What is being gay?

[niko777]

Recently, krims44 wrote something interesting in the "are you tired of being gay" thread:

"I think some people believe it (being gay) to be a sickness, others a psychological/social problem, and yet others believe you are simply born gay. I dont think there is certain proof to discard any of the statements, so everyone just answers base on their experiences, religious beliefs, family, and so on."

So, I was wondering, what is being gay to you? Is it a sickness? Is it some social phenomenon? Is it a psychological problem? Is it absolutely natural?

[mordre_t]

Being gay means I am sexually attracted to members of my own gender.

As no one rationally decides when and how they feel sexually aroused, it's pretty clear that it isn't a choice. As it does not negatively affect my mental or physical health in any way, it can't be called a disease either. And as any homosexual activity I'd engage in would be with another consenting adult, it's neither immoral nor unethical (if anything, considering the problem of overpopulation, homosexuality can be considered a mildly beneficial phenomenon, globally).

Whether it's culturally inculcated or biologically hardwired is frankly of no interest to me. I suppose it is probably the result of a complex interplay of social and biological factors. The important facts are: it isn't a choice, it doesn't hurt myself, and it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Whether or not it is "natural" is a silly and pointless question. Lots of good things are unnatural, like antibiotics and agriculture. Lots of bad things are natural, like cancer. Rape happens all the time in the animal world, but "it's natural!" is hardly an acceptable defense for rape. Whether something is acceptable or not has nothing to do with whether it is natural or not. Homosexuality does occur in many animal species, so it is probably natural.

You see this cognitive dissonance in anti-gay rhetoric all the time: homosexuality is unnatural, but it's also giving in to animal (i.e. natural) lust. I call that grabbing at straws, or trying to have it both ways. I suppose it is 'giving in' to animal lusts insomuch as any human sexual pairing is that. I'm sure it can also be said of straight couple in the throes of sexual passion.

I do feel that, unless I should chose to make it otherwise, being gay has nothing to do with the rest of my identity. There is a gay community and a gay identity that I can identify with partially or fully, should I want to, but that is not an inherent component. It is not a requirement or an inevitabliity, merely a posibility.

[anpuZA]

Originally Posted by mordre_t

Being gay means I am sexually attracted to members of my own gender.

As no one rationally decides when and how they feel sexually aroused, it's pretty clear that it isn't a choice. As it does not negatively affect my mental or physical health in any way, it can't be called a disease either. And as any homosexual activity I'd engage in would be with another consenting adult, it's neither immoral nor unethical (if anything, considering the problem of overpopulation, homosexuality can be considered a mildly beneficial phenomenon, globally).

Whether it's culturally inculcated or biologically hardwired is frankly of no interest to me. I suppose it is probably the result of a complex interplay of social and biological factors. The important facts are: it isn't a choice, it doesn't hurt myself, and it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Whether or not it is "natural" is a silly and pointless question. Lots of good things are unnatural, like antibiotics and agriculture. Lots of bad things are natural, like cancer. Rape happens all the time in the animal world, but "it's natural!" is hardly an acceptable defense for rape. Whether something is acceptable or not has nothing to do with whether it is natural or not. Homosexuality does occur in many animal species, so it is probably natural.

You see this cognitive dissonance in anti-gay rhetoric all the time: homosexuality is unnatural, but it's also giving in to animal (i.e. natural) lust. I call that grabbing at straws, or trying to have it both ways. I suppose it is 'giving in' to animal lusts insomuch as any human sexual pairing is that. I'm sure it can also be said of straight couple in the throes of sexual passion.

I do feel that, unless I should chose to make it otherwise, being gay has nothing to do with the rest of my identity. There is a gay community and a gay identity that I can identify with partially or fully, should I want to, but that is not an inherent component. It is not a requirement or an inevitabliity, merely a posibility.

I'm with him.

Except I would like to extrapolate on the whole natural / unnatural subject.


[BIOLOGICAL]
I think some people in the gay community are born that way, it's genetic, like hermaphrodites. It's not a disease / syndrome or some other genetic illness, it just is. I certainly believe nature has in some way "planned" for it, and population control isn't so weird as it may sound.

[SUB CONSCIOUS / INSTINCTIVE]
However, I believe that Kinsey was right also, we are all in fact bisexual to some degree, some of us just more so and some of us less so on either side of it. This is not only a definite genetic issue, but also a social one. Some people are gay because of things that happened when they were children, for the most part they were probably already near the middle of the scale and got shifted to one side of it. Is that a choice? No.

[SOCIAL / INSTINCTIVE]
The norm of expressed (blatant) sexuality on this planet is heterosexuality (but I've had my slew of str8 guys FYI.), the exception is homosexual and bisexuality. This is social pressure and formatting at work. Of course most men and women will end up paired, it's needed for the species to continue and even the gayest couple on the planet go gaaagaaa for babies, so isn't it expected that we would venerate or uplift the coupling that makes that possible? Yes some homosexual guys end up having kids with women. The more liberated societies pressured them in the past. Now it's not so much an issue any more, unless you count the odd alcohol / drug inspired whoopsee and of course surrogacy.

[CHOICE]
Some people are confused, maybe very close to the middle of the Kinsey scale. So when they are confronted by their unique upbringing, their sub conscious desires and current programming on TV and in films, they choose. And sometimes they choose to go with what they know. Before I am flamed, please let me explain. Being gay / lesbian has been turned into some make believe elite club on TV and in the movies. I'm not talking about the indie stuff, I'm talking about the mainstream entertainment. I don't mind the exposure the community is getting, but I don't think we need to be advertised. What I'm not saying is that people who choose, be it consciously or subconsciously to be gay or lesbian (or even Bisexual), are less than those to whom it comes naturally. But what I do believe is that some of this small portion of the community are those people who make it into the news (mostly tabloids and church circulars) for being cured of their deviant sexual practices.

Okay, that said, you really can't isolate all the factors and usually it's a whole mixture of all of them. We are after all really complicated intelligent beings. (Well most of us re the intelligent part)

My experience was as follows: From the first time I could remember I *knew* I was different from the other boys. When we played with my He-Man collection I inveriably wanted to be Teelah, the Sorceress or Evil Lynn. And boy did I ever like He-Mans big ass muscles and strength, but unlike the other boys I didn't want to be him. I knew, though far more innocently, that I wanted to be close to him. I mean what he stood for at least, symbolically. That doesn't mean I wanted to be a girl. I played Barbie with my cousins, and they could never figure out why I didn't want to be Ken, though I liked the shape of him... and so on and so forth. I mean I was 9 years old when we visited family friends, and they had a 14 year old son who entertained me when we where there. Really a nice honest decent person. Then one night he showed me his biceps. At nine my reaction wasn't on a sexual level like it is somewhat now. But boy did I not want to leave that house. I was crying blue murder when we left the next morning.

I just never knew it was called being gay, oh I had heard our languages version of queer / poof / homo, before, and I was informed from an early age that it was unacceptable. So I hid my interests, but not really well. I had 2 girlfriends, exchanged stationery more than holding hands and kissing, but that seemingly did it for my cover. Very nearly broke my best friend in primary's (before high school) heart cause he had told me that he also liked guys with flat (muscled) chests.

Anyway, sorry for the lengthy and somewhat pointless personal info, basically all I wanted to show was that for me it's never been anything but what I am. To go against that would, simply put, kill me. From the inside out.

[Username3]

Being gay is simply the act of being sexually attracted to the same gender, and not the opposite gender.

To me, it's just a preference.

[RPM]

As a general overview, I'd split it into 1) the sexual desire for such relationships with the same sex, and 2) the actions based on those desires. Most of the "choice" people are speaking of the second aspect, and in that case, it's true; we can choose to act on the desire or not, and entering such relationships is a mutual choice. The sexual desire itself obviously isn't conscious choice, but that doesn't mean it can't be influenced, whether passively or intentionally. The psychology behind sexuality is incredibly complex, yet I have seen my desire shift numerous times, where things that never aroused me before eventually did, and things that did arouse me previously ceased to do so. There is still much to learn, so I can't directly answer your question, except to say that the most definitive answers won't be a contrast of classifications, but a combination.

[niko777]

Thanks for your answers. I wanted to ask this question here since I have many gay friends and I wondered why they were gay. In fact, I know them all pretty well (my friends, not all the gays!!!) and I can tell that they all went through some bad experiences, sometimes really bad experiences with their dads, their moms or even with other people from their families. One of them was molested by his dad when he was a kid (with sexual details he doesn't want to talk about), the other was always overprotected by his mom and totally ignored by his dad, since he didn't like sports, and another one feels attracted to ladies, but he has been hurt in a relationship, so he turned to boys, since boys are not "those $/%? bitches who like to destroy your heart". Lol. All my gay friends have stories like that, but some have never really thought it had a link with their actual selves! Even though some here seem to believe it's not a choice nor a consequence of some life experiences, I tend to believe so because of my friends. But I could be wrong.

[krims44]

Hey,

Thanks for throwing me under the bus. Did not know my posting was going to become a new thread. I was merely statting that people have different perspectives of homosexuality and its origins. This was only meant as to provide some perspective to you original question. A long time ago I had to do a project about it for school. Yes I, and five others, got lucky into talking about probably one of the most controversial topics. I remind you this is High School. As everyone knows it's a tough time. What I read so far on this thread seems to be consistant with overall notion and general opinion. Which is that there is no consensus as of yet.

[RPM]

Originally Posted by niko777

I can tell that they all went through some bad experiences, sometimes really bad experiences with their dads, their moms or even with other people from their families. One of them was molested by his dad when he was a kid (with sexual details he doesn't want to talk about), the other was always overprotected by his mom and totally ignored by his dad, since he didn't like sports, and another one feels attracted to ladies, but he has been hurt in a relationship, so he turned to boys, since boys are not "those $/%? bitches who like to destroy your heart". Lol. All my gay friends have stories like that, but some have never really thought it had a link with their actual selves!

Stories like that are almost always the case. The missing/unaffectionate father is usually most common, followed by the overprotective mother, as both often result in a desire for a strong male influence in the person's life, a desire which often develops sexually, most commonly around age 12. I can claim a little bit of each story in my own experience, and all of my gay friends (at least, the ones I know of) either had a dad who left when they were babies or a dad they just plain hate. Suffice it to say, my entire personal research into the issue reveals overwhelming evidence of a nurtured desire, though as somebody else said, I've never bothered with sampling any reorientation programs because there's no negative impact in my daily life - if anything, it's harder to hook up with a guy and has probably prevented me from having any premature babies :P

[niko777]

Originally Posted by krims44

Hey,

Thanks for throwing me under the bus. Did not know my posting was going to become a new thread. I was merely statting that people have different perspectives of homosexuality and its origins. This was only meant as to provide some perspective to you original question. A long time ago I had to do a project about it for school. Yes I, and five others, got lucky into talking about probably one of the most controversial topics. I remind you this is High School. As everyone knows it's a tough time. What I read so far on this thread seems to be consistant with overall notion and general opinion. Which is that there is no consensus as of yet.

Ok... I'm not anglophone so I'm not used to english expressions. When I went on the Internet, I found that "throwing someone under the bus" is defined as meaning “to sacrifice; to treat as a scapegoat; to betray." ?!?!?!?! I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by quoting you, krmis44, but to me, what you had written had, indeed, a thread potential since it was intersting.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by RPM

Stories like that are almost always the case. The missing/unaffectionate father is usually most common, followed by the overprotective mother, as both often result in a desire for a strong male influence in the person's life, a desire which often develops sexually, most commonly around age 12. I can claim a little bit of each story in my own experience, and all of my gay friends (at least, the ones I know of) either had a dad who left when they were babies or a dad they just plain hate. Suffice it to say, my entire personal research into the issue reveals overwhelming evidence of a nurtured desire, though as somebody else said, I've never bothered with sampling any reorientation programs because there's no negative impact in my daily life - if anything, it's harder to hook up with a guy and has probably prevented me from having any premature babies :P

But don't you think that if stories like that are almost always the case, there is some strong link between life experiences and sexual orientation? I mean, yeah, in the last decades, everything was caused by genes. People were sick because of genes. People were fat because of genes and some other always stayed slim because of genes. Don't you think that what we live has more influence on us than we want to admit?

[krims44]

@ Niko No sweat man I just meant definition #2 Scapegoat. lol You were just trying to give credit, I am guessing, were it was due. I don't know if the other people in the forum might be alright with these kinds of postings since the forum is dedicated to muscle growth, but I just had to give my two cents (man I am filled with these phrases) :-P

The person that talk about the lack/bad male figure in some peoples life is a psychological approach to the homosexuality topic. Which might be completely or a part of a stance on were some people see it. Your input I think is still valueable and thoughtful. thanks.

Back to the MUSCLE (Which is what probably many want to realy talk about) I think it ties in with the concepts of strenght and security. A confident person who has no fear and is able to be a sort of protector if not for others at least for themselves. Perhaps since there is that fear of coming out of the closest (telling someone or the world your gay) that is why a lot of guys build there muscle to give them in their mind the power and strenght to overcome their fears and live the life they want to live.

[RPM]

Originally Posted by niko777

But don't you think that if stories like that are almost always the case, there is some strong link between life experiences and sexual orientation? I mean, yeah, in the last decades, everything was caused by genes. People were sick because of genes. People were fat because of genes and some other always stayed slim because of genes. Don't you think that what we live has more influence on us than we want to admit?

