Quote from ExternusI didn't use citations because a lot of it comes from many textbooks, including one from the honors organic chemistry, an entire multitude of sources, or just basic common sense. If it takes more effort than necessary to site something, it's pointless. Again, what I have said is not made up, you can find many of things I've talked by acclaimed scientists, biologists, and such. I believe Vice has a documentary (sorry, it's the only one I remember) on obesity in African countries and the complete different side to beauty. As well as for the "gay gene", there is no gay gene or set of genes to interact with sexuality directly. I found a citation for it, but again, I feel like it's a waste of time and space to regurgitate what someone else says. It's not that I don't have sources, I don't see a point in actually using them in such a casual setting.
Homosexuals ARE incapable of reproducing. Again, artificial insemination negates homosexuality because heterosexuality is the dominant trait (considering there was a gay gene). And that's even considering artificial insemination was possible. Homosexuals were abused in history, and I doubt there was much artificial insemination going on during the Salem Witch Trials. Historically, it's not very likely at all for artificial insemination to let gays reproduce and spread these "gay genes".
My statement on exercise wasn't to say that you exercise because society tells you to, but rather, your views of exercise would be completely different in a world where exercise is taboo. I exercise too, and I enjoy it, but, there are many social forces which misconstrue what we do, and that's extremely prevalent. The physiological impacts of the world around us is way stronger than any intrinsic forces there are, by a long shot. Because, our perceptions of right and wrong, attractive and unattractive, cool and uncool, logical and illogical, smart and stupid, successful and unsuccessful are completely based off the rules society sets, and with that, many things are impacted. I mean, this is almost undebatable. Again, I have sources to help support this, but I want to stray away from those. I just want you to keep in mind, I'm not talking out of my ass.
Again, part of the reason you like to exercise is because exercise carries a good connotation in our society. I began to exercise because I was becoming overweight some 2 years ago, but now I exercise regularly for the fun of it. Like things like Farmville and other arbitrary things, exercising gives a feeling of accomplishment, and therefore releases dopamine. To step out of the boundary of being overweight, or becoming fit, is an accomplishment, and something to feel proud of, especially in our modern standards. These accomplishments can escalate. To do 10 more pushups then the day before releases pleasure, which in turn, becomes almost even a drug, and a mandatory thing. I'm not saying you exercise because society tells you to, but rather, the ideology and ethic of working out stems entirely from society, it just adjusts from person to person.
And on the subject of the morality of homosexuality, I say it's arbitrary. It's stupid to even attempt to deem something morally correct because our social economic standards and situations are CONSTANTLY changing. In the 19th century, slavery in the United States in fact was pretty reasonable and pretty entrenched into society. The antebellum South was a mess because slavery had been abolished, mostly because the large plantation owners and economy drivers relied on society. Slavery became a necessity in the South. In retrospect, we all feel slavery was a horrible, terrible thing. But at the time, it was a completely reasonable, justifiable thing, not even just so whites could uphold the patriarchal system that was in place. With the rise of liberalism now, the morality of homosexuality will soon become pretty accepted. We'll find new things to argue about, and soon those things will become accepted too. If you haven't noticed, society continues to leap across previous bounds, from hierarchies, to slavery, to women's suffrage, to homosexuality, to drug legality, to the blurring of social class division, to everything. The question isn't about homosexuality, because the morality of it has pretty much been engraved into society at this point. A better question to ask is if we should stop expanding social norms, and if it's even a good thing.
Thank you for being a condescending cunt, even though your Wikipedia-knowledge base is pretty limited.
For one, I don't claim to like gay people either, and I never suggested you did at all. Epigenetics is heavily influenced by physiological impetuses, which is exactly what I talked about. Your sources are also shakey and VERY, VERY limited, and ignores all arguments. These are not written 100 page essays on the nature of homosexuality, but rather, these are literally bent on being concise, and . "A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have a (biological) gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight women to have gay sisters." Do you see the problem with that? That's a contradiction. That same sentence can easily prove how being gay ISN'T intrinsic, and is based off of physiological traits, such as societal pressures or norms. If you're immersed to the same or similar conditions, you will mostly likely see similar results.
Also, one of your sources is actually opposing homosexuality as an intrinsic property at all. And another one is called SocialInQueery. I doubt the credibility and honesty of a site which literally has gay support in its domain name. This site is completely dedicated to homosexuality, and on top of that, their arguments are just pretty much ramblings with little to no actual scientific proof (which may sound hypocritical of me, but read above to my other reply where I address my lack of written citations). Also, I'd like to address that I don't think you even read my statement, nor do you even know why I'm talking about. I think you read the one article about the womb and just gave other articles which either were agreeing with what I said, or just not even...on topic really. I agreed with you to a certain extent actually in my post, you just don't understand what you've cited, or what arguments you're even making. You do realize a translation of what you're saying is, "No, homosexuality is not genetic or intrinsic. It's actually completely based off of our societal impetuses, so it's pretty much a choice, but it's just one affected by our society." The fact that it's epigenetic means that the ideology of homosexuality is completely based off of arbitrary societal habits, meaning if you were in x society over y society, you wouldn't be homosexual, which pretty much means it is a choice. Before you tell me my statement is utterly wrong, please review your own. The ironic part is, that I more or less said what you said, except you're bent on your idiotic self-righteousness, and pretty much made an argument which contradicted itself just have some high attitude.
Also, epigenetics is still a stupid conclusion, mostly because, epigenetics gets summed down to social pressures. These epigenetics are NOT influenced by genes (at least extremely), so therefore they are influenced by other things, such as what is deemed attractive, right and wrong, and such. Again, these are lousy arguments because they are so flimsy. If epigenetics causes it, that means it's still completely subjective. I won't even bother linking sources because these are such rudimentary statements I'm making. Social pressures influence us physiologically, more than physically, which is why some cultures find one food more appetizing than another and such examples. This means that homosexuality, is STILL not intrinsic or biological. It's just based off of what we experience, which makes it a choice, in a sense. Again, if physiological traits can make you gay, physiological traits can make you STRAIGHT. This theory is so flimsy, it's literally balsa.
Also, review above what I said on the morality of homosexuality. If you have arbitrary standards which mean nothing in time, right and wrong also mean nothing. Another question to consider, is the importance of homosexuality. In our current state, homosexuality is reasonable considering we have an exponential population spike, and WAYYYY too many people. But even a century or two ago, Native American tribes were STRUGGLING to survive. In times where life expectancy was short, homosexuality was like the devil. Instead of trying to keep the human race alive, you're dilly-dallying with something that produces nothing for mankind, and this may even be why the Bible had such stances on homosexuality. But now, when population is no longer a fear, and personal benefit is more of an important issue than the general goodness of mankind (as it may have been in the past), homosexuality is completely moral. In previous centuries, homosexuality is like a plague, and completely immoral and selfish. But therein lies the problem. If the morality is fluctuating and inconsistent, what does morality even mean? How can you be virtuous if your virtues are going to be obsolete, or aren't even steadfast? That's why it's a waste of time to tackle homosexuality as a debate. The thing is, in our current state, we don't need more people, we don't have any rush to have sex, there are many alternatives to having children, and impregnation can happen through many ways. There's a more solid reason why homosexuality is morally okay. Anything related to choice is kaputt garbage.
It'll be in great help to your statement to actually give us a prove of what you are saying. Before saying that my 'Wikipedia-knowledge base is pretty limited.' , you need to give us at least 1 example of a person being changed to homosexual 'because of the society he lives in'. I don't even know why you are putting what we eat and homosexuality under the same roof. It's completely different, society can't change your tastes, you eat what others eat so you don't fall out of the group, but have you seen a homosexual person going to heterosexual because the society demands it? No, it's impossible.
You said : 'The entire human genome has been mapped out' , no it has not. If it was mapped out and we understood every single genomes in our DNA we would be able to stop aging and such, but we can't. I don't think it's all that much because of the enviroment, gene or society; I personally think it's because of a brain malfunction in the individual. (You can read what I said in the tread about homosexuality before this one)
Almost all scientific studies show that environmental influences--including the environment in the womb may have the greatest influence for homosexuality. No one ever proved that society is causing homosexuality, because it isn't. 'I call it common sense': society doesn't play any role for homosexuality, people are born this way. Malfunctions. That's all to it.
If your statement was right, then we would be able to cure homosexuality by putting homosexual people in different society , however that DOESN'T work, because society doesn't change any single thing.
To be honest we can't be sure who's right, since there is lack of prove to mine; yourse and everyone's statements here. Medecine hasn't gone that far to understand how the human brain and DNA work, so we'll have to wait a few years to find out the truth. It's pointless even debating on what causes homosexuality, since this thread isn't even about that.
I say that homosexual people don't choose to be homosexual, they are just that way, and since even if they don't want to be homosexual and try to change to heterosexaul , it doesn't work: HOMOSEXUALITY IT IS MORAL.