Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

They hav been able to turn on and off homosexuality in flies, which is interesting.

What method are they using?

Share this post


Link to post
Gene manipulation and drugs.

 

Press Release

Interesting. That also reads, to me, as if the homosexual behaviour is preferred unless it's blocked. Also interesting to note that the homosexual flies are not displaying female behaviour - their patterns of behaviour are clearly the same as the other male flies, just targeted on the same, rather than opposite, sex.

Share this post


Link to post

That was fun to read. Though it should be noted, many behaviors and instincts are modified in such ways and just because it can be tampered with, doesn't mean it should. c: (that was just my thought, not saying anyone here advocates it)

 

And yeah, the odor of someone else is a great factor of sexual preference. That was one of the main factors that my anatomy teacher used to explain the differences between the male, female, heterosexual and homosexual hypothamluses.

Share this post


Link to post
That was fun to read. Though it should be noted, many behaviors and instincts are modified in such ways and just because it can be tampered with, doesn't mean it should. c: (that was just my thought, not saying anyone here advocates it)

No, I agree. I've seen other bits of research that have made me think "Sure, we *can* do this, but *should* we?". The most noteable one was research that was going on into what was effectively 'mind control' - the researchers we able to, effectively, turn off a humans ability to judge right from wrong. By using electromagnetics to interfere with brainwave patterns.

Share this post


Link to post

I was thinking about the uissues with most of the tests being done on men and not lesbians, and I just thought, as I scientist, I would offer a few brief glimpses into why.

 

When you're doing an experiment on gay people, you want people who define themselves as close to a Kinsey-6 as possible, because any kind of heterosexual leaning, even =if not sexual can taint the whole pool.

 

Because of culture, many women are exposed to the idea that girls "learn to kiss" with their girlfriends, or if they just don't FEEL that way toard men it's because they haven't met the right one yet. There's also a lot of pressure to describe a "friendship" as romantic. Kind of like in The Baby-Sitters Club (anyone remember those?) and Kristy explains to Abby that she started going out with Bart because everyone else wanted her to, and that it ruined the friendship with Bart, because she just didn't feel that way towards him.

 

Okay, nostalgia over, haha -- it's a lot harder, in actuality, to find a gold star lesbian (IE: one who has never identified as in a relationship with a man) or romantically at all in part because of that idea of "lie back and think of England."

Share this post


Link to post

I was thinking about the uissues with most of the tests being done on men and not lesbians, and I just thought, as I scientist, I would offer a few brief glimpses into why.

 

When you're doing an experiment on gay people, you want people who define themselves as close to a Kinsey-6 as possible, because any kind of heterosexual leaning, even =if not sexual can taint the whole pool.

 

Because of culture, many women are exposed to the idea that girls "learn to kiss" with their girlfriends, or if they just don't FEEL that way toard men it's because they haven't met the right one yet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/20..._n_1021730.html

 

That was just culture, or is it something else?

 

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-driv...n-women-compare

Share this post


Link to post

That was just culture, or is it something else?

 

Bad science.

 

The study has so many flaws it didn't pass peer review. The study was leading, had biased researchers, didn't document it's process properly... as to the other one, there are anatomical differences between the "romantic centers" in straight women and homosexual women's brains.

Share this post


Link to post

Bad science.

 

The study has so many flaws it didn't pass peer review. The study was leading, had biased researchers, didn't document it's process properly...  as to the other one, there are anatomical differences between the "romantic centers" in straight women and homosexual women's brains.

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%...al.pone.0040256

 

"As a reflection of this general sex difference, the relationship of genital arousal to either male or female sexual stimuli with self-reported sexual orientation is considerably stronger in men than in women [2], [12]. Most men are exclusively aroused to the sex consistent with their reported sexual orientation; for example, most heterosexual men are almost exclusively aroused to women and most homosexual men are almost exclusively aroused to men. In contrast, women’s sexual orientation is poorly reflected in their genital response because they respond with substantial arousal to both sexes [2], [12]. These results suggest a substantial difference between the sexes in the organization of sexual orientation."

 

"Unlike most men, many women show substantial sexual arousal to both sexes. This general pattern, however, is moderated by women’s sexual orientation and is most common among heterosexual women, who show similarly strong sexual arousal to male and female sexual stimuli. In contrast, this pattern is less common among homosexual women, who show more sexual arousal to female stimuli and somewhat less sexual arousal to male stimuli [2], [12]. In this sense, homosexual women show more male-typical sexual arousal patterns compared to other women. This observation led to the third hypothesis of this study: "

Share this post


Link to post

Might be just me, but I find this last research paper to be rather biased and assuming the same. I wouldn't consider it evidence myself. huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
there are anatomical differences between the "romantic centers" in straight women and homosexual women's brains.

While I believe there is an anatomical difference, I am not convinced that all of it is strictly due to genetics. I think there is a genetic predisposition but that environmental factors as a person grows plays a part.

 

It's kind of like a tendency to develop type II diabetes. Some will develop it regardless of environment, others only develop it if they eat poorly and do not exercise enough, and others do not develop it even with the worst diet/exercise habits.

 

The array of interacting causal factors makes it very difficult in many cases to pinpoint precisely what is going on. Therefore, while a difference exists, I'm not convinced that all gay people are "born that way".

 

That said, once they have developed, I do not see why anyone (outside of dating) should be treated any differently based on their sexual preference than they would be treated if they wrote left-handed instead of right-handed.

Share this post


Link to post
While I believe there is an anatomical difference, I am not convinced that all of it is strictly due to genetics. I think there is a genetic predisposition but that environmental factors as a person grows plays a part.

 

It's kind of like a tendency to develop type II diabetes. Some will develop it regardless of environment, others only develop it if they eat poorly and do not exercise enough, and others do not develop it even with the worst diet/exercise habits.

 

The array of interacting causal factors makes it very difficult in many cases to pinpoint precisely what is going on. Therefore, while a difference exists, I'm not convinced that all gay people are "born that way".

 

But what about the people who have grown up with no homosexual "exposure" and knew nothing about what a homosexual was, only to discover they had sexual arousal for someone of the same sex? That's not an environment thing. What about the people that grew up in households that were anti-gay and grew up believing with all their being that being gay was wrong, and even got married to an opposite-gender person and had kids, only to realize later that they were still gay nonetheless?

 

If sexual arousal and preference is determined by a biological source, I don't really think that environment can influence it another way. It doesn't make much sense how that would work.

Share this post


Link to post

It would't surprise me if there were both biological and environmental factors.

 

I'd imagine that there are people who are absolutely [insert sexuality] due to their biological programming. But other people who have less... Powerful? determining biological factors being more susceptible to environmental influences. But then there are people who are absolutely wired to one specific sexuality, hence the people who have no experiences with homosexuality but end up being homosexual and such.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I suspect it may be something like with height or (as Awdz Bodkins suggested) type II diabetes, where there's a genetic component and an environmental component, and the two interact to produce the full range of possible sexualities we see. The environmental component probably wouldn't be just a matter of seeing homosexual couples and learning that they're okay, either (that might play a part in whether someone expresses their sexuality, but I don't think it would have much to do with whether someone is gay or straight to begin with). I'm thinking more along the lines of anything that would influence hormone levels during development, or development of the brain structures that are involved, and maybe (for those who would be close to the borderline, with no other strong tendencies either way) having strongly positive or negative experiences with one sex or the other during childhood. Basically, the same sort of stuff that would come into play with other aspects of attraction, which I also don't believe are entirely genetic (though they probably are partially so.)

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, okay, that's making more sense to me. Sorry I got a little muddled before, nothing's really quite sticking in my head right now, haha.

Share this post


Link to post

But then there are people who are absolutely wired to one specific sexuality, hence the people who have no experiences with homosexuality but end up being homosexual and such.

 

S'all to do with the brain. If those evangelicals figure out how to influence that, then everyone's freedom is in peril.

Share this post


Link to post

I've honestly always had a somewhat elastic sexuality that's changed with time. I know not everyone can do that, but to say that some people's sexuality can't be effected by environment and exposure wouldn't be 100 percent accurate. It would negate everything I've ever experienced in my belief. I've often wondered if I'm queer because of what I've experienced. For me, "being born that way" isn't 100 percent applicable.

 

Like I said earlier though, this only applies to me. Other people have had different experiences and I believe it's perfectly possible for someone to be born that way too, but I've never believed that was the only way sexuality came about.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say.. I entirely support gay marriage and rights.

 

I don't see why it's really anyone else's business. Interracial marriage is allowed, people of different races have rights - it's really no different. No matter which it is.. it's the rights of -humans-. I don't understand why sexuality, or color, really has any importance in matters. If you don't like gay marriage.. don't marry someone of the same gender, and you shouldn't have any problems. Humans, supposedly, have rights - being opposed to gay marriage, or any other form of equality, regardless of what it is, is sort of like saying "I support rights and equality for the people who deserve them."

 

I'm not saying anyone has to like it - but if you dislike it, why do you need to try to ruin it for those who either don't mind or support it? When I go to the beach and walk the boardwalk, I see rides. I don't like rides, but I don't throw a fit and say no one should be allowed to ride rides because they offend me and I don't like them and they're ruining the sanctity of the beach.

 

When it comes to the debate about it ruining the sanctity of marriage.. I suppose divorce, cheating, and etcetera aren't? Marriage is defined as a man and a woman, yes, but marriage also wasn't meant to be thrown away because you're bored with your current partner and want a new one. I know there's plenty of divorces that are for legitimate reasons, however, if gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage, I have to say divorce does, too, and that we should ban it no matter what the reasoning. Is there any honest argument that can say that divorce, in no way, shape, or form, ever destroys the sanctity of marriage? No. Likewise, there is no honest argument to say all divorce does, or that gay marriage will.

 

I'm not the type to say you have to support something you hate because that's what you should do - but I don't feel, unless there is a firm, logical argument you should oppose it and ruin it for everyone else. I'm sure a happy gay couple living next door to you is going to ruin everything you've ever lived for. Does it honestly matter, as long as they're following the rules of society like everyone else?

 

I can't claim I'm unbiased on this, either. I'm female, and I've had the same girlfriend for a few years now, and before that we were friends for years. She's my first and only love, and I can't see myself loving anyone else after what we've already been through together, leading two less-than-perfect lives where things tend to go from bad to worse all the time. She's been there when I've needed her, and I've been there for her. My best male friend for over half my life is gay, and my best female friend is bi. I want to be happy with my girlfriend for the rest of my life, and I want to see them find love and be happy too. I will never understand how that is 'asking too much', nor will I go and shove my relations in anyone's face. I'm not the type to run around shouting I'm a girl and have a girlfriend. I do make the fact I'm happily with someone clear, but beyond that, I don't pressure people to know and like my relationship. It's my life, who will it hurt if it turns bad? Me.

 

Now, some might argue I 'chose' this sexuality, but.. really.. I didn't. I find both genders attractive on an equal level, without really having a desire for most people. I fell for my girlfriend because of who she is, how our personalities match, how she makes me feel, and so on, not because of her gender. If she was a male, I'd still love her.. and if she was a purple alien from Pluto.. well.. I'd love her then, too, even if I had to hide her from scientists. My point? I love someone for who they are, not their gender.

 

I haven't been raised around homosexuals. I only recently learned from my grandmother that my grandfather had been gay, and my mother, who I have not seen since I was a toddler, was bi with a female preference. So, perhaps.. it's in the genetics? I'm not a doctor or scientist, I can't say it is or it isn't, however, I can firmly say I haven't been raised or influenced that way.

 

Ultimately, this is just my opinion on everything. I wanted to express it, but I don't plan to stick around to get into debates about it. People have opinions, and many are unwilling to change their opinions - that's fine with me, just please don't try to ruin my life.. I want to be happy, too. I don't mind if you think every single thing I said is wrong, and I'm not going to sit here and argue I'm right, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, in this situation.

 

Edit: This is so much longer than I expected it to be. It looked way shorter until I submitted, sorry! I made the font smaller so it doesn't seem as intrusive, hopefully..

Edited by Delillah

Share this post


Link to post

Unlike most men, many women show substantial sexual arousal to both sexes. This general pattern, however, is moderated by women’s sexual orientation and is most common among heterosexual women, who show similarly strong sexual arousal to male and female sexual stimuli. In contrast, this pattern is less common among homosexual women, who show more sexual arousal to female stimuli and somewhat less sexual arousal to male stimuli [2], [12]. In this sense, homosexual women show more male-typical sexual arousal patterns compared to other women.

 

This kind of stuff reinforces the stereotype that all women are okay with engaging in homosexual activities. As someone who is exclusively attracted to men, I've always been disgusted by most "female sexual stimuli." Like, I see those pinups of women or lesbians and feel slightly ill. I've been even more disgusted by suggestions that I should engage in such activities with women and enjoy it.

 

It reminds me of a time during my Angsty Teen Years when I was whining about not having a boyfriend, and a female friend offered to be in a lesbian relationship with me. My immediate, gut-reaction response was "Ew, no!" and she was all "what do you mean, ew? There's nothing wrong with being a lesbian!"

 

No, there's nothing wrong with being a lesbian, but I wasn't and am not a lesbian. If a straight man had reacted that way (or a homosexual man to suggestions of straight activity), there would have been laughter and acceptance of that reaction, not arguing that their response made them homophobic/heterophobic as opposed to simply straight/homosexual.

 

And I deal with the same kind of disbelief from straight men. I know that fictional depictions of women are largely to blame for that, but this isn't helping. It's aggravating and I'm sick of it.

 

Sorry, but I needed to let that out.

Share this post


Link to post

No, there's nothing wrong with being a lesbian, but I wasn't and am not a lesbian.

Ditto, at least to this part of the post.

 

I cannot say that I would call my reaction disgust if it was something what was going on in vicinity, though. Seeing two women kissing is not disgusting to me ... it more or less does not evoke any response in me. It's not something which'd stop me from thinking that I should pay the electricity bill and of what I will get for dinner - do I have food at home, should I visit a grocery store? - or whatever piece of writing I have in progress.

(I however do tend to get kind of annoyed when a movie contains a particularly long scene of female on female interaction ... kind of how I would at an extra long commercial break. Just because ... well, I was kind of watching a movie, and that's not interesting at all to me.)

Other women could walk around completely naked on streets, I couldn't care less. - It'd, however, be far more interesting if men did the same...

 

Actually doing something with another woman, however, is a whole different matter - very good feemale friends and close female relatives can hug me, but any further than that ... no, just no. A woman kissing me would be no less than sexual assault on me.

It even goes as far as me being at least as inconvenienced by being searched through by another woman as I would be a man - because if it is a woman, my brain gets significantly stronger case of 'this should not be so close to me, and especially not touching me'.

 

 

(Is the current conversation more fit for the sexuality thread, though, although it also deals with the prejudices over homosexuals?)

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not saying anyone has to like it - but if you dislike it, why do you need to try to ruin it for those who either don't mind or support it? When I go to the beach and walk the boardwalk, I see rides. I don't like rides, but I don't throw a fit and say no one should be allowed to ride rides because they offend me and I don't like them and they're ruining the sanctity of the beach.

I totally love this comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
I've honestly always had a somewhat elastic sexuality that's changed with time. I know not everyone can do that, but to say that some people's sexuality can't be effected by environment and exposure wouldn't be 100 percent accurate. It would negate everything I've ever experienced in my belief. I've often wondered if I'm queer because of what I've experienced. For me, "being born that way" isn't 100 percent applicable.

 

Like I said earlier though, this only applies to me. Other people have had different experiences and I believe it's perfectly possible for someone to be born that way too, but I've never believed that was the only way sexuality came about.

Sexuality IS fluid, and it's a spectrum. So it's not unreasonable to think that somebody would be born naturally more susceptible to environmental factors than others.

 

I do think that people who are more fluid are still "born that way", though--they're born with the biological components that make them susceptible to environmental changes.

Share this post


Link to post

I do think that people who are more fluid are still "born that way", though--they're born with the biological components that make them susceptible to environmental changes.

Well said! wink.gif

 

For something to develop in a living being, there has to first be the genetic potential for it. So... We can have people who are born to have the potential sliding within very strict limits (making it so that their sexuality will never shift once it has developed), and we can have people who have the potential to slide one way or another depending on the circumstances.

 

Essentially, genetics might not only determine that you are bi, but also whether you are stably attracted to both or whether the preference changes towards male or female based on the weather, what you eat (think some component in your food triggering the receptors which determine whether a gene or set of them is on or off), etc, etc.

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%...al.pone.0040256

 

"As a reflection of this general sex difference, the relationship of genital arousal to either male or female sexual stimuli with self-reported sexual orientation is considerably stronger in men than in women [2], [12]. Most men are exclusively aroused to the sex consistent with their reported sexual orientation; for example, most heterosexual men are almost exclusively aroused to women and most homosexual men are almost exclusively aroused to men. In contrast, women’s sexual orientation is poorly reflected in their genital response because they respond with substantial arousal to both sexes [2], [12]. These results suggest a substantial difference between the sexes in the organization of sexual orientation."

 

"Unlike most men, many women show substantial sexual arousal to both sexes. This general pattern, however, is moderated by women’s sexual orientation and is most common among heterosexual women, who show similarly strong sexual arousal to male and female sexual stimuli. In contrast, this pattern is less common among homosexual women, who show more sexual arousal to female stimuli and somewhat less sexual arousal to male stimuli [2], [12]. In this sense, homosexual women show more male-typical sexual arousal patterns compared to other women. This observation led to the third hypothesis of this study: "

Check the funding -- and the credentials of the writers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sexuality IS fluid, and it's a spectrum.  So it's not unreasonable to think that somebody would be born naturally more susceptible to environmental factors than others.

 

I do think that people who are more fluid are still "born that way", though--they're born with the biological components that make them susceptible to environmental changes.

I'm not saying genetics don't play some part in what I am. It's semi-applicable, not 100 percent applicable. I wasn't "born that way" in the sense that my sexuality was concretely bound to be this or that. So yes, I might have been partially "born that way" but I was also partially "made that way." I don't want to be labeled exclusively "born that way." I feel wrong labeling myself that way when I can go back and identify several factors that edged me in one direction or another. I'm only saying I'm not ONLY that.

 

Part of the thing about the gay rights movement that has always bothered me is even if you agree with equal rights, if you slightly differ from the general opinion (such as me not completely subscribing to exclusively the born that way theory for everyone) people seem to think that's not okay. (Not talking about you at all, just edging this back towards the topic.) A lot of people will jump on you if you don't follow the set pattern to a T.

Edited by Walker

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.