Homphobic Irish Doctor

[JCC]

I'm a member of the LGBT community, I agree with me. More importantly, you've got this 'us against them' mentality that's fucking stupid and detrimental.

[x-deviant-x]

*side note* - I don't mean any offense to those heterosexuals here who truly support and believe in the rights and equality of LGBT people.

[x-deviant-x]

It is not an "us against them" mentality. It's looking at the cause of the discrimination and reacting to it. And if you believe its environmental then you are a minority among the community. It makes about as much sense as being a gay christian.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I don't even know where to begin. All of these arguments have flaws, and it makes me wonder how many homosexuals were actually studied by either side... as though we're some sort of fucking lab rat to be examined, but I won't even go into that right now.

It might interest you to know that Simon Lavay is gay, and also is of the opinion that there is no clean cut explanation. To avoid accusations of bias it was not revealed to him until after he saw the brain cells which samples came from gay men and which ones came from straight men.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Saya

there is no clean cut explanation.

That is exactly my point. Which is why it irritates me when people claim it is purely or predominantly environmental. It is deeper than that. There is nothing in my past that made me gay other than the fact that I was born. I have 2 brothers, one older, one younger, both of whom are heterosexual, and to an extent homophobic. We were all raised by the same parents, in the same household, hearing the same bullshit from my father and grandfathers, uncles, etc from both parental sides. I also have gay cousins on both sides of my family, (whom I had no contact with while growing up, and only knew that one of them existed once I was in my 20s), which leads me to believe even further that it is more genetic than anything else. My past experiences only determine how I accept it for myself and how I portray it to others, if I choose to at all. Most people who know me, outside of my immediate family, do not know that I'm gay.

Calling it a behavior suggests that it is something that can be learned and then unlearned.

[JCC]

If both of your brothers are heterosexual and homophobic then how the hell can you say it is genetic? You didn't have the exact same experiences as your siblings, that's bullshit. Experiences leading to homosexuality don't have to be overtly homoerotic. And I'm hardly in a minority by advocating a behaviourist point of view, unless Wittgenstein and Watson and Pavlov and Guthrie were never born.

[Saya]

Its not just genetics that could be a factor. I remember this study from a few years back that noted the likelihood of a boy being gay rose the more older brothers he has. This does not change if he is not raised with his brothers or if he has older adopted or step brothers. They don't know why that is, maybe something happens in the womb the more boys a woman carries. What I'm trying to say is that evidence does suggest that no one just has something happen to them that makes them gay, and its certainly not something that can be reversed.

[JCC]

Ugh.

The reactions of a person are based upon stimuli, positive and negative re-inforcers. If you do something and it results in something positive, this is a positive reinforcer. For example, rewarding a dog with food when it does something good.

If something is aversive to you and you find a way to take away this stimulus, this is a negative reinforcer. For example, if you have an itch, and you scratch it, and it stops itching, you are more likely to scratch an itch in future.

If a stimulus is presented to you and it means you are less likely to do whatever presented it in future, this is a positive punishment. For example, if you stick your finger into a live plug socket, that motherfucker hurts and you won't do it again.

If a stimulus is taken away from you and it means whatever you did that took it away you are less likely to do in future, this is a negative punishment. For example, if you're playing with toys and you do something to piss off a parent and they take them off you, you get pissy and are less likely to do whatever you did in future.

This is not the only behavioural psychology theory, but it's a start, and I believe that every action you are partial to works upon a similar line of reasoning to this. I probably just alienated everyone by introducing actual psychology into a thread of wild fucking speculation, but whatever.

[Solumina]

As far as I am aware it is fairly well accepted among the psychological community that a person's sexuality is the result of both genetic predispositions as well as life experience.

Also JCC there is an extremely low number of pure behaviorists out there (most either couple their behaviorist theories with the evolutionist or cognitive perspectives) because of the information that is now widely available on the physical makeup of the brain has shown without a doubt that some things cause internally. Not to say that there isn't still a lot of use for behaviorist techniques or theories but that a lot of it is being viewed with some additional dimensions and that you may want to do a bit more research and take a look at things from a different perspective before you go off on a rant. Admittedly I haven't read the whole thread, just the first page and last so I'm sure that there was a bit more leading up to thing but yeah just something to consider.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I come here to demand another redemption. Redeem yourselves and escape from the claws of the red herring!
Two pages have done nothing but appeal to consequences:
"Oh yeah? Well if homosexuality is something genetic then people can't say they can fix it"
"Oh yeah? Well if homosexuality is something genetic then people can say that it is a disease"

That's bullshit. I want facts. I want studies. I don't want to believe in something because it's desirable, I want to believe in something because it's true.
So start backing up or shut up.

[x-deviant-x]

A few months back I watched a documentary on Logo about a heterosexual man who went through a complete sex change just because he was in love with a lesbian whom he'd met and befriended several years before. While the show mainly focused on the psychological impacts of his family - and even then mostly on his nieces who didn't really know how to accept this sudden change - it did validate his past heterosexuality by testimony from his family claiming how much of a playboy he'd been in the past. Whether or not he was ever able to establish a romantic relationship with his lesbian friend I don't think was answered. Regardless, I bring it up because of the theory behind estrogen and testosterone being a deciding factor in sexual orientation.

In order to conduct a sex change, the balances of both chemicals have to be reversed. if they had that much impact on sexual orientation then reversing them should reverse the orientation. It doesn't. Not only that, but a large percentage of transexuals identify as heterosexuals.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's bullshit. I want facts. I want studies. I don't want to believe in something because it's desirable, I want to believe in something because it's true.
So start backing up or shut up.

Originally Posted by JCC

Ugh.

The reactions of a person are based upon stimuli, positive and negative re-inforcers. If you do something and it results in something positive, this is a positive reinforcer. For example, rewarding a dog with food when it does something good.

If something is aversive to you and you find a way to take away this stimulus, this is a negative reinforcer. For example, if you have an itch, and you scratch it, and it stops itching, you are more likely to scratch an itch in future.

If a stimulus is presented to you and it means you are less likely to do whatever presented it in future, this is a positive punishment. For example, if you stick your finger into a live plug socket, that motherfucker hurts and you won't do it again.

If a stimulus is taken away from you and it means whatever you did that took it away you are less likely to do in future, this is a negative punishment. For example, if you're playing with toys and you do something to piss off a parent and they take them off you, you get pissy and are less likely to do whatever you did in future.

This is not the only behavioural psychology theory, but it's a start, and I believe that every action you are partial to works upon a similar line of reasoning to this. I probably just alienated everyone by introducing actual psychology into a thread of wild fucking speculation, but whatever.

Paraphrase of BF Stewart's theories before he went all linguistic and Noam Chomsky tore him apart.

[x-deviant-x]

JCC, you're not the only one that's studied behaviorism. My degree in c.a. requires several psychology and communication classes, to include behavioral science, of which I scored pretty well. While I'm sure you've studied it in more depth than I have, my conclusions are not based on as much "wild fucking speculation" as you'd like to imply.

[JCC]

I wasn't talking about you so much,

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

In order to conduct a sex change, the balances of both chemicals have to be reversed. if they had that much impact on sexual orientation then reversing them should reverse the orientation. It doesn't. Not only that, but a large percentage of transexuals identify as heterosexuals.

some of what you say makes a lot of sense.

[x-deviant-x]

Thank you. And I must admit that some of what you say also makes sense.

I don't believe that we are purely chemical, but that is what the majority of scientists believe. I don't have enough evidence or research to back up why I don't believe it, other than it just doesn't feel right.

There is also a theory of genetic memory. I'm not sure what psychologist started expressing this theory, but he basically stated that we remember what our parents and grandparents remember, all the way back through our bloodlines. What relevance it holds here I'm not sure but it is worth mentioning.

[CptSternn]

Why can't both schools of thought be correct? The reality is, they are.

Think of it like scientists do the genes that control alcoholism (not saying being homosexual is a disease, just stating it does have links to genetic code).

To become an alcoholic it takes two factors - an internal factor, which is in your genes, and an external factor, which is the environment you live in.

If you are not genetically disposed to become an alcoholic, then chances are you won't become one. Thats not to say you can't develop a mental addiction which is almost identical to the physical addiction.

However, even if you have the genetic disposition to become an alcoholic if you never drink, or your culture/social circle are ones that drinking is not accepted or its just not done then you will not become an alcoholic because your body will never be introduced to the stimulus.

So that being said, sure genetics have some part to play in sexuality. They have already proved that certain genes directly effect sexuality. But like anything else, there are also external factors that come out of your environment, culture, society that effect sexuality as well.

So both schools of thought are correct, but only when they are put together.

[x-deviant-x]

there is logic in that.

Isn't there also a theory that the same forces behind alcoholism can trigger addictions in general? If you are prone to alcoholism but never become one, you could be prone to other addictive personality traits like gambling, sex or drugs.