You know, I'm gay and couldn't care less why.... Can't change and wouldn't if I could....

I think at the end of the day - hetrosexuality and homosexuality are basically about sexual attraction, nothing to do with sex, lifestyle, adopting kids, getting married, what car you drive or where you choose to live.

Sexual attraction is the basis of it... I prefer men because I like the physique, the masculinity and the general way men behave. Someone else may like men (or women) for different reasons.

Sexual attractrion is an aesthetic and psychological appreciation of another person, procreation is a whole different area.

That said, a reason for homosexuality was once given as a very early way of nature providing ready made "surogate mothers", in primative situations where the men do the hunting, a female would look after the offspring, emotionally aware and empathic males would be just as good a subsitute if their were too many siblings for a mother to tend to.


(had a few glasses of wine - hopefully you get the idea)

Originally posted by piacenza

If it was for me we would have group sex everywhere.

Ahahahaha...awesome = D

Yeah I can agree with this theory by the OP....well it makes sense anyway.
However I have heard that it was found that truly undeniably gay men did have a brain more similar to females than males.

I can't imagine every guy being abit gay... just some i can't imagine at all...
But...when you think about it, it's more socially acceptable for girls to be lesbians. In fact it's hot. So there you get alot more girls being open about it. Would this be the same for men if it were more acceptable?
I can look at that part of myself openly and see perhaps 1% of me being gay, I can see the small ( really small ) part of me that is and that is how I know that I am not.

I wonder if that's the same for all guys?

Originally posted by Ghost01
Cogradulations on your Degree in BS from the University of John Lear!
Tim

Ghost01 if you hadn't already realised I was taking the heat out of this topic because I could see exactly were it was going to head. I guess stupidity reigns supreme on some subjects and you have only exhaserbased that.

*Hint* when someone puts a laughing face on the end of their subject line its usually a pisstake or some for of sarcasm.

Whenever John Lear is mentioned in any thread, Ghost magically finds it and tries to bash the crap out of him lol
I've never seen someone so ready to pounce on someone else on forums before. He really has something against him.

Anyway......
are there any past life regressions of males, who had female past lives. And are they gay

To the OP --

Maybe people are gay or lesbian because of their own free will. No "gay gene" or past life required.


and

Originally posted by T0by

Yeah I can agree with this theory by the OP....well it makes sense anyway.
However I have heard that it was found that truly undeniably gay men did have a brain more similar to females than males.

I can't imagine every guy being abit gay... just some i can't imagine at all...
But...when you think about it, it's more socially acceptable for girls to be lesbians. In fact it's hot. So there you get alot more girls being open about it. Would this be the same for men if it were more acceptable?
I can look at that part of myself openly and see perhaps 1% of me being gay, I can see the small ( really small ) part of me that is and that is how I know that I am not.

I wonder if that's the same for all guys?

You say there are some guys that you can't imagine being "a bit" gay. I always thought that the really over-the-top heterosexual guys are overcompensating for some less-than-hetero thoughts they may have had sometime in their lives. For example, you can look at your 1% gayness and be OK with that, like many straight men (including myself). But I think some guys see that 1% inside of them and it scares them. So they try really hard to cover it up by acting overly masculine.

And, regarding gay men's brains being more similar to a female brain...maybe that is an "effect" of being gay rather than a "cause".

That's my 2 cents.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

I've never understood the 'gay by choice' theory. I don't have, and never have had, control over who I find attractive (sometimes I wish I did - it can lead me into bad situations) Not a single person I know has control over who they find attractive. So it seems absolutely ludicrous to me that gay people would somehow be able to control and reverse these natural, base, human impulses.

Now I'm sure you can repress (suppress?) these feelings, but that would make gay people a-sexual, not heterosexual. The way I see it, you can ignore a feeling that is there, but you can't fake a feeling that isn't.

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
Many Homosexuals have stated that being Homosexual is not a lifestyle choice, but rather that they are born that way. Scientists have been searching, but have not yet found a "gay" gene. How does this make any sense???

Well according to new research it's more based on hormones than genetics or lifestyle.
Also what if a 'gay' gene was found.
Can someone say 'eugenics'?
Well genetics science is still very much in it's infancy, like many branches of science.
It's like saying 'Hey we can go to space, so why aren't we colonising march?'

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
My Theory: Homosexuals are actually people who were Re-Incarnated as the opposite sex, and it is their past life experiences of being the opposite sex that leads them to be attracted to the same sex in this life.

