What made you gay or lesbian?

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Haha yeah I think it would be best to leave that out

Interesting in a sick and twisted way though :S

reply to post by yzzyUK


I didn't say you were evil.The mind war is between good and evil,that is
between God and satan.

Originally posted by mamabeth reply to post by yzzyUK What made me heterosexual? A very good question,here is the answer. I accepted Jesus as my Saviour and turned my life over to Him.

Now Wolf says:

You think its just people... Wake up! en.wikipedia.org... havior Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.

Ouch! That just threw a wrench into my trying to understand mamabeth's way of thinking.

I'm not attacking your religion, mamabeth, I'm just trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that having Jesus in your life makes you straight. What about the animal world? What makes them gay, straight or bisexual?

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Schleprock]

Ok im leaving my last reply to this thread, and it is just to say that I will not be commenting on anything else in this thread.

Originally posted by yzzyUK

Originally posted by reassor
i just kindly ask them to not jump eachother in public

yeah cause I'm always jumping my girl friend and husband in public... man we're like animals!

you know what i mean ... its just our culture yet i guess ... people kissing in public places - you see heter then its ok .. i see gay people it stucks in my mind maybe 2-3 generations and people will not feel that way ...

its my flaw

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Hack28

 

My reference to the water supply was an example,not a reason.I was
making suggestions about a possible environmental cause.When your hormones are messed up anything is possible.I know this for a fact.

I didn't mention religion M I gave you a scientific explanation as to what makes a person "gay or lesbian" as per your question "what makes you that way?".

Of course the science in question is the science of "creation" , not necessarily a science that I would adhere to but apparently a science nevertheless.

Of course another options are that a person is

(A) Genetically predisposed at birth to being gay.

Or (B) They just happen to like having sex with a given person that happens to be of the same gender just for the hell of it, but don't necessarily get sexually attracted to members of the same sex on impulse .

There you go M, yet again not one word about religion.

Originally posted by Wolf 
Ok im leaving my last reply to this thread, and it is just to say that I will not be commenting on anything else in this thread.

And we were just getting to know each other

Originally posted by mamabeth
engages in,not neccessarily thought.

Thanks again for the reply. As a disclaimer, I'm not judging you or anyone else, I'm just interested in the progression.

I merely brought up the Catholic priest issue as an example, by the way.

Would it surprise you to learn that science identifies the desire to engage in homosexual acts qualifies one as a homosexual (or bi, but let's not nit pick)?

According to that standard, if you have the desires and even though you fight them off, you're still bisexual, just suppressing it. So even though your religious conviction enables you to not act out on your desires, you're still bisexual.

I'll ask you - where did that come from, do you think? Personally, I think drinking water as a source is a big stretch, but if that's what makes you comfortable, I'm okay with it. The alternative would be, you were born with it as a "natural" drive (for you). Now that'll cause some cognitive dissonance among the "it's a choice" crowd. Not that I've ever understood that. I sure never made a conscious choice to be heterosexual. I don't have to decide to be that way, I just am. That's not to say it isn't necessary to "suppress" some urges, since I'm married.

Personally, I don't think heterosexuality is more natural than homosexuality, just more common and certainly today more accepted. Your moral compass, and mine, compels us to be monogamous. In my case, I'm only consciously avoiding the out of wedlock heterosexual relationships, since the other doesn't appeal to me at all.

I don't think heterosexuality is a choice, and I don't think monogamy is "natural". But it's how I roll.

I hope you continue to find happiness in whatever decisions you make.

reply to post by mamabeth


I understand that you are trying to actually understand something here but you are truly limiting your questions. Yes, many have already replied and stated that in most cases you are simply born with it.

You ask "why did you choose..." Well, that's it right there. It wasn't a choice. It was more about what attracted them and it just happened to be the same sex. This is what has been explained to me by some of my gay friends. They didn't choose anything. They just don't like being with the opposite sex in that way. All of my friends that are gay HAVE tried at least twice with different people of the opposite sex to have a sexual relationship with them. It just didn't work out.

So, to keep it clean and away from the 'GOD SAYS IT IS A SIN' group, it's just biology my friends. Sorry.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Wolf 

 

I even know of a homosexual necrophilia case in the animal kingdom...

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers

But bringing up that subject would be taking it way off topic, so i leave at that!!

Peace

Man, that article is hilarious!!!

However, Mr Moeliker was informed of an American case involving a squirrel and a dead partner, although in this case it is not known whether the necrophilia observed was homosexual or not as the victim had been run over by a truck shortly before the incident.

Un-natural my ass

We ARE natural, whatever our preferences!

Originally posted by yzzyUK

Originally posted by jinx880101
I wish that were the case with me. I hate carrying this around with me and not being able to talk about it. Very jealous boyfriend... and suppressing what I really feel, absolutely tears me apart. Makes me wonder if it was just a ''crush' or something more...

that's awful!

Your relationship with your man isn't an honest one and is hurting you!

When I met my husband and realised he was interested in more than just friendship I said I was BiPoly.... he smiled a wicked smile and I said "NO, not a swinger!!" lmao

he understands that I only have one man in my life, him, and that from time to time I have a woman in my life too... It's who I am. It is who he married....

My ex on the other hand back in 1991 wouldn't let me talk about it and said what happened before I met him was just 'sillyness' ... I left him sharpish! lol

Your relationship with your man isn't an honest one and is hurting you!

It's hurting him as well, and he doesn't even know about it.

You should be honest with him. Some people want to be the only one whether they are gay or straight.

There is a genetic explanation for male homosexuality.

When a woman carries a male fetus, her body wants to reject the fetus in the same way that organ donor recipients sometimes reject the new organ. In order to suppress this rejection tendency, the woman's body secrets a particular chemical that accumulates in her body. This chemical also can flip the switch that some genes have from 'male' to 'female'. Apparently some genes produce one kind of protein if the 'sex' switch is set to male and the same gene will produce an entirely different protein if the switch is set to female. The proteins can affect how the brain reacts to sexual stimuli. ie. being attracted to men instead of to women.

If a woman has multiple male offspring, each additional male fetus has an increasing probability of having it's gene sex switch set to female. That's why statistically, homosexual men are far more likely to be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. boy rather than the 1st boy in the family.

Interestingly, the same does NOT hold true for lesbians.

Originally posted by mamabeth
What conditions do you feel led you into becoming a homosexual?I would like to
have a better understanding of the gay community.I am a christian and I have
been taught homosexuality is a sin.I am not going to preach or condemn.I would
like your honest answers to my question.
There seems to be an increase in homosexual behavior on a global scale.My sister
wondered if there is something in the water.I looked this up and discovered that
there are a lot of pharmaceuticals in our water supplies.Antibiotics,anti-convulsants,
mood stabilizers,sex hormones,ibuprofen and other over the counter type medications.
I read that the treatment facilities aren't required to test for pharmaceuticals or
filter them out.Over the years,there have been increases of girls starting their
menses at younger ages.Males are becoming more effeminate in appearance
and behavior.
I know that there are other factors that leads people to homosexuallity. I don't
want any gay bashing or preaching on this thread.I want to give,gays and lesbians,a chance to voice their opinions on what made them gay.

Considering your question, it demonstrate's a total lack of understanding why some people are gay. No one "taught" me to be gay. It's a lot like saying to someone; "who taught you to be right handed, or have blue eyes" It also had nothing to do with how I grew up. My childhood was spent in Chicago, and while some of the people I knew most likely were gay, they did nothing to to push me into being gay. The major civil rights issue was for some people who are straight, they seem to justify their hate for gay people because they think it's a choice. As some one who is gay believe me when I say was bourn this way.

Most of my life I coulden't stand being gay. Most if not all of my friends were not gay. As a teenager I saw how so called "limp wrist" kids were treated. It was terrible. Needless to say I diden't want to go through the same thing. I diden't come out untill I was 40. I was to worried do so at a younger age. It's lucky I was bourn and did not act like a "limp wrist".

There is something I can ad that would compare the current open bigotry directed at gays to many events in the past. When my Mom was in grade school (1930's), she went to a Catholic school and was left handed. They told her the left hand was the evil hand, it was associated with the devil. They made her catch an object with her right hand, for hours on end. Wouldn't that time have been spent on actually teaching her something?

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by MrDesolate

 

I am a fundamental christian,I am not of the catholic faith.My answer to
your question is...engages in,not neccessarily thought.As a christian,I
believe our mind is a battlefield.The war is between good and evil.I still
have bad thoughts and have to continue daily with the Lord about them.

who decides what "evil" thoughts are? Do you fantasize about killing people in gruesome ways, or just thinking about how sexy another woman is? I like Jesus too. I just don't think that because the church says something is bad, that it really is. These are the same people who used to think it was cool to torture and kill anyone who wouldn't convert to their way of thinking. I try to go by the thought that if nobody is getting hurt, and God is still getting my praise, then no harm/no foul. I am a lesbian. I enjoy watching lesbian porn. I love women. I have no desire to be with a man.

Back to the OP question, what about ancient greece??

It is well known that the ancient greeks used to practice homosexuality on a public scale, no one had a problem then and their water did not have all the chemicals that we do.

Also, animals. They're many animals that are homosexual, its just preference of choice.

I think now in modern days, you notice more and more homosexuals and feminem (sp) because it is now more aceptable in todays culter. More men are becoming more fenimin (sp, i realy have a problem with that word) is because they are now allowed to. We have evolved from the masculen (sp, i know its awful) steriotype that men used to be forced into becoming.

What you are seeing now in the world is the more acceptance of an indervidual to be who they are and want to be instead of the strict women are this and like pink and men are like this and like blue.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Rising Against

 

I am not so sure that is an honest answer. It may be your honest belief, but to this date, no one has been able to find the "gay" gene within human DNA.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

[..]
I was compelled to clarify that your opinion in no way counts as scientific analysis, and since DNA is coming closer to being fully mapped by scientists, unless they are able to point to a specific gene that would constitute being born with homosexuality, your opinion will remain that, an opinion. [..]

Looking at DNA to find specific genes related to a certain behavioral or phenotype is a good way to find out what causes those phenotypes - but DNA being fully mapped by scientists is simply not true. We may have the technology to read the entire string of DNA base pairs (GC, AT, etc.) - but as one of the 46 chromosomes contains about 220 million base pairs, we're not quite near understanding all alleles (see for example the recent studies on subjects like 'DNA methylation and Z-DNA formation as mediators of quantitative differences in the expression of alleles" by Rothenburg et al. , 2001). In addition, it is much harder to find alleles interacting with each other then it is to find, for example, a single 'baldness-gene' .
When it comes to a comprehensive and extensive mapping of DNA, there is none.

More importantly, while one specific gene may not be responsible for a complex matter as one's sexuality, studying DNA is not the only way we have to study genetic influence May I introduce to you: behavioral genetics - basically the study of nature and nurture. The assumption central in this field is that differences among individuals in a population are due both to genetic differences between people, and to differences in their environmental experiences. A fair assumption to make, since we cannot explain all by just genes or environment. If this assumption is true, then there is a certain correlation in the expression of genes between twins; between monozygotic (identical) twins, the difference is caused by environmental influences (including interactions in the expression of genes), while between dizygotic (fraternal) twins, the differences have the same origins as between normal siblings; both genetic and environmental influences. For MZ and DZ twins, correlations can be calculated for any trait; the difference between those correlations (which itself is a measure of the differences within each group) shows us what the genetic influence is.

Let's say, there is a correlation of 99% of red hair among MZ twins (only 1 in 100 times, 1 of the twins has red hair but the other hasn't - all percentages in this example are fictitious). Among DZ twins, we find a correlation of only 50%. Coincidentally, siblings share about 50% of their genetic makeup. What can we conclude from this?
Obviously, MZ twins have 100% the same DNA (give or take some differential/erratic base pairs). The first thing we can conclude is that there is at least 1% non-shared environmental influence, since the correlation is only 99%. The missing percent is apparently not influenced by genetic makeup alone, but by the environment; in addition, whatever interaction there was between person and environment, it was only experienced by one twin (subsequently leaving one twin with red hair, lowering the correlation of the whole group).
Furthermore, we find that among humans who share 100% of the DNA, the correlation of red hair is 99% - when they share 50%, the correlation is 50%. This seems to imply that the 50% DNA that isn't shared by DZ twins, is responsible for 49% of the correlation (99%-50%). By that logic, having 100% the same DNA would provide a correlation of only 88% (49% * 2). But that leaves us with a difference of 11% from the 99% we found for twins! That is exactly what we need, since we need to account for genetics, non-shared environmental influences and shared environmental influences - the 11% is the latter. In this example, we have found a genetic influence of 88% for red hair, with 12% environmental influence (of which 1% non-shared).

As with most methods, there are weaknesses and strengths; the main weakness is that genes may not be expressed through interaction with the environment, which would lead us to conclude a lower genetic influence than possible (even though the percentages would accurately reflect the influences at that point in time). The strength is simply of a statistical nature - the more subjects there are in a study, the more accurate the percentages. If the methods of calculation seems crude to you, you're correct, and finally more and more researchers are starting to use more advanced statistical techniques such as SEM (Structural Equation Modeling).

Long overdue now are the actual numbers for homosexuality, so with a little further ado - new articles require some kind of subscription to the publisher, so I'll be linking to old data: according to Bailey and Pillard's 1991(!) paper "A genetic study of male sexual orientation" (see www.worldpolicy.org...), 52% of male monozygotic twins share their homosexual preference; only 22% of the dizygotic twins do so as well. This leaves us with 2*(52%-22%) = 60% genetic influence.
For women, 48% of MZ twins share their homosexuality, and 16% of the DZ twins did; apparently showing 2*(48%-16%) = 64% genetic influence.
Due to space limitations, I can't describe the more recent results of Zietsch et al.'s paper "Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals" (published in 2008 in Evolution and Human Behavior), but suffice it to say that using SEM, they were unable to make a useful model (high goodness-of-fit) without genetic influence, while environmental influence could be removed while still retaining a useful model. In other words, based on statistical analysis, it is impossible to make a valid model explaining sexual orientation without accounting for genetic influence.

We may not know which parts of DNA influence sexual orientation, but it's clear they exist.

Wow I really like some of the replies!

I'm a lesbian and as far as I can remember, I've always felt attracted to girls/women. I have never chosen to feel attracted to women, I have never been led into it. Like many other gays say and as I would like to say it: I was born "me". I will never exclude men. I just fall in love with the person, who happen to be women like basically most of the time ;-)

I thought religion taught not to judge or discriminate. Yet that's all that they do really.

Not natural? Homosexuality also exists in nature.

A trend? Homosexuality has always been around. Yet people tend to accept it more nowadays so people CAN come out without being abused (which still happens though).

At the end, think of our soul. Is our soul either masculine or feminine? I think it's all that is. When you fall in love with someone you do not fall in love with a pair of breasts, and down below. You fall in love with the person, the soul I guess, the soul that makes someone that someone. That someone is either a man or woman.

My view people. At the end its all about love.

Reminds me of the slideshow of greatest protest signs of 2009:

Man standing amongst bible-thumping prop. 8 crazies-

"I wish you straight people would stop having gay babies"

hahahaha...

reply to post by mamabeth


I can hardly believe what I've read! i do give you credit for at least trying to see another persons view, but your lack of understanding is astounding in the year 2010! I'm not gay, but I do hope this thread is an education for you.
And by the way...
What made you straight? What are the things that made you a straight person?