Mod The Sims - Is homosexuality a choice? (from the hairdresser thread)

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 06:16 PM

Do you believe that people choose to be homosexual? To what degree does genetics, biology, culture, and choice play a role?

And to top it off, what are the implications of homosexuality being a choice/innate in terms of its acceptance in society?

I'm quoting myself from the other thread to start this:

What would you say to the findings that brains of homosexual men are structured differently than heterosexual men?

That the timing of prenatal exposure to androgens in rats and sheep have successfully resulted in altering sexual behavior in both so as to reliably produce homosexual behavior?

Or even to the fact that most of the population is already genetically hardwired to be attracted to the opposite sex?

I would say there is a definite biological component in the likelihood of someone's sexuality. I don't doubt that cultural factors play in as well, as is the case with homosexuality in ancient Greece and certain homosexual tribes worldwide, but those cultural influences become hard-wired biologically into your brain as you learn how to interact with the world around you.

Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that someone would choose to be gay given the social repercussions associated with it. And many of the gay men I know spent most of their formative years trying to repress it.

callum91_SC

14th Mar 2008, 06:21 PM

coltraz

14th Mar 2008, 06:25 PM

LoL, I was just about to start it but oh well :)

I don't beleive you can choose it--tbh, why would someone [I am NOT attacking any gays/lesbians or bi's] choose to be?

Where I live, if people find out you are gay, you are subject to having your head kicked in!

In many Middle Eastern countries, a quick look on Wikipedia, being gay can give you a huge fine, 5yrs in jail and then the death penalty!! Why would anyone choose to be gay, when you can be faced with these "punishments"?

I beleive from conception, you are automatically either gay/bi/straight.
You can not choose!

As a gay guy, I can agree. I certainly never chose to be this way. When I started realising/fearing who I was the only thing that set my mind at ease was the idea that if these "gay" feelings didn't go away, I could kill myself. I was young at the time but that seemed like the best option. Thankfully I got over it and am quite happy being gay now. lol. But like you say, why would someone like me who feared being gay that much choose it? It makes life harder. Being straight is definitely easier. Except for having to deal with chicks. LOL. did I say that? Just kidding. :)

Endersgirl07

14th Mar 2008, 06:26 PM

That is what I hear a lot of gay people say as well- that because of the way they are stigmatized, they would not have chosen to be gay if it had been a matter of willpower.

I think people who really are gay don't have the choice, it is something they are born with. There are some young people, though, who experiment sexually with people of their own gender, but end up being heterosexual, and in that case I think it is definitely a choice.

the_unnoticed

14th Mar 2008, 06:31 PM

i don't believe it is a choice. being bisexual, myself, i can tell you from my own personal experience, i did not choose this. i didn't tell my family or friends until just a few years ago. granted, being bisexual is easier to hide than being gay, because while you can't choose your feelings, you can choose not to act on them and date only members of the opposite sex. that doesn't change that the feelings are still there, however.

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 06:32 PM

I think people who really are gay don't have the choice, it is something they are born with. There are some young people, though, who experiment sexually with people of their own gender, but end up being heterosexual, and in that case I think it is definitely a choice.

I think the situations is much different for men and women. It seems like women have more mutability with their sexuality and are more likely to be bisexual. Women might experiment with other women, but whether it's biological or cultural, I think that many bisexual women eventually envision themselves settling down with a man. And I think that this is something women are told from a very young age, that being with a Prince Charming is what we need to be happy (thank you, Disney).

Just my experience.

Black_Barook!

14th Mar 2008, 06:42 PM

In many Middle Eastern countries, a quick look on Wikipedia, being gay can give you:

A huge fine
5yrs in jail
The death penalty

Why would anyone choose to be gay, when you can be faced with these "punishments"?

I see you don’t know a lot of Arabs? You think we’re intimated by these laws? My people have seen Crusaders and Mongols destroy their civilizations. What makes you think we’re scared by a bunch of politicians who are playing the Islam card to get reelected? If they don’t like who I’m sleeping with then they can go bang their heads against a wall. (Kuwaiti saying)

I hate it when people say that “You are born this way!” or “You were forced into this!” treating me as an idiot who doesn’t know what he wants or some kind of coward that’s too scared to set himself free. Damn it I’ll sleep with who or what I want because I want to not because some gene decided that for me. God gave me the free will to do what I want and I’ll be damned if I’ll have that taken away from me because some guy in a lab coat thinks otherwise.

This is my belief whether you like it or not. Don’t belittle me or my intelligence because I think differently.

Thank you for reading. : D

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 06:46 PM

I see you don’t know a lot of Arabs? You think we’re intimated by these laws? My people have seen Crusaders and Mongols destroy their civilizations. What makes you think we’re scared by a bunch of politicians who are playing the Islam card to get reelected? If they don’t like who I’m sleeping with then they can go bang their heads against a wall. (Kuwaiti saying)

I hate it when people say that “You are born this way!” or “You were forced into this!” treating me as an idiot who doesn’t know what he wants or some kind of coward that’s too scared to set himself free. Damn it I’ll sleep with who or what I want because I want to not because some gene decided that for me. God gave me the free will to do what I want and I’ll be damned if I’ll have that taken away from me because some guy in a lab coat thinks otherwise.

This is my belief whether you like it or not. Don’t belittle me or my intelligence because I think differently.

Thank you for reading. : D

Can you clarify what you mean in terms of:

a person's sexual orientation and whether it can be changed
the choice to act on/against that orientation

Black_Barook!

14th Mar 2008, 06:49 PM

Can you be more specific.

callum91_SC

14th Mar 2008, 06:50 PM

BlackBarook!--Well seeing that I have lived in Sharjah,Dubai and Qatar on-and-off since the age of 1 till 13, yes I do/did know a lot of Arabs.
The ones I knew,when someone was being insulted, they were always called gay, and I remember one remark "Well if HE IS GAY, then he should be shot and hanged" :|

And beleive it or not, there was this gay Iranian on the news last week, and his boyfriend had been infact publicly hanged. So he fled to Britain where they have protection laws.

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 06:54 PM

When you say that homosexuality is a choice, do you mean:

It's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex?

OR

It's a choice whether or not you ACT on your physical attraction to the same sex?

Faithlove13xxx_SC

14th Mar 2008, 06:54 PM

Black_Barook!

14th Mar 2008, 06:56 PM

I didn’t really mean “You don’t know a lot of Arabs” as in the literal sense. My real meaning was that we (Arabs) aren’t afraid of much, and a few laws won’t scare us away.

When you say that homosexuality is a choice, do you mean:

It's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex?

OR

It's a choice whether or not you ACT on your physical attraction to the same sex?

It's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex. It's also a choice whether or not someone acts on their physical attraction to the same sex.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

14th Mar 2008, 06:58 PM

Lol, I thought this thread was about homosexuality... and so I made my post. But then I read a few others and everyone's talking about being Arab...lol

Now my post looks random.

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 06:59 PM

Like all things, it's partly based off of biology, and partly based off of environment and psychology.

Look at the twin studies done. They got genetically identical twins... and 50% of the time when one was gay, the other was too. But only 50%. This says there's a Strong genetic predisposition to it, however other factors come into play that could make someone be straight/gay as well.

Just to make a semantic distinction, I'd argue that environment/psychology might as well be biology. Or at least they become biology, most strongly in the prenatal stages and still significantly as our socialization patterns become hardwired in our brains.

Environment/Socialization/Genetics all contribute to our biology.

callum91_SC

14th Mar 2008, 07:01 PM

Well look at Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world
Read that and then say that wouldnt put you off being gay.
I just dont get why you would say that people would choose (!!) to be gay.
I'm Bi myself, but I would never choose that.If it was upto me, I would be neither gay/bi/straight! :|

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 07:03 PM

It's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex. It's also a choice whether or not someone acts on their physical attraction to the same sex.

Thanks for the clarification.

And I strongly disagree with the former, that it's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex. My opinion is based on scientific evidence that I have previously referenced.

Black_Barook!

14th Mar 2008, 07:08 PM

Read that and then say that wouldnt put you off being gay.

It didn't put me off. : D

Thanks for the clarification. And I strongly disagree with the former, that it's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex. My opinion is based on scientific evidence that I have previously referenced.

That's your belife and I'll respect it.

moking

14th Mar 2008, 07:09 PM

You cannot simply force yourself too like someone. I think being "Bi" is more of a choice, but 100% homosexual is not.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

14th Mar 2008, 07:11 PM

Just to make a semantic distinction, I'd argue that environment/psychology might as well be biology. Or at least they become biology, most strongly in the prenatal stages and still significantly as our socialization patterns become hardwired in our brains.

Environment/Socialization/Genetics all contribute to our biology.

That's not exactly how it works.
Psychology today works off of a comprehensive model called the Biopsychosocial model.

It works like this

Who we are is complex. And the three largest contributors to who we are as as follows.

Biology- Our Genetics (that ones easy)
Psychology- How we see/perceive things. (This ones trickier and is not completely based off our our biology, ie identical twins rarely have the same personality).
Social- Where we live our lives (This one is perhaps even more complex, there being many layers in society.)

In relation to homosexuality it kind of goes like this.... As far as science says, anyway....

Biology- Genetic Predisposition. A fairly strong one at that. (50% of the twins says that though it's not all encompassing, it is definitely profound).

Psychology- I can;t 100 percent say, because I'm not gay, though most of my friends are. So in healthy homosexuals/bisexuals I don;'t have much to contribute right now.

But to give an example of how psychology influences our partners... people who are abused sexually tend to have sexual issues in life. Sometimes these people are even attracted for a time in their life to someone who reminds them of their abuser. In a way to reenact the trauma, but in this way to make it better. It's usually subconscious..
For instance... I have a friend who is not exactly homosexual, but he is attracted to older men who look a certain way. These men are a reflection of his abuser... he's doing the same thing.

But like I said, this is a psychological issue. I can't go in depth on the psychology of a homosexual who doesn't have issues because right now most of my studies is in abnormal psychology. And homosexuality doesn't really qualify as abnormal.

Social- This one's easy as far as gay people go. Some people suppress their homosexuality in areas where it's not okay or dangerous. These people live straight lives, usually. Obviously affecting their sexuality.

So, yeah... it's kind of more complicated than saying
"It's what you are born with" or "It's your choice"

Though what you are born with is kind of truer....

But choice is probably a bad word choice.... because it's just part of who people are.

In any part of your personality. We usually don't pick who we are, we just become ourselves.

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 07:26 PM

That's not exactly how it works.
Psychology today works off of a comprehensive model called the Biopsychosocial model.

It works like this

Who we are is complex. And the three largest contributors to who we are as as follows.

Biology- Our Genetics (that ones easy)
Psychology- How we see/perceive things. (This ones trickier and is not completely based off our our biology, ie identical twins rarely have the same personality).
Social- Where we live our lives (This one is perhaps even more complex, there being many layers in society.)

In relation to homosexuality it kind of goes like this.... As far as science says, anyway....

Biology- Genetic Predisposition. A fairly strong one at that. (50% of the twins says that though it's not all encompassing, it is definitely profound).

This is what I take issue with, that biology only encompasses genetics and is unrelated to psychology or environmental influences. The brain is part of our biology. When we receive stimuli from our social learning environment, it is our brain that changes and learns. Our brain is intimately connected with our biological bodies.

Also, genetics are influenced by our environments. When identical twins have different sexual orientations, this usually means that a different environmental exposure to nutrients & hormones in the prenatal environment affected the expression of genes and the timing of their development.

This is what I mean by environment becomes biology and socialization becomes biology. I'll agree that there are social and psychological factors that fall outside of biology, but biology is way more encompassing than genetics.

edit: thanks for the insight on what psychologists think, though :)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

14th Mar 2008, 07:38 PM

sakrayami

14th Mar 2008, 07:39 PM

Some threads here are really INSULTING. DID you choose to be a heterosexual!? How was your first meeting? Who are we to decide to discuss gays, cause heterosex seems to stand the NORMAL terms? Do i have to EXPLAIN to others why my sister
or friend is gay? I could at least stand up for myself if i were gay, but i just can't see how one are supposed to discuss gay people's sexlife and get away with it!

Faithlove13xxx_SC

14th Mar 2008, 07:43 PM

Lol... my soulmate is bisexual, and she really is not offended by me talking about her sexuality or anyone else's.

I guess I figure if she's not offended, and none of the gay people here are offended by us discussing the factors of sexuality, then why should I?

