Smitherman, gay by choice?

[Dog]

If anyone has a single shred of proof that homosexuality is genetic i would like to see it .

Edited October 6, 2010 by Dog

[bloodyminded]

If anyone has a single shred of proof that homosexuality is genetic i would like to see it .

When did you decide that your attraction to men was unsavoury, and so chose to be heterosexual?

Edited October 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

Now if the down fall of Rome resulted from corruption and moral debachery the last thing we need is a selfish dominator..

Rome was a Christian state when it collapsed, by the time of the final emperors all that pagan debauchery was outlawed. Certainly there was corruption, but I doubt it was any worse than the Empire at its height. What killed Rome was a combination of unreliable German mercenaries in its ranks and the sheer beating it had taken during the Hun invasions, which had left the ship of state crippled and bankrupt.

[bloodyminded]

Rome was a Christian state when it collapsed, by the time of the final emperors all that pagan debauchery was outlawed. Certainly there was corruption, but I doubt it was any worse than the Empire at its height. What killed Rome was a combination of unreliable German mercenaries in its ranks and the sheer beating it had taken during the Hun invasions, which had left the ship of state crippled and bankrupt.

Nah. It was the gays.

[P. McGee]

Undoubtedly there are a lot of complex factors at play; but I think that "genetics and brain physiology play some role" is understating that aspect of it.

Ok, I concede they likely play a significant role, but a determining role is another matter.

What I do not believe likely is that a person's sexuality can actually change. Their behaviour; but not their fundamental inclinations. Because of environment, circumstance, experiences, evident alterations can appear; but I see no reason to suppose that somehting truly fundamental has occurred under these alterations, which are relatively trivial.

Another person might see no reason to suppose the opposite was true. Is there conclusive proof one way or the other? Or is the whole business somewhat speculative?

[bloodyminded]

Ok, I concede they likely play a significant role, but a determining role is another matter.

Another person might see no reason to suppose the opposite was true. Is there conclusive proof one way or the other? Or is the whole business somewhat speculative?

For me, right at this moment, I concede it's somewhat speculative, but I think that's a result of my scientific ignorance.

Behaviorism has taken quite a beating from the "innate" scientific crowd, in everything from studies of the physical brain (and chemical properties) on human behaviour, to the Chomskyan revolution in Linguistics.

Like I said, environment and circumstance aren't nothing; so don't get me wrong. But it's always dependent on innate properties...by definition. For example, if people were not innately predisposed to violence (which we certainly are), then there would be no violence--or at least it would be a wild aberation. Exactly the same can be said for sympathy and compassion, also biologically innate human characteristics.

[guyser]

When did you decide that your attraction to men was unsavoury, and so chose to be heterosexual?

Spot on.

[g_bambino]

When did you decide that your attraction to men was unsavoury, and so chose to be heterosexual?

When did you decide he is heterosexual? And when did a choice never made become proof that there's no possibility of choice?

[bloodyminded]

When did you decide he is heterosexual?

I'm afraid I don't think this is a serious question, nor meant to be one.

And when did a choice never made become proof that there's no possibility of choice?

Because if people aren't gay unless they choose to be (which was the claim) then why wouldn't they not be heterosexual unless they choose it?

I'm only trying to determine if there's any logic whatsoever to the "choice" claims, or if they only apply to homosexuality, for...some reason, unstated.

[g_bambino]

Because if people aren't gay unless they choose to be (which was the claim) then why wouldn't they not be heterosexual unless they choose it?

I think there's some confusion between what one is as a label and what one is by nature. The employment of a sexual label for one's self is a choice and which label to use is a choice. Nobody, though, can be by nature either gay or straight because both are concepts that don't exist in reality; everybody, to varying degrees and at different times, possesses elements of both. Hence, it irks me that our society expects people to choose and only choose between two (albeit that's an improvement over the one that was previously available); and even then, if you don't choose one or choose one the mass disagrees with, you get one chosen for you (magazines filled with gossip about whether someone who won't say anything about their sexuality is gay or straight; a long-married man deemed gay because, besides sex with his wife, he also had sex with men; self-deemed bisexuals being called gay instead by the mass media; & etc.). Bah.

