Some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them (2 Viewers)

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Given the upsurge in discussions around homosexuality and the number of posters floating around who are homosexual (openly or closeted..) I thought it would be interesting to look at the nature versus nurture side of things.

Basically are people born gay? or are they nurtured into being gay? Or some combination thereof?

On the nature side there are arguments around a 'gay gene' or a mothers hormone levels through the pregnancy. On the nurture side theres a bit of psychology/sociology. And of course for post-modernists who view gender as a social construct the obvious corollary of that is that sexuality is a social construct.

If it is a case of being born gay then why would sexuality of some people seem to fluctuate? If you follow a Kinsey kind of school.

I don't know or really have an opinion but I think it makes for an interesting question - especially if the answer is partially or wholly a result of socialisation.

After all if sexuality is partially or wholly a social construct then it opens a whole range of issues. If we can identify what socialisation makes someone gay and what makes them straight what do we do with that information? Reprogram gays into being straight? Make sure we raise children to be straight?

The idea of reprogramming or 'nurturing out' gayness seems to touch upon a kind of social eugenics and all the ethical issues which go along with that.

Wondering where people stand on this issue?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Well, there's a whole bunch of evidence that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetically determined and, indeed, not a gene sexually selected against (as one would assume from natural selection).
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Even as a genetic issue we will surely rapidly move into the same territory with 'designer babies', "yeah could I grab one with blonde hair, blue eyes, oh and straight, thanks"

Perhaps ina future with gay-marriage, IVF V2.0 and designer babies we will see a gay couple who have a baby created using their genetic material - which they specify as gay. The emergence of the gay nuclear family?

In some respects I think that specifying sexuality should be ethically out of bounds - but even if it is I'm sure that if possible is would happen.
 

kami

An iron homily
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
4,265
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Given the upsurge in discussions around homosexuality and the number of posters floating around who are homosexual (openly or closeted..) I thought it would be interesting to look at the nature versus nurture side of things.

Basically are people born gay? or are they nurtured into being gay? Or some combination thereof?

On the nature side there are arguments around a 'gay gene' or a mothers hormone levels through the pregnancy. On the nurture side theres a bit of psychology/sociology. And of course for post-modernists who view gender as a social construct the obvious corollary of that is that sexuality is a social construct.

If it is a case of being born gay then why would sexuality of some people seem to fluctuate? If you follow a Kinsey kind of school.

I don't know or really have an opinion but I think it makes for an interesting question - especially if the answer is partially or wholly a result of socialisation.

After all if sexuality is partially or wholly a social construct then it opens a whole range of issues. If we can identify what socialisation makes someone gay and what makes them straight what do we do with that information? Reprogram gays into being straight? Make sure we raise children to be straight?

The idea of reprogramming or 'nurturing out' gayness seems to touch upon a kind of social eugenics and all the ethical issues which go along with that.

Wondering where people stand on this issue?
I don't really qualify as an upsurge.


The Post-modernist/construction point:

I actually think the post-modernists have it partly right here but in order to examine the issue in a lucid manner you need to consider that femineity/masculinity, gender identity, biological gender, sexual orientation and sexual practice are entirely different things. Femineity and masculinity are completely constructed which can be extrapolated to say that our notions of what it means to be male and female in our society are constructed but it is taking it too far, and I feel it's a misinterpretation, to say that gender in its entirety is a construct.

I also don't think saying gender is a construct at all leads to an argument that sexuality exists only as social conditioning because that equates gender roles and sexual orientation which is not at all correct. I think instead that acknowledging the construction of femineity and masculinity allows us to debunk the myth that certain gendered behaviours are inherent in one orientation or another (see femme queens and butch dykes). People, including the post-modernists themselves, often misrepresent an accurate post-modern stance on the issue.

Biological point:

As for the biological discussion, I feel it is a bunch of hogwash. Scientists aren't sociologists and they often go in to prove slightly different perceptions of sexual orientation. An example that I often cite is a couple of case studies I researched for a paper the other year; the first was a study using rodents where they castrated male mice and pumped them with estrogen to see how many of these castrated mice would permit themselves to be mounted in an effort to determine to what degree hormones played a part. This is obviously ridiculous because what they did was effectively manufacture tranny mice and only recorded "bottom" mice as gay because of misconceptions about gender roles. Similarly, a one with female guinea pigs tried to analyse the statistics of female guinea pigs who mounted other guinea pigs, conflating lesbians with men.

Other studies for the purpose of statistics, even some I've read in the last decade, have idiotic things like 'the assumed homosexual' where they include men who live alone with their mothers as gay, by default, or married men as straight by default (because bisexuals don't exist, somehow). There are also an incredible amount of studies using brain scans which are just lol, bad, like only testing corpses of men who have HIV or the intense slew of studies which completely ignores bisexuality and again mixes up gender roles and sexual orientation.

It's gotten to the point where, really, I role my eyes at any study that pops up because no matter how honest and precise, both socially and scientifically, a study on sexuality is now, it still stands on the shoulders of and is measured against a load of utter shit which is still remarkably stone age. I really really really don't care about the scientific side anymore and I don't even see why it's a point for debate in the civil rights arena, either.

Fluctuation point:


I think the problem is that any given sexual orientation is still a very generalised thing and every person's sexuality is different. When it comes down to it you really just like who you like until you don't and just because one person shifts and has a fluid sexuality doesn't mean that's how things 'work' so to speak. I suppose a better way to put it as that each person isn't an exception to or an example of some kind of rule, there is no 'rule', there's a rule for each and every person.

I do think the Kinsey report blew things way out of proportion though and was more useful as a piece for activism than as salient literature. Just thinking about sex with someone of a certain gender, once, was enough for him to label it as some form of bisexuality and I just think that is not only taking things too far but, like statistics often does, it lacks a certain context to it that would validate or debunk a variety of assumptions leading from each piece of data.

I do think, however, that the Kinsey report was right in that most people fall under a broader spectrum of sexuality than they might think and I suspect we're socially conditioned to not explore or be aware of our entire sexual capacity. We only have to have a look at Classical Greece to see that when sexual orientation is entirely re-contextualised that we get a very different result so I have no doubt that there is a much larger amount of latents out there than people suspect. This isn't to say that people are socially conditioned to 'turn' into any given orientation but that instead the way we recognise ourselves as and act as sexual beings has been socially conditioned.

Ethics of reprogramming:


The suicide rate of ex-gay persons, especially Mormons, is significant enough that it kind of speaks for this point on its own.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
4,317
Location
It's what I want that's easy. It's getting it that
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Well, there's a whole bunch of evidence that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetically determined and, indeed, not a gene sexually selected against (as one would assume from natural selection).
Yeah, one suggestion is that a 'gay gene' may be evolutionarily advantageous because a woman who posesses might be more likely to concieve. As such, it wouldn't disappear because it is said to both be carried by the female and results in more offspring.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Yeah, one suggestion is that a 'gay gene' may be evolutionarily advantageous because a woman who posesses might be more likely to concieve. As such, it wouldn't disappear because it is said to both be carried by the female and results in more offspring.
As well as the fact that people who are gay help at least 50% of their genes propogate by assisting their siblings in the raising of their offspring.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Hahaha excellent title
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I'm willing to accept that folks are born with it, but would note that the jury is still out on this.
Chemical imbalances, brain sludge etc - all sounds jolly messy, what!

But as a Catholic, I dont entertain its moral legitimacy for a second. To act upon these particular temptations is a grave offence to God.
Of course, people who suffer from this should be freed from persecution in society, but there is a difference between persecuting and not condoning, imo.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
So you support a whole of society don't ask don't tell policy?

If people are born with 'it' then why wouldn't we condone it? In your world view is homosexuality, and specifically people being born with it, part of God's grand plan? Has it been sent to tempt and test otherwise pious individuals?

Also if we accept that say 10% of the population has the gay gene does your world-view which holds man as created in God's image accept God as a bit gay?
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Ofc it's a trial, like any other trial. Ofc you cant have anything against gays if you have everything against God and the notion of universal morality.

If we dont give in to the force of the flame, we are all the more purified and ready to rejoin our maker in perfection.
 

kami

An iron homily
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
4,265
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
So you support a whole of society don't ask don't tell policy?

If people are born with 'it' then why wouldn't we condone it?
In your world view is homosexuality, and specifically people being born with it, part of God's grand plan? Has it been sent to tempt and test otherwise pious individuals?

Also if we accept that say 10% of the population has the gay gene does your world-view which holds man as created in God's image accept God as a bit gay?
That part's a shit argument, imo.

People should be able to do as they want with their bodies and their emotions if it does not harm others. The biology vs. god thing is a vestigial limb left over from the debate in the 90s initiated by the Church and blown out of proportion by the media. No court gives it even a basic look over because the biological component is entirely irrelevant to the rights debate and isn't more than a curio.

It's probably better to discuss Christian literature as a separate body if you want to establish where logical contradictions lie (and there are many) in those views. An interesting thing to note there is that the New Testament does not seem to actually say anything about lesbianism apart from a vague line in Romans about orgiastic rituals.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was met.

Romans 1:26-27

Fkn vague as all hell, dawg, yeh
 

kami

An iron homily
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
4,265
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27

Fkn vague as all hell, dawg, yeh
Again, it's talking about orgiastic ritual. Paul is discussing those who may be tempted to leave Jesus and follow Isis. It's also been established by most scholars that that translation is untrue to the original text as it was written.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
We will decide what is interpreted into Paul and the circumstances in which they are considered. Go play with your Greer dolls
 

kami

An iron homily
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
4,265
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
We will decide what is interpreted into Paul and the circumstances in which they are considered. Go play with your Greer dolls
Nah, my Greer doll leaks sand everywhere. I want to play with you instead. :(
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
i knock them down oh lord, and yet they keep comingk...
 

JonathanM

Antagonist
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
1,067
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
A distant friend of mine 'came out' a week or so ago. He was in a group of friends, many of whom were gay. I am almost completely sure he is not really gay and is just doing it to, ironically, 'fit in' or be more 'unique.'
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top