The dominant sexual orientation has to be heterosexual, or the species
would die out.
The persistent homosexual orientation, in our species, reveals that our
genome is an amalgamation of functions and subroutines. Sometimes a
person's sex and gender don't match up -- that's ok.
Just think of homosexuality as another expression (mode) of being human. And being
human, it must be given proper esteem.
I guess what I'm saying is homosexuality is genetic.
Furthermore, our need for sex is on par with our need for food. So, put a bunch of men
in a cage or a bunch of women in a cage plus some time, and some of them will have sex
with each other. Even though they know they are of the same sex.
This is ok too, because sex is built into us. Anything humans do is "human behavior".
Part of the problem is dismissing Bigotry as "stupidity". It isn't. it's a hardwired reflex built into the way our brains are constructed. It takes concious understanding, education, and a willingness to teach and learn to overcome an instinct which is as natural to us as breathing.
Yes and no. As related to our disgust at certain things, the capability for that wiring in our brains is hard wired, but the actual things that garner that reaction are completely learned.
There is not a single thing that a person reacts to with disgust that is instinctual. They vary completely depending on your conditioning as a child.
So yes, all humans are born capable of bigotry. What they are actually bigoted against is determined by the culture they grow up in.
I think, end of the day, we choose our sexual orientations.
I really can't see this.
Try to get someone to articulate why they like people of the opposite (or same ) gender. Its pretty funny to watch.
I don't think its a coincidence that the attraction kicks on at puberty. How much time does the average boy spend with girls before the age of 12?
There are attempts to turn gay people strait (mostly from the religious right) .... they don't appear to be all that successful. There are practicing gay people in countries where homosexual acts will get you executed.
If an electric chair isn't sufficient inducement to decide which way you want to go i have to think there's something else behind it.
-I always thought that homosexuality means a "preference" for sexual acitivty with one's own gender, and hetero meant the opposite...therefore, prison rape is not hommosexuality. It's same sex rape, but not a preference per se.
-For a better example look at curses. Threatening to have sex with a dude is usually considered a pretty serious insult, but if a woman said to a man "Suck it" it kind of fails.
-Tchaikovsky was gay and hated it. His case proves one can't change it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I've always found the biology/social upbringing determines X arguments to be utterly terrifying. Actually, determinism of pretty much any kind terrifies me. It completely destroys moral responsibility.
Yeah, to be honest, I find major hurricanes terrifying, too, because there's pretty much nothing you can do to prevent them or steer them around you -- but that doesn't mean I go around refusing to believe they exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the Free Will/Determinism debate is anything but settled...
The neurological research is trending very strongly in the determinist direction, with mostly philosphers struggling to salvage contra-causal free will as a concept. I put more stock in observations and in science than in wishful thinking; if that's uncivil, then so be it.
Majestic, have you ever tried to change your orientation or known someone who has?
the Free Will/Determinism debate is anything but settled...The neurological research is trending very strongly in the determinist direction,
True, but even the most ardent supporters will admit that the very best that this line of research can do is establish the existence of genetic predisposition. Which is not exactly new.
with mostly philosphers struggling to salvage contra-causal free will as a concept. I put more stock in observations and in science than in wishful thinking; if that's uncivil, then so be it.
Free will is every bit as decidedly observable and backed by science as the determinism bent. Every time an individual with a genetic predisposition towards something chooses not to indulge, for example.
What I don't get is why the free will vs. determinism debate end up at all heated. Neither side needs to be proven either correct or incorrect when so obviously every individual is an example of how both blend together.
Basically, I don't think human sexuality is a 'fundamental fact' about our existence. It can, and does change. Constantly. Where I'm at in terms of my sexual tastes now is faaaar different where I started. So granting that sexuality can and does change...why shouldn't the will help in nudging the thing in one direction or another?
Because everyone is not you.
To go back to my vector table example, you may have a light or non existent biological urge one way or the other. That gives your choice free reign to pull the washer all over the map.
To be honest, I've always found the biology/social upbringing determines X arguments to be utterly terrifying. Actually, determinism of pretty much any kind terrifies me. It completely destroys moral responsibility.
But going too far in the other direction with it not only reeks of political correctness but flies in the face of reality. Basing your ideas on something other than reality will always get you into trouble eventually.
