0
   

Straight or gay

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 01:01 am
Okay, let's see . . . how about evolution? Sex is a part of that evolution process, right? Wouldn't that mean that we'd have to have some kind of DNA-coded sex drive? Aren't we born with some core instincts? And wouldn't sexual preference be a part of that?
0 Replies
 
Smiley
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 01:17 am
Ah! . . . And the one constant regarding evolution is: diversity.
Nature is constantly experimenting with anything and everything, trying to come up with millions of random variations that might be useful in some possible way.

Would evolution lead to an or/either situation -- where you must be one thing or you must be another?
What do you see evolution naturally producing for a sex drive?

(Especially when the environment and social conditions are constantly changing and challenging the species in unexpected ways).
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 01:50 am
kickycan wrote:
Okay, let's see . . . how about evolution? Sex is a part of that evolution process, right? Wouldn't that mean that we'd have to have some kind of DNA-coded sex drive? Aren't we born with some core instincts? And wouldn't sexual preference be a part of that?


According to the documentary I watched and scientific stuff I've read, our preference for men and women is chemically derived and not a DNA product. In other words, the chemical soup we are exposed to in utero (i.e. in the womb) defines our sexual orientation.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:29 am
Smiley wrote:
Ah! . . . And the one constant regarding evolution is: diversity.
Nature is constantly experimenting with anything and everything, trying to come up with millions of random variations that might be useful in some possible way.

Would evolution lead to an or/either situation -- where you must be one thing or you must be another?


Okay. How's this? Either you are a male or a female.

Of course there are characteristics like skin color, hair color, etc, which vary widely, but there are also some constants that everyone is born with. I just think sexual preference is one of those things. Of course either of us could be wrong.

Caprice, thank you for your very interesting information. I think it makes my case. What do you think Smiley?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 11:41 am
As with everything, it's likely a combination of nature and nurture (gag! at that hackneyed phrase). It's gotta be. (And even those things can't be separated, as our developmental environment both in utero and after, as caprice notes, is a bit of both.)

Anyway, to try and strip away all our layers of culture and learned personalities is simply impossible. People do things for different reasons, and ultimately all we have to go on is behavior. I've known people of a very broad range of sexual appetites and preferences, and I couldn't begin to guess where genetics ended and acculturation began in their behaviors. Hell, I've certainly seen some ambivalent dogs. Course, sexual behavior in dogs (as in humans) can be a display of dominance, but it's still sexual behavior.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 02:50 pm
kickycan wrote:
Okay. How's this? Either you are a male or a female.


Don't forget the hermaphrodite population. Clinically they don't fall, completely, into either category.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 02:55 pm
patiodog: I still believe that our preference for male or female is due to biochemistry and not a learned or influenced behaviour. I find it hard to believe that genes are going to play a role in, for example, some guy's preference for big butts.

I've seen a couple of documentary style shows on t.v. regarding body shape and how it can be attributed to biology in the sense that certain types are good predictors of fertility. And that at our core, we are geared to and driven towards propagation of the species.
0 Replies
 
InTraNsiTiOn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:01 pm
In my opinion, i don't think being bi sexual means a person is curious or confused. I think it just means they look at everyone as people, potencial people. Besides there are a lot more options that way.
0 Replies
 
InTraNsiTiOn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:01 pm
In my opinion, i don't think being bi sexual means a person is curious or confused. I think it just means they look at everyone as people, potencial people. Besides there are a lot more options that way.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:17 pm
stand up for pessimism,

I think you're right. There are a lot of psychological reasons why people would "learn" to be bisexual. I was wrong in saying that it's only because of confusion or curiosity.

Caprice, yes, there are always going to be exceptions. That's what makes the debate fun, no? In any case, I agree with everything you've said so far. Sexual preference is a part of us when we are born. We can then "learn" other behaviors, but in the end, like you said, it all comes down to biochemistry.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:18 pm
In all serious, what about masturbation? Unfettered sexual gratification. It is not a desire to procreate that generally drives sex -- it is a desire to get one's rocks off. Procreation is a happy or unhappy side effect of that. To that end -- and I'll look at our very, very close relative, the bonobo, as an example -- restrictions on just how we choose to use it are largely social. In my opinion...
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:36 pm
patiodog wrote:
In all serious, what about masturbation? Unfettered sexual gratification. It is not a desire to procreate that generally drives sex -- it is a desire to get one's rocks off. Procreation is a happy or unhappy side effect of that. To that end -- and I'll look at our very, very close relative, the bonobo, as an example -- restrictions on just how we choose to use it are largely social. In my opinion...


Well I hope you aren't saying this in a response to my statement because no where did I say that sex is driven by procreation. (It is in part though.)

How we choose to use it is largely social you say? Do you mean in terms of the traits of those we are sexually attracted towards? I can agree that our social conditioning helps in those matters. But I would entirely disagree that society determines whether or not we choose to be sexually attracted to a male or a female. (Don't know if that's what you meant though. Smile
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:45 pm
(Not sure who, if anybody, brought up procreation, and I'm too lazy to go back.)

No, that's not exactly what I'm saying. But I do think there is no true either/or assignation of sexual preference -- that our potentialities to fall over some range of the proverbial "spectrum," and that few if any people actually act on every sexual potentiality they have. But, then, I consider just about every human behavior to be largely socially constructed -- and I don't believe there's a whole lot to identity beyond behavior. Otherwise, how do you account for bestiality? Or homosexuality in prisons, harems, or other situations where otherwise "straight" people are removed from the opposite sex for extended periods of time.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 08:33 am
Here's a slightly topical story in today's NYT online:

Quote:
Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?


Love That Dare Not Squeak its Name
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 01:15 pm
PDid, very interesting article. I was going to bring up the fact that there are homosexual animals, but I figured people would argue that we are not the same as the rest of the animal kingdom.

To the question, "if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?" I would have to say that it can not. But the problem with that is the fact that sometimes it is a choice. How do you tell if somebody is gay because they were made that way, or they are behaving that way due to environmental factors?

I don't think it's immoral in either case, but for those religious people out there . . .
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 02:10 pm
What I think is immoral, are people who discriminate against gays because of some outlandish religious stricture.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Straight or gay
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:49:51