Re: Coming Out

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by spanky4ever »

such a rational break down of arguments on the topic Homosexuality @_NT_sven . Congratulation on a serie of well defined arguments, with a surpricing conclution; that your homophobic!
The latter conclution lack any rationality though - its just your openion, based on your personal sence of "taste", irrationality, or What?
You say the controversy about homosexuality depends on a deeper moral and sexual system. You give no reference to what you are hinting to here, what so ever.
Must feel pretty bad, making such rational arguments, and ending up enslaved by your irrational attitudes and "values". "I am a homophobic".
well, at least your honest about it. Thats something I guess
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by lejend »

-
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: Sexuality

Post by Cometk »

@lejend are you saying homosexuals aren't living up to their full potential because they aren't capable of creating offspring? what about homosexual acts reckons one "not living to their full potential"?
Image
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by lejend »

-
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by spanky4ever »

Your post above @lejend are about sexual identety; the debate between social constuctivism and essentialism; are ppl born this way (essentialism) or is sexual identety a social construct (emphasis on the importance of language to interpret experience).
I do agree with you, that to this date, scientists have been searching for the homo gene, and the struggle to pin down what underlying biological "essenses" makes one identefy as homosexual or heterosexual. To my knowlegde, without making any conclusive findings. I guess there simply are no biological essens? I guess your Christian soul, vs a Muslim soul, cannot be found in a gene, a hormone, or some biological entety. I bet me being an ateist, vs you as a fundamentalist, cannot be separated only by looking at our biology or chemestry.
Even thought I do think sosial constructivism, have some things to add to our knowlegde on the how and why ppl identefy as they do, and also the fact that a big portion of ppl do change sexual identety over time.
Even so, it cannot answer the question of why ppl would identefy as a homosexual, given all the hate, persecution, criminalization, imprisonment, punishment, humiliation and executions that homosexuals have been / are exposed to. Who would identify with such a group if they could avoid it? These are questions that a social constructivism theory cannot provide good enought answers to. I would assume that the answer, (if there is such a thing), will be found somewhere between these two contradictory ways of looking at the question; how do ppl form a sexual identety.

To me this question is not very interesting I must admit. Im more of the openion of accepting what is. Im also more in to rejecting all kinds of religious fanatism, what ever shape or form it shows its ugly face.
What if there where no such thing as religious preaching how ppl should conduct when it comes to love and sexuality? I guess this whole debate would be meaningless. I would also predict that ppl in general would be more happy ;)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Sexuality

Post by Jam »

lejend wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7560918

Genetic analysis of behavioral differences among human beings requires both careful experimental design and appropriate genetic models. Any genetic study must use (1) valid and precise measures of individual differences, (2) appropriate methods to ascertain biological relationships, (3) research subjects who have been randomly recruited, (4) appropriate sample sizes, and (5) appropriate genetic models to interpret the data. In addition, the researchers must exercise caution in interpreting biosocial effects from the observed phenotypic correlations. To date, all studies of the genetic basis of sexual orientation of men and women have failed to meet one or more or any of the above criteria.
A review from 1995 which discusses publications published prior to 1995. This leaves out the last 23 years of research on the subject and also predates the completion of the human genome project, the development of high-through-put genome sequencing techniques, and powerful computer based bioinformatics tools. Care to find a relevant literature review? Or did you just run a google search and pick the first thing that looked good. If not then why do you think that this review is an accurate description of the state of research into genetic links of sexual preference?
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by lejend »

-
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by deleted_user »

Jam wrote:A review from 1995 which discusses publications published prior to 1995. This leaves out the last 23 years of research on the subject

An internal dialogue:

"lol... there's no way 1995 was 23 years ago. oh wait, 1995 was 23 years ago. oh shit, i'm 23 years old, wtf."
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Sexuality

Post by Jam »

lejend wrote:
Jam wrote:
Show hidden quotes
A review from 1995 which discusses publications published prior to 1995. This leaves out the last 23 years of research on the subject and also predates the completion of the human genome project, the development of high-through-put genome sequencing techniques, and powerful computer based bioinformatics tools. Care to find a relevant literature review? Or did you just run a google search and pick the first thing that looked good. If not then why do you think that this review is an accurate description of the state of research into genetic links of sexual preference?


It's still relevant, Jam, until proven otherwise. There's very little evidence that "gay" or "straight" orientation is immutable or even an actual thing, other than a modern social invention. There's only statistical studies about heritability, but it isn't deterministic. It's a far cry from "the science is settled" and "people just can't help it." The available evidence suggests that sexual preferences work more like a fetish. While it isn't a choice necessarily, it can still change over time.
Why is it still relevant? It is a critique of methodologies used in research into genetic links, it does not make the claim that there are no genetic influences on sexual preferences, so there is nothing to prove otherwise unless we are discussing the validity of methods used in papers prior to 1995. You actually have to make a case, the things that you say are not simply true until proven otherwise. Did you read it? I wonder because there link you gave to pubmed does not include the full text, only the abstract. I assume if you even skimmed over it you would have linked to the page where you read the article. The full text cannot be accessed for free except by institutional access or another means. I read over the full text, what is the first sentence on pg. 126? Why would I discuss this topic with you if you refuse to admit to such an obvious mistake? Dishonesty is a sin.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by lejend »

-
User avatar
No Flag bigsmoke
Skirmisher
Posts: 179
Joined: Feb 25, 2018
ESO: Yvan_Le_Bon

Re: Sexuality

Post by bigsmoke »

iwillspankyou wrote:Your post above @lejend are about sexual identety; the debate between social constuctivism and essentialism; are ppl born this way (essentialism) or is sexual identety a social construct (emphasis on the importance of language to interpret experience).
I do agree with you, that to this date, scientists have been searching for the homo gene, and the struggle to pin down what underlying biological "essenses" makes one identefy as homosexual or heterosexual. To my knowlegde, without making any conclusive findings. I guess there simply are no biological essens? I guess your Christian soul, vs a Muslim soul, cannot be found in a gene, a hormone, or some biological entety. I bet me being an ateist, vs you as a fundamentalist, cannot be separated only by looking at our biology or chemestry.
Even thought I do think sosial constructivism, have some things to add to our knowlegde on the how and why ppl identefy as they do, and also the fact that a big portion of ppl do change sexual identety over time.
Even so, it cannot answer the question of why ppl would identefy as a homosexual, given all the hate, persecution, criminalization, imprisonment, punishment, humiliation and executions that homosexuals have been / are exposed to. Who would identify with such a group if they could avoid it? These are questions that a social constructivism theory cannot provide good enought answers to. I would assume that the answer, (if there is such a thing), will be found somewhere between these two contradictory ways of looking at the question; how do ppl form a sexual identety.

To me this question is not very interesting I must admit. Im more of the openion of accepting what is. Im also more in to rejecting all kinds of religious fanatism, what ever shape or form it shows its ugly face.
What if there where no such thing as religious preaching how ppl should conduct when it comes to love and sexuality? I guess this whole debate would be meaningless. I would also predict that ppl in general would be more happy ;)


There is no 'homo' gene. Unfortunately its very complicated (and somewhat taboo) to map the brain of a homosexual individual vs a heterosexual individual. The only definitive answer is it is a combination of social factors, genetic factor and a largely hormonal factor. For the most part it is an important role before birth in determining sex and gender.

So yes, being homosexual is not biologically a choice and people are born that way.

Religion is another story altogether however, for instance I am an Anglican Christian, however my grandmother is Jewish. I strongly believe in God and I realise many people find that a bit fantastical believing in a higher power. Thats fully up to them however and it is their views.

(If people would like to know why I fervourously believe in God, it is because he has answered my prayers many times and I am blessed and fortunate as a result. I am not here however to debate this or share my belief in got as I am not a missionary nor a preacher, but it is merely what I believe in).
~~ pecelot rip ~~
User avatar
Great Britain _NT_sven
Dragoon
Donator 06
Posts: 363
Joined: Feb 20, 2017
Location: Oxfordshire, England
Clan: NTDE

Re: Sexuality

Post by _NT_sven »

iwillspankyou wrote:such a rational break down of arguments on the topic Homosexuality @_NT_sven . Congratulation on a serie of well defined arguments, with a surpricing conclution; that your homophobic!
The latter conclution lack any rationality though - its just your openion, based on your personal sence of "taste", irrationality, or What?
You say the controversy about homosexuality depends on a deeper moral and sexual system. You give no reference to what you are hinting to here, what so ever.
Must feel pretty bad, making such rational arguments, and ending up enslaved by your irrational attitudes and "values". "I am a homophobic".
well, at least your honest about it. Thats something I guess


Well I don't intend to join the debate in the first place. I just try to help others if they are willing to do so... if I wish to join then I will give some arguments of my own of course. So my homophobic self-claim is irrelevant - I just want to support lejend a little bit because the number here is kind of unbalanced, isn't it?

And @lejend , I won't be as optimistic as you in these matters. The reason exactly is what you believe in your doctrine of sin. Nobody is a neutral observer of their own appetite. For homosexuality, you won't expect their supporters share the same value with you, because they would reject your idea of human flourishing (obviously you are referring to Aristotle) based on an order. Order means you sacrifice some lesser good for greater good. It's not easy for people who are into them to observe all the pros and cons as if they are just observing themselves, or their intimate family or friends from a far distance!

I am just hinting at something here. If the argument really has to be rational, then finally perhaps you will find yourself in a religious debate ... I just advise against that. More likely it's going to be fruitless or even hostile.
Plum blossoms fall below the steps like whirling snow;
They cover me still though brushed off a while ago.

-Tune: "Pure Serene Music", Li Yu (937-978 AD), the Last Lord of Southern Tang Dynasty
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sexuality

Post by deleted_user0 »

Why don't we just let the free market decide? Since people are selling gay products, i guess that's your answer!
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sexuality

Post by deleted_user0 »

Jam wrote:
lejend wrote:
Show hidden quotes


It's still relevant, Jam, until proven otherwise. There's very little evidence that "gay" or "straight" orientation is immutable or even an actual thing, other than a modern social invention. There's only statistical studies about heritability, but it isn't deterministic. It's a far cry from "the science is settled" and "people just can't help it." The available evidence suggests that sexual preferences work more like a fetish. While it isn't a choice necessarily, it can still change over time.
Why is it still relevant? It is a critique of methodologies used in research into genetic links, it does not make the claim that there are no genetic influences on sexual preferences, so there is nothing to prove otherwise unless we are discussing the validity of methods used in papers prior to 1995. You actually have to make a case, the things that you say are not simply true until proven otherwise. Did you read it? I wonder because there link you gave to pubmed does not include the full text, only the abstract. I assume if you even skimmed over it you would have linked to the page where you read the article. The full text cannot be accessed for free except by institutional access or another means. I read over the full text, what is the first sentence on pg. 126? Why would I discuss this topic with you if you refuse to admit to such an obvious mistake? Dishonesty is a sin.


Why am I not surprised @lejend ignored this...
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by lejend »

-
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by deleted_user »

@ESOCommunity can we add twitch emotes to site smilies? I need a wider range of emotional response.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by spanky4ever »

lejend wrote:
umeu wrote:Why am I not surprised @lejend ignored this...


Can't wait even a few days for a response before assuming you've "won" an Internet discussion. Typical Millennial.

response to what, exactly??
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag SnipedAttheBasement
Crossbow
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar 26, 2018

Re: Sexuality

Post by SnipedAttheBasement »

Who gives a shit just do whatever you want.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by lejend »

-
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by spanky4ever »

go ahead then - I get it - you are afraid, cos you dont know much about the issue. but that have never kept you away from a debate, :devilrazz:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag SnipedAttheBasement
Crossbow
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar 26, 2018

Re: Sexuality

Post by SnipedAttheBasement »

iwillspankyou wrote:go ahead then - I get it - you are afraid, cos you dont know much about the issue. but that have never kept you away from a debate, :devilrazz:

What debate is there? I didn't choose to be straight like people don't choose to be gay or whatever else there is.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by spanky4ever »

SnipedAttheBasement wrote:
iwillspankyou wrote:go ahead then - I get it - you are afraid, cos you dont know much about the issue. but that have never kept you away from a debate, :devilrazz:

What debate is there? I didn't choose to be straight like people don't choose to be gay or whatever else there is.

:love:
its pretty funny how many ppl that are "out" thank you for showing that we are pretty many in the esoc aswell :P
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sexuality

Post by spanky4ever »

:love: I am glad that your dear to show your faces to :love:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag SnipedAttheBasement
Crossbow
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar 26, 2018

Re: Sexuality

Post by SnipedAttheBasement »

This reminds me of a bible study where one kid happened to be gay but you would never know it unless he told you. The leader of this bible study told him he was going to hell unless he repented and it was a sin. I was a kid and I was thinking to myself that ALL sin should be a shared experience and I'm safe from hell just because I'm attracted to women?
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: Sexuality

Post by Amsel_ »

I've never really understood why homosexuality is considered such a big deal, for people on both sides of the issue. Now there are some problems with LGBT folk in regards to hyper-promiscuity and mental illness, and these problems certainly shouldn't be ignored just for the sake of getting brownie points on social media. If you do that then you're basically saying "I don't care about your problems. I just want to look good." which seems inappropriate given that these people claim to support LGBT people. It also seems like the people against homosexuality aren't helping in the matter. If someone has ADHD, and you want to help them concentrate, then you aren't going to accomplish much by just saying "you can control it, stop having ADHD." Instead you need to gradually work with them over time to help them achieve "normal" functionality. So if you do believe that sexual attraction is something more dynamic, that can be "fixed"; your efforts would be better off trying to help people instead of arguing with straight people over whether or not the problem exists.

As for my opinions on what causes homosexuality: I'm not completely convinced by either side. INAH-3, in the anterior hypothalamus, varies in size depending on not just gender, but also depending on whether the specimen is heterosexual or homosexual. This leads me to believe that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, and perhaps other sexual preferences. However, it does not necessarily mean that it is genetic. Any gene which caused homosexuality would be extremely anti-competitive, and would self-select itself out of existence. So, if homosexuality is genetic, then it is only a matter of time before it completely eliminates itself from existence. Although, if it were to be genetic: it would likely be the result of a rare allele in a gene which determines sexuality. I haven't seen any evidence for this, so there is no reason for me to assume that this is the case.

Treating homosexuals badly does not seem to be pragmatic. If it's biological then it's just as bad as bullying someone from having autism. If it's a developmental disorder then you're only serving to make them more abnormal and distrusting of the people who claim to be helping them. The best solution just seems to be to encourage them to act like normal men. Letting them parade down the street naked in parades with children is probably the first thing that would need to be taken care of. If they blend in well then the issue will probably go away. Because people who view any problems with homosexuals as just a reaction against homophobia, will see a sharp decrease in homophobia once people see gays as ordinary people. And on the other hand, people who view homosexuality as a bad thing can take comfort in the fact that A) if it is something developed, then the environment which creates homosexuality will be gradually eliminated B) if it is genetic then it will simply go away over time. It seems like a temporary issue. After a certain amount of time the only homosexuals left will be hedonists, rather than people who are genuinely attracted to other men. I still don't see why it's such a big deal. There are a lot of other things that seem more important to fix.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV