That’s why I tried to draw the distinction between “hypothesis” and “theory” earlier in this thread – a good scientific theory is not “theoretical” but among the most firmly established pieces of knowledge we have. Most of what Fuel has come up with are hypotheses, which have promptly been debunked by people with evidence. But he’s progressing – trying to refine his hypotheses so that they constitute a better match to the data he’s been given to date. (BTW, I discussed your “orangered” hypotheses in some detail, although I’d much prefer that one of our knowledgeable gay men handle the discussion – I am, after all, speaking as an informed third party, and don’t have the gut reaction that they do – which is sometimes useful, but more often lacks the viscerality of “Maybe it’s your opinion, but it’s my life that you’re fucking with!” (close paraphrase of a comment by a gay man to a particularly noxious troll in a thread about a year ago).
remember, the consensus among the scientists is that one is homosexual bcause of genetics AND experiences. well, i am here to propose that experiences are more than meets the eye as far as sexual preference. is this absurd? NO. so please stop acting like it’s absurd to propose this.
Okay. Here’s the deal, Fuel.
You now have three theories in this thread, none of which make any sense, and all of which contradict each other in some fundamental way. If you want me to reply to you again, please come up with a concise summary of your argument. Please make sure it’s at least reasonably comprehensible. Otherwise, I see no point in talking any further with someone who doensn’t see the value of researching the subject they’re expostulating upon.
In other words, what the hell are you talking about?
Oh, and if Fuel’s principal is reading this, by any happy chance, his English teacher badly needs to be re-educated, and/or fired.
you have got to be kidding about this english and writing crap. do you really think i am giving my grammar a second thought other than making my writing understandable? i happen to undestand grammar and writing VERY well and have always had compliments on my writing through high school and college. you know why? because i wrote for good grades in a classroom, not on a discussion board. idiot.
you have some problems if you can’t decipher my discussion board writing style. i’m not gonna debate just how bad or good my writing is, but if you can’t understand at least what i am saying, you simply have a mental block or do not care enough to take the necessary time to read it. you have such a closed mind that nothing short of your opinion is understandable to you.
as for the subject at hand, i see right through you. that you are closed minded, UNLIKE ME. you didn’t even see my last post, WHICH WAS MY SUMMARY ARGUMENT!!! “the consensus among the scientists is that one is homosexual bcause of genetics AND experiences. i am here to propose that experiences are more than meets the eye as far as sexual preference.”
I WILL TRANSLATE THIS INTO EASY GRAMMAR FOR YOU MR VISIBLE IN CAPS SO THAT YOU CAN READ IT EASILY: **GENETICS IS PART OF THE REASON FOR EXISTENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY. “EXPERIENCES” IS THE OTHER PART. I PROPOSE THAT “EXPERIENCES” IS, OH, SAY, 75-85% OF THE PUZZLE. THE REASONING BEHIND THIS PROPOSITION IS A SIMPLE FACT: THAT HUMAN BEINGS ADAPT CONSCIOUSLY AND UNCONSCIOUSLY, PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY, TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS. **
is this easy enough to undestand, MR. Visible? can you stretch your mind out of it’s solid titanium cage to at least comprehend the “other sides’” argument? this is as general and basic as i can get here, so how about we start from the beginning, listing simple facts as we go, such as this one. and we’ll all be as objective as possible. (the statments from homosexuals here have made an impact on my thinking by the way) oh, and i’ll pay a little more attention to my writing, starting… now.
again, in the absence of medical proof for either side, i must default to logic and psychology/human behavior discussions for the time being, if you all don’t mind. 
While there may be no “medical proof for either side,” the side that says genetics plays a big role has a lot of evidence backing it up (especially many twins studies). What evidence, besides anecdotal, backs up your side?
Just curious.
JOhn.
that’s what i intend to find out. i’m just curious too.
Not to hijack, but people will judge you based on your use of the language, especially on the Internet. If the only reason you worry about using clear and correct English is grades, then you’ve managed to miss the entire point of learning proper English in the first place.
Of course, if all of your ideas are as poorly researched and presented as this one, then you’re right. Even an absolutely correct and proper medium means nothing unless there’s a comprehensible message being carried.
Okay, so far. Many have theorized the same. However remember this remains unproven in any instance or combination. Nor, even if this turns out to be the case for most, would it necessarily imply it is the same for everybody. No doubt you understand this, but it is best to add an appropriate qualifier here so people are aware that you are cognizant of these issues. Saves debating wear and tear.
Much weaker. The first part of your statement, that I commented on above, is general enough that most can accept it as a reasonable possibility and debate it within that context. However when you start citing numbers you leave yourself open to demands as to how you arrived at those numbers. Since the answer here seems to be “I plucked them out of the air”, it damages your position. Even if we eliminate the ‘75-80%’ part of your argument and amend it to something a bit vaguer, like “I believe that nurture, rather than nature is the single biggest influence on the development of human sexuality”, the basis for which you make this argument, at least as stated above, is still a bit weak. It is not a strong argument to say “humans are highly adaptable, therefore nurture dominates our development”, which is what you seem to be saying. I could be in perfect agreement that humans are extremely adaptable and still think the majority of our responses are hard-wired at birth - There is no contradiction in holding both of those views.
So at least based on your summation, I’m afraid your argument fails to convince.
- Tamerlane
So, we’re expected to:[ul]
[li]Decipher what you mean when you’re too lazy to even capitalize correctly.[/li][li]Pry some sort of reasonable hypothesis out of your convoluted prose.[/li][li]Find some kind of evidence to support your theory, because you’re too lazy to go find it for yourself.[/ul][/li]And all this while being insulted.
Interesting approach.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Fuel said:
It’s your choice if you want to purposely make your messages hard to understand. However, it is not your choice as to whether you call people names in Great Debates. That is against the rules and will cause no end of problems for you. So I would strongly suggest you not do it again.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
How about the fact that about 50% of the gay twins in the twin study are not gay? Consider that identical twins generally share much of the same environment as well. Which would seem to put the influence of envornment at over 50%.
OTOH, one of the websites I saw claimed that there were genes that a person could have but whose activation is purely random. IOW, they were claiming that in the case of these twins, both twins had the “gay gene” but it was randomly activated in one twin and not the other. Perhaps you can comment on this.
in case you didn’t realize it, i have rightfully taken your attack on my writing as an insult. so i just gave one back. i didn’t realize that that was against the rules though…sorry., won’t happen again.
do you mean to tell me that you couldn’t understand my last summary judgement because it was all in caps or because the first word in my sentences isn’t capped? o my gosh.
i came to the 75-85% numbers by saying “oh, say…” meaning, ummmm it is impossible to quantify what level this is, so i will attempt to just make it a concept number such as oh, say 75-85%, in order to get a point across. shoot me.
ok, enough of this.
Fact: Most latin people enjoy latin food. Is it because it’s in their genes, or is it because they have been conditioned to like it because of society?
Fact: Some men have sexual preferences for asian women. Some have preferences for nubian women. Some latin women. Is this genetic, or was it conditioned because of said persons’ psychological experiences?
Fact: Many people like rock and roll. Many prefer jazz. Many prefer classical. Is this genetic or conditioned by soceity?
Of course, these scenarios are not the same as the subject at hand. However, answering yes to the conditioned question for all these scenarios establishes a tendency for human beings to be preferentially molded by their experiences. Now, since experiences influence so many, pretty much all aspects of our lives, the question to this debate becomes: >>>>Is it logical to establish a link between these types of not-so-life-changing preferences and sexual preference?<<<< What do you guys think? Again I apologize to Mr. Visible for resorting to name calling. It will not happen again.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that environment accounts for “over 50%?”
I will also point out that “living in the same household with the same parents” is NOT equal to “same environmental experiences.” Everyone’s different, everyone leads different lives, and everyone is influenced differently by the same environmental situations. This would explain, for example, why many twins (at least the ones that I know of) may look the same, but are very, very different personalities.
No, but we will shoot you down. Pulling figures out of your butt without anything to back them up isn’t the way you debate, but it does make you look like a fool.
Maybe, maybe not. Human sexuality is something at the core of our being, and relating it to something trivial like what kind of food we like is kind of insulting. But I won’t say it isn’t out of the question, IMHO.
And, again, no one is arguing with you that genetics and environment likely play roles in determining our sexual orientation. What we’re arguing is how much each is involved. And it seems to me, by both research and personal experiences of gay people, that genetics plays a much larger role. You have yet to give me any evidence that it doesn’t.
Esprix
The problem, Fuel, is that the life experiences of homosexuals are as varied as it is for hets. Why would similar life experiences turn one twin gay and one straight if not for the inborn tendancy. My early life conditioning towards homosexuality was exclusively negative. My church taught it was a mortal sin, my parents said it was reprehensible, my peers mercilessly taunted anyone they perceived as gay. So I was most assuredly “conditioned” to be straight. And I lived that way until I was 32 years old after being married for 7 years and having a son. Despite all that conditioning and continued negative attitudes towards homosexuality that surrounds me, I AM gay. I didn’t choose it, and could only deny it for so long.
Because of the implication that the identical twins of gays who did not share environments (e.g given up for adoption) would be gay less than 50% of the time.
Well they are also the same age and likely move in the same social circles. Of course this is not totally the same environment, but certainly quite a large chunk of it.
Evidence, but hardly conclusive.
But in point of fact I have no opinion on the issue one way or another, as I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to convince me. About the only things I am reasonably sure of is that, 1) there is some complex interaction between genetics and environment going on, and 2) it is almost certainly not an identical interaction from person to person and that it is likely this includes the amount of influence of any given factor ( i.e. genetics may play a more important role in some than others ), and finally 3) that there seems to be an abundance of anecdotal evidence ( which in toto I consider persuasive ) that for most who have a strong, near-exclusive preference for one sex or another, it is not a very malleable preference and seems to set early.
Otherwise, I have no dog in this hunt. In fact, considering the complexity of and extreme individual variation in human sexuality, I’d venture a guess that a truly definitive answer to this question may be impossible.
The reason I posted ( and I should have been more clear on this ) was to make a specific comment on fuel’s summation, since he mentioned he was looking for criticism. So my post wasn’t intended as an counter-argument per se, but rather a criticism of fuel’s approach and logic, which I think is flawed. As I said, I found his summation in particular, as I quoted it, to not hold up very well.
My apologies for the confusion :).
- Tamerlane
I’m sorry, where are you getting this? The survey said nothing about whether the twins grew up together or not (at least that I could find). I think you’re making an assumption about the study that may not be true. Furthermore, I don’t see this implication; it’s been my understanding that the 50% figure stands for twins regardless of whether or not they were raised together or seperate, but I’d have to find cites for that.
What I would think would matter more would be their reactions to their environment, not the environment itself per se. I’ve seen identical twins who were 100% opposite personality-wise, yet grew up together in the same home and social environments.
Esprix
OK, but I was hoping for a comment on my second paragraph. In greater detail (from religioustolerance.org):
I see that I may have misremembered when I said that it was random - on further review it now looks like they may be just saying environmental trigger to a genetic factor.
In any event, I don’t know anything about this stuff, and was hoping that you (or some other educated person) would comment.