Why do some people think that homosexuality is a choice gay people have made?

Because there are former “gays” that aren’t gay no more but repented of that lifestyle.

Because there are former “straights” that aren’t straight no more but repented of that lifestyle.

I really don’t think people choose to be ridiculed and made fun of as well as not have the same rights as others when it comes to sharing their love with the world.

Repented of their lifestyle? Really? That is a whole other can of worms Seven.

Because they think the you can “cure” someone of being gay! I honestly don’t know. For some reason, gay is frightening to some people. It comforts them to think that it was a choice someone made, because they assume you can change back. Rather silly, really.

Yeah.

I wish I could stop getting so passionately enraged about people who are ignorant like this.

I’m not gay, nor do I even have any close friends who are gay, but this bullshit drives me over the edge.

Not everyone knows people who are gay. That can affect how you view the subject profoundly. Not always, but it can.

People who are no longer homosexual exist, some better adjusted than others, but there are cases to be made on both sides. Some homosexuality can be caused by environment – abuse is a big factor in a lot of those instances, on the other hand to the vast majority of homosexual people however it is not a ‘choice’ but simply who they are.

It’s ridiculous to think because one person was helped to change their lives for the better in their personal situation it can be applied to an entire group of people.

You already answered your question though, it’s ignorance.

@asmonet: I just got confused because, for whatever reason, everyone on this thread (toward the bottom… just start with 90s_kid’s response because it’s not even relevant to the main thread anyway) was disagreeing with me. I could not believe that everyone there was arguing that homosexuality was a choice.

Don’t mind my hostility and lack of eloquence over in that thread… I let my anger get the best of me.

@girlofscience – save your energy. I realise it is really hard to do, but let me tell you something I have learned in my life. You have to pick your battles. Getting enraged at stupidity is a terrible waste of energy, and while you are pissed at others, they aren’t even thinking about you. Use your energy in a manner that will benefit you. Instead of beating your head against the wall, trying to convince people that gay isn’t a choice, get out and work toward something. Now that the election is over, my energy is going toward working to legalize gay marriage. It’s fun to have a cause to work toward, and a lot less stressful!

@Eureka: Great answer. :)

@seVen
Better yet, there are far more former-former-gays than former-gays.

What I love about the whole idea of gay being a choice is that it requires you to believe that it has some how been completely evolved out of us. And that we for some reason are the only species on this planet to not have homosexuality. I mean I guess if you believe in some crazy thing like Adam and Eve, and that we were place here on earth and did not evolve by natural selection, then yeah I guess it’s easy for you to think that.

BUT it is quite ridiculous to think that this god that just happened to make us homosexuality free would still make two gay penguins in new york just for fun.

@gof: In that instance…get as pissed off as you like. I’m with you girly.

@eureka: I disagree. Getting pissed at stupidity and channeling the anger you’re experiencing effectively and productively is what spurs social change.

Enjoy These.

Misinformed or ignorant. Or ignant depending on your part of the country.

It’s the same misguided logic that leads people to believe that others are homeless or addicts or depressed by choice. It’s overattributing our capacity to choose what we think, feel, do, etc., which is an attribution error we all make constantly.

I don’t think you can change anyone’s mind about anything about something controversial like that. I think you should get fired up even if you think your beating your head against the wall, because someone else is doing it too and if you get a bunch of you together eventually you’ll break down that wall.

Ouch! There are better ways of breaking down walls.

No one has mentioned fear! I imagine some folks fear, deep down, that they are or could be gay. Maybe it comforts them that they “chose” the “right” path.

I have a gay friend who dates girls because he doesn’t want to be gay. His church told him he was going to hell. Very sad.

@jess: God made him. God accepts his own work.

That’s my response whenever some religious bitch talks down to my best friend.

Then I usually ask them if they’re ever eaten at Red Lobster. Because right after it says that a man shall not lay with another man for it is an abomination it says the same thing about shellfish. Fucking hypocrites. That usually shuts them up.

I wish he understood that because he is a fantastic person.

@asmonet – only if the anger is channeled toward something productive. Too many times it isn’t, it just festers.

I have studied both homosexuality and heterosexuality this is my personal view based on what I’ve found(excluding environmental factors):
homosexuality is a choice, just as heterosexuality is a choice
It is just not a conscious choice, but more of a Subconscious choice,
I believe that our mind seeks out (in potential mates) the things that would make us enjoy their company more so than others, not just based on gender but more on how the person makes you feel(mentally and physically(not just sexually), how they affect our senses.
But then environmental factors come into play in our conscious mind, how will other people/my family react to this?, is this right/wrong?, how does my religion view this?, should I go against this to be “normal”(also normal is a bullshit term),blah, blah, blah.
in the end it up to us to decide what is best for us. and not let other peoples views affect us enjoying life.
(if that makes any sense)

“I disagree. Getting pissed at stupidity and channeling the anger you’re experiencing effectively and productively is what spurs social change.”

Yep, I agree.

@tyrant: That might be true, for a small minority. Most often love is more of a compulsion. What you’re describing sounds more like a closeted gay.

@asmonet
my whole answer was for both homosexuality and heterosexuality,
with the conscious questions at the end I was not just referring to one sexuality, both can go through these questions.
can you elaborate more on this please “Most often love is more of a compulsion”

One word: Ignorance.
There is no point in trying to convince these people, they’ll never change their views.

While I don’t think this question was intended to encourage an open dialog, exploring different views on the matter, I would actually be curios to know how people who believe you can consciously choose your sexuality reason their belief.
Personally, I don’t think you can pick and choose who you’re going to be attracted to. I believe you are able to control how you react to attraction though. Which is why I think people who claim to have ‘switched’ sexuality have just changed the way they react to attraction – not who they’re attracted to.

I vote with ignorance. Could also be intolerance. Homophobia.

That dude in the other thread also implied that being suicidal is a choice! What utter bullshit. Who says to themselves, “Oooh, I want a lifetime of pain and turmoil, or better yet, I want to hate myself so much that I’d rather kill myself than live in this world…yep, that’s the life for me!”?

Who one is sexually attracted to is not choice, it is biology. One can choose to deny attraction, but that does not mean the inclination is a choice. I chose to marry a woman, but I didn’t choose to be attracted to her. Ugh!

Because they’re ignorant pigs who don’t know any real gay people nor have they done any research on what causes somebody to be gay. It’s like when somebody doesn’t love you, and you think it’s a choice they’re making and you’re desperately trying to get them to ‘choose’ to love you even though it can’t happen.

I don’t think that being homosexual can’t be by choice. I’ve seen some people use it as a coping mechanism, for example. Not all homosexuality is by choice, of course, and it isn’t wrong by any means. What I’m saying is that being homosexual is not set by any one thing, and so you can’t definitely pin down one particular notion as being wrong.

I imagine that people who think homosexuality is wrong, either for religious reasons (i.e. they think gays are an abomination in the eyes of God, and hence it’s the work of the Devil turning them gay, or they are sinners), or far more often because it’s “icky”, i.e. they can’t imaging how ANYONE could enjoy THAT, probably have to think it’s just an unnatural enough thing that they MUST be doing it on purpose.

Isn’t it?

Oooh boy I have to defend myself yet again.
But now that I think of it, the gay person I know has always been gay.
I guess I will agree with you because I am not gay and apparently I don’t know enough.
Ok Noon and GoS come and yell at me and get it over with.

BTW I was responding to someone’s quip when I said “they aren’t mean at all”. Can’t remember which one tho.

And you don’t hafta be a bitch about it also.

Colbert put it best, “being gay is a choice because I know I choose to be straight every morning. It’s somthing I work for.”

Whether or not gay people are born that way, they have no say in the matter, and the Bible also says “judge not lest yee be judged” and “love thy neighbor”. I think that some good hearted people belive that homosexuality is a choice but many others think its a choice because otherwise God would be creating people he had the intention of damning. Can’t well all just get along? All you need is lurve.

Being gay IS A CHOICE! Human beings biologically possess organs that enable them to be progenitive. It is impossible for homosexual sex practices to cause progeny since the biologic function of the alimentary canal is the disposal of waste and is incapable of functioning reproductively. Thus, biologically, it is not possible to warrant homosexual sex practices as organic or biologically correct. On this basis, it is impossible to claim that one is “born” homosexual unless one alters the meaning of “born” to mean something non-biologic. One may argue that they only have feelings for members of the same sex, or that, they only feel sexually attracted to members of the same sex, but that does not change the biology and proper functionality of that biologic equipment. Thus, when people say they are gay, they make this claim—not on the basis of their biologic makeup—but rather, through gender construction and self understanding.

