Sexuality

[moreendanning]

@thisthread

Actually I think internet fights are a bit more like this:

[Danny Boy]

Hmm no? do you even know the difference between hormones and genes? Let
me give you an example. there are two twin brothers (therefore same DNA)
one of them is straight and the other is gay. its not because one of
them denies being gay. but its because when they where in the womb, one
of them didn't received enough testosterone into the brain. therefore
his brain didn't developed as a men's brain but yes as a women's brain.
so literally our sexuality isn't genetic, but we are born whit it
nonethel

(therefore same DNA) - Almost.

The fact that one receives less hormones than other is not by itself enough to make someone homosexual or not as it depends on so many factors impossible to account for including the receptivity of each cell to the hormone itself. Then it's associated not only with the person's genetic profile but also with the mother's. The case you presented is too specific to take any conclusions. IN that case it is associated with hormones, and external factors, including the mother's genetic profile.

Spoiler below!

To Danaragon
Pessoalmente, estou farto de respostas sarcasticas, insultuosas e sem sentido da tua parte. Se tens algo útil a dizer, que frequentemente tens, evita colocar no meio coisas como: "do you even know the difference between hormones and genes". E sim, sei muito bem qual é a diferença entre ambos, MUITO BEM. Mas por favor evita responder dessa forma a pessoas que não te fizeram mal nenhum por que é deveras desagradavel.

Sem ofereça mas em primeiro lugar foste tu que começaste com a respostas sarcásticas! quando eu disse que a homossexualidade não é genética mas sim hormonal tu é que respondeste "Then it's genetic."! se não aguentas uma resposta sarcástica a um comentário sarcástico para quê que comentas-te isso em primeiro lugar?! em segundo lugar se a minha resposta soou sarcástica peço desculpa pois não foi intencional. mas ainda não intendo onde estão as minhas respostas "sem sentido".

[nemesis567]

...

Spoiler below!

Eu não usei sarcasmo quando respondi assim. Segundo o que acredito saber, que pode estar errado, é algo genético. Se é como descreves, quem pede desculpa sou eu.

[failedALIAS]

Homosexuality is completely okay with me, and you know what? It's completely natural. It's not a deviation due to human intelligence, it's completely in our nature to have it occur from person to person. Animals have been seen with homosexuality as well.

Indubitably. I read something quite interesting, that when a women is pregnant, she has a large increase in female hormones. These affect the child directly and will almost act as white blood cells, except instead of trying to destroy the baby, they will generally make it more feminine, as if the mother's body is attempting to adapt to the newborn within her.

The more births a female has, the more her body will be experienced and "adapt" to the situation. If the baby is male and the mother has had multiple children before, it is very possible the child will develop a different sexual orientation.

This is a popular belief though, incorrect. It is in fact the opposite. Although pregnancy is a very complex process (Lol, not really) and many things have been misunderstood regarding it. e.i. For a time many people believed that vaccines cause Autism, so many people stopped giving their children vaccines (why they would rather have their children die a horrible death then their brain develop at different levels, I'll never know). It then turned out that the person making these claims had been paid to do so by the people who didn't want to be wrong (and thousands of children died YAY!). While (interestingly) it turns out that despite popular sayings; "There there, it's not your fault", Autism occurs more regularly in women who are overweight. e.i. fat bitches.
But the "Homosexual Gene" is simply a genetic mutation that occurs (amazingly(sarcasm)) in nature. Why this happens is due to a simple mistake in the DNA split-and-reconstruction phase. Though I'm glad these certain "differences" occur with every child or else we would be a bunch of clones whom would all die due to something like a cold. THAT, and. . . Cause I truly enjoy the fact that I can go into the showers and make everyone else feel uncomfortable. Cause I happen to be a fucking asshole. Cheers!

[Danny Boy]

Homosexuality is completely okay with me, and you know what? It's completely natural. It's not a deviation due to human intelligence, it's completely in our nature to have it occur from person to person. Animals have been seen with homosexuality as well.

Indubitably. I read something quite interesting, that when a women is pregnant, she has a large increase in female hormones. These affect the child directly and will almost act as white blood cells, except instead of trying to destroy the baby, they will generally make it more feminine, as if the mother's body is attempting to adapt to the newborn within her.

The more births a female has, the more her body will be experienced and "adapt" to the situation. If the baby is male and the mother has had multiple children before, it is very possible the child will develop a different sexual orientation.

This is a popular belief though, incorrect. It is in fact the opposite. Although pregnancy is a very complex process (Lol, not really) and many things have been misunderstood regarding it. e.i. For a time many people believed that vaccines cause Autism, so many people stopped giving their children vaccines (why they would rather have their children die a horrible death then their brain develop at different levels, I'll never know). It then turned out that the person making these claims had been paid to do so by the people who didn't want to be wrong (and thousands of children died YAY!). While (interestingly) it turns out that despite popular sayings; "There there, it's not your fault", Autism occurs more regularly in women who are overweight. e.i. fat bitches.
But the "Homosexual Gene" is simply a genetic mutation that occurs (amazingly(sarcasm)) in nature. Why this happens is due to a simple mistake in the DNA split-and-reconstruction phase. Though I'm glad these certain "differences" occur with every child or else we would be a bunch of clones whom would all die due to something like a cold. THAT, and. . . Cause I truly enjoy the fact that I can go into the showers and make everyone else feel uncomfortable. Cause I happen to be a fucking asshole. Cheers!

Homosexuality in men is caused by the lack of testosterone (aka the manly hormone that wend it kicks in it makes your facial and body hair grow like damn bamboo.) absorption wend the child is developing in the womb. it is not a mutation and its not hereditary.

---

EDIT: hmm so there is part genetic... interesting

[Your Computer]

So being heterosexual could be a mental disorder? because hetero and homosexuality is essentially the same thing.

In terms of possibility, it could be. In terms of plausibility, it is unlikely. But my main concern is on the reasoning behind why homosexuality is being accepted today.

My original statement was "some babies grow up to be homosexual adults and this is not their own choice". It's NOT my problem if you deliberately misinterpret what I write.

"Growing up" takes time, therefore implying nurture, therefore implying choice. I did not misinterpret; it is simply that you are assuming a definition of "growing up" that doesn't imply choice, therefore claiming "it is not there choice." However, this is circular reasoning. I do not accept circular reasoning as logical truth or as deductive logic. As far as i understand, English is read from left to right; to say it is the other way around is reading your statement from right to left.

My point, which you missed, is that left handed people DO NOT CHOOSE to be left handed. It has nothing to do with skill.

How did i miss your point when i started my argument with: "Your correlation between being left-handed and being gay is being born with it"? And being whatever-handed a person is does have to do with skill, because no one person uses only one hand for every form of hand labour. They may be "left-handed" in some things, but "right-handed" in others (note the quotations). Just because someone does an act better with a certain hand than the other doesn't in itself mean that such an act can only be performed by that one hand (assuming there are no injuries or deformities to either hand). In the same way, i argue just because a person is homosexual or heterosexual doesn't mean they are only capable of that one sexuality.

...but this quote just shows your flawed worldview.

Whether such a statement is full of flaws i do not know. I did see potential conflict when writing it, but i personally overcame those conflicts and therefore permitted such a statement. You, however, didn't take the time to point these flaws out. The potential conflict which i saw from my own statement depends solely on the word "criteria," as it would appear that your assumption on the methods of judgement used for sexuality can be generalised for all forms of sexuality, at least concerning homosexuality vs heterosexuality, regardless of these two words being mutually exclusive by definition. I don't see how mutual exclusivity can be generalised without exceptions or specifics (which would show that such a generalisation may be an illusion of generalisation).

Here's a scientific study on homosexuality in men, I hope this is good enough.

I will read it thoroughly and respond to it at a later time.

[Sexbad]

I'd like to point out that, from what I've been reading, Your Computer and spukrian both have tiny cracks in their own logic and keep prying at each other's without attempting to mend their own.

I want to settle the argument between you two, because I'm pretty good at disputing things, but it's always late when I post and I'm too lazy/tired to lay out all your posts, see where each of you forgot to screw a few nuts and bolts in, and crossreference and compare loopholes and whatever.

Basically, start over again with clear statements about what it is you two are disputing and work up from there. I believe it has something to do with the effectuality of arguing over semantics.

Also homosexuality is okay.

[spukrian]

I'd like to point out that, from what I've been reading, Your Computer and spukrian both have tiny cracks in their own logic and keep prying at each other's without attempting to mend their own.

Yes.

A mistake that I've made repeatedly in this thread is that I assume something is implicit to one of my arguments. Your Computer refutes this by doing either:
1) arguing something else is implicit instead
or
2) arguing that it isn't implicit and that I should've mentioned it explicitly

I'll try to avoid making mistakes like this again, but I can't make any guarantees. And I don't want to start over.

Also homosexuality is okay.

You know, I always think it's funny that your avatar depicts incest.

"Growing up" takes time, therefore implying nurture, therefore implying choice. I did not misinterpret; it is simply that you are assuming a definition of "growing up" that doesn't imply choice, therefore claiming "it is not there choice."

Everyone, with few exceptions, go through a period called "puberty" where their sexuality is awakened. Everyone who goes through puberty have no choice in the matter. Those few that don't go through puberty don't have a choice either.

In the same way, i argue just because a person is homosexual or heterosexual doesn't mean they are only capable of that one sexuality.

Ok, now I will try to be very explicit with what I mean:
1. No one can be both homosexual and heterosexual at the same time, a person is either one or the other. (Lets ignore bisexuals and transsexuals for now).
2. Other types of sexuality, like the "zoophilia" I mentioned earlier, are just "fetishes", or maybe it's better to call them "preferences", and any one person could have several of those.

You, however, didn't take the time to point these flaws out.

Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.

Do you, or do you not, define homosexuality as "heterosexual people commiting homosexual acts"?

My definition of homosexuality is "people who feel attracted to the same biological gender".

--------

Almost forgot, Happy Midsummer!

[Lucas]

This is how people are, you can't change that. Just deal with it. Stop this argument for your own good. And don't speak your mind, and no harm would be caused.

[Your Computer]

Everyone, with few exceptions, go through a period called "puberty" where their sexuality is awakened. Everyone who goes through puberty have no choice in the matter. Those few that don't go through puberty don't have a choice either.

I agree puberty is a natural process, but i wouldn't agree that puberty dictates definitive sexuality. I would argue that puberty, if at all, would dictate sexual neutrality, for people have shown to engage in all kinds of sexuality. Due to this vast variety of sexualities, i see no logical consistency in any sexual trends to admit that any act towards a sexuality is from a process other than choice, and that nurture (including satisfaction of any degree), whether by the individual or by a third-party, would prolong this choice, causing other choices to seem not as intriguing as the current choice.

Ok, now I will try to be very explicit with what I mean:
1. No one can be both homosexual and heterosexual at the same time, a person is either one or the other. (Lets ignore bisexuals and transsexuals for now).
2. Other types of sexuality, like the "zoophilia" I mentioned earlier, are just "fetishes", or maybe it's better to call them "preferences", and any one person could have several of those.

I agree with number 1, but i would argue that a "fetish" is a sub-genre of the sexual genres, therefore making "zoophilia" a root genre and not a fetish. I would argue that the sexual genres (i.e. homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc) are generalised terms specific only when referencing the genders (and possibly species, as in bestiality). All the acts committed following from the root genre could and would then be labelled a "fetish," and any genre capable of "supporting" the fetish would have said fetish under that root genre (not restricting it to any one root genre).

Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.

Do you, or do you not, define homosexuality as "heterosexual people commiting homosexual acts"?

My definition of homosexuality is "people who feel attracted to the same biological gender".

(BTW, pun intended? )

I define homosexuality as people of any sexuality committing homosexual acts. This may include heterosexuals committing homosexual acts; homosexuals committing homosexual acts; etc. At the time the newly introduced sexual act is committed, then the individual takes on the role of the currently committed sexuality. This implies that a homosexual can therefore stop being a homosexual by committing heterosexual, or other sexual, acts.

It may be true that it is safe to assume that, until an act is otherwise committed, the individual is a heterosexual, given the inherent structure of the human body. However, this, obviously, can be (unofficially) "overruled" by the actions the individual decides to take.