Gay is not norrmal

[Sabre Rider]

This old man who is an old friend of the family had a troubled life(it turned out) and tried to commit suicide. It was not successful, and he told me later that he became gay early in life through repeated sexual abuse from a foster mom and he was gay most of his life, but did not accept it, got married and raised 3 girls. It was later in life, late 60's I think, when the attempted suicide occurred. It was after this attempt that he found a doctor who prescribed a drug that neutralized his gay tendencies, and he was as happy as a clam. I never pressed him for details, he just told me this much freely. If a drug can help someone be straight, how can it be something you're born with?

And what about all of these people who become gay through some abuse like this, or suddenly turn gay in mid life?

Have you ever considered the possibility that he was unhappy and attempted suicide not because he was gay, but because for the majority of his life he was forced to live a lie and that living that lie have become far too much to bare?

The man was no doubt born with homosexual tendencies and traits and more then likely would of been openly gay had such an option been allowed 60 some odd years ago. That his foster mother sexually abused him really does not enter into the equation. He more than likely would of been the same had he been raised in a normal family, just like many other closet gays of his generation.

However, that option of being openly gay did not exist back then and anyone who was openly gay was subject to all manner of institutionalized abuse from their peers, colleagues, family, the law, society and the church. Indeed, this still holds true even in today's more enlightened society. If you really want to bring grief down upon yourself, just announce you are gay, queer, or a dyke.

As you said, he did not accept that he was gay, and thus lead a life based on a lie. No doubt a lie based on survival after all society as a whole did not accept homosexuality back then and to protect themselves, many gay men and women either confirmed to societies norms and expectations and suffered in silence, or they lead a double life, always with the fear of being outed in the back of their minds. Either way, this is not conducive to having a stable mental health. One has to wonder how many seemingly stable "straight" men and women of that generation have attempted or actually have committed suicide when the pressure of denying their true nature became too much of a burden to bare? Even today this happens, especially among the younger of our society.

The gentleman you speak of had desires which he was told were abnormal, abhorrent and sinful. He was told this by the church, his family, society, and even the law. Sure he fathered three daughters, lived as a straight married male, but all the while those urges, desires and tendencies he was born with were lurking in the back ground. Can you even begin to imagine the mental anguish he suffered fighting those urges? Can you even begin to imagine what it would be like to think of yourself as abnormal and abhorrent? Sooner or later the pressure would build to an unacceptable and unmanageable level and some has to snap. And when it does snap he was left with one of two options, A: come out of the closet and accept that he is gay and has been living a lie or B: attempt suicide in an attempt not to bring shame upon himself or his family.

As for a drug treatment curing of his gayness, again I call bullshit. There is no known "cure" for homosexuality, no magic pill, no shock treatment, no nothing known to man or medical science that can change the basic sexual nature of a person. The closest possible "treatment" is the same used with serial sexual offenders, chemical castration. This does not cure the patient so much as make its near impossible for them to act upon their desires.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Sabre Rider

[Sabre Rider]

Rye can open the wrong door and let all sorts of trash enter your pickled head..

My head is far from pickled thank you kindly, however I fear the same cannot be said for you as you seem unable to recognize satire when it's presented to you.

Now how about addressing my rebuttal to your earlier post, or is this all you have in your quiver?

Edited June 7, 2009 by Sabre Rider

[g_bambino]

You know once all society accepts being gay is by birth and not by choice, then maybe this group of people can have the same freedoms of being married in a MARRIAGE and not call it a civil union.

In other words, once we all start to intentionally lie to ourselves in order to make some people feel better. Ugh.

[canfan]

This old man who is an old friend of the family had a troubled life(it turned out) and tried to commit suicide. It was not successful, and he told me later that he became gay early in life through repeated sexual abuse from a foster mom and he was gay most of his life, but did not accept it, got married and raised 3 girls. It was later in life, late 60's I think, when the attempted suicide occurred. It was after this attempt that he found a doctor who prescribed a drug that neutralized his gay tendencies, and he was as happy as a clam. I never pressed him for details, he just told me this much freely. If a drug can help someone be straight, how can it be something you're born with?

And what about all of these people who become gay through some abuse like this, or suddenly turn gay in mid life?

That story seems a bit too convenient. If there really was a drug that made people straight why aren't those camps in the US using it to turn homosexuals back into heterosexuals?

[canfan]

You seem to be saying that what makes being gay abnormal in your books is strictly numbers, right? That a small percentage of the population is gay, therefor being hetero is the norm. Numbers are the criteria in your mind as to what makes someone's identity normal or not.

Of course, this logic also means that on a religious level you're abnormal for being a Jew, and on a human level you're abnormal for being white.

Did you really think this one through all the way before you put up this post?

I think the obvious answer to that is no.

