Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Biological Origins of Homosexuality?

tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:57:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I've read alot of research that said chemical imbalances during gestation is the likely culprit, as a genetic link has not easily been drawn
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 4:32:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I read a paper before that outlined it as follows:
As a fetus you either absorb or reject fetal testosterone. You either absorb it or reject it based on an epimark you get from your parents. Males tend to get one to absorb the fetal t and females tend to get the one to reject it. Depending on where the epimark attaches depends on the outcome (sexual orientation, sexual identity,pseudo hermaphrodite, etc). Males can get the epimark that females usually get and vise versa. This can lead to homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 5:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

No serious researchers say it is a choice. And no serious researcher says that genetics or other factors play zero role. The evidence shows that homosexuality is caused by a complex intertwining of both genes and environmental factors. Lesbians, interestingly, seem to show larger genetic impacts, though the current research mostly focuses on men. The hormone and epigenetics theories are, at least right now, unproven. The evidence for hormones is really weak, and there is literally no evidence for epigenetics if you read the research. Most of the epigenetics research is theoretical.

I would say that homosexuality is mostly driven by environmental factors with a moderate (25%) influence of genetic factors. It is not a choice, and anyone who says it is = their IQ turns into QI. Newer twin research is actually confirming the old genetic studies from the 1990s, however, and may invalidate my claim. Here is a summary of this newer research (https://www.newscientist.com...). But I am not fully convinced. Here is why.

The new research claims that the Xq28 gene determines homosexuality in men. I haven't read the above link in a while, but I don't remember there being equivalent research being done for women. If I remember correctly, the Xq28 gene is related to autism prevalence. However, there is no link between autism and homosexuality in men, but autism is related to homosexuality in women [http://www.sciencedirect.com...].

Studies suggesting a link usually have super small sample sizes and use self-reporting methodology, which is pretty unreliable.

My answer is really this: we don't know (yet). With lesbians, there appears to be a larger genetic component. I think there is a mix of environmental, genetic, and possibly hormonal factors. Anyone who says genes have no effect or that the environment has no effect should be ignored.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Sarra
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 11:06:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I have felt the way I feel ever since I can remember having these types of feelings. I believe nothing is wrong with our genetics or our birth and being gay has absolutely nothing to do with environmental factors.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 12:19:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

Sexual dispositions vary too much across lives to be purely environmental, and appear too early, too strongly, and too related to birth-order to be a purely experimental choice.

All the great apes -- chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans as well as humans -- exhibit homosexuality and bisexuality, as do macaques and some monkeys, not to mention many other non-primate species.

I suspect humans have had homosexual activity longer than we've had fire or language.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 1:52:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 11:06:58 PM, Sarra wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I have felt the way I feel ever since I can remember having these types of feelings. I believe nothing is wrong with our genetics or our birth and being gay has absolutely nothing to do with environmental factors.

There might not be anything "different" with the gene. I'm wondering if homosexuality and heterosexuality are a result of different genetic makeup.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Sarra
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:18:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 1:52:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/20/2015 11:06:58 PM, Sarra wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I have felt the way I feel ever since I can remember having these types of feelings. I believe nothing is wrong with our genetics or our birth and being gay has absolutely nothing to do with environmental factors.

There might not be anything "different" with the gene. I'm wondering if homosexuality and heterosexuality are a result of different genetic makeup.

There are studies of identical twins where one is gay and the other is straight. In these studies, scientists take genetic samples of each. As of now, the exact part of the genetic code - if it is in the genetic code - is indeterminable. (genomics)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:19:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Homosexuality is not a choice"

It is or isn't a choice in what way? Is the thing in question whether or not people choose to experience homosexual desires, or whether or not people have a choice as to or as to not act on those desires?
Since the former is probably the only true one or not and since reasonable people don't dispute the latter, I don't think "choice" is what Liberals should be focusing on. Can they make a case for it being normal? Sure. Can they call into question why homosexuals are expected to not act on their desires? Sure thing, and Liberals do it all the time. Can they point out that homosexuals have a strong inclination towards X type of sexual partner? Again, they may.
But talking about choice is probably an extremely ineffective strategy for the Left, seeing as how people are able to refuse to act on desires.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
itsnoone
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 3:06:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why? : :

Homosexuality is not a choice. You need to understand how God created man before you can understand why some people look and act differently than what is considered normal.

Here's the biblical reference to how God created man;

Genesis 1
26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

One created man is both male and female. Adam and Eve were the only one's to be made as one male body and one female body. All their offspring only got one body, but both male and female genetics. This explains why appearances and sexual desires can be so different in people.

For example; A person who looks very masculine can have very feminine mannerisms but still have sexual desire for women.

A person who looks very feminine can be very competitive in sports and have male mannerisms but have sexual desires for other women.

A person can look masculine with very feminine mannerisms and have no sexual desire at all.

I hope you can understand where I'm going with this teaching.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 8:51:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I think just like our tastes in food, it is a combination of cultural and genetic factors. The fact they can't help being gay, doesn't make it mostly or completely genetic. I can't help the fact I love vanilla icecream, but it's mostly just due to environmental factors that I do, not that genetic factors don't play a role.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 10:34:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 8:51:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I think just like our tastes in food, it is a combination of cultural and genetic factors. The fact they can't help being gay, doesn't make it mostly or completely genetic. I can't help the fact I love vanilla icecream, but it's mostly just due to environmental factors that I do, not that genetic factors don't play a role.

Is an aversion to bacon a genetic disorder?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 11:25:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 10:34:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/21/2015 8:51:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I think just like our tastes in food, it is a combination of cultural and genetic factors. The fact they can't help being gay, doesn't make it mostly or completely genetic. I can't help the fact I love vanilla icecream, but it's mostly just due to environmental factors that I do, not that genetic factors don't play a role.

Is an aversion to bacon a genetic disorder?

It's a disorder of some sort. I know that foods I really hate are typically from different cultures and I have an internal disgust of them or I had bad experiences with the food in the past. If you've choked on bacon when you were young or your first experience was undercooked or burnt bacon, it could effect your taste of it, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a genetic link. Humans are genetically drawn to sweet foods for example as an evolutionary adaptation.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 11:41:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

Before one can truly understand the biological origins of homosexuality one must first understand the biological origins of heterosexuality. They are obviously related in some type of fashion.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 9:35:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 5:24:06 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

No serious researchers say it is a choice. And no serious researcher says that genetics or other factors play zero role. The evidence shows that homosexuality is caused by a complex intertwining of both genes and environmental factors. Lesbians, interestingly, seem to show larger genetic impacts, though the current research mostly focuses on men. The hormone and epigenetics theories are, at least right now, unproven. The evidence for hormones is really weak, and there is literally no evidence for epigenetics if you read the research. Most of the epigenetics research is theoretical.

I would say that homosexuality is mostly driven by environmental factors with a moderate (25%) influence of genetic factors. It is not a choice, and anyone who says it is = their IQ turns into QI. Newer twin research is actually confirming the old genetic studies from the 1990s, however, and may invalidate my claim. Here is a summary of this newer research (https://www.newscientist.com...). But I am not fully convinced. Here is why.

The new research claims that the Xq28 gene determines homosexuality in men. I haven't read the above link in a while, but I don't remember there being equivalent research being done for women. If I remember correctly, the Xq28 gene is related to autism prevalence. However, there is no link between autism and homosexuality in men, but autism is related to homosexuality in women [http://www.sciencedirect.com...].

Studies suggesting a link usually have super small sample sizes and use self-reporting methodology, which is pretty unreliable.

My answer is really this: we don't know (yet). With lesbians, there appears to be a larger genetic component. I think there is a mix of environmental, genetic, and possibly hormonal factors. Anyone who says genes have no effect or that the environment has no effect should be ignored.

Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:14:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I believe homosexuality is indeed genetic, but as a lot of other genetic traits, it is influenced by the environment to a degree. Moreover, our mind is capable of practicaly anything related to "self-transformation": we can shift through being kind to being violent, through being sad to being happy, and through not being sexualy aroused by men, to be. It only takes the correct stimulus and, of course, willpower. I consider myself homosexual, but I have had sex with some women. If I think about it, I don't really find women atractive, but since I don't find them disgusting either, I can momentarily convince my "pal" to grow big and have sex, how's that :D.

Anyway, as for the "why" is homosexuality wired in our genes, I believe it is, obviously, because it has evolutionary advantages. Some might say, "this is impossible because homosexuality os counter-evolutive!", but those people are clearly missing the most important thing about such a claim: evidence. If we take a look at nature, we quickly realize homosexuality can not be counterevolutive, as looking at biodiversity we see that the more evolved an organism is, the more frequent is homosexuality. How could an "error" be so possitively selected by nature?

I have read papers of experiments on birds, that showed nephews of gay birds have a survival rate higher than the rest. Of course the nephews have part of the genome of their uncle, and therefore it makes sense to the uncle to be homosexual according to the selfish gene hypothesis. This is a very interesting argument that also tries to make sense about other "apparently counter-evolutive" behaviours like the adoption of orphans.

Other arguments are about how homosexuality increases bonding through individuals, and how this bonding increases survavility, dominion over the group, etc. This could have practical application in social animals like dolphins, lions, etc. I can imagine how a lion's whole pack survavility could skyrocket if it had two males instead of one. Etc.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:14:58 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I believe homosexuality is indeed genetic, but as a lot of other genetic traits, it is influenced by the environment to a degree. Moreover, our mind is capable of practicaly anything related to "self-transformation": we can shift through being kind to being violent, through being sad to being happy, and through not being sexualy aroused by men, to be. It only takes the correct stimulus and, of course, willpower. I consider myself homosexual, but I have had sex with some women. If I think about it, I don't really find women atractive, but since I don't find them disgusting either, I can momentarily convince my "pal" to grow big and have sex, how's that :D.

Anyway, as for the "why" is homosexuality wired in our genes, I believe it is, obviously, because it has evolutionary advantages. Some might say, "this is impossible because homosexuality os counter-evolutive!", but those people are clearly missing the most important thing about such a claim: evidence. If we take a look at nature, we quickly realize homosexuality can not be counterevolutive, as looking at biodiversity we see that the more evolved an organism is, the more frequent is homosexuality. How could an "error" be so possitively selected by nature?

I have read papers of experiments on birds, that showed nephews of gay birds have a survival rate higher than the rest. Of course the nephews have part of the genome of their uncle, and therefore it makes sense to the uncle to be homosexual according to the selfish gene hypothesis. This is a very interesting argument that also tries to make sense about other "apparently counter-evolutive" behaviours like the adoption of orphans.

Other arguments are about how homosexuality increases bonding through individuals, and how this bonding increases survavility, dominion over the group, etc. This could have practical application in social animals like dolphins, lions, etc. I can imagine how a lion's whole pack survavility could skyrocket if it had two males instead of one. Etc.

Orochimaru-sama!! <3
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 5:06:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:14:58 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I believe homosexuality is indeed genetic, but as a lot of other genetic traits, it is influenced by the environment to a degree. Moreover, our mind is capable of practicaly anything related to "self-transformation": we can shift through being kind to being violent, through being sad to being happy, and through not being sexualy aroused by men, to be. It only takes the correct stimulus and, of course, willpower. I consider myself homosexual, but I have had sex with some women. If I think about it, I don't really find women atractive, but since I don't find them disgusting either, I can momentarily convince my "pal" to grow big and have sex, how's that :D.

Anyway, as for the "why" is homosexuality wired in our genes, I believe it is, obviously, because it has evolutionary advantages. Some might say, "this is impossible because homosexuality os counter-evolutive!", but those people are clearly missing the most important thing about such a claim: evidence. If we take a look at nature, we quickly realize homosexuality can not be counterevolutive, as looking at biodiversity we see that the more evolved an organism is, the more frequent is homosexuality. How could an "error" be so possitively selected by nature?

