NationStates Jolt Archive

'I am gay. I am inclined to feel sexual desires for men. However, to please my family, friends and parents, I will have sex with women to be straight, even though I do not feel any lust or love for them on a sexual level. I want a family, not with another man, but with a woman. I want to love women, but I can't.'

For these people who talk about homosexuality being a choice, I ponder. Is this what you consider choice? Being able to have sex with either sex because it is physically possible? Because on that level, straight people can also have sex with member of the same sex. I do not doubt that that there MAY be people who choose to be gay, but I can't find any proof or deny that some people don't choose to be gay. Why choose to be a persecuted minority who even today, very few people respect? I have yet to see a reason why a person would choose to be gay as a full-time statement rather than just irregular experimentation.

Personally, I find it ignorant to make assumptions - so if anything, this thread should not be flame bait, although if it doesn't get ignored, I have no doubt it will be. What I want - is for people to realise that there is a diversity among homosexuals - that their reasons for being so differ. If need be, I will tell you that I myself am gay if that makes it easier to relate to this thread and that I would give everything to feel obliged to have sex with women. For me, there was no choice. I am friends with 'the popular guys' too. I get on with everyone. There was nothing in my life to my recollection that TURNED me gay. I was never abused. Perhaps I felt closer to women and more secure around them than I did men, but that is it and perhaps even that is a thing about me from birth.

I love how people say this is a choice... When for me, it isn't. Believe me, I wish it were, but I can't stop loving the cock.

Well I understand where you are coming from. While I myself am Bi, I dont need to worry about my family since they are all dead and have been, let them rest. I do however have a similiar problem with my job and understand how there really isnt a choice. well I would type more but Im tired, so dont mind I got you off track. please.

People who say its a choice now-a-days tend to slip that little gem into the middle of a host of other ridiculous claims so its hard to contest. You always find youself so indignant about one thing that you forget to challenge what might just be the root of their ignorance... though that may just be me :D.

as a bisexual, i am equally mystified by heterosexuals and homosexuals. of course, if i could ignore half the hot people in the world it would probably save me a lot of neck whiplash, so maybe you single-oriented folk are on to something.

I always want to ask heterosexuals who claim its a choice when it was that they chose to be straight.

I always want to ask heterosexuals who claim its a choice when it was that they chose to be straight.

March 14, 1993.

I always want to ask heterosexuals who claim its a choice when it was that they chose to be straight.

Its a scientic matter really. Some say its a choice, some say it isn't. None has any real facts to back it up with so its no use discussing the point till our scientists have made more progress in the area.

I always want to ask heterosexuals who claim its a choice when it was that they chose to be straight.

I AM heterosexual, and i still ask the same question. For me its not about choice. I love women, and find men a complete turn off. Its always been that way, and I dont think my minds going to change at all.

It's not genetic, if that's what you're trying to say. Sexual re-orientative therapy is "more successful" than rehabilitating alcoholics, according to a one Prof van Aardweg, who heads the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. Practically all pro-homosexual advocacy groups have abandoned the "gene theory" as it simply does not have the basis in fact they once assumed it did.

From my own experience, the homsexual lifestyle is a result more of nurture rather than nature. I'm not dismissing out-of-hand the possibility of a partially 'pseudo-genetic' cause do to a certain disposition in sexuality on the basis of a persons inherited genes, but I am minimalizing its importance next to the established disposition of the character as a result of their upbringing.

Gene-Therapy? You know that cant work if you don't know what genes to target.

And as for rehabilitation or therapy working, i find that laughable. The examples set out in history of it not working are extensive and conclusive.

Why do people always talk about "therapy" for homosexuals. Therapy is something given to cure or lessen an ailment or disease. Clearly, it isn't the case. It's simply part of the diversity of the human species, in the same way that geniuses or musicians aren't "treated".

I always want to ask heterosexuals who claim its a choice when it was that they chose to be straight.

But biologically it makes sense for hetero to be the default sexuality. Therefore, you only have to choose to be homo, not hetero

I'm a homophobe.

It's not genetic, if that's what you're trying to say. Sexual re-orientative therapy is "more successful" than rehabilitating alcoholics, according to a one Prof van Aardweg, who heads the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. Practically all pro-homosexual advocacy groups have abandoned the "gene theory" as it simply does not have the basis in fact they once assumed it did.

From my own experience, the homsexual lifestyle is a result more of nurture rather than nature. I'm not dismissing out-of-hand the possibility of a partially 'pseudo-genetic' cause do to a certain disposition in sexuality on the basis of a persons inherited genes, but I am minimalizing its importance next to the established disposition of the character as a result of their upbringing.


Forgive me if I sound stupid, but wasn't the "rehabilitation therapy" things like attaching electrodes to a guy's dick and shocking him when he gets aroused by pornographic pictures of males? Wouldn't take much of that before any guy'd say, "hey, I don't like guys anymore! *crosses fingers*"

Unless you're talking about some other "rehabilitation" thing I haven't heard of.

Which, by the way, makes it sound like an addiction, not a lifestyle. Hence the quotes.

But biologically it makes sense for hetero to be the default sexuality. Therefore, you only have to choose to be homo, not hetero
if a male feels absolutely no sexual attraction to a female, no matter how hard he tries, then it is not a choice

Yea Fenix, you might want to check with Courage/Exodus on that "therapy is laughable" bit. I'm sure they'd laugh you out of the building.

Myself being a heterosexual, at least I think I am, seem to agree with you that it is not a choice for everyone, but some people do choose it. I myslef have not had a pleasant life, and have more of stopped feeling anything for anyone. although recently I started caring about someone deeply. But I normally dont' feel anything for anyone, and she is kind of in the same boat as me, she has pretty much shut everyone out. She admits that she has opened up to me more than any one else, and that she doesn't really care about other people.

I'm a homophobe.

Im an ergophobe. But i dont go around broadcasting it. :D

But biologically it makes sense for hetero to be the default sexuality. Therefore, you only have to choose to be homo, not hetero

Wow...

But biologically it makes sense for hetero to be the default sexuality. Therefore, you only have to choose to be homo, not hetero

But why have I been always interested in girls only, with the exception of my now ex-boyfriend, which I chose to give a chance despite his gender?

Fran

Its a scientic matter really. Some say its a choice, some say it isn't. None has any real facts to back it up with so its no use discussing the point till our scientists have made more progress in the area.

Our scientists have. The APA has had a position on this for years. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Homosexuality is NOT a mental disease. Homosexuality IS just one of the expressions of normal human sexuality.

But why have I been always interested in girls only, with the exception of my now ex-boyfriend, which I chose to give a chance despite his gender?

Fran

If you really want to be with someone, you'll give them a chance. No matter what. That's just the way love works. There is no rationale, in many instances, beyond the subjectively psychological.

But biologically it makes sense for hetero to be the default sexuality. Therefore, you only have to choose to be homo, not hetero

Except that no homosexual that I know CHOSE TO BE GAY. Hell, I knew I was different when I was eight years old. I realized just how different when I was eleven. There was no conscious choice in the matter. Hell, at eleven you can barely make choices about such abstract things as human sexuality!

I am gay as well, but i strongly believe that you dont choose to be gay, you are born gay. I myself am very happy and proud of my sexuality, but i know that some people feel 'ashamed' that they are gay, but this is probably caused by the person being brought up in a Republican family.

But biologically it makes sense for hetero to be the default sexuality. Therefore, you only have to choose to be homo, not hetero
care to explain that? please keep in mind that there are numerous documented situations in which homosexuality results in higher reproductive success than heterosexuality.

care to explain that? please keep in mind that there are numerous documented situations in which homosexuality results in higher reproductive success than heterosexuality.

You have documented proof of this? no matter how much i advocate gay rights, i find it hard to believe as an objective scientist, without supporting data.

care to explain that? please keep in mind that there are numerous documented situations in which homosexuality results in higher reproductive success than heterosexuality.
how? wouldn't reproductive success be the ability to produce children, hence the ability to produce these children would drop to nothing?

how? wouldn't reproductive success be the ability to produce children, hence the ability to produce these children would drop to nothing?

Just because gays don't sleep with members of the opposite sex doesn't mean we can't or are infertile. However, I'm interested in hearing Bottle's info--I've been involved with many discussion with her and always love hearing what she has to say because I learn a lot from it.

how? wouldn't reproductive success be the ability to produce children, hence the ability to produce these children would drop to nothing?


One would assume via medical alternatives or via mating with the opposite sex for purely reproductive means

Just because gays don't sleep with members of the opposite sex doesn't mean we can't or are infertile. However, I'm interested in hearing Bottle's info--I've been involved with many discussion with her and always love hearing what she has to say because I learn a lot from it.
I didn't say they were infertile, I was just saying that the chances of them becoming pregnant are nill, unless they had a heterosexual relation with somone

You have documented proof of this? no matter how much i advocate gay rights, i find it hard to believe as an objective scientist, without supporting data.
easy to find evidence for it, just flip through any animal behavior or behavioral ecology journal resource. there are several situations in which homosexual behavior is more effective at getting genes into the next generation. here's a few to start:

1. often there will be a situation of environmental restriction, a case where there is significant risk or difficulty for a young animal to strike out on their own and form their own nest. in these situations, the young animal that has reached adulthood will often remain in its parents' nest and help rear siblings, rather than trying to form its own nest and rear its own brood. because siblings are as related to the individual as offspring would be (50% relatedness on average), rearing siblings is just as helpful at getting the individual's genes passed on as producing young would be. in some of these cases, the young animal will pair with another animal of the same gender and will be observed performing grooming, courtship, and sexual behaviors with that same-gendered "mate"; this is because many animals will actually decline in health and "well-being" if they do not receive mating-type stimulation on a seasonal basis. there is still drive to pair up, but there will not be actual mating because the situation does not favor the production of a new brood. this type of situation is rare, but has been observed in at least 2 songbird species that i know of, and one primate species (i believe it was lemurs, but i might be misremembering).

2. far more commonly, sexual pairings of same-gendered individuals can result in increased brood care. a good example is bonobo chimps; female-female sexual contact is more common than heterosexual contact among wild bonobos, and it has been demonstrated that such contact increases the likelihood that one female will groom and play with another female's young. by increasing affection and bonding with the other female, through sex, a mother chimp can increase the care her offspring receives, and will thus increase its likelihood of surviving to adulthood. in many social animals there will be homosexual contact which is linked to increased group brood care.

3. same-sex pairings also can help an animal survive through more mating seasons. you have to keep in mind that reproductive fitness in many species is at least partially determined by how many times the individual produces a successful brood, so an adult that can increase it's chances of mating next season will have higher success. males in particular will often form "bachelor pairs" or "bachelor groups" in which they band together to defend territory and improve their access to resources; in many cases, these pairs or groups will show frequent homosexual contact, and males that do not engage in this contact will often be kicked out of the pair or group. an interesting case is that of bottle-nose dolphins, which do not form heterosexual life-pairs but which DO form homosexual life-pairs; current research suggests that males increase their survival and health by being in such pairs, so that when mating season rolls around they are in far better shape to compete for females and father offspring.

that's just a few, and i have really skimmed over each case (so as to avoid writing a big old book on this thread), but i hope it gives at least a little flavor on the issue.

how? wouldn't reproductive success be the ability to produce children, hence the ability to produce these children would drop to nothing?
not necessarily; reproductive success refers to the ability of an individual to get their genes into the next generation. making your own babies is one way to do this, but not the only one; for instance, your biological siblings each are 50% related to you, which is the same degree of relatedness that your children would have. ensuring that your siblings successfully mature and procreate would be just as good as making your own babies, and sometimes more so...if conditions make it especially risky or strenuous to produce your own kids, you might be better off helping your siblings. of course, such a situation isn't going to often be the case in modern human society, but you see the biological point i am making.

I myself am fully heterosexual. I believe that is my choice, as I do not wish to be a homosexual. I also believe homosexuality is a choice, and a valid one. I do not base my beliefs on ignorance, or scientific evidence. I do not believe that by making sexuality a choice that I am somehow invalidating someone's sexuality.

I believe that it is harmful for someone to refuse to admit that they made a choice regarding their sexuality, and blaming it on the way they were born. I am proud of being heterosexual and a bit bicurious, and if I were homosexual I would be just as proud. I pity the people on both ends of the spectrum that believe that making an informed, conscious decision makes one somehow less of a human or makes that choice have less value.

It stem from negative views on homosexuality, I think. Saying "Hey, it isn't MY fault I am a faggot, God just made me that way!" It typifies and furthers the view that homosexuality is disgusting and no rational person would ever WANT to be a homosexual. I find this very, very sad.

Also, if anyone believes that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be treated or prevented with psychological or genetical therepy, I believe they should be killed. Gruesomely. Without question.

Is there anyone I haven'tmanaed to offend?

*snip*
None of which actually accounts for reproductive success. ie. The ability to bring new individuals of one's species into the world. It simply accounts that newborns are cared for on a higher ratio of adults to offspring, rather than trying to produce more offspring, each cared for by fewer adults. Whithout comparative data on the likelihood of survival, these facts are meaningless in a biological homosexuality debate.

Edit: you dont have to write a book. Just link/record the source. I'll find it myself.

Further Edit: Im not against Gay rights. In fact, Im an advocate. But i AM against perversion of scientific evidence, and try to lay my hands on any evidence relevant to a debate.

None of which actually accounts for reproductive success. ie. The ability to bring new individuals of one's species into the world. It simply accounts that newborns are cared for on a higher ratio of adults to offspring, rather than trying to produce more offspring, each cared for by fewer adults. Whithout comparative data on the likelihood of survival, these facts are meaningless in a biological homosexuality debate.

But you don't seem to realise that helping curent members of the species survive to grow and reproduce in the future sometimes supercedes the need to reproduce futilely in the present, to the end that both adults and children would starve. This seems to be a position that Pro-Lifers take, that the quantity of life is what is important. They fail to realize that in the long run, higher quality of life allows for a much higher quantity. It is a matter of patience and situation.

I am a gay 16 yr old male at a high school in Texas. It is very hard to please my family when they all denounce it. i am attracted to males, for some reason, personally, i dont want to know the reason, I am who i am, and will not change for anyone. I know it's not a choice, and for some stupid reason, if scientists claim it is found to me a choice, then people shouldn't be judged for how they want to be. lol. Let people be, leave them alone and concern yourself with your own problems, the world has way more important things to debate. -out- Y'all! ;)

None of which actually accounts for reproductive success. ie. The ability to bring new individuals of one's species into the world.

that's not what selection is aimed at. selection acts on the INDIVIDUAL, not on the species.

It simply accounts that newborns are cared for on a higher ratio of adults to offspring, rather than trying to produce more offspring, each cared for by fewer adults. Whithout comparative data on the likelihood of survival, these facts are meaningless in a biological homosexuality debate.

um, read my points. individuals who engage in homosexual activity are, in many cases, more successful at getting their genes into the next generation. selection, therefore, favors individuals engaging in homosexual activity. remember, selection does NOT act on the population, it acts on the individual.


Edit: you dont have to write a book. Just link/record the source. I'll find it myself.

unlike most people on "gay" topics, i don't rely on a single source. try using the JSTOR search engine, or exploring results through scientific journal access sites. pool the information from many first-source locations, don't just rely on a summary provided secondhand from somebody else (even me!).


Further Edit: Im not against Gay rights. In fact, Im an advocate. But i AM against perversion of scientific evidence, and try to lay my hands on any evidence relevant to a debate.
you don't seem interested enough in this subject to "lay your hands" on the actual definition of reproductive success, or on the basic concepts of how natural selection works. before you claim my evidence is "perverted," perhaps you should consult some sources...?

But you don't seem to realise that helping curent members of the species survive to grow and reproduce in the future sometimes supercedes the need to reproduce futilely in the present, to the end that both adults and children would starve. This seems to be a position that Pro-Lifers take, that the quantity of life is what is important. They fail to realize that in the long run, higher quality of life allows for a much higher quantity. It is a matter of patience and situation.

but many of your examples reduce genetic diversity, therefore leading to decreased competion in producing the next generation, as fewer of the gender breed. This may then lead to problems in adaptation of the species. And like I said, link the evidence, and Ill believe it. Until then, Im stuck with what I think is a logical assumption based on current facts.

Most people cry "CITE SOURCE" as a distraction from the discussion at hand. I have many years of sources that I use, that effect my opinions and observations. I see no reason why my anecdotal and logical evidence is less worthy or valuable than that of someone else. I, unlike most people seem to be doing, do not spend my life perusing through other people's opinions to form my own.

Ok, you got there first. The evidence I work with is based on my limited acedemic studies. I am a chemist by study, but have an intense interest in all science. But unless I can see the data, and draw a conclusion myself, i consider it suspect. Thats how it should be. You only have to see the number of journals in the uni library to believe that. Thousands upon thousands. All full of people's scientific interpretations, but most importantly, backed with the original (assuming they follow standard convention of reporting EVERYTHING) data.

but many of your examples reduce genetic diversity, therefore leading to decreased competion in producing the next generation, as fewer of the gender breed. This may then lead to problems in adaptation of the species.
SELECTION ACTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. what may or may not be good for the species as a whole is NOT what determines reproductive success, nor is it what determines the path of selection. for a given individual, the goal is to get their OWN genes into the next generation as much as they possibly can; if that happens to result in reduction of genetic diversity, GOOD!! that's what the individual WANTS! the goal is to have their genes dominate, not to maintain diversity!

we, as humans, may recognize the benefits of genetic diversity, but natural selection is not at all concerned with such diversity. there are counter-pressures in nature which maintain a certain level of such diversity, but those pressures work in opposition to the force of natural (and reproductive) selection.

The point I was making is that a species with less genetic diversity has less chance of surviving if forced to adapt, leading to reproductive failure and extinction, in the ultimate. This is clearly bad for both species and individual, as there would be no one to pass genes TO.

i have to run for a bit, but i will try to check back...feel free to telegram me if i don't get back to this thread soon. i'm not trying to duck out, just trying to keep the real world from eating me alive :).

Can you not get that a sibling has, on the average, just as much geneic material as one's child? Therefor, helping them mature to reproduce in an environment conducive to health and hapiness would be genetically no different than them reprodicing themselves in that environment. But reproducing in an environment where the offspring would have little to no chance of success would weaken the gene pool.

Other examples are social homo/bisexuality in certain animals as relief of stress, which helps reproduction and survival.

I also have my own theories that some homosexual tendencies are inherite as a genetic way to control the population and thus ensure the survival of the population.

Again, none of what I say is an echo of a website or a book, so do not expect me to pour through my life to credit those who havei nfluenced my opinions.

Actually, thats a good point. If species tended towards homosexuality at periods where competition for survival was at its height, less offspring would be produced, leading to a greater fitness of those who were, and thus ensuring the next generation didnt have too many individuals for the available food supply/nest space etc.

i have to run for a bit, but i will try to check back...feel free to telegram me if i don't get back to this thread soon. i'm not trying to duck out, just trying to keep the real world from eating me alive :).

True debators respect the right of their "opponents" to have better things to do. Go do your "real" world things, and hurry back to that which is more important.
;)

Choice or biology? I can only ask, "Does it really matter?" Homosexuals exist. Bisexuals exist. Whether they "choose" to be that way or are born that way is irrelevent. They are here, they aren't stabbing you in dark alley(I assume) and they are on the whole, good people.

Another thing I don't get is, why do homosexuals always talk about being "proud" about their homosexuality? I'm a heterosexual. I'm neither proud or ashamed of this fact. It just is. Maybe there wouldn't be such a problem with homosexuality if homosexuals were more like, "Yep, I'm gay. So what?" I don't have a heterosexual parade every year. I don't need one. I don't think that homosexuals need one either. I'm not saying, "Back in the closet, fag!" I just don't really care who you have sex with. As long as the sex happens between two conenting adults, is enjoyable and, hopefully, occurs as part of a real relationship. But, then, I don't like casual sex.

Actually, thats a good point. If species tended towards homosexuality at periods where competition for survival was at its height, less offspring would be produced, leading to a greater fitness of those who were, and thus ensuring the next generation didnt have too many individuals for the available food supply/nest space etc.

By Jove I think he got it!

The reason that you don't feel pride in your sexuality is probably that you've never been persecuted for it. Heterosexuals are not made to feel ashamed of being who they are. Gay pride is a response against that--it is gay society saying, in effect, that we will no longer hide and be ashamed. As you see prejudice against gay people die out and equality becoming more prominent, you will see gay pride go the way of the wind.

By Jove I think he got it!

Sorry. Im a bit slow. I normally deal with things which bubble gently, and change from a white powder into...OMG another identical white powder! Such is the life of a chemist. :rolleyes:

Sorry. Im a bit slow. I normally deal with things which bubble gently, and change from a white powder into...OMG another identical white powder! Such is the life of a chemist. :rolleyes:

LOL, I understand. All those fumes in organic chemistry lab made me loopy too :) But really, I wasn't meaning to insult your intelligence or anything, was just being happy for you :)

That brings up an interesting point, that Affirmative Action for "minorities", women, and homosexuals does more to promote discrimination than end it. And if you are a black female lesbian, you're just on top of the world, i'd bet.

I wish all cultures, sexualities, and beliefs were unremarkable and accepted. I see no reason why I should be downtrodden because I am a white heterosexual male, and I see no reason why someone else should be especially happy tht they are part of a "minority". The very idea that you are different on any level that matters solely based on your ethnicity or sexuality or gender makes me sick. Why not judge people based on their skills, their productiveness, their happiness, or their intelligence rather than their lifestyle?

That brings up an interesting point, that Affirmative Action for "minorities", women, and homosexuals does more to promote discrimination than end it. And if you are a black female lesbian, you're just on top of the world, i'd bet.

I wish all cultures, sexualities, and beliefs were unremarkable and accepted. I see no reason why I should be downtrodden because I am a white heterosexual male, and I see no reason why someone else should be especially happy tht they are part of a "minority". The very idea that you are different on any level that matters solely based on your ethnicity or sexuality or gender makes me sick. Why not judge people based on their skills, their productiveness, their happiness, or their intelligence rather than their lifestyle?

I agree with you. However, I have to ask exactly what Affirmative Action homosexualis have ever gotten?

I believe that Affirmative Action did a great deal to change the cultural climate in the United Sates and elsewhere, and I believe it did very good things. And I also wish it were erroneous and unneccesary. But as a society, Western "civilization" is not ready to accept that differences are not a bad thing.

This is gonna get boring, but I also agree. Is anyone gonna go against this, or are we now resigned to mindlessness and thread death?

Edit: too late, obviously.

Its odd. Affirmitive action is not EQUAL rights, in any sense, and is therefore a hypocrtical theory. That said, something needs to be done. Its far to easy for people's views to be more valued simply because they are "normal". I quote the recent referendum on gay marraige in ?califronia?* as an example. I think this is the first time that the U.S. government has put the rights of a discriminated minority to the vote of the majority.

*correct me if thats wrong. Im british. American politics confuse me.

I don't think that a human rights issue should be left up to a vote. Marriage should be equal for every minority, with legal precedents. I support polyamory, polygamy, homosexual and hetero marriages between consenting adults. I see no reason not to.

I don't think that a human rights issue should be left up to a vote. Marriage should be equal for every minority, with legal precedents. I support polyamory, polygamy, homosexual and hetero marriages between consenting adults. I see no reason not to.

Many opponents would argue that just because something has no reason against it, this is no reason for it. I was always skeptical about this (even at the age of around 5, i expect) But thats what us freedom loving pro-choice advoctes are up against, im afraid.

And just because there's no reason not to, doesn't mean there is no reason to do it. I should have said that I see many great reasons why marriage should be equal, and no reason why it shouldn't.

Many opponents would argue that just because something has no reason against it, this is no reason for it. I was always skeptical about this (even at the age of around 5, i expect) But thats what us freedom loving pro-choice advoctes are up against, im afraid.

But the Consitution says that just because a right isn't specifically granted, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You only have to have the negative--a right has to specifically be denied to not be granted.

Further, you have the 14th amendment saying that everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. . . . . .

Mind you I'm not arguiing with you persay, just sharing some thoughts.