Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

[Pattern-chaser]

Please don't trivialise my argument by dismissing it with a 'joke', ignoring - and distracting from - the serious points being discussed. Thanks.

Please don't tell me what posts to write, and please don't act as if your brillaint posts are sacrosanct and, like holy scripture, immune from ridicule. I know philosophy form is, in general, a humorless place, but I don't see the harm in an occasional joke. Thanks.

There is a big difference, I think, between a courteous request and an instruction on "what to write".

My posts are rarely "brillaint", nor are they presented as "sacrosanct".

There is plenty of room for humour in philosophy too, but perhaps not when it is used to deliberately devalue or derail the subject of another post?

The point I was making - a simple one, and on-topic - has now been sidelined and forgotten. I ask nicely: please don't do this. Thank you.

[Ecurb]

?

The point I was making - a simple one, and on-topic - has now been sidelined and forgotten. I ask nicely: please don't do this. Thank you.

And I asked nicely, too. But you did it again anyway. That's OK, though. You can post however you want, as far as I'm concerned.

To address your post directly, neither gender, hair color, nor height is unaffected by the environment. Japanese Americans are considerably taller (on average) than Japanese (even more so 70 years ago). Why? Because "nurture" affects height just as "nature" does. Diet, health care, etc. are important factors in height. Even if someone doesn't dye his or her hair, hair can be bleached by the sun, and turns gray as we age. As you recognize in the last sentence of your post, gender is no longer necessarily assigned by genetics or at birth. So your supposedly serious post was filled with mistakes. Also, your post made no attempt at argument or discussion. You simply stated your opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but if it prompts an attempt at humor, I can't see how that derails any discussion.

[Greatest I am]

@Greatest I am

Thanks for your reply and I did think that you were probably coming from a positive approach towards gay people. I am also thinking a bit differently towards your question. One way of viewing it is if people think God created gay people it should be about tolerance rather than rejection. I guess I struggled with the thread because I have come across so many religious fundamentalists with all the rhetoric of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Another issue is how LGBTIQ+ issues correspond with ideas about reincarnation. If there is any truth of reincarnation it would mean that 'souls' may have certain births in both genders and would explain why people are gay or have gender identity problems. Of course, it may all just be a part of nature, with genetics and hormones, and a mixture of socialisation. After all, homosexuality is also observed in the animal kingdom.

There is one interesting but very sad story which has been important in sexology, and discussed within sociology. There were 2 twins and when circumcised, there was an accident and 1 of the town's penis was destroyed. A medical decision was made to raise this boy as a girl and 'she' was given hormones and surgery. This case was for many years used to support the idea that gender is not fixed and as a basis for interventions to correct intersex children surgically. However, it beca he was still masculine looking, identified as male and eventually chose to live as male. He went on to write a book but unfortunately committed suicide. However, it is not clear if the gender issue was the only factor leading to this because there were family problems and the other twin brother was mentally unwell, diagnosed with schizophrenia. But, the point which is shown is that gender identity is biological and it also makes sense to think that sexual orientation has a biological basis as well.
[/qGreatest I am[/menGreatest I am

I do not like reincaGreatest I am
Regards
DL

[Terrapin Station]

Re there being rational, good, compelling reasons to do x, when that's the case, but where a choice is possible, we can by whim, or perversity, or irrationality, or in a desire to demonstrate that we can choose otherwise, etc. make the choice contrary to the rational, good, compelling etc. reasons to do x and do not-x instead.

The whole point is that when we're talking about belief, this isn't the case (at least not for me--if it's the case for someone else, I'd be interested in learning about it). We can't by whim, or perversity, etc. simply choose to believe something different than we'd normally believe at a given point, given the exact same information, etc. where we therefore believe it.

That's not like something like deciding to jump off the roof of your house. You can think, "Man that would be a really bad idea, I have no good reasons for that, etc., but just to demonstrate that I can make a choice to do something that I have no good reasons for, I'm going to jump," and then you can jump and that's that. You've taken the other option against all better judgment.

