Gay - Not a choice but not born that way.

a reply to: Peeple

So what I'm quoting was directed at me?

Of course it is. But still I am not gay.

Never said or implied or thought you were.

So you can't blame your preferences simply all and alone on the parent child relationships.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying...

I am a girl by the way.

Who cares? I never said you weren't. I don't care about your gender in this context, and unless I'm mistaken never labeled you.

Could have read that into it, if you weren't just assuming everybody but you is stupid

I assumed nothing of the sort. I missed a part of your response, and thought the OP was being unfair to YOU, until I realized, then edited my comment fully admitting my mistake.

Sigh. Studies. Data. Freudian familial analysis.

All you have to do is simply observe nature and the answer is right there:

Most animals do not exhibit homosexual behavior; however, some in fact do for various reasons. It is unusual, in that it involves reproductive anatomy yet serves no reproductive purpose--the driving impulse behind all life on Earth. This is what leads many to conclude that it is unnatural (and of course, for the assholes out there, sinful).

The problem with that is that it isn't "unnatural" if you simply observe nature--it is merely unusual. So what? People do all kinds of weird things, but when it involves someone's hoo-ha people completely lose their s#.

Anyway, I think the answer is pretty much the same for us as it is for any other species on the planet: most of us are heterosexual by basic design, and some of us aren't. Some of us choose to be a certain way, and some of us don't.

It doesn't have to be either/or (or both). It just is. So what difference does it really make? Both sides of the debate have an agenda, by the way. Neither of which is beneficial to anyone.

Do all these facts and figures and theories help us treat each other with dignity and respect? Gay or straight?

Nah, they just give us something else to argue about ad nauseam.

a reply to: and14263

Effect, not disorder. I really don't think it is a negative effect.

I got that from you OP. You're asking questions that are usually shrugged off as homophobic. I've wondered the same thing too.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around the issue since I'm straight. I used to be very anti-gay, but I grew up after I read more. This was a long process.

My understanding is that most gay people know from a young age that they are gay or different. From what I've read it doesn't seem like there is a common link between the parents of gay children. This is why I think it's probably something you're born with. I'm not going to outright discount that there may be a link between upbringing and homosexuality, because I just don't know. I don't think anyone is 100% on their theories about this, and there are far more intelligent people than me who study this sort of thing.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I tend to think certain types of behaviour are a corruptness of mind, rather than developmental.

I think you're very right here. With the rise in ease of access to internet porn people are getting way out in the bedroom. Women are being treated disrespectfully because young men watch so much porn they think it is normal to slap a girl's behind or pull her hair.

This in itself deserves some attention and is having a massive effect on society an women's position in the bedroom.

Not to mention the fact that modern men think it is acceptable to shave their privates so they look like a porn star!

a reply to: Domo1

It's hard not to come across as homophobic and I'm not the best at typing up my thoughts. And as you say - straight people can probably never truly wrap their heads around the truth of the matter. It was something I studied years ago and am no expert. I do recall University lecturers shying away from letting me pursue any in-depth research though.

a reply to: and14263

Why wouldn't it be acceptable to shave if that's what they want?

OK, but the ENTIRE male population of Britain?







(I keed, I keed)

a reply to: arpgme

I just think it's funny... All this modern chest shaving and pube shaving. Twenty years ago men were hairy and sweaty and smelly. Now they're as smooth as a babies bum and smell of all sorts of spicey aftershave!

I dont see why it even matters, shouldnt a person be allowed to CHOOSE who they love and have sex with.
Why should it only be valid if you are forced to be either gay or straight.

Guys, get over people calling you homophobic, racist or any other tag if you know you're not.

We all have questions. Perhaps questions are always good. You sure as heck don't learn anything if you don't ask them.

I'm almost 50. That is the databank of experience that I'm drawing on here.

Being "gay" is the essentially the same as being "straight" ... except that there is statistically a much lower incidence of that characteristic as a natural occurrence, although, it is natural for some.

We've conceived all these terms and conditions for someone who experiences attraction/romantic interest/love for others of their own sex ... and we've given them the power of being identity statements to wit: "I am gay."

That's saying that my fundamental essential being comes from my attractions to others.

Think about that. Does it seem "right" to you?

Isn't that really only one of a constellation of characteristics that make me ... well, me?

This period of the development of our species will be seen in the future as focusing on relatively silly things.

"What's the big deal about who you're attracted to?"

Indeed, when all things are equal before the law, and we aren't treating people unjustly for this ... what's the big deal at all?

I am Blue Eyed.

I am Right Handed.

I am a Six Footer.

I am Gay.

See?

We are who we are. If we find that out and are able to live it out in the time we are given, I'd call that blessed beyond measure.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wise words.

Our habit of on placing labels on people and their behaviour is skewing our perceptions. Or conditioning beliefs which encompass people as general groups, not individuals. Making us have false assumptions.

These labels could also have impacts on how the labelled person goes on to behave. Laslow's Labelling Theory.

a reply to: and14263

For example on same sex parenting - with lack of access to a male father figure would there be significant effects on the upbringing of the child?

Well this is just but one example:

One of my best friends was raised by two mothers his entire upbringing. He's heterosexual. When I say that I mean on a Kinsey Scale he's all the way on one side. He holds zero animosity towards his parents, or towards LGBT, or towards heterosexuals. He has nothing but loving things to say about his same-sex parents. He's just an average, albeit successful dude. Generally pretty darn happy too. You'd never know he was raised by gay parents unless he told you or you met them.

a reply to: NthOther

That all depends on how you define 'unnatural' - are human's part of nature? Therefore isn't anything humans do or create 'natural'.

When it occurs in nature, it usually indicates something wrong with the animal's environment. In fact, when people say that it happens in nature, they often just mean 'in animals', i.e. captivity. Any number of things, as simple as a skewed male/female ratio (in monogamous species), to high levels of mercury in their systems, have been attributed as the cause of homosexual behaviour, with the animal believed to have gained a subconscious awareness that it's genetic information would unlikely be passed on, in turn prompting a radical shift in sexual activity.

Humans are animals and are by far the species that has altered their environment the most.

As for moral/ethical issues, that's not for me to say. I do however regard homosexuality as unnatural. In the same way that air-conditioning, automobiles and a shared, worldwide electronic obsession with cats are unnatural.

Lets look at homosexuality objectively as a behavior. A sexual relationship with an equal partner for the benefit of both. This behavior is symbiotic in nature and therefor morally good for those who are involved, no matter what any spiritual backward text or opinion say.

I make the separation that the "feelings/desire in the unconscious that surface to conscious" are not a conscious choice but giving into them are a conscious choice. I do think that you could probably reprogram the unconscious with mind fullness to change unconscious feelings/desires in some souls (not all) but the reprogramming would cause unnecessary suffering.

From my point of view. Some souls where sent down here at this time to be gay to "prove a point"/"teach something" to humanity. Those souls you will not be able to change since they know internally what is meant for them.

Namaste

I think it's just people confusing love with lust combined with a deep friendship like relation. I doubt anyone would become gay if there was no such thing in society. It would popup just the same when people start to explore their sexuality, people would be going with same gender and before anyone knows it would become a lifestyle and others might believe that lifestyle is better than the default and copy it. Because that is all (romantic) love is, it's make believe how someone is special and one would want to spend the entire life with just that one sole mate with the prospect of creating children and raising them.

a reply to: johnnyjoe1979

I guess this goes back to labelling theories. In ancient times (Greece for one example) it was the thing to have a lady as a wife and a man as a lover - I think I've got that right. Nothing was thought bad of this polygamous cross sex relationship (I think??).

I would be VERY interested to explore the family unit, inter-family relationships and ideas surrounding sexuality in ancient times. Unfortunately most history books don't cover such things.

(On a side note, I read Plato's Republic once and came away convinced it was a cross between satire and Monty Python's Flying Circus).

Nature + nurture psychology is always nature + nurture, any attempt to explain it as purely one or the other is doomed to failure, as no one exists in a vacuum where nature or nurture can exist separate from each other.

Nature is why two people can lead near identical lives yet end up completely different people.

Sexuality has a strong component in nature, but nurture plays it's part as well.

Addendum to further clarify:
Nature determines the range of sexuality you can be attracted to, then nurture steps in and determines what within that range you are attracted to.

So technically one CAN be gay because of nature only, same with straight, but most have a wider range than that even if more one way than the other. At which point nurture further narrows ones sexuality.

a reply to: Peeple

So you say ....

I wish there was a way for people to get gender genetic therapy to re-allign themselves to what they should be to reduce the gender confusion issue.

Investigate the parent gene pools to discover any defects. Or make corrections within the fetus before full development so when little boy or girl grow up to be adults, They will know what gender they are.

Call me a bigot-I welcome it. I offered a solution that will fix the human race of its gender issues.

a reply to: Puppylove

Addendum to further clarify:
Nature determines the range of sexuality you can be attracted to, then nurture steps in and determines what within that range you are attracted to.

That's a great theory but I don't think it's as black and white as you type it. - I'm not disagreeing I'm just pointing out there's no real way we can say this absolutely as you do.

You're bang on about nature nurture. I remember years ago, first day of a Psychology course and the teacher asked, "When influencing a child's behaviour and personality is it nature or nurture which influences the outcome?"

The female's all shouted "nurture" the males were mainly "nurture" - none of us really said it wasn't black or white. We were only 15 and the question was leading. But that's the point... NOTHING is black or white.