[sepultallica]

Quote

aunt pam said in post #37 :
blame, explain, defend, whatever the term may be...i still feel that homosexuals are homosexuals pretty much by choice...

i think that i would have to agree. but then again, could someone resort to homosexuality by force? could someone be traumatized by an event and turn to homosexuality as a sort of defense mechanism?

Quote

Glider said in post #40 :

If this were true, then it would be equally true to say that you are heterosexual by choice.

As you are (presumably) heterosexual, you no doubt find members of the opposite sex sexually attractive, but find the idea of same-sex relations repellant. That doesn't sound like a choice. Why should it be any different for people who find members of the same sex sexually attractive, and the idea of opposite-sex relations repellant?

As both males and females find it extremely difficult, if not impossible to perform sexually with a partner to whom they are not sexually attracted (or perceive as sexually repellant), the only choice anyone has is between engaging in sexual relations with people they find sexually attractive, or celibacy.

So, is it true to say you are heterosexual by choice? Do you find members of the same sex attractive, but deliberately choose to have sex only with members of the opposite sex?

i don't know too much of the human mind or biology but it's strange to me to think that celibacy and homosexuality are as natural as heterosexuality(?). without digging too deep, i would just assume that being straight is what we are born into and that a change by choice would have to stem from that.

[Sayonara³]

Celibacy is a choice.

The drive to spread your genetic seed is present regardless of whether you are hetero~ or homosexual, even if in some cases it will never be expressed through the act of reproduction with multiple partners.

If you consider homosexuality to be unnatural, but can't find any single thing to "blame" for the millions of gay people throughout history, perhaps it might be prudent to reconsider your definition of the word 'natural'.

[sepultallica]

i'll be the first to admit that i am in no way qualified to comment on the matter. my opinions are obviously clouded with steroetypes. when i said unnatural, i guess what i meant was not normal. it's just that from where i see, homosexuality is a choice and hetero.;"* is what i'd call our blueprint.

[IMI]

So here it is...homosexuality is not "natural" when speaking of procreation. Men are supposed to be with women. It's as simple as putting the round peg in the round hole. There is no star-shaped peg ;)

That people are homosexual is also natural in that it is a congenital defect vice a "choice".

It is okay of anyone disagrees with this...they are still wrong :)

[sepultallica]

wow, now those are some bold statements.

[Sayonara³]

So as long as we are discussing "procreation" it's unnatural?

Sorry to burst your bubble but procreation actually isn't the be-all and end-all of adaptive drives.

So unless you can come up with an external, enforced and ubiquitous stimulus or constraint that can account for all instances of homosexuality in all species known to display such traits, then you are either going to accept that it is natural, or as I already suggested reconsider your definition of the word.

[Dudde]

some bold and completely "not smart" and challenging statements at that sepultallica.

IMI, as I recall, you are not gay. right? so then, how do you know exactly what makes people homosexual? have you ever spoken with someone like that and actually asked them? I doubt it, judging by the biased and stupid way you're talking about this. Well I have, and the person I was speaking with couldn't exactly tell me why he found himself attracted to men, and not women, but he was, and I asked that SAME STUPID QUESTION if there was something that happened to him earlier in life to change him
he said "no, I've been this way pretty much all my life, before I even had a chance to like girls"

I think those were his exact words, it's been a while since I've talked to him, but this would tell us that he did not make any conscious choice of liking guys or girls, it just came "naturally"

[IMI]

Context. I can say that homosexuality is unnatural, with regards to procreation, while saying it is a natural behavior for someone who is pre-disposed based on congenital defect.

You are correct, procreation is not the be-all end-all of adaptive drives. Survival of species is. Procreation is a major facet of that though.

So literal ;)

[IMI]

Quote

Dudde said in post #47 :
some bold and completely "not smart" and challenging statements at that sepultallica.

