BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Homosexuality, You tell me your theory, I'll tell you mine...
maximus242
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:05 PM
Post #31


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 21, 2006, 04:54 PM) *

QUOTE
Maximus: But you have forgotten the most important point..

Truth is an opinion.


Hehe, no I don't think I have forgotten. After all, that is one of my common mantras. smile.gif

But Maximus, are we talking about the prerogative of the intellectual, or the standards of science as a meta-entity? From my perspective there is a big difference between the two.


The standards of science are ever changing, as for your excerpt on the genes.. I used to have a wide assortment of material that disproved such claims, I will have to see if I can dig it up again. The prerogrative of the individual sets the standards of science - even as a meta-entity.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:08 PM
Post #32


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 21, 2006, 05:04 PM) *

and humans are just like fruit flies?


Ah Lucid, that is such a good question and thinking about it, yeah I suppose humans are just like fruit flies.

There is so little substance in this world, everything is illusion, so at least create the illusion that you want right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:16 PM
Post #33


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
and humans are just like fruit flies?


Yes, virtually identical. tongue.gif

There's nothing wrong with trying to impeach the reliability of fruit flies as a model organism, but you'll need to do better than just appealing to our basic "folk" intuitions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:23 PM
Post #34


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



I'm not appealing to folk intuitions, just noting the fact that fruit flies are not good organisms for extrapolating to humans. Mice would be better. Non-human primates would be better yet.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:35 PM
Post #35


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



btw, I agree that fruit flies aren't the best model organism, but it's certainly fair to count the study I provided as a source of evidence.

Here's a question.

If homosexuality is culturally determined, then why does it exist in species that lack culture?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:39 PM
Post #36


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



They do not nessecarily lack culture, wolves have complex family organizations and hunt in patterns - each working with the other. Lions lay around all day while the females do the hunting and take care of cubs.

They do have culture, its just a diffrent sort
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:41 PM
Post #37


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
They do have culture, its just a diffrent sort


I make a distinction between culture and sociability.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:42 PM
Post #38


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



even if it exists in some species that lack "culture", that doesn't imply that human homosexuality is not, in part, determined by culture. It's like arguing that echolocation exists in some species that lack culture, therefore humans echolocate. That's the problem with specious cross-species comparisons!

Looking at the issue of human homosexuality, and speaking with homosexuals, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that there are cultural and environmental factors at work, which doesn't necessarily rule out a genetic component, but only underscores the premise that not everything is black or white and that often there are complex interactions involved which defy attempts at over-simplification.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:54 PM
Post #39


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7498/1033
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 21, 2006, 04:58 PM
Post #40


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



even if homosexuality has a genetic basis, that does not imply the phenotype is determined in lieu of environmental conditions. It is often the case that genotype specifies "potentials" that can only be realized through appropriate environmental conditions.

This is the old "genes versus environment" debate all over again, but this debate was settled years ago, and the short answer is what I said above.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Dec 21, 2006, 09:04 PM
Post #41


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Wow I was pretty supprised by some of the opinions expressed on this topic~ I thought people on this forum promoted free thought--how can you claim to promote free thought, yet judge others decisions (to love someone of like sex).

I could give my opinions on this matter, but seeing as I am neither homosexual, nor have ever extensively studied the matter, I will refrain. But I will leave you with this thought: If diversity is concidered a good thing for biological evolution, diversity of beliefs should be concidered a good thing for social evolution~
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 22, 2006, 03:36 AM
Post #42


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



Well this dialog evolved very differently from what I was expecting. I guess that is the beauty of internet forums.

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 21, 2006, 07:58 PM) *

even if homosexuality has a genetic basis, that does not imply the phenotype is determined in lieu of environmental conditions. It is often the case that genotype specifies "potentials" that can only be realized through appropriate environmental conditions.

This is the old "genes versus environment" debate all over again, but this debate was settled years ago, and the short answer is what I said above.


Allow me to pull things back a little bit.

If this exchange were focused on an issue such as *intelligence* then I believe there would be general accord between us. In fact, every time I look back on The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray I am reminded of that scene from Ghostbusters:

"Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!" biggrin.gif

Although there has been some recent evidence to contrary, I am still of the opinion that humanity originated from an exceptionally small founder population - and that this bottle neck has produced a level of genetic homogeneity rarely encountered in the natural world. I remember reading in a popular science magazine that the genetic variance between prairie dog populations living on opposite sides of the mississippi is greater than what is present in the whole of humanity.

Anyway, my point is that I tend to view large differences in intelligence among the various socio-economic groupings as indicative of historic cultural inequalities. So I am anything but a genetic determinist since memetics is a conceptual framework that I seriously entertain.

However at the same time I do believe there are portions of our behavioral repertoires that are largely uninfluenced by cultural pressures. I can see no reason why cognitive subsystems which are instinctual should necessarily come under the influence of memetics. For example, I wouldn’t expect my cultural upbringing to in anyway affect my reflex response when touching a burning stove, or my gag reflex when choking, or sneezing, etc etc.

Baseline sexual preferences and behavior aren’t any different from a multitude of cognitive subroutines that get us through our day to day lives. Naturally, culture can and often does ritualize (ie, build off of) many aspects of the phenotype – and sexuality is no exception. Even if we put aside homosexuality for a moment, there are still a multitude of sexual acts performed by heteros that serve no reproductive purpose. But this reality doesn’t address whether the basic underlying drive (and its correspondence with gender) is strictly determined by genetic programming.
-----------------------------------------------

Now, just to briefly address my original motivation for creating this thread... if one did operate under the assumption that basic sexual preference is genetically determined there would still need to be some explanation provided for why 100% fecundity isn't present. (I believe that someone mentioned this earlier).

My logic is that sexual preference is produced by a unified cognitive subsystem whose correspondence with gender is held in place by group level selection pressures on *optimal* fecundity. Deviation from 1:1 correspondence is indicative of lower optimal level fecundity, with the resulting aberrant behavior defined as a phenotypic spandrel.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 22, 2006, 05:03 AM
Post #43


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
aberrant behavior defined as a phenotypic spandrel.


A better way to define this may be *information entropy*. Traits that aren't held in place with sufficient selection pressure will gradually drift towards a disorderly equilibrium. In the case of homosexuality, the trait experiencing entropy is not sexual preference, but the *bond* between preference and gender. Or as I have referred to it previously, *correspondence*. In stark contrast to "cultural" explanations, this is an elegant and relatively straight forward account of why homosexuality exists.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 22, 2006, 12:25 PM
Post #44


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



I agree that a number of sexual behaviors resemble reflexes and are innate behaviors, but that does not change the fact that sexual preference is determined primarily by cultural and psychological factors, and minimally by genes.

QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 03:36 AM) *
My logic is that sexual preference is produced by a unified cognitive subsystem whose correspondence with gender is held in place by group level selection pressures on *optimal* fecundity. Deviation from 1:1 correspondence is indicative of lower optimal level fecundity, with the resulting aberrant behavior defined as a phenotypic spandrel.

Despite its possible uses in sociobiology the idea of "group selection" is on its way out. Perhaps you meant "interaction selection". And there's still the problem of precisely defining "*optimal* fecundity".

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 22, 2006, 05:40 PM
Post #45


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 22, 2006, 03:25 PM) *

I agree that a number of sexual behaviors resemble reflexes and are innate behaviors, but that does not change the fact that sexual preference is determined primarily by cultural and psychological factors, and minimally by genes.


Why? What is the mechanism underlying this cultural/psychological influence? I've yet to see you elaborate on your position.


QUOTE

Despite its possible uses in sociobiology the idea of "group selection" is on its way out. Perhaps you meant "interaction selection".


Perhaps I didn't get the memo. wink.gif I meant precisely what I said. Group selection plays an important role in evolution and I think there are good reasons for this opinion. However, as I'v estated in my OP, I plan on this remaining a quid pro quo arrangement. Being that you merely provided me with your opinion, and no evidence or argumentation to substantiate said opinion, my rebuttal need not be more than my opinion to the contrary.

By "interaction selection" perhaps you mean "multilevel selection theory". If that is the case then yes, I strongly support this more refined framework, while at the same time acknowledging the ease with which group level selection can be incorporated into it.

QUOTE
And there's still the problem of precisely defining "*optimal* fecundity".


Of course. We can get to that at some point if you'd like but again, I'd prefer to keep things quid pro quo.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 22, 2006, 06:16 PM
Post #46


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



I'm not sure if anyone at brainmeta is a fan of Pinker, but here is an interesting opinion piece by him in the NYT.

NYT - Sniffing Out the Gay Gene

QUOTE
The difference in the brain responses of gay and straight men does not, by itself, prove that homosexuality is innate; after all, learned inclinations, like innate ones, must reside somewhere in the brain. But in this case nature probably does trump nurture. Gay men generally report that their homosexual attractions began as soon as they felt sexual stirrings before adolescence. And homosexuality is more concordant in identical than in fraternal twins, suggesting that their shared genes play a role. Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionarily maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps "gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing.


Pinker's How the Mind Works had a major impact on my views of consciousness when it first came out. And even though I in large part disagree with the Meaning of Life section of that book, I do still utilize "mind modules" as a conceptual framework. And no, just in case anyone was wondering, I am not some wacko advocating phrenology. Functionalism would dictate that mind modules are, to varying degrees, distributive rather than localized. So I guess that would make me a modular connectionist.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bennett
post Dec 22, 2006, 10:19 PM
Post #47


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Dec 22, 2006
Member No.: 6596



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 21, 2006, 11:39 AM) *

My own view is that homosexual tendencies serve no function and are irrelevant within the bigger picture. Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society.

What do you mean by "naturalistic framework"? Everything is in Nature, so technically speaking, everything is naturalistic.



I just came upon this forum after searching the net and just couldn't resist...I've have read this entire thread and find it quite interesting as to the many theories. I am not a scientist, but I am a fascinated by the mind which is how I came upon this website.

What is interesting is none of you are, or at least have admitted that you are homosexual so I figured it was time that someone did. I am a homosexual and while I am totally open to the many theories as to "why" we homos exist in the way that we do, my own philosophy says "who cares why?". If I try to argue my "right" to be homosexual with the genetic theory or behavioral or a mixture of all or something else - it doesn't matter to me because just as you have all proven - everyone will attach themselves to the theory that best fits them and their beliefs. In fact, I get really sick of hearing homosexuals say "It's genetic" in an attempt to make themselves feel better and prove to everyone that they are "natural" and therefore, should be accepted. By arguing the "why", it makes it important. You can't expect ten people in the same room to be alike in all ways let alone the over 6 billion people on the planet. People are going to be different whether by choice, by genes, by environment, whatever. That is natural, that is nature. It will always be that way

And while the "why" homos are homos, isn't important in my philosophy, just for giggles I will say that I know that homosexuality is sometimes caused by genes, sometimes environmental factors, sometimes choice. We can't put even us homos in one box....although someone has done it again with:

"Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society."

All I can say is who in heck do you know that is gay? This is truly limited thinking for someone who is part of a forum like this. What t.v. shows do you watch to get this idea? Homosexuals are a very diverse crowd my friend. We are everyone and everywhere including your kids, your parents, your teachers, your doctors, your government, your mechanic - everywhere and everyone.

Just like you can use scientific theories to try and determine what a fruit fly is up to and why, you can use sciencific theories to try and figure out what and why a homosexual is what it is. That is the beauty of theory based on scientific research. That part makes talking about the subject interesting and stimulating. However, this comment you expressed in the above quote has no science to back it up - just pure and blatant ingnorance. I would expect much more from people who sound so smart otherwise. It is not stimulating or creative in the least, it is regurgitated prejudice you learned on t.v., church or some other ignorant person.

And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...is it purely beliefs, genes, choice, environmental factors or a mixed bag? I say let's accept the diversity factor as part of nature and get on with something more important, but then again I'm a homo.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 22, 2006, 10:27 PM
Post #48


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(bennett @ Dec 22, 2006, 10:19 PM) *
"Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society."

All I can say is who in heck do you know that is gay?


Granted, it was somewhat judgmental, but note that I specifically did not generalize to say "all homosexuals", but only that they "often appear" such a way. I know homosexuals who have maintained that, for them, everything (every act, every thought) is sexual! Everything being sexual?! Personally speaking, most of my waking thought is not preoccupied with sexually-related thoughts, and all of my hetero friends who I have such similar information over are also not so overly-occupied with sexual matters, so I infer that homosexuals appear to be overly preoccupied with their own sexual issues relative to heterosexuals. My other remarks have similar bases in reality and, specifically, in my actual dealings with, observations of, and conversations with homosexuals. On the plus side, homosexuals are often spirited people who are fun to be around, but their seeming excessive preoccupation with sex overshadows that.

Note that this is not homophobia on my part. It is a recognition that homosexuals appear to spend much more of their waking thought on sex than heterosexuals do, and an implicit disapproval of so much wasted thought when the human mind is capable of much loftier things.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 22, 2006, 10:55 PM
Post #49


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 05:40 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 22, 2006, 03:25 PM) *

I agree that a number of sexual behaviors resemble reflexes and are innate behaviors, but that does not change the fact that sexual preference is determined primarily by cultural and psychological factors, and minimally by genes.


Why? What is the mechanism underlying this cultural/psychological influence? I've yet to see you elaborate on your position.


the mechanism is the same underlying that of many of our taste preferences, which are acquired tastes. If we examine our own acquired tastes, it should be straightforward to convince yourself that these are based on cultural and psychological factors. Thus, sexual preference is an acquired taste and as such, is determined largely by cultural and psychological factors.

QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 05:40 PM) *
QUOTE

Despite its possible uses in sociobiology the idea of "group selection" is on its way out. Perhaps you meant "interaction selection".


Perhaps I didn't get the memo. wink.gif

http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=170

QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 05:40 PM) *
QUOTE
And there's still the problem of precisely defining "*optimal* fecundity".

Of course. We can get to that at some point if you'd like but again, I'd prefer to keep things quid pro quo.

Yes, it would be nice if this was addressed since it seems the crux of your argument!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 22, 2006, 11:00 PM
Post #50


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
the mechanism is the same underlying that of many of our taste preferences, which are acquired tastes. If we examine our own acquired tastes, it should be straightforward to convince yourself that these are based on cultural and psychological factors. Thus, sexual preference is an acquired taste and as such, is determined largely by cultural and psychological factors.


By defintion an *acquired taste* is something which first must be experienced.

So you are still begging the question...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 22, 2006, 11:09 PM
Post #51


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 11:00 PM) *
By defintion an *acquired taste* is something which first must be experienced.

So you are still begging the question...


How did you learn about sex and how do you suppose you learned where to direct your sexual thoughts? You don't think culture played a big role? What if we grew up in a culture that taught that being homosexual was "the norm" and that heterosexuality was aberrant? Can you imagine that perhaps your sexual preference would be towards homosexuality instead of heterosexuality? The reason so many people are hetero is because our society, parents, teachers, peers, etc..., teach us that heterosexuality is the norm and reinforce our heterosexual tendencies.

It's the same thing with wines or other acquired tastes. We try a wine for the first time, perhaps recommended by a friend or by a review, and have expectations that it will taste good, that influence our experience of the wine tasting and contribute to our acquired taste for the wine.

Wine, sex, food, drugs, music, .... it's largely cultural/psychological. Part of it is genes, yes, but it's minimal. Need more examples? What if we grew up in a society that was strictly vegetarian. Do you think you would acquire a taste for meat or sushi? I doubt it.




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 22, 2006, 11:10 PM
Post #52


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE
Bennett: And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...


I know homosexuals in my real life, but I see this as totaly irrelevant.

Homosexuality is interesting to me because it is something of a biological puzzle. But with that said, my interest is not remotely what I would consider to be an obsession. I am a curious person. I am curious about a lot of things. Religion, sexuality, politics, art, philosophy, truth, meaning, history, physics, and on and on and on. Homosexuality is just one of many topics that I ponder on a regular basis.

I am a thinker Bennett, and as such I am always asking *why?* questions. Many find this annoying or threatening (like homosexuality), but at the end of the day I can't help myself. I am who I am.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 22, 2006, 11:21 PM
Post #53


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 06:16 PM) *
So I guess that would make me a modular connectionist.


I'm sympathetic towards connectionism, at least compared to (the failures of) AI, but am sceptical about modules because of the problems that arise when trying to precisely define them and assign functions to them. It seems we need a better concept than modules... like fuzzy modules or something between modules and a completely and uniformly distributed system.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bennett
post Dec 22, 2006, 11:32 PM
Post #54


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Dec 22, 2006
Member No.: 6596



QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 23, 2006, 12:10 AM) *

QUOTE
Bennett: And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...


I know homosexuals in my real life, but I see this as totaly irrelevant.

Homosexuality is interesting to me because it is something of a biological puzzle. But with that said, my interest is not remotely what I would consider to be an obsession. I am a curious person. I am curious about a lot of things. Religion, sexuality, politics, art, philosophy, truth, meaning, history, physics, and on and on and on. Homosexuality is just one of many topics that I ponder on a regular basis.