I have read papers of experiments on birds, that showed nephews of gay birds have a survival rate higher than the rest. Of course the nephews have part of the genome of their uncle, and therefore it makes sense to the uncle to be homosexual according to the selfish gene hypothesis. This is a very interesting argument that also tries to make sense about other "apparently counter-evolutive" behaviours like the adoption of orphans.

Other arguments are about how homosexuality increases bonding through individuals, and how this bonding increases survavility, dominion over the group, etc. This could have practical application in social animals like dolphins, lions, etc. I can imagine how a lion's whole pack survavility could skyrocket if it had two males instead of one. Etc.

Orochimaru-sama!! <3

http://media.giphy.com...
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 5:13:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:06:41 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:14:58 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I believe homosexuality is indeed genetic, but as a lot of other genetic traits, it is influenced by the environment to a degree. Moreover, our mind is capable of practicaly anything related to "self-transformation": we can shift through being kind to being violent, through being sad to being happy, and through not being sexualy aroused by men, to be. It only takes the correct stimulus and, of course, willpower. I consider myself homosexual, but I have had sex with some women. If I think about it, I don't really find women atractive, but since I don't find them disgusting either, I can momentarily convince my "pal" to grow big and have sex, how's that :D.

Anyway, as for the "why" is homosexuality wired in our genes, I believe it is, obviously, because it has evolutionary advantages. Some might say, "this is impossible because homosexuality os counter-evolutive!", but those people are clearly missing the most important thing about such a claim: evidence. If we take a look at nature, we quickly realize homosexuality can not be counterevolutive, as looking at biodiversity we see that the more evolved an organism is, the more frequent is homosexuality. How could an "error" be so possitively selected by nature?

I have read papers of experiments on birds, that showed nephews of gay birds have a survival rate higher than the rest. Of course the nephews have part of the genome of their uncle, and therefore it makes sense to the uncle to be homosexual according to the selfish gene hypothesis. This is a very interesting argument that also tries to make sense about other "apparently counter-evolutive" behaviours like the adoption of orphans.

Other arguments are about how homosexuality increases bonding through individuals, and how this bonding increases survavility, dominion over the group, etc. This could have practical application in social animals like dolphins, lions, etc. I can imagine how a lion's whole pack survavility could skyrocket if it had two males instead of one. Etc.

Orochimaru-sama!! <3

http://media.giphy.com...

http://img.memecdn.com...
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 6:18:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:13:19 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:06:41 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:14:58 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I believe homosexuality is indeed genetic, but as a lot of other genetic traits, it is influenced by the environment to a degree. Moreover, our mind is capable of practicaly anything related to "self-transformation": we can shift through being kind to being violent, through being sad to being happy, and through not being sexualy aroused by men, to be. It only takes the correct stimulus and, of course, willpower. I consider myself homosexual, but I have had sex with some women. If I think about it, I don't really find women atractive, but since I don't find them disgusting either, I can momentarily convince my "pal" to grow big and have sex, how's that :D.

Anyway, as for the "why" is homosexuality wired in our genes, I believe it is, obviously, because it has evolutionary advantages. Some might say, "this is impossible because homosexuality os counter-evolutive!", but those people are clearly missing the most important thing about such a claim: evidence. If we take a look at nature, we quickly realize homosexuality can not be counterevolutive, as looking at biodiversity we see that the more evolved an organism is, the more frequent is homosexuality. How could an "error" be so possitively selected by nature?

I have read papers of experiments on birds, that showed nephews of gay birds have a survival rate higher than the rest. Of course the nephews have part of the genome of their uncle, and therefore it makes sense to the uncle to be homosexual according to the selfish gene hypothesis. This is a very interesting argument that also tries to make sense about other "apparently counter-evolutive" behaviours like the adoption of orphans.

