Dick Cheney's lesbo daughter becomes Mr Mom

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 19:46
VIEWED: 12140
PAGE 6 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I choose to believe that homosexuality is a choice because I choose to believe that anything that we do is our choice.

I think this is a very important distinction in this debate. There is sexual attraction, and there is the choice to act on said attraction. Choosing to engage in homosexuality (or heterosexuality or any kind of sexual preference) is most definitely a choice.

Whether you can choose that preference or not, well that is the million dollar question. 6ix, are you saying you believe we choose our preferences (attraction, instinct, whatever turns us on)? Or do you think we can't choose them, but we can influence these preferences? Or do you think these preferences come as they are, but we can choose whether we act on them or not? What do you mean, when you say "choose"?

My personal speculation is that human beings, as a species, are omnisexual. We are capable of doing it with anything and anyone. We have innate preferences, probably genetically determined. Like everything else, there is probably a continuum, with some people strongly prefering homo, some people strongly prefering hetero, and some people in the middle who can swing either way. I believe people on the ends of the continuum have no choice about their preferences. But those folks in the middle-- they surely can choose which way they want their doors to swing. And maybe there are a lot more of these bisexual folks than we think. And the bisexuality doesn't have to be 50/50. Some might have it 70/30 or 80/20 for example.

To use the handedness analogy, maybe there are a lot more ambidextrous people than we think, who DO choose which hand they want to use, when, and how.

Maybe there are a lot more bisexual people than we want to acknowledge. There are a lot of people out there, I think, who would never call themselves bisexual--ever--who have passing homosexual fantasies. Sometimes they only indulge the fantasies in private, sometimes they experiment with other people. Sometimes they fear them and become raving homophobics. Maybe that is why there IS so much homophobia, because there are more bisexual people than we think.

I also think some of these bisexual people label their sexual preferences based on who they meet and fall in love with. Take the character in Chasing Amy. She is bi, but thought she was gay, until she met and fell in love with a man. Or take Heath Ledger's character in Brokedown Mountain, who probably would have gone through life thinking he was hetero, had he not met and fell in love with a man.

So, my two cents in the debate is: preference is innate, and for a lot of people, there no choice on preference. But for a lot of other people, preferences are more flexible than being either hetero or homo. And everyone has a choice on how they act on whatever preference they have.

And 6ix, maybe I missed something, but I didn't read any homophobia in what you said. If homosexuality were indeed a choice, I would see it as a perfectly legitimate choice. I don't see why entertaining the "choice" speculation would make someone automatically anti-gay.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
One very common instance of animal homosexuality is when the dominant Alpha male gets the pick of the best females, the lesser males are left with a much smaller pool of females, if any at all, to choose from and often revert to homosexuality out of little or no other way to satisfy that deep seeded instinctual urge. I believe that this is very well the case in some of the instances of human homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Homosexuallity is born out of desperation? I don't get much (well any really) interest of women, yet I've not "turned gay". How do you account for that? Saying homosexuallity is the last resort of the desperate seems to be much more of an attack than saying it is a genetic trait.

6ix is perfectly capable of defending himself. But if I may, I don't think he is saying homosexuality is the last resort of the desperate.

He is saying "some instances of human sexuality," as in some instances of homosexual ACTS, may be a result of having no alternatives. This is not unheard of. Guys in prison, guys on boats on long fishing trips, guys alone guarding sheep for months on end...it is entirely conceivable that SOME (not saying all) of them engaged in homosexual relations, not because they strongly prefer men, but because they had the urge, and had no other way to satisfy that urge.

Let's say you were bisexual in a 95% hetero/5% homo split. You normally would not entertain doing it with a guy, but if you were desperate enough, you might choose to indulge that 5%. It doesn't mean you have "turned" gay. And it doesn't mean that if you had never indulged, that little bit of gayness wasn't always in you. And it doesn't mean that either choice is right or wrong.

It isn't always either/or, black/white, hetero/homo. Sometimes it's varying shades of both, gray, and bi. We have evolved into very adaptable creatures, and our sexuality is no less adaptable.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 24, 2006 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And 6ix, maybe I missed something, but I didn't read any homophobia in what you said. If homosexuality were indeed a choice, I would see it as a perfectly legitimate choice. I don't see why entertaining the "choice" speculation would make someone automatically anti-gay.

Seeing a genetic component to Homosexuality doesn't mean one is anti-gay or wants to cure homosexuality because it is a disease. It is 6ix's assumption that that has to be the case which brings up the question. I made the statement that you can only see homosexuality as a genetic disease if it has a genetic component if you already think of it as a disease.

I believe 6ix said that if it was Genetic it would be a genetic disease, this rings alarm bells for me.

As for the rest of your post I more or less agree, you don't get to choose your preference, but you do choose how you act on them. 6ixs whole idea that if there's a genetic component to homosexuality then somehow no one is in the slightest responsible for any action is lunacy, frankly. I don't see how recognising there's this thing called DNA suddenly means the abolition of freedom of choice.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Sunday, December 24, 2006 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheFr00n:
The story is great. The thread topic is offensive and unfortunate, though.

And yet...you're here--odd.

Seriously, how are we supposed to have an "open" forum and not have this kind of crap? This is, unfortunately, the price we pay for having such an open policy on the boards: two or three nutjobs who flap their gums for attention. And gee, look: we're giving it to them!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, December 24, 2006 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFr00n:
The story is great. The thread topic is offensive and unfortunate, though.

And yet...you're here--odd.

Seriously, how are we supposed to have an "open" forum and not have this kind of crap? This is, unfortunately, the price we pay for having such an open policy on the boards: two or three nutjobs who flap their gums for attention. And gee, look: we're giving it to them!

That's browncoats for ya! Nobody gets spaced as long as they care even a teensy tiny bit.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's a great amount of evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality, studies have shown differences in brain structure in Homosexuals that do not appear in Heterosexuals, specifically size of the Hypothalamus which is connected to the limbic system which is primarily involved with sexual activity. A study by Dr Dean Hamer found a correlation between homosexuality and polymorphic markers on the X chromosome. There's some strange autonomic behaviours too, for instance Lesbians blink in away more like heterosexual Men than heterosexual Women, do they choose to blink like men?

That's not to say that there isn't an environmental factor. The old nature vs nurture debate is crap because pretty much everything is both nature and nurture. Though there being a component of environment in homosexuality hardly means that gay couples will bring up a gay child any more than straight couples defiantly bring up straight children, nor does it mean, I think, that Homosexuality is a choice. I find it hard to believe that people would choose it, the relatively mild ostracism in the western world is one thing, but in places some countries homosexuality is a capital offence. Why would people choose that?

The thing that confounds me about the genetic account is that it seems like it would not be a very advantageous adaptation, from a survival of the fittest standpoint. Given that sex between two people of the same gender can't produce offspring, how would this gene survive, let alone contribute to the propagation of the species? I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component, but I can't get my head around the notion that it's all genetic--that seems like it would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thoughts?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component, but I can't get my head around the notion that it's all genetic--that seems like it would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thoughts?

Maybe it is an evolutionary advance that only comes after we make the technological breakthroughs to control fertilization, implantation, and gestation. Sort of Nature's way of saying, "Now that you're no longer limited to procreating the usual way, we'll no longer limit you to selecting mates from only 50% of the population." And we get an increasing number of bisexuals as opposed to having homosexuals as a minority.

Just conjecture of course.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.
--Mother Teresa

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Maybe it is an evolutionary advance that only comes after we make the technological breakthroughs to control fertilization, implantation, and gestation. Sort of Nature's way of saying, "Now that you're no longer limited to procreating the usual way, we'll no longer limit you to selecting mates from only 50% of the population." And we get an increasing number of bisexuals as opposed to having homosexuals as a minority.

But this violates the principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor)--this posits that nature has some sort of omniscience that I'm not sure I ready to grant. In addition, as I understand it, random genetic mutation is one of the cornerstones of evolutionary biology, and if it worked the way you're suggesting, it's not random any more. Its selected by some agent (which gets awfully close to theist/ID).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CITIZEN

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component, but I can't get my head around the notion that it's all genetic--that seems like it would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thoughts?

Genes are often passed on that provide traits that are not beneficial in a survival of the fittest sense.

With the danger of comparing homosexuality to a disease which is not my intent, I merely use this as an example of how a gene can continue to be passed on despite not giving a benefit to survival, cystic fibrosis is detrimental to survival of the fittest but continues to be passed on. This is because the genes that cause cystic fibrosis don't cause cystic fibrosis in all cases. It takes both parents to be carriers, allowing the genes to continue because most carriers are not sufferers.

In the case of Male homosexuality it appears like the gene largely responsible is the X chromosome from the mother. Here you can see that the individual passing on the trait is not affected by it, so even though the trait reduces the chances of procreation it can still be passed on, mother to son. Some statistical research, however, shows that the gene responsible for Male homosexuality may also be responsible for increased female fertility. Which would mean that, that gene does bestow an advantage for the females, thereby keeping it in the gene pool.

To touch briefly on a possible evolutionary advantage to homosexuality I have heard, though by no means do I have any evidence to back it up, that homosexual couples, being childless, could act as surrogate aunts/uncles. That is looking after heterosexual couples children, natural childminders if you will. To my knowledge homosexuality has only been demonstrated in social species, and if there was any credence to the surrogate theory only in social species would there be any advantage to homosexuality. Although of course the increased difficulty of observing sexual behaviour in non-social species is a more likely explanation for no known homosexual activity in those species.

However if there is truth to the surrogate theory then this is an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality, albeit not to the individual but the species as a whole, and as these things work out the increased female fertility may have naturally developed as an evolutionary mechanism for keeping this advantageous trait in the gene pool.

Perhaps increased female fertility is the advantageous trait, the gene making women more attractive to and attracted by men in various ways, and these traits simply manifest as an increased likelihood of homosexuality in males. I don't know, but there are many ways a seemingly disadvantageous trait can continue to be passed down, and ways that, that trait may only appear to be disadvantageous.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:53 AM

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE