Quote:
Originally Posted by kramus
This is a good point to introduce the field of epigenetics for anyone who hasn't heard about it yet; "epigenetics is the study of changes in gene activity that do not involve alterations to the genetic code but still get passed down to at least one successive generation".
Here's an interesting introductory article.
I'm not saying environmental changes in an embryo somehow switch on the gayness in a person. But I want to point out that DNA is more complex than we think, and our current understanding is just that, what we currently understand. So genes are permanent, but their expression can change. This change can also be inherited. Mysteriouser and mysteriouser, eh?
My understanding of XX/XY is that these chromosomes determine how the physical sexuality of an organism is expressed. There may be a preponderance of behaviours associated with physical sexuality (ie females tend to mate w males & vice versa) but they are not absolutes.
Sexuality is a very complex set of behaviours. Much more so in animals than in plants, I believe, because in animals there is a brain which changes according to learned responses as well as following the template laid out by the genes of the animals inherited DNA. You will find evidence of "homosexual" activity in pretty well every branch of the animal kingdom. I'm not sure these animals are choosing to behave this way. It may be something more than choice.
Another thing to be clear on. A persons' actions do not necessarily express their sexuality. A man who has sex with a woman is not automatically and for evermore straight, and a man who has sex with a man is not necessarily gay from that point onward. Of course there are the cases of people who permanently refrain from any sexual contact - they are not necessarily neuters. There is circumstance and context to take into account for all kinds of sexual orientation questions and actions. Prison sex is not the same as sex when there is freedom of choice. Nor is sex within an arranged marriage, or indeed within any constrained social contract setting.
That all said, I feel pretty sure there is an underlying mechanism that is often expressed in homosexuals as the "gay voice", the "gay walk" and "gay sensibility". Not always, and not cut and dried either, but often enough to make me say hmmmmmm.
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone with an article! Thank you very much, I appreciate it, the information was very interesting and informative!
This article mostly adressed how chemicals can change an organism's physical appearance/expression of physical traits (and the way a person
acts sexually cannot really be characterized as a physical trait). Chemicals can make your cells act cancerously and they will form tumors......which is neccessarily not what cells are supposed to do. Chemicals can do a whole lot of things to organisms and cause them to misbehave, I don't deny that fact. However, chemicals won't alter DNA even if it changes how a cell acts or how a person appears, no?
I agree about there being what we would call "homosexual activity" in the animal kingdom, definately a proven fact. It's no suprise though, I mean, if an animal is horny, it's usually going to do something to satisfy itself. Like I said before, a dog will hump a couch or a person if it's horny. Both beasts and humans are intelligent and have free will, but I think the "something more" that you mentioned may be the difference between our concious and the concious of an animal? An animal that's been labeled "homosexual" will still mate with the opposite sex though....or will they
? Anyway, sexual behavior is really not that complex. The concept of Love, on the other hand, has been complicated (especially since people identify love with feelings of desire, lust, fantasy, sexual excitement/attraction/satisfaction).
You also mentioned
"A persons' actions do not necessarily express their sexuality. A man who has sex with a woman is not automatically and for evermore straight, and a man who has sex with a man is not necessarily gay from that point onward." So you're saying that a person's sexuality is not determined by their actions. Based on your reasoning, a person's actions are separate from what they are (which still leaves room for free will/choice). If sexuality is not determined by a person's actions, then how is it determined (is it determined by sexual attraction alone)? In my oppinion, sexual orientation is just another way to label, or a means to justify/condemn why people have sex with/are sexually attracted to certain people. Sexuality is simple; if it makes your senses feel good (and if it's irresistable), then why not
You also stated,
"My understanding of XX/XY is that these chromosomes determine how the physical sexuality of an organism is expressed. There may be a preponderance of behaviours associated with physical sexuality (ie females tend to mate w males & vice versa) but they are not absolutes." Based on your reasoning, if there was a supposed "sexual orientation gene" (which to our current understanding, there isn't), then it also won't absolutely determine a person's sexual orientation (or how they will act sexually). Therefore, this still shows that sexuality is a choice. A person can be a male or a female, but they can act however they want (or in some cases, act how they have been directly/indirectly influenced). The manner in which a person carries themselves, dresses, or talks is not neccessarily pre-determined. There is no "acting" male (or female), you either
are or you're
not. A girl can act "butch" but that doesn't mean she's a lesbian/a man. A man can act feminine, but that doesn't make him gay/a woman. A transvestite (or is it transgender? correct me if I'm wrong) can surgically change their genitals and take hormones, but the fact is, they are either XX or XY. You can't really deny that...oppinions?
You also said that
"Prison sex is not the same as sex when there is freedom of choice." I agree. In the case of rape, one person makes the choice to rape another person (and rape is wrong because this action infringes upon a person's freedom). "Gay" or "Straight" people can also choose to have mutual sex with their prison mate as well. People also cannot use the reasoning, "I'm so horny and there's no one of the opposite sex around, I had no choice other than to do something sexual with someone of the same sex."
Sex without love is immoral.....marriage without sex is not marriage....sex without marriage is impossible....a marriage without love is pointless....love without freedom is not love. Oppinions?