Well, belief isn't like that. You can't say, "I'm going to demonstrate that I can believe that it's a better choice to jump off the roof simply by making that choice" and then believe it. Whatever you're prone to believe at point x, given the information you have, given the way your particular brain works, etc. is something you can't help but believe, and it's simply not possible to choose to believe something else and then believe it. Belief doesn't work that way.

We've derailed the thread long enough. As I wrote earlier, your case would be stronger if you said, "I know what I know, and it's not a choice." In the case of "belief" -- look at a coin toss. You might call "heads" because you believe the coin will come up heads. You might (with the same knowledge) CHOOSE, suddenly, to change your call to tails. I'd suggest that the same is true of many "beliefs" that are highly questionable. People have doubts about God. Although the information on which they base their decision doesn't change, sometimes they claim to believe, sometimes they claim not to. That's because they have doubts in both directions. "Belief" (unlike knowing) suggests such uncertainty, and even in cases where one's guess as to the likelihood of the belief being well-founded is 90%/10%, the same principle holds true as on the coin flip. After all, none of us is certain about anything. So we CHOOSE to believe those things in which the liklihood of them being true is the greatest. The notion that nobody can change his beliefs suggests that beliefs imply 100% certainty. If they do not, doubt creeps in, and we choose whether or not to honor it.

Again, if you're saying that you personally make a choice for some beliefs, give me an example of one.

[Terrapin Station]

I've been screwing this discussion up, by the way, in that I've been following you as you lead me on wild goose chases. You didn't answer this:

"If it's not possible for you to choose to believe that the Earth is flat, given the exact same information you have at point x, then how are you picking between two or more alternatives?"

[Terrapin Station]

Oops the above was meant for Ecurb

[LuckyR]

For those of us who view sexual preference as a spectrum, what makes an individual a homosexual (or a heterosexual, for that matter)? Is it a list of partners slept with? I don't think so. There are plenty of homosexuals, without a bisexual nature who nonetheless slept with women in order to "pass" before they came out. So if one's sexual orientation is NOT the list of partners, then it must be one's internal attraction whether it is acted upon or not.

This fits nicely with the spectrum concept. I don't personally believe in the choice idea, which as I mentioned is central to western religion's view on the topic. Since I am heterosexual, I cannot choose to be homosexual and I have every reason to believe that homosexuals feel identically the same. The scientific researchers are slowly gathering data that points to sexual orientation being nature, ie not a choice. Having said that, are there individual cases where a heterosexual was seduced, or persuaded to have a homosexual fling that ended up being a one off? Of course, but I would not count that person as a homosexual just because they had an ultimately unsatisfying experimental fling.

If sexual preference is a spectrum (as you and I both believe) then isn't it possible that one's choice to "present" as either gay or straight might influence your future desires? I don't know if this is true -- but it's a possibility. If a naturally bisexual man has sex only with other men, and likes it, and commits to same-sex relationships, isn't it likely that his desire for heterosexual affairs will diminish (if not cease)? After all, his sexual urges are being satisfied. I suppose straight married people still lust after others -- but their lust is probably diminished by the fullfilling sex they are already having.

I agree situations as you describe happen routinely, though the bisexual who never has or later appreciates heterosexual excounters, by my understanding is still bisexual (even though they practiced exclusively as a homosexual).

[mystery]

one of the things that very often happens is that a person that identifies as homosexual, will occasionally allow or perform in a heterosexual way. as none of us can read minds to know how and why we can only know that it happens. especially men do this, as women will give trust because of homosexual identification of the man. later they end up having a heterosexual encounter. it's not uncommon for gay men to have a higher count of female partners than straight men do.

we have chemicals, hormones, and biology nested into this topic. for sure those that try to change themself in these ways use those tools. so one angle is to understand how and why those chemicals are only presented in the amount that they are and not more or less. many have proven that by increasing and or decreasing one or several of them the internal feelings and external presentation can be adjusted.

[Ecurb]

I've been screwing this discussion up, by the way, in that I've been following you as you lead me on wild goose chases. You didn't answer this:

"If it's not possible for you to choose to believe that the Earth is flat, given the exact same information you have at point x, then how are you picking between two or more alternatives?"

If an NBA team has first "choice" in the draft, and young Lebron James is available, they cannot do otherwise than pick James. Does that mean that the word "choice" is inappropriate?

[Terrapin Station]

I've been screwing this discussion up, by the way, in that I've been following you as you lead me on wild goose chases. You didn't answer this:

"If it's not possible for you to choose to believe that the Earth is flat, given the exact same information you have at point x, then how are you picking between two or more alternatives?"

If an NBA team has first "choice" in the draft, and young Lebron James is available, they cannot do otherwise than pick James. Does that mean that the word "choice" is inappropriate?

Nope. You need to answer the question I'm asking you. I'm not following you to something else until you answer.

Can you answer the question I asked please?

[Ecurb]

Nope. You need to answer the question I'm asking you. I'm not following you to something else until you answer.

Can you answer the question I asked please?

So I "need to" answer your questions, but you won't answer mine? Isn't that a tricky style of interlocution!!

It's not possible for me to believe that the Earth is flat. This is simply because I DON'T believe the Earth is flat. It's not possible for me to do anything that I don't do. This is obvious. It's not possible to turn left if you turn right. Yet (as I've explained many times) we still say, "I chose to turn left."

Go back to my original post about this issue. Your mistake is that you misunderstand the word "choice". It means a conscious decision of picking between alternatives. There are some alternatives so unattractive that it is not possible to choose them -- nonetheless, they exist, and the word "choice" is appropriate. Is it possible for flat earthers to believe the Earth is a globe? Well, they don't believe it. So it's impossible. Still, they could believe it if they chose to. Their belief in a flat Earth is a choice.

[JackDaydream]

I don't know what has happened in this thread. It has movied away from the topic of nature and nurture and homosexuality entirely. What on earth has discussion on choosing to believe that the earth is flat to do with the question? Do you think that you would be better starting a thread on this. I keep getting messages because I have written on the thread but as the plot is completely lost I think that I am about to stop reading any further.

[Terrapin Station]

So I "need to" answer your questions, but you won't answer mine? Isn't that a tricky style of interlocution!!

Take turns. Answer mine. Then I'll show you how easy it is to simply, directly answer a question after you do. Keep it to one issue per post.

It's not possible for me to believe that the Earth is flat. This is simply because I DON'T believe the Earth is flat. It's not possible for me to do anything that I don't do. This is obvious. It's not possible to turn left if you turn right. Yet (as I've explained many times) we still say, "I chose to turn left."

Oy vey, dude.

Again, is it possible for you at this moment, given the information you have, to either choose "I will believe the Earth is flat" and then actually believe it, or "I will believe the Earth isn't flat," and then actually believe it? So no difference in anything other than your choice.

I didn't ask anything like, "Is it possible for you do be in some state that you're not presently in?" Fer chrissakes. Stop being a dishonest participant here and just answer the damn question.

[Ecurb]

So I "need to" answer your questions, but you won't answer mine? Isn't that a tricky style of interlocution!!

Take turns. Answer mine. Then I'll show you how easy it is to simply, directly answer a question after you do. Keep it to one issue per post.

It's not possible for me to believe that the Earth is flat. This is simply because I DON'T believe the Earth is flat. It's not possible for me to do anything that I don't do. This is obvious. It's not possible to turn left if you turn right. Yet (as I've explained many times) we still say, "I chose to turn left."

Oy vey, dude.

Again, is it possible for you at this moment, given the information you have, to either choose "I will believe the Earth is flat" and then actually believe it, or "I will believe the Earth isn't flat," and then actually believe it? So no difference in anything other than your choice.

I didn't ask anything like, "Is it possible for you do be in some state that you're not presently in?" Fer chrissakes. Stop being a dishonest participant here and just answer the damn question.

I answered your question. Now I'm done responding.

[Ecurb]

I don't know what has happened in this thread. It has movied away from the topic of nature and nurture and homosexuality entirely. What on earth has discussion on choosing to believe that the earth is flat to do with the question? Do you think that you would be better starting a thread on this. I keep getting messages because I have written on the thread but as the plot is completely lost I think that I am about to stop reading any further.

The original question expanded to "nurture, nature, God, or 'choice'." So the discussion became about what is the nature of "choice". I don't think that's so strange (although I admit that Terrapin an my discussion went nowhere, and resoved nothing).