Homosexuality

[J. J.]

Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this.

Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have?

I think I have done the first.  Notice that I've said "sexual preference" and not talked about "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality."

I can make a biological case against homosexuality, and against heterosexual celibacy for that matter.  Neither leads to passing on the genes (note that I cannot make this argument against bisexuality).

The question was not "what rights gay people should have," but "What causes someone to be gay?"  That question leads to "What causes sexual preference?"

I don't want to equate sexuality to a disability (and I am disabled), but you can ask "What causes disability," and "What rights should disabled people have?"  You'll get two different answers, but one is a biological question.

[afleitch]

But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males.

It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand.

[J. J.]

But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males.

It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand.

My first question is, is that true homosexuality or bisexuality?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

[angus]

But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males.

It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand.

Fair enough.  And I've been brainwashed by the school system, unquestioning.  But at the moment I have a hard time finding a better explanation for the diversity of plant and animal life, and the former diversity exhibited in the fossil record, than the party line towed by the public schools.  Given the intrinsic drive to reproduce, and the fact that reproduction sexually requires one of each to mate, it only seems natural that heterosexuality is the "default."  And in that line of thought, I thought it an odd comment for you to make.

But I have witnessed homosexual coupling in cats and in dogs.  In fact, we had a cat when I was young that I'm quite sure was gay.  He absolutely preferred to mount other male cats, even when healthy, intact, female cats of reproductive age were abundant in the neighborhood.

[Verily]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality.

Being in the closet means a "public" denial of your sexual preference, I will give you that.  The cases you described were of people sexually active that operate, or wish to operate, on that preference.

I think you're moving the goal posts on this one... there is a clear difference between the Act of sex and sexuality - someone can be sexually attracted to men, but having sex with women...

I think most people wish to act on their sexual interests... it's a kind of fundamental element of sexuality and how you know what your sexuality is.

[J. J.]

Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality.

Being in the closet means a "public" denial of your sexual preference, I will give you that.  The cases you described were of people sexually active that operate, or wish to operate, on that preference.

I think you're moving the goal posts on this one... there is a clear difference between the Act of sex and sexuality - someone can be sexually attracted to men, but having sex with women...

I think most people wish to act on their sexual interests... it's a kind of fundamental element of sexuality and how you know what your sexuality is.

No, I'm trying to disquish between the two.  The poll does not indicate that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

[California8429]

Choice.

Not that I would really have a high regarded opinion.

I did read an interesting article that those with older brothers are more likely to be gay

[ilikeverin]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

Not really, which is unfortunate

[Verily]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation.

[ilikeverin]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation.

That's well and good, but how do you objectively measure that?  That's the real problem, and why people often use self-identification instead.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation.

But why do you assume that attraction is the central fact of sexual identity? just because you find that the most important thing doesn't mean all people do.

[Verily]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation.

But why do you assume that attraction is the central fact of sexual identity? just because you find that the most important thing doesn't mean all people do.

It's the only fact about the situation. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

[Verily]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

some people form their own identities more in terms of their actions than their desires.

TBH, what a person "identifies as" due to social and religious pressure in this respect is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. It's central. Without identity, a concept of oneself, one cannot say "I am a heterosexual/homosexual"  Is there really an objective standard separate from that to define what someone else is or one isn't?

Yes, there is an objective standard. To whom you are attracted, which is not something that can be changed, although it can be denied. This may not be obvious to the outsider (i.e., one may be "in the closet", maybe even self-closeted), but that doesn't change the objective fact of the situation.

That's well and good, but how do you objectively measure that?  That's the real problem, and why people often use self-identification instead.

I wouldn't say self-identification isn't useful for measuring the number of out gay, straight, etc. people, but it isn't useful for tallying the entire population because it removes from consideration those who are too oppressed (by social pressure, religion, etc.) to come out.

Realistically, if we're going to be concerned about rights and social justice, we ought to be concerned about the rights of those who are the most oppressed more even than those who are willing/able to come out. So to lump them in with straight people is particularly nefarious. They're the ones most at risk for suicide, for example.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

These options are disingenuous.

[J. J.]

These options are disingenuous.

AGREED!!!

It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality.

[Hotblack Desiato]

It's genetic and more of a continuum from gay to straight as opposed to being a black and white thing.

[ilikeverin]

These options are disingenuous.

AGREED!!!

It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality.

Yes!  jmfcst's departure has certainly helped the tenor of discussions about teh gay, at least a bit.

[J. J.]

These options are disingenuous.

AGREED!!!

It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality.

Yes!  jmfcst's departure has certainly helped the tenor of discussions about teh gay, at least a bit.

I don't think it is that.  Human sexually is a serious issue and we've having a serious discussion of it.

[ilikeverin]

These options are disingenuous.

AGREED!!!

It is nice, however, that we can have a civil discussion of sexuality.

Yes!  jmfcst's departure has certainly helped the tenor of discussions about teh gay, at least a bit.

I don't think it is that.  Human sexually is a serious issue and we've having a serious discussion of it.

I'm not sure he would've let us had such a serious discussion

[Holmes]

I did read an interesting article that those with older brothers are more likely to be gay

D'aw, I don't have a brother, just a sister. And my boyfriend is the older brother. I wish we could be like the other gays.

[angus]

Well, I have an older brother.  But he's a libertarian, so maybe that doesn't count.

[Frink]

Who cares? Live and let live.