why did you turn/born gay/lesbian???

My brother is gay, and I think it's safe to assume he has been since birth...

Never had a girlfriend, was never even crushing on one...always had them around as friends (and no guy friends..unless they were guys that either were, or became gay...so obviously they had the same leanings...)

Looking back, it's much easier to see the signs.... I didn't find out for sure, until he was in High School.

Personally, I don't get it. I don't even see how gals find us guys attractive, let alone other guys. Lesbians, I get... (though oddly, most of them tend to dress/act like guys)...

Folks just like what they like I guess...who am I to say why?

reply to post by halfoldman


Three threads on the same subject, first heteros are not as common as you think especially in female types, though hetero are the majority the gap is not as wide as you think between people that only stick to the oppised sex and thouse that go both way's, but homo people are in the minority because of obvious reasons that being the propogation factor, and you would know better then me abouth that. If you look at past civilization's you will see that humans are not that far removed from animals look at rome or greace or the perssians you will see that heteros were not as common as people think,

In prison and sex industry what you will find is that very few people when under the circumstances of the pressures will not engage in those behaviors even if it means death, so you assumtion that heteros are pressureing homos is wrong. Hetero people mostly dont care, and the rest is animal instinct monkeys establishing a social hierarch by throwing poop at eachother. power is whoever has the most poopflingers in this scenario. Homos are at one end heteros are at the other end, the majority is in the middle. But all go the path of species propogation and survival. Therefore all believe that heteros are the majority. I did not realise that im not gay i simply am not gay the thought of being with the same sex, is abouth as common as the thought, that putting my hand in a meat grinder will feel good and wont hurt at all. I dont define you, assumtion, fears, the unknown, social beliefs and the very nature of the human reproduction system define you. The only thing I do is what all others do wich is worry abouth my problem's.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


I very much agree with what you're saying. Throughout history there has never really been a distinction between 'hetero' or 'homo'. Ancient Greece was full of many very happily married men who also enjoyed a very devoted and endearing love for other men.
The only reason 'homo's are being treated in a derogatory way is mainly due to ignorance, misunderstanding or fear on the part of heterosexual men. Personally, as a former amateur actor when I was younger, I found many instances where other bi or homosexual guys would be sharing a changing room and be constantly warned not to look at the 'straight' guys or else

My honest reply was that they obviously thought a lot of themselves if they thought that someone who was into guys would find their small minded and unopened minds (not to mention the minimal physical attractiveness) HAWT. Did they think every girl fancied them? No. Did they think every single female in the world wanted nothing more than to undress and spend hours fulfilling their every desire? No.
They didn't understand and therefore they acted in uneducated hostility and fear.

There is literally no way to classify why someone is the way they are. Its just choice. Some people like steak, some don't. Some like brussel sprouts (blergh), some don't. Its all down to preference.
And as an addendum to my last post, I am currently dating a guy who I find just as attractive as the girl I was previously dating...if somewhat cooler =)

I do not like homosexual people, and I am homophobic. Being so isnt a crime its just like any other phobia...

Although I do not really care, but I strongly disagree when it comes to legal gay marriages and the fact that they can adopt children and influence them to be homosexual.

What is controversial is that being gay is against all religions, yet gay people want to get married, which is an act of religious origin!

Originally posted by MrAtomicspace
I do not like homosexual people, and I am homophobic. Being so isnt a crime its just like any other phobia...

And like any other phobia it is an irrational fear which is easily overcome.

Although I do not really care, but I strongly disagree when it comes to legal gay marriages and the fact that they can adopt children and influence them to be homosexual.

Your argument is ridiculous. By the same logic there shouldn't even BE any gay people as everyone being raised by parents in heterosexual relationships are clearly being influenced to be straight. Idiocy! You can influence all you like, but the time will come where the child will eventually be old enough to honestly say "Wait! This isn't me!" and decide its own identity.
And let's not forget the number of children being raised and influenced to be things MUCH worse than homosexuals...

What is controversial is that being gay is against all religions, yet gay people want to get married, which is an act of religious origin!

It isn't against ALL religions. A handful them make a passing reference to it being frowned upon and that's about it. Also marriage is of religious origin? Since when exactly? As far as I know (in my limited ability to use Google and replace my IGNORANCE with knowledge) marriage pretty much started off as a contract which had umpteen different meanings. Sometimes it was to acquire money, ensure you the parentage of your children, to publicly declare your emotional connection to a person etc etc etc.
Religion wasn't necessarily an integral part of marriage unless it had to be.

Might I recommend THIS PAGE (the first 2 sentences of the first result reads "Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs.") and also THIS PAGE and this essay on the history of same sex marriage.
No need to thank me for helping you begin to overcome your phobia.

Looking back, I can now see the gay seeping out into my childhood from quite an early age. Tendancy to play with my sisters dolls and sewing kit when i was young, never being into cars and boy stuff, throwing like a girl ect. My thoughts didn't really turn sexual till middle school (in the UK this is around age 11-16 I think, it's been a long time) I certainly rember my first crushes being on male teachers. Never had any feelings of a sexual nature towards women. I tried, oh boy did I try and be normal. when you're young, and you hear all your friends joshing about calling eachother faggot and stuff like that, it effects you, it's like every time they say it, it's directed at you. I didn't want to be that faggot, I felt ashamed and embarrased about who i was and how I felt. And that lasted a long time, it really wasn't easy to get over. (not 100% sure i have completly) I guess I'm lucky to an extent, as I'm not effemenate in anyway, and can get away with being in straight places without people making assumptions. I wish it didn't matter, but for too many people it does.

And people think this is a choice i made?

reply to post by JackofBlades


First of all I would like to applaud your efforts in supporting homosexuality.
Second of all I would like to remind you that although the medium of the world wide web prevents us from knowing to whom we are speaking to, I believe that a person should feel it is their duty to considere their corresponded as an expert on that certain topic. By doing so, not only do you show respect for your correspondent, but you also recieve in return their respect towards yourself. Put in other words, you do not know who I am, but because you are so blind in defending your case, you are offending me, and you present yourself to me above all as ignorant person, whom I would not considere speaking to in real life.

Concerning the topic, marriage between a man and a woman is a union between them for economic, social, legal, or religious interest. If you love someone and you do not have to marry that person in order to express your love towards them. I just do not see a reason behind gay marriage. The reason why I oppose it is because it makes for the possibility of adopting a child. A child deserves the right of having a father and a mother. If a heterosexual couple cannot produce an offspring, they can adopt because from the biological point of view they are entitled to have children.
While a homosexual couple cannot produce offsprings because of biological and natural reasons, therefore they should not be entitled to adopt! When the child goes to school he/she will feel different because he/she has two fathers, it is not fair to that child! If they could choose, they would not choose to be a child of a gay couple.
But there is a positive perspective to all of this: Because homosexual couples will live together, it means they will have no children of their blood, therefore it reduces the chance of children being born homosexual. While 30-40 years ago people who were gay would be part of a heterosexual marriage because of social expectations and they would carry their homosexual gene deficiency onto new generations... Therefore today we see higher numbers of homosexual people.

Although, I do not hate homosexual people, they also have rights, afterall we all are children of God. Infact, I do respect them. So do not think that I am attacking your orientation, I just believe somethings corcerning it are wrong.

Originally posted by MrAtomicspace
reply to post by JackofBlades

 

First of all I would like to applaud your efforts in supporting homosexuality.
Second of all I would like to remind you that although the medium of the world wide web prevents us from knowing to whom we are speaking to, I believe that a person should feel it is their duty to considere their corresponded as an expert on that certain topic. By doing so, not only do you show respect for your correspondent, but you also recieve in return their respect towards yourself. Put in other words, you do not know who I am, but because you are so blind in defending your case, you are offending me, and you present yourself to me above all as ignorant person, whom I would not considere speaking to in real life.

Actually I generally assume the people I'm talking to are a lot smarter than me. However your post appeared to me a pointless and off topic rant about YOUR opinion of gay people. The topic is clearly discussing people's reasons for identifying themselves as homosexual. And saying that, what follows is probably also off-topic but I feel it has to be said.

Concerning the topic, marriage between a man and a woman is a union between them for economic, social, legal, or religious interest. If you love someone and you do not have to marry that person in order to express your love towards them.

I agree with you on this but its not just between men and women. Gay couples marry for many the same reasons. Aside from the obvious (being in love) it benefits them economically, socially and legally. I also agree that if you love someone you don't need to marry them to prove it (I'm actually against all marriage in general honestly), but straight couples still do it and so gay couples can too...pointless as I think it is anyway.

The reason why I oppose it is because it makes for the possibility of adopting a child. A child deserves the right of having a father and a mother.

Actually, I'd say the only thing a child deserves is someone who will love it, devote the very last breath in their body to it and raise it to be a valued and productive member of society and to never be ashamed of who or what it is because when all is said and done those same parents will be there and will love it no matter what.
Having a mother and a father means literally nothing. How many straight couples produce children who learn nothing more than to live off what the state gives them, take drugs or drink and act in completely disgusting and seriously immoral ways?

