• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

Can you be born gay or is it a choice?

I still think babies are born neutral (not gay or straight). I think it's a process over time that determines one's sexuality. Could be early as 4 years old. So, the whole born gay theory is incorrect. A baby is not born a homosexual. Sorry to disappoint you. My logic wins again.
 
I believe homosexuality is predisposed, similarly to alcoholism. I'm not sure how one who doesn't like pussy could start. But I'm not giving up hope on them. I say we should continue to expirement on ourselves if we're unhappy with our sexuality. I'm for ANYTHING. Shock therapy, insult therapy, starvation therapy, torture, hypnosis, psychedelics, meditation... Just anything. The scientists are not gonna even attempt to try to change ones sexuality, because no matter how humanely it's done, and no matter whether or not the people involved are consenting adults... Liberals will still attack it even if it's based in science. If I made a pill that turned people straight, gay liberals would be mad at me for making it. They're obnoxious and they need to leave religious people and people who are actually curious about sexuality alone. I still think that psychedelic therapy hasn't been experimented with enough. Honestly, I hate the gay community for telling confused children to give up on thier dreams of change.
 
I still think babies are born neutral (not gay or straight). I think it's a process over time that determines one's sexuality. Could be early as 4 years old. So, the whole born gay theory is incorrect. A baby is not born a homosexual. Sorry to disappoint you. My logic wins again.

i actually agree with this.

also--dont jump down my throat, just a theory--but if being gay were genetic then wouldnt it be a lot more rare? the ''gay genes'' wouldnt be getting passed on.

i still think genetics and our biology do play a large part in our behaviour though, and this could account for homosexuality somewhat, but i think social factors are the main deciders.

i dont think it's a choice though...
 
Ummm, is this a thread of people just debating something to debate it????? And since sooo many feel it was a choice, was there a time in your life when you were like 'dick or pussy, I like both, but well...christ this is sooo hard....dick or pussy.. I will go with pussy because thats whats normal'. I mean, c'mon people....and for gay marriage being gateway to adoption, shouldn't we be trying to get rid of that kind of behavior(peope making fun of someone for there sexuality, something they really can't control???) Just say what ya really think...you don't like gay people, it's okay. Soo glad you will put up with us getting married though. But yr right, a kid would be better off going to foster home to foster home instead of having a caring loving stable household. But I mean, I guese the point of this thread is to debate it to debate it, sooo I dunno. I knew for sure when puberty hit though....before that I wasn't really thinking about sex that much,lol.
 
Last edited:
I still think babies are born neutral (not gay or straight). I think it's a process over time that determines one's sexuality. Could be early as 4 years old. So, the whole born gay theory is incorrect. A baby is not born a homosexual. Sorry to disappoint you. My logic wins again.

Your theory is contradicted by scientific studies, TJ. In studies of male twins who were raised separately, a fraternal twin was much more likely than the public at large to be gay if his twin brother is gay. With identical twins, the correlation is tremendously more likely than the general public. It's something like 22% likelihood of a fraternal twin being gay if his brother - raised apart from him - is gay, and an over 50% likelihood of being gay for identical twins.

There may be environmental influences after birth, as well, but the studies of twins prove that at birth one's sexuality is already formed to some extent.
 
does it have to be either/or? i'm innately gay in that being with an attractive naked girl that i really like doesn't give me a hard on. hell, i tried. frankly, you don't know til you give it a good try, at least try watching the porn and j/o. i think it's easier for guys to get turned on by dick because they have one - admit it, your own hard on when you j/o turns you on. but pussy? wow, big mystery
 
I don't see this as proof that homosexuality is not a choice. The fact that it's relatively inconvenient to be gay hardly rules out the argument that engaging in homosexual relations requires a conscious decision. It's one thing to be attracted to someone, it's another to be pushed up against the wall and have him ram his dick inside you.
Why do you make it that when gay men have sex, its rape? I do believe that being human, that gays do fall in love like anyone else.

I believe homosexuality is predisposed, similarly to alcoholism. I'm not sure how one who doesn't like pussy could start. But I'm not giving up hope on them. I say we should continue to expirement on ourselves if we're unhappy with our sexuality. I'm for ANYTHING. Shock therapy, insult therapy, starvation therapy, torture, hypnosis, psychedelics, meditation... Just anything. The scientists are not gonna even attempt to try to change ones sexuality, because no matter how humanely it's done, and no matter whether or not the people involved are consenting adults... Liberals will still attack it even if it's based in science. If I made a pill that turned people straight, gay liberals would be mad at me for making it. They're obnoxious and they need to leave religious people and people who are actually curious about sexuality alone. I still think that psychedelic therapy hasn't been experimented with enough. Honestly, I hate the gay community for telling confused children to give up on thier dreams of change.
If there is no access to booze, you can't be an alcoholic. In nature, hundreds of animal species have shown to have homosexuals in their population. In this regard, this is your first failure.
If you are disgusted by the thought of sucking cock, that is how a gay man feels about eating pussy. I love pussy. I rub my face, especially my nose in it... So its not like Billy bob woke up one day "you know, I think I wanna try cock!".
Go ahead and experiment on yourself, experience some man love and tell us what you thought. Do it with gusto!