I'd also like to say, the factors I have mentioned to NOT only apply to homosexuals, but also to heterosexuals. Homosexuality really is not so radically different as heterosexuality. I mean, culturally we think it is.... but really, it all goes to the same flow.

Picos

14th Mar 2008, 07:54 PM

If it was up to me, I would be neither gay/bi/straight! :|

You can chose to be apathetic if you don't want to be gay/bi or straight. Basically, you chose not to be interested in relations.

I think that, to some certain extent, you can chose. Just as you get to chose many different things/paths/chimigangas. Its more of a mixture.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

14th Mar 2008, 07:55 PM

They would just be asexual (snorefesty)

Lol...
No offense to asexuals.... *ahem*

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 08:06 PM

Well...
But there's a major pitfall when you say Biology is everything.

Let's take it out of the homosexual thing...

Let's throw it on people who are anorexic (not saying homosexuals are anorexic, or that homosexuality is a mental illness at all)

People with anorexia have a mentall illness that is largely attributed to society.

For instance, there was a group of women who lived in Africa all their lives. As adults, half went to Cairo for school, the other half went to England. The half in Cairo never developed an eating disorder, whereas the half that went to england, 30% of them developed an eating disorder.

Anorexia has lots of biological impacts on the body... like the weight loss, amenorrhea, and even to the brain, whereas it intensely throw off chemical and hormones... and even shrinks a certain area of your brain... sometimes permanently. (This is not a shrinking that causes intellect deficiencies. I had anorexia, and I seem adequately intelligent.)
So, yes, psychology Greatly influences biology.

And the biology forever changes your perception (my eyes didn't develop correctly and sometimes still black out.) However, there's not gene for anorexia.

*edit* I should add that there is a gene for clinical depression, where anorexia is often linked to.

However, with homosexuality, when people are referring to biology and such, although the prenatal vitamins they are discovering can have factors... They mean genetics.

And genetics cannot be changed, not through anything.

I see your point with the anorexia example. Perhaps I just come from a more simplistic, bio-centric view where I go "Mind-->in brain --> in body, ah-ha! Biology!" :) But there are a few things I'd like to clarify/point out.

The reason I wanted to call to attention the fact that psychology, socialization, and biology are all connected is because many people would interpret homosexuality being "psychological" as it also being "reversible." What they fail to think about is the cascade of involuntary biological effects that are associated with psychology. For example, stimulus X causes region Y of the brain to be excited, releasing hormone Z, which has effects throughout the body.

The actual GCAATACG structure of your DNA cannot be changed, true. The distinction that has to made here is degree and timing of genetic expression, which has drastic effects on a person's phenotype. Degree and timing of genetic expression are influenced by factors in the environment. Take or example, the appearance of schizophrenia, where the changing chemical environment of the body suddenly activates the genes responsible. Or the case of identical twins where one is born 1 pound lighter than the other and has a clearly different, more "feminized" personality from birth.

And as an aside, I really cringe when I see people refer to a "gene for ________." There is rarely such a thing as a discreet gene for _________ because genes have different effects depending on their complex chemical and physiological environment and the presence of other genes.

kinneer_SC

14th Mar 2008, 08:09 PM

I think the situations is much different for men and women. It seems like women have more mutability with their sexuality and are more likely to be bisexual. Women might experiment with other women, but whether it's biological or cultural, I think that many bisexual women eventually envision themselves settling down with a man.

I agree that being homosexual or bi is easier for women than men. But I wonder if is society or culture is helping in this regard. I know that men in general would find it erotic to see two women kissing and/or engaging in sexual acts, as the number of lesbian theme pornography shows.

However, would women find two men in similar situations erotic or distasteful? I would probably imagine the latter.

So I think this makes it easier for women to experiment with bisexuality because society finds it more acceptable. I recall some even consider it "fashionable" for women to be bisexual , where some may even claim they are when they are not.

robokitty

14th Mar 2008, 08:13 PM

I agree that being homosexual or bi is easier for women than men. But I wonder if is society or culture is helping in this regard. I know that men in general would find it erotic to see two women kissing and/or engaging in sexual acts, as the number of lesbian theme pornography shows.

However, would women find two men in similar situations erotic or distasteful? I would probably imagine the latter.

So I think this makes it easier for women to experiment with bisexuality because society finds it more acceptable. I recall some even consider it "fashionable" for women to be bisexual , where some may even claim they are when they are not.

I posted this in the other thread, but:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=1

Check page 5 of the article for your answer. Or just look at the yoai craze :)

sakrayami

14th Mar 2008, 08:29 PM

I haven't seen such debates about gays since 80s. But then again, i live in a country where gays can be married and are not hunted or discriminated because they are gay.
I did not mean to try to stop the discussion, but i would think it was funny if someone asked me how i figured out i was hetero, when i figured it out, if it is genetic... I saw
a blog where a lesbian female asked people about that, she was quite funny, and obvious fed up by beeing questioned. People are curious i suppose, but i don't really think i have rights to discuss other adults people sexlife. If one are going to discuss it anyway, one have to be wise - why should the genes be discussed, is it a disease?

Rabid

14th Mar 2008, 08:34 PM

I don't think there's a so-called "gay gene," but I do think you are what you are and there's no changing it. Your sexual orientation is a chemical part of you that, no matter how much you deny it and no matter how much you rally against it, it's who you are. You can deceive yourself into liking another gender, but deep down, it doesn't change.

When someone asks if gay people choose to be gay, I can't help but wonder why someone would choose to be gay in this day and age. Not because I think it's sinful or wrong (I'm pretty tolerant of all sexual orientations), but because of the social stigma that comes with being a homosexual or a bisexual. Why would someone choose to be constantly laughed at, ridiculed, and have their rights to marry the love of their life limited? What would possess a person to choose such a lifestyle? No one would choose that, which is why I think it's not a choice. You are who you are.

Elyasis_SC

14th Mar 2008, 09:00 PM

I think everyone starts off bisexual actually. And that our environment tips the scales one way or the other. I don't really think it's genetic at all. Not saying it's truly a choice either.

Actually, I think the world would be a much nicer place if everyone was bisexual. Then, we'd understand each other more. ^_^

callum91_SC

14th Mar 2008, 09:08 PM

::Simstress::

14th Mar 2008, 09:26 PM

I believe there are some people out there who choose their sexuality and some who don't. (That probably has a lot to do with why I don't believe in bixsexuality but thats another issue in itself)

I also believe that it is all in how your brain is programmed, prenatally. Like the beginning post stated, it's all about androgens and whatever.

Elyasis_SC

14th Mar 2008, 09:51 PM

RabidAngel, that is EXACTLY what I mean--You just word it better :D
Elyasis, I agree, if everyone was Bi, then there would be no "gay bashing" and "heterophobia", I had heard of that from previous debates,when gays are against straights [well that obviously means it].

ps,your dog looks like my Shiba Inu from Nintendogs :up::D

Exactly.

(I actually the picture off of 2chan. I thought it was really cute, a dog bartender. :beer:
Although, I wouldn't mind having a Shiba Inu. They are cute. But I have a German Shepherd.)

I don't get why some people can say that being gay is not a choice but being bi is a choice. What's the difference, a gay person likes only the same sex whereas a bisexual likes both. How is it so different? Just because you can choose which to have a relationship with? Well, that's fine and dandy until you see it applies to every other sexuality as well. Being bi but being in a heterosexual relationship does not take away your "bi-ness". Certainly it makes it easier to hide but it doesn't mean the sexuality itself is a choice. Sure bisexuals can choose which gender to date, but not which gender to feel attraction towards.

kinneer_SC

14th Mar 2008, 10:54 PM

I posted this in the other thread, but:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=1

Check page 5 of the article for your answer. Or just look at the yoai craze :)

Thanks for that. It was a very interesting read. As for the Yaoi I have heard Japanese woman like reading them but I do not know how popular it is in Japan and outside it.

Elyasis_SC

14th Mar 2008, 11:00 PM

Ergh.. Yaoi.. Even I don't like that, it's too flowery by far. And I have seen two guys kiss, it was the most awkward man-fest I have ever laid eyes upon. :P
To be truthful though, one of them was very unskilled and the other was bi-curious for the most part not fully gay.

But alas, if we go any further into it.. Too raunchy.

Why do yaoi guys all look like girls without curves? They aren't men, they are androgynous people. @_@

jooxis84

14th Mar 2008, 11:15 PM

It's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex.

Woa, this is a choice? By this logic I'm assuming you think for example, allergies are choices as well?

bacon164

14th Mar 2008, 11:41 PM

It's a choice to be physically attracted to the same sex.

lol, keep telling yourself that.

coltraz

14th Mar 2008, 11:42 PM

For me, bisexuality is a bit strange... When I was a youngin', I liked girls. When my body started evolving (lol) I began to realise I liked boys. Like I said in my previous post, that freaked me out very badly, to the point where I wanted to kill myself if that desire didn't leave. This was around the fifth grade. From then and until about grade 12, so that's like, 6 or 7 years, I considered myself bisexual, though my preference was definitely more toward the male end of things. When I finally stopped kidding myself into thinking I'd ever be with a girl, I realised, I'm not bi. I'm gay! Maybe not 100% gay, but I think very few people are 100% straight or gay. And so, for me, being bi sort of was a choice. A lot of gays start off "bi" and then end up realising they're actually gay. Being bi, for a lot of people, is a stepping stone into their own skin. I realise some people are bi and not going to change one way or the other, but from my experience both personally and from observation, bisexuality CAN be a choice for someone who is not yet comfortably gay. It was for me.
On another interesting note: It wasn't until I got a boyfriend and decided I would stop referring and considering myself a bisexual, that I lost most, if not all interest in females.
And yet another interesting note considering heterophobia: Well, I wonder if I'm guilty sometimes. For example, I would never try to get to know a heterosexual male. I just have no desire to be friends with a straight guy. Does that make me a heterophobe? Because if the situation was reversed, the hetero saying he wouldn't want to be friends with a gay guy would be accused of being a homophobe. So it's interesting.

sakrayami, I really appreciate what you said on page 1. I've never really thought about it that way, and you're right. Nevertheless I think homosexuality is an interesting topic to discuss because its currently quite misunderstood, whereas heterosexuality is pretty easy to understand because no one cares about that. But yeah, your idea of it being insulting to discuss is rather spot on, and let's hope very soon that a day will come where no one will feel the need to discuss it and try to "get it".

On a sort of off topic note, I think people viewing this thread should check this video out, it's important to see and everyone should know about it if you don't already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVvP1jBdJA

frankie

15th Mar 2008, 12:10 AM

Feenkitty_SC

15th Mar 2008, 12:34 AM

Wow, coltraz, that video made me cry.

I've kind of been following this thread and I thought sakrayami had a good point about it being intrusive/insulting. Although I think if we don't talk about homosexuality things will never change. It's not just about their "sexlife". It's about people having the same rights whether they share their life with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. People are ridiculed and stared at if they walk down the street holding hands and if those people happen to both be men. If I walk down the street holding my husband's hand, no one even bothers to notice.

I have no tolerence for hate. I can't stand that there are people that would treat someone different because of their sexual orientation or race or religion or body size or heritage or any distinguishing factor. I don't understand it and that might be because I my parents were very open minded and accepting of all people.

And to keep the thread on topic, I don't think homosexuality is choice. (And even if it was a choice, they're aren't putting anyone in harms way by what they do in their personal life. There are far worse choices that can be made than choosing to sleep with someone of the same gender.)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

15th Mar 2008, 12:43 AM

I see your point with the anorexia example. Perhaps I just come from a more simplistic, bio-centric view where I go "Mind-->in brain --> in body, ah-ha! Biology!" :) But there are a few things I'd like to clarify/point out.

The reason I wanted to call to attention the fact that psychology, socialization, and biology are all connected is because many people would interpret homosexuality being "psychological" as it also being "reversible." What they fail to think about is the cascade of involuntary biological effects that are associated with psychology. For example, stimulus X causes region Y of the brain to be excited, releasing hormone Z, which has effects throughout the body.

The actual GCAATACG structure of your DNA cannot be changed, true. The distinction that has to made here is degree and timing of genetic expression, which has drastic effects on a person's phenotype. Degree and timing of genetic expression are influenced by factors in the environment. Take or example, the appearance of schizophrenia, where the changing chemical environment of the body suddenly activates the genes responsible. Or the case of identical twins where one is born 1 pound lighter than the other and has a clearly different, more "feminized" personality from birth.

And as an aside, I really cringe when I see people refer to a "gene for ________." There is rarely such a thing as a discreet gene for _________ because genes have different effects depending on their complex chemical and physiological environment and the presence of other genes.

Feminine and masculine is actually based on culture.

But to the point, being gay is partly psychology, as being straight it.

But I think your view of psychology is a bit off. Psychology is not "reversible".

Some Illnesses are manipulated by psychologists...
But someone's psychology is made up of a great many things, including biology and personality, ect ect.

Just because someone says something is psychological doesn';t in any way mean it's less intense than something like biology, or that it's some sort of thing the person is responsible for.

I'm not responsible for my arachnophobia, but it's a part of me. There's no arachnophobia gene that they have found.
However they do think it might be an evolutionary advantage (that's another debate) and it might have something to do with some earlier thing in life.

And yeah, if you manipulate me and condition me enough, I might could not be afraid so intensely. But that not who I naturally am.

frankie

15th Mar 2008, 02:50 AM

I just saw the video and it is sad. I hope that bastard gets what he deserves. I can now imagine that on Fred Phelps' website it will have a new section just for Larry counting how many days he has been in hell, just like he did with Matthew Sheppard and Diane Whipple.

coltraz

15th Mar 2008, 03:03 AM

Frankie: Clear out your PM's, I was trying to send you one. :)

frankie

15th Mar 2008, 03:29 AM

I cleared it now, sorry about that, I didn't realize my inbox was full already. Thanks! :)

MexiCali_SC

15th Mar 2008, 06:44 AM

I personally do not believe it is a choice. I could never choose to be gay/bi. The thought of even hugging another female romantically makes me feel ill. I could just never do it! That's how I am wired. And for people who are gay, it is the same thing. That's how I look at it.

Doddibot

15th Mar 2008, 07:43 AM

I hate it when people say that “You are born this way!” or “You were forced into this!” treating me as an idiot who doesn’t know what he wants or some kind of coward that’s too scared to set himself free.
Not at all. For example, you did not choose your eye colour, it was biologically determined. That does not mean you are a coward and don't know what eye colour you'd like. It's just a fact.

Damn it I’ll sleep with who or what I want because I want to not because some gene decided that for me. God gave me the free will to do what I want and I’ll be damned if I’ll have that taken away from me because some guy in a lab coat thinks otherwise.
Oh, you have free will. But that free will is influenced by your biology. If you had been born a girl, you would have thought and acted differently.

To quote (actually, to paraphrase) the great Arthur Schopenhauer:

Man can indeed do what he wants, but he has no control over what he wants.

Black_Barook!

15th Mar 2008, 09:54 AM

Black Barook, is it then a choice to be physically attracted to the opposite sex? Of course you will say it is because you're straight and you obviously don't know what it's like to be gay. Why do you even bothering making assumptions of something you know absolutely nothing about? It only shows how ignorant you are.

What makes you think I'm straight?

I hate it with a passion when some straight people act this way all because of their intolerance.

I'm not intolerante. Just becasue I believe that we can choose who or what we love makes me intolerant? If I believe that Isreali shouldn't even be in the Holy Lands that makes me intolerant?

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. Plain and simple!

Yeah so...?

By the way, how would you feel if someone told you it is a choice to be whatever nationality you are, huh? Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'd feel indifferent (casue that's what I feel most of the time) but that person would've been right. I could've ripped my passport (Correct term?) and renounced my Kuwaiti citizinship but I didn't. (still hoping of a AU)

*sigh* Talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall and yet I never know why I bother.

Becasue you love me! ; D

Faithlove13xxx_SC

15th Mar 2008, 04:35 PM

Not at all. For example, you did not choose your eye colour, it was biologically determined. That does not mean you are a coward and don't know what eye colour you'd like. It's just a fact.

Oh, you have free will. But that free will is influenced by your biology. If you had been born a girl, you would have thought and acted differently.

To quote (actually, to paraphrase) the great Arthur Schopenhauer:

Man can indeed do what he wants, but he has no control over what he wants.
Being homosexual is not like having an eye colour. The genetic component is not that set it stone. See earlier posts.

robokitty

15th Mar 2008, 07:11 PM

Feminine and masculine is actually based on culture.

That's why I put "feminized" in quotes, to demonstrate the relativity of the term.

But I think your view of psychology is a bit off. Psychology is not "reversible".

My view of psychology is not off. Read my post again. I said "many people would interpret 'psychological' as 'reversible,'" which I meant did not include me because I believe it is intimately linked with biology.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

15th Mar 2008, 07:22 PM

Ah Okay,so you were referring to other people.

That's good. I hate it when people think "oh, psychology is just wishywashy.

DollyL

15th Mar 2008, 08:21 PM

There are homosexuals who want to be straight, and think homosexuality is wrong.

So I don't think it's a choice.

Freelancer_SC

15th Mar 2008, 10:36 PM

I think it's a choice, a personal choice that a person makes for their own happiness, like choosing to be vegetarian or to follow a certain religion. They aren't hurting anyone. Hopefully the right-wing policymakers will come to their senses and realize that. (could be a challenge, though, since there are still some of them who believe the world is 6,000 years old. one step at a time here, heh.)

frankie

16th Mar 2008, 02:37 AM

Black Barook, if you were truly gay, you would have a better understanding to this unless you are a repressed homosexual then I can understand why you would say such things. And by the way... up until now I always thought you were female, lol. Thanks for clarifying that up for me in the Sims 3 forum. :)

Elyasis_SC

16th Mar 2008, 03:06 AM

I don't think it's fair to say someone can't understand you if they aren't gay. Plenty of people can empathize with others who are nothing like them.

Some people just like to believe they make all their own choices. Is it wrong for Barook to feel that? I don't think you are really understanding each other's POV.

I don't believe homosexuality is biological, as in a "sexual orientation" gene. But this does not mean I'm going to say that a person who is homosexual should try to be hetero or bi. There is a Greek word for that which fits perfectly, Parapsyn, in other words it goes against what is natural for them. But I can still consider it partially a choice. Since one could potentially have a change of heart. Frankly, I never understood why people only could fall in love with only one gender, when the only thing different is anatomy, seems shallow to me to not leave your heart open for anyone.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

16th Mar 2008, 03:56 AM

I have seen homosexuality both within very close friendships of mine, family, and also from the point of view of psychologists.

They both pretty much say the same thing.

Leads me to believe they are both right.

frankie

16th Mar 2008, 03:57 AM

If I can't fall in love with a female it's only because we are talking different mannerisms, a different look, a different feel. I'm not exclusive to men just because I am gay. I'm exclusive to men because I know deep down inside I would feel more comfortable and happier with a man. I'm not disgusted by the female body by any means. It's the chemistry and the romantic connection that does not exist with the opposite sex.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

16th Mar 2008, 05:32 AM

Thanks for not being disgusted by me.

I always was kind of offended when my gay guy friends would say "ew" when they saw a naked woman. I don't think either body is gross, whether or not it is sexy.

I'm not turned on by women either, but I appreciate out innate beauty. And I don't know if I feel the same as you, because I feel very deep love for the women in my life. In fact, the only thing men have extra with me is the fact I find them sexy. I don't feel any more spiritually or emotionally dependent or close to them.

bacon164

16th Mar 2008, 05:40 AM

There are homosexuals who want to be straight, and think homosexuality is wrong.

So I don't think it's a choice.

And many attempt to kill themselves because they can't change. Really, the fact that there's even a debate over this in society is ridiculous. Why on earth would anyone choose to be a repressed, often hated and despised minority?

princesshaichu

16th Mar 2008, 05:52 AM

I do believe it's mostly inherent—something you're born with—but in some cases, it's trendiness in the bigger cities, as well as in certain industries. Does anyone watch Ugly Betty? The episode where a fresh young designer puts on a gay act to be accepted in the fashion industry? It's not exactly a foreign concept. I have met a total of two straight men in the year and a half I've spent in fashion school, and it seems to me that straight men are often considered less talented than gay men in this field. I mean, someone please feel free to contradict me, please, with the exception of throwing big-name designers at me.

And back to the trendiness theory—I suppose it's a bit backwater in the suburbs, but I wouldn't know—in big cities, especially the biggest, being gay makes you "interesting," and sometimes worth knowing. It depends, obviously, on which crowds you hang with, but it's not uncommon to find young people "turning" themselves gay for the sake of social acceptance. Of course, because trendiness drives it, they often relinquish their so-called status the second it becomes a disadvantage, but some, without having ever felt sexual attraction to the same sex before, stay with it.

This is just my experience, though. For all I know, it's totally unique to where I live!

Doddibot

16th Mar 2008, 09:25 AM

Being homosexual is not like having an eye colour. The genetic component is not that set it stone. See earlier posts.
I know. My post was a reductio ad absurdum - pointing out that accepting that something is biologically determined does not mean you are denying responsibility for it or are a coward. It just means that, because of the facts, you had no control over it. So I used eye colour as an obvious example.

SimpleNclean

16th Mar 2008, 09:35 AM

Umm no I don't think it's a choice, I think it's simply who people are attracted to. Alot of people think people decide to be gay because gay people spend so many years sometimes trying to be straight instead of just being themselves so when they finally come out people look at it like "Oh when did you decide this?" one of my best friends just came out and to be honest I was waiting for him to because it was pretty obvious to me and all of his friends.

Black_Barook!

16th Mar 2008, 12:19 PM

...you are a repressed homosexual...

Why would I be repressed?

frankie

17th Mar 2008, 02:46 AM

Why would I be repressed?

I didn't say you were, you cut part of what I said to make it look that way. I was just replying to the post you made about saying that I don't know that you are gay or not. You just don't sound very pro-gay if you are gay, is what I meant. I'm not saying you are gay or not. But you don't seem like a gay male from your belief that it is a choice. I have never heard a gay male say that unless they were trying hard to convert to heterosexuality. :)

Rainncandy

17th Mar 2008, 04:13 AM

I don't believe that being homosexual is a choice, just like being heterosexual is a choice. I'm straight, and I definitely didn't choose to be straight, so why would it be any different for a homosexual? It doesn't make any sense to me. So, yeah, I'm 100% sure that if you're gay, you were born that way.

Doddibot

17th Mar 2008, 06:49 AM

Feminine and masculine is actually based on culture.
What does this mean?

Endersgirl07

17th Mar 2008, 06:52 AM

Pixelhate

17th Mar 2008, 08:35 AM

About 10 % of a population is homosexual. This an average in human society and animal society as well. Just a fact. It must have a neccesity and purpose for nature...

Doddibot

17th Mar 2008, 12:34 PM

If I'm not mistaken, it means that while sex isn't determined by culture, what's thought of as "feminine" and "masculine" (playing with dolls vs. playing with trucks) is. It's the difference between sex and gender.
Ah, I thought so.

Total BS though. Vervet monkeys have been shown to have a male preference towards cars and balls, and female preference to dolls and pots, and no difference towards books or toy dogs (source (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1)). Likewise, male human infants have a preference towards looking at mechanical moving objects and female infants prefer looking at a face (source (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(00)00032-1)). So unless vervet monkeys have the same culture as we humans do, and human babies can pick up cultural clues, then we must conclude that at least part of what constitutes masculinity and femininity are biologically determined (likely be levels of hormones as a foetus).

andru

17th Mar 2008, 02:08 PM

I think the reason it appears to be a choice to some people is that when gay people are children they know no different; they're just the same as every one else and other children also feel this way about the gay child. When we're children we're practically equal amongst one another because we know no different.

It's only as people get older and start to understand the world that they realise they are different from one another and with knowledge comes the realisation that they are gay or bisexual. To the people around them that they tell it may seem like a choice because it's so random; this person has always been straight before? :lol:

But I don't believe it's a choice. Gay people just realise they are gay later in their life because as we grow up we learn more about the world we live in and begin to fit all the pieces together. Sexuality is part of your make-up since conception.

It was very hard to put this into words so I hope you understand what I am getting at :lol:

I think the big question is, if sexuality is a choice, when did straight people decide they would be straight?

eruwenfuin

17th Mar 2008, 02:29 PM

About 10 % of a population is homosexual. This an average in human society and animal society as well. Just a fact. It must have a neccesity and purpose for nature...

It does in a way, it's nature's way of population controll:

Gay men or women will not produce children, since nature does not allow male pregnancies, or lets females be impregnated by other females. It can therefore curb population growth, though not entirely.

And on that note: There are many orphans around the world, if we let gay people, who will not have their own children, adopt them, then we'd have a lot less orphans.

Happy gay families FTW!

edit//

I myself think we should just abandon all labels. Labels being gay, bisexual and heterosexual. Stop putting people into boxes, if they are happy the box doesn't matter.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

17th Mar 2008, 05:30 PM

robokitty

17th Mar 2008, 05:58 PM

Ah, I thought so.

Total BS though. Vervet monkeys have been shown to have a male preference towards cars and balls, and female preference to dolls and pots, and no difference towards books or toy dogs (source (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1)). Likewise, male human infants have a preference towards looking at mechanical moving objects and female infants prefer looking at a face (source (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(00)00032-1)). So unless vervet monkeys have the same culture as we humans do, and human babies can pick up cultural clues, then we must conclude that at least part of what constitutes masculinity and femininity are biologically determined (likely be levels of hormones as a foetus).

The trouble with discussing subjects like this is that people tend to make some erroneous and culturally dangerous assumptions when biological determination comes in to play.

I think that, from the evidence you've documented here, we can assume:
that there is a slight preference for certain behaviors in 1 sex versus the other.

What we can't assume is:
that biology is more important than culture in determining masculine vs. feminine behavior.
that the existence of such patterns provides moral justification for differential treatment of the sexes

Personally, I don't like to say something like this is ENTIRELY biological or ENTIRELY cultural. The world is more complicated than that.

Actually, it is not total BS.
Seriously, what gene says "play with truck".

The infant's brain to lights up differentially when presented with moving stimuli. The cause is a combination of gene & hormone interactions that determine the brain's overall structure. You are simplifying the biology in order to make a point, and it weakens your argument.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

17th Mar 2008, 06:13 PM

Default

Omg... Guys.
If you go into a sociology class and write "gender is based off of biology" you will Fail that.

I promise.
What annoys me is when people argue things that people who really know the subject have already studied for lifetimes.

Gender:
Gender, in common usage, refers to the differences between men and women. Encyclopædia Britannica notes that gender identity is "an individual's self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex."[1] Although gender is commonly used interchangeably with sex, within the social sciences it often refers to specifically social differences, known as gender roles in the biological sciences. Historically, feminism has posited that many gender roles are socially constructed, and lack any clear biological basis. People whose gender identity feels incongruent with their physical bodies may call themselves transgender or genderqueer.
The trouble with discussing subjects like this is that people tend to make some erroneous and culturally dangerous assumptions when biological determination comes in to play.

I think that, from the evidence you've documented here, we can assume:
that there is a slight preference for certain behaviors in 1 sex versus the other.

What we can't assume is:
that biology is more important than culture in determining masculine vs. feminine behavior.
that the existence of such patterns provides moral justification for differential treatment of the sexes

Personally, I don't like to say something like this is ENTIRELY biological or ENTIRELY cultural. The world is more complicated than that.

The infant's brain to lights up differentially when presented with moving stimuli. The cause is a combination of gene & hormone interactions that determine the brain's overall structure. You are simplifying the biology in order to make a point, and it weakens your argument.

No, that is completely incongruent with what I was saying.
He is saying basically boys will play with trucks and girls with dolls based off of biology.

Edit, I misunderstood you for a second.
However, gender the word does not refer to sex. It's just a definition.

??? Where you got that from I have no idea. You seem to not want to accept though that not everything is biology.

robokitty

17th Mar 2008, 06:19 PM

Omg... Guys.
If you go into a sociology class and write "gender is based off of biology" you will Fail that.

I promise.
What annoys me is when people argue things that people who really know the subject have already studied for lifetimes.

Gender:
Gender, in common usage, refers to the differences between men and women. Encyclopædia Britannica notes that gender identity is "an individual's self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex."[1] Although gender is commonly used interchangeably with sex, within the social sciences it often refers to specifically social differences, known as gender roles in the biological sciences. Historically, feminism has posited that many gender roles are socially constructed, and lack any clear biological basis. People whose gender identity feels incongruent with their physical bodies may call themselves transgender or genderqueer.

Please argue against this that is based on logical refutation of the points that have been made rather than just stating it's wrong with an appeal to authority.

If you look at the parts that I have bolded in your quote above, the first part does not deny a biological influence on gender. The second part is a postulation, and it's one that's made by a group that have a keen interest in proving there is no biological influence on gender. (No offense to feminists, of course. I personally identify as one.)

So, here is a summary of my position (while I cannot speak for Doddibot):

1) Male-pattern and female-pattern behaviors exist in infants.
2) Males and females have slightly different brains.
3) This creates a biological basis for a slight different in behaviors.

clause: This does not mean that biology is more important than culture, but to completely ignore that biology has differential effects on males and females is simply close-mindedness.

further question: What effect does biology have in determining gender as compared to culture? Probably minimal. However, I think that ignoring it completely is bad science and bad logic.

??? Where you got that from I have no idea. You seem to not want to accept though that not everything is biology.

Nope, just that there is a complicated interconnectedness between psychology, the environment, and biology where what we view as psychology actually has biological effects throughout the body, where environment causes differential expression of the genes. These two are deeply ingrained in biology.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

17th Mar 2008, 06:28 PM

No no no.
I have never ever said the biology of a male and female's brain is the same.

I did say our gender rolls are based off of culture.
Of course our brains slightly differ... I went over this in the separating the boys and girls in schools argument...
(oversimplified for the masses)

Men's brain's have a slightly larger area that is responsible specifically for aggression... while women's brains seem to have a more evolved area where emotional control is.
BUT, BOTH of these small differences are EASILY overridden by CULTURES.

Western culture seems to overemphasize these traits, whereas many other cultures reverse them.

There are hormonal differences as well.

But your words all have "slight" in them.
That;s the whole point. Culture does the work here. In this western culture of mine, atleast, we embrace those slight differences and over exaggerate them.

A lot of people here in Texas believe : Men are supposed to be really aggressive, and getting their emotions out through violence is fine. However, if they cry for any reason other than the death of their kids or wife they are too feminine.

Women can cry all day long but if they lift a hand to defend even themselves they are out of line.

This is one culture who's taken slight biological differences to an extreme to the point it is unhealthy.

Many cultures have this completely reversed, and even within my own culture I see very aggressive women and very emotional men who I guess just refuse to fall into their cultural roles.

robokitty

17th Mar 2008, 06:36 PM

frankie

17th Mar 2008, 07:38 PM

Jeez, the whole cars for boys and dolls for girls thing is definitely crap! I'm a man and when I was a boy I used to play with dolls all the time because they were more fun than boys' toys and I'm living proof of that, too. If I ever did play with cars it was because I created my own city with paper, or I also played with Lego's but the town sets, never the space or other typical boy style of Lego's. But that was also because my parents bought me them, of course they weren't going to buy me girls' stuff. Or look at tomboys who don't like to wear dresses or play with dolls. This is why I think it's all crap. I actually agree that society is what makes boys required to play with cars and girls required to play with dolls. My parents never raised me to be feminine yet I still was born feminine. From the day I ever laid my eyes on a doll, I naturally found it more fun to play with that a boring useless car that doesn't even have to people inside of it. Lego's being a neutral toy was fun for me because I always liked building and what not... thus, why The Sims attracted me so much... you get the doll house and architecture parts of it in one convenient game. ;)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

17th Mar 2008, 07:43 PM

I played with cars.

; p

frankie

17th Mar 2008, 07:55 PM

See? My point exactly. :)

Doddibot

17th Mar 2008, 11:43 PM

Jeez, the whole cars for boys and dolls for girls thing is definitely crap!
And you know this because...?

I'm a man and when I was a boy I used to play with dolls all the time because they were more fun than boys' toys and I'm living proof of that, too.
Incidentally, so too did a few vervet monkeys. But you can't take the experience of one individual and say it applies to the entire world.

I actually agree that society is what makes boys required to play with cars and girls required to play with dolls.
But why do you think society has that opinion? Could it be a biologically determined subconscious cue that leads to such a preference?

I think you need to face facts - people are not a blank slate with regards to personality (neither does biology determine exactly how you act).

Faithlove13xxx_SC

18th Mar 2008, 01:18 AM

coltraz

18th Mar 2008, 01:24 AM

Yes, sex and gender are two different things. Sex is according to physical things that make you a certain sex. Gender, however, is not necessarily a physical thing, thus someone could be the sex of a male, but gender of a female.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

18th Mar 2008, 01:29 AM

You are right, coltraz, because In my culture, a guy who wants to dress in dresses is considered transgendered....
However in cultures where men normally wear dresses, they are considered "normal"/

Doddibot

18th Mar 2008, 03:33 AM

Dodd, I think some more research on your part needs to be done before you solidify your opinion on the boundaries of culturally determined "masculine" and "feminine" traits and how they relate to biology.

Other than your monkey experiment.

There's a crapload of research on it. I've had to read about 50 studies, and my opinion I even admit is not 100 percent, because there is always more to learn.
Cite some. I gave you two experiments, you can give me two studies.

You are right, coltraz, because In my culture, a guy who wants to dress in dresses is considered transgendered....
However in cultures where men normally wear dresses, they are considered "normal"/
Yes, well I've not seen any studies demonstrating a gender preference towards particular clothing styles, so I am inclined to believe that is culturally determined.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

18th Mar 2008, 03:51 AM

Okay, I am not your socio teacher, but fine....

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/Sociology/SocialInequality/SociologyofGenderGenderInequalit/?view=usa&ci=9780195330281
There's an excellent book on the subject.

This article has decent criticisms on biological determinism of gender roles
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Gender_roles

Is that what you wanted?

Did you want the exact tribes in which the Western culture is reversed... because then I'd have to dig out my old texts.
It's harder to pull up internet articles than I thought since most of my studies are in books and university databases.

Doddibot

18th Mar 2008, 04:15 AM

Okay, I am not your socio teacher, but fine....
I don't do sociology. I do neuroscience.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/Sociology/SocialInequality/SociologyofGenderGenderInequalit/?view=usa&ci=9780195330281
There's an excellent book on the subject.
I'd read it if I had time, but unfortunately I do not have that much time (have to be at my neuroscience lab class in half an hour).
This article has decent criticisms on biological determinism of gender roles
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Gender_roles

From that page (which isn't quite up to the standard of the peer-reviewed scientific literature I referenced, but still)
Women choose to be housewives more often than men choose to be 'househusbands'. It has been suggested by scientists that biology plays a role in this, and it has been suggested by feminists that it is the result of gender roles. Many scientists and feminists believe that gender behavioural differences occur because of both factors.
Isn't that what I've been saying? Biology affects your gender behaviour, but is not the only influencing factor. If a female embryo or foetus is in a uterus with high levels of androgens, then she will not only have more masculine body characteristics, but is likely to prefer playing with toys that are traditionally associated with boys.

My view is that androgens (and oestrogens) affect personality, leading to some differences in personality between the sexes, which leads to differences in gender roles. Culture may be the primary influence in some traditional roles, such as men wearing pants and women wearing skirts, but then biology may be the primary influence in others, such as men being the breadwinner and women staying home with the children.

It's harder to pull up internet articles than I thought since most of my studies are in books and university databases.
Yes, I know how it is. My sources were all scientific journals online. If you can find them on a database with a link to a journal site or something, send me the reference and I should be able to access them through my university.

frankie

18th Mar 2008, 04:19 AM

Doddibot, I am not basing it on just one individual. It's like that almost everywhere. How could you not notice it? Go to a store that sells toys... any store... and I can guarantee you that the majority of buyers who select dolls will be having little girls in mind, same with cars or action figures for boys. Why is that? And why is it like that almost everywhere? Please enlighten me here! And by the way, for your info, I'm not the only male who played with dolls as a child, I've known others as well. So again, this is not based on one individual like you ever so put it.

Endersgirl07

18th Mar 2008, 04:21 AM

Guys, despite the fact that this is all really interesting, I think gender studies as a whole is sort of off the original topic. Shall we go back to that? :)

Doddibot

18th Mar 2008, 04:27 AM

How could you not notice it? Go to a store that sells toys... any store... and I can guarantee you that the majority of buyers who select dolls will be having little girls in mind, same with cars or action figures for boys. Why is that? And why is it like that almost everywhere? Please enlighten me here! And by the way, for your info, I'm not the only male who played with dolls as a child, I've known others as well. So again, this is not based on one individual like you ever so put it.
Firstly, action man is a doll and barbie has a car, so you are obviously not the only one.

My opinion, based on the studies in behaviournal neuroscience, is that boys are predisposed to playing with moving objects like balls and trucks, and that females are more likely to play with dolls based on their biology. That is not to say that raising a boy as a girl will not cause him to play with dolls - it probably will - but to say also that testosterone injections given to a girl will cause her to play with trucks and balls.

Nature AND nurture influence gender rolls. Ignoring either will get you into trouble, because there is ample evidence to suggest that both are important.

frankie

18th Mar 2008, 04:43 AM

Jeez, I know Barbie has a car and that there are Barbie-size action dolls for boys... I was generalizing and you were just being sarcastic about it. I meant "cars" as in for boys! Understand now?

Anyway, endersgirl07 is right, this is drifting off topic.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

18th Mar 2008, 04:48 AM

robokitty

18th Mar 2008, 06:51 AM

It's nice that you study neuroscience, Dodd. But there's a whole big world out there.

It's more complex than the gray mass between your skull.
I'm a psych major, I study nuerobiology as well. It's important to integrate these things.... and to stay away from polar extremes.

Read my topic about 4 pages ago about the biopsychosocial model,.... back when we were on topic.

I think the subject of gender and homosexuality are fairly closely related; homosexual men & women tend to show more cross-gender behaviors during childhood. I don't think it's much of a stretch to further ask the question [from the original topic] is gender a choice?

Here is another piece of research to consider on this topic: intersex children.

There are a number of diseases that result in babies being born with intermediately developed genitals. For example, 5-alpha-reductase is an enzyme that converts testosterone to another form, which then is responsible for developing external male genitalia. Male (XY) babies with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency are essentially born with internal testicles and a "micropenis."

Back in the day, people tended to think it was better to just chop off the micropenis and raise the baby as a female rather than a male with an itty bitty weiner. So we have a group of XY babies who are given female names and raised as females.

And a large number of them, without knowing their secret male identity, demonstrate male-typical child play behaviors. With a very high frequency, intersex children grow to reject their assigned gender.

And here is another snippet from this article:
http://www.temenos.net/2007/11/intersex-children-into-the-han.html

Berenbaum has spent the last 15 years studying girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). This genetic disease causes the adrenal glands to produce excess androgens--the steroids that cause masculinization--a process that begins in the womb and can result in ambiguous genitals.

In a long-term study of 60 girls with CAH and their sisters who do not have CAH, Berenbaum found that CAH girls are more aggressive and more interested in male-typical activities, toys, and careers. They prefer working with engines to playing with makeup, for instance. Yet, the girls with CAH, who ranged in age from 3 to 18, were clearly female. They identified with girls and women and do not want to be boys.

One explanation for her findings, says Berenbaum, is that the children's brains have been exposed to enough androgen to result in male-typical behaviors but not enough to generate a male gender identity. But there are other theoretical possibilities, she says. One is that their parents, teachers and friends, who treated the children as girls, had significant input in shaping their gender identity, while androgen exposure influenced their gender role. Concludes Berenbaum, "I think the story on gender identity has yet to be told."

Thoughts? Reactions?

Doddibot

18th Mar 2008, 10:47 AM

Read my topic about 4 pages ago about the biopsychosocial model,.... back when we were on topic.
I think we should indeed just go back to when you said this:

Like all things, it's partly based off of biology, and partly based off of environment and psychology.
I think that holds true for gender roles and gender identity too.

Black_Barook!

18th Mar 2008, 11:07 AM

I didn't say you were, you cut part of what I said to make it look that way. I was just replying to the post you made about saying that I don't know that you are gay or not. You just don't sound very pro-gay if you are gay, is what I meant. I'm not saying you are gay or not. But you don't seem like a gay male from your belief that it is a choice. I have never heard a gay male say that unless they were trying hard to convert to heterosexuality.

Sorry about that, it's just every time I talk with non-Arabs they always ask me if I'm oppressed or tied down like a dog. It ticks me off. You know what's funny? I kind of see it the other way around.

Convert? Now I feel like I'm in religion thread: P. I honestly never saw sexuality as a switch from gay to straight. I never saw it that you can't be both, only one. Or that you can't choice which one you wanted.

In fact I like both sexes. Men more so then Women. Mostly because most females turned into 12 year old prepubescent boys that could be easily snapped like a breadstick from Fridays. I feel sexual attracted to males but emotionally attracted to females more.

I just find it weird, stupid, annoying that you’re either gay or straight, your stick like that sorry deal with it.

The End! :D And we all lived happily ever after…until the moon left us for Mars. (That's my way of saying I'm off for now. :D)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

18th Mar 2008, 06:21 PM

I think we should indeed just go back to when you said this:

I think that holds true for gender roles and gender identity too.
Duh, I've been saying that.

Just you seem to overemphasize the biology aspect, that fails to account for the fact that there have been cultures (take South American tribes) that sometimes have an over aggressive, dominant female role, while others have more passive female roles. I don't think you'd make the argument their genetics are so extremely different, and that's the cause.

In relation to the homosexual topic...
I know a lot of people would like to say "it's all biology" because it would shut up those "I hate gay people" idiots.
But the thing is... it's not 100% biology... few things (that have to do with personality, even sexuality) are.

I'm not saying it's a choice, or it's biology. I'm saying it's complicated.

I do not think being gay is any more a choice than being straight is (which is to say I don't think it is a choice.)

robokitty

18th Mar 2008, 11:31 PM

Duh, I've been saying that.

Just you seem to overemphasize the biology aspect,

While I appreciate that many of your responses are coming from a different point of view, I think it's pretty clear that you have a bias to underemphasize and dismiss biology. I think he/we keep bringing up the biology aspect because we keep being hit with assertions of gender being solely cultural and have thus brought up evidence of that supports there is some biological influence on that behavior.

Now I've brought up intersex children's behaviors, my opinion of biology's effect on gender identity is evolving so that biology is more influential than I had previously assumed.

that fails to account for the fact that there have been cultures (take South American tribes) that sometimes have an over aggressive, dominant female role, while others have more passive female roles. I don't think you'd make the argument their genetics are so extremely different, and that's the cause.

I think all this proves is that, in some cases, culture is capable of producing behaviors that aren't typical of biological patterns. I also think the fact that significantly more cultures follow traditional gender roles implies a biological component.

But, it WOULD be interesting to really see if there were any difference in their genetics or hormone levels!

As an aside, I think that people really rail against the idea of a biological component to gender because they have difficulty separating the idea of biological influence with biological determinism.

A biological influence describes a generalized tendency towards a certain behavior, and of course there are exceptions. Biological determinism is much more rigid way of describing biology's effects on personality as inescapable. Biological determinism has been grossly abused in the past to justify existing social injustices.

I think that feminists have a justified fear of biological determinism being used used to rationalize the status & treatment of women in society. In fighting against this, some truly bad science has crept into textbooks that either tries to dismiss biology entirely or downplay it to nothingness. *cough*Margaret Mead*cough*

Doddibot

18th Mar 2008, 11:57 PM

I think that we should never be dismissing the facts because they don't agree with what we want to be true.

And really, how we are biologically shouldn't influence how we are treated. It is fallacious to say that just because we were born homosexual (or born with a tendency to play with trucks) that we should stay that way. After all, what is 'natural' is not always what is 'right'. What is (factually) and what ought to be (morally) are two different things.

Therefore, one could still say that sexism or sex discrimination is wrong, even if it is biological. Likewise, one could still say that homosexuality is wrong even if it isn't a choice (morally, I don't believe it is wrong, but that is not because of any fact about it being freely chosen or not).

Faithlove13xxx_SC

19th Mar 2008, 12:12 AM

I think that feminists have a justified fear of biological determinism being used used to rationalize the status & treatment of women in society. In fighting against this, some truly bad science has crept into textbooks that either tries to dismiss biology entirely or downplay it to nothingness. *cough*Margaret Mead*cough*
Margaret Mead had revolutionary ideas that were thoroughly researched.

In a time where men got away with saying that women had no moral backbone because they saw the world for more than black and white, she looked at a the real world in a global viewpoint and stood up for facts that people today still, obviously, are uncomfortable with.

And for you to dismiss her studies with insulting amusement is frankly disturbing.

bacon164

19th Mar 2008, 12:46 AM

... can we get back to the actual discussion, please? It was more interesting. :)

robokitty

19th Mar 2008, 01:57 AM

Margaret Mead had revolutionary ideas that were thoroughly researched.

In a time where men got away with saying that women had no moral backbone because they saw the world for more than black and white, she looked at a the real world in a global viewpoint and stood up for facts that people today still, obviously, are uncomfortable with.

And for you to dismiss her studies with insulting amusement is frankly disturbing.

Yes, Margaret Mead was a revolutionary woman; however her methodology was dubious, and her conclusions assumed too much. They were broadly generalized for the explicit purpose of rebelling against the sexism, eugenics, & genetic determinism movement of the time.

After all, what is 'natural' is not always what is 'right'. What is (factually) and what ought to be (morally) are two different things.

Bingo. Biology is a piss-poor place to go looking for moral guidance. Just ask xylocaris maculipennis.

robokitty

19th Mar 2008, 02:39 AM

... can we get back to the actual discussion, please? It was more interesting. :)

Okay, okay! Here are a few things to chew on, and some of them relate to gender identity as well. :)

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology
emphasis mine, in bold

On the genetic heritability of homosexuality:

Bailey and Pillard reported a gay-gay concordance rate of 11 percent for the adoptive brothers, 22 percent for the dizygotic twins, and 52 percent for the monozygotic twins. The findings suggest that homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics—by some measures up to 70 percent attributable, according to Pillard. This figure is based on something geneticists call "heritability," a painstakingly calculated indicator of how much genes have to do with a given variation among people. If heritability is less than 100 percent, then the characteristic being studied is by definition "multifactorial." Eye color is 100 percent dependent on genetics. Height, on the other hand, though about 90 percent genetic, is also affected by nutrition, and thus is multifactorial.

On the link hormones and homosexuality for women:

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) has been called by Meyer-Bahlburg a "model endocrine syndrome" for examining the effects of abnormal amounts of prenatal sex hormones. CAH, which can affect both males and females, is caused by a simple problem: an enzyme defect makes it impossible for a fetus's adrenal gland to produce cortisol, an important hormone. In a normal fetus, as the adrenal gland produces cortisol, the brain stands by patiently, waiting for the signals that the cortisol level is appropriately high and production can be shut off. But in CAH fetuses, which lack the enzyme to create cortisol, the brain doesn't get those signals, and so it orders the adrenal gland to continue production. The adrenal gland continues pumping out what it thinks is cortisol, but it is unknowingly producing masculinizing androgens. It dumps these into the fetus's system, thereby overexposing it to male hormones.

The consequences are most dramatic in females. Once, in his office, Roger Gorski dug into a desk drawer and grabbed a few photographs. "What sex is it?" he asked. I squinted at close-ups of a child's genitals and saw a penis, plain as day. "It's a boy,', I said confidently. Gorski's eyebrows shot up. "Where are the testicles?" he asked. I looked closer. Oops.

This was a CAH baby. In this case, Gorski told me, the doctors had decided at the time of birth that the child was a boy with undescended testicles, a relatively common and minor condition. But in fact I was looking at a genetic female.

With surgery a CAH female's external genitals can be made to look feminine, as her internal apparatus already fully is, and she will be raised as a girl. But hormones may have already had their effect in an area that plastic surgery cannot touch: the brain. Or at least so proponents of the prenatal-hormone theory of sexual orientation would argue. The sexual orientation of CAH females tends to bear them out. A 1984 study by the Johns Hopkins University sex researcher John Money found that 37 percent of CAH women identified themselves as lesbian or bisexual; the current estimate of the proportion of lesbians in the general female population is from two to four percent.

On the link between hormones, gender identity/behavior, and homosexuality:

An experimental basis is provided by research by the psychiatrist Richard Green, of the University of California at Los Angeles, which shows that children who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play are often gay. Green has concluded that an inclination toward gender-atypical play in prepubescent boys—for example, dressing in women's clothes, playing with dolls, or taking the role of the mother when playing house—indicates a homosexual orientation 75 percent of the time. If that is true, it is important, because it would be an example of a trait linked to sexual orientation which does not involve sexual behavior—suggesting how deeply rooted sexual orientation is. Discussing this line of research, Simon LeVay told me, "It's well known from animal work that sex-typical play behavior is under hormonal control. Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life.”

And finally, because psychology and biology are butting heads :)

"You shouldn't draw such a distinction between biological and psychological mechanisms," he chided me at one point during our conversation. "What people are really getting at is the difference between innately determined mechanisms and culturally determined mechanisms, but people screw that up and say that's the difference between biology and psychology. It isn't. It's two different approaches for looking at the same thing: the mind. Biologists look at it from the bottom up, from the level of synapses and molecules, and psychologists are looking at it from the top down, at behavior and such."

Faithlove13xxx_SC

19th Mar 2008, 05:50 AM

I suppose it is because psychiatrists have to deal with people face to face with all aspects of them, instead of just their biology. Not that psychiatry doesn't include biology (that is an M.D., afterall)

But because I am a poor excuse for a teacher, and obviously cannot explain my point of view well... I decided to look up the biopsychosocial model for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model
(wikipedia is a crappy example, but the links are good too)
This is what most clinical psychiatrists (who often prescribe medicine) use.

In any event.... I also agree we should get on topic...
I think there is more conclusive research on homosexuality than there is on gender roles anyway.

The_Oceanborn

19th Mar 2008, 04:39 PM

It is not. Most people are born gay and asking if homosexuality is a choice is like asking if being straight is a choice. How can people really think that? Bisexuality by the way..... I think it can be genetic and it can be "a choice". In some very few circumstances homosexuality can be a "choice" too. I don't wanna use the word choice. It's more like you can grow into it by time. You don't really choose it. There was a Norwegian author who "chose" to be a lesbian though. But she must at least have been attracted to the same gender.

And for the science. Scientists are ALWAYS trying to find similarities with gay men and women. Media, TV, movies and books always show the gay men as effirmate, feminine and unmasculine. And they are doing NOTHING to remove that image. It seems like they want this image to remain because that's what most people want to see. It does seem like some of the science is biased. Why can't anyone accept gay men as fellow men and lesbians as women?
I am not saying nothing of the science is true but a lot of it seems like trying-to-hard to withhold the bad stereotypes.

robokitty

20th Mar 2008, 01:17 AM

In fact I like both sexes. Men more so then Women. Mostly because most females turned into 12 year old prepubescent boys that could be easily snapped like a breadstick from Fridays. I feel sexual attracted to males but emotionally attracted to females more.

I just find it weird, stupid, annoying that you’re either gay or straight, your stick like that sorry deal with it.

The End! :D And we all lived happily ever after…until the moon left us for Mars. (That's my way of saying I'm off for now. :D)

I think I understand your POV better now, given that you're bisexual.

But I don't think that bisexual experience is homologous to the homosexual experience. Otherwise, a lot more of the "gay deprogramming" efforts of the past would have been more successful.

And women turn into 12 year old prepubescent boys... what? I don't get it.

The_Oceanborn

20th Mar 2008, 02:00 AM

I think I understand your POV better now, given that you're bisexual.

But I don't think that bisexual experience is homologous to the homosexual experience. Otherwise, a lot more of the "gay deprogramming" efforts of the past would have been more successful.

And women turn into 12 year old prepubescent boys... what? I don't get it.

I have heard that there are more women who are bisexual than men and that it's easier for a woman to feel attracted to both genders than it is to men. But I don't believe that either. I think both genders have the same percentage of bisexuals, straights and gays. But Black_Barook, I agree with you that labels shouldn't matter that much but there are some who are 100% attracted to males or 100% attracted to females who identify as gay.

Black_Barook!

20th Mar 2008, 02:16 AM

And women turn into 12 year old prepubescent boys... what? I don't get it.

A lot of females are trying to look skinny...like Paris Hillton.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

20th Mar 2008, 02:18 AM

I understood you, Barook. And I agree, Skinny skinny.

But a lot of people tend to believe that most of us are bisexual anyway.... that we all fall on a continuum, and few of us are 100 percent gay or 100 percent straight.

robokitty

20th Mar 2008, 03:09 AM

A lot of females are trying to look skinny...like Paris Hillton.

Ok, I get it now.

Haha, some of us can't help it though! I was skinny and looked like a prepubescent boy WAY before Paris Hilton made it the "in" thing to do! :lol:

Oceanborn:

In response to men & women being equally likely to be bisexual, what do you make of this segment from the article: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=5

AS THE 21-YEAR-OLD COLLEGE JUNIOR IN A HOSPITAL JOHNNY slides into the MRI, she is handed controls with buttons for "strongly like" and "strongly dislike." Hundreds of pornographic images - in male-male and female-female pairings - flash before her eyes. Eroticism eventually gives way to monotony, and it's hard to avoid looking for details to distinguish one image from the rest of the panting pack. So it goes from "Look at the size of those breasts!" to "That can't be comfortable, given the length of her fingernails!" to "Why is that guy wearing nothing but work boots on the beach?"

Regardless of which buttons the student presses, the MRI scans show her arousal level to each image, at its starting point in the brain.

Researchers at Northwestern University, outside Chicago, are doing this work as a follow-up to their studies of arousal using genital measurement tools. They found that while straight men were aroused by film clips of two women having sex, and gay men were aroused by clips of two men having sex, most of the men who identified themselves as bisexual showed gay arousal patterns. More surprising was just how different the story with women turned out to be. Most women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bisexual, were significantly aroused by straight, gay, and lesbian sex. "I'm not suggesting that most women are bisexual," says Michael Bailey, the psychology professor whose lab conducted the studies. "I'm suggesting that whatever a woman's sexual arousal pattern is, it has little to do with her sexual orientation." That's fundamentally different from men. "In men, arousal is orientation. It's as simple as that. That's how gay men learn they are gay."

The_Oceanborn

20th Mar 2008, 04:00 AM

Most women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bisexual, were significantly aroused by straight, gay, and lesbian sex. "I'm not suggesting that most women are bisexual," says Michael Bailey, the psychology professor whose lab conducted the studies. "I'm suggesting that whatever a woman's sexual arousal pattern is, it has little to do with her sexual orientation." That's fundamentally different from men. "In men, arousal is orientation. It's as simple as that. That's how gay men learn they are gay."

These studies mark a return to basics for the 47-year-old Bailey. He says researchers need a far deeper understanding of what sexual orientation is before they can determine where it comes from.

Female sexual orientation is particularly foggy, he says, because there's been so little research done. As for male sexual orientation, he argues that there's now enough evidence to suggest it is "entirely in-born," though not nearly enough to establish how that happens.

hmmm.... I've read some of the same stuff before. And a lot of people even suggest that all women are bisexual. The weird thing with me is that I'm aroused by both straight sex and gay sex (while reading books and fiction) but I'm NEVER aroused by lesbian sex.
Some studies may be right to some degree but look at this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

Scientists from California found that lesbian women have a greater difference in length between their ring finger and index finger than straight women do.
My index finger is shorter than my ring finger (maybe as much as 6-7 milimeters). Does it make me a lesbian?
As I said I'm NEVER turned on by lesbian sex and I have never had sexual feelings for women. The finger thing can be just accidental. If they for example did this test 20 times they could find very different results.

And for women having bigger chances of being bisexual than men.... I don't think so. But I know that more women identify as bisexual than lesbian and more men identify as gay than women identify as lesbian.

But what is bisexual? Is it to be 50% turned on by both genders? Is a person who is 3% turned on by women and 97% turned on by men bisexual???
And some "bisexuals" are only turned on by one gender sexually while they fall in love with the other gender.

robokitty

20th Mar 2008, 05:12 AM

hmmm.... I've read some of the same stuff before. And a lot of people even suggest that all women are bisexual. The weird thing with me is that I'm aroused by both straight sex and gay sex (while reading books and fiction) but I'm NEVER aroused by lesbian sex.
Some studies may be right to some degree but look at this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

[B]Scientists from California found that lesbian women have a greater difference in length between their ring finger and index finger than straight women do.
My index finger is shorter than my ring finger (maybe as much as 6-7 milimeters). Does it make me a lesbian?
As I said I'm NEVER turned on by lesbian sex and I have never had sexual feelings for women. The finger thing can be just accidental. If they for example did this test 20 times they could find very different results.

I appreciate that your personal experience is different from what's in the studies, but the studies are only looking at general trends over a large number of people. Of course there will be variabilities in the population, but in a matter like this I find a generalized study of many people more convincing than anecdotal evidence.

Personally, I don't find the finger measurement study as convincing as the MRI scans because I haven't heard of a mechanistic explanation of why finger length would be directly related to sexual orientation.

And for women having bigger chances of being bisexual than men.... I don't think so. But I know that more women identify as bisexual than lesbian and more men identify as gay than women identify as lesbian.

I think the MRI study demonstrates that overall women tend to have more flexibility in what they find sexually arousing (male-male, female-female, and female-male interactions). I interpret that as evidence that women are more likely to be bisexual than men.

But what is bisexual? Is it to be 50% turned on by both genders? Is a person who is 3% turned on by women and 97% turned on by men bisexual???
And some "bisexuals" are only turned on by one gender sexually while they fall in love with the other gender.

Well according to the Sims 2, bisexual would be if you spent somewhere between 3-7 personality points on the Hetero/Homo category. And in Sims 3 you'd just take the trait "bisexual." Hope that helps. :)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

20th Mar 2008, 05:24 AM

^^^^^LMAO
That's brilliance.

The_Oceanborn

20th Mar 2008, 06:03 AM

I think the MRI study demonstrates that overall women tend to have more flexibility in what they find sexually arousing (male-male, female-female, and female-male interactions). I interpret that as evidence that women are more likely to be bisexual than men.

It can be true for all I know but it would be very difficult to find evidences that we can rely 100% on.
And I have a feeling that a lot of the "gay research" is kind of biased and it often sounds like the scientists want to withhold the bad stereotypes of gay men. Of course there are gay men acting feminine but I've heard that some gay men who act masculine or having masculine hobbies have not been approved by the "gay society" so the "acting feminine" thing can be as much of an identity, also to fight against the macho world that is bringing them down.
But scientists have done so many gay research studies and which ones shall we believe in?
One study said that gay brains are similar to women's brains and another study actually said that they had more testosterone than straight men.

I interpret that as evidence that women are more likely to be bisexual than men.
I thought more about this sentence. It could as well just mean that women are much more versatile when it comes to becoming aroused and what makes them aroused. There are loads of women who are aroused by lesbian sex who are not bisexual.

But I do know one thing for sure. If I was transformed into a man I would definitely be gay.

frankie

21st Mar 2008, 03:30 AM

I was so girly as a child that I could literally name all of Barbie's friends, lol. My favorite was Teresa, the brunette who was supposed to be the Hispanic friend. ;)

But anyway, what I would like to know is if a boy who plays will dolls could still grow up to be straight. I'm sure he could but I have to admit... I have never known of a straight man who played with any doll as a child... other than torturing it to annoy his sister, lol. It seems as if there isn't an interest. I don't know.

The_Oceanborn

21st Mar 2008, 05:30 AM

Faithlove13xxx_SC

21st Mar 2008, 06:21 AM

Lol..."I really like gay people."

I like gay people only as much as I like any other kind of people. Some are asses, some are awesome. Although... 3 out of my 5 closest friends are gay.

ChaoticNeutral

21st Mar 2008, 06:49 AM

Sorry for my English, but here's my humble opinion:

I think it's easy to "like gay people" because overcoming a social taboo *usually* makes someone much more mature.

And about the topic... I do think, for my own experience and that of those around me, that biologically all animals are capable of being bisexual. But to be bi, straight or homo isn't quite a choice as well - is about understanding a great deal of how human society works and what matters most - and one cannot choose when he is of enough "wisdom" or "strength" to fight for a chance to live according to his/her true will, to free him/herself from a taboo and be able to face the consequences that will undoubtedly come. Of course is doesn't mean everyone's true will and preference is to 'swing both ways' :rolleyes: . But it's important to be mature and self-assured enough to question yourself with all honesty without ever considering the rest of the world and eventual 'past traumas'.

An exemple: just like a close mind could lead someone to, by mistake, believe he is heterosexual because religion/society says so - someone could, being just as closed-minded and in fact just trying to prove he's modern and has overcome silly concepts, obligate himself to be gay or bisexual while he would be much happier being heterosexual.

Hope I made some sense. :blink:

The_Oceanborn

21st Mar 2008, 07:11 AM

Lol..."I really like gay people."

I like gay people only as much as I like any other kind of people. Some are asses, some are awesome. Although... 3 out of my 5 closest friends are gay.
I like all kinds of people and I don't stereotype gay people as one kind of people who are all the same. When I said I like them I mean that they are interesting. Not any more than other people. All people can be interesting but I think you are over-reading my words. If I say I like Irish or goth people for example, does it mean that I think there are no idiots among them?

The reason why I find gay people interesting is that they are overcoming social taboos and they must be very brave to live with it. And homosexuality interests me a lot (as a straight girl)......
I don't like gay people because I want someone to go shopping with. Don't mistake me. I'm not a shopaholic.

appelsapgodin

21st Mar 2008, 01:24 PM

I don't like gay people because I want someone to go shopping with. Don't mistake me. I'm not a shopaholic.
Personally for me that is one of the positives when it comes to my (male) gay friends.

The reason why I find gay people interesting is that they are overcoming social taboos and they must be very brave to live with it.
I don't think there are any gay peeps that even considder this in their lives. I am Bi (and yes old enough to know that being bi is not just a teenage fase.) And I think you should be careful when creating false heroics.

You could say having cancer is brave, or being black is, or being an Iraqi, or being a woman or a child is brave, or having red hair. But it is not as if you have a choice for being brave or not. You are what you are and you have to live with it.

Mhhh... hope it is clear what I am trying to say here. Other example.. I have Diabetes, since I was 10, so for roughly 20 years now. People can say they find me brave for having this disease for that long and live with it.

But if someone offered me a pill and said 'take this and your diabetes will be cured', I would take it.

However, If someone offered me a pill and said 'take this and you will be straight', I'd probly punch him in the face.

So I guess this comes down to me saying: Homosexuality is not a choice, but how you live with it is.

robokitty

21st Mar 2008, 04:12 PM

It can be true for all I know but it would be very difficult to find evidences that we can rely 100% on.
And I have a feeling that a lot of the "gay research" is kind of biased and it often sounds like the scientists want to withhold the bad stereotypes of gay men. Of course there are gay men acting feminine but I've heard that some gay men who act masculine or having masculine hobbies have not been approved by the "gay society" so the "acting feminine" thing can be as much of an identity, also to fight against the macho world that is bringing them down.

For this argument, I think that evidence of female-pattern behavior in babies & small children who later turn out to be gay is evidence that cross-gender behavior is more typical in gay men.

One study said that gay brains are similar to women's brains and another study actually said that they had more testosterone than straight men.

These two things can both be true, though I would question the latter (since I think gay men would have about equal testosterone as straight men). I have read that there are several conflicting studies about testosterone levels in gay men.

The exact same hormones released from the brain (called the gonadotropins) are responsible for stimulating ovaries to produce estrogen in women and testicles to produce testosterone in men. So women and gay men can have more similarities in their brains, but the hormones produced in their brains will have different effects on their bodies because their overall biology is different.

I thought more about this sentence. It could as well just mean that women are much more versatile when it comes to becoming aroused and what makes them aroused. There are loads of women who are aroused by lesbian sex who are not bisexual.

But I do know one thing for sure. If I was transformed into a man I would definitely be gay.

You have a point there, but if straight men are repulsed by gay sex while straight women feel some arousal to it, then I think that gives a pretty strong case for women having a better predisposition for bisexuality.

And about the topic... I do think, for my own experience and that of those around me, that biologically all animals are capable of being bisexual. But to be bi, straight or homo isn't quite a choice as well - is about understanding a great deal of how human society works and what matters most - and one cannot choose when he is of enough "wisdom" or "strength" to fight for a chance to live according to his/her true will, to free him/herself from a taboo and be able to face the consequences that will undoubtedly come. Of course is doesn't mean everyone's true will and preference is to 'swing both ways' :rolleyes: . But it's important to be mature and self-assured enough to question yourself with all honesty without ever considering the rest of the world and eventual 'past traumas'.

An exemple: just like a close mind could lead someone to, by mistake, believe he is heterosexual because religion/society says so - someone could, being just as closed-minded and in fact just trying to prove he's modern and has overcome silly concepts, obligate himself to be gay or bisexual while he would be much happier being heterosexual.

Hope I made some sense. :blink:

I understand what you're saying. I agree. People are happier when they have the maturity to be true to themselves. :)

Sorry for my English, but here's my humble opinion:

I think it's easy to "like gay people" because overcoming a social taboo *usually* makes someone much more mature.

I agree with this as well, but my reasoning is slightly different.

In general, I tend to enjoy the company of minority people and inter-cultural people. I think that the experience of being gay in a straight society, or being Hispanic in a white society, and essentially feeling as though your existence is marginalized by the majority norm gives people a greater depth of experience, insight, and cultural sensitivity. The same can be said for people who have lived in multiple countries with different cultures. Pretty much all of my friends identify as a minority or have spent some time living in a very different culture than American.

ChaoticNeutral

21st Mar 2008, 10:11 PM

In general, I tend to enjoy the company of minority people and inter-cultural people. I think that the experience of being gay in a straight society, or being Hispanic in a white society, and essentially feeling as though your existence is marginalized by the majority norm gives people a greater depth of experience, insight, and cultural sensitivity.

That's precisely what I meant, robokitty. :) Humans learn by comparison, like "you only know what darkness is when you see light", when you are marginalized it becomes easier to see society as it is, or to understand, when you leave your country (sometimes even your neighborhood), the impact your own culture has in your personality.

And I still think sexual preference shouldn't be seen as something so more important and complex than the preference one may have for people with dark eyes or curly hair. It is made more important because of our culture (and here's included history, religion, sexism,etc). And just like one should avoid disliking, let's say, dark skin because of some subconscious racism (even if the person isn't racist per say), one should avoid having his sexual preference based upon old conflicts or old cultural problems.

frankie

22nd Mar 2008, 02:44 AM

Are you gay? I'm just wondering now..... I really like gay people.

LOL, yes, I am gay. :)

The_Oceanborn

22nd Mar 2008, 02:53 AM

LOL, yes, I am gay. :)

Cool. :)
By the sentence "I like gay people" I didn't mean anything wrong or stereotyping. I think it's interesting to talk to gay people. Please don't get angry with me.

coltraz

22nd Mar 2008, 03:11 AM

I'm gay too!! And I like gay people! They're so CUTE!!! :):):) Awwwzzz!!

frankie

22nd Mar 2008, 03:22 AM

Cool. :)
By the sentence "I like gay people" I didn't mean anything wrong or stereotyping. I think it's interesting to talk to gay people. Please don't get angry with me.

LOL, why would I get angry? And I understood what you meant. It's all good. :)

ChaoticNeutral

22nd Mar 2008, 06:27 AM

Yes, we're all GLBTS*, let's just have one big gay group hug. :hippy:

*I don't know how it's called outside Brazil, but here GLBTS stands for gays, lesbians, transexuals and (straight)people who sympathize with the movement.
By the way, the S is from "simpatizantes".

Santje

22nd Mar 2008, 10:35 AM

I don't think being gay is a choice. Most of the people don't dare to say it to their enivornment, so why would you choose to be gay if it's that difficult for you to say you're gay. :confused:
My uncle is gay, and first he had some girlfriends and he allways tried to keep them, but it didn't work. So when he was 25 (or something like that) he came out the closet (I don't know if that's a good expression in english :umm: ). But he was afraid to say it. Not that our family was angry.. but just it wasn't easy.
And sometimes you here stories from men who are married for years with a women, they have children, a house etc. Why would somebody like that think one day.. hmm I want to be gay! I don't think it's as simple as that.

robokitty

22nd Mar 2008, 05:32 PM

frankie

23rd Mar 2008, 03:31 AM

It's actually both GLBT and LGBT, just depends on if you are a lesbian and prefer the "L" to be first or if you are a gay male and prefer the "G" to be first because I'm from Michigan and I have seen it both ways. :)

EDIT: Actually, sometimes there is a "Q" at the end that stands for "questioning." :)

robokitty

23rd Mar 2008, 07:13 AM

Haylifer

23rd Mar 2008, 08:43 PM

I can almost hear my pro-choice friend screaming in my ear "It's who you meet!"..

Whilst I do think who you meet influences who you fall in love with (i.e. personality rather than physical appearance), there are limits. I'd never actively go on the pull looking for a girl, it's just not what I'm attracted to. But I can say the same for men of other races or short men. I'm just not attracted to them, there's no chemistry there. Even if I met the most lovely girl in the world, it's highly unlikely I'd fall in love with her because I'm not attracted to her. All of the people I've ever felt strongly about in life, in a romantic way, have been male. So it's not who I meet and if I was forced into a relationship with another woman, I wouldn't be happy about it.

But my friend argues differently and says that until I meet every girl in the world, I can't rule out being bisexual.

Most of my gay friends say they've always known they were gay (or at least, known since they started having sexual feelings). So I don't think people think "I think I'm going to be gay, today!". Although some people I know have done that... which I think is just attention seeking and poser-ish.

Connectzeedots_SC

23rd Mar 2008, 08:44 PM

I always feel like the phrase "being born gay" can sound deragatory, like being born with a disease or something.

I don't think it's a choice, but truly sexual orientation. Who a person is attracted to. :shrug:

frankie

23rd Mar 2008, 09:25 PM

Definitely a great way to control the population. ;) LOL

acelsey

24th Mar 2008, 07:41 AM

Why is it that threads like this always leave me feeling like a simpleton? My eyes may glaze over when people start talking about biology, genetics, etc.

But I do know this.

I'm a 22 year old guy and other guys make me all hot and bothered. And have for as long as I can remember.

It's not a concious choice per se. I certainly appreciate female beauty... But to be frank, they just don't make me randy.

For as long as I can remember, I've had an inherant desire to get married, move to suburbs and start a family - this has been my one guiding passion in life. And whilst this could most easily be achieved with a woman, and with a lot less heart-ache and pain, but I could never be wholly attracted to a woman - especially in a sexual sense. There have even been a few women in my life who I could have all this with, if not for the fact that I never felt attracted to them more than a friend.

If my sexuality is a choice, why would I choose such a difficult way to go about this??

frankie

25th Mar 2008, 05:13 AM

Ace, I agree and it's been exactly that way with me. I remember crying to God and complaining about being gay and that never worked. This, of course, was many years ago when I believed in Him but I am just saying, even then, still no change. It's very easy to meet a nice girl and marry her and knock her up and start a family... but I know deep down inside I would be miserable and that is not fair to her. I get upset when gay people hurt the opposite sex in that way. And all because of fear and wanting to "convert." And it never works! I have yet to see one gay person (lesbian included) who truly converted. People who say there has been like BigBadBrat did from the other homosexuality thread is just wishful thinking. I truly believe wholeheartedly that it's impossible to actually convert and no longer desire the same sex. It's like having a kitten become a puppy... literally. It's just not possible. Which obviously means that it is genetic. It's part of the brain that does not allow us to convert. Trust me, from speaking to many gay people, if there was a pill to take that would instantly convert you, they would take it. Why go through all the difficulty and pain and humiliation? Jeez, even in some families, a gay person would be disowned. Why would they want that if it were so possible to convert?

Unless of course you're a typical narrow-minded Bible thumper who believes that God changes everyone and anything. Well, if that were the case why hasn't any of these conversions been successful? Do you guys remember when shock therapy was approved back in the day? Now it's considered unethical to perform such a thing. Actually, any person in the psychiatric field who so much as to try to even consider a patient to be straight as even the slightest idea would be considered unethical.

It's just not a choice. The only actual choice that does exist is for gay people to choose to live gay. But that's only because they are going by their natural feelings.

Faithlove13xxx_SC

25th Mar 2008, 05:19 AM

Omg, Frankie. That's sad. God loves you, you don't have to cry to him.
*hug*

And psychiatrists don't deal with people being gay... since being gay is not a mental illness.
That would be like a psychiatrist focusing on the fact that a straight guy likes boobs. Lol, like, sooooo

frankie

25th Mar 2008, 05:35 AM

I'm sorry, I meant therapists. Actually there are therapists out there who do try to convert gay people. Just not too many. Especially Christian counselors. They definitely try. Not all, of course, just some. Actually I remember once in 1999 in college when I was going on 20 and I was depressed and what not and needed to speak to a counselor. Well little did I know that she was going to try to use my vulnerability as a target to try to convert me, all because I complained about being gay because of my man troubles. She printed out pages from an Internet site about a Christian organization that tries to convert gays to be straight. I'm not quite sure if this was the infamous Exodus group, though. It could have been, I just don't remember. Anyway, I contacted the Triangle Foundation (one of the largest GLBT organizations) and made a complaint and they sent that counselor a formal letter about it. She didn't get fired, though, just a warning.

