Homosexual/transgender CAVEMAN found

[15357]

Civilisation change has no teleological aspect. It is one of those things most frequently and intensely accorded teleological significance, but in truth, culture or ethics can 'advance' only towards a specified goal. If your goal is 'a tolerant society' then some kind of advance towards that might in theory be possible, but in the chaos of the last 2000 years, the rise and fall of societies, there has not been a steady shift from one end of the scale to another but instead various different arrangements which have been closer or further away to something very or only somewhat similar to that stated goal for longer or shorter periods of time to greater or lesser or more limited extents in one area or another or in one way or another. Or, in short: shit happens. Some societies in the past have been tolerant in the ways some existing now are not. Even once you get past the foundation metaphysical problems of proposing a teleological 'progression', you run into the evidential concerns: does this grand historical narrative of yours actually match up to the facts? In almost all cases it does not. In order to work at all as a narrative it must select, exclude, overemphasise, and ignore evidence.

None of this should dissuade us from trying to construct long-term theories of historical development that actually work. But it does mean we must be cautious in the extreme. In your case it reveals the obvious problems with, having arbitrarily defining one time and place as "primitive" and another as "advanced," going on to equally arbitrarily decide that everything the "primitive" era did was tarred with the "primitive" brush. That makes no sense at all. Why not say "hey, they got one" thing right!" Or why not be consistent in your application: everything they did, we should abandon! Or maybe they just did things differently, in their specific way, and we do ours in our specific way, and they are comparable in specific ways but not easily locatable within some bullshit general story.

Talking of specifics, Roman sexual morality was not as far as I know a close match to that of modern tolerant liberals. Nor does their sexuality seem to have been identical to ours. Homosexual love was bound up in structures of mastery and submission, and while it was acceptable to bum your slave or social inferior, it was not acceptable for them to bum you. This is perhaps not something to which we should aspire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Sexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I see, thanks for clearing that out. And I suppose I should have thought that way ("they got one thing right") except that we've seem to have moved from widespread acceptance to widespread intolerance and then back to cautious somewhat-tolerance? Anyway....

I've always been told that we as a species are advancing - but really the more and more I learn about history it just seems to me that our "progression" is chaotic at best. Technology, yes, but culture? I don't know.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Civilisation has advanced in the sense we've tried more ideas, in terms of Hegelian dialiatics, there are more ideas now then their have ever been, most of them are stupid ideas, but the aggregate number of good ideas has been increasing.

Fascism (I mean proper fascism not just as a biword for totalitarianism) for example is a relatvily new idea, its a horrible idea but new. New bad ideas will continue to develop as will new good ideas.

 

[Vegeta897]

"convincing" lol

because people like you exist

What does this even mean?

 

[Viperidae]

What does this even mean?

New Stern thread rule: Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[Bad^Hat]

People who use "are you gay" as an accusatory question, I assume.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

in my high school it was just

"YOU GAY?!"

ahhh hahahaha

oh huehe

ehhg =\

 

[GreatEmperor]

lol, homosexuality is cultural as opposed to natural? From whence the dichotomy, professor? Just because it's cultural, what else would it be other than 'natural'? Did aliens impose it?

But then, in order to show homosexuality is a "natural" occurrence under your definition, one would only need point to buggering chimpanzees.

Natural as in gay gene ,obviously, instinctual default behavior. Cultural values can influence peoples behavior greatly my student, look at the sperm tribe mentioned earlier, you think little boys would in any way seek out semen to eat if they were not pressured and taught to do it. They do it because its what is expected, whether they enjoy it or not.

Of course humans are not chimps so buggering chimps may entertain but not inform you. There is also the problem that they do not employ critical thought as to any of their behavior. I mean, a dog frequently humping furniture is not sexual or even dominance behavior but a simple reflex action. The same dog trying to hump your leg does not mean it is a bestiality practitioner but that it simply does not consider what gender it is humping or even if it is alive.

 

[Sulkdodds]

a dog frequently humping furniture is not sexual or even dominance behavior but a simple reflex action..

I don't think you know what a 'reflex action' is. Between this and your use of the word "natural" (see below) you need to be more precise with your language. Of, having eroded confidence in your biological credentials, you might also provide some kind of evidence or source indicating that your claim here is anything more than an uninformed guess.

Natural as in gay gene ,obviously, instinctual default behavior. Cultural values can influence peoples behavior greatly my student, look at the sperm tribe mentioned earlier, you think little boys would in any way seek out semen to eat if they were not pressured and taught to do it. They do it because its what is expected, whether they enjoy it or not.

It was not at all obvious that you used the word "natural" to mean "genetic." If that is suddenly what the word natural means then I agree that for now a 'gay gene' is uncertain. However, all this rather exposes the uselessness of using the word "natural" at all. Technology we possess and cultural norms we enforce might be said to emanate from the natural principles which have informed our development (guided would be the wrong word). So let's be clearer: homosexuality obviously is not restrained to any one single human culture. It occurs in many civilisations in many different forms and across most of our history. These cultures do not necessarily have to be linked. It also occurs, defined in its simplest form (male-to-male sexual activity rather than 'homosexual orientation') across the animal republic, and that is the utility of buggering chimps: they are simply one more example of homosexuality thus defined being found outside the human cultural sphere. Of course chimpanzees have a kind of culture, dogs maybe too, but male-to-male sexual behaviour has been observed in birds, elephants, lizards, and fruit flies...in many species it doesn't only involve the release of sexual tension or a 'reflex action' (see above) but courtship rituals, and, in the case of the bonobo, species-wide bisexuality as part of an intricate societal custom of using sex in almost all transactions.

Now maybe homosexuality is actually 'cultural' for all these species. But what would that mean? There are so many of them and there are so widespread that it's becoming ludicrous to claim that this is not "natural" - a claim which persists in your rhetoric despite your assertion that what you really mean is "genetic." Genetic or not, the basic aspects of what we call homosexuality, what we load so much cultural meaning onto, what we classify in terms of our gender norms which vary across our own societies and sections of our societies, what we impose our ideas on and expect to conform to our notion - the simple fact of same sex courtship and love - is found everywhere. It arises constantly. You may exclude this kind of ubiquity from whatever definition of "natural" you want to use, but you would also surely be excluding widespread behaviours like tool use, pack hunting, and leadership.

Clarify your claims. Are all of these animals suffering from the evolution of cultural rather than 'natural' values, isolated but identical in each case? This would be deeply implausible. Are their versions of homosexuality so wide that we cannot compare them to ourselves? If so, they are also so different from each other that in proposing a classification that can include all of them we must include our own 'version' on equal grounds with theirs. Are the examples so varying that any such classification is untenable? Maybe, but I don't think the evidence supports that, and besides, that would invite you to equally reject the classification of many varying human behaviours under the umbrella term of "homosexuality." Or is it in fact the likely truth that homosexuality in its simplest form is a natural phenomenon occurring across many, many species, to which we as humans, pursuing a cultural as well as a biological evolution, have appended all kinds of notions, conditions, 'orientations' and classifications?

Where, ultimately, will we find this 'man in his natural state', this tabula rasa who we can examine for the merest traces of buggery? This unspoiled caveman with "no culture or even language" that you originally proposed that we discover? Will she have evolved from all these other animals that bugger each other? Will she be completely without the pack dynamics and 'cultural' rules that drive and regulate chimpanzees and bonobos in their social groups? Will she be without their hooting language? Will she or her friends therefore show us the way to finding the perfect prototype of humanity, the Original Human who has nothing to do with anything else in the world, as if a human could exist without a culture or a language? Are you high?

 

[Eejit]

Natural as in gay gene ,obviously

Even if there is no 'gay gene' and this isn't clear one way of the other yet, genes aren't everything. Even aside from 'culture' there are other kinds of environmental and epigenetic mechanisms helping to determine biological development and behaviour.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Even if there is no 'gay gene' and this isn't clear one way of the other yet, genes aren't everything. Even aside from 'culture' there are other kinds of environmental and epigenetic mechanisms helping to determine biological development and behaviour.

Oh theres developmental disabilities, low self esteem and good old youthful experiences. Again I am not saying that there is a simple preset behavior for man, but rather that trying to explain homosexuality as something that cannot be corrected ( maybe the wrong word) because it is as genetically determined as sickle cell (which seems to be the prevaling argument) is stupid

 

[GreatEmperor]

@wordloaf of Sulk

We cant, Im not saying we try, it is an inhumane experiment to attempt it.

Reflex is exactly what dogs do when they haul themselves up on something appropriately shaped and begin to hump. They do not seek anything specifically out except by smell and that is only females they are drawn to, everything else is accidental. Animals apply no thought to their actions, humans do. Humans also override dispositions that are, it is safe to say, ingrained. Things like responding positively to feminine features, so on. What people are trained to do and how they define themselves, also the import they place on that definition, are huge factors in behavior.

Even the most primitive cultures train their young at an early age in appropriate behaviors, however they determined what is appropriate to them. If anyone wants to prove that homosexuality is a natural behavior, you either need to find genetic justification or someone with no training at all, Im not saying anyone should do either

 

[Sulkdodds]

What you're saying remains incoherent.
- A dog's humping is not a reflex action. A reflex action is a limited, specific, involuntary and instantaneous response to a stimulus. Your pupils widening or narrowing in response to light is a reflex. Your bum automatically tightening when someone touches your arsehole is a reflex. Your knee jerking when struck with a hammer is a reflex. A dog performing a complex action on a (broadly) voluntary basis is not a reflex. If you don't use proper terms then I can't have any idea what you mean.
- You don't speak from biological knowledge but from false intuition when you arbitrarily ring-fence an area of a dog's sexual activity and call that area "accidental". If a dog can't 'think' or make a decision then how is its response to females any less accidental than its response to a sofa? What do you mean by accidental? You are privileging the dog's sexual activity with females as its 'real' activity simply because A) you see that the dog needs to sexually reproduce sometimes, and B) your prejudices tell you this is actual rather than fake sex. But this is a fallacy.
- You claim that response to "feminine features" (when the definition of these changes so much between cultures) is ingrained and natural whereas response to masculine features is always culturally defined. Do you see any problem here?
- "Even the most primitive cultures train their young at an early age in appropriate behaviours", and yet homosexuality has persisted in cropping up even in societies where everyone is trained not to be homosexual. Does it then make sense to claim that homosexuality is a culturally trained behaviour?
- 'natural' is not the same as 'genetic'.

Nobody here is suggesting that we can or should just excise homosexuality from our natures. If there is a genetic cause it will be a very long time before we can isolate it and do anything with it. Homophobes will say what they say regardless of your proposition; if they would claim that homosexuality's 'natural' nature means we should remove or correct it, they would certainly say that if homosexuality is 'trained' then we should stop training in it. You're not winning any points from anyone.

 

[CptStern]

Even the most primitive cultures train their young at an early age in appropriate behaviors, however they determined what is appropriate to them. If anyone wants to prove that homosexuality is a natural behavior, you either need to find genetic justification or someone with no training at all, Im not saying anyone should do either

yet heterosexual couples have homosexual offspring ..that's pretty much the case in almost every instance of homosexuality. really this is pretty apparant that you'd have to question why you would even make that ludicrous statement

 

[GreatEmperor]

yet heterosexual couples have homosexual offspring ..that's pretty much the case in almost every instance of homosexuality. really this is pretty apparant that you'd have to question why you would even make that ludicrous statement

Kids arent computers, Im sure the father who beat his kid to inspire a work ethic and respect didnt intend for his disfunctional relationships with women or full-blown alcoholism, parents **** up kids in all sorts of ways. But I was more talking about how the tribes mentioned earlier were performing gay activities simply because that is the way it is, not for some deep need to.

 

[GreatEmperor]

What you're saying remains incoherent.
- A dog's humping is not a reflex action. A reflex action is a limited, specific, involuntary and instantaneous response to a stimulus. Your pupils widening or narrowing in response to light is a reflex. Your bum automatically tightening when someone touches your arsehole is a reflex. Your knee jerking when struck with a hammer is a reflex. A dog performing a complex action on a (broadly) voluntary basis is not a reflex. If you don't use proper terms then I can't have any idea what you mean.
- You don't speak from biological knowledge but from false intuition when you arbitrarily ring-fence an area of a dog's sexual activity and call that area "accidental". If a dog can't 'think' or make a decision then how is its response to females any less accidental than its response to a sofa? What do you mean by accidental? You are privileging the dog's sexual activity with females as its 'real' activity simply because A) you see that the dog needs to sexually reproduce sometimes, and B) your prejudices tell you this is actual rather than fake sex. But this is a fallacy.
- You claim that response to "feminine features" (when the definition of these changes so much between cultures) is ingrained and natural whereas response to masculine features is always culturally defined. Do you see any problem here?
- "Even the most primitive cultures train their young at an early age in appropriate behaviours", and yet homosexuality has persisted in cropping up even in societies where everyone is trained not to be homosexual. Does it then make sense to claim that homosexuality is a culturally trained behaviour?
- 'natural' is not the same as 'genetic'.

Nobody here is suggesting that we can or should just excise homosexuality from our natures. If there is a genetic cause it will be a very long time before we can isolate it and do anything with it. Homophobes will say what they say regardless of your proposition; if they would claim that homosexuality's 'natural' nature means we should remove or correct it, they would certainly say that if homosexuality is 'trained' then we should stop training in it. You're not winning any points from anyone.

Cultures didnt always view homosexuality as we today do. In fact gender separating warrior machismo cultures like feudal Japan will have massive amounts of homosexual behavior, not because they are genetically predisposed but rather culturally inclined.

Again with the dog huh? I dont need to identify brain activity to tell you the dog is not achieving anything air humping the couch, not even masturbation, it is recognizing a shape, not making a conscious decision of ANY type. This is what animals that gay gene weirdos show humping other males are actually doing, not making a preferential choice of male over female but simply reacting dumbly. This is why animals other than humans need to go into heat, it is how they trigger the animal males brain to do it right, humans can seek out and identify the difference.

