Homosexuality is natural?

Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Homosexuality is natural?

 

I bet this has the potential to be a hot topic... I have nothing against homosexuality. I believe in freedom of choice. The reason that brought me to discuss this it's because many people don't actually believe in freedom of NOT to choose... and in my experience many homos are champions at this. People who have the arrogance to think they know what is best for you and want to control you, really piss me off sometimes...

Let's see why I say homosexuality is not natural...

- When I say that homosexuality is not natural I am merely saying that it is a deviation from one of the key purposes of life - reproduction and species perpetuation. Homosexuality may be the individual's nature but it's not the species nature or intent. I'm not condemning.

One thing is certain: we are programmed by nature to be drawn to the opposite sex so that the species can continue.

There are those who state that homosexual behavior is observed in animals too. However many of these accounts if not all refer to bisexualism. Moreover sporadic homosexual behavior is not homosexuality! We can only compare animals to humans to a certain extent.

For example: In the classical era homosexual behavior was maybe more common that it is today... But was there more homosexualism? We have to distinguish between sexual behavior and sexual bonds or emotional bonds.

I believe that, if conditioned, most of us, if not all can be sexually aroused by any sex. However contrary to common knowledge, sexual experiences don't define our sexual orientation! What defines our sexual orientation is to which sex we rather share our lives, our bodies and our beings for the rest of our lives! This is what defines our sexuality!! Not our one time or two time experiences!! 

A gay said to a friend of mine that a man who tries a homosexual experience would enjoyed it so much that he'd turn gay... incredibly she believes this!!

- What makes an homosexual? Is he born that way or is he conditioned that way? I think both.

There are many evidences that homosexuals are born that way. But there are also cases were environment seems to play a role.

Some anecdotal evidence seems to show that men who can have any woman they please sooner or later turn gay! Why?! Tired of women?!

 

The second part of this post is more like a relief from the crazy stuff many people say nowadays…

I know several homosexuals and EVERY one of them say to me that I can’t say I dislike being with a man until I've tried it. This is arrogance! For me this is the same as saying: "I can't say I dislike eating shit since I never tried it".

Many people today say that we have to experience something so we can have the right to speak of it or give an opinion. This is wrong for many reasons:

- First of all a reasonable intelligent person can learn from others!

- We have a limited lifetime so we have to make priorities. These priorities are for the things we want and enjoy according to our nature.

- For some things we have nothing to gain in experience them (death, smoking, eating shit, sexual behavior against our nature, etc)

From what I know of male homosexuals they are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and thus seem to focus sex in a more instinctive way rather than building emotional attachments… I may be wrong in this but that’s what people surrounding me seem to show…

 

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous wrote:No, I was

Anonymous wrote:
Uh...what ?...Yeah, let's just say I'm glad you added "in some cases" and leave it at that. Seriously, let's leave it at that. I've only gotten angry once on this forum, and I made a complete and utter fool of myself in the process.

Eh, I'm going to risk another response, and hopefully, you won't get mad.

You asked a hard question, which was is it possible for a person's sexual preference to change if they just really really want it to? And....I don't want to say that I think it would be impossible because then I would lying. I don't think it's impossible. I think it's rare and virtually never the only reason, but I do think it can be a factor in some cases.  

Anonymous wrote:
No, I was wondering if you thought that behaviour would be permanent. Would he still be attracted to men once women became available ?

"In some cases", right ?

Yes, in some cases.

Anonymouse wrote:
I agree that the trauma of sexual abuse can mess up your sexuality, but it can't turn a straight person gay or vice versa.

If you agree that it can "mess up" your sexuality, then I don't see why it can't change your sexual preferences. Certainly, your sexual preferences are a large part of your sexuality. To draw the line at a straight person turning gay or a gay person turning straight seems a bit arbitrary.

Anonymous wrote:
You have to understand, the idea that some mysterious "environmental factors", if changed, could maybe have turned me straight, seems pretty damn laughable to me.

It's what I would expect. Who we are has always been a battle of nature vs. nurture. Our personalities, habits, dreams, aesthetic preferences, etc. are strongly influenced by our environment in addition to our genes.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Friend of

Anonymouse wrote:

Friend of mine tried that. He really really really wanted to change to make his family happy. Tried it all. Tried really hard for as long as he was able. Didn't work. Killed himself.

If there are people who are able to flick that switch, fair enough. But don't tell me it's even remotely possible for everyone.

Fair enough. I wouldn't dream of claiming it is possible for everyone. And I'm not even sure it is something that could be done with conscious choice. If you are just arguing with those crazies that have reeducation classes to turn homosexuals straight then I agree 100%. I think some sort of predisposition is necessary. Like any other sex act, some you will never get into or even understand why other people do and others you will love right off the bat. But I think there is a third category of things you might not like at first but kind of grow on you. 

Sorry to hear about your friend. I have known people in similar situations and it is really sad how some families simply wont accept people as they are. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Can straight people really understand what

 

 

makes gay folks tick? I'd think not. Tho' in support of choosing to go one way or another there are certaibnly some variables in the middle ground.

Sexuality is a nuanced business. It's not unheard of for blokes to switch sides while doing a long stint in gaol.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:You asked

butterbattle wrote:
You asked a hard question, which was is it possible for a person's sexual preference to change if they just really really want it to? And....I don't want to say that I think it would be impossible because then I would lying. I don't think it's impossible. I think it's rare and virtually never the only reason, but I do think it can be a factor in some cases. 

Ah, it's a "factor". Virtually never the sole reason.

I'm still wondering why you think it might be possible at all. Do you know of one case, just one, where someone made the switch out of sheer willpower, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't just faking it ?

Because I can pretty easily google the most recent high-profile case of someone faking it.


butterbattle wrote:
If you agree that it can "mess up" your sexuality, then I don't see why it can't change your sexual preferences.

Because "messing up" isn't the same as changing. Again, do you know of a single case where someone's already established sexual preference was changed by trauma and remained changed for the rest of their life ? Did they have a happy new sexlife, or did they need drugs and psychiatrists to stick to their new preference ?


butterbattle wrote:
It's what I would expect. Who we are has always been a battle of nature vs. nurture. Our personalities, habits, dreams, aesthetic preferences, etc. are strongly influenced by our environment in addition to our genes.  

Environmental factors in the womb works for me, as I have quite a few older bros. But what else ? Oestrogen in the tapwater ? Absent father ? Oh, if only they hadn't made me listen to ABBA, I'd be out kissing girls now.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
@OP and everyone else

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_lesbian.html wrote:

Lesbian women respond differently than straight women when exposed to suspected sexual chemicals, according to a new brain imaging study.

The finding builds on previous research that suggest that gay men responded in a way more similar to heterosexual women than heterosexual men when exposed to a synthetic chemical.

The natural version of this chemical reportedly appears in high concentrations in male sweat.

The new study extends the research to homosexual women.

It found that lesbians' brains respond in a fashion more similar to that of heterosexual men than of heterosexual women when exposed to the sweat chemical and a synthetic chemical that has been detected in female urine.

"Both studies … indicate that the physiological response in brain regions associated with reproduction are different in homo- and heterosexual persons," Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, said in an email.

 

It may be that some chemical upset during pregnancy might change the development of the embryo's brain enough to change the response in the regions associated with reproduction.  But I'm having difficulty believing that someone could change these brain regions consciously and I have an equally hard time believing there would be some trauma short of life threatening that could change someone's brain that much as well.

I also believe that there is probably a range of response with some people at the extreme ends, some smack dab in the middle, and others in between everyone else.  If you are at one of the extreme's, you aren't going to change.  And if you are in between the extremes, you may have more freedom of choice as to who you want to partner. 

If you have an abusive family member, you may have problems with long term relationships.  But the problems you have will probably be with the partners that reproductive section of your brain responds to.  And I don't think it would drive you to have partners that you don't respond to.  I've read personal accounts of people who were horribly abused by a parent, yet go on to learn how to have positive relationships with a partner of the same sex as the abusive parent.  So I don't see psychological trauma as being a strong factor for forcing someone to change their innate sexual preferences.

And there is a strong evolutionary factor for having non-reproducing members of a family group of hunter-gatherers.  If everyone has children at the same time, then there are fewer resources available for each child.  Fewer adults per child to care for the children.  Less food for each child.  Just thinking about trying to keep a 2 year old safe in the bush makes me tired.  Having non-reproducing aunties and uncles means there are extra bodies to chase down that 2 year old and scare the lion away.  Additional hunters and gatherers to feed that child.

Given that the gene for this particular brain response persists in the population, I would say it was a neutral mutation.  Mutations that are positive take over, negative mutations quickly die out, but neutral mutations never quite go away.  They persist at a low level.  Exactly as as we see in our world today.

Your life style - promiscuous or not, sado-masochist or not, and so on - has a strong element of choice.  You may choose to go to counseling, read self help books, and so on to make safer and more stable life style choices.  See autobiographical books by David Sedaris - especially When You are Engulfed by Flames.  He knew he was homosexual as a child, and he has always preferred a stable long term relationship, was never comfortable with the club scene.  Homosexuals are individuals and have individual preferences.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 I will say that any slight

 

I will say that any slight against homosexuality even if it is not with ill intent is taken as homophobia.

Fuck political correctness and homophobe-aphobia.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:
homophobe-aphobia.

That would be the irrational fear of people suffering from irrational fear ?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:robj101

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:
homophobe-aphobia.

That would be the irrational fear of people suffering from irrational fear ?

Yes sir.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Anonymouse

robj101 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:
homophobe-aphobia.

That would be the irrational fear of people suffering from irrational fear ?

Yes sir.

As long as we can agree that they're both anxiety disorders.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:robj101

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:
homophobe-aphobia.

That would be the irrational fear of people suffering from irrational fear ?

Yes sir.

As long as we can agree that they're both anxiety disorders.

 I was just saying any opinion that does not shine a beautiful light on homosexuality is considered to be homophobic to most liberal people. For example a statement in a previous post was quoted as something like this:

""I don't mind homosexuals but..." OMG a homophobe!" ... 
 

A fairly extreme example at that. It took only this term "but" to completely throw someone off their rocker of political correctness.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:A fairly

robj101 wrote:

A fairly extreme example at that. It took only this term "but" to completely throw someone off their rocker of political correctness.

Uhm, it wasn't the "but", it was what came after. I do tend to read people's post completely before I reply.

 

And for future reference, I've learned the hard way not to make assumptions about what people really think. See, I know this guy, calls himself a "liberal", loudly supports any cause even faintly "pro-gay", and will wag his finger at anyone telling a gay joke...But ! When said person is in the company of actual gay folk,  strangely enough, he gets very, very nervous, starts talking about how much he likes girls a lot, and makes a point of pressing his behind against a wall at all times.

And then there's this other guy I know. Calls himself conservative, and will parrot anything with that label. Likes girls and girls like him. Knows a lot of gay jokes, the dirtier the better, and likes to tell them to anyone who will listen. But here's the thing : He's an absolute joy to hang out with, because he quite simply doesn't care. He can and will give a gay guy a hug without getting into a hysterical crisis about his sexuality. He's been a real friend (=not a word I use lightly) to me in more than one situation.

So yeah, two guys who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Guess which one I like best ?

The point is, I never assume, which is why I post in threads like this. I want to know what people REALLY think. I want to know if they even really thought about what they're saying at all.  Sometimes they tell me, sometimes they dance around it, sometimes they run (because thinking is hard) .

 

As for "political correctness", be fair and review my posts here. Did I try to talk to the guy, or was I just shouting "homophobe !" at him ?

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ooohh, I almost forgot about

Ooohh, I almost forgot about this thread.

Anonymouse wrote:
I'm still wondering why you think it might be possible at all. Do you know of one case, just one, where someone made the switch out of sheer willpower, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't just faking it ?

I do think there should be many documented cases of sexual orientation changes. I don't think I would be able to find a case where someone made the switch out of sheer willpower, not sure how that can even be proven. But....my google search is not very fruitful.

http://www.homosexinfo.org/Change/HomePage

This website lists some examples of changes in sexual preference and states some informative research results regarding sexual orientation change. But, there's no way for me to access the references to check if the examples and conclusions are legitimate and from respectable scientific sources. I don't trust the website. I suspect that the writers are Christian conservatives and most of the website is crap.  

I also found this.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60494

This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for........but none of the links work.

Anonymouse wrote:
Oh, if only they hadn't made me listen to ABBA, I'd be out kissing girls now.

Lol.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I do

butterbattle wrote:
I do think there should be many documented cases of sexual orientation changes. I don't think I would be able to find a case where someone made the switch out of sheer willpower, not sure how that can even be proven. But....my google search is not very fruitful.

Like I said, try looking for people who fake it.

I still don't understand why you think there should be many documented cases of sexual orientation changes, but I'm glad you at least concede that a pure willpower switch can never be proven.

butterbattle wrote:
http://www.homosexinfo.org/Change/HomePage

This website lists some examples of changes in sexual preference and states some informative research results regarding sexual orientation change. But, there's no way for me to access the references to check if the examples and conclusions are legitimate and from respectable scientific sources. I don't trust the website. I suspect that the writers are Christian conservatives and most of the website is crap. 

Ah, NARTH and company. Yes, I've been shown those links before (by the atheist rapper on the infidelguy forum : http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-1405-days0-orderasc-0.html ), and I checked and debunked every piece of "proof" they have. They quote-mine the crap out of some Dutch research, which unfortunatly for them, I found online, so I could read it for myself. Funny how people quote papers that arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion they're trying to get to.

Again, this sort of puzzles me. You think the website is crap, but you link it anyway. I don't get it.

butterbattle wrote:
I also found this.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60494

This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for........but none of the links work.

Gee, go figure, eh ?

Edit: Just for giggles, I googled one of the experts mentioned on that page, and I found a book he wrote : http://www.southwellbooks.com/hungry-souls-supernatural-visits-messages-and-warnings-from-purgatory-4177-p.asp

Maybe not exactly the kind of thing you were looking for ?

(apologies if you're getting any sarcastic vibes from my general direction. I genuinely appreciate you not running away from this)

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:robj101

Anonymouse wrote:

robj101 wrote:

A fairly extreme example at that. It took only this term "but" to completely throw someone off their rocker of political correctness.

Uhm, it wasn't the "but", it was what came after. I do tend to read people's post completely before I reply.

 

And for future reference, I've learned the hard way not to make assumptions about what people really think. See, I know this guy, calls himself a "liberal", loudly supports any cause even faintly "pro-gay", and will wag his finger at anyone telling a gay joke...But ! When said person is in the company of actual gay folk,  strangely enough, he gets very, very nervous, starts talking about how much he likes girls a lot, and makes a point of pressing his behind against a wall at all times.

And then there's this other guy I know. Calls himself conservative, and will parrot anything with that label. Likes girls and girls like him. Knows a lot of gay jokes, the dirtier the better, and likes to tell them to anyone who will listen. But here's the thing : He's an absolute joy to hang out with, because he quite simply doesn't care. He can and will give a gay guy a hug without getting into a hysterical crisis about his sexuality. He's been a real friend (=not a word I use lightly) to me in more than one situation.

So yeah, two guys who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Guess which one I like best ?

The point is, I never assume, which is why I post in threads like this. I want to know what people REALLY think. I want to know if they even really thought about what they're saying at all.  Sometimes they tell me, sometimes they dance around it, sometimes they run (because thinking is hard) .

 

As for "political correctness", be fair and review my posts here. Did I try to talk to the guy, or was I just shouting "homophobe !" at him ?

I didn't mean to imply it was only you, someone else actually has you beat with emotionalism as usual. The "but" still stands because the way you quoted implied it was all that would be necessary.

I was railed on with hostility in a past thread, when you only see red .. I'm just sayin'.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I didn't mean

robj101 wrote:
I didn't mean to imply it was only you, someone else actually has you beat with emotionalism as usual.

Yes, that would be the OP. Did you notice he complained of "bigotry" after a few replies from Brian ?

I freely admitted that this kinda thing can get me angry, but that didn't stop me from calmly asking questions, instead of shouting "homophobe !" or "bigotry !", did it ?

Did our OP return the favor ?

robj101 wrote:
The "but" still stands because the way you quoted implied it was all that would be necessary.

If that's what I wanted to imply, then why didn't I leave it at that ? Like I said, read my posts here and tell me which one of us, me or the OP, is even trying to have this conversation.

robj101 wrote:
I was railed on with hostility in a past thread, when you only see red .. I'm just sayin'.

Yes, I remember that thread. You were ready to leave the forum, and if you'll remember, I expressed the opinion that it would be better if you stayed, and I'm still glad you did.

That's because I want to understand why you have this opinon. I'm not going to learn that from people who agree with me on this, am I ?

Seriously, just read this thread. Am I only seeing red, or am I asking questions that don't get any answers ?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Every once in a while a

Every once in a while a thread like this one crops up.  It usually starts with the OP saying something with the disclaimer that we shouldn't take the OP offensively and yet saying patently stupid shit.  I'm not offended by the OP and I don't take any of it offensively, he's just ignorant of a fews things.  Also, I don't like patently stupid shit.  Let's take a look at the patently stupid shit (and educate Teralek)!

Teralek wrote:
I bet this has the potential to be a hot topic... I have nothing against homosexuality. I believe in freedom of choice. The reason that brought me to discuss this it's because many people don't actually believe in freedom of NOT to choose... and in my experience many homos are champions at this. People who have the arrogance to think they know what is best for you and want to control you, really piss me off sometimes...
What the fuck are you talking about?  Don't excuse the expletive, I'm just that confused.

What is this paragraph really about?  It doesn't seem to go anywhere, that's for sure.  What is it you're really saying?

You have nothing against homosexuality, you believe in the freedom of choice and you're going to discuss whatever it is you're going to discuss because there are people who don't believe in the freedom not to choose?  And 'homos' are champions of this?  Champions of not believing in the freedom not to choose?  And these 'homos' are people who have the arrogance to think they know what's best for you and want to control you and that really pisses you off?

This is where I get confused.  Are you actually suggesting that there are gays out there who are trying to make you gay?  Or are you saying that there are gays out there who are trying to make other people gay?  And are you saying that they do this because these gays think they know what's best for you (or them) and want to control you (or them) because they don't believe in the freedom not to choose?

That's just fucked right up.  Please, tell me what it is you're supposed to have been really saying instead of what you actually wrote, because it looks a hell of a lot like my breakdown.  Also, what does choice have to do with anything?

Teralek wrote:
Let's see why I say homosexuality is not natural...
Oh, you're talking about how being gay isn't natural.  You know what I've noticed a lot?  When people want to sound like they're not bigoted and that they're totally cool with gays and gay rights and that, they use clinical terms like homosexual to refer to gays, tell us they're not bigoted and then tell us why they think that being gay isn't natural.  There's a disconnect there.  If you have no problem with gays, why do you need to tell us about it and tell us why you also think they're not naturally gay?  And let's just use gay.  Gay people like to be called gay; it's what they are.  I like being called gay a heck of a lot more than I like being called a clinical description coined by doctors.  It's just so much more personable than homosexual!  Oh, but back to your topic, which had nothing to do with that very strange introductory paragraph where you assured us that you have nothing against 'homos'.  Actually, best not use blatantly derogatory terms when referring to gays either, okay?

Teralek wrote:
- When I say that homosexuality is not natural I am merely saying that it is a deviation from one of the key purposes of life - reproduction and species perpetuation. Homosexuality may be the individual's nature but it's not the species nature or intent. I'm not condemning.
Species and nature don't have intent and nature is incredibly poorly defined here.  Sexuality, as far as any person involved in research about it can tell, is 'natural'.  All of it.  Sexuality is completely 'normal'.  It can be very strange and there's lots of sexuality out there, but it's all 'normal'.  Now, there is some sexuality out there that psychologists think is abnormal, and they're probably right about necrophilia, but then, we often find that that's less to do with sexuality than other psychological problems.  So, let's let sexuality, and that does include same sex fiddling and what not if you hadn't guessed, off here at 'normal' and 'natural' and get on with it!

Oh, that part about 'deviation from one of the key purposes of life -reproduction' and redundancy (because, you said the same thing twice, though less accurately the second time as life doesn't have key purposes for one and, for another, certainly doesn't care about the perpetuation of a species -please get less ignorant about evolution!): While it may seem intuitive to believe that homosexual behaviour (and yes, there is a place for the clinical term) doesn't mesh with reproductive behaviour, there's ample evidence that that just isn't the case.  Not every individual needs to reproduce in order to perpetuate the genetic lineage.  Things are more complicated than that!  And that's all the time I'll spend on that one, because who needs vacuous speculation anyhow?  Oh, you?  Right.

Teralek wrote:
One thing is certain: we are programmed by nature to be drawn to the opposite sex so that the species can continue.
That's definitely not certain.  I now point you to the gays.  Also, nature doesn't programme anything and doesn't care about the perpetuation of a species or anything at all.  You could really do without the anthropomorphising.

Teralek wrote:
There are those who state that homosexual behavior is observed in animals too. However many of these accounts if not all refer to bisexualism. Moreover sporadic homosexual behavior is not homosexuality! We can only compare animals to humans to a certain extent.
This is just fucked.  First, homosexual behaviour is observed in many animals.  So is bisexual behaviour.  So are a number of other truly bizarre sexual behaviours.  You do not detract from the homosexual behaviour is natural defence by pointing at another spot on the continuum of sexuality as a counter example.  That's just ridiculous.  Oh, and humans are animals.  We can compare animals to other animals to the extent that their behaviours are similar or dissimilar.

Also, homosexual behaviour is homosexuality.  Homosexual behaviour is sexual behaviour (a large range of behaviours, mind) with a member of the same sex.  Homosexuality is a noun encompassing homosexual behaviour.  Two terms can mean the same thing.  They do here.  Or are you going to expound on the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour?  You'll really have to do very hard work to convince me of it.

Teralek wrote:
For example: In the classical era homosexual behavior was maybe more common that it is today... But was there more homosexualism? We have to distinguish between sexual behavior and sexual bonds or emotional bonds.
So homosexual behaviour may have been more common in ancient Greece and Rome than it is now, but was there more of a made up term?  That's an excellent question.  The answer is no.  Why do we have to distinguish between sexual behaviour and the emotional bonds people may have for each other that accompany sex?  It seems entirely irrelevant here.  The only point you could hope to be making with such a distinction would be to create another difference between other animals and humans.  Of course, that would be invalid.  There are birds that make life long homosexual pairs.  I'm not sure how much emotion has to do with it, but I'm sure you'd be surprised to learn that there's no sex as you would think of it, though pairing is a sexual behaviour.  Actually, I'm fairly certainly that you'd be surprised to learn that most sexual behaviour has nothing to do with sticking sexual organs together or playing with them for pleasure or otherwise.

Teralek wrote:
I believe that, if conditioned, most of us, if not all can be sexually aroused by any sex. However contrary to common knowledge, sexual experiences don't define our sexual orientation! What defines our sexual orientation is to which sex we rather share our lives, our bodies and our beings for the rest of our lives! This is what defines our sexuality!! Not our one time or two time experiences!!
Well, that's trivially true.  But true.  And for the most part correct.  There's something to be said about that first sentence, but I'll leave well enough alone.

Teralek wrote:
A gay said to a friend of mine that a man who tries a homosexual experience would enjoyed it so much that he'd turn gay... incredibly she believes this!!
That girl is naïve and the gay guy is an asshole or was just trying to be funny.  Wait, where are you taking this anecdote? Oh, for that contentious sentence above.  Right ...one time experiences don't a gay person make.  But they sure do put to question those very stringent boxes of sexuality we like to put people into, don't they?  That they do.  Hey!  Maybe you (and everyone else) should stop treating sexuality like neat compartments into which you can place people based on everything except that exception to the rule that everyone has?  That's a novel idea.  It's like admitting that sexuality is not so well-defined, like it's a continuum and people fall more-or-less to a place on it, but waver around?

Teralek wrote:
- What makes an homosexual? Is he born that way or is he conditioned that way? I think both.
I think you're wrong.  I think you probably mean 'conditioned' in a way that it shouldn't be used here.  For instance, I get the distinct impression that you're suggesting that people can be taught to be homosexual.  They can't.

Teralek wrote:
There are many evidences that homosexuals are born that way. But there are also cases were environment seems to play a role.
Yeah, you have just repeated yourself and you're still wrong.  Oh, people are born to be sexual in what ever way they are and there are certainly interactions in the womb that can greatly affect development, but it's that 'environment' part and that 'conditioned' part where you're wrong, at least in the way you mean either term.

Teralek wrote:
Some anecdotal evidence seems to show that men who can have any woman they please sooner or later turn gay! Why?! Tired of women?!
What the fuck?

Teralek wrote:
The second part of this post is more like a relief from the crazy stuff many people say nowadays…
Teralek wrote:
...
Teralek wrote:
From what I know of male homosexuals they are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and thus seem to focus sex in a more instinctive way rather than building emotional attachments… I may be wrong in this but that’s what people surrounding me seem to show…
Your anecdotes  have nothing informative to say about the premise of this post which is, presumably, about whether homosexuality is natural or not.  What does perceived promiscuity have to do with that question?  Nothing.  It may have something to do with that vague tangential spectre you raised earlier and for no reason about the difference between emotional attraction and sexual attraction (which also has nothing to do with the question at hand) that is a steaming pile of irrelevance and, on your part, a misunderstanding about what sexual behaviour is.

Okay, that's all the energy I can muster for the patently stupid shit.  Let's just note that virtually every post here has said something stupid.  Look, that's not so much the problem.  It's the ignorance that's the problem.  Why do we have to do this every once in a while?  There should be a standard answer to this kind of stupidity in the same way that there are standard answers to theist canards.  It should go something like this:

Sexuality is natural, and that includes homosexuality.  You are misinformed about evolution or are ignorant of evolution.  Your prejudices regarding sexuality and homosexuality in general are apparent through your use of dated terminology and your rather obvious ignorance of what constitutes sexuality and sexual theory itself.  Please, educate yourself.  Sexuality is natural and it is a continuum onto which people don't neatly fit.  Live with it.  We're very glad that you respect the struggle for equal rights and protection under the law that gay people have been fighting for.  Also, we believe that you're not a bigot, but next time don't try so hard to show you aren't and then say really stupid shit that makes you seem like you might be lying.  Being ignorant doesn't make you a bigot, it just means you need to learn something!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Let me ask a couple of other

Let me ask a couple of other questions, I'm interested to hear people's opinion.

Is being a vegetarian nature or nurture? Are people born this way, but remain meat eaters because this is the accepted norm? Do people have genes that cause them to want to avoid meat? Why is this different than sexual preference?

Is being promiscuous nature or nurture, genetics or environment? Because I would say a lot of people(especially men) are naturally promiscuous, but because of social pressure or maybe fear of VD, unwanted pregnancy, going to hell, they remain largely monogamous.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Let me ask a

EXC wrote:

Let me ask a couple of other questions, I'm interested to hear people's opinion.

Is being a vegetarian nature or nurture? Are people born this way, but remain meat eaters because this is the accepted norm? Do people have genes that cause them to want to avoid meat? Why is this different than sexual preference?

lol, probably mostly nurture but I'm sure there is some nature in there. As evidence I would point out that many "vegetarians" cheat. It is pretty rare to find a solid Vegan that sticks with it. Although, from the natural perspective eating meats can have different effects on peoples bodies. I don't know about the genes I leave that stuff up to the scientists. I'm not sure it really is different from sexual preference but I'm from the "you really don't know whether you like it or not until you try it" club with both food and sex.

  

EXC wrote:

Is being promiscuous nature or nurture, genetics or environment? Because I would say a lot of people(especially men) are naturally promiscuous, but because of social pressure or maybe fear of VD, unwanted pregnancy, going to hell, they remain largely monogamous.

 

I'm of the opinion that monogamy is bullshit created by Christianity and the idea of being monogamous to one person forever to be against most peoples natural instincts. To expect one person to satisfy all of your sexual desires (or to deprive yourself of them) has always seemed ridiculous to me. So I will never promise to be monogamous but if you want to be my guest. I prefer being honest which sometimes doesn't go over so well, especially with the religious ones. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Like I

Anonymouse wrote:
Like I said, try looking for people who fake it.

That's easy. I don't even need to do a google search. Off the top of my head, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig.

Anonymous wrote:
I still don't understand why you think there should be many documented cases of sexual orientation changes, but I'm glad you at least concede that a pure willpower switch can never be proven.

It just logically makes sense to me. Sexual orientations are preferences. People's preferences can change, and I see no reason why sexual preferences cannot. If you could provide strong evidence that sexual preferences cannot change or link to a scientifically knowledgeable website that states that people's sexual orientations cannot be or are only rarely influenced by environment, that would be great. I am not a very hard person to convince. I only need reason and evidence.   

Anonymous wrote:
Ah, NARTH and company. Yes, I've been shown those links before (by the atheist rapper on the infidelguy forum : http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-1405-days0-orderasc-0.html ), and I checked and debunked every piece of "proof" they have.

Lol, I remember that guy. I had a little bit of fun with him.

Anonymous wrote:
They quote-mine the crap out of some Dutch research, which unfortunatly for them, I found online, so I could read it for myself. Funny how people quote papers that arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion they're trying to get to.

You found it online? Can you link it?

Anonymous wrote:
Again, this sort of puzzles me. You think the website is crap, but you link it anyway. I don't get it.

Well, it didn't matter to me whether or not I liked the website. I was looking for examples of sexual orientation changes and that website provided examples and research of sexual orientation changes. Whether those examples are legitimate and the research results are honestly shown...

Anonymous wrote:
Gee, go figure, eh ?

I saw the link from google, "408 Documented Cases Where People Changed Sexual Orientation," and I was like, "Yay, I found something." Then, I was like, "@#$%!"

Anonymous wrote:
Edit: Just for giggles, I googled one of the experts mentioned on that page, and I found a book he wrote : http://www.southwellbooks.com/hungry-souls-supernatural-visits-messages-and-warnings-from-purgatory-4177-p.asp

O.o

It says "Service Unavailable."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:That's

butterbattle wrote:
That's easy. I don't even need to do a google search. Off the top of my head, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig.

Can't do more recent than those two ? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/us/22church.html?_r=3

And how many guys are in the closet right now and determined to stay there, you think ?

butterbattle wrote:
It just logically makes sense to me.

Hmmm, where have I heard that argument before ?

butterbattle wrote:
Sexual orientations are preferences. People's preferences can change, and I see no reason why sexual preferences cannot.

But you can't show me one case where it actually happened, and the person wasn't just lying.

butterbattle wrote:
If you could provide strong evidence that sexual preferences cannot change or link to a scientifically knowledgeable website that states that people's sexual orientations cannot be or are only rarely influenced by environment, that would be great. I am not a very hard person to convince. I only need reason and evidence. 
 

But that's not true, is it ? Where's the evidence that sexual orientation can change ? There isn't any, but you believe it anyway.

I believe it's not possible because I tried it. I happen to know a lot of other people who tried it, and they all had reason to try very hard indeed. And so far, any person I hear of who claims they did it, turns out to be a pathetic liar or a dangerous lunatic.

butterbattle wrote:
You found it online? Can you link it?
 

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/58/1/85

butterbattle wrote:
Well, it didn't matter to me whether or not I liked the website. I was looking for examples of sexual orientation changes and that website provided examples and research of sexual orientation changes. Whether those examples are legitimate and the research results are honestly shown...
 

I can't argue with three dots, so tell me honestly, do you trust that information, yes or no ?

butterbattle wrote:
O.o

It says "Service Unavailable."

Funny, it works for me. Anyway, the title of his book is in the link. It should tell you something.

Btw, I googled some more of the people mentioned there, and it gets worse. Not only do they all reference each other (including mister I-can-hear-souls-from-purgatory), they also reference NARTH "research".

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:It just

butterbattle wrote:
It just logically makes sense to me. Sexual orientations are preferences. People's preferences can change, and I see no reason why sexual preferences cannot. If you could provide strong evidence that sexual preferences cannot change or link to a scientifically knowledgeable website that states that people's sexual orientations cannot be or are only rarely influenced by environment, that would be great. I am not a very hard person to convince. I only need reason and evidence.
Sexuality does and can change.  It's 'fluid'.  It changes over a lifetime.  Of course, there are overarching characteristics to an individual's sexuality that are not likely to change or change much.  Of course, you can't force a change in sexuality, personally or on someone else.  That's amply proven; sexuality cannot be coercively altered or altered through sheer determination.  There are aspects of a individual's sexuality that are more or less set in stone.  Google or Wikipedia are great starting places to find that literature.

You're not saying that they can be changed in that latter sense, though, right?  You're suggesting it can change in a more general sense, as it's 'fluid'?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Of course,

Thomathy wrote:
Of course, you can't force a change in sexuality, personally or on someone else.  That's amply proven; sexuality cannot be coercively altered or altered through sheer determination.  There are aspects of a individual's sexuality that are more or less set in stone.  Google or Wikipedia are great starting places to find that literature.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about those : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Efforts_to_change_sexuality

There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.[36][38]

In 2009 the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded:

Efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients' active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.[39]

The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[36][38


Thomathy wrote:
You're not saying that they can be changed in that latter sense, though, right?  You're suggesting it can change in a more general sense, as it's 'fluid'?

That's probably what he means, I guess, because I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. Oh, wait a sec...

Fluidity of sexuality

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".[27] The APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[28] "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."[29] A community may change over time.[30] In a joint statement with other major American medical, psychology, educator, and religious organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[31] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[32] "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."[33]

"[A number of] lesbian women, and some heterosexual women as well, perceive choice as an important element in their sexual orientations."[34]

 

 

Right..so "essentially no research", "still an unanswered question"....Okay, I wanna meet me one of those "fluid" people.

 

@Butter : Dude, before I have to debunk every piece of crap NARTH has ever published (again), let's see if I even understand what you were talking about :

Were you saying : "Everyone's sexual preference can change", or was it more like "It's possible that there are people who's sexual preference can shift at certain points in their life" ?

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:But you

Anonymouse wrote:
But you can't show me one case where it actually happened, and the person wasn't just lying.

No, I do not know any case where it was proven that someone's sexual orientation changed. But, it's possible that it's merely because I'm not familiar with the subject material. Psychologists might know many cases where patients' sexual orientations changed.

Anonymous wrote:
But that's not true, is it ? Where's the evidence that sexual orientation can change ? There isn't any, but you believe it anyway.

I already posted one piece of evidence that I thought was pretty good on the previous page. In 52% of monozygotic twins, when one is homosexual, the other one is as well. So, the remaining 48% discrepancy should primarily be due to conditions in the womb and after birth.

I do not know if there is 'a lot' of evidence. I have barely studied this subject at all. But, likewise, I don't think you know any strong evidence that shows sexual orientation cannot change.

Anonymous wrote:
I believe it's not possible because I tried it. I happen to know a lot of other people who tried it, and they all had reason to try very hard indeed. And so far, any person I hear of who claims they did it, turns out to be a pathetic liar or a dangerous lunatic.

This is all anecdotal. You can't claim that it's impossible simply because you tried it. Furthermore, I never intended to imply that people just change their sexual preferences by "trying really hard" and chanting that they're straight over and over. This is something that you keep trying to emphasize, and I could only respond that it's not impossible because I don't have sufficient grounding for claiming that it is. It is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about long term, gradual involuntary changes along a spectrum of sexual preferences.


It's like our preferences for food, to a limited extent. When I was little, I really hated oysters. But then, eventually, I decided that they weren't that bad, with cocktail sauce. Now, I think I'm starting to like them. I never 'tried' to like oysters. My tastes can just change over a long period of time.

Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:
I can't argue with three dots, so tell me honestly, do you trust that information, yes or no ?

No.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote: I bet this

Teralek wrote:

 

I bet this has the potential to be a hot topic... I have nothing against homosexuality. I believe in freedom of choice. The reason that brought me to discuss this it's because many people don't actually believe in freedom of NOT to choose... and in my experience many homos are champions at this. People who have the arrogance to think they know what is best for you and want to control you, really piss me off sometimes...

Let's see why I say homosexuality is not natural...

- When I say that homosexuality is not natural I am merely saying that it is a deviation from one of the key purposes of life - reproduction and species perpetuation. Homosexuality may be the individual's nature but it's not the species nature or intent. I'm not condemning.

One thing is certain: we are programmed by nature to be drawn to the opposite sex so that the species can continue.

There are those who state that homosexual behavior is observed in animals too. However many of these accounts if not all refer to bisexualism. Moreover sporadic homosexual behavior is not homosexuality! We can only compare animals to humans to a certain extent.

For example: In the classical era homosexual behavior was maybe more common that it is today... But was there more homosexualism? We have to distinguish between sexual behavior and sexual bonds or emotional bonds.

I believe that, if conditioned, most of us, if not all can be sexually aroused by any sex. However contrary to common knowledge, sexual experiences don't define our sexual orientation! What defines our sexual orientation is to which sex we rather share our lives, our bodies and our beings for the rest of our lives! This is what defines our sexuality!! Not our one time or two time experiences!! 

A gay said to a friend of mine that a man who tries a homosexual experience would enjoyed it so much that he'd turn gay... incredibly she believes this!!

- What makes an homosexual? Is he born that way or is he conditioned that way? I think both.

There are many evidences that homosexuals are born that way. But there are also cases were environment seems to play a role.

Some anecdotal evidence seems to show that men who can have any woman they please sooner or later turn gay! Why?! Tired of women?!

 

The second part of this post is more like a relief from the crazy stuff many people say nowadays…

I know several homosexuals and EVERY one of them say to me that I can’t say I dislike being with a man until I've tried it. This is arrogance! For me this is the same as saying: "I can't say I dislike eating shit since I never tried it".

Many people today say that we have to experience something so we can have the right to speak of it or give an opinion. This is wrong for many reasons:

- First of all a reasonable intelligent person can learn from others!

- We have a limited lifetime so we have to make priorities. These priorities are for the things we want and enjoy according to our nature.

- For some things we have nothing to gain in experience them (death, smoking, eating shit, sexual behavior against our nature, etc)

From what I know of male homosexuals they are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and thus seem to focus sex in a more instinctive way rather than building emotional attachments… I may be wrong in this but that’s what people surrounding me seem to show…

 

 

 

Yes, it is natural.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Sexuality

Thomathy wrote:
Sexuality does and can change.  It's 'fluid'.  It changes over a lifetime.  Of course, there are overarching characteristics to an individual's sexuality that are not likely to change or change much.

Yes, exactly.

Thomathy wrote:
Of course, you can't force a change in sexuality, personally or on someone else.  That's amply proven; sexuality cannot be coercively altered or altered through sheer determination.

Okay, here's where I have a slight roadblock. I'm not comfortable with saying that we absolutely cannot influence someone's sexuality via coercion and/or determination. I will agree that it's at least extremely unlikely; it's just not completely impossible. Perhaps this is what you mean, and I'm just being too pedantic? You said it cannot be altered through coercion or sheer determination. Do you think those can never be factors?

Anonymouse wrote:
@Butter : Dude, before I have to debunk every piece of crap NARTH has ever published (again), let's see if I even understand what you were talking about :

Lol. First of all, the only thing from NARTH I've ever read was that article I just linked, and I don't even like that one. The evidence and research on that page was just very relevant to our discussion, and I wanted to know if it was legitimate. Second, I think this discussion will soon be resolved, with the arrival of Thomathy. So, considering those two points, you should probably put a rain check on that debunking expedition, unless you're just feeling masochistic or you want to sacrifice your free time and sanity to educate the masses by publishing your debunking papers.  

Anonymouse wrote:
Were you saying : "Everyone's sexual preference can change", or was it more like "It's possible that there are people who's sexual preference can shift at certain points in their life" ?

I definitely think there are people who's sexual preferences can shift at certain points in their life. Their sexual preferences can also gradually shift throughout their life. It's fluid. So, I at least agree with the latter statement.

Whether or not I agree with the former statement depends on what you mean by 'everyone's sexual preference can change.' I definitely don't think everyone can just switch from gay to straight or straight to gay, etc. No, that's ridiculous. I suspect that is what you meant, so in that sense, I definitely don't agree with the former statement. If I made the statement "everyone's sexual preference can change," I would be defining "change" as any perceivable shift in their sexual preferences.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Thomathy

butterbattle wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Sexuality does and can change.  It's 'fluid'.  It changes over a lifetime.  Of course, there are overarching characteristics to an individual's sexuality that are not likely to change or change much.

Yes, exactly.

Thomathy wrote:
Of course, you can't force a change in sexuality, personally or on someone else.  That's amply proven; sexuality cannot be coercively altered or altered through sheer determination.

Okay, here's where I have a slight roadblock. I'm not comfortable with saying that we absolutely cannot alter someone's sexuality via coercion and/or determination. I will agree that it's at least extremely unlikely, maybe even to the extent that it is not possible for practical purposes; it's just not completely impossible. Perhaps this is what you mean, and I'm just being too pedantic?

Well, actually, no.  I mean, I'm not going to let you get away with being this pedantic.  It's not just impossible for practical purposes.  Think of it this way: You can get anyone to do whatever you want.  You just have to psychologically 'break' that person.  It's not relevant to talk about vegetable people here though.  We're talking about people's sexuality (whatever it may be) being changed through coercion or determination, and those people, ostensibly, remaining functioning and psychologically well.  That doesn't happen; that's impossible.  That's all that relevant when we're talking about this.

Well, in short, yes, you're being too pedantic.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:No, I do

butterbattle wrote:
No, I do not know any case where it was proven that someone's sexual orientation changed. But, it's possible that it's merely because I'm not familiar with the subject material. Psychologists might know many cases where patients' sexual orientations changed.

American Psychological Association wrote:
There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

Doesn't look like it.

butterbattle wrote:
I already posted one piece of evidence that I thought was pretty good on the previous page. In 52% of monozygotic twins, when one is homosexual, the other one is as well. So, the remaining 48% discrepancy should primarily be due to conditions in the womb and after birth.

Criticisms :

Another issue is the recent finding that even monozygotic twins can be different and there is a mechanism which might account for monozygotic twins being discordant for homosexuality. Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity.[10

butterbattle wrote:
I don't think you know any strong evidence that shows sexual orientation cannot change.

"Change'", not "be changed"...Am I arguing with someone who doesn't even disagree with me ? Cuz that would really be annoying.

butterbattle wrote:
This is all anecdotal. You can't claim that it's impossible simply because you tried it.

I claim it's impossible because everyone who's tried it has been about as motivated as you can get, and there has yet to be a single succes story, while liars are all over the place.

butterbattle wrote:
Furthermore, I never intended to imply that people just change their sexual preferences by "trying really hard" and chanting that they're straight over and over. This is something that you keep trying to emphasize,

That's because there's nothing else on offer for people who want to/are forced to change their sexual preference. Which is another reason why I can claim it's impossible : All the "methods" are fucked up beyond belief, and there is nothing else.

butterbattle wrote:
and I could only respond that it's not impossible because I don't have sufficient grounding for claiming that it is.

There's no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that it's possible.

butterbattle wrote:
It is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about long term, gradual involuntary changes along a spectrum of sexual preferences.

I can agree that people to whom that happens, might exist. Next to people to whom that doesn't happen.

But like the Wiki sez, that remains to be researched.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
You asked a hard question, which was is it possible for a person's sexual preference to change if they just really really want it to? And....I don't want to say that I think it would be impossible because then I would lying. I don't think it's impossible. I think it's rare and virtually never the only reason, but I do think it can be a factor in some cases. 

Ah, it's a "factor". Virtually never the sole reason.

I'm still wondering why you think it might be possible at all. Do you know of one case, just one, where someone made the switch out of sheer willpower, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't just faking it ?

 

It seems pretty clear that homosexuality can be taught under certain circumstances.  Stuff like the Papua New Guinea tribes that use homosexual acts to initiate young boys into manhood, and those tribes show, not surprisingly, a high instance of continuing homosexual behavior after the initiation stages are finished (Herdt, Rituals of Manhood: Male Initiation in Papua New Guinea, look up stuff about the Etoro tribe.  I can't find the best article I read about it, but there are lots of articles around, regardless of this discussion it is a very interesting thing to read about!).

I remember reading about how, after a certain amount of time, the older boys would start to fetishize the mouths of the younger boys, and how even after they reached manhood (and were theoretically supposed to keep their sperm for their wives) many tended to secretly practice non-straight sexual acts.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard, I'm just saying, given a controlled environment, I imagine you could at the very least make most people willingly bi-sexual...and with that knowledge I don't see why it is theoretically impossible to change one's own sexual orientation under the right circumstance.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:...and with

mellestad wrote:
...and with that knowledge I don't see why it is theoretically impossible to change one's own sexual orientation under the right circumstance.

Then try to turn that theory into practice, and you'll find out why it's impossible.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's what it comes down to.

 

Edit : I've heard of that tribe. Horny old men making young boys give them blowjobs, and telling them it's tradition...I'm sorry, but that's physical and mental abuse, isn't it ? That kind of stuff can mess you up bad, I've already admitted that, but it can't just change your sexual orientation. Sure, brainwashing and abuse can have some kind of effect, but you're basically trying to change a person by damaging them. That never works. Do I really have to explain that ?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:mellestad

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
...and with that knowledge I don't see why it is theoretically impossible to change one's own sexual orientation under the right circumstance.

Then try to turn that theory into practice, and you'll find out why it's impossible.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's what it comes down to.

The idea of sex with a man is not revolting to me.  If I had reason I am sure I could talk myself into it, and with repetition of physical stimulus I'd probably learn to dig it.  That is sort of my point, I think many people are only revolted by gay sex because it is a societal taboo (The same straight people who watch 'straight' porn that is at least 50% giant throbbing penis, haha).  I've just given you a micro-society where gay sexual acts are part of the culture and are not seen with revulsion among the male adults.

Anonymouse wrote:

 

Edit : I've heard of that tribe. Horny old men making young boys give them blowjobs, and telling them it's tradition...I'm sorry, but that's physical and mental abuse, isn't it ? That kind of stuff can mess you up bad, I've already admitted that, but it can't just change your sexual orientation. Sure, brainwashing and abuse can have some kind of effect, but you're basically trying to change a person by damaging them. That never works. Do I really have to explain that ?

 

Are you saying history and tradition don't have an impact on sexual orientation?  The people in the tribe do not see it as abuse, they see it as a sacred duty.  It is part of their religion, just like being revolted by gays is part of the evangelical religion.  Read about it.  

To me it seems like you might be arguing that societal influences are automatically brainwashing when the acts are homosexual.  I'm not qualified to answer that question, but it is interesting.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The idea of

mellestad wrote:
The idea of sex with a man is not revolting to me.  If I had reason I am sure I could talk myself into it, and with repetition of physical stimulus I'd probably learn to dig it.
 

Worst pick-up line ever.

mellestad wrote:
That is sort of my point,
 

Mine too. Unless you swing that way, what reason could you have to talk yourself into it ? Also, "Probably" isn't going to cut it. By "change", I mean permanent, both ways (ie, you would stop fancying women as well), and without any accompanying trauma.

mellestad wrote:
I think many people are only revolted by gay sex because it is a societal taboo (The same straight people who watch 'straight' porn that is at least 50% giant throbbing penis, haha).
 

They get very annoyed when you point that out, I've found. Very, very annoyed.

mellestad wrote:
I've just given you a micro-society where gay sexual acts are part of the culture and are not seen with revulsion among the male adults.
 

You mean the parents would encourage their sons to give blowjobs to the male elders, even after this "ceremony" (And I'm thinking they don't invite the whole tribe to watch) is over and done with ?

mellestad wrote:
Are you saying history and tradition don't have an impact on sexual orientation?
 

Well, yeah. Unless you're just talking about societal taboos.
 

mellestad wrote:
The people in the tribe do not see it as abuse, they see it as a sacred duty. It is part of their religion, just like being revolted by gays is part of the evangelical religion.  Read about it. 

Are there a lot of gay couples in that tribe ? Or does everything work pretty much as it does in the other tribes, apart from the priests getting blowjobs from young boys ?

mellestad wrote:
To me it seems like you might be arguing that societal influences are automatically brainwashing when the acts are homosexual.
 

Does it ? Sorry, I was just checking all the boxes from previous attempts to convince me that changing someone's sexual orientation is at all possible. All I'm arguing here is that one "traditional" blowjob does not a homosexual make. I don't think you're arguing that it does.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:mellestad

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
The idea of sex with a man is not revolting to me.  If I had reason I am sure I could talk myself into it, and with repetition of physical stimulus I'd probably learn to dig it.
 

Worst pick-up line ever.

Lol

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
That is sort of my point,
 

Mine too. Unless you swing that way, what reason could you have to talk yourself into it ? Also, "Probably" isn't going to cut it. By "change", I mean permanent, both ways (ie, you would stop fancying women as well), and without any accompanying trauma.

I doubt you could change 180 degrees, but hasn't it been shown that sexual preference is a scale, rather than a binary choice?  I'll elaborate below.

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
I think many people are only revolted by gay sex because it is a societal taboo (The same straight people who watch 'straight' porn that is at least 50% giant throbbing penis, haha).
 

They get very annoyed when you point that out, I've found. Very, very annoyed.

mellestad wrote:
I've just given you a micro-society where gay sexual acts are part of the culture and are not seen with revulsion among the male adults.
 

You mean the parents would encourage their sons to give blowjobs to the male elders, even after this "ceremony" (And I'm thinking they don't invite the whole tribe to watch) is over and done with ?

See, this is why I wanted you to read about it.  OK:

So they see sperm as a magical thing that is required to strengthen the spirit of a person, and there is a finite amount of that force in a person.  So boys suck cock from older males to build up vitality that eventually pushes them into puberty, at which time they start giving their sperm to those younger than them to help them mature.  Once they marry a woman they are supposed to give their sperm only to them, because they need it for healthy children to be born.  Technically once they are married they should never give their sperm to anyone but their wife (remember, they think sperm runs out of juice eventually, so they are supposed to reserve it for their wives now), but they often stray back to their own sex, against the taboo of their society (they would be seen as wasting their vitality).

The whole situation points out the fact that our sexual behaviors are hugely impacted by our upbringing, because such a classically unusual scenario can even perpetuate itself.

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Are you saying history and tradition don't have an impact on sexual orientation?
 

Well, yeah. Unless you're just talking about societal taboos.

I guess I think differently then.  I think if a society was totally accepting of homosexuality we'd see a large increase in diversity of sexual pairings.  I imagine the 'natural' state of humans is closer to bisexuality than most people think.  After all, why not?  In rich nations sex is mostly about recreation, and once you remove the taboos there isn't any reason you couldn't recreate with your own gender as well as the opposite one.  I really doubt that there is an instinctual revulsion to same-sex pairings in our species.  I've certainly never seen any research that would indicate that.

Having said that, I'm sure the majority would still be heterosexual, we've (humans in general) clearly evolved to be attracted to the opposite sex more strongly than to the same sex.

Anonymouse wrote:

 

mellestad wrote:
The people in the tribe do not see it as abuse, they see it as a sacred duty. It is part of their religion, just like being revolted by gays is part of the evangelical religion.  Read about it. 

Are there a lot of gay couples in that tribe ? Or does everything work pretty much as it does in the other tribes, apart from the priests getting blowjobs from young boys ?

See above.  Mature gay couples would be a taboo, but not for the 'obvious' reasons.

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:
To me it seems like you might be arguing that societal influences are automatically brainwashing when the acts are homosexual.
 

Does it ? Sorry, I was just checking all the boxes from previous attempts to convince me that changing someone's sexual orientation is at all possible. All I'm arguing here is that one "traditional" blowjob does not a homosexual make. I don't think you're arguing that it does.

No, I agree, for most people it would take a lot more.  My hypothesis is that in a vacuum, our natural state of sexuality is more 'free form'.  I would also hypothosize that most people could, given the proper environment, shift their sexual preference to some degree.  This environment may or may not consist of exterior pressure.  

We already see gay people that live straight lives (which is tragic), I'd be interested to know how they would describe their relationship with their opposite sex spouse, and if they ever felt any attraction or if it is usually 100% forced.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I doubt you

mellestad wrote:
I doubt you could change 180 degrees

No need for doubt. It doesn't happen.

mellestad wrote:
but hasn't it been shown that sexual preference is a scale, rather than a binary choice?

Even on a scale you can't just slide up and down at will. You can't be forced either.

If you can't accept that from someone who's tried it, then why not try it yourself ?

 

mellestad wrote:
See, this is why I wanted you to read about it.  OK:

Since I know that tribe only from a Mark Lamarr comedy routine, yeah, I probably should. Link ?

mellestad wrote:
The whole situation points out the fact that our sexual behaviors are hugely impacted by our upbringing, because such a classically unusual scenario can even perpetuate itself.

Ah, sexual "behaviours". Sounds a little less innate than sexual orientation. So how many "stray back to their own sex", and what does that actually involve ? Sorry, but this is all rather vague, and it makes me wonder if people even really know what being gay is.

Btw, young boys being made to suck off old priests, unfortunatly not such a classically unusual scenario. People accepting silly excuses for such behaviour, also not very unusual.

mellestad wrote:
I guess I think differently then.  I think if a society was totally accepting of homosexuality we'd see a large increase in diversity of sexual pairings.

Well yeah, that would be all the people bursting out of the closet, so there wouldn't really be a change.

mellestad wrote:
I imagine the 'natural' state of humans is closer to bisexuality than most people think.  After all, why not?  In rich nations sex is mostly about recreation, and once you remove the taboos there isn't any reason you couldn't recreate with your own gender as well as the opposite one.  I really doubt that there is an instinctual revulsion to same-sex pairings in our species.  I've certainly never seen any research that would indicate that.

Instinctual or not, it sure is there. Just read this thread, or any thread on the same subject.

Anyway, "revulsion" is too strong a word, I always thought, and it's not needed to stop same sex-pairings. Like I said, I'm not "repulsed" or "disgusted" by having hetero-sex (I'm gay, btw). I'm simply not interested. Nothing kills sex like complete indifference. Doesn't matter if it's recreational and taboo-free.

Actually, trying to have recreational and taboo-free sex with a girl is how most gay people find out they're very gay indeed.

mellestad wrote:
Having said that, I'm sure the majority would still be heterosexual, we've (humans in general) clearly evolved to be attracted to the opposite sex more strongly than to the same sex.

And yet you think it's possible to go against this evolutionary heterosexual trait.
 

mellestad wrote:
See above.  Mature gay couples would be a taboo, but not for the 'obvious' reasons.

So not much real difference there then. Now I totally forgot why you even brought it up.

mellestad wrote:
No, I agree, for most people it would take a lot more.

What, like 10 blowjobs would do it ? So what does it take for most people ?

mellestad wrote:
My hypothesis is that in a vacuum, our natural state of sexuality is more 'free form'.  I would also hypothosize that most people could, given the proper environment, shift their sexual preference to some degree.  This environment may or may not consist of exterior pressure. 

Well, I suppose I'm grateful you're using the word "hypothesis", but seriously, how is this different from "I think people can change their sexual orientation if they really want to" ?

mellestad wrote:
We already see gay people that live straight lives (which is tragic), I'd be interested to know how they would describe their relationship with their opposite sex spouse, and if they ever felt any attraction or if it is usually 100% forced.

You'd be interested in being lied to ? Seriously, where are you going to find a closeted gay guy who's willing to, or even capable of having an open and honest conversation about that ?

 

(bleh, looks like I typed too much. Sorry. If any of this comes over as sarcastic, not my intention. I appreciate anyone willing to think about this)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
*shrug* OK.  I never

*shrug* OK.  I never claimed to have any evidence, I was just shooting the breeze.  I'm not willing to fight about it either way based on our mutual anecdotes, so I'll just stop unless someone starts linking to interesting research.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:*shrug* OK.

mellestad wrote:

*shrug* OK.  I never claimed to have any evidence, I was just shooting the breeze.  I'm not willing to fight about it either way based on our mutual anecdotes, so I'll just stop unless someone starts linking to interesting research.

Fight ? I only asked a couple of questions...Anecdotes ? You have one where a gay person turns straight ?

Anyway, not everyone can afford to wait for interesting research when it comes to the "can it be changed" question. Wish I could just shrug it off as well.

Probably not relevant, but I do have some interesting research about homophobia : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/freud.html


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:*shrug* OK.

mellestad wrote:

*shrug* OK.  I never claimed to have any evidence, I was just shooting the breeze.  I'm not willing to fight about it either way based on our mutual anecdotes, so I'll just stop unless someone starts linking to interesting research.

 

I posted this before:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_lesbian.html

2006 - not too old, but certainly not recent.  If I bothered or had online access, I'm sure I could find more recent articles that cited this particular study.

For me to buy the tribal example, I would need to have additional information.  How many preferred same sex experiences as adults?  Is this proportion significantly different than other populations or cultures? 

Also, why do almost all known populations and subcultures have approximately the same percentage of homosexuals (both men and women)?  Am I wrong, is there a subset of the human race where proportion of those attracted to the same sex is significantly different (higher or lower) than other subsets? 

I agree, there is a continuum rather than just 3 groups - gay, bi or straight.  What I am not sure of is how this continuum is influenced by cultural circumstances.  What I remember is that cultural differences don't appear to have a significant effect.  Which leads me to be inclined to believe more in nature rather than nurture for this trait.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:2006 - not too old,

cj wrote:
2006 - not too old, but certainly not recent.  If I bothered or had online access, I'm sure I could find more recent articles that cited this particular study

Ran into that study a few months ago......in the Wiki article about the "gay bomb".

cj wrote:
Also, why do almost all known populations and subcultures have approximately the same percentage of homosexuals (both men and women)?  Am I wrong, is there a subset of the human race where proportion of those attracted to the same sex is significantly different (higher or lower) than other subsets? 

And what I'd like to know is, if changing your sexual orientation is possible, why are there even any gay people at all ?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
There is enough potential

There is enough potential contribution to a social group from non-reproducing members, and usefulness in an additional mode of bonding behaviour, with no explicit negatives, that the persistence of homosexual behaviour at a moderate level within pretty much all social mammals is perfectly natural.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:And what

Anonymouse wrote:

And what I'd like to know is, if changing your sexual orientation is possible, why are there even any gay people at all ?

 

You are a gay man, and I don't know how many gay women you know.  I have a few lesbian friends and for the most part, none of them seem interested in switching, living with any man (one couple I know insisted on a female dog rather than a male because - "there will be no men living in this house&quotEye-wink, or apologizing or being concerned about prejudices.  This is most likely because it seems to me gay women do not face the same stigma gay men do.  I do understand and sympathize with those who have had really bad experiences with family, friends, coworkers, peers and so on and may want to change to fit in better.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is enough potential contribution to a social group from non-reproducing members, and usefulness in an additional mode of bonding behaviour, with no explicit negatives, that the persistence of homosexual behaviour at a moderate level within pretty much all social mammals is perfectly natural.

 

I said that earlier - though not as succinctly as you have.  It is obviously genetically a neutral trait.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Hey CJ, why don't you try

Hey CJ, why don't you try for a government grant out of the next stimulus bill for 20 mil or so and I will move out to San Francisco, immerse myself in the gay community and attempt to turn myself gay and then, if successful, I will attempt to turn myself back to straight. We will split the 20 mil 50/50 and we can solve your job problem and settle this question once and for all. You can do all the paperwork.....I HATE paperwork.

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Look, this a really simple

Look, this a really simple point I'm trying to make here. If someone thinks changing sexual orientation is at all possible, that makes being gay a choice. So why would anyone choose that, if it means losing your friends, your family, getting the shit kicked out of you, and depending on where you're born, losing your life ? What more motivation can a person have to change ?

And yet they don't.

If anyone really thinks changing is possible, then explain to me why they don't just do it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:If someone

Anonymouse wrote:

If someone thinks changing sexual orientation is at all possible, that makes being gay a choice.

I'm not sure if this is what anyone is saying.  It certainly isn't what I was saying...or at least not that simplistically.

 

Premise A) Sexual preference influenced to some degree by environment.  If this is true, then it is theoretically possible to alter sexual preference to *some* degree.

Premise B) Sexual preference is entirely dependent on genetics.  If this is true, then it is not possible to change sexual preference to *any* degree, short of meddling with a person's genetics.

 

"Environment" is more complicated than, "Choosing to suck one cock."  If premise A is true then a person could theoretically put themselves in an environment that influenced their sexual preference.  I don't know what that environment would be...it might be having oral sex performed on you by same sex partners ten times a day for five years until you liked it, while under the influence of mind-altering drugs and anti-hetero sex images bombarding you 24/7.  It might be re-thinking your views on the taboo of sexual conduct.  It might mean raising a child to believe hetero sex is right, or wrong.  And even then, you might not get a dramatic shift, it might only be a slight shift.

I doubt there will be a line of candidates submitting to that kind of research, so we probably won't know any time soon.

No-one has said it would be an easy change, or even a practical change.

 

Now if premise B is true, then that is that.  However, I've never seen research that says we know such a thing.  We just don't know.  Even the study cj linked says,

Quote:
Savic, who is the lead author of both studies, cautioned that neither study proves people are born gay. The response could be biological or learned. Determining an answer will require further study.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Hey CJ,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hey CJ, why don't you try for a government grant out of the next stimulus bill for 20 mil or so and I will move out to San Francisco, immerse myself in the gay community and attempt to turn myself gay and then, if successful, I will attempt to turn myself back to straight. We will split the 20 mil 50/50 and we can solve your job problem and settle this question once and for all. You can do all the paperwork.....I HATE paperwork.

 

Funny.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Now if

mellestad wrote:

 

Now if premise B is true, then that is that.  However, I've never seen research that says we know such a thing.  We just don't know.  Even the study cj linked says,

Quote:
Savic, who is the lead author of both studies, cautioned that neither study proves people are born gay. The response could be biological or learned. Determining an answer will require further study.

 

I'm with Anonymouse on this one - if it were a choice, why would you ever choose to get harassed most days of your life?  Okay, there might be a very few masochists who think that is fun, but seriously?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:mellestad

cj wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

Now if premise B is true, then that is that.  However, I've never seen research that says we know such a thing.  We just don't know.  Even the study cj linked says,

Quote:
Savic, who is the lead author of both studies, cautioned that neither study proves people are born gay. The response could be biological or learned. Determining an answer will require further study.

 

I'm with Anonymouse on this one - if it were a choice, why would you ever choose to get harassed most days of your life?  Okay, there might be a very few masochists who think that is fun, but seriously?

I guess that depends on what you mean by choice.  I don't think it is likely that anyone 'chooses' in a simplistic sense.  I doubt any of us are believers in classical free will though, so I'm not sure that is even worth discussing in this context, I hope this discussion is more nuanced than that, and I'm writing with the assumption that we're talking about choice in that way.

And I agree, I've used the same argument many times.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
To elaborate...what is there

To elaborate...what is there about human behavior that is not subject to environmental influence?  Why would sexuality be special somehow?  I would say if you could probably get someone to be sexually aroused by a cactus if you had enough control.

Psychological research continually shows our mental state can be a very plastic thing...you can induce and remove phobias, cause memories to be created or repressed, we partially understand the mechanisms behind love in general and they are not 100% genetic.  I just don't see why sexuality would be 100% genetic either.  Is there *anything* in our behavior that is not subject to environment to some degree?

 

And if anyone thinks that I'm saying, "Being gay is a choice" in the same manner as some evangelical preacher, please let me know because that is absolutely not my opinion.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:To

mellestad wrote:

To elaborate...what is there about human behavior that is not subject to environmental influence?  Why would sexuality be special somehow?  I would say if you could probably get someone to be sexually aroused by a cactus if you had enough control.

Psychological research continually shows our mental state can be a very plastic thing...you can induce and remove phobias, cause memories to be created or repressed, we partially understand the mechanisms behind love in general and they are not 100% genetic.  I just don't see why sexuality would be 100% genetic either.  Is there *anything* in our behavior that is not subject to environment to some degree?

 

And if anyone thinks that I'm saying, "Being gay is a choice" in the same manner as some evangelical preacher, please let me know because that is absolutely not my opinion.

 

I don't think you are saying that.  What I do think is that what you can influence concerning sexual orientation is very small.  I just don't see any way to control or influence your brain's response to sexual pheromones.  Sort of like I can influence my hair color - by taking thyroid medication, by hair dyes, sure.  But the basic genetic color?  Maybe something in utero......and that may be true of sexual orientation.  Which puts all idea of changing an adult's (or almost adult) sexual preferences in the not very likely pile.

Acceptance of sexual practices or sexual orientation is cultural.  Very much so.  And that would influence the amount of overt sexual behavior one would see in that culture.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:mellestad wrote:To

cj wrote:

mellestad wrote:

To elaborate...what is there about human behavior that is not subject to environmental influence?  Why would sexuality be special somehow?  I would say if you could probably get someone to be sexually aroused by a cactus if you had enough control.

Psychological research continually shows our mental state can be a very plastic thing...you can induce and remove phobias, cause memories to be created or repressed, we partially understand the mechanisms behind love in general and they are not 100% genetic.  I just don't see why sexuality would be 100% genetic either.  Is there *anything* in our behavior that is not subject to environment to some degree?

 

And if anyone thinks that I'm saying, "Being gay is a choice" in the same manner as some evangelical preacher, please let me know because that is absolutely not my opinion.

 

I don't think you are saying that.  What I do think is that what you can influence concerning sexual orientation is very small.  I just don't see any way to control or influence your brain's response to sexual pheromones.  Sort of like I can influence my hair color - by taking thyroid medication, by hair dyes, sure.  But the basic genetic color?  Maybe something in utero......and that may be true of sexual orientation.  Which puts all idea of changing an adult's (or almost adult) sexual preferences in the not very likely pile.

Acceptance of sexual practices or sexual orientation is cultural.  Very much so.  And that would influence the amount of overt sexual behavior one would see in that culture.

 

And I think that is fair, we'll just have to see how the research eventually falls for nature vs. nurture regarding sexuality.  For that matter, is it even clear how much impact pheromones have?

I do think the bulk of it is nature, either way, just because heterosexuality is too critical a thing for it to not have a basis in genetics.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Now if

mellestad wrote:
Now if premise B is true, then that is that.  However, I've never seen research that says we know such a thing.  We just don't know.

And we also don't know what "environment" might influence anyone's sexual preference, so when talking about what's possible or not, I prefer to stick to what we do know.