot's post are examples of people just coming to post their opinions. I know that I'm arguing by example here; my point is: a forum is meant for a person to post opinions. If Blitzen has been proven wrong and still maintains that he's right, that's another story. However, if you can't prove him wrong, then there's no reason that his opinion should be banned any more than yours even if it goes against the rest of the community. If you disagree with him, prove him wrong; until then, he hasn't done anything to degrade himself, and there's no reason to throw insult.
the problem with Blitzen's stance is that even if in his case he doesn't say that it's a bad thing because it's a choice, it gives others what they need to justify their homophobic claims, if being homosexual is a conscious choice, then all the problems they have because of it can be solved just by stop being gay. why allow them to marry if they can just stop being gay? why stop beating them in the streets? if they don't like it they can always get straight. so if they don't it's because they like to being treated like subhumans.My apologies if I offended you with my arguments, Cray; I don't mean to sound confrontational or threatening. However, you can't just dismiss a viewpoint as wrong simply because it gives others what they need to justify their claims. It's true that there are people that won't accept other peoples' choices, but if science does eventually link a social cause to homosexuality, then that's how the world turns. Same argument goes for science linking homosexuality to physical means. Emotions does not justify either side of the argument.
see what the problem is?
I don't mean to pick on Marmot (since I do believe that you are allowed to state your opinions on a forum), but Rendar, your post and Marmot's post are examples of people just coming to post their opinions. I know that I'm arguing by example here; my point is: a forum is meant for a person to post opinions. If Blitzen has been proven wrong and still maintains that he's right, that's another story. However, if you can't prove him wrong, then there's no reason that his opinion should be banned any more than yours even if it goes against the rest of the community. If you disagree with him, prove him wrong; until then, he hasn't done anything to degrade himself, and there's no reason to throw insult.
I think this is the only thing you really offered as a counterargument, and is pretty much baseless. What you could interpret as the failure of this idea I could interpret as its success, that people choose to fail, choose to succeed, etc etc. Really I think it comes back down to that matter of opinion as to weather or no you think people have control over shaping thier own behaviours. I think they do, so I think homosexuality is a choice. If you don't, then you don't and that is where we have to agree to disagree.
I guess you really want to believe that it's a choice to be gay (which is what you're saying, believe it or not!), but there's absolutely no way you can prove or even test this. you just don't know how other people's minds work, regardless of how much LOGICAL REASONING and pseudopsychology you toss around. as is, you're just telling everyone how weird you think gay folks are and how much you want to believe that they don't have to be gay if they didn't want to, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back this up and you're really just giving yourself a bad imagewait are you confused about how genes and physiological matters determine to a large extent how a person's mind works? because this is some pretty well-established psychological/biological stuff, there are probably loads of articles on the net explaining it and I know I just read it in my psych book about a year ago.
blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!
you merely showed that Blitzen has no concrete evidence for his argument - which no one in this thread currently doesexcept no one's saying they KNOW how a person can or cannot be a homosexual, besides him! congrats man you figured out the problem here why did it take you so long.
At least, when I read Blitzen's post, I assumed that he meant that homosexuality may be determined by something that isn't concretely physical (which is what his rhetoric suggested). If he really did mean "you can choose to be gay at any time," then I have no argument.
Render is right in saying that I do think that homosexuality is a choice<azurefenrir> oops well that was a waste!!!
At least, when I read Blitzen's post, I assumed that he meant that homosexuality may be determined by something that isn't concretely physical (which is what his rhetoric suggested). If he really did mean "you can choose to be gay at any time," then I have no argument.
except no one's saying they KNOW how a person can or cannot be a homosexual, besides him! congrats man you figured out the problem here why did it take you so long.Looks like I got caught up in that topic shift. Sorry.
<azurefenrir> oops well that was a waste!!!
I for one think that you become a homosexual when you engange in homosexual activity
I am just not one for such fatalistic arguments
Really, my dislike for this theory has little to do with gays and more to do with the ability of one to shape his own psyche and self. It comes down the question that I have heard lots of gays pose, that we "can't change who we are"
I don't think the answer is ever as simple as being "born gay".No, he didn't. Now that I read your first post, I don't know why you were so caught up with him. All of his opinions were clearly denoting that it's his belief and not universal truth, just like:
I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.
I think there would be a choice as well, only not in the way you're describing it.And unlike:
what the fuck are you talking about. you're homosexual when you are sexually attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex.
Still he hasn't backed up anything, not even a study that could suggest he is right, we have told him that if his opinion was right, then many gay people would succed in making themselves straight, yet they don't, so his opinion must have a problem right?I can't debate Blitzen's opinion, since I apparantly don't fully agree with it. However, I do believe in the possibility of homosexuality being partially cognitive, so I'll base my argument with that point in mind:
...Okay. If you're that frustrated with the argument, I'll just drop it and say that you win. It's derailing the thread anyway, and I myself would rather continue the debate than attack/defend certain members as guilty or innocent.
I think all straight people are freaks of nature created from a pregnant mother eating too many kebabs. I also believe they should be shot before their physical bodies change into that of 20ft crabs when they all reach the age of 10. I don't care that this view has no basis in reality and absolutely nothing to support it, because it's my opinion and therefore you must accept and aknowledge that you can't argue against it.UHHHHM at least I don't suck dog dicks. no offence I just think most gay people suck dog dicks.
I understand what you say Azure, but if that was the case, why would psychologist and psychiatrists tell gay people that they don't need to change? most of them agree that it's a trait that shouldn't be changed, because it could cause damage to the person. so even if it isn't evidence that it can't be changed, at least it shows that maybe it's not the correct thing to do.I have no definitive opinions on the morality of such an operation. In fact, if I have to pick a side, I would agree with you. I don't believe that changing a person's behavior is the correct thing to do unless if the person wills it and understands the risks involved, since there's no reason for us to tell someone else to change just because they lead a different lifestyle. My only argument is that homosexuality is plausibly cognitive in part or whole, not whether "reversing it" is morally right or not.
*whew*Sorry for being so persistent on a topic that doesn't relate to the thread.
*sigh* Then why not just drop the flaming and insulting people and argue like mature adults?
Incorrect. I answered those questions later in the same argument. I won't use any terms; rather, quoting incomplete portions of my argument and calling it a fallacy is itself a fallacy.
There is no such fallacy.
First, this is not used to support an argument. Second, it is a situation in relation to I, a reference to myself; therefore, it is not a fallacy.
...
I should note that never once in this thread did I insult you or anyone else. I would greatly appreciate it if you gave me the same level of respect that I give to you, though the only thing you did in this thread is to make snide inflammatory remarks to me. Tell me, though: what do you want me to do in this thread? It can't be "remain silent, do not argue, and acknowledge that we're right," can it?
see, i think that being gay is definitely a choice.
Homosexuality proven to not be a choice
Schizophrenia has been known to be caused by social problems and even contraversially by smoking weed
man this is so strange for me. ive been raise to acknowledge that homosexuality isn't a choice (or wrong) and that's the general opinion here.
hmm this is interesting, although I don't think it prooves that people are gay from birth, it has only prooven that homosexuals have a deformity in their brain. I'm not a scientist, but when you get schizophrenia it causes a physical change in your brain.WOW!! you're an idiot
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/FMRI.jpg/180px-FMRI.jpeg)
Schizophrenia has been known to be caused by social problems and even contraversially by smoking weed (although not concrete evidence). There has also been research to see if it is genetic, just like some people are more prone to cancer through their genes.
Now, I'm not saying people choose to get Schizophrenia, but sometimes people get it through a social situation. So is it not possible for people become homosexual out of choice, but still not from birth, but from a social situation?
I think the proof in this experiment is ambiguous and has been swung to show that homosexuals are pre-determined by birth, but I don't neccersarily think the results show this.
i think that trying to research love is sort of silly... meh.You are an incredibly stupid person. For one because you say that an involuntary biological attribute is someone's choice to have, and also because you equate that supposed choice to be a sin. You might as well say that having black skin is a sin, and that everybody has the choice to be white, which is the same thing: a human biological trait that is completely beyond one's control.
see, i think that being gay is definitely a choice. i consider being gay a sin, just like stealing or lying is a sin.
i consider being gay a sin, just like stealing or lying is a sin.It's a sin to wear clothing made of two different fabrics. This is stated in the same bible where it says that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day ought to be stoned to death on her father's doorstep.
i think that trying to research love is sort of silly... meh.
see, i think that being gay is definitely a choice. i consider being gay a sin, just like stealing or lying is a sin.
First of all, the bible was written a long ass time ago and by many different people.Which is how you can choose what to believe and what not to believe.
Premarital sex is a "sin" as well, but no one trips off of that....? Are we in the same world?
Which is how you can choose what to believe and what not to believe.
...? Are we in the same world?
My point was, that no one is going to call you gross and disgusting and that you're going to hell if you chose not to wait. Maybe extremely religious people would, but the majority people don't care.So how exactly does this relate to the topic at hand, except "People are generally stupid the way they believe certain things and refuse to believe others?"
It's just that some people try to use the Bible as an excuse,I don't think mkkmypet's the type to have some sort of other reason for being against homosexuality. Although maybe gayness "grossing her out" IS a possibility.
guys dont bully on mkkypet she is like 9
WOW!! you're an idiot
there's no place to start with this shit so I'm just going to talk about something else. FYI not only do you have a terrible understanding of the brain and schizophrenia but you're also being really offensive here with this shit, don't pull stuff like this out of your ass dude it makes you look like some useless bigot hick.
schizophrenia actually relies heavily on genetics, eg if one of your siblings has it you've got a 1/2 chance of developing it. as far as I know they haven't determined any gene for it (if one even exists) but it may be strongly influenced by numerous independant genes coming together. not really the best PROOF to use for homosexuality being a choice so you people can stop bringing it up, it's incredibly stupid and pretty annoying too
she is?heh heh heh
You are an incredibly stupid person. For one because you say that an involuntary biological attribute is someone's choice to have, and also because you equate that supposed choice to be a sin. You might as well say that having black skin is a sin, and that everybody has the choice to be white, which is the same thing: a human biological trait that is completely beyond one's control.
If the bible stated that it's a sin to have black skin, would you have believed it as well? Of course, you believe everything that old book tells you, and what's worse is that you're religiously convinced that what it's preaching to you is a message of love.
You're one of the bad christians that constantly threatens our society from advancing past such a narrow mindset. You must reject the outdated political views that the bible holds; until you do, you're a fossil and nothing else.
Desmond Tutu once said the following: "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."
But then again, you would probably arduously attack that man for having such "liberal" views and for being a bad christian.
If people don't agree with homosexuality, that's their choice and nothing you can do about it. It's just that some people try to use the Bible as an excuse, and my only point was that you can't take everything in it says so seriously. The Bible says a lot of things that wouldn't make sense today's world. I think homosexuality is starting to be one of them, because so many people are becoming more and more open. No one should "pretend to be straight" if that's not who they really are.
I actually think saying homosexuality grosses you out is a better "excuse" for disagreeing it as opposed to saying "because God said so." It shows that you at least have your own brain, however simple it is.
I love this. People love to use the Bible to justify ignorant thinking like this, but conveniently leave out the part where it says women are to obey their husbands and that slavery is okay and slaves should never go against their masters.
Premarital sex is a "sin" as well, but no one trips off of that.
First of all, the bible was written a long ass time ago and by many different people. You can't apply most of those "rules" into day's world. You can use it for your own moral guidance, but you shouldn't center your views around it.
people are assuming all sorts of things about me that just aren't true, using stereotypes of bad christians to base their views on me
and i'm really getting sick of being personally attacked for my beliefs and other things.You deserve it! Your beliefs are incredibly hateful. The majority of your post is really just a STRING of statements saying "no, i disagree, i believe in divisiveness and bigotry because the bible tells me so!"
she's like 13 or 14 now, fuck it, if you're going to present your ideas at that age you're allowed to be told that your ideas make you a terrible personthe fact that she's 13 or 14 doesn't change a whole lot in this case! it's still a colossal waste of time and if she is already religious to the extent of thinking that HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN then really she's just beyond hope altogether.
i pretty much agree with what dada said
I guess I will have to tell my gay friend who was kicked out of his home and beat up at school that he is just not trying hard enoughman this is a good post but where do you live that he is getting BEAT UP AT SCHOOL for being gay? that's crazy!
man this is a good post but where do you live that he is getting BEAT UP AT SCHOOL for being gay? that's crazy!He was from Wagoner, Oklahoma. Fairly small town.
You can be born any way or with any circumstances, but act a different way.
1. There are guys/girls who choose to act like the opposite gender. (You can claim genetic screwup here, but... doubt it).
2. Since it's scientifically shown that children take on the traits of their parents, being born into an abusive family suggests the child will be violent or abusive, etc. but there are some who make something of themselves.
Very often, research doesn't change anyone's opinion because neither side wants to admit that they're wrong.
I guess I will have to tell my gay friend who was kicked out of his home and beat up at school that he is just not trying hard enough
f a person is a really bad liar, their bad actions may start having consequences. let's say a liar is getting beat up and losing his friends because he lies to them about very serious things. he starts lying to his parents about a lot of things, and they decide they can't support him anymore and kick him out or stop paying his tuition or something like that. he may continue to lie and be a terrible person. or, he may realize "maybe god is allowing these things to happen for a reason. maybe it's a sign that i need to stop lying and buck up." then, he can repent and pray and work to get better.
it works the same with a lot of sins. lying, stealing, doing hardcore drugs, and even being gay can all work the same way.
the old testament had some pretty strict punishments for a lot of silly things. Jesus came to earth in order to make it so people could learn of him and repent of their sins so they would not have to bear the cruel punishments that the old testament had put in place. when jesus died on the cross, it was the punishment for everyone, even into the future, who did those things in the old testament. if people repent for anything, god will forgive them if they are sincere. and yes, the new testament still talks about homosexuality as a sin, such as in 1st Corinthians and in Timothy.
it is a form of LOVE
So it's obviously not natural, which means it isn't a trait passed to babies at birth.yeah i think the entire field of genetics would probably disagree
as someone else said, people may have trouble choosing who they're attracted to, but they can always choose how they act upon their feelings. and through God, anything is possible... he can help someone to get over being gay, you know.(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/32484/CHOPSLogo.jpeg) (http://lovegodsway.org/C.H.O.P.S.)
hahaha man what's funny about this is... I remember mkkmypet being a pretty bad person and quite offensive etc but she was like 11 and I figured she'd grow out of it (she also used to hate herself) but now she's been pretty much quiet for a year or two and turned into japanese lolibondage girl and I figure she's pretty TEENAGE REBELLION and FREE THINKER/LIBERAL etc and then suddenly THIS SHIT bombs.she is dumb but i've seen much much worse
That's pretty much the grimmest, most evil, most fundamentalist and most hateful shit I've ever read on GW.
she is dumbYou know what, I don't agree with this at all. I think she's naive and young, but old enogh to be put in place when her naivity hinders her from realising how awfully grotesque her opinions are.