Homosexuality: Genetics or Choice?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-21 05:14am

Kuroneko wrote:Actually, I believe there is a modern society in which heterosexual sex is used only for procreation, and homosexual sex is encouraged for recreation, but I cannot remember where that is. I think I read something like that in Discover years ago. Has anyone heard of anything remotely like this, or am I dreaming it up?

Nothing springs to mind in present day, but look up the Spartans when you get a chance. No wonder they were always angry!

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-06-21 06:28am

I say "other". For some, I'm sure it's not a choice, and for some, I'm sure it is a choice. Since some claim to be gay by choice, and some claim to be gay by birth, we can't possibly say that every gay person fits one simple description.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-06-21 08:55am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:Actually, I believe there is a modern society in which heterosexual sex is used only for procreation, and homosexual sex is encouraged for recreation, but I cannot remember where that is. I think I read something like that in Discover years ago. Has anyone heard of anything remotely like this, or am I dreaming it up?
Nothing springs to mind in present day, but look up the Spartans when you get a chance. No wonder they were always angry!

I think you have it backwards. Spartans were 'angry' a lot because they fought wars a lot. For a perfect example of an angry heterosexual society, take a look at modern Christian and Islamic nations.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-06-21 09:13am

CaptainChewbacca wrote: Nothing springs to mind in present day, except for the near continiuous mantrains run on me by trollkingdom.com inhabitants

Argh..

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-06-21 09:19am

MKSheppard wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote: Nothing springs to mind in present day, except for the near continiuous mantrains run on me by trollkingdom.com inhabitants
Argh..

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-06-21 09:26am

This really rather complex, and is likely a combination of genetics, environment, and other variables. Certainly, one's sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. As Mike pointed out, no one consciously chooses to find certain people attractive, you just find that you are attracted to some people and not to others.

Having said that however, homosexual behavior can be learned. Societies which have no taboo against it exhibit a much higher incidence of homosexual intercourse. In ancient Greece, for example, some historians feel that a majority of men at least experimented with taking a male lover at some point in their lives. In Sparta, for example, young boys of the appropriate social class were raised in barracks (Sparta was one of history's most militarized societies), and while there were positively encouraged to form sexual/romantic partnerships with other boys. Thus, most of them had male lovers during their youth, and possibly all their lives. Clearly they cannot have all been homosexuals, but the mores of their society made them bisexual. There's really little or no reason to believe that there was any greater incidence of dedicated homosexuals (that is men who just plain don't find women sexually attractive) than there is in our society. But most men in our society never take a male lover, and most ancient Greek men probably did.

Now in our society, there are probably a number of repressed homosexuals, who never allow themselves to follow their natural desires because it is still stigmatized to a degree in our culture. But people like me, who honestly never feel sexually attracted to other men, will go their whole lives never experimenting with homosexual sex, and never being tempted to. But if we had been raised in a society like that of ancient Greece, odds are most of us natural heterosexuals would have taken male lovers at various times throughout our lives, and thought nothing of it, even though we'd still generally be more satisfied with female companionship.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-06-21 09:35am

I definitely think it is a genetic mix up that CAUSE PEOPLE TO BE STR8!

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-06-21 10:28am

Personally i would guess that it's a mixture.

First: conception occurs, a baby grows with genes that make behaviour tend one way.

second: up to a young age, the way the kid tends to act exposes them to events which will eventually decide their sexuality.

third: at a young age, their sexuality gets hotwired into their brain and behaviour.

fourth: eventually they come out, or not.

as an aside, i would guess that those who "choose" their sexuality are probably bi, as if they can get aroused by both sexes and choose one over the other they are probably bi, but with straight leanings.

I still have my theory that everyone's sexuality is a mixture of things, and everyone has some middle ground with their sexuality and others. No matter how slim, that is the way we're "meant" to be biologically.

Those are my thoughts.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-06-21 11:17am

Homosexuality has been around as long as the human race has been around. Is this a provable fact? Most probably not. I still agree with it though. I also believe that this is just as natural as anything else. I get tired of people who think that all gay people do or care about is having sex. It’s like they either disbelieve or care not to include “love and caring" in the equation. Gay people love and care just as much as heterosexuals do. And yes, they have sex just as much as heterosexuals do. There is no difference.

Being a gay male probably is something that is genetically caused, but I believe that it is a trait just like blue/brown/green eyes, brown/black/blond hair. Just because it is something that is different doesn’t mean it is bad or un-natural or a flaw.

I think life would be fairly boring if everyone was identical and thought exactly the same thoughts as the other. Of course throughout history, it’s always been the main-stream groups who have forced their ideals on the smaller groups. It is unfortunate that this way of thinking will persists.

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2003-06-21 11:35am

I agree with anyone who said it is a combination. I do believe that there are traits that can lean a person towards a certain kind of sexually, but I find it very difficult to believe that anyone can be a homosexual simply because he has trait X, Y, and Z.

But I do think it's a choice to a degree. One of my best friends just came out. Over the years, he has had one problem after the other with women. He realized that every time he started seeing another woman, he was quickly bored and over the years, was losing more attraction to them. This is the same guy who confessed his love to me at one point, and was ready to propose to his girlfriend before that.

Then he decided he really wasn't happy with women at all. He just recently told me about his new boyfriend, Andy.

Now, I'm quite sure that's not the best example. That's a mixed-up kid, but as for the many lesbians and other gays I have met, it has worked along those lines somehow. Some realize they are gay, or they think that they are more happier with men. Some realize they have no preference. Or there are others like me that have been curious, and have realized more interest lies in the opposite sex.

I also agree that environment can be a factor, but isn't the deciding one. I've had lots of gay friends - and for humor, yes, I've been asked out by more girls than guys, which made me feel kind of special - but never did I find my sexuality because I was simply around it. Environment and genetics go together. Just because a group of people accepts homosexuality quite openly does not mean that someone among that group will be gay. That also works the other way around. If there is a certain part of your make-up that will guide you towards homosexuality and then environment exemplifies that leaning, there you are. If it doesn't, well, who cares?

And lastly, I have to add this, even if I started this thread. Homosexuality, bi-sexuality and heterosexuality really don't mean dick. They are aspects of each person, but once one discovers that part of themselves, it takes the strength the go with it so that you'll find happiness. Happiness is one of those fleeting things, so if you can find something that will help hang on to it, let me know and I'll share my cookies. I highly respect anyone who is something that is normally, openly hated. In a mostly idealized, heterosexual world, I give those with the strength and the willingness to come out and be proud of who they are a definate two thumbs up, and well, all the cookies I own.

Crimson Raine

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-06-21 03:45pm

CrimsonRaine wrote:But I do think it's a choice to a degree. One of my best friends just came out. Over the years, he has had one problem after the other with women. He realized that every time he started seeing another woman, he was quickly bored and over the years, was losing more attraction to them. This is the same guy who confessed his love to me at one point, and was ready to propose to his girlfriend before that.

"Choice" would imply that he is likely bisexual--in that he is attracted to the opposite sex, but it dissatisfied with the way the relationships work out.

If he is genuinely no longer attracted to women, then he is indeed homosexual, but "choice" would still not really be applicabble, because it requires a conscious decision. If he decided "I think I'll no longer be attracted to women" one day, well, then it would be choice, but I think that's very unlikely. His choice was probably more along the lines of "I think I'll no longer date women, because I'm no longer attacted to them," which is a choice about his behavior, not his sexual preference.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-06-21 07:19pm

Anyone got any thoughts on my ideas?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-21 08:01pm

Kuroneko wrote:His choice was probably more along the lines of "I think I'll no longer date women, because I'm no longer attacted to them," which is a choice about his behavior, not his sexual preference.

Thats something i'd have to say DUH to. Its like saying "Hmm. I don't think I'll date men because I don't like men." Yeah, its a choice whether you date them or not, but we date them because we want to, and the wanting isnt a choice. The act of dating can be chosen, but that doesnt change your sexuality. Dating out of your sexuality is pointless and useless. The issue discussed is not whether we have the choice of dating this or that person, but whether we have the choice to be ATTRACTED.

Your friend didn't make the choice to stop dating girls, he ceased doing something he didn't like doing. There was no choice involved, because there was no alternative. We date because we like, so if theres no liking theres no dating. Simple.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-06-21 08:38pm

kojikun wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:His choice was probably more along the lines of "I think I'll no longer date women, because I'm no longer attacted to them," which is a choice about his behavior, not his sexual preference.
Thats something i'd have to say DUH to. Its like saying "Hmm. I don't think I'll date men because I don't like men."

Quite. However, this case clearly illustrates that sometimes the bloody obvious needs to be said.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-06-21 08:45pm

I'd say a mix of many things.

Genetics certainly has a large role on it, but environment does influence it. It could be hormone levels during pregnancy, childhood experiences, etc. I am sure that it is not voluntary though, as Right Wing Ultra-conservative fundies keep insisting.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-06-21 08:51pm

Howedar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Kuroneko wrote:Actually, I believe there is a modern society in which heterosexual sex is used only for procreation, and homosexual sex is encouraged for recreation, but I cannot remember where that is. I think I read something like that in Discover years ago. Has anyone heard of anything remotely like this, or am I dreaming it up?
I know that one. It's called "The Catholic Church".
I am unamused.

Amused.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-06-21 09:34pm

Exonerate wrote:I'd say a mix of many things.

Genetics certainly has a large role on it, but environment does influence it. It could be hormone levels during pregnancy, childhood experiences, etc. I am sure that it is not voluntary though, as Right Wing Ultra-conservative fundies keep insisting.

Hormone levels during pregnancy??????????? OH, Okay, it's a sickness now????????????? Yeah right!

Sorry, but too me that was quite offensive. That's like me trying to guess what you mother's hormone levels were when she had you.

So you're normal because the majority of society says you are? Okay.....

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-06-21 09:38pm

BrYaN19kc wrote:
Exonerate wrote:I'd say a mix of many things.

Genetics certainly has a large role on it, but environment does influence it. It could be hormone levels during pregnancy, childhood experiences, etc. I am sure that it is not voluntary though, as Right Wing Ultra-conservative fundies keep insisting.

Hormone levels during pregnancy??????????? OH, Okay, it's a sickness now????????????? Yeah right!

I never said that. All said was that hormone levels could influence it. Last time I checked, having fluxuating hormone levels wasn't considered a disease.

Calm down, no offense was meant.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-06-21 09:43pm

Exonerate wrote: All said was that hormone levels could influence it.

IT??? what is "IT"??? Being str8?

Hmm, YEP, flucuating hormones could quite possibly cause you to be str8.

(with you not at you)

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-06-21 09:49pm

It being your sexuality, whatever it might be.

I hate to sound like a fundie here, but I am pretty sure that two people of the same sex would normally have trouble producing a baby

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-06-21 09:52pm

Exonerate wrote:It being your sexuality, whatever it might be.

I hate to sound like a fundie here, but I am pretty sure that two people of the same sex would normally have trouble producing a baby

Who ever said that was a requirement for anything????????????

You're rolling this out as trying to find an EXCUSE for something..... an excuse for what?

That's what I'm trying to get. Why are people str8 for that matter?

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-06-21 09:57pm

BrYaN19kc wrote:
Exonerate wrote:It being your sexuality, whatever it might be.

I hate to sound like a fundie here, but I am pretty sure that two people of the same sex would normally have trouble producing a baby

Who ever said that was a requirement for anything????????????

You're rolling this out as trying to find an EXCUSE for something..... an excuse for what?

That's what I'm trying to get. Why are people str8 for that matter?

Its no requirement, but to continue species, you would need growth.

I'm still a bit confused about the part on this being an excuse, so if you could elaborate...

Why are people straight? Because we're not gay

Being straight is natural, not that I'm implying being gay isn't.

I have to go now, should be back in less than a hour.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-06-21 10:09pm

BrYaN19kc wrote: some random stuff.

The reason people are "straight" is to procreate. I believe there is no definitive normal sexuality for humans, just vary degrees of the same scale. Genetics and environment play the important part on deciding where you lie on that scale.

It's possible i reckon, that a baby is either bi/nonsexual with certain leanings which eventually lead to heterosexuality bisexuality or heterosexuality, and the preferences thereof.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-21 10:12pm

Humans are the most sexually unique animals on the planet, with the possible exception of Bonobos.

We have sex whenever we want, unlike other animals that have to wait for "breeding season" (name for a band!)
Do to our complexities, homosexuality could be the result of who knows what? People have hinted that if it's inherited(genetic), it should have been bred out due to a significant lack of breeding in homosexuals. Why hasn't diabetes been bred out to a significant number of people dying of it?

Who knows.

But as to it being a flaw, or worse, a disease to be cured, what conditions existed in our prehistoric past to reinforce it's presence? It exists, that existance could be argued to serve a purpose, couldn't it?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-22 01:45am

Frank Hipper wrote:People have hinted that if it's inherited(genetic), it should have been bred out due to a significant lack of breeding in homosexuals.

Well, I know I put in my 2 pence on that issue and my theory is water tight.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Homosexuality: Genetics or Choice?

Is homosexuality is genetics or personal choice?

Guess I should add my opinion, hm?

Re: Guess I should add my opinion, hm?

Re: Guess I should add my opinion, hm?

Re: Guess I should add my opinion, hm?