Homosexuality: 'Disease', genetics, or choice?
- Thread starter Buddha
- Start date
Some are born to it, some, grow to like it, some, discover it later in life, some, fantasise about it but would never allow themselves to do it and some, are repulsed by the very idea.
It's not disease, unless you are looking at it from some religious/conservative/bigoted perspective, but it can be spread, some, can be seduced into it, this is fact, so it may be considered as a social disease by some.
It is more likely genetic, but in a generally homophobic world, choice, is the ultimate reason for it.
It's not disease, unless you are looking at it from some religious/conservative/bigoted perspective, but it can be spread, some, can be seduced into it, this is fact, so it may be considered as a social disease by some.
It is more likely genetic, but in a generally homophobic world, choice, is the ultimate reason for it.
Well science says it is genetic, though I don't know the validity of those findings yet, but since I have not met anyone who was born gay ultimetly it is still greatly a choice. A lot of gay guys do say that they always felt this way so the whole gentic thing could be true.
(Insert Title Here)
Genes, hormones (not yours), and social conditioning are the primary factors; not all gays are gay for the same reasons superficially, but genes and conditioning are what I watch most closely, but with an eye always tuned to hormone balances in utero.
Genes, hormones (not yours), and social conditioning are the primary factors; not all gays are gay for the same reasons superficially, but genes and conditioning are what I watch most closely, but with an eye always tuned to hormone balances in utero.
Last edited:
The leading theory I know of is that the mothers hormone flux during pregnancy affects how "masculine" and "feminine" the fetuses brain becomes, ie increased testosterone will lead to a more masculine part X of brain. So, this happens to homosexuals, eg in women the parts of the brain dealign with attraction are masculinsed. roughly speaking; theres a lot more work to be done. So it depends upon random factors, as well as the mothers genetics, and possibly some genetics in the baby.
I havnt heard of anyone being seduced or persuaded into homosexuality, but I dont include it done simply for fun as beaing properly homosexual. Properly homosexual is when you wonder why your different from your classmates, then it dawns on you that for example, you fancy the girls in your class, not the boys like your supposed to.
I havnt heard of anyone being seduced or persuaded into homosexuality, but I dont include it done simply for fun as beaing properly homosexual. Properly homosexual is when you wonder why your different from your classmates, then it dawns on you that for example, you fancy the girls in your class, not the boys like your supposed to.
_an.droid_ said:
Come on now, Droid, most members here have the courtesy not to post while their high. Or if we do we at least keep our activity limited to the pseudoscience and parapsychology board.
I thought that this thread was just a bit bizarre. I didn't particularly feel that any option was the best (though I voted genetics just to see what everyone else voted). I think that the answer is likely a bit more complex than that, which is do say I don't buy into the idea of a Gay gene. People like to forget that there's a whole lot more to biology than just genetics, and in my opinion tend to go a little off the deep end when attributing certain traits entirely to DNA (obesity for instance. Sure maybe there's some genetic factors which make a person's metabolism generally slower than average, but there's still the factor of sheer mass intake per day, and how much exercise you get, It's not like the speed of your metabolism is a fixed constant anyhow).
I’d also have to say that not all people engage in homosexual behavior for the same reasons. There’s “jailhouse gay” for instance, caused by the sheer lack of anything else to stick your dick into. I don’t buy into any theory that says that gays are girls that just happen to be more girlish in one way or another. It’s certainly not deniable that there are some flaming limp wristed lispers out there, but I hope no one has thought that these types are representative of homosexuals at large. The media loves depicting twinks in pink tube tops and cut off shorts singing Broadway show tunes, but that’s just because it’s so damn funny to look at, remember that most homosexuals spend at least part of their lives in the closet, so there are a lot of us who know how to act “straight” and get a little pissed off every time someone expects that they should be dressing in drag or redecorating someone’s living room.
One thing that homosexuality is not (in most cases) is a choice. I honestly can’t say why a bunch of well cultured males with a good fashion sense should be going around having sex with other men when women practically throw themselves at us (Wow that sounds a little self promoting, doesn’t it?) especially when doing so makes them hated and loathed? I’d like for someone to talk to a friend of mine, a poor Mormon boy who was disowned by his parents and thrown out of his home as a teen for coming out, why exactly he made the “choice” to be gay when he knew that it would mean that his family would shun him. I suppose that just comes back to conservative arrogance. Everything that they don’t understand exists just to piss them off, and that’s what it’s really all about, isn’t it; pissing off the religious right?
sargentlard said:
I bet you don't know anyone at all who was born being sexually attracted to anyone. I also bet that almost everyone you know began patterning their behavior towards the opposite sex before they ever began feeling sexual attraction. Our roles towards other genders is mostly due to socialization rather than sexuality. That’s why gay people are sometimes thought of confused, yes? They have been acting like their heterosexual friends, but begin to realize that there is something fundamentally incongruous with the way they have been taught to behave, that being that they don’t feel the way they are supposed to towards the opposite sex.
That question is like "I've planted a tree. Will it eventually grow apples?" It may die, it may never grow, it may not be an apple tree I've planted. Some ppl are "trended" into it, some just like the idea, some are eternally confused, so are rebelling, some have psychological problems... its really not fair at all to class a huge group of people as "diseased". Does anyone else see that?
Silverback
Registered Senior Member
I didn't vote on this poll because there is no "other" option, because I don't think Genetics or Choice alone are sufficient. At least I am glad to see that no one has voted Disease yet.
I would like to vote: "Life is more complicated than a DNA strand". Can we stick that in the poll?
I would like to vote: "Life is more complicated than a DNA strand". Can we stick that in the poll?
I think only three choices is not enough for such a complex theme. I suppose some people are homosexual because they chose to, for others their genes have done the choosing. Alas I think that the surroundings of an individual can alter his way of thinking and behaviour, even making this person a homosexual.
Whatever the reasons are, I would never describe peoples sexual inclinations as a disease.
Whatever the reasons are, I would never describe peoples sexual inclinations as a disease.
Hmm i may be the only person who calls it a disease but that's the closest thing i can get to what i really mean. I believe (having heard this theory a few times) that it is a mental disorder. It is an actual birth defect by some kind of abnormal growth in your hormonal gland within your mind. It is not genetic nor is it a choice. And since illness or diseases are most closely related to birth defects/disorders, then that's why i chose disease.
Silverback
Registered Senior Member
Uhhhhhh, What?Votorx said:
_an.droid_ said:
Didn't I just tell you to stop posting while you're high?
Vortex said:
And where did you hear that? From those quacks at NARTH? They're just pissed off because the APA has concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but they still want to have the guise of being able to hate fags through "science". I put science in quotes, because it's not really an exact science with these clowns.
Last edited:
Ok, to all the people who got pissed off about 'disease' being an option, i put it as one merely because i have heard (ignorant and intolerant) people critisize homosexuality as one. I don't suppose that in your rage you noticed that 'disease' was put in inverted commas. However, if you were offended by this, i am truly sorry.
And to the person who said something like "why can't you vote for more than one option", i didn't know that i was able to set up the poll that way.
And finally, to the person who asked why i didnt put an 'other' option, well i didnt think of it at the time. I apologise for my narrow-mindedness.
And to the person who said something like "why can't you vote for more than one option", i didn't know that i was able to set up the poll that way.
And finally, to the person who asked why i didnt put an 'other' option, well i didnt think of it at the time. I apologise for my narrow-mindedness.
ugh. this whole gender thing is getting to be a pain in the ass. we need to go back to asexual reproduction. 
:m:
:m: Well they can be wrong, actually i never heard of em, but i do believe it's genetic rather than a choice. We don't choose to enjoy the things we do, we are born with a liking towards it. Whether or not it is a disorder homosexuals are born with a tendency to like those of the same sex, of course their way of thinking can be changed, homophobically, but they'll probably still have the same urges as before, only they will hate these feelings and hate others who feel em.
If this is true wouldn't that be proof that homosexuality isn't a choice? As we know (or atleast as I know) general animals, excluding humans, do not have free will, therefore they cannot choose to be homosexual or not. Therefore it must be genetic or, hereditary?