[bloodyminded]

I think there's some confusion between what one is as a label and what one is by nature. The employment of a sexual label for one's self is a choice and which label to use is a choice. Nobody, though, can be by nature either gay or straight because both are concepts that don't exist in reality; everybody, to varying degrees and at different times, possesses elements of both. Hence, it irks me that our society expects people to choose and only choose between two (albeit that's an improvement over the one that was previously available); and even then, if you don't choose one or choose one the mass disagrees with, you get one chosen for you (magazines filled with gossip about whether someone who won't say anything about their sexuality is gay or straight; a long-married man deemed gay because, besides sex with his wife, he also had sex with men; self-deemed bisexuals being called gay instead by the mass media; & etc.). Bah.

Ok, sure, I can agree with all this.

[Oleg Bach]

'Fundamental inclinations' ------------- My X- wife or should I say the double crossing double XX wife...She has a fundamental inclination sexually..her drive is that of a mans' with the same moral inclinations of a dog that needs a pat on the head or will cuddle with anyone that tosses it a bone.

I do not blame her...my youngest son is a male version of her...we all assume that sexuality is a choice..in so far as the funddamental inclinations. I acutually believe the inclinations arise from the first sexual encounters..and with who and how...I remember my first encounter with the hot heiress by the pool..."Oh my GOD..she has it in her mouth"...well needless to say I am still a push over for getting good lazy laid back head...In fact it might just be one of my favorite things..

Now say for instance I was some young horny boy and a male sucked my dick...I might just say - hey that felt good...and if I was raised in todays atmosphere..IF that hypothetical situation took place..They just might lead me down the path to gaydom...Having attered that...People who lobby on behalf of special interest groups like to use the false parallel of race VS gayness..Knowing that a white or black person has no choice of skin colour and that gays are the same..As mentioned _ I do believe that it might be an unconscious choice or "inclination" - What I see in some gay relationships is that there is always a masculine type - and a fake woman femalish type.

Perhaps it is just nature - Like some snakes pretend to be female to gain advantage....over other males...oh well this is an old and odd topic..as for SMITHERMAN....He in my estimation will be corrupt. In the film buisness my friends and I would laugh about the "CHAIN OF GAYNESS" - Where young guys would attempt to get good speaking parts by sleeping with older so-called gay men..So if someone needs a favour politically or finacially..well corruption might take place when favours are exchanged.

I can't help by say that honourablity in the gay community - is almost non-existant. More so than the straight world where there is still a bit left.

We are NOT some Californian town of unbridled liberality..to take on a gay mayor will NOT serve what is left of family values. You might say that gays understand parenthood. I disagree, because - I have never met a woman or a man that understood what it is to be a father or a mother..that had never had children. Toronto should hold on as long as possible to being a town of tradtion..Tradition served us well - social experimentation has not and will not.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm afraid I don't think this is a serious question, nor meant to be one.

Because if people aren't gay unless they choose to be (which was the claim) then why wouldn't they not be heterosexual unless they choose it?

I'm only trying to determine if there's any logic whatsoever to the "choice" claims, or if they only apply to homosexuality, for...some reason, unstated.

Here is my theory. Some human beings because of the way they are bred..or shall I say genetically predispose..Have a weak survival instinct...hence a weak or non-existant sex drive..What I think happens is that some so-called gays are actually a-sexual..or non-sexual...and these types take on the role of the submissive fake female..because they have no choice...NOW what comes into play are those "gays" - that have powerful fully male sex drives...These men make the "choice" of either dominating a female or the more convenient submissive eunuch that I previously described.

People trust me and get personal - I have meet a few male type gays who secretly admit that they have had sex with woman and liked it - BUT for some reason the go the path of least resistance...Men that are supposedly gay who loved certain woman for a life time - and men that are pissed off at woman - One in particular hated his mother -- and dispised his former girl friend who attempted to trick him into fatherhood...and the way this man put it..."you either like dick or you don't" - Well I like mine but not yours...I guess if it is a choice it is a personal one....

Besides - real alpha males to not put a dick in their mouth or take one in the bowel...I GUESS I LIKE BEING A REAL MAN....and I do remember as a kid that some of the gays would refere to "real men" in contempt - and say "He's just a lowly breeder" -

I am proud of my ability to breed - as for adoption of children or artifical insemination....If you can not breed - YOU are an inferiour and do not deserve off spring - Yes I guess I admit - I am a Darwinist in these regards...and Smiterman is a common bugger.