Quinto is out of the closet

[chardman]

So, for starts, every human being's liver responds identically to all chemicals?

No. Because the balance of chemicals in every individual's liver is different. The chemicals themselves still have the same exact chemical properties, and interact in the same way, however. It is variances in their proportions to one another, from one individual to another, that accounts for the fact that no two individual will have the same exact cumulative responses to identical stimuli. Put simply, while "A" + "B" always equals "C", if an individual has a lower than normal level of "B" in his/her system, there won't be as much for "A" to interact with, and thus less "C" will be produced as a result. Got it?

 

[Maurice]

Didn't we just see a link to a research study that suggests that they DON'T react the same way?

A study does not make it factual. There's the issue of controlled testing and reproducible results and peer review.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ I'm confused... beame is making the claim that homosexuals and heterosexuals react to women the same way... where is the peer-reviewed research study that backs THAT up?

What, scientific studies are not factual but randon anonymous assertions on the internet ARE?

 

[beamMe]

^ I'm confused... beame is making the claim that homosexuals and heterosexuals react to women the same way...

I'm not. Chardman is making that claim.

 

[RAMA]

To whoever suggested you can always spot a gay man in a room...this isn't really the case, there plenty of homosexuals who don't advertise. However, those who DO seem to be quite proud of it...and often they don't mind the label: "queer". But don't confuse the two.

As far as genetics go, its not just homosexuality but all kinds of human proclivities where genes are a big part of the the puzzle, but not the end all. Just read a range of material, there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is soley genetic, though no doubt it plays a major part.

 

[chardman]

^ I'm confused... beame is making the claim that homosexuals and heterosexuals react to women the same way...

I'm not. Chardman is making that claim.

Uh, no I'm most certainly not. I'm claiming that Homosexuals, being every bit as human (gasp!) as their heterosexual counterparts, have human biochemistry (gasp!), and will thus physically react within the same general parameters, and tolerances as all other human beings, when exposed to the same chemical compounds. The difference being, that while a pheromone (or comparable chemical trigger) would cause arousal in both gays and straights, the focus of their arousal would/could/should be consistent with their biologically-inherent-and-not-at-all-merely-chosen sexual orientations.

Example: Ilia walks onto the bridge, and her powerful pheromones waft into the room as well, affecting (to some degree) all and sundry.

Chekov responds, thinking "Wow, I'd sure like to have sex with her." while Sulu responds, thinking "Wow... I'd probably want to have sex with her if only she had a penis. Too bad she doesn't. Hmmm... Maybe when my shift is over I'll see if alternate timeline Spock wants to stop by and... ".

Meanwhile, Uhura is thinking "Wow... I'd probably want to have sex with her if only she had a penis. Too bad she doesn't. Hmmm... Maybe when my shift is over I'll see if alternate timeline Spock wants to stop by and... "

Capisce?

 

[beamMe]

^ I'm confused... beame is making the claim that homosexuals and heterosexuals react to women the same way...

I'm not. Chardman is making that claim.

Uh, no I'm most certainly not. I'm claiming that Homosexuals, being every bit as human (gasp!) as their heterosexual counterparts, have human biochemistry (gasp!), and will thus physically react within the same general parameters, and tolerances as all other human beings, when exposed to the same chemical compounds. The difference being, that while a pheromone (or comparable chemical trigger) would cause arousal in both gays and straights, the focus of their arousal would/could/should be consistent with their biologically-inherent-and-not-at-all-merely-chosen sexual orientations.

Example: Ilia walks onto the bridge, and her powerful pheromones waft into the room as well, affecting (to some degree) all and sundry.

Chekov responds, thinking "Wow, I'd sure like to have sex with her." while Sulu responds, thinking "Wow... I'd probably want to have sex with her if only she had a penis. Too bad she doesn't. Hmmm... Maybe when my shift is over I'll see if alternate timeline Spock wants to stop by and... ".

Meanwhile, Uhura is thinking "Wow... I'd probably want to have sex with her if only she had a penis. Too bad she doesn't. Hmmm... Maybe when my shift is over I'll see if alternate timeline Spock wants to stop by and... "

Capisce?

To quote our favourite captain: "Bullshit!"

 

[chardman]

Bullshit to what?

Are you dissing the notion that Gays respond to stimuli just like "regular people" do? Or just the part about Uhura?

 

[beamMe]

Bullshit to what?

Are you dissing the notion that Gays respond to stimuli just like "regular people" do? Or just the part about Uhura?

"Bullshit" to the whole of your post.

The notion that gays (and I supposed lesbians too?) react in the same way as straights to the same stimuli is idiotic. If that were actually the case then there wouldn't be a thing called homosexuality.

Your post makes attraction to another person look like an active choice.

 

[chardman]

No, it doesn't. My post makes attraction to another person look like a non-biochemical, but still biologically determined state.

Attraction to a gender is hardwired.

As is physical response to a given chemical stimuli.

My question is, why would you think that merely having the same general biochemistry, and the same basic biochemical reactions as straight people, could possibly imply that homosexuality wasn't biological in nature? There are other biological factors besides mere chemical reactions, don'tcha know. Ever hear of this newfangled stuff they call DNA? Ya might wanna look into it.

