Originally posted by Moral Hazard
okay, I acted out my reply... did you get it?
I thought I heard a thunder a while ago, and a little later I saw the new exchange student running across the corridor a little more tanned than usual.
I think I learnt three things.
Lesson number one: is that the answer is yes;
Lesson number two: I should get her phone number, just in case;
Lesson number three: I should've asked you whether or not I'd be happier if I had lots of money :p
boris_the_bear
this thread is too serious
time for.......
ownymcown
If being gay is NOT a choice (meaning someone could choose their sexual orientation, and that environmental factors don't play a role), then there is some gene or suppressing of genes that favors homosexuality.
Does that mean homosexuality could be prevented in future generations through genetic engineering?
And on another separate note, what about people who are abused as a child and turn out homosexual? They might not have been gay to begin with, but were turned gay through a traumatic experience. Environmental factors aren't exactly "choice", but they're closer to choice than an inherent genetic homosexuality.
My point? Homosexuality is a choice to some degree!
Through environmental or societal factors, people are born or made in early childhood susceptible to being gay, for example say 60% gay/40 straight , or 30% gay, etc. People choose to suppress their homosexuality, or fulfill it. It will be harder to suppress it for those who are more gay (60%+), and very easy for those who are insignificantly gay (~5%).
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by ownymcown
If being gay is NOT a choice (meaning someone could choose their sexual orientation, and that environmental factors don't play a role), then there is some gene or suppressing of genes that favors homosexuality.
Does that mean homosexuality could be prevented in future generations through genetic engineering?
My understanding (although it's been a while since I checked for updates on this area of research) is that studies have found a genetic mutation present in approximately 50% of men who self-identify as homosexual (and some percentage, I cannot remember but it was single digit of men who self-identified as heterosexual). This same mutation was not found in any women. Based on this one can conclude that homosexuality is genetic (nature) in approximately 50% of men. The other 50% and women it is undetermined if their homosexuality is nature or nurture.
quote:
And on another separate note, what about people who are abused as a child and turn out homosexual? They might not have been gay to begin with, but were turned gay through a traumatic experience. Environmental factors aren't exactly "choice", but they're closer to choice than an inherent genetic homosexuality.
What? Are you talking about people who are physically, mentally or sexually abused? I cannot say anything about physically or mentally as I know of no evidence that a disproportionate number of abused children become homosexuals in adulthood (if you have such evidence I would be interested in reading it). If you're talking about children who were sexually abused by pedophiles and became pedophiles then I would have to argue that this has nothing to do with homosexuality as pedophilia and vice versa.
coroknight
quote:
Originally posted by ownymcown
If being gay is NOT a choice (meaning someone could choose their sexual orientation, and that environmental factors don't play a role), then there is some gene or suppressing of genes that favors homosexuality.
Does that mean homosexuality could be prevented in future generations through genetic engineering?
And on another separate note, what about people who are abused as a child and turn out homosexual? They might not have been gay to begin with, but were turned gay through a traumatic experience. Environmental factors aren't exactly "choice", but they're closer to choice than an inherent genetic homosexuality.
My point? Homosexuality is a choice to some degree!
Through environmental or societal factors, people are born or made in early childhood susceptible to being gay, for example say 60% gay/40 straight , or 30% gay, etc. People choose to suppress their homosexuality, or fulfill it. It will be harder to suppress it for those who are more gay (60%+), and very easy for those who are insignificantly gay (~5%).
I think it's important to make the distinction between how gay you actually are and how you choose to act on it. A person who is 100% gay would definitely have a harder time pretending to be straight while it might be easier for someone who is bi or 50% gay.
I can't find a source right now but I remember my psychology professor addressing this issue. One method is to study siblings and how their sexuality compare. What they found is the closer two people are genetically the closer their sexuality will be. Note: this has to do with siblings not parent's since I haven't heard any studies dealing with parents. So if two brothers were identical twins and one was gay, then it was more likely that the other one was also gay compared to if the siblings were adopted or not identical.
boris_the_bear
Aortik
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think one would be taking an exceedingly simplistic view of any religion to reduce it to a series of taboos.
To clarify, I do not hold that religion is only a series of taboos, but I see their transmission as well as religion's transmission as the same. Innumerable factors and influences constitute an individual and their views, but when people agree on something - whether that agreement is sealed in terror or compliance - a node of information is created, wrapped up in rhetoric, then administered to others in an attempt to convert those sympathetic to it. It is how any belief spreads, and both taboo as well as religion are merely systems of belief.
quote:
I will admit that there is great overlap and things that were taboo independent of a religion often become taboo within that religion and other things that are contrary to the prescribed path to a good and righteous life within a given religion will often become taboos as well; however, all the great faiths endeavor to teach a moral code based on things that should be done as opposed to things that should not be done (with the exception of Judaism under which morality is equally defined by what one should not due as by what one should do). Thus I would argue that the foundation of religious observance is in the positive rather then the negative, which is to say in the recommended activities rather then the prohibited. I think societies and individuals adopt taboos because it is easier to have a hard and fast list of things one ought not do rather then a nebulous description of what one ought to do.
I'll concede that many religious systems use fables, metaphors, parables, etc.(better not say 'myths' though, or I'll be offended!) to demonstrate appropriate behaviour, but sin and taboo are often expressed in the culture of any religion, the difference there being textual evidence and the far less concrete, but nevertheless powerful, maintenance of folkways established by the same transmission which impels people to seek religious understanding of their world. Yes, religions often define themselves through approved tenets which rarely seem to vary in an ultimate sense, but just the same, they seek to curb human behaviour through the establishment of sin and of offenses. This being from the perspective that religions are most often the product of their respective cultures and political aspirations, but once more, I'm not sure we can align our particular beliefs on this.
What I will object to is taboo as a hard and fast list for people's ease. I do not believe we are doing anything terribly more efficient by universally outlawing any sort of behaviour, it is merely the dominant wrest of popular opinion as some indoctrinated hysteria that has lead to the current state of things... of course, it has always been that way, but I believe most taboos to be arbitrary, and we would do just as well without many of them, albeit differently.
quote:
There are many taboos that have little to do with sex; however, I will agree that taboos were developed to control behaviour. I would contend that most taboos addressed a very important need during the time in which they developed, beyond curbing violence. For example; the taboo against homosexuality is ancient, it has been present since the time of very small bands of humans living in isolated groups with high mortality rates. Given this social reality it is makes sense that these isolated populations would have a need to increase their population in order to improve the chances of their band surviving. If increased numbers are needed then procreation is the easiest way to reach that goal... homosexual acts cannot result in procreation but do satisfy sexual urges... thus they are contrary to this goal. In order to curb these acts social pressure was brought to bear. Perhaps adultery as a taboo would be a good example of a sexual taboo that developed over a need to put an end to jealousy over sexual partners resulting in violence.
The taboos on incest and on menstruation are the only nearly universal taboos I can think of. These appear in most every culture in some way or another.
When I say that taboos control violence, I speak of violence as a high concept. It is not merely bloodshed, but the violation of another with intention. This could include rape, dismemberment, insult or a great many other acts. The point being that violence is one of the most prevalent forces throughout the whole of history and also one with the most taboos regarding it. The violence of sexuality even, of the taboos, probably one of the most violated in this post-Victorian limelight.
I would argue that the taboo on homosexuality is largely due to the act characterizing its participators and the status of it participators as a minority. Were, say, 75% of the population homosexual, it would be normal due to the relative abundance of it, and thus not a taboo. But then again, I see religion as a primarily social faculty that is merely used by people to justify their taboo-inspired prejudices and arbitrary sensibilities. But this is a tired, old song from me.
quote:
Maybe it's your definition of natural and unnatural that's throwing me off here. It seems you believe taboos to be entirely natural whereas love is unnatural in that is stands (often) in contradiction to taboos. I would argue that love is an innate emotion and therefore natural whereas taboos are a response to a societal problem (most of which have outlived their usefulness incidentally) and are therefore social constructs, which make them unnatural.
Though I agree that taboos are most often social contructs that probably at one time served a purpose, their existence being "natural" so far as the right of prevalence is concerned, I do not see love as being something necessary to social functioning. Perhaps it exists simultaneously - perhaps not - but emotional appeal has its place seperate from love. Yes, our definitions of what is 'natural' and what isn't are probably differing here, but I see the concept of love as a transcendance of mere emotional burden, all-too often confused with its baser incarnations.
Perhaps you and I hold the concepts of God and of love as the same thing with different names and slightly different meanings to the both of us.
Xan_2v2
quote:
Originally posted by coroknight
I think it's important to make the distinction between how gay you actually are and how you choose to act on it. A person who is 100% gay would definitely have a harder time pretending to be straight while it might be easier for someone who is bi or 50% gay.
I can't find a source right now but I remember my psychology professor addressing this issue. One method is to study siblings and how their sexuality compare. What they found is the closer two people are genetically the closer their sexuality will be. Note: this has to do with siblings not parent's since I haven't heard any studies dealing with parents. So if two brothers were identical twins and one was gay, then it was more likely that the other one was also gay compared to if the siblings were adopted or not identical.
Is that the stats about the more older borthers a person has the more likely they are to be gay (if they are male sisters dont have an effect & the trend isnt present for lesbians)?
I also read that the length of 2nd & 4th fingers can indicate if a person is gay (I thinkit came from a credible sources & it is quite well known & would also indicate a genetic basis but im not sure atm)
good that somone mentioned genes plural which is probably true since if it were only a single gene it would have be easier to identify long ago. As for identical twins having higher chance of both being gay this both indicates that it is deffinately genetic but might not be soley genetic, which brings to a third idea which is hormone levels during pregnancy (which are especialy volatile for twins & for each additional pregnancy(more brothers again) & extremely complicated since its based on many hormones (not just testosterone/oestrogen) at certain levels, at certain times during pregnancy and for certain lengths of time. Its brain chemistry not an on/off switch
samochod
if you add race into the mix it's quite funny
Aortik
I once heard that if your hand is larger than your face, you have cancer.
Xan_2v2
quote:
Originally posted by Aortik
I once heard that if your hand is larger than your face, you have cancer.
