Support NeoGAF

[Alcoori]

As far as I know, smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer, either...

Are you serious?

 

[Mumei]

Surprise me Mumei. I always enjoy it when you completely decimate people in an objective and well mannered response :lol

Well-mannered? :lol

And there's a lot:

Simon Levay has the best website out there for general "What are the possible causes for homosexuality?" information. I'd also recommend reading his Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality and Olive Skene Johnson's The Sexual Spectrum: Why We're All Different, both of which cover the causes of homosexuality / differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men (and to some degree heterosexual and homosexual women, but not as much)).

For general historical information, Louis Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization is my favorite - it covers thousands of years of material (from 900 BCE Judaism to 1849 CE China. The primary focus is on European, with short forays into contemporary Islamic, Chinese, and Japanese histories on the subject, though. Dan Healey's Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent is great ... if you've got an interest in Russia or have a paper to write about it. Heinz Heger's The Men with the Pink Triangle is a gay man's account of how he came to be imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for the crime of homosexuality. On that note, the film Paragraph 175 is worth watching. Neil Miller's Out of the Past conveniently starts in 1869 and goes until nearly the present day; it goes together well with Crompton's book. Jonathan Katz's Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. was one of the earliest books on the history of homosexuality. I'd also recommend George Chauncey's Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890 - 1940, which will probably challenge every preconception you have of gay life pre-Stonewall.

For books that have some sort of religious tie-in (not really my thing, to be honest), Mel White's Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America is one of my favorites. White used to be a speechwriter, ghostwriter, and worked for men like Oliver North, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham - the book is about his "twenty-five years of being counseled, exorcised, electric-shocked, prayed for, and nearly driven to suicide because his church said homosexuality was wrong." If one is a gay Christian looking for some sort of justification or way to counter arguments about the sinfulness of homosexuality, Rev. Jeff Miner and John Connoley's The Children are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships is a decent starter book, and Fr. John J. McNeill's The Church and the Homosexual is a more indepth examination of the issue. Again, though, this really isn't my thing; I don't particularly care whether the Bible actually condemns homosexuality.

For books with more of a political or social bent to them, my favorite is Richard Mohr's The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights - "Mohr adopts a humanistic and philosophical approach to assessing public policy issues affecting homosexuals" - and I think it makes for the most compelling of the "Why gay rights are important / why civil unions are good enough / why equality can't just be about a list of rights / and other related arguments" tracts. That said, Evan Wolfson's Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry, Sean Cahill's Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts, and William Eskridge and Darren Spedale's Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence all cover the various facets of the gay marriage debate - the last one probably being the best of them in terms of debunking the standard lies put out by the religious right. I also think that Andrew Sullivan's books are particularly good, including Virtually Normal and Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. I really liked Sullivan's pro and con because it actually gives voice to the arguments of various sides - different religions, different perspectives within a religion, and it sort of gives you an idea of where people are coming from. The arguments against aren't compelling ones, I don't think, but I think after reading them I understand them better. Ellen Andersen's Out of the Closets & Into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation is an examination of different instances where gay rights were up for litigation and looking at the reasons why we won in some cases (e.g. Lawrence or [/i]Romer[/i]) and lost others (Bowers), and what lessons can be drawn from this with regards to future litigation.

Lastly, in terms of books, anyway, C.J. Pascoe's Dude You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School is my favorite resource on the subject of the relationship between homophobia, misogyny, and modern notions of masculinity. Also, if you're interested in bisexuals, Martin Weinberg, Colin Williams, and Douglas Pryor's Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality is one of the best choices from a sociological perspective, though it is out of date (e.g. Pre-HIV/AIDS-era).

For websites, Jim Burroway's BoxTurtleBulletin is the best gay blog out there. Their coverage of the situation in Uganda has been outstanding. They've also had very instructional guest posts on the anthropological study of marriage, they do fantastic debunkings of Christian misrepresentations of studies, and they provide recommendations for books and other links in their subheadings. I'd also recommend Dr. Gregory Herek's website at UC Davis, Sexual Orientation: Science, Education, and Policy.

Spoiler

This took longer than I thought it would.

Yes! I want sources on psychoanalysis proposing the cause of homosexuality as absent father and close mother, because all I got was the wiki article I cited in the last page in which Freud apparently never mentioned this, he believed both biological and nurture related events had influence.

Look under non-biological theories on the Simon Levay page - it's the first link. I know you'd probably find it on your own, but I figured I'd point it out.

 

[Skittleguy]

Oh boy, it's starting again!

 

[i_am_ben]

Well-mannered? :lol

well you have better manners than I :lol

edit: Although I'm trying to work on that.

 

[DonMigs85]

Is it wrong for a straight man to find shemales/partial transsexuals arousing?

 

[saltinekracka]

Are you serious?

Dead serious. There's only a correlation. It isn't proven fact.

 

[i_am_ben]

Is it wrong for a straight man to find shemales/partial transsexuals arousing?

nope not at all.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Is it wrong for a straight man to find shemales/partial transsexuals arousing?

Again, a straight man is just a man whose heterosexual tendencies are greater than his homosexual tendencies. If a shemale/partial transsexual is appealing to a straight man it's because it allows him to indulge both tendencies at the same time. And could be a very natural fit for him if his homosexual tendencies are significant.

Sexuality is not an light switch, its a scale. Most people do not end up on the poles of that scale (entirely homosexual or entirely heterosexual) just like with any population distribution.

 

[Mumei]

So juniors are stupid because they don't cater to a hive mind mentality? Because they might have something different to say?

No, no.

I said that I love juniors - and I do. I love them because of their amusingly suicidal tendencies. After having waited months to get their accounts validated, the moment a thread having to do with homosexuality appears, we're essentially guaranteed one or two juniors who will also appear and run right off a cliff.

And I don't really care if you believe that you have something different to say - you don't. Your argument is simply decades out of date, offensive, ill-informed, and shows that you've taken no initiative in confirming whether or not the anecdotal information you've observed in your own life is applicable to gay people generally, and whether the correlations you've observed imply any sort of causation.

 

[LCGeek]

Again, a straight man is just a man whose heterosexual tendencies are greater than his homosexual tendencies. If a shemale/partial transsexual is appealing to a straight man it's because it allows him to indulge both tendencies at the same time. And could be a very natural fit for him if his homosexual tendencies are significant.

Sexuality is not an light switch, its a scale. Most people do not end up on the poles of that scale (entirely homosexual or entirely heterosexual) just like with any population distribution.

Shemales and Transsexuals aren't necessarily gay, homosexuality is about sex orientation not gender. That comes from first hand experience. Opening up that can of worms in this discussion will only confuse most even more.

 

[Skittleguy]

Gender is what's between your legs, sexuality is what's in your head.

 

[Falch]

Dead serious. There's only a correlation. It isn't proven fact.

There's isn't a rolleyes in the world big enough for this.

And your views about homosexuality are plain wrong too.

 

[Mumei]

Gender is what's between your legs, sexuality is what's in your head.

Other way around.

Spoiler

And a bit of a simplification of things either way

 

[JoeBoy101]

Shemales and Transsexuals aren't necessarily gay, homosexuality is about sex orientation not gender. That comes from first hand experience. Opening up that can of worms in this discussion will only confuse most even more.

Perhaps its definition confusion on my part. When I see the term shemale or transsexual (especially as he listed as partial) I take it as meaning someone with a female form, but man bits, whether added to a woman or a treatments to a man. Clearly, its tough to apply a homosexual/heterosexual label because its irrevocably tied to gender. Using it to describe someone where those gender lines blur is difficult.

But i'm focusing on the appraisal of how it defines a man who finds that attractive. If the attraction is towards a man who is now a woman or the other way around, the gender label is flipped and its more easy to classify what's going on.

 

[CrocMother]

I hate people. I hate people. I hate people. I hate people. I hate people

Love as a pathogen! Something to be fixed, guided, what a load of shit!

 

[RiskyChris]

So juniors are stupid because they don't cater to a hive mind mentality? Because they might have something different to say? Because you've been a GAF member longer than someone else doesn't exactly make you a superior being. Also, a condescending attitude doesn't validate you or anyone else's argument. /rant

Nothing I stated has anything to do with some study on family values. It's only my experiences. I'm not stating it as fact, I'm just stating a strong correlation. As far as I know, smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer, either...

Your opinion is not a unique snowflake, and you're not special.

 

[ZephyrFate]

So juniors are stupid because they don't cater to a hive mind mentality? Because they might have something different to say? Because you've been a GAF member longer than someone else doesn't exactly make you a superior being. Also, a condescending attitude doesn't validate you or anyone else's argument. /rant

Nothing I stated has anything to do with some study on family values. It's only my experiences. I'm not stating it as fact, I'm just stating a strong correlation. As far as I know, smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer, either...

You haven't validated any argument that you've made.

Also, the last part? Fucking golden. You're a true blue imbecile. :lol :lol :lol

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Zenith]

No, I was not comparing homosexuality to other sexualities......

....Those attributes deal with attraction to animals, attraction to young children, attraction to inanimate objects, attraction to both sexes, etc.

You just compared being gay to raping children again.

Because they might have something different to say?

"Black people are sub human. What? I just have something different to say, where are you taking me?"

Nature laid down the rules millenia ago. Science can subvert them, but its not in the genetic code.

It's only my experiences. I'm not stating it as fact, I'm just stating a strong correlation. As far as I know, smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer, either...

goddam juniors...

 

[saltinekracka]

You haven't validated any argument that you've made.

Also, the last part? Fucking golden. You're a true blue imbecile. :lol :lol :lol

Correlation does not equal causation.

Chill, guy. And I didn't seek out to prove anything. As stated from the beginning, that's what I think. No one is forcing you to take it at any more value than it's being offered.

And the smoking thing is true. Yes, I believe smoking causes cancer. No, it is not proven that smoking causes cancer.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg

 

[ZephyrFate]

Chill, guy. And I didn't seek out to prove anything. As stated from the beginning, that's what I think. No one is forcing you to take it at any more value than it's being offered.

And the smoking thing is true. Yes, I believe smoking causes cancer. No, it is not proven that smoking causes cancer.

But the problem is you've given us NO basis for your reasoning or beliefs about homosexuality, and quite frankly it offends me as a gay man that you're assuming so much about my character (when none of what you stated applies to how I became gay in any way). You don't seem to know anything about homosexuality aside from your minutiae of anecdotal evidence.

Also, smoking does cause cancer:
http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/cancerstats.htm

http://www.smokingaloud.com/death.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks67.html

I could give you ten more links if I had time. Pay attention to that American Cancer Society link. It's the most important one, because they know more about what causes cancer than you do.

See how I backed up my argument with links? That's how you make an argument. You're just pissing stereotypes every time you speak.

 

[RiskyChris]

Chill, guy. And I didn't seek out to prove anything. As stated from the beginning, that's what I think. No one is forcing you to take it at any more value than it's being offered.

And the smoking thing is true. Yes, I believe smoking causes cancer. No, it is not proven that smoking causes cancer.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg

Hey saying most homos are gay homos due to something you can trace or that your friend is gay because he couldn't get ladies is really fucking ignorant.

Thanks for your understanding!!!!

 

[Mumei]

Chill, guy. And I didn't seek out to prove anything. As stated from the beginning, that's what I think. No one is forcing you to take it at any more value than it's being offered.

This isn't an issue where all opinions are equally valid and there's no right or wrong position. You can think whatever you like, but if you're going to take the time to post it in the thread, you ought to be able to defend your position with more than, "It's my opinion, so you have to respect it!"

 

[ivysaur12]

This isn't an issue where all opinions are equally valid and there's no right or wrong position. You can think whatever you like, but if you're going to take the time to post it in the thread, you ought to be able to defend your position with more than, "It's my opinion, so you have to respect it!"

This. You can't say something that controversial without studies and facts to back it up. Hiding behind "It's my opinion" or "from my experience..." isn't going to work here.

 

[How About No]

I said that I love juniors - and I do. I love them because of their amusingly suicidal tendencies. After having waited months to get their accounts validated, the moment a thread having to do with homosexuality appears, we're essentially guaranteed one or two juniors who will also appear and run right off a cliff.

Now now, there's no proven fact that homosexuality threads cause juniors to be banned, there's only a correlation!

 

[Mumei]

Now now, there's no proven fact that homosexuality threads cause juniors to be banned, there's only a correlation!

I like you.

 

[shintoki]

Hey saying most homos are gay homos due to something you can trace or that your friend is gay because he couldn't get ladies is really fucking ignorant.

Thanks for your understanding!!!!

I'm going to be honest here. And? He's more than welcome to think what he wants. I really don't see any reason to get upset over it regardless of the quality or content of it. It's just an opinion. There are some 5 billion different looks upon every thing in life. It's what makes it interesting. Some aren't going to be pretty about you, many are going be insulting and offensive. It's how the dice roll.

All I'm trying to say is, It's just a forum. I'm getting allot of hostile vibes and seeing allot of childish retorts dragging this out. Which really aren't needed and probably detrimental to actual discussion. We just make shit out to be more overly complex than just accepting it for what it is. :lol

 

[xelios]

So juniors are stupid because they don't cater to a hive mind mentality? Because they might have something different to say? Because you've been a GAF member longer than someone else doesn't exactly make you a superior being.

No, just you in particular. And it's not because you're a junior, but because what you said was stupid. "Homosexuality can almost always be traced back to abuse/fucked up childhood," along with all the comments about lack of self-confidence and attention from girls would be just as stupid if they came from a mod.

 

[RiskyChris]

I'm going to be honest here. And? He's more than welcome to think what he wants. I really don't see any reason to get upset over it regardless of the quality or content of it. It's just an opinion. There are some 5 billion different looks upon every thing in life. It's what makes it interesting. Some aren't going to be pretty about you, many are going be insulting and offensive. It's how the dice roll.

All I'm trying to say is, It's just a forum. I'm getting allot of hostile vibes and seeing allot of childish retorts dragging this out. Which really aren't needed and probably detrimental to actual discussion. We just make shit out to be more overly complex than just accepting it for what it is. :lol

Yeah, and? The fact is it's an opinion that a lot of people hold (therefore a target for advocacy) and a lot of people here take pretty personally.

 

[krypt0nian]

"We advise fathers, 'If you don't hug your sons, some other man will'" :lol

Hell, I'll hug your fathers.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I'm going to be honest here. And? He's more than welcome to think what he wants. I really don't see any reason to get upset over it regardless of the quality or content of it. It's just an opinion. There are some 5 billion different looks upon every thing in life. It's what makes it interesting. Some aren't going to be pretty about you, many are going be insulting and offensive. It's how the dice roll.

All I'm trying to say is, It's just a forum. I'm getting allot of hostile vibes and seeing allot of childish retorts dragging this out. Which really aren't needed and probably detrimental to actual discussion. We just make shit out to be more overly complex than just accepting it for what it is. :lol

He's more than welcome to give his opinion, but you shouldn't be surprised when people give their opinion about him. After all, it's only their opinion.

A lot of made up, harmless shit can be attributed to 'it's just an opinion'; discrimination of race, sexuality, gender. People with stupid, harmful opinions should be shunned and ridiculed in the hope that they feel so shameful as to actually educate themsevles on the situation.

 

[LCGeek]

Perhaps its definition confusion on my part. When I see the term shemale or transsexual (especially as he listed as partial) I take it as meaning someone with a female form, but man bits, whether added to a woman or a treatments to a man. Clearly, its tough to apply a homosexual/heterosexual label because its irrevocably tied to gender. Using it to describe someone where those gender lines blur is difficult.

But i'm focusing on the appraisal of how it defines a man who finds that attractive. If the attraction is towards a man who is now a woman or the other way around, the gender label is flipped and its more easy to classify what's going on.

My bad then considering the context of the response you were referring to that's quite an accurate explanation.

 

[btkadams]

Hell, I'll hug your fathers.

i'm going to go ahead and facebook "like" this.

 

[Jasup]

I'm going to be honest here. And? He's more than welcome to think what he wants. I really don't see any reason to get upset over it regardless of the quality or content of it. It's just an opinion. There are some 5 billion different looks upon every thing in life. It's what makes it interesting. Some aren't going to be pretty about you, many are going be insulting and offensive. It's how the dice roll.

All I'm trying to say is, It's just a forum. I'm getting allot of hostile vibes and seeing allot of childish retorts dragging this out. Which really aren't needed and probably detrimental to actual discussion. We just make shit out to be more overly complex than just accepting it for what it is. :lol

Well telling someone on a forum, someone who you've never met that s/he is a sad human being with traumatic childhood, who couldn't get the girls and so on is a bit more than an opinion, it's illinformed statement of someone's character without any basis in reality. By stating the cause of homosexuality being some kind of post traumatic stress disorder, you group all homosexuals as having severe mental problem. And yes, to an individual such a statement can be very offensive.

When dealing with natural phenomena there is less space for opinions and assumptions as there are right and wrong answers that are (most likely) universal. Sexual orientation is such a phenomenon. Granted, we don't know the right answers yet, but we do know it's not a matter of someone's opinion.

 

[btkadams]

I'm going to be honest here. And? He's more than welcome to think what he wants. I really don't see any reason to get upset over it regardless of the quality or content of it. It's just an opinion. There are some 5 billion different looks upon every thing in life. It's what makes it interesting. Some aren't going to be pretty about you, many are going be insulting and offensive. It's how the dice roll.

All I'm trying to say is, It's just a forum. I'm getting allot of hostile vibes and seeing allot of childish retorts dragging this out. Which really aren't needed and probably detrimental to actual discussion. We just make shit out to be more overly complex than just accepting it for what it is. :lol

i agree with you. there are a couple posters on our side that seem to always jump to attacking people in these "gay" discussions and often don't bring any discussion themselves. ignorance should be called out and the ignorant should be educated, but continuing to attack posters without actual discussionis childish.

EDIT: i am really not trying to offend anyone here, i just think we should tone it down a bit. calling people down doesn't bring them to your side.

 

[RobertM]

Perhaps a better way of putting it would be, "Why are there such sharp differences in sexual orientation to begin with?"

I'm not super-educated on the subject, and there's a good chance I'll get absolutely excoriated for this post, but hopefully, I'll be clear enough about what I mean.

In many respects, sexual orientation and fetish are internalized early on, and no ready explanation exists. There isn't a single root genetic or environmental cause.

What makes homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc. acceptable is that these orientations and desires don't harm anyone when properly enacted in human society. Two adults with full knowledge of the consequences consent, and all is right with the world. No one is harmed or taken advantage of. This thought could be extended to most fetishes, which can be expressed in a consensual manner.

These things are separate from the aforementioned zoophilia/pedophilia/etc. because those sexual kinks can only be fully expressed through non-consensual action that harms the other party. As a result, they are classified as mental illness.

While these two broad categories are different in how they are perceived by society (and with good reason), if we want to understand mental causes, we can't dismiss the mental links between them. Just as I don't know or didn't choose why I'm attracted to women, I doubt all pedophiles, for instance, chose to be sexually aroused by children to the exclusion of more developed individuals. And just as this "gay-straight conversion" therapy creates an enormous mental toll on the patient, forced to doubt and suppress his instinctual desires, the same is likely true for those whose sexual desires are classified as mental illness. The latter is morally permissible (unlike the former) because action on that desire hurts others, so that mental cost is a price society is willing to pay.

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this (since I'm not entirely sure what RobertM is driving at), but I suspect this is the line of thought he was trying to explain, and I see where he's coming from. The reasons behind why sexual preference turns out the way it does in a given individual aren't widely known, whether they are what society considers "normal" or whether they are "deviations" from that norm. If we are interested in root causes, my first thought would be that all forms of attraction might have something to teach, whether those attractions are socially and morally acceptable or not.

If I am mistaken in believing that sexual orientation and sexual fetish (~~~philia) are at all similar, please correct me. I don't intend to offend.

I couldn't have put it better myself. All sexualities must be looked under a microscope if we are going classify one as mental illness and other as genetic and environmental cause, and if we want to learn anything about why people have certain attractions, we must look at all of the deviations. And no, I'm not comparing raping little kids to homosexuality like some posters making it sound, since I explicitly used the word "attraction".

 

[JoeBoy101]

Well telling someone on a forum, someone who you've never met that s/he is a sad human being with traumatic childhood, who couldn't get the girls and so on is a bit more than an opinion, it's illinformed statement of someone's character without any basis in reality. By stating the cause of homosexuality being some kind of post traumatic stress disorder, you group all homosexuals as having severe mental problem. And yes, to an individual such a statement can be very offensive.

When dealing with natural phenomena there is less space for opinions and assumptions as there are right and wrong answers that are (most likely) universal. Sexual orientation is such a phenomenon. Granted, we don't know the right answers yet, but we do know it's not a matter of someone's opinion.

And the best way to deal with ignorance is to teach someone or show someone that their misconceptions are ill-conceived. Shintoki is right where a couple of posters go 0 - adversarial in 3.5 seconds, when a calmer demeanor focusing on educating and correcting, not belittling, the poster will get them further.

But don't get me wrong, I think a couple of these posters should apply more of a learning process to their opinions. If your opinion is based off 'Well, I know this gay guy,' please have the modesty to realize that though your opinion is hardly a certainty or concrete without some real evidence to back it up. My neighbors are a gay couple, but I think that hardly means my scaling of sexuality is supported enough for peer review in Scientific America.

My theory on Drunken Sexuality between Men and Women continues to be confirmed though. Just about ready for a grant.

 

[RiskyChris]

I couldn't have put it better myself. All sexualities must be looked under a microscope if we are going classify one as mental illness and other as genetic and environmental cause, and if we want to learn anything about why people have certain attractions, we must look at all of the deviations. And no, I'm not comparing raping little kids to homosexuality like some posters making it sound, since I explicitly used the word "attraction".

Actually you don't need to put the gay under a microscope to decide if it's a mental illness.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I couldn't have put it better myself. All sexualities must be looked under a microscope if we are going classify one as mental illness and other as genetic and environmental cause, and if we want to learn anything about why people have certain attractions, we must look at all of the deviations. And no, I'm not comparing raping little kids to homosexuality like some posters making it sound, since I explicitly used the word "attraction".

This does break down though because Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, and Bisexuality all involve one common factor: Gender (Not the subject's gender, but which gender they are attracted to primarily). Gender is the defining trait as to what someone is attracted to with variance in those particular attractions.

Pedophilia brings a whole other extreme into the issue: Age. Notice I said extreme, because age disparity can be seen among more common sexual attractions, but pedophilia takes this more to the extreme of not a young man or woman, but a child. And that taboo itself demands a sexual interaction where the recipient has not had enough experiential episodes nor emotional growth to competently provide a rational consent.

Zoophilia similarly brings another whole trait to the issue: Species. And again, even if you could achieve basic language, consent could hardly believed to be provide rationally.

So the two big issues there for those two sexual leanings are the same: CONSENT.

That's not the case with Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, or Bisexuality.

 

[RiskyChris]

Yes they all have gender in common, but do you know what gays and bisexuals share in common from breeders? Deviance!

 

[JoeBoy101]

Yes they all have gender in common, but do you know what gays and bisexuals share in common from breeders? Deviance!

From what? A societal norm?

 

[RiskyChris]

From what? A societal norm?

Yea heteronormativity, it's a gene.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Yea heteronormativity, it's a gene.

I think our society has advanced to a point that simple reproduction should not be the basis on judging whether one relationship is more beneficial to a society than another, don't you? There's a whole lot of foster kids out there with no parents.

 

[Hawkian]

Also, I'm hard-pressed to except black and white terms on sexuality. Gay, Bi, and Straight down quite describe the intricacy of what appears to be a continuum of sexual attraction that varies widely from individual to individual.

Sexuality is not an light switch, its a scale. Most people do not end up on the poles of that scale (entirely homosexual or entirely heterosexual) just like with any population distribution.

Jesus, I can't believe how long it took for this concept to be raised in this thread. YES. Frankly, despite questionable methodology and a mindbogglingly bizarre sample pool, Alfred Kinsey's research is still in a class of its own on the topic of human sexuality. No other research has been as extensive or as comprehensive, and the myriad insights into the nature of sexuality in general that his did. I recommend to anyone participating in this thread that hasn't at least skimmed it- please do so.

 

[Vamphuntr]

We advise fathers, 'If you don't hug your sons, some other man will.' We train the mothers to back off.'"

:lol :lol :lol

These ''doctors'' are a fraud.

 

[Raist]

2. Hormone imbalances are not a cause of homosexuality. When it was first realized, for instance, that hormone levels in gay men differed from heterosexual men, the army attempted to treat three hundred homosexual men during World War II by injecting them with testosterone, which caused, "the worst homosexual problem on their hands that they had ever had, because they increased the intensity of the drive of these men, you see. It did not modify the direction of their behavior at all." Studies in general have confirmed that adjusting hormone levels merely changes the libido; it doesn't change the underlying attractions.

Which doesn't prove in any way that hormones have nothing to do with that.

 

[thoughthorizon]

Right, it was all that childhood trauma that did it :lol

I assume that's the case when homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as well.

No, man, it's just lack of a strong father figure for most animals!

LOL, can't believe that people still think that being gay is caused by these things. Maybe we should go burn some witches while we're at it? Or stone someone to death for working on the Sabbath?

 

[Prime Blue]

We advise fathers, 'If you don't hug your sons, some other man will.'

That doesn't even make sense! How would the other man know that the father never hugged him?

 

[Peronthious]

That doesn't even make sense! How would the other man know that the father never hugged him?

You never got that t-shirt?

 

[ultim8p00]

If you are asking for a source, as in a study or a scientific finding, then I have nothing for you. But I don't need a study to tell me something that is pretty obvious.

I can trace the reasons why homosexulaity developed for all of the gay people that I closely know. Some deny it, and some don't even realize that I know they are gay.

these factors are some of the reasons why homosexuality develops in people, but it doesn't always necessarily mean that people will turn gay because of them:

- Lack of a strong father figure. (no father, dad was too busy, etc..)
- Too attached to their mothers.
- Surrounded by sisters, with no males around him to form bonds with.
- Abused during childhood/teenage years.
- Faced Rejection by a female during childhood/teenage years, and that rejection left a lasting impact.

Dude there's a HUGE difference between effeminate guys and gay guys.

 

[Skittleguy]

This thread is now about how silly NARTH is.

NARF!