This is the crux here, that gay doesnt mean will do men or women with little regard, it means will seek out men at the expense of women, animals dont display this, and people seem to do this as a matter of personal discipline, it is how they identify themselves.

feminine vs masculine facial features, not big ol titties vs small titties but rather jawline and fair skin, are indeed what men seek, even when they go for other men the vast majority of the time. But like I said all sorts of kinks and obsessions are formed as life progresses so other tastes develop but are no more predetermined in a baby than being a shitty driver, its all about life experiences, particularly early ones involving cars/ women

Im not in this to win points, this issue is politically charged to the point of stupid

 

[Sulkdodds]

Again with the dog huh? I dont need to identify brain activity to tell you the dog is not achieving anything air humping the couch, not even masturbation, it is recognizing a shape, not making a conscious decision of ANY type. This is what animals that gay gene weirdos show humping other males are actually doing, not making a preferential choice of male over female but simply reacting dumbly. This is why animals other than humans need to go into heat, it is how they trigger the animal males brain to do it right, humans can seek out and identify the difference.

I am not going to accept your assumptions about why a dog humps a couch when you admit you don't know anything about it. But hey, let's forget dogs and look at all the other examples in the animal world. Bonobos have a complicated (bi)sexual politics system. Dolphins form long-term groups of 3-5 for regular (bisexual) activity. Same-sex pigeon pairs often build nests together. Apparently gay vulture pairs will do the same and if provided with a fake egg will look after it together. Two male vultures in a German zoo seem to have been attacked and victimised by 'hetero' vultures. Penguins are frequently reported to form same-sex couples which will look after and raise surrogate chicks if provided with them. Black swans form same-sex pairs which then impregnate a female and drive her off out of the nest once she has laid her eggs. Elephants seem to enter into paederastic bonding groups which are sustained over very long periods of time (as opposed to more fleeting and temporary hetero couplings) and are accompanied by gestures of affection like trunk-holding.

Now, is it just me or is animal homosexuality a much more complicated matter than you suggest?

Cultures didnt always view homosexuality as we today do. In fact gender separating warrior machismo cultures like feudal Japan will have massive amounts of homosexual behavior, not because they are genetically predisposed but rather culturally inclined.

This is the crux here, that gay doesnt mean will do men or women with little regard, it means will seek out men at the expense of women, animals dont display this, and people seem to do this as a matter of personal discipline, it is how they identify themselves.

Look, you go ahead and choose that word and set up whatever definition you like for it. But - and apologies if this has not been clear - I'm talking about something very simple. In the study of animal sexuality, 'homosexuality' simply means, without any avoidable adornment, same-sex sexual behaviour, whether that's rubbing genitals together after a fight or having committed relationships. Scientists do not use the term "gay" in this context precisely because it relates so intensely to culturally-determined issues of identity and 'orientation'. I would agree that an exclusive preference for women, or an identity-based 'classification', owes more to culture than anything else (although in talking of dogs you have chosen only one animal from a long list of which many exhibit complex and committed same-sex liasons, even relationships, with notable examples of individuals expressing a preference one way or the other).

But you yourself have been willing to talk about homosexuality outside these terms. Many of the forms of ritual sexuality we have mentioned existed alongside procreative male-female relations; ancient Greeks and Romans who fucked men rarely chose exclusively to do so. Obviously our discussion will be much more limited if we restrict ourselves to cases of overwhelming preference, and in that discussion I would not claim that it was particularly 'natural'. But since we have both cited non-preferential examples, it seems we are indeed talking about homosexuality in the simple terms I have defined: as the occurrence of same sex relations. The matters of identity, preference, and orientation on which you predicate your argument are among the things that I earlier claimed we have culturally appended to a natural phenomenon which arises everywhere. In fact, I completely agree with the thrust of the first sentence I quote from you. "Cultures didn't always view homosexuality as we today do." The structure of that sentence presupposes a 'homosexuality' outside and applicable to more than one culture. It is a natural phenomenon which has taken different forms in different cultures, but it has arisen in almost all of them, even when they are unrelated.

I am not suggesting a gay gene. I am not suggesting any causative mechanism at all. I am saying that it is possible to identify something called 'homosexuality' which is observable across the animal world as well as the human world which it contains. It cannot be called 'cultural' or 'not natural' unless you restrict your definition to particular forms of homosexuality as it manifests through the prism of a specific culture. Even then it would be easy to argue that such forms are included in the wider trend, and can be broadly defined under that umbrella. e.g. "it is perfectly natural that we should exhibit homosexual behaviour, albeit informed by and shaped by our culture".

My uninformed characterisation of this broad homosexuality might be something like: "the direction of sexual desire towards members of the same sex, interacting in its path with conventions and instincts of courtship or companionship that might normally accompany attitudes to the opposite". I am cautious of this but it will do for now to describe my suspicions.

