ghagahh jesus christ man.

ok. he's the only one saying I THINK THIS IS HOW IT IS, everyone else is saying YOU CAN'T DRAW THAT CONCLUSION THERE'S NO EVIDENCE/YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE BRAIN WORKS and then you pop up shout I AM DISCUSSING THE MECHANICS OF AN ARGUMENT AND I AM ALSO VERY CONFUSED

this is getting frustrating I'm gonna to bail, maybe I'll be back tomorrow if the topic hasn't gone to pof by then.

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:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is cognitive.  Now, some cognitive traits are reinforced by chemical ones after the initial "choice," for the lack of a better word (it doesn't have to mean an instantaneous conscious choice; it could be a by-product of other choices or even a by-product of the environment), so it becomes more difficult to change the behavior after a certain period.  I'm not saying that this is actually true per se - but that is certainly a possibility.

Another possibly explaination would be that homosexual people have psychological barricades to changing this behavior.  For an unrelated example used merely to illustrate, consider psychological association.  Once a person learns to associate one thing or behavior with another, Psychology has shown that it is very difficult for an individual to remove the association on his/her own; his body simply associates one with the other, and rehabilitation is required to remove the association.  The explaination could possibly apply to homosexuality in a slightly different manner; once the "choice" (again, for lack of a better word) is made, the brain becomes imprinted with the notion of associating same gender with lust, which is a subconscious quality that cannot be removed without psychological rehabilitation.

Both of the above are conjectures used only to show why it's possible for homosexuality to be cognitive and for those people to not succeed in changing their attraction.


Also, since people seem to hate it when I throw the word fallacy around, I'll link to this interesting little article.  It's not proof or conclusive or anything; it merely discusses psychology's explaination for why brothers and sisters are not attracted to each other, which - in the same light as the other arguments made in the thread - suggests that attraction can also be affected by cognitive reasons.

...

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 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?

I forgot how many times I've quoted this same line in the ORIGINAL GAMING WORLD, but for your sake I'll do it again: lurk more

you didn't get what i was doing at all, or what you were doing. hopefully by the time you finish university (i figure you've either just started or you're doing a practical/science degree and you've taken a few arts papers) you'll develop some self-consciousness

i was done with this topic when i said CHOICE OR BIOLOGY, EITHER WAY THEY'RE SCREWED (IN THE ASS HEH HEH). i liked the analogy with schizophrenia and i was going to quote it and say 'this is good' but decided against it until you called it a false analogy.

i'd like you to sit back and think a little more before you post that'd be perfect and it'd probably shorten them a lot.

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.

Since you alluded to my educational background, I'm a Statistics student, Graduate, currently studying for my masters degree.

I interpretted "what you were doing" as sarcasm; it's not hard to see it considering that I've been on and off this site for almost six years now.  I entered this debate to defend a certain viewpoint, and I apologize if my "for your sake I'll do it again" comment is too harsh, since I was apparantly as frustrated as Ragnar is back then.  I don't mind if you liked the analogy and that you believed that I was wrong for trying to defend Blitzen's viewpoint; however, you replied to my comment, I contradicted one of your points, and you openly mocked me for it.  In retrospect, I probably should have just ignored the comment, though I can pretty safely say - at least from what I've seen - that not many people on GW would respond to such a comment by saying nothing.

I admit, I don't visit as much nowadays as I used to, so I don't know too much of GW's modern etiquette.  However, I've never remembered not being allowed to debate a point or reply to a post within GW's rules, so I admittedly don't understand what exactly made you so hostile.  If there's something \that was added in the last two years that I didn't pick up on  or if there's something that I did not understand, then I wouldn't mind hearing it instead of being given the words "lurk more" and dismissed.

Since I've already derailing the topic and failing in some way that I don't even realize, I won't pursue this line any further.  I would like to hear what you believe I'm doing wrong, though - perhaps through IRC or through private messege.  If I did somehow sound like an ass though, I'll apologize.  My intent in this thread was originally to defend Blitz's point, not to make enemies of people.

people talking about someday curing the gay reminds me of x-men


HOMO SUPERIOR

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. you have a choice to steal, lie, be gay, etc., and satan tempts you to do so. i'm definitely not one of those GOD HATES FAGS kinds of christians, because christianity is all about love and forgiveness. and i would never say GOD HATES LIARS or anything, since that's a sin too. homosexuality is a sin, and God forgives you for it, and can help you to stop doing that sin if you allow him to work in you in that way.
regarding this specific experiment... uh, it was a pretty bad one. only 90 people? only testing brain differences physically? it just seems like it was set up badly. what if they were only testing "stereotypical gays"? flamboyant guys, butch girls, you know. there's lipstick lesbians and manly gays, too. what if their brains aren't different? does that mean they're not really gay or something? i just think there's too much room for error from what i can tell. not enough information is provided for me to consider this study credible.
and what about bisexuals, pansexuals, metrosexuals, asexuals? some people could care less about the gender/sex of the person they love. some people act feminine or masculine but remain completely hetero all throughout their life. and some people just don't feel attraction at all. i don't think anyone can make a conclusive analysis of sexuality without including all types of orientations and types of people (not just stereotypical ones).

see, i think that being gay is definitely a choice.

Homosexuality proven to not be a choice

not going to really argue with you on the rest of your post because its so funny

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.



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.

Schizophrenia has been known to be caused by social problems and even contraversially by smoking weed

I have beat the shit out of people in real life for saying less than this. slow your roll.

seriously nothing has been more frustrating for the mental health community than this recent weird fucking idea I CAN THINK MY WAY THROUGH MENTAL ILLNESS HEH trend and has actually resulted in a lot of fucking problems for everyone so it's a personal peeve of mine!

lol, yeah I don't actually agree with it, but my mum is a social worker with the mental health and she says that it's been the conclusion to diagnosing a lot of Schizophrenia cases. I think that Schizophrenia can be caused by stress, anxiety and paranoir though :/

Yah Lars buddy, that's what happens when we cool euros start communicating with them crazy yanks.

I think this is why this "study" is pissing me off so badly. Today, there's no scientific evidence that links genetics -in any way- to human behavior. Scientists have looked and looked for a "schizophrenia" gene, a "violence" gene and have failed.

Homosexuality, as any tendency in human behavior, is multifactorial. Just because your brain "resembles" that one of a girl doesn't means you're homosexual. And yet again, it's a "study" performed on only 90 people... 90!
I'm not saying that genes have nothing to do with human behavior, but as for today, there's no evidence. REAL evidence.

Anyways, for an interesting read in nice medical journals go here: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/

For information of ANY human gene go here: http://www.genecards.org/

At least lets put on some respect to the scientist that deciphered the human genome a decade ago. :/

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.

I don't know if it's the general opinion, from what I could tell it's just a few people posting over and over...

Anyway, I'm not going to pick a side of this thing until some proper research has been done: from what I could tell from the Wiki article (heh), there's a lot of conflicting evidence on both sides of the argument, and it's virtually impossible to get a clear-cut result when it comes to something as diverse as human sexuality anyway. I personally don't think it's as black-and-white as it's made out to be, though, since both the idea that "it's predestined from birth" and the idea that "you can change it whenever you like" seem like gross oversimplifications of a fairly complex issue! I'd be more inclined to the idea that biology has some influence, but so does someone's experiences during their 'formative years' or whatever. I don't think someone can change their sexuality without creating massive emotional damage, though... Even the fundamentalists are starting to give up on that idea, which is probably a good step.