Libertarians Unite

[Racetyme]

famer, I am sorry about the frasing on my post, I wasn't specifically referring to anyone, it just happened to come out that way. Anyway, since you have said that for you it is a choice I don't see any point in continuing to fight this. There is no way I can tell you that you are biologically predertermined, because, as has been pointed out, I am not you. However, at least we can agree that for most people, sexuality is biologically predetermined. I'll let you have your segment of the population.

[Nick]

Well don't completely give up.

In my opinion (I find myself having to continually restate this, even though anything I post is obviously 'in my opinion'... who else's opinion would I be making?), we don't know enough about this to say that it's biologically determined, a choice, or sometimes one or the other. Agreeing on the latter is just a compromise to stop an argument, I don't want you guys to think that we've settled that you guys agreed on the truth of the matter.

[formerly known as hf]

(I find myself having to continually restate this, even though anything I post is obviously 'in my opinion'... who else's opinion would I be making?)

ditto - my posts are my opinion - hence I am not trying to give 'the answer' or 'the truth' - just that I think 'the answer' is a halfway point.
(if there ever can be anything as 'the truth' or a universailty (see my post on that other thread...))

[Nick]

(if there ever can be anything as 'the truth' or a universailty (see my post on that other thread...))

You know, the quality of your references has declined since the Environmental debate.

[Racetyme]

I think that we have agreed that in, at the bare minimum, a majority of homosexuals were predetermined to be such.

[Stan]

Holy cow! I thought I was the controversial standout here.

Hey, my pointer finger is longer than my ring finger *looks around*.

*Yells to wife* Honey, I think there's something I haven't told you...well I didn't even know myself until I looked at my hand, but...

Racetyme, just teasing you man.

[Nick]

If by we you're including me, you're wrong.

[Racetyme]

Well, I still don't believe it myself, but I see no effective way to counter farmer's argument, since he has admitted he is bisexual and it is his choice. I could go on and say he was predetermined to be bisexual, but farmer will just say that I am not him and that he knows for sure it is a choice.

[Stan]

Nick, drink a beer.

[Stan]

Or, smoke a joint.

[Nick]

Well, I still don't believe it myself, but I see no effective way to counter farmer's argument, since he has admitted he is bisexual and it is his choice. I could go on and say he was predetermined to be bisexual, but farmer will just say that I am not him and that he knows for sure it is a choice.

Neither of you can know for sure, though. Even if farmer thinks he knows because well, it is him, he does not. Or that you think you know because of 'scientific studies', you do not.

He says he made the choice to be bisexual, it is in my opinion he was already bisexual, the only choice involved was choosing whether or not to openly live by that lifestyle, and to eventually accept his sexuality.

I don't think people are born wanting to have homosexual relationships, for instance, but I think that gay/bi people eventually have to realise their sexuality is different from the majority of people at some point.

Unless farmer is experienced in time travel, he cannot tell me with definity that he could have chosen the other option (the real requisite of a choice) and lived it out. That he could just... be gay, or straight, or asexual even.

Sure, it is possible to be gay/bi, but then never admit it to anyone else. Does that mean you are straight? Nope. So you can choose to be open or not, but I don't believe you can choose whether or not you are.

[AoM]

I'm a determinist. So right off the bat, that's a conflict of philosophy between me and farmer. Which is all right.

That being said, I don't believe that everything is determined solely by one's physical makeup. A person's biology is one of millions of factors (although it is a very important one) that will determine the course of events. So I agree that there is both nurture and nature and I disagree with Racetyme's earlier assertion that biology 100% determines what a person's sexuality will be at age 16.

A more accurate way to defend the science is to say that biology can determine a person's propensity for a particular sexual orientation. Or, rather, a person's propensity to be at a certain spot on the sexuality spectrum, as some have come to look at sexuality as not merely a homo or hetero axis. Farmer seems to be a good example of someone who is not at either end.

There is good science, and there is bad science, and there is the distorting lens of the media always messing things up. There are two great frontiers in science: exploring the Universe, and exploring the human brain. We may never truly and conclusively understand either of them, but we can look at them and take into account the "hints" that science leaves us. And what we have seen so far is that there are differences, albeit small, between heterosexual and homosexual brains. We're not at the point where we can point to a specific area and say "eureka! that one's straight as an arrow," but we do know that there is something going on differently.

But think about how relatively new the study of the brain is in the scope of human history... we have barely even begun to scrape the vast unknown quantities of knowledge there to be found. I doubt this debate will be answered before you or I are six feet under.

[Racetyme]

Well, seeing as I don't plan on ever dieing, I think I will live this one out.

[formerly known as hf]

I agree, yet disagree, with a lot of AoM's (and other's) standpoints.

I'm not a determinist - but I'm not totally anti-determinism either.

To say that humans have somehow escaped determinism is just silly, it's tantamount to the religious beliefs that place humans as something other and above other animals, what with a 'soul', 'spirit', some kind of un-tangible 'mind'.
These are concepts I deeply disagree with. We are but animals, we are but a genetically produced physical body, with a similarly gentically produced brain and brain functions.

I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of how we are - especially physical attributes, but also personality, intelligence, persona etc. etc. is linked to genetic pre-disposition.
But the extent to which this is true, I believe is only small. I don't see it as the 'potentiality' (a commonly theorised conception of determinism) is determined by genetic make-up - simply as that suggests that we are unable to move beyond some kind of barrier formed by our genes.

I see it as the building blocks, upon to which we build our own persona, our own personality, our own intelligence.
If we so desire, if the contexts of upbringing, social life etc. determine that we may want to be something other than what would fit with any form of genetic profile - I see that as a possibility, and far from an impossible one.

Hence I agree that attributes such as sexuality, intelligence (or at least the 'ways that we learn' (i.e: photographic of monologue) out-goingness etc. are to an extent pre-determined.

But, personally, I see that 'extent' is very limited - I would see issues such as upbringing (especially the first 3 years of life) family background, cultural backgrounds etc. etc. as having far much more of a profound and deeper impact on who someone is.

EDIT: And I wholeheartedly agree with the distorting lens of the media in relation to science

[Racetyme]

This post is going to get me yelled at, and I am going to get called racist, a bigot, and all sorts of other things. Regardless of that, everything in this post is true, no matter how you feel about it. Intelligence is very much genetic. I am in the most highly regarded program in my state, it is a world-wide education program, and is considered the foremost in the world. In this program most of the people have wealthy, intelligent parents. I don't see this as coincidence. It has to be a genetic connection, those who are rich, and therefore typically intelligent, have intelligent offspring. Many of those who's parents are not well off or intelligent have already been kicked out of this program. There has to be a link.