If a heterosexual couple cannot produce an offspring, they can adopt because from the biological point of view they are entitled to have children. While a homosexual couple cannot produce offsprings because of biological and natural reasons, therefore they should not be entitled to adopt!

By the same argument a straight couple who can't have kids together shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Biological and natural reasons prevent them from procreating, just like with homosexual couples so why the distinction?

When the child goes to school he/she will feel different because he/she has two fathers, it is not fair to that child! If they could choose, they would not choose to be a child of a gay couple.

If parents taught their children to accept everyone no matter what the child wouldn't feel ostracised in any way whatsoever and would have exactly the same childhood as it's peers.

But there is a positive perspective to all of this: Because homosexual couples will live together, it means they will have no children of their blood, therefore it reduces the chance of children being born homosexual. While 30-40 years ago people who were gay would be part of a heterosexual marriage because of social expectations and they would carry their homosexual gene deficiency onto new generations... Therefore today we see higher numbers of homosexual people.

Gene deficiency? Are you even seeing what you're typing?

Although, I do not hate homosexual people, they also have rights, afterall we all are children of God. Infact, I do respect them. So do not think that I am attacking your orientation, I just believe somethings corcerning it are wrong.

To quote the opening paragraph in your previous post...
"I do not like homosexual people, and I am homophobic. Being so isnt a crime its just like any other phobia..."

The Oxford Dictionary defines homophobia as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people"

reply to post by JackofBlades


Very well stated. This is just a difference of opinions and I agree with some of your arguments, but when it comes to origin of homosexuality, it may be compared with pedophilia. NOTE, im am not saying the two actions are the same, but that they are both a hidden type of "deficiency", meaning that although they are not strictly defined so (homosexuality was not considered a deficiancy after 1979), there is a cause which we have not yet found an answer for. It may be difference in the chromosomes.
Although there is no conclusive evidence.

Edit.

A phobia can also be defined as a dislike, and in my case, I do not agree with homosexuality, therefore I dislike it, but I will never offend a person based on their orientation.

reply to post by MrAtomicspace

"Hidden deficiency" is a relative term.
During the times of the alleged patriarchs of the Abrahamic religions there was no set age of consent. Marrying child-brides made them neither deficient nor was it hidden - it was the custom of the time. Although this is discussed in other threads in more depth, marrying girls as young as 9 would be considered peadophilia in some cultures, but it is a part of general heterosexuality in others. Perhaps some men have more of a taste for this than others, but it seems to prove little on chromosonal differences.

Homosexuality was unremarkable in the ancient world, as long as social power taboos were kept intact - a citizen could penetrate a slave, but not vice-versa. Exclusively gay relationships were somewhat mocked and frowned upon, but they were not pathologized. From there the homosexual role went from "sin", to the gay as a judicial subject, to medicalization, and finally to a liberationist position. Similarly the theory went from "homosexual theory", to "gay theory", to "queer theory".
The Western liberationist model focuses on visibility and the "closet". However, this gay identity that must "come out" to live openly and honestly is not necessarily found in all spaces. Married straight men who have sex with men may not identify with this role at all, and gay men who have sex with straight men as markers of their identity may also defy the liberationist position.
I was just reading on India: "Men who have sex with men: Study in urban western Maharashta" (Vinay Kulkarni, Sanjeevanee Kulkarni, Kenneth R. Spaeth. In: Sexuality in the Time of Aids: Contemporary perspectives from communities in India: Ravi K. Verma, Pertti J. Pelto, Stephen L. Schensul et.al. (eds.), 2004) .
The main categories of men who have sex with men in India are:
1.Kothis - "These men are characterized by 'feminized' behavious in specific situations, especially in their interactions with male sexual partners". Although some Kothis work as sex workers who are typically penetrated, "many kotis are married and have children". (p.202)
2. Panthis - Stricly speaking the Kothi term for the masculine partner or client of the Kothi. They have no sexual identity like "gay" and are indifferent to the identity of their partners. "Panthis are often married and have families". They have designated cruising areas and are seen as men is search of "penile discharge".(p.203)
3. Do-partha - the male who likes both.
4. Gay/homosexual men - "The men who are self-defined as 'gay' are often from more educated, upper middle class backgrounds. Although they have a gay identity, most are married or expect to be married." (203)
5. Hijras - traditional third gender identities, some of them eunuchs who live under certain gurus and dress like women. (p.203)
Little research exists on prison inmates and other groups likely to have same-sex activities (204).
Although gay rights have certainly advanced in India since 2004 (and all the other chapters are on the heterosexual HIV/Aids epidemic) this just shows the difficulty of making Westen identity realization or "coming out" a common assumption.
In some cultures it appears that the male sex-drive is regarded as an unstoppable natural force (and the shedding of "old semen" is seen as beneficial to procreation).

Conversely, in some Western areas the average age of marriage is now closer to 30. If people in such cultures remained celibate until marriage this would seem highly unnatural.
It appears the best ages for procreation are wasted by modern heterosexuality, or children are born outside wedlock - something our great-grandparents would have seen as totally against human nature.

reply to post by halfoldman


I am saying that because not all of us are homosexual, it means there is something different in people that are. It may be a gene or chromosome difference or "issue". But it is still not found, so until than nothing is conclusive, and all arguments are just opnions.

reply to post by MrAtomicspace

Well, not all of us are black or white, so there must be some physical difference there too (like melanin).
When it comes to gay - I am the queen - so my DNA must be so diffferent.

reply to post by halfoldman


Btw there is a difference in blood between african population and caucasian, I have read about it at a medical clinic, but after that time I have not come across such information anymore. It was written by a doctor.. anyway its a bit off topic.

reply to post by MrAtomicspace


Referring to the difference in blood, it isn't a widespread difference that all people of African descent have. However sickle cell anaemia and sickle trait are quite prevalent throughout African genealogy. Sickle cell causes red blood cells to only form a literal sickle shape and thus carry only around half as much oxygen as normal blood cells.
However, this form of anaemia also increases resistance to various diseases, including malaria, which are unable to thrive in the sickle shaped blood cells.

Quite literally a 'deficient' gene trait...however it has probably saved thousands of lives throughout history.

reply to post by jumpingbeanz


First off.. Merry Holidays whoever you may be, and however you enjoy it! Eternal peace to all!


I hate to beat on a dead horse, but this always struck a curious debate in my own mind for some time. I as well, would like to get a better understanding of what I do not know. My views generaly stem in whole from the bible, where man shall not lie with man, beasties, or anything of the sort. Obediance vs Sin if you will.

My question is general because there are a few aspects I cant understand. If there is something that opposes my beliefs, I would at least like to see why or how. If I'm wrong, then I would have to accept it and move on. Otherwise, I feel as I believe, and move on.

What is it that makes a person gay? Genetics? I would have to see some very strong conclusions to sway me. There are some people with dissorders, imperfections, extra parts or anything of the like. This I can accept because I can see. But when it comes to homosexuality, I personaly feel that it must be something that makes that part of that persons life take on that role. Perhaps tramma? A first erotic influence via some visual and mental stimulation? Magazine? Movie? Is it something that "got fuzed into the programming" while our minds learned everything around us as children?

Is it personal choice, truely? Or is it some sort of extracy barrier that some people have no will to turn off? Kinda like an addicts high?

Im not mocking anyone by any means. I really would like to know the answer to this because it would determine how I personaly feel about homosexuality. I personaly dont judge the gay populace as an induvidual. This is where there is alot of grey area. Everyone is givin free will. So long as it does not influence my world in a way to where I can no longer control my world, the way you spend your free will is your GOD givin right. Yet, I dont want to drive down the interstate one day and have to explain to my 11 year old why there is a billboard of two men kissing one another while showing off a shiney new diamond ring.

I'm no bible thumper, though some could lable me to it, but even though it happens, it doesnt make anything else someone comes up with, right and decent for your family values. If you no longer have the proper amount of influence over your family values, how do you function properly as a family? At what points are the bound set, and for how long untill it boils and explodes or conform and submit?

In the end, the right and wrong are still questioned. Is it a test of wills from a past life? Is it just a test of our wills in this life? Based upon our weaknesses... Does this make sense?

Again the catagories would be broken down based on belief itself. Dawanism? Is it a genetic error? If so, why isnt it extinct? Is it something similar to a malformation? Like a birth defect? These are very direct questions, only because I have not seen them answered with validation as of yet. If one believed in GOD, why would such things be? A curse brought on by the parents? Grandparents? Or just another great temptation?

If it is Genetic, I would like to see something to change my perception of the fact, but as for as to each induvidual, I bore no hatred, ill will, or doom, and ask only blessings in your life. I feel people can coexist no matter the outcome, so long as everyone knows boundaries. Some look for a world with no bondaries, and in that perfect world, there will be order.

I dont feel that someone should be excommunicated for their being, for the trials that they live through in their life, nor should they have the burdens of those trials by any other human being, but I feel that some things are sacred until proven otherwise. Im not phobic, nor pushy about it, and i respect everyones beliefs, so long as it doesnt make me uncomphy. If it does, I'll just go elswhere. My free will alows me to do that. This still does not make them any less a person with feelings, as to why you probably wont see anyone answering these questions. They may be as personal as the issue itself.

