Random Politics & Religion #06

I agree with you here on this akson.

Homosexuality has been classified as a Mental Disorder up until the 1970s by "science" what changed this label was political activism amoung special interest groups putting pressure on congress henceforth we see the decline of Morality ensue in America and the constant assault on the Family structure between a Man and a Woman. Throughout written history and even biblical history one method of use to destroy a nation or city was breaking up Natural Families by embracing Sodomy. A nation with weak family structure or a society does not last long.

Another thing we can look at is the global population of homosexuals vs straight people. You can clearly see that the population of homosexuals is very small and is in every ethnicity none are excluded.

Where?

The real answer is that sexual expression is a multi-leveled complex result of inherited behavioral traits and life experiences that effect a person's choice. Most of a person's personality is inherited from their parents, the combination of those genetics often creates a few unique personality traits. Life experiences, especially those at younger ages, then shape how those traits are expressed.

Liberals absolutely hate that because it destroys their "everyone is a perfectly equal blank slate at birth" theory they use to justify social justice.

You know how you can acknowledge ppl of the same sex as attractive looking without invisioning having sexual pleasure with them. That is one person deciding "that's not for me" vs another person saying "I dont mind trying new things". Which happens in thier minds long before ever enacting upon such.

How I would classify bisexuals as scientific would be Psychological Propaganda used in US Public Education since the 1970s and still going on today. Again this is one of the methods to assault the Family structure and is promoted in our children's education at there development stage in life as "normal and acceptable ".

This statement works under the assumption that homosexual people are unable to breed or, if you wanna say it like that, steryle.
But in truth they do breed more often than many think.


As far as others were commenting on the genetic/nongenetic theories.
There is no 101% consensus in the scientific world, but the majority of it kinda agrees there is at least a pretty consistant genetic aspect to the whole issue.
There have been several different studies demonstrating that but in my opinion the more relevant is that about homozygous twins.
As everybody surely knows, homozygous twins have the same exact DNA, the same genetic code.
In case studies of homoxygous twins, if one of the twins turns out to be homosexual, there's over 70% chance that the other will be homsexual as well.

This tells us two things:
1) Genes have a lot to say about sexual orientation. You wouldn't see such a specific distribution of sexual orientation pairing if that wasn't the case
2) Genes appearently, while still being the main factor, aren't the only thing deciding on sexual orientation, meaning there are probably other secondary factors to take into consideration (otherwise that "over 70%" would've been a "100%")



In my opinion though all of this talk is moot.
Is it genetic? Is it not?
Why should we care in the end? What difference does it really make?
From my perspective the only relevant difference is only in the eyes of those who are willing to point their fingers at homosexual people.
If deep underneath your thoughts, behind all the golden patinated words, if behind all of that what you really think is that "being homosexual is bad" of course you want to demonstrate that it's a "choice".
Because if it's a choice then you can blame those people for making the wrong choice, whereas if it's not their choice you got no one to blame.
It's even worse if you're religious because that brings several questions about the creator and his plans.
But if it's a "choice" someone makes, then it's all much easier, right? :D

So yeah, the only reason why it should matter that I can think of is that.
For everybody else, why should we care wether it's genetic or not?
Gay people exist, deal with it. Period.

I would say that the world has changed drasticly with gay acceptance. 20yrs ago it was best to just stay in the closet. Now, in the present tense, nobody really cares. Being gay is alot more accepted now then it was then. I wouldnt necessarily claim that pushing false information changes anything moving forward neither for LGBT

By definition they are unable to have children or rather would not have the biological drive necessary to participate in proto-human mating rituals. Humans are a tournament species where the males compete with each other for access to the females, a male without a mating drive (that's sexual attractive btw) wouldn't participate in that tournament and thus would never get access to the females.

Again this is ***from long before we invented spoken language. There was no social "pressure" to appease family's by procreating as there was no family unit. Due to concealed ovulation males can't even be sure which children are theirs.


Behavioral traits are genetic, you get them from your parents. I explained before that when combined you can often get unique traits. These traits aren't "homosexual / heterosexual", it takes life experiences for the mind to subconsciously switch from heterosexual to homosexual.

This makes no sense...

As I already explained the whole "It's not my fault" was a defense homosexuals used against disapproving parents / society. It's a form of deflective blame and only works under the assumption that being homosexual is a bad thing but that the person shouldn't be blamed for it because "it's not their choice".