@nikiguns What about people who are born without the ability to reproduce? I don’t see how the two are related.

BULLSHIT!!!!!

Homosexuality occurs in nature, in many animal groups. Unless a person can feel what it’s like to be attracted to the same sex, do not assume you know about some biological imperitive. Whether or not I’m gay I DO NOT want children. So much for your theory.

Weather or not people are able to reproduce does not change the intention of the mechanics of the biologic equipment.

We are not animals—properly speaking—we are human beings (cf. Aristotle). Homosexuality does not occur in nature. Clearly you have been reading questionable data, No one in the hard sciences—who is taken seriously anyways—truly affirms that theory.

Again, your argument only further warrants my claim: that one determines their sexual preference through purely subjective criterion. You said, “Unless a person can feel what its like to be attracted to the same sex… blah blah blah…” Exactly, you base your argument on the basis of personal feeling. Well there are people who feel that it is totally ok to rape others. There are people who feel it is ok to molest and abuse others. Don’t misunderstand, feelings are central to self understanding but it cannot function as the sole basis for determining the reality of our biologic function. If a person “feels” attracted to the same sex they do so in their freedom to interpret their feelings and drives. Second, obviously sex isn’t just about reproduction, yet it is obvious to see how our biologic equipment works.

No matter how you choose to interpret your feelings… you can’t change the intended functionality of your biologic equipment. Thus, a person chooses to be gay, through the way they feel and interpret their physiological chemistry.

Just try to argue your point intelligently with out swearing at me. I bet you can’t do it.

dont feeds the troll :P

@nikiguns
I’m sorry, but there is volume and volume of “hard science” evidence for homosexuality in nature. There just is. You can not wish this away. These is also huge amount of evidence of masturbation and non procreative sex in animals. There just is. Because you choose to ignore those articles/documentaries/books/speeches/photos does not make them go away.

And not to get all graphic. But there are also sexually stimulating never endings in and around the anus, this is part of our biology. The prostate also has a huge bundle of sexual nerve endings. This is actually taken advantage of in animal husbandry to more quickly get semen from studs. This is part of our biology as well.

As far as molestation and rape. Those do not involve two (or more) consensual parties. Forcing another person to do anything is wrong, doesn’t really matter what it is.

No one chooses their biological chemistry. And I’ll swear all I like. It is not against the guidelines.

And, not everyone’s biological equipment works, and some people have both organs. Again, where is the biological imperative you talk about.

Sorry über, on my soapbox.

Sure there are “volumes” of information attempting to warrant the organic and biological nature of homosexuality, but that does not prove anything (cf. point 3).

1.) The burden of proof is on you to show how—biologically—the anal organ is meant to function sexually in its biologic structure and makeup.

2.) I am not “wishing” away anything. Obviously, we can use our biologic organs anyway we please and even be stimulated by that usage, but that still does not suggest the equipment is intended to function that way.

3.) I am suggesting that certain individuals—generally speaking—in the pseudo scientific community have interpreted certain sexual animalistic behavior as homosexual sex behavior. Little children touch each other all the time for various reasons and even feel pleasure doing so. I can have a self induced sexual experience via masturbation, but that does not “show” or “prove” that my hand is capable of progenitive processes. You need to show how the anus (for example) is supposed to function sexually. Further, in order for your argument to carry any substantial weight, you need to show biologically, that human beings are no different than animals and you need to show that the “sexual” behavior is homosexual. It will be difficult for you to warrant that claim unless you are able to provide data that suggests the biologic equipment (Male to Male) is an organic transaction.

The biologic “imperative” is the equipment itself. It is clear that male genitalia functions properly with female genitalia—via reproduction. If the individual is unable to use their biologic equipment that way, it is because of a defect in the equipment. Clearly, the anus’ primary function is waste oriented.

Defects should not be equated with normal, otherwise we are wasting a lot of time in medical science attempting to “fix” these defects.

Swear all you want, but you only show your inability to argue with intelligence.

You both need to understand the difference between data itself and our interpretation of that data. The data is the biologic organ, its form, structure, and mechanical functionality. We can observe these organs and understand how they work by understanding the outcomes and dominant patterns in sex behavior.

We can also observe sexual behavior and understand that sexual or non-sexual behavior in any species can be abnormal on a variety of levels (i.e., male apes to “get semen more quickly from studs”). Nevertheless, any claims made on the basis of those observations are interpretive and do not change the function and form of the biologic equipment.

@nikiguns – how is it that you claim that “We are not animals—properly speaking—we are human beings” and then claim that our only biologically mandated sexual behavior is that which breeds us like animals? Do humans not have something more, something that allows us to rise above the beasts that copulate only to procreate?

I’ve seen gay lions before….
Sorry…too random…

Rawr! ;)

I’m not arguing. You are wrong, plain and simple. Nothing to argue about. FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, we have the ability to create culture, to establish arts and sciences, to philosophize over morality etc… we are not the same as animals because we are capable of creating culture, government, arts, sciences, and morality etc… (cf. Aristotle). Just because we breed like animals does not make us animals. That is like saying, because we walk we are essentially no different than robots that are able to walk etc…

If we are no different than animals then why can we not hear from their mouths “we are gay too!!!”?

We can’t do this because WE ARE DIFFERENT than animals.

I already answered your second question. Clearly sex is about much much more then progeny. However, the structure and form of our biologic equipment “screams” reproduction.

Ha, I think its hilarious how childish you are!!! You haven’t said one reasonable thing during this discussion.

Are we in middle school???

Why am I wrong plain and simple?

If we are determining right and wrong according to your system or reasoning, then I can be right because I “fee” like I am right!!!

You only “think” you have seen gay lions.

So, gay people have no choice in the matter ? What about pedophiles who are attracted to children or murderers who must act out their natural violent instincts ? Its all about choices. I would love to have sex with this cute 18 year old who lives down the street, but my better judgment and morals tell me not to act out my natural desires as a man. Choices, choices.

I didn’t read everyone’s answers. I don’t have the time. I just want to make a quick point.

@nikiguns – “Homosexuality does not occur in nature.” Read

No, I agree with you. It is a choice. That was my first point above. That being gay is a choice because our biologic equipment—in its structure and form—is progenitive regardless of defect or desire.

Thus, we interpret our “feelings” and drives, and make choices about our sexuality.

You need to read through all that had been said. The question is not about behavior but biologic functionality.

You need to show that our biologic equipment is meant to function in a homosexual manner.

The book you cited, only interprets that data observed.

Why dont gays just admit that they are exercising their choice as free Americans as they are entitled instead of hiding behind some ” predispositional genetic theory B.S ”. I would have so much more respect for them. Live and let live, baby, its not my life, its theirs.

Because it would be lying, and lying is wrong.

Guilt maybe ? This justifies it, maybe ? Like the guy who wants to legalize marijuana in order to ” clean his prison record ” ?

Laureth, you are not arguing with substance. Let’s take your last point. You think it’s wrong to lie.

Tell me, why is it wrong to lie?

Is it wrong because it “feels” wrong, or is it wrong because it decries all that is wrong with human interaction?

I am no expert on homosexuality, but it used to be that we all knew when someone was gay due to their disposition and mannerisms, thats the classical gay, but today it is different. Modern men and women have ” optioned ” to be homosexual in this new age of sex , drugs and rock n roll….its even cool in some circles, so why not ?

look out here comes anger in the form of blog chat…

WHAT IDIOT WOULD CHOOSE TO BE GAY!!!?

Sure, let me be discriminated against, let me be denied rights and face violence. Sound like fun to me.~

The choice is more delicate and complex than simply choosing one way or another. Our politics concerning gender and sexuality play a major role in the formation of ones psychosocial commitments and self-understanding.

Think about gender construction and social pressure.

” Idiots ”, lets keep tabs on who said what ?

Don’t talk to me about gender construction. I have a BA/MA in Women’s Studies from UCLA. Gender identity does not correlate with sexual identity, period.

Calm down, please.
I think that it has to do with the whole X/Y chromosome thing. I first thought by choice, but then changed my mind.

@Johnny_Rambo You said:

What about pedophiles who are attracted to children or murderers who must act out their natural violent instincts? Again, we are talking about 2 (or more) consenting adults. Pedophiles and murderers certainly do not have the consent of the other parties involved.

