lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: Why are some people gay?
Born gay. 30 41.10%
By choice. 24 32.88%
None of the above 19 26.03%
Voters: 73. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: Why are some people gay?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-03-2007, 04:12 PM   #1
Arreat
 
Arreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: tatooine
Posts: 817
Why are some people gay?

I personally think it's by choice, most likely caused by friends or some event that made them "switch teams".

BTW: I'm in no way shape or form attempting to bash on homosexuals.




Jack Bauer once forgot where he put his keys. He then spent the next half-hour torturing himself until he gave up the location of the keys.
Arreat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 04:20 PM   #2
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Well I'm pretty sure people are born gay. True, some people get their pyschosexual what-not messed up by something that happens to them, but its not common.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 04:20 PM   #3
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Depends on what you mean by "gay".

Are you asking why some people have gay feelings, or why people have homosexual relationships? I think that they are born into the former while they choose to enter into the latter, much like a heterosexual would choose to go celibate.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 04:21 PM   #4
milo
[]D [] []V[] []D [] []\[]
 
milo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chora's Den.
Posts: 2,039
iuno

I'd say by choice. Couldn't go anywhere with the wimminz, so they tried their luck with the guys. Or vice versa.


"I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now,
Even though you broke my heart and killed me.
And tore me to pieces...
And threw every piece into a fire.
As I burned, it hurt because
I was so happy for you." - GLaDOS
milo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 05:05 PM   #5
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
I'd say by choice. Couldn't go anywhere with the wimminz, so they tried their luck with the guys. Or vice versa.
I'm going to pretend that this is a bad joke...because I imagine >=90% of all homosexuals would take extreme offense to that remark.

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. Maybe we should investigate whether or not people are born with a tendency for wearing fuzzy robes or not after a shower?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 09:14 PM   #6
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
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. Maybe we should investigate whether or not people are born with a tendency for wearing fuzzy robes or not after a shower?
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. Same for fuzzy robes. I'd say that some people end up more vulnerable to or receptive toward (take your pick) homosexual behavior. In the face of a paucity of evidence, it looks like nurture may have the upper hand at the moment. If there is in fact a "gay gene", I'm sure it won't be long before someone discovers it at the current rate of things.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 04:54 AM   #7
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I'd say that when a person's proclivity for tomatoes has an important impact on social policies,
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.

I'm not reducing this issue to the level of personal taste in food because I think it will give my argument merit, I compare the two because there is no reason to assert that the choice between straight and gay or tomato or no tomato are significantly different. 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.

Apparently, if somebody isn't having the "right" kind of sex, there must be something wrong with them. They've got some defective genes, they had issues in their upbringing, they've a chemical imbalance perhaps. Really though, who cares? Why does this matter? These are rhetorical questions of course, because it seems that a great number of people really DO care. I find it absurd.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 04:28 PM   #8
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Before this gets too out of hand I think we ought to haul out the Kinsey scale. Might be right might be wrong, but the main point of it is Straight and Gay are hardly Black and White. Its all rather a mess, you've got your Bi's, your Bi curious, your asexual, your transsexual, and all of the sudden they're all demanding their own bathroom.

Edit: TO whoever added the None of the Above option, I'd like my vote changed to that.

-Thank you.

Last edited by Samnmax221; 02-03-2007 at 06:14 PM.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 04:37 PM   #9
jebbers
FUS RO DAH
 
jebbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lewiston, NY
Posts: 1,551
Current Game: Skyrim
I think homosexuals are born. It's like your ethnicity, you cant choose it, your born that way. The same with certain mental illnesses. Though with mental illnesses they can be brought along later in life through stroke, seizure, head trauma and other things.

Actually now that I think about it, homosexuality can be a choice also.

So I really don't know what to think now.

jebbers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 04:37 PM   #10
IG-64
Moderator
 
IG-64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 5,958
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
This'll probably end up in the senate before long, and it probably should.

Meh, I say choice.
IG-64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 05:00 PM   #11
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Either way, it's irrelevant. If it was a choice, it was theirs to make. It if wasn't, you can hardly hold them responsible for offending people's sensibilities. Basically a non-issue if there ever was one, IMO.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 05:14 PM   #12
Pho3nix
#rekt
 
Pho3nix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,372
Forum Veteran 
I'd have to say you are born with a tendency to be gay, of course life shapes you as well but I'm sure that even though a child would be raised in a entirely gay community it wouldn't automatically turn out to be homosexual.

I don't think choice has anything to do with it, that just seems absurd.

Pho3nix is online now   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 05:27 PM   #13
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
The poll needs more options. In addition to the two options, there are also theories that kids become homosexual with time (nature versus nurture), that it's a combination of the three, or that it varies from person to person. As neither of the two offered alternatives fit my view, I refrained from voting.

I think I don't know. But I'm sure it's not a conscious choice, and that fundies' "homosexuality therapy" largely not only does not work, but also does more harm than good.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 05:40 PM   #14
igyman
Tension!
 
igyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: White City
Posts: 3,410
Current Game: Trine Enchanted Edition (PC)
Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
I'm saying it's a hormonal disorder that can occur in puberty. I actually read this in a reliable book and I think it's plausible. I think the choice there is to accept it, or not.

igyman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 06:02 PM   #15
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by igyman
I'm saying it's a hormonal disorder that can occur in puberty. I actually read this in a reliable book and I think it's plausible. I think the choice there is to accept it, or not.
I agree with this. Clearly homosexuality is not a choice, but being "born" gay might not be entirely correct either. However, I did vote for the born gay option, though on second thought, voting "none of the above" would have been better. *If a Mod could change my vote, I'd appreciate it.*

Really, I don't think that there's a "gay gene" any more than there is a gene to prefer Coke over Pepsi and vise versa. It's something that is developed. Probably, one's sexual preferences/tendancies develop during puberty. Meaning that when someone's born and before they hit puberty, they are essentially asexual... meaning they have no sexual drive. When puberty hits, hormones are going to determine if someone is straight, gay, bi, curious, or whatever else there is.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-03-2007, 09:44 PM   #16
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Unbelievable.

Sorry, what year is this...?

You can choose a lot of things in this world, but you can't choose what turns you on, and you can't choose who you fall for. I'm straight. I like girls, period. I didn't get to "choose" this. This is instinct, and it's hardwired. In my experience, anyone who thinks people "choose" to be gay are:

1) Bisexual and whose feelings could lean either way
2) Closet cases
3) Trying to justify their own bigotry

So, who here could choose to be gay if they wanted exactly...? Anyone?


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 11:27 AM   #17
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
educto 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.
As ET Warrior said, it's not that it has an important impact. It's that it shouldn't have an important impact.

I could, in fact, just as easily be opposed to genetically manipulating tomatoes on the grounds that people choose to like tomatoes, rather than being born with a "tomato gene". It'd be absurd, of course, but technically I could do it.

But it begs a question: Is it of any importance how it comes there are homosexuals? Whether or not they are born that way or become that way or choose it is irrelevant, as the end result remains: homosexuals and homosexual (newsflash, hm?). Just like there are people who fall in love with persons of other skin colours, other economic classes, or, goodness forbid, other religions.

Homosexuals are part of life. They don't do more harm than heterosexuals, they aren't going to go away any time soon, and they deserve the same rights we "normal" people do (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).

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 02:11 PM   #18
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Frankly, ET, it's irrelevant how you feel about people's sexual choices. It's obvious that you are of the camp that says "hey.....whatever makes you happy and doesn't have an (arguably) adverse impact on me." I'm not even arguing here whether homosexuals should "get a pass" or not. My point was only that b/c it does have a social impact (where my/your feelings about tomatoes don't) that your comparison was ridiculous.

@DE--what is this sports bag rape argument you reference?
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 04:03 PM   #19
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, ET, it's irrelevant how you feel about people's sexual choices.
Perhaps you are missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that people's sexual preference doesn't currently have a social impact. I am saying that people's sexual preference shouldn't have a social impact. People need to stop caring. People should care about somebody else's sexual habits just as much as they should care about their taste towards tomatoes. That is to say, very little. (Unless you're trying to sleep with / cook for said person. Then those things might matter more)



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 05:45 PM   #20
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
No, I understood exactly where you were coming from and indicated as much. I merely pointed out, correctly, that your comparison was silly and why.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2007, 12:17 PM   #21
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
No, I understood exactly where you were coming from and indicated as much. I merely pointed out, correctly, that your comparison was silly and why.
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 [...]"



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 10:27 PM   #22
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Yes, people shouldn't care about sexuality in terms of homo vs hetero.

But they do. Wow, do they ever.

What odds do people give a US Presidential candidate who comes out of the closet the year before announcing their candidacy? We are, after all, still on Planet Earth.

Well, some of us.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-04-2007, 10:33 PM   #23
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
"Red states"-bet against it.
"Blue states"-maybe 50/50.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2007, 07:23 AM   #24
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
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.
Good point. (blabla so frequent blaiblaiblub )

Really, I second that. It's like the food thing. Some prefer steak and some a good burger. Some like both. Some none of it. And why do they like it or not? Because grandma sucked at making burgers or they once had a steak with mould on it. Or both. Or for complete different reasons, who knows.

The gay people I do know simply experienced during their youth (or after their first marriage) that they somehow have a better erection if they are opposed to same gender. Nothing spectacular.

Also, there are people, who don't like sexual contacts at all. Is it a gene? Is it a choice? No. Because this is very often connected to how they where raised, or even to molesting or rape. It's nothing these people chose. It's a behaviour they developed due to experiences and circumstances in their lifes.
... YES! I *do* know there a those among us, who chose abstinence as their path to enlightenment, but remember, how many of you are (for unknown reasons?) gay and just too frightened to tell, because your religion is against it? Also, this is addressing people who don't like it, not those who don't want it until the easter bunny gives permission. XD

So, in the end it's not THE gene, it's not THE choice that makes a person gay or not. If at all, then it maybe dependend to a handful of genes combined with personal experiences and the social environment, but I seriously doubt there is a manual on "how to get a person straight/gay" available.

The only true "choice" most gay people make is whether they have a "coming out" or not.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2007, 01:56 PM   #25
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
@DE--what is this sports bag rape argument you reference?
It's an analogy he makes some times, something among the lines of "it doesn't matter who you have sex with, be it a man, woman, or sports bag. It's not that darned important".

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-05-2007, 03:53 PM   #26
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
I think Spider's late because his wife tied him to the kitchen sink for luuuuurve err.. purposes.




Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-08-2007, 02:43 AM   #27
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
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."


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 02-10-2007 at 11:04 PM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-10-2007, 09:53 PM   #28
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
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....
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-11-2007, 01:48 PM   #29
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

-

Quote:
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.

-

Quote:
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.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-14-2007, 04:58 PM   #30
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior
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."


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-17-2007, 12:54 PM   #31
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
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.....



Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. ( )


Quote:
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.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-23-2007, 04:51 PM   #32
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
I can't see how someone can wakeup one day and say:
spoiler:
"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.)



R.I.P. to 'The Source' and 'MacCorp'
2004-2008
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-18-2007, 03:56 AM   #33
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
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.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-18-2007, 08:55 PM   #34
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-29-2007, 10:16 PM   #35
Joetheeskimo
Statusless
 
Joetheeskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,923
Current Game: KotOR
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.

Joetheeskimo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-30-2007, 08:26 PM   #36
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
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.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-12-2007, 03:55 PM   #37
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Not to mention, Spider, that the male's equivalent to the fabled g-spot is... [drumroll] ...in the anus.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-23-2007, 04:59 PM   #38
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
One presumes It's because...
spoiler:
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.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-24-2007, 05:01 PM   #39
igyman
Tension!
 
igyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: White City
Posts: 3,410
Current Game: Trine Enchanted Edition (PC)
Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
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.

igyman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-25-2007, 06:17 AM   #40
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
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.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Why are some people gay?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.