Nice try at a obfuscated personal attack though

Sorry? I think you couldn't possibly be more wrong with this assumption.
Now on one hand it's clear to see that man+man or woman+woman are *technically* unable to produce children, and I think this very clear premise creates the bias where everyone is led to think homosexuals do not have children.

For women is pretty easy, for men it's of course harder, but it happens.
Why do you think they would care, discuss, fight about "rights" for adoption if they didn't care to have children?
As it stands, a LOT of homosexuals are interested in having children.

I think there is no such thing as "no biological drive" to produce offsprings.
It's not about lack of drive, it's more about it being of course technically harder because it requires you to "mate" with someone with whom you wouldn't normally mate.

But then you have surrogate mothers, sperm donors, and so on. Granted it's not "easy" in a lot of countries, it does happen more than you would know.



Aside all of this I think you're also missing another point: social pressure.
This is probably happening less within the last 50 years, but for centuries homosexuals have been living their sexual orientation hiding.
Getting a family, pretending to the world (sometimes even to themselves) that they were straight, and doing their best to live a straight life, having a pretty wife/husband, children, etc etc.

This still keeps happening nowadays when things are clearly much easier for LGBT people, imagine how often it used to happen many years ago.



Btw even in the world of animals, where several species have homosexual specimen, many of them still have "straight" sex during mating season, which means their genes somehow pass down a generation.
Not sure if this is the case for ALL of the homosexual specimen but I'm pretty sure it's what happens for the majority of them.

Ungh, missed the second part of Saevel's post, guess he addressed part of what I did in my post as well, I apologize!

Is this lack of edit button something new? Just noticed °.°

Personal against who?
I was being general and not addressing anybody in particular, at least not within this topic!

Who did I give you the impression I was "obfuscately" trying to attack?

It also assumes the L and B part of the LGBT group doesn't exist or that genes could not somehow be passed down the matriarchal line.
It also assumes Lesbians do not feel the need or biological imperative to procreate, or that gay men do not feel same way.

The myth of how the Amazons reproduced has been around for a few thousand years and it was before great scientific advancement in terms of getting pregnant.

Because your confusing higher level thought with basic sexual instinct, those are two radically different things.

Proto humans, our ancient ancestors where the vast majority of our evolution happened, didn't just magically "fall in love". Males competed with each other for access to females and that competitive was driven by sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is deeply connected to the mating drive, it a human is not sexually attracted to another human then there will be no mating drive to produce children with them. This is how our sexual selection system evolved and is still present today. What we find "beautiful / attractive" in human females are actually fertility markers indicating good genetic / biological health for producing babies. What is found "attractive" in human males are the same, genetic markers indicating that the male has high quality genes worth passing down to children to make more children.

A human male who was "genetically homosexual" would be sexually attracted to other males and not to females, they wouldn't have the necessary mating drive required to procreate with females, much less the drive to out-compete heterosexual males for access to those females. The "genetically homosexual" male would just go about hunting, gathering and trying to survive a primordial worlds dangers, there would be no mating involved.

Remember this is before language, before family units, before society, before social structures, before "social pressure". We were little more then smart animals banging rocks together and grunting. None of that "but social norms forced them to have children" deflection ***. Any attempt at a "homosexual gene" would have to account for how it was not only advantageous but also how it survived millennia of sexual selection. And since their are homosexuals in every nation and every people's, the mutation would of had to exist long before our species migrated.

A note on how sexual attraction and reproductive drives work. They aren't conscious decisions, the subconscious is what's doing the deciding and it's very sneaky. It has to be otherwise we wouldn't produce nearly enough children to survive our primordial era. It works by manipulating the reward centers of the brain so that sexual activity creates positive reinforcement hormones. The males brain is rewarding his body for having sex, which cause's him to want to do it more often. His higher thinking centers aren't actually deciding to have children or not, it's 100% in the subconscious pushing him to do activities that would result in the creation of children. Females work in a similiar manor, their brain starts pumping hormones causing them to want to participate in sexual activity with qualifying top males. Those hormones go into overdrive when the body detects the presence of other females with children, it's actually a biological response to a sensed "safe environment".