Doctors and scientist (far smarter than you) had made their determination through research in the 1970s that homosexuality is a normal thing within nature. That it cannot be fixed nor a choice. If people choose to be gay, then that means the only reason YOU or anyone else is straight is because YOU and every "straight" person made that choice and that we are all bisexual.

For decades, if not over 100 years they have tried snake oil, meds, shock therapy, torture and even death to convert homosexuals into hetro. IT DOESN'T WORK. IT NEVER HAS! Yes, there are thousands of gay people who are trying such crazy things to fix themselves... only to have failure. Many of them kill themselves from the pressure of being outcast by the likes of you.

Liberals? Liberals mean liberty which means freedom. That's not a bad word, since you're opposite of a liberal, that would make you a fascist. Liberals allow people to have their religion. But YOUR religion ends when it fucks with someone's else right to their beliefs. That is what Freedom of religion means. It doesn't mean the right to be a Christian. It means you have the right to yours and I have the rights to mine and that laws are not supposed to be made to favor one or the other. If so, then someone could make a law that favors, say Shia - and which case - the right to kill Christians can become into being.

Nice use of the word "hate". The gay community is saying... there are people who will support you. There are tons of people who "live" the proper christian way, who dream of man on man sex and simply cheat on their wives. Many of these people look just like you.
 
According to your logic as long as someone doesn't actually act upon their gay impulses they are not gay. What about if they are a man and they are thinking of men while they masterbate but never actually mess around with other men. Are they still straight?

No, one does not have to act on their impulses in order for that impulse to be a reality. If a man is attracted to other men but never acts on it and instead let's say he marries a woman and tries to live a normal life. Even in this scenario their main attraction is still going to be for men, and there for they are gay(or maybe bi). And they will probably be a very unhappy gay man because he is forcing himself to be something he is not.
 
I submit that this thread be retitled; I proffer 'A Compilation of Unsolicited and Uncogent Sophomoric Philosophical Ruminations on the Nature and Definition of Homosexuality' .
 
IF you are NOT attracted to me, then your sexuality to have sex with men isn't there. Kind of hard to be gay for guys, if you have no interests in guys.
So again, rmikhail - if we go with your logic in which the SEX ACT = your sexuality. Then as long as you're not having sex with anyone - everyone is bisexual.
 
It was just an example showing the difference between predisposition and choice. Think of it this way: wanting to suck dick is different than actually doing so. While the former is involuntary, the latter is a choice - and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. I'm not denying that there are genuine feelings in homosexual relations, but acting on them necessitates a choice (this is true for straight relations as well). I see this more as a matter of self-awareness and self-command than anything else.
Desire and action doesn't change what your attraction is. I still like Asian chicks. I'd still wank off to them. Even thou I'm married to a white woman. Doesn't change the fact that when a hot asian babe walks by, I'm going to be checking her out. My attraction was there before the wife and is here today and will be in the future.

If there is nothing to convince you otherwise of anything, then why have a debate. Just put it as your tag. You'll forever repeat yourself and people will forever disagree with you.

Is there even a point to your logic for making such a statement?
 
This is why I said it depends how you define your terms. For me, sexuality is not the same as attraction. Attraction refers to the conception of thoughts and feelings toward someone. You'll find that attraction, though ultimately dynamic, is out of our control at any given moment. On the other hand, sexuality describes the way we express attraction and, as such, implies some level of self-awareness. To build on your example: you might feel that getting an erection when watching gay porn is not up to you, but masturbating and ejaculating because of gay porn is 100% a choice. So yes, that would make you gay in my book.

Also, there is a difference between repressing and understanding attraction. Married men who still fantasize about men are not technically gay, but they are miserable. I think it's important that people strive to understand and explain attraction - not necessarily with the purpose of changing their sexuality, but at least with the intention of becoming self-aware.

Fullscreen%252520capture%252520842015%25252025444%252520PM.bmp.jpg


Well sexuality is defined as sexual orientation or sexual preference buddy. I know its fun to make up new definitions to help justify your opinion of on the subject but it doesn't make you right. Even if a man is married to a woman but fantisizes about men and is miserable then he prefers men. He is gay. Just because he isn't acting on his preference doesn't mean is isn't still his preference.

Although I am not someone who thinks people are all straight or all gay or bi, I think sexual preference is a broad scale and people fall all over the spectrum. People cannot control who they are attracted to both in terms of what sex and what people within a sex. Sexual preference is not a choice nor is it affected by whether or not you act on it.
 
rmikhail: You don't have the authority to redefine the meaning of words that are already agreed by various committees and professionals who have a history.
If you are not sexually attracted to someone based on their sex or looks, then you're not going to get an erection or have your vag start lubricating. A major factor in which I get hard-ons for my wife is because I do love her so. So I express my attraction my love by giving her a good fucking time.

Again, what is the POINT of your logic? Gay men shouldn't have sex with other gay men, its something that he should be able to control? Gee, many people in USA Christian churches think that married people who cannot reproduce because of age or non-functional sex organs, even if they are man and wife - should NOT be having sex, ever again.

I think you shouldn't be masturbating. Because its a choice and my say-so. You are not to touch your self, ever again.
 
I said that attraction is involuntary and that sexuality is a choice. Semantics aside, all that means is that desire is automatic and behavior is not. If you reach the point that desire is overruling your judgment and setting your behavior, you are in trouble.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, I agree that you can't help being attracted to another man, but I find it hard to believe that having sex with him is not a choice. I'm not sure why homosexuality is unanimously being stripped of its implications - are gays so insecure that they have to legitimize themselves by claiming that they have no choice in the matter?

Dude the debate here is not whether having the act of gay sex is a choice, its whether or not being gay is a choice in terms of being attracted to other men. Which everyone else seems to understand but you seem confused about. Of course the act of having sex with another man is a choice, just the same as when a man has sex with a woman, unless it is rape it is an active choice to have sex. Thats not at all up for debate.

Like is your brain broken or are you just that homophobic? To be Gay means you are attracted to people of the same sex. Thats the legal definition, you do not even have to have had the sex but if you know you are attracted to the same sex then you are gay. Just like I knew I was mostly straight before I had sex, I was attracted to men therefor I was and still am straight.
 
1 - Okay, you have your own definition of words that do not match what other people know. You need to learn how to express your thoughts that other can understand or you may not be smart enough to figure that people are confused by what you are trying to say as you seem to word your conversations to sound smarter than you really are. If nobody understands you, then there is a problem... or English is not your first language.

2 - What passive-aggressive? You arguments are confusing and your goals for your arguments are not clear.

3 - What "seems" and what is "real" are two different things. Escape what responsibilities? What choices are YOU talking about? I eat pussy because I want to, I like it. A gay man will not agree. Can he eat pussy too? Maybe if he's in a marriage he doesn't want to be in, such as the old days when lots of men didn't know they were gay, and arrange marriages didn't give them that option. But usually its just a sexless marriage.

The LGBT movement is about equality, equal rights, not being demonized, not being killed, not being arrested for simply not being straight.
 
Are you trying to say "you can think and feel you gay, but unless you suck dick or do anal sex with another man - you're not really gay"?
 
Your theory is contradicted by scientific studies, TJ. In studies of male twins who were raised separately, a fraternal twin was much more likely than the public at large to be gay if his twin brother is gay. With identical twins, the correlation is tremendously more likely than the general public. It's something like 22% likelihood of a fraternal twin being gay if his brother - raised apart from him - is gay, and an over 50% likelihood of being gay for identical twins.

There may be environmental influences after birth, as well, but the studies of twins prove that at birth one's sexuality is already formed to some extent.

I do agree the probability of some over others are greater to become heterosexual or homosexual. I also believe you can take one baby boy from birth, but lets say he is separated into two different worlds (let's think on the lines of the parallel universe)... The one baby boy could grow-up to be a happy heterosexual in one world, and a happy homosexual in the other world. We're talking about the same baby boy with the same biological make-up & genes. The only difference was the same baby boy grew up around different people & environments resulting in a shift of the subconscious between the two, resulting in a difference of choices made from the same baby boy :)

Subconscious..... Choices..... Did you see those two key words to the puzzle. My theory and logic proves that babies are indeed born neutral with zero percent sexuality. It's the process the brain goes through over time that leads to the the choices made.

There should between a poll between Nom de Plume & Teabag Johnny

Who's logic is the most correct one. I'm pretty sure I'd get at least 2/3 of the total vote.
 
It is nigh impossible to "prove" nature vs nurture... However I'm guessing it varies person to person. Some are born with a strong disposition in one direction, and some are born "neutral" and more or less are built one way or the other.
 
My theory and logic proves that babies are indeed born neutral with zero percent sexuality. It's the process the brain goes through over time that leads to the the choices made.
only by the loosest definition of the term could what you're talking about be described as a theory. and you clearly don't even know the meaning of the word logic. you've made a number of claims but you haven't proved anything.

"I still think babies are born neutral (not gay or straight). I think it's a process over time that determines one's sexuality." are both claims or premises, not proof of anything.

Your basic approach is "i think water is wet. therefore i have proved water is wet."

alasdair
 
only by the loosest definition of the term could what you're talking about be described as a theory. and you clearly don't even know the meaning of the word logic. you've made a number of claims but you haven't proved anything.

"I still think babies are born neutral (not gay or straight). I think it's a process over time that determines one's sexuality." are both claims or premises, not proof of anything.

Your basic approach is "i think water is wet. therefore i have proved water is wet."

alasdair

So, you're saying... You could take the same baby boy with the same biological genes; run him through a parallel universe of ONE MILLION worlds, and he'd either be heterosexual or homosexual in EVERY world? The slope would be 100% on one side, and there would be no deviation?

That's what you're saying if you say someone is born either straight or gay. It seems a little one-sided to me. You should probably be more open minded about the idea, and stop acting like we're still living in the pilgrim days.

You still haven't proved your logic explaining why some are born gay. The only thing you did was bash my idea because my ideology is different than yours. You explained nothing and have no ideas.

At least I'm able to provide the audience with examples and ideas explaining my Logical Theory
 
Top