I just don't get how you can see anything but biology in a "choice" where 90+% of people decide to go a certain way.
IE, if you think you sexuality is JUST a choice then people wonder why they CAN"T just change it, why they keep feeling the way they do.
Like the vector table example: if someone has a heavy (or even normal) biological weight one way or the other trying to change that by stacking more and more will on the other side may either be swimming against the time or putting waaaaay too much stress on the line. Something is going to snap.
Free will is every bit as decidedly observable and backed by science as the determinism bent. Every time an individual with a genetic predisposition towards something chooses not to indulge, for example.
Brain research suggests that your subconscious processes a bunch of input (genetic predisposition, accreted social consitioning, and any chemical-driven signals) and comes up with a "don't" verdict -- totally outside of your conscious decision and prior to you making it -- and the "decision-making" you're aware of actually involves heavy activity in the areas of the brain responsible for after-the-fact rationalizations and justifying -- not decision-making. In other words, your brain is a meat computer that determines your behavior for you, and you maintain the illusion of free will because you spend a lot of effort in rationalizing the foregone conclusions to yourself before you're consciously aware of them. "Contra-causal free will" implies that you have a soul and personality independent of your brain which can override the decisions your brain makes subconsciously, and that is increasingly being shown as not really how decisions work.
Free will is every bit as decidedly observable and backed by science as the determinism bent. Every time an individual with a genetic predisposition towards something chooses not to indulge, for example.Brain research suggests that your subconscious processes a bunch of input (genetic predisposition, accreted social consitioning, and any chemical-driven signals) and comes up with a "don't" verdict -- totally outside of your conscious decision and prior to you making it -- and the "decision-making" you're aware of actually involves heavy activity in the areas of the brain responsible for after-the-fact rationalizations and justifying -- not decision-making. In other words, your brain is a meat computer that determines your behavior for you, and you maintain the illusion of free will because you spend a lot of effort in rationalizing the foregone conclusions to yourself before you're consciously aware of them. "Contra-causal free will" implies that you have a soul and personality independent of your brain which can override the decisions your brain makes subconsciously, and that is increasingly being shown as not really how decisions work.
And all of that research continually hand waves away any contradictory evidence with the "too many variables" excuse. As in, many studies have attempted to predict the reaction either of the "meat computer" or of the individual, and then discard any observations that were contrary to the predicted reaction by claiming the existence of unforeseen variables unduly influenced said reaction.
Also, the mapping of the sections of the brain of which you speak is far from conclusive. Those areas have been linked to rationalization, but not definitely or exclusively.
Anyway, I will buy into the total dominance of the determinism side of the argument when neuroscience actually produces a study where they put forth significant results when predicting the so-called forgone conclusions that should be their participants' reactions to stimuli. We are far from that, and as is typically the case with science when attempting to define the human condition in black and white terms, the answer of "it is probably a infinitely complex combination of both" has been tossed aside in favor of drawing a line down the middle and demanding that everyone choose a side.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"it is probably a infinitely complex combination of both"
Well, that's sort of part of the problem -- either we have incorporeal "selves" that exists outside of our brains and can override them (i.e., "souls," if you will), or we don't. On the one hand, there is no evidence for any such thing. On the other hand, most religious narratives (with the exclusion of some forms of Buddhism) are based on the assumption that we do have them.
Therein lies a lot of the conflict. To a scientist trying to learn how things work, saying "it's partly magic and impossible to ever find out" sounds like a cop-out excuse to discontinue research. To a theologan trying to assign moral sin, saying "it's partly pre-determined" verges perilously close to a knotty theodicy problem he'd rather not deal with.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the human brain is complicated.
I think its like the appendix. Sure is THERE, its just not being used...
"it is probably a infinitely complex combination of both"Well, that's sort of part of the problem -- either we have incorporeal "selves" that exists outside of our brains and can override them (i.e., "souls," if you will), or we don't. On the one hand, there is no evidence for any such thing. On the other hand, most religious narratives (with the exclusion of some forms of Buddhism) are based on the assumption that we do have them.
Therein lies a lot of the conflict. To a scientist trying to learn how things work, saying "it's partly magic and impossible to ever find out" sounds like a cop-out excuse to discontinue research. To a theologan trying to assign moral sin, saying "it's partly pre-determined" verges perilously close to a knotty theodicy problem he'd rather not deal with.
Yes, but neither side MUST be an absolute. The series of decisions that makes you yourself can quite readily be attributed to both states of being. Partly deterministic, partly free will.
To a scientist trying to learn how things work, saying "it's partly magic and impossible to ever find out" sounds like a cop-out excuse to discontinue research.
Only if they hold to an absolute. If the purpose of the research is to provide a greater understanding, then this cause is fine, the open-minded scientist can continue on happily in pursuit of such knowledge whilst admitting that there is no knowing for certain. And there is no knowing for certain. In order to achieve the significant predictive results I was speaking of earlier, behavioral scientists, neurologists, biologists, psychologists, and the like will all tell you that a complete knowledge and understanding of every moment of a person's life up to the moment of the decision making would need to be on record and accounted for. Quite impossible.
To a theologan trying to assign moral sin, saying "it's partly pre-determined" verges perilously close to a knotty theodicy problem he'd rather not deal with.
The same holds true in this situation. It is only those who choose to deal only in absolutes who are so perturbed by this that they cannot bear to continue their existence. Almost every theologian subscribes to the idea that there exists a power greater than themselves, and by definition they should be open to the idea of determinism to some extent or another.
TL;DR, whether scientific or philosophical, having ones identity hinge so completely on one side or the other of the determinism/free will debate is sort of silly. It is nearly as irrational as the same sort of identity crises/arguments going on with the Republican/Democrat thing these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gwuh...
First off, your genetic makeup is the table you're supposed to roll on for your traits, not the dice results. Thirty thousand genes do not have nearly enough room to code every nook and cranny of the human body. They do, however, give the guidelines for what the body will look like, leaving the rest to CHANCE. For more solid evidence, look at cloned cats - they have identic genes, and similar fur patterns... But not identic ones. So, if you are seriously discussing nature vs nurture, do yourself a favour and remember that a lot of it is simply random. In fact, it goes for EVERY gene apart from certain single gene disorders (Huntington comes to mind). Further, for each gene, we get two alleles, one from mom and one from dad. Thus, we need to select one of them, and if both are serviceable, that too is random. And so on and so forth.
What does this mean for personality, behaviour and so on? Simply put, our neurons amplify signals, spreading them. This means that sometimes, a single neuron will, in the spirit of butterflies causing storms, influence the entire brain. Now consider the consequences of this if even identical twins have randomly patterned brain cells, connecting to other brain cells randomly. Even a cubic millimeter of different tissue in the brain can be massively significant to personality... And differences far larger than that exist in all other parts of twins' bodies. The brain, then, is no exception. There are many twin studies that speak roughly the same story: heredity explains a clear majority of our behavioural traits. The rest is defined as shared environment and unique environment, and of these two, the vastly dominant part is UNIQUE environment, not the shared one. Shared environment is the environmental factors you share with your siblings, but it explains almost nothing. Unique environment is everything else, including aforementioned chance, and what you yourself want to be.
There are harsh lessons here. Criminality of the violent kind is mostly dependent on who your parents are. Whether you have easy access to religious feelings and whether you are gay are too. What kind of jokes you like, ice cream flavours, what your smile looks like, what gestures you use, how easy you have it trusting others, and so on, same story.
At the same time, it does carry a cureall for moral responsibility about who you are. You do not choose to become who you are, and you don't get to choose what things will be hard for you to deal with in your life. For some, the difficulties are so pronounced that no human being could be expected to be able to handle them, which hurts to accept. For most, we have our hard things to deal with, whether it's a lack of empathy, a consuming anxiety, inability to make long term plans, and so on.
What nothing of this does is absolve you of moral responsibility for your actions. If your actions are wrong, in a more universal manner of speaking, that is on your head. If you kill someone for fun because other people are furniture to you, it will still come back to you, and it should. Don't look for forgiveness in the evolutionary process; just as you killed that guy because of who you are, others will kill you because of who they are. Much better all around, then, to seek a civilized behaviour.
As for free will... Whether we have it or not doesn't matter. Given a certain brain, yes, the results of a specific signal can be somewhat predictable. Such as: I hit someone, it is more likely that he will hit me back than it was before I struck, no? We CAN predict how others will react. Still, with neurons amplifying signals that are at or near the quantum mechanic size, I do not see how we could KNOW what reaction we will get. Prediction, then, well, don't hold your breath. Then, with new experiences, our brains adapt and change according to what is seen as the most beneficial way for us, and always in accordance with our personalities. With time, we still make decisions, EVEN if they are post dated as people have described above. We change ourselves. To be honest, we are no closer to finding the mechanisms that govern our consciousness today, and until that happens, this wil remain unsolved. We humans analyze ourselves and our futures. This becomes a singularly powerful feedback loop that gives us consciousness, and makes us difficult to predict with any sort of accuracy on a personal level. It also allows us to shape our own beings to meet the challenges we will face.
No. You don't need a magic sugar candy soul to explain human behaviour, or consciousness. The brain is not going to be predicted soon, and we are not puppets to our environments just because some guy found a strange correlation in a weird experiment.
I am straight and why would I want a cure for homosexuality that means a formely gay guy gets cured and can have a relationship instead of me. This is one reason not to want a cure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am straight and why would I want a cure for homosexuality that means a formely gay guy gets cured and can have a relationship instead of me. This is one reason not to want a cure.
Nice to see some enlightened self interest...
|
Gereint: I agree that the causes aren't really important in their own, but it can still be interesting to discuss. I don't really have an issue with anyones sexuality as long as the person doesn't do something without consent, so that's not where I'm coming from at least.
Also, people still view sex, gender and sexuality in a very black and white way, and I do think increased spread of knowledge and understanding of these topics is good for everyone, but especially for those who don't conform to the norm.
BigNorseWolf: Do you have any source of 95+% of humans being heterosexual? I find it hard to believe there would be accurate statistics on that, and even harder to believe such a high number. Even if we use a simplistic hetero-bi-homo scale, I would think that the number of homo+bi would exceed that number by a fair bit.
Havnt read everthing yet but would like to point out that the subject came up in sociology class, according to my teacher about 10% of people everywhere are gay, regardless of the cultural views of any particular region. A small percentage of those are that way because of abuse but not many. Also experiments have been done on fruit flys and we can genetically control their orientation, so genetics plays a heavy role at least with environments having a minor impact. Choice never actually made it to the conversation but the brain can do wonders if motivated enough.
Watching what he went through, I'm more than convinced that genetics plays a defining role in our sexuality. It's just that our brain and our genetic code is still so complex that we may never fully understand how it all works.
The hormone hypothesis has a fair bit to it, and would be just as hardwired into the brain. It wouldn't be something genetic (thus there's nothing to test or alter) but it would still be something you're born with (just not something you're conceived with)
Well I'm not a scientist, a physician, a psychiatrist, a social worker, nor a person with access to pubmed. I'm really not a "professional" in any of these senses.But with all respect, to whatever profession(s) you enjoy, I think your opinion is wrong.
Regards,
-- Andy
It's not really an opinion so much as it's a statement of where the scientific literature is at, and it's virtually onesided at this point that sexual orientation is biological in nature (what amount is genetic influenced versus in-utero developmental by exogenous factors is what's in flux at the moment).
I'm not involved in active research in this specific area, but I'm a scientist (cell biologist working in hepatic toxicology and associated areas) and based on my observation of the current research in the area, there's really no evidence that it's based on upbringing or social factors. Obviously if really good research points otherwise, I'm open to it, but there's rather a mountain of evidence to climb to get there.
Also, pubmed is available to anyone as a searchable clearinghouse, but largely restricted to abstracts for many journals that then require subscriptions or pay per article to access the full material (except for certain journals like PNAS which usually contain links to full articles).
In summary again, sexual orientation appears to be largely correlated to brain structures that are formed in-utero and don't based on current understanding of the process appear to develop after that point - ie the basic neural architecture is set early in development, influenced by hormone levels (which can influence gene expression), and potentially other in-utero factors (notions of a mother to fetus immune role in birth order studies of males and the increased rate of non-hetero orientation there, but that's still in need of study).
|
Honestly, I don't really think it matters whether or not homosexuality is caused by environmental or genetic reasons. Sexual orientation is, generally speaking, something that a person cannot change of their own volition, regardless of the factors present.
If scientists discover that homosexuality is caused entirely by one factor or another, it still doesn't change how people struggle with conflicting views on homosexuality. People who believe that engaging in homosexual activities is sinful will continue to believe so, and people who accept homosexuality(or any other variation of a non-heterosexual relationship) will continue to do so.
That being said, I understand that there are people who want to know and understand it, and believe it or not, there are people who "struggle" with homosexuality, i.e., it is not a lifestyle they wish to engage in, either for personal or religious reasons. If those people wish to be "cured" of what they see as a harmful aspect of their being, I think it would be fair to allow them that opportunity.
Free will is every bit as decidedly observable and backed by science as the determinism bent. Every time an individual with a genetic predisposition towards something chooses not to indulge, for example.Brain research suggests that your subconscious processes a bunch of input (genetic predisposition, accreted social consitioning, and any chemical-driven signals) and comes up with a "don't" verdict -- totally outside of your conscious decision and prior to you making it -- and the "decision-making" you're aware of actually involves heavy activity in the areas of the brain responsible for after-the-fact rationalizations and justifying -- not decision-making. In other words, your brain is a meat computer that determines your behavior for you, and you maintain the illusion of free will because you spend a lot of effort in rationalizing the foregone conclusions to yourself before you're consciously aware of them. "Contra-causal free will" implies that you have a soul and personality independent of your brain which can override the decisions your brain makes subconsciously, and that is increasingly being shown as not really how decisions work.
I always liked this "conversation"
Person 1: What makes human beings so smart?
Person 2: The brain
Person 1: What just told you to say that?
I've been thinking there may just be a big hormonal mess up in me that's causing what's going on with me. I don't know if something like that can be checked for, however.
Well, with the standard hypothesis what happens is that while a fetus is in eutero its sex is determined by the effect of hormones on the body.
Sex ostensibly determines orientation, because there's a great deal of benefit to reproduction if there's a higher drive to mate with the same people you can reproduce with. So while the hormones are building a male or female body (plumbing goes out/in) they're predisposing the brain towards certain behaviors to be triggered later.
If you have a genetic male that for some reason, his cells block all testosterone for example, the body develops to be almost completely female (albeit a sterile one) as well as a male inclined sex drive at rates comperable to XX females.
The link to male homosexuality with older brothers may come from a mother who's had lots of boys developing a resistance to testosterone. Less testosterone in the womb, less masculization of the brain, less mental drive to be attracted to girls. A fair bit of the brain is set and hard wired at birth, so pre natal changes stick with a person for life. (This may be THE mechanism. it may be A mechanism. It may not be. Do not take explanation if you are sleeping, pregnant, or may become pregnant...)
What you're describing shouldn't be able to be caused by the same process because your brain (like that of all adults) is largely stuck. The structures aren't going to change drastically, and there's no way for them to go back and forth rapidly.
What you're describing shouldn't be able to be caused by the same process because your brain (like that of all adults) is largely stuck. The structures aren't going to change drastically, and there's no way for them to go back and forth rapidly.Maybe I've got some sort of brain damage then.
If it was damaged it shouldn't work at all. If you put a computer hardrive in under a magnet it doesn't work at all: it doesn't go mac one day and PC the next.
If its that bad, Hermits Local 704 is always hiring. (We have trouble finding more recruits for some reason...)
Hormones being a major factor in sexual orientations makes a lot of sense to me. I've been thinking there may just be a big hormonal mess up in me that's causing what's going on with me. I don't know if something like that can be checked for, however.Watching what he went through, I'm more than convinced that genetics plays a defining role in our sexuality. It's just that our brain and our genetic code is still so complex that we may never fully understand how it all works.The hormone hypothesis has a fair bit to it, and would be just as hardwired into the brain. It wouldn't be something genetic (thus there's nothing to test or alter) but it would still be something you're born with (just not something you're conceived with)
(Brain) organization during development in utero, and hormonal activation are separate, though related, phenomena. Simon LeVay's research on hypothalamic structure could be a starting point. He found that the size of certain areas (INAH3) of the anterior hypothalamus may correlate with sexual orientation.