Homosexuality: A chosen trait, or gentetically aquired?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

This question is a major underlying factor of the general homosexual debate, the answer of which can narrow the scope in questioning its morality.



Are people born gay, or do they choose to be?
Can someone be blamed for their sexual orientation, or is it subject to factors we have no control over?

[melikio]

All available evidence seems to support the hypothesis that sexual orientation is genetically determined. If it were shown that homosexuality was detrimental to society, then it should be treated as a genetic disorder. However, until there can be shown that homosexuality objectively is harmful to society, it should simply be treated as a genetic difference, not unlike the sinister left handed folks.

Of course: This is proven to be true.

And that some people cannot accept it (for whatever reasons), means that these types of truths are objects of contention. It will take time to change people's overall mindsets.

The main problem is that is that "religion" and certain forms of morality based primarily upon it, pain any and every thing that is homosexual evil. It is really a distortion of reality, that is very difficult for many to clear up and some never will. And that's all the more reason, for homosexual people to fight diligently for the rights and protections they deserve as HUMAN beings.

Just as we cannot trust that terrorists will NOT fly another aircraft into a building, we cannot be sitting ducks for other "tilted" or "stilted" atrocities which religious or political extremes might take us to. It's far better to discuss and debate this, than to fold our arms proclaiming how right/wrong something is or may be.

There is nothing wrong with relgious beliefs, but the authority and autonomy of a "believer" has its limits in this world. If that's NOT CLEAR, then consider the Supreme Law of The United States of America (and some other nations); religion is NOT the absolute/final arbiter of every issue that might be examined. The concerns of the religious can (and usually should) be taken into account (considered), but LAWS for ALL should not (or cannot) stem from a particular religious belief or doctrine. We tend to interpret that as being UN-Constitutional period (and for good reasons in most cases).

While some of America's founders were certainly "Christian", there is no proof that they intended to impose Christianity upon the inhabitants of this nation.

And the typically hostile interpretations of biblical-text, pointed and thrust AT homosexuals by many in this era, has already become a civil rights issue, that NOTHING will sweep back under the societal rug.

I keep pointing out that it is the "mistreatment" of homosexual people that is the real issue; more and more people are realizing that, and it will eventually change some things, over time.

-Mel-

[scorpia]

To me, whether the behaviour is deterministic or not is mostly irrelevant to our reaction to that behaviour. I believe that all deliberate breaking of just laws is due to some form of mental illness. And so are other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Regarding this, what if some people had a reason for breaking the law? Like having to resort to stealing to help saved a loved one.

Does that change anything? Well, yes. I do not believe that there is any merit in a simply retributionist penal or legal system. It serves no purpose. Does that mean that we let bad people get away with doing bad things? No. The fact that an anti-social or criminal behaviour is due to mental illness or to genetics does not change the fact that it is detrimental to society. We still must take action to either prevent or minimize the probability of such things occurring and to protect people from psychopaths.

In the case of it being genetics, what can one do?

surely such a person should be able to recognise something is wrong and do something.

Not that I'm necessarily arguing that homosexuality is detrimental and MUSt be controlled, but in either case, if a person wants to do something about themself, shouldn't they eb able to?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

So, if a few questions pop up in your head that argue towards Christianity, and you quickly tell yourself the counter-argument, does that still make you a Christian, because of some fleeting thought?

Anyway, it shows that people are free enough to disobey.

Disobey what?

Mental phemomena such as contradictory thoughts or a fighting of urges do not necissarily denote an free and unconstrained consciousness. They are merely side effects of the very complex array of factors weighing in on our mental processes. It is normal for a person to undergo emotional fluctuations; it is not a sign of some inner rebellion against their very nature.

So what about the times, Eg. when a person is unwillingly attracted to members of the opposite sex? Can't they detach it all so that they aren't attracted so they can get on with life?

Everyone experiences irregular emotions such as this.

Once again, normal side-effects of our complex neurological processes. Chances are, people who experience rare instances of homosexuality will never need to fight back any major urges. Traits such as sexual preference are developed by a long process of different determinents; no one suddenly switches orientation (especially since one's puberty has run it's course).

This is a typical story (along with a similair story for "straight" people) which I've heard regarding cases of paraphilias. I guess some people where able to change their identity to at least some degree. However many people who cannot succeed, like you say, there are also many who have altered their identity. Can't say whether it's conscious or not, and it's not necessarily healthy (depending on the result) but it's happened.

Here's a theory: those able to manipulate their thoughts in such instances have a wider variety of related genetic characteristics. For example, an environmental causation which influences one to fight back certain paraphiliatic thoughts or tendancies (social ridicule, e.g.) allows lee-way for a formerly submissive characteristic to rise up and become more influential. Those with little genetic variation, on the other hand, have no where to go.

There is just no biological component enabling one to "choose" against genetics. Genes may be influenced by the persons condition and surroundings, but there is simply no mode through which a human consciousness itself can stop a genetic characteristic from influencing the whole.

Just a suggestion; you think perhaps they suceed less because they are forced into changing by other people, rather than doing it for themselves.

Anytime I try to fight it, I'll admit, it's not because of other people's opinions or being ostracized. I do it for the sake of gaining power. It's something I want, rather than something forced on me. If I have ben ostracized for anything, it's for openly refusing to be attracted to either gender.

Exept in the case of mental disorders, there is always *some* outside influence that causes one to repress a characteristic. This influence is usually social.

Why do you seek to become asexual? To "do it for the sake of gaining power", to me, seems to imply that you wish to focus more on other aspects of your life free from sexual distraction. Is this correct?

If so, then there seems to be a perfectly biological explanation for your plight to control your desires. Your brain recognises some personal advantage in being free from such constraints, and adjusts itself accordingly. You may still attribute this to some form of free will, but I continue to doubt it's presence. I believe free will is merely a simplistic explanation for the complex biological processes which control our mannerisms and decisions. I also believe that the more we discover about these factors, the less influence the philosophy of free will have on our perception of the human mind.

Wonder if paraphilias are genetic.

Why wouldn't they be?

And when you lack understanding of a way a person acts, you simply attribute it to genetics.

"Oh look that person robbed a bank! how could they do such a thing?"
"Must be genetics"
"That person is so highly religious I can't understand why!"
"Must be genetics"
"What does that girl see in that person. By all reason she should hate him!"
"Must be genetics."

Well, of course, the proper answer would be much more complicated than that.

I think of newborn babies as "computers" boasting all the basic components. These "basic components" are the person's congenital mannerisms; gene's which established their related characteristics as the baby formed itself in the womb. These "basic components" are unalterable, and will surface someday whether you like it or not. They may or may not include (it is impossible to tell at this early point in research) traits such as homosexuality, quick rises to anger, or even tendancies which lead one to rob banks, as you suggested.

As the baby grows up and becomes subject to a number of environmental influences, extra components are "programmed" on top of his/her "basic system". Bad parenting, for example, could lead a child down a path to crime. Growing up in a sunny area effect something such as the person's hair color and skin complexion.

It's not always easy to tell exactly where a trait originated. However, as McColloch pointed out, people often percieve negative traits too simplisticly, perhaps attributing the person as "evil". I don't believe in evil. Many complex factors contribute to adverse or criminal behavior, and I feel it accomplishes very little to brand such behavior with blind retribution, assuming the person's actions happened exclusively of their own accord. The best answer to adverse behavior is to, as I previously stated, stem it's determinents (for example, by fostering loving and able parenting for our nation's youth).

[McCulloch]

To me, whether the behaviour is deterministic or not is mostly irrelevant to our reaction to that behaviour. I believe that all deliberate breaking of just laws is due to some form of mental illness. And so are other forms of anti-social behaviour.

Regarding this, what if some people had a reason for breaking the law? Like having to resort to stealing to help saved a loved one.

We are getting a bit off-topic for this thread. Suffice it to say that one might deem a law against stealing to help save a loved one's life might not be considered a just law.

Does that change anything? Well, yes. I do not believe that there is any merit in a simply retributionist penal or legal system. It serves no purpose. Does that mean that we let bad people get away with doing bad things? No. The fact that an anti-social or criminal behaviour is due to mental illness or to genetics does not change the fact that it is detrimental to society. We still must take action to either prevent or minimize the probability of such things occurring and to protect people from psychopaths.

In the case of it being genetics, what can one do?
surely such a person should be able to recognise something is wrong and do something.
Not that I'm necessarily arguing that homosexuality is detrimental and must be controlled, but in either case, if a person wants to do something about themself, shouldn't they be able to?

The self-help industry thrives on this very thing. If I determine that my genes put me at risk for something that I recognize as being wrong, I am able to seek ways to change my behaviour to reduce the risk to myself and others.
I, myself, have a genetic condition¹ that makes it difficult for me to follow complex conversations with multiple speakers who frequently change topics. This has been a hardship for me, but I have worked out strategies and sought out ways to work around my genetic limitations. But this is all keyed on first recognizing that this is wrong and something should be done. If there is no recognition that this is wrong, then evidence should first be presented that this is, in fact, wrong.


____________________________________
¹ I was born with only one X chromosome.

[scorpia]

It's not always easy to tell exactly where a trait originated. However, as McColloch pointed out, people often percieve negative traits too simplisticly, perhaps attributing the person as "evil". I don't believe in evil. Many complex factors contribute to adverse or criminal behavior, and I feel it accomplishes very little to brand such behavior with blind retribution, assuming the person's actions happened exclusively of their own accord. The best answer to adverse behavior is to, as I previously stated, stem it's determinents (for example, by fostering loving and able parenting for our nation's youth).

You mean YOUR nation :p

And what do you mean, 'stem it's determinents", you mean, help him to change to be different to what genetics tells him. You say;

These "basic components" are unalterable, and will surface someday whether you like it or not. They may or may not include (it is impossible to tell at this early point in research) traits such as homosexuality, quick rises to anger, or even tendancies which lead one to rob banks, as you suggested.

You seem to imply that nothing can say change such tendancies. Yet above you suggest that something be done to change a person's behaviour "which they can't change." I don't get it. If genetic behaviour is unchangeable, like you say, fostering "loving and able parents" won't do anything.

Why wouldn't they be?

Because they, or at least some, have been already attributed to psychological causes.

And if one happens to be genetic after all, I wouldn't care. I'd do everything to fix it, if I needed to. What if it's one of those more harmful ones?

If so, then there seems to be a perfectly biological explanation for your plight to control your desires. Your brain recognises some personal advantage in being free from such constraints, and adjusts itself accordingly. You may still attribute this to some form of free will, but I continue to doubt it's presence. I believe free will is merely a simplistic explanation for the complex biological processes which control our mannerisms and decisions. I also believe that the more we discover about these factors, the less influence the philosophy of free will have on our perception of the human mind.

The ability to "adjust itself accordingly" is the free will.

Traits such as sexual preference are developed by a long process of different determinents; no one suddenly switches orientation (especially since one's puberty has run it's course).

Different determinents? I though it was all genetics.

The self-help industry thrives on this very thing. If I determine that my genes put me at risk for something that I recognize as being wrong, I am able to seek ways to change my behaviour to reduce the risk to myself and others.
I, myself, have a genetic condition¹ that makes it difficult for me to follow complex conversations with multiple speakers who frequently change topics. This has been a hardship for me, but I have worked out strategies and sought out ways to work around my genetic limitations. But this is all keyed on first recognizing that this is wrong and something should be done. If there is no recognition that this is wrong, then evidence should first be presented that this is, in fact, wrong.

I agree.

I dunno about homosexual/ whatever, but as for nature, people have to learn to control theirs. It's like the story of the scorpion. Because of it's nature, it ended up drowning.

[McCulloch]

If so, then there seems to be a perfectly biological explanation for your plight to control your desires. Your brain recognises some personal advantage in being free from such constraints, and adjusts itself accordingly. You may still attribute this to some form of free will, but I continue to doubt it's presence. I believe free will is merely a simplistic explanation for the complex biological processes which control our mannerisms and decisions. I also believe that the more we discover about these factors, the less influence the philosophy of free will have on our perception of the human mind.

The ability to "adjust itself accordingly" is the free will.

Perhaps we could get further if we all understood the same thing when we speak of free will. It seems that you define free will in any self modifying algorithm, device or being. With that definition, you must wonder how anyone could possibly argue against it. Others would define free will as the ability to decide a course of action which is neither determined (even theoretically) nor random. This definition is harder to defend.

• Will Durant's definition of free will the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance.
• Apologetics.org definition of free will in contrast with determinism, the doctrine of free will asserts that man is able to make choices according to his own will. Although the debate between free will and determinism has been ongoing for centuries, the fields of psychology, philosophy, and theology have all introduced their respective theories into this important debate.
• Princeton University's WordNet defines free will as the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You seem to imply that nothing can say change such tendancies. Yet above you suggest that something be done to change a person's behaviour "which they can't change." I don't get it. If genetic behaviour is unchangeable, like you say, fostering "loving and able parents" won't do anything.

Skin color cannot be changed.
Blood type cannot be changed.
Sexual Orientation cannot be changed.

All such characteristics are amoung the 30-70% of human characteristics that I mentioned earlier which are congenital to all people. Their traits cannot be altered unless their corresponding genes are completely re-written (well beyond our scientific means at this point).

On the other hand, certain mannerisms (anger, addiction, crime e.g.) CAN be changed. They represent aquired traits; environmental influences which "program" genes a particular way. Therapy and the 'self-help' industry can alter our environmental influences, thereby controlling certain brain signals and cell functioning.

This is why in our previous thread I mentioned both genes and environment as the two major faculties which control every aspect of our lives.

Why wouldn't they be?

Because they, or at least some, have been already attributed to psychological causes.

Yes, and which two aformentioned factors control our psyce?

The ability to "adjust itself accordingly" is the free will.

No, when the brain "adjusts" itself, it is merely recieving signals from our body's various faculties of perception which cause it to alter it's neurological pathways accordingly. Our inner consciousness (if there is such a thing) never needs to "decide" anything. The brain reacts on impulse.

Free will (definition depending) is thusfar biologically unfounded. The brain dictates our behavior by firing neurons and sending electrical signals to certain cells.

For example:

You are standing in the middle of a train track getting ready to be flattened by a locomotive. The eyes percieve your surroundings. This information is fed into subsequent brain cells, whose protein's (functioning in accordance to the gene that encoded them) translate the signal. A normal functioning brain will translate an oncomming train as dangerous to the organism. Consequently, neurons send signals to the cells comprising your leg muscles. These cell's protiens (which, once again, function in accordance to the genes that encoded them) maneuver the leg muscle cells, allowing the person to sidestep the oncomming danger.

A simple programmed human action, no free will required.

[scorpia]

Yes, and which two aformentioned factors control our psyce?

No, when the brain "adjusts" itself, it is merely recieving signals from our body's various faculties of perception which cause it to alter it's neurological pathways accordingly.

Maybe it isn't doing it because of recieving signals from sources of perception. Maybe the neurological pathways are changing because of other neurological pathways.

One can switch to one line of thinking to another if need be, after all.

You are standing in the middle of a train track getting ready to be flattened by a locomotive. The eyes percieve your surroundings. This information is fed into subsequent brain cells, whose protein's (functioning in accordance to the gene that encoded them) translate the signal. A normal functioning brain will translate an oncomming train as dangerous to the organism. Consequently, neurons send signals to the cells comprising your leg muscles. These cell's protiens (which, once again, function in accordance to the genes that encoded them) maneuver the leg muscle cells, allowing the person to sidestep the oncomming danger.

A simple programmed human action, no free will required.

What, because he couldn't disobey his body's reflex response?

Those guys that walk on coal must say something about that then. :p

Skin color cannot be changed.
Blood type cannot be changed.
Sexual Orientation cannot be changed.

What I don't get is why you list sexual orientation with the above instead of with;

On the other hand, certain mannerisms (anger, addiction, crime e.g.) CAN be changed. They represent aquired traits; environmental influences which "program" genes a particular way. Therapy and the 'self-help' industry can alter our environmental influences, thereby controlling certain brain signals and cell functioning.

And I did give the requested proof (eg. Paraphilias) that such an rientation can be because of environmental factors as well as changed somewhat.

Sexual orientation occurs in the head, just like anger and addiction. Why aren't they the same? Because you think no-one can control it, because that's what you were told?

[scorpia]

McCulloch; perhaps that can be taken to that thread on free will. It would have been an appropriate answer to my last question.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Sexual orientation occurs in the head, just like anger and addiction. Why aren't they the same? Because you think no-one can control it, because that's what you were told?

No, because that is the plain fact of the matter. There is no other way for me to put it. I have never heard a convincing report of any supposed sexual orientation change occuring post-puberty. The outcome of therapy typically involves a homosexual person simply having to get over his immutable condition.




There is absolutely no biological component that offers a venue for independent descision making to occur (as pertaining to our current context).

You can believe in free will, but the way I see it, your only viable argumentation is purely philisophical. There could be a "soul" behind our body's seemingly programed response system, but if there is, no one has ever witnessed it.