Your Sexuality is
Gay Or Lesbian
5.5% (32)
5.5% (32)
Bisexual
13% (76)
13% (76)
Pan-Sexual
3.8% (22)
3.8% (22)
Demi-Sexual
1.9% (11)
1.9% (11)
Straight
68% (398)
68% (398)
Asexuality
4.8% (28)
4.8% (28)
Other
2.2% (13)
2.2% (13)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The 'why' in Sexuality

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Storm Dragon:
I don't understand gay guys. Lesbians, yes, but not gay men. The thing is, penises are ugly, all wrinkly and veiny. A straight woman makes sense, since they are genetically hardwired to find men attractive, but men aren't. Unless homosexuality is genetic in origin, in which case, it's in homophobes' best interests to support same-sex marriage and let natural selection do its thing.

As a precaution, I'd like to take the time that I am not anti-gay and am in favor of same-sex marriage. This post was primarily humorous in intent. Thank you and have a nice day.

Y'know what?I'm straight and being as objective as is possible, I actually find penises less disgusting than vaginas, they still look pretty grim, but sexual organs in general prove that no loving god ever actually checked what he'd stuck down there or he was off his fucking face at the time. Personally I think there should just be another pair or tits down there, anatomy or practicality be damned!

Also, homosexuality is genetic in origin, gay animals (as in non-humans) are a normal thing in the wild.

You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

I'm not sure there is a "gay gene" as such or at least not something so blunt, it's most likely something to do with the brain, which we still don't know too much about, however, that doesn't explain this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I mean, animals are bestial in nature, they don't have personalities like we do, they rely solely on instinct, so there must be something that predetermines your sexuality, because you certainly don't choose to be gay, I'm sure we'll figure it out in the future which could lead to all sorts of problems, but we'll cross that bridge in the future

I'm asexual, though I still have a libido, I just don't care what people look like. I'd happily have sex with a robot, if they weren't all really, really creepy and uncanny valley-ish monstrosities. Plus, I'd be terrified they'd suddenly go into blender mode or something (*shudder*)

And I don't think there's a "why?" to me being asexual, I just am. Like that people just are straight, or just are pan, or whatever. I've not had any traumatic experience or anything, I just don't find people sexually attractive.

I consider myself to be a straight female but I have found myself being attracted to a few girls in the past. I have never pursued a same sex relationship so I am still unsure whether or not I am slightly bisexual, or if I am just confusing feelings of admiration or appreciation for sexual attraction.

Im straight. I dont think you can change your sexuality. Im pretty confident that for most its something you have at birth that is either repressed or under the surface that some discover later. Maybe its shaped for others by experiences.

Im certain it isnt a choice. And im certain that even if it was a choice it wouldnt matter anyway and the entire point of that, and this, is moot because it doesnt at all affect the rights of those who are gay. They deserve all of it no matter what it is.

elvor0:

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

I'm not sure there is a "gay gene" as such or at least not something so blunt, it's most likely something to do with the brain, which we still don't know too much about, however, that doesn't explain this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I mean, animals are bestial in nature, they don't have personalities like we do, they rely solely on instinct, so there must be something that predetermines your sexuality, because you certainly don't choose to be gay, I'm sure we'll figure it out in the future which could lead to all sorts of problems, but we'll cross that bridge in the future

agreed. but there are scientists who have studied this in depth and they all say it is to do with environmental factors.

I'm a straight hetrosexual male, but i'm comfortable enough to admit that on a couple of occasions in my life i've felt homosexual attraction, but not enough to identify myself as bisexual.

But all this categorisation and sub-categorisation of sexuality is starting to annoy me. Sexual orientation's a spectrum with the majority of mainly males and females falling on either extreme end of the sexuality spectrum and with a minority of others scattered in between or on opposite ends of the spectrum to which their sex would usually dictate.

It seems whenever humans want to make something scientific, we categorise and sub-categorise it the extreme.

In the past people didn't write about "being" straight or "being" gay- they only differentiated between homosexual and heterosexual acts, one could do either, if you were inclined.

Trezu:
[its where idea's happen]

Just an aside, but please spell consistently. It's not so much good or bad that's the issue, but you manage to use like three different versions of the same word in the same context at point.

'your just born that way' [also i don't listen to most modern music so i was unaware of the Lady Gaga song'] i wasn't sold on this either, because if you have certain experiences with a gender you might end up hating that gender. As far as i know people aren't born with hate, so i was really against the wall trying to figure it out.

Aside 2: I hate that song. "Hey guys, I have gay fans so I'll make the most perfunctory LGBT song I possibly can!"

Okay, now down to the beef. The logic here is specious. one can hate a sex and still be attracted to them. Hell, if every misogynist was gay, the species would have died out a long time ago.

but i was Straight only 4 years ago, i found gay stuff and by that i mean like 'Erotica' kind of 'unappealing' if you get me. I did and still do believe in Gay rights and stuff i just didn't really wanna see Erotica in action.

Sounds more like denial or repression, and I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor. In this case, the fewest extraneous steps is that nothing's changed but your perception or self-awareness.

Whats your sexuality?

bisexual, pansexual, whatever. I don't really care about the gender of the people I like any more than I like labels in general.

Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?

I spent years trying to not be "that way," to no avail. I can't help but believe it to be inborn.

Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?

I don't doubt some experiences influence us somewhat, but to say they define them? Science says no. To some extent, logic says no.

Straight, because boobs basically. Also, i'm allergic to alliteration *A CHOUM !!*

I don't really know the why. Sometimes there is no "why". Why is that mountain here is as nonsensical is Why are you straight. The only "why" we could answer could be in terms of genetic research or something like that. That's more of a "cause" and not really a "why".

But mostly boobs.

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

Your understanding of genetics is crude and incorrect.

Cystic fribrosis is a myth.
Consider this if there was a gene for cystic fibrosis, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair ect. However those that get this disease and die young cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes to their offspring.

This is wrong. Its called CARRIERS. Youve used a childish model for genetics that makes zero sense in the real world. People can carry a single allele from parents because parents dont ALWAYS pass on 100% of their genes. They pass on half.

So a gay person can be born from someone with the gay gene who will have straight children and be straight because they CARRY SOME of the information to be gay but not ALL in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. When gametes randomly mix the OTHER parent may have the rest of the information to be gay in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. Thus a gay child has a very slim chance of being created IF these few eggs/sperm meet.

Not all of your sperm/eggs are the same.

I dont know if the gay gene is real or if it is genetic, im just saying for certain your reasoning is 100% wrong. Please dont use "simple" to describe a topic you understand very little about. Presnting these arguements to a geneticist would see you laughed out of the room, these are the very fundamentals of genetics. So dont try and draw conclusions when you lack them.

I'm straight because I'm not attracted to guys. It... really doesn't go deeper than that.

I considers myself to be bisexual.
I considered myself straight for the longest time before realizing that I had indeed been attracted to Agee guys. Nothing more too it really. I'm in a straight relationship, and any gay tendencies are slight (albeit there) so to be specific, You could say bi with straight tendencies.

As for why we are what we are... Does it matter? We just are. Do we need an answer?

Capcha: easy as cake
What is it trying to say?

I'm bisexual, though I do see sexuality as a sliding scale. As in, you can be totally straight, totally gay and then various shades of bi in between the two (asexuals are obviously different). For example, I'd say 80% of the time if I'm attracted to someone physically, they'll be female. However, that's purely physical, and as soon as I start getting to know someone I couldn't care less about their gender. So, despite my overwhelming instinctive bias towards women, I happen to have had more actual relationships (not just sexual encounters) with men. That's just the way it's turned out so far though, it's all about the individuals I've encountered in my life (and probably the fact that there are a lot more straight men out there than gay or bi women, so statistically I'm more likely to encounter men who'd be interested in me than women).

With that in mind, I have no idea what calling yourself pansexual is all about. People say it means they don't care about gender... so what the hell do they think bisexuality is? I have a horrible feeling it might involve the old myth that we want to have relationships with a man and a woman at the same time :S

Unless it's just meant to encompass people who don't identify as male or female for whatever reason. In which case I still don't see the point in adding a whole new label , since I reckon some people of all orientations might be attracted to someone who fitted that description, depending on the individuals involved.

Oh, and for all intents and purposes I'm happy to say I was born this way. I have no idea about the genetics of it or anything, but I've been like this for as long as I can remember and don't have any burning desire for any further explanation.

MammothBlade:
I'm bisexual because I can derive romantic and sexual stimulation from both sexes. Not much else to it.

image

Yeah, that sounds about right.
Unless someone scientifically proves the Concession Effect.
Also, what is that image from?

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Wrong and wrong.

Gay people reproduce all the time. It is easier for humans, but gay animals manage too. It's because a "preference" isn't an "only ever".

Also, as an essay I read recently pointed out, it's probably a "bisexual" gene that has multiple layers of expression. IE: only one 'gay' gene, just a bit bi. Lots of gay genes, fully gay. The exact number, of course, is still unknown.

The gene exists because certain animals (mostly mammals) tend to live in groups that provide necessary assistance (ie, they hunt together, or the group defends individuals from predators). Sometimes there are more of one gender than the other. The gay (or more likely bisexual) gene exists so that those members aren't left out of important group bonding behavior (ie, coupling off). However, since many of those same animals also changes partners frequently (either due to promiscuity or herd culling by predators), it allows for the homo or bisexual members to reproduce.

Strait, never found a man attractive, Born that way, and most probably die that way.

verdant monkai:

elvor0:

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

I'm not sure there is a "gay gene" as such or at least not something so blunt, it's most likely something to do with the brain, which we still don't know too much about, however, that doesn't explain this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I mean, animals are bestial in nature, they don't have personalities like we do, they rely solely on instinct, so there must be something that predetermines your sexuality, because you certainly don't choose to be gay, I'm sure we'll figure it out in the future which could lead to all sorts of problems, but we'll cross that bridge in the future

agreed. but there are scientists who have studied this in depth and they all say it is to do with environmental factors.

I'm sure there is a certain element of environmental factors, more so in humans than in animals for obvious reasons, but we have to take recessive/carrier genes into account as well, I mean it's entirely possible for two white people to have a black baby and vice versa.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shock-of-the-black-couple-who-had-a-white-128720

(Yeah I know it's the mirror, but it's possible)You can have dormant genes allowing for all sorts of things to happen, they're a billion to one of happening, but the possibility is there.

Anyone who's actually a biologist can explain it better than I can, as in scientific terms, my usage of the words dormant/recessive is probably laughably wrong.

I mean for a personal example, one of my friends is a Lesbian, and one of her three brothers is gay, yet the other two are straight, and the parents are straight too, who have now divorced and are in relation ships with their opposite sex, so it's not even like one of them was closeted, humans are funny things, I doubt we'll ever fully understand how the mind/brain works.

MammothBlade:
I'm bisexual because I can derive romantic and sexual stimulation from both sexes. Not much else to it.

image

Quoted because... well yeah. Female bisexual who loves Evangelion. ^^

As noted above, genetics. Being gay/bi was important to individual survival when we were monkeys. Of course, how we express that gene is modified by society. Nature and Nurture are both important aspects.

Also because the Shinji/Kaji picture is fricken awesome. And yes, that is actually the line from that scene in that episode. Gotta love Kaji.

TrilbyWill:
Also, what is that image from?

Neon Genesis Evangelion.

That Guy Ya Know:

krazykidd:
Also i view being Asexual as a ailment , because humans are suppose to have the urge to reproduce .

You could use that argument to claim any sexuality other than straight is an ailment.

Anyhow I'm apparently the first asexual here. Not really sure what made me turn out this way but I just don't find the idea of sex attractive at all. Not that there's anything wrong with it it's just not something I can ever see myself doing; despite the social stigma surrounding being a virgin I really don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

Well first i'd like to say i hope i didn't offend . And what i meant by "urge to reproduce" was that as a species we would naturall want to spred our seed and thus have an urge for sex . Meaning straight/bi/homosexual people have the urge of sex due to their urge to reproduce ( without necessarily wanting to empregnate or be empregnated ).

I'm straight. Not all that attracted to men, come to think of it.
That's... as far as it goes really.

Bara_no_Hime:

MammothBlade:
I'm bisexual because I can derive romantic and sexual stimulation from both sexes. Not much else to it.

image

Quoted because... well yeah. Female bisexual who loves Evangelion. ^^

As noted above, genetics. Being gay/bi was important to individual survival when we were monkeys. Of course, how we express that gene is modified by society. Nature and Nurture are both important aspects.

Also because the Shinji/Kaji picture is fricken awesome. And yes, that is actually the line from that scene in that episode. Gotta love Kaji.

Implying that everyone accepts that humans came from monkeys as fact . And there is no reason why that perticular aspect wouldn't be lost in evolution .

BiscuitTrouser:

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

Your understanding of genetics is crude and incorrect.

Cystic fribrosis is a myth.
Consider this if there was a gene for cystic fibrosis, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair ect. However those that get this disease and die young cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes to their offspring.

This is wrong. Its called CARRIERS. Youve used a childish model for genetics that makes zero sense in the real world. People can carry a single allele from parents because parents dont ALWAYS pass on 100% of their genes. They pass on half.

So a gay person can be born from someone with the gay gene who will have straight children and be straight because they CARRY SOME of the information to be gay but not ALL in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. When gametes randomly mix the OTHER parent may have the rest of the information to be gay in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. Thus a gay child has a very slim chance of being created IF these few eggs/sperm meet.

Not all of your sperm/eggs are the same.

I dont know if the gay gene is real or if it is genetic, im just saying for certain your reasoning is 100% wrong. Please dont use "simple" to describe a topic you understand very little about. Presnting these arguements to a geneticist would see you laughed out of the room, these are the very fundamentals of genetics. So dont try and draw conclusions when you lack them.

sufferers of cystic fibrosis would be angered to hear you say "Cystic fribrosis is a myth." BiscuitTrouser.

You are of course talking about carriers who pass on genes that lie dormant and then come out, maybe one or two generations later.

ha ha yeah ok, you realise a gay person would have to have had kids (WHICH THEY CANT DO) in the first place for there to even have been carriers of the gene in the first place.

Say a gay person does have straight sex (which goes against being gay), and they did pas on the gene. It would not last long, the gay offspring would not be interested in spreading the gene they would want gay sex. So it would die out or if it did survive there would be a lot less gays than there are.

Take ancient Greece for example they THOUGHT being gay was fine.
Up until recently we THOUGHT being gay was bad.
(It's all about thought you see)
But sorry I cant be asked arguing genetics with you I have passed GCSE Biology and that's it, I have no real knowledge. The argument I just gave is one whom my friend who is a biologist, explained to me. (I may have explained it poorly)

So no your carrier argument is invalid.
(I cant be asked taking this conversation any further than this sorry)

Aurgelmir:
What is Demi-sexual? And how does Pan-sexuality differ from bisexuality?

Pansexuals are a group of people who are bisexual, but feel they are above those who call themselves bisexual. It's essentially the same and everyone who tells you the logic behind pansexuals base their reasoning on the simple fact that they're not bisexual, but can fall in love with a person regardless of gender. Like ANYONE ever really understand the full extent of falling in love. Really, they just piss me off with their snobbish attitude towards bisexuality.

I'm straight. Probably because I have an instinct to reproduce and I can only do that with a woman. I've always been that way so I guess I was born that way. Never felt attraction to a guy.

I'm straight. I never found the same sex attractive. I guess my brain isn't wired that way.

I've still yet to wrap my head around what exactly a pan-sexual is. I've also never heard of demi-sexual. My limited knowledge of them makes me wonder if its just bi-sexuals who want to be different.

Anyway, To the questions!

1) Gay

2) I honestly could say why really. But I do know for a fact that it was not my choice. To me, Guys are hot and Girls are not.

3) I'm inclined to believe that I was born this way. It has been prevalent throughout my entire life. When I told my mum about it she said she had guessed as much ever since I was a child.

4) Not once, back in the days of my sexually confused teenage years I did try to find girls attractive. It just doesnt work for me.

Storm Dragon:
I don't understand gay guys. Lesbians, yes, but not gay men. The thing is, penises are ugly, all wrinkly and veiny. A straight woman makes sense, since they are genetically hardwired to find men attractive, but men aren't. Unless homosexuality is genetic in origin, in which case, it's in homophobes' best interests to support same-sex marriage and let natural selection do its thing.

As a precaution, I'd like to take the time that I am not anti-gay and am in favor of same-sex marriage. This post was primarily humorous in intent. Thank you and have a nice day.

You are right. Penises are pretty ugly. But I'm more into the well defined masculine chest and body structure as a whole rather than the penis.

I'm gay. Actually, I'm an MSM - that's the medical term, a man who has sex with men either occasionally or solely - since 'gay' is actually a sociological term that refers to a sub-culture I frankly find seedy and surprisingly narrow-minded for a group ostensibly founded on the basis of a common experience of discrimination. You know, like geek culture except with better drinks and worse music.

As to the why, this is something I've read up a bit about since it tends to come up a lot in the inevitable "gays are unnatural" shitstorm that marriage equality threads devolve into and I like to have some links to studies bookmarked, to drop science on the haters like nukes on Hiros(- what, too soon?)

While I can't say I definitely HAVE the answer - I'm not a geneticist, neurobiologist or behavioural psychologist - the evidence I've seen does overwhelmingly support the idea that homosexual behaviour has its roots primarily in our development and biology. I think it has behavioural aspects of course - human sexuality is too complex an asepct ourselves to pigeonhole entirely - but there's been a lot of really interesting work done in studying the genetic, neurological and hormonal aspects of it. Which all leads into the final question about personal experience and attempts to 'change'.

I knew from quite a young age that I was 'different' in a way I really didnt' want to be. I was already a bullied kid at school and when I realised I was attracted to guys, that was a bit hit to me and something I really tried to do something about. I tried straight porn, I tried getting romantically involved with girls, but it was like trying to get a fish to breathe air. It was something I was born with/as, something that I spent years trying to change and failed.

To be perfectly honest, if there was a magical "make me straight" button I could push and redo my entire life with that one change? I probably would. The second playthrough would be much easier and I probably would be happier. The world does not make it easy on gays, especially through adolesence.

verdant monkai:

BiscuitTrouser:

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

Your understanding of genetics is crude and incorrect.

Cystic fribrosis is a myth.
Consider this if there was a gene for cystic fibrosis, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair ect. However those that get this disease and die young cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes to their offspring.

This is wrong. Its called CARRIERS. Youve used a childish model for genetics that makes zero sense in the real world. People can carry a single allele from parents because parents dont ALWAYS pass on 100% of their genes. They pass on half.

So a gay person can be born from someone with the gay gene who will have straight children and be straight because they CARRY SOME of the information to be gay but not ALL in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. When gametes randomly mix the OTHER parent may have the rest of the information to be gay in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. Thus a gay child has a very slim chance of being created IF these few eggs/sperm meet.

Not all of your sperm/eggs are the same.

I dont know if the gay gene is real or if it is genetic, im just saying for certain your reasoning is 100% wrong. Please dont use "simple" to describe a topic you understand very little about. Presnting these arguements to a geneticist would see you laughed out of the room, these are the very fundamentals of genetics. So dont try and draw conclusions when you lack them.

sufferers of cystic fibrosis would be angered to hear you say "Cystic fribrosis is a myth." BiscuitTrouser.

You are of course talking about carriers who pass on genes that lie dormant and then come out, maybe one or two generations later.

ha ha yeah ok, you realise a gay person would have to have had kids (WHICH THEY CANT DO) in the first place for there to even have been carriers of the gene in the first place.

Say a gay person does have straight sex (which goes against being gay), and they did pas on the gene. It would not last long, the gay offspring would not be interested in spreading the gene they would want gay sex. So it would die out or if it did survive there would be a lot less gays than there are.

But sorry I cant be asked arguing genetics with you I have passed GCSE Biology and that's it, I have no real knowledge. The argument I just gave is one whom my friend who is a biologist, explained to me. (I may have explained it poorly)

So no your carrier argument is invalid.
(I cant be asked taking this conversation any further than this sorry)

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

krazykidd:
Implying that everyone accepts that humans came from monkeys as fact . And there is no reason why that perticular aspect wouldn't be lost in evolution .

Sorry, should have said primates - monkey being a specific type of primate.

Unless you're saying that we aren't primates. If so... I think I need a little help from Fanrsworth. And it isn't about Good News.

Before reading this thread, I assumed I was bisexual, but I thought I'd look up some definitions to get an accurate answer and found that I fit into the catagory of grey-A.

People who identify as gray-A can include, but are not limited to those who:

do not normally experience sexual attraction, but do experience it sometimes
experience sexual attraction, but a low sex drive
experience sexual attraction and drive, but not strongly enough to want to act on them
people who can enjoy and desire sex, but only under very limited and specific circumstances

(Source)
I personally am somewhere between the first two points, but grey-A is a very loose term and is just for people who are neither asexual, demisexual or sexual, but somewhere in between. I think a good term for this is sexual-ish, or asexual-ish.

I don't think sexuality is genetic, as our experiences define who we are, which includes sexuality.

Weird, just a couple of months ago I thought I was straight.

EDIT: I think I should give my understanding of the difference between bisexual and pansexual. Bisexual is being attracted to only two genders, whereas pansexual is being attracted to all. The main problem I am seeing in this thread is people not knowing that there are more than two genders, both biological and social. Biological gender being your reproductive gender, such as male or female, and can include genotypes XX, XY, X0, XXX, XXY and quite a few more. Social gender (I think) means the gender you identify as, for example if your biological gender is XX but you identify as a male, your social gender would be male.

Of course, I could be wrong, as some of this is just my thoughts on the matter, although I have read up on this subject quite a bit.

The hell if I know. I thought I was straight until I found myself looking at gay porn and enjoying it, and having a casual on/off sexual relationship with a male friend.

I wouldn't even say I'm bisexual, since I only seem to have 'gay-tendencies' on very few occasions and have yet to experience any kind of romantic bond with a male.

For ease, I say I'm heterosexual, but I'd argue sexuality is sometimes more complicated than 'tick one of the above boxes'.

EDIT - Did anyone else read the title in your head as if it should be pronounced 'The wai in sexualitai', or am I just being weird?

BiscuitTrouser:
[quote="verdant monkai" post="18.373421.14436304"][quote="BiscuitTrouser" post="18.373421.14436176"][quote="verdant monkai" post="18.373421.14436108"]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning "Cleveland's baseball team").

verdant monkai:

BiscuitTrouser:
[quote="verdant monkai" post="18.373421.14436304"][quote="BiscuitTrouser" post="18.373421.14436176"][quote="verdant monkai" post="18.373421.14436108"]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning "Cleveland's baseball team").

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

verdant monkai:
You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

I get that you're not attacking gay people, and I don't want this to seem like me launching a counter-offensive, but I do disagree with some of your statements. I think you're over-simplifying a pretty complex issue rather drastically. I'm not trying to call you a homophobe or anything like that, but I do think you could do with reading around the topic a bit more before weighing in with such wide sweeping comments as "sexuality is all in your head". Obviously a component of sexual behaviour is cognitive - one can learn and develop preferences through experience - but the behavioural aspects are the tip on a physiological iceberg.

First, you seem to be saying that the only way someone can be "born with" something is to have it be a genetic factor directly inherited, unaltered, from the parents, which is obviously not the case, otherwise evolution simply couldn't happen. Leaving aside the fact that you're wholesale ignoring the concept of genetic mutation, there's a lot of weight to the theory that male homosexuality has to do with fetal developmental variations. For example, a second child is more likely to be gay than a first, and a third etc etc. One cited possibility for this is that subsequent fetuses are exposed to greater quantities of female hormones. Obviously this is just for male same-sex behaviour, but let's move on to another point.

Second, neurochemistry: brain imaging has found that a gay male's brain 'fires' in response to sexual pheromone-based stimuli in a manner that more closely resembles a straight woman's than a straight male. Similary, lesbian brains respond more like straight men than straight women. This is a chemical, physical and unconcious reaction displaying a clear and categorical distinction between different 'sexualities' on a physiological level.

Now, let's move on to more social arguments.

If homosexuality is 'all in your head' and not something you are born with, as you assert, it is therefore a learned behaviour, right? Then the question becomes why would same-sex behaviour still occur in cultures that prescribe heavily against it? Many Middle Eastern states, for example, have the death penalty against male same-sex activities - but funnily enough those gays still keep cropping up. All that the death penalty ensures is that they either resort to extreme subterfuge in order to pursue same-sex activities or have to leave the country in order to live in a way that feels proper to them without the threat of death. Why haven't they been 'scared straight'?

Next, if it is something one is not born with, but 'learned', then the question becomes where does one learn that from? Would a boy in a bubble not be gay in spite of everything else that might otherwise 'make' him gay? Consider the numerous twin studies that founded the idea of a genetic factor to homosexuality; that is, if one twin is gay, the other is statistically overwhelmingly going to be gay as well, no matter the distance the two are apart, nor the amount of time they have been seperate. Do you believe that if we identified two potentially gay twins and isolated one of them, while let the other one go off to become as flaming a faggot as he liked, the boy in the bubble would be a red-blooded heterosexual?

Next, if homosexuality is a purely cognitive aspect of a person, then so-called 'reparative therapy' would work in the same way that one could go to therapy to give up smoking, get over a fear or cope with depression. It doesn't. Even the staunchest of 'ex-gay' advocates have admitted that there has never been a single truly 'cured' homosexual in the history of the ex-gay movement. In fact, reparative therapy is so incredibly psychological destructive that there exists a (pro-gay) "ex-gay survivor" movement campaigning against reparative therapy. I really recommend the writings of Wayne Besen on this topic; Anything But Straight especially clearly documents the failings of the ex-gay movement.

Like I say, I'm not trying to attack you yourself, but I think your arguments speak from a lack of information.

Oh, and one last aside. Your comment on how Ancient Greece used to think homosexuality was okay? Not quite. Again, you're majorly over-simplifying the matter. Several pre-modern societies were (sort of, usually) okay with same-sex activity. Note: not the same thing as exclusive homosexuality. But this was not even something the entirely of Greece could agree on, and even only then with some pretty major caveats attached. First, in those societies the institution of marriage and the practice of childbirth was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than it is today. Like, getting married while a teen and being explicitly told that the function of such a marriage is to make babies. If your wife doesn't start showing a tummy-bulge within a year of your wedlock, you are a failure of a man. Enjoy! Same-sex activity was in some societies seen as an acceptable form of sex for pleasure - just for pleasure, remember, not as a romantic relationship as we'd concieve of it in modern terms - but mostly due to fucked up pre-modern gender politics where women still weren't entirely seen as human fucking beings, or simply like fucked-up inferior versions of men at best, so of course they could only be used to make more men.

In the few socially acceptable forms of homosexual behaviour, age was also a factor. See, if you're the boss in those societies, you top and if you're the office worker, you're the bottom. That's the only way they consider it acceptable, because the top is the 'manly = superior' position and the bottom is the 'feminine = inferior' position. Again, gender politics back then were kinda fucked, and this was also before the invention of the power bottom. Age was also a factor, leading to the famed Athenian pederasty; an older teacher would be engaged in a same sex relationship with a young, beardless youth - but again, only with the old man on top and the youth on the bottom was this an acceptable relationship. One of the things that the Roman Emperor Nero's contemporaries disliked about him wasn't that he engaged in same-sex activities with his Egyptian stud-slaves (honestly, who doesn't like the odd Egyptian stud-slave?) but because he was on the bottom when he did. The Emperor does not bottom, especially not to a slave. The Emperor should have always been the top in every instance, because he was the utter head of state and therefore should have been head of the bedroom too.

Returning to the central them of this essay of a post: it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

That's certainly a unique place for this topic to enter your head.
I'm more or less exclusively straight, but I don't have much of a problem admitting that other men are attractive.

I don't really think sexuality has a why, it just kind of is, but then again I know jack all about any human mind other then my own so I can't say anything definitive really.

I don't really think we're born with our sexuality, I don't think anything involving sexuality really starts to develop until much later (Again I know very little about the human mind). But it's certainly not an environmental thing, if it was we wouldn't have gay people come out of Fundamentalist families. I think it's just one of those things the human mind does that we just can't explain yet.

Yes, I have found other men attractive, it's pretty rare, but it happens.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked