goodman528 said:
wow, that's a really nice looking graph we have here.
If we really believe it's more on the nature side, then if tolerant gay people, then after a few generations, they will die out all by themselves.
Iron Mal said:
Suggesting there is a 'gay gene' is ridiculous, if this was the case then we wouldn't have homosexuals in society today (since they wouldn't have reproduced for obvious reasons and would have 'died out' or have been 'selected against' in terms of evolutionary theory).
The most logical cause of homosexuality is that some event happened during an individual's life which made them think 'I kinda like other guys/girls', just like any other major life choices like career, education, family etc.
I'm beginning to believe people aren't reading the thread. We already went over this several times -
Genetics do not work like that. Genes aren't shed because of natural selection in humans. Humans can carry genes that appear to have no effect on their physiology today that will show up in later generations. And then disappear again, and then show up again. This is the easiest way to explain it - we pass on genetic material whether it was beneficial or not.
Read a book about genetics before you start throwing out "but natural selection says we'd breed out homosexual genes." Because that's not true in the slightest. There are people who are straight who are sexually attracted to the same-sex in various strengths. They can still chose to be straight and reproduce with someone of the opposite sex. Their genes will be passed on to their offspring.
confernal said:
I would like to use the wolf boy anology for this... What I mean by this is that if a baby was taken at birth and was raised by wolfs/dogs(records of such an event does exist) that this child would be show wolf/dog like behavior and little to no human behavior... are to believe that this childs genes drove him to act animal like? no it was his enviorment and interactions that made him what he is today.
Yes, but wolf boy doesn't grow a tail and large ears and a thick coat of fur. Those are biological traits that wolves have that the human cannot pick up from his wolf parents. Sexual traits and urges are biologically inherited. Behavior-wise, he can learn to be a human again - all humans still possess the function of logic formation and self-conscious awareness. We humans do learn a lot from mimicking others - but it's not the end-all of the influence on human behavior.
@ Maximillian defending Freud
Dude, it's okay. Yes, Freud was a genius who changed the way that people view psychology. But Freud's main focus in life was to define all abnormal psychology under one premise - that your mother or father (or mother/father figures) are the cause of all your problems. That sexual repression causes you to become a homicidal maniac. That cocaine is the cure for all that ails people.
Most psychiatry moved away from the strict Freudian interpretation of psychological formation back in the 60's. There's Jung, for example, who was his star pupil who turned around and largely modified all of Freud's work. He began to even point out a nature/nurture combination in the way people develop in life.
Also, behaviorists are far removed from Freud. BF Skinner is considered the grandfather of behaviorism, and he absolutely detested Freud. They believe that your behavior is the effect of all stimuli - your environment, illness, people, physiology, etc. They believe that people are programmed by interaction, and the subconscious (which is not the Id - it's merely a part of your mind that directs instinctual behavior not necessarily throwing back to primitive or animal-like behavior) is a backseat driver. If I give you a cookie every time you are polite and shock you when you aren't, you will slowly become unconsciously polite (that's a really loose example and not the best one, but the simplest way I can think of to demonstrate behaviorism).
Rahnzan said:
I much prefer my sexual orientation because it's my choice, not because I was born that way. I'm straight, and I find nothing wrong with homosexuals, it's curious though that a lot of them hide behind 'nature made me this way.'
...
Yeah there's prejudice in the world, yes they suck. But I'd rather my orientation be my choice and not God's or Mother Earth's.
Well, your sexual urges are biological, but your choice to act upon them is. There are plenty of people who have attractions to the same-sex, but go on to be purely straight by choice. Most of us can control our sexual desires (those that don't often turn out being the ones in trouble with the law or judged harshly).
What strikes me as funny as that most of the psychological community (even the religious people in the profession) don't find it to be socially deviant. Most open-minded people realize that these people have been around in most civilizations that go as far back as proto-human interaction. What most people calls "deviance" is not what psychologists call deviance (there are variable levels of deviance, and what the layman considers as deviant usually leads to physical or mental harm). Sexually DIVERGENT, sure.
100 years ago children under the age of 15 who were gifted with incredible intelligence and the ability to excel beyond most people twice their age were considered abominations. Most of Western society didn't start looking at these kids as normal with intellectual divergence until the late 1950's. Sexual divergence will become more widely excepted with an expansion to scientific pursuits and education in Western societies. It just takes time.
