Paranoid Marvin Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I guess this is a point of great debate for people such as myself. For some, the idea of being born {censored} sounds good, after all, it gives them an excuse. I prefer to believe that I have some sort of control over my life. I guess it all boils down the whole nature vs nurture argument. I think that it can have something to do with a lack of male role model in a child's life. But then why do some children show homosexual behaviours early in life whilst others (such as myself) seem to themselves and those around them to be completely straight. My views on this are mainly through personal experience, but I think it would be a good idea to find out everyone else's views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxsci(macuser) Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 i believe in the {censored} gene. Being straight myself i wouldn't truly know, however i have several {censored} friends and a {censored} relative i have found that people arent born {censored} but mature into homosexuality almost as if it is a natural biological process stored within the human (or other creature as {censored} animals have been found) genome. So therefor i believe it is a natural process that occurs within the human DNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I really think it is environmental. I don't feel that you are 'born' {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringemaster Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 i believe in the {censored} gene. Being straight myself i wouldn't truly know, however i have several {censored} friends and a {censored} relative i have found that people arent born {censored} but mature into homosexuality almost as if it is a natural biological process stored within the human (or other creature as {censored} animals have been found) genome. So therefor i believe it is a natural process that occurs within the human DNA thatts basically how i feel. while yeah it can also be environmental in some cases, i do think genetics plays a role as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Who's to say its either or and not both? So that would beg the question is there "real" {censored} and "learned" {censored} and does it matter or invalidate it to some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hopefully they can make a vaccine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hopefully they can make a vaccine Why do you care so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hopefully they can make a vaccine its not a virus {censored}/bi people have played importent roles in history Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Pjotr Iljitsj Tsjaikovski, Alexander the Great, Marlene Dietrich,George Michael, elton john, and many more all creative {censored}/bi people and you want a "vaccine" are you mad or stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 No, i just like trolling {censored} threads + that was one of the most incorrect things i could think of. I personally think they are born with it, nothing lying dormant in the genes, just something went wrong/different during pregnancy, nothing "natural" about it as well. Just something {censored}ed up, sort of like Ramm, and midgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 I agree that conditions during pregnancy influence the development of the brain But its more then that I believe that everybody is de sum /product of its genes and environment Its always a combination And sometime genes play a more dominant role I see “homosexual” behaviour , like a musical talent Sometimes,, a person is born with a big musical talent.. he will become a famous musician, even if he/she has not a musical upbringing. Sometimes a person with a mediocre musical talent, can become a famous musician be course of a very simulating environment/upbringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 It isnt being born with musical talent, it all depends on much your brain is stimulated at an early age. Mozart's father for example was a great teacher of music throughout europe so one would assume that baby mozart was exposed to a wide range of music at a very early age, this would allow the brain to make more connections that focused on things of a musical nature. I dont think there is a {censored} gene, people saying that animals can be {censored} as well isnt much of a pro for the argument, because what differentiates us from animals is self-control so that would be saying that homosexuals are no better than animals. I agree that the environment can affect a childs perception of sexuality, that would be the largest factor outside of a problem during pregnancy that i can see having an effect on whether or not the kid is {censored} or straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 so you say, that there is no such thing as talent?, that with the right teacher, we all can become mozart of einstein? well i find that hard to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 OK, I want to start by saying that I have studied psychology at degree level and counselling. Both subjects include discussing a lot the interaction of genes and environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate"). This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, modern psychologists consider the question naive - representing an outdated state of knowledge What I can say is that we never came to a final conclusion, nor was that necessary or even desirable, especially when it comes to counselling. According to Carl Rogers, the founder of Person-Centered Therapy, each of us is a unique individual who needs a nurturing, favorable environment in order to express his/her full potential: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-centered_psychotherapy Needless to say, {censored} behaviour can never be "wrong" in the eyes of a counsellor or psychotherapist (both words have basically the same meaning). Now, as Paranoid Marvin says: why do some children show homosexual behaviours early in life whilst others (such as myself) seem to themselves and those around them to be completely straight. No doubt, both situations do occur, but my question is the following: are we sure that people who seem hetero "early in life" (but I have known many cases of people who have "become" {censored} quite old), weren't in denial and then they came to terms with their sexuality? Also, I have known plenty of people who were genuinely bisexual. For such people the gender of the person they love doesn't matter. What matters most for them is the person itself. It has also been said that every human being is born with the capabilty of being both ({censored} and/or hetero). There must be some truth in it, if Ancient Greece regarded relationships between men as more desirable than hetero ones, or if is true that Thai people are completely bisexual, or that bisexuality is widely practiced in Mediterranean countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringemaster Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nice post allesandro. The whole {censored} gene thing sounds like the most realistic answer to me, but knowing their have been other circumstances... it'll always be an enigma to me. btw, look at what this topic is doing to adsense: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 btw, look at what this topic is doing to adsense: Yeah, I saw that. We don't have real privacy anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 if someone was born {censored}, that means that they would have inherited it, or its a "defect" but i dont think its either one of those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lactobacillus P Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 In a lot of animals {censored} individuals occur, some population up to 4% which is also found in a lot of human populations. In a lot of medical/psychological/psychiatric literature opinions are stated that a persons sexual orientation is a small spot in a continuum, as is gender identity. This psychological state might change a little over life - when you grow up and go through puberty. A lot of psychological processes have a solid neurological/biological base. The latter being largely influenced by genes being turned on and off in specific situations or environments. What Alessandro wrote about the nature-nurture link also plays a key-role. Some psychiatric diseases are 'inheritable' but only through learned behavior, the nurture part plays a huge role sometimes. Gender identity is not something you learn, it is actually built-in. It can not be changed. Lots of grave mistakes were made in the past when children born with ambiguous genitals were surgically altered to resemble normal genitals and ending up with a mismatch in gender identity and genitals - it's not only the XY or XX chromosome or the way your genitals look what defines a personal as a sexual individual. Apart from nurture there is a big biological substrate for human behaviour too. On the biological substrate of psychology, gender identity and personality it is a fact that female brains differ slightly from male brains (numerous Neurological scientific reports have discovered this) and what is very interesting is that certain studies have shown that the male {censored} brain shares some of the female-male differences. I am not sure whether female {censored} brains might share male brain differences, but what could be the case is that there is a biological substrate for being male-female apart from the XX and XY chromosomes. Perhaps gender identity and sexual orientation can have biological substrates too. It is no disease to be male, female or {censored}! Now this all is intriguing and should put a lid on those stating it is a choice that can be 'cured'. What's there to cure? {censored} is a variation on the norm - read normal. Women and men are both human, but think and behave differently, which is fine (I am not saying either is superior, both should have equal rights). Men and women should embrace their differences and their similarities. In a free society we could perhaps discover that human sexuality and gender identity is far more complex than what is previously thought. Why just have two genders with a fixed orientation? Excuse me if this all is a bit vague, this is typed up after a long night-shift with very little sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Excuse me if this all is a bit vague, this is typed up after a long night-shift with very little sleep. It is actually a very good post I suppose I could have done better as well, because I am not feeling very well at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Gender identity is not something you learn, it is actually built-in. It can not be changed. Lots of grave mistakes were made in the past when children born with ambiguous genitals were surgically altered to resemble normal genitals - it's not only the XY or XX chromosome or the way your genitals look what defines a personal as a sexual individual. Oh yeah. nothing "natural" about it as well. I am pro-{censored} marriage and all that good stuff, but I agree with you: there is nothing natural about being homosexual. Two homosexual individuals are counter-productive to a species population. Mind you, we aren't animals so in today's day and age there is nothing 'wrong' with homosexuality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 there is nothing natural about being homosexual. Two homosexual individuals are counter-productive to a species population. First of all we would need a good, scientific (and not religious or moralistic) definition of what is natural. Do animals behave in a natural way? Then what about bonobos? If their behavior is natural, then even pedophilia is natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 First of all we would need a good, scientific (and not religious or moralistic) definition of what is natural. Do animals behave in a natural way? Then what about bonobos?If their behavior is natural, then even pedophilia is natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior When I said natural I had no moral or religious connotations. I meant purely in the form of nature. I read your link, and you just shattered my hetero=natural argument That's actually very eye opening; I'm suprised I had no idea that such things occured so commonly in the animal realm until now. @Colonel: lawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 you just shattered my hetero=natural argument That's actually very eye opening; I'm suprised I had no idea that such things occured so commonly in the animal realm until now. The "Establishment" has no interest in making such facts widely known.If they did they would lose much of the grip they have over the general population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 The "Establishment" has no interest in making such facts widely known.If they did they would lose much of the grip they have over the general population. So you too believe in the plot for a New World Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts