Is being gay a choice?

SW: "for those who just wanna ENJOY the ride...it's a choice."
I would say that if they ENJOY the ride, they are least bi-sexual. There is nothing wrong with that (and I'm not just quoting Seinfeld).
Not everyone in prison has sex with men. Yet those who do, prefer to cohabit with women when their out of jail. But that does not deny their bi-sexual capacities. Perhaps most people are bi-sexual--hell, regrading "capacities", we are omni-sexual. Consider the Freudian notion of cathexis--.e.g, a channeling of libido to objects such as sheep, cows, children, particular racial profiles, old women or men,domination and submission, etc. etc.. Just look at the categories presented in pornography advertisements.
True homosexuality and heterosexuality drives/compels one to have sex with the same or opposite sex, respectively. The other "deviations" are possibly no more than "capacities" rather than actual compulsive drives.

I would not agree with your physcological analysis.
From what I know homosexuallity is a hormonal-based disorder and is thus non-chosen. I dont know if it is ever 'treated' tho.
My assumption is that it is not inheritable.

RD, I'm confused by your post. You say you disagree with me and then you agree that, because homosexuality (like heterosexuality, I would add) is a NON-CHOSEN hormonal-based condition. Calling it a "disorder" is inconsistent with my view, however.

If it is hormonal-based might that not indicate that it is inheritable, i.e., they are both physiological conditions (unconditioned drives) not derived from the outside, e.g., diet, drugs, etc.

My discussion of the so-called deviations implies that they are to some extent "chosen" (or at least conditioned drives), but they are not, as I said, actual physiologically-based inherited drives, like true heterosexuality and homosexuality.

In other words, we are in agreement except for your use of the word "disorder." I do not consider homosexuality a disorder. It's just one of the variations on humanity--as is the capacity for bi-sexuality.

I think that there is a possibility for people to be somewhat bi-sexual, since accidental erection, thoughts , or environmental events can occur to result in mixed up thoughts or feelings, but that does not mean that they are bi-sexual because people often choose a polar side because of their beliefs and preferred tendency toward one sex. On a side note, I've also heard that women have more tendency to be bisexual, so it looks like there is hope for those people who are massively turned on by that kind of stuff.

I think that homosexual traits in some people may be inherited, in which case it is not (at least at first) a matter of choice, but in some other people, they are not.

Is being gay a matter of right or wrong? I would say not really.

I'm not anti-gay, but I am not for me being gay, since it is totally disturbing for me to think of myself being gay. There have been times where I was afraid that I might be gay, and of course the fear results in disturbing thoughts, and I think that kinda is the fear of many straight people especially if they would have to doubt their own conclusion on their sexual orientation, and that cycle raises frustrations. The other thing that I believe is that, even if I do have some sort of gay tendency, I would choose not to be gay because of beliefs (not religious).

Yeah, JL to be fair my reply may have something to do with having read your post a little hastily, and spotting the word Freudian

My arguement that Homosexuallity is non-inheritable is based on the natural selection idea, or what I would call 'negative feedback'. As gay men do not father children, 'gay genes' would struggle to be passed to new generations etc.

I would however stick by my usage of the word 'disorder'. Infertility problems in women are disorders, as baring (verb for birth?) children is a normal womanly capability. Same goes for impotency in men. I would extend this definition to homosexuallity, as it prevents the fathering of children.

N.B. Yes modern techniques allow gay men to father children, but this are very very recent (and very very non-commonplace), and homosexuallity is not.

This, however, is based on the assumption that there is separate gay gene and not a sexuality gene that may be influenced by the other genes. The assumption of a single gay gene is highly simplistic, that doesn't fit into any research on the matter so far.



So, now I'm suffering from a disorder? I'm not normal? I'm diseased or ill? You claim not to be homophobic, but your choice of words really doesn't do you any favours in supporting that claim. Still, perhaps its like my many examples of choosing the wrong words.

I notice, though, that your thoughts on homosexuality are focused solely on male homosexuality. You've said nothing against female homosexuality.

Am I to assume that you find that not weird and a big turn on that you do not object to?

Now, now, Wolfie, the discussion has been unusually civil (for the topic) so far. Let's assume that RD's attitude is not anti-gay, at least until he's more explicit. I know that it took a while for me to stop calling waitresses "honey" (or "hon") after such behavior was (rightly) condemned by feminism. It takes time for our behavior to catch up with changing norms. This "time" requires tolerance on both sides.

Yes, Ray. I think we are almost ALL capable of homosexuality--the prisons show us that. I see that in myself, even though I am very secure in my heterosexuality. But I am, like you, a complex being with capabilities I am not even aware of yet. We should embrace our complex nature.

I couldn't get turned on by a guy even if we were the last two on Earth. Guys just don't do anything for me.

Yes, it would appear I've been edge these past few days. I apologise. I'll leave for a while and come back later when I'm a bit calmer.

I thought Wolf's post was quite reasonable, actually.

I'm like Nick Fun.I can't see the point.

Is there a psychological difference between what Mailer called "pitchers" and "catchers"?

Seems to me there are two points re why genetic or epigenetic involvement in sexual nature is of interest - first, for itself, re scientific knowledge, and second, because it has become important to counter belief systems that have folks being declared immoral and illegal for acting as the people they are. Given that Kinsey's range of sexuality concept, as mentioned by Sozobe, is right or close to right, or that JLN's concept of basic sexualities and varied capacities is right, then a whole lot of people are being constrained by quite antique ideas of human makeup and rules for behavior. Some are more than constrained, they're murdered because of those ideas.

On Kinsey's range of sexuality concept, and the two sexualities with various capacities concept -
I read somewhere about six months ago of a study and subsequent announcement as a result of the study findings that people who are bi are just in denial, that they are really one or the other. Can't remember if I saw that on the Google News or NY Times website.

Anyway, I've long thought Kinsey's range concept seemed about right and didn't bother to save a link for that report since it seemed dead wrong to me. However, I can suddenly see it making sense in light of JLN's remarks elucidating a basic sexuality and other capacities. I think that even then the basic sexuality would still be genetically derived or epigenetically derived.

TS Eliot would probably have agreed with your posts osso but someone else,whose name escapes me said-"but I couldn't shag George Orwell.I really couldn't." And neither could I have done simply for the want of the mechanics.Nothing at all to do with ethical considerations.

So are you saying that there are grades of attractiveness in men in the eyes of other men.If there are,which I think you will concede,are not more feminine traits the ones most in favour and,if so,the men attracted to such traits must be straight deep down.

A genuine male homosexual could actually give old George a seeing to.(The Spartan type).

(I've used Orwell to avoid mentioning any living examples but if you look around you might see what I mean.)

No, that is not what I (or Kinsey or Soz or JLN) are saying.
The range of sexualities business (no, I have no link) is that people fall along a continuum, with some being entirely homosexual, or entirely heterosexual, and others' sexuality falling along gradations in between, on a scale of... I don't remember, perhaps 1-10 or 1-6. And what I understand of JLN's comment was that one has a basic sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual, but that most have potential capacities between those, if not an actual drive in the alternate direction. No doubt either Soz or JL can explain this better than I can.

Oh yeah. The ol' "there is no such thing as bisexual. Pick one, god damn it!" thing.

Osso, you understood me perfectly. Nick and Spendi, you do seem to be protesting rather much.

I protest too much? I don't mind anyone being gay. If guys turned me on, I'd be gay. And I'd proudly tell the world! God knows, I have lost a million opportunities to have fun by being straight.

Nick-don't bother about it.

It's an old Freudian trick.If you deny it you are just repressing it.

I couldn't get it up for Elton John for all the tea in China whereas Jane Fonda could manage it just by glancing at her watch.