Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones
Topic Started: May 9 2005, 06:58 PM (845 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
^^^Well, whatever AB read it is up to him to provide proof if he wants everyone to examine his assertion.

Until then, I am going to go with what was stated in the original article.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
doctortobe
May 12 2005, 01:49 AM
That is not what I am saying.  Your example completely ignores the biological component. 

Huh? :huh: Actually, I'm arguing for the biological component.

Quote:
 
If we were to change things around and have society proclaim that homosexuality was the most fantastic thing in the world, then almost all of those people with the genetic marker for homosexuality would indeed become homosexual. 
If environment is as important as you say, then so would a good many of those who are now heterosexuals.

Quote:
 
However, if wer were to reverse things and make any inkling of homosexuality punishable by a slow, painful, death, then very few people with the genetic marker for homosexuality would be homosexuals.
I don't agree. You just wouldn't see as many "coming out of the closet".

Quote:
 
I think that the primary flaw in your reasoning is that those with the genetic marker for homosexuality MUST BE homosexual.
Yes they must be according to my argument, but their behavior doesn't necessarily have to follow suit.

Quote:
 
That is not the case however.  The nurture side of our development shows that our behaviour is not beholden to our nucleotide sequencing.
Exactly. You used the word "behavior" too. It's not a matter of whether a person is or isn't homosexual, but whether they behave like what they are. I don't disagree that environment influences outward behavior. I just disagree that it changes ones inner desires.

Quote:
 
For example, we are biologically conditioned to seek out all desireable mates and procreate with them.  However, the nurture side of our development has made it so that it is deemed desireable to seek out one mate for life.  Some people will even give up sex alltogether.  Do they have a genetic marker for celibacy?  Perhaps there is one that INFLUENCES that trait in a very select few, but that would not be the rule.  For your own life, I would ask you when was the last time that you actively tried to encourage sexual activity from a complete stranger.  If you are not doing that practically every day, you are diverging from your genetic code and showing how you have been nurtured.
I don't necessarily agree with anything you have said here. But, even if I do for the sake of discussion, once again environment doesn't change the inside, just the outward behavior. Your examples illustrate only outward behavior.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
Huh?  Actually, I'm arguing for the biological component.


I misread.

Quote:
 
If environment is as important as you say, then so would a good many of those who are now heterosexuals.


This is where you misread. As research has shown, nature and nurture have nearly EQUAL say in how we turn out as adults. To say that my argument would indicate what is quoted above ignores the fact that I cited that the genetic precursor for homosexuality is required.

Quote:
 
I don't agree. You just wouldn't see as many "coming out of the closet".


And how is that really any different? You can have homosexual urgings all you want. It is only when you DECIDE to be a homosexual that you actually ARE a homosexual. If you are stating that genetics is the sole determination of things like this, then you say that it is impossible for people to be celibate because they are genetically geared to reproduce and that those that have a genetic predisposition for being serial killers (there is evidence of such a link) MUST be destined to go on a killing spree.

But this is not the case. That is because, in the end, it is the MIND that makes the final decision, not a chain of nucleotides.

Further evidence would be that almost everybody has been shown to have had some kind of homosexual experiance. How can there be moments of homosexuality when the person's genetic sequencing points to heterosexuality?

You seem to think that the genetic code is some law for our bodies to follow and is almost a "destiny" of sorts. But it is not. A man can have a family history of death by heart attack only to die of cancer. Behavior is not dictated solely by our genetic structure, it cannot be. Our thinking processes and personalities are too complex for even our DNA to totally control. The brain is the center of these things and the primary source of brain development is from outside stimuli.

This is all well known, but your statement (that homosexuality is genetic) is still hypothetical. I agree with that hypothesis to some extent, but it has been PROVEN that biology is not the sole source of our shaping.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
doctortobe
May 12 2005, 11:25 PM
Quote:
 
If environment is as important as you say, then so would a good many of those who are now heterosexuals.


This is where you misread. As research has shown, nature and nurture have nearly EQUAL say in how we turn out as adults. To say that my argument would indicate what is quoted above ignores the fact that I cited that the genetic precursor for homosexuality is required.

Why is homosexuality a precursor? Nature vs. Nurture doesn't apply to homosexuals...? :chin:


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I don't agree. You just wouldn't see as many "coming out of the closet".


And how is that really any different? You can have homosexual urgings all you want. It is only when you DECIDE to be a homosexual that you actually ARE a homosexual. If you are stating that genetics is the sole determination of things like this, then you say that it is impossible for people to be celibate because they are genetically geared to reproduce and that those that have a genetic predisposition for being serial killers (there is evidence of such a link) MUST be destined to go on a killing spree.
To say that DECIDING is necessary in order to become homosexual makes an obvious assumption that homosexuality is voluntary. Let me ask you something: Did you DECIDE to be heterosexual? COULD you decide not to be? (An honest answer please.)

Quote:
 
But this is not the case.  That is because, in the end, it is the MIND that makes the final decision, not a chain of nucleotides.
We're not in disagreement here. The word "final" is vital to the meaning of that statement. But the entire sentence refers to behavior and what is observable from the person who decides about this. What is decided is how to behave, not how to be. That is illustrated perfectly in the example I gave earlier in this thread about individuals who have suppressed their homosexuality out of wanting to be heterosexual - often it doesn't work because no matter how much society has influenced and no matter how much deciding they do to behave in a heterosexual manner, they are homosexual from birth.

Quote:
 
Further evidence would be that almost everybody has been shown to have had some kind of homosexual experiance.
I find that that very difficult to believe. You're going to have to provide some proof of that.

Quote:
 
You seem to think that the genetic code is some law for our bodies to follow and is almost a "destiny" of sorts.  But it is not.  A man can have a family history of death by heart attack only to die of cancer.  Behavior is not dictated solely by our genetic structure, it cannot be.  Our thinking processes and personalities are too complex for even our DNA to totally control.  The brain is the center of these things and the primary source of brain development is from outside stimuli.

This is all well known, but your statement (that homosexuality is genetic) is still hypothetical.  I agree with that hypothesis to some extent, but it has been PROVEN that biology is not the sole source of our shaping.
I believe that a person's behavior is a combination of biology and environment. I don't even think that what you and I are saying is really all that different. The difference is that you define homosexuality as something that is developed out of a biological disposition and is then encouraged by environmental circumstances as well. I am saying that, while that is true for the people who we know are homosexuals, there are other homosexuals that don't behave as homosexuals because their environmental influences have been strong enough to cause them to choose otherwise. Nevertheless, those people are not comfortable as heterosexuals either because of their underlying biological homosexuality.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
8247
May 11 2005, 08:31 PM
Mark your calendars, I agree with Somerled on this one. I believe that it is a learned behavior. For whatever reason, the person chooses to sleep with someone of the same sex. After a while, it seems natural to them. Thats my opinion.

It sounds like you and somerled have first hand experience with this choice making.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
doctortobe
May 12 2005, 12:49 AM
ImpulseEngine
May 10 2005, 08:56 PM
doctortobe
May 9 2005, 10:30 PM
The bottom line is, that like every nature vs. nurture argument, that it is a mixture of the two.  You may have urges, but that alone will not make you gay.  You still need to learn about what you are supposed to do with those urges.  Behavior is just as much experiance as it is hormones.

I do agree that environment plays a role, but I don't agree that it has anything to do with a person becoming homosexual. If environment was an equally strong influence as biology in determining homosexuality, then the same would be true for heterosexuals. What you suggest means that, if we changed the environment to its opposite and completely encourage homosexuality, then most of us would end up as homosexuals instead of heterosexuals. That I can't believe because I do believe in an instinctual urge to procreate as a matter of survival of our species. And if heterosexuality is biological, why is it difficult to believe that homosexuality is too?

That is not to say the environment makes no difference. For example, environment might play a role in changing the behavior of homosexuals to that of heterosexuals. Social forces can be very strong and, let's face it, there is far more societal influence to be heterosexual than to be homosexual. That shows itself in the example I gave of people who are homosexual, but don't realize it at first or don't want to believe it. They try to lead a heterosexual lifestyle, but find that it just doesn't fit them right. Some never quite realize it or never quite admit it. Others do and their heterosexual relationships then end. They may or may not move onto homosexual relationships from there.

I believe homosexuality is purely biological in its root. Environment only affects what a person ends up doing or not doing about their homosexuality.

That is not what I am saying. Your example completely ignores the biological component. If we were to change things around and have society proclaim that homosexuality was the most fantastic thing in the world, then almost all of those people with the genetic marker for homosexuality would indeed become homosexual. However, if wer were to reverse things and make any inkling of homosexuality punishable by a slow, painful, death, then very few people with the genetic marker for homosexuality would be homosexuals.

I think that the primary flaw in your reasoning is that those with the genetic marker for homosexuality MUST BE homosexual. That is not the case however. The nurture side of our development shows that our behaviour is not beholden to our nucleotide sequencing. For example, we are biologically conditioned to seek out all desireable mates and procreate with them. However, the nurture side of our development has made it so that it is deemed desireable to seek out one mate for life. Some people will even give up sex alltogether. Do they have a genetic marker for celibacy? Perhaps there is one that INFLUENCES that trait in a very select few, but that would not be the rule. For your own life, I would ask you when was the last time that you actively tried to encourage sexual activity from a complete stranger. If you are not doing that practically every day, you are diverging from your genetic code and showing how you have been nurtured.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

:hail:

You deserve an award for astute analysis of human behavior.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator

I must admit that was a most impressive commentary from Dr. Tobe.


Unfornately, my genetic marker for 'celibacy' has been a little too active lately. :banghead:


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
Why is homosexuality a precursor? Nature vs. Nurture doesn't apply to homosexuals...?


Precursor DOES NOT mean that your destiny is set in stone by having it. Atherosclerosis is a precursor to a heart attack. Being a Tenderfoot is a precursor for being an eagle scout. Driving 75 in a 60 zone is a precursor to getting a speeding ticket. But can you have those precursors but not get a result? Of course. It is the same case with genetic precursors. You can have a precursor for high blood pressure, but you will never have it because of a healthy life style. You can have a genetic precursor for stress, but be as mellow as can be because you have trained yourself to be relaxed. Genetic precursors do not set your life into stone, they do not exactly predict how you are going to turn out, they just tell you what is most likely going to happen.

Quote:
 
To say that DECIDING is necessary in order to become homosexual makes an obvious assumption that homosexuality is voluntary. Let me ask you something: Did you DECIDE to be heterosexual? COULD you decide not to be? (An honest answer please.)


Yes, yes I could quite easily. If I decided to abstain from all sex and intimate relationships with any living thing, then I would be neither heterosexual or homosexual. Any monk or priest that keeps their vow of celibacy proves my point right.

Quote:
 
We're not in disagreement here. The word "final" is vital to the meaning of that statement. But the entire sentence refers to behavior and what is observable from the person who decides about this. What is decided is how to behave, not how to be. That is illustrated perfectly in the example I gave earlier in this thread about individuals who have suppressed their homosexuality out of wanting to be heterosexual - often it doesn't work because no matter how much society has influenced and no matter how much deciding they do to behave in a heterosexual manner, they are homosexual from birth.


If you have made the decision to be a heterosexual despite acting like a homosexual, then you are a heterosexual. You can act as much like a homosexual as the most homosexual on earth, but the fact that you actively seek out a member of the opposite sex makes all that irrelevant. It is their choice that determines their sexuality, not the way they act. Just how many people actually succeeded in being heterosexual by the way?

Quote:
 
I find that that very difficult to believe. You're going to have to provide some proof of that.


It is a common occurance, especially in pubscent children. As their reproductive systems go into overdrive, there are often occurances where an occurance that would normally be deemed homosexual occur in an otherwise heterosexual individual (and vice versa). For example, a common occurance given is a teenager being aroused in a shower when in the presence of members of the same sex. It might also be something as slight as having a fixation on the same sex's genitalia. It might be something as major as having a sexual relationship opposite of the kind that you will have for the rest of your life. There is sex ed and psychological literature abounding on this material.

Quote:
 
I believe that a person's behavior is a combination of biology and environment. I don't even think that what you and I are saying is really all that different. The difference is that you define homosexuality as something that is developed out of a biological disposition and is then encouraged by environmental circumstances as well. I am saying that, while that is true for the people who we know are homosexuals, there are other homosexuals that don't behave as homosexuals because their environmental influences have been strong enough to cause them to choose otherwise. Nevertheless, those people are not comfortable as heterosexuals either because of their underlying biological homosexuality.


So there are examples on both sides. Where does the medium lie? On your side or on mine? It has already been proven that genetics is not necessarily something that will set a course of your life in stone. Until we

a. Actually find out the cause(s) of homosexuality.

and

b. Figure out what cause weighs in more then the others.

Then speculation and theorizing is all that can be done right now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Dwayne and Franko, thanks for the compliments. I suppose that all these years of life sciences haven't gone to waste. :blush:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
You're welcome doc tobe.

I think a major problem is that society wants to look at sexuality in black and white terms -- you're gay, straight or bisexual. The reality is, we're all varying degrees of bisexual -- no one is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. Given the right circumstances, even a person who claims, "I'm 100% straight and could never do anything homosexual," would in fact participate in a homosexual act. Prisons around the world are replete with examples of just such behavior.

The difference, in my opinion, between those leaning more toward the homosexual side, is that they've decided to act upon their feelings and urges. This is not to say they decided to be homosexual, but only that they decided to act upon it.

I do disagree with doctortobe on a few things, but it's somewhat minor and could probably be categorized as a disagreement over nomenclature.
doctortobe
May 14 2005, 12:34 AM
If you have made the decision to be a heterosexual despite acting like a homosexual, then you are a heterosexual. You can act as much like a homosexual as the most homosexual on earth, but the fact that you actively seek out a member of the opposite sex makes all that irrelevant. It is their choice that determines their sexuality, not the way they act.

Having genetic precursor for homsexuality is one thing, because I think many people far outside of the 1% to 10% that actually live a homosexual life do have a genetic disposition towards homosexuality. But having homosexual tendencies, even if never acted upon, is another thing altogether. Just to clarify, someone with homosexual tendencies need not ever have had sex with the same sex, but only needs to have a latent desire to have sex with someone of the same sex or has behavior associated with homosexuals. So, even if a person never had homosexual sex, but had homosexual tendencies, then that person is merely a practicing heterosexual, because the capacity to engage in homosexual sex is present. Essentially what I'm saying is that it is not your choice that makes your sexuality, but your choice that determines the sexuality which you practice.

You see where I'm coming from doc?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Yes, I would totally agree that somebody could have tendencies.

Your bringing up the prison situation brings up an interesting viewpoint. Homosexuality (and I would bet heterosexuality if the circumstances were different) can be exhibited in individuals in prison even though they had never before even thought of being such. Now, I am not talking about the people on the receiving end of these relationships (that is usually more of a "I want to live" situation), but those who are on the giving end. I believe that there was an interview on television a few years back on sexual abuse in prisons. An anonymous person came out and said that even though he wasn't a homosexual, that treating others inmates as sexual objects not only enhanced his toughness reputation in prison (if you mess with this guy, you are in for an unplesant experiance), but also helped him pass off the stress of prison life.

I was thinking about the varying degrees of bisexuality last night as well. I would myself say that it would be nearly impossible for anybody to be 100% straight or gay. The human mind would be able to overpower your normal "setting" no matter how powerful the genetic expression was.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Doctortobe,

You mentioned 'nearly impossible.' Does that mean you leave room for the 100% possibility to exist? Or, is every human being androgenous? If I am mixing terms, please let me know. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I am always loathe to use the terms 100% or always when talking about life sciences. This is because life in itself will never be quantifiable in any way to a 100% certainty. Whenever you talk about an aspect of life in general, you make the knowing (or unknowing) assumption that you are merely talking about how things will happen the vast majoity of the time. But there is always a chance that something will happen to upset that normalcy. Put the straightest man under the right scenario and he might engage in homosexual behavior, it is as simple as that.

In fact, I am so loathe to use the term 100% that I am loathe to say that there is a 100% chance that something could not have a 100% chance of happening. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Doctortobe,

I thank you 100% for that answer. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
A remarkably civil exchange of ideas on a potentially explosive topic .... :yes:

I would say I hold the same view as some others here - mostly biology with some "nurture" factors that affect behavior. People do have tendencies of varying degrees. Some wouldn't think of engaging in a homosexual or heterosexual act while others may be inclined to engage in some exploration. What happens in their life will affect how/if they act on their tendencies or even contrary to them.

What I want to ask opinions about is if this varies for gender. (I know the article was about gay men - I'm just curious what people think about both.) Are women or men more or less inclined to act or not act? (Are there enough choices in that sentence? :D )
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus