Why are some people gay?

[Ray Jones]

I think Spider's late because his wife tied him to the kitchen sink for luuuuurve err.. purposes.

 

 

[Q]

We are SO CONCERNED with sex, we give it this ridiculous importance above other personal choices/traits. It for some reason matters to us who is having sex, who they're having it with, HOW they're having sex, WHY they're having sex, and how OFTEN they have sex.

True in the extreme. If we didn't live in a society that's so nauseatingly preoccupied with sex, this wouldn't be much of an issue.

 

I tend to think that sexual orientation is more of a developmental/environmental issue than a genetic one for what I believe is a good reason. I knew a set of identical twin boys when I was growing up. One turned out to be gay, and the other didn't. Genetically speaking, they were identical, so at least in this case it is not a question of genetics, but some kind of developmental issue. I've read about this occuring with other sets of identical twins, so I know that this is not an isolated case.

 

Mace has mentioned kinks before, and I believe that this may be relevant. Think of your own personal kinks (while keeping them to yourselves, PLEASE ) and try to remember when in your lifetime they developed. I don't know about you all, but while some of mine originated at a very early age, most of them seem to have developed at or around puberty and, to the best of my knowledge, ALL were caused by some type of external stimuli, at least in my case.

 

And no, I DON'T believe that it's a conscious choice, either. People don't just wake up one morning and decide to become homosexual. The very idea is absurd. I voted "None of the above."

[Totenkopf]

I don't think you have correctly pointed out anything in regards to my argument.

 

You have glossed over the part where the comparison is intended to make people think about WHY it is that we not only care HOW people are having sex, we also seem to care about why it is that they're having sex that way. Of course my little post on this corner of the internet isn't going to make any sweeping social changes, but I still think it's an important point to make.

 

You also ignored the point that the comparison isn't there to say that currently the two items (homosexuality vs. tomato hate) are on the same level of public interest, so much as to say that the two items SHOULD be on the same level of public interest. You may not have noticed, but I prefaced the entire statement with "The thing I find interesting [...]"

 

You were trying to trivialize the "preoccupation with sex" by comparing orientation to tomatoes. I merely pointed out that that's in effect what you were doing. You view things through a much more liberal lens than most of the population on this issue. Your unwillingness to think or feel that the issue matters reflects your more hedonistic or libertine outlook on matters of sex. I didn't gloss over anything. I also believe you must have missed the part where I said it didn't matter how you FEEL about the issue. But frankly, the comparison is there not ONLY to suggest equivalency between the two but also to suggest that that is the solution people SHOULD arrive at anyway. Besides, it's obvious that that is what you think and feel. O'course, that's merely one man's opinion....

[Spider AL]

Obviously ET and Eagle and others have made their (correct) position quite clear and it needs no additional clarification. However, perhaps I can at least offer some additional reinforcement of the facts.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

You were trying to trivialize the "preoccupation with sex" by comparing orientation to tomatoes. I merely pointed out that that's in effect what you were doing.

Once again incorrect, Tot. ET was in fact pointing out the blatant triviality of any preoccupation with sex and sexual preferences. He wasn't "trying to trivialise" anything. That's the distinction you've been missing all along.

 

In his initial post in this thread, post #9, ET used the perfectly applicable analogy of a subjective like or dislike of tomatoes to highlight the irrelevance and unimportance of sexual likes or dislikes. He stated: The thing I find interesting is we care so much about what it is that makes people "gay" or "not gay" but we don't seem to care so much about what it is that makes people like or dislike tomatoes. It seems like just about as pertinent a thing to care about."

 

You responded in your initial post, post #14, with this: "Reducto ad absurdium. I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, then we can put it in the same category." Essentially saying "ha! that's nonsense, because sexual orientation is regarded as important by society, and tomato-orientation isn't!"

 

Which clearly shows that you missed the point ET was making completely. ET was pointing out that preference for a particular sexual act is in reality no more or less important or intrinsically meaningful than preferences for particular foods, regardless of how society looks upon such things. So ET was and is correct when he notes that you missed his point.

 

Secondly, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that "reductio ad absurdum" is the name of a logical fallacy. It isn't. It's a legitimate method of logical argument historically used by major philosophers to show absurdity in the assertions of others, and I encourage you to go and look it up to gain a better understanding of it.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

You view things through a much more liberal lens than most of the population on this issue.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. The majority of the US population hates, mistrusts or otherwise looks down on atheists, and directly or indirectly supports international aggression... so if ET is more "liberal" on these issues than the majority of the US public, that's a big mark in ET's favour. I for one am more liberal than the US majority. of course I'm also more conservative, because unlike most people, I actually understand what conservatism means.

 

Also, I don't know what you think your statement proves. It's a shameless logical fallacy, the "appeal to popularity". If the majority of Americans think a certain way... that doesn't make it any more right, nor any less reprehensible. Try using reason and logic to form your opinions and defend your arguments in future, please.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Your unwillingness to think or feel that the issue matters reflects your more hedonistic or libertine outlook on matters of sex.

Bahahaha! So if ET believes that the question of where you like to stick your ding-dong isn't as earth-shatteringly important as most buffoons make it out to be... He's expounding the views of a hedonist and a libertine?

 

That is the most pathetically nonsensical assertion I've read all week.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

But frankly, the comparison is there not ONLY to suggest equivalency between the two but also to suggest that that is the solution people SHOULD arrive at anyway.

But of course they should arrive at this conclusion Tot, because it's the logical conclusion to arrive at. Let's examine the reasoning behind the position that (consentual) sexual preferences are not intrinsically important.

 

Well, what are the reasons (if any) for thinking that abberrant, consentual sexual preferences are any more important than a like or dislike of tomatoes, or any other subjective culinary preference?

 

There are only three:

 

1. Aberrant consentual sexual preferences are socially unacceptable in some places! (appeal to popularity - fallacious)

 

2. Aberrant consentual sexual preferences are unacceptable to my deity of choice: The almighty [insert deity of choice here]! (religiously dogmatic opinion - fallacious)

 

3. Some aberrant consentual sexual preferences entail higher health-risks to the participants! (True, but frankly it's their choice as consenting adults. Therefore it's no more "important" to the running of society than taking up smoking in private. So while I choose not to smoke, I don't consider it a vital social issue that others do choose to smoke.)

 

So we see that there is no good reason, no logical reason to regard these sexual preferences as intrinsically important matters. And I for one have no patience with anyone who regards their own sexual preferences as an important matter, or anyone else's sexual preferences as an important matter. End of story.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

in fact, I'm wondering what's taking Spider so long - he's way overdue with his rant about how marriage is an obsolete institution and how homosexuality and sports bag rape are non-issues.

Marriage is an obsolete institution and homosexuality and sports-bag rape are non-issues.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Ray Jones:

I think Spider's late because his wife tied him to the kitchen sink for luuuuurve err.. purposes.

You're partially correct, but it wasn't my wife. She said her husband's name was "Ray" or something like that.

 

-

 

Finally, as regards the question posed in the thread title, it's been accurately answered several times. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that sexual preferences are entirely genetically determined, nor is there any concrete evidence to suggest that sexual preferences are entirely determined by environment (nurture), nor by choice (either conscious or unconscious).

 

Therefore, bearing in mind Dawkins' great quotation: "...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." One must come to the conclusion that sexual preferences are in all probability determined by a combination of genetic predispositions, and/or childhood environment, and/or conscious and unconscious choices... and the extent to which each factor influences an individual is unknown and probably varies between individuals.

 

And until new evidence is presented, this is really all we can posit on the subject, vague as it is.

 

But it's really bloody unimportant anyway. I say to mankind: stop harping on about your own sexual perversions and stop caring about everyone else's.