Other arguments are about how homosexuality increases bonding through individuals, and how this bonding increases survavility, dominion over the group, etc. This could have practical application in social animals like dolphins, lions, etc. I can imagine how a lion's whole pack survavility could skyrocket if it had two males instead of one. Etc.

Orochimaru-sama!! <3

http://media.giphy.com...

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:06:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
Orochimaru-sama!! <3

Failure! Orochimaru never took the title Otokage!
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:15:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:06:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
Orochimaru-sama!! <3

Failure! Orochimaru never took the title Otokage!

Noooooooooooo
Orochimaru will always be the Otokage! '
Allllwayyyyss!!!!!
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:44:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 6:18:38 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:13:19 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:06:41 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:42:42 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 4:14:58 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:49:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most researchers agree that homosexuality isn't a choice, but I've heard that the debate is over whether it is purely genetic/by birth or if environmental factors are influential in the same. What do you think? Why?

I believe homosexuality is indeed genetic, but as a lot of other genetic traits, it is influenced by the environment to a degree. Moreover, our mind is capable of practicaly anything related to "self-transformation": we can shift through being kind to being violent, through being sad to being happy, and through not being sexualy aroused by men, to be. It only takes the correct stimulus and, of course, willpower. I consider myself homosexual, but I have had sex with some women. If I think about it, I don't really find women atractive, but since I don't find them disgusting either, I can momentarily convince my "pal" to grow big and have sex, how's that :D.

Anyway, as for the "why" is homosexuality wired in our genes, I believe it is, obviously, because it has evolutionary advantages. Some might say, "this is impossible because homosexuality os counter-evolutive!", but those people are clearly missing the most important thing about such a claim: evidence. If we take a look at nature, we quickly realize homosexuality can not be counterevolutive, as looking at biodiversity we see that the more evolved an organism is, the more frequent is homosexuality. How could an "error" be so possitively selected by nature?

I have read papers of experiments on birds, that showed nephews of gay birds have a survival rate higher than the rest. Of course the nephews have part of the genome of their uncle, and therefore it makes sense to the uncle to be homosexual according to the selfish gene hypothesis. This is a very interesting argument that also tries to make sense about other "apparently counter-evolutive" behaviours like the adoption of orphans.

Other arguments are about how homosexuality increases bonding through individuals, and how this bonding increases survavility, dominion over the group, etc. This could have practical application in social animals like dolphins, lions, etc. I can imagine how a lion's whole pack survavility could skyrocket if it had two males instead of one. Etc.

Orochimaru-sama!! <3

http://media.giphy.com...

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol!

Also.
The meme is relevant to this thread.
Because homosexuality.
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:18:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.

Ok I was trying to be cordial. So instead of being vague, ill be more concise. Lesbians seem to enjoy sex with an artificial penis. Therefore the psychological aversion to the rest of the man seems to be an issue with them, not the actual sexual enjoyment of the male member. That doesn't seem to coincide with genetic disposition towards same sex in my view. Just an observation.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 12:35:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 12:18:12 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.

Ok I was trying to be cordial. So instead of being vague, ill be more concise. Lesbians seem to enjoy sex with an artificial penis.

Some do, some of the time. An artificial penis is customisable, configurable, controllable, transferable, insensate, and entirely optional.

But it's clear from lesbian commentary that they actually like women. So it's not simply a matter of sexual loneliness with an aversion to men.

It's neither respectful nor accurate to cast lesbians in that fashion.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 10:56:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 12:18:12 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.

Ok I was trying to be cordial. So instead of being vague, ill be more concise. Lesbians seem to enjoy sex with an artificial penis. Therefore the psychological aversion to the rest of the man seems to be an issue with them, not the actual sexual enjoyment of the male member. That doesn't seem to coincide with genetic disposition towards same sex in my view. Just an observation.

I dont think artificial d*cks have a lot to do with being attracted or not to men. I know a couple of heterosexual men that like anal sex, ie their girlfriend using a finger or a toy, but they are disgusted by the idea of gay sex...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 11:07:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 12:18:12 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.

Ok I was trying to be cordial. So instead of being vague, ill be more concise. Lesbians seem to enjoy sex with an artificial penis. Therefore the psychological aversion to the rest of the man seems to be an issue with them, not the actual sexual enjoyment of the male member. That doesn't seem to coincide with genetic disposition towards same sex in my view. Just an observation.

Just out of curiosity, in what other way that is not phallic shaped would you expect a woman to derive sexual pleasure regarding their vagina? Considering men are looking for penetration as the source of their pleasure, this shouldn't seem conflicting.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:02:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 11:07:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/24/2015 12:18:12 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.

Ok I was trying to be cordial. So instead of being vague, ill be more concise. Lesbians seem to enjoy sex with an artificial penis. Therefore the psychological aversion to the rest of the man seems to be an issue with them, not the actual sexual enjoyment of the male member. That doesn't seem to coincide with genetic disposition towards same sex in my view. Just an observation.

Just out of curiosity, in what other way that is not phallic shaped would you expect a woman to derive sexual pleasure regarding their vagina? Considering men are looking for penetration as the source of their pleasure, this shouldn't seem conflicting.

That's my point. It seems rather strange to claim homosexuality is biological when "the sexual act" seems psychological. It isn't that lesbians aren't sexually gratified by a male sex organ, its the fact that they aren't when it is attached to an actual man. That is psychological. Just my opinion. And studies on lesbians in regards to abuse early in childhood by a male role model is disproportionate to abuse throughout the population. I have a very good friend who is Bi, mostly she likes women though ,who was a dancer for 15 years. She never met a lesbian who didn't enjoy strap on sex. They just didn't like men,. Seems like a psychological problem not an innate biological trait.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:02:21 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/24/2015 11:07:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/24/2015 12:18:12 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:14:27 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Always wondered one thing about lesbians, well most that I've talked to or they have known. They enjoy the male representation in artificial "clothing". This doesn't seem to be consistent with being attracted to the feeling of same sex dispositions, it points more towards an aversion towards what is connected to the "male" sex organ, the man. That points directly to psychology not genetics. Unless you argue they're genetically predisposed to hate men but like their sexual organ which would seem contradictory, since being a lesbian is supposed to be about "sexual" attraction.

I haven't found that to be the case. Not saying I hang out with a lot of lesbians, but on the few times when I did I saw a rather diverse sampling of clothing ranging from typical male attire to typical female attire. I am not sure why you find it out of the norm, though, it parallels men and men's sexuality were you to take the gender as a whole, and their predilections.

Ok I was trying to be cordial. So instead of being vague, ill be more concise. Lesbians seem to enjoy sex with an artificial penis. Therefore the psychological aversion to the rest of the man seems to be an issue with them, not the actual sexual enjoyment of the male member. That doesn't seem to coincide with genetic disposition towards same sex in my view. Just an observation.

Just out of curiosity, in what other way that is not phallic shaped would you expect a woman to derive sexual pleasure regarding their vagina? Considering men are looking for penetration as the source of their pleasure, this shouldn't seem conflicting.

That's my point. It seems rather strange to claim homosexuality is biological when "the sexual act" seems psychological. It isn't that lesbians aren't sexually gratified by a male sex organ, its the fact that they aren't when it is attached to an actual man.

Yes. This holds true for a variety of things. I enjoy oral sex. But not when the mouth is attached to a man. I am sure a gay man would enjoy anal sex, but not when its with a female.

That is psychological. Just my opinion. And studies on lesbians in regards to abuse early in childhood by a male role model is disproportionate to abuse throughout the population. I have a very good friend who is Bi, mostly she likes women though ,who was a dancer for 15 years. She never met a lesbian who didn't enjoy strap on sex.

You would be hard pressed to find a male that doesn't enjoy a flesh-light or similar device.

They just didn't like men,. Seems like a psychological problem not an innate biological trait.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...