-->
@Double_R
Who are you to say they are still gay if they say they are not?
Choice is clearly a factor in determining sexuality
Posts
Total:
325
-->
@Double_R
Well we don't really know what causes sexuality so choice can not be ruled out
-->
@Lemming
Is there a reason a person 'couldn't be sexually attracted to a pillow?
Of course not, many people are. My point was to use a pillow to test whether sexual arousal was a result of choice or whether it was a physiological reaction out of the control of oneself. If it were the former, than anyone claiming sexuality is a choice should be able to demonstrate it to themselves off no one else.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Who are you to say they are still gay if they say they are not?
Says the English language.
If you want to define gay differently then go ahead, that does nothing to change reality.
If a man is exclusively attracted to other men, they are gay. They can say they are not gay all they want, doesn't change the fact that they are.
I'm not talking about any individual. My position is that every individual should be taken at their word. You're trying to deflect to something else entirely.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well we don't really know what causes sexuality so choice can not be ruled out
We can't rule it out in any definitive scientific sense. That doesn't mean we cannot form or own conclusions about the subject.
Not being able to rule out a possibility does not mean that possibility becomes reasonable to accept.
-->
@Double_R
If a man says they are no longer attracted to men then who are you to say that they really are
-->
@Double_R
Well you can have an opinion
I have an opinion on what causes green eyes at birth
That is based on strong evidence
You have an opinion sexuality is not a choice but can find no scientific agency that agrees with you
That is poor evidence
-->
@Double_R
Well, just because one 'could make a choice, provided circumstance was right, doesn't mean one is currently 'in said circumstance.
I wouldn't want to be sexually attracted to pillows, 'just to prove a point.
Also probably time consuming, irritating, to train responses in oneself.
On the question of choice though,
People acquire and de-acquire tastes frequently in life.
I don't think science is 'conclusive on the subject,
But I think twins raised different, would have different outcomes,
'Even if they have predispositions genetically.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I've never told you to disregard anything. What you choose to trust simply isn't an argument.
It's an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. I've already explained this.
could you please acknowledge that Occam (who you love to quote) was clergy?
No, because it's not even worth the ten seconds it would take to Google it. I am not quoting Occam, I am quoting and advocating a very basic logical principal. I couldn't care less who Occam was. Would you prefer I call it by a different name?
How would you know if they didn't show you the science?
The fact that they don't show the science use proofing and if itself.
No true Scotsman much? Is it not a big enough example for you? Do religions "not understand their own field" or is it simply that nobody understands their "field" because the field is an arbitrary tangle of contradictions and fuzzy concepts?
This question makes no sense.
It's not a no true Scottsman. I explained why religion fundamentally gets it wrong. You have no response to that so you pretend everyone else is the same by my standards, without even discussing my standards. It's an amazingly dishonest and cowardly approach, and a waste of my time.
Then what about scientific socialism?While we're on it: psychology, and no it's not a conspiracy it's a pseudoscience. You can go find Jordon Peterson's talk on "Big Five personality traits" that's the best they got. It's statistics on questionnaires. That's all.I see you didn't quote the fact that the APA said the homosexuals were nuts. I'm bringing it back: Why did they think that then? Why were they wrong? Did they fix their methodology so they wouldn't make the same mistake again?Any real scientific community can answer questions like that.
All irrelevant to this discission.
-->
@Vegasgiants
You have an opinion sexuality is not a choice but can find no scientific agency that agrees with you
I gave you a clear example of how the answer to this question could be demonstrated. You've unsurprisingly ignored it.
-->
@Lemming
I wouldn't want to be sexually attracted to pillows, 'just to prove a point.
You could easily choose to become unattracted to pillows if it's a choice, so why not?
Also probably time consuming, irritating, to train responses in oneself.
Did you train your responses to become attracted to the sex are are currently attracted to? Can you tell us about that process?
On the question of choice though,People acquire and de-acquire tastes frequently in life.
Changing of tastes has nothing to do with whether those tastes were chosen.
-->
@Double_R
You gave a opinion at best
One not supported by science
-->
@Double_R
I could choose to chop off my leg,
I could then choose to have a hospital re-attach it,
But I don't want to.
. . .
If you offered me a million dollars to be sexually attracted to pillows,
I'd 'then make that choice,
But I don't want to be attracted to pillows,
Or go through the time and effort required for such. For 'no money.
. . . .
Society I grew up in normalizes and prioritized in normalcy, people being attracted to the opposite sex,
If the society I grew up in had normalized and prioritized in normalcy, people being attracted to the same sex, it's possible I would be gay now,
Is my view.
. . .
If I don't like a food,
But 'choose to eat the food anyway, (Reason being curiosity, health reasons, or it get's me drunk, for examples)
Eventually I might come to like it,
Acquired taste.
-->
@Double_R
The fact that they don't show the science is proof in of itself. [Corrected for presumed typos]
I agree. Thus there is no point referencing assertions when the science is required regardless (well if two people agree on the trustworthiness of a supposed authority I guess not, but when does that happen?)
It's not a no true Scottsman. I explained why religion fundamentally gets it wrong. You have no response to that so you pretend everyone else is the same by my standards, without even discussing my standards. It's an amazingly dishonest and cowardly approach, and a waste of my time.
You split religion off into a separate category so that you didn't have to address the issue.
The issue is whether you can trust an organization simply because:
1.) They spend significant time devoted to a single subject or field
2.) They generally agree with each other
3.) They publish official assertions and those assertions are trusted by many people
Many things you've said imply those conditions are not sufficient. There is nothing dishonest in demonstrating that you have a double standard. You have your trusted institutions and you take it for granted that those who disagree with you must trust them too. If they do not trust them, you accuse them of being conspiracy theorists implying that the only possible reason for mistrust would be a vast conspiracy.
All irrelevant to this discission.
You asked the question:
"Can you please present a single example of an industry of expertise other than religion that fundamentally doesn't understand it's own field?"
-->
@Lemming
If I don't like a food,But 'choose to eat the food anyway,Eventually I might come to like it,Acquired taste.
Going with that analogy for a moment... do you ever lose a taste?
I haven't. Sexually or gastronomically.
What if it's possible to expand but not contract?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ever since my eldest brother found a tiny worm in his tuna fish,
I have 'not enjoyed tuna fish.
If I ate it more regularly, again,
I imagine I could enjoy it again,
But since that event, I've only eaten it rarely, times that I needed to eat 'something.
If I go a long time without eating junk food,
It often tastes disgusting too me,
'Way too much grease, salt, sugar,
Compared to cleaner foods.
Course I often build back my tolerance for junk food.
I've gained and lost sexual kinks,
Not going to say 'what though.
. . .
I 'do think it's easier to gain tastes, than to lose them though.
(That's just a vague intuitive 'assumption on my part though, I've no good examples or logic to argue towards that conclusion, of easier to gain, harder to lose.)
-->
@Lemming
That's all fair. I certainly noticed that if you don't eat sugar for a while your sensitivity goes up. Forgive the tangent but when I tasted things like pears and blueberries after a long near fast I could easily understand why they were treats in of themselves requiring no additional sugar.
Kinks, now that I think about it I must admit they come in go but I never really thought they were "gone" more like dormant. In fact under certain circumstances I 'naturally' went into a sort of abstinence mode where I didn't have sexual thoughts or masturbate for several weeks.
I am certain though, that given the correct descriptions and imagery the same old lusts would return unless I immediately distracted myself. Are you sure the same is not true of those kinks you lost?
The next logical question is how much research was actually done on conversion therapy? Can it be trusted if it exists? I certainly don't trust the APA on anything.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't really know anything about gay to straight conversion therapy,
I don't trust it either, from offhand stories I've heard about it.
Well,
I don't trust the institutions and methods,
I also don't 'much care if other people are gay,
Don't see it as something to 'fix in them.
. . .
People 'have done research on 'other fixes,
Such as getting people off addictions to various substances and activities,
Drugs, anger, hoarding, fear of flying in airplanes.
. . . .
I'd agr-
Hm, I'd 'maybe agree on the dormant argument you make,
Perhaps it is like memories,
Memories can long be forgotten, then some smell of hay, remind one of it.
I say 'maybe,
Because I imagine 'some kinks are forced down or abandoned because of ideological reasons,
The kink making the person ashamed or outraged by it's existence,
Nonconsensual torture for example. some people are sadists, (Though I think it only 'really matters for 'real people and 'real actions)
(Though on 'another hand, I wrote up a character once in a piece of fiction, born to a fantasy race that due to their genetics enjoyed pain in others,
The character argued a philosophy that it was fine and good to enjoy the emotion, so long as the action was 'necessary, though many people would 'look for 'excuses of it being necessary, by such a philosophy I imagine.)
But 'maybe,
Because the right circumstances could bring a taste back to the forefront,
But then,
I suspect we could 'all become anything, given the right circumstances,
. . .
Hm, but 'gone would be more never having the taste to begin with,
Once one has it,
Maybe it's there 'forever,
Though perhaps one can make it smaller, fade it a fair bit,
By making new life memories 'without said taste, for example.
Live with some horror situation a year,
Maybe never disappears, but living 10 years 'out of said horror situation, scales get weighed.
. . .
Course some situations carry more weight, even if short timeframe,
And some memories are intrusive, that they are 'still part of the years out of said horror situation,
That one is 'still 'in said horror situation.
. . .
. . .
But such is reason for various psychology tricks people use, to regulate their minds.
-->
@Double_R
You are ok with shutting him down so that he lives his life the way you see fit, not how her actually wants to.
Strawman.
At the end of the day his choices are still his choices. I (nor anyone else for that matter) have NO power or control over his choices. He chooses. He alone. End of story.
-->
@TWS1405_2
And yet peer pressure exists, I'd argue.
People take actions, speak certain words,
In the expectation they might tilt another person's path.
Take ads for example,
Lot of people buy an object, they might not have before.
. . .
Take people who influence other's to kill,
Manson might not have killed anyone personally,
But his actions caused others to kill.
. . . .
I 'do like the ideal though,
For individuals to remember their freedom,
Their body being tied to their 'own impulses, choices.
-->
@Lemming
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>And yet peer pressure exists, I'd argue.
Yes, it does; and so does weak constitutions, low self-esteem, being thin-skinned, and entirely desperate for attention or to be the center of attention.
Take people who influence other's to kill,Manson might not have killed anyone personally,But his actions caused others to kill.. . . .
Manson, like other socio-psychopaths use fear and manipulation to get others to do their bidding or suffer the consequences.
I 'do like the ideal though,For individuals to remember their freedom,Their body being tied to their 'own impulses, choices.
And yet they often don't and blame others for their shortcomings and utter failures in life.
-->
@TWS1405_2
While I'd agree people have a choice,
I also think they don't have a choice,
A certain action towards a person, in a certain moment,
Was always going to create an action by the person acted towards.
But, we don't know futures, until we've arrived at them,
And outside influenced or not, a person still has a will.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Just following orders, doesn't tend to get accepted as a defense,
Justice system tends to make the argument that those individuals still had a choice, 'despite the consequences.
. .
That's where the have and have not, of choice comes in for me.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environment has an influence on us,
Even if we look to our Ego and Will,
'Hard not to be influenced by surroundings.
-->
@Lemming
People 'have done research on 'other fixes,Such as getting people off addictions to various substances and activities,Drugs, anger, hoarding, fear of flying in airplanes.
That's hardly down to a science either. Seems to me people are going to do what people want to do. Again action is not inclination, alcoholics may set their life in order; but how many can become casual drinkers? The inclination remains.
Though I think it only 'really matters for 'real people and 'real actions
We had better hope so given what people do in video games.
(Though on 'another hand, I wrote up a character once in a piece of fiction, born to a fantasy race that due to their genetics enjoyed pain in others,The character argued a philosophy that it was fine and good to enjoy the emotion, so long as the action was 'necessary, though many people would 'look for 'excuses of it being necessary, by such a philosophy I imagine.)
Fiction is a great way to explore philosophy because even people comfortable with abstractions often find it easier to navigate with concrete examples.
There is definitely a strain of "need makes right" in our cultural stream and has been for a while. I was just looking at a vegan "debate" (hard to call the 90% normal to the internet debate) and people were saying "How can you be vegan and have a dog? You know they eat meat right?"
Well the pro-vegan side brought up need-makes-right. Carnivores are allowed to kill for food. Omnivores aren't.
The hardest stance against this I've ever seen was Ayn Rand's. If you could convince her that a deer had a right to life, she would probably kill all the wolves.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'd agree it's a soft science,
But at the same time I'd argue science is not always hard,
Nor understanding.
. .
1+1=2 is pretty exact,
But demolishing a building can be tricky, not always work,
Sometimes building doesn't fall right, but it does often enough, that certain protocol are followed, methods.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation."
-Saint Augustine
I'd agree moderation is hard for some people,
I 'do think people have underlying genetic inclinations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I've thought on the vegan argument before,
Whether 'if humans nutrition requirements 'could be provided for,
It would be better to cause the extinction of other species.
If one views other organisms as living things, as people in a 'sense,
Isn't it better they do not reproduce?
As someone with some horrible 100% certain to pass on genetic suffering condition,
But that's the Antinatalist in me.
. .
But then the problem pops up,
Of the circle of life,
Ecosystems 'requiring niches and organisms,
Deer overpopulate perhaps, without wolves,
Eat all the grass, not enough food, too many in close proximity, disease, pain suffering, longer/deeper even, than being eaten alive perhaps.
Though famine and disease may lack murderous intent.
. . . . .
Also problem of one is 'unable to exterminate 'all organisms possibly,
Like ants everywhere.
But I'm rambling.
-->
@Lemming
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>While I'd agree people have a choice,I also think they don't have a choice,
No one never has a choice; everyone ALWAYS has a choice.
A certain action towards a person, in a certain moment,Was always going to create an action by the person acted towards.
Not true.
The bullied don't always react to the bullies.
Someone bumped into at the store doesn't always react.
But, we don't know futures, until we've arrived at them,
No, we won't know them until they've come to pass.
And outside influenced or not, a person still has a will.
i.e. - choice
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Just following orders, doesn't tend to get accepted as a defense,
Under duress, Stockholm syndrome, so on and so forth.
Justice system tends to make the argument that those individuals still had a choice, 'despite the consequences.
Technically, they still have a choice...their predicament just makes them weak to take a stand.
. .That's where the have and have not, of choice comes in for me.
To each their own.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environment has an influence on us,Even if we look to our Ego and Will,'Hard not to be influenced by surroundings.
Still a choice to change that environment when it has negative influences or outcomes upon us. Or one chooses to stay in it.
-->
@Vegasgiants
They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web pageThe status of being "peer reviewed" is virtually worthless. The person who knows the most about the topic studied is the person who conducted the study, and the peer review process doesn't pick up many basic errors.Thank God every respected scientific agency disagrees with you. Lol
1) You haven't proven this at all.
2) This is an appeal to authority. It doesn't address the points my argument levies at all.
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's an appeal to authority wrapped in an appeal to ignorance. He has special skills with fallacies.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent?It was my understanding that epigenetics plays a role, but don't quote me on that - I'm no expert and my info is old.
Do you know what environmental conditions may trigger homosexuality?
That being said, I think we do have to consider sexuality seems to exist on a spectrum, and a same-sex attraction doesn't disallow attraction to the opposite sex or opportunities for genes to be passed on.
If the same-sex attraction is sufficiently mild, then perhaps it's possible for homosexuals to pass on genes (given their partial heterosexuality and what that usually leads to). However, if homosexuals aren't at all attracted to the opposite sex, then there is virtually no chance that in yesteryears they would have had heterosexual sex because they would not have been inclined to do so.
That being said, it's strange why partial homosexuality exists to any degree. What benefits are there to be found in any degree of homosexuality, or do you suspect it was a coincidental evolutionary adaption?
-->
@Lemming
I'd agree moderation is hard for some people,I 'do think people have underlying genetic inclinations.
If there is one thing that I hope people take away from this thread is that there is no binary: conscious control vs genetic
The mind builds itself after your genes are already set. Of course a genes could leave you with inclinations you can't escape, but so can non-deterministic neural development..
Now I remember hearing that some gene makes you much more likely to fall into addictions including alcohol, but regardless of how you end up with the mental structure you by definition only have control over your conscious decisions.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent?1.) Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, a gene isn't self-deleting if it can help reproduce itself. It doesn't need to do that using the exact organism of expression. For example drone hymenopterans don't reproduce, but they help reproduce the genes that created them.I don't see how homosexuality helps with reproduction at allI am not convinced this hypothesis is correct for human sexual deviancy even if it is theoretically possible, and even if it was true the sexual deviancy would be a secondary trait; not the one selected for.Which hypothesis are you referring to?The hypothesis is that sexual deviants don't form reproductive relationships. Being "freed" of their own batch of children yet saddled with the instinct to support their bloodline they help siblings, perhaps cousins too; with their kids.The gene in the sexual deviant is selfishly promoting itself increasing the success rate of nieces and nephews.To be a selective benefit this requires that the success rate is increased sufficiently to overcome the reduction of offspring. That in itself wouldn't be too surprising, our species is near the top of the "quality over quantity" pyramid when it comes to reproduction.The reason I am not convinced is because somebody has got to have kids, which means the trait must at least be recessive, and even a recessive trait would have been isolated long ago.Therefore we know that at most genetics is introducing a vulnerability to sexual deviancy, which is quite an unremarkable statement as everything that happens non-deterministically exists within the boundary of what genetics allows. To say it isn't genetically determined never means genetics has nothing to do with it.
Based on what you're saying here, would you go so far as to say it can't be recessive? Perhaps, as some others are saying in this thread, it is epigenetic and only expresses under certain environments (maybe only in advantageous environments). That could be a way for this gene to avoid extinction.
But that would raise another big question: are there environments wherein homosexuality is advantageous?
3.) oromagi has formed conclusions about this matter, however I found it nearly impossible to confirm anything related to genetics due to paywalls (I really hate the idea of paywalls protecting scientific literature)If you're able to get the DOI for the paper, you can bypass paywalls by putting the DOI into SciHub.What a glorious idea SciHub appears to be. I will certainly try if I get some time this weekend.
Have fun :)
If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?Control systems beyond our conscious control. That can be the subconscious (which is probably the answer), or it could be gene switching (expressed proteins can change even with identical DNA), or it could be a pure chemical equilibrium of some complexity.
I thought the subconscious was determined by genetics, too, hence the variations in it.
By "gene switching", do you mean epigenetic?
What exactly is a "pure chemical equilibrium" of some complexity? I've never heard of that term before.
It's an appeal to authority wrapped in an appeal to ignorance. He has special skills with fallacies.
It's great to see such special skills being put to great use.