<p>Not all of em want support and pity my friend. You've been watching too much primetime.</p>
<p>Anonymous, no it's not. Some people's wiring is such that they're receptive to both, though I think some people who appear "bi" are probably a mix of gay wiring with straight socialization causing conflicted behavior. Sexuality isn't a binary condition. At all.</p>
<p>please explain to the southern hicks here what you mean</p>
<p>I find it amusing how those who aren't gay expound so vehemently on what "being gay" is and means. Really. Many of you need to get over yourselves, open up, and talk to some of the people you so forcefully condemn so that you can get an idea of what it means to be antagonized for something over which you have no control. You can shout your "facts" and throw out your "statistics," but unless you are, you'll never know...unless you ask. Ignorance is the worst enemy of the true intellectual.</p>
<p>if gay people could legally recognize their relationships, then it would do quite a bit to cut down on the stereotype (yes, stereotype) of gays being promiscuous.</p>
<p>as someone who's liked guys and girls, I can say that sexuality doesn't have to be binary :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's wrong and has been proven so 3424323 times now[...]but it is their own fault
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maize & Blue - there has been NO evidence/proof supporting your claim. You are actually 100% incorrect and science works directly against you. Being gay has been proven several times that it is not a choice. People dont just go around going "oh i think im gonna be gay". In a recent April edition of Time Magazine, researches discovered that gay men and women have the same instinctual attraction to male pheromones (newly discovered facts). You are attracted to a specific gender (whether male or female) because of this pheromone (old facts that you should have already known through biology). living animals are attracted through this "scent" that the body naturally detects and gay men and females minds are constructed in similar ways to pick up the same "scent" or pheromone. </p>
<p>TakingBackSaturday - dozens of studies/research/scientific evidence show that gay people/animals are born that way. it is NOT a way of life they choose to pursue when they hit puberty. And if we follow what you are saying, sheep, dogs, cats and other animals make decisions. sorry but i beg to differ.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gays want support, and they want others to feel sorry for them even if that means that some ppl will hate them. They are getting noticed just as the punker with a mohawk gets noticed.
[/quote]
wow you must really live in an isolated society to be this ignorant. im not going to bother attacking this statement.</p>
<p>I am a mere bystander. I have no ulterior motives in being a GLBTQ ally. Mine is a cause that has neither constitutional nor scientific opposition. There is no debate to be had.</p>
<p>As an individual who has deep interests science, politics, and society,
As an individual who respects the constitutional rights granted in their original contexts by our constitution,
As an individual who is firmly convinced that sexuality is a biological trait that is repressed understandably and only permitted to surface in cases of extreme will or understanding social climates,
As an individual who can list dozens of openly gay friends and acquaintances withous batting an eyelash,
As an individual who has campaigned with his local Gay Straight Alliance,
As an individual who is openly *straight,
As an individual who is considered straight edge on the social and substance fronts,
As an individual with bright, well-adjusted, friends whose successful parent(s) are gay, lesbian, single, bisexual, transexual, IVF patient, and straight,*</p>
<p>**I am utterly ashamed by the emotionally, morally, and socially deprived antics of you, my fellow citizen. You have no idea how much your willfull ignorance hurts those who are are actually and legitimately affected by your rhetoric. Thinking about those I hold dear and the futility of their miniscule request brings me nearly to tears.</p>
<p>Please, people. Please. PLEASE don't "debate" this ad infinitum. You only add insult to undue injury. The grief is ours, the fun yours, the cost all of society's to bear.</p>
<p>Disgusted, distressed, and disturbed deeply,**</p>
<p>Nom.</p>
<p>Shrek, I think youth is to blame here. Most of us have friends that are gay, but we do not know they are gay until later on in life, when they come out. A couple of my dearest friends are gay. I did not find out until I was well in my 20s. Once you put a human face on a person, straight or gay, you can no longer simply generalize. I used to be vehimently opposed to gays, their lifestyles and the concept of gay marriages. Over time, I have been exposed to too many real-world examples that have taught be that in the end, one cannot be judged merely on the base of their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.</p>
<p>....yes....</p>
<p>one cannot be judged merely on the base of their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.</p>
<p>I dont think anyone disagrees with this, not here anyhow, what people are judged on is not their feelings but their behavior. A married man can feel attracted to a person other than his spouse, but we do not judge them until and if they act upon these feelings. There is certainly a distinction to made between a sex life and a love life. Our society is conflicted only about the love life, not the sex life; should people of the same gender, who are in love be considered part of the married class? The verdict is clearly out, but if the media and those behind the popular culture have their way it will soon be in: yes. Whether it should be or should not be and what it will mean in the big picture is not a part of the debate.</p>
<p>As an individual who is firmly convinced that sexuality is a biological trait that is repressed understandably and only permitted to surface in cases of extreme will or understanding social climates</p>
<p>Not even the psychiatric community any longer believes this certainly Freud and his posse did, they felt sexual repression was pretty much the cause of everything that we would call motivation.</p>
<p>Some people's wiring is such that they're receptive to both, though I think some people who appear "bi" are probably a mix of gay wiring with straight socialization causing conflicted behavior.</p>
<p>We need to distinguish falling in love from a 0-sum sex drive. It seems inappropriately judgmental of any heterosexual married couple to assume that they have conflicted behavior about being in love with the person they claim to be in love withreverse this scenario and you will have half this board condemning you; that is to say if anyone claimed that an individual in a homosexual relationship was conflicted in the love they have for their spouse because of their heterosexual need for sex, that is their sex-drive, they would, on this board, be called a bigotit seems it does not work the other way around.</p>
<p>
Don't you dare put words in my mouth, Woodwork. Repression is not the cause. It is the vehicle. There are gays in heterosexual relationships. They don't derive pleasure from their sexual experience, but they continue repressing their sexuality on the social level. Maybe it is the word that confuses you. Substitute "actively hide" for "repress" and you'll be in the clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all, Woodwork. Both scenarios are equally real. As has been said before, sexuality is not binary. It is perfectly believable that a predominantly gay man in a homosexual relationship could have some internal conflict, maybe even to the point of acting on his lust for the opposite sex. In fact, I know that this happens. The same is true of predominantly straight men in heterosexual relationships. But what I'm most concerned about is predominantly gay men in heterosexual relationships because society mandates it. There are varying degrees of conflict. Yes, true omnisexuals will be sexually conflicted no matter who they settle down with, but the first two examples I gave are only temptations. These are no different than a fifty year-old married man lusting after the latest pop sensation. The only real problem is when a misunderstanding community forbids a non-heterosexual from doing what s/he feels is most natural for him/her. That is the only time that the conflict is overwhelming. . . and it caused by intolerance.</p>
<p>In a humble attempt to not presume or dare to put words in your mouth, I will simply copy and paste them:</p>
<p>As an individual who is firmly convinced that sexuality is a biological trait that is repressed[...]</p>
<p>Moreover:</p>
<p>"These are no different than a fifty year-old married man lusting after the latest pop sensation."</p>
<p>Speaking for myself, I also find this lechery to be morally in error (though not without humor) and therefore it does not mitigate, to me, any other possible behavior.</p>
<p>I do not feel that all of our desires need or should necessarily be fulfilled, that is where morality and conscience do their work when unobstructed. People would do a great many things if their conscience did not forbid it, that is to say, if our desires are our guide we will live in a different world than if our conscience is our guide. My feeling is that our consciences have it right.</p>
<p>I am neither for or against gay marriage, as I find such a problem intractable and with few obvious answers. I feel the same about polygamy amongst other possible relationships that people desire.</p>
<p>
Such was my point. In the first two examples, the desire is real, not necessarily wanted, and ultimately unattainable. But a homosexual in a heterosexual relationship is wrong. If you do not derive psychological pleasure from heterosexual sex, then why be forced into it? Abstainance is not an alternative. Fetishes and other secondary sexual behaviors deemed perverted at any given time have alternatives. Primary sexuality does not. To deprive a mature adult of his or her right to intimacy is torture.</p>
<p>EDIT:
Yes, out of context and in ignorance of my rebuttal. Bravo. I foresee a long and successful career in debate for you.</p>
<p>Originally Posted by Woodwork
"I will simply copy and paste them"</p>
<p>"Yes, out of context and in ignorance of my rebuttal. Bravo. I foresee a long and successful career in debate for you."-nom</p>
<p>i've notice a lot of that here....</p>
<p>"Switch-hitting" as I have seen it in high school, is not derived from love. It's derived from alcohol and impulses of that nature. Maybe this is because that is only what I have seen in high school, but I get the impression that bisexuality is most often not out of genuine love. I know that Angelina Jolie had a relationship with another woman once, and I believe it when she says she was genuinely in love. That is something to understand. "Switch-hitting" under the influence of alcohol is a completely different matter.</p>
<p>The Gay-Straight Alliance is very strong at my school, and I am friends with most of its members. Personally, I have come to a greater understanding of homosexuality by meeting homosexuals, but today they held a mock gay marriage in the school library. It bothered me, because MARRIAGE is a separate issue from general civil rights because of its connotations with religion.</p>
<p>I have no problem with homosexuals, just a problem with people trying to forcibly, radically, and suddenly trying to change such a large fixture of human life. A fixture which was derived from religion, but now is claimed to have no bearing upon by religion.</p>
<p>P.S. I didn't mention anything to those friends. And I will say friends, because differing political attitudes do not have to destroy friendships.</p>
<p>"People dont just go around going "oh i think im gonna be gay". In a recent April edition of Time Magazine, researches discovered that gay men and women have the same instinctual attraction to male pheromones (newly discovered facts)."</p>
<p>shrek: Didn't it say in that same magazine that they did not take into the account of outisde, life occurrences</p>
<p>Firstly, pheramones are psuedoscience at best.</p>
<p>Secondly, correlation doesn't indicate causation. If you smell the same thing every before you had sex/got close to someone you eventually react to it.</p>
<p>EG. Pavlov's dogs...</p>
<p>If you rang a bell every time before a gay couple got intimate they would react the exact same way.</p>
<p>Thirdly, nearly all REAL science has proven that it is not genetically determined. It is a combination of social factors and choice. There are too many studies to even cite, but google it, lexusnexus it, or medpub it and you'll see what I'm talking about.</p>
<p>Maize&Blue22, as an active science enthuiast who receives Nature, Science, MIT Review, and NewScientist, on top of my ScienceDaily perusal, I can assure you that your claims are entirely incorrect according to current research. Furthermore, had truly done the reading you claimed to have, you would have known how to spell "pheromone."</p>
<p>Sexuality is biologically determined before birth. In your own words, there are too many studies to even cite. . . including the following:
[quote=Nature, July 29, 2004]
These findings, published in the July 29 edition of the journal Nature, may eventually help scientists understand how the brain orchestrates sexual behavior in a variety of species - from flies to reptiles to humans, according to the researchers.</p>
<p>"The fruit fly is a model organism whose basic cellular functions are very similar to what they are in people," said Bruce S. Baker, the Dr. Morris Herzstein Professor in Biology at Stanford and co-author of the Nature study. "It wouldn't surprise me to learn that human sexual behaviors also have underneath them a basic circuitry in the nervous system that mediates attraction and mating."
[/quote]
"These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains and have important implications for understanding how sexual orientation development differs between men and women," said J. Michael Bailey, professor and chair of psychology at Northwestern and senior researcher of the study "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal." The study is forthcoming in the journal Psychological Science.</p>
<p>Bailey's main research focus has been on the genetics and environment of sexual orientation, and he is one of the principal investigators of a widely cited study that concludes that genes influence male homosexuality.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>"This shows that the sex difference that we found is real and almost certainly due to a sex difference in the brain," said Bailey.
Refuting 30 years of scientific theory that solely credits hormones for brain development, UCLA scientists have identified 54 genes that may explain the different organization of male and female brains. Published in the October edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the UCLA discovery suggests that sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth and may offer physicians a tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>We didnt expect to find genetic differences between the sexes brains, Vilain said. But we discovered that the male and female brains differed in many measurable ways, including anatomy and function.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Our research implies that genes account for some of the differences between male and female brains, Vilain said. We believe that ones genes, hormones and environment exert a combined influence on sexual brain development.</p>
<p>The scientists will pursue further studies to distinguish specific roles in the brains sexual maturation for each of the 54 different genes they identified. What their research reveals may provide insight into how the brain determines gender identity.</p>
<p>Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy, Vilain said. These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex is a state of mind.
<p>The study, published in the July issue of Psychological Bulletin, combined the results from 23,410 heterosexual and homosexual men and women. The results for both sexes were statistically significant; however, the tendency toward increased levels of left-handedness was markedly greater for lesbian women than for gay men.</p>
<p>The importance of these results lies in their theoretical implications. Handedness is determined early in development -- probably before birth. Therefore, the correlation of handedness and sexual orientation demonstrates that at least some influences on adult sexual orientation operate quite early, maybe even before an individual is born.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Although the findings of increased left-handedness in homosexual persons are quite reliable, they are small in absolute magnitude, and they have no application besides providing clues to the origins of sexual orientation. Handedness could not be used to decide whether someone else (or oneself) is gay, lesbian, or heterosexual.
<p>McFadden's study, funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, is published in the March 3 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.</p>
<p>"The report is an elegant study of subtle auditory phenomena in gay and heterosexual people," says Sandra Witelson, an expert in the relationship of brain anatomy and function to sexual orientation at McMaster University in Ontario. "The results support the theory that differences in the central nervous system exist between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and that the differences are possibly related to early factors in brain development."</p>
<p>In the past, research that examined neurobiological differences between gays and heterosexuals has focused more on males than females. To date, findings implicate differences in brain structures, hand preference and fingerprint patterns. "Our finding reveals the first physiological characteristic related to homosexuality in females," says McFadden.
<p>There's a head start . . .</p>
<p>pheromones are not pseudoscience. Gay men respond to other males' pheromones in the same manner as heterosexual women. Strange but true.</p>
<p>I've already had this debate 200x so I'm loathe to go back, yet again, and find all the real science articles that absolutely destroy your argument.</p>
<p>...and yes human pheramones or whatever they are are psuedoscience at its worst. </p>
<p>...or maybe I can be like Elaine and get a perfume that will make (in this case anyway) gay men be aroused at a mere whiff of my scent! ::snickers::</p>
<p>So let me go through your articles one by one.</p>
<p>1: A scientist, researching and specializing in fruit flies, conjectured that <em>maybe</em> "It wouldn't surprise me" if people were born gay? Are you really presenting this as proof? Uhhm, ok.</p>
<p>2: Correlation != Causation the brain is constantly changing and learning - it is very likely that these responses are much more learned than determined. If you didn't selectively quote your report you would see that.</p>
<p>3: People who are left handed are more likely to be gay - therefore being gay is genetically determined?</p>
<p>4: Correlation != Causation once again</p>
<p>I'm sorry I called this stuff psuedoscience; you're correct - it isn't. </p>
<p>It doesn't deserve the title.</p>
<p>Now, can you answer me this. Assuming DNA doesn't vary widely over geography and time why were/are:</p>
<p>Ancient Greek men - almost 100% homosexual by todays standards! They all were attracted to teenage boys - they were considered the highest form of beauty (far above women, actually). Were they all just faking it? Why do all the poems, dramas, and histories provide first hand proof that they really felt like that? Why were they all so invariable attracted to teenage boys? Was ancient Greece just afflicted with your gay DNA?</p>
<p>China and most of SE Asia - homosexuality was unheard of until modern times (and almost unheard of still). Did they systematically lack your gay dna? Were they all just being so repressed that there isn't a mention of it in 3000 years worth of folklore and history? Don't you think if 10% of the population was genetically gay (as some people claim) over a period of 3000 years someone would have said something about the supression of their true selves? Or not....</p>
<p>Mideval Europe - once again no homosexuality, no homosexuals (aside from the famous people that morons try to posthumously "out" while lacking any real evidence in the style of Shakespeare or Abraham Lincoln ;)) Was there just a complete lack of the elusive gay gene? The church was, indeed, against it, but when the Chruch split 9000 ways to next tuesday in the 1500's why didn't this "sizeable and genetically determined" population subset form a denomination that allowed them to be themselves? That aside, if there were 1000 years of repressing 10% of the population wouldn't there be some evidence of their true feelings? Anywhere? Literature, folklore, etc, etc....Once again...or not...</p>
<p>Contemporary Brazil - Once again almost 100% homosexual by our standards. In brazil it is considered acceptable and perfectly masculine to have sex with another man if you are not the, ahem, receiver. Most men like doing it and feel attraction to other men so they can do this stuff. Contrast that with America where very, very few men feel like that. Do they all have the gay gene? or...not...</p>
<p>Are you ready to accept the huge white elephant in the room (homosexuality is a product of society and CHOICE), or are you really going to make me pubmed this stuff for the umpteenth time? I don't see how you can say that homosexuality is anything more than a little genetically determined (dna that may, for example, make someone more likely to be "a rebel" and choose to be a homosexual might be possible) in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the nature and amount of homosexuality has fluctuated nearly 100% back and forth over time and space. </p>
<p>Please - If I'm wrong I'd like to know - how has homosexuality been so varied if it's genetically inescapable? </p>
<p>I'm watching the game and I don't really want to do it, and I'm very, very afraid I may lose this debate. I don't think I can produce anything nearly as strong as "left handed people are more likely to be gay so being gay must be genetically determined"! Hahaha ;)</p>
<p>Check....and....mate</p>