|
Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| This study most certainly does not debunk the notion that 'male' and 'female' roles are learned behaviours from behaviour exhibited by parental figures. The biological possibility is still relevant. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| i wouldn't say "parental figures" but more like "society". lol |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
just like people are born with a predisposition to being serial killers... |
Please, enlighten us. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
This study most certainly does not debunk the notion that 'male' and 'female' roles are learned behaviours from behaviour exhibited by parental figures. The biological possibility is still relevant. |
Wait, there's something wrong here... here's what you said:
This study does not prove that X is false. Hence, Y is relevant.
It is the behavioural possibility that is still relevant, no? :conf: |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Please, enlighten us. |
but it's 11:38 and i was about to go to bed. i read it in a book one time. i used to be addicted to true crime books and of course there were always chapters that got into the whole background and history of the killers and psychologists were quoted and bla bla bla. i'm pretty sure that's where i read it.
so i will leave you with the 2 g's
google it:)
and
goodnight |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
just like people are born with a predisposition to being serial killers...y |
The literature on that would contradict what you are saying.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
This study most certainly does not debunk the notion that 'male' and 'female' roles are learned behaviours from behaviour exhibited by parental figures. The biological possibility is still relevant. |
Male and female roles have little to do with sexual orientation.
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
i dunno i've talked to some gay dudes who said they knew they were gay when they were 5 and they were raised in perfectly normal households...meaning straight parents. and my girlfriend's mother was artifically inseminated and had her that way (obviously a lesbian) and then my girlfriend turned out gay and so did her brother. i mean yea you'll say it was because she was raised that way, but i don't know. i think people are born with a predisposition to being gay. just like people are born with a predisposition to being serial killers...you combine that predisposition with a horrible upbringing and u got john wayne gacey. same thing with gays.
i've already gotten into this with an old thread i started about gays serving no purpose in the survival of mankind. |
I know high stress levels during pregnancy have been strongly correlated with having a gay kid. Now just because your brain grows, does not mean that it some parts can start out smaller than they are supposed to. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
The literature on that would contradict what you are saying.
|
predispostion = gay gene?
i think that's what i was arguing...right? lol
omg i'm tired. bye. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
i wouldn't say "parental figures" but more like "society". lol |
Parents are some of the most significant components to the both the exposure a child receives as well as the very transmission of society and culture in the first place. Most people learn how to act like 'dad' from their fathers and 'mom' from their mothers. Their teenage minds know that mom takes the submissive sexual role in almost all instances imaginable and that daddy is there for penetration and a domineering sense of aggression contrary to what mother encourages; very often why homosexuality is a resort in queer cases such as the ones you believe represent the entire gay community. |
|
|
| Slylee |
i know, i just meant that society usually has a greater effect (especially on teens) than parents do. but that's just weak parenting.
ok now i'm really going to bed. lol |
|
|
| RJT |
Halcyon, out of curiosity - what do you think a study like this indicates more than anything else, specifically as it relates to the very general notion that heterosexual couples seemed less egalitarian, and in general let's say "less happy", than the homosexual ones?
:conf:
I don't ask because I think you've said anything in this thread that has really caused me to think one thing or another, I just think it appears as though you've thought about this issue far more than I, and when I read something like the above study my mind starts to wander and think about the influence of traditional social roles impact on individuals happiness in relationships.
I myself definitely was not surprised at the findings of the study cited. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Wait, there's something wrong here... here's what you said:
This study does not prove that X is false. Hence, Y is relevant.
It is the behavioural possibility that is still relevant, no? :conf: |
Still thinking in variables, but rarely the right ones! I mean that, in homosexual couples, a sort of stance is established, though less pronounced than heterosexual couples on the par, which states role; but is this role merely a known societal expectation transmitted from what is commonly known to be 'male' or 'female' per the standard of gender upbringing or is there an actual, biological, sexual predisposition for some people to adhere to certain roles? Of course, modern psychology would indicate both in most instances, so why the mere consideration of only biological indications? It's the "science" of the article I would question, not the necessary validity of its implications.
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
Male and female roles have little to do with sexual orientation. |
Exactly right. Which is why there is little 'biology' to do with this article. |
|
|
|
|