Logically, give or take a few hundred thousand, there are an equal number of males and females, therefore there would/should be the same amount of male/female souls.
According to your theory at least a 1/4 of humanity would be either 'gay' or deeply in 'the closet'.
Also your theory smacks of anti-homosexual sentiment, putting forward the belief that homosexuals are just a 'fluke' by the great Cosmic Jester or another being.

Also why the need to explain homosexuality?
Should someone make a thread 'explaining' why 'heterosexuality' exists?
Should someone make a thread 'explaining' why 'Christians/Muslims/Jews etc are Christians/Muslims/Jews etc'?
Should someone make a thread 'explaining' why whites/blacks/asians etc are white/blacks/asians?

Chaoticar - I understand what you're saying, and on some levels I agree with you. Certainly the numbers work against a theory that all gay people have only had past lives of a certain gender, although I don't think it's so far fetched that 'past lives' have some influence on the current sexual preference of a person.

But heterosexuality doesn't require the same explanation. Heterosexuality doesn't require us to understand why it is. Heterosexual sex leads to procreation, which leads to the continuation of the human species.

I don't want to go down the 'homosexuality isn't natural' partly because that's certainly an anti-homosexual view, and it's also not entirely true given the evidence of homosexuality in the natural world. But even if it does exist in the natural world, we don't know why. We know why people are attracted to people of the opposite sex - because it is our natural drive in order to maintain the species. Homosexuality is less understood, which leads to attempts - like these - to understand why it occurs.

Again, don't mean to say there is anything wrong with homosexuality, that it is unnatural or immoral or anything like that. I'm simply saying that heterosexuality has a simple explanation that cannot be extended to homosexuality.

Some people are still taking this too personally. I am not a homosexual, but I can somewhat relate to them because I too am different. I was born as whats called a 'ginger'. meaning that I have fair skin, red hair, and covered in freckles like a leopard. I don't think its anti-ginger when people try to explain what makes a person like myself a ginger. I do however find modern sciences explanation VERY Insulting. They say that its a "reccessive gene" meaning that I am not composed of 'dominant genes' I find these terms reccessive vs. dominant to be insulting, why not just say that I am "rare" or "more unique", rather than less than the norm.

Originally posted by TheStev
But heterosexuality doesn't require the same explanation. Heterosexuality doesn't require us to understand why it is. Heterosexual sex leads to procreation, which leads to the continuation of the human species.

You are correct on this point, which is why I tried to avoid arguing 'No-one says explain us heterosexuals!', as I would have made an idiot out of myself

Originally posted by TheStev
I don't want to go down the 'homosexuality isn't natural' partly because that's certainly an anti-homosexual view, and it's also not entirely true given the evidence of homosexuality in the natural world. But even if it does exist in the natural world, we don't know why. We know why people are attracted to people of the opposite sex - because it is our natural drive in order to maintain the species. Homosexuality is less understood, which leads to attempts - like these - to understand why it occurs.

Correct again.
However there is a growing consensus among scientists that ONE of the reasons why homosexuality may exist among animals is not 'lifestyle', rather it's natures way of 'population control'.
If there's not enough predators/diseases or other external factors, how do you keep population growth down?

Also thanks for actually attemtping to refute my points, rather than act as if I don't exist.

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
Some people are still taking this too personally.

I'm not and, as I'm the centre of the Universe, no one else is.

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
I don't think its anti-ginger when people try to explain what makes a person like myself a ginger.

Yes but the post was arguing that there can't be a 'natural' explanation for homosexuality:there must be a supernatural/spiritual one.
It's like me saying that, as science cannot explain why recessive genes are that way(which they can, but as this is a pretty bad contextualisation, forgive the error), then those people that contain recessive genes must be reincarnated people with 'bad' genes.


I do however find modern sciences explanation VERY Insulting. They say that its a "reccessive gene" meaning that I am not composed of 'dominant genes' I find these terms reccessive vs. dominant to be insulting, why not just say that I am "rare" or "more unique", rather than less than the norm.

Originally posted by mazzroth

*Hint* when someone puts a laughing face on the end of their subject line its usually a pisstake or some for of sarcasm.

There was sarcasm in that remark! I know what the laughing face is for. Thank you for your help.

Tim

I must say that dispite the issue of the missing gene for homosexuality, I believe that it is a natural thing that is born into a person. Homosexuality serves two purposes in nature:

1. First, as has been said, it's a natural population control. Since two people of the same gender cannot reproduce, it avoids the issue of procreation.

2. Second, it forfills the innate need for love and emotional attachment that everyone feels. People or animals look for love because they need it to stay healthy.

Tim

horrible theory, there is conclusive proof that there is no choice in the attraction homosexuals feel. their brains react to the same sex the same way that heterosexual brains react to the opposite sex. there is no choice in those primal parts of the brain