Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[samsara15]

Numinus - Putting it in Chip's terms, what is your reaction to homosexuality? When you label it 'deviant', and compare it to bsdm and pedophila, are you putting it into the same harmful and socially unacceptable categories as those deviant behaviors, or are you merely noting that homosexuality is not as statistically commonplace as heterosexuality?

 

[Chip]

Since there is no known gene "for" sexual preference in conflict with genitalia, and there likely never will be such a gene or gene combination found, and since psychological studies on the impact on children of dysfunction in their family-of-origin show a solid connection to engendering a number of drives that manifest in what we may arguably call "specifically chosen behavior" generally considered to be aberrant ...

... Let's just say for the sake of argument for the moment that all three, bsdm, pedophilia and homosexuality, are etiologically linked to damage inculcated during early childhood from parents and other major players in the child's life who are dysfunctional.

In what way is the connection of these three to an undesired damaged orientation meaningful?

All three are conditions, conditions that are experienced as drives. They are not behaviors.

Behaviors may arise from the conditions with respect to the strength of the drives.

What does society not afflicted with these drives say about understandably associated behavior that emanates from each of these three?

When pedophiles choose to act upon their behavior, that behavior is understandably considered horrific.

When bsdms choose to act upon their behavior, that behavior is generally considered to be weird and unappealing, but not horrific.

When homosexuals choose to act upon their behavior, that behavior is generally considered to be disgusting, but not horrific.

Behavior, ultimately, is everything. One can harbor a drive that could compel deviant behavior, but that's meaningless to society, pretty much, until that drive is acted upon, whereupon its behavior can then earn the label of "deviant".

The ground between not-a-choice and a-choice regarding drive-compelled behavior is, I would say, a bit of a gray area.

Sure, to commit a behavior requires a series of conscious choices.

But to be driven by a neuro-psychological condition that is highly compulsive to the degree that related "the devil made me do it" behavioral choices are made ...

... Well, in such a case, it seems more like such behavior is succumbed-to rather than independently and freely made.

Regardless, to suffer a highly compulsive drive, especially one that understandably can manifest itself in behaviors that engender societal revulsion whether rightly so or not, is a terrible burden to bear ...

... And those who so suffer live a very challenging life.

Though their related behavior may situationally rightly earn them our enmity ...

... Their unhealthy condition that drove them to their behavior should rightly earn them our compassion as well.

 

[samsara15]

I have no problem with your POV, Chip.

 

[numinus]

Numinus - Putting it in Chip's terms, what is your reaction to homosexuality? When you label it 'deviant', and compare it to bsdm and pedophila, are you putting it into the same harmful and socially unacceptable categories as those deviant behaviors, or are you merely noting that homosexuality is not as statistically commonplace as heterosexuality?

Statistically uncommon.

 

[numinus]

Since there is no known gene "for" sexual preference in conflict with genitalia, and there likely never will be such a gene or gene combination found, and since psychological studies on the impact on children of dysfunction in their family-of-origin show a solid connection to engendering a number of drives that manifest in what we may arguably call "specifically chosen behavior" generally considered to be aberrant ...

No correlation of this is conclusive for bsdm or pedophilia. I am inclined to think that same goes with homosexuality.

At the very least, studies in animal sexual behavior suggests 1-2 percent, depending on the specie. Certainly not 5-10 percent as seen in human populations.

... Let's just say for the sake of argument for the moment that all three, bsdm, pedophilia and homosexuality, are etiologically linked to damage inculcated during early childhood from parents and other major players in the child's life who are dysfunctional.

Lets.

In what way is the connection of these three to an undesired damaged orientation meaningful?

All three are conditions, conditions that are experienced as drives. They are not behaviors.

Nothing -- if you define 'orientation' according to pop-psychology. It enters society's collective consciousness only when manifested -- hence choice.

Behaviors may arise from the conditions with respect to the strength of the drives.

What does society not afflicted with these drives say about understandably associated behavior that emanates from each of these three?

When pedophiles choose to act upon their behavior, that behavior is understandably considered horrific.

When bsdms choose to act upon their behavior, that behavior is generally considered to be weird and unappealing, but not horrific.

When homosexuals choose to act upon their behavior, that behavior is generally considered to be disgusting, but not horrific.

Behavior, ultimately, is everything. One can harbor a drive that could compel deviant behavior, but that's meaningless to society, pretty much, until that drive is acted upon, whereupon its behavior can then earn the label of "deviant".

The ground between not-a-choice and a-choice regarding drive-compelled behavior is, I would say, a bit of a gray area.

Sure, to commit a behavior requires a series of conscious choices.

But to be driven by a neuro-psychological condition that is highly compulsive to the degree that related "the devil made me do it" behavioral choices are made ...

... Well, in such a case, it seems more like such behavior is succumbed-to rather than independently and freely made.

Your dilemma stems from inter-changing the concept of liberty with that of freedom.

A state of liberty is when one can do what he inclines or prefers to do.

A state of feedom is when you act according to laws and principles that are rational.

And in both cases, a desire or thought without its attendant action is meaningless. And in the case of homosexuality, bsdm, or pedophilia, one may be at liberty to engage in them but one certainly isn't free to engage in them.

Regardless, to suffer a highly compulsive drive, especially one that understandably can manifest itself in behaviors that engender societal revulsion whether rightly so or not, is a terrible burden to bear ...

... And those who so suffer live a very challenging life.

Though their related behavior may situationally rightly earn them our enmity ...

... Their unhealthy condition that drove them to their behavior should rightly earn them our compassion as well.

I agree completely.

What I cannot agree with is when one uses compassion to justify an inclination as some manifest freedom.

One can have compassion for a thief or a murderer if personal circumstances exist that compel someone to be one, but one MAY NOT argue that theft and murder are, themselves, subject to some distinct circumstance that happened in one's distant past.

 

[jimitheretard]

Pedophiles have absolutely no control over who they are attracted to. We can not blame them for what they feel inside but we must not let them act on their feelings for the safety of children.

You may not be able to control what you are thinking and feeling but you can control if you act on it or not. Get yourself together man! Keep it in your pants unless you are with your wife!

As for murders, I can imagine someone hating someone so much they want them dead for a number of reasons. They may not be able to control their thoughts and feelings but they must control their actions or pay the consequences of their actions!

Sorry to seem so harsh but really you got to control that lusting and keep it from leading to the bad nasty, I bet your wife will have a hard time controlling her wish to murder you if you don’t control your wanker!

Pandora, are you messing with me or did your inherit a consenting adult gene?
I refer you to the excellent dialogue between 'numinus' and 'dahermit' on the subject.

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

I say it is a choice but what sayest thou?

It is like getting drunk ... weather you are an alcoholic or not

It's the drug of choice for those who chose it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"Personality decided at birth, say scientists

Personality types are linked with structural differences in the brain - which could explain why one child grows up to be impulsive and outgoing while another becomes diligent and introspective.

Anatomical differences between the brains of 85 people have been measured and linked with the four main categories of personality types as defined by psychiatrists using a clinically recognised system of character evaluation."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10566320

Evidence continues to mount that we are born with far more of our "selves" already in place.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

At the very least, studies in animal sexual behavior suggests 1-2 percent, depending on the specie. Certainly not 5-10 percent as seen in human populations.

Your information is out of date. BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl. Huge work, heavily footnoted, draws on the work of thousands of researchers around the world. Most of our "common knowledge" is wrong about animal sexuality.

 

[numinus]

"Personality decided at birth, say scientists

Personality types are linked with structural differences in the brain - which could explain why one child grows up to be impulsive and outgoing while another becomes diligent and introspective.

Anatomical differences between the brains of 85 people have been measured and linked with the four main categories of personality types as defined by psychiatrists using a clinically recognised system of character evaluation."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10566320

Evidence continues to mount that we are born with far more of our "selves" already in place.

First, this article is about 'a scientist', not 'scientists' -- meaning, it is not a scientifically corroborated conclusion.

Second, it speaks of a tendency towards a particular personality (something we already know). Whether that in-born tendency manifests in life or not, depends on a lot a factors -- primarily the way that life is lived.

Third, it does not mention anything whatsoever, about a tendency towards a homosexual preference. Similarly, oedipus complex is purported to occur frequently in children. But we don't all grow up to be motherfckers, now, do we?

Other than the above, it is nice to see you are still up to your usual irrelevant nonsense.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Personality decided at birth, say scientists

Personality types are linked with structural differences in the brain - which could explain why one child grows up to be impulsive and outgoing while another becomes diligent and introspective.

Anatomical differences between the brains of 85 people have been measured and linked with the four main categories of personality types as defined by psychiatrists using a clinically recognised system of character evaluation."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10566320

Evidence continues to mount that we are born with far more of our "selves" already in place.

We do know that structural aspects of the brain do effect behavior and also that how we think does effect how the brain is structured - it goes both ways and the cause/effect relationship is not always clear.

It very well could be that physical characteristics of the brain influence a person's sexuality. That does not mean that people still do not make choices about their behavior.

Were it the case that the brain caused a certain behavior and it was beyond the ability of the person to make a choice then we could say that they were not responsible for it. Were the behavior murder then it would mean that they would be in a mental hospital instead of a prison. Were the behavior giving a million dollars to the poor we would still reward that behavior by recognizing that person's 'generosity'.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

First, this article is about 'a scientist', not 'scientists' -- meaning, it is not a scientifically corroborated conclusion.

Second, it speaks of a tendency towards a particular personality (something we already know). Whether that in-born tendency manifests in life or not, depends on a lot a factors -- primarily the way that life is lived.

Third, it does not mention anything whatsoever, about a tendency towards a homosexual preference. Similarly, oedipus complex is purported to occur frequently in children. But we don't all grow up to be motherfckers, now, do we?

Other than the above, it is nice to see you are still up to your usual irrelevant nonsense.

The artcle says "scientists" in its title and "The researchers said the brain differences..." in the text, so I guess that means that you didn't read carefully enough.

I note also that you did not respond to my other post to you. I guess that means that you don't read books?

"...it is nice to see you are still up to your usual irrelevant nonsense."

My idea in posting the article was to point out that more and more things are being shown to be in-born--remember that being left-handed was considered a personality defect at one time too. Alcoholism was thought to be nothing more than moral turpitude too, but now we know that people are born with a genetic weakness for alcohol poisoning.

 

[numinus]

The artcle says "scientists" in its title and "The researchers said the brain differences..." in the text, so I guess that means that you didn't read carefully enough.

Only one scientist was named, perhaps the most senior collaborator in this research. As far as independent scientific corroboration is concerned, that still counts as just one.

So, I guess you were out to misrepresent science --- again.

I note also that you did not respond to my other post to you. I guess that means that you don't read books?

Just because I prefer to read books other than those disguising as gay propaganda doesn't mean I don't read books, now, does it? It just means I don't read your sort of books.

"...it is nice to see you are still up to your usual irrelevant nonsense."

My idea in posting the article was to point out that more and more things are being shown to be in-born--remember that being left-handed was considered a personality defect at one time too. Alcoholism was thought to be nothing more than moral turpitude too, but now we know that people are born with a genetic weakness for alcohol poisoning.

Which is irrelevant nonsense since the topic is about whether homosexuality is genetic or not. For the sake of argument, if left-handedness or alcoholism are indeed genetic, does that, in any way, suggest homosexuality is also genetic?

Do you have any scientific evidence that proves conclusively that it is indeed genetic? If you have, then it would be futile to post something that does not even involve homosexuality, don't you agree?

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you have any scientific evidence that proves conclusively that it is indeed genetic? If you have, then it would be futile to post something that does not even involve homosexuality, don't you agree?

The APA has offically said that there is no proof. Yet, as a former shrink I am aware of the evidence that it just may be (twin studies).

However, just like alcoholics still choose to drink or not and left handed people can choose to use their right hand, the same is certainly true for gays. a genetic predisposition may make it easier to make one choice or harder to make another but it rarely eliminates choice.

 

[numinus]

The APA has offically said that there is no proof. Yet, as a former shrink I am aware of the evidence that it just may be (twin studies).

However, just like alcoholics still choose to drink or not and left handed people can choose to use their right hand, the same is certainly true for gays. a genetic predisposition may make it easier to make one choice or harder to make another but it rarely eliminates choice.

Exactly.

I do not doubt that phelp's swimming abilities and jordan's basketball abilities have considerable basis in genetics. But then again, a genetic potential is meaningless unless manifested by choice.

The essence of this topic is clear -- that a genetic basis for homosexuality is sufficient reason to craft a law exclusively for homosexuals.