I´ve been wondering about Gay-ness and choices and stuff

[ALEXIS_DH]

So, I´ve wondering lately, and would like to hear from toshi the biological pov.

Gays defend their gay-ness (not that am against it or anything), as their choice. they like people of their same sex. thats cool with me.

on the other hand, people with chemical inbalances that affect their behavior, like bipolar folks, DO NOT get the chance to choose and say "am bipolar and its my choice to be maniac", but they get labeled as bipolar and according to the docs they have to take their pills to stop being bipolar.

the bipolar folk, within its chemical inbalance, can choose to stay maniac (by not taking pills), and the gay folk, within his/her right mind, can choose to stay or be gay (by not making any biochemical adjustment with pills like bipolars).
Yet the bipolar is called a pacient and the gay is called a free-choice.

why am i wrong comparing both of them?
isnt homosexual behavior caused by chemical inbalances???
OR
is it a choice among non-chemically inbalanced individuals???

if its a choice among non-chemical inbalanced folks... and lust is caused by certain hormones, and the reproductive instinct is caused by another, then how do you explain sexual feelings towards non-fertile beings????

i mean, isnt your reproductive instinct somewhat messed if it leads you to non-fertile beings????
or is gayness a choice made by people in their right chemical balances??, and if so, how can behavior like this be explained in a non-biochemical-imbalance way???

[Damn True]

......and that sound you are hearing is the can of worms being opened.

[Ciaran]

I don't know about the gay folks, but I can tell you that you do not get to choose to be manic, or depressed when you are bi-polar. You can choose whether or not to take your meds, but that's about it. Your moods have a mind of their own, so to speak.

[bomberz1qr20]

So, I´ve wondering lately, and would like to hear from toshi the biological pov.

Gays defend their gay-ness (not that am against it or anything), as their choice. they like people of their same sex. thats cool with me.

on the other hand, people with chemical inbalances that affect their behavior, like bipolar folks, DO NOT get the chance to choose and say "am bipolar and its my choice to be maniac", but they get labeled as bipolar and according to the docs they have to take their pills to stop being bipolar.

the bipolar folk, within its chemical inbalance, can choose to be maniac, and the gay folk, within its right mind, can choose to be gay.
Yet the bipolar is called a pacient and the gay is called a free-choice.

why am i wrong comparing both of them? isnt homosexual behavior caused by chemical inbalances???, is it a choice among non-chemically inbalanced individuals???

if its a choice among non-chemical inbalanced folks... and lust is caused by certain hormones, and the reproductive instinct is caused by another, then how do you explain sexual feelings towards non-fertile beings????

i mean, isnt your reproductive instinct somewhat messed if it leads you to non-fertile beings????
or is gayness a choice made by people in their right chemical balances??, and if so, how can behavior like this be explained in a non-biochemical-imbalance way???

All the gay people I know aren't making a choice.

[ALEXIS_DH]

I don't know about the gay folks, but I can tell you that you do not get to choose to be manic, or depressed when you are bi-polar. You can choose whether or not to take your meds, but that's about it. Your moods have a mind of their own, so to speak.


yeah i know, am bipolar.
but the choice is when you get a maniac episode, to not take anything and enjoy the ride.
or like when you are depressed and do depressing things, you choose (within your chemical inbalance of course) to not take anything and feel depressed.

but when you are gay, what?? you feel attracted to other guys, and then what??? choose to enjoy the ride...
i mean, if there are pills that change things as intimate as your mood, there have to be something that can change your sexual behavior as well (and if they dont exists, they probably will at some point)... so, for the sake of the argument, lets say they exist.... now, where is the difference?

[ALEXIS_DH]

All the gay people I know aren't making a choice.


so its like the bipolar folk, who gets his maniac episode...

and within the mania, your only wish would be to obbey your mind and keep on it (cuz its a awesome feeling).... But doctors tell you you gotta munch your pills...

but the gay people, get their cravings like bipolars get their manias.... and no doctors tell them you gotta munch pills?.... :confused:

i mean, either way, if you put it like its no choice, or if its a choice... somehow its contradictory with the treatment for other people with biochemical-disbalanced (the gays you say that dont make a choice) influenced behaviour....

[zod]

I'd have to say that a large amount of being gay is choice and socialization, not to say that there could not be biological factors as I am sure there are. I have often pondered the very thing you are talking about Alexis, as to why homosexuality is not treated as a chemical imbalance. Then again you are talking about a sexual imbalance....from a deviant standpoint they are not treated medically in general. For example, if pedophelia is a chemical imbalance why aren't offenders checked into "treatments" wards instead of prison or after their prison sentance?

I think the main reason you won't see homosexuality becoming treated as some sort of chemical/mental disorder is that they are a BIG political group now with lots of funds and lots of swing. Nothing will happen to them that they deem as slowing down there acceptance.

[fluff]

This thread reeks of prejudice and misunderstanding of homosexuality. Perhaps bigotry is a chemical imbalance?

[DRB]

This thread reeks of prejudice and misunderstanding of homosexuality. Perhaps bigotry is a chemical imbalance?

Maybe bigotry is. Maybe kneejerk reactions are as well. Think about what he said.

If folks are born gay as are biopolar folks what's the difference. We treat bipolar folks as deviants (Burly gets in trouble for that word but an alternative is difficult) from the norm and seek to treat them in a variety of methods. If in fact hetrosexuality is the norm, why is homosexuality not viewed as a deviation to be treated in some manner or another?

If anything the line between bipolar and the so called norm seems much more gray then the line between hetro and homo.

Maybe turn this around, why do we view bipolar as something that needs to be treated? Why not just let folks be? I have a pretty good friend from high school that is bipolar and sometime ago he decided that his meds were ruining his life. As Alexis put it he has subsequently decided to ride his life. As a result he swings around like a wind chime in a tornado. Falling into deep depression, suffering from mania quite a bit and to a very few admittedly psychotic episodes (no lie his toaster talks to him if he gets rid of it the blender talks to him..... he likes his toaster better). However, he says he feels better than when he was "treated" as he is able to enjoy the "normal" times of his life. As time as passed I think that he has trained himself to better deal with who he is.

And before anyone goes on the "quit bashing gay folk" tirade, pull your hands away from the keyboard and listen.... I don't really care I'm just wondering how we as a society come to these decisions.

[Andyman_1970]

why am i wrong comparing both of them?
isnt homosexual behavior caused by chemical inbalances???
OR
is it a choice among non-chemically inbalanced individuals???

if its a choice among non-chemical inbalanced folks... and lust is caused by certain hormones, and the reproductive instinct is caused by another, then how do you explain sexual feelings towards non-fertile beings????


Excellent post Alexis :thumb:

An interesting side not to this, the previous revsions of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (referred to as the "DSM" by mental health folks) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, not unlike say bipolar or a personality disorder. It wasn't changed until the last revision I believe, around the mid 90's.

[fluff]

Maybe bigotry is. Maybe kneejerk reactions are as well. Think about what he said.

If folks are born gay as are biopolar folks what's the difference. We treat bipolar folks as deviants (Burly gets in trouble for that word but an alternative is difficult) from the norm and seek to treat them in a variety of methods. If in fact hetrosexuality is the norm, why is homosexuality not viewed as a deviation to be treated in some manner or another?

If anything the line between bipolar and the so called norm seems much more gray then the line between hetro and homo.

Maybe turn this around, why do we view bipolar as something that needs to be treated? Why not just let folks be? I have a pretty good friend from high school that is bipolar and sometime ago he decided that his meds were ruining his life. As Alexis put it he has subsequently decided to ride his life. As a result he swings around like a wind chime in a tornado. Falling into deep depression, suffering from mania quite a bit and to a very few admittedly psychotic episodes (no lie his toaster talks to him if he gets rid of it the blender talks to him..... he likes his toaster better). However, he says he feels better than when he was "treated" as he is able to enjoy the "normal" times of his life. As time as passed I think that he has trained himself to better deal with who he is.

And before anyone goes on the "quit bashing gay folk" tirade, pull your hands away from the keyboard and listen.... I don't really care I'm just wondering how we as a society come to these decisions.

I often feel that classifying things which occur naturally as deviations is wrong. I would think that someone who is 'classified' as bipolar is only the same as the rest of us but more so. What I mean by that is that we all operate across a spectrum and fall on different parts of that spectrum and operate across wider or narrower breadths on it. I myself have some ups and downs in life, from being clinically depressed at one stage to being (probably though not diagnosed) hypomanic as a result of small but significant events that trigger a disproportionate response. Even knowing that does not change the emotional/mood response.

The prejudice I perceived came in not from the bipolar or chemical imbalance statements but from the choice statements. The inclination to be gay is not a choice, acting upon it is. In the same way depression is not a choice, suicide (for example) would be.

If we are talking about psychotic episodes then I fail to see any valid comparison to homosexuality.

[MikeD]

Gays defend their gay-ness (not that am against it or anything), as their choice. they like people of their same sex. thats cool with me.


no, actually, in American mainstream politics, it's the opposite. Gays and most who support gay rights and equality say, "It's not my choice [ie, moral decision]. I am who I am and refuse to try and change it."

Those who see homosexuality as wrong, and perhaps don't want them to have a collective public voice, "It's your choice to be a pervert, and if you could choose to be normal, or at least try to be, with a) psychotherapy or b) prayer (or both!)."

In a sense, they're right. No one *makes* us do anything. You could, if you were attracted to men, live a celibite life or force yourself to have sex with/marry chicks. You could be condemned to be free, in a most Sartrian fashion.

However, that's kind of like telling me I have the choice to be a homosexual. Just ain't gonna happen...sorry, pal. And men have been trying to deny homosexual proclivities in our society for ages. Just doesn't happen. To some of us, this is a call for society to enlighten itself socially and accept people; to others, this acceptance is a descent into decadence for society.

Foucalt's position on homosexuality (ha, ha) was interesting, in that he claims the homosexual is a 'modern invention.' Not that dudes and chicks haven't been doing the nasty with their own kind since they discovered sex, but that in previous times, homosexual sex didn't define you as a separate class of person. You may have been a sodomite, condemned to death, but you were seen as a person who committed a crime or crime(s), defined by your actions rather than a separate class of person.

I think this is kind of BS, because you can see references in, say, Chaucer to homosexuals in general, through slang terms. ("I trust he was a gelding, or a mare") But it does beg the question...are you gay if you only think about banging dudes? I say yes. Some would say it's only your actions that define you. I suppose I'll define, very non-legalistically, thinking as an action in this case.

MD

[MikeD]

For example, if pedophelia is a chemical imbalance why aren't offenders checked into "treatments" wards instead of prison or after their prison sentance?


Isn't there somewhat of a debate about 'chemically neutering' some sex offenders who prey on children?

[Silver]

Why do bi-polar people get to marry?

[BurlyShirley]

Alexis, I agree 100% and have made a similar argument before.

[DRB]

The prejudice I perceived came in not from the bipolar or chemical imbalance statements but from the choice statements. The inclination to be gay is not a choice, acting upon it is. In the same way depression is not a choice, suicide (for example) would be.

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

[Jr_Bullit]

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

Sure they can - but that's not gonna stop your more "natural" instinct of checking out what you're programmed to find attractive.
As Chris Rock would say (and forgive me if the quote is off) "Why is it that women can have sex with women in college and call it experimentation when they're older, but if a guy sucks one dick, just oooone dick, and he's a homosexual for life?"

:thumb: experiment away if that's what shakes your cookies.

[zod]

Isn't there somewhat of a debate about 'chemically neutering' some sex offenders who prey on children?

I had not heard that.........I know there was a case in the US where a repeat offender was castrated, however it was at his own request. :eek:

[Silver]

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

A mental disorder brought on through biology or environment or upbringing seems to me to be the opposite of choice, no?

[Tenchiro]

All I know is that I did not choose to be straight, and that the thought of getting it on with a dude really is disgusting. I figure it is more or less the same way for gay people, whatever the cause may be. I could really care less what they do or who they do it with, as long as nobody is getting hurt.

[fluff]

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

I do not know the true reason why someone is inclined to be gay but I doubt that inclination is a choice.

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

I agree, what got my dander up (and I have been irritable today I admit) was the implication that Gay people make a choice, rather than have a desire to have sex with people of the same gender.

I may have over-reacted but I had read some other threads already... :dead:

[Toshi]

So, I´ve wondering lately, and would like to hear from toshi the biological pov.
have no time right now, but here's an old post in a similar thread from the past: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=368881&highlight=ama#post368881

will expand more later

[Jr_Bullit]

I don't know if it's a choice or not. I didn't chose to like boys, but I do, and the thought of being with a woman is repulsive to me - but, I also firmly believe that there can be a miss-perception to people born "straight" but are perhaps quite insecure, that they might have more "fun" or something if they were gay - which gets to the "experimentation" side...and that's a choice.
I think the level and type of choice probably varies, but in answer to Alexis' first question, bi-polar folks don't "have" to take the pills - you can "choose" to ride the wave, same for folks with turetz, same for folks who are depressed, or sleepy or whatever. My impression is that it's become socially acceptable for homosexuals (whatever the reason they are this way) to not "fight" their inclination but "ride the wave" and enjoy life as they see fit. It's also become socially acceptable to take drugs or whatever for any psychosis someone can invent for you.

Take your pick - it's all about love and happiness anyways ;)

[Ridemonkey]

LOL! Bipolar disorder effects peoples ability to function normally in life. Hence treatment. Gay people are not doing anything wrong other than pissing off the religious right.

[bikesaregood]

Comparing homosexuality with bipolar disorder is a conceit. Homosexuality was taken out of phsychiatrist diagnostic guides in the 1960's because there is no cure for it.

As for the "it-ain't-natural" argument that so many bigots are fond of throwing out there, you are relying on a Darwinian definition of "natural," since it's basis rests in reproduction. However, according to Darwin, if it is here, on earth, then it is natural, since existence is the only true verification of fitness. Thus, in a "survival of the fittest" paradigm, homosexual behavior is no less "fit" than heterosexuality since it exists.

If you want to argue that humans are exempt from the "survival of the fittest" paradigm since we have separated ourselves from nature, go ahead. But don't come crying to me when you can't get clean drinking water.

[BurlyShirley]

LOL! Bipolar disorder effects peoples ability to function normally in life.
Explain 'Function Normally' because to me, the point of sex by law of nature is reproduction. How are homosexuals functioning normally?

[valve bouncer]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe for some people it is a choice for others it's their natural state. It doesn't seem an "either or" question to me.

[ALEXIS_DH]

LOL! Bipolar disorder effects peoples ability to function normally in life. Hence treatment. Gay people are not doing anything wrong other than pissing off the religious right.


i wonder this as well.
i used bipolar as an example, but use any other behaviour based on a chemical inbalance.

like, a cold and cancer. of course the cancer affects your ability to function, and a cold not so much, yet both are called illnesses.

and you know, if you dont even have a concious or un-concious drive to mate with fertile beings, isnt that affecting your function in the born-eat-breath-mate-die living scheme??????

and i kinda think foucault definition in homosexuality as a sincere insight.

I´m all for gay marriage, and gay people. I dont have any problem with that.

[BurlyShirley]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe for some people it is a choice for others it's their natural state. It doesn't seem an "either or" question to me.
I agree with that. I think studies have shown that kids from single parent households (mom only) are more likely to be gay. I think watching The Wiggles will also make gay numbers higher in the future.

[valve bouncer]

. I think watching The Wiggles will also make gay numbers higher in the future.
Well that's a given Shirl.

[Ridemonkey]

Explain 'Function Normally' because to me, the point of sex by law of nature is reproduction. How are homosexuals functioning normally?

They have jobs, pay taxes, and take care of themselves without being a burden on the system. What they do beyond that is none of your business.

[valve bouncer]

They have jobs, pay taxes, and take care of themselves without being a burden on the system. What they do beyond that is none of your business.
Agreed. Are hetero couples who are able, but choose not, to spit out rugrats abnormal?

[ALEXIS_DH]

This thread reeks of prejudice and misunderstanding of homosexuality. Perhaps bigotry is a chemical imbalance?


wait. from all the prejudices i have, against gays is not one of them.
maybe misunderstanding.
I got nothing against gay people, at all. i wonder about it roots, thus i might seem a bigot because i dig in the establishment, but i think you are a bigt because you think anybody who digs the establishment is a bigot!


anyway, my point is about whether gays choose so or not.
so far most people say they dont choose.

then its a craving they have for people of the same sex, just like I dig redheads and long legs and to stay maniac whenever i can.

the problem is, doctors call me a "pacient" whenever i want to stay within my mania (not so hard that affects my life deeply, but hard enough to be sweeeeet), because they say my choice is compromised by my initial chemical inbalance.

But gays, is they have this craving for same-sex people, and doctors consider they can make the choice about staying in this state (means, they assume they are making the free choice with their minds not compromised like bipolars), but this contradicts the idea that i heard so far, that gays are gay not by choice, but because their bodies ask them so....

thus again, my question.... why is the choice of staying gay considered a choice made in the right chemical balance, while according to gays themselves (they do not choose to be gay in the 1st place), it isnt????

i find it easier to explain with foucaults position. easy as, gay people get their kicks with same sex people, just like i get my kicks with long-legged chicks.

[BurlyShirley]

They have jobs, pay taxes, and take care of themselves without being a burden on the system. What they do beyond that is none of your business.
Whether or not its my business is not even an issue. The issue is whether it is normal, which of course, it is not. By your standards, all one has to do is have a job and pay taxes to be normal. That's fine by me. I dont condemn people for being gay, cause I really dont care, so long as it doesnt affect me. Buy biologically speaking, it is abnormal.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Comparing homosexuality with bipolar disorder is a conceit. Homosexuality was taken out of phsychiatrist diagnostic guides in the 1960's because there is no cure for it.

As for the "it-ain't-natural" argument that so many bigots are fond of throwing out there, you are relying on a Darwinian definition of "natural," since it's basis rests in reproduction. However, according to Darwin, if it is here, on earth, then it is natural, since existence is the only true verification of fitness. Thus, in a "survival of the fittest" paradigm, homosexual behavior is no less "fit" than heterosexuality since it exists.

If you want to argue that humans are exempt from the "survival of the fittest" paradigm since we have separated ourselves from nature, go ahead. But don't come crying to me when you can't get clean drinking water.


your argument was good, until you touched darwin.

I mean, homosexual sex, is doomed by darwinism. because it does not breed anymore.
and the biological-darwinism success of an species is to rule the earth by sheer number!.

you argue gay sex is no less fit than hetero sex. that doesnt make any sense!!! if all animals from a species were 100% homosexual (not bi), then that species would be doomed to extinction in one single generation, since nobody would breed....

and extinction is THE failure under the theory of survival of the fittest.

[Ridemonkey]

Whether or not its my business is not even an issue. The issue is whether it is normal, which of course, it is not. By your standards, all one has to do is have a job and pay taxes to be normal. That's fine by me. I dont condemn people for being gay, cause I really dont care, so long as it doesnt affect me. Buy biologically speaking, it is abnormal.

The central question of the thread was whether homosexuality was a treatable condition. It is the idea that it is a condition that needs treatment that I am answering with the statement "how about folks mind their own business". After all - we could also speculate that hate and bigotry are conditions that could be treated.....

[ALEXIS_DH]

Agreed. Are hetero couples who are able, but choose not, to spit out rugrats abnormal?


you know, I´ve been wondering that lately.

By evolutionism standards, the darwinism-success of an species is linked to the number of offspring they have.
so, when people decide to have no kids, or like me, decide to have only 1...

aren´t we going also against the biological code of every animal of breeding as much as you can to preserve your species??????

of course its because we can no longer afford many kids and stuff...
but I think my point is there...

[BurlyShirley]

The central question of the thread was whether homosexuality was a treatable condition. It is the idea that it is a condition that needs treatment that I am answering with the statement "how about folks mind their own business". After all - we could also speculate that hate and bigotry are conditions that could be treated.....

I really dont think "mind your own business" clearly answers the question. Lets say we replace homophelia with balding. Doesnt need to be cured does it? Do bald people function in society? Sure. But some of them would like not to be bald. SCIENCE's job is to find out FACTS just like "can your cure people of being gay?"
Why is it not a valid question, is, i guess, all Im asking...

[Ridemonkey]

I really dont think "mind your own business" clearly answers the question. Lets say we replace homophelia with balding. Doesnt need to be cured does it? Do bald people function in society? Sure. But some of them would like not to be bald. SCIENCE's job is to find out FACTS just like "can your cure people of being gay?"
Why is it not a valid question, is, i guess, all Im asking...

Well I'm wondering if religion is a condition that can be cured. Seriously.

[Silver]

I really dont think "mind your own business" clearly answers the question. Lets say we replace homophelia with balding. Doesnt need to be cured does it? Do bald people function in society? Sure. But some of them would like not to be bald. SCIENCE's job is to find out FACTS just like "can your cure people of being gay?"
Why is it not a valid question, is, i guess, all Im asking...

It's pretty much a stupid question, since homosexual behavior has been observed a lot in animals. So in that sense, it is "natural."

[BurlyShirley]

It's pretty much a stupid question, since homosexual behavior has been observed a lot in animals. So in that sense, it is "natural."
Cancer has been observed in alot of animals too, what is your point? And so has male pattern balding.

[narlus]

well, duh, he's saying that it's natural. cancer is natural, and male pattern baldness is natural. thankfully, i'm afflicted by neither.

[Silver]

Cancer has been observed in alot of animals too, what is your point? And so has male pattern balding.

Yeah, both natural.

Being gay doesn't kill you like cancer does, unless you walk into a redneck bar perhaps...

[ALEXIS_DH]

The central question of the thread was whether homosexuality was a treatable condition. It is the idea that it is a condition that needs treatment that I am answering with the statement "how about folks mind their own business". After all - we could also speculate that hate and bigotry are conditions that could be treated.....


not exactly... i dont question if gays should take pills...

my point is.. homosexuality, according to what i read, is a considition caused by an involuntary chemical inbalance, in which the individual can choose to stay within this state.

other chemical in balances that affect behaviour dont get to choose to stay. they are labeled patients, and they cannot make "free decitions" since they are within this state of chemical inbalance...

see any difference??

i mean, medicine is supposed to be there to make living easier. taking pills make the life of a bipolar easier?? yes...

would the life of a gay person be easier if he/she was hetero??? of course it will!!!!, would it just be easier to change some neurotoxins like with a bipolar, instead of changing the world around it, to accomodate for their cravings????

i dont want to get into the definition of "normal" since I´m quite a moral relativist, and this kinda makes me think, homosexual, among all the behaviours with origins in chemical inbalances, receives an un-equal social treatment and definition compared to others (lets not think for a minute in how it affects life, but just on the definition themselves)

[BurlyShirley]

Yeah, both natural.

Being gay doesn't kill you like cancer does, unless you walk into a redneck bar perhaps...


Ok Silver and Narlus both. Slow ones. The point is that just because it happens naturally doesnt mean science doesnt have the obligation to explore it. Just like cancer and male pattern baldness (which you ignored as an example)

[Silver]

Ok Silver and Narlus both. Slow ones. The point is that just because it happens naturally doesnt mean science doesnt have the obligation to explore it. Just like cancer and male pattern baldness (which you ignored as an example)

It's been looked at. Maybe that's why it got taken out of the DSM? It's also been dismissed by anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind (Gays are evil, icky, etc...)

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yeah, both natural.

Being gay doesn't kill you like cancer does, unless you walk into a redneck bar perhaps...


but being 100% homo, kinda impairs your ability to breed, thus by a darwinism standard, and the definition of a biological success, is a failure.....

[zod]

It's pretty much a stupid question, since homosexual behavior has been observed a lot in animals. So in that sense, it is "natural."


This is really a bad argument that a lot of people make......being that if it is observed in nature it is "natural" hence OK. Not directed towards you Silver.....people will often talk about the reeses monkeys which happen to practice A LOT of homosexual behaviors. They will make the argument that since this species is so sexually active across sexes that it proves that homosexuality is at the very root of animal insticts/behaviors. However what they fail to mention is that the reeses also molest their babies, make their babies ejactulate them, etc. So this too is natural behavior that occurs in the animal kingdom......it is NATURAL but that does not make it proper for mankind.

We are not animals.........

[Ridemonkey]

Ok Silver and Narlus both. Slow ones. The point is that just because it happens naturally doesnt mean science doesnt have the obligation to explore it. Just like cancer and male pattern baldness (which you ignored as an example)

Well, slower one, I feel religion is a condition that negativley affects millions around the world and it would be great if that was treatable. Far more threatening than homosexuality. Don't want to discuss that? Its the same issue - just a different bunch of folks.

[ALEXIS_DH]

the DSM treatment of homosexuality if what made me wonder in the first place....
what is the reasoning behind deciding homosexuality is NOT an involuntary behaviour that impairs one´s ability to breed???

[Ridemonkey]

but being 100% homo, kinda impairs your ability to breed, thus by a darwinism standard, and the definition of a biological success, is a failure.....

Darwinism, as you use it in this context, does not apply to modern society.

[BurlyShirley]

Well, slower one, I feel religion is a condition that negativley affects millions around the world and it would be great if that was treatable. Far more threatening than homosexuality. Don't want to discuss that? Its the same issue - just a different bunch of folks.

Religion is a learned practice, it is not a chemical imbalance or anything biological. If you want to call homosexuality a 'choice' as religion is, then maybe we could say there is some relevance to your argument, but its obvious you're just trying to polarize the issue into one of hate, when Im just wondering about how's and why's.

[Silver]

but being 100% homo, kinda impairs your ability to breed, thus by a darwinism standard, and the definition of a biological success, is a failure.....

So? I'm not having kids. Ever. And I'm heterosexual.

[bomberz1qr20]

my point is.. homosexuality, according to what i read, is a considition caused by an involuntary chemical inbalance, in which the individual can choose to stay within this state.

Where, exactly, did you read this garbage?

Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is not a "condition". It's not going to be treated w/ pills like so many of you are hoping.

Give it a rest, macho man.

[Silver]

This is really a bad argument that a lot of people make......being that if it is observed in nature it is "natural" hence OK. Not directed towards you Silver.....people will often talk about the reeses monkeys which happen to practice A LOT of homosexual behaviors. They will make the argument that since this species is so sexually active across sexes that it proves that homosexuality is at the very root of animal insticts/behaviors. However what they fail to mention is that the reeses also molest their babies, make their babies ejactulate them, etc. So this too is natural behavior that occurs in the animal kingdom......it is NATURAL but that does not make it proper for mankind.

We are not animals.........

Granted. But that does throw out the whole "It's NOT natural!" screed, right?

[Ridemonkey]

Religion is a learned practice, it is not a chemical imbalance or anything biological. If you want to call homosexuality a 'choice' as religion is, then maybe we could say there is some relevance to your argument, but its obvious you're just trying to polarize the issue into one of hate, when Im just wondering about how's and why's.

I see your point. However, why is it conservatives obsess about things like homosexuality when it really has nothing to do with them? Why can't they just mind their own affairs?

[zod]

Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is not a "condition"


I wasn't aware this has been proven one way or the other???

[BurlyShirley]

I see your point. However, why is it conservatives obsess about things like homosexuality when it really has nothing to do with them? Why can't they just mind their own affairs?
Because their religion and values tell them to. That is not my position here.

[zod]

Granted. But that does throw out the whole "It's NOT natural!" screed, right?

Sure but what's that really matter........ a lot of things are natural. As I pointed out, homosexuality, child molestation, cannibalism, etc.

That still doesn't make it correct behavior for mankind, that is the only wrench I am trying to throw in there. The argument that animals do it is stupid b/c there are a lot of things animals do that we do not or should not.

[fluff]

This is really a bad argument that a lot of people make......being that if it is observed in nature it is "natural" hence OK. Not directed towards you Silver.....people will often talk about the reeses monkeys which happen to practice A LOT of homosexual behaviors. They will make the argument that since this species is so sexually active across sexes that it proves that homosexuality is at the very root of animal insticts/behaviors. However what they fail to mention is that the reeses also molest their babies, make their babies ejactulate them, etc. So this too is natural behavior that occurs in the animal kingdom......it is NATURAL but that does not make it proper for mankind.

We are not animals.........

Wierdly I was with you for a while there, then drifted off in a different direction.

I agree it's natural and the arguments about reproduction are irrelevent, and fact work against the viewpoint that we should rise above certain behaviour because we're mankind. Because we are mankind we can choose our behaviour and what we choose is wrong is generally so because it harms other people. However sleeping with a member of the same sex is no more harmful than sleeping with a member of the ooposite sex.

Also remember that sex is pleasurable and many of us partake if it for pleasure rather than reproduction. So if sex is pleasurable with a member of the same sex why should be unnatural, it is only activity, like riding a bike.

[ALEXIS_DH]

So? I'm not having kids. Ever. And I'm heterosexual.


:thumb: so, am hetero as well, and only want to have one kid.

this is a choice we are makign within our right minds, in a state of chemical balance, right???
so by legal definition, you can call it a choice made by people on their right minds...

but... if this "choice" was not a choice but rather a thing caused by an un-voluntary chemical inbalance.....

do you think it still weights as much as your decision, made without any chemical inbalance compromising it??

and if you think they both weight the same... then why is a bipolar person called a patient, if he/she decides "freely" to stay hypo-maniac (regardless it impairs a person, because hypòmania is not dangerous), and they say this person is not making a "free choice" because his decision is compromised by the chemical inbalance in the 1st place?????.....

[Silver]

Sure but what's that really matter........ a lot of things are natural. As I pointed out, homosexuality, child molestation, cannibalism, etc.



Let's review:

Consensual Activity:

Homosexual sex

Non-Consensual Activity

Child Molestation
Cannibalism (I'm assuming the person died at your hand.)


That's the big difference.

[bomberz1qr20]

I see your point. However, why is it conservatives obsess about things like homosexuality when it really has nothing to do with them? Why can't they just mind their own affairs?

Because their handbook (the bible) tells them it's wrong.

Christians are a forgiving lot. If they can relate to homosexuals as having a "condition" or an "imbalance", then it makes it more forgivable in their eyes. Then one can look for a "cure", and homosexuals can "choose" to be "cured".

People are the way that they are. I'm a heterosexual man, I have a kid, I like women, I wanted to breed - simple. Pills can't and won't make me gay, and pills won't make a gay man straight.

What about that is hard to understand?

[fluff]

Is it unnatural to want to ride a road-bike occasionally?

[BurlyShirley]

Pills can't and won't make me gay, and pills won't make a gay man straight.

What about that is hard to understand?

Says who?

[Ridemonkey]

Is it unnatural to want to ride a road-bike occasionally?

Alexis_DH knows about as much about road biking as he does about homosexuality. This should make for some interesting discussion.

[ALEXIS_DH]

I see your point. However, why is it conservatives obsess about things like homosexuality when it really has nothing to do with them? Why can't they just mind their own affairs?


its not about conservatives. am quite a liberal pinko. and i´m pro gay-marriage.

But I wonder in a psedo-phylosophical way what makes them get a different
social treament from other behaviours caused by chemical-inbalances????

am not trying to satanize nobody, in fact its you who tries to satanize me for making such questions, which in the first place, hace no prejudice towards gays.

[Ridemonkey]

its not about conservatives. am quite a liberal pinko. and i´m pro gay-marriage.

But I wonder in a psedo-phylosophical way what makes them get a different
social treament from other behaviours caused by chemical-inbalances????

am not trying to satanize nobody, in fact its you who tries to satanize me for making such questions, which in the first place, hace no prejudice towards gays.


Just because you started the thread doesn't mean all my posts are directed at you.

Your silly comments in the road forum are another issue.. ;)

[BurlyShirley]

Let's review:

Consensual Activity:

Homosexual sex

Non-Consensual Activity

Child Molestation
Cannibalism (I'm assuming the person died at your hand.)


That's the big difference.

Consensual Activity: Incest with birth control
Consensual Activity: Assisted Suicide
Consensual Activity: Sex with dolphins (dolphins actually like this)
Consensual Activity: Pissing in the sink
Im not trying to say homosexuality is exactly the same as these things, but just because they are consensual, doesnt make them right

[zod]

People are the way that they are. What about that is hard to understand?

So the hetero is hetero, the homo is home, the pedo is pedo, and the necro is necro.............forgot the beastio :monkey:

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis_DH knows about as much about road biking as he does about homosexuality. This should make for some interesting discussion.


lol. like I say, i know very little about homosexuality so i´ve been wondering abuot that lately and figuring out things myself....

so i´ll ask you directly, who knows a lot about gays...


what is the reasoning behind deciding homosexuality is NOT an involuntary
behaviour that impairs one´s ability to breed???

and what makes the "choice" of staying gay, a "free choice" (which means is made by people in their right minds), in oppposition as say, other conditions like bipolar disorder, in which doctors agree this people CANNOT make "free choices" (since their chemical inbalances compromise their choice).

When according to what i read here, people say people dont choose to be gay(which would mean is based on an involuntary chemical inbalance), in the very same way bipolar get their mood swings???

[valve bouncer]

Consensual Activity: Pissing in the sink

I always thought homosexuality was more like drinking out of the laundry tap. It's not what most people do but it's not actually wrong.

[narlus]

i think burly needs a new title.

i suggest SINK PISSER

[bomberz1qr20]

and if you think they both weight the same... then why is a bipolar person called a patient, if he/she decides "freely" to stay hypo-maniac (regardless it impairs a person, because hypòmania is not dangerous), and they say this person is not making a "free choice" because his decision is compromised by the chemical inbalance in the 1st place?????.....

What ever happened to "you're f*ckin crazy"?

[bomberz1qr20]

Says who?

Is there an effective anti-gay pill?

Take two and call AlexisDH in the morning.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Is there an effective anti-gay pill?

Take two and call AlexisDH in the morning.


hahaha, hey in my first post i said "for the sake of the argument say they exists"...

after all, if they have pills for depression and mania, its not far they day they will have them, if they dont already.

arent there hormonal treatment for those who go sex reassignment surgery?? arent those pills or shots to make a person more of a certain sex????

[bomberz1qr20]

what is the reasoning behind deciding homosexuality is NOT an involuntary
behaviour that impairs one´s ability to breed???


It doesn't impair the ability, it might lessen the likelyhood though...

Like I said of all the gay people I know or have known, not one of them were making a choice.


To quote my step cousin:

"I wake up gay and I go to bed gay. Im gay when I sleep too."

[BurlyShirley]

It doesn't impair the ability, it might lessen the likelyhood though...

Like I said of all the gay people I know or have known, not one of them were making a choice.


To quote my step cousin:

"I wake up gay and I go to bed gay. Im gay when I sleep too."
talk about dodging the issue...

[HedgeHog]

i wonder this as well.
i used bipolar as an example, but use any other behaviour based on a chemical inbalance.

like, a cold and cancer. of course the cancer affects your ability to function, and a cold not so much, yet both are called illnesses.

and you know, if you dont even have a concious or un-concious drive to mate with fertile beings, isnt that affecting your function in the born-eat-breath-mate-die living scheme??????

and i kinda think foucault definition in homosexuality as a sincere insight.

I´m all for gay marriage, and gay people. I dont have any problem with that.


I've heard similar arguments about homosexuality when it is compared to alcoholism. Alcoholism is a behavior pattern with a genetic predisposition. It is found in nature (monkey populations). Homosexuality is also found in nature, and many believe it is genetic and gay individuals are "born that way".

One lifestyle is perceived as being a problem by society, the other isn't as much. Since being gay is not harmful to people surrounding the individual like alcoholism (drunk driving, violence, etc) why is it such a concern?

[BurlyShirley]

. Since being gay is not harmful to people surrounding the individual like alcoholism (drunk driving, violence, etc) why is it such a concern?
For the howevermanyteenth time "why is it such a concern?" does not answer the question. Science exists to answer these very questions and should do so.

[Just Lookin'...]

'Normal' is a fallacy.

Married heterosexuals who don't reproduce are not 'normal' according to that definition.

Normal = reproduction is a highly simplistic concept, and people who use it as a condition for judgement of 'right or wrong' are only wasting other people's time.

It's a non-issue.

What about people who are attracted to blonds? They don't control that attraction, nor can they conclusively define it's origin. Yet, if they ask out a blond-haired individual they have 'chosen' to act on that attraction. If they only date brunetts, they've 'chosen' not to.

Choice = decision of action
Attraction = involuntary interest.

[ALEXIS_DH]

I've heard similar arguments about homosexuality when it is compared to alcoholism. Alcoholism is a behavior pattern with a genetic predisposition. It is found in nature (monkey populations). Homosexuality is also found in nature, and many believe it is genetic and gay individuals are "born that way".

One lifestyle is perceived as being a problem by society, the other isn't as much. Since being gay is not harmful to people surrounding the individual like alcoholism (drunk driving, violence, etc) why is it such a concern?


yup, homosexuality is of no-concern for outsider like US. but isnt this a political debate forum on the internet in which people argue for the sake of it? for whatever worth reason they can find???? :D

but still, i think, that for gay people themselves, being gay is more of a hassle than being hetero, given current society.

If I was gay, i would try to fix the chemical inbalance within instead of changing the world. its way easier.
I mean, one is an easier way to happiness IMO....

and like burlysurly said, everybody is dodging the ball on the meat of the arguments....

[MikeD]

I dunno. Isn't this about as stupid as whether a taste for vanilla ice cream is genetically patterned instead of a taste for chocolate ice cream? There's probably a lot of science that could go into finding out for sure, but shouldn't we focus on curing cancer first?

The only major 'issue' of it is personal morality (I don't like to think about or watch people publically eat vanilla ice cream!), which, in a conservative society that values individual rights and seeks to lessen society's control on the individual, shouldn't be too much of a big deal. Why the hell does everyone (both straight and gay) want to make such a public issue out of it?

I guess the current marriage issue on the table is the current problem...but there's a huge imperitive to legislate a morality in our society aside from that. I guess a lot of gay people want to 'normalize' themselves into society...but you can't really legislate that, either. Governmentally approving the term 'marriage' for gays, I suppose, would make people see it as societal endorsement of the practice.

Looks like it'll just be an evolution...gays will get to be 'partners' with full marriage benefits legally and financially, and soon enough, they'll just call themselves married and the term partner will just fall away as it's de facto marriage regardless of the terminology.

MD

Edit: The science portion of the question IS interesting as it falls under the umbrella of behavioral science and not morality; it's very true and shouldn't be trivialized. I just don't think it has relevance to the political argument, unless you want to set up gov't 'conversion camps' for gays. (Hey, wait...how would they try to convert them? If it involved porn stars and being forced to have sex with women, I might just thighn right up!)

[Jr_Bullit]

Here's a thought - why is it boys seem so obsessively fascinated with proving homosexuality is one way or another, but girls tend to not worry about it so much?

Perhaps it's because men are, in general, less secure in their sexuality and are afraid that it might just be a "condition" that affects them? After all - some of the most homosexual men I've known are the very ones who most loudly proclaimed their heterosexuality with an almost obsessive desire to prove to the world they were hetero.

Women...on the other hand....seem, in general, far more comfortable and less put off by the idea that two women can get each other off and enjoy it.

:think:

Maybe if more girls were turned on by guy on guy sex the idea of it would become more mainstream, and y'all would start loving one another in order to please your woman ;)

[MikeD]

Women...on the other hand....seem, in general, far more comfortable and less put off by the idea that two women can get each other off and enjoy it.

:think:


No, most men are pretty comfortable with that, too...

[Jesus]

Well I'm wondering if religion is a condition that can be cured. Seriously.

Doubt it.

If you believe in that crap, you ain't to bright to begin with, so there isn't much chance of someone suddenly becoming more intelligent.

But, if they study they're religion with an open mind, and look at it logically, then there might be a chance they would "come around".

[BurlyShirley]

Here's a thought - why is it boys seem so obsessively fascinated with proving homosexuality is one way or another, but girls tend to not worry about it so much?

I think men are just smarter. :devil:

[Jesus]

I believe that it is a choice, brought on by childhood happenings. Such as being raped or over bearing mother, etc...

And it can be treated just like most other mental disorders. There is a group therapy session in Louisville to help gays, so I am sure there are others in this country.

But just like being bi-polar, it is a choice on wether to try and fix it or not.

[Just Lookin'...]

While i could find two women kissing to be erotic, and the opposite true of two men doing the same, the question is still:

Choice of Behavior vs 'Chemical Imbalance'

Homosexuality is not a 'chemical imbalance' that ANY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC METHOD KNOWN can prove.

But, current sci-meth CAN prove bi-polar and schizophrenic behavior root causes linked to chemical and physiological variants...

So, back to the original question:

Alexis - Most of the gays i know (couple of cousins, ex-roomate, etc) do NOT define their lifestyle as a CHOICE, but rather the PUBLIC AKNOWLEGEMENT OF IT as a 'choice' - as opposed to being 'in the closet.'

You state that you have been diagnosed as 'bi-polar' - ditto me (manic-depressive).

Accepting the 'label' and the 'treatment' or NOT is a Choice. Being LABLED by others is NOT a choice - it's an EFFECT.

Does that answer your question?

And back to the 'acceptability of boy-boy-kissing' vs the current acceptability of 'girl-girl-kissing' - guys seem to be more readily excited by casual expression of surface sexuality, but as a guy - i don't get quite the thrill seeing las chiquitas smooching as some other guys do - I don't like to compete with women for women - they cheat!

[ridecruz88]

i like your points. im not homophobic or anything, but i honestly dont like gays. they're ****in with all our system...i mean they dont need to get married, wtf are they gonna do, have kids? and all there rainbow pride marches and ****, it just doesnt strike me as something ill support

[ridecruz88]

o and another point....If homosexuality is a CONDITION than why is it all of the sudden the numbers are growing since lets say the last 20 years. this worlds going crazyyy

[MikeD]

Well, maybe it's because you don't get a baseball bat to the head quite so often if you actually admit to it these days...

[ALEXIS_DH]

While i could find two women kissing to be erotic, and the opposite true of two men doing the same, the question is still:

Choice of Behavior vs 'Chemical Imbalance'

Homosexuality is not a 'chemical imbalance' that ANY CURRENT SCIENTIFIC METHOD KNOWN can prove.

But, current sci-meth CAN prove bi-polar and schizophrenic behavior root causes linked to chemical and physiological variants...

So, back to the original question:

Alexis - Most of the gays i know (couple of cousins, ex-roomate, etc) do NOT define their lifestyle as a CHOICE, but rather the PUBLIC AKNOWLEGEMENT OF IT as a 'choice' - as opposed to being 'in the closet.'

You state that you have been diagnosed as 'bi-polar' - ditto me (manic-depressive).

Accepting the 'label' and the 'treatment' or NOT is a Choice. Being LABLED by others is NOT a choice - it's an EFFECT.

Does that answer your question?

And back to the 'acceptability of boy-boy-kissing' vs the current acceptability of 'girl-girl-kissing' - guys seem to be more readily excited by casual expression of surface sexuality, but as a guy - i don't get quite the thrill seeing las chiquitas smooching as some other guys do - I don't like to compete with women for women - they cheat!


alright, good points.
so if homosexuality has not hormonal, nor biochemical roots (even though i think EVERY possible human behaviour MUST hava a neurological-physiological explanaition).

how do you explain it being not a choice, but some sort of innate condition on some people??? where else does it come from???

is it in most cases an acquired behavior???

if its acquired behavior, cool with me!. in fact, that is what i believe more likely. and i got no problems if gay dudes would say, well am gay because i get turned on by other guys.

not because i´m a woman on the body of a man (wrong body for my right mind-sex), which could also be said, i have the wrong mind-sex for the right body.

dont you think its easier to change the mind on gay dudes (by whatever means possible), rather than castrate them and poking them a hole in the crotch????
i mean, i believe there will be a point in which medicine will have the ability to modify human behaviour much deeper than current psychotropics.

if its not a choice, then gay people are prisoners within their own bodies which makes them do gay stuff, rather than humping opposite sex people.

but the idea of homosexuality not being by choice, and not having any biochemical root is IMO mutually exclusive.

[Changleen]

Well I'm wondering if religion is a condition that can be cured. Seriously. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[Changleen]

Hey Alexis - have you ever seen this:
http://www.bipolarrecovery.com/

[Skookum]

Wow too much to read i'll just pick on the lately moody easy target again...

Explain 'Function Normally' because to me, the point of sex by law of nature is reproduction. How are homosexuals functioning normally?
Why do people use birth control then.
Why would someone want to be with someone who is barren?
Why does a woman still remain with someone or just knock booties with someone after menopause?
Why do some men like to tap their woman in the poop chute?
Can all these people still not live normal lives?

i was watching a show on these lizards who have adapted in what we would deem abnormal. They are a breed where there is no such thing as a male, and the females have adapted to have the capability of enseminating themselves.
The went on to explain how the difference between gender is determined by gool ole fashuned chromosomes. Women have XX men have Xy. Well the weird thing about the y chromosome is that it's increasingly shrinking. So much over the course of thousands of year it will dissapear altogether. When that happens essentially men will cease to exist.
i have seen the future brothers and sisters and i foresee Lesbians will RULE the world!!!!! :)

[bomberz1qr20]

Man, all this homophobia is totally ghey.

:blah:

[MikeD]

i have seen the future brothers and sisters and i foresee Lesbians will RULE the world!!!!! :)

You'll be sorely surprised when you're awakened from cryogenic sleep by a bunch of metrosexuals.

MD

[Ciaran]

Maybe turn this around, why do we view bipolar as something that needs to be treated? Why not just let folks be? I have a pretty good friend from high school that is bipolar and sometime ago he decided that his meds were ruining his life. As Alexis put it he has subsequently decided to ride his life. As a result he swings around like a wind chime in a tornado. Falling into deep depression, suffering from mania quite a bit and to a very few admittedly psychotic episodes (no lie his toaster talks to him if he gets rid of it the blender talks to him..... he likes his toaster better). However, he says he feels better than when he was "treated" as he is able to enjoy the "normal" times of his life. As time as passed I think that he has trained himself to better deal with who he is.


Bi Polar needs to be treated because some people do things while swinging that can land them in jail, the hospital, or dead. If you choose to not take your meds that's your decision, but don't forget about the people around you and how you treat them. Odds are, you are not a joy to be around when you are swinging... I know I wasn't. And I have a VERY low level form of Bi-polar. However I do understand not wanting to take the meds... Mine made me fat, and my hair became so brittle that it was breaking off. Not to mention that I HATE being tied to any medication. Hell, I don't even take asperin or motrin or advil, etc. I freaking hated the meds and the associated blood work.

If your friend's appliances are talking to him, then he probably has more than just bi-polar disorder. Voices and hallucinations are hallmarks of schitzophrenia. I guess as long as the toaster doesn't tell him to kill anyone we are alright though.

This is a tough issue, and I think that some good questions are being raised and interisting opinions are being givin. I am no expert, and can only coment from my personal experience, but my life improved tremendously after getting on meds. So much so that my doc eventually weaned me off of them. (Very long story and very difficult. I have to be extremely vigilant about things) I just hope that everyone who needfs help has an oppertunity to get it.

As for the gay thing, well, I have a few gay friends and they all say the same thing... that they were born that way. The most interisting one to watch is my transsexual friend. Now that's a life I woudl NEVER ever want to live.

Sorry if I am rehashing point others have already stated but man, I did not want to have to read through all 7 pages of this thread before I broke out the soap box. :)

[Just Lookin'...]

alright, good points.
so if homosexuality has not hormonal, nor biochemical roots (even though i think EVERY possible human behaviour MUST hava a neurological-physiological explanaition).

JL: If we're going to talk electro-chemical synaptic discharges as the root of everything, and that every thought, action and behavior is sourced soley on that, this thread is over - it's too close to quark-thinking, which is like looking at a tree with an electron microcope - you can't tell what it looks like.

how do you explain it being not a choice, but some sort of innate condition on some people??? where else does it come from???

JL: BEING homosexual is not a choice. ACTING on it IS.

A different example - I find women of color (black, asian, etc) far more attractive than pale caucasian females. I know this to be true because of the many years i have lived and many interactions with women i have had. This is not a 'choice' - it's just what my senses tell my brain to do. Now, ASKING the girl out on a date is a CHOICE - just as not asking a white woman out is a CHOICE. Being rejected or going out for dinner is an EFFECT. Being sneered at by a racist during the dessert course is an EFFECT.

is it in most cases an acquired behavior???

JL: I don't think so. However, bisexual people may gravitate away from one or the other sexual extremes (hertero vs. homo) because of acquired experiences (rape, abuse, etc)

if its acquired behavior, cool with me!. in fact, that is what i believe more likely. and i got no problems if gay dudes would say, well am gay because i get turned on by other guys.

not because i´m a woman on the body of a man (wrong body for my right mind-sex), which could also be said, i have the wrong mind-sex for the right body.

JL: Don't get transgender/intersexual dysphoria confused with sexual preferences - although that can confuse the issue, it's actually considered a separate situation

dont you think its easier to change the mind on gay dudes (by whatever means possible), rather than castrate them and poking them a hole in the crotch????
i mean, i believe there will be a point in which medicine will have the ability to modify human behaviour much deeper than current psychotropics.

See above

if its not a choice, then gay people are prisoners within their own bodies which makes them do gay stuff, rather than humping opposite sex people.

JL: A gay male who likes being a man is not trapped in his body any more or less than you and i (and everybody else) are. Neither of my lesbian cousins want to be male (although they would like to be as 'wealthy' as some men they know - duh, so would I)

but the idea of homosexuality not being by choice, and not having any biochemical root is IMO mutually exclusive.

See Top

[Skookum]

sorely surprised
MD
You should refrain from posting your freaky fantasies on here pal....
Did you know that there are gay monkeys. i'm sure in 500,000 years i'm sure they'll be critisizing other monkies who don't like to do each other in the butt.
http://www.monkeyland.co.za/monkeybusiness.htm

Haha i was lookin up dolphins because i know they are sexual freaks too and stumbled across this tasty morsel.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

haha Gay Penguins!!!!

[Toshi]

Explain 'Function Normally' because to me, the point of sex by law of nature is reproduction. How are homosexuals functioning normally?
are blowjobs unnatural? mighty hard to get a girl pregnant that way, altho i guess where there's a will there's a way...

why is the choice of staying gay considered a choice made in the right chemical balance, while according to gays themselves (they do not choose to be gay in the 1st place), it isnt????
everything in the body can be reduced to the chemical or electrical level. not all differences in chemical or electrical activity are considered abnormal. furthermore, many actions of the body are involuntary, and sexual arousal is one of these things. to be specific in the case of the male: erection is largely governed by the parasympathetic nervous system, emission by the sympathetic, ejaculation by the sympathetic with limited somatic [voluntary] control of the sphincters involved.

[Silver]

to be specific in the case of the male: erection is largely governed by the parasympathetic nervous system, emission by the sympathetic, ejaculation by the sympathetic with limited somatic [voluntary] control of the sphincters involved.

I prefer the technical term, "Blowing a load." Geez, does everthing need to be complicated? :D

[zod]

There's something queer about this thread but I can't put my finger on it...... :sneaky:

[Ciaran]

Can't believe I missed this...


lol. like I say, i know very little about homosexuality so i´ve been wondering abuot that lately and figuring out things myself....


Really? I don't think we need to see the pix of you "figuring things out". But I commend you for being bold enough to do "research". :p

Sorry, I had to. :)

[ALEXIS_DH]

Can't believe I missed this...




Really? I don't think we need to see the pix of you "figuring things out". But I commend you for being bold enough to do "research". :p

Sorry, I had to. :)

haha, of course "figuring things out myself" means, reading about it in the wikipedia and deciding which way i wanna shoot.

[Serial Midget]

but being 100% homo, kinda impairs your ability to breed, thus by a darwinism standard, and the definition of a biological success, is a failure.....

Why should gays reproduce at all? Straight people are already producing plenty of homosexuals - :devil:

[MikeD]

There's something queer about this thread but I can't put my finger on it...... :sneaky:


I think what your finger is looking for is the 'prostate.'
MD