Again none of this is higher order rational thinking, it's all subconscious manipulation via chemicals. This wouldn't work with a "genetically homosexual" person. The lack of sexual attraction to females would cause a male to not engage in that chemically rewarding sexual behavior with them and thus no children would be produced. It would impact females even more so as the lack of sexual attraction to males would short circuit the selection system, which is built on sensing masculinity markers for genetic quality. The female would them attempt to compete with males for access to the females and well that wouldn't work out for her. Not only would the other females decline her advances, but she would never come close to out competing the top males.

This is where they can be no hard coded "homosexual gene", it simply doesn't work in the primal environment that we originated in. The idea only works if we assume that environment never existed and that we've always had language, and higher order thinking always dominated our species. That theory only exists in Creationists view of the world.

Go figure, "I was born homosexual" only works if someone subscribes to the Creationist theory from the radical religious people. Strange bedfellows...

Yeah, no.

Most evolutionary biologists and sociologists think while our human ancestors grasped the concept that sex led to babies between 50,000-200,000 years ago (when we had language and some type of society....).

http://www.livescience.com/7088-history-human-sex.html#sthash.VZPFMAl9.dpuf

However, our knowledge of "only sex between a woman and a man" leading to babies is not so clear cut. Many experts think we didn't understand this concept until we had time to sit down and domesticate animals, when we had time to observe them. And even so, many, many cultures had varying myths on how this worked.

But this whole fiction of men fighting for the right to have sex with women before we even had a language to communicate this in....is just that, fiction according to experts in the field.

Wow ... this is just priceless .... not sure why I missed it earlier...

You realize you just completely destroyed your own argument. If something is having heterosexual sex, then by definition its' not homosexual. And there isn't a single homosexual animal in the world. Instead progressives defined a new term "homosexual behavior" which can then be attributed to any creature that expresses any behavior, even non-sexual behavior, towards another member of it's species of the same sex. One male monkey domination another one for pack status, that's "homosexual behavior". One animal socially bonding with another, that's "homosexual behavior".

It's like if I take my mates out for a drink and I buy the first round, it's "homosexual behavior" because it involves members of the same sex.

Anytime the words "homosexual behavior" or "homosexual activity" come up, *** flags should be going up immediately.

documentary on this very subject.

Any heterosexuals here socially bond with your friends of the same sex with a rousing game of fornication?

i think the whole argument is silly tbh. sexuality is a spectrum. there is no hetero or homo. it's just attraction. you're attracted to what you are attracted to. life is shitty enough. if you find someone that is attracted back, and you find love together. that's all there is to it. some people are just so repressed that they can't even say that someone of the same sex is objectively attractive.

also, same sex intercourse and coupling is common throughout nature. seals rape pengquins, zahrah had a bunny that had a gay relationship with her cat, and let's not get started on dolphins. this isn't any, "buying your buddy's some beer", unless you use that as code for sticking your *** in their blowholes and then swapping?

Saevel I think I can agree to a lot fo what you wrote. Thing is I might be wrong but I think we're delving too deep into something that's far simpler on the surface.

Regardless of medical and genetical implications and the possible scientific explanations for that, a large part of the world population do feel the will to reproduce regardless of their sexual orientation.

Again I might be wrong but I think it has little purpose or benefit to the ongoing conversation to attempt to estabilish wether or not this thing they feel is socially induced, biologically induced, or a combination of these two and possibly more factors.
To be fair I think that it would be a bit presumptuous of us to feel like we can be able to reach a conclusive end to what has proved to be quite a complex topic even for people far more competent than us within the scientific world.

Aside to all these small and big implications, truth still stands that at the end of the day people do feel that way. (they want to reproduce themselves)
I think this is what really matters for the sake of this discussion?

Otherwise I think I might be missing the point.

Biologically it's not. Sexual reproduction was evolved hundreds of millions of years ago as a way of fitness testing genetic mutations and introducing countless genetic permutations into a genome. Since then it was been responsible for the grand flourishing of complex life across the world, multiple times, across several extinction level events. It's mechanics are very well understood because they are so basic, each gender has a different purpose and evolutionary adaptions that enable the mixing to produce a wider variety of permutations. Those permutations are then fitness tested, with genetic death being the price of failure, the most useful are handed down.