Should gay clubs exist? It has as much right as any other club, so I guess it would hold just as much influence as any other club. If you take one down, you should take all of them down. Should a club knock on your door and invite your family for a night of no inhibitions? Should your TV set?

Acceptible way of life? Just go with it? The final question comes down to proof of some sort. Believe me, I want to admit that I am wrong, because Its easier to not judge something about someone that they can not control vs reminding yourself that even though you dont agree with the practice, the practice doesnt make the person, only part of the induvidual soul within that person. Id hate to live with the idea that nothing's perfect, but id hate more to go through life believing something was wrong when it was just a natural part of the world.

Please dont judge me as someone against gays, Ive known and grown with a few friends through my life that were gay and I love them every one, though the practice makes me wanna push a nail through my head if I had to think or witness something like that. Just as some people think that inner body parts are ok to poke around durring surgery, doesnt mean that everyone has the belly to watch it on TV. Such things shouldnt be used as tools for human fetishes. Why do people watch these shows, really? If you dont plan on ever being a doc/nurse, why on earth would you want to see this!! lol

Anyways.... I'm not hating on the gay parade, I just dont wanna be a part of it. The "in your face" approach never helped anything from either side of the fence. Everyone live and let live. Dont show something you dont want someone speaking about. If you do, you have to accept both sides. If you have sides.. Well, I guess you served the purpose of creating a yin and yang.

Interesting.. Though will never understand why westerners get so upset over natural occurances.. A persons preferences dont make them any more / less human.. Nor do they prevent them from achieving anything that they want to.. I like women and futanari so what to each their own..
Hope my reply makes sense my english rusty as only use it here on ats these days..

reply to post by jumpingbeanz


In your OP, you listed mostly (or all) women. Most homophobes are guys, but guys who have NO problem with Lesbians (yes, it's a double standard, but it is what it is)...



Just sayin' is all....

I'm not going to lie....seeing two guys kiss or get it on physically repulses me. Seeing two gals go at it is hot.

Now, that said, I certainly support the right for folks to love whomever they wish to. As for public displays of affection, if it's "acceptable" for heteros, it should be acceptable for gays as well. I'm all for EQUAL rights...but not SPECIAL rights...if you get the drift.

My brother is gay, and my wife has had more women in her past than I have I'm betting, So, this is a bit close to home for me. As for the original question in the post, I think folks are born with their sexual preferences and that is either reinforced or suppressed by their environment. This also applies to bisexuality. While I have trouble seeing even what women like in us, vs. other guys, everyone is different, so more power to 'em, just don't get up in my face with it, is all I ask.

Originally posted by MrAtomicspace


I do not like homosexual people, and I am homophobic. Being so isnt a crime its just like any other phobia...

I read from a website that usually, people are homophobic because they feared that they are homosexual themselves. Below is the quote from the website:

Fear that one may actually be homosexual himself: Homosexuality is, by even the most conservative estimates, far more common than the number of open homosexuals would imply. And with the realization that bisexuality is actually fairly common, particularly among women, there is a genuine fear among the more conservative that they, themselves, may be homosexual, particularly if they have had a homosexual experience in their past which they actually enjoyed. And since surveys indicate that approximately 64% of adult males in the United States have, there are lots of candidates out there for that fear. Compounding this can be religion-based guilt, often promoted by televangelists who have made a career of promoting homophobia.

The fear leads to a subconscious reaction: hate and/or kill the queer and you're not like him, because you've distanced yourself from him. Irrational, isn't it? Yet that's the subconscious logic involved.


www.bidstrup.com...

Although I do not really care, but I strongly disagree when it comes to legal gay marriages and the fact that they can adopt children and influence them to be homosexual.

What is controversial is that being gay is against all religions, yet gay people want to get married, which is an act of religious origin!

You do know that it isn't really your business whether gay marriages are legalized or not, right? They have their rights as human being. And why are they not allowed to adopt children? Just because they are gay does not mean they can't be parents. It's like saying Europeans can have children but Asians can't have them.

How do you think homosexual couple influenced children to be homosexual? It's not as if they are having sex right in front of the kids! If they did that, the kids would more likely be traumatize than follow in their footsteps.



You said that being gay is against religion. But isn't religion all about love? I doubt that love between same sex couple is less worthy than love between straight couple. If that's what you think, I really had nothing to say except to be disappointed. After all, love is never wrong.