Is being straight or gay genetic and fixed?

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Not latest talking points, latest research.
How wouldn't they be biological? Why can't it be? Where is the contradiction as opposed to current homosexuality?

Which has nothing to do with the actual study. As I already explained your perception of the study is not consistent with what the study actually entails. After this one you can bet there will be a lot more. Which is why this argument is so awkward. That eventually another study will come out and then another, etc etc.
You still have completely and utterly ducked every single question I've asked to explain history or contemporary examples of blatant homosexuality done for sociological reasons. And you're doing it for the exact reason I posted umpteenth pages ago, because to acknowledge it is too damaging to your ideology and argument, you must dodge and not answer it. Now you did it again, you took cultures where it absolutely was a choice to practice same sex coupling and you just turned it biological, because you redefined what biology means to encompass all things organic. Where is the "its not a choice" argument, where is the DNA with Socrates trying to hook up with a young Alcibiades?

And your "latest research" are just your talking points. You don't even understand them. You've already collapsed the fields of study such as sociology and psychology into biology, just to try to make your point that everything involving anything organic is biology.

The entire frame work of the political narrative of LBGTQ rights in western society hedges completely on it "not being a choice," it has to be something chemical, or genetic, or physiological, or else there is no "evidence" of it being "biological." So of course there will be more studies done, people like you will guarantee it. There is a lot of money to be made, lots of grants to be won, and lots of pro-LBGTQ people absolutely dying for better talking points than "its like, totally, all organic, so its like totally biological, man..."
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
The modern Western perception is that sexuality must be something fixed and biological. But this is a rather new idea. I have been reading a book about Western-Soviet alliances during WW2 and came across this eccentric British ambassador:

"Like many upper class Britons of his generation, Clark Kerr did not subscribe to a strict hetero- homosexual binarism. He had sexual relations with both men and women, although he evidently preferred men."

As far as upper class Britons are concerned someone like Oscar Wilde comes to my mind. He had relations with both women and men, preferring young men. Today he is seen as a Gay writer. Our modern view is more narrow. This is why I am not 100 % convinced homosexuality is hereditary.
So what you are saying is that sexual preferences lie on a certain continuum, on its own spectrum, in a way, and it is normal? And it only became abnormal with, perhaps, some religious and cultural constraints?
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
Yes but this was before the discovery of DNA and what not.
It is undoubtedly Biological. The question is to what extent it is fixed.
Perhaps it is not fixed.Behaviors are likely defined by the circumstances. Where did I find this phrase, "gay for the stay?" About homosexual behavior of males in prison.
Surely the same happened for centuries in armies, during long expeditions?
And of course, in famous all-boy schools, like Eaton, homosexual behavior was the norm.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
You still have completely and utterly ducked every single question I've asked to explain history or contemporary examples of blatant homosexuality done for sociological reasons. And you're doing it for the exact reason I posted umpteenth pages ago, because to acknowledge it is too damaging to your ideology and argument, you must dodge and not answer it. Now you did it again, you took cultures where it absolutely was a choice to practice same sex coupling and you just turned it biological, because you redefined what biology means to encompass all things organic. Where is the "its not a choice" argument, where is the DNA with Socrates trying to hook up with a young Alcibiades?

And your "latest research" are just your talking points. You don't even understand them. You've already collapsed the fields of study such as sociology and psychology into biology, just to try to make your point that everything involving anything organic is biology.

The entire frame work of the political narrative of LBGTQ rights in western society hedges completely on it "not being a choice," it has to be something chemical, or genetic, or physiological, or else there is no "evidence" of it being "biological." So of course there will be more studies done, people like you will guarantee it. There is a lot of money to be made, lots of grants to be won, and lots of pro-LBGTQ people absolutely dying for better talking points than "its like, totally, all organic, so its like totally biological, man..."
Your post diverted me onto a different path.

As a woman, I have noticed that women in general, even religious ones, do not harbor any hatred towards gay men (or women). And all dislike, all hatred of gays, especially gay men, comes from straight men. Some would say, "latent homosexuality", but I don't believe so. I think it is fear of "guilt by association".

For a woman, a gay man is not a threat. If anything, a possible friend, an acquaintance that is nice to take to a shopping trip, but definitely not a predator. So we accept gay men. There is probably biology in acceptance as the female trait, too, as we, the mothers, are wired to take care of all offsprings, including sick or less-than-perfect ones.