 

[Eejit]

Oh theres developmental disabilities, low self esteem and good old youthful experiences. Again I am not saying that there is a simple preset behavior for man, but rather that trying to explain homosexuality as something that cannot be corrected ( maybe the wrong word) because it is as genetically determined as sickle cell (which seems to be the prevaling argument) is stupid

Twin studies seem to indicate that genetics is a factor. Beyond that when I mentioned environmental mechanisms I wasn't just talking about upbringing. There is evidence that the hormone levels of pregnant mothers play a part in the sexual preferences of their children for example. Perhaps you would find this summary informative.
Homosexuality may not be absolutely hardwired into a person's brain, but it is far more than just a social construct or the product of child abuse. There are important biological and neurological factors which play a part in determining sexual preference.

 

[GreatEmperor]

I am not going to accept your assumptions about why a dog humps a couch when you admit you don't know anything about it. But hey, let's forget dogs and look at all the other examples in the animal world. Bonobos have a complicated (bi)sexual politics system. Dolphins form long-term groups of 3-5 for regular (bisexual) activity. Same-sex pigeon pairs often build nests together. Apparently gay vulture pairs will do the same and if provided with a fake egg will look after it together. Two male vultures in a German zoo seem to have been attacked and victimised by 'hetero' vultures. Penguins are frequently reported to form same-sex couples which will look after and raise surrogate chicks if provided with them. Black swans form same-sex pairs which then impregnate a female and drive her off out of the nest once she has laid her eggs. Elephants seem to enter into paederastic bonding groups which are sustained over very long periods of time (as opposed to more fleeting and temporary hetero couplings) and are accompanied by gestures of affection like trunk-holding.

Now, is it just me or is animal homosexuality a much more complicated matter than you suggest?


Look, you go ahead and choose that word and set up whatever definition you like for it. But - and apologies if this has not been clear - I'm talking about something very simple. In the study of animal sexuality, 'homosexuality' simply means, without any avoidable adornment, same-sex sexual behaviour, whether that's rubbing genitals together after a fight or having committed relationships. Scientists do not use the term "gay" in this context precisely because it relates so intensely to culturally-determined issues of identity and 'orientation'. I would agree that an exclusive preference for women, or an identity-based 'classification', owes more to culture than anything else (although in talking of dogs you have chosen only one animal from a long list of which many exhibit complex and committed same-sex liasons, even relationships, with notable examples of individuals expressing a preference one way or the other).

But you yourself have been willing to talk about homosexuality outside these terms. Many of the forms of ritual sexuality we have mentioned existed alongside procreative male-female relations; ancient Greeks and Romans who fucked men rarely chose exclusively to do so. Obviously our discussion will be much more limited if we restrict ourselves to cases of overwhelming preference, and in that discussion I would not claim that it was particularly 'natural'. But since we have both cited non-preferential examples, it seems we are indeed talking about homosexuality in the simple terms I have defined: as the occurrence of same sex relations. The matters of identity, preference, and orientation on which you predicate your argument are among the things that I earlier claimed we have culturally appended to a natural phenomenon which arises everywhere. In fact, I completely agree with the thrust of the first sentence I quote from you. "Cultures didn't always view homosexuality as we today do." The structure of that sentence presupposes a 'homosexuality' outside and applicable to more than one culture. It is a natural phenomenon which has taken different forms in different cultures, but it has arisen in almost all of them, even when they are unrelated.

I am not suggesting a gay gene. I am not suggesting any causative mechanism at all. I am saying that it is possible to identify something called 'homosexuality' which is observable across the animal world as well as the human world which it contains. It cannot be called 'cultural' or 'not natural' unless you restrict your definition to particular forms of homosexuality as it manifests through the prism of a specific culture. Even then it would be easy to argue that such forms are included in the wider trend, and can be broadly defined under that umbrella. e.g. "it is perfectly natural that we should exhibit homosexual behaviour, albeit informed by and shaped by our culture".

My uninformed characterisation of this broad homosexuality might be something like: "the direction of sexual desire towards members of the same sex, interacting in its path with conventions and instincts of courtship or companionship that might normally accompany attitudes to the opposite". I am cautious of this but it will do for now to describe my suspicions.

The definition isnt really mine alone though, homosexuality, or more specifically, to be a homosexual is not just to have performed a gay or experimental act here and there, it is a persistent behavior pattern of seeking men and not women exclusively for sex. Homosexual acts dont necessarily make one homosexual. Prison situations and ancient Rome are more a substitution than a pursuit, poisonous attitudes towards women and the simple lack of women encourage behavior because it is similar enough to what they are driven to perform and an affectionate air can probably be formed between the men.

It occurs in maybe all cultures because there have always been men in close proximity to men, male sex drive being what it is, it needs no other impetus. Cultural situations can enhance or force the situation is all I was saying and that does not mean that seeking men specifically is ingrained in the natural world or whatever you are suggesting at all. Humans find many ways to simulate reproductive behavior outside of its intended recipient, Im sure I dont need to tell you the hand is a favored method. This, besides dominance behavior which is closely related to sexuality, is all that is occuring in animals, their dick doesnt know the difference nor do they which makes estrous essential so they find the right hole.