…it used to be that we all knew when someone was gay due to their disposition and mannerisms, thats the classical gay… There have always been gay men and women who ‘appeared’ straight. They were able to pass as straight, and did so because there were dire consequences related to being publicly gay. Thank god we are finally moving beyond that, and more people feel safe in acknowledging their sexual orientation.

For someone who claims to be so educated you are having serious trouble articulating your thoughts in a reasonable manner.

I beg to differ, to say there is no correlation, is like saying that sociological factors have no causal efficacy on our self-understanding concerning race, family, morality, etc… That is unreasonable. Social formation—including gender politics—is greatly effected by the culture in which we live.

We have determined what masculinity and femininity ought to look like through every available social agent possible. Along this same line of reasoning, it is fully reasonable to contend that sexual identity comes as a logical corollary.

If biologic equipment points to gender and gender points to sexuality by virtue of its form and function of the biologic equipment, then any variable inserted which re-establishes the criterion of gender will ultimately “re-establishes” the definition of sex and sexuality.

If then you insert the variable of social agency anywhere in this framework, the corollary is, naturally leads to a change in ones self understanding within the politics of gender and sexual identity.

Biologic equipment >>> [ INSERT new social pressures which suggest that men who speak with a lisp; or move somatically in a manner more akin to females; are gay ] >>> Gender [which is now dominated by various social norms- i.e., speech, movement, etc… ] >>> sexual identity [ which is now determined by assumptions and stereotypes concerning gender identity]

@nikiguns
You are making the assumption that sexuality is something restricted to biological “equipment”. I think sexuality is a much more complicated thing.

Your definition narrows procreative vaginal sex to the be the only acceptable form of sexuality based on a very simple notion that is the only way to produce offspring. You appear to be willing to accept physical biological deformity (ie. Intersexed, infertility) but why not chemical biological “deformity”. I’m more than willing to admit that my homosexuality is an evolutionary “misfire”, but one that has apparently served some good, because it is found in almost every species on this planet, and it occurs in high enough percentage of the population that it has served some good even if that good is unclear at the moment.

Really my point is your understanding of sexuality is very binary, and concrete. You don’t seem to be taking into account the many facets that make up human sexuality.

Noon, your point is well taken.

However, I am not trying to be narrow or reductive, I am simply putting fourth an answer to the original question of this discussion: is homosexuality a choice? My argument is that it is a choice sense it is impossible to show that our biologic equipment is intended to function in a homosexual manner.

You are now asking a different question—namely: what is sexuality? That question correlates to my argument because I think biology is connected to gender and gender to sexuality.

Are you suggesting that sexuality is not binary? If you are, then the consequences are absurd because one can justify any type of sexuality as legitimate—whether it is consenting or not.

Surely you would not agree that all sexual activity is legitimate.

Thus, we arrive at the core of the argument, what parameters need to be placed around sexuality?

Let’s think of this with the analogy of food and digestion.

It is possible for me to consume food through my nose. I can snort applesauce or pasta through my nose although it would quite painful. Nevertheless, through this form of consumption I can eat, digest, and nourish my body.

However, it would be difficult for me to show that my nose is intended to function this way biologically. Although, I can eat through this organ, it would be far fetched for me to show that my nose is meant to consume food in the same manner as my mouth.

In a very simple manner, this is my point with sexuality. Our biologic equipment, such as the alimentary canal, is not a sexual organ although it can be used that way.

Because sex and reproduction are intrinsically connected, it is impossible to say that the alimentary canal is a sex organ properly speaking. You can use it sexually and even consider sexual activity with it sex, but unless we are willing to dislocate sexuality from reproduction, it doesn’t make since to say that sex is something distinct from reproduction.

@nikiguns
Again, you are only looking at biology from the perspective of genitalia. There is a lot more to sex than just the Vagina and Penis. There are people who are born with out one or the other who still experience sexual drive. There are people born with dysfunctional genitalia and still have a sexual drive to use them.

Your analogy of the digestive system only shows how reductive you are being, but I’ll try my best to use it. Lets say you find someone that for some reason is not able to use their mouth as a means to nourish themselves. But they have found a way to do so through their nose. They are not harming anyone by doing so, and they are fulfilling the biological need to eat, and for all intents and purposes living quite a happy life.

Let’s try some other analogies that I think are in line with yours. Someone is born without arms, and learns to use their feet in their place. Feet were not “intended” to be used in this way because our toe is no opposable, but it works for them and they are not harming anyone by doing so.

Lets say someone has been born with the inability to hear. They then find a way to use their eyes and hands to communicate the complexity of human language that is thought by many to be a natural drive in all of us. Their vocal chords now go unused, even though they are completely functional. (Sorry, had to put this one in because I’m a sign language interpreter)

Now lets say you have someone that for what ever reason has the brain chemistry that attracts them to the same gender. They have found a way they can still satisfy a sexual drive, and bond with a pair even if it is not the original “intent” of the “equipment”. Assuming they have not forced anyone to do anything they did not want to do, there is no harm in it.

If you have to take this reductionist view of human sexuality, it can still allow for homosexuality as an evolutionary misfire. If you want to see this as a defect, go right ahead. I personally believe it is more complex, simply because natural selection has kept homosexuality around in a high enough percentage to be considered productive in some way.

Wouldn’t you drown if you snorted applesauce through your nose?

You are correct to say there is more to sex that genitalia, however, it is really difficult to conceive sex and sexuality apart from genitalia.

Through your analogies, you seem argue on the basis of dysfunction and defect. Is that how you view your sexuality, as a dysfunction and defect in the evolutionary process?

Your brain chemistry is an even more complex discussion that must take into account social factors as well. How can you say so objectively that someone is born with a certain sexual drive inconsistent with their biologic equipment and know with certainty they are attracted to the same sex? It seems to me, that one can only warrant this claim through feeling and preference. As you may know, our feelings and preferences about all things are shaped by our intuitions and sense organs which are shaped by the world around us and within us but never one over the other.

Perhaps you have herd of W.V.O Quine’s “hierarchy” of sciences. Its really not his idea, but one that he extrapolated on. Anyway, the point is that, we are affected and formed from the bottom up and the top down. Let me illustrate.

- Phil/ Theology etc.. (any moral system)
– Ethics
– Sociology
– Psychology
– Biology
– Chemistry
– Physics
– Meta Physics

When you look at this order, it’s hard not to see that we are affected by these “realities” from the top—our philosophies etc..—which affect our ethics, which affect our sociology, which affect our psychology, which affect the way we interpret our biological structures.

Conversely, we must take in to account the affect of meta physics (even in its ambiguity) on our chemistry, and chemistry’s affect on our biology, and biology’s affect on our psychology, and so on and so fourth.

My point is that we understand ourselves from the “top down” and the “bottom up” and so, on this basis, I can’t understand how you are able to argue that your sexuality is determined only by your attraction and so-called homosexual drive.

If you really do have a homosexual drive, you must take into account the social pressures at bay, which assist in the formation of your sexuality.

Heterosexuality is also understood through social construction, except, it has the “biologic imperative” of the equipment itself confirming objectively its form and functionality.

Concerning you thoughts about animalistic behavior, again unless you are able to show that we are no different than animals, I cannot see the point in drawing a logical corollary. We are far more sophisticated than animals because we are moral, creative, cultural, and linguistic. Animals are incapable of such things and I think its a lousy argument to keep insisting that we should take our cues sexually and biologically from animals.

You still haven’t answered my question: how can sexuality work apart from genitalia?

Ha ha you probably would drown, but I once had a friend who ate pasta through his nose—not without pain.

It might be hard to separate the job from the tools, but even a hammer cannot build a house by itself. There must be a person using the hammer. Similarly, genitals might be used for sex, but you need a brain to drive them. And the brain is the biggest, best sex organ of all. And just like a person can use a hammer to build a house or break a vase, a brain can make genitals do any number of things.

In the brain, we may also find what makes a person gay. Genitals aren’t gay or straight, they just sit there until the brain is moved to use them.

@laureth
Not to be a homophobe or anything, but that picture was disturbing!
Why’d I click on it?

Meh. I know gay folks that feel the same “ewww” about straight people kissing.

It’s all in nature….

Well folks, obviously we will never agree. I just cannot see how you can ever change the clear objective facts concerning the biologic functionality and form of your genitalia. Viewing a persons brain scans and making interpretive judgments about that data proves nothing. Again, you are ignoring the fact that we form our sexual understanding from the “top down” and the “bottom up.” In other words, we develop an understanding of our sexuality internally and externally. The problem is that you can change the fact the alimentary canal for example functions as waste disposal supposed.

Sure, an individual can have anal sex and even derive pleasure from that experience, that still doesn’t prove anything because an individual can masturbate and derive pleasure from that experience yet it doesn’t mean that the hand functions reproductively.

Nevertheless, you all will go on believing that your “feelings” and “experiences” adequately warrant your sexuality. This type of reasoning will continue to work for you because you WANT IT TO WORK FOR YOU.

Look at yourselves!!! Look at your bodies!!! Tell me that you were born to have sex with the same sex!!! How is this possible???

None of you are “born” gay. You are gay because you have chosen to be gay. For some of you that choice has been made for you by our culture and it politics concerning gender and sexuality. For others, you feel that you can only be gay because you were sexually abused in some way or another during a formative period in your life and now you continue to act out on that experience.

You have chosen.

@nikiguns Very well thought out answer. That said, even if society or sexual abuse had “made” someone gay, it still was not their choice. You said that the “choice had been made for you”, that conflicts with your statement “you have chosen”. I can’t remember choosing to be hetero because that’s what would seem to work with my body. That choice was made for me before my birth or in my formative years. It was never my choice, it isn’t theirs. The only people who can definitively speak on this matter are the gay people out there, most of which say that it isn’t a choice. Why can’t we trust their opinion.

In that sense of “choice” you may be correct; but in the overall scheme of things, it is difficult to acknowledge that choice is not a factor. If we follow your reasoning then people who kill and rape others and claim insanity shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. I am not trying to correlate homosexuality with serial killers etc… but I am saying that in the overall scheme people need to have the courage to distinguish between truth and the construction of truth on the basis of some contrived epistemology.

Again, if gay people are the only people who can speak with any authority concerning their sexuality then we are forced to agree with everything they say and that is not reasonable at all.

I don’t actually think that freewill exists, but that’s another thread. And I don’t think that homosexuals need to be held accountable for anything. Now rapists and serial killers do not have a choice in it either, and neither do we in our punishment of them. A lot of times their need to rape, pillage and the like, is biological, or it could have resulted from some damage to the pre-frontal cortex or the way they were brought up. They still are terrible people and need to be punished but they didn’t choose their course either. But assuming that freewill exists it doesn’t make sense to me why someone would choose the harder course in life and a smaller pool of people to pick mates from.

Your point is well taken concerning damaged mental processes either through birth defect of abuse; however, they are still responsible for their actions—even if they cannot understand their actions. Our society is set up to function with that jurisprudence in mind, and so, until that changes—legally—people will be held responsible for their actions.

I won’t respond to your comment that we don’t have freewill since that would indeed be an entirely different discussion altogether.

I do, however, think that the GLBTG community does need to be accountable for their claims concerning their sexuality. I only say this because they often demand that homosexuality be considered an equally viable option for minors through sex education etc… If they want these rights, then they need to show through the hard sciences that homosexual sexuality is biologic in the sense I have laid out previously.

One individual commented that our genitalia is neutral and remains that way until our brains instruct it. How can this be true? No matter how much a person wants this to be true, our biologic equipment is primarily reproductive.

I think the GLBTG community would do much better warranting their sexuality on the basis of choice, preference, and experience. But for some reason, the GLBTG community feels a need to argue for the legitimacy of their sexuality on the basis of biology. This is impossible to do when with the raw data prescribed within the form and function of the biologic equipment itself.

Concerning your last comment, it doesn’t make sense to me either; but unfortunately, that doesn’t prove the much about organic sexuality.

Good thoughts on your part.

I think that a lot of people’s problem with considering sexual orientation as a choice is that that opens up more doors to persecution. If it weren’t considered a choice I think that the world would probably be a kinder place. I had never considered the sex-ed/ equally viable to minors, aspect of the matter, and I was wondering if you could elaborate on that.

Ugh. /stops following.

It must be nice, in an argument, to toss scientific evidence aside like so much pocket lint and say that “it proves nothing,” meanwhile pushing an idea that has no evidence to back it up as gospel truth.

It is true that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Rapists and child molesters should be punished or treated as their situation warrants. However, I can’t see equating homosexuality and heterosexuality with crimes. What is there to hold someone accountable for based on the gender they’re attracted to? What is there to punish or exonerate?

For what it’s worth, hands evolved so that we might better swing from branches, by grasping them with our opposible thumbs. The form and function of a hand cries out for us to live in the forest, and yet we do not. We use hands for everything from typing on a keyboard to driving a car to baking bread, none of which was something that the hand evolved to do. So what, if not everyone’s vagina cries out for a penis to fill it, no matter how it is formed? We have moved on, and for some people, physical form is a fossil trait passed on from primitive ancestors, just like their hands, which are suited to many modern uses.

You may say that the form of the hand proves nothing. I counter that the form of the genitals proves nothing.

Good ol’ 90’s to fit the moment, eh?
no homo, folks

Or this…

What a queer moment, huh?

It must be nice—in an argument—to continue to ignore the argument itself and dogmatically assert your “feelings” as interpretations of scientific data as objective data itself.

If you would have actually read my last several posts you would have seen that I did not equate homosexuality with rape and murder. I was addressing Mrswho’s thought that no one chooses their reality—and thus should not be held accountable to it.

It would do you well in life to pay attention to what people actually say.

Have you learned anything in school? This isn’t an argument about evolution. This is an argument about how we interpret scientific and biologic data.

I think you’re the one who is claiming “gospel truth” using your weak opinions, baseless thoughts, non-substantive logic to claim that “we have moved on.”

Yes, as a matter of fact every vagina does cry out for a penis because its form and function show that is true.

What is ridiculous, is to suggest that the alimentary canal “cries out” for a penis. That is like saying the ear longs to be the mouth.

Your analogies are childish at best. The hand functions to serve the body in the most general sense.

The form of the genitalia proves everything, lest you curse your own existence. With the genitalia, you wouldn’t be here.

… your own existence scoffs at your crude self deprecating logic.

@nikiguns
I think you are missing a huge blind spot in your argument. Your argument has the penis and vagina in essence having a mind of their own, and controlling our sexuality. The sexuality you are describing is literally a penis entering into a vagina, ejaculating and exiting. This does not include the need to touch, excite, kiss, hug, caress. None of that can be factored into your equation. Not to mention any sexual act that does not involve vaginal penetration by the penis. Oral sex, frottage, masturbation, mutual masturbation. For you, the fact that this happens in both homosexual and heterosexual sexuality has to be completely ignored for your argument to work.

Also for your argument to work you have to ignore homosexual males who don’t want/enjoy/have anal sex. (of which there are many)

Also again, you claiming that we are putting “feeling” into these scientific studies does not make it true. We have in no way (no mater how convoluted your attempt at confusing our logic) have we forced an interpretation of the science behind homosexuality being present. Sure we will interpret what is meant by the findings, but that doesn’t change the finding. Homosexuality is out there in animals including the human animal, that is fact. Your argument about our feelings clouding our judgment is something akin to saying scientific research in bird migration is flawed because we are assuming their moving seasonly is migration.

Last thing, this quote:
“None of you are “born” gay. You are gay because you have chosen to be gay. For some of you that choice has been made for you by our culture and it politics concerning gender and sexuality. For others, you feel that you can only be gay because you were sexually abused in some way or another during a formative period in your life and now you continue to act out on that experience.”

I am gay. How has my gayness been a choice influenced by our culture and politics? Because you have given me only two options, and I was not sexually abused, this is apparently my only other choice. I was raised in a roman catholic immigrant home. Homosexuality was not taught, much less taught to be acceptable. At what point in my life did I chose?

Also ignoring our obvious evolution does not throw out all the medical advances (many of which I assume you partake in) based on us being much like animals. And yes, there is plenty of research in morals, culture, linguistics, creativity as it relates to animals. Also to answer your question. I never said sexuality can exist without genitalia, what I am insisting is that sexuality can not stand on genitalia alone.

True, sexuality does not stand on genitalia alone, but it cannot stand apart form genitalia—that is what we call friendship or basic human relationships.

Clearly, i am of the opinion that sexuality is contingent on gender, which is contingent on genitalia.

I did not intend to leave you with only two choices. You are gay for a myriad of reasons. However, on the basis of your genitalia you are not gay. You are a male with a penis, and this will never change even if you have it removed. Your penis will always function as a reproductive faculty, that will never change.

Your existence is contingent upon those biologic facts.

