NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is just another comment on the conflict and sadness faced by gay men, particularly gay men who discover later in life that they are gay and who have a life-long female wife and children. Now tell me, why would anyone willingly subject themselves to torment like this? As far as I'm concerned, this is just more evidence that homosexuality is due to something innate, and not any sort of "choice."


When the Beard Is Too Painful to Remove (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/fashion/03marriage_bg.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th)


By JANE GROSS
Published: August 3, 2006

PLAYING A ROLE The movie ‘Far From Heaven’ featured Dennis Quaid and Julianne Moore as a couple struggling with his homosexuality.

They consider themselves to be devoted husbands, conscientious fathers and suburban homeowners, and what typically brings them to the point of crisis in their 40’s, 50’s and even 60’s is their first emotional connection with another man.

For gay men in heterosexual marriages, even after the status quo becomes unbearable, the pull of domestic life remains powerful. Many are desperate to preserve their marriages — to continue reaping the emotional and financial support of wives, and domestic pleasures like tucking children in at night.

The demand for support groups for gay, married men, as well as traffic in Internet chat rooms, shows that so-called “Brokeback” marriages have hardly disappeared, as many experts assumed they would, even in an age when gay couples, in certain parts of the country, live openly and raise children just like any family.

Leaving a marriage and setting up housekeeping with a gay partner is not what most married gay men have in mind when they join a support group, according to Stephen McFadden, a clinical social worker, who runs such groups in Manhattan. Instead, Mr. McFadden and others in the field say, their clients generally start out committed to the opposite goal.

Even after a pained awakening or acknowledgment of their sexual orientation, these men want to save their marriages, Mr. McFadden and others say, either by lying, promising their wives they will not have sex with men or persuading them to accept their double lives.

Yet, such arrangements succeed for only “a small percentage’’ of couples, Mr. McFadden and other therapists said, but the stubborn attempt often makes these men unwelcome or uncomfortable in support groups for gay fathers, which are easy to find but largely the province of men who are long divorced.

One support group member, Steve T., is a Long Island doctor, married to his high school sweetheart and the father of three school-age sons. He said he felt the sting of judgment when he tried a group for gay fathers. “They thought my desire to stay married was part of my denial,’’ said Dr. T., who would do almost anything to keep his family together and his suburban lifestyle intact, even after telling his wife that he is gay.

She is his “best friend’’ and the “perfect co-parent,’’ said the 44-year-old doctor, who agreed to be interviewed on condition he not be fully identified and his secrets thus revealed to relatives, neighbors and patients. He enjoys the social life of a popular suburban couple, adores his in-laws and wants to live in the same home as his children.

But he also wants to continue a love affair with a man like himself: married, with children, a lawn to mow and a comfortable life. And until a few weeks ago, Dr. T. said, “this was working great in terms of getting our needs met and not disrupting our families.’’

Dr. T.’s wife had agreed she could live with his sexual orientation provided he didn’t act on it. So he lied and said his homosexual relationship did not include sex. But she wasn’t fooled and forced him to move into an in-law apartment in the family home, a way station to a more formal separation.

This development has left him stunned, one moment sympathetic to his wife’s position and the next disbelieving that they can’t work it out. “I love her, but she wants me to be in love with her,” Dr. T. said. “She wants to be my one and only. Everything we have will be at risk if, God forbid, we divorce.’’

Data on these marriages is scarce and unreliable because of the various ways of defining “gay’’ in demographic research. Studies in the 1970’s and 80’s, using inconsistent methodology, found anywhere from one-fifth to one-third of gay men were or had at one time been married. All the therapists and gay men interviewed for this article assumed that percentage would be far lower in today’s more accepting society.

[ This article is two pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/fashion/03marriage_bg.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th). ]

Sadly this is what happens when society places so much pressure on men to follow traditional roles. When homosexuality is demonized the thing that happens is everyone gets hurt.

And if the desire was to have sex with women other than their wives, but they really, really wanted to stay married to their current wives, would you still be so 'accepting' or their argument?

...and yet there's a lot of straight men who pretend to be gay so they can score with babes...

I wonder about that too, I mean if they're gay, then how can they have children, I mean, well comon! lol.

Sadly this is what happens when society places so much pressure on men to follow traditional roles. When homosexuality is demonized the thing that happens is everyone gets hurt.
Homosexuality is a genetic defect. I suppose we shouldn't demonize pedophiles either?

...and yet there's a lot of straight men who pretend to be gay so they can score with babes...

That plan rarely works out.

That plan rarely works out.
I wouldn't know, I've never tried it.

Homosexuality is a genetic defect. I suppose we shouldn't demonize pedophiles either?

No no, demonize pedophiles!

Homosexuality is a genetic defect. I suppose we shouldn't demonize pedophiles either?

It is definately not "genetic", nor is it a "defect".

It is definately not "genetic", nor is it a "defect".
So, you're saying that homosexuality is a choice, but a good choice?

So, you're saying that homosexuality is a choice, but a good choice?

It isn't a choice. But it's not genetic.

So, you're saying that homosexuality is a choice, but a good choice?
Fundies make me giggle.

If you don't have any idea as to what's going on with an issue, try not to comment, you just make yourself look (appropriately) ignorant.

It isn't a choice. But it's not genetic.
That makes no sense. If you don't choose to be gay but are still attracted to members of your sex, than it obviously must be genetic. Similarily, if you choose to pretend that you're gay, but really aren't, then it's not genetic.

Fundies make me giggle.

If you don't have any idea as to what's going on with an issue, try not to comment, you just make yourself look (appropriately) ignorant.
#1. I'm an atheist.

#2. If you're going to be a patronizing asshole instead of debating, do it somewhere else.

That makes no sense. If you don't choose to be gay but are still attracted to members of your sex, than it obviously must be genetic. Similarily, if you choose to pretend that you're gay, but really aren't, then it's not genetic.

Your brain chemistry can be different by other causes other then genetic causes. There is no gene that causes someone to be gay.

#1. I'm an atheist.

#2. If you're going to be a patronizing asshole instead of debating, do it somewhere else.

Well you have no understanding of science or biology, and most of your posts are blantantly conservative pro-christian. Just calling a spade a spade.

Well you have no understanding of science or biology, and most of your posts are blantantly conservative pro-christian. Just calling a spade a spade.
I repeat again, I'm an atheist. I simply think Christianity and Judaism, despite being ridiculous like every organized religion, are far superior to Islam. And I also support Israel.

Your brain chemistry can be different by other causes other then genetic causes. There is no gene that causes someone to be gay.
Would you care to enlighten me as to these other causes?

Homosexuality is a genetic defect. I suppose we shouldn't demonize pedophiles either?

Pedophiles exploit children, making action upon their desires with the objects of it inherently wrong. Homosexuals do not negatively affect anyone else by being gay or acting upon that orientation with its objects, and therefore are not even close to the same issue.

Don't make dumb comparisons.

Also, (referencing subsequent unquoted posts by same) genetics is not the only way a brain chemistry abnormality can be introduced. Over- or underexposure to various hormones or other biochemicals in utero during the process of development is at least as well-supported as a possible cause of homosexuality as a genetic component.

Would you care to enlighten me as to these other causes?

That is irrelivant, since we have established it is not genetic lets move on to the next bit. A defect, please tell me how it is a defect?

I repeat again, I'm an atheist. I simply think Christianity and Judaism, despite being ridiculous like every organized religion, are far superior to Islam. And I also support Israel.

So you're a self loathing fundie. Wiggy.

That is irrelivant, since we have established it is not genetic lets move on to the next bit. A defect, please tell me how it is a defect?
Of course it's relevant. And I would like to know the percentage of cases of homosexuality that can be attributed to overexposure to chemicals while in utero.

It's a defect because if everyone was a homosexual, the human population would decline or become extinct very soon.

I would like to know the percentage of cases of homosexuality that can be attributed to overexposure to chemicals while in utero.


0.01%


It's a defect because if everyone was a homosexual, the human population would decline or become extinct very soon.

Gay people can still have babies.

Of course it's relevant. And I would like to know the percentage of cases of homosexuality that can be attributed to overexposure to chemicals while in utero.

It's a defect because if everyone was a homosexual, the human population would decline or become extinct very soon.

Yes because breeding like rabbits is exactly what's good for the species. Stupid fundie.

So you're a self loathing fundie. Wiggy.
So just because I don't agree with you, you're going to engage in character assassination instead of debating the issue?

People like you say you're for freedom and respect for different types of people, unless you don't agree with those people. Then, you try to censor them and insult them. Then again, I guess I can't expect much more from someone who apparently has no intellectual vigor.

It's a defect because if everyone was a homosexual, the human population would decline or become extinct very soon.

If you read the article, you'd see that homosexuals still reproduce and raise families. Next objection?

0.01%
Gay people can still have babies.
If that statistic is true, and according to you, homosexuality isn't in any way genetic, wouldn't it therefore stand to reason that the overwhelming majority of gays choose to be gay?

No, lesbians can have babies. I suspect that if most, or everyone was gay, the number of lesbian women choosing to reproduce would decrease dramatically, thus resulting in a massive population decline.

Just for the record, I'm for gay rights. I think gays should be allowed to get married, adopt kids, etc.

If you read the article, you'd see that homosexuals still reproduce and raise families. Next objection?
He raised a family because it's what society expected him to do. Being gay, which was natural to him, was against society's expectations for him.

He raised a family because it's what society expected him to do. Being gay, which was natural to him, was against society's expectations for him.

So if it was natural to him how did he choose it?


Thank you come again!

If that statistic is true, and according to you, homosexuality isn't in any way genetic, wouldn't it therefore stand to reason that the overwhelming majority of gays choose to be gay?


It's not true, but it is not exposure to chemicals that causes your brain to find same sex atractive. We don't quite know why, but I think it is probably random.


No, lesbians can have babies. I suspect that if most, or everyone was gay, the number of lesbian women choosing to reproduce would decrease dramatically, thus resulting in a massive population decline.


Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean you don't want to have babies. If the numbers decrease, that is a good thing overall. We don't want to be overpopulated.


Just for the record, I'm for gay rights. I think gays should be allowed to get married, adopt kids, etc.

Good.

No, lesbians can have babies.

Lesbians are gay people.

I suspect that if most, or everyone was gay, the number of lesbian women choosing to reproduce would decrease dramatically, thus resulting in a massive population decline.

And if everyone were a man, we'd all be extinct. Therefore this ludicrous hypothetical where everyone becomes a man proves being male is a defect.

Everyone will never be gay, just like everyone will never be straight. And even if that were to happen, homosexuality has no effect on fertility, and many gay people - men as well as women - choose to have children.

*sigh* I get so tired of having to refute the same nonsense over and over again. You'd think the people stupid enough to go "if everyone were gay" would start catching on to the stupidity of the "argument," but no, they keep clinging to it like the Vatican to geocentrism...

So if it was natural to him how did he choose it?


Thank you come again!
What was natural to him was being with other men. He chose, or rather, was inadverantly pressured by society, into being with a woman.

In numerous posts you have proved to be a blithering idiot, so let it be known that this is the last of your posts that I will respond to, as you are clearly unworthy of my recognition.

Thank you come again!

What was natural to him was being with other men. He chose, or rather, was inadverantly pressured by society, into being with a woman.

In numerous posts you have proved to be a blithering idiot, so let it be known that this is the last of your posts that I will respond to, as you are clearly unworthy of my recognition.

Thank you come again!

So you now admit that being gay is not a choice. Good progress! Now if we could get it through your thick skull that genetics does not wholly determine behavior.

Look up some of the multitude of studies of homosexuality and twins.

It's not true, but it is not exposure to chemicals that causes your brain to find same sex atractive. We don't quite know why, but I think it is probably random.

Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean you don't want to have babies. If the numbers decrease, that is a good thing overall. We don't want to be overpopulated.

Good.
You said .01% of all cases are attributed to overexposure of chemicals. How do you account for the others?

The reason I think it's genetic is because I've spoken with a bi friend who said that at first, he wished he was straight "like everyone else." I suspect that a lot of gay people feel this way, as homosexuality is something that can be hard to live with, especially if you're a man. However, there are some who choose to pretend to be gay, for whatever reasons.

If the numbers decrease, it will result in massive disruptions in the economy and social systems. So, unless you're willing to see half of your paycheck go to some old fart on Social Security, a decrease in population is definetely not a good thing.

Lesbians are gay people.

And if everyone were a man, we'd all be extinct. Therefore this ludicrous hypothetical where everyone becomes a man proves being male is a defect.

Everyone will never be gay, just like everyone will never be straight. And even if that were to happen, homosexuality has no effect on fertility, and many gay people - men as well as women - choose to have children.

*sigh* I get so tired of having to refute the same nonsense over and over again. You'd think the people stupid enough to go "if everyone were gay" would start catching on to the stupidity of the "argument," but no, they keep clinging to it like the Vatican to geocentrism...
Can you provide me with the statistics of how many lesbians couples have children compared to how many different sex couples have children? I'd be highly surprised if lesbian couples didn't have fewer children.

Can you provide me with the statistics of how many lesbians couples have children compared to how many different sex couples have children? I'd be highly surprised if lesbian couples didn't have fewer children.

Well when you have to plan and work for a child it's a bit harder than when it just happens accidentally. A course it's more uncommon!

You said .01% of all cases are attributed to overexposure of chemicals. How do you account for the others?


For the last time, that was a lie to show you how unlikely that statement is. I have also told you already that it is probably a random change in brain chemistry with no identifiable cause.


The reason I think it's genetic is because I've spoken with a bi friend who said that at first, he wished he was straight "like everyone else." I suspect that a lot of gay people feel this way, as homosexuality is something that can be hard to live with, especially if you're a man. However, there are some who choose to pretend to be gay, for whatever reasons.


As much as i hate to admit it, you are right. Some gay people wish they were straight. It is also possible that a few people may pretend to be gay, that still doesn't make it genetic or a defect though.


If the numbers decrease, it will result in massive disruptions in the economy and social systems. So, unless you're willing to see half of your paycheck go to some old fart on Social Security, a decrease in population is definetely not a good thing.

Why are we debating about this stupid situation when it will never even happen anyway.

According to research (sorry, can't remember the URL), (male) homosexuality is genetic, but it's not a defect. Is has a beneficial effect in women, i.e. in increases their fertility. However, it can be passed on to their offspring whether they are female or not.

Why are we debating about this stupid situation when it will never even happen anyway.
It's more likely to happen than you think. In America, baby boomers will be retiring in mass numbers by the end of this decade, and Social Security is going to completely run out of funds by 2036.

I wonder about that too, I mean if they're gay, then how can they have children, I mean, well comon! lol.
Why would being gay preclude having children, for God's sake??? :confused:

Where I live, religion was omnipresent in the 50's - 60's and pretty much collapsed in the 70's - 80's which resulted in many couple living this situation. I personally had one friend with gay dad and one with lesbian mom. I think this happened mostly because of peer pressure and the fact we are conditioned since our first day to "love" the other sex, resulting in "straight" people being a lot more "disgusted" by same sex interaction than gay are by different sex interaction.

That being said, nothing turn me on more than the scent of a woman, it was also found that usually, the more you like your mate odor, the more you both are diversified "genetically". It's the nature way to assure human race improve over time. Gay friends told me they feel the exact same way when they sniff their mate neck. Is it a gene or chemical??? Who cares...

It is definately not "genetic"
Prove this, please.

It's more likely to happen than you think. In America, baby boomers will be retiring in mass numbers by the end of this decade, and Social Security is going to completely run out of funds by 2036.

So the solution is to breed like rabbits? Social Security has always been a pyramid scheme, and like all such schemes doomed to collapse. People need to be weened off of it and plan for their own futures.

Prove this, please.

Well, as far as I am aware there is no gene that can be passed down that causes someone to be gay. It just happens.

Well, as far as I am aware there is no gene that can be passed down that causes someone to be gay. It just happens.

Last I knew, and I'll freely admit my attention span for the subject is short, there was no known definative cause, just a bunch of theories. If it's genetic then it involves an array of genes.

I repeat again, I'm an atheist. I simply think Christianity and Judaism, despite being ridiculous like every organized religion, are far superior to Islam. And I also support Israel.

can someone please find me a NSG thread that doesn't have muslim bashing

So the solution is to breed like rabbits? Social Security has always been a pyramid scheme, and like all such schemes doomed to collapse. People need to be weened off of it and plan for their own futures.
This is the first intelligent thing you've said so far. The problem is that there's a culture of entitlement in Western nations. People have the attitude that "well my parents and their parents had it, so why can't I?" Combine that with the fact that seniors go to the voting booths in hordes, and you've got pandering politicians who will see Western nations go down the gutter rather than not get re-elected (In America, they're called Democrats.)

can someone please find me a NSG thread that doesn't have muslim bashing
How was I bashing muslims?

How was I bashing muslims?

Don't rise to the bait! If you wan't to discuss this, do so in another forum.

That makes no sense. If you don't choose to be gay but are still attracted to members of your sex, than it obviously must be genetic. Similarily, if you choose to pretend that you're gay, but really aren't, then it's not genetic.

Pretending to be gay =/= being gay.

Your personality isnt chosen, but it isnt genetic either.

This is the first intelligent thing you've said so far. The problem is that there's a culture of entitlement in Western nations. People have the attitude that "well my parents and their parents had it, so why can't I?" Combine that with the fact that seniors go to the voting booths in hordes, and you've got pandering politicians who will see Western nations go down the gutter rather than not get re-elected (In America, they're called Democrats.)

See, I didn't even take a shot at the Republican spending measures and you've gone and forced my hand. You know we had a surplus before the Republicans took control of spending? A surplus, a huge one at that. Now we're so far in the hole your grandkids, should the world be unfortunate enough that you breed, will still be paying it off. That's the biggest threat to social security. To say nothing of our glory-less leader's freverent desire to destroy the entire system and replace it with gambling on the stock market.

Homosexuality is a genetic defect. I suppose we shouldn't demonize pedophiles either?

Comparing homosexuality to paedophelia is an old and stupid argument. The difference is that active paedophiles have sex with children.

Tell me who, in a homosexual relationship, is not a consenting adult?

I'll happily demonize anyone who takes advantage of a CHILD. I couldn't care one good god damn what consenting adults do however.

This is the first intelligent thing you've said so far. The problem is that there's a culture of entitlement in Western nations. People have the attitude that "well my parents and their parents had it, so why can't I?" Combine that with the fact that seniors go to the voting booths in hordes, and you've got pandering politicians who will see Western nations go down the gutter rather than not get re-elected (In America, they're called Democrats.)

Uh, we are zooming downhill pretty fast, and last time i checked we have a republican controlled government.

Your brain chemistry can be different by other causes other then genetic causes. There is no gene that causes someone to be gay.
There was a very interesting article in a recent issue of Time magazine ( July 10 ), which indicated that "among boys with one older brother," the percentage of those who became gay rises from about 3% to 4%, "two older brothers tick it up to about 5%; and with three or more, it tops out at about 6%."

Psychologist Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, Canada provided some clues to why this might be from a study of 944 men. "It was only the existence of older biological brothers - whether or not they were raised together - that influenced younger brothers' sexuality."

"Bogaert believes the answer may lie in the mother's immune system. Mothers' bodies naturally recognize boy fetuses as slightly more alien than girl fetuses, since all of us carry sex-specific protiens in our bloodstreams. Some mothers may develop antibodies to those male protiens. In subsequent boy pregnancies, Bogaert theorizes, the antibodies may cross the placenta and affect regions of the fetal brain that dtermine sexual orientation."

I find this fascinating.

There was a very interesting article in a recent issue of Time magazine ( July 10 ), which indicated that "among boys with one older brother," the percentage of those who became gay rises from about 3% to 4%, "two older brothers tick it up to about 5%; and with three or more, it tops out at about 6%."

Well duh. The more children you have the higher chance one of them is gay.

"Bogaert believes the answer may lie in the mother's immune system. Mothers' bodies naturally recognize boy fetuses as slightly more alien than girl fetuses, since all of us carry sex-specific protiens in our bloodstreams. Some mothers may develop antibodies to those male protiens. In subsequent boy pregnancies, Bogaert theorizes, the antibodies may cross the placenta and affect regions of the fetal brain that dtermine sexual orientation."

I find this fascinating.

Its all about the hypothalamus. A gay male hypothalamus closely resembles that to a straight female.

See, I didn't even take a shot at the Republican spending measures and you've gone and forced my hand. You know we had a surplus before the Republicans took control of spending? A surplus, a huge one at that. Now we're so far in the hole your grandkids, should the world be unfortunate enough that you breed, will still be paying it off. That's the biggest threat to social security. To say nothing of our glory-less leader's freverent desire to destroy the entire system and replace it with gambling on the stock market.
There was a "surplus?" There was no national debt?? Hardly! I suggest you get your facts straight.

Lesbians are gay people.

And if everyone were a man, we'd all be extinct. Therefore this ludicrous hypothetical where everyone becomes a man proves being male is a defect.

Everyone will never be gay, just like everyone will never be straight. And even if that were to happen, homosexuality has no effect on fertility, and many gay people - men as well as women - choose to have children.

*sigh* I get so tired of having to refute the same nonsense over and over again. You'd think the people stupid enough to go "if everyone were gay" would start catching on to the stupidity of the "argument," but no, they keep clinging to it like the Vatican to geocentrism...

If everyone were bisexual, the problem would go away. ;)

Of course it's relevant. And I would like to know the percentage of cases of homosexuality that can be attributed to overexposure to chemicals while in utero.

It's a defect because if everyone was a homosexual, the human population would decline or become extinct very soon.Must be defective to be male then, because if everyone were male, the human population would decline or become extinct very soon too! :D

why would anyone willingly subject themselves to torment like this? As far as I'm concerned, this is just more evidence that homosexuality is due to something innate, and not any sort of "choice."

Again with the oversimplifcation

No one is suggesting it is a choice in the form of

"I'm going to choose to like men/women as oppsoed to men/women today"

What they are suggesting is that it is not a biological form of behaviour, but a learned one, picked up by various external factors.

Please stop criticising people by saying they are saying one thing when in fact they are not

There was a "surplus?" There was no national debt?? Hardly! I suggest you get your facts straight.

Learn the difference between "surplus" and "deficit".

Its all about the hypothalamus. A gay male hypothalamus closely resembles that to a straight female.
As a neuroscientist, allow me to assure you that it is most definitely NOT all about the hypothalamus. The differences observed in the hypothalamus across gender and sexuality are insufficient to explain the differences in sexuality that are observed across gender or sexual orientation. Furthermore, the differences in the hypothalamus between homosexuals and heterosexuals have (obviously) been studied only in individuals who have already reached sexual maturity; this means we don't know if the differences in the hypothalamus are one of the underlying factors that cause a person to be homosexual, or if being heterosexual/homosexual is what causes the hypothalamus to take on the form seen in the adult individual.

Honestly, folks, it's really goddam complicated. :D

It isn't a choice. But it's not genetic.
And what is the middle ground? It is made of magic and pixie dust?

And what is the middle ground? It is made of magic and pixie dust?

As Bottle has pointed, we are not completely sure of the route cause of homosexuality.

As a neuroscientist, allow me to assure you that it is most definitely NOT all about the hypothalamus. The differences observed in the hypothalamus across gender and sexuality are insufficient to explain the differencesin sexuality that are observed across gender or sexual orientation. Furthermore, the differences in the hypothalamus between homosexuals and heterosexuals have (obviously) been studied only in individuals who have already reached sexual maturity; this means we don't know if the differences in the hypothalamus are one of the underlying factors that cause a person to be homosexual, or if being heterosexual/homosexual is what causes the hypothalamus to take on the form seen in the adult individual.

Honestly, folks, it's really goddam complicated. :D

The question I have is this:

It's irrelevant to me whether someone "chooses" to have sex with someone of the same or another gender, or is "innately" (by some unknown biochemical or genetic event) predisposed to have sex with the same or another gender.

I mean, how do you classify people who experiment?

And how do you classify people who don't care if it's a man or a woman? As far as I'm concerned, I feel that I am freely choosing every time.

Regardless of the cause, and regardless of whether or not it is a "choice", I see no reason to say, "well, those people are evil for being that way".

And what is the middle ground? It is made of magic and pixie dust?
Have you ever had a cold? I had one last week.

I didn't choose to have my nose running. I didn't choose to have a sore throat or a headache all the time. If I'd had my druthers, I'd have made those symptoms disappear.

Yet my cold was not caused by anything genetic. It was not coded in my DNA that I should get a cold at the end of July, 2006.

Ta-da! Not a choice, and also not genetic!

The question I have is this:

It's irrelevant to me whether someone "chooses" to have sex with someone of the same or another gender, or is "innately" (by some unknown biochemical or genetic event) predisposed to have sex with the same or another gender.

I mean, how do you classify people who experiment?

And how do you classify people who don't care if it's a man or a woman? As far as I'm concerned, I feel that I am freely choosing every time.

Regardless of the cause, and regardless of whether or not it is a "choice", I see no reason to say, "well, those people are evil for being that way".
Personally, I happen to agree. I am interested in understanding the neurological and physiological processes that give rise to human sexuality and sexual behaviors, and I am sure one day we will understand them, but I highly doubt we will ever find a "cause" for homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Indeed, I think what we learn about sexuality will mainly serve to remind us that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" (like "masculine" and "feminine") are arbitrary classifications that don't necessarily help us in understanding anything. There are plenty of people who are neither or both, just as we find with "masculinity" and "femininity."

I think we will also find that people grossly underestimate the plasticity of the human brain, particularly when it comes to complex social behaviors.

If everyone were bisexual, the problem would go away. ;)

Too bad no one is. :p

Too bad no one is. :p
Yeah, like how there's no such thing as lesbians, just women who haven't met the right man...*rolleyes*

Yeah, like how there's no such thing as lesbians, just women who haven't met the right man...*rolleyes*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=joke

You seem to be perpetually in need of this.

Too bad no one is. :p
I actually believe I am.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=joke

You seem to be perpetually in need of this.

I never get tired of your cuts, my friend. :D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=joke

You seem to be perpetually in need of this.
Um, did you really think that I believe there is no such thing as lesbians?

Given how many lesbians I've been with, that would certainly be an odd position for me to take...:P

Have you ever had a cold? I had one last week.

I didn't choose to have my nose running. I didn't choose to have a sore throat or a headache all the time. If I'd had my druthers, I'd have made those symptoms disappear.

Yet my cold was not caused by anything genetic. It was not coded in my DNA that I should get a cold at the end of July, 2006.

Ta-da! Not a choice, and also not genetic!
Did you come up with that analogy yourself, or find it somewhere else, because it's really quite good?

I actually believe I am.

And as all the "bisexuals" who keep telling me "we're all truly bisexual" do when I tell them I'm not, I don't need to pay that much attention to your beliefs. ;)

This is for those who don't get it: I do think bisexuality exists. I am just mocking the "bisexuals" who deny the existence of other sexual orientations by denying theirs. It's a sort of ironic jab.

And as all the "bisexuals" who keep telling me "we're all truly bisexual" do when I tell them I'm not, I don't need to pay that much attention to your beliefs. ;)

This is for those who don't get it: I do think bisexuality exists. I am just mocking the "bisexuals" who deny the existence of other sexual orientations by denying theirs. It's a sort of ironic jab.

And when have I denied the existence of other sexual orientations? Never!

And when have I denied the existence of other sexual orientations? Never!

Did I write I was mocking you?

I have plenty of other opportunity that you supply me with to do that.

COMMENTARY: This is just another comment on the conflict and sadness faced by gay men, particularly gay men who discover later in life that they are gay and who have a life-long female wife and children. Now tell me, why would anyone willingly subject themselves to torment like this? As far as I'm concerned, this is just more evidence that homosexuality is due to something innate, and not any sort of "choice."


I still fail to see how that conclusion holds water. The easy way to see if the position falls short is to simply change the prospective face and take another impartial look at it. If the outside of marriage 'lover' is turned into a female and we re-examine the argument again without a preconceived conclusion anticipated, what do we find?

If the husband claimed that he doesn't find his wife attractive anymore, or now saying (claiming that he’s being honest with himself) claiming he never was really, and that he's always been only attracted to younger skinnier women with large breasts, and now, after years of marriage and children all around, he decides he is going to come out and overcome the forced on him by an unsympathetic society belief that he shouldn’t cheat on his wife, and determines that he wont deny his urges anymore... So he runs off with some woman and has an affair, not wanting a divorce, he keeps it secret from his wife and has sex with this other person all the time, lying to his wife that he's just in platonic relationships and whatnot...

I don't think I feel particularly sorry for this guy when he gets caught, in fact, I think I feel sorry for the wife and children, those that were forsaken by the father who ran off on some mid-life crises.. . I suspect that since this actually happens ALL the stinking time, it's not the fault of the society for having 'suppressed’ his ‘natural urges’ and to make monogamous marriages the acceptable norm.

Why would anyone ‘willingly’ choose to do bad things? They are just making excuses for their bad choices. Claiming it’s a result of them being suppressed? Hogwash.

In the end, these guys cheat on their wives, I don’t care who they do it with, they’re adulterers and oath breakers.

Did you come up with that analogy yourself, or find it somewhere else, because it's really quite good?
I thought it up a while back, used it in several different forms.

It's important to remember that most studies of sexuality are done with adults. This means that you've got a ton of factors, and a very long timeline, to consider:

-Genetics = As of the moment of conception, what genes did this individual possess? As they have grown and developed, what relevant mutations or genetic changes have taken place (if any)?

-Physiological "environmental" factors = From the uterine environment, to the growing child's diet, to the polution levels in the town where they grow up, there's a nearly infinite number of variables that may act upon an individual's physiological makeup. Some of these may be related to the "genetics" category, since it is possible that environmental factors can cause genetic changes, but most probably will have effects that don't directly change the DNA.

-Psychological/social "environmental" factors = The human is a very, very complex animal. Most of our behaviors are not guided by instinct, but by learned information and cues. Sexuality and gender are most definitely impacted by such cues. Also, our interactions with one another have been demonstrated to actually change our brain function. There are even cases where permanent physiological and anatomical changes have been found to arrise as a result of social/psychological influences!

We simply don't know what "makes" a person homosexual, heterosexual, masculine, feminine, or anything else like that. We don't know how much of it is guided by our genes, how much is shaped by our social environment, and how much is shaped by physical forces that act on our bodies as we grow.

The research done so far suggests that all three play a very important role in shaping the sexuality that we will exhibit when we reach maturity...but even then we may not be "set" in our sexual ways! Some evidence strongly suggests that our sexuality can change throughout our lifetimes, though it may not do so for all people.

In the end, these guys cheat on their wives, I don’t care who they do it with, they’re adulterers and oath breakers.

While I do believe that it's better to be up front with people about who and how many people you have sex with, a fair number of men and women can't handle that level of honesty - either telling or listening.

It's probably why adultery is not enforced as a crime anymore. Because most of the people would be in jail.

This is for those who don't get it: I do think bisexuality exists. I am just mocking the "bisexuals" who deny the existence of other sexual orientations by denying theirs. It's a sort of ironic jab.
The thing is, you're kind of in trouble with that one from a scientific standpoint. From what is known about sexuality and sexual orientation, the most likely reality is that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are pure inventions. They're arbitrary classes that have been marked off along a continuous spectrum of human sexual orientation, upon which the vast majority of humans will not fall exclusively at one end or the other.

Of course, this means that the term "bisexual" is also meaningless. Indeed, any attempt to define human sexuality based on the gender of one's partner(s) is rather silly, just as it would be silly to have specific "sexual orientation" classifications for people based on the hair color they most prefer in a partner. Can you imagine having "blonde-o-sexuals," "brunette-o-sexuals," and "bisexuals" who prefer either one? Well, that's about how silly it is for us to try to narrowly define sexual orientations based on the genitalia of the people involved.

...
The research done so far suggests that all three play a very important role in shaping the sexuality that we will exhibit when we reach maturity...but even then we may not be "set" in our sexual ways! Some evidence strongly suggests that our sexuality can change throughout our lifetimes, though it may not do so for all people.


And if anybody else around here said we can change our sexuality during adulthood, I think there wouldn't be a flame-resistant firefighting suit strong enough to protect them....

You saying however may actually make a few people pause.

Interesting.

Of course, this means that the term "bisexual" is also meaningless.

To me, it means I have sex with men or women, as I choose, and as they are willing.

I don't want to specialize if I don't have to. As it stands, I am a biological success (having procreated successfully several times, thus continuing my genetic self), and I get to have quite a bit of fun, subject only to scheduling constraints.

I still fail to see how that conclusion holds water. The easy way to see if the position falls short is to simply change the prospective face and take another impartial look at it. If the outside of marriage 'lover' is turned into a female and we re-examine the argument again without a preconceived conclusion anticipated, what do we find?And we can do this because finding out that you've deluded yourself to be heterosexual is exactly the same as finding out that you want to sleep with other women. :rolleyes:

And if anybody else around here said we can change our sexuality during adulthood, I think there wouldn't be a flame-resistant firefighting suit strong enough to protect them....

You saying however may actually make a few people pause.

Interesting.

I'm able to change mine from second to second, depending on who is in the room when we're having group sex.

Next question?

And if anybody else around here said we can change our sexuality during adulthood, I think there wouldn't be a flame-resistant firefighting suit strong enough to protect them....

You saying however may actually make a few people pause.

Interesting.Might have something to do that she said "our sexuality changes" and not "we change our sexuality"... ;)

And we can do this because finding out that you've deluded yourself to be heterosexual is exactly the same as finding out that you want to sleep with other women. :rolleyes:

And we can do this because finding out that you've deluded yourself to think you would make an oath of fidelity is exactly the same as finding out that you've changed your mine and now want to sleep with other people after the fact and years later...

Yup, same thing.

The thing is, you're kind of in trouble with that one from a scientific standpoint.

Nonsense. We can easily define homosexuality and fit people into that label - I do so quite easily myself. What you're bitching about isn't "science," but touchy feely crap that wants to appease those who don't fit into the label. Their insecurity has no effect on those of us who do.

From what is known about sexuality and sexual orientation, the most likely reality is that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are pure inventions.

As all labels are, but that in no way precludes them from applying. Homosexual applies very well to me: I do not fall in love with women, I am not sexually attracted to women, I do not desire to be either with women. I never have, and never will. What label would you use if not "homosexual" about me? Oh, wait, I feel a crappy "scale" coming into the mix...

They're arbitrary classes that have been marked off along a continuous spectrum of human sexual orientation, upon which the vast majority of humans will not fall exclusively at one end or the other.

"Majority" probably being hogwash, your scale is irrelevant to those of us who do not need it, those of us who aren't some wishy-washy "5% this," "95%" that.

Of course, this means that the term "bisexual" is also meaningless. Indeed, any attempt to define human sexuality based on the gender of one's partner(s) is rather silly,

I don't find it at all silly because it applies very well to me. I like cock. I will not be attracted to someone with a pussy. It's that simple. I see nothing silly about that.

just as it would be silly to have specific "sexual orientation" classifications for people based on the hair color they most prefer in a partner. Can you imagine having "blonde-o-sexuals," "brunette-o-sexuals," and "bisexuals" who prefer either one?

Irrelevant and incomparable.

Well, that's about how silly it is for us to try to narrowly define sexual orientations based on the genitalia of the people involved.

And for me it is silly to stand for people denying who I am. Deny my sexuality, and I will deny yours.

And if anybody else around here said we can change our sexuality during adulthood, I think there wouldn't be a flame-resistant firefighting suit strong enough to protect them....

You saying however may actually make a few people pause.

Interesting.
Note, I did say that it CAN change. So, for anybody who might be firing up one of the flame-throwers you alude to, let's break that down just in case:

-It is possible that only certain individuals experience changes in their sexuality over their lifetime. We know that some people show more dramatic changes in IQ over time than others, for instance, and this could also be the case with sexuality.

-Saying that sexuality could change over our lifetime does not in any way equate to saying that we are able to consciously change our sexuality. Most people see a change in their eyesight over the course of their lifetime, but this doesn't mean that people are consciously choosing to become nearsighted.

-It is possible that only certain factors lead to changes in sexuality, and that only certain people come into contact with those factors. These could be social factors, which only come into play in certain societies or whathaveyou. Or they could be physical environmental factors that only certain people come into contact with.

-It's also possible that multiple elements are at work! Perhaps a certain person, with a certain physiological and genetic make up, will respond to particular environmental or social cues in a way that another individual would not.

Human sexuality is so much more complicated than most people seem to think. Even our definitions of "male" and "female" sex are suspect, for crying out loud, not to mention our definitions of gender. When you keep that in mind, the distinction between "homosexual" and "heterosexual" really starts to fall apart. :)

And we can do this because finding out that you've deluded yourself to think you would make an oath of fidelity is exactly the same as finding out that you've changed your mine and now want to sleep with other people after the fact and years later...

Yup, same thing.What? Why does discovering that you're homosexual automatically mean that you sleep with men?

Nonsense. We can easily define homosexuality and fit people into that label - I do so quite easily myself. What you're bitching about isn't "science," but touchy feely crap that wants to appease those who don't fit into the label. Their insecurity has no effect on those of us who do.

No, I'm talking about science. The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are human inventions which do not reflect the tremendous exhuberance of human sexual behaviors.


As all labels are, but that in no way precludes them from applying. Homosexual applies very well to me: I do not fall in love with women, I am not sexually attracted to women, I do not desire to be either with women. I never have, and never will. What label would you use if not "homosexual" about me? Oh, wait, I feel a crappy "scale" coming into the mix...

The fact that you happen to fall at a certain point along a spectrum does not prove that the spectrum doesn't exist.


"Majority" probably being hogwash, your scale is irrelevant to those of us who do not need it, those of us who aren't some wishy-washy "5% this," "95%" that.

This is, sadly, a type of prejudice that is becoming increasingly common in the gay community. People who refuse to "choose a side" when it comes to their sexuality are often attacked, as are people who acknowledge that they have leanings in one direction or the other but are not exclusively gay or straight. It saddens me that this sort of behavior should be showing up among the very people who should best understand how cruel and irrational it is.


I don't find it at all silly because it applies very well to me. I like cock. I will not be attracted to someone with a pussy. It's that simple. I see nothing silly about that.

That's fine. My buddy is only attracted to blondes (of either gender) and is simply not attracted to brunettes. Does this mean that all humans must define their sexual orientation based on the hair color of their partner simply because one person happens to feel it is a critical trait?


And for me it is silly to stand for people denying who I am. Deny my sexuality, and I will deny yours.
Nobody is denying you anything. Get a grip. I am simply pointing out that there is no more reason to define human sexuality by the gender of one's partner than there is to define it based on any other quality.

EDIT: I think the problem may be one of miscommunication. You appear to think that I was saying that there is no such thing as a person who is attracted exclusively to members of the same sex. That's not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that there's no particular reason to define sexuality that way in the first place.

So humans are all really just bisexuals, and anything else is denial. Good to know. BISEXUAL SUPERIORITY!

So humans are all really just bisexuals, and anything else is denial. Good to know. BISEXUAL SUPERIORITY!
Please, oh please, don't make it worse. :(

So humans are all really just bisexuals, and anything else is denial. Good to know. BISEXUAL SUPERIORITY!
Well, actually the point is that all healthy human beings are just sexual, period.

Please, oh please, don't make it worse. :(
What I see a lot of homosexual (and straight) people object to is the suggestion that they either WILL stray over to the other side, or they are in denial. I see that as offensive, and not accurate. Some people are wholly straight, and some are wholly gay. If all that means is they are on the extreme side of each spectrum, then leave it at that.

Well, actually the point is that all healthy human beings are just sexual, period.
Not period. It's not blanket, free for all sexuality.

It should be, in my opinion, but it just ain't.

Wait, all the pedophile talk...I take that back. Never mind.

What? Why does discovering that you're homosexual automatically mean that you sleep with men?

Because that's the topic. Excuses to cheat on your spouse. The cheating on the spouse bit is from the OP, and the topic I was addressing. I don't care if it's heterosexual or homosexual 'cheating,' it's cheating. That was the point of my post. The OP suggests that we should feel sympathetic for the adulterer in this case simply because of the sex of their illicit lover. I disagree and posted why.

What label would you use if not "homosexual" about me?

Not a big fan of labelling people based on their sexual preference, because it really doesn't matter to me whether one likes dick or not. If forced to label you, though, I'll just go with "intelligent bloke I respect."

What I see a lot of homosexual (and straight) people object to is the suggestion that they either WILL stray over to the other side, or they are in denial. I see that as offensive, and not accurate. Some people are wholly straight, and some are wholly gay. If all that means is they are on the extreme side of each spectrum, then leave it at that.
I don't think anybody in this thread has argued that everybody's sexuality WILL change, or that everybody who thinks they're straight/gay is in denial, or that ALL people will be of one particular orientation or another. I know I haven't.

Indeed, I've spent a lot of time typing out explanations for why sexuality can be both non-genetic and also non-chosen, why some individuals may NOT change and others may, and why it's silly to worry about "straying" from one arbitrary classification into another.

Not period. It's not blanket, free for all sexuality.

It should be, in my opinion, but it just ain't.
At some level it is, though. Just because society denies it, doesn't make it true.
Wait, all the pedophile talk...I take that back. Never mind.
As long as they don't act on it...

Not a big fan of labelling people based on their sexual preference, because it really doesn't matter to me whether one likes dick or not. If forced to label you, though, I'll just go with "intelligent bloke I respect."
Seconded on both counts.

What label would you use if not "homosexual" about me?

You do have a name, don't you?

I don't go around calling people "breeder", "fag", and "slut".

No, I'm talking about science.

No, you're not. You're talking about a poor personal projection.

The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are human inventions which do not reflect the tremendous exhuberance of human sexual behaviors.

All terms are human inventions - that has nothing to do with their veracity. And they do properly reflect human sexual behaviour in many, many, many of us. That they do not apply to you has nothing to do with how they apply with me, so, please, don't tell me about your silly scale you wish to project on me. I don't project an "either or" or on you, so don't project your wishy-washiness on me.

The fact that you happen to fall at a certain point along a spectrum does not prove that the spectrum doesn't exist.

It does not exist for me. A point is a not a line.

This is, sadly, a type of prejudice that is becoming increasingly common in the gay community.

Increasingly common for a simple reason: Bisexualists who keep telling us "we're on a scale" and "what we truly are" when we are not. The rest of us are sick of it.

People who refuse to "choose a side" when it comes to their sexuality are often attacked, as are people who acknowledge that they have leanings in one direction or the other but are not exclusively gay or straight. It saddens me that this sort of behavior should be showing up among the very people who should best understand how cruel and irrational it is.

Yes, these bisexuals are very irrational when they attempt to tell us what we "truly" are. As I said - tell me "I'm on a scale" and "I'm really not homosexual deep down inside," and I will tell you you're not bisexual "deep down inside." Payback's a bitch, and those fence-sitters who attempt to act all high and mighty in dictating to us what we are can just deal with it. I have no sympathy for them.

That's fine. My buddy is only attracted to blondes (of either gender) and is simply not attracted to brunettes. Does this mean that all humans must define their sexual orientation based on the hair color of their partner simply because one person happens to feel it is a critical trait?

Again, irrelevant and incomparable.

Nobody is denying you anything. Get a grip. I am simply pointing out that there is no more reason to define human sexuality by the gender of one's partner than there is to define it based on any other quality.

And I am simply pointing out that your chosen quality is bull when it comes to me, and many like me, who want nothing to do with your "scales" and your appeasement.

Not a big fan of labelling people based on their sexual preference, because it really doesn't matter to me whether one likes dick or not. If forced to label you, though, I'll just go with "intelligent bloke I respect."
There is a perfectly usable label that he is perfectly willing to live with. Avoiding it is silly.

Unless you actually think that 'homosexual' is some sort of insult.

You do have a name, don't you?

My name is irrelevant to my sexuality.

I don't go around calling people "breeder", "fag", and "slut".

I do, but only with my close friends.

Again with the oversimplifcation

No one is suggesting it is a choice in the form of

"I'm going to choose to like men/women as oppsoed to men/women today"

What they are suggesting is that it is not a biological form of behaviour, but a learned one, picked up by various external factors.

Please stop criticising people by saying they are saying one thing when in fact they are not
Fair enough, if you will stop presuming to understand what I'm saying.

It's not "learned behavior" ... period. You'll never be able to convince me that people will put themselves through the sort of abuse many gays have to endure for some sort of "learned behavior." It's definitely biologically based, and most likely has its epigenesis in genetics.

Learn the difference between "surplus" and "deficit".
Learn to butt out of conversations where you have little or no comprehension.

There is a perfectly usable label that he is perfectly willing to live with. Avoiding it is silly.

Exactly. I am a homosexual. It is a label I embrace and that suits me perfectly. I am not offended by it, I am not ashamed of it, and I hate it when certain individuals tell me I shouldn't use it.

You want to tell me I'm an "intelligent bloke [you] respect?" Fine, but I'm also an "intelligent" fucking faggot you claim to respect.

Exactly. I am a homosexual. It is a label I embrace and that suits me perfectly. I am not offended by it, I am not ashamed of it, and I hate it when certain individuals tell me I shouldn't use it.

You want to tell me I'm an "intelligent bloke [you] respect?" Fine, but I'm also a fucking "intelligent" faggot you respect.

Sure, but I don't see much point in focusing on one's sexuality when it comes to my non-sexual relations with him/her. Doesn't matter at all to me whether you like men or women. *shrug*

In the end, these guys cheat on their wives, I don’t care who they do it with, they’re adulterers and oath breakers.
And this has what to do with the thread? We're talking about people who are either late in admitting their sexual orientation or who have families with whom they strongly desire to remain in relationship.

I do, but only with my close friends.
That's so sweet! You've called me both 'breeder' AND 'slut' you wonderful fag!

That's so sweet! You've called me both 'breeder' AND 'slut' you wonderful fag!

I was talking IRL. On-line, I tend to use them affectionately, but without the "close friendship" part.

Sure, but I don't see much point in focusing on one's sexuality when it comes to my non-sexual relations with him/her. Doesn't matter at all to me whether you like men or women. *shrug*
Um...the whole conversation revolves around sexuality. If we were talking about nationality, we'd be calling him a Swede. If we were referring to gender, we'd be calling him a male. If we were referring to fashion sense, we'd call him a victim. (hehehehehe) But calling him a homosexual right now makes a load of sense.

No, you're not. You're talking about a poor personal projection.

Okay, let's try to clarify.

When you say, "you are talking about a poor personal projection," to what are you refering?


All terms are human inventions - that has nothing to do with their veracity. And they do properly reflect human sexual behaviour in many, many, many of us. That they do not apply to you has nothing to do with how they apply with me, so, please, don't tell me about your silly scale you wish to project on me. I don't project an "either or" or on you, so don't project your wishy-washiness on me.

I don't understand why you are so hostile toward me. I am not telling you what you feel or to whom you are attracted. Frankly, I hadn't really given it any thought, because I don't really care.

I was talking about what science has, thus far, uncovered about human sexuality. This means I'm talking on a population level, a SPECIES level, and that means that you're GOING TO HAVE A SPECTRUM. Sorry, but that's just how it is. Hell, even the sexes aren't really binary with humans! We have plenty of people who aren't exclusively male or female, so why the fuck should we be so stupid as to define sexuality based on if you like males or female?!


It does not exist for me. A point is a not a line.

Ahhhhh. Ok, I think you misunderstood me.

HUMAN SEXUALITY is, based on what we know, a continuum of "orientations" or complex behaviors. This doesn't mean that YOUR sexuality is a continuum. It means that you, as an individual human, occupy an individual point along the spectrum that is made up of all the sexualities of all the humans who live or have ever lived on this planet.


Increasingly common for a simple reason: Bisexualists who keep telling us "we're on a scale" and "what we truly are" when we are not. The rest of us are sick of it.

I don't understand why you would be insulted by being reminded that you are one human among billions. That is a fact; it doesn't in any way devalue you, or compell you to be something you are not.

Your eyes have a particular color. If we were to create a color spectrum of all the eye colors of all the people on Earth, your eyes would occupy one spot on that continuum. The fact that the continuum exists does not mean that your eye color (individual) is moving along the continuum.


Yes, these bisexuals are very irrational when they attempt to tell us what we "truly" are. As I said - tell me "I'm on a scale" and "I'm really not homosexual deep down inside," and I will tell you you're not bisexual "deep down inside." Payback's a bitch, and those fence-sitters who attempt to act all high and mighty in dictating to us what we are can just deal with it. I have no sympathy for them.

For the gazillionth time, I am NOT telling you what you do or do not feel. I'm not telling you that you must or must not be attracted to certain people. I'm not telling you how to fuck, where to fuck, or who to fuck. I'm not the least bit interested in any of that, frankly.

I am speaking about HUMAN SEXUALITY on the population level. Your individual sexuality exists at a given point along the collective spectrum of human sexualities. This is simply a fact, as is the fact that your eye color occupies a certain point on the color spectrum.

There is no reason for you to attack people who are attracted to both men and women. To call them "fence-sitters" is really more silly than it is insulting, since there's no "fence" to sit upon.


And I am simply pointing out that your chosen quality is bull when it comes to me, and many like me, who want nothing to do with your "scales" and your appeasement.
What chosen quality do you think I am holding?

Because that's the topic. Excuses to cheat on your spouse. The cheating on the spouse bit is from the OP, and the topic I was addressing. I don't care if it's heterosexual or homosexual 'cheating,' it's cheating. That was the point of my post. The OP suggests that we should feel sympathetic for the adulterer in this case simply because of the sex of their illicit lover. I disagree and posted why.
Not at all. You're the one who tossed "morality" into the mix. The OP suggests no such thing.

Um...the whole conversation revolves around sexuality. If we were talking about nationality, we'd be calling him a Swede. If we were referring to gender, we'd be calling him a male. If we were referring to fashion sense, we'd call him a victim. (hehehehehe) But calling him a homosexual right now makes a load of sense.

Ouch! LOL! :D

Um...the whole conversation revolves around sexuality. If we were talking about nationality, we'd be calling him a Swede. If we were referring to gender, we'd be calling him a male. If we were referring to fashion sense, we'd call him a victim. (hehehehehe) But calling him a homosexual right now makes a load of sense.

That might work for him, but as for me, specialization is for insects.

Sure, but I don't see much point in focusing on one's sexuality when it comes to my non-sexual relations with him/her. Doesn't matter at all to me whether you like men or women. *shrug*

Another thing that annoys me, the whole "it doesn't matter to me you're a fag," sanctimoniousness. It matters to me that I am. It's not something I can forget as easily as you can pretend it away.

Um...the whole conversation revolves around sexuality. If we were talking about nationality, we'd be calling him a Swede. If we were referring to gender, we'd be calling him a male. If we were referring to fashion sense, we'd call him a victim. (hehehehehe) But calling him a homosexual right now makes a load of sense.

Miss aboriginal should talk about fashion...

I was talking IRL. On-line, I tend to use them affectionately, but without the "close friendship" part.
Oh you suck. I hate you.

Miss aboriginal should talk about fashion...
There's something sexy about fur...

Another thing that annoys me, the whole "it doesn't matter to me you're a fag," sanctimoniousness. It matters to me that I am. It's not something I can forget as easily as you can pretend it away.

I'm not "pretending it away." You're gay. Great. Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. I don't walk around with a banner screaming that I'm straight, do I? Why? Because it doesn't fucking matter. I don't understand why some people are so content to define themselves based on their sexual orientation. It's one part of many of our identities as individuals.

That might work for him, but as for me, specialization is for insects.
Sure. You're so general, that you just refer to Muslims as 'human'.

Miss aboriginal should talk about fashion...

Touche! :D

Miss aboriginal should talk about fashion...
Lick my buckskin, you know you want to..

Have you ever had a cold? I had one last week.

I didn't choose to have my nose running. I didn't choose to have a sore throat or a headache all the time. If I'd had my druthers, I'd have made those symptoms disappear.

Yet my cold was not caused by anything genetic. It was not coded in my DNA that I should get a cold at the end of July, 2006.

Ta-da! Not a choice, and also not genetic!


So that means homosexuality is an illness or disease?

Oh you suck. I hate you.

I wish.

Lick my buckskin, you know you want to..

That's too curly-hairy to be buck...

Fair enough, if you will stop presuming to understand what I'm saying.

It's not "learned behavior" ... period. You'll never be able to convince me that people will put themselves through the sort of abuse many gays have to endure for some sort of "learned behavior." It's definitely biologically based, and most likely has its epigenesis in genetics.
"Learned behaviors" can often be biologically based.

For instance, rat brains will show physiological and structural changes as a result of various learning and memory training routines. Rats which are trained to perform particular tasks from a young age will often show biological differences compared to controls. These differences then lead to different performance when it comes to learning tasks, so you get a snake-eating-its-own-tail kind of situation, in which the learning impacts the brain which impacts the learning...

We know that learned behaviors CAN influence a person's sexual desires, as well as having some impact on who they feel attracted to, but we don't yet have a way to know how big of a deal this is compared to all the other factors that are involved in shaping human sexuality.

I happen to think it likely that "learned behaviors" may be enhancing or reducing qualities that the person already had to one degree or another, but not adding any new qualities that weren't there to begin with. If you start with a person who has zero tendency to be attracted to men, I don't think any "learned behavior" is going to suddenly make them be attracted to men. However, if you start with a person who is attracted to both men and women, different "learned behaviors" could make them more or less likely to choose to be in relationships with men vs. women.

That's too curly-hairy to be buck...
Doesn't smell like buck, either.

Doesn't smell like buck, either.

Stop sniffing Sinuhue. That's just plain weird. :p

So that means homosexuality is an illness or disease?
*sigh* No. Nor does it mean heterosexuality is.

Sure. You're so general, that you just refer to Muslims as 'human'.
Zing!

Zing!
Whip me! Beat me! Call me Edna!

Doesn't smell like buck, either.

She wishes...

I happen to think it likely that "learned behaviors" may be enhancing or reducing qualities that the person already had to one degree or another, but not adding any new qualities that weren't there to begin with. If you start with a person who has zero tendency to be attracted to men, I don't think any "learned behavior" is going to suddenly make them be attracted to men. However, if you start with a person who is attracted to both men and women, different "learned behaviors" could make them more or less likely to choose to be in relationships with men vs. women.
I can't argue with that. I just happen to believe, based on what little comprehension we have right now, that most homosexuals are that way from birth. The reason could be purely genetic, or purely something that happens to them chemically in the womb, or a combination of both. Part of my problem with using "learned behavor" as one of the primary determinants of homosexuality is that I have never met a gay who could point to something in his personal history that caused him to become gay.

And this has what to do with the thread? We're talking about people who are either late in admitting their sexual orientation or who have families with whom they strongly desire to remain in relationship.


I beleive you just condoned someone cheating on their spouse. It is not acceptable (generally) nor specificially (in most instances) to cheat. Late in discovering their sexuality? That is a cop out if I have ever seen one. If they have a strong desire to remain in the relationship, they should do; however, this precludes having sexual contacts with someone who is not their spouse.

I beleive you just condoned someone cheating on their spouse. It is not acceptable (generally) nor specificially (in most instances) to cheat. Late in discovering their sexuality? That is a cop out if I have ever seen one. If they have a strong desire to remain in the relationship, they should do; however, this precludes having sexual contacts with someone who is not their spouse.
There is more to nature than is found in your philosophy.

*sigh* No. Nor does it mean heterosexuality is.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in the analogy, nothing more. Not to be critical, but to point out the limits to which it was relevant.

There is more to nature than is found in your philosophy.

I'm not sure of the relationship of your reply to my response, please be more specific.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in the analogy, nothing more. Not to be critical, but to point out the limits to which it was relevant.
That's not a flaw in the analogy. That would be a flaw in the reader's comprehension, since I wasn't presenting an analogy to sexuality in the first place. I was providing an illustration of how something can be non-genetic and also non-chosen. I wasn't making any analogy to homosexuality or heterosexuality.

That's not a flaw in the analogy. That would be a flaw in the reader's comprehension, since I wasn't presenting an analogy to sexuality in the first place. I was providing an illustration of how something can be non-genetic and also non-chosen. I wasn't making any analogy to homosexuality or heterosexuality.

In that case, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps another post had tried to tie the two together. In that case I agree, I postulate that there are thnn four possible causes within that framework: genetic, choice, external random factor (an event which causes a certain result) - a bus hits me and breaks my leg), and an external focused factor (an event which is intended to bring about a certain result) - someone hits me with a club to break my leg.

I can't argue with that. I just happen to believe, based on what little comprehension we have right now, that most homosexuals are that way from birth. The reason could be purely genetic, or purely something that happens to them chemically in the womb, or a combination of both. Part of my problem with using "learned behavor" as one of the primary determinants of homosexuality is that I have never met a gay who could point to something in his personal history that caused him to become gay.
I think you'd be unwise to discount factors post-birth. Even if you want to believe that sexuality is set by puberty, there are still so many things going on during infancy and early child development that I think it's a bit premature to rule them out as possible influences on sexuality.

Remember, human beings are actually born at a relatively early stage in neurological development as compared to other vertibrates. Because of our massive brains (and, consequently, our massive heads) we must be born while we are still small enough to exit our mother's body. Compared to many other animal species, humans are born at a stage that would still be in the egg or in the womb. This means that humans are actually born "younger" than most other vertibrate animals, and that human still have a significant portion of our neurological maturation to go through after birth.

... something can be non-genetic and also non-chosen.
And that would be??? Somehow, I cannot envision a human characteristic which was generated by neither genetics nor choice. [ puzzled look ]

And that would be??? Somehow, I cannot envision a human characteristic which was generated by neither genetics nor choice. [ puzzled look ]
I explained this earlier in the thread. I can provide examples of human characteristics which are non-genetic and non-chosen all day long, if you like. :)

Hell, just look at identical twins. They started from the same fertilized egg, and got the same set of genes, yet most identical twins can be told apart by anybody who knows them (and often even by people who don't know them). Do you really think that identical twins consciously choose to direct the physical differences that distinguish them? Do you think identical twins have the power to consciously control their entire personalities?

I think you'd be unwise to discount factors post-birth. Even if you want to believe that sexuality is set by puberty, there are still so many things going on during infancy and early child development that I think it's a bit premature to rule them out as possible influences on sexuality.

Remember, human beings are actually born at a relatively early stage in neurological development as compared to other vertibrates. Because of our massive brains (and, consequently, our massive heads) we must be born while we are still small enough to exit our mother's body. Compared to many other animal species, humans are born at a stage that would still be in the egg or in the womb. This means that humans are actually born "younger" than most other vertibrate animals, and that human still have a significant portion of our neurological maturation to go through after birth.
Perhaps so, but would not all that post-partum "maturation" not be dictated by genetic inheritance and/or environmental factors? I'm still having problems comprehending how something as basic as human sexuality could be determined by something other than genetics or choice. :confused:

I explained this earlier in the thread. I can provide examples of human characteristics which are non-genetic and non-chosen all day long, if you like. :)

Hell, just look at identical twins. They started from the same fertilized egg, and got the same set of genes, yet most identical twins can be told apart by anybody who knows them (and often even by people who don't know them). Do you really think that identical twins consciously choose to direct the physical differences that distinguish them? Do you think identical twins have the power to consciously control their entire personalities?
Most studies of identical ( i.e. maternal ) twins raised apart indicate that even such things as choice of occupation, choice of clothing, choice of mates, etc. are too often virtually identical to be nothing more than chance.

Perhaps so, but would not all that post-partum "maturation" not be dictated by genetic inheritance and/or environmental factors? I'm still having problems comprehending how something as basic as human sexuality could be determined by something other than generics or choice. :confused:
You said it yourself: the maturation is directed by genetics AND environmental factors. Some environmental factors can influence development by mutating genes. Many do not.

Some environmental factors can change how the genes you possess will be expressed. Some factors can alter your body's physiological characteristics, and a given gene product may have different impacts based on what kind of internal environment it is in.

Most studies of identical ( i.e. maternal ) twins raised apart indicate that even such things as choice of occupation, choice of clothing, choice of mates, etc. are too often virtually identical to be nothing more than chance.
I'm not sure what studies you've been reading, but most studies on identical twins do not report the findings you describe. Most studies find that there is a higher degree of correlation between identical twins and fraternal twins, biological siblings, or adopted siblings, but no study I've encountered found statistically valid prefect correlation on any complex behavior or trait.

Additionally, you have to remember that there's a huge confounding factor in twin studies; if you're just going to compare identical twins separated at birth, and if you want to attribute their similarities to genetics, you will first have to establish that they didn't experience ANY of the same environmental factors. That's gonna be a real bitch, methodologically speaking.

I beleive you just condoned someone cheating on their spouse. It is not acceptable (generally) nor specificially (in most instances) to cheat. Late in discovering their sexuality? That is a cop out if I have ever seen one. If they have a strong desire to remain in the relationship, they should do; however, this precludes having sexual contacts with someone who is not their spouse.At a glance, cheating on a wife is all it seems like. However, that requires denying the power and consequences of denial. Lies to yourself will often catch up to you in ways you would never imagine. If staying together with your wife if you discover you're gay and you've been lying to yourself all these years will cause great unhappiness if the lies continue, why should you?

I mean where does it say "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife"? Next to the part that says "thou shalt not make false testimony".

Why would living a lie be so much more moral than adultry?

At a glance, cheating on a wife is all it seems like. However, that requires denying the power and consequences of denial. Lies to yourself will often catch up to you in ways you would never imagine. If staying together with your wife if you discover you're gay and you've been lying to yourself all these years will cause great unhappiness if the lies continue, why should you?

I mean where does it say "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife"? Next to the part that says "thou shalt not make false testimony".

Why would living a lie be so much more moral than adultry?
Your mistake is that you are trying to find which one is more moral. The real issue, is which one is more gay.

And this has what to do with the thread? We're talking about people who are either late in admitting their sexual orientation or who have families with whom they strongly desire to remain in relationship.

Are you kidding? You can't see the forest because the trees are in your way?

A cheating man strongly doesn't want to lose his wife simply because of his infidelity, that's what the OP you posted is about, and it is what I pointed out, it has everything to do with this thread. I looked past ‘why’ he wants to cheat on his wife and saw that he was simply cheating on his wife with a slightly different partner than most do it with, and apparently that’s the only thing you can see, the fact that the person he cheats on his spouse with isn’t another woman. Yet infidelity is infidelity, we shouldn’t care what gender they had sex with…

You said it yourself: the maturation is directed by genetics AND environmental factors. Some environmental factors can influence development by mutating genes. Many do not.

Some environmental factors can change how the genes you possess will be expressed. Some factors can alter your body's physiological characteristics, and a given gene product may have different impacts based on what kind of internal environment it is in.
So most personality characteristics are the result of interation between genes and environment? Well, why didn't you just say so? Heh! I've said that for years! :)

Are you kidding? You can't see the forest because the trees are in your way?

A cheating man strongly doesn't want to lose his wife simply because of his infidelity, that's what the OP you posted is about, and it is what I pointed out, it has everything to do with this thread. I looked past ‘why’ he wants to cheat on his wife and saw that he was simply cheating on his wife with a slightly different partner than most do it with, and apparently that’s the only thing you can see, the fact that the person he cheats on his spouse with isn’t another woman. Yet infidelity is infidelity, we shouldn’t care what gender they had sex with…
Ok. Your opinion is duly noted. I don't necessarily agree with it, but you're certainly entitled to it. The fact remains that we were discussing something totally unrelated to "morality."

I'm not sure what studies you've been reading, but most studies on identical twins do not report the findings you describe. Most studies find that there is a higher degree of correlation between identical twins and fraternal twins, biological siblings, or adopted siblings, but no study I've encountered found statistically valid prefect correlation on any complex behavior or trait.

Additionally, you have to remember that there's a huge confounding factor in twin studies; if you're just going to compare identical twins separated at birth, and if you want to attribute their similarities to genetics, you will first have to establish that they didn't experience ANY of the same environmental factors. That's gonna be a real bitch, methodologically speaking.
I can't remember the specifics of the studies involving identical twins, but I do recall that it involved only identical twins separated at birth. It wasn't a "statistically perfect" study, but the results were "statistically significant."

0.01%

Where are you getting these statistics? Information I've seen on research conducted relating to the altered brain chemistry in utero of homosexuals doesn't place it that low even in the lowest source I've gotten a number from.

In addition, I don't see where you get your categorical claim that there is absolutely no genetic component whatsoever. Even the biologists, geneticists, neurologists, etc. doing research in the area haven't formed a strong or broad conclusion on that question, and in the current time there is research from some scientists that contradicts your view.

If that statistic is true, and according to you, homosexuality isn't in any way genetic, wouldn't it therefore stand to reason that the overwhelming majority of gays choose to be gay?

Regardless of what's found regarding percentage attributable, other science rules this out easily. Homosexual brains react completely differently to mating-related stimuli, primarily pheromones, than heterosexual members of the same gender, and the altered activity closely resembles the reactions of heterosexual members of the opposite sex.

In addition, from a logical standpoint, it makes no sense. Sexual attraction is involuntary; it'd be like choosing what you smell, or deciding when to feel deja vu. Plus, who would ever choose to be gay in current society, voluntarily subjecting themselves to hatred, fear, social ostracizing, and persecution?

I think the overwhelming majority of gays, including myself, would tell you that they never chose to be attracted to the same gender. Personally, looking back I can see that my attraction, or the preadolescent precursors to it, was pointed squarely at males based on memories as far back as the 2nd grade.

So most personality characteristics are the result of interation between genes and environment? Well, why didn't you just say so? Heh! I've said that for years! :)
Yeeesss, but I would be careful how you phrase that. (If only because there are a lot of people likely to leap to the wrong conclusions if you do.)

Don't slip up and start thinking that "biological" means "genetic." Also, don't assume that "environment" refers only to psychological or social factors. There are many environmental factors that are purely physical/physiological in nature, and which may change your body or brain in physical ways (as opposed to impacting your individual psychology or "mind").

I can't remember the specifics of the studies involving identical twins, but I do recall that it involved only identical twins separated at birth. It wasn't a "statistically perfect" study, but the results were "statistically significant."
Yeah, those studies have a major problem. See, if you want to attribute something to genetics, you have to rule out environmental factors. If you look at two people who are genetically identical but were reared in different families, you can't automatically attribute similarities between the two to their shared genetics.

What if they both happened to be reared by Christian parents? What if they both had fathers named Steve? What if they both were fed apples on a regular basis? We have no clue which environmental factors may or may not be salient, so we have to admit that any similarities COULD be the result of environmental similarities rather than genetic ones.

The best kind of twin studies are the ones that also use data from fraternal twins, biological siblings, and adopted siblings. If you see that identical twins are much more similar than fraternal twins or biological siblings or adopted siblings, then you've got a convincing case for genetic involvement.

The other thing to remember is that if a given trait were really 100% genetic, you should pretty much ALWAYS see identical twins perfectly matched up. If you see a 90% correlation between identical twins, what that tells you is that genetics are a very important factor, but the trait you're looking at IS NOT purely genetic. As far as I know, no complex behavioral trait has ever been found to be 100% genetic via twin studies; the closest correlation I'm aware of is around 70%.