Human behavior is of course different since we actually have the ability to understand our driving instinct and modify it. Homosexuals identify themselves by homosexual behavior and thus ignore women entirely. They are not driven by some outside or instinctual force but rather their own determination to live their life as such. Other times they develop other bonds to men because of the machismo and worship of the masculine form along with unhealthy development around women, as is the case in Rome and Japan. This is very different than animals who simply do not care and will hump anything as long as there is contact.

 

[Sulkdodds]

They are not driven by some outside or instinctual force but rather their own determination to live their life as such.

So, before I go any further, you think homosexuals choose their orientation, persistently cling to it, and could abandon it by an effort of will if they wanted to?

 

[kineaesth]

Homosexuals identify themselves by homosexual behavior and thus ignore women entirely. They are not driven by some outside or instinctual force but rather their own determination to live their life as such. Other times they develop other bonds to men because of the machismo and worship of the masculine form along with unhealthy development around women, as is the case in Rome and Japan.

get the **** out of here, this is unbelievable

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm no biology expert, but don't all fetuses start off as girls, then some mutate into boys. If something were to go wrong with the mutation then the fetus might reatin the sexual preferences of its earlier female form. Rather than there being an actual gene that turns male fetuses gay.

I haven't looked at a biology text book since I finished schoool, but I vaguely remember that being true.

 

[morgs]

Sounds a bit odd, I thought a fetus started out as neither with the option of going either way. Might be wrong though.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Well even if thats the case, wouldn't that mean that gender, and therefore sexuality are dependent on hormones rather than genes.

 

[Raziaar]

The definition isnt really mine alone though, homosexuality, or more specifically, to be a homosexual is not just to have performed a gay or experimental act here and there, it is a persistent behavior pattern of seeking men and not women exclusively for sex. Homosexual acts dont necessarily make one homosexual. Prison situations and ancient Rome are more a substitution than a pursuit, poisonous attitudes towards women and the simple lack of women encourage behavior because it is similar enough to what they are driven to perform and an affectionate air can probably be formed between the men.

It occurs in maybe all cultures because there have always been men in close proximity to men, male sex drive being what it is, it needs no other impetus. Cultural situations can enhance or force the situation is all I was saying and that does not mean that seeking men specifically is ingrained in the natural world or whatever you are suggesting at all. Humans find many ways to simulate reproductive behavior outside of its intended recipient, Im sure I dont need to tell you the hand is a favored method. This, besides dominance behavior which is closely related to sexuality, is all that is occuring in animals, their dick doesnt know the difference nor do they which makes estrous essential so they find the right hole.

Human behavior is of course different since we actually have the ability to understand our driving instinct and modify it. Homosexuals identify themselves by homosexual behavior and thus ignore women entirely. They are not driven by some outside or instinctual force but rather their own determination to live their life as such. Other times they develop other bonds to men because of the machismo and worship of the masculine form along with unhealthy development around women, as is the case in Rome and Japan. This is very different than animals who simply do not care and will hump anything as long as there is contact.

So, homosexuality does not exist beyond gay sex? There's no way to be homosexual and only seek out intimacy with another member of a gay sex that doesn't extend beyond simple sex? I mean sure, most relationships lead to sex eventually but not always immediately. To imply that the only drive homosexuals have to be together is sexual intercourse is disingenuous.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm no biology expert, but don't all fetuses start off as girls, then some mutate into boys. If something were to go wrong with the mutation then the fetus might reatin the sexual preferences of its earlier female form. Rather than there being an actual gene that turns male fetuses gay.

I haven't looked at a biology text book since I finished schoool, but I vaguely remember that being true.

What, are we alligators? Incubation temperature determines gender?

Honestly I don't know the answer, but I thought sex chromosomes determined gender in most oganisms.


EDIT: Whoops double post sorry.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I assuming the presence of a Y chromsone determines whether the process of turning the fetus male takes place. I'm speculating that if the something goes wrong during the process, like not enough testosterone produced, then the fetus doesnt have completely male characteristics, and could make it be effeminate and gay.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'm no biology expert, but don't all fetuses start off as girls, then some mutate into boys. If something were to go wrong with the mutation then the fetus might reatin the sexual preferences of its earlier female form. Rather than there being an actual gene that turns male fetuses gay.

I haven't looked at a biology text book since I finished schoool, but I vaguely remember that being true.

So then, what would be the biological explanation for lesbians?

 

[Mr Stabby]

the female process, with slighty too much testosterone.

 

[Raziaar]

the female process, with slighty too much testosterone.

But not all lesbians are butch.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Not all lesbians are real lesbians.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

YOU GAY!?!!?!?

