If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Scans see 'gay brain differences'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I don't like to harp on about gay sexuality but this was interesting reading today :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay
Dr Qazi Rahman
Queen Mary, University of London"
For those who think that we CHOOSE to be gay, and therefore have no rights to be 'married' or have equal rights to heterosexuals in the law, please think again.
Having said that, most people on this board are cool about it and I thank you for your acceptance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay
Dr Qazi Rahman
Queen Mary, University of London"
For those who think that we CHOOSE to be gay, and therefore have no rights to be 'married' or have equal rights to heterosexuals in the law, please think again.
Having said that, most people on this board are cool about it and I thank you for your acceptance.
0
Comments
Are their brains different too?
I've never really seen the issue. I don't see how the position that homosexual people shouldn't have equal rights has ever been defensible. If the lynch-pin of a person's argument against homosexuality is that they believe it to be a choice, then it's hardly a sound argument against equal rights.
It's the whole racism vs religionism argument in a sense. You can't criticise someone's race because it's not a choice, but you can criticise someone's religion because it is a choice...
So depending on whether homosexuality is a choice or not implies whether it's ok to criticise it or not. Personally though, I don't criticise people based on their race OR religion, except the people who use religion as a mask for something else (but I'm lucky to see the difference, a lot of people can't and see religion as 'hate').
Anyway, bit of an aside there, but yea. I'm sure ages ago I said something like it was pre-determined because of some random abnormality and people thought I was saying homosexual people were retarded or something :yeees:.
I agree with you, however, my point was that even if every gay person had made the choice to be gay I don't see how that opens up them up to unequal rights. To be honest I've never really understood the "It's a Choice" argument. What does it even mean? That a gay male does actually find women sexually attractive, but in an act of defiant heresy has decided he's only going to sleep with dudes?
Yea I agree it's ridiculous but I think the argument is (playing devil's advocate here) that if it's a choice, you can criticise that choice (and all the things that go with it) because they have the freedom to make other choices. But if it's nature, they don't have any freedom and so it's not fair to criticise them for it (or discriminate).
Another example could be people who choose to commit crime can be criticised and discriminated against when trying to get jobs. For many it has been the case that someone who 'chooses' to be gay is just as guilty as someone who 'chooses' to break the law. I agree that it's not in the same ballpark but that's prejudice for you.
I wonder what will they do now. I guess they'll just ignore the evidence and pretend it does not exist, just as they do with all other evidence that expose their views and beliefs as rubbish.
I understand the principle of something being a choice and hence subsequently open to criticism; what i want to address is even if we presume homosexuality to be a choice - and we'd have to hammer out exactly what that choice specifically was - what sound argument could be put forward to argue that choice opens homosexuals up to valid inequality?
just a random point: they haven't said it's a causal link, that's their next project, to do scans of babies etc and then see the statistical liklihood of these things
interesting nonetheless though
I don't think there is a justification, except the usual 'its immoral', 'its weird' etc.
Yeah, you think any evidence ever affects people like that?
You can't prove them wrong, because they will just say the evidence is an evil liberal lie.
Fundie Christians or fundie atheists
tongue...cheek...
The great irony of course is that these people would probably be the first to complain about discrimination about something which blatantly is a choice: their religion. Not that I think that is acceptable either, except in an area where it might be relevant (like leading the country, for example
Well actually, if you tap your knee joint with a hammer, you will kick out in a reflex action which isn't controlled by the brain. But other than that....
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going on what I learned at Biology A-level years ago, but hormones could be said to significantly alter human behaviour, and probably quite strongly for sexual behaviour. Whilst hormone levels/production is supposed to be regulated by the hypothalamus (i.e. a region of the brain) I'd have thought there would be a number of disorders/malfunctions in the glands/organs that release hormones (thyroid, testes, pancreas, etc) would be out of "the brain's" control (e.g. pancreas/insulin/diabetes).
Sheer conjecture on your part. A concept such as love is merely a product of the physical brain, as is language, art, spirituality, and a whole host of other things (incidentally, romantic love as we know it was literally invented in France in the middle ages). Love is a product of our consciousness. Consciousness is a product of our physical brain. Our physcial brain is the product of the cells that make it up. The cells that make it up are a product of our genes. And everything from the genes upwards has evolved to assist in the single task of allowing those genes to replicate themselves. Everything we think, everything we feel, everything we believe exists is purely a result of that being the most effective way that those genes have evolved to reproduce. We don't see the world as it actually is. Everything we see is made up as mostly space, because the space between two atoms even in something as dense as a diamond is huge, but we don't see it that way, because it's not beneficial for our survival to see it that way. Because those atoms are bonded together by physical laws, they essentially become one, and so we see them as a single physical object as a result. But they are mostly made up of space.
I don't see how that follows. Consciousness is a product of the chemicals in the brain. That doesn't mean that it's controlled by them. The genes have evolved the ability to use free will because it is the best survival mechanism. Just because the genes create you doesn't mean they control your every move. Surely any concept of an omniscient higher power intrudes on the idea of free will more?
If you're going to look for ancient wisdom, you'd do far better looking into Chinese philosophy and traditions in my opinion. I think it's far more along your line of thinking, based on what you post on here.
Far too many assumptions in that statement. What makes you think we would ever get to the stage of "too many gays?"
Sorry if none of this is particularly well explained.
Are you implying that being gay is 'free will' then?
Like I said previously, current research is centering around either conditions in the womb or genetic causes making someone gay. But being gay would be an instinctual desire, not a product of conciousness in that case, just like sexual desire in general (which is different to love).
Not necessarily. Just because you can't see the evolutionary benefit of something, doesn't mean it isn't there. Studies in gay men, for example, have shown that the later the child comes in the line of siblings, the more likely they are to be gay, leading to hypotheses that they actually act as a sort of population control and creating a greater likelihood of the children of the older siblings surviving as part of the extended family group, and the genes carrying on (after all, humans are animals that have evolved to have few children and invest a lot of effort into ensuring they survive, compared to other animals who have lots of children in the hope that one or two survive). Another possibility is that homosexuality is a bi-product of a genetic trait that is beneficial to survival. And finally it's worth pointing out that not everything evolves to be perfect. It's not a particularly great idea for us to have an appendix that is prone to bursting. It's not a great idea for us to breath and eat through the same part of the body, leading to choking. But we haven't evolved into perfect beings, and I guess it's important to remember that. The very nature of evolution is that a lot of beings don't live to pass on their genes.
Your perogative mate.
But you're not engaging with the scientific side, which this thread is about; and which is the ultimate argument against the bigots. :banghead:
That's just silly. It's not necessarily cut and dry like that.
Some people are born murderous - like psychopaths. Some people choose to murder, but aren't psychopaths.
Some people who steal are kleptomaniacs. It doesn't mean that all people who steal are kleptomaniacs.
Some people who have psychiatric problems are schizophrenic. But not all psychiatric problems are schizophrenic.
Some people are gay. Some people choose to dabble for whatever reason - but it doesn't necessarily make them gay.
It seems bloody patently obvious that being gay isn't a choice, and I think the point about the type of choice it's supposed to be being completely unclear is also a really good one. I mean, how does one "choose" to love or desire someone, male or female? That's surely not what love or lust is.
Sadly I also agree that evidence like this allows decent liberal people to support their views with yet more facts that bigots can write off without ever bothering to consider them.