Homosexuality - Is it a gene or a choice? - General

[QUOTE=Scarabix;35807152]Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood. No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.[/QUOTE] It's worth pointing out the concepts of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrance]penetrance[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivity]expressivity[/url]; just because you have a gene doesn't mean the gene will have an effect on you or it will be expressed fully or it will be expressed for your entire life (genes can be switched on and off). Once again, I state in this thread, I think there's probably more to it than just genetics but I'd argue based on what the evidence is showing, there's a genetic component at play here. But a lot of the issues people have with the idea of gay being genetic ("How would they pass it on?" "How can genes influence personality?" "How can people become gay?") stem from a misunderstanding of genetics. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=deaded38;35816692]I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] Sorry, I goof'd.[/QUOTE] Except most people aren't using internet sources. They're using online versions of printed scientific journals. It's not much good me telling you to go read [i]Science[/i] Volume 261 from 1993 because the odds are that you're not going to be able to do that so it'll just sound like I'm saying "Yeah well go read a bunch of books!" when in fact I'm referring to specific articles. We're disregarding your argument because you're using personal anecdotes and "common sense" to make judgements about the validity of a scientific hypothesis. There's a reason people have to do a bunch of experiments and write hypotheses and do statistical analysis and be peer reviewed before they're allowed to start declaring things as fact; your argument stems from a place that's very heavily affected by personal bias and is not really founded upon strong evidence.

[QUOTE=Scarabix;35807152]Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood. No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.[/QUOTE] Yet there's always some form of preexistence of attraction to the same gender. You don't just suddenly turn gay. You've felt this personality build up and you choose when you release it to the world and exclaim your sexuality.

[QUOTE=Onyx3173;35817582]He's banned for it before. On multiple occasions. In this thread nonetheless...[/QUOTE] Stop trying to make me look bad. I was banned once for doing this and it was ridiculous as it is considering I never refused to cite sources. I just said "prove me wrong without posting a source". [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35821007]Except most people aren't using internet sources. They're using online versions of printed scientific journals. It's not much good me telling you to go read [i]Science[/i] Volume 261 from 1993 because the odds are that you're not going to be able to do that so it'll just sound like I'm saying "Yeah well go read a bunch of books!" when in fact I'm referring to specific articles. We're disregarding your argument because you're using personal anecdotes and "common sense" to make judgements about the validity of a scientific hypothesis. There's a reason people have to do a bunch of experiments and write hypotheses and do statistical analysis and be peer reviewed before they're allowed to start declaring things as fact; your argument stems from a place that's very heavily affected by personal bias and is not really founded upon strong evidence.[/QUOTE] So what you're trying to say is basically this: There have been a couple studies claiming DeadEd's argument is wrong, therefore it is. Not to mention mostly everybody in the field of psychology are also wrong because we've had these studies. Okay. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;35816979]Right it doesn't exempt me from learning. Good thing I learn by using multiple sources for my information to make an educated argument on a subject. Learning from one source is damn stupid, but using multiple sources to either confirm or adjust your views on a subject based on what they claim? That's learning baby.[/QUOTE] Show me these multiple sources. As far as I've seen, there's only been one posted in this whole thread regarding my argument. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=xxncxx;35816900]Except we aren't basing it on one, we are basing it on multiple. Whereas you, on the other hand, are basing yours on NONE. This will get you no where in debating.[/QUOTE] Again, a person can provide a source of information hence making them win the debate. But winning the debate doesn't always make your argument instantly truth.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35826558]Stop trying to make me look bad. I was banned once for doing this and it was ridiculous as it is considering I never refused to cite sources. I just said "prove me wrong without posting a source".[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/9ecMP.png[/img] Apparently your counting skills are as bad as your debating skills. And yes, you have consistently refused to cite any sources. You're basically just threadshitting and I honestly don't see how you haven't been banned and told not to come back to this thread at this point.

[QUOTE=Jookia;35817660]I failed to remember that, or even consider that he could still be posting without learning from his mistakes.[/QUOTE] I haven't made a single mistake except for not posting sources. On the other hand, you guys have made at least two: 1. You aren't instantly correct just because you found an article on the internet. 2. If you're going to disregard my argument, you need to be at least somewhat educated on what I'm arguing. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Onyx3173;35826725][img]http://i.imgur.com/9ecMP.png[/img] Apparently your counting skills are as bad as your debating skills. And yes, you have consistently refused to cite any sources. You're basically just threadshitting and I honestly don't see how you haven't been banned and told not to come back to this thread at this point.[/QUOTE] Oh jeez, the 2nd MD Offense was voided because Gamershaze was essentially baiting me. I already contacted Megafan about that. As for the one Seitkeki gave me, I believe I apologized for that. I wasn't in a very good mood that day. As said before, the Real 2nd MD Offense was kind of dumb considering I never refused to cite sources. Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I'm refusing to cite sources until you guys can actually tell me how I'm wrong without using a source. Multiple sources, maybe.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35826778]Oh jeez, the 2nd MD Offense was voided because Gamershaze was essentially baiting me. I already contacted Megafan about that. As for the one Seitkeki gave me, I believe I apologized for that. I wasn't in a very good mood that day. As said before, the Real 2nd MD Offense was kind of dumb considering I never refused to cite sources. Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I'm refusing to cite sources until you guys can actually tell me how I'm wrong without using a source. Multiple sources, maybe.[/QUOTE] Look, I tried to be fair with you regarding your previous ban because of the circumstances, but you need to understand and accept how this section works. You articulate arguments and back them up with sources, which are usually articles. Challenging other posters to counter your arguments without using a source is absolutely meaningless, and at this point is getting to be flame-baiting. So either drop the argument or come up with something of substance to say.

Nobody has said that posting a source makes one absolutely correct. We understand how to debate.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35816607]See, but that's the thing. You guys aren't even educated on my argument and yet you guys still say I am wrong.[/QUOTE] That's just it though, we'd love to become educated on how you came to your opinions and views, but you aren't posting any material for us to be able to do so. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Scarabix;35807152]Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood. No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.[/QUOTE] This is just plain wrong. People that 'end up' gay half way through their lives only admit it at that point, they've always had a pre-disposition. Saying homosexuality is a gene is more akin to saying left-handedness is a gene.

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;35828541]This is just plain wrong. People that 'end up' gay half way through their lives only admit it at that point, they've always had a pre-disposition. Saying homosexuality is a gene is more akin to saying left-handedness is a gene.[/QUOTE] When you look at it this way it makes sense that sexuality is a genetic disposition. It's something inherent to you, that you yourself may not be aware of and (from my understanding) cannot control or repress without harming yourself in some way. If sexuality is decided by genetics (which I am tempted to believe from previous research and (the good parts of) this debate), then it is merely your choice to acknowledge and accept your sexuality, or to repress it and try and be something your genetics say otherwise to.

Although it's entirely possible to debate without any backup referencing, it's significantly more difficult, and the onus is on you to disprove the sources presented, whether that be via logic, or on epistemological or methodological grounds. Furthermore you must be comprehensive and persuasive on detailing your own understanding of the matter. Thus far you've shown none of that, and although I'm sympathetic to aspects of your view on biomedical knowledges (which is not nearly as clear cut and objective as, say, physics), until properly present your argument I can't see anyone taking you seriously. [editline]5th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;35827885]You articulate arguments and back them up with sources, which are usually articles. Challenging other posters to counter your arguments without using a source is absolutely meaningless, and at this point is getting to be flame-baiting. [/QUOTE] I disagree that sources are necessary. For instance, it is not necessary to cite a source to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a binary yes/no gene, simply due to the complexity of attraction. Some people may be attracted to muscularity, to male gender roles, to different subtypes within the gay communities (the stark divide between the 'bear' and 'effeminate sub'), and so on. The difficulty in describing a casual mechanism plainly indicates the complexity of sexuality and the expression thereof.

[QUOTE=Contag;35828991]Although it's entirely possible to debate without any backup referencing, it's significantly more difficult, and the onus is on you to disprove the sources presented, whether that be via logic, or on epistemological or methodological grounds. Furthermore you must be comprehensive and persuasive on detailing your own understanding of the matter. Thus far you've shown none of that, and although I'm sympathetic to aspects of your view on biomedical knowledges (which is not nearly as clear cut and objective as, say, physics), until properly present your argument I can't see anyone taking you seriously. [editline]5th May 2012[/editline] I disagree that sources are necessary. For instance, it is not necessary to cite a source to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a binary yes/no gene, simply due to the complexity of attraction. Some people may be attracted to muscularity, to male gender roles, to different subtypes within the gay communities (the stark divide between the 'bear' and 'effeminate sub'), and so on. The difficulty in describing a casual mechanism plainly indicates the complexity of sexuality and the expression thereof.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it would be necessary to provide sources on the complexity of attraction?

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;35828541]That's just it though, we'd love to become educated on how you came to your opinions and views, but you aren't posting any material for us to be able to do so.[/QUOTE] I understand this. Unfortunately, I was taught all of this at school, so I can't really give you any solid material over my argument. All I can really suggest is to (if your school provides it) take a human behavior class. I understand how many of you may think I'm just saying this without any knowledge whatsoever, but I can assure you I'm not speaking out of my ass. I know this doesn't mean you should believe me. I never said it did. For the past few pages all I was trying to point out is that a source doesn't make it law, and that you shouldn't argue with me if you don't have a basic understanding of human behavior. I would like to apologize for my lack of solid evidence and perhaps the way I stated things in my recent posts. I meant no disrespect to anyone. Maybe I will be able to provide sources later in this debate (I just haven't found any) or perhaps in another. Also, Dan... I appreciate the fact that you've been quite calm about all this compared to some people. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of animals, I doubt they're "choosing" to be gay, or are "being influenced by Satan."

[QUOTE=Contag;35828991]I disagree that sources are necessary. For instance, it is not necessary to cite a source to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a binary yes/no gene, simply due to the complexity of attraction. Some people may be attracted to muscularity, to male gender roles, to different subtypes within the gay communities (the stark divide between the 'bear' and 'effeminate sub'), and so on. The difficulty in describing a casual mechanism plainly indicates the complexity of sexuality and the expression thereof.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that sources are required for everything you say, but that challenging people to prove you wrong without using sources is just asinine.

Sources aren't needed imo(Still helps posting them though), unless they're asked for, if you cannot give a source after being asked, stop posting about that subject please.

[i]If[/i] someone [i]chose[/i] to be gay, would that person not count as a "real" homo? And if that person never told anyone about his or her choice, would there even be any difference?

In the seemingly unlikely (and not impossible) event of a person being able to change his or her attractions, that person's sexuality would still be determined based on the most recent set of attraction. This person could be heterosexual today, and homosexual tomorrow. This is reasoned if your definition of sexuality is determined by current attraction, and not possible attraction (in which case, the person would be considered bisexual). I'm not sure why you ask. Also, I'm not sure what purpose your second question has.

This is slightly off topic, but its related. If a heterosexual person met a homosexual person of the opposite gender and tried to "convert" them, I think most people would call that anything from rude to inexcusable. Agreed? A few years ago I knew a gay guy who was attracted to me, and occasionally he tried to "convert" me. I was told by a couple of people that I was being too uptight and that maybe I should try it in stead of turning him down. The fact that I had no attraction to this guy was my fault and I needed to lighten up. What is the difference here? Is this a common occurrence? Or is it just an isolated case of backlash from the relatively recent homophobic tendencies of our culture? Or is it just a case of people being insensitive pricks?

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;35979661]This is slightly off topic, but its related. If a heterosexual person met a homosexual person of the opposite gender and tried to "convert" them, I think most people would call that anything from rude to inexcusable. Agreed? A few years ago I knew a gay guy who was attracted to me, and occasionally he tried to "convert" me. I was told by a couple of people that I was being too uptight and that maybe I should try it in stead of turning him down. The fact that I had no attraction to this guy was my fault and I needed to lighten up. What is the difference here? Is this a common occurrence? Or is it just an isolated case of backlash from the relatively recent homophobic tendencies of our culture? Or is it just a case of people being insensitive pricks?[/QUOTE] Unless someone can switch their sexuality on demand, they shouldn't be telling other people to switch their sexuality. For example, I know there is nothing in this world that would make me suddenly find men attractive instead of women, so I would never ask anybody to switch their sexuality when I know I can't. I don't understand why someone would try and tell someone to just [I]change [/I]their sexuality. Even a gay guy trying to convert someone he knows is straight just seems extremely rude to me.