IMI, as I recall, you are not gay. right? so then, how do you know exactly what makes people homosexual? have you ever spoken with someone like that and actually asked them? I doubt it, judging by the biased and stupid way you're talking about this. Well I have, and the person I was speaking with couldn't exactly tell me why he found himself attracted to men, and not women, but he was, and I asked that SAME STUPID QUESTION if there was something that happened to him earlier in life to change him
he said "no, I've been this way pretty much all my life, before I even had a chance to like girls"

I think those were his exact words, it's been a while since I've talked to him, but this would tell us that he did not make any conscious choice of liking guys or girls, it just came "naturally"

Dudde, read the entire thread before you comment to save yourself from looking like the stupid one indeed! Though I stated that I have known a homosexual who I believe was so due to trauma, I go on to state evidence that homosexuality is more so caused by a congenital abnormality that effects the development of the vomeronasal organ. This means that it is not a choice. If you look back at the my post, the one which you felt you needed to respond to, and take off your "idiot" glasses, you will see that I say, "...vice a "choice""

[Dudde]

tee hee hee
point taken and apology offered IMI

that just goes to show, never don't sleep and write an essay while looking at scienceforums;)

survival of species used to be the be-all end-all, I believe that has shifted slightly today into which most people say survival of the "self"

[IMI]

Let me continue......

There are certainly people who are homosexual because of trauma. They may or may not be the majority but they certainly exist. I guess "choice" would not be the correct term to explain why these people migrate towards this lifestyle as they may not have any more of a conscious "choice" than does someone with a vomeronasal abnormality.

[IMI]

Quote

Dudde said in post #50 :
tee hee hee
point taken and apology offered IMI

that just goes to show, never don't sleep and write an essay while looking at scienceforums;)

survival of species used to be the be-all end-all, I believe that has shifted slightly today into which most people say survival of the "self"

Apology accepted and I offer one as well. You make a good point with the "survival of self". It does certainly seem as though we have migrated that way. I wonder if that isn't the evolution of the "survival of species" factor being that population is actually growing dangerously large. Population has actually replaced nuclear weapons as the greatest threat to the planet. Maybe the shift to "survival of self" is a way, in concert with other things, of curtailing population growth. Nature seems to have many ways of righting things that get out of balance.

[Sayonara³]

I was pretty much going to say that ^ in response to this:

Quote

IMI said in post #48 :
Context. I can say that homosexuality is unnatural, with regards to procreation, while saying it is a natural behavior for someone who is pre-disposed based on congenital defect.

You are correct, procreation is not the be-all end-all of adaptive drives. Survival of species is. Procreation is a major facet of that though.

So literal ;)

While you may argue that procreation is a massive facet of species survival, if you are considering a case where population is massively above the K-value for that species and homosexuality rates increase, then obviously you are looking at a paradigm shift.

Hence, the definition of 'natural' becomes context sensitive.

[john5746]

If you think of primitive man in a group setting, you can see where homosexuality may give a group a better chance of success. The Alpha-male wants to have all the women and drive all competition away. The Alpha-female also wants to dominate, but they both need others to survive.

By having some homosexuals, a group could have more males to defend and hunt and more females to take care of children and forage with less internal sexual conflict. My guess is the x-chromosone would pass this trait.

Maybe religious belief came about the same way. While there is no biological benefit for someone to be wasting their time with these beliefs, it does keep groups together. Homosexuality and religion, providing the same function: isn't that ironic?

[admiral_ju00]

john5746 said:

If you think of primitive man in a group setting.......The Alpha-male ..... & The Alpha-female.... need others to survive.

No they don't. They need each other to reproduce, but not necessarily for survival.
In a Hunter-Gatherer society, females are the ones who provide the most food, either at gathering fruits or salvaging some animals leftovers which was killed some kind of an animal:eg: lionesses(sp?) unfinished meal. Male hunters are and were not always successful.

Quote

My guess is the x-chromosone would pass this trait.

Possibly.

[NavajoEverclear]

Quote

obviously babies and children aren't able to comprehend the notion of sexuality.

i remember my childhood (my memories start about age 3), and thats not true. Maybe i didn't understand intercourse yet, but i had a concept on sexuality, and had attractions and such.

Quote

So, is it true to say you are heterosexual by choice? Do you find members of the same sex attractive, but deliberately choose to have sex only with members of the opposite sex?

