Sexuality: Social, Genetic, or Other

[Belisarius]

In my view there are two possibilities for the determination of sexuality, genetic, and social. It is either determined by some genetic principle(hence people are born gay), or it is determined through complex social interactions. Or possibly the ever popular, "people choose to be gay". Personally I think sexuality is largely determined by social factors. I'm sure certain genes influence personality in such a way that it makes the social factors act in order to bring about a person's sexuality, but generally it is these social factors that take the need for sex, and form it into a desire for sex with certain groups of people. To illustrate my point all you have to do is look at the Hellenistic World, ancient greek and roman men were often bisexual, and this was socially acceptable, even encouraged. Usually older men engaged in relationships with young men in the later teens. Today such relationships are seen as abhorrent and wrong, and only very rarely do they exist in our society. Now as homosexuality and bisexuality become more acceptable in our society, it seems as if more of these people are cropping up, especially among adolescents(suggesting social factors during puberty are dominant in determining sexuality). Historical differences in sexuality can't be looked at as Christian society suppressing natural tendencies, because social factors in societies with widespread bisexuality or homosexuality often encouraged such behavior. Of course you can't say people choose their sexuality, anymore than they can choose their body language, or native tounges. It may be possible, if you really tried, to change your sexuality, but I highly doubt that throughout history alternative sexuality has been determined exclusively through acts of will. What do you think?

[A Lost Soul]

I don't think anyone chooses their sexuality. I mean, people don't just wake up one morning and go, "Hey. I think I'll be gay." That's like a white woman waking up and saying, "Hey. I think I'll be a black man". It just doesn't work that way. We are who we are, regardless of how we got that way, and people need to learn to accept it, period. Love is such a beautiful thing and the general attitude toward homosexuality deeply bothers me. Recently, I even talked about it in my journal on Deviant Art. Why should it matter whether someone is in love with a man or a woman? Provided no one is being hurt, why should it matter to anyone who someone else has sex with? To be frank, it's no one's damn business in the first place. I'm also going to jump the gun a bit and ask straight away that this thread be kept respectful.

[Alex D]

Originally posted by A Lost Soul I don't think anyone chooses their sexuality. I mean, people don't just wake up one morning and go, \"Hey. I think I'll be gay.\" That's like a white woman waking up and saying, \"Hey. I think I'll be a black man\". It just doesn't work that way. We are who we are, regardless of how we got that way, and people need to learn to accept it, period. You know I was asked in Sociology why I chose to be gay the other day (we were doing about peoples conceptions of homosexuality) and that's the same basic answer that I gave. It is very interesting seeing all the different theories as to why some people are homosexual, all of which seem to have thier own points of validity (except the choice one in my honest opinion). If you were to ask my why I thought some people were gay, I'd have to say genetic, though only because my familly has quite a history of homosexuality. (Bi sister, Bi aunt etc.) However, I do think that there could be some social factors to it. Oh well, it's not like sexuality matters anyway.

[Ex Nine]

Well, do some people wake up one day and say, "hey, I think I'll be into girls with pigtails?" No, of course not. Nor do they wake up and say, "hey, I think I'll be into sadomasochism," or any other alternative sexual practice. More likely is that it is a desire that is nurtured and eventually given precedence over others. And where does the term "gay" draw the line, anyways? Are men who prefer sexual contact with other men still gay if they're turned off by either oral or anal sex? What about gay priests, who want to abstain from sexual gratification entirely? Are they still gay even though they don't practice? Yeah, they probably are. Being gay is about desire. Being straight is about desire. Being into orgies is about desires, plural. I don't think it's realistic to frame the discussion around sex. After all, sex is just one way that we express desire. It's an accident of appearances to think that sexual orientation is the dependent variable (that it depends on nature, environment, choice, genes, preference, watever). How do I think the discussion should be framed? I don't we're grown up enough for it, but here it is. The dependent variable is desire. And in order for desire to exist, it must depend on some lack of satisfaction. If we start talking about what we lack, what will satisfy our desires, we might get somewhere. We won't, I think, because we are too afraid of getting everything we want, worried that it might mean the end of desire.

[Howie]

MY friend and I go around & around about this all the time. I am kind of burnt out and to include my entire philoshpy would be too long. One of my points was that my friends and I, through discussion have admitted that when you reach puberty that you have all kinds of feelings, thoughts, hormones. All of wich at the time are very hard to determine what and where they belong at the time. But for reasons of nature I felt an attraction towards woman that was just there. I was born that way. Now the question is if I had several influences or incidences that would lean my very seseptiple mind in the direction to like the same sex would have that changed my views. I personally do not think so. I have nothing against gays!!!!! With all due respect: But it does go against the natural order of things. So I believe it to be a genetic flaw. Just as being born deaf, blind or what have you. It is no fault of the individual. but it is however still a flaw.

[Ex Nine]

[quote]Just as being born deaf, blind or what have you. It is no fault of the individual. but it is however still a flaw. Would you allow gays disability benefits?

[Howie]

Originally posted by Ex Nine Would you allow gays disability benefits? If they could prove an instance that they cannot perform a duty because they are gay, yes.

[Belisarius]

There is no gene that differs between gay and straight people that doesn't differ within the same sexuality. I'm too lazy to dig up links, but I've heard numerous times that there is no gay gene. Aside from that it would make no sense for such a gene to exist, it would have long since been eradicated through natural selection. I would say that anyone could become gay, but that it is such a complex process that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to control.

[Ex Nine]

[quote] If they could prove an instance that they cannot perform a duty because they are gay, yes. Well, being gay in today's society might be emotionally traumatic, if not for the very reason that they are recognized as flawed. Emotional trauma can lead to depression and even death. It may not be appreciably different than someone born with one leg, which is not that debilitating an ailment considering various means of assistance, whose weakness is preyed upon by others seeking amusement or a feeling of superiority. This is just a hypothetical case. I have my own views on the "emotional trauma industry," but you did say that it is a flaw, like blindness or deafness. How are we to recognize it as a flaw if it is not debilitating?

[A Lost Soul]

Originally posted by Ex Nine How are we to recognize it as a flaw if it is not debilitating? Because it's not a flaw. What exactly is the "nature of things" that being gay (and apparently deaf, blind, and mute) goes against? Who determines what is normal, and thus what goes against "normal"? And don't say "God" or some other religious being because that's a cop-out answer and this isn't a religious discussion.

[Ex Nine]

Originally posted by A Lost Soul Because it's not a flaw. What exactly is the \"nature of things\" that being gay (and apparently deaf, blind, and mute) goes against? Who determines what is normal, and thus what goes against \"normal\"? Right, I'm thinking along the same lines. However, being deaf, blind and mute definitely goes against the nature of hearing, seeing, and speaking.

[kimpossible]

Against the nature of reproduction. Humans are animals. Their nature is to be born, reach puberty, spawn, and die. Every thing else is frosting. -------------------- The question of why you see more of something when that something is more acceptable is simply that those having that trait feel safer to make it public. If you went down and bought a BrandX car today, tomorrow you'd be *amazed* at how many are on the road. It's not because they all saw yours and went out and bought one. It's because you now have a hyper-awareness. ----------------------- All of that said: Who cares? Unless you're going to make that your field of study, live your own life and let other people live theirs. When you've got a real solid handle on your own, maybe then it's time to stick your nose somewhere else...

[Ex Nine]

Originally posted by kimpossible Against the nature of reproduction. *Humans are animals. *Their nature is to be born, reach puberty, spawn, and die. *Every thing else is frosting. I think you left a few things out that are particular to homo sapiens sapiens, like \"thinking.\" I know it's not a common trait, but I've met a few who can do it. The reason why it's noteworthy is because thinking can be used to aid or hinder the other parts of our nature. For example, apparently it is humanity's nature to think of ways to engage in coitus while preventing reproduction via physical, chemical, or mathematical means. All of that said: *Who cares? *Unless you're going to make that your field of study, live your own life and let other people live theirs. *When you've got a real solid handle on your own, maybe then it's time to stick your nose somewhere else...[/b] Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think there's anything more to be said. Good show, everyone.

[kimpossible]

Darned few. . . Sure, you can atleast temporarily overcome your nature. Which would be descriptive of homosexuals "in the closet", no?

[Howie]

Originally posted by A Lost Soul Because it's not a flaw. What exactly is the \"nature of things\" that being gay (and apparently deaf, blind, and mute) goes against? Who determines what is normal, and thus what goes against \"normal\"? * And don't say \"God\" or some other religious being because that's a cop-out answer and this isn't a religious discussion. The simple fact that if everyone is gay that our race would not exist. Also our physical parts were meant to fit together, When gay, the parts do not fit! Normal...... in my opinion would be the natural order of how species exist. Yes there are unisex life on this earth but I don't think it is relevant in this discussion.

[kimpossible]

The only way it's relavant is if you've found a way to breed with yourself.

[scorpifly]

To try and understand why people have the sexual prefrences they do, is to point a finger at them and say," i dont know if i like you the way you are, let me first undrstand you then you might be ok with me." thats bullshit. who really cares. gay or straight, as long as there is atleast 2 of each then dont worry about it. If the terrorist can kill equally, then we can love equally.

[kimpossible]

To not seek knowledge is, umm...well, something I'm used to seeing in people. Originally posted by scorpifly To try and understand why people have the sexual prefrences they do, is to point a finger at them and say,\" i dont know if i like you the way you are, let me first undrstand you then you might be ok with me.\" thats bullshit. Oh yeah, that's bullshit allright. Speak for yourself :emosabe. Maybe that's what you do. Others of us have a higher standard in our measurements.

[A Lost Soul]

But everyone is not gay. We're diverse. The population of the world will (sadly) not die out if some of its people are gay. Plus, there are enough parentless children in the world to adopt. A gay couple can raise a child just as well or as badly as a straight couple can. The whole 'gay or straight' thing is just ridiculous... Relationships outside of our own are none of our business. If two people (or more, if that's your thing) are in love or want to have a fresh romp, that's cool with me. No one's getting hurt and the fate of humanity isn't hanging in the balance. And I forsee this topic going on in an endless circle. At least we're all being civil. Thanks for that, guys.

[Howie]

Originally posted by scorpifly To try and understand why people have the sexual prefrences they do, is to point a finger at them and say,\" i dont know if i like you the way you are, let me first undrstand you then you might be ok with me.\" thats bullshit. who really cares. gay or straight, as long as there is atleast 2 of each then dont worry about it. If the terrorist can kill equally, then we can love equally. Get real. Why can't you have a philisophical discussion about gays or race without someone taking offense? I just don't understand. If you were to read the above posts you would find it a rather interesting discussion. I don't see people trying to belittle or bash anyone for who they are. Maybe if we all took the time to think deeply on these subjects and try to further understand them maybe this may bring us further than we were before.

[kimpossible]

Thank you, Howetzer. My point exactly. As I've said before in other threads: I couldn't care less what an individual's sexual orientation is (unless I mistakenly am trying to date a gay guy. That can be uncomfortable for everyone if poorly handled), but from the 30,000ft view, knowledge trumps all. I don't care what your sexual orientation is. But as a general topic it is equally as important as any other defining "the human condition".

[bradybaker]

From a strictly evolutionary point of view, it seems to me that homosexuality would indicate some sort genetic abnormality (that's the most neutral word I could think of). Of course I'm not implying that it's wrong in any way at all...if someone is gay, by all means they should do what makes them happy, it's not my thing, but it's not bothering me at all. Whatever floats your boat right? I only use the word abnormality because the behaviour obviously will not lead to and ultimately prohibits the propagation of one's genetic material. Very counter-evolutionary indeed. Also, homosexual behaviour is not exclusive to humanity, such individuals exist in nearly all animal populations. Someone actually studied and came up with a formula to predict the number of lesbian seagulls in the world. Interestingly, the youngest male of a series of brothers is more likely to be gay than the older brothers. I'm not sure if the same can be said for females.... Also, if one member of a set of twins shows homosexual tendecies, the other twins is much, much more likely to do the same. So, I would say that there are definitely genetic factors at play. But of course, expression of genetic dispositions is also dependent on the environment (ie. social condition) that the individual is exposed to.

[Ex Nine]

Okay, since I'm a knowledge seeker, I'm coming back. Originally posted by kimpossible I don't care what your sexual orientation is. *But as a general topic it is equally as important as any other defining \"the human condition\". Yes, let's talk about it in terms of the human condition, then. That's what I was trying to get at before. Let's not restrict ourselves to the animal kingdom. And, please, let's not lazily succumb to the foolish temptation that genes equal the human condition, as if every human behavior could be explained by a gene. Genes are programs for building cells. The cells in turn respond to their environment and build behavior patterns. Genes, although part of the overall system, are at least twice removed from behavior. And both cell reproduction AND cell behavior happen in chaotic environments. Take a genetic cold shower and sober up, you're not spared from having to think yet. And there's absolutely no need to think that genes define evolution. There are plenty of other evolutionary systems that are not purely biological, but no less evolutionary. Consider the evolution of societies, technology, ideas, or even matter in the early universe. Evolution is dependent on stochastic processes, so things that evolve are therefore open systems. You cannot say "oh, this goes against evolution because it prevents reproduction," anymore than saying sharper teeth goes against evolution because it makes it easier for tigers to kill each other. You know, because killing tigers prevents them from having sex and prevents reproduction. It's the whole point of an evolutionary process to incorporate randomness and any number of things that don't yet fit. What else is there to the human condition, then, that we can talk about? Why are we ignoring the seminal role of emotion and desire? Why are we ignoring the importance of personal relationships in survival? There's more to being human than sex. And I don't think one has to be gay to recognize that there's more to being gay than childless gay sex. I know there's more to being straight than having sex that produces offspring, or even having sex that doesn't. Maybe I'm just too grown up?

[kimpossible]

There is? Woah! (Where's that damned roll-eyes smiley... Oh: ) Sure - there are tons of factors. But underlying it all is the drive to survive until reproduction is viable, reproduce, protect the offspring until their reproduction is viable, and then die. The percentage of homosexual couples that desire to adopt or inseminate and thereby transfer their genetic material on to a new generation is probably evidence enough of what's at play there. And again - I'm fine with that personally and scientifically. It's little more than a statistical blip and exceptionally unlikely to spell the doom of the continuation of the species.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by kimpossible But underlying it all is the drive to survive until reproduction is viable, reproduce, protect the offspring until their reproduction is viable, and then die. If that were true (that we only had a drive to survive until our children were able to reproduce), then we'd only have a life span of about 15 years. *meanwhile back on topic and in the real world* On "Sexuality: Social, Genetic, or Other", I think that there is not really any research that says there is a "gene" that determine if someone if hetero or homo or bi or something else, like with hair color or eye color. I think it does seem it indicate that it can be hereditary and does tend to run in families, but there is not really any evidence that it is a genetic trait. I think research also indicates, that like alot of our "core" being, it is formed at an early age.