[g_bambino]

The gentleman you speak of had desires which he was told were abnormal, abhorrent and sinful. He was told this by the church, his family, society, and even the law. Sure he fathered three daughters, lived as a straight married male, but all the while those urges, desires and tendencies he was born with were lurking in the back ground. Sooner or later the pressure would build to an unacceptable and unmanageable level and some has to snap. And when it does snap he was left with one of two options, A: come out of the closet and accept that he is gay and has been living a lie or B: attempt suicide in an attempt not to bring shame upon himself or his family.

What a perfect illustration of what I was talking about: a) the perpetuation of this unfounded myth that sexual desire is both static and pre-programmed, and an individual who isn't allowed to have both hetero- and homosexual desires - to whatever degree for each - but instead must choose one "side" or the other. That "other side" may today be somewhat more acceptable as a choice, but I don't think we've been freed nearly enough from this taxonomical categorization that still forces people to repress natural desires; in other words, door number two doesn't offer a tolerable way out, either, and suicide remains a viable exit for too many individuals.

_{[ed. to disable emoticons]}

Edited June 7, 2009 by g_bambino

[Sabre Rider]

What a perfect illustration of what I was talking about: a) the perpetuation of this unfounded myth that sexual desire is both static and pre-programmed, and an individual who isn't allowed to have both hetero- and homosexual desires - to whatever degree for each - but instead must choose one "side" or the other. That "other side" may today be somewhat more acceptable as a choice, but I don't think we've been freed nearly enough from this taxonomical categorization that still forces people to repress natural desires; in other words, door number two doesn't offer a tolerable way out, either, and suicide remains a viable exit for too many individuals.

Are you talking about the nature versus nurture argument? If so you can place me firmly in the nature camp.

As sexual beings, our sexuality is preprogrammed as is the object of our desires. Homosexuality may well be a miss-wiring within our brains, and at one time ran counter to our natural prerogative to reproduce. However that is no longer the case. With in vitro fertilization and sperm donation, even homosexual males and females can become breeders and still remain true to their homosexual nature. These advances in fertility technologies have rendered the old argument that homosexuality is counter-productive to the survival of our species null and void.

I have read in a number of texts that very few humans are 100% heterosexual or homosexual, that we all have varying degree's of the other within us. It should be possible to graph those degrees of variance within an individual if we so wished to and apply it to a population. Lets say we put hard core homosexuality at the left side of the graph and give it a value of -100 (the negative number is just for graphing purposes, you can easily assign negative numbers to the heterosexual population if you so wished) and hard core heterosexuality to the right at +100. Place true bisexuality in the middle with a score of zero. From there you would need to develop a series of questions which I am not qualified to draw up that addresses an individuals true sexuality and from the answers, plot where they really fall in our graph. We should be able to then get a true picture of human sexuality in regards to hetero/homosexuality.

That we are even having this discussion is rather telling, in that it shows we still have a long way to go in accepting that others have sexual preferences that are different from our own. Makes me wonder just how far we truly have advanced as a species.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Sabre Rider

[BubberMiley]

I think there can be pressure from counsellors, doctors, and other realms where gay propaganda is preached, since it is such a popular theory these days.

Actually, true heterosexuals could never be turned gay. If someone feels they can, they aren't true heterosexuals.

[benny]

I dont care what anyone says, being gay is not normal.

Opening a thread and immediately closing the door to debate is a sure sign of deranged intolerance. Gay was certainly normal in militaristic societies like the Ancient Greece one. Arguably the most famous gay couple in all Western history was Socrates and Alcibiades.

[charter.rights]

In a society based on tolerance and acceptance, and one based on equality and protection of discrimination based on sex or sexuality, what is not normal is the kind of homophobia demonstrated by Jerry Seinfeld in his OP. Regardless of one's religious beliefs or moral viewpoint they do not have a right to denigrate one segment of society just because they are afraid of them.

On another note, it has been my experience that where someone vehemently comes out with a direct attack on homosexuals, it is usually based on repressed homosexuality in the attacker. I've known a couple of guys who were as anti-gay as Jerry appears to be and it turned out that both eventually came out of the closet, one just last year. Their verbal barrage against gays was a ruse to keep people from finding out about them. They are both nice enough guys and no one would know about them if they weren't told they were gay......

Edited June 8, 2009 by charter.rights

[g_bambino]

As sexual beings, our sexuality is preprogrammed as is the object of our desires.