 

[GreatEmperor]

So, homosexuality does not exist beyond gay sex? There's no way to be homosexual and only seek out intimacy with another member of a gay sex that doesn't extend beyond simple sex? I mean sure, most relationships lead to sex eventually but not always immediately. To imply that the only drive homosexuals have to be together is sexual intercourse is disingenuous.

Youre misreading me, when i say exclusively i mean when they do have sex it is exclusively with men and not women. Or you are getting hollywood with sexuality by saying sex is not really a part of the process, making them asexual instead of homosexual

 

[GreatEmperor]

So, before I go any further, you think homosexuals choose their orientation, persistently cling to it, and could abandon it by an effort of will if they wanted to?

Where did I say choice exactly? No one chooses their fetishes or obsessions, I am not saying they are pounding man ass to rub sand in my eyes nor do I give a shit if they do. I am saying pointing to animal mistakes as proof of homosexuality being an unalienable part of the human condition is ****ing stupid

 

[GreatEmperor]

Sounds a bit odd, I thought a fetus started out as neither with the option of going either way. Might be wrong though.

They start out with two seperate systems that can become ovaries testes etc. Which weirded me out when I heard it because I always thought that ovaries BECAME testes with hormones

 

[Raziaar]

Youre misreading me, when i say exclusively i mean when they do have sex it is exclusively with men and not women. Or you are getting hollywood with sexuality by saying sex is not really a part of the process, making them asexual instead of homosexual

I'm saying sex isn't what defines heterosexuals, why should it define homosexuals?

 

[GreatEmperor]

I'm saying sex isn't what defines heterosexuals, why should it define homosexuals?

The mere fact you would say this kind of proves one of my statements, Its not just about man ass its the whole lifestyle, they develop similar tastes and behavior, they define themselves by it. I mean, saying attraction to men is genetic/species subconscious behavior or whatever the hell people think causes it is one thing, saying antiquing and assless leather pants is genetic or whatever is something weirder

 

[Raziaar]

The mere fact you would say this kind of proves one of my statements, Its not just about man ass its the whole lifestyle, they develop similar tastes and behavior, they define themselves by it. I mean, saying attraction to men is genetic/species subconscious behavior or whatever the hell people think causes it is one thing, saying antiquing and assless leather pants is genetic or whatever is something weirder

So you find it weird. So what? You'll probably find things about many other cultures equally as weird.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I am saying pointing to animal mistakes as proof of homosexuality being an unalienable part of the human condition is ****ing stupid

On what grounds are you defining them as mistakes? Certain species of animal mate with same-sex couples for life.

I mean, saying attraction to men is genetic/species subconscious behavior or whatever the hell people think causes it is one thing, saying antiquing and assless leather pants is genetic or whatever is something weirder

Wow. Okay. Wow.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Let's clear some things up.

1. Mistakes

This, besides dominance behavior which is closely related to sexuality, is all that is occuring in animals, their dick doesnt know the difference nor do they which makes estrous essential so they find the right hole.

This is very different than animals who simply do not care and will hump anything as long as there is contact.

I am saying pointing to animal mistakes as proof of homosexuality being an unalienable part of the human condition is ****ing stupid

There is absolutely no point us talking if you're not even going to read my post - let alone do the most cursory wiki-reading on animal homosexuality. A great many animals clearly know the difference between the sexes, and yet engage in same-sex activity anyway. Indeed, male elephants form longer and more intimate relationships with other males than they do with females. You think that male life-pair penguins just spend their entire lives not realising that their partner is a male? Are all these relationships and intricate courtship arrangements just the result of not caring about "the right hole"? We're not talking about "simply humping anything". We're talking about concerted and directed efforts at same-sex courtship and even child-raising. These eagles and vultures and dolphins and elephants and lizards and rams and penguins and swans don't just whoops, don't care what I do, put it in the wrong hole. They engage in often formalised and often ritualised - often cultured - forms of homosexuality. And although their rituals might be characterised as (in a primitive sense) cultural, they all seem to stem from something that is shared.

What you need to make clear is how you differentiate all this from what we do. In humans, an individual who would 'normally' express a preference for the opposite sex, instead - 'accidentally', if you will - expresses a preference for the same sex. This individual then goes about wooing, fucking and settling down with members of that sex. In animals, an individual who we would expect to express a preference for the opposite sex instead finds themselves with a preference or the same sex, and so goes about the full business. You can, if you wish, claim that animals are broken robots, with no consciousness that what they are doing is unconventional, and they just go about it without realising anything is different. Firstly, this would be a potentially unjustifiable claim considering that (as I have explained) there is in some animals a great difference between the hetero and homo relationships; it would appear these animals, at least, know the difference and don't care. Secondly, even if that were true, it would not actually indicate that human homosexuality is qualitatively different at bottom from animal sexuality. All it would indicate is that humans manage to be self-conscious of something that other animals are unconscious of.

