• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

can homosexuality be a choice?

panic in paradise said:
I believe that much of homosexuality is explained in this study review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22364652

If an individual has full capability to use either hemisphere of the brain, which putting it simply is more effeminate or masculine in thought and emotional tendency. Exposure to the "right" family social conditions a male for example, could find himself more or better adapted to what is the effeminate, 'right thought process'. For a female the opposite occurs, where she becomes acclimated to the 'left thought process'.

This is not the formula for what many religious organizations claim to be a sin.

Can being gay be a choice?
I think so, anyone can only have an intimate relationship with the same sex, but to exhibit and live by the traits of the opposite sex, would be a tough act to carry on for very long.
Click to expand...

lol that reading piece was very wordy... looked like someone went through with a thesaurus and changed everything they could ;)
 
Nature vs Nurture and I believe it's all nurture

but I'm not calling your parents gay
 
As a straight male I know a handful of gay guys. If im being perfectly honest overly flamboyant gays irritate me, but I have known a few gay guys that were not like that and I was actually semi-friends with them.

That being said, who cares if being gay is a result of environment or genetics? Some people are gay, whether that's their choice or not shouldn't matter.
 
The terms "Gay" and "straight" don't mean anything, they're discriminatory terms used reinforce the majority's sense of moral superiority. People aren't born "one way" or the "other" - they're just people with sexual appetites. Romantic relationships are a combination of emotional and sexual intimacy, gender is completely irrelevant.

Or, as Ron White would say, we're all a little bit gay:

I said "We're all gay, buddy. It's just to what degree are you gay." And he goes, "That's bullshit, man. I ain't gay at all." And I go "Yeah, you are. And I can prove it." He goes "Fine. Prove it." I go, "All right. Do you like porn?" He says "Yeah, I love porn. You know that." I said, "Oh, and do you only watch scenes with two women?" And he goes, "No, I'll watch a man and a woman makin' love." And I say "Oh, and do you like the guy to have a flabby, half-flaccid penis?" And he goes "No, I like big, hard, throbbing co-...I did not know that about myself."
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Grunge nailed it. These are just labels created by man to make us feel more comfortable. Genetics, nurture, etc. who cares? Some people like both sexes, others like the other, some like the same, but there isn't a definitive percentage of how much someone is attracted to another. That's why bi, gay, straight, etc. is nonsense. We LOVE placing people into boxes but sexuality is too complicated for that.
 
Another thing to think about is natural selection, if homosexuals dont reproduce, it means homosexual genes are not passed on, and should eventually be filtered out. Bisexual people do reproduce though. I am personally bisexual (unwilling) and if I had the choice I would be 100% straight (just to make life easier) but Ive tried, and I cant. This makes me lean toward the "born gay/bisexual" side (I know a little contradictory of the above statement), although early childhood experiences sounds like an appealing argument also. IME you cannot choose who your attracted to or choose the features you find attractive, some guys like boobs, some ass, some only Asians. You dont know why those things are more appealing to you then others, we all have our own unique sexual attraction setup, that you cannot choose.
 
In my opinion, sexually there is alway a choice whther you will act on the animal urges of fucking other men. BUTI do believe homo-/bisexuality is NOT aa choice? Why would anyone consciously choose to make life more complicated for themselves? I know from my gay friends that it can be really hard being gay, and I certainly found it hard coming to terms with having a greedy tendency towards men as well as women!

It's a genetic mutation in all species of mammals as far as I am aware - in their world, homosexuality can be as simple as male dogs raping other male dogs in a power-dynamic tussle, but it can also be about pleasure in apes and dolphins just to name a few species. So why should the same rules not apply to us?

I personally believe though, that more people call themselves "homo" just because it's easier than coming to terms with their oedipus/elektra complexes - or the fact they got raped, so decide to swear off men/women.

In the latter cases homosexuaality is a choice, a choice notto get over your damaged psyche, but generally no - it is just nature's way of keeping the population under control!
 
squarerootof23 said:
No. No way. Absolutely not true.

I am NOT just a "human being". I am a man. That matters - a lot. It is integral, critical, to who I am. My gender isn't like just some article of clothing that covers the real me - rather, it is part and parcel of who and what I am.
Click to expand...

You are male - big deal. It may be an integral piece of your own ego, but in the grand scope of things it matters very little. That's part of the problem - people feel that they have to be defined by society's definition of "traditional" gender roles, as if they are fundamentally different than members of the opposite gender. There is a single gene which ultimately determines if you develop a penis or a vagina - one gene out of an entire genome. A coin was flipped and landed on heads.

And how does your "pride in your gender" (whatever the hell that is) invalidate my assertion that romantic relationships are a combination of emotional and sexual intimacy?
 
squarerootof23 said:
Sorry, Grunge, I didn't make myself clear.

I wasn't saying that it's a matter of gender pride, or an issue for one's ego, or something like that. That's not my attitude at all. What I'm saying is, Our gender is of critical and vital significance to who we are as human persons, irrespective of societal definitions. Gender isn't something incidental to us, it is at the core of our nature as human persons.

Being male or female is far more profound than simply the result of a couple genes, our gender goes far beyond simply having a penis or a vagina. Our bodies and minds and emotions and psyches, etc., all need to "fit" together as part of a whole being. So, a male body differs from a female body, a male mind differs from a female mind, etc. And, a male body is combined with a male mind and a male psyche, etc. Similarly for a woman.

One alternative view regarding gender is this: Gender is, in itself, of little significance, it doesn't really go much deeper than the happenstance of the reproductive organs one has - it really doesn't have much to do with the "real me". This view is one unfortunate legacy of the dualistic philosophy the Puritans lived by. This view has implications for how we view ourselves more generally, and therefore how we think about and treat each other. I reject this alternative view. My observation of humans contradicts this alternative view, I believe that human history and behavior contradict this alternative view, my own sense of myself contradicts this alternative view. This minimalistic view of gender pushes us to have a fragmented view of ourselves.
Click to expand...

But again, what does any of this have to do with forming romantic relationships? I'm not arguing that there aren't certain innate differences between the sexes, I'm arguing that it doesn't make a difference from a romantic/sexual standpoint.
 
Obviously if you have homosexual couples it's because they feel like that's the way NOT to have one part of themselves warring against the other. A friend of mine, lesbian, used to date guys and I remember she always complained that something wasn't right and she didn't feel good with them, for no particular reason. As soon as she started dating women she got to be so much more happy and peaceful. So I really don't see where on earth you find the basis for your argument. It's not because they can't reproduce with each other that their situation is 'unnatural' or that they're 'internally fragmented'.
 
squarerootof23 said:
So, they've simply accepted living the contradiction. This is not good, none of us wants that, we all instinctively recognize and feel that we should be internally consistent, that all our "parts" ought to conform nicely with each other.
Click to expand...

Agreed with masumune I truly think it's different for different people. The conformity thinking is simply put there by society if those aren't the internal desires within you.
 
I think more accurately what I'm saying is that all humans do NOT have consistent desires.
 
I'm not sure I can see classifying something as an affliction if someone enjoys it. And yes, I'm sure there are lots of homosexuals out there who are conflicted and don't feel right about it. I also personally know a few that don't have any issue with it, they enjoy it, and so it doesn't matter to them what anyone one else thinks about it.
 
Explain how someone can be afflicted by something they fully enjoy and feel no guilt about. Clearly it didn't take me a ton of thought to understand.
 
squarerootof23 said:
My point is that it is *NOT* good for us, that we instinctively sense that it is not good, that we would rather not be in that condition. And, like many other afflictions humans suffer from, homosexual desires and behaviors is one more case of that.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not a disease as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), nor by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) which are the current authorities on actual diseases.

Saying something is a disease or an affliction just because you don't understand it yourself (xenophobia, fear of that which you do not understand) is probably why the way you have to think of it is that the person is sick, when in reality the word you're looking for is different.

Personally I don't understand why people are so invested in the sexual gratification of other individuals, or what makes someone with [probably] no qualification think that they are some authority on what's good for "us".

wikipedia said:
There are four main types of disease: pathogenic disease, deficiency disease, hereditary disease, and physiological disease.
Click to expand...

So wherein lies homosexuality? Diseases have symptoms. What's a symptom of homosexuality?

People have sex for pleasure as well as procreation.

edit:

UC Davis said:
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).

The American Psychological Association (APA) promptly endorsed the psychiatrists' actions, and has since worked intensively to eradicate the stigma historically associated with a homosexual orientation (APA, 1975; 1987).

Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.
Click to expand...
(source)
 
Last edited:
I'm not at all sure as to why the original question is even a question open for debate-or why so many people have decided to expand the question to encompass "is homosexuality morally right" or "is homosexuality good for humankind." Multiple studies have concluded that homosexuality(not homosexual tendencies-I mean the sexual desire to be with men and not women) is linked to genetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio
or
http://www.theawl.com/2012/06/gay-men-make-their-aunts-have-more-children
These are just the few offhand that I'm aware of-but it's not just this. In my personal experience I have been attracted to only women-women who fit my parameters of being attractive. I have never been able to see in a man or an unattractive woman what I see in attractive women-no choice I make will change what I'm attracted to. Why would homosexuality be any different? I've personally known people who've had no will to be homosexual, but unconsciously are attracted to their sex. This brings me to my main point-evolution is not a perfect process. Random mutations happen all the time between generations. People are stillborn, born without genitalia, born hermaphrodites, born as siamese twins, born mentally retarded, etc. For some reason these conditions are universally accepted as being completely genetic...why is this alright but homosexuality is not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top