You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
"If DNA controlled things as specific as which sex you preferred then where does freewill come into anything? If DNA controls your behaviour, not just your hair colour then you are a slave to your DNA."
Get it out of your head. Out. I never said it controlled you behavior. DNA simply says WHO you are, not WHAT you do. I believe homosexuality could be a combination, but mostly genes. Gay parents do not raise gay children. Sexual preference is not a behavior. It's a preference. DNA does control specific things. Hair Color, looks, body hair, your fingerprints. Now, tell me, what's more specific, sexual preference or the patterns of your fingertips?
DNA can give you a tendency to be a more impulsive person, for example. How does that make one a slave? Actually, scratch that. Tell me what DNA does do. I'm not sure you understand what it is.
"It is the common belief that human behaviour is a complex mix of both genetic and environmental influences. Now as a basic instinct man must have reproductive urges. Otherwise he may never reproduce."
*sigh* I feel like I'd rather band my head against a wall but I shall go on. *deep breath*
Man does generally have reproductive urges. That's why sex feels so good. It feels good because you should want to do it. However, a certain combination of genes could sway you towards preferred gender.
The thing about nature--about evolution--*waits for people to recoil in horror and pop their monocles*--is there is natural mutation in DNA. This is how evolution works. Nature doesn't know what's best, but what is best ends up surviving and passing on it's successful genes.
Who's to say one of the mutations, or maybe a combination, could lead one person towards homosexuality?
"Like the basic urge to eat. But I don't believe genes control what food we prefer. Most scientists agree that food preferences are decided in a child's early years from environmental influences."
I don't believe genes make me favor Pizza either. Environmental influences, a little, sure, why not?
The thing is--your DNA most likely does have subtle hints about which food it prefers. Take for example, sugar. Everybody loves sugar. Some scientists theorize that we evolved this way from back when humans were living in Africa and sugars (simple carbohydrates) were semi-rare. Humans learned to seek it out and eat as much when it was available. Why else would kids get so much pleasure out of eating candy that they make themselves sick? Yeah, it tastes good, but your body rewards you as well.
"From what I've read about that fruit fly experiment the tests involved swapping a male gene for a female gene, this caused the flies to take on the behaviour of the opposite sex. That makes sense, the male instinct to reproduce is clearly different from the female instinct. But that's not what homosexuality is about. Homosexuals don't act like the opposite sex, OK they camp it up sometimes, but the actual mechanics of sex is the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals. The only difference is the object of desire." I thought you said DNA couldn't determine something as specific as sexuality, or in this case, "gender roles". So. Does it matter if they turn gay or take on the roles of the opposite sex? No, because by saying that, you proved your very first argument wrong.
roadkill wrote: "If DNA controlled things as specific as which sex you preferred then where does freewill come into anything? If DNA controls your behaviour, not just your hair colour then you are a slave to your DNA."
Get it out of your head. Out. I never said it controlled you behavior. DNA simply says WHO you are, not WHAT you do. I believe homosexuality could be a combination, but mostly genes. Gay parents do not raise gay children. Sexual preference is not a behavior. It's a preference. DNA does control specific things. Hair Color, looks, body hair, your fingerprints. Now, tell me, what's more specific, sexual preference or the patterns of your fingertips?
You said this: Yes, some people could have a genetic predisposition towards more violent behavior.
Sexual orientation includes a behavioral component. I don't believe genes control behaviour they control biological components like hair colour, fingerprints etc. The genetic input is the instinctual sexual urge, and this is the same in both homosexual and heterosexual men.
DNA can give you a tendency to be a more impulsive person, for example. How does that make one a slave? Actually, scratch that. Tell me what DNA does do. I'm not sure you understand what it is. I'm not sure you understand what you're saying. You say you haven't claimed DNA controls behaviour, but repeatedly claim that DNA controls your behaviour!!!
DNA is the blueprint for making cells. By that definition it is clearly a physical influence and not a psychological one. If homosexual behaviour was controlled by physical manipulation of brain cells this would be easily found examining the brains of homosexuals, but there is no evidence that homosexuals have a different brain than heterosexuals. "It is the common belief that human behaviour is a complex mix of both genetic and environmental influences. Now as a basic instinct man must have reproductive urges. Otherwise he may never reproduce."
*sigh* I feel like I'd rather band my head against a wall but I shall go on. *deep breath*
Man does generally have reproductive urges. That's why sex feels so good. It feels good because you should want to do it. However, a certain combination of genes could sway you towards preferred gender. This is just speculation, you've made a wild claim about what genes could do but offer no reasoning behind your claim. You have however repeated that genes can control your behaviour.
The thing about nature--about evolution--*waits for people to recoil in horror and pop their monocles*--is there is natural mutation in DNA. This is how evolution works. Nature doesn't know what's best, but what is best ends up surviving and passing on it's successful genes.
Who's to say one of the mutations, or maybe a combination, could lead one person towards homosexuality? How would a homosexual pass on this gene? Even if it were a recessive gene mutation research has shown that the number of homosexuals in the world is so small it wouldn't sustain even a recessive gene. "Like the basic urge to eat. But I don't believe genes control what food we prefer. Most scientists agree that food preferences are decided in a child's early years from environmental influences."
I don't believe genes make me favor Pizza either. Environmental influences, a little, sure, why not?
The thing is--your DNA most likely does have subtle hints about which food it prefers. Take for example, sugar. Everybody loves sugar. Some scientists theorize that we evolved this way from back when humans were living in Africa and sugars (simple carbohydrates) were semi-rare. Humans learned to seek it out and eat as much when it was available. Why else would kids get so much pleasure out of eating candy that they make themselves sick? Yeah, it tastes good, but your body rewards you as well.
But this cannot be compared with homosexuality. How could physical sensation be a factor when firstly the physical sensation of homosexual sex is practically identical to heterosexual sex, and secondly many homosexuals claim they always knew they were homosexual before they ever had sex. "From what I've read about that fruit fly experiment the tests involved swapping a male gene for a female gene, this caused the flies to take on the behaviour of the opposite sex. That makes sense, the male instinct to reproduce is clearly different from the female instinct. But that's not what homosexuality is about. Homosexuals don't act like the opposite sex, OK they camp it up sometimes, but the actual mechanics of sex is the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals. The only difference is the object of desire." I thought you said DNA couldn't determine something as specific as sexuality, or in this case, "gender roles". So. Does it matter if they turn gay or take on the roles of the opposite sex? No, because by saying that, you proved your very first argument wrong. I said DNA couldn't control sexual preference, and this report doesn't prove otherwise. You are now confusing sexuality with gender. If an organism is gendered in a particular way their basic sexual urge will match their gender, but their physical bodies will not be able to function that way.
Good stuff.This is irrelevant, I've already said how you cannot compare food preference to sexual orientation. If people have a preference to fatty food due to the different physical sensation they receive from eating it how does it compare to homosexuality which gives the same physical sensation as heterosexuality? As I've said, the basic instincts and sexual mechanics of homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. How does your DNA tell the difference between the inside of a woman's mouth and the inside of a man's?
"I'm not sure you understand what you're saying. You say you haven't claimed DNA controls behaviour, but repeatedly claim that DNA controls your behaviour!!!"
I scanned my posts and I did not find anything that directly said "DNA controls your behavior". You seem to think I was suggesting that DNA somehow contains your fate.
have a quote: CL: So, what other types of behaviors are linked strongly with genetic causes?
GM: Well, there are lots of behaviors that are tied to genes, but they’re not tied as closely as some people might think. So, the popular way of thinking about genes is that you have a gene for a particular trait. There’s a wonderful cartoon that talks about a gene for delusions of stock market grandeur. But, we don’t really have a gene for delusions of stock market grandeur, but we do have genes that affect all kinds of aspects of our personality. They do that by working together with other genes and by working with the environment. So genes don’t really dictate things. They give us options. They give us opportunities. And they can influence us. Push us a little bit in one direction or another.
CL: Rather than dictating our particular types of behavior, they would guide more our temperament or inclinations.
GM: Yes. They’re more likely to influence something like temperament rather than a particular type of behavior. Genes build the brain. Then, the brain takes us on the day-to-day operations. Genes are too slow to make decisions on a moment-by-moment basis. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/BerkeleyGroks_Marcus.htm
------
Do you get what i'm saying, at all? I never said DNA directly controls your behavior. I'm not sure if you're really confused by my statements, or if you're just trying to twist them around.
But let's look at them once more, shall we?
"Yes, some people could have a genetic predisposition towards more violent behavior."
keywords: predisposition, towards
"DNA can give you a tendency to be a more impulsive person, for example."
keywords: tendency, more
"However, a certain combination of genes could sway you towards preferred gender."
keywords: could, sway, towards
-----
"How would a homosexual pass on this gene? Even if it were a recessive gene mutation research has shown that the number of homosexuals in the world is so small it wouldn't sustain even a recessive gene."
I suggest you visit the site I linked to above. As I have been saying, it's possible that it's a combination of genes. I find it hard to believe that a single gene could be turned on or off to produce such a huge change. Humans don't have a single "gay gene", it is a combination of several, probably many.
------
"Does it matter if they turn gay or take on the roles of the opposite sex? No, because by saying that, you proved your very first argument wrong." "Homosexuality has nothing to do with gender, gay men do not believe they are women. Homosexuality isn't about taking on the roles of the opposite sex."
What follows is the original text, which i'm not sure you read, as well as my reply to your statement: "Does it matter if they turn gay or take on the roles of the opposite sex? No, because by saying that, you proved your very first argument wrong."
-----
"But this cannot be compared with homosexuality." "This is irrelevant, I've already said how you cannot compare food preference to sexual orientation."
You said it was impossible for you to like certain foods based on DNA. You said DNA couldn't determine anything "that specific". Nowhere did I claim food had anything to do with sex.
This is how a debate works, you see. You have an opinion and you back it up with an argument. The argument could be a fact, a research finding, etc. You tried to back up your opinion but I crushed your argument. Therefore, your opinion has no backing. This is all I was trying to accomplish. I was not trying to compare food to sex. Just proving you wrong.
-------
"how does it compare to homosexuality which gives the same physical sensation as heterosexuality?"
Slow down. Let's go back to the basics--how would homosexual sex feel the same, if I couldn't even get an erection? Men don't turn me on. Women do. It's wired in my brain. I don't make that choice.
Does that make me weird? Do you make the conscious choice in your brain to be turned on by a man or a woman? Or has it always been that way... perhaps since birth...?
Last edited on Sun Aug 5th, 2007 11:47 pm by roadkill
There have been studies in lab animals that "overcrowding" results in homosexual behavior. I thought I would just throw that into the mix...
However, humans are not lab animals. We are creatures of reason - not instinct. Creatures being something that is 'created' means that there is a creator - and the creator made a male's physiche (sp?) to correspond, act, and react with the female physiche (fuzeek). Being reasonable creatures, we can interpret this to mean that man was made for women and vice versa. A read of Bible history will show that God strongly disapproves of homosexual and lesbian relationships - therefore it is "sin"
If a person is Gay - it is acquired and it is acquired because of a leniency toward that particular sin - just like an alcoholic leans to drinking. The intrigue or attention or whatever the bait was - then hook of the sin itself pulls a person deeper into the homosexual lifestyle.
The Bible would not say it is a sin to be "effimanent" if it were a genetic impossibility to be so - that would be unreasonable of a Holy God.
Genetic - no
Acquired - yes, just like any other sinful act we choose to be entrapped in.
But if acquired - just like any other sinful act - it can be forgiven and corrected.
TVDinner wrote: hawgwild65 wrote: But if acquired - just like any other sinful act - it can be forgiven and corrected.
why not forgiven and accepted.
Is this a serious question?
I mean, you can accept that you don't think it's wrong. But the fact is that if it was wrong it could be forgiven. But to be accepted? That'd be like accepting that a person likes to abuse children or kill people. It would be like accepting something that was wrong. If it was accepted it wouldn't need forgiving.
Shouldn't that be the case? Why should they need forgiveness? Who are you to say it's right and wrong. The ancient greeks participated in bisexuality. Why are we to say that it's wrong when people on earth longer than the religions founder did it? Why aren't they right? Why is the christian faith right? Because it's known by many?
The only reason you think it's wrong is because you've grown up in a world that always said it was wrong. If the church said it was ok and you were raised thinking it was ok the whole time, would you not go with that?
MH0825 wrote: Shouldn't that be the case? Why should they need forgiveness? Who are you to say it's right and wrong. The ancient greeks participated in bisexuality. Why are we to say that it's wrong when people on earth longer than the religions founder did it? Why aren't they right? Why is the christian faith right? Because it's known by many?
The only reason you think it's wrong is because you've grown up in a world that always said it was wrong. If the church said it was ok and you were raised thinking it was ok the whole time, would you not go with that?My God says it is distasteful, that is why I do not support it, as I do not support any sin (although I involve myself in sin).
However, because we all have sin, I do not see why we have to give any sin any more merit than another. I do not support homosexuality, but as I have said several times, unless you are a sinless man, you do not deserve to degrade another individual's sins.
Several biblical passages come to mind when I think of Christians severely judging the actions of homosexuals:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And I probably should bring up a point more relative to this topic to make sure this post is appropiate here. I believe that sexual drive is genetic, and through that, homosexual drive is genetic; I believe that the attration to the same sex is because of environmental variables as well as hormonal differences to that of a heterosexual male. I think I may have posted earlier in here, and a couple weeks/days ago my ideas were a little different, however after reading this thread a little, I have found this conclusion.
roadkill wrote:
I scanned my posts and I did not find anything that directly said "DNA controls your behavior". You seem to think I was suggesting that DNA somehow contains your fate.
------
Do you get what i'm saying, at all? I never said DNA directly controls your behavior. I'm not sure if you're really confused by my statements, or if you're just trying to twist them around.
But let's look at them once more, shall we?
"Yes, some people could have a genetic predisposition towards more violent behavior."
keywords: predisposition, towards
"DNA can give you a tendency to be a more impulsive person, for example."
keywords: tendency, more
"However, a certain combination of genes could sway you towards preferred gender."
keywords: could, sway, towards
Predisposition: a tendency to hold an attitude or act in a particular way.
Toward: with regard
You just said that some people have a genetic tendency to act in a particular way, regarding violent behavior.
Tendency: an inclination toward a certain type of behaviour.
You are saying that there is a genetic cause for people's behaviour. Then you provide a quote saying that genes don't control your behaviour, just basic instincts or urges. So what are you talking about? Either genes make someone act violent or they don't, which is it? And how does this relate to what people are attracted to?
-----
I suggest you visit the site I linked to above. As I have been saying, it's possible that it's a combination of genes. I find it hard to believe that a single gene could be turned on or off to produce such a huge change. Humans don't have a single "gay gene", it is a combination of several, probably many. Like your other quotes which include "could", this statement is pure speculation finished off with a totally unfounded claim.
------ "Does it matter if they turn gay or take on the roles of the opposite sex? No, because by saying that, you proved your very first argument wrong." "Homosexuality has nothing to do with gender, gay men do not believe they are women. Homosexuality isn't about taking on the roles of the opposite sex."
What follows is the original text, which i'm not sure you read, as well as my reply to your statement: "Does it matter if they turn gay or take on the roles of the opposite sex? No, because by saying that, you proved your very first argument wrong." By saying 'what' did I prove 'what' argument wrong?
I didn't say that DNA couldn't determine "gender roles". This is a straw man, "gender roles" have nothing to do with homosexuality or sexual orientation, why are you trying to confuse the issue? Do you know the difference between gender and sexual orientation?
----- "But this cannot be compared with homosexuality." "This is irrelevant, I've already said how you cannot compare food preference to sexual orientation."
You said it was impossible for you to like certain foods based on DNA. You said DNA couldn't determine anything "that specific". Nowhere did I claim food had anything to do with sex. No. I said that DNA does not decide which foods you prefer. The preference for certain foods comes when they are consumed and the body reacts in a certain way, the individual then makes a conscious decision that they prefer the foods which give the best physical reaction. All that DNA controls is how the body reacts to different stimuli, it does not control personal preference it just influences it. So it's irrelevant to this topic.
This is how a debate works, you see. You have an opinion and you back it up with an argument. The argument could be a fact, a research finding, etc. You tried to back up your opinion but I crushed your argument. Therefore, your opinion has no backing. This is all I was trying to accomplish. I was not trying to compare food to sex. Just proving you wrong.Wrong, you did not prove me wrong, DNA does not decide what you prefer and your crushing argument didn't prove otherwise. Seeing as you know so much about debate why don't you try producing facts to go along with all your wild claims and "could do's"?
------- "how does it compare to homosexuality which gives the same physical sensation as heterosexuality?"
Slow down. Let's go back to the basics--how would homosexual sex feel the same, if I couldn't even get an erection? Men don't turn me on. Women do. It's wired in my brain. I don't make that choice.
Yet homosexuals have married and fathered children. Are they not really homosexual? If it is a genetic impossibility for heterosexuals to have same sex copulation, or for homosexuals to have heterosexual copulation then these so called homosexuals are liars then? And all prison rapes are carried out by homosexuals?
DNA controls an urge, it is the same urge in heterosexuals as homosexuals. The preference isn't genetic, unless you can prove that DNA does control what people find aesthetically pleasing. You're back to saying that genes decide what you do and don't like, yet are still unable to cite factual evidence that genes decide your preferences. The analogy you used for how DNA influences what food we prefer requires experience for the individual to actually form a preference. If experience is required it is by definition a learned process.
Does that make me weird? Do you make the conscious choice in your brain to be turned on by a man or a woman? Or has it always been that way... perhaps since birth...?Like I said, many homosexuals did make a choice to lead a straight life, and managed to perform their marital duties.
MH0825 wrote: Then how can two people with no signs of cancer in their family history have a child who develops cancer by natural causes?
Cancer is a much more common mutation. If homosexuality was a genetic mutation to the extremity of cancer we would know it was genetic. Moreover, even if it didn't die out, it would still begreatly surpressed.
If smoking causes cancer, you can't apply cancer as an inherited illness. If children are born with some kind of genetic illness that wasn't passed on then surely that would be a mutation.
Lpspider wrote: TVDinner wrote: hawgwild65 wrote: But if acquired - just like any other sinful act - it can be forgiven and corrected.
why not forgiven and accepted.
Is this a serious question?
I mean, you can accept that you don't think it's wrong. But the fact is that if it was wrong it could be forgiven. But to be accepted? That'd be like accepting that a person likes to abuse children or kill people. It would be like accepting something that was wrong. If it was accepted it wouldn't need forgiving.
(I'm not saying they're the same thing).
of course it is. what gives you, or anyone else for that matter, the right to "correct" anyone for anything. Just because you don't think it is right does not make it wrong. It makes it different then what you believe in, but you do not have the right to try to change them. You can disagree, but not force change. so yes, it is 100% a serious statement. And you are wrong about your comparison. 2 men or 2 women in love, in my opinion is nothing at all a child abuser or a murderer. Your comparison is offensive and I hope you see that. Again, you can choose to personally not agree with the lifestyle, but you can not force change.
I understand what Lpspider is saying, you can't just accept something you believe is immoral. But that's the problem with morality isn't it? Why something which is not harmful is considered immoral is the big question, just shows how morality is a load of bollocks.
yes but there is a HUGE difference between "correcting" something and "accepting" something. Correcting means that there is something wrong with the thing in question. There is no way anyone can say that this is wrong. It might be different then what they personally would do, but that does not make it wrong, just different. Accepting something is a personal choice once you come to terms with the fact that while you might not participate in something and it might not be the way you act, you have no issues with others doing it. The reality is that what others do in their relationships and homes does not ultimately effect others.
The act of sex is ultimately to procreate. If this is the case, homosexuality is clearly wrong.
The only one "suffering" from this though is the individual, and it doesn't seem to bother them much. However, if gay couples decide they want to adopt my feelings are they should "correct" the reason they can't procreate and have children like most other people do.
There are arguments that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy, and that homosexuality is bad for society in general. These could be cases for "correcting" homosexuality.
mr. m--I skimmed through your post and decided it was best for me not to bother trying to read it all and understand your "logic". I'd like to keep my sanity, thanks.
However, there are some comments i'd like to respond to. "Like I said, many homosexuals did make a choice to lead a straight life, and managed to perform their marital duties."
I doubt any homosexuals make the choice to "lead a straight life" on their own. And I feel bad for them, because if they're homosexual and leading a heterosexual life, they're living a lie. I'm sure they wouldn't have "converted" if it wasn't for social and religious pressure.
