This poll is gay
-
I've just got another book on sex brain differences, and the preface is talking about common beliefs about homosexuality. It claims that a vast majority of people still believe that homosexuality is a choice, either arising from social pressures, or consciously made. Vote 1 if you believe that is the case, and 5 if you believe that it's hard wired into a persons brain.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Voted 4
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Shog9 wrote:
I really like beer. Social pressure, or hard-wired?
I *hate* beer, and always have. It causes no end of social problems. Someone has offered to buy me a beer at Rocklahoma, that's pretty much how people say 'I'd like to meet you'. I've said yes, understanding the intention was to meet, over something that is generally accepted to be universally desired. So, I am the 'gay' of the beer drinking situation, I don't fit in with the average. That's as gay as I get, let me add.
Shog9 wrote:
I've heard that to be a really good violinist, you pretty much have to start training as a young child - your physical and mental makeup are still pliable at that point, later on you just won't be able to adapt. So, are violinists born... or made?
Interesting question. My answer would be that while the brain is hard wired, sexually, in the womb, the brain continues to forge paths during childhood more easily than it does in later life, and a music instrument is one thing that especially is easier to take up later, if it was taken up earlier ( languages are another, and they are linked in this regard, I believe ). This has nothing to do with violin per se, any musical training in a child, results in being more easily able to pick up any instrument later. I recently finished a book on which parts of the brain work in what ways, to combine to cause us to enjoy music, and it had a chapter on this.
Shog9 wrote:
I mean, it's kinda crude and all, but doesn't the whole discussion just boil down to who is to blame?
Not really, at least, not in my view. The book claims that the gay lobby takes the position that we're all gay, if we want to be. This is, in my view, wrong, and just creates more bigotry. Tell me I'm really gay too, and I'll smack you out. I've also seen people online discussing how their child is gay, and being advised that kicking them out of the house will make them rethink thier 'decision'. In both cases, it seems to me that accepting that homosexuality is a part of the human condition, just like left handedness ( I'm a lefty, as it happens ), then several things become clear: 1 - a gay person is incapable of recruiting other people to be gay ( yes, I've heard people suggest this ) 2 - there is no point in having a prejudice against someone for something they did not choose As a result, I think that a
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - a gay person is incapable of recruiting other people to be gay ( yes, I've heard people suggest this ) 2 - there is no point in having a prejudice against someone for something they did not choose
I fully agree with you. As a gay woman, I knew from a very young age that I wasn't the so called "norm" of my friends or family for that matter. I have overcome people thinking that I have a disease to which they can "catch" or I can turn them. Of which I find amusing and tell them that the CEO of the queers gives us a microwave for every person we convert :laugh: Also men saying that they will be able to convert me back I just never found the right one... Give me a break... But to try and explain my rational to someone that has strong views and can't see past them it is very hard. I think it was wired in my brain somewhere in the womb. Do I have proof of that... no. But hopefully they will find it and maybe then people will be a little bit more accepting. Until then there are a few more hurdles to jump over.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
do you think we can cure it with a pill?
This presumes it's some sort of disease or affliction which is otherwise undesirable. There's no biological or social reason to think such is the case. Homosexuality does not compromise the health or stability of a species - in fact it seems quite the opposite in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is very common in all mammal species.
Patrick Sears wrote:
This presumes it's some sort of disease or affliction which is otherwise undesirable.
So?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - a gay person is incapable of recruiting other people to be gay ( yes, I've heard people suggest this ) 2 - there is no point in having a prejudice against someone for something they did not choose
I fully agree with you. As a gay woman, I knew from a very young age that I wasn't the so called "norm" of my friends or family for that matter. I have overcome people thinking that I have a disease to which they can "catch" or I can turn them. Of which I find amusing and tell them that the CEO of the queers gives us a microwave for every person we convert :laugh: Also men saying that they will be able to convert me back I just never found the right one... Give me a break... But to try and explain my rational to someone that has strong views and can't see past them it is very hard. I think it was wired in my brain somewhere in the womb. Do I have proof of that... no. But hopefully they will find it and maybe then people will be a little bit more accepting. Until then there are a few more hurdles to jump over.
liona wrote:
Of which I find amusing and tell them that the CEO of the queers gives us a microwave for every person we convert
*grin* I like that you can laugh about it, I'd imagine I'd find such ignorance plain annoying.
liona wrote:
Also men saying that they will be able to convert me back I just never found the right one... Give me a break...
ROTFL - that's excellent.
liona wrote:
Do I have proof of that... no. But hopefully they will find it and maybe then people will be a little bit more accepting.
If you're interested, I have a list of books that I've read, mostly out of interest on brain sex differences, which do talk about a whole lot of studies that indicate exactly that, that your brain was wired in the womb to be attracted to other women. The one I am reading right now is here[^]. She also co-wrote a book called 'Brain Sex', which was my starting point for being fascinated in this stuff.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I think he was being facetious. I suspect there are some religious undertones there - not unsimilar to the burning of witches of the Christian church...
If he comes near me I'll show him what "Bible Thumping" really means. ;)
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
So is paedophilia,rape, murder, theft and bestiality. I'm pro homo, but an argument from naturalism is dangerous as anything other than a refutation that the behaviour is 'unnatural'. Far better to argue for liberty and reason than mimic the naturalistic arguments from fascists of all stripes.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
So is paedophilia,rape, murder, theft and bestiality. I'm pro homo, but an argument from naturalism is dangerous as anything other than a refutation that the behaviour is 'unnatural'.
Nice argument by appeal to emotion there. Doesn't change my point and the argument from naturalism is incredibly different than an argument based on social behavior. Pedophilia, rape, murder, theft blah blah blah are learned behaviors and rely on a human mind. Sexual preference is purely chemical. And certainly just because OTHER behaviors are common does NOT invalidate the argument that homosexuality is normal because it's common. That's like saying anything green is bad because your food turns green when it rots. Yes, there are other 'higher' arguments in favor of TOLERANCE of homosexuality but I was referring to treating homosexuality as a disease. There's no rational basis for such a treatment.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
So is paedophilia,rape, murder, theft and bestiality. I'm pro homo, but an argument from naturalism is dangerous as anything other than a refutation that the behaviour is 'unnatural'.
Nice argument by appeal to emotion there. Doesn't change my point and the argument from naturalism is incredibly different than an argument based on social behavior. Pedophilia, rape, murder, theft blah blah blah are learned behaviors and rely on a human mind. Sexual preference is purely chemical. And certainly just because OTHER behaviors are common does NOT invalidate the argument that homosexuality is normal because it's common. That's like saying anything green is bad because your food turns green when it rots. Yes, there are other 'higher' arguments in favor of TOLERANCE of homosexuality but I was referring to treating homosexuality as a disease. There's no rational basis for such a treatment.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Pedophilia, rape, murder, theft blah blah blah are learned behaviors and rely on a human mind. Sexual preference is purely chemical.
Sociopathy is purely chemical.
-
How common is 'very common' ? Greater than it is in humans ( that is, < 5% ) ? Of course, given that it's essentially caused by errors in brain programming during pregnancy, it's possible that some animals, in high stress or otherwise abnormal environments, would deviate from the norm. I'd be interested in sources, tho.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
How common is 'very common' ? Greater than it is in humans ( that is, < 5% ) ?
Perhaps I overstated it. It's about as common as in humans. Sources - I could point you to websites but you're capable of searching Google yourself. My information comes from books, though. I'll get you the titles if you're interested.
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course, given that it's essentially caused by errors in brain programming during pregnancy, it's possible that some animals, in high stress or otherwise abnormal environments, would deviate from the norm.
I like your terminology. It IS an error. I wouldn't call it a disease, but it is an error. Seems to be a mostly beneficial one though. What's really interesting is how consistently it occurs, and in so many species. You'd expect if it were really a problem it would get selected out through breeding (e.g., the lack of breeding).
-
liona wrote:
Of which I find amusing and tell them that the CEO of the queers gives us a microwave for every person we convert
*grin* I like that you can laugh about it, I'd imagine I'd find such ignorance plain annoying.
liona wrote:
Also men saying that they will be able to convert me back I just never found the right one... Give me a break...
ROTFL - that's excellent.
liona wrote:
Do I have proof of that... no. But hopefully they will find it and maybe then people will be a little bit more accepting.
If you're interested, I have a list of books that I've read, mostly out of interest on brain sex differences, which do talk about a whole lot of studies that indicate exactly that, that your brain was wired in the womb to be attracted to other women. The one I am reading right now is here[^]. She also co-wrote a book called 'Brain Sex', which was my starting point for being fascinated in this stuff.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd imagine I'd find such ignorance plain annoying
I am just use to it by now. But I can also have fun with it :) As for the books I would love to have the list. I find it interesting. I am sure my partner who thinks I am odd at the best of times, will find it amusing that I will be reading "Why Men Don't Iron" LOL
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Pedophilia, rape, murder, theft blah blah blah are learned behaviors and rely on a human mind. Sexual preference is purely chemical.
Sociopathy is purely chemical.
True, but you'd have to argue you're born that way to make it relevant here. I know it happens but not as frequently as would be convenient to the argument. And honestly the only difference between being born sociopathic and being born homosexual is that sociopaths actively hurt people, which is unacceptable. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
This presumes it's some sort of disease or affliction which is otherwise undesirable.
So?
Just saying. You use the word 'cure' which betrays your opinion about it.
-
True, but you'd have to argue you're born that way to make it relevant here. I know it happens but not as frequently as would be convenient to the argument. And honestly the only difference between being born sociopathic and being born homosexual is that sociopaths actively hurt people, which is unacceptable. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
Really? So then AIDS is just a myth?
-
Just saying. You use the word 'cure' which betrays your opinion about it.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Just saying. You use the word 'cure' which betrays your opinion about it.
I was being controversial. :) However...Psychological disorders are essentially defined as deviation from the norm. Everybody is weird to some extent, but their oddities only become problematic when placed at odds with society. Homosexuality was, as recently as the late 1970's, listed as an official psychological disorder by the psychiatric community. It was removed as part of a political movement to make it more mainstream. So yes, until very recently, it was considered an affliction of sorts and undesirable. The only line between consideration of homosexuality as deviance or part of the norm is cultural acceptance. There can be no denying that the past 2 decades have seen a very expansive propagation of pro-homosexual media. It's acceptance has been thrust on society simply because the left decided that homosexuals would be the "disenfranchised" group of the era. I think more than anything, this whole thing speaks to the power of mass-media which, in the course of a decade, reversed the ration of homosexual acceptance from 20% to 80% in our society.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Just saying. You use the word 'cure' which betrays your opinion about it.
I was being controversial. :) However...Psychological disorders are essentially defined as deviation from the norm. Everybody is weird to some extent, but their oddities only become problematic when placed at odds with society. Homosexuality was, as recently as the late 1970's, listed as an official psychological disorder by the psychiatric community. It was removed as part of a political movement to make it more mainstream. So yes, until very recently, it was considered an affliction of sorts and undesirable. The only line between consideration of homosexuality as deviance or part of the norm is cultural acceptance. There can be no denying that the past 2 decades have seen a very expansive propagation of pro-homosexual media. It's acceptance has been thrust on society simply because the left decided that homosexuals would be the "disenfranchised" group of the era. I think more than anything, this whole thing speaks to the power of mass-media which, in the course of a decade, reversed the ration of homosexual acceptance from 20% to 80% in our society.
Red Stateler wrote:
I was being controversial. :)
Ah ha! That's different :)
Red Stateler wrote:
Psychological disorders are essentially defined as deviation from the norm.
Yes
Red Stateler wrote:
Everybody is weird to some extent
Not me. I'm perfectly normal. Who says I'm not?!
Red Stateler wrote:
Homosexuality was, as recently as the late 1970's, listed as an official psychological disorder by the psychiatric community. It was removed as part of a political movement to make it more mainstream. So yes, until very recently, it was considered an affliction of sorts and undesirable.
Consider the history of that diagnosis. It was prepared by the same people who thought that women should be clitorally stimulated to cure their insanity, and only when they realized they were prescribing orgasms did they rethink that position. The Greeks practiced same-sex sexuality as have many human cultures. In yet other cultures the strict line of homo/heterosexuality is what we would consider very, very blurry. It's a cultural norm, not an indication of affliction. Although I suppose that depends how you define 'affliction.'
Red Stateler wrote:
There can be no denying that the past 2 decades have seen a very expansive propagation of pro-homosexual media.
I won't disagree with your point, because I agree. Wait, that's redundant. Although, I think it would be fair to note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it's acceptable to treat an entire sector of society as a pariah merely because of something over which they have no control, rather like left-handed people were treated for centuries.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.
Really? So then AIDS is just a myth?
Homosexuality != AIDS. It is spread through a dozen other means, too. Arguing against homosexuality through appeal to AIDS forces you to make heterosexuality equally dangerous.
-
Homosexuality != AIDS. It is spread through a dozen other means, too. Arguing against homosexuality through appeal to AIDS forces you to make heterosexuality equally dangerous.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Homosexuality != AIDS. It is spread through a dozen other means, too. Arguing against homosexuality through appeal to AIDS forces you to make heterosexuality equally dangerous.
The spread of AIDS in the US was a direct result of homosexual promiscuity. You know that. Don't try to rewrite history.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I was being controversial. :)
Ah ha! That's different :)
Red Stateler wrote:
Psychological disorders are essentially defined as deviation from the norm.
Yes
Red Stateler wrote:
Everybody is weird to some extent
Not me. I'm perfectly normal. Who says I'm not?!
Red Stateler wrote:
Homosexuality was, as recently as the late 1970's, listed as an official psychological disorder by the psychiatric community. It was removed as part of a political movement to make it more mainstream. So yes, until very recently, it was considered an affliction of sorts and undesirable.
Consider the history of that diagnosis. It was prepared by the same people who thought that women should be clitorally stimulated to cure their insanity, and only when they realized they were prescribing orgasms did they rethink that position. The Greeks practiced same-sex sexuality as have many human cultures. In yet other cultures the strict line of homo/heterosexuality is what we would consider very, very blurry. It's a cultural norm, not an indication of affliction. Although I suppose that depends how you define 'affliction.'
Red Stateler wrote:
There can be no denying that the past 2 decades have seen a very expansive propagation of pro-homosexual media.
I won't disagree with your point, because I agree. Wait, that's redundant. Although, I think it would be fair to note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it's acceptable to treat an entire sector of society as a pariah merely because of something over which they have no control, rather like left-handed people were treated for centuries.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Consider the history of that diagnosis. It was prepared by the same people who thought that women should be clitorally stimulated to cure their insanity, and only when they realized they were prescribing orgasms did they rethink that position. The Greeks practiced same-sex sexuality as have many human cultures. In yet other cultures the strict line of homo/heterosexuality is what we would consider very, very blurry. It's a cultural norm, not an indication of affliction. Although I suppose that depends how you define 'affliction.'
Of course, at the same time as the Greeks, the Spartans believed it a cultural norm (or rather necessity) to kill each other while training for battle. So does that mean that we should accept killing each other as a "cultural norm"? Boundaries for acceptable behavior are defined by every culture and just because one culture practiced polygamy, human sacrifice or headhunting doesn't mean that it should be a de facto standard in ours. In an increasingly secularist society, psychologists have been tasked with defining normal and abnormal behavior over priests and preachers. The fundamental problem with that is the lack of an authoritative guide of sorts to reign in behavior. Psychology essentially leads to self-guided morality (or moral relativism), which opens up polygamy, human sacrifice or headhunting to possibly accepted cultural norms. A society without reigns inevitably decays and the reigns have been removed from the United States. But who cares, because global warming is going to kill us all, right?
Patrick Sears wrote:
Although, I think it would be fair to note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it's acceptable to treat an entire sector of society as a pariah merely because of something over which they have no control, rather like left-handed people were treated for centuries.
It's a bad thing because it shows the locus of cultural power in the West. It's no longer moral leaders (like priests and pastors) or intellectual leaders. Basically those who govern culture are those with the loudest voice. Unfortunately, that's rarely the wisest.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Homosexuality != AIDS. It is spread through a dozen other means, too. Arguing against homosexuality through appeal to AIDS forces you to make heterosexuality equally dangerous.
The spread of AIDS in the US was a direct result of homosexual promiscuity. You know that. Don't try to rewrite history.
Red Stateler wrote:
The spread of AIDS in the US was a direct result of homosexual promiscuity. You know that. Don't try to rewrite history.
Of course I do. That doesn't make homosexuality itself bad, it just means people are stupid. And I should note that it was spread through homosexual promiscuity as a direct result of the social stigma against homosexuality. Had it been accepted these people would like have had normal relationships.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The spread of AIDS in the US was a direct result of homosexual promiscuity. You know that. Don't try to rewrite history.
Of course I do. That doesn't make homosexuality itself bad, it just means people are stupid. And I should note that it was spread through homosexual promiscuity as a direct result of the social stigma against homosexuality. Had it been accepted these people would like have had normal relationships.
Patrick Sears wrote:
And I should note that it was spread through homosexual promiscuity as a direct result of the social stigma against homosexuality. Had it been accepted these people would like have had normal relationships.
That's complete BS. If you're going to be dishonest to yourself in order to justify your stance, I'm not going to bother.
-
If he comes near me I'll show him what "Bible Thumping" really means. ;)
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
If he comes near me I'll show him what "Bible Thumping" really means.
Yeah, I never take him seriously. I wouldn't worry about it too much. I don't even think he was against you, really. I think he was sarcastically comparing the situation to a witch-hunt...and if not, well, he just posts silly stuff to annoy people.