Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[maximilian]

I think you want homosexuality to be a product of nurture because that means it's different from products of nature like skin color or sex, and therefore considering heterosexuality superior to homosexuality is not like considering being white superior to being black, or being male superior to being female.

Guess what? You're wrong.
If you knew anything about evangelical Christianity, you'd know that Christians cannot theologically see themselves as superior.

I also think you enjoy being martyred for your Christian beliefs, speaking of fetishes.

That's really nice of you Cheeze. Good to see you're not hitting below the belt. You are so wrong, I'm actually laughing - out loud, at work. Stop derailing/bookmarking my profile so you can jump on any thread I post in.

 

[maximilian]

What's stupid about assuming that as the base?

Give me an article and I'll retract that statement.

Number one, that's only a similar position to "Haven't you worked out yet that I love to advocate the unpopular because a forum of sycophants is a very boring forum?" not an identical one so, like I said--there's more going on with you than you explained in that statement.

You aren't actually answering any of my other quotes, just cutting the ones where you think you can reply. Just like last thread, except this time I'm pointing it out. It's similar, but not identical.

Second, things you consider "blatantly wrong" and 'personal views that are a product of your dogma as opposed to your reason' are not necessarily different.

And here was I thinking you loved empiricism. Not where the bible is concerned it appears.
The point here is my beliefs of Christianity verses bias in my part in the discussion. Not only have I never brought up religious belief, I have always made it clear that my point is for nurture to be recognised more than it has been and that MY THEOLOGY DOES NOT MIND EITHER WAY. YOU have a problem with religion, YOU have a bias, I don't.
More derailing. Less answering my other points. Nice one. By not answering my other points, you trim the discussion and make it look like an even footing. The message is in your medium Cheeze.

I don't think I've ever accused you of "a lack of empiricism, dogma, or unscientific, unacademic reasoning" in assessing my motives.

No, but you're happy to claim it about anything else I say. Shall I do a quote trawl perhaps? Is that really necessary?

 

[McClaud]

Except that thousands of research subjects show a significant physiological difference when their sexual orientation is tested. So it's not 99%. More like 50/50.

"thousands" doesn't sound much compared to the millions of 'gays' (yes i took your fact out of context, not my fault it wasn't fully fleshed out) and anyway - differing sexual habits are bound to affect brain chemistry; and not simply because of parts of theirs brains being stimulated - also because of different chemical releases in response to different mental states they had been in over the past for months

Your anecdotal example is not scientific proof. But it is a common example of the group of people who choose a lifestyle because it's both mentally and physically comforting to them. Homosexual behavior is part of a lifestyle, so yes, it's somewhat choice driven. Okay, so we're in agreement over the point of my anecdote: People who elect to call themselves 'gay' change their lifestyles.

urprobablyright drops another massive load of brave, in-your-face, bare-backed truth on the forum - all praise urprobablyright! all praise urprobablyright! all praise urprobablyright! all praise urprobablyright! all praise urprobablyright!

Other than to make me laugh at you, I'd say what you said is neither brave, in-our-faces or bare-backed truth. Dozens of people have already said what you said, and been discussing it for awhile now. It was to make you laugh. Other people said it; but it wasn't cannon until i said it. And anyway, it is pretty brave of me to go around shouting up myself; hundreds of blips might read my rants and try to beat me - oh who am i kidding, it doesn't take courage to be this good.

Until you give me concrete proof, urprobablyright haha, you just don't understand how amazing i am, do you? ah don't let me and my perfect, adonian proportions get to you. I won't give you proof because this subject has nothing to do with me and therefore i'll never waste finger strength/brain energy trying to research it, and can therefore never give you proof, you're just gonna have to take my word because it's the closest you'll ever get to absolution in this schizoid world

Once again, urprobablyright curb stomps an under-endowed pretender - I am the alpha male.

I need to introduce you to a fellow named Phantomgrift. He's exactly like you are - an egomaniac who wants to take over the world.

 

[Izakflashman]

Then why weren't there any gay people 20 hunderd years ago, when being with the same sex was unthinkable?

Because there were...? The "anti-gay" movement is actually relatively new to human history.

How new are we talking here? couple thousand years new?

 

[McClaud]

I need to introduce you to a fellow named Phantomgrift. He's exactly like you are - an egomaniac who wants to take over the world.

a) Believe it or not, I'm not an egomaniac, i'm just a poet/artist.
b) I already own the world.

That's literally impossible. I own 60% of the world, and I'm a privately owned company.

 

[Idon'tknow]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned but what about asexuality? How does nature or nurture affect a person that's just not interested in sex or sexual orientation at all?

 

[McClaud]

I need to introduce you to a fellow named Phantomgrift. He's exactly like you are - an egomaniac who wants to take over the world.

a) Believe it or not, I'm not an egomaniac, i'm just a poet/artist.
b) I already own the world.

That's literally impossible. I own 60% of the world, and I'm a privately owned company.

yes but you're my property - though i'm thinking of selling you, 'cause you gave me cheek.

Check again, I poison-pilled your attempt at buy-out and sold my soul to another devil.

Better luck next time.

 

[McClaud]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned but what about asexuality? How does nature or nurture affect a person that's just not interested in sex or sexual orientation at all?

You're not getting the same kind of hormones that sexually active people are getting ... or you're totally ignoring your bodily urges. Which is fine and totally normal - there are people who do that on a regular basis. That's why I don't believe that homosexual behavior is 100% nature. Somewhere in there, you have to make a choice.

 

[McClaud]

Ego-match? I'm telling you, dude -

I AM NOT A NUMBER. I AM A FREE MAN!!!

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Then why weren't there any gay people 20 hunderd years ago, when being with the same sex was unthinkable?

Because there were gay people and there have always been gay people. In fact, it was fairly common in ancient Rome and the Japanese believed gay love to be the purest form of love as it is between to people of the same sex, they have more in common. The anti-gay movement is recent, homosexuality has been around for a long, long time. It's all throughout nature. There are plenty of gay animals. Hell, there's even gay insects.