The Age Old Debate...Homosexuality, Is It A Lifestyle Choice?

2008-06-17 03:10:58

#1

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6712|Éire

...A new study suggests it's probably not!

"The brains of gay men and women look like those found in straight people of the opposite sex, research suggests. The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults. Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men. A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual preference was set in the womb."

This could be a huge blow to all those people out there who believed homosexuality was something sexual deviants chose to pursue. Furthermore, if it in fact turns out that homosexuality is congenital the Catholic church's neglect of the homosexual community could be seen as equivalent to neglecting people with down syndrome or spina bifida...it's not very Christian hating or ostracising someone because of something they are born with.

2008-06-17 03:50:24

#2

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6972|CH/BR - in UK

Well, most people have seen this that way for a while now, it's just (mostly) really conservative individuals who refuse to accept that, and think gays have urges they should be suppressing.

-kon

2008-06-17 03:55:48

#3

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7093|UK

i saw 2 benders holding hands and playing tonsil tennis on Westminster Bridge. I think they were in love. I took a pic of them holding hands (not that they knew).

pic uploaded

Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-18 09:10:07)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-06-17 04:02:05

#4

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7232|Nårvei

Amen to that ...

Norway passed a new law last week granting homosexuals and lesbians the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to being married, adoption and artificial insemination ... that we even need a law to regulate that all people are equal is a shame ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-06-17 04:15:23

#5

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6941|Πάϊ

I always thought it was something people were born with. But every time I tried to explain to someone that maybe being gay was in a way the same as having some other "sickness", my wording disturbed them and I got labeled a hater. Truth is, I understand pretty well why a gay person will never seek treatment.

Still, I think being gay is like being bald for example. Alopecia is an asthenia, no matter how harmless.

_ƒ³

2008-06-17 04:33:16

#6

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6972|CH/BR - in UK

The thing is, while I accept that gays are the way they are - they are still an abnormality, and I agree with what oug says. This isn't to say that I'll be (consciously) weird around them, or that I'll want to deny them any rights besides adoption and marriage (I've mentioned my exact reasons a couple of times in another thread).
It's just an abnormality, and I think it would be interesting to see what causes this abnormality.

-kon

2008-06-17 04:49:59

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6528|eXtreme to the maX

I don't believe its a lifestyle choice, they are definitely 'different'.
Being gay can not be a normal part of biology, its obviously an abnormality. Doesn't mean they should be particularly discriminated against.
I don't think they should get the benefits married heterosexual couples get, and I don't see that as discrimination.

Fuck Israel

2008-06-17 05:07:10

#8

chittydog: less busy; +586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't believe its a lifestyle choice, they are definitely 'different'.
Being gay can not be a normal part of biology, its obviously an abnormality. Doesn't mean they should be particularly discriminated against.
I don't think they should get the benefits married heterosexual couples get, and I don't see that as discrimination.

So what you're saying is that we should deny them rights based on something they can't control. How is that not discrimination?

2008-06-17 05:12:26

#9

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7190

my understanding was that when a baby is in the womb it has no sex until week 8 or something. at week 8 it gets a massive shot of testosterone. It then becomes male. If they dont get this shot the baby is born female.

This also happens during brain development. If you get a shot of testosterone when ur body is developing but not when ur brain is developing you are most likely gay.

I think...

2008-06-17 05:47:51

#10

twiistaaa: Member; +87|7090|mexico

konfusion wrote:
It's just an abnormality, and I think it would be interesting to see what causes this abnormality.

-kon

i think that it would be interesting to see what would happen if they found a "cure". for both people expecting babies and people who are already gay.

would it be wrong to use it on an unborn child so that they don't become gay?

would it be wrong or impolite/socially unethical to offer it to a gay family member, friend or (doctor's) patient?

would it be wrong or controversial to use it on oneself (from the gay communities perspective)?

i think no, but then this is not my forte.

2008-06-17 06:25:54

#11

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6941|Πάϊ

konfusion wrote:
It's just an abnormality, and I think it would be interesting to see what causes this abnormality.

-kon

See though, that's the thing... Try calling it an "abnormality" in front of gay people. They'd be furious! And of course this has an effect on how their "condition" (you can't call it that either btw) is viewed.

Imagine a doctor announcing to have found a "cure", when the nature of this "abnormality" is such, that those "suffering" from it don't see themselves as in need of a cure...

^{too many " "}

_ƒ³

2008-06-17 06:30:00

#12

Switch: Knee Deep In Clunge; +489|6885|Tyne & Wear, England

oug wrote:
konfusion wrote:
It's just an abnormality, and I think it would be interesting to see what causes this abnormality.

-kon
See though, that's the thing... Try calling it an "abnormality" in front of gay people. They'd be furious!

What could they do though, throw quiche and hit you with handbags!?

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

2008-06-17 06:30:48

#13

BVC: Member; +325|7117

Lets not take the study for more than what it is. It suggests that there may be biological differences, by way of pointing out "reversed" brain sizes for gay people. It does not disprove that there is an element of personal choice or that societal factors may play a role. Although you could argue that the reversed brains have something to do with making people act in certain ways, or desire certain things.

And twiistaa, in response you your three questions:

1) Using it on an unborn child would be no less ethical than any treatment which predisposes the child towards any other form of behaviour or trait.

2) If a direct offer ("hey, let me help you not be gay") then yes it would be impolite. If a passive offer (say, simply making it available without any promotion) then no, it wouldn't be offensive.

3) Of course not. What you do to your body is your business and yours alone.

2008-06-17 06:31:14

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6528|eXtreme to the maX

So what you're saying is that we should deny them rights based on something they can't control. How is that not discrimination?

I didn't say rights I said benefits.
What do you mean by rights?
Tax breaks because they choose to cohabit?
The 'right' to have a child?
Neither are 'rights' imo.

Giving someone a benefit is not the same as upholding their rights.

Fuck Israel

2008-06-17 06:39:10

#15

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7071

What kind of idiot actually though it was a concious decision?

2008-06-17 06:39:16

#16

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6941|Πάϊ

Pubic wrote:
1) Using it on an unborn child would be no less ethical than any treatment which predisposes the child towards any other form of behaviour or trait.

If everybody were gay then we would cease to exist. So I guess to my mind, preservation of the species would be reason enough to use it on an unborn child. Am I wrong?

_ƒ³

2008-06-17 06:51:45

#17

too_money2007: Member; +145|6730|Keller, Tx

Doesn't really matter either way. Society just needs to accept it and move on. Give them the same rights as everyone else and be done with it.

2008-06-17 06:53:48

#18

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

I think it's pretty bloody obvious that homosexuality is genetic. As such it is part of the natural world, just far less common than heterosexuality. There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom for a start: are they making 'lifestyle choices'???

2008-06-17 06:56:30

#19

ReTox: Member; +100|6921|State of RETOXification

oug wrote:
Pubic wrote:
1) Using it on an unborn child would be no less ethical than any treatment which predisposes the child towards any other form of behaviour or trait.
If everybody were gay then we would cease to exist. So I guess to my mind, preservation of the species would be reason enough to use it on an unborn child. Am I wrong?

Yes... you are.

Being gay doesn't mean that someone automatically can't reproduce. Genus homosapien is not in danger of extinction just because 'the gays' are out there.

It all comes down to a simple fact: gay or straight, you are still a human being.

Last edited by ReTox (2008-06-17 06:57:11)

2008-06-17 07:01:58

#20

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6712|Éire

CameronPoe wrote:
I think it's pretty bloody obvious that homosexuality is genetic. As such it is part of the natural world, just far less common than heterosexuality. There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom for a start: are they making 'lifestyle choices'???

I did see some attention-seeking elephants in Dublin zoo the other day now that you mention it...they were as camp as a row of tents whenever anyone was looking.

2008-06-17 07:13:09

#21

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7179|Argentina

A lot of people here think it is. Check the poll in the HOF.

2008-06-17 07:26:09

#22

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6941|Πάϊ

ReTox wrote:
oug wrote:
Pubic wrote:
1) Using it on an unborn child would be no less ethical than any treatment which predisposes the child towards any other form of behaviour or trait.
If everybody were gay then we would cease to exist. So I guess to my mind, preservation of the species would be reason enough to use it on an unborn child. Am I wrong?
Yes... you are.

Being gay doesn't mean that someone automatically can't reproduce. Genus homosapien is not in danger of extinction just because 'the gays' are out there.

It all comes down to a simple fact: gay or straight, you are still a human being.

Read again. I never said it was in danger. Nor did I say that gays are not human beings. Wtf.

_ƒ³

2008-06-17 07:36:50

#23

OrangeHound: Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...; +1,335|7071|Washington DC

Braddock wrote:
This could be a huge blow to all those people out there who believed homosexuality was something sexual deviants chose to pursue. Furthermore, if it in fact turns out that homosexuality is congenital the Catholic church's neglect of the homosexual community could be seen as equivalent to neglecting people with down syndrome or spina bifida...it's not very Christian hating or ostracising someone because of something they are born with.

Down syndrome? Spina bifida? You are comparing homosexuality to these?

First, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, conditioned response, or genetic predisposition that causes a deviation from the norm, the conservative position of the Church is that one should not participate in that behavior (I say "conservative", because obviously there are more liberal sections of the Church that do not see any problem with the behavior).

Second, the Church situation with homosexuals is no different than with heterosexuals. Let me put this in perspective. When I was 18, I wanted to hump many girls. Now, I don't know if my desire was a "choice" or a "conditioned response" or a "genetic predisposition" ... but, my desire and my behavior (to have sex with as many girls as I could get to spread their legs) were contrary to the teachings of the Church. At this point, I really did have a "choice". I could either give into my urgings and ignore the Church teachings, or I could be obedient to the Church's teaching on self-discipline.

Same with a pedophile ...

Heterosexual or homosexual or pedophile, all three groups are wildly disobedient to the Church's teachings - 99 out of 100 are disobedient. And, it really all does boil down to a choice and self-discipline. I have never met anyone who cannot control their participation in sexual activities (that's probably because if someone cannot control themselves, then they are probably in jail).

2008-06-17 07:41:17

#24

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7043|London, England

OrangeHound wrote:
Second, the Church situation with homosexuals is no different than with heterosexuals. Let me put this in perspective. When I was 18, I wanted to hump many girls. Now, I don't know if my desire was a "choice" or a "conditioned response" or a "genetic predisposition" ... but, my desire and my behavior (to have sex with as many girls as I could get to spread their legs) were contrary to the teachings of the Church. At this point, I really did have a "choice". I could either give into my urgings and ignore the Church teachings, or I could be obedient to the Church's teaching on self-discipline..

Just for clarification, you did give into your urges right?

Right?

2008-06-17 07:42:22

#25

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7023|132 and Bush

Does this mean humans are on their way to same-sex reproduction?

@OH 18 seems a bit late for those urges. I demand a brain scan from you.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums The Age Old Debate...Homosexuality, Is It A Lifestyle Choice?

Dilbert_X wrote:

konfusion wrote:

konfusion wrote:

oug wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Pubic wrote:

oug wrote:

Pubic wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

ReTox wrote:

oug wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Braddock wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Board footer