|
It can't be genetic. Genes don't operate like that.
There are certain personalities, behavioural factors (related to Genes) that will predispose some people to homosexuality but it's mainly cultural and environmental. There is no Homosexual gene but there are genes that will maybe encourage somebody towards some cultural mores - some people think they are gay and return to straightdom and vice versa too... This highlights how we are so encompassed with numerous genes triggering numerous, infinite behaviour patterns as they interact and create new neural structures. Saying it is genetic insults our biology which isn't so simplified as that - being *bing* you're gay because you have a gene. |
Being gay is a physiological attraction to the same sex...there may not be a gay gene but there is plenty of evidence that gay people have different biological make ups. There is also no common experiential factors in determining sexuality...I would say its MAINLY biological
|
[rquote=2543776&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!]Being gay is a physiological attraction to the same sex...there may not be a gay gene but there is plenty of evidence that gay people have different biological make ups. There is also no common experiential factors in determining sexuality...I would say its MAINLY biological[/rquote]
I haven't seen any evidence of a different biological make up because they are in fact homo sapiens with the same genetic and biological triggers and chemical reactions as other homo sapiens and the sexual reactions and behaviour as males if they are males and females if they are females. Neurologically, via a social trigger there is just like with a sexual awakening, neural development towards the same sex yes but in that same light there is nothing to say (as has been evident) that that same sexual attraction cannot go to the opposite sex as well because people switch sides if they need to. In society, we have seen cultural developments, cultural norms and values within homosexual groupings that create lifestyle, leisure and also commercial interests to uphold this and also legalities towards them. All that will serve the cerebral facets by upholding thought processes and validating and solidifying them with cognitive schemas relating to homosexual behaviour as promoted by the legalities, the rules in society by which the brain develops to uphold being attracted to the same sex because it is socially acceptable. In the same way, the deviance, the need to experiment as humans would lead people to rebel sexually due to the power of hormones and chemical reactions in societies with gross fragility. A study showed that democracy doesn't necessarily need homosexuality as a civil right if the country can operate effectively without this as a civil right, but most recent political movements and also social movements feel that offering rights to homosexuality within civil rights will aid progression due to the commercial interests involved as well as in industry as well. An open society as it were - not really based upon a gross need to declare it as biological law therefore a right but a social need and therefore law. So the fallacious factors relating to biology and homosexuality are merely just that, fallacious but some people with the multi-culturalism and the post-modernist tour de force catapulted by the leaps and bounds by technology and trade and immigration laws, requires at this point in time for homosexuality to be part of civil rights. After all, homosexuality was accepted after the biggest immigration and trade booms after the 2nd world war where civil rights were important in order to ease social unrest and legalities were therefore laid down accordingly. Therefore, this indicates the social factors relating to the economic need for civil rights to all sexual behaviour based upon social needs but biologically - they are homo sapiens with the rights to have sex with their own sex. |
^I see no evidence of cultural factors being the main influence in determining sexuality...provide some research...there are several studies that indicate there are biological differences observed in gay and straight people. Although I do agree that anyone can be attracted to either sex, but most people are born with a propensity towards one or the other depending on hormonal factors/brain chemistry.
Le Vay, 91. Various twin studies, Mustanski et al. (2005)... Im not sure why you've bought homosexuality being socially accepted into it, gay people have always been around even when society (+ their families) didnt accept it |
[rquote=2548156&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!]I see no evidence of cultural factors being the main influence in determining sexuality...provide some research...there are several studies that indicate there are biological differences observed in gay and straight people. Although I do agree that anyone can be attracted to either sex, but most people are born with a propensity towards one or the other depending on hormonal factors/brain chemistry.
Le Vay, 91. Various twin studies, Mustanski et al. (2005) Im not sure why you've bought homosexuality being socially accepted into it, gay people have always been around even when society (+ their families) didnt accept it [/rquote] Did you know that throughout history homosexual behaviour (not homosexuality, but the behaviour of same sexes) was frowned upon and only related to certain cultures where young boys were chosen due to their longer stays outside of puberty where as girls became women quicker? The rise in homosexual acceptance began through it's cultural basis as I have illustrated above and this was in regards to how it was in need during the mass migration - (Why am I stating this when I have already told you why it is said, do you read what I write) and economic trade changes that required nations to make changes to civil rights. Before this, largely, homosexuality was not acceptable at all and was deviant as a play thing. Now it is cultural and a lifestyle - a life long lifestyle for some and one that is part of a victim status ship for the modern world as well. Well I base the above on a clear and inarguable chronology of global change towards civil need for homosexuality to be recognised over time. How could you argue that? Especially when homosexuality, pre WW2 was a threat to the small communities that people lived in due to the demeaning behaviour of fringe members of communities that caused problems in close knit communities. I've written something quite clear above and you give a study above that doesn't illustrate biological factors at all but that as I have stated quite clearly not merely genetics, but environmental factors and hormonal factors make a difference - one cannot be without the other so your view of simply biology is flawed because biology includes ecology of the living organism and by that it's surroundings. Even your own studies cited simply place a person as an individual in the world and you ignore the dimorphic basis in the studies you raise, the dimorphic basis I have illustrated in my posts already, stating a person can switch from one to the other, as can the structure of the brain as well. So - it's not direct that a person was naturally such but ecologically the changes become physical. My point is, your studies back up my claim of how neuro-biology is environmental amongst males and leading to my above statements regarding geo-economic changes and the rise of cities highlights how a rise in homosexuality is possible due to culture effects in an environment and therefore the biology of an individaul - of course this can change because the brain changes over and over and over again. In Biology an individual is not alone, he is a part of the ecology in which they exist which you choose to ignore - which I can understand because soon as you step out of the bubble of saying simply the biology, the physical aspects inside an individual are important then you have accept how environment plays a part on the brain more so than anything else in the development and survival of the individual around the ecology of others - i.e. homosexuals gather their cues from heterosexuals too and also i.e. if there was only one person in the world, what would they be attracted to. Some studies regarding environment and homosexuality http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...113/6/1827.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/ Quote:
Quote:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2-1649.44.1.46 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2cc17681d18e0f Quote:
Quote:
Study shows low incidence of genetic influence and more social http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ll/157/11/1843 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b0904800f339af Quote:
Laumann, Edward O.; John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Quote:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...tract/50/3/228 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9325597 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Oh great now Ive gotta wade through your waffle...another time!...thanks for being concise:thumbs:
|
[rquote=2548755&tid=127003&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2548156&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!]I see no evidence of cultural factors being the main influence in determining sexuality...provide some research...there are several studies that indicate there are biological differences observed in gay and straight people. Although I do agree that anyone can be attracted to either sex, but most people are born with a propensity towards one or the other depending on hormonal factors/brain chemistry.
