Once a woman gets pregnant, more heterosexual sex isn’t going to get her any pregnanter.
Actually, the bible prohibits only sex between two men. It expressly permits threesomes involving two women as long as the women are not sisters, and it is silent on two women together with no man. I don’t know whether the writers of the bible never conceived of sex that didn’t have a penis somewhere, or if it was a “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” thing, that when a man had a number of wives, they kept one another satisfied because clearly the man couldn’t do it all himself, but no one wanted to admit that, so it didn’t get committed to writing.
Of course, there’s a discrepancy between the times when the bible was used as scripture, when monogamy was mostly the norm for other than maybe kings, and the times being written about, when any man had as many wives as he could afford.
But still, there were plenty of times when men were away, and women were alone together, even during times when people were pretty much monogamous.
I have to add a small qualifier to this, I realize. The rare process known as “superfecundation” means that, yes, a woman who just become pregnant (as in, just within the last few hours) who has heterosexual sex with the same or a different partner can get “pregnanter” in the sense of becoming pregnant with a second zygote which is the fraternal twin (or fraternal half-twin) of the first.
Though I do think the idea of gay propaganda is religion-driven bullshit, I’m quite surprised people here overwhelmingly deny the possibility of society/environment influencing person’s sexual orientation. It seems that scientific community is much less confident in this regards as they hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation.
What kind of social factors? There’s a Wikipedia article on environmental factors but there’s nothing very convincing over there. Like there’s an old hypothesis about close relationship with a mother (which seems to be statistically true) but it’s not clear whether it’s a reason (part of a reason) for a person becoming gay or a consequence of it.
Only 20%-50% of identical twins are both gays. Different studies produce different results but the idea is always the same: the correlation is at least order of magnitude higher than the percentage of gays among general population (so at least partly inherited effect is obvious) but at the same time it’s much less than 100%. The best explanation of this I was able to found was this ongoing research in epigenetics: Homosexuality ‘may be triggered by environment after birth'
Another interesting field for possible social factors in comparison of different cultures. But it’s complicated as too many variables are involved.
Don’t forget us people asking why we should be concerned about a person’s sexual orientation.
Seriously. Why?
Okay, let’s say your theory were true. How is it harmful for a child to somehow become gay?
I don’t, but then, I understand there are a lot of not-imprisoned people who claim to be straight while being very happy to have sex with someone of their same gender.
As far as I can tell, the people who think it’s bad for a child to become gay are trying to protect said child from people who think it’s bad for a child to become gay. i.e. themselves.
They care enough to try to protect the child from their own prejudices, but apparently not enough to drop the prejudices.
Weird.
If it was all about environment: exposure to gay films, tv, parades, societal acceptance and inclusiveness then wouldn’t such societies be all gay? Or at least predominantly gay? And yet that’s not happening.
Why is there any homosexuality at all in such repressive places as the Soviet Union? If it’s exposure to culture that causes it shouldn’t Russia be homo free. (Y’know like Putin claims it is!)
I’m thinking your own sexuality is less than ‘set in stone’, and THAT’S why you assume everyone else’s must be too.
How is it not self evident that we didn’t choose our sexuality? Did you need to have sex with both sexes before choosing which you were? Or did you just ‘know’, with 100% certainty? Do you believe you can be flipped? Through exposure to movies, tv, art, inclusiveness? Suddenly you think you’ll turn? If not, why would you project it must be so for others?
Your position is so beyond silly it’s very hard to take you at all seriously. You must be joking, right?
I don’t think people entirely deny environmental factors, but for the most part, we think they’re a minor influence and have more impact on behaviors than actual preference.
Of course, if you’re the sort that believes one gay encounter makes you gay, or places more emphasis on behavior than what’s going on inside the person, that’s what counts. And there are some people out there who think it’s preferable for a gay person to act straight no matter how miserable that makes the person in question.
Genetically identical twins are not even always the same hand dominant, and we’re pretty sure which hand you favor is down to brain structure. It turns out people with the same genetics are not, in fact, identical in body and behavior. We don’t know why that is, either.
Yes, environment probably does play a role, but not “gay propaganda”. The environmental factors might be pre-natal and in the womb environment, or some chemical affect on sperm. By the time a person is old enough to comprehend propaganda their sexuality is probably already set.
. The best explanation of this I was able to found was this ongoing research in epigenetics: Homosexuality ‘may be triggered by environment after birth'
Another interesting field for possible social factors in comparison of different cultures. But it’s complicated as too many variables are involved.
[/QUOTE]
There’re a lot of reasons to be concerned about sexual orientation. Let’s say it may cause harm to others. In case of homosexuality there were claims that due to relationships instability it may harm children. There were similar claims about HIV (gay disease, you know…). All those claims turned out to be false in case of homosexuality.
Bu let’s take pedophilia as another example of sexual orientation (I assume here it’s a sexual orientation while it’s still debatable). There’re reasons to be concerned, aren’t there? Unfortunately the way people are concerned about pedophiles is very inhumane pretty much everywhere besides Germany.
Whatever the relative environmental vs genetic causes for homosexuality, there’s no evidence that it’s controllable in any way by parents, or that lack of exposure to gay information and culture/media things (gay pride parades, TV shows with gay characters, etc.) make anyone more likely to be gay. The most obvious evidence for this is that children raised by gay parents are no more or less likely to be gay than other kids.
Nobody has ever assumed (at least in recent homophobic history) it’s caused only due “propaganda”. The idea here that “propaganda” can increase the amount of gays. And it’s technically true (discussed above) but that’s not a bad thing.
I believe you missed the point of what I’m doing here. Basically I’m perfecting my skill of proving this idea is wrong (and it is).
That’s a pretty poor argument. If something about your body is the same way it was since you remember it, it doesn’t mean you were born this way. There’s a possibility some things influenced you between your birth and the moment you realized you sexual orientation. There’re good points why “propaganda” has nothing to do about it but just neglecting this possibility is not the right way to go.
I’m serious. I’m very serious. I’m much more serious than I’d like to be. To make it more clear for you, here’s an example of people I communicate with on a regular basis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhE1rG7S44 I’m now planning an extremely risky adventure, so I do my best to get ready for any possible argument.
I’d really like to have this argument on my side but the science I found in this regards is very contradictory: http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000028 As I understand there’s still no good science on this topic covering enough people.
The article about epigenetics I provided tells about environmental influence after birth.
Any homophobe can answer something like “my son is 3 years old, he saw pride parade and now he thinks it’s okay to be gay, he is brainwashed by their propaganda” and your argument will not be very convincing for him.
“There were claims” is a really dumb argument.
If you have actual evidence that such “claims” have any bearing on reality, provide them. Otherwise, you are simply the sort of person who looks at “claims” by the Religious Far Right about matters they fail to understand or “claims” by the KKK and the Nazis regarding the value of humans with ancestry outside Northwestern Europe.
As to your attempt to associate homosexuality and pedophilia, that has long been demonstrated to be false, making it the same sort of ignorant “claim.”
My mother and aunt are in their 70s, have seen lots of pride parades, and the younger one is still a homophobe; she’s a lotsofthingsphobe, actually. Their mother thought that being gay was “strange”, but she’d been thinking that way before seeing her first pride parade: her father and brother were “theater people” and had gay friends (“theater people, you know… they’re all weird” “so your dad and your brother were weird?” “yep. Not that way, but they weren’t normal. I don’t think my dad ever went to bed before 3am unless there was a woman in it”).
Well, then, that’s the real argument: is it okay to be gay? If so, then there’s nothing wrong with a kid thinking it’s okay to be gay; and if someone wants to argue that it’s not, then have them make that case and reply to it.
I don’t want kids thinking it’s okay to be a thief or a murderer or a rapist – because, well, I don’t think it’s okay to be a thief or a murderer or a rapist; and, if asked, I’ll tell you why I don’t think it’s okay to be a thief or a murderer or a rapist.
Ask me about pedophiles and my answer is the same.
Ask me about gays and I’ll furrow my brow and think real hard and eventually reply “Wait – you said ‘gays’? Yeah, that’s – it is okay to be gay.”
Seriously? In what way did I provide any kind of link between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Agree. That’s the approach I eventually came to while talking with average Russian homophobes. You don’t prove it’s okay to be gay, it’s not working with those people. You just ask why a person hates/dislikes gays and then logically/scientifically destroy this argument (perfectly in a nice way so a person does not feel humiliated).