Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [len] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
len wrote:
Evidence that something is present across a long stretch of history is hardly proof something is hardwired. Animals also do lots of things humans do not or should not so that doesn't tell me much either.

It comes down to the type of evidence. The scientific community has been publishing on the biological factors that shape orientation for 30+ years now. Research on other species supports the role hormones play in how species members are wired.

len wrote:
I will readily accept that both sides of the debate have a vested interest in presenting their version of history.

There's no debate. And it's not history. There's science and then there's the people with uniformed opinions making normative statements stemming from religious dogma.

len wrote:
I would also debate that we have a solid grasp of human sexuality. The long term effects of novel new family structures that were not the norm 30 years ago are yet to be seen. In the 70s we were told if you are unhappy get divorced the kids will be better off. They are quite adaptable they will be okay. Subsequent studies showed maybe not so.

Family structures have no impact on sexual orientation. Zero. It's established that biological factors influence orientation. Full stop.

len wrote:
We really don't have any idea what the long term effects of allowing people to change their anatomy will be if they feel they are transgender. Will it make them feel better 20 or 40 years from now, will they be less likely to commit suicide? We don't know.

Well luckily, there's a ton of research on what happens when you don't allow people to express the sexuality. A ton. None of it good. I agree that there's a need for gender reassignment to be tracked. But your point is an arguement that supports further research.

len wrote:
People still accept that 10 percent of the population is gay if you ask millennials they think its higher than that. The reality is it is more like 2-4 percent and the 10 percent number came from Kinsey's surveys of populations that were not at all representative of the general population. But the 10 percent rightly or wrongly was used because a higher number presented a more convincing argument that being gay is normal.

Not sure I follow here. Are you highlighting the effort to repress any evidence supporting the legitimacy of homosexuality?

Anyways, great discussion!
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime

I have read that too but don't believe it.


You're such a Trump ball washer! - Duffy - Feb 8, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [xsive] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xsive wrote:
And I don't think that anyone will disagree that children can be influenced to think a certain way.

Agree. I think that it leads to additional and harmful confusion as the children begin to develop the sexuality for which they were wired since before they were born.
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [feedthereed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are obviously on some sort of crusade. It is you who are making dogmatic statements. My short version like most issues that a socially controversial both sides could probably go on and on about evidence yada yada. I'm not interested in doing it.

Life is full of froth and trouble, two things stand in stone
Kindness in another's troubles, courage in one's own
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You also like to drop a bomb and watch the fireworks. Not that there is anything wrong with that ):)

Life is full of froth and trouble, two things stand in stone
Kindness in another's troubles, courage in one's own
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [feedthereed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
feedthereed wrote:

Family structures have no impact on sexual orientation. Zero. It's established that biological factors influence orientation. Full stop.

I think this is your quote.

First off, I don't consider sociology hard science. No way to really measure what is going on in families / relationships, there are too many factors to know what causes what.

However studies have shown families with strong mother influences, i.e. the mom runs the house, are more likely to have children who identify as gay.

Also studies show that families with multiple siblings, it is more likely the youngest will be gay. They try to say this because of some worn out uterus idea. if so it may be biological. But I don't think there is strong proof of that. I suspect have several older siblings could affect how you grow up, either you picked on or doodled after. So certainly family dynamics could explain this too.

Also higher iq correlates with being gay. Is that biological, or do people with higher IQ get encouraged more to go against societal norms.

As I said, I think it is some interesting ideas, but I don't think you can really say it is biological, environmental, or a combination.

But I think statement that it is all biological does not match current data/theories. Why is it so important to you to think it is all biological?
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime

I have read that too but don't believe it.

What percent would you believe. Certainly research varies but 20-25% is supported by other research. Do you think a lot of men would share this intimate detail with you?
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [len] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Socially controversial? Sure. We're talking about one group dictating how another group can express themselves, love one another, raise kids, etc.

That's why it's important.

But science isn't dogma.

Research isn't a crusade.

And only one side is presenting evidence.
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patf wrote:
Bretom wrote:
1. You are literally the first person I have ever heard describe their own sexuality as a choice they made at some point in their life. I am NOT doubting you but that is remarkable to me.


Guys living a straight life who previously had sex with men do not usually go around bragging about it. Whereas most gay men are open about it now days.

If you look at studies, you can find that over half the male population sometimes have dreams about having sex with men. Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime, but only about 2-10% say they are gay.

So it pretty easy to believe that there are large numbers of men who see sexuality as a choice. And in reality behavior is a choice for all men. Now is there really even a sexual orientation, or is that part of the story one tells themselves about ther own sexual behaviors.

Most of the men I know who are gay decided to leave the wives and live a gay live in their 40's or later. prior to that they raised families. Perhaps this is so because it was not appropriate to live as a gay man in society in the past so they chose to live straight lives. Or maybe they like getting more sex with men than they could get with there now old wives.

As they said on tv show House, people lie about sex. So I doubt we can really ever know all the true factors at play with sexual desires and behavior.

Here's what we do know. People's attitudes about sex and sexual behavior aren't changing all that much. Most boys like girls, and most girls like boys. Generally, people today are simply more tolerant of differences in sexual behavior, though it's not necessarily the case that they're more accepting of those behaviors.

Most of this other stuff is an argument about the fringes of some piece of fabric, from what I've seen.
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What percent would you believe. Certainly research varies but 20-25% is supported by other research. Do you think a lot of men would share this intimate detail with you?

I would guess a lot lower than 20 - 25% but that's just my guess which is probably as accurate as many studies. I can't count how many studies have been proven wrong in my lifetime for one reason or the other, usually because someone has a certain bias to inflate or deflate figures. And who participates in these studies? I've never been asked and no one I know (not that I know a lot of people) has ever been asked, so I'm curious who they are asking.

I just take these kind of sociological questions with a big grain of salt.




You're such a Trump ball washer! - Duffy - Feb 8, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow. Great stuff.

patf wrote:

First off, I don't consider sociology hard science. No way to really measure what is going on in families / relationships, there are too many factors to know what causes what.

Agreed. Not hard science. But I'm referring to the sequence of events. Current research says that biological factors in utero determine sexual orientation.

patf wrote:
However studies have shown families with strong mother influences, i.e. the mom runs the house, are more likely to have children who identify as gay.

Yes! And environmental factors definitely impact the mother. But there isn't yet the degree of understanding required to state how or to what extent. So sociology (a soft science?) could help inform (maybe?). However, it doesn't change the fact that the impact on the sexual orientation of the individual happens in utero.

patf wrote:
Also studies show that families with multiple siblings, it is more likely the youngest will be gay. They try to say this because of some worn out uterus idea. if so it may be biological. But I don't think there is strong proof of that.
I suspect have several older siblings could affect how you grow up, either you picked on or doodled after. So certainly family dynamics could explain this too.

I believe that research is converging toward identifying the chromosome responsible for sexual orientation. At one point it was thought that there was a abnormality at the gene level (X,Y) that resulted in homosexuality. Since then, they have moved away from that idea and think a separate gene is in play.

patf wrote:
Also higher iq correlates with being gay. Is that biological, or do people with higher IQ get encouraged more to go against societal norms.

As I said, I think it is some interesting ideas, but I don't think you can really say it is biological, environmental, or a combination.

That's a really interesting question. I dont know the answer. I've read intelligence is nature/nurture. You are born with certain abilities and the in which you are raised informs the degree to which you'll reach your potential. Maybe that's the case with sexual orientation: you're born gay or straight and society shapes the extent to which you reach your "potential". Lots of research on folks repressing their sexuality. But I don't know either way.

patf wrote:
But I think statement that it is all biological does not match current data/theories. Why is it so important to you to think it is all biological?

It's not important to me. What is important to me is a conversation on facts. And the conclusion of the scientific community is that it's biological. If tomorrow, research demonstrated that sexual orientation was determined by societal factors, or libray readings by drag queens, I'd accept that too.

Counter to your question, I have a completely sincere question (or two) of my own: Is a biological origin a difficult thing to accept? If you're not convinced by current research, what would it take to convince you?
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [len] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
len wrote:
There is lots of stuff that kids would get used to and say meh. We could have people walking around naked in public schools and after awhile kids would be meh. Not sure that in of itself makes things appropriate. Given that the prevalence of transgender is less than one percent I'd say its a bit weird that both your kids have had kids switch teams. Maybe its becoming a thing at their school.

Of the 3 kids I'm aware of, we know 2 of the families fairly well (first-name basis w/ both parents, know what they do for a living, mingled at other social events, etc). They're all well-educated, professional, drive nice mainstream cars w/o a bunch of subversive bumper stickers, etc ~ point being, not the sort anyone would raise an eyebrow and suspect them of fomenting gender rebellion or taking their kids to a satanic drag queen reading day at the library. Shit just happened, which I'm sure was not the preferred option for any of them since at a minimum it's a big fucking hassle, but they were loving and supportive and so are the rest of their peer groups (both kids and parents). Like I said, it's a little awkward getting used to new names/pronouns, but hardly such a silly example as walking around naked at skool; nobody else would even know there was anything 'unusual' unless you already knew them before the switch.
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
xsive wrote:

You assume that children's sexual orientation is predetermined, while I think that a child's choice can be fashioned .


you know a lot of time could have been saved if you had simply stated you were a fucking moron from the outset.


That's unfair. He was on track to be very smart as a kid but a moron read him a book once and...you know the rest...

Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patf wrote:
Bretom wrote:
1. You are literally the first person I have ever heard describe their own sexuality as a choice they made at some point in their life. I am NOT doubting you but that is remarkable to me.


Guys living a straight life who previously had sex with men do not usually go around bragging about it. Whereas most gay men are open about it now days.

If you look at studies, you can find that over half the male population sometimes have dreams about having sex with men. Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime, but only about 2-10% say they are gay.

So it pretty easy to believe that there are large numbers of men who see sexuality as a choice. And in reality behavior is a choice for all men. Now is there really even a sexual orientation, or is that part of the story one tells themselves about ther own sexual behaviors.

Most of the men I know who are gay decided to leave the wives and live a gay live in their 40's or later. prior to that they raised families. Perhaps this is so because it was not appropriate to live as a gay man in society in the past so they chose to live straight lives. Or maybe they like getting more sex with men than they could get with there now old wives.

As they said on tv show House, people lie about sex. So I doubt we can really ever know all the true factors at play with sexual desires and behavior.

Not this stupid argument again... So what does that make a priest, since they (theoretically, at least) abstain from all sexual behavior? (Obviously not all uphold the standard.) If there are only 2 choices, and they partake of neither, what 'orientation' does that leave?

Or, do they actually HAVE an orientation (either way), always and forever, but simply suppress acting out on it? (At least the good ones, anyway.)
Quote Reply
Re: We've Had a Good Run, America [feedthereed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
feedthereed wrote:
len wrote:
Evidence that something is present across a long stretch of history is hardly proof something is hardwired. Animals also do lots of things humans do not or should not so that doesn't tell me much either.


It comes down to the type of evidence. The scientific community has been publishing on the biological factors that shape orientation for 30+ years now. Research on other species supports the role hormones play in how species members are wired.

len wrote:
I will readily accept that both sides of the debate have a vested interest in presenting their version of history.


There's no debate. And it's not history. There's science and then there's the people with uniformed opinions making normative statements stemming from religious dogma.

len wrote:
I would also debate that we have a solid grasp of human sexuality. The long term effects of novel new family structures that were not the norm 30 years ago are yet to be seen. In the 70s we were told if you are unhappy get divorced the kids will be better off. They are quite adaptable they will be okay. Subsequent studies showed maybe not so.


Family structures have no impact on sexual orientation. Zero. It's established that biological factors influence orientation. Full stop.

len wrote:
We really don't have any idea what the long term effects of allowing people to change their anatomy will be if they feel they are transgender. Will it make them feel better 20 or 40 years from now, will they be less likely to commit suicide? We don't know.


Well luckily, there's a ton of research on what happens when you don't allow people to express the sexuality. A ton. None of it good. I agree that there's a need for gender reassignment to be tracked. But your point is an arguement that supports further research.

len wrote:
People still accept that 10 percent of the population is gay if you ask millennials they think its higher than that. The reality is it is more like 2-4 percent and the 10 percent number came from Kinsey's surveys of populations that were not at all representative of the general population. But the 10 percent rightly or wrongly was used because a higher number presented a more convincing argument that being gay is normal.


Not sure I follow here. Are you highlighting the effort to repress any evidence supporting the legitimacy of homosexuality?

Anyways, great discussion!

Biological factors certainly have a strong influence on sexual orientation. Stress affects hormones and brain chemistry, which affect biological composition, which affect sexual orientation, so your statement is not wrong.
Quote Reply

Prev Next