Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why should society accept straight people? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Rejection from their father. (for men)
    Close relationship with their mother (also for men)
    More older siblings
    Older mothers
    Death of the mother (for women)
    Being the only daughter in a large family (also for women)
    Divorced parents
    Growing up in a city
    Gender confusion/non-conformity
    Having a twin of a different gender.
    Congrats, you're in great company:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7SVBd8KcaE
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    Congrats, you're in great company:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7SVBd8KcaE
    I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm assuming it means your suggesting that what I just posted isnt true?

    Edit: While I don't agree with forced homosexuality-heterosexuality conversion. What that man says is true. Homosexuality is multi-factoral. The interviewer was extremely ignorant and rude.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm assuming it means your suggesting that what I just posted isnt true?
    It suggest you should look at who also wrote things like that.

    The American Psychological Associationstated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.

    To suggest any of those fundamentally make you gay is laughable there is no conclusive evidence. If divorced parents is a condition why am I not gay?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm assuming it means your suggesting that what I just posted isnt true?

    Edit: While I don't agree with forced homosexuality-heterosexuality conversion. What that man says is true. Homosexuality is multi-factoral. The interviewer was extremely ignorant and rude.
    How is race a factor? He also never mentioned genetics. He is discredited yet you promote him as true?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    It suggest you should look at who also wrote things like that.

    The American Psychological Associationstated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.


    Exactly. I'm not sure how this helps you.


    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    To suggest any of those fundamentally make you gay is laughable there is no conclusive evidence. If divorced parents is a condition why am I not gay?


    That is precisely why I said it was ludicrous to demand specific environmental factors. Human psychology is not a simple process of x = y.

    Environmental factors are always factors, and never absolutes. The same applies to the genetic factors involved in homosexuality, they are all found to be linked to homosexuality. This does not mean that if you are exposed to environmental factor X, you will become homosexual. But neither does it mean that if you are born with gene Y, you will become homosexual. Rather, it's a complex process, as sexuality (as with any other preference of personality trait) is a very complex concept. What's more, the factors involved also form many other traits surrounding it.

    That you immediately responded to my list of potential environmental factors with "I've been exposed to X, why am I not gay?", is exactly what I was worried you would do. It's why asking for a simple environmental factors, then reducing human psychology to such a simple process is so utterly ridiculous.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    How is race a factor? He also never mentioned genetics. He is discredited yet you promote him as true?
    Ignoring the race part (which he denied as well), every one of the items on that list have been listed as a potential environmental factor by research of non-discredited researchers. Him being discredited has little to no baring on claims he makes based on outside sources and research.

    Edit: He was also right, the book doesn't actually say race.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)


    Exactly. I'm not sure how this helps you.

    You're not sure how the truth helps me. You're arguing on behalf of someone who thinks homosexuality is ONLY learnt. None of the things you provided are conclusive factors that is a fact.

    That is precisely why I said it was ludicrous to demand specific environmental factors. Human psychology is not a simple process of x = y.
    So why was it not ludicrous to provide them?


    Ignoring the race part (which he denied as well), every one of the items on that list have been listed as a potential environmental factor by research of non-discredited researchers. Him being discredited has little to no baring on claims he makes based on outside sources and research.
    None of that research is conclusive and he fails to list genes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)



    Edit: He was also right, the book doesn't actually say race.
    The book does say race.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)

    You're not sure how the truth helps me. You're arguing on behalf of someone who thinks homosexuality is ONLY learnt. None of the things you provided are conclusive factors that is a fact.


    Well, specifically because the quote agrees with my side of the argument. But again, something being a learned behavior, suggests a behavior that is developed. I did not see them suggest that genes are not a factor, and there is plenty of evidence that would suggest that genes alone will not cause someone to become homosexuality.

    The they originally got wrong was when they said that heterosexuality was innate and not developed as with homosexuality.

    I should also point out that no genetic factors are also conclusive, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest links with both the environment and genetic factors to the development of homosexuality, rather than heterosexuality.


    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    So why was it not ludicrous to provide them?


    It was. Because you ignored me trying to explain why asking for them was ridiculous. And so we could arrive at this point, in the hopes that you will understand why it was ridiculous.


    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    None of that research is conclusive and he fails to list genes.
    I don't know what his views on the genetic factors of homosexuality are, but thats irrelevant.

    But as for whether the research is conclusive:

    The effect birth order has is well researched.

    And as with depression, schizophrenia, personality traits and other psychological characteristics, the research is not going to be conclusive because it is next to impossible to get completely exhaustive details on the complex causes of various parts of a persons personality. Does this mean we should ignore the potential causes of depression and schizophrenia? Of course not. Likewise we shouldnt ignore the potential factors involved in homosexuality just because it isnt a disorder.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    The book does say race.
    Do you have a link to that?

    From the book, page 75 "10. Other factors. Divorce, death of a parent, adoption, religion, rejection by opposite-sex peers."

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...e&q=75&f=false

    Edit:

    Nevermind I found it

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s...q=race&f=false

    I guess he must have taken it out.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    First of all, I am not making this thread to attack anyone; It's just a thought that I'd like to share. A thought that propagates the notion of ostracizing groups in society, but of course no attack.

    Why should Society accept Straight people when there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves people are born Straight?

    If you're someone that still wants to argue that people are born attracted to the opposite sex, despite there being no conclusive scientific evidence then, do you have a problem with people practicing incest? After all, people who practice incest also claim that they are biologically attracted to each other and they aren't doing anything unnatural.

    Is there not a double standard here?

    Maybe this is why incest is currently Legal in:

    Portugal,Russia,Netherlands,Indi a,China,Turkey,Ivory Coast and just recently made illegal in France

    What are your thoughts on this?

    I'd also like to ask at this point what makes this alleged "student" forum any different from stormfront or the westboro bapist church at this point? It's just troll/hate thread about feminism/women after troll/hate thread about homosexuals, it is boring and sad.


    Because they/we make society literally. You need straight couples to make enough babies. Artificial conception can only do so much.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    So should we not accept left handed people?
    No. Unless they use their hands to... :sexface:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Well, specifically because the quote agrees with my side of the argument. But again, something being a learned behavior, suggests a behavior that is developed. I did not see them suggest that genes are not a factor, and there is plenty of evidence that would suggest that genes alone will not cause someone to become homosexuality.
    What do you mean your side? My side has always been it is based on a mixture, and you have been defending someone who says it is only learnt. The APA side is MY side, dear.


    It was. Because you ignored me trying to explain why asking for them was ridiculous. And so we could arrive at this point, in the hopes that you will understand why it was ridiculous.
    Which is what I wanted to show him. Do you not think getting involve in others arguments is rather pointless? You're not needed nor is your superfluous time wasting interference.


    I don't know what his views on the genetic factors of homosexuality are, but thats irrelevant.
    No it's not, as you're arguing on behalf of someone who thinks homosexuality is only learnt.


    Likewise we shouldnt ignore the potential factors involved in homosexuality just because it isnt a disorder.
    So if you don't want to ignore it, what would you like to do about it? What use is it? What does it matter?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    Because they/we make society literally. You need straight couples to make enough babies. Artificial conception can only do so much.
    Breeding doesn't make society it makes people. Which can be done now via science. Only do so much? Nope it can create babies just as well. Try again.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I am absolutely amazed that anyone would be stupid enough to think this anything other than a troll, even without seeing the preceding thread.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    What do you mean your side? My side has always been it is based on a mixture, and you have been defending someone who says it is only learnt. The APA side is MY side, dear.
    A learned behavior does not rule out genetic factors.

    While I can't speak for what exactly they had intended, it would seem they are on the side that it is a developed behavior.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    Which is what I wanted to show him. Do you not think getting involve in others arguments is rather pointless? You're not needed nor is your superfluous time wasting interference.
    Apparently I am needed. You wanted to show them what? That the environmental factors are complex, and isn't as simple as X causes Y? They supported multiple factors, you were the one demanding they give specific examples, which you invariably responded with "Then how come I'm not gay?". Which was precisely the reason I joined in.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    No it's not, as you're arguing on behalf of someone who thinks homosexuality is only learnt.
    I'm not arguing on behalf of Richard Cohen.

    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    So if you don't want to ignore what would you like to do about it? What use is it? What does it matter?
    For one, it can teach us alot about human sexuality, and give people a greater insight into what goes into the development of their own sexuality.

    But of course, your questions apply to the genetic factors as well, so why bring them up?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    A learned behavior does not rule out genetic factors.
    Who said it did? Not me, learn to read please.

    He said: everyone is born straight and that it is the environment (i.e how you interact with life) that decides whether you're straight or gay.
    Clearly making the distinction, so why not argue with him? :rolleyes:





    Apparently I am needed. You wanted to show them what? That the environmental factors are complex, and isn't as simple as X causes Y? They supported multiple factors, you were the one demanding they give specific examples, which you invariably responded with "Then how come I'm not gay?". Which was precisely the reason I joined in.
    No you're not needed, as I just stated.

    If you can't show conclusive evidence for the environment making you gay how can you conclude it is entirely the environment? Which given the fact you want argue everything else for this guy this is also something you should answer, since you're so passionate and interested in our exchange and making sure not one word of mine goes unquestioned, even though you've had zero points nor have you debunked one single thing I've said. So what exactly is your goal other than pointlessly wasting time defending something you don't even believe?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    Breeding doesn't make society it makes people. Which can be done now via science. Only do so much? Nope it can create babies just as well. Try again.
    Artificial conception can be done by science but we are talking about the artificial conception of a full society. You can't do that using artificial methods in an efficient way. Plus, it is too dangerous since a whole future society would literally rest in the hands of some politicians who can't even solve minor issues in society. However you see it, the power of reproduction has to be held by the commoners unless you want to give indescribable amounts of power to some greedy incompetent whose only talent is getting votes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think no-one can deny that (unless you believe God):

    Some people are born with sexual attraction to the opposite gender.
    Some people are born with sexual attraction to the same-gender.
    Some people are born with no sexual attraction.
    Some people are born transgender neither male nor female. (And hence disprove the religious right's classification of human beings into male/female).
    Some people are born with hyper sexual attraction to anything.
    Some people are born with no empathy. (We call them psycho- or socio-paths).
    Some people are born with sexual attraction to old people or children. (At least it's certainly within the realm of neurological possibility).
    Some people are born with other compulsions.

    The question is given that a variety of human beings exist which are born with different compulsions. Which compulsions should the law allow and which should it not? There are a few guiding principles:

    1) Will the compulsion in question affect any individual negatively?
    2) Will the compulsion in question affect society negatively?
    3) Will the compulsion in question affect future generations negatively?

    But also the notion of "fairness" without which the court system and the foundations of society would collapse and the oppressed peoples would rise up and topple the government. Unfortunately letting every individual indulge their compulsions is not possible and so whatever is allowed by law some parties will not be happy about it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This thead, hahaa
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    First of all, I am not making this thread to attack anyone; It's just a thought that I'd like to share. A thought that propagates the notion of ostracizing groups in society, but of course no attack.

    Why should Society accept Straight people when there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves people are born Straight?

    If you're someone that still wants to argue that people are born attracted to the opposite sex, despite there being no conclusive scientific evidence then, do you have a problem with people practicing incest? After all, people who practice incest also claim that they are biologically attracted to each other and they aren't doing anything unnatural.

    Is there not a double standard here?

    Maybe this is why incest is currently Legal in:

    Portugal,Russia,Netherlands,Indi a,China,Turkey,Ivory Coast and just recently made illegal in France

    What are your thoughts on this?

    I'd also like to ask at this point what makes this alleged "student" forum any different from stormfront or the westboro bapist church at this point? It's just troll/hate thread about feminism/women after troll/hate thread about homosexuals, it is boring and sad.



    Is it even your problem? Why did you even take the time write this? It's entirely obvious that you are likely to be a homosexual or someone committing incest who is insecure and thinks that society hates them for being homosexual/incest so you have to come on here to try and prove your point because you worry too much about what other people think of you than you yourself do. And by saying that you're not doing this to attack anyone doesn't not make it an attack on anyone, if anything by saying that, you are saying that you are intentionally offending people but not meaning to offend people at the same time. Result: Lots of people are still offended and they really don't think much of you.

    And if you don't like these sites so much and think they're boring and sad why did you feel the need to come on here to talk nonsense? You can come on here and post your crap about all the negative contributes to these sites like immature children even though a lot of it is relevant to education, jobs, university etc or whatever else the site is mainly about. You won't change anything by coming on here and saying that. There is no objective in your entire statement other than to rant and start an endless chain of online argumenting. So I suggest that you refrain from such activities and just gtfo to be honest.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.