Homosexuality is a choice

[HansMustermann]

So the people who want to believe it is genetic have the opposite agenda, of proving that it is not a choice and they can't be held accountable. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that both sides, as in this thread, are arguing for what they want the truth to be, rather than trying to determine what the truth is - that is why I objected to the moral arguments as obscuring the fact argument. Homosexuality doesn't become genetic, or not, because that's what you want, so the morality arguments are pointless without any fact basis.

In this thread, both sides seem to be arguing from the basis that they assume the fact that it is/isn't genetic and "here are the moral implications of that." You seem to have skipped the hard step, even though the thread seemed to start with the nature v. nurture argument.

So any thought on the idea that the “homosexuality is genetic” crowd is advancing a point of view about biological determination of fairly specific behavior that has implications for racism and similar "all people are not created equal" arguments?

BS. Wanting to believe has nothing to do with it.

There are actual MRI studies that shows that at least certain pathways (which are currently easy to identify and trigger for such a study) in the brain of homosexual men and homosexual women that are wired like for the opposite gender.

Now it's hard to say if it's genetic or hormonal imbalances in the womb or what. But it _is_ pathways that -- for whatever reason that wiring might happen -- are already formed when you pop out of the womb, and are not known to rewire after that in any known circumstances. Much less as a matter of "choice". Generally you'll find that you don't have a choice to rewire the connections between your brain's lobes.

(If nothing else, all those anti-gay preachers who got caught with male prostitutes, would have chosen to rewire themselves to straight if it were that simple.)

But at any rate, it has nothing to do with wanting to believe, but with evidence.

 

[bynmdsue]

So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

 

[bikerdruid]

So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

no....our brains are wired for good taste and common sense.
the serial killer's brain wiring would resemble the conservative's brain.
you are just confused.

 

[HansMustermann]

So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

Or like an aspie, or like a musical genius, or like just about anyone else who has slightly different wiring.

Frankly, even as "by association" fallacies go, yours has to take the cake for pencils-up-the-nose underpants-on-head retarded. Making a connection to serial killers just because both have some pieces of wiring different -- except it's actually different pieces, and in different ways, and with different results, and only one of them actually causes any harm -- is such weak sauce that it's almost funny. It's like saying that a cell phone is like an ICBM guidance system, just because they're both wired differently than my desktop computer.

ETA: also, just to make it clear: technically the only thing it's wired like is, literally, like the brain of a woman. Unlike you wish to claim that women are wired like serial killers, I don't see how you can support that for "queer" men.

 

[bynmdsue]

Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

I'm agreeing with you all. The queer cannot help itself,much like the drunk who has a disease or the obese with their thyroid problem.
The degenerate engaged in homosexual acts are completely blameless for their promiscuous and reckless behaviors. Like a dog humping legs, they simply cannot help themselves. They are slaves to their disordered brains.

Pity the poor pansies.

 

[JFrankA]

What drives a person to ignore logic in order to gain transitory satisfaction from a burst of bile? Nature, nurture, disordered brains?

Same person who doesn't call the process of a person holding back sex until a life-long, legal, binding contract is signed that states all material and financial possessions now legally belongs to both parties involved "prostitution"....

 

[bookitty]

Same person who doesn't call the process of a person holding back sex until a life-long, legal, binding contract is signed that states all material and financial possessions now legally belongs to both parties involved "prostitution"....

Wow, that's a big ole' can of worms you've got there.

 

[JFrankA]

Wow, that's a big ole' can of worms you've got there.

It is. I dug up the worms myself.

 

[brenn]

My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.

I overlooked that before. It's a good response. Not because it's particularly witty or demonstrates any sort of truth, but because it defies those on the other side to say something they are not at all inclined to say. It's nearly on par with the old, "have you stopped beating your wife."

However, maybe I only thought of this because I work with prisoners some, but the prison environment seems to contradict your hypothesis, being that temporarily turning to gay sex seems pretty widespread among prisoners. Working with Afghans and learning quite a lot about them last year, including the apparent acceptance of same-sex relations (many say the same is also true in Arab muslim countries), also reinforces my belief that, in an environment without access to the opposite sex, the sex drive will often be expressed through sex with the same gender. This would also apply to the prior references to homosexual animals.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So the queer's brain is "wired" differently.

Like a serial killer.Got it.

And like a geniuses born with unusually high IQs

So if you're gonna make analogies, make sure you add the positive ones too. Otherwise, your attempt at argument by selective analogy is coming out as dishonest.

 

[Dr. Keith]

And like a geniuses born with unusually high IQs

Not to get OT but everyone knows that geniuses are made by buying DVDs to teach them to read at 18 months.

It used to take mozhart tapes, but we've moved past that barbaric tradition. Tapes {{shudder}}.

/sarcasm

 

[Dr. Keith]

That doesn't seem to contain an argument.

It's not an argument. I'm not trying to convince you of anything you haven't already admitted: you don't know what you are talking about and you may want to research this a bit more.

There are many benefits of non-procreating individuals in a population. Take the time to look into this.

Sorry for the OT derail.

 

[HansMustermann]

Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

I have news for you. This species has a lot of variability anyway. Some are born super-geniuses, some are born retarded. Some have excellent coordination, some are spazzes. Etc. However you would define the one standard wiring to have, pretty much you'd have a set of exactly one person fitting that and about 6 millions of "defectives".

The question is what beef of yours is that someone has the "wrong" wiring, and why only in one aspect. Or are you saying you can't have sympathy for _anyone_ who differs at all from your BS standard?

At the end of the day, it's not even the worst wiring to get. Men wired like women, basically, can do everything that a woman brain can do. Which turns out to be very much every job ever invented for a start.

The difference is only in what they do in their free time, with other consenting adults.

So exactly what _is_ your problem? Exactly what kind of entitlement delusions make you think you should judge or regulate that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

But it _is_ pathways that -- for whatever reason that wiring might happen -- are already formed when you pop out of the womb, and are not known to rewire after that in any known circumstances.

I'm going to call you for evidence on these two. My understanding of the research is that they don't know when they form or if they are able to be changed. I'd be delieghted for you to produce evidence for your claims though.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Men wired as women are wrong. Perhaps you wish to celebrate defectives. Perhaps you have sympathy for these deviants. Good for you.

So you are saying that even though to all outward appearances I am a striaght male, the fact that my brain's sex and identity are both female that I am somehow wrong and defective?

 

[Piggy]

I overlooked that before. It's a good response. Not because it's particularly witty or demonstrates any sort of truth, but because it defies those on the other side to say something they are not at all inclined to say. It's nearly on par with the old, "have you stopped beating your wife."

However, maybe I only thought of this because I work with prisoners some, but the prison environment seems to contradict your hypothesis, being that temporarily turning to gay sex seems pretty widespread among prisoners. Working with Afghans and learning quite a lot about them last year, including the apparent acceptance of same-sex relations (many say the same is also true in Arab muslim countries), also reinforces my belief that, in an environment without access to the opposite sex, the sex drive will often be expressed through sex with the same gender. This would also apply to the prior references to homosexual animals.

Actually, that's already been hashed out on this thread, in precisely the terms you describe.

I use it as a rhetorical device and nothing more. It's not meant to actually shed light on the question, but rather to throw a wrench into a less-than-adequate thought process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm going to call you for evidence on these two. My understanding of the research is that they don't know when they form or if they are able to be changed. I'd be delieghted for you to produce evidence for your claims though.

There are two leading hypotheses, hormone exposure in utero and genetics (or both causes in different cases). There is ZERO evidence it is a lifestyle choice and the hypotheses of the dominant mother and other nurture hypotheses have pretty much been discarded as misguided lines of inquiry.

You can do your own research and if you find any science that differs, by all means share it.

I find it amusing how many people just decide they 'know' when they don't know anything about it really.

 

[Uncayimmy]

There are two leading hypotheses, hormone exposure in utero and genetics (or both causes in different cases). There is ZERO evidence it is a lifestyle choice and the hypotheses of the dominant mother and other nurture hypotheses have pretty much been discarded as misguided lines of inquiry.

(emphasis added)

The exception being situational sexual behavior.

Phantom Wolf was asking for evidence for the claims by Hans. What I think Hans was referring to was this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...22&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There are two leading hypotheses, hormone exposure in utero and genetics (or both causes in different cases). There is ZERO evidence it is a lifestyle choice and the hypotheses of the dominant mother and other nurture hypotheses have pretty much been discarded as misguided lines of inquiry.

If you had bothered in reading the thread you'd see what I believe the likely cause is based on Identical Twin genetic studies.

You can do your own research and if you find any science that differs, by all means share it.

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. Hans made a claim that the pathways were formed in the womb. To my knowledge the study never concluded this, and, thanks UncaYimmy, the fact it was done on adults and thus couldn't say when they formed, just that they had. Secondly Hans claimed that these structires were unchangable, again not something the study claims. If Hans has further evidence of his claims then all and good, but I'm never just going to agree with someone's claims merely because they support the side I'm on, that is the behaviour of CTs and Pseudoscience.

I find it amusing how many people just decide they 'know' when they don't know anything about it really.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm going to call you for evidence on these two. My understanding of the research is that they don't know when they form or if they are able to be changed. I'd be delieghted for you to produce evidence for your claims though.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php

Also quote from an actual doctor in there: "A cognitive biology expert told BBC News that he believed these brain differences were decided early in the development of the fetus. There was no longer any argument, "if you are gay, you are born gay," he said."

I think if you want to argue the opposite, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. Just because it's a positive claim of the form "X happens." If you know when or how that can happen, it's your task to show it, not everyone else's to prove that for all brains of all humans that ever lived it didn't.

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. Hans made a claim that the pathways were formed in the womb. To my knowledge the study never concluded this, and, thanks UncaYimmy, the fact it was done on adults and thus couldn't say when they formed, just that they had. Secondly Hans claimed that these structires were unchangable, again not something the study claims. If Hans has further evidence of his claims then all and good, but I'm never just going to agree with someone's claims merely because they support the side I'm on, that is the behaviour of CTs and Pseudoscience.

So, how do you call trying to reverse the burden of proof? Because last I heard it's called an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.