talkin to blitzen

edit: ugh now this is the first reply on the next page f!ck

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.

This was a hypothetical segway, not directly related to the debate, and I didn't make any conclusion here.

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 and pretty much everyone who isn't a bigot acknowledges this.

That is true, but to the outsider who can only observe the individual's behaviour, I cannot identify or define that person as a homosexual unless I percieve homosexual behaviour (or things indicative of homosexual behaviour, ie someone tells me they are gay.) That's just a fact of the species, that we define each other by observing each other's behaviour. My argument is that for the individual to define themselves as a homosexual, this is a conditioned response, and because we are a) self aware creatures capable of shaping our own conditional responses, someone could change thier sexual orientation, and because b) sexual orientation relates directly to interpersonal relationships, things that cannot be formed outside of the social context, and as such would be fostered by culture, or a self-conditioned or externally conditioned experience.

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

I am just not a fatalist in any regard, so I think that anyone can shape thier behavioural modes in anyway they want, because people have that capacity. As such, at the bottom like I do think whatever your lifestyle is or your personality of behaviours are, that eventually it comes down to that you made the choice to be the way that you are, no matter how "most probably" it is thought that these things can't be changed, I think it is the indivual who ultimately descides who and what they want to be when it comes to thier behaviours (and for me this includes sexual behaviours). I don't see how telling people "you can be whoever you want to be because you have that capacity" gives myself a bad image, and I think you should reconsider the way that you are looking at my argument.

idk i guess it comes down to fate vs free will in sexuality which side are you on

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!

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!!

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.

Starting over since my computer crashed in the middle of writing the post.  I'm not defending every one of Blitzen's points; I merely agree that it's still up for debate and it's very possible for homosexuality to be partially social or by choice simply because it's my belief, as well.

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 beauty

Ancient 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 image

Steve, BLITZEN is not the one that is trying to forcefully present his beliefs.  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.

So, 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?

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.

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.

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.
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.

I forgot how many times I quoted the same line in the ORIGINAL PAPER, but for your sake I'll do it again:

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.

For your reading pleasure.  Go nuts.

Do you know anyone who became homosexual by choice?

So, someone sum this up because I'm pretty dumb.  Does this test prove that people are born into specific ways of thinking?

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.
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?
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.

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.

Yeah but morals are completely subjective and soon we're going to end up blurring the line between what's acceptable naturally and what's moral.  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.

So when does humanity reach the point that we ditch morality and accept that everyone is born different because it seems that we're heading that way.  My point isn't meant as an attack against homosexuals, rather the human condition in general.  Here's John Doe, resident sociopath, and Jane Doe the lesbian.  Both of their "conditions" are mental and natural but in societies eyes, who's the one that needs "help?"

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 $$$.

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.

So, someone sum this up because I'm pretty dumb.  Does this test prove that people are born into specific ways of thinking?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

A possibility is not closed until some correlation comes into light.  Correlation itself is also NOT evidence, and assuming so is a logical fallacy.  Certainly, the study shows correlation between comparitive hemisphere size and gender preference; however, until proof can be made, this does not support your opinion or count as evidence for your side (as the paper itself clearly states).  In the end, both sides are arguing with intuition and beliefs, which makes none of them justified in attacking the other side.

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.

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.

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.
Azure: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.
My last sentences were aimed at Blitzen, I agree with you that I think homosexuality isn't 100% hereditary, but that doesn't mean it's a conscious choice we can make and change. So my question is to Blitzen: why, if you say we can change our sexual orientation with our mind and if we set it as our goal, why has almost every gay person on the face of the planet since centuries tried changing his sexual orientation, and has NOT made it?

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.

But I can still argue that it's inhumane to suppress my desires while another demographic gets away with it.  Isn't this still prejudice?  Is it any different than saying a black man is only worth 3/4 of a vote and is genetically fit for picking cotton?  So yeah, I get angry and strangle a couple of guys but who are you to strap me to a chair and tell me I'm wrong when you're in the same position as I am?

(i'm bored out of my mind right now if you haven't noticed)

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?

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.

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.

Of course, that brings into question the validity of Quantum Physics, which I'm not going to go into.

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?

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.

Well then please explain what kind of environmental factors and "choices" you think causes homosexuality

Steve, BLITZEN is not the one that is trying to forcefully present his beliefs.  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.

So, 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?

been looking at people's profiles??? it's ok you can call me render

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! -azurefenrir

do you not get this. It's like going into a topic about idk genetic engineering and posting I THINK GEN-EN BABBYS WILL HAVE DOG DICKS...THAS JUST MY OPINION only worse because he's serious and there's an implied homophobia. i think black people are fleet-footed, thats my opinion no one argue with it

what a fucking wasteland