"Gaydar"
There is also the undeniable reality of "gaydar," which plays into both LGB commonality and the science behind all this. Many human beings -- gay, straight, or otherwise -- possess the ability to detect another's homosexuality from little more than a look or a feeling. Is it really that gay people, because of nurturing, have taken on certain roles that culture has taught them to adopt? I would say no, not by and large. I would suggest that it's much more a case of internal qualities -- a certain essence -- that ultimately cannot (and should not) be fully hidden by any sort of adopted affects or guards.
It's easy to write this off as cutesy point, but that doesn't mean the point is lacking in validity.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
1) Noone is born gay. You are born into a household that turns you gay (over nurchering mother and/coupled with little or no father firgure.
2) Noone bitches about straight people. Everyone bitches about gays. Gays should be shipped off to there own little island.
3) I win. You loose. Im right. Your wrong
1) There is no such word in the english language as "noone".
2) "their," not "there".
3) I think you meant "lose".
If this is winning, I'd hate to see what you consider defeat.
I will not countenance this argument, its evidence nor its method. This is an affront to the very concept of discourse.
There is no point to have validity... Your "argument" is tantamount to arguing for extrasensory perception. This argument does a violent injustice to the position that people are born gay.
You say there are three definitions for sexuality. There are probably twenty. The only theory that does not arouse contradiction, is the theory that homosexual behavior is a social deviance. The only common thread I found while questioning homosexuals, was that they had been homeless at fourteen.It is a deviance like safe cracking, drug use , one must be indoctrinated into a subculture.
Yes there are 3 definitions for sexuality, please provide an example of another if you think there are more.
Ok, so you say the "Only" theory that does not arouse contradiction is that homosexuals are an example of social deviance...
You are wrong on so many levels in so many ways it is quite disturbing. You are asserting that being homeless at 14 is a sufficient condition to be homosexual; however, I know of homosexuals who had a strong and healthy home and were never homeless and people who were homeless at 14 and are not homosexual.
As far as homosexuality being a deviance, that is merely an observation and not an argument nor evidence. It is true that in many cultures throughout history homosexual has been considered as a deviant behavior, you promote no argument by citing this. Furthermore, that theory does arouse contradiction... e.g., many comments and articles in this very thread...
It is not a sickness, there is no germ that causes it, no parental formulation.because it is latently there in all.The only thing wrong with it if one must use such language, is that it's socially maladjusted. It is in fact a deviance and this is the only description that does not arouse contradiction by trying to claim it is a disease, or a psychological construct,or anything that will not hold true. Deviance will hold true.and so will subculture, This is basic sociology,which the NY Times ought to have known when it claimed that homosexuality ( a foisted condition-- not latent)was caused by a brain deformation.
do you have an argument?
There is no germ that causes it is an argument, so is there is no formulatic childhood construct. It arises where men are isolated together. It is latent because we can all biologically perform it as in prison , army, those stuck on rafts. It is learned behavior. Nothing causes it, it is already there. It comes out in homosocial milieus, like the Catholic preisthood. Isolation from the mainstream, and exposure to it, cause it. Some childhood victims can't learn anything else as a sexual expression. Social deviance with subcultural indoctrination is the only theory that does not arouse contradiction.
How many homosexuals did you question before you reached this conclusion?
I ask because homosexuals that I know were not homeless at any age.
Only those I knew, four.This was not not sociologically responsible.I admit that.
How is this any different from the "learned" lie detection used in police interrogation ?
I honestly doubt the existence of gaydar. Personally, I can confidently say that I have little idea of who is gay and who is not—which has led to some hilarious misunderstandings—and the few research findings I have seen suggest that neither do most gay people, regardless of how confident they are in their abilities.
If you have some strong evidence to corroborate this point, I might reconsider. But, for now, it seems to be close kin to telepathy, which has no shortage of claimants but seldom stands up to empirical testing.
Hmmm . . . you didn't really respond to my post, but rather simply changed the topic. I am still wondering if you have anything of merit to back up the initial post on "gaydar." Otherwise, we should probably end this discussion here.
But thanks for your response . . .
I'm not the person who wrote the OP. I'm responding to elements within your post, not answering your questions addressed to the OP. I know the format on this board can be confusing at times, but check the poster's name, just beneath their post.
You took the time to respond to my post and so I engaged you on the issue. If you have nothing of merit to contribute, I would suggest, as I already have, that we end this thread of dicussion. If you would like to argue another topic, as you did above (that the "gay is a choice" side do not back up their statements with proof), then I would suggest posting on a different thread.
As I am looking at the two sides of the debate, I am disheartened by two things: 1) both sides are saying the same thing in a different way (sexuality is extremely complex) and 2) people do not really know how to argue. I would have to say that these two glaring problems seem more apparent on the YES side than on NO side. Especially because of the type of non-argument put forth in this post.
If the original poster would like to respond to my questions, I would be happy to engage that individual. Otherwise I am signing off on this thread, there is nothing of interest or merit here.
Thanks for your post and concern . . .
While the Yes side certainly presented some unscientific arguments, the No side presented nothing but unscientific arguments, though they trotted out a bit of pseudo-science, and inapplicable science mutilated in an attempt to make it serve their purpose.
If you wish to drop the argument, please feel free. But accusing one side of presenting a non-scientific argument in the face of nothing BUT non-science and religious pseudo-science from the other side strikes as a bit disingenuous.
You write that gaydar is an "undeniable reality."
I thought this forum was for scholarly and well-researched opinion, not mere sentiment. Why don't you show readers some facts and studies before posting an argument? Not sure if this kind of thing helps your position.
You conclude with a sentence that seems to be trying to squeak in an unproven and sentimental point by simply saying that it is not lacking in validity. Since when can we argue by simply making statements? Since when can we argue based on feeling alone?
Thanks for your post.
You object to arguments being made without solid scientific proof, and yet the "gay-is-a-choice" side of this discussion has pretty much zero in the way of valid, peer-reviewed scientific backup for their claims. When they DO cite a scientific study, careful review of their cite nearly always results in discovery that the study they cite did not prove anything approaching the claims they make, and generally was not even designed to test the hypothesis they are claiming it tested.
If you want to go after people for making non-scientifically-based claims, go after the people who continually spout religious pseudo-science to justify their continued harassment of gays.