https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/
Apparently not, according to a genetic study done by Harvard and MIT.
Apparently not, according to a genetic study done by Harvard and MIT.
Born this way?
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
That is a very interesting piece about the study and brings up some very interesting points. Such as whether the dissolution of the genetic determinism argument will lead to more tolerance.
...or lead to more intolerance.
At first glance, I have a hard time getting behind the study's scientific findings. How exactly can you conclude there's no 'gay gene' simply because the same gene patterns are found in both straight and gay individuals?
How do you determine gay vs. straight? Do we take a person's word for it? Does someone have to engage in homosexual or heterosexual sex in order to be labelled gay or straight? 3000-plus years of social pressure to be heterosexual to be accepted as 'normal' has zero effect on this study?
Regardless of this study's findings, I believe human society has passed that marker and there's little chance of going back.
Gay or straight is pretty easily determined. Anything short of acting out on physical attraction really doesnt matter. What makes a person subject to either label is what they do, not what they think. If you or I are attracted to another man but never act on it, are we homosexual? If the answer is yes, then having thoughts of killing someone makes us a murderer, or thoughts of giving money to the poor makes us a philanthropist. I think that's what the study really gets at. You weren't born with a predisposition to be liberal, a husband, a university employee just like I wasn't predisposed to be an electrician, a conservative, or an asshole. All of those traits are learned and the only measure of them is in our actions.
I’m sure these researchers asked themselves most of the questions that you are asking.
Logical fallacies all over the place here.
Gay porn is filled with straight dudes that do it because it's better money than straight porn. So in this case, one guy having sex with another doesn't necessarily make him gay.
My friend has a 23 year old daughter that is a lesbian, yet she's a virgin. She's never even been on a date, but she knows who she's attracted to. She's just been afraid most of her life to be open because of how conservatives view her (living in a red state).
Murderer is too broad of a term. Many soldiers are technically murderers. They have killed someone. Anyone is capable of being a murderer in the right scenario. But are they pyschopaths? You can be psychotic and never act out. Doesn't mean you're not a pyschopath. After all, most psychopaths aren't identified until they act out. Doesn't mean they weren't psychotic before their first offense.
tl;dr
You don't learn to be gay.
That homosexuality exists in all species, yet homophobia exists in only one.
I’d like to see the study where they concluded that homophobia only exists in one species. I’ve seen plenty of studies that notes homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Just wondering if there are any that examined other animals of the species’ reactions to the homosexuality. It seems like an interesting study, so maybe it’s already been done.
We are discussing a pretty large study by very reputable institutions that has suggested that sexual preference may indeed not be genetically predetermined and my May be “learned” although that term is grossly oversimplifying. We’re told again and again in today’s society that we need to trust the science. So this is an interesting study and I also think it’s interesting the people who are keeping an open mind in this thread versus the people who are rejecting the study.
The author of the opinion piece discussing the study makes a point that some people who engage in a homosexual relationship think they are then defined by that forever. Anecdotally, I have a friend who was living a lesbian lifestyle exclusively fall for a man one day. When her lesbian friends found out about her new boyfriend, they ostracized her from their group. It was a very traumatic time for my friend. This is one of the types of intolerance that the author points out might go away if this study is correct.
Have you talked with other animals to find out about their lack of homophobia? Most animals are only thinking reproduce and eat.
That's an interesting distinction. So by that logic, every human is neither gay nor straight until they've acted physically? So basically Schrodinger's Cat for sexuality?
I'm not 'rejecting' the study. I just have questions about how one's sexuality was determined for purposes of this research into genetics.
You don't have to be sexually active to be straight or gay.
I agree with much of what you said - particularly the oversimplifying point. To that end - culturally, we see all sorts of different constructs around the world and through time. I've seen stats where back in 1980 43% of father's never changed a diaper - that's down to like 3% today. Something that may have been considered an affront to masculinity in the past isn't anymore (even if your grandpa thinks it makes you sissy).
The reality is that Dad changing diapers is purely a societal construct and it can move in either direction. If homosexuality truly has no genetic basis - and is 100 percent cultural/learned behavior - then the only thing preventing massive realignment in how we view sexuality is the cultural construct. Ancient Rome certainly had a different construct on homosexuality guided by it's own strange rules and traditions.