[Jae Onasi]

I think there is likely a genetic predisposition for sexuality one way or the other, and something in the environment triggers that development. However, it's so much more complex than "Billy and Bobby both have the gay gene, and Billy was loved and accepted by his father and grew up straight while Bobby got molested by an uncle so now he's gay". There are so many things to sort out--genes, environmental factors, hormones/other biochemical processes, relationships with adults, child development factors, among a host of other issues.

Maybe I missed the memo explaining WHY what a person chooses to do consensually with themselves or another human being should be impacting social policy, or really be the concern of anyone at all.

Because we have legislators in California who think that making kids aware of the sexual orientation (usually homosexual in this case) of famous politicians/authors/etc. is somehow extremely important. Americans kids can't do math, but it's somehow more important for them to learn that some mathemetician was gay than to learn 2+2=4. It seems to me to be such a waste of time and educational resources, but saying that would probably get me labeled as anti-gay rather than as someone who thinks we should be focusing on the basics in education rather than something irrelevent to lifeskills like whether someone was gay, straight, or other. Who cares if an author was gay or straight? Kids are supposed to be reading the works and learning good writing, not wasting time learning whether the author went to bed with Bill, Barb, or a sheep. What's more important--Catherine the Great's effects on Russia and its history, or how she supposedly died?

 

There's also the debate on gay marriage vs. civil unions vs. other types of legal benefits, etc., and it's a big deal in the US right now. Sexual orientation certainly has a factor in that debate, vegetable orientation does not (And might I say for the record, I'm proud to be a pro-tomato person. ). There are a lot of questions people need answered on that before they're comfortable putting the gay/straight issue on the back burner--same-sex parenting and its effects on children, the role (if any) of child physical/sexual abuse and orientation, does allowing same-sex marriage open the door to other types of really aberrant relationships (e.g. adult-child sexual relationships a la Nambla, for instance), etc., etc. Whether it _should_ be an issue or not is irrelevent to the fact that it _is_ an issue, at least in the US.

 

And yes,the US is entirely too preoccupied with sex. You should have seen some of the looks I got breastfeeding my children in public, even when I had everything completely covered up. I don't know if people were worried about me flashing them or what, but it was very odd. It made me want to go whack them on the head and say "It's a breast, and it's under a blanket, for God's sake. It's not just for sex, it's for feeding babies, too. Grow up and get over your hormones."

[Totenkopf]

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

You were trying to trivialize the "preoccupation with sex" by comparing orientation to tomatoes. I merely pointed out that that's in effect what you were doing.

 

---Once again incorrect, Tot. ET was in fact pointing out the blatant triviality of any preoccupation with sex and sexual preferences. He wasn't "trying to trivialise" anything. That's the distinction you've been missing all along.....

 

As usual, al, you're mistaken. I got the point he was making and disagreed with it. I understood exactly where he was going and demonstrated as much. He was trivializing the issue with his "challenge". If you don't understand that.....

 

 

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

You view things through a much more liberal lens than most of the population on this issue.

 

----You say this as if it's a bad thing. The majority of the US population hates, mistrusts or otherwise looks down on atheists, and directly or indirectly supports international aggression... so if ET is more "liberal" on these issues than the majority of the US public, that's a big mark in ET's favour. I for one am more liberal than the US majority. of course I'm also more conservative......

 

Yet again, you're mistaken (I sense a pattern here). First of all, I never say whether it's a good or bad thing. The statement is a neutral observation of fact. You once again infer meaning. "I'm more liberal.., I'm more conservative.." Which is it? Or did you merely mean to say that you're more liberal on some issues and more conservative on others? Also, I'm not appealing to the majority in making some kind of moral statement (though, impeachable source that you are, you always seem to try to go there). You are, in fact, the one who tries to reinterpret everyones' comments and shoehorn them into a moral statements. Take your own advice.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

 

Your unwillingness to think or feel that the issue matters reflects your more hedonistic or libertine outlook on matters of sex.

 

Bahahaha! So if ET believes that the question of where you like to stick your ding-dong isn't as earth-shatteringly important as most buffoons make it out to be... He's expounding the views of a hedonist and a libertine?

 

---That is the most pathetically nonsensical assertion I've read all week.

 

 

Hmm, real pithy and mature response. ( )

 

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

 

But frankly, the comparison is there not ONLY to suggest equivalency between the two but also to suggest that that is the solution people SHOULD arrive at anyway.

 

------But of course they should arrive at this conclusion Tot, because it's the logical conclusion to arrive at. Let's examine the reasoning behind the position that (consentual) sexual preferences are not intrinsically important.......

 

al, do everyone a favor and quit confusing your personal positions as being unimpeachable. From your philosophical pov, you may feel they are. That, unfortunately for you, does not make them so. end of story.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm pretty certain that homosexuality cannot be narrowed down to it simply because people are born that way or that it is a lifestyle choice they make, in fact with people being excited about geneology it could become quite scary if people started to play God and sought to seek out the 'gay gene' un unborn fetuses. I'm honestly not sure what side of the fence to be on when it comes to that. Anyway, it's a lot more complicated than that, ranging from simple curiosity to people seeing it and it becomes an actual fetish for them, or a case of someone being enamored by someone from the same sex.

 

My question though is why should it matter? Of course Arreat wasn't intending to make it one but I'm sure some people would.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

As usual, al, you're mistaken. I got the point he was making and disagreed with it. I understood exactly where he was going and demonstrated as much.

Actually Tot, I wasn't mistaken, you DIDN'T get the point ET was making, you didn't even ADDRESS it much less disagree with it, and all you have demonstrated is that you're unwilling to read and absorb what people post.

 

Let's re-iterate what I said earlier, as you completely failed to address it:

 

In his initial post in this thread, post #9, ET used the perfectly applicable analogy of a subjective like or dislike of tomatoes to highlight the irrelevance and unimportance of sexual likes or dislikes. He stated: The thing I find interesting is we care so much about what it is that makes people "gay" or "not gay" but we don't seem to care so much about what it is that makes people like or dislike tomatoes. It seems like just about as pertinent a thing to care about."

 

You responded in your initial post, post #14, with this: "Reducto ad absurdium. I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies, then we can put it in the same category." Essentially saying "ha! that's nonsense, because sexual orientation is regarded as important by society, and tomato-orientation isn't!"

 

Which clearly shows that you missed the point ET was making completely. ET was pointing out that preference for a particular sexual act is in reality no more or less important or intrinsically meaningful than preferences for particular foods, regardless of how society looks upon such things. So ET was and is correct when he notes that you missed his point.

 

Secondly, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that "reductio ad absurdum" is the name of a logical fallacy. It isn't. It's a legitimate method of logical argument historically used by major philosophers to show absurdity in the assertions of others, and I encourage you to go and look it up to gain a better understanding of it.

 

ET's point was that society shouldn't make such a big deal about sexual preferences. Your response boils down to "But society makes a big deal out of sexual preferences!" That's not disagreeing with ET's point, it's not even addressing ET's point. It is and was a wierd irrelevance.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

He was trivializing the issue with his "challenge". If you don't understand that.....

You are the one who is misunderstanding a key point, Tot: ET wasn't "trivialising" anything, he was demonstrating the inherent trivality of something, namely the national obsession with sex and sexual preferences in the US. You can't "trivialise" something that's already inherently trivial.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Yet again, you're mistaken (I sense a pattern here). First of all, I never say whether it's a good or bad thing.

You stated in post #28: "You view things through a much more liberal lens than most of the population on this issue. Your unwillingness to think or feel that the issue matters reflects your more hedonistic or libertine outlook on matters of sex."

 

So of course it was a fallacious appeal to popularity, (irrelevantly citing the fact that most of the population disagrees with ET) and furthermore it was a value judgement as well, as you state that ET has the outlook of a comparitive "libertine" and a "hedonist". Ludicrous fare, Tot. You really should use reasonable non-fallacious arguments instead of stuff like this. But then of course, you'd have to agree with your adversaries.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

"I'm more liberal.., I'm more conservative.." Which is it?

It's both, Tot. I both believe in the so-called "classically conservative" non-ideological principle of slow and measured social reforms/changes, and the ideals of individual rights, the free market, no governmental interference in business and of course a mild preference for a meritocracy.

 

I also support so-called "liberal" ideals like the safety net of a welfare system for the disenfranchised, the ideal of pure democracy and international law and institutions.

 

But frankly all these things are just common sense. The core principles of classical conservatism are not necessarily incompatible with many ideas which have become known as "left-wing". And what we know as "conservatives" these days, are NOT conservatives. In fact I think that old fashioned conservatives would be spinning in their graves if they knew what state-capitalist, financially reckless things were being done in the name of "conservatism" by the neo-cons these days.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

al, do everyone a favor and quit confusing your personal positions as being unimpeachable. From your philosophical pov, you may feel they are. That, unfortunately for you, does not make them so. end of story.

My "personal positions" are based on reason and logic. You've consistently failed to find any logical argument to counter mine... in pretty much EVERY thread we've debated in. So you can erroneously bluster that my positions are incorrect all you like, but until you actually SHOW that they're incorrect, you're just blowing hot air.

[Joetheeskimo]

Actually, as I think about it, I believe the tendency is something that you are born with, in the sense that is manifests itself in some and doesn't in others. However, this does not mean that someone who was born with it cannot control it. As a Christian, I've heard of Christians who have gay tendencies and are working to fight them -- we don't consider it to be a 'sin' unless they get into a homosexual relationship.

 

At first I was convinced it was a choice, but Mace MacLeod's post made me think. It's true that I couldn't feel love for another male even if I "tried" to. So it is obviously something that some feel and others don't.

[Spider AL]

Ah, so now you're saying that the christian god makes people homosexual.

 

And then this god demands that these homosexual people restrain themselves from acting on tendencies and feelings that he has intentionally implanted in them? And the penalty for failure is what? Damnation?

 

That strikes me as a particularly cruel act for a "loving god" to perpetrate. If he perpetrates such cruel tricks, is he indeed a loving god? "Nup", is the answer I've come up with.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Not to mention, Spider, that the male's equivalent to the fabled g-spot is... [drumroll] ...in the anus.

[The Source]

I can't see how someone can wakeup one day and say:

 

"Eventhough biological waste travels this way, I want someone of the same gender (or any gender) to do this..."

 

(Warning:: The statement said above maybe sensitive for some viewers, but it is as blunt as it gets.)

[Spider AL]

One presumes It's because...

They enjoy it.

People do all kinds of wacky things because they find them to be pleasurable. That's not hard to understand, in my opinion.

[igyman]

That's perfectly understandable, but at least those people admit that the wacky things they enjoy are indeed wacky (hopefully this sentence isn't too confusing ). The problem, IMO, is that a very small amount of people (who are not gay) admit that homosexuality is not normal - is wacky (since we're using that adjective), but you won't find a single homosexual who will say that homosexuality is anything but normal.

[Spider AL]

You are correct in one point, Igy: Homosexuality is not "normal", quite literally because the norm is determined by the social majority. Heterosexual behaviour would appear to be the most common, therefore it is defined as "the norm". Neither normal nor abnormal are morally good/bad, however.

 

Secondly, you are categorically incorrect in saying that "you won't find a single homosexual" who notes and accepts this simple fact. There are in fact, many.

 

As for those that claim that their particular fetish is "normal", (these people are not restricted to the homosexual community as you implied) they are peddling nonsense, and should be ignored. We can accept that all people have different sexual preferences without conferring the frankly irrelevant title of "normal" to them and their preferences.

[igyman]

Secondly, you are categorically incorrect in saying that "you won't find a single homosexual" who notes and accepts this simple fact. There are in fact, many.

I stand corrected, since you obviously know of cases that contradict my statement.

 

There's a discussion about gay marriage/adoption that also covers the normality opinions in this thread.

[Spider AL]

I stand corrected, since you obviously know of cases that contradict my statement.

You are correct!

 

I was waiting to spring my tales of amusing conversations with homosexual acquaintances in which both they and I laughed long at the absurd abnormality of their sexual preferences... and often, we then both laughed at the comparable absurdities inherent in my (socially normal) sexual preference!

 

I was further waiting to cite prominent homosexual activists such as Camilla Paglia noted for her vocal opinions on the subject of Homosexuality as a challenge to normality... and Peter Tatchell, who often criticises what he calls "the masculine norm" and persistently condemns many homosexual efforts to "normalise" their particular preferences. (Campaigns that seek to make the military accept gay people, etc.)

 

But by pre-emptively conceding the point, you have foiled my carefully laid plans! Darn you to heck!

 

There's a discussion about gay marriage/adoption that also covers the normality opinions in this thread.

Looks like an interesting debate, but I for one will not take part. (Due to my desire not to allow any new debating forums to steal away my already painfully rare snippets of free time.)

 

But my input is hardly necessary anyway, as ET, Eagle and Achilles have every single base firmly covered. The facts are in no danger of being obscured.

[reven0123]

I believe its a choice and normal I mean can any one person define what the normal life style is because I can't.

[DarthSquee]

Why would it be a choice if its so frowned upon on society? I mean, does one person wake up one day and say to themselves "hey, i want everyone to hate me for being different, i want to have boyfriend and walk around and hang all over him as everyone around me gives me strange looks"

 

Ask yourself. Why would anyone want to impose discrimination on oneself? Its not a choice. The only choice that homosexuals make is whether to come out or not and to accept it themselves.

[CLONECOMMANDER501]

Some people consider gayness [resisting urge... to... LAUGH!] a disease

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Nancy Allen``]

Why would it be a choice if its so frowned upon on society? I mean, does one person wake up one day and say to themselves "hey, i want everyone to hate me for being different, i want to have boyfriend and walk around and hang all over him as everyone around me gives me strange looks"

 

It's more a case that they see something or experiance something or something and it's something they enjoy, it feels right to them, ect. Kind of like a friend of mine who didn't care about religion, had no thoughts about it, until he tried it.

 

You said about homosexuality being frowned upon by society, well let's look at something that most definetly is, pedophillia. Same thing, people have not really thought about it, they are introduced to child porn by, say, someone posting it on a board, find it's something that they like and they go for it.

[DarthSquee]

This thread is not about pedophila, its about homosexuality. They are completely different subjects. Just because someone is gay does not mean they are a pedophile. Most pedophiles have lived straight lives prior to their crime.

[Nancy Allen``]

What I mean is it's the same thing. People are introduced to something, even something that society frowns upon, find that it's something that appeals to them and rhey go for it. That applies to child porn, something that is wrong, as well as homosexuality. Now as far as that goes I don't get why people are so down on it. So and so is gay. So?

[Vaelastraz]

I believe its a choice and normal I mean can any one person define what the normal life style is because I can't.

 

A choice? Try feeling attracted to the same sex for a day...

It it certainly not possible for me.

 

Also, isn't "normal" what the majority does? Then being gay is not normal, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong.

[Nancy Allen``]

Hmm, how many Atheists are there in the world? Could it be said that Atheism is not normal because they are a minority? Something closer to home, how many people in the world like Star Wars? More than those who don't? Would those who don't be abnormal?