You are correct to say that sex and sexuality is all of the things you mentioned; however, that does not change the form and function of your equipment. It just doesn’t, no matter how much you want it to be so, or how much you disregard these facts.

Clearly, you are free to use your equipment however you please. Clearly, you are free to interpret that choice as sexuality, but to claim that you are naturally gay is unreasonable.

Concerning your comments about homosexuality in nature. Again, for your argument to work you need to show that we are no different than animal,or that we are animals. You cannot do this. Darwin never even tried to do this. Dawkins doesn’t even believe this. We are not animals simply because we cannot interact with them the same way that we can with other human beings.

My argument works because your very existence warrants my claim.

These scientists like so many never claim that we are animals. They may claim that we are like animals and they may even claim that we come from animals but they still do not claim with certainty that WE ARE ANIMALS ALL THE SAME. If anything they will claim that we are a different “type” of animal. At that point, we are talking senseless semantics. If that is the case why don’t consider animals human beings? If we follow your reasoning then we are unable to account for our real differences. Yet on a societal level, we do consider ourselves very different than animals.

I have never debased your sexuality in this discussion. I have never even said that your sexuality is wrong. I am simply arguing that GLBTG community muster up the courage to acknowledge their choice. That’s it.

Although I do not agree with your sexuality and do consider it morally wrong, this conversation isn’t about the morality of sexuality, it is about sexuality and choice.

It is not a fact that homosexuality exists in animalistic behavior. You are interpreting certain highly abnormal behavior as homosexual.

For your argument to work you need to show that the criterion of organic sexuality is the normalization of animalistic behavior. Also, you have to show that animal sexuality in its mental and psychosocial biology and behavior is identical to human behavior and psychosocial behavior. We don’t understand the complex mental processing that is happening when an animal abnormally behaves in a “homosexual” sexual manner. We have no idea what is happening there, thus, to utilize that ABNORMAL activity as the basic criterion for legitimatizing homosexual behavior as organic in unreasonable.

People and animals may go around having same sex relationships; but it doesn’t prove that humans or animals are naturally gay. It just proves that humans and animals have abnormal sexual behavior; but that is much different then asserting some organic illusion.

@nikiguns
It’s so unfortunate that you appear to write so well, and try so hard to make your statements sounds void of bia. But your lack of logic, and refusal to see the evidence presented before you only makes painfully clear the deluded world you allowed religion to created for you. (see this as an attack if you will, but I’ve learned from the religious if I show pity after an attack of this nature, it is no longer an attack, but a plea for your soul. Much like how you can say you are not calling my sexuality wrong, but then later say it is “morally wrong”. Or how you can constantly make analogies to rapists and molesters, yet claim you in no way are equating homosexuality to either)

I will yet again point out the problems I have with your statements, and you will again choose to ignore them. Tedious I know, but the oscars bore me, and I have some time on my hands,

I will agree with you on one thing (apparently). Solely based on my genitalia I am no gay. I have no problem admitting this. I am a male, with a penis. The evolutionary design of said penis had many influences. Some of the most obvious where sexual stimulation, evacuation of urine, and evacuation of semen. It also co-evolved to allow for easy penetration into a vagina of the same species. I have no problem admitting that my penis bares the evolutionary shape to penetrate a vagina. The only problem is the brain that penis happens to be attached to. Because, my penis becoming erect when my brain is in the presence of homosexual stimulus is not my penis functioning in a reproductive faculty. Nor is a penis becoming erect during masturbation, safe sex, or a strip show. If you insist on looking at the purely concrete function of the genitalia please explain why the penis becomes erect during this type of stimulation? Doesn’t the fact that it becomes erect while watching porn, or when under a condom contradict your argument?

My very existence does nothing for your argument. My existence (a homosexual male, who has never been abused, who didn’t grow up in an environment conducive to homosexuality, with a far better understanding of human sexuality than you) corrupts your argument if anything.

As for your quote “yet on a societal level, we do consider ourselves very different from animals.” Doesn’t this fall under your “feeling” and “interpretation” getting in the way. Aren’t we just interpreting ourselves being different than animals when presented with the data?

Oh and on your use of “abnormal”. So even though we have case after case of animal after animal having “abnormal” homosexual relations, we have to consider all those instances non related? Can we not say, at least, that this “abnormal behavior” is seen across the animal kingdom? This claim does not apply any meaning to this, just states a fact that this “abnormal” behavior is recognized in almost every species. wouldn’t that single fact, (which you are now slowly admitting to, by recognizing it’s presence as “abnormal”) normalize the “abnormal” human homosexual act? Not to say that humans are having homosexual relations for the exact same reasons as animals, but that the fact that some humans are having “abnormal” homosexual relations is completely normal?

I will take your first half of a sentence as a complement. Thank you.

Moving forward, if anyone has shown a repeated and almost self insulting “lack of logic” it is you. You have systematically ignored almost every logical argument I have placed before you—except now that you finally admit that you are NOT GAY ON THE BASIS OF YOUR BIOLOGIC EQUIPMENT—which was my central point. I am glad that you can admit this.

I have never once in this discussion stated or implied that I am free of bias. No one is free of bias. Not me, not you, not any of your friends. We all have an agenda, and we all bring that to the table in every shred of language we use.

Let’s be clear about one thing: I have not ignored the so-called “evidence” that you have set before me. What I have done, is argued against the logic of that “evidence” and your attempts to use said evidence within your argument. I have attempted to show you—even help you—learn to warrant your claims and back your warrants with better data. For the love of all things!!! In a sense I have given you every opportunity to strengthen your argument with skill and precision, yet you have wasted your time talking about how you feel stimulated with pornography and strip teases etc… things which only continue to show your immaturity and sexual confusion, not to mention your perverse and exploitative views on humanity.

Your hypocrisy is sadly clear. You have turned right around and made judgment statements about me and my moral beliefs. What do you know about me? You know nothing except for that which I have posted on this thread.

If there is delusion at bay, you are the one swiming helplessly in it because you have in fact slapped your own existence in the face. Further, you have not pointed me to any evidence. Your claims concerning the homosexual behavior which you baselessly claim occurs across all species of animals is weak, unfounded, and biased. No one in the scientific community speaks with the certainty and arrogance you claim—and if they do—no real scientist takes them seriously. Certainty and science do not belong in the same discussion together unless you have thousands of years and conclusive evidence across every academic community.

You say that you have learned from the religious. Whoever taught you that when people don’t agree with you, and ask you to argue your points with substance, are “crying out from their souls” has filled your mind with false humility and misguided social advice. I can tell you this, I have no such cry. If I do have a cry, it is that the GLBTG community would stop exploiting each others bodies with this misguided illegitimate sexuality that only continues to re-affirm everything wrong with humanity—the self abased hatred and misunderstanding of our bodies. You call it love, but I understand it to be self-hatred. At some deep level, I am more and more convinced that homosexuality is a cry out for affirmation, true love, truth, and real hope.

I think it is your soul that is rendering a plea.

If anyone is to show pity here, it is me for you and your misguided ideology.

Troll?

I am sorry you see yourself as a one eyed being.

@nikiguns
Wonderful. You spend a post almost as long as mine to not provide any evidence against my stance. I, the atheist, have a mis guided ideology? Got to love that. And no, I did not say that I’m not gay according to my biological equipment. I said based on my genitalia. This is where you and I disagree. You consider genitalia the end all and be all of sexuality, and I consider it just one part of our extremely complex sexuality.

I’ll end with a thank you. Your last post has shown your true misguided intentions. You can not claim scientific superiority when you have obvious anti-scientific influences. And thank you for showing that you come form a place of such misinformed hate, by claiming the relationship I have with my husband is not only full of self-hatred but is an example of everything wrong with humanity.

I thank you for showing your true colors. I don’t feel the need to respond to any of your arguments, because you have failed to do the same.

Keep curising your own existence… I am glad the rest of humanity is not willing to act so foolishly.

P.S. I won.

Fine you won, but I have more lurve. ;-) And when it comes down to it, that is what matters. Because even before sexual drive there is the drive for community and belonging.

Being impervious to fact is not the same as winning.

Ahh but it is. When you live in a world of your own rules, it means just that. Of course, in nikiguns’ delusional view of the world, I have made up my own rules too. When your ideology says you are right, even in the face of contradictory evidence, you always win. Always. I should start doing the same, why should the faithful have all the fun?

@Noon
More Lurve is not more important! No Way!
Here comes another debate

I’m resisting feeding the troll, thank uber for the reminder.

I am delusional??? I have a delusional view of the world??? I can’t believe you have the arrogance to say such a thing.

Clearly, you are the one living in a world of your own rules, you are gay!!! Your biology disagrees with you, and so does most of the world socialy, religiously, philosophically, and academically. I KNOW I KNOW SEXUALITY IS SO MUCH MORE THAN BIOLOGY. And let me guess, that SO MUCH MORE includes a sexuality that ignores even DSR which calls your sexuality a disorder, because of its high risk.

Also I appreciate your convenient straw man argument, speaking for me and declaring how my “delusional” world view works. You should be fired!!! Learn how do argue with people!!!

My ideology says I am right as much as yours. How are you any different in this argument than me? How can you claim to be so self-righteous and unaffected by your opinions?

You resist “feeding the troll” because you are scared and unable to speak with authority.

If you or Noon had ever once given a single “fact” about anything you would be right Laureth. Since you have not been able to do so except by wishfully declaring your interpretations of abnormal data in animal species which DOES NOT OCCUR ALL ACROSS THE BOARD EVERyWHERE, you have failed to give facts. You, however, are clearly impervious to the fact of your biology. Try to tell me otherwise. Try to tell me that your genitalia is neutral, how can you do this, except through opinions and feelings?

Ha ha see I knew you couldn’t resist… and you say you have more LURVE

If I am such a troll why are you even wasting your time arguing with me???

I’ve said nothing at all about animal studies. I did, however, give you a link to a study of human brains. Did you bother to take a gander at it? In case you don’t want to scroll all the way back up, I’ll link it for you again. And then I’ll add this link about how highly fertile women are likely to have gay sons.

Sorry everyone, I’m feeding the troll. It’s fun, and living in San Francisco, I forget that there are people out there like this. Oh except for when they revoke my right to marry, forgot about that.

@nikiguns
My ideology is far different from yours. Mine refuses to claim I’m right when faced with empirically tested evidence to the contrary. Your ideology claims “righteousness” in the face of evidence to the contrary. When you can prove to me that our sexuality is based solely on our genitalia, and our brains have nothing to do with it, I will bow down. You have not been able to supply that proof, there for I remain on my side.

What is this DSR you speak of? Do you mean DSM? If you do, you need to pick up a new one, they are printed every year, and Homosexuality was removed in 1974. And it was not included because we are a “high risk group”.

As for my genitalia being neutral. Of course it’s neutral, it’s effing genitalia. It can’t think for itself. Please link me to a study that found neurons in penile tissue? And I’ve never claimed that sexuality is more than biology unless you consider our brain not applicable to the discussion of biology?

The quote I’ve chosen to dissect this time is this one:
“Clearly, you are the one living in a world of your own rules, you are gay!!! Your biology disagrees with you, and so does most of the world socialy, religiously, philosophically, and academically.”

My biology again, does not disagree with me. My brain agrees with myself quite well. When in the presence of homosexual stimulation, my penis also agrees with me. There are many societies, religions and philosophies that have no problem accepting me as the healthy human that I am. And unfortunately for you the majority of academia reinforces the idea that homosexuality is not a choice.

Laureth, yes I did look at the article you supplied. Indeed, a very interesting article. Earlier I wrote a post about the causal agents which contribute to sexuality from the “top down” and the “bottom up.” Please see that as my response to what you have said.

Noon and Laureth, O.K. first of all, I need to calm down. I have been responding out of frustration over the last several posts and for that I apologize. Its hard to not get angry when being called a troll, “disillusioned,” ignorant, and judged as some religious fanatic. Again, Noon, you have no idea who I am, so it is only fair that you stop making assumptions about me of which you know nothing. It is entirely common to have a position like mine, and not be religious. Moral thought expands far beyond the shores of religion. Besides, if I told you anything about me you would only judge me unfairly as you have done so far.

Let me clear up some misunderstanding, I do not disagree that you feel gay, think gay, act gay, and have sexual stimuli set off through gay interaction. I have never disagreed with these notions but I have disagreed with the interpretations and claims made about them.

As I have argued above—on my post concerning our sexual formation from the top down and bottom up—we develop ideas, opinions, and beliefs about our sexuality as we are stretched between these two poles. The variables that contribute to our sexuality are massively complex (social, philosophical, religious, etc… ). Yet we also have a biologic structure (penis’ and vaginas etc…). Finally, what I have been arguing, is that our brains are biologically affected, shaped, and re-shaped by these variables. Yes!!! It is true!!! Our brains are shaped and re-shaped by social pressure, abuse, religion, etc… this has been shown over and over in neuropsychology. On this basis, I have claimed that it is problematic to warrant sexuality alone. It seems too unstable epistemologically and metaphysically. However, it is true that people feel gay, act gay, think gay, and are stimulated by gay sex practices.

Yet, since these feelings, thoughts, actions, and practices originate in the brain, and sense the brain is formed by social, philosophical, and religious phenomenon, we are left with no objective way to understand our sexuality. This is why I would argue that you cannot claim to have objective-empirical-data aside from the biologic equipment itself. My claim is, and had been, that we find that objective data in the form and function of our biologic equipment. I have drawn a link between biologic equipment and gender and gender with sexuality. I am—however—well aware that we have seen major changes to the biologic brain chemistry as it affects ones sexual identity. Still, I do not think these changes prove that organic nature of sexuality since I understand it to come from gender and gender from biology.

If sexuality is determined on the sole basis of sociality and culture you are right. If, however, sexuality is equally determined by both poles (biology and culture) then we are both justified in making our claims.

At that point its legitimacy becomes a moral issue and obviously we depart ways there as well.

Noon you are correct about the DSM. My bad.

So, it appears that you will only respond to me when I get mean.

My brain article link isn’t about psychology, it’s not about the cultural inputs. It’s pure form. Gay brains are just shaped differently, and that doesn’t come from thinking differently – it’s inborn. If there’s a God, it’s the way God made gay people. I find it just as hard to argue with the form of the brain as you find it hard to argue with the form of the genitals.

@nikiguns
I apologize for my, apparently, late response. I do have a job, and of course, orgies, a meth addiction, aids tests, prostitution, and other abuses to society which I must attend to. (sorry low joke, but it did make me laugh)

First of all, it’s not common to have a position like yours and not be religious. I have been a part of several an atheist group and have never found someone with views like yours. I also know of no organization (link if you can find any) of non religious origin that makes any claim to the immorality of homosexuality. To a non believer, a stranger’s sex life, (as long as it is not harming anyone) does not fall under the non believer’s moral purview. Only a believer can construct a morality around something that does no harm to anyone in this life, but does effect your standing in the afterlife.

You are right. If you were to tell me more about yourself it most likely would only confirm the suspicions I already have. However I’ve told you quite a bit about myself, and they have done nothing but counter your presumptions about me. Who doesn’t know whom?

Now to the confusion. You agree that I feel gay, think gay, act gay, have sexual stimuli set off through gay interaction. But where we disagree is that I have chosen to interpret how I feel, think, act, and who I am sexually attracted to as gay? I would only agree with this statement if you are simply talking about how I am choosing to express my homosexuality. Sure my culture, society, and philosophy influences how I present my homosexuality, but does not change the underlying attraction to the same sex. It does influence my choice to have a rainbow sticker on my car. It does influence the neighborhood I have chosen to live in. I would even go as far to say that it influences the occasional lilt to my voice, and swoosh of the wrist, but again it can not change the underlying attraction to the same sex.

And the quote of the day today is:
”“I am—however—well aware that we have seen major changes to the biologic brain chemistry as it affects ones sexual identity. Still, I do not think these changes prove that organic nature of sexuality since I understand it to come from gender and gender from biology.”

YOU don’t think these changes prove organic nature of sexuality since YOU UNDERSTAND it to come from gender and gender from biology. This sums up the problem right here. Because the evidence does not support your opinion, it gets tossed out. Ta-dah, the ability to always be right is steadfast. When proved wrong, say “NO” and continue arguing.

First of all, I apologize for the length of this post, I am trying to clear things up. Also, before getting offended, read this post as the way that I am arguing a point. You don’t need to agree with me. Just try to understand why I am arguing that homosexuality cannot be a natural sexuality on the basis of your criterion.

I think I understand why you are confused with my position.

I am arguing that our neurobiology is shaped 1.) by every facet of culture and 2.) our genitalia.

It seems that both you and Laureth think that our brains do not change or shape differently as we go through life. This is not true. Any neurobiologist or psychologist will affirm that our brains change shape for many reasons. For example, Laureth pointed me to an article which says that gay men have different brain sizes than heterosexual men. This is true, I do not deny this. This is why I affirm that you feel gay, think gay, and act gay—because your brain IS GAY.

What then do we disagree on??? We disagree ON WHAT shaped your brian that way. You and Laureth would claim that your brain just was that way from birth. the article does not speak to the brith component. The article speaks to the shape of gay men’s brains in their adult age.

I am arguing that our brains are biologically shaped and re-shaped by social phenomena of every kind. In previous posts this is what I have referred to as “top down.” This is the same point I have been arguing from the beginning. This same factor can be said of any number of anthropological issues: sexuality, religion, relationships etc… The basic point is this, our “sexuality” is formed by the social world around us. This formation is unstable, because the society and culture shift and change all too often. After all our culture only began to consider african american people equal fifty years ago or less.

What is a stable/ objective factor in understanding our sexuality??? Biologic equipment—or better stated at this point—genitalia.

You agreed that if our sexuality was based on genitalia alone I would be correct. However, we both know that our sexuality in not based on this alone.

I am not—and have not—suggested that our sexuality is based on our genitalia alone but rather, that our genitalia is a stable/ objective factor concerning our sexuality, since genitalia is linked to gender and gender to sexuality. I know that you do not buy this argument and that is fine because my argument is not contingent on this point.

When I said, that I am aware that we have seen changes in the brain biologically (this is where you quoted me), I was trying to say that we have seen changes to some individuals brain shapes because of the social phenomena at work. You would claim that no such phenomena can do this; but rather, people are born gay and do not have a choice. I am guessing that you would disagree on this point. If indeed you do my question is this:

Who is reductive???

Back to the point, I am fully aware that our genitalia does not have neurons floating around within it. I am NOT suggesting that our genitalia has a mind of its own. I understand that our genitalia is connected to our brains. Again, this is why you feel gay, think gay, act gay, and are stimulated by men (or in Laureth’s case—women).

THUS, if we left things on this point you would be entirely correct. If this were simply how things are, you would be naturally gay. However, this is not the whole story and since there is more complexity to what constitutes our sexuality than you are suggesting, I cannot agree with the idea that a person is naturally gay.

My disagreement does not originate from my sheer refusal of your “evidence” or despite the “empirical data” that you claim to have put fourth (which I still have not seen except the articles supplied by Laureth, to which I have responded fairly). I agree with the data that gay people’s brains are shaped to affirm their gay proclivities; but because, sexuality is formed from the top and bottom, I cannot agree that people are naturally gay.

What is ironic about this argument, is that you have repeatedly accused me of being a reductionist; however, it appears that you are the reductionist because you claim that you have a gay brain—so you are naturally gay period—and yet, you are unable to acknowledge the social and philosophical phenomena involved in the formation of sexuality. I don’t understand this.

If you think my statements contradict you have not read carefully enough.

Here are my points by way of recapitulation:

1.) Our genitalia functions as a stable source for understanding our sexuality sense culture shifts constantly. If this were the only factor in determining our sexuality it would affirm heterosexuality alone. However it is not the only factor (we seem to agree here).

2.) Social phenomena of every kind “top down” affects our sexuality, because social phenomena has the ability to shape and re-shape the biological structure and processes or our brains (semi-evolutionary processes).

3.) Sexuality is shaped by both poles biology/ genitalia and social phenomena.

4.) Thus it is possible for a person to be gay neuro-biologically yet not gay by way of genitalia since it still finds its function heterosexual.

A reductive view would only consider the genitalia in its connection to the brain (which you think I have done this entire argument). But a position from which you have argued this entire time.

A non-reductive position, would say that we understand our sexuality from both sides of things—a position you have tried to associate yourself with, yet have reduced your argument to brain biology alone on the assumption that a brain goes unchanged from birth forward.

Hopefully this helps clears things up.

Sorry for the typos I am a graduate student and I have to run to class.

Aren’t you just a bit surprised that no onehas GQ’ed this? Just a tiny bit?

Linked on the same page as the brain article is this one: A man’s sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.

Quote: “If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men’s sexual orientation, but they do not.

“These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men.”

Also: Multiple genes – and not just the sex chromosomes – are important in sexual orientation, say US scientists.

Also: Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.

Also: Male hormone levels in womb may affect sexual orientation, study says.

Also: New research suggests that homosexuality could be ‘hard-wired’ into the brain in utero.

Nature and nurture make us who we are – it’s true. However, it’s clear that there’s an inborn quality to homosexuality that we can’t just wish away. You can choose to not have sex – lots of people choose celibacy – but you can’t necessarily choose to be attracted to the same or opposite gender people. It’s gut-level, and there’s evidence that it can happen before birth.

Re: Again, this is why you feel gay, think gay, act gay, and are stimulated by men (or in Laureth’s case—women).

For the record, I’m not very attracted to the vast majority of women. I’m not a lesbian, but my mom is.

Oh, I apologize… sorry about that. I should not have assumed.

Well Laureth you and I disagree on the “big question.” Indeed the articles you supply are indeed interesting as I have acknowledged.

Please understand, my response to you is not a “wishing away” or flat our “denial” of the evidence you have put before me.

In the world of scholarship people publish all sorts of articles and journals arguing for ideas they research. These articles do not empirically prove the argument with our any hesitation. The articles you have provided are interesting but they are not putting fourth uncontestible facts concerning the issues. If they were, there would be NO DEBATE LEFT on the ISSUE. I fear that you are too easily convinced by these studies as “solid evidence” when they are not.

DON’T MISUNDERSTAND: I am not saying the research is false and should be thrown out or disregarded, bit I am saying that it is plausible to disagree with these articles because they are interpretations of data. Indeed they show trends and similarities but they do not show facts—as the articles themselves are careful not to imply.

For example, I will supply you with an essay—well cited—and put fourth by a credible ORG site. This particular writer says that we are both wrong, and that sexuality is not inborn for hetero or homo but is all developmental as one grow and moves through life.

See the article here: http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/determinism/SO.html

Now, if I were to claim that this article automatically shuts down all your articles and everything you have said that would be unreasonable since both of these positions are based on how the scientists interpret the evidence.

This is not a cop out this is how things work in the world of academics.

This writer addresses every point your articles have made and more and argues that our sexuality is not inborn.

Laureth, notice the language used in the articles you supplied.

“But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely due to biological rather than social factors.”

Most likely… Most likely is not a fact, but an interpretation of the data.

Again the BBC article quotes the scientist saying, “He suggests the effect is probably the result of a “maternal memory” in the womb for male births.”

Probably… not much certainty or fact in probability…

Again, the BBC article quotes the journal stating, “In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: “These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons.” “But the question of mechanism remains.””

… but the question of mechanism remains… again this statement leaves wide open the uncertainty of the issue at hand.

Not to mention the fact that the BBC article is supplying a summary and interpretation of the actual article which is only quoted a few times. Unfortunately, you can’t really base much of an argument on a persons interpretation of someone else’s article because we have no way to determine what the actual article really said—unless of course we read it ourselves.

I think you are more certain about the claims in these articles than they would be comfortable with.

@laureth
Thanks for doing the work. But apparently your work is all for naught, because evidence apparently is not evidence unless you want it to be.

@nikiguns
Sorry, I’ve honestly tired with this argument (for now), and don’t see myself continuing doing the work to have you understand. But I’m amazed that you would actually link to that article. And article that actually says:
“The idea that our sexual orientation is determined by our biology is related to the idea that sexuality is something that can be categorized in a fixed way. But in reality, this is rarely the case.” and then cites Kinsey.
There is nothing in that whole article that ever says that attraction is by choice. Again, I conceded that how I express my sexuality may very well be a choice, but the underlying attraction is not.

To finish this up, because again I’m tired of your out right denial, lets respond to your numbered points above.

1) I will not agree completely to that statement. Our genitalia doesn’t offer a stable source for understanding our sexuality, as it does offer a stable source of how we procreate, which I have never said is the only reason our species has sex.

2) You have referenced this hierarchy several times, and I can not find any reference to this hierarchy attributed to Val Quine. Could this be a similar DSM mistake?

3) Yes, most of which are not the choice of the “subject”.

4) Again attributing power to genitalia that it does not have. A deaf person is actually hearing because there is nothing wrong with their vocal chords.

@90s_kid
Yes, not on GQ. Yet some how according to nikiguns, I do not have more lurve. Amazing that this manipulation of empirical evidence is not just applicable to homosexuality, but apparently numbers. 2+2 does in fact equal 5, if you just believe strong enough.

Its WVO Quine and it isn’t a mistake. You have made plenty of errors in this argument don’t pretend to act so perfect. You should take my apologies as apologies and not as ammunition.

Here you go again acting like a smart ass. What is wrong with you. Of course 2+2=4. I am not denying facts, I am not manipulating facts, what I am doing is telling you that you don’t have empirical facts and the article I supplied warrants this claim.

“We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A lack of understanding about this type of human variability often leads to a perspective that our genes define who we are.”

again

“Current efforts fail to tell the whole story. And even if we were to accept that the assigned sexual orientation of the individuals participating in these studies accurately reflected their lifelong expression, conclusive proof of a link between this and their genes has yet to be found.”

From your response I doubt you read this article in its entirety which shows your inability to understand the complexity of the issues not to mention you rather pathetic response to my previous post.

@Noon indeed you are a broken and confused person.

You are in denial of the real issues here, why can’t you understand this. Even Laureth’s articles suggest this complexity goes unanswered.

If you were so sure about “the facts” you think you have… which none in the scientific community suggests you have… it would be a massive waste of your time to mindlessly argue with me about this issue.

You argue with me because you are unsure, just as I am. That is why we are arguing. The situation is not a 2+2= 4 situation, if it were there would be nothing to argue about.

You need to be honest about this…

@nikiguns
There was an apology? All I caught was an apology for the length of your post.

Your article, nor the quotes you decided to emphasis make any claim that homosexuality is some sort of choice (the question at hand). Your quotes even emphasis that we are sexual beings with the ability to be attracted to any gender regardless of genitalia. This does not fair well for your argument.

I also never said this was a 2+2 situation. The situation I was referring to was your assertion that I did not have more lurve. I now realize that 90’s_kid was talking about GQ not GA, so I was wrong in that respect. I thought your claim that I did not have more lurve was a perfect example of how you can be presented with evidence (counting the number of Great Answers) and claim it to be wrong. It is equivalent to saying that 2+2=5.

And I do not argue because I am unsure, I argue because as we speak my rights are in question. As we speak, people are debating on whether or not my husband and I are actually married. As we speak, people are justifying why we should be considered second class citizens. These are things I am not unsure about, I am quite sure about this. I argue because people like you, fuel the prejudice. People like you use denial, delusion, and manipulation to justify the discrimination me, my family, and my community face everyday. This is why I argue.

Yep, my previous response was half assed, this one is not much better. I’m tired. It’s become annoying. You have not yet provided any proof of this choice. I never claimed it HAD to be genetic, HAD to be chemical. I’m not saying that we know why it happens. But there is plenty of evidence (some which you have supplied, thank you) that makes it clear that a choice, it is not.

Ha ha ha…ok if you really think that the evidence I have supplied does that for you, well I feel bad that you are unable to read and comprehend well.

I actually think you should have rights…
I actually do not think you are a second class citizen or person no matter how much we disagree
I actually do not want you to be discriminated against…

so there goes that judgmental bull shit!!!

For someone who wants to try to help others understand your cause you are not doing so great a job!!! I am tempted to change my mind on the basis of your BS… no I actually wouldn’t do that, but there are people who would.

The point is that I don’t agree with the claim that your sexuality is inborn and that has not been empirically proven anywhere.

Post the links that say otherwise.

[Mod says] Flame off.

Ha whatever that means…

[Mod says] It means stop insulting people.

You should say the same to Noon.

@augustlan also didn’t you call me a troll earlier??? It appears you are a hypocrite!

I asked. See the question mark. If you wish to discuss it further, please send me a comment.

@nikiguns
For however long this is up, I agree with you “It appears you are a hypocrite!”
Lurva

@nikiguns
I’m going to call victory on this one. However insulting you may have claimed me to be, it never solicited the censorship of the moderators. You may not consider it a victory of facts and argument, but I think we can say that I maintained the moral high ground (how do you like that one) for not having to resort to an insult so low that the moderators were called into action.

My only regret is that I didn’t log in fast enough to see what you had written.

Ha ha well obviously Augustian is on your side either as a fellow homosexual or not; nevertheless, you can think you have victory if you please. I would argue that your posts earlier were much worse and more defaming than mine.

I think its fair to say that the moderator thought you couldn’t handle my response—in which I never even called you a name with an explicative.

So much for freedom of speech and “rights.”

I guess now I know hoe you feel Noon.

Bye for good, I cannot continue to support or participate with a web site that systematically favors self sided ideologies and censors freedom of speech.

I will never write here again and I am sure that makes all you hypocrites happy.

(For what it’s worth, the first amendment guarantees that you won’t be arrested for things you’ve said – they’re not illegal. It doesn’t guarantee that a private business, such as Fluther, won’t censor you if you break their terms of Service.)

Hahaha, wow. I’m really upset I missed this.
Noon, if I was a dude…just sayin’. ;)

If @asmonet were a dude, she’d be breaking a lot of Flutherboys’ hearts. ;)

nahhhhh not even a penis can come in the way of my lurve for asmo :P

hahaha I hope there was good stuff in that thread, I never got to see it. :(

woo! batman and I can have freaky naughty times.

Wow… nikiguns you seriously schooled these people. Good job! The rest of you trolls didn’t argue fairly with nikiguns at all! Shame on you!

Dang, I wish I hadn’t missed this debate!

You know…I was about to dismiss this question as ”...hohum…more of the same…”, until I forced myself to stop and seriously ponder the question.

I surprised myself when it dawned on me that I’ve never once considered whether or not I was straight.

Ever.

My sexuality was not something I chose or anything I questioned.

I probably only believe it’s normal because people have been telling me it’s normal since I became aware of what sexuality _was.

So, considering my own personal experience with this subject, why would it be such a stretch to believe that gay people are gay because that’s the hand life dealt them, just like my “straightness” was dealt to me?

But this doesn’t answer the question does it?

The answer to this question is simple:

Some people think homosexuality is a choice because some people don’t like homosexuals or the thought of homosexual acts, and it suits their agenda to believe what they want to beleive.

I’m a male and happily heterosexual. And I normally don’t speak out about such highly critical topics as this one, anywhere…until I came here…

Some non-gay people may just simply think that gay people make homosexuality a choice perhaps, because, well…simply, maybe, some non-gays just don’t have any inclination to even begin to think of how gay people do the things that they do when they don’t really have to begin with. And that’s if they curiously care. To me, it shouldn’t be at all about this “homo” phobia they’re all barking about. That’s ignorant labeling just as a non-gay person would say “fag” or whatever. For me, as a non-gay person, it’s more about why do I even need to feel like I have to understand them in the first place even if I speak out and find it wrong or don’t want to be too near them. That’s my choice…just as gay people have theirs. I mean, come on, it’s not like I’m out there trying to stop gay people have rights or anything. They should have rights. It’s America, it’s essentially open season for whatever you want to do out there, you know. So given that, my own freedom allows me to feel or say whatever I like and want about my own choices and decisions just as a gay person can. Even if they can seem wrong (which is very possible, yep) So, because of this thing called freedom (more blind than Justice itself in some ways, perhaps) I feel I don’t have to listen to a gay person or a even a straight gay advocate tell me how they feel about what they believe…how I feel. I’m simply disagreeing…as they would with me. Especially if they can’t even listen and respect what I have to say as well. On a sidenote. If you must know, I’m not a full liberal or a anything full opposite of that. I detest politics. I’m more a humanist with an uneasy christian background. And, yes, I’m fully aware that that is messed up. Life is good but it is also messed up. I dare you to say otherwise. It’s certainly one thing I know I’m not in denial of.

Anyhow…

I know this sounds very strange to the opposition, but I don’t, at all, hate gay people. I have the humane capacity to be their friend or at least be friendly. It’s just their sexual acts I can’t accept. To me it looks and feels naturally wrong. Procreation is the natural outset of human genesis. Not homosexuality.

Human feelings are based on choices we been given from the beginning of time. Therefore, a decision of same-sex orientation and along the way is a discourse of the actual natural procreation goal of humanity.

All that, and that’s just how I feel. No, I’m no professor of whatever (do I really have to be?). Oh, well, I’m just a human being trying to get through this life the best he feels, and knows, he can.

So don’t do anything gay, and you’ll be just fine without nosing into their bedroom, right, @Mantralantis?