I am a thinker Bennett, and as such I am always asking *why?* questions. Many find this annoying or threatening (like homosexuality), but at the end of the day I can't help myself. I am who I am.



I am happy that you are thinking because so many are not. I am totally fine with the questions on homosexuality - I don't feel threatened by anyone thinking - I promote thinking. But imagine that you are searching some topic on the net like say.... neuroscience, and you are excited to see what folks are talking about and low and behold....homosexuality of course. It's everywhere - politics, science, social, etc. Actually, in this context it is stimulating and interesting to think about....until I hear such ignorant comments as lucid dreams. That is what bugs me.

So keep asking why, I fully support you. My only hope is that with the topic of homosexuality, you keep in mind that there is soooo much ignorance and discrimination and people use this type of argument (why homos are homos) to support their prejudices rather than just for their curiosity or for science's sake. It's so overplayed on that end. I suppose that you can't help that...people will use whatever information they find to support what they already believe...until they decide to change their minds.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bennett
post Dec 23, 2006, 12:21 AM
Post #55


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Dec 22, 2006
Member No.: 6596



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 22, 2006, 11:27 PM) *

QUOTE(bennett @ Dec 22, 2006, 10:19 PM) *
"Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society."

All I can say is who in heck do you know that is gay?


Granted, it was somewhat judgmental, but note that I specifically did not generalize to say "all homosexuals", but only that they "often appear" such a way. I know homosexuals who have maintained that, for them, everything (every act, every thought) is sexual! Everything being sexual?! Personally speaking, most of my waking thought is not preoccupied with sexually-related thoughts, and all of my hetero friends who I have such similar information over are also not so overly-occupied with sexual matters, so I infer that homosexuals appear to be overly preoccupied with their own sexual issues relative to heterosexuals. My other remarks have similar bases in reality and, specifically, in my actual dealings with, observations of, and conversations with homosexuals. On the plus side, homosexuals are often spirited people who are fun to be around, but their seeming excessive preoccupation with sex overshadows that.

Note that this is not homophobia on my part. It is a recognition that homosexuals appear to spend much more of their waking thought on sex than heterosexuals do, and an implicit disapproval of so much wasted thought when the human mind is capable of much loftier things.


So you spoke to a few homos that said they think only with sex. Well my friend, thank goodness the general population isn't making the assumption that hetersexual males are like that of the few 17 year old boys they spoke to about the topic. Do you see how limiting that could be? And in other ways how there is some truth to it. By the way, were you talking about homosexual men and women?

"It is a recognition that homosexuals appear to spend much more of their waking thought on sex than heterosexuals do" - now here is an interesting point. Gay men, not women, are stereptypically more sexually active than most hetersexuals - why? Because they are having sex with other men and men by nature, are more interested in sex than the female species. Am I right? So it only makes sense that they would have much more opportunities to have sex. If the world were filled with women who wanted to have sex anytime, anyplace and with just about anyone and it was socially acceptable - how many heterosexual males do you know that would be having a heck of alot more sexual interactions. It isn't so much that they are homosexuals than that there are more opportunities because of the male aspect and because homos are not as attached to society's values. This is what the science should be looking at more - the male/female aspects of homosexuals and how they differ and why. Perhaps that would lead to some interesting points.

Because mainstream society does not accept homosexuals as a general rule, althought the scales are tipping, and you grow up a homo surrounded by people, family members and government that are trying desperately to tell you that you are a mutant, unnatural, disgusting, "narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society." it can be for some gay people, a really big deal to accept yourself along with your sexuality and be focused upon that aspect of yourself. [Kind of like how african americans were pretty aware and focused on their race when slavery was still legal - they couldn't really avoid it] But once a gay person has matured and accepts themselves on a very true and deep level, the focus on other areas of life naturally becomes balanced. This isn't much different to regular ole heteros going throught their teen and 20's years trying to find themselves and often living "narcissistically and hedonistic" lifestyles. Again, I think your ideas are looking at a very limited scope and are not considering the differences in male/female sex drive that face heteros and not homos.




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Dec 23, 2006, 12:41 AM
Post #56


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



it's a good point, bennett. And yes, I was thinking of male homosexual preoccupation with sex, though I find your explanation compelling. Female homosexuals are different in this regard.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post Dec 23, 2006, 04:35 AM
Post #57


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 23, 2006, 02:21 AM) *

QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 22, 2006, 06:16 PM) *
So I guess that would make me a modular connectionist.


I'm sympathetic towards connectionism, at least compared to (the failures of) AI, but am sceptical about modules because of the problems that arise when trying to precisely define them and assign functions to them. It seems we need a better concept than modules... like fuzzy modules or something between modules and a completely and uniformly distributed system.


It is a complex issue, and one that I am still developing an informed opinion about.

Interesting link: Causal Inferences. Evolutionary Domains and Neural Systems
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
syntactical
post Dec 23, 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #58


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Member No.: 6609



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 21, 2006, 10:39 AM) *

My own view is that homosexual tendencies serve no function and are irrelevant within the bigger picture. Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society.


How about Ludwig Wittgenstein?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 23, 2006, 11:20 PM
Post #59


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Welcome to the forum bennett and Season's Greetings to you. smile.gif
QUOTE(bennett @ Dec 23, 2006, 06:19 AM) *
"who cares why?
Like many on the forum I want to try and understand everything about everything. Human nature if we let it be.
QUOTE(bennett @ Dec 23, 2006, 06:19 AM) *
I would expect much more from people who sound so smart otherwise.
Not people, person. wacko.gif (wink.gif) And even they are entitled to their opinion. At least on this forum.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post Dec 25, 2006, 11:16 AM
Post #60


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(bennett @ Dec 22, 2006, 10:19 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 21, 2006, 11:39 AM) *

My own view is that homosexual tendencies serve no function and are irrelevant within the bigger picture. Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society.

What do you mean by "naturalistic framework"? Everything is in Nature, so technically speaking, everything is naturalistic.



I just came upon this forum after searching the net and just couldn't resist...I've have read this entire thread and find it quite interesting as to the many theories. I am not a scientist, but I am a fascinated by the mind which is how I came upon this website.

What is interesting is none of you are, or at least have admitted that you are homosexual so I figured it was time that someone did. I am a homosexual and while I am totally open to the many theories as to "why" we homos exist in the way that we do, my own philosophy says "who cares why?". If I try to argue my "right" to be homosexual with the genetic theory or behavioral or a mixture of all or something else - it doesn't matter to me because just as you have all proven - everyone will attach themselves to the theory that best fits them and their beliefs. In fact, I get really sick of hearing homosexuals say "It's genetic" in an attempt to make themselves feel better and prove to everyone that they are "natural" and therefore, should be accepted. By arguing the "why", it makes it important. You can't expect ten people in the same room to be alike in all ways let alone the over 6 billion people on the planet. People are going to be different whether by choice, by genes, by environment, whatever. That is natural, that is nature. It will always be that way

And while the "why" homos are homos, isn't important in my philosophy, just for giggles I will say that I know that homosexuality is sometimes caused by genes, sometimes environmental factors, sometimes choice. We can't put even us homos in one box....although someone has done it again with:

"Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society."

All I can say is who in heck do you know that is gay? This is truly limited thinking for someone who is part of a forum like this. What t.v. shows do you watch to get this idea? Homosexuals are a very diverse crowd my friend. We are everyone and everywhere including your kids, your parents, your teachers, your doctors, your government, your mechanic - everywhere and everyone.

Just like you can use scientific theories to try and determine what a fruit fly is up to and why, you can use sciencific theories to try and figure out what and why a homosexual is what it is. That is the beauty of theory based on scientific research. That part makes talking about the subject interesting and stimulating. However, this comment you expressed in the above quote has no science to back it up - just pure and blatant ingnorance. I would expect much more from people who sound so smart otherwise. It is not stimulating or creative in the least, it is regurgitated prejudice you learned on t.v., church or some other ignorant person.

And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...is it purely beliefs, genes, choice, environmental factors or a mixed bag? I say let's accept the diversity factor as part of nature and get on with something more important, but then again I'm a homo.


Bennet thanks for the post, please do not measure the worth of this forum by one topic of heterosexuals talking about homosexuals. If you take the time to look back at the archives of this forum you will be pleased to find that this is probably the first thread on the matter. I agree however that the energy/time spent on topics such as these could be better spent elsewhere. Still if one wants to promote diversity/discussion then one can't stop these discussions. Perhaps (this seeking of) better understanding will lead to embracing diversity easier.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th November 2017 - 10:25 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles