Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Moontanman]

I am not exactly clear on the definition of homosexuality? Does it means humans with a natural steady state inclination to be gay, or humans with temporary inclinations to be gay due to any of a number of factors. If it is genetic, the first definition is due to the gay gene which is always on. The second case appears able to switch the gay gene off and on, almost at will.

 

HB, you have asked the $64,000,000 question and the main reason I started this thread. First off there is no specific "gay" gene, no on off switch, just a range of people whose sexuality is more one way than another. My contention is that the labels used by humans is the only really unnatural part of this. There is no homosexuality or heterosexuality, only sexuality, these things are determined inside your brain in a complex way.

 

Studies of twins separated at birth suggest than even the brand of cigarettes you smoke may have a subtle genetic determination and not be as much a part of free will as everyone believes. The only unnatural thing about sexuality is the labels humans put on it, not the feelings people have about sexuality.

 

I think the reason many people are disturbed by this is that they are disturbed by sexuality. We are taught from birth to suppress our sexuality, sex is a bad thing, sex must have consequences, you must not have sex for fun, sex is serious, it's never just for enjoyment. Even in entertainment the not so subtle message is that anyone who has sex for simply the fun of it has to suffer in some way. Even masturbation is suppressed in our society as being somehow worse than actual sex.

 

 

But inside we all feel this sexual suppression is wrong, we know instinctively that sex feels good and we desire it. Our sexual desire has nothing to do with reproduction on a conscious level. The idea of off/on sexuality is unnatural, not the type of sex we have or with whom we have it.

 

Sexual labels have more to do with the control of people than any harm or bad consequences sex has. There are a tremendous number of humans who are uncomfortable with the idea that what they consider to be fundamental ideas are not off/on, yes/no, right/wrong. This idea that things must have a white/black answer and cannot be a confusing smear of gray is a big part of the problem.

 

I have personally seen people who were outrageously homophobic eventually deal with their feelings honestly and realize they have sexual feelings for the same sex. Often they they reject their old sexual identity by following along with the idea that sexuality is a on on/off thing.

 

Even people comfortable with their own sexuality often reject the idea of just a range of sexuality for the idea of one or the other. Homosexuals often tell bisexual people they must make a choice and come down off the fence. Often people who occasionally experiment with same sex or some type of sexuality out side the on/off norm are ostracized by both "sides" of the sexual spectrum. Sexuality is natural, the way we label it and use it to control society is unnatural

 

"they tell you can't sleep alone then they tell you can't sleep with somebody else" :D

[Buffy]

You earlier in the thread spent considerable time arguing that there's no conclusive proof of a genetic link to homosexuality, as well as arguing that it's a correctable condition.

Quite wrong. I’ve been arguing that homosexuality is a genetic venue known as kin selection. You haven’t been paying attention, Buffy.

I'm really glad you support the notion of Kin Selection as a justification for homosexual behavior being natural!

 

Unfortunately that does not have any bearing on my point: you do argue against a genetic link and argue that it's a choice:

Since it's already been demonstrated conclusively that homosexuality has a genetic cause, your point can safely be disregarded.

Sorry to prick your bubble, I-Now, but nothing you have provided here demonstrates anything conclusively about the causes of homosexuality.

If so then show me the genes.

Is it understood scientifically that homosexuality is equivalent to racial features like skin and eye pigmentation or hair color? I really don't think so... Homosexuality is more like left-handedness or any other condition that is not inherited genetically. There is no "gay gene"...

are you saying this is naturally occurring or are you simply implying a choice. This statement alone' date=' negates this next statement from you[/quote']

What difference does it make? Are you saying a child cannot become a homosexual by choice? Do you have proof of this?

 

Sure, on the literal level you're "just asking questions," but if one goes back and looks at all of these, ultimately your responses to the answers are basically that you just don't agree with the interpretation, and fail to address the questions put to you.

 

It oddly reflects an intransigence that you seem to--at least unconsciously-- project onto others who disagree with you:

“Closeted homophobes”? Wouldn’t that be anyone who disagrees with you?

"Show me where I called you a closeted homophobe. Oh, wait, maybe it was the thought police!"

 

See how unproductive that kind of "nyah, nyah" response is? It stops the conversation dead in its tracks.

 

It is useful if the poster's intent is to distract attention away from an overarching intent to harass and annoy. No, as I just demonstrated, it's not really important to show the quotes literally say something, all that's needed is to see the consistency of the responses and PMs in aggregate.

 

Any increasingly obvious intent to annoy people obeys Newton's Third Law of Motion. And it's geometric in its progression.

 

Feigning ignorance of course makes the villagers shake their pitchforks harder:

Besides, what does this have to do with the natural condition of homosexuality?

I know that you are intelligent enough to understand the concept of analogy. The topic was specifically one of society's progression through levels of discrimination, and "undesirability" being based on that progression, and the tendency even of those who proclaim no discriminatory desires to perpetuate discrimination.

 

The only thing that can be drawn from your claim of ignorance on this point is that it may cut too close to home and you don't like the answer.

 

Too bad, because it is a very direct answer to the question you asked.

 

Unwillingness to discuss answers is often an indication of an intent not to discuss the topic but to simply create conflict.

 

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and try anyway:

n the passage I just quoted, you justified people using the colloquial usage of "unnatural". Your personal support for it is shown by your unwillingness to deal with the *consequences* of perpetuating the notion that it is unnatural, and your insistence on a simplistic and unified definition of "undesirable."

How ‘bout “not preferential” instead, as in “I would prefer my children to heterosexual, not homosexual.” Is that what a “closeted homophobe” would say? Or is that simply an honest statement by someone who desires his children to heterosexual rather than homosexual? Desirability is simply a factor in this—personal preference, that’s all

That's what I'm talking about: oversimplifying the definition of "undesirable" to pretend that it is simple personal preference of an abstract, context-less desire. With every response to your question you've avoided the issue that this "preference" is really based on the context of our society. Those who have so far said "given the number of bigots out there, no, I might 'prefer' my child not be homosexual," you have insisted on ignoring the qualification of the statement, thus forcing the conclusion that you're simply interested in calling them hypocrites for "not admitting that they also think that homosexuals are yucky."

 

It really doesn't matter that you claim that you "didn't say that," because the reaction is enough to get your real intent. Reinforced by what you say around it:

so why should it light up your Christmas tree?

Do you want it to?

It would help, especially for a Staff Administrator, if you actually knew the meaning of what I actually said.

I'm happy to give you credit for at least on the surface promoting the notion that homosexuality is natural, but it would be even nicer if you knew the meaning of what you actually said too.

 

The cause is hidden. The effect is visible to all, :D

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

There is innate behavior and learned behavior. Homosexual behavior spans this range. It is not one or the other, but both, with various members of the community part of both groups. I tend to think one side of the argument is defending the natural side of the curve and the other side of the argument is trying to minimize the learned aspect of the homosexuality curve. But like any negotiation, there is all or not.

 

Let me use an analogy. There are people who are natural at math. There are also people who can do as well at math, but need to work much harder at it. The second can do as well, but needs to use much more willpower.

 

With a student who is natural at math, there is less need for external encouragement or pressure, since they gain something positive, internally, by being true to their own inner nature and ability. The one that has to work at it, needs social incentive to help muster up the extra will power. Who wants to work hard at something for nothing? if it comes easy this is not work but play.

 

When culture was strict against homosexuality, the natural (math) people, were also discouraged from doing (math). But some did it anyway, against the pressure, because it was who they were. Inside was reward enough. Nowadays, the pendulum is the opposite. The door to the innate is open, but there is now more cultural incentive and demand for willful gay maybe as part of a social movement.

 

The willful is probably the sector of the gay population that has highest suicide rates. The more willful effort required, the more impact failure can have on the ego. If something is innate, there can be failure but there always tomorrow, since there is no deadline to your ability and the joy it brings.