For a straight male, a gay friend means, "what will guys say about me? Will they also think I am gay?" And hence the hatred, and all hate crimes, and all nine yards. It is fear of being tainted by even minimal association. In Soviet prisons, as I have read, there was a very strict ritual guiding the relationships with gay population. One could not sit at the same table with them, use the same utensils, etc. If he was "contaminated", even accidentally, the inmate ran a high risk of being transferred into the same gay group.

It seems to me that intense dislike of gays that I (sorry) see in your post and that is typical for male society in general is governed by the same fear, that own macho male group would reject and marginalize someone who may be straight, but is tolerant of gays.

Really, dudes, being non-judgmental in no way paints you as gay, or secretly gay. It is called tolerance. I don't know what LGBTQ groups want, they probably have complex agenda, but one of the things, I suspect, is, being able to express their identity without fear?
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Your post diverted me onto a different path.

As a woman, I have noticed that women in general, even religious ones, do not harbor any hatred towards gay men (or women). And all dislike, all hatred of gays, especially gay men, comes from straight men. Some would say, "latent homosexuality", but I don't believe so. I think it is fear of "guilt by association".

For a woman, a gay man is not a threat. If anything, a possible friend, an acquaintance that is nice to take to a shopping trip, but definitely not a predator. So we accept gay men. There is probably biology in acceptance as the female trait, too, as we, the mothers, are wired to take care of all offsprings, including sick or less-than-perfect ones.

For a straight male, a gay friend means, "what will guys say about me? Will they also think I am gay?" And hence the hatred, and all hate crimes, and all nine yards. It is fear of being tainted by even minimal association. In Soviet prisons, as I have read, there was a very strict ritual guiding the relationships with gay population. One could not sit at the same table with them, use the same utensils, etc. If he was "contaminated", even accidentally, the inmate ran a high risk of being transferred into the same gay group.

It seems to me that intense dislike of gays that I (sorry) see in your post and that is typical for male society in general is governed by the same fear, that own macho male group would reject and marginalize someone who may be straight, but is tolerant of gays.

Really, dudes, being non-judgmental in no way paints you as gay, or secretly gay. It is called tolerance. I don't know what LGBTQ groups want, they probably have complex agenda, but one of the things, I suspect, is, being able to express their identity without fear?
I'm a student of history. Which means I have no problem with same sex coupling, its something that has happened in countless human societies throughout history.

What I have a problem with is deceivers who use political pressure to shut down discussion, to the point only one highly flawed narrative is allowed. I simply do not buy the "Its not a choice" narrative. I think for many it is a choice. And that is fine. As long as nobody is preying on the young and naive, I have no problem with it, its a rather benign social trait all things considered, nobody is being victimized, and since we're few believe in actual Judeo-Christian believes, not worried to go to a literal "Hell", then more power to them.

But don't tell me I'm a homophobe because I wont buy into nonsense propaganda that was only created about 30 years ago in order to sell LBGTQ to "common folk" in western society. It was nothing more than a ploy. "You wouldnt' hate your child for being autistic would you? Being gay isn't a choice. You can't hate them for it." And boom, they found their perfect way to be accepted into mainstream society. But for the vast majority of those who classify as lesbian or gay, its simply not true. It is a choice. They are sexually attracted to both sexes, but one pulls harder so they decide to identify with that one, which includes an entire culture with it.
 
Feb 2019
57
Planet Earth
So what you are saying is that sexual preferences lie on a certain continuum, on its own spectrum, in a way, and it is normal? And it only became abnormal with, perhaps, some religious and cultural constraints?
I believe it is partly shaped by a person's early experiences, social circumstances and cultural norms and taboos. I don't adhere to the 100 % biological explanation of homosexuality, because other times and societies look(ed) at it differently or just did not define it at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkteia

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
I'm a student of history. Which means I have no problem with same sex coupling, its something that has happened in countless human societies throughout history.

What I have a problem with is deceivers who use political pressure to shut down discussion, to the point only one highly flawed narrative is allowed. I simply do not buy the "Its not a choice" narrative. I think for many it is a choice. And that is fine. As long as nobody is preying on the young and naive, I have no problem with it, its a rather benign social trait all things considered, nobody is being victimized, and since we're few believe in actual Judeo-Christian believes, not worried to go to a literal "Hell", then more power to them.

But don't tell me I'm a homophobe because I wont buy into nonsense propaganda that was only created about 30 years ago in order to sell LBGTQ to "common folk" in western society. It was nothing more than a ploy. "You wouldnt' hate your child for being autistic would you? Being gay isn't a choice.And boom, they found their perfect way to be accepted into mainstream society. But for the vast majority of those who classify as lesbian or gay, its simply not true. It is a choice. They are sexually attracted to both sexes, but one pulls harder so they decide to identify with that one, which includes an entire culture with it.
You know, it is interesting. Many years ago, having seen how all kinds of prejudice spoils the lives of kids (specifically, it was the community of Russian expats, and someone giving his kid difficult time for dating a Mexican girl), I came home and said to my teenage son, "you know, if you want to date a girl of another race, this is OK. Bring her home. And if you want to date a boy, it is OK, too". (He made big eyes - he was not even thinking of dating, he wanted to ask me about a hookah, as i found out, lol. But I think I said the right thing. He grew up straight, but racial issues are not a constraint to him, so something we did was right).

But in general, what is the problem with gays being accepted into mainstream society? What I see from your post is exactly what I wrote about, fear of "contamination" if they are accepted. And all they want is probably for their people not to be attacked, or beaten up, or feeling unsafe, wherever they go. No one drags you to attend Gay Pride parades, I never do (I don't watch St. Patrick Day parades, either). But treating people equally would be fair.

BTW, autistic people are not treated with fairness, either, so we have a long way to go.

P.S. I can agree with you that some people can't hold a conversation and just shut you down with different political agendas, but it happens all the time, on the right and on the left, and I think such intolerance masks stupidity and ineptitude. Sometimes I run into people who share my agenda but can't dispute, either, I think because for them, their world ends with their abode.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2008
50
I don't think that sexual attraction based upon gender is a "choice", but neither do I think it's genetic. I think it's part of one's personality-development over which one has no control, and it develops very, very early in infancy/childhood, and doesn't change. I doubt culture has anything to do with it. Although culture and circumstances do come into play when determining how one will actually act on one's sexual-orientation.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
You know, it is interesting. Many years ago, having seen how all kinds of prejudice spoils the lives of kids (specifically, it was the community of Russian expats, and someone giving his kid difficult time for dating a Mexican girl), I came home and said to my teenage son, "you know, if you want to date a girl of another race, this is OK. Bring her home. And if you want to date a boy, it is OK, too". (He made big eyes - he was not even thinking of dating, he wanted to ask me about a hookah, as i found out, lol. But I think I said the right thing. He grew up straight, but racial issues are not a constraint to him, so something we did was right).

But in general, what is the problem with gays being accepted into mainstream society? What I see from your post is exactly what I wrote about, fear of "contamination" if they are accepted. And all they want is probably for their people not to be attacked, or beaten up, or feeling unsafe, wherever they go. No one drags you to attend Gay Pride parades, I never do (I don't watch St. Patrick Day parades, either). But treating people equally would be fair.

BTW, autistic people are not treated with fairness, too, so we have a long way to go.
Why would autistic people be treated with fairness? Life isn't fair. They are significantly handicapped, the more on the spectrum the more they cannot fit into life as a whole.

And why should be gays be accepted by mainstream society? What right does anyone to force their lifestyle on another and tell them they have to accept it? Can alcoholics that don't get DUIs do that? Drug addicts? Bigamists? Chronic masturbators?

NOBODY has a right to make others believe what they do has to be accepted by the greater society. The best they can do is try to manipulate them into believing its okay. They can do that through incrementalism, little by little, to the point in 2019 hardly anyone questions homosexuality as a whole as evil whereas even as far back as 15 years ago, let alone 40, that was absolutely not the case. And of course propaganda. In the case of LGBTQ, the biggest problem was getting mr and Mrs. Joe Sixpack to accept gay/lesbians was to make it personal, target the family. Most people have one relative or friends who has a gay or lesbian son/daughter. "Its not a choice" redefines something seen previously as a hedonistic lifestyle choice to a true biological cause (using the actual definition, not Lord Oda Nobunaga's), which removes motive and thus guilt.

Can one hate the lifestyle choice of being hemophiliac? Or not agree with the choice to have Aspergers? Absolutely not, those individuals didn't choose to have that affliction, therefore they should not be penalized for it. And THAT is why the "Its not a choice" talking point exists. Even though its largely nonsense.

I think there is a small subsection of the overall community where its not a choice. For them there is either a psychological or hormonal reason for it. But that refers to those individuals who are ONLY attracted to same sex, which is actually a very small part of the overall societal community that self identify as gay or lesbian (versus bisexual, a term and lifestyle looked down upon by the gay and lesbian communities).