Not that I was particularly focusing on the nature v. nurture argument, but I've yet to see one shred of credible evidence that supports without doubt the stance you apparently hold so solidly. If sexual preference was pre-programmed in utero, why then is it so fluid through life, shifting on the spectrum by varying degrees at different points in different people's lives? Questions could be asked, but the answers would collectively pinpoint a particular person's known feelings only at that point in time, and wouldn't take into account that which the respondent may not be conscious of, or information they believe to be unimportant when it actually is, or what may happen to them in future. It's exactly because sexual preference, identity, & etc., is so complex a subject that I believe it to be nearly impossible to map; each of 6,000,000,000 individual lives and bodies being absolutely unique, and, unlike fingerprints, constantly changing as they move through time and the infinitely connected web of human society. It's almost too vast to imagine; like peering over the precipice of a bottomless pit. And, if we know people can't be herded into classifications beyond those of their own making, why bother? Hence, I'm deeply suspicious of those who insist science must find irrefutable divisions (i.e. gay is an inborn biological trait); they remind me of those who dabbled in eugenics.

[benny]

In a society based on tolerance and acceptance, and one based on equality and protection of discrimination based on sex or sexuality, what is not normal is the kind of homophobia demonstrated by Jerry Seinfeld in his OP. Regardless of one's religious beliefs or moral viewpoint they do not have a right to denigrate one segment of society just because they are afraid of them.

On another note, it has been my experience that where someone vehemently comes out with a direct attack on homosexuals, it is usually based on repressed homosexuality in the attacker. I've known a couple of guys who were as anti-gay as Jerry appears to be and it turned out that both eventually came out of the closet, one just last year. Their verbal barrage against gays was a ruse to keep people from finding out about them. They are both nice enough guys and no one would know about them if they weren't told they were gay......

There may be some truth in that. Just by borrowing the name of a comedian, psychoanalysts may suspect a troubled Oedipus complex.

[cybercoma]

There are vast differences in the sex lives (activities, terms of relationships, and otherwise) among heterosexuals alone. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not black and white concepts, although some would have you believe that. Homosexuality has only been used as a term for about 150 years. Many different societies have had some form of homosexuality or another as commonly held acceptable practices. I don't really understand why today we see ourselves as being either one or the other. One thing is for certain. Humanity desires love and affection. As long as it is between consenting adults that fully understand the terms of their relationship, that love and affection should be supported and encouraged. We have enough hate and intolerance in society without putting terms on what kind of love is "right" or "wrong".

Edited June 8, 2009 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

On another note, it has been my experience that where someone vehemently comes out with a direct attack on homosexuals, it is usually based on repressed homosexuality in the attacker.

I know it's anecdotal, but the three people I've known that were the most hateful to homosexuals eventually came out of the closet as well. Hating gays is good cover if you don't want anyone to know you yourself are gay. Second to that is outing other gays to take the attention away from yourself. Unfortunately, it just goes to show how intolerant society is to homosexuals that they cannot freely love whomever they choose because of fear.

[Sabre Rider]

Not that I was particularly focusing on the nature v. nurture argument, but I've yet to see one shred of credible evidence that supports without doubt the stance you apparently hold so solidly. If sexual preference was pre-programmed in utero, why then is it so fluid through life, shifting on the spectrum by varying degrees at different points in different people's lives? Questions could be asked, but the answers would collectively pinpoint a particular person's known feelings only at that point in time, and wouldn't take into account that which the respondent may not be conscious of, or information they believe to be unimportant when it actually is, or what may happen to them in future. It's exactly because sexual preference, identity, & etc., is so complex a subject that I believe it to be nearly impossible to map; each of 6,000,000,000 individual lives and bodies being absolutely unique, and, unlike fingerprints, constantly changing as they move through time and the infinitely connected web of human society. It's almost too vast to imagine; like peering over the precipice of a bottomless pit. And, if we know people can't be herded into classifications beyond those of their own making, why bother? Hence, I'm deeply suspicious of those who insist science must find irrefutable divisions (i.e. gay is an inborn biological trait); they remind me of those who dabbled in eugenics.

As sexual beings as apposed to asexual beings, our sexuality is hard wired into our very being, or in other words, our desire to reproduce ourselves is set deep within our genetic code. That is the basic nature of all sexual beings, to seek out a partner to have sexual relationships with in order to reproduce. That some prefer to have relationships with those of the same gender is neither here nor there, the basic drive or desire is still there.

At one time being strictly homosexual was a zero sum game, as two male or two females of our species could not at the time reproduce with each other. Modern reproductive technologies has long since reversed that, now being homosexual is no longer a zero sum game. And it may well be possible in the very near future that the male spermatozoa will no longer be necessary for reproduction of the human species. Fertility researchers are currently exploring the possibility of combining the genetic material of two female ova into one, thus creating a viable fertilized ovum that should develop into a full human being. Think what such a technology would do our very social structure when and if the males of species were suddenly made redundant reproductively speaking.

Bare in mind, I am speaking strictly about sexual biology and reproduction here and not about emotional needs. On the emotional front, homosexuals needs are equal to those of heterosexuals. That they can and do form lasting and loving bonds has been shown time and time again. Whether a person is purely homosexual, or purely heterosexual or falling somewhere in between does not diminish them as human beings, deserving of the same rights, respect and freedoms given to any other so-called "normal" member of a society.

I, for the life of me cannot understand why some people feel that they are the right to poke their unwanted noses into the private lives of strangers and feel that they have to right to dictate to them what is right or wrong. Personally I believe there is only one real answer to the question, "Are you gay?" and that is "It's none of your business" and if the enquirer is persistent, then the answer is to tell them to get bent.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Sabre Rider

[WIP]

I love it when logical midgets try to use animals as a "shining example" of normalcy.

And it's another factor that doesn't fit in with your straight-jacketed version of what is and is not normal! Since homosexuality occurs in nature, it shows that a natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans cannot be regarded as abnormal. The "sin against nature" arguments of Aquinas and other theologians have no basis in an actual study of the natural world.

[benny]

And it's another factor that doesn't fit in with your straight-jacketed version of what is and is not normal! Since homosexuality occurs in nature, it shows that a natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans cannot be regarded as abnormal. The "sin against nature" arguments of Aquinas and other theologians have no basis in an actual study of the natural world.

It would be more precise to say that bisexuality occurs in nature in stressful circumstances.

[Oleg Bach]

It would be more precise to say that bisexuality occurs in nature in stressful circumstances.

Feeling stressed benny?

[benny]

Feeling stressed benny?

no

[Oleg Bach]

no

If I stress you will that make you suddenly a bi-sexual? Theory and speculation....The worst stress can do is make you stop considering sex PERIOD...YOU go into personal surival mode not collective survival mode....But let me give you some advice benny - "sex for health reasons only" - Benjamine Franklin -----sex heals - and if you are stressed it means you have not slept well because you do not have a repsonsive and loving partner - couples live longer benny...

[sharkman]

And it's another factor that doesn't fit in with your straight-jacketed version of what is and is not normal! Since homosexuality occurs in nature, it shows that a natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans cannot be regarded as abnormal. The "sin against nature" arguments of Aquinas and other theologians have no basis in an actual study of the natural world.

Sorry, I have to call BS on this one. In nature there is murder, so why is that particular behavior so frowned upon? Also, eating your young occurs in nature, so why don't we put this 'homosexuals in nature" argument out to pasture.

We are not animals.

[benny]

If I stress you will that make you suddenly a bi-sexual? Theory and speculation....The worst stress can do is make you stop considering sex PERIOD...YOU go into personal surival mode not collective survival mode....But let me give you some advice benny - "sex for health reasons only" - Benjamine Franklin -----sex heals - and if you are stressed it means you have not slept well because you do not have a repsonsive and loving partner - couples live longer benny...

Alpha males may be stressful.

[Oleg Bach]

Alpha males may be stressful.

You prefere less controlable males? Real alpha males bring great peace and love and no stress - unless you stress yourself by being a contentious mate.

[benny]

You prefere less controlable males? Real alpha males bring great peace and love and no stress - unless you stress yourself by being a contentious mate.

Alpha males are aging.

[Pliny]

And it's another factor that doesn't fit in with your straight-jacketed version of what is and is not normal! Since homosexuality occurs in nature, it shows that a natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans cannot be regarded as abnormal. The "sin against nature" arguments of Aquinas and other theologians have no basis in an actual study of the natural world.

It might be better to argue that it is an aberration rather than to argue if it is normal. It seems aberrant when you consider the prime purpose of sex. It seems to have no purpose except self-gratification. It's merely a hedonistic activity in the absence of it's purpose. Masturbation could, and has been in the past, considered an aberration but everyone does that, or just about everyone I think, so it isn't really an aberration in the sense the majority engage in the activity.

Of course, "normalcy" is what most people wish in their lives and if their activities are not accepted as "normal" the attempt and effort to make it normal is quite understandably made by them. Masturbation fits the bill as "normal" but I think since only a small percentage of the population engages in homosexuality I would say it will always be considered, even with the enforcement of law, aberrant. It will never, in my opinion, I guess because I am heterosexual, naturally be the centre of the bell curve but could be if procreation is made illegal or culturally frowned upon and sex then becomes entirely about hedonism.

It could happen, and perhaps is what we are witnessing, we change our priority regarding the purpose of sex as a society and then it doesn't matter, does it. Whatever turns your crank. Engaging in aberrative behavior makes it hard to be a convincing judge of others as being aberrative.

Is polygamy an aberration? It is in western society. Is the prime purpose of sex lost to polygamy? No. So I would say it would be more of a societal aberration, being a legal enforcement, rather than a sexual aberration.

I don't know how Iran has 0% homosexuality in their population though. Maybe because they executed those with the genes? What do you think? Is that a possibility? Personally, I don't think genes are responsible.