There's a reason why scientists are looking almost exclusively at DNA as the likely root source of sexual orientation, rather than continuing to look for a general biochemical source. And this is because they've already pretty much eliminated general biochemistry as source of sexual orientation.

I don't at all dispute that sexual orientation is wholly biological in nature, merely that it isn't the result of some distinct difference in general biochemical makeup. If it were, it'd be pretty damn easy to come up with an idiot-proof bloodtest to test for those differences, thus conclusively proving an individual's inherent gender preference in the lab.

But guess what?

We don't have such a test.

Ya wanna know why?

Because there simply aren't any significant and distinct differences in human biochemical reactions that directly correspond to sexual orientation.

 

[beamMe]

No, it doesn't.

Attraction to a gender is hardwired.

As is physical response to a given chemical stimuli.

My question is, why would you think that merely having the same general biochemistry, and the same basic biochemical reaction as straight people do, could possibly mean that homosexuality wasn't biological in nature? There are other biological factors besides mere chemical reactions, don'tcha know. Ever hear of this newfangled stuff they call DNA? Ya might wanna look into it.

There's a reason why scientists are looking almost exclusively at DNA as the likely root source of sexual orientation, rather than continuing to look for a general biochemical source. And this is because they've already pretty much eliminated general biochemistry as source of sexual orientation.

I don't at all dispute that sexual orientation is wholly biological in nature, merely that it isn't the result of some distinct difference in general biochemical makeup. If it were, it'd be pretty damn easy to come up with an idiot-proof bloodtest to test for those differences, thus conclusively proving an individual's inherent gender preference in the lab.

But guess what?

We don't have such a test.

Ya wanna know why?

Because there simply aren't any significant and distinct differences in human biochemical reactions that directly correspond to sexual orientation.

Yeah... well... condescending much?

Go and ask a few random gays if the mere presence of a woman (and her pheromones) will make them horny as you postulate and if they then have to decide whether they want to have sex with her or not.

 

[JarodRussell]

I thought we were already over this genetical disposition and chemical imbalance bullshit. Because that takes us back to "curing" gayness. "Want to feel attracted to women? Just take that pill."

 

[beamMe]

I thought we were already over this genetical disposition and chemical imbalance bullshit. Because that takes us back to "curing" gayness. "Want to feel attracted to women? Just take that pill."

It's a touchy issue for some.

 

[chardman]

I live in a house full of gays, and I have asked them. And no, they don't have to decide whether they want to have sex with her. Why would they want to? She's a chick. They aren't interested in chicks. That doesn't mean that they'd be immune to any pheromones that she might give off. It'd still make them horny, just not for her. You don't seem to understand that arousal and desire are two different things.

Learn the difference and maybe you'll understand. One can be aroused by one thing, without at all desiring it, and desiring something completely different in it's place.

 

[beamMe]

It'd still make them horny,

Yeah... no.

 

[chardman]

I thought we were already over this genetical disposition and chemical imbalance bullshit. Because that takes us back to "curing" gayness. "Want to feel attracted to women? Just take that pill."

Now that's bullshit. A biochemical cause (a chemical imbalance), is what beamMe asserts, and is the "treatable/curable" state. You can alter someone's biochemistry quite easily with "pills". Genes? Not so much. You'd have to fundamentally restructure the entire person at a molecular level to "cure" them of a genetic disorder. And that's not likely to be possible for a very long time. So no "cure". Not in our lifetimes, hopefully never. It's not only not "curable" but there's no reason anyone should ever even try.

 

[JarodRussell]

I thought we were already over this genetical disposition and chemical imbalance bullshit. Because that takes us back to "curing" gayness. "Want to feel attracted to women? Just take that pill."

Now that's bullshit. A biochemical cause, as beamMe asserts, is the treatable/curable state. You can alter someone's biochemistry quite easily with "pills". Genes? Not so much. You'd have to fundamentally restructure the entire person at a molecular level to "cure" them of a genetic disorder. And that's not likely to be possible for a very long time.

I know that. So at some point doctors ask you "Do you want your child to be straight, gay or bi?", especially with artificial insemination. And despite that, a genetic root only causes the imbalance. So you take pills regularly to still treat the imbalance.

 

[chardman]

And despite that, a genetic root only causes the imbalance. So you take pills regularly to still treat the imbalance.

But it doesn't cause an imbalance. At least there's no overt signs of such. There are no fundamental differences between gay biochemistry and straight biochemistry, nor in their reactions to chemical stimuli. Taking a pill can't bring balance to a system that wasn't out of balance to begin with.

It'd still make them horny,

Yeah... no.

Um, yes. It would make them horny; she wouldn't; they'd be horny for whatever/whoever they'd normally be horny for. Again, it's all about the difference between arousal and desire, which is very simple distinction, but apparently lightyears beyond you.

 

[JarodRussell]

But it doesn't cause an imbalance. At least there's no overt signs of such. There are no fundamental differences between gay biochemistry and straight biochemistry, nor in their reactions to chemical stimuli. Taking a pill can't bring balance to a system that wasn't out of balance to begin with.

Uhm, so why are they gay again?

 

[chardman]

Uhm, so why are they gay again?

Uhm, because of genes. Still. There are plenty of genetic states that have little or no impact on general biochemistry. Why you seem to think that one must inevitably lead to the other is beyond me.