Originally posted by Mini D
Ummm... dead... I do believe you misread the sarcasm intended with that statement. I know that things experienced at times growing up shape what you become... it was someone else that was stating it was predetermined genetically.
I know its alot of work and alot of crap... but you should read through the thread a bit more.
As it's a subject that's obviously close to your heart, I offer you this salutary lesson in the perils of poor reading comprehension with extra highlighting for for your edification and entertainment:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm saying is that hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet, causes each one of us to be attracted to either the same sex, or the opposite sex. Nobody gets to choose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Did you actually say "nobody get's to choose"? Does this mean the Romans were more likely to have homosexual traights? Or Greeks? I mean, at some point it was a part of their culture. Maybe something changes when you get locked up in prison and are surrounded by nothing but men?
Nah. Its not about choice at all. Its all about genetics.
MiniD
If you read closely, you'll note that banana does not imply it's anything to do with genetics. He suggests "hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet" are to blame. Not very genetic at all.
Earlier in the thread (which, in a surprise twist, it turns out I had bothered reading, thank you for your kind concern) Thrawn posted an article that is headlined "Sheep study suggests sexual orientation may be genetic". This elicited no direct reply from you, whilst banana's did - and with quotes no less - so I did assume you were merely refuting banana's (non genetic cause) position.
However, if you actually get past the headline and intro of the Thrawn piece and
read the whole thing - you'll find that none of the scientists actually quoted go so far as to suggest that it may be genetic at all. The closest Charles Roselli, the researcher, offers is "It indicates that there may be a biological (reason) for this sexual preference". Biological doesn't mean genetic. Sure, the piece goes on to say (about the 1991 LeVay study) "While scientists were careful to label the size difference a correlation rather than the cause of heterosexuality, they said it could indicate that sexual preference was genetic rather than a choice" - the "could indicate" implies that genetics is only one option, and (having done a little research) the scientists are leaning towards genetics as a possibility because this correlation - the size of the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus - is a product of prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation. This would certainly preclude the sizing being the result of a choice, but without further studies the point is still moot. And again this does not preclude a non-genetic cause, such as banana suggests.
In fact the first person in this thread to be so bold as to explictly suggest sexual preferences are genetically determined is your good self, albeit sarcastically (or so I presume). So the whole genetics issue (at least on this thread of the BBS) appears to be something of a straw man of your own making (although a few others in the religious camp [no pun intended, honest] have helped). Particularly in the context of banana's post to which you replied.
However, it's probably a good idea to point out that the discovery that sexual preferences do not have a genetic cause would not invalidate the hypothesis that sexual preferences are not a concious choice. Environmental causes - which you believe can shape the psyche (if I'm reading you right and you're not being sarcastic) - would also not be a concious choice. Neither would banana's hypothesis of hormones or an as-yet-unknown agent.
As to my misreading of the sarcasm intended with the 'Its[sic] a fundamentally flawed argument and I don't believe you'd find a single scientist or sociologist that would agree with the "nobody has a choice" philosophy' statement - I was indeed unaware that the comment was meant sarcastically, and I did think you were being serious. Guilty as charged. And so I refuted this claim. But in my defence I do have to point out that normally sarcasm is a tonal thing, which just doesn't come across on a BBS. You might want to try using
comments or something when there is this level of ambiguity involved.
It's great to see SOB cleared the 500 mark.