Comment

Comment by Creature on December 11, 2009 at 3:08pm

I'm bisexual, I never really considered the implications or tried to label myself 'til I reached my teens. I did, however, start having girl crushes when I was a little girl(probably 5ish), it wasn't so much a sex thing(ewww 5), as the same sort of emotional feeling I've had when meeting someone I'm attracted to as an adult. I think it's intrinsic, in the same way as handedness. As a lefty I never had to consider which hand would be dominant, it's just how I am.

Comment by funk Q on December 11, 2009 at 1:04am

Homosexuality is a necessary part evolution.

Without it everyone would have net curtains and think cargo pants were stylish.

Comment by Stephen Moore on December 11, 2009 at 12:55am

I agree with much that has already been written in the thread by others: homosexuality exists within a spectrum of sexual identity and expression, and that one's sexuality is most likely based on hormonal influence whilst in the womb. The science on that is not conclusive, but is certainly highly suggestive, at least in being a cause, if not the cause.

Howard S. Dunn writes: Is my neighbor's dog gay as a lifestyle choice? He prefers, consistently, to attempt to mount other male dogs even when a choice is available.

My first though is that it may be dominance behaviour, ie, your neighbour's dog may be attempting to assert dominance. It's not unusual for dogs to so this. Though he could be gay, and just rooting for pleasure rather than dominance. But my first inclination for an explaination is the dominance one.

Courtney King writes:
My personal stance on it is that you can't be born genetically predisposed to be attracted to a certain gender.

Genetics may be an important factor in who one is as a person, but it is by no means the only factor. Hormones and environment also contribute greatly. It can be quite complex, especially when these factors are interacting with each other. There may not be a 'gay gene' (or collection of genes) - indeed, there probably isn't - but that doesn't leave the only other alternative to be choice.

CK: The only reason I specify puberty is because that's when the body starts to mature emotionally and sexually, and starts to produce those hormones that causes our minds to shift from when we were little and thought "girls were icky" and that "boys have cooties" to seeing the opposite gender as attractive and a potential mate.

That doesn't square with, from what I understand, is the experience of most homosexual people: knowing they're gay in childhood, before puberty. I am straight, but I know that I certainly had crushes on various girls (and even some women) before puberty (the earliest I can recall was when I was four or five). Contrary to popular opinion, children do have a basic level of innate awareness about sexuality and attraction.

CK: In the case of homosexuality I just think that an individual has these same thoughts and feeling but just finds member s of the same gender as attractive and sees them as potential mates.

This kind of stands at odds with your proposition that homosexuality is a choice. What you're saying seems to suggest that it is innate rather than a choice. Have I misread your statement?

There is also the question of why choose to be homosexual given the historical disdain and contempt of homosexuality. Why would people choose to act in a manner that, if discovered, would have resulted in social ostracism, imprisonment, or even their murder? I really can't see any answer to this other than there being some sort of mental or emotional impairment in such individuals. Homosexuality thus becomes a pathology in itself, or the expression of some other pathology.

Comment by Buffy on December 10, 2009 at 10:29pm

It's not a matter of "preference". That would mean "gee, I could go for either gender but I prefer my same gender". I mean did you get to puberty and think, "I like boys and girls equally but I prefer boys so I'll date them"?

Like heterosexuality, homosexuality is an orientation, not a preference. It's not something we "choose" and if you ask reputable researchers and LGBT people you'll discover it's considered to be inherent.

Comment by Prog Rock Girl on December 10, 2009 at 4:59pm

It's got to be somewhere in the middle of genetic or choice. It's not something a person can easily turn on or off, but I also don't think it's genetically set in stone. Studies about the effects of birth order on homosexuality, and many other psychological theories about homosexuality, omit the idea of bisexuality completely. Different cultures' traditions show sexuality to be more flexible, and in some animals, homosexuality occurs but isn't treated with any stigma--it also isn't divided into hetero and homo "teams".

Maybe it's similar to a person's becoming left- or right-handed?

But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. Why debate why some people like certain colors or certain kinds of music? That's just their particular taste. There are a lot of tastes and interests that we don't consider an on/off "choice", but we also don't think they are genetically inflexible.

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on December 10, 2009 at 4:38pm

A. Williams 'spectrum of preference' rings pretty true. Here's an anecdote that doesn't prove anything - but, nevertheless, is food for thought:

In college, a friend from East St. Louis told us about a guy that kept offering him $50 to give him head - not to get it - to give it. He then said to us: "Dude, isn't that the sickest thing you ever heard?"

My brother, a highly successful heterosexual philanderer says, without blinking: "Dude - 50 bucks is 50 bucks and a blow job is a blow job!"

It was kinda hard to argue without being disengenous.

B. I had a girlfriend who had just broken up with her girlfriend. I asked her if she considered herself "bisexual". She said it was more like "ambisexual" - some people have a dominant right hand, some a dominant left. But if you can use both with equal ease, you are ambidexterous.

I think the right handed, left handed, ambidexterous model is a viable parallel.

Comment by Johnny on December 10, 2009 at 1:36pm

well, first of all I'd like to say that it's not a matter of opinion. Science will determine yes or no.

Second, I say it doesn't matter. People are the way they are and it doesn't hurt anybody. In fact, widespread gayness can only help the world! Yes, help. We are having a population crisis here and there are nowhere near enough loving homes to take in all of the babies that result from unwanted pregnancies. Gay families= loving homes. Gay relationships = less babies being born. Win/win. There's no argument against gays accept "eeeeeeeeewww" and "god says no."

wow, mature.

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on December 10, 2009 at 11:44am

It is definitely physiological for the most part. Also, while it is a construct to assert that anyone is 'born black' it is true that there are certain features that have been jammed into this construct - even though they are not consistent. Skin hues may differ, nose shapes, hair texture, etc. and you can still be of African descent - but WE ALL ARE OF AFRICAN DESCENT at one point or another.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

In fact, the propensity to become aroused by people of the opposite or same gender has a huge physiological component.

BTW - Is my neighbor's dog gay as a lifestyle choice? He prefers, consistently, to attempt to mount other male dogs even when a choice is available.

Comment by Fabio on December 10, 2009 at 11:04am

Sexual orientation is not an active choice. The discovery of one's own sexuality - and I agree that it usually coincides with the kick-in of puberty, though not always - simply means acknowledging a particular side of one's own nature. That said, sexual orientation is not (entirely) genetically determined - nurture plays a role too - just as gender is not that easy to determine using our rigid social labels of male and female. As it turns out, biology doesn't really give a damn about our social conventions.

Comment by Loren Miller on December 10, 2009 at 10:58am

Courtney, before you go to far with that "choice" business, may I heartily recommend the following two 60 Minutes segments:

60 Minutes: Gay or Straight, Part 1
60 Minutes: Gay or Straight, Part 2

This story alleges that we may be dealing with a phenomenon which may be partially genetic in its aspect and partially hormonal. We're introduced two sets of identical twins, one set of young boys, one set of adults, and in each case one of the twins is straight and one is gay ... and in both cases, there was no difference in how the children were raised.

Watch both clips ... then YOU TELL ME.