The point to this is... there are professionals out there who will try to change you and mind you, they usually have the greatest patience in the world. They are trained to be patient. They could even start very slowly by actually not making it look like they are going to convert you. It's sad.

EDIT: Thanks, Faith, I appreciate the hug. But it is true. :(

robokitty

25th Mar 2008, 04:26 PM

Unless of course you're a typical narrow-minded Bible thumper who believes that God changes everyone and anything. Well, if that were the case why hasn't any of these conversions been successful? Do you guys remember when shock therapy was approved back in the day? Now it's considered unethical to perform such a thing. Actually, any person in the psychiatric field who so much as to try to even consider a patient to be straight as even the slightest idea would be considered unethical.

It wasn't just shock treatment either. Lobotomies were also a popular form of "treatment." It's pretty scary to think about.

I think the scary thing is that, even if psychiatrists do not consider homosexuality a mental illness today, it was considered an illness just 50 years ago. It's sort of like looking back into the window of time and seeing how truly bigoted and intolerant people can be, and the highly educated are certainly not exempt from making bigoted assumptions. It is also personally shaking to know that laws and theories in only the past 100 years have been written in a way to dehumanize the person that you are.

For me, it's the terminology of "Mongolian Idiocy" to describe Down's Syndrome, and it was so-named based on the eye folds of Down's Syndrome patients and the assumptions that all other races of humans were "less evolved Caucasians." Therefore, people with Mongolian Idiocy were showing regressive evolution from the pinnacle Caucasian stage and consequently more stupid. The term went out of popularity around the same time that homosexuality was stricken off the list of mental illnesses (~50yrs ago).

Faithlove13xxx_SC

25th Mar 2008, 05:23 PM

actually,
people still do shock treatment for severe depression as a last resort.

lockshockbarrel

25th Mar 2008, 05:28 PM

For me, it's the terminology of "Mongolian Idiocy" to describe Down's Syndrome, and it was so-named based on the eye folds of Down's Syndrome patients and the assumptions that all other races of humans were "less evolved Caucasians." Therefore, people with Mongolian Idiocy were showing regressive evolution from the pinnacle Caucasian stage and consequently more stupid. The term went out of popularity around the same time that homosexuality was stricken off the list of mental illnesses (~50yrs ago).

Are you serious? Sheesh... I had heard of calling Down-syndrome-related stuff, "Mongoloid," but I didn't know why.

And, while homosexuality is not considered a mental illness now, (at least by most) apparently it can still be difficult for transgendered people. I'm a member of a forum where more than one member, especially the younger ones, have been told that their desire to "crossdress" (or, as we would call it, dress like the person you actually are) resulted from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or something equally random.

My therapist told me that her main textbook/guide/whatever told her that the main goal for solving "gender identity disorder" was to get the patient comfortable with their biological sex. In other words, "cure" them. (But, y'know, it's funny to me when people use the phrase, "cure transsexuality," to mean that. There's a really obvious cure to transsexuality that I'm sure wouldn't be considered offensive: a sex change. But I digress) Luckily my therapist at that point closed the book and said, "So we won't be going by that for that particular condition," (But, while I'm glad that she believes me, it's kind of disturbing to me that she can even do that. But, hey, whatever makes my parents happy)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

25th Mar 2008, 06:34 PM

Actually, OCD does link to many deviant sexual impulses... the thing is though, people with OCD don't LIKE the impulses.
If he enjoys cross dressing, and all the like... then that's different.

frankie

25th Mar 2008, 09:56 PM

I was debating on whether or not to turn this post into a new thread but seeing as how this thread can relate to the bigotry of gay-bashers in some ways, I will post here.

I am signed up with the email newsletters of HRC (Human Rights Campaign) and I just had to share these two emails with you guys because it really pissed me off as to how bigoted some people to this day still are! Oh, and by the way, a very popular quote from Mike Huckabee against homosexuality: “Unless Moses comes down from Brokeback Mountain with two stone tablets…” Whatever!

Email 1:

"I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."

That's from an Oklahoma lawmaker's speech about gay people.

You heard right. A secret recording has just emerged of State Rep. Sally Kern speaking to a Republican group in January, where she equates both sexual orientation and religion with terrorism.

She thought no one was listening. Now hundreds of thousands are. And despite her refusal to apologize, we won't let her get away with this.

This recording, first released in a video by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, is all the more troubling given the recent spate of hate violence against gay and transgender youth.

Last month in California, a 15-year-old boy, Lawrence King, who suffered taunting and bullying by his classmates because of his sexual orientation, was killed by one of those classmates – a 14-year-old boy. The week after Lawrence King's death saw the murder of another teen, this time a 17-year-old transgender youth in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Words matter. Especially words from elected officials. Rep. Kern's private feelings towards homosexuality and Islam are one thing. But public statements that encourage disrespect or violence towards those with whom she disagrees are completely unacceptable.

Here are a few more completely unfounded claims from her speech:

"The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation."
"No society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades."
"What's happening now is they're going after, in schools, two-year-olds.

Email 2:

Eric Breidenbaugh knew something was wrong.

His partner and his partner's parents were all missing – hours overdue from a family flight aboard a small private plane.

Eric called his local airport, near Pinellas Park, Florida, to see if they had any information. They did, but they wouldn't give it to him. They said he was "not an actual family member," so they couldn't tell him whether his partner was alive or dead.

He searched the TV news, where he soon saw footage of the plane he himself had ridden in many times. That was how he found out that his life partner of six years, Joseph Bellamy, had been killed with his parents in a plane crash.

It's simply wrong that GLBT Americans should be treated like second-class citizens, denied the right to care for their loved ones. Yet even in Eric's' own state of Florida, anti-GLBT groups won't rest. They're trying to write a ban on marriage equality into the constitution, and get right-wing voters to the polls while they're at it.

The coming weeks are critical. In Florida, the referendum to enshrine discrimination against GLBT couples in the constitution has officially qualified for the November ballot, and opponents are already gearing up and spending cash. A dirty campaign is likely. And in California, right-wing groups are collecting signatures for a similar measure, with a deadline of mid-April.

If either measure passes, our community could be unable to pass laws preventing heartbreaking stories like Eric Breidenbaugh's. Basic information or access to your partner denied in an emergency. Right-wing extremists that much closer to making inequality permanent nationwide.

This all pisses me off! First off, it has been statistically shown that a higher percentage of pedophiles are not homosexual. Now, I do not believe Islam is even evil like this stupid woman believes, but to still classify homosexuality as worse than terrorism? And second of all, I never even knew that us gays were still denied rights to know about our partners in accidents. I am surprised about that. :(

Endersgirl07

25th Mar 2008, 10:10 PM

That's really sad- it'd be horrible to find out your loved one was killed via the news, especially when you'd been denied information earlier.

About the Oklahoma lady, though, she obviously doesn't know what the hell she's talking about- especially with the "you know, a few decades" part, or the two-year-olds in schools (two-year-olds don't go to school, genius!) Maybe she should have, you know, Googled the claims she was thinking of making before spouting off ignorant nonsense like that. She should lose her seat- both for what she said, and the fact that she said it out of total ignorance.

frankie

25th Mar 2008, 10:47 PM

Yes but because she said it "secretly" without knowing she was heard, I bet they will let her slide because of that.

lockshockbarrel

25th Mar 2008, 11:15 PM

About the Oklahoma lady, though, she obviously doesn't know what the hell she's talking about- especially with the "you know, a few decades" part, or the two-year-olds in schools (two-year-olds don't go to school, genius!) Maybe she should have, you know, Googled the claims she was thinking of making before spouting off ignorant nonsense like that. She should lose her seat- both for what she said, and the fact that she said it out of total ignorance.

Seriously. Get a history textbook, look up Ancient Rome and Greece, crazy lady!

frankie

25th Mar 2008, 11:30 PM

It will always have to do with organized religion, though (the extremity of it, that is). I mean what other influence is there that makes people the way they are towards homosexuality? And I am one of those that believes that the so-called perverted homosexual practices that were mentioned in the New Testament were merely linked to the fact that men would rape young boys. It's homosexual practice only in the sense that it involves two people of the same gender but that is not normal practice and I don't think Paul was even referring to the normal practice. But given the fact that it is still not quite explained enough to convince people, typical Christian extremists will of course assume it applies to all gays, therefore, causing them to hate them so much. And because they look at homosexual practice as sinful, just as sinful as drug-use, they believe it is a choice because drug-use is a choice (though from addiction in many cases). I'm using drug-use as an example of something that we can choose to do. :(

Endersgirl07

25th Mar 2008, 11:51 PM

Well, thinking logically, if something is morally wrong to practice, then it must be a choice to practice it, or else it'd lead on to the "God is a mean kid with an ant farm" kind of thought. But it would definitely be interesting to trace what kind of thinking- and from whom- led to the idea that homosexuality is a sickness, or a sin. Especially given that it does occur in nature; anyone who researches primates knows that many species of apes have a fairly high number of bisexual members- and ironically enough, that feature of their species helps them keep harmony in their communities, by resolving conflict in a sexual way rather than through violence.

frankie

26th Mar 2008, 12:04 AM

anyone who researches primates knows that many species of apes have a fairly high number of bisexual members- and ironically enough, that feature of their species helps them keep harmony in their communities, by resolving conflict in a sexual way rather than through violence.

I knew about homosexual practice in the animal kingdom but I never knew the extent of it. Wow, they actually have sex with the same gender just to avoid violence? LOL, can you imagine humans relying on that theory? It would be way funnier! ;)

Faithlove13xxx_SC

26th Mar 2008, 07:43 PM

True about the monkey sex.

As it turns out, it doesn't work for humans.... we have uber complex sex and aggression responses....
It's weird.

Endersgirl07

26th Mar 2008, 09:55 PM

Yup. Sex can be violent or over-dominant in humans so easily... just look at S&M and other "kinky" stuff, from an outsider's perspective it would seem totally weird that our species discourages everyday violence and yet when it takes on a sexual context it becomes acceptable and involved persons give their consent to be harmed...

frankie

27th Mar 2008, 04:40 AM

Not to mention how plenty of people use toys and other foreign objects to "spice" things up. Even machines and exercise equipments! Traditional lovemaking is almost obsolete now, lol. It sucks, too, because it's so much better and more meaningful. Okay, now I am starting to sound like a conservative (bad, bad Frankie!). ;)

spiderviveka_SC

27th Mar 2008, 05:59 AM

Is homosexuality a choice?

I think it *can* be a choice, under certain circumstances, however, I believe that it is generally a matter of an individuals own biological makeup.

Sexuality is extraordinarily complicated.

nixie_SC

27th Mar 2008, 07:11 PM

Does it matter wheather its a choice or not?

frankie

28th Mar 2008, 01:23 AM

It doesn't matter but apparently it does to some people who have issues with it.

acelsey

29th Mar 2008, 08:34 AM

Does it matter wheather its a choice or not?

I think it does matter, because until straight people (especially those straight people that generally run the world) actually understand that the sexuality of a GLBTQ person is just as natural as their own, and has as little conscious decision as theirs, the GLBTQ community will never experience true equality. The straight community (or at least the vocal minority who influence decision) is stuck on the fact that our relationships aren't real because we either choose to be different just to inconvenience them or it's just a phase that we'll grow out of. In my humble opinion it won't be until that view changes that anything else will.

Now, my comments on some posts in the pages since I last read...

In Australia homosexuality was listed as a mental illness until the 80's!
The Australian government won't recognise the marriage of a homosexual overseas because it's not legal in Australia. However apparently the Australian government will recognise the marriage of a man to more than one woman even thought that is also illegal in this country. Australian singer/songwriter and all round spunk Darren Hayes made a stink about this when he married his partner in the UK (where he was living and recording at the time) but when he and his husband came to Australia to promote Darren’s new album and spend time with his family, the couple encountered all sorts of visa problems. Things like that make my blood boil.

Re: the plane crash incident. Homosexual partnerships are constantly and inconsistently discriminated against in Australia.

For example, when my partner and I purchased our first property a few years ago the government recognised our relationship which meant that we couldn't receive the First Home Owners Grant as individuals (a couple, married or de facto, only has access to it once), but Australia refuses to recognise our relationship in almost any way that would actually benefit us. But if the government can make a buck by acknowledging our relationship, then they're all for it :(

That's it for my little rant. Sorry if it's too long. Xx