All this leads us on to...

2. Preference

The definition isnt really mine alone though, homosexuality, or more specifically, to be a homosexual is not just to have performed a gay or experimental act here and there, it is a persistent behavior pattern of seeking men and not women exclusively for sex. Homosexual acts dont necessarily make one homosexual. Prison situations and ancient Rome are more a substitution than a pursuit, poisonous attitudes towards women and the simple lack of women encourage behavior because it is similar enough to what they are driven to perform and an affectionate air can probably be formed between the men.

Firstly: why are we talking about Roman and Japanese models of homosexuality when, not being necessarily or overwhelmingly preferential, they aren't included under your own umbrella? But anyway: obviously and undoubtedly "assless leather chaps" (thanks for that) are a cultural aspect. This is something I've said before and you've consistently ignored it. Homosexuality as an identity appears to be a fairly modern invention, or, at the very least, the modern western homosexual identity is different from ones that have gone before. Duh, duh, freakin' duh. My suspicion is that 'the homosexual' as a species only came into being as our societies became progressively neurotic about sex and, over the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, increasingly codified it as the hidden key to a person's identity. This is not to say that sex has never before been an identity issue but I think it's far more so in the modern era. In the meantime the very culturally inflected gender binary influences gay individuals to define themselves within its limits. In short, being 'gay' is an overwhelmingly cultural matter. You will not find me arguing against that.

But...the root matter of same-sex sexual relations is certainly a natural and an acultural phenomenon. And moreover, there are definitely animals who do express a preference. Permanent sexuality is frequently discovered in the animal world. Did you know that 8% of rams consistently choose male sexual partners over female sexual partners? Did you know that apparently homosexual individuals - by your definition of 'expressing preference' - exist among almost every commonly domesticated species? Did you just skip over all the examples I listed earlier of animals apparently choosing to have long-term same-sex relationships? Apparently not, or else you wouldn't claim that expressing a long-term preference differentiates human homosexual behaviour from animal.

It seems that in other species' populations, as in ours, there is a percentage of animals that go for their own sex more than for the opposite. Since these percentages often linger around the (admittedly broad) range of possible human percentages (i.e. 5-20%), it's tempting to argue that all of these species have a hard core of preferential homosexuals and then others engage to varying degrees. But that would be going rather out on a limb without evidence and it might not be tenable to draw the distinction between "preferential" and other kinds of homosex. Maybe it's just a difference of degree. Sexuality is a weird spectrum.

I don't think the question of whether or not homosexuality is 'natural' actually impinges on the matter of how we should respond to it politically. I don't think something is invalid unless it has a clear foundation in the 'natural' world. I do think culture is an incredibly complex engine that frequently produces things completely worthy of attention, sympathy, debate, action. I also think that regardless of all this you are talking nonsense and I cannot abide it.

As for the rest:

It occurs in maybe all cultures because there have always been men in close proximity to men, male sex drive being what it is, it needs no other impetus.

"It is a natural side-effect of the natural tendencies of male desire, but I'm still not calling it natural. Also, there is no such thing as lesbians."

They are not driven by some outside or instinctual force but rather their own determination to live their life as such. Other times they develop other bonds to men because of the machismo and worship of the masculine form along with unhealthy development around women, as is the case in Rome and Japan.

"Humans have a magical kind of homosexuality which is different from animal sexuality. Animal sexuality is always only biological whereas human sexuality is always only cultural, despite the fact that both kinds look very similar to an outside observer and even follow similar patterns."

that does not mean that seeking men specifically is ingrained in the natural world or whatever you are suggesting at all.

"Even though Sulkdodds has laid out his position extremely clearly and explained fully how he thinks homosexuality relates to the natural world, I am going to insult him by using the weasely phrase 'or whatever you are suggesting' to implicate that his arguments have been vague, incoherent 'suggestions' - that I don't understand his crazy logic and that no sane person would. I would never give a penny to charity, I disrespect my mother, and I despise Christmas."

 

[GreatEmperor]

Your position is that it occurs in animals somewhat frequently and social animals actually pair up with the same sex a sliver of the time, right? You havent really said much else. Well what I am saying is that they do not give a shit which hole they are going into, they can recognize their own species, other than that they just dont care. Human homosexuality is seeking men exclusively, as in they spurn women if one were to become open and even behave differently, making it a culture. I am not saying thats why they start, I am saying thats all they desire because it is how they define themselves.

Humans make choices how they handle any instinctual behavior. I am not saying gayness is disney or mystical, merely that it is definitely not some insurmountable condition some are born with, much as liking curry and other repugnant Indian cuisine is not genetic but what they grew to love. You saying some animals hump men is not showing instinct but how easy it is for unthinking creatures to make that mistake, that is not what humans are.