That's essentially what I was saying :P Sorry if I wasn't clear, but yes, that's the point I was getting at: most people tend to "end up" the way they are (sexually) through no conscious effort on their part, but that doesn't mean their development isn't defined through such life experiences, or that further life experiences can't alter that development. However, I'll admit the process and its minutia can get so complicated that it's hard to fully grasp even with psychology and sociology degrees. I'm in the process of getting them myself, but I know most people aren't, and I'm at a loss of how to adequately explain all the data without charts, diagrams, academic studies, etc. Sociobiology (the idea that genetics are responsible for so much of human behavior) has gotten much attention from mainstream press recently, but almost no current academic or scientific communities give it much consideration due to overwhelming contrary evidence (in fact, it's one thing that both evolutionary scientists and churches agree on rejecting). That isn't to say sociobiology won't ever build an irrefutable case regarding genetic influence - it's a relatively new field, and there's still much to learn - but the current best research indicates it's negligible at best. It will be interesting to watch the field develop, but it has some incredibly well-established findings to overturn if it wants to be taken seriously.

[edit - somebody snuck in while I was replying ]

Originally Posted by krims44

Back to the MUSCLE (Which is what probably many want to realy talk about) I think it ties in with the concepts of strenght and security.

Totally agree, for such is my case, as I'm one of those apparently-not-so-rare guys who finds the muscle and physique attractive, but blanches at the idea of actually making out or having sexual relations with a guy like that.

[musclemadness]

This is an interesting choice of topic. I'm actually impressed to see someone who doesn't understand, ask questions instead of hating what they don't comprehend. That being said, here is what I feel that has been my experience. There are many theories out there about being gay. The bottom line is homosexuality is not a choice. Any homosexual can tell you that if they were to look back at their lives, they would say they were gay when they were children. Most families bring their children up with the ideology that they will grow to have a wife/husband and kids. I certainly wasn't taught to be gay by my parents. Nor did I choose it. What I did choose was to act on it. Some choose not to act on their feelings, but are still attracted to the same sex.

It really doesn't matter what's on TV or what's in other media. Certainly there wasn't media displaying homosexual sitcoms before recent times. Being gay was repressed, dismissed and hidden. People don't wake up one day and say, hey I think I'm going to like men (for gays) and women (for lesbians).

If you have doubts that homosexuality is natural and not a choice, I invite you to go to the central park zoo. There you will find two male penguins who live their lives as a couple. Sounds silly, however they have adapted their lives as any other male/female penguins would. they even found a way to procreate. No I'm not saying a male laid an egg, but had stolen an egg and both penguins hatched it. This is the first evidential proof that I have been exposed to that is clear that homosexuality is not a choice. If you are reading this and are still saying to yourself that it was a choice for the two birds to live together, then you need to brush up on your understanding of birds. Their brains are not built to make those decisions. they rely on instinct and not preference. Please feel free to educate me if I am incorrect.

I do have to say, I'm perplexed in the fact that being gay is such a controversy. Personally I feel what you or I do behind bedroom doors is none of anyone's business. It's ironic how America is built on diversity from the 1500s and yet it is diversity that people shun. Anyway, love is love no matter whom it is.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by RPM

That's essentially what I was saying :P Sorry if I wasn't clear, but yes, that's the point I was getting at: most people tend to "end up" the way they are (sexually) through no conscious effort on their part, but that doesn't mean their development isn't defined through such life experiences, or that further life experiences can't alter that development. However, I'll admit the process and its minutia can get so complicated that it's hard to fully grasp even with psychology and sociology degrees. I'm in the process of getting them myself, but I know most people aren't, and I'm at a loss of how to adequately explain all the data without charts, diagrams, academic studies, etc. Sociobiology (the idea that genetics are responsible for so much of human behavior) has gotten much attention from mainstream press recently, but almost no current academic or scientific communities give it much consideration due to overwhelming contrary evidence (in fact, it's one thing that both evolutionary scientists and churches agree on rejecting). That isn't to say sociobiology won't ever build an irrefutable case regarding genetic influence - it's a relatively new field, and there's still much to learn - but the current best research indicates it's negligible at best. It will be interesting to watch the field develop, but it has some incredibly well-established findings to overturn if it wants to be taken seriously.

[edit - somebody snuck in while I was replying ]
Totally agree, for such is my case, as I'm one of those apparently-not-so-rare guys who finds the muscle and physique attractive, but blanches at the idea of actually making out or having sexual relations with a guy like that.

Ok, ok. No, you were perfectly clear, it's just that I'm still learning english, so I don't always understand everything I read :S I personally don't think genes have much to of do with being gay nor liking muscles. I know I like muscles when I can imagine myself big and strong. It's probably because I have never felt big enough or strong enough, having a big and strong dad I admired and who never showed me a lot of love. I'm not gay, but I long for the security strength and muscles bring.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by musclemadness

This is an interesting choice of topic. I'm actually impressed to see someone who doesn't understand, ask questions instead of hating what they don't comprehend. That being said, here is what I feel that has been my experience. There are many theories out there about being gay. The bottom line is homosexuality is not a choice. Any homosexual can tell you that if they were to look back at their lives, they would say they were gay when they were children. Most families bring their children up with the ideology that they will grow to have a wife/husband and kids. I certainly wasn't taught to be gay by my parents. Nor did I choose it. What I did choose was to act on it. Some choose not to act on their feelings, but are still attracted to the same sex.

It really doesn't matter what's on TV or what's in other media. Certainly there wasn't media displaying homosexual sitcoms before recent times. Being gay was repressed, dismissed and hidden. People don't wake up one day and say, hey I think I'm going to like men (for gays) and women (for lesbians).

If you have doubts that homosexuality is natural and not a choice, I invite you to go to the central park zoo. There you will find two male penguins who live their lives as a couple. Sounds silly, however they have adapted their lives as any other male/female penguins would. they even found a way to procreate. No I'm not saying a male laid an egg, but had stolen an egg and both penguins hatched it. This is the first evidential proof that I have been exposed to that is clear that homosexuality is not a choice. If you are reading this and are still saying to yourself that it was a choice for the two birds to live together, then you need to brush up on your understanding of birds. Their brains are not built to make those decisions. they rely on instinct and not preference. Please feel free to educate me if I am incorrect.

I do have to say, I'm perplexed in the fact that being gay is such a controversy. Personally I feel what you or I do behind bedroom doors is none of anyone's business. It's ironic how America is built on diversity from the 1500s and yet it is diversity that people shun. Anyway, love is love no matter whom it is.

What you said about penguins is intersting, but humans are a bit... different. Animals rely on instinct ONLY to live. When a baby animal loses its mother, other female will take care of it. When some animals see there is too much of them, they commit suicide. When there are no females around, male penguins act as a couple because THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING IN THEIR LIVES. If you put two single females in front of those two males, they would certainly go to them instead of sticking with each other. Animals always act in a strange way because their instinct is telling them that something is not right and that they should try to change it. That's all.

Humans, on the other hand, are much more complicated. If a little boy requires a lot of parental love to be happy and receives none, he will try to find love anywhere else. ANYWHERE. If the little boy is beaten by his dad and overprotected by his mom, he might want to find this "male protector paternal figure" he never really had in other men. If a girl has been hurt too many times by boys, she might just give up on them and become lesbian. It's complicated emotionnal stuff, not only instinct! So, I don't think that seeing two male penguins getting excited over an egg proves anything...

[musqlure]

Originally Posted by niko777

What you said about penguins is intersting, but humans are a bit... different. Animals rely on instinct ONLY to live. When a baby animal loses its mother, other female will take care of it. When some animals see there is too much of them, they commit suicide. When there are no females around, male penguins act as a couple because THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING IN THEIR LIVES. If you put two single females in front of those two males, they would certainly go to them instead of sticking with each other. Animals always act in a strange way because their instinct is telling them that something is not right and that they should try to change it. That's all.

Humans, on the other hand, are much more complicated. If a little boy requires a lot of parental love to be happy and receives none, he will try to find love anywhere else. ANYWHERE. If the little boy is beaten by his dad and overprotected by his mom, he might want to find this "male protector paternal figure" he never really had in other men. If a girl has been hurt too many times by boys, she might just give up on them and become lesbian. It's complicated emotionnal stuff, not only instinct! So, I don't think that seeing two male penguins getting excited over an egg proves anything...

You should be aware that your theories about the "origin" of sexual orientation have long since been debunked by psychiatry. This "absent father/overprotective mother" idea originated with Freud, and like Freud's misogyny, it reflected the cultural biases of its time.

The fact of the matter is that sexual orientation is innate. Sexual behavior can be changed and is highly influenced by social factors. For example, I dated girls when I was in high school, not because I was attracted to them in the slightest, but because I felt I had to conform to the heterosexist norms of the society in which I grew up.

Niko, if you are truly looking for explanations about sexual orientation, I would seriously suggest that you examine your own. Ask yourself the very same questions you are asking the gay men here. So, did there come a time in your life when you made a conscious choice to be straight, or did being straight simply come naturally to you? Would you be able to change your sexual orientation if you so chose? That is, could you simply decide you liked men instead of women and start having gay sex? I suspect that your answers to these questions will be "no." You should realize that if you can't choose or change your sexual orientation, neither can we.

In short, we are gay when we are born, but social stigma and prejudice against gay people may keep us from acting on our desires. Indeed, it may lead us to suppress our sexuality completely.

I hope this clarifies things. I understand that English is not your first language, but I think this should be reasonably clear. Si tu pr?f?res me poser des questions en fran?ais, vas-y. Je le parle assez bien.

[RPM]

Then I suppose there's always flat-out denial.

Originally Posted by musclemadness

Please feel free to educate me if I am incorrect.

You said it yourself, a penguin brain is quite different from a human brain, most notably in its lack of a neocortex. Apples and oranges at its finest.

(Plus, I wouldn't throw that argument at the anti-gay crowd, because then you'd get all the other "natural" things in the animal kingdom pointed out, like rape, murder, cannibalism, anarchy, etc.)

[niko777]

Originally Posted by musqlure

You should be aware that your theories about the "origin" of sexual orientation have long since been debunked by psychiatry. This "absent father/overprotective mother" idea originated with Freud, and like Freud's misogyny, it reflected the cultural biases of its time.

The fact of the matter is that sexual orientation is innate. Sexual behavior can be changed and is highly influenced by social factors. For example, I dated girls when I was in high school, not because I was attracted to them in the slightest, but because I felt I had to conform to the heterosexist norms of the society in which I grew up.

Niko, if you are truly looking for explanations about sexual orientation, I would seriously suggest that you examine your own. Ask yourself the very same questions you are asking the gay men here. So, did there come a time in your life when you made a conscious choice to be straight, or did being straight simply come naturally to you? Would you be able to change your sexual orientation if you so chose? That is, could you simply decide you liked men instead of women and start having gay sex? I suspect that your answers to these questions will be "no." You should realize that if you can't choose or change your sexual orientation, neither can we.

In short, we are gay when we are born, but social stigma and prejudice against gay people may keep us from acting on our desires. Indeed, it may lead us to suppress our sexuality completely.

I hope this clarifies things. I understand that English is not your first language, but I think this should be reasonably clear. Si tu pr?f?res me poser des questions en fran?ais, vas-y. Je le parle assez bien.

It's not because a bunch of psychiatrists say one's theories are false that they are. Plus, that's not because Freud was a weirdo that everything about his theories was false! You wrote:

"So, did there come a time in your life when you made a conscious choice to be straight?"

The answer is no and I never ever wrote I had ever made such a choice. Peut-?tre n'ai-je pas ?t? assez clair. Maybe I'm wrong, but the more answers I receive, the more I think that homosexuality (sorry if that term bothers you, but I don't know any other english term that sounds appropriate... :S) is the manifestation of a lack of something. That's all there is to it. To some people, it might be just a lack of parental love, and to others the fact of being teased at school. Some even will just be sexually curious and hear a teacher at school say that 10% of the classroom is technically homosexual (I have heard this one for real!) and then start thinking they are part of this 10%. (Even this number is probably not exact...) Everybody is different. Not all people will react the same way facing the same problems. Again, I'm not trying to judge anybody, but rather to understand a bit one of the complex mechanisms of the human being.

[niko777]

Oh, and musqlure, je te remercie de t'?tre rappel? du fran?ais. J'appr?cie l'offre, mais si je veux que les autres membres du forum puissent comprendre parfaitement ce que j'?cris, je dois m'en tenir ? l'anglais. Ainsi va la vie!

[musqlure]

Originally Posted by niko777

Oh, and musqlure, je te remercie de t'?tre rappel? du fran?ais. J'appr?cie l'offre, mais si je veux que les autres membres du forum puissent comprendre parfaitement ce que j'?cris, je dois m'en tenir ? l'anglais. Ainsi va la vie!

Quant ? la langue, c'est comme tu veux.

Nevertheless, your contention that homosexuality is a manifestation of a lack of something has no basis. That you may imagine this is the reason does not make it so. One might just as well ask whether your heterosexuality is a manifestation of a lack of something. Is it? If, as you admit, you never made a decision to "become" heterosexual, what on earth makes you think that it would be any different for us?

You claim that you are not trying to judge anyone, and since English is not your first language, you may be unaware of how your questions or assertions sound to others. But you should understand that by assuming that another person's sexual orientation is the manifestation of some kind of insufficiency, you sound as if you are setting yourself up as the "normal" one. That is going to make gay people like me suspicious of your intentions. Perhaps you could try to find a way of framing your questions that does not involve assumptions that being gay is somehow evidence of a defective development.

And as for Freud, the American Psychological Association rejected his illness-based view of homosexuality in 1973, so you're almost four decades behind the curve.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by musqlure

Quant ? la langue, c'est comme tu veux.

Nevertheless, your contention that homosexuality is a manifestation of a lack of something has no basis. That you may imagine this is the reason does not make it so. One might just as well ask whether your heterosexuality is a manifestation of a lack of something. Is it? If, as you admit, you never made a decision to "become" heterosexual, what on earth makes you think that it would be any different for us?

You claim that you are not trying to judge anyone, and since English is not your first language, you may be unaware of how your questions or assertions sound to others. But you should understand that by assuming that another person's sexual orientation is the manifestation of some kind of insufficiency, you sound as if you are setting yourself up as the "normal" one. That is going to make gay people like me suspicious of your intentions. Perhaps you could try to find a way of framing your questions that does not involve assumptions that being gay is somehow evidence of a defective development.

And as for Freud, the American Psychological Association rejected his illness-based view of homosexuality in 1973, so you're almost four decades behind the curve.

I'm sorry if what I wrote earlier made some people feel sad or "suspicious of [my] intentions". I'm so used to be extremely direct in everyday's life that I may have a harsh and rude way of saying things here, on this forum, and it's not my intention, far from it, so again, I'm sorry.

Humans like to play "roulette-russe". The universe appeared by a strange coincidence. Only one planet in the whole universe had the right living conditions by a strange coincidence. Then we appeared and started evolving while some other creatures didn't, by a strange coincidence. It's always by a strange coincidence and that answer doesn't satisfy me. So, I don't personally believe that homosexuality happens by a strange coincidence. I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I think, however. I may even be wrong. That's why I created this thread, so ideas can come together.

Let's say heterosexuality is, in theory, normal, since it's the sexual comportement needed to reproduce. Why is there even homosexuality, then? Because there are too many people on earth? I don't think so. That's why I tend to think it's not a choice, but rather a consequence on many little things.

And again, that's not because Freud was a crazy weirdo whose theories have been rejected that I have to ignore what he said. Many theories were rejected in the past and accepted afterwards... like the "earth revolving around the sun" one.

[Syphon]

[COLOR=black][COLOR=silver]Being gay means that I am sexually and emotionally attracted to members of my own sex.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][COLOR=silver]Is it a disease? Absolutely not. Is it a psychological/social problem? The DSM-IV-TR says it isn't. Of course, and I'm sure any other individual here with a background in psychology and/or sociology can attest that deviance from the norm (heterosexuality in this case) is not intrinsic to an act (homosexuality) but a quality people and society imposes upon it. Basically we made it a problem, for no good reason other than to make it a problem. Other cultures and past cultures did not have the same views as contemporary western culture, for example the Greeks back in the good ol' days.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][COLOR=silver]Homosexuality is observed across many species in the wild as well as humans. Not natural, my ass. No pun intended. >.>[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][COLOR=silver]Is it a choice? Hell fucking no. I would never have chosen this for myself growing up. Who in their right mind would want to suffer through childhood and adolescence with all the extra baggage that comes with being gay? Why would I choose to live a life where I had to endure years of psychological trauma, feelings of complete worthlessness and despair, loneliness... the list goes on, simply for whom I'm attracted to? Why would I want to be set apart, categorised as ‘abnormal’ or judged entirely on a stereotype that I am NOTHING like, or treated with less dignity than a heterosexual male? Nobody chooses this. The pursuit of a gay relationship is a choice, you can choose to be closeted and repressed your whole life or not. I think it’s a real tragedy that some people cannot come to terms with it (really, we shouldn’t even have to come to terms with being who we are; blame society) and they live miserable lives or kill themselves. =/[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][COLOR=silver]I was born gay. I would say there is a strong genetic factor to homosexuality, as well as upbringing. Why? Well, my brother is gay; a number of my great uncles are gay or questionable at best. It clearly runs in the family, on the mothers' sides. Being gay is normal for me, and I’ve grown to love that part of me. Wouldn’t change it for the world now. :>[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[musqlure]

Originally Posted by niko777

I'm sorry if what I wrote earlier made some people feel sad or "suspicious of [my] intentions". I'm so used to be extremely direct in everyday's life that I may have a harsh and rude way of saying things here, on this forum, and it's not my intention, far from it, so again, I'm sorry.

Humans like to play "roulette-russe". The universe appeared by a strange coincidence. Only one planet in the whole universe had the right living conditions by a strange coincidence. Then we appeared and started evolving while some other creatures didn't, by a strange coincidence. It's always by a strange coincidence and that answer doesn't satisfy me. So, I don't personally believe that homosexuality happens by a strange coincidence. I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I think, however. I may even be wrong. That's why I created this thread, so ideas can come together.

Let's say heterosexuality is, in theory, normal, since it's the sexual comportement needed to reproduce. Why is there even homosexuality, then? Because there are too many people on earth? I don't think so. That's why I tend to think it's not a choice, but rather a consequence on many little things.

And again, that's not because Freud was a crazy weirdo whose theories have been rejected that I have to ignore what he said. Many theories were rejected in the past and accepted afterwards... like the "earth revolving around the sun" one.

The problem, Niko, is that you insist on believing in the discredited disease model of homosexuality espoused by Freud even after it has been rejected by all reputable psychiatric associations in the developed world.
This strongly suggests that you are not seeking out evidence so that you can understand something. Instead, you appear to have come to a conclusion and are now trying to see if you can't find evidence to support it. This is, of course, the exact opposite of the scientific method. That's why I am suspicious of your motives, and nothing you have written has done anything to allay those suspicions. Bref, je suis persuad? que tu es de parti pris.

Now, maybe you think you know more about psychology than the American Psychological Association, which has concluded that homosexuality is not a disorder. But I tend to doubt it.

If you're truly interested in educating yourself, perhaps you should take a look at this article from Science Daily, which explains how homosexuality can be explained in terms of Darwinian evolution.

And since you're asking a whole bunch of questions here, I'm sure you won't mind if I put one to you. Why, exactly, are you so interested in this topic? Your interest doesn't appear to be scientific, since you apparently refuse to be convinced by the opinions of psychiatrists who have expertise in this area. To be quite frank, it seems more than a little strange to me that a straight man would create an entire thread dedicated to being gay on a web site that is devoted to men who love other men's muscles. Could it be that you have some questions about your own sexual orientation that you need to work out?

[musclemadness]

Nope, I have no questions about my sexuality. I'm gay. And I didn't start this thread, just responded to it. The point to the penguins was that it was instinct, and you should understand, these two male penguins weren't isolated from any other male or female penguin at any given point.

[niko777]

I think he was asking ME if I had questions about my sexuality. Lol. I don't. I've always admired muscle. My dad has always been big and strong and played football when he was younger. He was one of those football jocks. Lol. To me, muscles are a symbol of power, control and achievement, and I long for all those things. When I read a story, I don't just read it; I imagine myself in it, living all those transformations and becoming what I'm working hard in the gym to become: a jock! There is nothing sexual about it. I even skip the sexual parts. So, no, I don't have any questions about my own sexuality: I'm straight.

I don't think there is anything suspicious about me starting this thread. I read something intersting in this other thread about causes of homosexuality and I just wanted to know what other people thought about it. That's all. True, I have my own theory about it. Who doesn't? I think you should stop seeing this thread as some kind of menace or insult from me. I'm a straight man who happens to love muscle and who is curious about what others have to say about causes of homosexuality. That's all there is to it.

[RPM]

Originally Posted by niko777

I'm sorry if what I wrote earlier made some people feel sad or "suspicious of [my] intentions". I'm so used to be extremely direct in everyday's life that I may have a harsh and rude way of saying things here, on this forum, and it's not my intention, far from it, so again, I'm sorry.

Niko, don't worry, your posts are fine. Because this is an issue that so many people connect with their personal identity and inherent capacity, there's a lot of hypersensitivity as people can turn any random fact or suggestion into a personal attack, and the persecution complexes can get worse than in religious debates. That's why I typically don't discuss it outside academic circles.

At any rate, nobody brought Freud into it. As with any of the sciences, aspects of one theory get carried over into others, while other parts of the same theory are re-worked or dropped entirely. The classification of a homosexual orientation as an illness was dropped, and rightly so, as the statement concludes that it causes no "impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities." That is in regard to the end result of being homosexual, but does not address the issue of the origin of the desire, which is what we've been discussing. We're beyond doubt that it's an inherently debilitating desire (unless you wish to father your own children with a female partner), but the question of the source of the desire remains, which is why you don't talk about "Freud's theory" as a singular entity; it's a multi-faceted theory and contains a number of mutually exclusive aspects, including the conclusion of illness, which was dropped, and a potential origin of the desire as being familial, which continues with strong evidence to this day. Because of such mutual exclusivity, taking down one aspect of a theory doesn't take down the rest. And none of this is to say that it's the only explanation: indeed, I believe you'll find as many explanations as there are individuals, but over time, general trends can be observed, and for a large number of people, the link between familial relations and sexual development is simply undeniable.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by RPM

Niko, don't worry, your posts are fine. Because this is an issue that so many people connect with their personal identity and inherent capacity, there's a lot of hypersensitivity as people can turn any random fact or suggestion into a personal attack, and the persecution complexes can get worse than in religious debates. That's why I typically don't discuss it outside academic circles.

At any rate, nobody brought Freud into it. As with any of the sciences, aspects of one theory get carried over into others, while other parts of the same theory are re-worked or dropped entirely. The classification of a homosexual orientation as an illness was dropped, and rightly so, as the statement concludes that it causes no "impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities." That is in regard to the end result of being homosexual, but does not address the issue of the origin of the desire, which is what we've been discussing. We're beyond doubt that it's an inherently debilitating desire (unless you wish to father your own children with a female partner), but the question of the source of the desire remains, which is why you don't talk about "Freud's theory" as a singular entity; it's a multi-faceted theory and contains a number of mutually exclusive aspects, including the conclusion of illness, which was dropped, and a potential origin of the desire as being familial, which continues with strong evidence to this day. Because of such mutual exclusivity, taking down one aspect of a theory doesn't take down the rest. And none of this is to say that it's the only explanation: indeed, I believe you'll find as many explanations as there are individuals, but over time, general trends can be observed, and for a large number of people, the link between familial relations and sexual development is simply undeniable.

Thank you. It feels great to be understood. I was surprised when I read someone's post saying that I was using Freud's theories, while I had never even mentioned them! I'll try not to start threads that make people feel uncomfortable, even if they are always intersting.

[ilimzn]

Niko,
I am not sure if it has anyting to do with language, but I feel that sometimes you tend to stretch logic. For instance, homosexuality may indeed result from a lack of something, but it would be a stretch of logic to imply it is therefore an illness, choice, or indeed just a common denominator. In my own case, I had an absent father, but so did my two other sieblings and the tretament we had from our mother was practically the same. In fact, if she was overprotective, it was with them, not me - and they are both straight.
In a similar manner, it may even be insulting to question what made people become gay unless you are also willing to question what makes them become straight or anything inbetween. Doing just one part of the population is almost an implication that they are the 'wrong' ones, because they are comparatively rare, and the other part are the 'right' ones and no need to question anything about them. This is what I call 'hiding behind the word 'normal'. I do not believe nature has that concept...

[niko777]

You said you went through the same things as your siblings and they are straight, while you are gay. Being gay is not an illness or a choice. I think it's the result of a lack of something, just as you wrote. Not all plants require the same things to grow, right? Well, not all humans have the same needs and no one reacts the same exact way when facing something. There is absolutely no link between your siblings and you reaction-wise, since you are all different human beings...

[musqlure]

Originally Posted by niko777

You said you went through the same things as your siblings and they are straight, while you are gay. Being gay is not an illness or a choice. I think it's the result of a lack of something, just as you wrote. Not all plants require the same things to grow, right? Well, not all humans have the same needs and no one reacts the same exact way when facing something. There is absolutely no link between your siblings and you reaction-wise, since you are all different human beings...

Have you considered that being straight may be the result of a lack of something?

And your assertion that "[t]here is absolutely no link between your siblings and you reaction-wise" makes no sense at all. The link is exactly what ilimzn pointed out -- he and his biological siblings (i.e., people who share the same DNA) grew up under the very same conditions and yet he is gay and they are straight. What is the "something" that is lacking? And if it is "lacking" in ilimzn, why aren't his siblings gay too?

Your increasingly desperate insistence on pathologizing homosexuality in the face of all evidence to the contrary only serves to affirm my conclusion that you have a bias. You want to think of yourself as "normal" and of gay people as "abnormal." There's a word for this in English. It's called "homophobia."

[Slevin]

Sexual orientation is WHO you are regardless of your environmental (social) influences. There have been several studies in biology which indicate that your sexual orientation is determined EARLY in utero (while you are in your mothers womb).

1. ^ Pediatrics: Sexual Orientation and Adolescents, American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
2. ^ Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.
3. ^ a b "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality". American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html. Retrieved 2008-05-26.
4. ^ "Different aspects of sexual orientation may be influenced to a greater or lesser degree [p. 303:] by experiential factors such that sexual experimentation with same-gender partners may be more dependent on a conducive family environment than the development of a gay or lesbian identity." Susan E. Golombok & Fiona L. Tasker, Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, in J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr., & Nelwyn B. Moore, Speaking of Sexuality: Interdisciplinary Readings (Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Publishing, 2001) (ISBN 1-891487-33-7), pp. 302–303 (adapted from same authors, Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families, in Developmental Psychology (American Psychological Association), vol. 32, 1996, 3–11) (author Susan Golombok prof. psychology, City Univ., London, id., p. xx, & author Fiona Tasker sr. lecturer, Birkbeck Coll., Univ. of London, id., p. xxiii).
5. ^ "Whereas there is no evidence from the present investigation to suggest that parents have a determining influence on the sexual orientation of their children, the findings do indicate that by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children's sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian, or gay." Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, ibid., in Speaking of Sexuality, id., p. 303 (adapted per id., p. 303).

^ to name a few
---------
Society. Society. Society.

Sexual Identity - Who you THINK you are + what people tell you, you are.

In our culture, as in most, we are encouraged to be heterosexual. It stands to reason then that there are plenty of people who are biologically gay (or straight) but the social influences exerted on them are so powerful that they identify as straight (or gay). It happens all the time.

Situational Sexual behavior - Those same powerful influences by society can be exerted upon straight men to make them "gay for a night" and vice versa. I don't think the majority of these people are gay.

The next confusing factor you have is gender. Our society likes to try to exert heterosexual gender identity onto homosexuals so we can be "understood." Things like "all male homosexuals act like girls" or all homos like fashion, shopping, etc.,

In couples, sometimes people feel more comfortable if they can identify a dominant and submissive person because that is the NORM for straight couples.

So the answer to "What is being gay?" is immensely complicated and ever changing. There is so much social influence upon our biological disposition that the correct answer today is the wrong answer tomorrow.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by musqlure

Have you considered that being straight may be the result of a lack of something?

And your assertion that "[t]here is absolutely no link between your siblings and you reaction-wise" makes no sense at all. The link is exactly what ilimzn pointed out -- he and his biological siblings (i.e., people who share the same DNA) grew up under the very same conditions and yet he is gay and they are straight. What is the "something" that is lacking? And if it is "lacking" in ilimzn, why aren't his siblings gay too?

Your increasingly desperate insistence on pathologizing homosexuality in the face of all evidence to the contrary only serves to affirm my conclusion that you have a bias. You want to think of yourself as "normal" and of gay people as "abnormal." There's a word for this in English. It's called "homophobia."

If being straight is a lack of something, then reproduction is a lack of something (since I don't recall hearing two boys can make a baby), as well as, I don't know, life itself, while you're at it...

About the "no-link" thing, you have to understand that even if you have received the same education as your brother, your cousin our your dad and share the same genes, you won't react the same way to the same things. Some grow stronger in the adversity while others don't. Some see pain as a stimulant, while others don't. NOBODY REACTS EXACTLY AS SOMEONE ELSE WHEN FACING A SITUATION. We would all be clones if we did. We have to stop blaming things on genes, for god's sake! Here's an example: my brothers and I have been in several car accidents while my dad was driving. It was never his fault, but I don't feel secure anymore when he's driving and I'm in the back seat. My brothers, however, don't feel the same way and feel really secure when he's driving. We all received the same education and share the same genes, but we don't have the same needs and don't react the same way when facing the same situation. Tadam. If ilimz needed a lot of paternal love and didn't receive a lot, it doesn't mean his siblings needed a lot of paternal love! If ilimz needed freedom but was constantly over-protected by his mom, it doesn't mean his siblings needed as much freedom as him! Don't you see what I mean?

Finally, about homophobia, I wouldn't even be discussing about all this with you if I were homophobic. I would be in a baptist church praying so I don't get the same fate as those gays who will go burn in hell. Obviously, I'm not doing that. Plus, that word is plain stupid, since homo (for same sex) and phobia (fear) means I'm afraid of same sex relations... It's not my thing, but I'm certainly not afraid. Oh, and don't play the language card, since in french it's almost exactly the same word with the same meaning... It's sad it has to come to accusations of homophobia.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by Slevin

Sexual orientation is WHO you are regardless of your environmental (social) influences. There have been several studies in biology which indicate that your sexual orientation is determined EARLY in utero (while you are in your mothers womb).

1. ^ Pediatrics: Sexual Orientation and Adolescents, American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
2. ^ Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.
3. ^ a b "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality". American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html. Retrieved 2008-05-26.
4. ^ "Different aspects of sexual orientation may be influenced to a greater or lesser degree [p. 303:] by experiential factors such that sexual experimentation with same-gender partners may be more dependent on a conducive family environment than the development of a gay or lesbian identity." Susan E. Golombok & Fiona L. Tasker, Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, in J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr., & Nelwyn B. Moore, Speaking of Sexuality: Interdisciplinary Readings (Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Publishing, 2001) (ISBN 1-891487-33-7), pp. 302–303 (adapted from same authors, Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families, in Developmental Psychology (American Psychological Association), vol. 32, 1996, 3–11) (author Susan Golombok prof. psychology, City Univ., London, id., p. xx, & author Fiona Tasker sr. lecturer, Birkbeck Coll., Univ. of London, id., p. xxiii).
5. ^ "Whereas there is no evidence from the present investigation to suggest that parents have a determining influence on the sexual orientation of their children, the findings do indicate that by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children's sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian, or gay." Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?, ibid., in Speaking of Sexuality, id., p. 303 (adapted per id., p. 303).

^ to name a few
---------
Society. Society. Society.

Sexual Identity - Who you THINK you are + what people tell you, you are.

In our culture, as in most, we are encouraged to be heterosexual. It stands to reason then that there are plenty of people who are biologically gay (or straight) but the social influences exerted on them are so powerful that they identify as straight (or gay). It happens all the time.

Situational Sexual behavior - Those same powerful influences by society can be exerted upon straight men to make them "gay for a night" and vice versa. I don't think the majority of these people are gay.

The next confusing factor you have is gender. Our society likes to try to exert heterosexual gender identity onto homosexuals so we can be "understood." Things like "all male homosexuals act like girls" or all homos like fashion, shopping, etc.,

In couples, sometimes people feel more comfortable if they can identify a dominant and submissive person because that is the NORM for straight couples.

So the answer to "What is being gay?" is immensely complicated and ever changing. There is so much social influence upon our biological disposition that the correct answer today is the wrong answer tomorrow.

You are right when you say that the answer to "What is being gay?" question is immensely complicated and ever changing. However, you can give me all the studies you want about sexual orientation in-utero, it doesn't mean it's true. I mean, for a while people believed that smoking was good for them, that Galileo was a crazy fool and that radioactive elements were not that dangerous. You can never totally believe studies...

[RPM]

Originally Posted by musqlure

Your increasingly desperate insistence on pathologizing homosexuality in the face of all evidence to the contrary only serves to affirm my conclusion that you have a bias. You want to think of yourself as "normal" and of gay people as "abnormal." There's a word for this in English. It's called "homophobia."

The only one making desperate attempts to cram people into a mold they clearly don't fit is you. Knock it off.

Originally Posted by Slevin

So the answer to "What is being gay?" is immensely complicated and ever changing. There is so much social influence upon our biological disposition that the correct answer today is the wrong answer tomorrow.

And this is ultimately what everybody discussing such matters should realize. I'm always surprised at how many people point to previously discredited theories, then jump on a new one as if it's solid ground. The knowledge cycle will continue, and people 50 years now from will be rolling their eyes at the things we insisted were accurate the way we do now with things from 50 years prior. Still, that doesn't mean we can't share our current best knowledge and form workable conclusions. Not knowing everything hasn't prevented good progress so far, and future discoveries will only help optimize it further, despite people with causes constantly hampering the process.

[musqlure]

Originally Posted by RPM

The only one making desperate attempts to cram people into a mold they clearly don't fit is you. Knock it off.
And this is ultimately what everybody discussing such matters should realize. I'm always surprised at how many people point to previously discredited theories, then jump on a new one as if it's solid ground. The knowledge cycle will continue, and people 50 years now from will be rolling their eyes at the things we insisted were accurate the way we do now with things from 50 years prior. Still, that doesn't mean we can't share our current best knowledge and form workable conclusions. Not knowing everything hasn't prevented good progress so far, and future discoveries will only help optimize it further, despite people with causes constantly hampering the process.

Actually, RPM, anyone who continues to insist on holding a view of sexual orientation that has been discredited by the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed research is making desperate attempts to see homosexuality as defective or pathological. I and others have presented Niko with studies and the official views of organizations like the APA, and his response is "they're wrong." Now, he cites no evidence that would suggest that they are wrong. Nor does he claim to have anything approaching professional credentials in any field (such as psychology, behavioral science, genetics, or sociology) that would give him some kind of claim to expertise. So what we have is a dogged insistence on a factually unsupported opinion in the face of actual scientific research.

Sorry, but I'm not trying to cram anyone into any mold, unless it's the mold of being able to present some kind of factual basis for your predetermined conclusion.

[musqlure]

Originally Posted by niko777

You are right when you say that the answer to "What is being gay?" question is immensely complicated and ever changing. However, you can give me all the studies you want about sexual orientation in-utero, it doesn't mean it's true. I mean, for a while people believed that smoking was good for them, that Galileo was a crazy fool and that radioactive elements were not that dangerous. You can never totally believe studies...

Well, Niko, at least this response is getting you closer to honesty. You have now admitted that you have no interest in any scientific evidence that doesn't fit your preferred conclusion. Of course, you don't offer any evidence of your own, but then, when a person has a bias, it's generally not based on evidence.

I should also point out that by your "logic," there's no point in looking for evidence about a cause of homosexuality at all. You repeatedly claim that every individual reacts to everything differently. If every individual's reaction to his conditions and development are truly entirely idiosyncratic, then you will never be able to draw any general conclusions about anything. Thus, nothing that you learn about one gay man will ever be valid for another. Since each gay man is an individual, there will never be any way to generalize about the causes of homosexuality on a population-wide basis (or to generalize about anything else involving humans for that matter.)

As for the word "homophobia," perhaps I misspoke. Perhaps a better word would be "heterosexism." And just because you're not calling gay men "faggots" and praying for them to burn in hell doesn't mean you're not prejudiced against them. Your repeated assertion that you are "normal" because you like women, whereas gay men are suffering from the "lack of something" is just as much a form of bias as any other.

[Slevin]

Originally Posted by niko777

You are right when you say that the answer to "What is being gay?" question is immensely complicated and ever changing. However, you can give me all the studies you want about sexual orientation in-utero, it doesn't mean it's true. I mean, for a while people believed that smoking was good for them, that Galileo was a crazy fool and that radioactive elements were not that dangerous. You can never totally believe studies...

Well that is one of the wonderful things about science. It takes a lot of people getting the same results before you put more weight behind it. There will always be people who just don't believe but overtime that changes as well.

My problem with this argument is that there are MANY other things in which genetic research is the basis for our belief. You either have to say its all questionable or find some other evidence to repute it. Just because you THINK its wrong isn't any better than those people who THOUGHT smoking didn't harm your health or thought handling radioactive materials wasn't dangerous because it didn't burn.

[KalaNemi]

Homosexuality has always been and always will be so long as life forms continue to walk the earth. It is not a "problem" that needs answers as to its cause. Those who are gay live normal lives like everyone else. The only reason being gay is a problem is when others (for some reason) have an issue with their life style. There is nothing wrong about it, accept it as a part of life and move on. No one is doing any harm.

[niko777]

Originally Posted by musqlure

Actually, RPM, anyone who continues to insist on holding a view of sexual orientation that has been discredited by the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed research is making desperate attempts to see homosexuality as defective or pathological. I and others have presented Niko with studies and the official views of organizations like the APA, and his response is "they're wrong." Now, he cites no evidence that would suggest that they are wrong. Nor does he claim to have anything approaching professional credentials in any field (such as psychology, behavioral science, genetics, or sociology) that would give him some kind of claim to expertise. So what we have is a dogged insistence on a factually unsupported opinion in the face of actual scientific research.

Sorry, but I'm not trying to cram anyone into any mold, unless it's the mold of being able to present some kind of factual basis for your predetermined conclusion.

This thread is getting interesting. I don't need to have scientific evidence to be right. I have a heart, I have instinct and, even if I may sound naive or simple to you, I'm intelligent. I don't need to feel backed up by dozens of "scientific" studies to say things I think are true. It's easy to bring up those studies saying that since those scientifics think X, X = truth. It's harder to try to understand things by yourself. It's harder to be categorized by people who hate being categorized because you just want to say what you think and hear what they have to say about it.

True, each human being is different, so each gay person is different. No need to be a genius to understand that. However, even if we all are different, we share some common mechanisms and react to situations, like lacks of something, agressions, happiness, etc. Up to this day, I have never met a gay man who hadn't been through some tough times with either his dad, his mom, or at school. Never. Attention: tough times doesn't necessarly mean being beaten up; it can make reference to a lack of attention, of love or of presence. That's why I come to this conclusion. Since everybody reacts differently to lacks, it's not surprise some begin feeling attraction to males. (I miss my dad, I want a male presence, I don't know how to be a man, I can be like mom, mom likes men, should I like men? All those questions may appear.)

Anyways, it's not a war we're having, it's a discussion. Ok?

[lead guitarist]

Originally Posted by niko777

Humans like to play "roulette-russe". The universe appeared by a strange coincidence. Only one planet in the whole universe had the right living conditions by a strange coincidence. Then we appeared and started evolving while some other creatures didn't, by a strange coincidence. It's always by a strange coincidence and that answer doesn't satisfy me. So, I don't personally believe that homosexuality happens by a strange coincidence. I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I think, however. I may even be wrong. That's why I created this thread, so ideas can come together.

I apologize for coming to this thread late. But niko777, it has to be pointed out that everything in this paragraph is wrong! Humans do NOT like to play Russian roulette. If they did, thousands of people would die every day (at least in America, where millions own guns) from playing it. Only one planet in the whole universe had the right living conditions? How can you assert that? Billions of galaxies each having billions of stars mean billions and billions of planets that we know nothing about. How can we say that no other planet has the right conditions for life? And we appeared, and evolved, while other creatures didn't? ALL creatures evolved, from us to ants to fish to elephants. These "strange coincidences" that you speak of do not exist. NORMALCY exists. Homosexuality isn't rare; for some of us, it's NORMAL. Societal and religious pressure led to it being hidden, so it's easy to think it's rare, but it has been around forever and will continue to exist for as long as animals do.

In my case, I was sexually aware at a very early age, by which I mean for as long as I can remember. I was drawing pictures of bodybuilders and musclemen when I was five years old (very CRUDE pictures, of course - I'm not an artistic prodigy!) and getting erections looking at them. My parents were very good to me and I never felt neglected or unloved. I was born gay, and born with muscle-lust that led me to fantasize about musclemen and muscleboys very early in life, and to masturbate while doing so.

Niko, your casual rejection of research and evidence that contradict your theories is a bit puzzling. You sound like one of those people who think along these lines: "You're only 99% sure you're right, therefore there's a 1% chance you're wrong, therefore you're wrong and I'm right." I've read through this thread and it seems like a bunch of intelligent people are bashing their heads against a wall trying to get through to you. Listen to them!