This sounds bad, but I really I sometimes wish its choice. Because someone's choice is much harder to remove then a gene, because once we prove its a gene, there will be 'cures', and while there are cures now for the 'choice'. With genes we could bastardize science for it.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;35979661]This is slightly off topic, but its related. If a heterosexual person met a homosexual person of the opposite gender and tried to "convert" them, I think most people would call that anything from rude to inexcusable. Agreed? A few years ago I knew a gay guy who was attracted to me, and occasionally he tried to "convert" me. I was told by a couple of people that I was being too uptight and that maybe I should try it in stead of turning him down. The fact that I had no attraction to this guy was my fault and I needed to lighten up. What is the difference here? Is this a common occurrence? Or is it just an isolated case of backlash from the relatively recent homophobic tendencies of our culture? Or is it just a case of people being insensitive pricks?[/QUOTE] I'd chalk it up to people around you being a bunch of overly politically correct morons.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;35992675]This sounds bad, but I really I sometimes wish its choice. Because someone's choice is much harder to remove then a gene, because once we prove its a gene, there will be 'cures', and while there are cures now for the 'choice'. With genes we could bastardize science for it.[/QUOTE] You can't just remove a gene, not for a very long time. Additionally, it seems very unlikely to me that homosexuality could be something that depends on a single gene, unless gene expression is involved.

I doubt it is a gene, but I don't think it's exactly a choice either. I believe in '08 some scientists concluded on a 18 year study of a couple hundred children and found that more of them turned homosexual if it was not accepted by their family. Yeah, if I'm correct on that study, telling your children being gay is bad makes them statistically more likely to turn out gay. Humanity never fails to surprise me. Anyone want to look for that study by the way? I can't find it and don't feel like looking for it past the second page on Google.

[QUOTE=Killer99531;36080378]I doubt it is a gene, but I don't think it's exactly a choice either. I believe in '08 some scientists concluded on a 18 year study of a couple hundred children and found that more of them turned homosexual if it was not accepted by their family. Yeah, if I'm correct on that study, telling your children being gay is bad makes them statistically more likely to turn out gay. Humanity never fails to surprise me. Anyone want to look for that study by the way? I can't find it and don't feel like looking for it past the second page on Google.[/QUOTE] Either provide the source or I'm going to have to call complete and utter bullshit. I've never heard of this study, and it sounds pretty sketchy to me. Don't make others find what you're supposed to provide.

You don't have to be so harsh about it. I would call the study unreliable. If the study covers a couple hundred children(200?), I would expect anywhere from 6(3%) to 20(max) to be gay. This isn't near a large enough pool to be considered accurate. [editline]27th May 2012[/editline] additionally, correlation vs causation

I don't get why the only two options here are either genetic or by willful choice, whatever happened to a genetic predisposition further influenced by both environmental factors and confirmed by choice? As odd as that sounds it's pretty likely in my eyes, in my personal opinion that it's just folk who tend to bond better with members of their sex and environmental factors just affirming that, then just leaving the choice to act upon those wishes. But honestly it doesn't really matter as long as they're able to be happy.

Your explanation covers romantic attraction, not physical attraction.

I think it's somewhat both. The way I see it is that you're born with a basic personality which doesn't really prefer much of women or men and is altered throughout life by experiences. The thing is though, if you're either straight or gay the chances are you're going to keep being one of them. (duh) The average straight guy don't want to become gay so he won't and vice versa. In the end, I say anything that can rub your dick can give you pleasure, be it people, objects or even animals. We just need to like it, which kind of brings us back again, but I say we can all learn to like things.

It is a choice, a subconcious one at that. You may hate the fact that you are gay but that would be because of how society is today and what people think of it. That's why people think it is a gene, it isn't.

[QUOTE=iGuybrush;36131880]It is a choice, a subconcious one at that. You may hate the fact that you are gay but that would be because of how society is today and what people think of it. That's why people think it is a gene, it isn't.[/QUOTE] Yeah because if it's a gene thing, you can blame the gene and not yourself, and then it can't be undone either. If it's a gene, it doesn't really solve the gay hate issue, nor does it solve anything if it's a choice. It's just a pointless debate that just evolves around the "is it ok to be gay?" debate.