There is absolutely zero "magic", "mystery" or "luck" to sexual attraction, it's all chemicals in the brain. Human's have already succeeded in synthesizing those chemicals and could, in theory, make you "fall in love" without anyone. Right chemicals in the right quantities in the right places and *BAM* instant "connection" and "love" created.

I'm not sure I'm following you here o.O
Care to elaborate further please so I can try to get a better understanding of your point? I'm feeling a bit lost D:

I only deal with the direct biological properties and not the higher order rational ones because we are discussing genetics and sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction was one of the first real advances microorganisms made.

Higher order thinking is one of our most recent advance and is in many ways the crowning achievement of evolution. Higher order thinking enables us to control and circumvent our biological nature, though doing so requires varying levels of difficulty. A biological entity asserting its mastery of higher order thinking and consciously making a decision is one of the most empowering actions possible in all existence.

Which is why I take umbrage when people attempt to the *** "it's not my fault I was born this way" excuse. Instead they should assert their mastery of themselves and announce to the world their active choice.

Homosexual / Heterosexual deal with sexual activity and in this context preference for sexual partners. Homosexual, coming from the Greek word "the same". Hetero is the word for "different / not the same". Thus it's definitively impossible for something to be both homo and hetero.

A creature that has both homo and hetero sexual preference is called bi-sexual. Bisexuality is entirely possible genetically, especially if bonding rituals are taken into understanding.

Also be very very careful of the terms "homosexual behavior" and "homosexual activity" when applied to animals. Many animals have bonding or social behaviors that would appear sexual in nature to the observer without full context.

I'll use our homo-sapiens as an example of this.

Among Homo Sapiens a male buying a drink for a female or going to a dance club is a mating ritual. I know we don't like to think of this in such a sterile way but it is. Simultaneously the male might also go that same club with his male friends and buy them a drink. Now this second action isn't sexual behavior and is instead bonding behavior, but if the context is omitted then it can appear to be "homosexual behavior" to an uninformed third party observer (space aliens).

Try to think of all the things you do or someone you know does every day that could be misconstrued to be "homosexual behavior" to space aliens. A guy hugging a girl is a sexual behavior, yet a guy can also hug another guy. A guy holding a girls hand is a mating ritual, yet a guy holds another guys hand during a handshake. Many actions that are done can easily become "homosexual behavior" to some third party observer who wasn't fully aware of the context to the action.

Yes but the majority of people in here (raises hand) do not have a degree or a phd in biogenetics ^^
My point was kinda that I doubt that a declining japanese MMO forum is the best place to be having a scientific and useful discussion about biogenetics D:

And even further beyond that, my point is that from my point of view, it matters very little because I don't think the outcome of the question "Is it genetic? Is it not?" should change anything.
Regardless of it being a choice or not, the world is still filled with non-straight people and we somehow have to deal with it, I really don't see how shifting the focus (habit that a lot of people do have, especially those I was addressing in my first post without thinking about anybody specifically in this thread) from this "truth" to the "reasons causing this truth" can be any beneficial.
So yeah tomorrow someone will finally shut up the discussion that has been going on in the scientific world for more than the past 10 decades.
And... what happens then? What really changes? How does it really matter in the end to us personally and to LGBT people?

My impression is that it's not completely irrelevant of course, but that it doesn't really change anything that much.


I don't agree with the choice/nonchoice thing you're saying, but then again I respect your pov and I'm not really that interested into discussing it any further (for the reasons I expressed before) but I still find this part I quoted interesting because it gives me the chance to thing about this from slightly different perspectives.
Even in this situation I think it *shouldn't* matter, which again makes me see the argument some people have, as even more laughable.

I think there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with being non-straight even if it were a 100% choice.
So someone woke up and decided he wanted to be an homosexual and it's completely his own choice.
Even then... so what? Why should we care? Why should it matter to us?
I dunno, I still find the thing not particularly relevant.
To me it really doesn't matter wether you're born a certain way, you choose or whatever else.
Some people are not straight, period. I think that's all there is to it.

Because if it's a choice, you can blame them for choosing a demonstrably harder life style and claim they should be aware of and accept all the inherent repercussions that come with it.

Choice also implies there's a "cure" either through therapy or medication, even though this has been thoroughly debunked and practices such as these are becoming more and more taboo as the resulting damage from trying to force the "issue" is becoming apparent.