 

If one is innate at something, you are in your own groove and distractions are less bothersome. If you have use more will power to compensate for lack of innate, detractions get to you at little easier, unless you can restrict the environment and turn it around to make your job easier. One can see that trying to happen.

 

The debate is analogous to one side wanting to raise math major salaries, to encourage more willful students into math. They can do as well and sometimes better. The other side is trying to depress wages to eliminate too many willful math majors. This will have less impact on those who innately like math, but it will have an impact on learned and willful behavior.

[Larv]

It really doesn't matter that you claim that you "didn't say that," because the reaction is enough to get your real intent.

Buffy, please tell me what is my "real intent." I am suspicious that you don't know what it is.

 

And while you're at it, please tell me why most heterosexuals would prefer not to be homosexuals. The same is probably true in reverse: most homosexuals prefer not to be heterosexuals. Each side is comfortable with the nature of its sexual orientation. But both sides of this issue have their own measures of desirability. If I don't prefer to be homosexual then I preferentially desire to be heterosexual. It's so simple. But somehow this lights up your Christmas tree. Why?

[REASON]

And while you're at it, please tell me why most heterosexuals would prefer not to be homosexuals. The same is probably true in reverse: most homosexuals prefer not to be heterosexuals. Each side is comfortable with the nature of its sexual orientation. But both sides of this issue have their own measures of desirability. If I don't prefer to be homosexual then I preferentially desire to be heterosexual. It's so simple. But somehow this lights up your Christmas tree. Why?

 

It's not about what we desire for ourselves, Larv. You're now changing the framework of your discussion about what is "undesirable." Your question was geared around what we desire for others. You asked if we would prefer our children to be heterosexual or homosexual, not what we would prefer for ourselves.

 

When we start judging others who aren't fulfilling our desires or preferences, the seeds of social stigma begin to take root.

[Moontanman]

There is innate behavior and learned behavior. Homosexual behavior spans this range. It is not one or the other, but both, with various members of the community part of both groups. I tend to think one side of the argument is defending the natural side of the curve and the other side of the argument is trying to minimize the learned aspect of the homosexuality curve. But like any negotiation, there is all or not.

 

Let me use an analogy. There are people who are natural at math. There are also people who can do as well at math, but need to work much harder at it. The second can do as well, but needs to use much more willpower.

 

With a student who is natural at math, there is less need for external encouragement or pressure, since they gain something positive, internally, by being true to their own inner nature and ability. The one that has to work at it, needs social incentive to help muster up the extra will power. Who wants to work hard at something for nothing? if it comes easy this is not work but play.

 

When culture was strict against homosexuality, the natural (math) people, were also discouraged from doing (math). But some did it anyway, against the pressure, because it was who they were. Inside was reward enough. Nowadays, the pendulum is the opposite. The door to the innate is open, but there is now more cultural incentive and demand for willful gay maybe as part of a social movement.

 

The willful is probably the sector of the gay population that has highest suicide rates. The more willful effort required, the more impact failure can have on the ego. If something is innate, there can be failure but there always tomorrow, since there is no deadline to your ability and the joy it brings.

 

If one is innate at something, you are in your own groove and distractions are less bothersome. If you have use more will power to compensate for lack of innate, detractions get to you at little easier, unless you can restrict the environment and turn it around to make your job easier. One can see that trying to happen.

 

The debate is analogous to one side wanting to raise math major salaries, to encourage more willful students into math. They can do as well and sometimes better. The other side is trying to depress wages to eliminate too many willful math majors. This will have less impact on those who innately like math, but it will have an impact on learned and willful behavior.

 

HB, did you just write 7 paragraphs trying to say homosexuality is a choice? It's kind of difficult to tell for sure but if you did :naughty: Homosexuality is not a choice HB, this entire thread is all about why it is not a choice. Please go back a reread this entire thread and refute the evidence that has been presented that homosexuality is not a choice before you try to promote that idea again. :eek_big:

[Larv]

HB, did you just write 7 paragraphs trying to say homosexuality is a choice? It's kind of difficult to tell for sure but if you did :naughty: Homosexuality is not a choice HB, this entire thread is all about why it is not a choice. Please go back a reread this entire thread and refute the evidence that has been presented that homosexuality is not a choice before you try to promote that idea again. :eek_big:

What about bisexual people? Don't they have a choice when then decide to sleep with members of either sex? Or are they driven in either direction naturally and without any choice in the matter? I think a bisexual person could decide to be homosexual on Tuesday and heterosexual on Thursday...as a matter of choice.

[Moontanman]

What about bisexual people? Don't they have a choice when then decide to sleep with members of either sex? Or are they driven in either direction naturally and without any choice in the matter? I think a bisexual person could decide to be homosexual on Tuesday and heterosexual on Thursday...as a matter of choice.

 

Larv, Larv, Larv, please tell me you are not one of those people who can't conceive of anything being other than off/on, yes/no, or black/white. Yes larv there are bisexual people, sexuality is not an off/on yes/no thing. sexuality spans the entire range from totally heterosexual to totally homosexual. Most people are some where close to the extremes, mostly preferring one or the other, but some people are truly in between and like both. It's the labels of human society that are unnatural, not the sexuality of the people who are forced to wear them.

[Larv]

Larv, Larv, Larv, please tell me you are not one of those people who can't conceive of anything being other than off/on, yes/no, or black/white. Yes larv there are bisexual people, sexuality is not an off/on yes/no thing.

Speak for yourself, Moon.

 

sexuality spans the entire range from totally heterosexual to totally homosexual. Most people are some where close to the extremes, mostly preferring one or the other,

Did you mean to say "preferring"?

 

but some people are truly in between and like both.

Ummm! That's twice as cozy.

 

It's the labels of human society that are unnatural, not the sexuality of the people who are forced to wear them.

Forced? Are you sure? I don't think I was forced into being a heterosexual. How about you?

[Moontanman]

Speak for yourself, Moon.

 

Oh so you go either way Larv?

 

Did you mean to say "preferring"?

 

In this context, yes larv, sexual preference is a preset condition not a choice.

 

Ummm! That's twice as cozy.

 

A study done many years ago showed that bisexual women were the most happy with their sexuality of all groups heterosexual and homosexual included but that bi-sexual men were the least happy with their sexuality.

 

Forced? Are you sure? I don't think I was forced into being a heterosexual. How about you?

 

Society forces everyone to wear a label of their sexuality even though a simple label cannot really describe your or my sexuality. Sexuality is always more complex than yes/no black/white right/wrong

[Buffy]

Buffy, please tell me what is my "real intent." I am suspicious that you don't know what it is.

Well, I'm becoming suspicious that you don't know what it is either. So to make my message a bit clearer, you at least seem to be doing things that have no effect other than to bait, annoy and antagonize people, and virtually everyone in this thread has reacted the same way.

 

As a result, you're being told in the many testy responses to your posts that we all understand that--even if you're not aware of it--you're annoying people.

 

This is not because they are biased or won't face any facts, it's really due to you're provocative posts and an unwillingness to respond to the points that people are making.

 

I'll try to be even clearer: while some here may have an issue with your rhetoric as passively enabling homophobia, no one here really considers you to be an overt homophobe, and that's not where the problem lies. Whether you're actually aware of it or not--and I guess most of us would prefer it if you really weren't aware of it--your communications style is only accomplishing two things: 1) frustrating people who do want to discuss the topic by obstinately dismissing evidence without presenting your own and 2) aggravating them by demanding answers to questions with ill-defined terms and belittling them while avoiding the counter questions that seek to clarify those terms.

 

My last post was actually all about this, and I'm sorry that you were unable to comprehend it--something I'll politely try to read into the fact that you didn't respond to that part of the message--so I hope this follow up will help you get a more explicit picture of how others perceive you and set you on a more productive path.

 

But somehow this lights up your Christmas tree. Why?

It's become somewhat obvious from the repetition of this line that at least unconsciously you really want it to do so, even though as I continue to point out, the annoyance has nothing to do with the thread but rather your conduct and style of participation.

 

And that's what makes it so reasonable to conclude--as many have here already--that you really might be consciously doing this solely in order to annoy our members. We hope we're wrong in concluding this and that you might find a way to contribute productively here.

 

Now to try to be constructive and get back on topic:

And while you're at it, please tell me why most heterosexuals would prefer not to be homosexuals. The same is probably true in reverse: most homosexuals prefer not to be heterosexuals.

I don't know that that is necessarily true. Do you?

 

One of the arguments I've heard from sociologists is that personality tests on the subject sometimes show that the people who are most homophobic have profiles that might identify them as homosexuals.

 

There's also an issue of projected perception: a guy I know once told me, "I can't imagine being homosexual, but if I was a girl I might be interested." I laughed and told him, "well, that's because you're a guy and you like having sex with girls! That doesn't mean you know what it means to be homosexual!"

 

The thing you continue to avoid in the questions put to you is that the societal pressure is intense. I could get away with kissing another girl, and the guys would all say "heh, heh, cool!" but be totally repulsed if we were talking about two guys.

 

So,

If I don't prefer to be homosexual then I preferentially desire to be heterosexual. It's so simple.

No it's not. If you're homosexual, you may "prefer" not to be, not because of your desires, but because you've been told practically from the day you were born that its "a really bad thing."

 

When you start to look at the issue from that point of view, it makes clear that the "natural preference" to express ones homosexuality can be totally overwhelmed by a "emotional preference" not to be homosexual. Thus Cedars' examples above of people who "changed their mind," who while "changing their preference" really did not change their orientation.

 

When you start to recognize the complexity of the word "preference" in this context, it's hardly "simple." Dismissing it as simple is ignoring the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the room.

 

As Michael mentioned above, it's also quite simplistic to paint homosexuality as something that you prefer/don't prefer, because it quite obviously has more dimensions:

What about bisexual people? Don't they have a choice when then decide to sleep with members of either sex? Or are they driven in either direction naturally and without any choice in the matter? I think a bisexual person could decide to be homosexual on Tuesday and heterosexual on Thursday...as a matter of choice.

Bisexuals are not homosexuals with Bipolar syndrome. If you'd like to present some evidence for it, you're welcome to, but it's not something you'll see in the literature. Bisexuals aren't "choosing between heterosexuality and homosexuality" they're attracted to people without making a distinction as to their sex. Would you rather sleep with Phyllis Diller or George Clooney? Jenny McCarthy or Don Rickles? To a bisexual person, the answer to each of those is easy and obvious, whereas to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, one of the two questions is hard to answer.

 

See the difference?

 

People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs, :naughty:

Buffy

[Larv]

Bisexuals are not homosexuals with Bipolar syndrome. If you'd like to present some evidence for it, you're welcome to, but it's not something you'll see in the literature.

Buffy, you slay me. There you go again. Where did I ever say that bisexuals suffer from bipolar syndrome?

 

Bisexuals aren't "choosing between heterosexuality and homosexuality" they're attracted to people without making a distinction as to their sex.

I’d hate to think that bisexuals have no control over their urges. How do they know if they’re attracted? Crotch sniffing? Random humping? Resume reading?

 

Here’s what I think drives threads like this one involving homosexuality: indignation. It’s really all about dignity. The homosexuals are behaving as if their dignity has been trampled. They’ve come out of the closet to say “Hey, we’re dignified people, too, and we deserve just as much respect as other people who are as naturally the way they are as we are." They try to get the respect they deserve, or think they deserve, by forcing their lifestyle onto the general public, especially by demanding that same-sex “marriage” be made the legal equivalent to regular marriage. This, I believe, is not in their best interests.

 

You’ve seen sitcoms on TV wherein certain characters display the gay stereotype. But why? Why do they push that in our faces. I, for one, don’t need to see that. They, however, probably see it as coming out of the closet. They probably believe that by forcing us all to watch will somehow make us all accept it. Ah, but they took Amos ‘n’ Andy off the air for portraying black stereotypes, believing that it harmed the public image of black people. Why don't you see black stereotypes in TV sitcoms any more?

 

It’s the public image of gay people that is on trial here. Don’t they want to gain acceptance and improve their public image? I want them to. I want to see them get all the legal rights and public respect they deserve. And I don’t want to see them make fools of themselves and call it “coming out of the closet.”

 

What's my Rx for gay rights? Play up the social benefits of homosexuality—kin selection, etc.—and get over this preoccupation with promoting gay stereotypes. If homosexuals want to send a message that they should be treated equally to heterosexuals then it is up to them to direct their actions appropriately. Playing up gay stereotypes will only send the message that homosexuality is unnatural, which is the core issue of this thread.

[Moontanman]

Yeah Larv as long as them homos stay in thier place they are ok :beer:

[Cedars]

When you start to look at the issue from that point of view, it makes clear that the "natural preference" to express ones homosexuality can be totally overwhelmed by a "emotional preference" not to be homosexual. Thus Cedars' examples above of people who "changed their mind," who while "changing their preference" really did not change their orientation.

I understand why the "born that way" position does not like hearing information such as the above. The first time I was dismissive (70s) via friend of the family (casually knew this man) and was told of others via third party discussion. Then I began to wonder (80s) via school aquaintance (I knew this woman personally and knew how comfortable she was with being a lesbian all those years) and others (which were much easier to dismiss), but this girl stuck out cuz I knew her personally. It didnt fit with what I had been told and what I knew of her. And more in the 90s via lesbian neighbor, one case in particular (others casually mentioned), it became obvious theres more to this side of the story (for several reasons).

 

As far as your " totally overwhelmed by a "emotional preference" not to be homosexual" is exactly what the 'they can change if they really want to' side asserts. And I dont think you agree with the 'change if you want to' position. So what exactly are you trying to say?

[GAHD]

...Why don't you see black stereotypes in TV sitcoms any more?

YouTube - Blackey Weather Forecast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2WYyGFW5bU

:shrug:

[HydrogenBond]

I am trying to make the distinction between natural and synthetic gays. It is naive to think no person can pretend to be gay. Gays had to pretend to be heterosexual many years back. They married and had children and went through all the motions. They made this choice because of the pressures and the social circumstances. It was not free choice but still a choice. The opposite is happening, nowadays. There are still natural gays, but also synthetic ones due to the social circumstances.

 

Those who follow the cutting edge of fashion would wear a potato sack if it was considered cutting edge. It is not exactly free choice, but it is the choice needed to run at the front of the fashion herd. In an attempt to increase acceptance of gays, we are marketing this in a way that says, all is natural, even if this is false. If we stopped the marketing campaign, it would deflate back to the natural gays, who don't need to be sold on who they are.

 

If you made prostitution legal and marketed that, we would also get a change in state within the population. If you said anything negative, we could say that means you are a prosto-phobe and really want to rent one. If females don't get into the business they are in denial and are john-o-phobes. After we mess people up one would expect the rate of suicide to increase in the synthetic population. That is my concern. Nothing against natural gays, but the synthetic are at risk.

[REASON]

I am trying to make the distinction between natural and synthetic gays.

 

Why?

 

Why would it be necessary to make such a distinction? What difference does it really make? I mean, maybe if you were trying to generate some statistics for a reasearch project or something. But how someone expresses their individual sexuality is really nobody's business, paricularly the state, unless of course it violates someone elses rights.

 

Other than that, trying to distinguish between natural and "synthetic" gays seems like a lot of pointless energy spent.