Homosexuality in Australia (11 Viewers)

[robo-andie]

Anyone who knows how to operate a search-engine could also find 'convincing' websites about alien abduction, conspiracy theories and prophesysing teleologists.

qft

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Are you reading what you're writing? I've been saying this since about two days ago.

I honestly don't believe that has been what you've been saying, or I doubt we would have come into conflict. I by no means imagine that it is all genetic, however it is somewhat from what I understand. Of course their environment also has to do with it, but as I've stated many times... I don't see what the point of the argument is. The only argument you've made so far, in this entire thread, against homosexuals is that they don't have offspring.

- They do have offspring, with artificial incemination it's hard to find a lesbian who ISN'T pregnant these days.
- You only need to have sex with the opposite sex ONCE in your life (out of many times having sex, hopefully) to create a child.
- Our population is such that at the moment it would be good for large proportions of society to slow down on having children.

The question of whether it's nature or nurture.... I mean... Who cares? There's alot of things that humans do that isn't directly genetic, should we outlaw all of them? Of course not. I would argue that the 'no sex before marriage' policy of most religions is totally against nature, but that's not going to matter much in the argument is it?

I stated it when these arguments errupted a while ago and I'm still saying it: What is the purpose of this argument?

 

[ur_inner_child]

I agree.

I fear it might be something along the lines of *trying to fix it* if the cause of the problem were managable.

Even if it were proved its natural, I don't feel society will find homosexuality acceptable for a long time.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I fear it might be something along the lines of *trying to fix it* if the cause of the problem were managable.

Oh ok, but that's going too far. First we have to show that Homosexuality is something which needs to be fixed.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I agree.

If sam04u was right that homosexuals all come from warped environments, homosexuality may not be some sort of by-product of abuse and need fixing.

Same lines as domestic violence may lead to the kids running away. Kids running away is a bad thing, but it may be the best option to deal. Weird example though.

Although I take the above all back really because I don't think its purely environmental or a result of abuse or crappy surroundings. I'm not quite sure what it is, and quite frankly do not care. I can't see what they're doing wrong to society anyway.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Not necessarily, I know I'm right in this particular arguement, I've searched the information and looked at other statistics. eg(extreme environments such as domestication and prisons.) I don't need to prove it to myself, but I guess I'll find the links. I think if you read my last few posts I do a process of elimination and use statistics... I'll try and prove each point with a link.

No you haven't, you are a filthy liar. Your constant lying is making more people hate you.

In other post you claim to have read books on the subject. Now your only source is a TV show that has yet to be aired. We can only assume you're whole basis for your arguement has been patched together by TV comericals for the future episode.

 

[sam04u]

Lol, trust me I know what I'm talking about because I read alot, but I can't be bothered reading up again. It's because it'll preoccupy my thoughts and I've been busy contributing a theory of more importance than this. But, how often have I been wrong on these forums? Once? Twice?

Trust my judgement.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Lol, trust me I know what I'm talking about because I read alot

More lies. You claimed that anyone with an interenet connection could access this information, implying it could be done quickly. Also it is not hard to remember a few titles and authors. We are not asking you to go over the research, we want you to prove you have done the research.

I've been busy contributing a theory of more importance than this.

You are not.

But, how often have I been wrong on these forums? Once? Twice?

You're opinions are academically immature and based on popular misconception.

Trust my judgement.

You have proven no authority on this subject. I can never trust judgement unless you admit to lying or provide sources for this research. Do you really think people are that stupid that they would just trust you?

 

[*Ninny-mole*]

Lol, trust me I know what I'm talking about because I read alot, but I can't be bothered reading up again. It's because it'll preoccupy my thoughts and I've been busy contributing a theory of more importance than this.

You have not researched anything or provided a single piece of evidence to support your ludicrous arguments. You say that you have read alot, but can't be bothered reading it again...well don't read it again, but give us the links so we can read your so-called factual statistics. You have clearly been basing your argument solely on your opinion. And while that is what many others are doing also, myself included, no-one else claims to be telling the truth and reporting scientific facts. If you actually read over every post of yours in this forum, you will see that your argument is severely illogical. If you don't see that, then you're more stupid than we thought.

But, how often have I been wrong on these forums? Once? Twice?
Trust my judgement

No thanks, I'd rather stick to something that makes sense, something that is at the very least rational. And as many have reiterated constantly in this thread, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[ur_inner_child]

It's going to be on T.V tonight, I think 'Today Tonight', where one twin is a homosexual and the other is straight.
They're identical twins.
Therefore, any genetic, or hormonal imbalance would be shared. This means that nobody is born with a definate sexuality. Environment can have an adverse effect on the mentality of the individual. A living arrangement or environment, can play a strong role, in changing the sexuality of someone. They're probably also going to reiterate with genetically identical animals showing different signs through experimentation. Watch it.

Thats one conclusion. I saw it just then. I thought it was pushing that it was something in the womb, which they repeated several times. Not sure how it backs your environment theory up extremely, but I can say that it doesn't scratch your theory though.

They talked about testosterone and everything. If anything, if I had to be black and white about it, the whole segment was about homosexuality being possible gene/homoronal reasons. But I will repeat that that's only if I'm black and white about it.

 

[goldendawn]

Here's a link to the transcript from '60 Minutes' - http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_09_03/story_1760.asp

It clearly supports the theory of biological cause, but I do feel that the psychologist and the reporter have stereotyped and sensationalised far too much. Gender non-conformity in childhood does not always indicate homosexuality - nor does gender conformity always indicate heterosexuality. Most gay guys I know do not exhibit 'feminine behaviour'.

What do you lovely-people-of-the-forum think?

 

[dora_18]

Here's a link to the transcript from '60 Minutes' - http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_09_03/story_1760.asp

It clearly supports the theory of biological cause, but I do feel that the psychologist and the reporter have stereotyped and sensationalised far too much. Gender non-conformity in childhood does not always indicate homosexuality - nor does gender conformity always indicate heterosexuality. Most gay guys I know do not exhibit 'feminine behaviour'.

What do you lovely-people-of-the-forum think?

Yeah..there was a bit of every concept ever thought of by biological psycholiogists in there! I agree that various impacts result in homosexuality....well apart from this:

PROFESSOR MICHAEL BAILEY: The more older brothers a man has, the greater the likelihood that that man will be gay.

LESLEY STAHL: Is that true?

PROFESSOR MICHAEL BAILEY: That is absolutely true.

I don't really understand how they managed to initiate that theory. And i also thing that "DR MARC BREEDLOVE" was on drugs when he did that interview.

But i find it interesting how homosexuality is pigeon-holed...one boy likes trucks, the other barbies..one plays rough in the backyard, the other helps his mum make cakes. Not every gay person is like that....just becuase you have a taste for a person of the same sex per-se...doesn't necessarily mean you fit the stereotypical criteria of a gay person. Although i guess majority rules-just like stereotyping straight people..chicks like shopping and shoes and guys are hopeless..often filthy individuals who like cars ( of course i only joke....)

 

[HotShot]

Yeah..there was a bit of every concept ever thought of by biological psycholiogists in there! I agree that various impacts result in homosexuality....well apart from this:

PROFESSOR MICHAEL BAILEY: The more older brothers a man has, the greater the likelihood that that man will be gay.

LESLEY STAHL: Is that true?

PROFESSOR MICHAEL BAILEY: That is absolutely true.

I don't really understand how they managed to initiate that theory. And i also thing that "DR MARC BREEDLOVE" was on drugs when he did that interview.

But i find it interesting how homosexuality is pigeon-holed...one boy likes trucks, the other barbies..one plays rough in the backyard, the other helps his mum make cakes. Not every gay person is like that....just becuase you have a taste for a person of the same sex per-se...doesn't necessarily mean you fit the stereotypical criteria of a gay person. Although i guess majority rules-just like stereotyping straight people..chicks like shopping and shoes and guys are hopeless..often filthy individuals who like cars ( of course i only joke....)

60 Minutes is the biggest Bullshit program. lol the number of brothers a person has absolutely no effect if ur gay or not. -

what u say is right - not every gay person fits into that stereotype.

 

[dora_18]

60 Minutes is the biggest Bullshit program. lol the number of brothers a person has absolutely no effect if ur gay or not. -

what u say is right - not every gay person fits into that stereotype.

haha yeah like i said...that part i didn't agree with, or that being ambidexterous part. They just tried to jazz it up with some science...
Other than that, they really didnt introduce any new concepts that i wasn't already aware of!

 

[hscamper]

I disagree with that, I do feel there is an increased percentage (while still fairly low overall) for third, fourth, fifth and subsequent male children to be born with those inclinations.

I read a similar statistic with regards to left-handers; a small correllation, but some scientific basis nonetheless. Still with the vast majority of left handers being straight and the vast majority of gays being right handed.

 

[hscamper]

The identical twin research is fascinating, just looked up the Bailey/Pillard (1991) study:

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Does suggest a strong scientific component, if solely environmental factors were at play then the 11% figure would appear in all three cases.

 

[dora_18]

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.

This study has been understood as a demonstration that homosexuality is genetic, but there are some real problems with that conclusion. First, most published reports did not mention the fact that only nine percent of non-twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic information than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Why? Whatever the answer, it is not genetic.

Second, if genetic information is determinative, why aren't the identical twin brothers of homosexuals always homosexual? Bailey acknowledges that "there must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins" (Gelman 1992), but that answer could just as easily be used the other way. If environment causes heterosexuality 50 percent of the time (in spite of the genetic code), could it not just as easily cause homosexuality 50 percent of the time? It may be true that some degree of physiological "baggage" makes sexual identity a particularly difficult struggle for some persons. However, any genetic predisposition is clearly not so strong as to be determinative. Even identical twins, possessing the same genetic material, do not always have the same orientation.

If homosexuality is not purely a consequence of "nature," does that mean that homosexuals have simply chosen their sexual orientation? Multiple testimonies strongly suggest that it's probably not quite that simple. It's also too simplistic to say that it all depends on a person's childhood environment. It isn't easy to identify "causes" of our behavior because we are more than the products of our environment or the expressions of our genetic code. We have more dignity than that, and we have more responsibility.

So technically..no one has actually pin pointed what causes homosexuality. Every study proposed throws some figures in the air and states " hmmm well it's not only this that attributes...it's not only that that attributes...hmm so it must be a mix of these things". The genetic studies of even monozygotic twins aren't really conclusive...yes theres a 50% chance of being homosexual but obviously theres a 50% chance that you're heterosexual, you're either one or the other DESPITE sharing the same DNA.

 

[Generator]

Link (or a meaningful reference), dora.

 

[gerhard]

the problem is that you are assuming sexuality is just one thing and that its dichotimous - that its not a huge bundle of concepts or a continuous scale. its perfectly logical and expected that both nature and nurture can affect sexuality.

 

[dora_18]

the problem is that you are assuming sexuality is just one thing and that its dichotimous - that its not a huge bundle of concepts or a continuous scale. its perfectly logical and expected that both nature and nurture can affect sexuality.

I never said it was dichotomous...and i agree that nature and nuture affect sexuality. I'm just coming to the conclusion that like heterosexuality...theres nothing you establish as a causative agent.