News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Sexual Orientation?

Started by Alexander, March 01, 2011, 11:42:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Will

It's a question of what is the cause and what is the effect. It used to be "I'm attracted to women, so I'm straight." Because we now know it's genetic, though, it's "I'm straight, so I'm attracted to women."The genetic information is something which in place since before birth, long before attraction begins, but it's there.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Byronazriel

Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that babies don't have sexualities. They may be predisposed, or destined to have one at some point but that is irrelevent to their present condition.

What if it's found that there's a Christianity gene, does that mean that a child can be born Christian?
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Will

Quote from: "Byronazriel"What if it's found that there's a Christianity gene, does that mean that a child can be born Christian?
Yes. It's virtually impossible that such a gene could exist, but in your hypothetical situation, yes.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Byronazriel

Essentially what your saying is that a child, with no knowledge of Jesus, or the bible, that has never gone to church, and cannot even wrap their head around the concept of religion is a Christian.

Besides, if there was such a thing as genetic sexuality and that someone must always have the sexual orientation dictated by their genes... Why is it that identical twins can have different sexualities? Is one of them lying or mistaken?
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Will

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Essentially what your saying is that a child, with no knowledge of Jesus, or the bible, that has never gone to church, and cannot even wrap their head around the concept of religion is a Christian.
I'm going by your hypothetical. You didn't say predisposition, where there would be wiggle-room as to whether or not it would happen, and you didn't say theist, which would leave religious wiggle-room. You said a Christianity gene, or a gene that means one is Christian. That's why I was clear to point out that such a gene is virtually impossible.
Quote from: "Byronazriel"Besides, if there was such a thing as genetic sexuality and that someone must always have the sexual orientation dictated by their genes... Why is it that identical twins can have different sexualities? Is one of them lying or mistaken?
Monozygomatic twins don't have perfectly identical DNA. It's close, closer even than regular siblings who share parents, but it's not identical.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Byronazriel

Alright, but still your argument dictates that all people with this "gay gene" are gay, and that all gay people have this gene. The article you linked earlier directly contradicted this.

Even if there is a genetic basis for sexuality, which I've yet to see any evidence for and I've been looking all afternoon, that still in no way means that babies have sexual orientations.

I can understand a virgin having a sexuality, sexual intercourse isn't the basis for sexual orientation, but sexual attraction is!

You can talk about genes all day, but the definition for sexuality/sexual orientation isn't: "One who has this gene, or these genes."

One way or another it is about preference or attraction of the sexual sort, which babies (almost certainly) don't have.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Davin

Quote from: "Byronazriel"[...]that still in no way means that babies have sexual orientations.

I can understand a virgin having a sexuality, sexual intercourse isn't the basis for sexual orientation, but sexual attraction is!

You can talk about genes all day, but the definition for sexuality/sexual orientation isn't: "One who has this gene, or these genes."

One way or another it is about preference or attraction of the sexual sort, which babies (almost certainly) don't have.
I've heard this ridiculous argument several times, babies are also not born with pubic hair, facial hair etc. and yet they contain the genes for growing pubic hair. To argue that babies must display a certain thing otherwise it's not born with it, and therefor not a gene is to suppose that growing pubic hair is not genetic.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

GAYtheist

Ok, there is a theory that explains homosexuality found in men. I don't know the website, but it was put out there a few years back, and it deal largely with hormones, sibling, and the mother. Depending on how many boys a women has, the odds that her next child will be gay grows. When the fetus becomes male, the mother's body identifies it as a threat and begins to bombard the fetus with antibodies. The more boys the mother has, the more adept at feminization the body becomes, until eventually the child is born gay. Personally I see that it makes a great deal of sense.
"It is my view that the atomic bomb is only slightly less dangerous than religion." John Paschal, myself.

"The problem with humanity is not that we are all born inherently stupid, that's just common knowledge. No, the problem with humanity is that 95% of us never grow out of it." John Paschal, myself

Byronazriel

Quote from: "Davin"To argue that babies must display a certain thing otherwise it's not born with it, and therefor not a gene is to suppose that growing pubic hair is not genetic.

They have the genes to grow it, but they cannot be described as having it before they have it. Yes babies have the genes to grow pubic hair, but until they grow it they cannot be said to have pubic hair. They have the potential for pubic hair.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Davin

Quote from: "Byronazriel"
Quote from: "Davin"To argue that babies must display a certain thing otherwise it's not born with it, and therefor not a gene is to suppose that growing pubic hair is not genetic.

They have the genes to grow it, but they cannot be described as having it before they have it. Yes babies have the genes to grow pubic hair, but until they grow it they cannot be said to have pubic hair. They have the potential for pubic hair.
Apply this to sexual orientation.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Whitney

Quote from: "GAYtheist"Ok, there is a theory that explains homosexuality found in men. I don't know the website, but it was put out there a few years back, and it deal largely with hormones, sibling, and the mother. Depending on how many boys a women has, the odds that her next child will be gay grows. When the fetus becomes male, the mother's body identifies it as a threat and begins to bombard the fetus with antibodies. The more boys the mother has, the more adept at feminization the body becomes, until eventually the child is born gay. Personally I see that it makes a great deal of sense.

I've read something similar...that one possible explaination is that in the womb the fetus is bombarded with a hormone bath that is typically associated with the opposite gender.  I don't know enough about embryo development to know what they meant by hormone bath though.