Child Porn instead of Assignment.

[o_gnyevko]

You can not CHOOSE what the chemicals in your brain are doing on your own. You CAN choose to alter what they are doing by adding drugs. That is what I was saying. PLEASE actually READ what I'm writing PLEASE for god's sake that is annoying. You are not ADDICTED to the chemicals in your brain. I am talking about OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. I am writing things in LARGE TEXT in the hopes that maybe somebody will actually READ what I am WRITING.

Also, Uber, remember when I said I agreed with Yomama? What are these doing here?

Originally Posted by ubra

In 2000, Bhugra suggest sexual attractions are both biological and culturally influenced.

In 2005, Eskin, Kaynak-Demir, and Demir find that environmental factors play a large role is sexual orientation and behavior. Not exactly genetics, is it.

In 1998, Daskalos finds that transsexuals change their sexual orientation after operation. Not exactly genetics, now is it.

In 1997, Byne, et al. state sexual orientation is not purely biological. State there is no "gay gene."

This has nothing at all to do with the argument. As I never said anything about whether or not sexual attractions can change.

Originally Posted by runningoutofweirdwaystosayuber

In 200, Diamond suggest sexual attraction is fluid.

This is the only one that is actually against what I was saying. 1 for 7... nice one. Now, show me their data or it is meaningless. So far I'm the only one that has shown any research data. I want to know if it's a concious choice who they would have sex with 'today' or if they can actually make themselves unattracted to another gender. (Which I HIGHLY doubt) This one also fits with my theory that most women are always both.

Originally Posted by Ubarion

Coll finds that women can "choose" their sexuality. Dismisses notions that sexuality is fixed and determined at early life. Suggest women sexuality, attractions, and identities are fluid. Says that women interviewed said they had conscience choice.

And this one goes with MY argument that most women are always both.

Originally Posted by Ubron, The Destructinator

In 2001, Edwards finds that women choose to change their sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by SilverSardinePrivateImbreastigator

Gnyevko, you're a dumbass. Learn to take things in the context given, both of you. Your changing of user names is what I'd expect from a 12 year old, and I hope you don't wish to be taken seriously.

Quite honestly, as someone who IS what you're talking about, I'll tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

*ignore* Moving on...

Uber, I'll be impressed by some evidence about men on this. Not just a source, show me some data and give me links so I can verify it. You have to understand I have no reason to believe you are not either talking out of your ass or reading something flimsy to begin with. Lots of colleges come up with lots of completely inaccurate judgements, and at least two are from colleges.

"I" actually have some experience about this, I've physically seen what a lot of people just ask questions about. If you ask a woman if she is capable of changing her sexual orientation and she says, "Yes." it doesn't make it true. She may not even fully understand the question, she may just, as I have said, be able to go both ways. That's just bi-sexual, not a loss/gain of attraction. Observing women to see what they are doing is a far more accurate way of discovering the truth.

[EDIT]Nevermind, don't bother. After some thought the first four citations I quoted of yours show you STILL don't even understand what my argument is at a basic level. I'm done talking to you, I WILL however continue the debate with anyone else who is interested. Nez said arguing with you would be a waste of time and apparently I should have listened... :P[/EDIT]

[o_uber]

Your data from a party. You're so genius. You're also a lost cause.

[o_nezumi]

Not *a* party. But it's actual observation in any case.

Like I've said, if you need to start quoting research in an online debate you're doing something very wrong. We can point fingers either way as to who started that in this thread BUT the point is YMH was right:

Some biological, some genetic, and imo some choice. In silver fox's case, looking past his preconcieved notions was a choice. Many people have it in their head that they don't like something, but can learn to enjoy it, and just because you can enjoy something doesn't mean you always would have enjoyed it and just didn't know it.

Edit: ALso,

Originally Posted by uber

Whereas you said people are born with it, automatically implying purely genetics

Wrong. You're leaving out 9 months of development. In fact, as I remember, males are statistically 1% more likely to be gay for each older brother they have. This has been linked to changes in the conditions in the mothers womb after or during each pregnancy. So being born gay doesn't imply 100% genetics.

[o_zsilver_fox]

Regarding the brother's thing, there's also the larger exposure to men and possible experimentation.

Regarding the experimenting with homosexuality thing: You took it out of context. And while you can't choose the chemicals in your brain, those levels can be influenced (such as treating depression through counseling). I'm living proof.

[o_nezumi]

Whatever I was reading about the older brother thing mentioned specific changes in chemical levels in the womb. (can't remember which chemicals). In any case, my point was just that there are non-genetic factors which influence your development before you're born.

I wonder if it's possible to find a way to change your sexual preferences with a drug. The straight pill! Zorn!

[o_player]

Religion! Religious folk believe they can "convert" homosexuals...

The most bizarre attempt I have heard of equals that of the electric shock treatment :P

People can be foolish at times.

[o_yomamashouse]

Dude all you have to do is accept Jesus as your lord (Seig Hiel?) and savior. It worked for me.

[Circuitous]

It's "Sieg Heil," and it probably doesn't mean what you think it does.

[o_()))crayola))_>]

Means 'Hail Victory' I believe.

[o_yomamashouse]

I know it has something to do with victory. So yes in fact it does mean what i think it does.

[Circuitous]

Just checking.

[o_nezumi]

...then I take the red pill and I'm gay for 6-8 hours. Side effects may vary.

[o_yomamashouse]

This is a good read if you are interested in genetics and sexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_...al_orientation

I had never know that there were animals that were homosexual. Rather interesting, certainly opens a few new doors on this debate.

[o_uber]

It's been known for quite some long time. You forgot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...al_orientation too. At any rate, unreferenced Wikipedia articles mean very little to me.

[o_nezumi]

I knew about chimps, but oh my god gay penguins. That's just hilarious

[o_yomamashouse]

Good thing those penguins don't have souls like us humans or they would be going to hell.

[o_the russian]

theres plenty of evidence going in both directions actualy... check this Wiki for research and refference.

The logical stance here is that genetics do play a role and so does biology and environment.

uBeR's arguement is flawed in his assumption that genetics cant lead backwards with his assumption that biology couldnt possibly intend to make an un-reproducing human... (a flawed theologicaly inspired stance).. just remember Taysachs and Albino syndomes are geneticaly present in individuals and they do nothing but harm, especialy Taysachs. (Which takes 2 ppl having a the gene for it to happen, but the catch is that it does NOT have to be the recessive gene.) Effectively creating people that can certify certain death for their offspring if both are carriers and they mate.

The list goes on with geneticaly carried ressesive and dominant conditions in any species that lead only to its detriment, so the arguement is not feasible.

Environmentaly there is the point where common houseflies upon reaching a certain bodily temperature all turn homosexual. I remember reading the research but I think by now this is common knowledge.

Sociologicaly there is evidence that social acceptance leads to more homosexuality and open experimentation, as it did in Greece, as in Athens where it was considered that soldiers fought harder if they had intimate relations with eachother.

Point being, its everything. There is no way to leave an element out. And as a way it also verifies the Genetic arguement not with a "gay gene" but with minimaly a "genetic pre-disposition" or "genetic apptitude". Basicaly, anyone can become or be influenced into becoming homosexual to one degree or another based on these "apptitudes".

[o_uber]

Originally Posted by The Russian

uBeR's arguement is flawed in his assumption that genetics cant lead backwards with his assumption that biology couldnt possibly intend to make an un-reproducing human... (a flawed theologicaly inspired stance).. just remember Taysachs and Albino syndomes are geneticaly present in individuals and they do nothing but harm, especialy Taysachs. (Which takes 2 ppl having a the gene for it to happen, but the catch is that it does NOT have to be the recessive gene.) Effectively creating people that can certify certain death for their offspring if both are carriers and they mate.

Albinism is a genetic disorder and Tay-Sachs is a disease. So unless you're classifying homosexuality as that, I don't quite understand your point.

[o_cruor]

Originally Posted by Gnyevko

I was saying he chose what he want. Which I didn't. I said he REALIZED what he wanted, he just wasn't sure at first. His attraction was there all along, it was just masked by preconcieved ideas about BDSM.

Lol how could BDSM be dictated as an attraction by nature. Attraction to women is instinctively programmed yes for males, other attractions are clearly "chosen" fetishes, some can be instantaneous the first time we see it happen, others have to grow on us.

On the issue of homosexuality I believe it is present in our genes, but the expression of this gene varies greatly. If we look to our simian cousions, lets say the chimpansies, sometimes males hump other males, but this is understood to be simply a social behaviour (bonding with the clan), these males are however still intent on procreating with females. So the animal kingdom stretches to Bisexuality. I know of no accounts of pure homosexuality except for the human race and I think that can be accounted to our greatly advanced intellect, we can disregard our insticts and make a choice, through our environmental upbringing and character shaping experiences.

A woman subjected to male abuse in her youth, later turns lesbian, coincidence?

A man shunned and mistreated my his female classmates and girls in general, turns homosexual, coincidence?

The examples are many.

So all in all I'd say, homosexuality or rather bisexuality is in our genes, how we are molded and what choices we make dictate the expression of these genes and our sexual preferance.

way to spin of the subject but I'm done.

[o_broodingdude]

Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse

Dude all you have to do is accept Jesus as your lord (Seig Hiel?) and savior. It worked for me.

Explain this using small words and pictures. You can even be sarcastic and condescending. Not how it worked for you. Explain how it WORKS. No metaphors or allegorical shit, please.