Le Vay, 91. Various twin studies, Mustanski et al. (2005) Im not sure why you've bought homosexuality being socially accepted into it, gay people have always been around even when society (+ their families) didnt accept it [/rquote] Did you know that throughout history homosexual behaviour (not homosexuality, but the behaviour of same sexes) was frowned upon and only related to certain cultures where young boys were chosen due to their longer stays outside of puberty where as girls became women quicker? The rise in homosexual acceptance began through it's cultural basis as I have illustrated above and this was in regards to how it was in need during the mass migration - (Why am I stating this when I have already told you why it is said, do you read what I write) and economic trade changes that required nations to make changes to civil rights. Before this, largely, homosexuality was not acceptable at all and was deviant as a play thing. Now it is cultural and a lifestyle - a life long lifestyle for some and one that is part of a victim status ship for the modern world as well. Well I base the above on a clear and inarguable chronology of global change towards civil need for homosexuality to be recognised over time. How could you argue that? Especially when homosexuality, pre WW2 was a threat to the small communities that people lived in due to the demeaning behaviour of fringe members of communities that caused problems in close knit communities. I've written something quite clear above and you give a study above that doesn't illustrate biological factors at all but that as I have stated quite clearly not merely genetics, but environmental factors and hormonal factors make a difference - one cannot be without the other so your view of simply biology is flawed because biology includes ecology of the living organism and by that it's surroundings. Even your own studies cited simply place a person as an individual in the world and you ignore the dimorphic basis in the studies you raise, the dimorphic basis I have illustrated in my posts already, stating a person can switch from one to the other, as can the structure of the brain as well. So - it's not direct that a person was naturally such but ecologically the changes become physical. My point is, your studies back up my claim of how neuro-biology is environmental amongst males and leading to my above statements regarding geo-economic changes and the rise of cities highlights how a rise in homosexuality is possible due to culture effects in an environment and therefore the biology of an individaul - of course this can change because the brain changes over and over and over again. In Biology an individual is not alone, he is a part of the ecology in which they exist which you choose to ignore - which I can understand because soon as you step out of the bubble of saying simply the biology, the physical aspects inside an individual are important then you have accept how environment plays a part on the brain more so than anything else in the development and survival of the individual around the ecology of others - i.e. homosexuals gather their cues from heterosexuals too and also i.e. if there was only one person in the world, what would they be attracted to. Some studies regarding environment and homosexuality http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...113/6/1827.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/ Quote:
Quote:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2-1649.44.1.46 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2cc17681d18e0f Quote:
Quote:
Study shows low incidence of genetic influence and more social http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ll/157/11/1843 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b0904800f339af Quote:
Laumann, Edward O.; John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Quote:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...tract/50/3/228 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9325597 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/rquote] I think we're having some different arguments here. Im not denying the social acceptance of homosexuality throughout history or the reasons for. Im not sure that directly has a bearing on the prevalence of homosexuality other than enabling homosexuals to be open about their preferences. There is no reliable statistical proof for that either. And by homosexual I mean someone with a strong preference for the same sex (not someone who is bi-sexual or experimenting with their sexuality) Sexuality is fluid and changeable depending on environment I will agree on (eg/ people in prison becoming "prison bent" I dont class these people as truly homosexual). Im not denying environmental influences either or arguing that you can separate the biological from environmental. Im arguing that on an individual level a homosexual person is born biologically different to a heterosexual person and is more likely to become homosexual. Obviously there are environmental factors involved in that development but what I object strongly to, is the suggestion that this is largely to do with upbringing or cultural enviroment or that it is "mainly" cultural influence (ie something that can easily be changed by providing a different environment), or that everyone is born with an equal possibility of becoming homosexual(having a preference for the same sex)..it might make it easier for them to be open about it and "come out" is all. I'll sift through your research later, Im sure some of it has very valid points whilst not disproving what Im saying. Then some of it looks like its funded by Christian Conservative groups!:thumbs: nice to have some decent debate though...its been a while http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...yRecord&uid=19... Quote: Prospective studies suggest that childhood cross-sex-typed behavior is strongly predictive of adult homosexual orientation for men; This study for instance proves nothing. This type of non comformist behaviour is more likely from someone who has more inherent female traits than his more masculine counterparts http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote: "Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families; however, little is known about other childhood factors affecting marital choices. We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18–49 year-old Danes. In multivariate analyses, persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers." Again this proves nothing, the fact that children who experience divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually doesnt mean that they are more likely to marry homosexually. In Urban areas to it is easier for people to communicate about and come out as homosexual than in rural areas... I cant be bothered to carry on but obviously there are counter arguments. Also theres a recent study on the possible evolutionary benefit of homosexuality but I cant remember who or exactly what... |
[rquote=2551963&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!][rquote=2548755&tid=127003&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2548156&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!]I see no evidence of cultural factors being the main influence in determining sexuality...provide some research...there are several studies that indicate there are biological differences observed in gay and straight people. Although I do agree that anyone can be attracted to either sex, but most people are born with a propensity towards one or the other depending on hormonal factors/brain chemistry.
Le Vay, 91. Various twin studies, Mustanski et al. (2005) Im not sure why you've bought homosexuality being socially accepted into it, gay people have always been around even when society (+ their families) didnt accept it [/rquote] Did you know that throughout history homosexual behaviour (not homosexuality, but the behaviour of same sexes) was frowned upon and only related to certain cultures where young boys were chosen due to their longer stays outside of puberty where as girls became women quicker? The rise in homosexual acceptance began through it's cultural basis as I have illustrated above and this was in regards to how it was in need during the mass migration - (Why am I stating this when I have already told you why it is said, do you read what I write) and economic trade changes that required nations to make changes to civil rights. Before this, largely, homosexuality was not acceptable at all and was deviant as a play thing. Now it is cultural and a lifestyle - a life long lifestyle for some and one that is part of a victim status ship for the modern world as well. Well I base the above on a clear and inarguable chronology of global change towards civil need for homosexuality to be recognised over time. How could you argue that? Especially when homosexuality, pre WW2 was a threat to the small communities that people lived in due to the demeaning behaviour of fringe members of communities that caused problems in close knit communities. I've written something quite clear above and you give a study above that doesn't illustrate biological factors at all but that as I have stated quite clearly not merely genetics, but environmental factors and hormonal factors make a difference - one cannot be without the other so your view of simply biology is flawed because biology includes ecology of the living organism and by that it's surroundings. Even your own studies cited simply place a person as an individual in the world and you ignore the dimorphic basis in the studies you raise, the dimorphic basis I have illustrated in my posts already, stating a person can switch from one to the other, as can the structure of the brain as well. So - it's not direct that a person was naturally such but ecologically the changes become physical. My point is, your studies back up my claim of how neuro-biology is environmental amongst males and leading to my above statements regarding geo-economic changes and the rise of cities highlights how a rise in homosexuality is possible due to culture effects in an environment and therefore the biology of an individaul - of course this can change because the brain changes over and over and over again. In Biology an individual is not alone, he is a part of the ecology in which they exist which you choose to ignore - which I can understand because soon as you step out of the bubble of saying simply the biology, the physical aspects inside an individual are important then you have accept how environment plays a part on the brain more so than anything else in the development and survival of the individual around the ecology of others - i.e. homosexuals gather their cues from heterosexuals too and also i.e. if there was only one person in the world, what would they be attracted to. Some studies regarding environment and homosexuality http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...113/6/1827.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/ Quote:
Quote:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2-1649.44.1.46 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2cc17681d18e0f Quote:
Quote:
Study shows low incidence of genetic influence and more social http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ll/157/11/1843 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b0904800f339af Quote:
Laumann, Edward O.; John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Quote:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...tract/50/3/228 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9325597 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/rquote] I think we're having some different arguments here. Im not denying the social acceptance of homosexuality throughout history or the reasons for. Im not sure that directly has a bearing on the prevalence of homosexuality other than enabling homosexuals to be open about their preferences. There is no reliable statistical proof for that either. And by homosexual I mean someone with a strong preference for the same sex (not someone who is bi-sexual or experimenting with their sexuality) Sexuality is fluid and changeable depending on environment I will agree on (eg/ people in prison becoming "prison bent" I dont class these people as truly homosexual). Im not denying environmental influences either or arguing that you can separate the biological from environmental. Im arguing that on an individual level a homosexual person is born biologically different to a heterosexual person and is more likely to become homosexual. Obviously there are environmental factors involved in that development but what I object strongly to, is the suggestion that this is largely to do with upbringing or cultural enviroment or that it is "mainly" cultural influence (ie something that can easily be changed by providing a different environment), or that everyone is born with an equal possibility of becoming homosexual(having a preference for the same sex)..it might make it easier for them to be open about it and "come out" is all. I'll sift through your research later, Im sure some of it has very valid points whilst not disproving what Im saying. Then some of it looks like its funded by Christian Conservative groups!:thumbs: nice to have some decent debate