I the end, I think the efforts to divide everyone into 2 or 3 labels is the problem. I went skiing for the first time ever recently. It was fun. I would certainly do it again but won't lose any sleep if I don't. Am I a skier? A non-skier? Do I need a label? Does anyone care?
I believe that each human is unique and we probably land across an entire spectrum on sexuality just like we do every other aspect of life. I drink alcohol because it's legal, socially acceptable, and I enjoy it. If it was illegal, I wouldn't risk my freedom to have a drink. If it was socially unacceptable, I wouldn't be an outcast just to have a drink. No doubt marijuana is similar - plenty of people who might try or use it don't for those two reasons, while other people use it anyway.
If you assume for a minute that sexuality is more like a probability distribution - where at one end you have individuals 100% attracted to same sex and at the other end 100% attracted to the opposite sex - with some unknown distribution between those two ends - then your societal constructs start to explain the behavior we see between the extremes. If it's totally unacceptable or even illegal, the only participants in the behavior will be those at the extreme end. As it becomes more acceptable, participation creeps further from the end.
I think this is a big difference between those who are socially conservative and those who are socially liberal on these kinds of issues. I think conservatives prefer hard lines - black and white - right or wrong - and are more comfortable with a top-down imposition of morality. It gives the world order and structure which is necessary for society to progress. Liberals are more comfortable with grey areas and don't like top-down imposition of moral issues. Personally I think these two opposing forces are necessary for society to progress in an orderly manner - but still progress.
If you are attracted to the same sex you are gay, the opposite sex you are straight, and both then you are bisexual. I don't really know what you mean by "measure it", but that is how I would describe it. If you think it is the actual act that makes someone gay or straight, then what about people who are waiting until marriage to have sex? You don't think they have a sexuality?
how big was this study? what were the ages of the people in the study?
i would think this would need to be a very large study. several thousand people
i would also think they would need to survey people that are older, at least 30. as younger people tend to be more fluid and trying to find themselves.
i would think this would need to be a very large study. several thousand people
i would also think they would need to survey people that are older, at least 30. as younger people tend to be more fluid and trying to find themselves.
I don't know why we have this argument. Think about this.
Can you watch a sexy scene with a woman in a movie and choose to not be attracted to her?
Can you watch a sexy scene with a man and choose to be attracted to him?
Maybe those claiming homosexuality is a choice have the ability to just choose to be attracted to men but I don't. Maybe its close minded of me to assume Crazyhole can't get a rock hard erection at will from watching 2 dudes make out, it's just something that I personally struggle to achieve.
Can you watch a sexy scene with a woman in a movie and choose to not be attracted to her?
Can you watch a sexy scene with a man and choose to be attracted to him?
Maybe those claiming homosexuality is a choice have the ability to just choose to be attracted to men but I don't. Maybe its close minded of me to assume Crazyhole can't get a rock hard erection at will from watching 2 dudes make out, it's just something that I personally struggle to achieve.
Why does it have to be binary though? You could divide the world up into "people who love sports" and "people who hate sports" - but if you force everyone into one of those two categories you're going to be missing a great deal of information about the varying levels of interest in sports. I mean, you can pick just about anything. Divide the world up into "alcoholics" and "non-alcoholics" as your only categories, and you have very little idea what percentage of the world enjoys alcohol, what percentage of the world has tried alcohol, what percentage drink regularly, etc.
Define "attracted to". I can look at a man and think "wow, he's an attractive guy". Does that make me gay? I dont want to have sex with him because it's a defining action. So is it the lustful aspect of our thoughts that define our sexuality?
You can think a guy is attractive without being gay. There is a difference in acknowledging someone is attractive, and being attracted to them.
Alcoholism is a poor analogy but let's go with it. Everybody has a choice to be an alcoholic or not, just like any other addiction it comes down to just making a series of choices. As any recovered alcoholic will tell you, it's a matter of willpower. Once they stop choosing to drink heavily, their attraction to alcohol becomes irrelevant because it is the act of drinking that is the determining factor.
So if I'm married and I'm attracted to another woman, does that make me an adulterer? Or do I become an adulterer when I have sex with her?
Huh? Of course it doesn't make you an adulterer, but that is really here nor there. Being an adulterer is an actual act of cheating on your spouse. You can still find people attractive without actually acting on it.
Well, by the logic you are using yes it does. If I'm attracted to a man then I'm gay, right? If I'm attracted to a woman who isn't my wife then I'm an adulterer. Or is it the act the determines the label?
Being an adulterer is cheating on your spouse, it is the actual physical event that causes someone to be an adulterer. It is a weird leap to try to make adultery out to be a sexuality. Sexuality isn't just about a physical event. So again, if someone isn't sexually active for whatever reason, by your logic they cant be straight or gay?
I believe sex (or gender) is binary. I believe who you are attracted to is fluid. I also believe that you have every right to have a relationship with whichever consenting adult that you want. So, with that understood, we shouldn’t even have to try to justify it by worrying whether it’s genetic or learned. It doesn’t matter. Let people live their damn lives.
LOL. If you think there was analogy between homosexuality and alcoholism go re-read my post. The analogy is taking any complex issue where people land on a spectrum and try to define it using only 2 (or 3) categories, and you're going to be missing a bunch of data.
Yea I think you missed the point entirely. I'm not trying to discuss alcoholism. The point is that we're trying to understand human sexuality by breaking people up into 2 or 3 buckets. It's not that you can't do that, but you're going to be missing a whole bunch of nuance if you do. You can categorize people into "UCF Fans" or "Not UCF Fans". That ignores the difference between die hards, casuals, t-shirt fans, etc. It also tells you nothing about the "not UCF fan" group - do they not like sports in general? Gator Fan? USF (barf) fan?
Again - not enough buckets when you're cramming everything into 3 categories. There is certainly a difference between someone who is attracted to the same sex, but never acted on it - versus someone who's never experienced any attraction at all. The only problem here is the insistence that 3 category labels accurately describes all of human sexuality.
I'm going to ignore the sports fan reference because there is absolutely no correlation to either of the 2 aforementioned topics. There is no measure of what a fan is or is not because there is no action a person can take that determines it. The reason I responded to alcoholism is because there is a measurable affect from a person's actions in regards to it. Do feelings affect a person's actions? Absolutely. Do those same feelings dictate a person's actions? Not at all. A person's feelings, dreams, desires, or aspirations mean absolutely nothing, it's their actions that do.
If I "feel" like im jewish but live an islamic or atheistic life, am I a Jew? What if I publicly say that I'm Jewish but do nothing in my life that is actually jewish? If I "feel" gay and say that I'm gay but exclusively have sexual relations with a woman, am I gay? Conversely, if I say that I'm straight and feel like I'm straight but exclusively have sex with men, what does that make me?
im sure facebook/instagram/twitter/etc have already hired their amazing fact checkers and will remove all instances of this reporting showing up in the future
Your religion is a choice - your sexuality is not. Just because the study says that sexuality is not determined by genes alone - it doesn't say that it's still not something "fixed" or "pre-determined" through different factors that you experience in your formative years. (I didn't read the whole thing, so correct me if I'm wrong).
If I went and had sex with girls for the rest of my life - I'd still be gay. Maybe others wouldn't know - but I'm still gay. My attraction lies with the same sex.
I recently saw something that shows that it may be the amount of hormones one is exposed to while in the womb. There's some evidence on this based on the fact that younger brothers are more likely to be gay.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...y-younger-brothers-are-more-likely-to-be-gay/
I would say it's pretty crazy that humans haven't been able to figure it out yet - but to be honest - it's a relatively new thing for being gay to be okay - thus allowing for more in-depth studies.
Anyway...the only way I think you could scientifically measure attraction is to connect people to devices and show them pictures of different things (i.e. - hot guys, hot girls, etc) and measure their vitals.
I really do respect your opinion so please dont take my challenges as disrespect.
I'm a christian. Can I become a muslim or a hindu? If so, is there a way to quantify it outside of how I practice my faith? Did I train myself to be a Christian and can therefore train myself to have a different belief, or was i born being a Christian and its integral to my person? What makes sexual attraction different than any other aspect of a person's life than other things that have the same level of affect? Surely if I can change my religious beliefs, change my political ideology, and change my self perception on whether I am a man or a woman I must be able to change who I am attracted to. It seems odd that of all things, sexual attraction is the only thing that is static.
Do you choose who you are attracted to? If you wanted to be gay tomorrow you are telling me you could just decide to be attracted to guys?
Latest posts
-
-
🚨 Conference Realignment Mega Thread: Clemson sues the ACC 🚨- Latest: UCF_SystemsEng
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: San Diego Knight
-
-