reply to post by WickedStar
I will admit that biologically speaking certain female traits attract me more than most men, however if I choose to make a person of my gender my
partner and stay with that person the rest of my life, my biological tendency has no effect on the concept of the term homosexuality. To address this
in a way you can accept, I propose that we look at it from various perspectives.
You are referencing biological predisposition, which I agree with you. However, due to the human body's ability to adapt, I hypothesize that even an
originally heterosexual person could biochemically respond to a single lover or even perhaps a focal group of lovers of the same gender in the same
way a person with the biological preference does, and the earlier that choice is made the more likely a permanent and observable change will occur
(although the strength of that interaction could be muted or intensified depending on the relationship).
There is scientific precedent for this and it is called developmental acclimatization.
For instance, Sherpas have increased lung capacity, and a person from lower altitudes when exposed to those higher altitudes will first struggle to
extract enough oxygen from the air (which is thinner), and the body will take steps to counteract this.
Acclimation is what happens when you are hot and sweat, or are cold and shiver taking minutes to occur. Acclimatization is a longer lasting effect
taking days, weeks or months to respond to (like your lungs somewhat expanding to better handle the high altitudes, then after being away for six
months losing that capacity). Developmental acclimatization is what occurs if a child is placed into the environment of for example the Sherpas for an
extended period. This child will gain permanently larger lung capacity due to early long term exposure to that environment, perhaps not as much as
people who possess a genetic predisposition to larger lung capacity like the Sherpas, but that child will possess for the rest of his or her life
expanded lungs due to the environmental exposure at a young age that cannot be nearly as attainable after the critical developmental period.
Now, say a boy of 16 with no homosexual predisposition is exposed to a homosexual environment and over time bonds deeply with another male, my
hypothesis is that in time his new preference will create a deeper biological connection, allowing his biochemical receptors in his brain to adapt to
his surroundings (this applies to females as well) producing a similar if not identical biochemical reaction as someone who is genetically predisposed
to homosexuality.
That would depend on that individual's overall genetic capacity to adapt in such a way just like two non related children living with Sherpas will
both possess the capacity to permanently expand their lungs, but child A might only be able to increase capacity by 22% while child B due to pure
genetics in the same environment might expand by 34% . In that respect I believe that homosexuality is also dependent on environmental factors, and
direct contact of a positive nature, could likely produce adaptational effects within the brain and body giving a 'born' heterosexual many of the
permanent traits of the biological homosexual.
God, many people would have a field day with that, thinking that you can 'catch' homosexuality, which is not my case, but the longer the exposure of
direct homosexual activity (actual sex, not just living with the person, although that child would most likely possess a greater understanding of love
and relationships from a different perspective than most people), the greater the likelihood is of that person adapting to their lover, thus giving
them a similar biochemical makeup of one who was born that way, stemming from the choices people make and the environment they live in.
What I am saying as well is that homosexuality was a term created before people possessed a greater understanding of its genetic precursors. As it was
created, it is merely a term to denote same sex partners. YOU ARE CORRECT in what you are saying, but the original meaning of the term could not have
factored that into the meaning.
Also, the original post that started this was misread and did not have to do with this part of homosexuality. Not to mention, the genetics have
nothing to do with the discrimination, if I marry a man or show deep affection to one in public, people will oppose it regardless if you call me a
heterosexual with homosexual tendencies. They will call me a homosexual, that is my point.