though...its been a while http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...yRecord&uid=19... Quote: Prospective studies suggest that childhood cross-sex-typed behavior is strongly predictive of adult homosexual orientation for men; This study for instance proves nothing. This type of non comformist behaviour is more likely from someone who has more inherent female traits than his more masculine counterparts http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote: "Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families; however, little is known about other childhood factors affecting marital choices. We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18–49 year-old Danes. In multivariate analyses, persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers." Again this proves nothing, the fact that children who experience divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually doesnt mean that they are more likely to marry homosexually. In Urban areas to it is easier for people to communicate about and come out as homosexual than in rural areas... [/rquote] This could be a never ending debate and eventually it will move into criticising studies and research. For me personally, like one of the researchers says, you can't have one without the other. There is no distinct product from genes as much as there is no distinct product from hormones, environment, biology etc - but a collection of them all in a certain environment can create a pre-disposition to certain cultural formula. My example would be immigration. Somebody in a Chinese village will not have the same opportunities they will get in England. If they came here, educated themselves, learnt the language more so and mingled with cultures then it will have a profound effect on their life. Such is the same in terms of homosexuality. Numerous factors come into play and with all the research we have, it's neither one way or the other. Which states, you can choose, you can go the other way around but since we are dealing with sexual behaviour related to so much in terms of ones psychology. So I would be bold enough to say anything can happen and you can choose but influences around us, just like the need to succeed by an immigrant, could be far too powerful. |
choice,, definitley.
|
[rquote=2552792&tid=127003&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2551963&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!][rquote=2548755&tid=127003&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2548156&tid=127003&author=NettoSuperstar!]I see no evidence of cultural factors being the main influence in determining sexuality...provide some research...there are several studies that indicate there are biological differences observed in gay and straight people. Although I do agree that anyone can be attracted to either sex, but most people are born with a propensity towards one or the other depending on hormonal factors/brain chemistry.
Le Vay, 91. Various twin studies, Mustanski et al. (2005) Im not sure why you've bought homosexuality being socially accepted into it, gay people have always been around even when society (+ their families) didnt accept it [/rquote] Did you know that throughout history homosexual behaviour (not homosexuality, but the behaviour of same sexes) was frowned upon and only related to certain cultures where young boys were chosen due to their longer stays outside of puberty where as girls became women quicker? The rise in homosexual acceptance began through it's cultural basis as I have illustrated above and this was in regards to how it was in need during the mass migration - (Why am I stating this when I have already told you why it is said, do you read what I write) and economic trade changes that required nations to make changes to civil rights. Before this, largely, homosexuality was not acceptable at all and was deviant as a play thing. Now it is cultural and a lifestyle - a life long lifestyle for some and one that is part of a victim status ship for the modern world as well. Well I base the above on a clear and inarguable chronology of global change towards civil need for homosexuality to be recognised over time. How could you argue that? Especially when homosexuality, pre WW2 was a threat to the small communities that people lived in due to the demeaning behaviour of fringe members of communities that caused problems in close knit communities. I've written something quite clear above and you give a study above that doesn't illustrate biological factors at all but that as I have stated quite clearly not merely genetics, but environmental factors and hormonal factors make a difference - one cannot be without the other so your view of simply biology is flawed because biology includes ecology of the living organism and by that it's surroundings. Even your own studies cited simply place a person as an individual in the world and you ignore the dimorphic basis in the studies you raise, the dimorphic basis I have illustrated in my posts already, stating a person can switch from one to the other, as can the structure of the brain as well. So - it's not direct that a person was naturally such but ecologically the changes become physical. My point is, your studies back up my claim of how neuro-biology is environmental amongst males and leading to my above statements regarding geo-economic changes and the rise of cities highlights how a rise in homosexuality is possible due to culture effects in an environment and therefore the biology of an individaul - of course this can change because the brain changes over and over and over again. In Biology an individual is not alone, he is a part of the ecology in which they exist which you choose to ignore - which I can understand because soon as you step out of the bubble of saying simply the biology, the physical aspects inside an individual are important then you have accept how environment plays a part on the brain more so than anything else in the development and survival of the individual around the ecology of others - i.e. homosexuals gather their cues from heterosexuals too and also i.e. if there was only one person in the world, what would they be attracted to. Some studies regarding environment and homosexuality http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...113/6/1827.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/ Quote:
Quote:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2-1649.44.1.46 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2cc17681d18e0f Quote:
Quote:
Study shows low incidence of genetic influence and more social http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ll/157/11/1843 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b0904800f339af Quote:
Laumann, Edward O.; John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Quote:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...tract/50/3/228 Quote:
Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9325597 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/rquote] I think we're having some different arguments here. Im not denying the social acceptance of homosexuality throughout history or the reasons for. Im not sure that directly has a bearing on the prevalence of homosexuality other than enabling homosexuals to be open about their preferences. There is no reliable statistical proof for that either. And by homosexual I mean someone with a strong preference for the same sex (not someone who is bi-sexual or experimenting with their sexuality) Sexuality is fluid and changeable depending on environment I will agree on (eg/ people in prison becoming "prison bent" I dont class these people as truly homosexual). Im not denying environmental influences either or arguing that you can separate the biological from environmental. Im arguing that on an individual level a homosexual person is born biologically different to a heterosexual person and is more likely to become homosexual. Obviously there are environmental factors involved in that development but what I object strongly to, is the suggestion that this is largely to do with upbringing or cultural enviroment or that it is "mainly" cultural influence (ie something that can easily be changed by providing a different environment), or that everyone is born with an equal possibility of becoming homosexual(having a preference for the same sex)..it might make it easier for them to be open about it and "come out" is all. I'll sift through your research later, Im sure some of it has very valid points whilst not disproving what Im saying. Then some of it looks like its funded by Christian Conservative groups!:thumbs: nice to have some decent debate though...its been a while http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...yRecord&uid=19... Quote: Prospective studies suggest that childhood cross-sex-typed behavior is strongly predictive of adult homosexual orientation for men; This study for instance proves nothing. This type of non comformist behaviour is more likely from someone who has more inherent female traits than his more masculine counterparts http://www.springerlink.com/content/al4574p6203628w0/ Quote: "Children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than those growing up in intact families; however, little is known about other childhood factors affecting marital choices. We studied childhood correlates of first marriages (heterosexual since 1970, homosexual since 1989) in a national cohort of 2 million 18–49 year-old Danes. In multivariate analyses, persons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peers." Again this proves nothing, the fact that children who experience divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually doesnt mean that they are more likely to marry homosexually. In Urban areas to it is easier for people to communicate about and come out as homosexual than in rural areas... [/rquote] This could be a never ending debate and eventually it will move into criticising studies and research. For me personally, like one of the researchers says, you can't have one without the other. There is no distinct product from genes as much as there is no distinct product from hormones, environment, biology etc - but a collection of them all in a certain environment can create a pre-disposition to certain cultural formula. My example would be immigration. Somebody in a Chinese village will not have the same opportunities they will get in England. If they came here, educated themselves, learnt the language more so and mingled with cultures then it will have a profound effect on their life. Such is the same in terms of homosexuality. Numerous factors come into play and with all the research we have, it's neither one way or the other. Which states, you can choose, you can go the other way around but since we are dealing with sexual behaviour related to so much in terms of ones psychology. So I would be bold enough to say anything can happen and you can choose but influences around us, just like the need to succeed by an immigrant, could be far too powerful.[/rquote] I'll agree with the never ending debate bit:thumbs: but I will always maintain gay people do not choose to be that way and there is very little anyone can do to stop anyone becoming gay. |
[rquote=2552831&tid=127003&author=staceyxxx]choice,, definitley.[/rquote]
yah thanks for that lol |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.