Yes it is a choice, it's a choice of natures. It comes natural, and you'd have to do a lot of work to change your nature, but why would you want to? Thats why it never happens.
I say this with a little bit of evidence-- myself. I know if i wanted to be i could be homosexual. In the name of science I'll admit i had one instance of homosexual curiosity/attraction in my early adolescence. But i am far more attracted to females, and now that that confusion is over I have no desire to go back to it. So maybe that means i'm bisexual naturally and heterosexual by choice, but i don't believe that. I believe it's all psychological, and evolutionary. To put it ungracefully we all have evolved the drive to hump, if our ancesters hadn't humped, we wouldn't be there. Sometimes the hump drive gets its target confused when it needs to express itself but the correct medium is not in access.

I think this enforced in watching animal behavior. My dog finds a stuffed animal to hump whenever she's in heat. That does not mean my dog was born stuffedanimalo-sexual. She's rarely had contact with a mateable partner, so when hormones activate her hump program, she runs it on whatever is available.
So that's why animals show homosexual behavior. Is there any case of an animal that will ONLY try to mate with its own sex? Maybe noone has ever followed an animal to find out. Otherwise, INSTANCES where the animal resorts to humping another that is procreatively incompadible, does not make it naturally homosexual. It is the natural, normally heterosexual, drive to hump working with whatever it has.

Quote

how do you know exactly what makes people homosexual? have you ever spoken with someone like that and actually asked them? I doubt it, judging by the biased and stupid way you're talking about this. Well I have, and the person I was speaking with couldn't exactly tell me why he found himself attracted to men, and not women, but he was, and I asked that SAME STUPID QUESTION if there was something that happened to him earlier in life to change him
he said "no, I've been this way pretty much all my life, before I even had a chance to like girls"

I've admitted before there different cases of homosexuality, with different causes, therefore different levels. I still think it's psychological. How do you explain my condition?

And i have one other story to aid my point. I have a friend who was getting tired of her boyfriend, she took a break from him and had a homosexual relationship with a girl who has been lesbian since 9th grade. The relationship only lasted a few weeks cause the lesbian (sorry that sounds disrespectful, but i promise its not, the lesbian is also a friend of mine) graduated highschool and went to massage school in arizona. The girl made up with her boyfriend (who still loved her) and they got back together.

Is she bisexual? For you who say its inborn, is there a seperate gene for bisexuality, or is it a waterdown version of the gay gene? It seems all really inconsitant.

In the name of science i'll confess even more-- that if i look back, i could justify homosexuality as being natural with several cases of attraction, that you could say were suppressed by cultural pressure. But since i haven't chosen that, i don't look back at that, i'm just saying, i could, and then you'd say i was born to be gay, but i just told you that for me its a choice.

Just to end, incase you dont know me, i am in no way anti-gay. If the drive is to strong for the possibility of making a rational effort to reverse, i don't think God will condemn you. But i am saying that its not as clear-cut as either being gay or being straight. Maybe some cases its less of a choice, but in many, maybe most cases, i think it is.

My evidence--- my own experience. How do you argue that?

[NavajoEverclear]

And if you understand psychology, you know that one can even be confused about what is or isn't their choice. Thus the misunderstanding that if someone SAYS they had no choice, does not mean it couldn't have been different.

[admiral_ju00]

Quote

In the name of science i'll confess even more-- that if i look back, i could justify homosexuality as being natural with several cases of attraction, that you could say were suppressed by cultural pressure.

Uhm, there Is a difference when you(guy) look at another guy and think something like: "Wow, this guy is Handsome. I wish I could look more like him", etc. VS "Wow, this guy is Handsome. I wish I could do him".

But I agree with much of what you said in this post.

[kether]

So that's why animals show homosexual behavior. Is there any case of an animal that will ONLY try to mate with its own sex? Maybe noone has ever followed an animal to find out. Otherwise, INSTANCES where the animal resorts to humping another that is procreatively incompadible, does not make it naturally homosexual. It is the natural, normally heterosexual, drive to hump working with whatever it has.


Yes experiments have been carried out.. In one instance (of many) aprox 10 female sheep were lined up in pens with one ram amongst them. All had their rear ends sticking out for another ram to investigate :eek: Consistently the ram chose to mount the other ram and ignore the females. (some were in season and some were not) Positions of the sheep were changed in the pens and the same result occured (gay Ram) Also the ram recieving the attention of the gay ram was removed and replaced with other rams at different intervals. etc etc..

Gayness is rife in the animal world. Not simply because its the next best thing.