Homosexual Gene?

[Mokele]

I wonder if this is a natural response. I feel the same way as you, but it is hard to tell if I learned it or not. It is so engrained in our society.

 

Possibly, but maybe not (how's that for a cop-out?). The first thing that springs to mind is ancient Greece. Even though they still didn't think homoseuxal sex was as "good" as heterosexual sex, there was a certain level of openness about it, especially in males. I'm not sure what the attitude towards female homosexuality was, though. Maybe ignoring it, maybe looking down on it. I don't really know history that well, so I'll leave that open for someone else.

 

Mokele

[Nevermore]

Awnsering several pieces of several questions: Some find domination arousing because physical domination and sexualy activity both have much to do with, and cause the relaese of, testosterone.

[myeditorial]

This is a statement out of ignorance of causal combination principles. Though genetics deals with mixing of characterestics, often, the people dealing with genetics make 'one casue one effect statements'.

A character is an effect of many causes.

Telling this is the only cause of homosexulaity unacceptable. It may be true in the controlled condions.

Kindly go through Nancy's - on the nature of physical principles. That will tell more about....

[Skye]

Back To the Point.

 

If there WAS a gene' date=' would it be a gene on itself or e.g. a change in the base of another gene?

 

Because i thought we only had 46 chromosones, (does that mean that there are 46 different types?) In which case then an extra gay gene would mean that there are only 45 that DO NOT deal with homosexuality. I find this unlikely, judiging by the complexity of the human organism.[/quote']

Humans have 23 different types of chromosomes. Most cells contain contain a pair of each, and so have 46. But each chromosome carries many genes, and we have maybe thirty thousand genes in total. So if a chromosome had a gay gene it would have plenty of room for other genes.

[swansont]

Society has always frowned upon it and always will.

 

"Society" used to frown upon people who were left-handed. Some societies still do.

 

Is being left-handed a choice, or is it genetic?

[syntax252]

"Society" used to frown upon people who were left-handed. Some societies still do.

 

Is being left-handed a choice' date=' or is it genetic?[/quote']

 

It is genetic.

 

However, I know for a fact that a right handed person can easily learn left handedness, and vice versa.

[Sayonara]

Let's not leave out "..but there's no reason why they should, and no reason why they ought to be made to feel that they should".

[swansont]

It is genetic.

 

However' date=' I know for a fact that a right handed person can easily learn left handedness, and vice versa.[/quote']

 

I don't know about "easily;" when I broke my right arm and was forced to be left-handed for two months it wasn't easy, it was awkward. I got to be OK at it, but not good.

 

How is that fundamentally different than homosexuality? Homosexuals are not incapable of having sex with a member of the opposite sex.

[atinymonkey]

How is that fundamentally different than homosexuality? Homosexuals are not incapable of having sex with a member of the opposite sex.

 

The govenment could train homosexuals to have hetrosexual sex. You know, give them a biscuit if they pick the correct partner. Individual rights are overrated anyway.

[coquina]

However, I know for a fact that a right handed person can easily learn left handedness, and vice versa.

 

But do you know that along with along with being left or right handed, you have a dominant eye? Hold your index finger up in line with your nose about 12" away from your face. Open both eyes and line your finger up with a vertical line. Then close one eye. Next open that eye and close the other one. In one instance your finger will "jump" to one side or the other in front of the vertical line. With the other open, the the alignment will remain the same as with both eyes open.

 

This is your "dominant eye" and it usually agrees with handedness. I don't care how much you practice, you can't change it. If you are left handed, you can practice and become adept at using your right hand, but you are really still left handed.

 

I believe that the same is true of homosexuality. I believe that although one can choose to act heterosexual, they are still homosexual, because that is the way they are "wired".

[syntax252]

But do you know that along with along with being left or right handed' date=' you have a dominant eye? Hold your index finger up in line with your nose about 12" away from your face. Open both eyes and line your finger up with a vertical line. Then close one eye. Next open that eye and close the other one. In one instance your finger will "jump" to one side or the other in front of the vertical line. With the other open, the the alignment will remain the same as with both eyes open.

 

This is your "dominant eye" and it usually agrees with handedness. I don't care how much you practice, you can't change it. If you are left handed, you can practice and become adept at using your right hand, but you are really still left handed.

 

I believe that the same is true of homosexuality. I believe that although one can choose to act heterosexual, they are still homosexual, because that is the way they are "wired".[/quote']

 

Oh, I am acutely aware of that. As a trap and skeet shooter, it is a real factor is mastering the art.

 

This very phenomonon is one of the reasons that I happen to know that "other handedness" can rather easily be achived. I have personally known 3 trap shooters who did so because of the dominant eye problem. It takes about 3 months to get adjusted.

 

Also, my nephew was born with a badly deformed right hand. All he has on the right hand is the thumb and 3 nubbuns for fingers. When he was a baby, he displayed a lot of signs of being righthanded. He would hold things in the left and try to manipulate things like lids and such with the right hand. He would also reach for things with the right hand. As he developed, he gradually started to adapt to the other hand and now is just as left handed as anyone I have ever known.

 

Now, I know that this is not the same as changing hands after one has developed his handedness, but it can be done, and I think has been done more than people know.

[coquina]

I learned about the dominant eye thing when I was heavily involved in archery. Although I am left handed, I had been taught to shoot a bow right handed. I had to compensate by altering where I aimed. I later crushed the finger in my left hand and was in a cast for six months. I learned to use my right hand, and can now use either for most chores, but I am still wired for lefthandedness.

 

Back to the homosexual gene bit. It's sort of like weight - I have a genetic tendency to be fat - it runs in my father's family. I was obese before I was a year old and remained that way until I was 53. At that point, my health was going downhill and every bone I had ached. I became motivated and lost 110#, and I fight every day to keep it off. I have to eat less and exercise more, to maintain a weight of 155.

 

I do that because my health demands it. However, if it was just a matter of how other people perceived me, I would still be fat. I would not lose weight to satisfy someone else's whim that "you can't be too rich or too thin". In my humble opinion, there is no reason for a person to ignore their sexual preference to suit what society perceives to be "right".

[syntax252]

I learned about the dominant eye thing when I was heavily involved in archery. Although I am left handed' date=' I had been taught to shoot a bow right handed. I had to compensate by altering where I aimed. I later crushed the finger in my left hand and was in a cast for six months. I learned to use my right hand, and can now use either for most chores, but I am still wired for lefthandedness.

 

Back to the homosexual gene bit. It's sort of like weight - I have a genetic tendency to be fat - it runs in my father's family. I was obese before I was a year old and remained that way until I was 53. At that point, my health was going downhill and every bone I had ached. I became motivated and lost 110#, and I fight every day to keep it off. I have to eat less and exercise more, to maintain a weight of 155.

 

I do that because my health demands it. However, if it was just a matter of how other people perceived me, I would still be fat. I would not lose weight to satisfy someone else's whim that "you can't be too rich or too thin". In my humble opinion, there is no reason for a person to ignore their sexual preference to suit what society perceives to be "right".[/quote']

 

 

Congratulations on your successful life style accomplishments.

 

I agree that one's sexual preferrence is one's personal business, but I think that it is an aquired characteristic, rather than an inherited one.

 

That opinion is based on 40 years experience as a Master Machinist, so take it for what you think it may be worth.......

[coquina]

In that case, please refer to your Machinery's Handbook. Mine is the 24th edition, page 598 Allowances & Tolerances For Fits - Limits and Fits

 

[syntax252]

In that case' date=' please refer to your Machinery's Handbook. Mine is the 24th edition, page 598 [b']Allowances & Tolerances For Fits - Limits and Fits[/b]

 

 

My Machinists Handbok went out on loan to an apprentice before I retired and was not returned.

 

At the time, I thought it was not important because I was about to retire. Now, I wish I had it back. I suppose I could buy another.

[Rekkr]

I believe that homosexuality has a gene. Whether or not this gene is switched on at birth or not is another matter. It could be switched on during puberty or earlier. Does anyone know any stories of gay people who weren't always gay? I really can't imagine any person choosing to be gay. It must be genetic.

[Buddha]

Heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and a disease

This is not rhetoric. Whether we look at our present day society, or the ancient world --- this is the resounding message that we get. Scientifically, biologically and morally.

Man, at least straight man was never ever meant to be heterosexual.

 

Defining Heterosexuality

 

Let's clearly define heterosexuality first. The western society conveniently plays with these words to suit their own anti-men's agenda. In common parlance it is often used to simply refer to sex or sexual desire between male and female. Heterosexuality, however, is not as simple as that, nor is sexual desire for women the ownership of heterosexuals. Heterosexuality in reality is an ideology, which embodies two things:

 

- exaggeration of sexual desire for women to a point that nature can't healthily sustain.

- Suppression of sexual desire for men, which is equally unhealthy.

 

Heterosexuality means exclusive and all encompassing sexual desire for women, and an inversion to male eroticism and bonding.

 

Defining Homosexuality

 

It is also important to define homosexuality clearly, since it is cunningly meant to cover two opposite ends of male spectrum --- the masculine and the feminine, which is practically not possible, but the western world has lived with this concoction for a long time.

 

Sex or sexual desire between males is also not the ownership of homosexuals. Homosexuality for all practical purposes refers to sexual attraction of a feminine/queer male (often referred to as gay) either for another feminine man or for a straight man (they are both different desires). Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality covers the sexual relationship or desire of a straight man for another straight man (or even for a feminine man).

 

Furthermore, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality even remotely represents the sexual nature of straight men.

 

Sexual nature of straight men

 

Straight men, by nature, are driven to seek sex with women occasionally (about once each year like in the animals). They are meant to seek life-long committed relationship only with other men (mostly straight men). This is supported both by history and the animal life.

 

Most of the men including straight men who go around with the 'heterosexual' label are not really heterosexuals. They are just pretending.

 

The straight man's desire for another straight man is way different than a woman's desire for a straight man or a 'homosexual's' (feminine male) desire for a straight man. A straight man's desire for women is also very different from a feminine man's desire for women.

 

Animal sexuality

 

In none of the mammal species we know of is the male 'heterosexual'.

 

Which other mammal do you know where the male pairs off with a female for lifelong or even for a period greater than a week! Heterosexual mating takes place once a year, during the mating season and that too for a very short duration ranging from a few hours to a couple of days (depending on the species) after which the male goes back to his pack. Of course the discovery channel will not tell you what the males do the rest of the year, although recent discoveries have shown a lot of sexual committed bonding between males. So the guys that bang each other's heads for a **** of the female go back to their male lovers after attending to their natural call --- fulfilling their duty, so to speak.

 

If mammals were indeed heterosexuals they would not live separately for such long periods when they can easily live together. They don't even have to live in male only or female only groups. They can also choose to live in heterosexual spaces like the modern, Christian West does (perhaps the sons of gods of the world couldn't reach them). Animals live according to their natural instincts, not on the basis of some lords or prophets commands.

 

The animal males choose a new female partner each year, whereas, in the few cases studied they tended to bond lifelong with other males (in one-to-one bonds), unless forced apart by death. Clearly the males do not have any sense of commitment or attachment with the females – a basic requirement of heterosexuality.

 

What's more in species like the elephants, the males only approach females when they are about 40 years old. That in a life span which is only about 60 years by which time the elephant is too old even to move around properly. Sex between males is only too well known amongst the elephants.

 

We must not forget that most cases of affection and sexual bonding between males in the wild are not reported by the scientists – a phenomenon which has only now started to be documented. Even if they wanted to, they are too biased and ill informed to really find it out. The strongest bias is this stupid 'scientific' theory that they have that every single move and thought of the animal is (consciously or unconsciously) directed towards facilitating reproduction, especially if it's even remotely concerned with sexual bonding. So if there is sex between males, it has to fit into this 'overall' purpose. Of course they will only look for cases of sex, love between males neither exists in the animal world nor is it important.

 

Another bias is that scientists tend to consider only cases of anal intercourse in animals as 'homosexuality'. That's absolutely illogical (in fact trying to find 'homosexuality amongst animals is itself wrong and biased because it's a peculiarly human /western/Christian concept). Even amongst the humans straight men do not prefer intercourse when they have sex with another straight man. When men have sex with women or with 'homosexuals' they may only have intercourse because it's socially so constructed.

 

 

Human history

 

Almost all ancient tribal societies, only a couple of which now remain, had institutionalized sexual bonding between men and often gave it precedence over sex with women. In these societies, like in the animal world, sex between males and females happened periodically every year and was restricted to just sex – but only so much that procreation can occur. In fact in all the ancient traditions (there are still several that survive today in non-western societies) womanizing is considered a feminizing factor for men.

 

We don't need to recount what happened in Greece. Suffice it to say that whenever the society accorded male-male bonds its true place, they have marginalized male-female bonds, and societies have been forced to find means to compel men to copulate with women. It seems to be a perenial problem.

 

In medieval societies by which time, male-female marriages were already made compulsory (we are still far away from heterosexuality) and sex between men either flourished (in some societies) side by side under social acceptance if not institutionalization or (in other societies) it was accepted behind the scenes, not openly. But in either case, interaction between man and woman was restricted to just the act of sexual intercourse (which, I might add, in most societies did not involve taking off clothes, nor doing it with lights on) often once in every couple of months). Or to matters concering family (children, ration, etc.). In these societies the issue was 'procreation' and not satisfying women.

 

Also in both kinds of societies sex (not love) between a feminine male (homosexual) and a straight man was openly allowed.

 

This has been the case in most of the non-western world till recent times, before the advent of globalisation and cultural invasion by America which has begun a process of heterosexualisation of these societies.

 

Marriage is unnatural

 

A true man can never share his life with a woman (or even with a feminine male) without sacrificing his happiness. Even a relationship with them is heavy on him. This is something that only a person with enough femininity can afford. In fact the more masculine a man gets the lesser his attraction for women gets too.

 

The love and bonding that a straight man can give to another straight man, neither a woman nor a homosexual male can give to him. A feminine male (homosexual or heterosexual) is equally unlikely to understand a straight man than are women, and is not likely to be compatible with him. They both have the least understanding or appreciation of masculinity. All that they have is a sexual attraction which is transient. Women and Feminine males may like macho men for short term flings, but they soon get bored of it and then they want to change them.

 

Straight men too can at best have short flings with women and feminine males.

Interestingly, the same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum --- the more feminine a man gets the lesser his interest in women gets too.

 

You become that, which you love

 

Of course there are some men who are genuinely heterosexual in this world, i.e., genuinely want to share their life with a woman. But these are not the typical males. These true heterosexuals are harmless and enlightened creatures and are most likely the two-spirited people that the ancients once venerated. I.e. they have both the male and female spirits (masculinity and femininity) in them almost in equal proportion. This way you can say that they have 'hormonal balance'. They fall somewhere between the masculine males (straights) and feminine males (including non-homosexuals). These two-spirited people may not be too different from today's meterosexuals.

 

Women who really want to share life with a man really crave for this meterosexual man, not one of those macho or straight guys.

 

The height of heterosexuality is the ultimate two-spirited person – who is also considered to be the epitome of spirituality --- what the heterosexual society has ironically denigrated as 'transsexual' and 'hermaphrodite'. He is a person who is two-spirited from within as well as from the outside – he has male genitals but he feels he is a female – his love for women has turned him into a male-woman. Or he has the genitalia of both male and female as in the case of the hermaphrodite.

 

Incidentally, the height of femininity in males is also Transexuality (although it's not two spirited, only feminine spirited but signifying a unique form of positive energy nevertheless). The height of the masculine spirited (straight) man is macho -- a stage which traditionally insists on total abstinence from women. However, the term macho has been much maligned and distorted by the heterosexual society. The heterosexual version of 'macho' is selfish, cruel, mean, unfair and of course 'heterosexual'. The naturally macho man on the other hand was strong from inside, fair, respectful of others, caring, righteous and a true warrior. He was someone who is a true stickler for fair rules. And it does not need to be said that he took love with a man to its highest form, with total and exclusive devotion – like the ancient Greeks. The world has not seen such love eversince.

 

I'm reminded of an ancient myth, where god Zeus in anger divided his subjects– the male, female as well as the hermaphrodite gods -- into halves. He later relented and sent them to earth as humans, each one's goal in life being to reunite and bond with his/ her other half, in order to become complete again.

 

Thus the males started craving for a man (his other half), the female craved for another female and the hermaphrodite person who was divided into a man and a woman has since been looking for and courting 'heterosexual' bonds. We are all supposed to represent one of these.

 

God does not want man and woman to bond

 

If god wanted man and woman to live together he wouldn't put one on Venus and the other on mars. There is absolutely no understanding between them.

 

There is hardly any sexual compatibility between men and women. Ever since heterosexuality came into being so have innumerable big and small sexual dysfunctions --- problems that have arisen because of forcing men into heterosexuality --- into a sexual bond with women that nature cannot support. There'll hardly be a 'heterosexual' man today who does not face sexual problems even though he may be shy of seeking treatment.

 

Man and woman cannot satisfy each other in bed fully. They both have absolutely different sexual clocks and different patterns of orgasms and absolutely no natural understanding of how the other's body works.

 

Straight men are wary of being intimate with women beyond ejaculation. They do not like to cuddle women in bed. Of course women often complain that men turn the other way as soon as they shed their semen. The orgasm of the female or her sensuality or her femininity in itself does not interest men. It would if it was not forced on them beyond the natural limit.

 

And of course there is the adage that 'men want sex from women' while 'women want love'. Real men just can't dream of emotional intimacy with women --- it's a fact, and I'm sure, most women will not feel sorry because of it. They too (apart from a small minority – the equivalent of male two spirit heterosexuals), secretly, be better off living with their own with occasional sexual escapades with the opposite sex.

 

Surely, if nature had intended heterosexuality it would not be so dumb as to make it so painstakingly difficult.

 

Forcing Heterosexuality

 

If heterosexuality was indeed so natural, such extreme social maneuvering would not have been needed to keep it in place. I mean look at the way the entire society, each and every element of it is meant to promote 'heterosexuality' howsoever uncomfortable or unnatural these elements may seem. So much so that today even small children are taught about dating and made to understand in no uncertain terms that if they want to grow up 'straight' (which they better do!) they must be heterosexual. And to think that these messages go through the most innocent of channels – cartoons.

 

And if 'heterosexuality' was indeed natural it did not need to fear 'homosexuality' so much. There would have been no need for such an immense force to control it as is being used today. Of course in the first place there would have been no need to bring in god to restrain it. If male-male sexuality is talked about it is only of the homosexual variety (stereotyped as feminine guys looking for a ****) so as to keep straight men restrained. And children must be absolutely kept out of it, because the only hope to keep the society heterosexual is to fill their minds with filth about sexual relationships between any kind of males. Because if they fail to do it in that tender age, they have no hope whatsoever.

 

Heterosexuality is an anti-male ideology

 

Heterosexuality makes men subservient to women. A heterosexual society judges a man's manhood by his ability to 'satisfy' women. This gives women an immense power and handle over men. While all women are aware of this power that they have over men (and not all are interested in using them) some sexually aggressive women (polite term for whores) use this power to sexually abuse and exploit men. Because, man will have to submit to a woman's demand for sex lest he be disqualified from being a man. Thus 'heterosexuality' has made men vulnerable to unimaginable sexual abuse. Heterosexuality has created a society where the 'woman' has been granted the power to grant manhood to a man, and it no longer flows from within a man and from being with men.

 

However, this is good news for the weak two-spirited 'heterosexual' (not all heterosexuals need this cheap power). These men not only gladly submit themselves before women, they want to make the entire male species subservient to them. These men can hardly feel for the male race or masculinity because all they can think about is women and femininity and how to serve them.

 

Subsequently, a heterosexual society is over sensitive to the issues of women, but is impervious, often hostile to the needs of men.

 

These weak heterosexuals are the real eunuchs (non-men). They are the betrayer of the male population. They speak for women. They should not call themselves 'men'. They sell out the male race to the women and happily become their slaves.

 

Conclusion:

 

Thus it can be forcefully said that heterosexuality in the form that is enforced in westernized societies – as masculine and majoritarian, is unnatural, abnormal and gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual problems both in men, women and the two-spirited people.

 

At the same time, the whole concept of homosexuality is also unnatural and abnormal in its present form. In fact the very validity of the concept of sexual orientation is questionable, but that is quite another matter.

 

No where in the mammalian world does the male partake in the raising of children. The birds do, and probably that is +why they're heterosexual. But not humans. Children are nice to raise, and men awe women for the power of procreation that they have, but heterosexuality is too heavy a price to pay for it. After all, women cannot make children without men.

[Aardvark]

I really can't imagine any person choosing to be gay. It must be genetic.

 

You seem to be implying that there are only two options, either homosexuality is genetic or it is a matter of personal choice.

 

That seems too restrictive, homosexuality could have other environmental vectors, possibily hormonal. Not all biological factors are directly related to genes.

[Dak]

as an anecdotal observation, has anyone notices that many gay men are, essentially, identical to heterosexual men with the sole exeption of the tendansy to have sex with other men, and some gay men have observable phisical differenses which are generally unique to homosexuals? ie, and im talking anatomically here (nothing to do with 'minsing' etc), some homosexuals look heterosexual, whereas some homosexuals look very obviously homosexual.

(same applies to female lesbians)

 

this would indicate to me the possibility of some kind of genetic/developmental cause of homosexuality, albeit not as the only possible cause.

 

reguarding 'how a gene which codes for not having sex with members of the opposite sex would get passed on':

 

#it could be resessive

#it could have a high insidense of spontaniouse mutation from the heterosexual form

#it could be a gene reguarding developmental prosesses which is not always expressed

#'gay uncle' theory - if homosexuality makes people more maternal, then they could pass on their genes by looking after their nephews/nieses

#bisexuals

 

anyway, having gone to the humongoid effort of evolving a set of instincts such as the sex-drive, evolution takes a shortcut - vis, next set of instincts needed are not nessesaraly evolved, but instead another set of instincts (eg the sex drive) can be hijacked and given alternate uses.

 

for example, branches of psycology believe that in childeren, the 'sex' drive rewards babies with pleasure (of the emotional variety) when they put things in their mouth, thus encoriging them to succle.

 

in todlers, the pseudosexual drive rewards anal feelings with emotional pleasure, with the intent of rewarding the acts of storing poo in the bowels and then releasing it in one go, preferably away from their normal living quaters, thus encoraging basic hygine

 

after this, the sex drive rewards playing with things with your hands, in an attempt to develope on of our most useful skills (manual dexterity)

 

(as an aside, in the cross over between the anal and manual stage, kids can get confused and play with their poo (as it satisfies their pseudosexual desire to manualy manipulate stuff, and as poo comes from the anus). if they get caught and shouted at too much, they can, out of fear of further punishment, risist the urges of their anal-pseudosexual drive, and experience 'arrested development', whereby the anal-pseudosexual sex drive stage never gets completed. this means that in the adult, both the sex-drive and anal-pseudosex drive are active, thusly: the person, still having their hygien-orientated sex drive is still active, can be fastiduaously neat, coming everysingle hair individually and plucking off every single piese of fluff off of their suit etc, oftern assosiated with other fastidiouse atterntion-to-detail, which is the ectymological origins of the phrase 'analy retentive'; also as both the sex drive and the anal-psudosexual drive are present, this is the sourse of the myth (reason?) that fastiduously neat people like dirty sex, ie take it up the...)

 

in bonobos, lesbian sex is rife and plays an inportant role in establishing social pecking order -- another instance of the sex-drive being hijaked for another use.

 

so its possible the in humans, same-sex instincts could serve a purpose, and even be coded for in some manner by genes.

 

however, homosexuality clearly does not follow classical mendelian patterns, so its unlikely that there is one 'gay gene'

[Buddha]

[bUBBLE=The govenment could train homosexuals to have hetrosexual sex. You know, give them a biscuit if they pick the correct partner. Individual rights are overrated anyway.]

 

That is what the society has been doing for two thousand years. It gives such huge rewards for picking the right partner. Do you remember the first time you had sex with a girl. You felt so powerful, so masculine. It was not real. The society puts you on a pedestal for choosing a female partner. Why do you think all these men stating with pride how they find sex with men in bad taste.

At the same time they throw you into unimaginable dept if you do choose a partner of the same-sex. The first thing they do is to take away your manhood. You have to be a homosexual to like other men. This is not natural and it was not always so. You feel so powerless and vulnerable when your attraction to the same-sex finds an expression in front of someone. You feel so womanly, not because you feel feminine, but because everyone thinks its so womanly.

No wonder every man has to deal with his sexual emotions for men during his adolescence but wins over it and becomes heterosexual because otherwise life for straight men is unliveable.

Of course if your're feminine (queer) then you don't want to be a man in the first place and so are happy to claim a sexual attraction for males.

[Buddha]

[bUBBLE=Does anyone know any stories of gay people who weren't always gay? I really can't imagine any person choosing to be gay. It must be genetic.]

 

This whole "sexual orientation" thing is an imagination of the western heterosexual society.

It's not possible to be a masculine (straight) man and not like another man. Go to any society where men still live in male groups (whether or not females are available) and you will know the difference.

Men learn to be heterosexual. Heterosexuality is a choice. And one struggles with one's feelings all one's life. The macho men have a bigger need for the 'straight' identity, and they will the first to display a 'heterosexual' identity (in a society that has artificially fixed the equation as straight = heterosexual). The macho men at the same time have a bigger need for other men. They also have a much deeper appreciation of masculinity in others.

[Buddha]

[bUBBLE=It (a specific portion of the brain) is large in women and small in men (or vice-versa), and hence if you have a deformatiy of this part of the brain, i.e. the wrong size, Transvestianism and/or Homesexuality may occur.]

 

This is as much of a lie as is the concept of sexual orientation.

 

First your heterosexual society forcibly isolates men who accept a sexual desire for other men and club them together with feminine, third gender males. Then they study these third gender males and proclaim that 'homosexuality' is caused by things such as mentioned by you.

 

Most of these studies are carried out by over-enthusiastic homosexuals (third gender guys) who have no problems at all with the above arrangement and are eager to establish 'gay' as a separate identity from straight men --- biologically speaking.

 

It is another matter that according to estimates, most queers (third gender/ transexual males) are 'heterosexuals'. But femininity is hardly ever associated with heterosexuality, whereas most ancient societies did so.

 

It is also another matter that if you were to study transexual heterosexuals you would reach at the same conclusion --- that their brains resemble those of women. But they do not want to do that. Cause, scientists are a bigoted lot, and they don't want to protray heterosexuality as feminine.

 

There is only a tiny percentage of males who are naturally heterosexual. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have a lack of male hormones or an excess of feminine hormones or something like that. A gene can also not be ruled out.

 

In the wild, males who bond with females often are inferior or third gender animals. The wild-life scientists so often try to cover up that.

[Buddha]

[bUBBLE=I don't know about you guys, but I don't find the idea of two females having sex together, any where near as inappropriate as two males having a sexual relationship.]

[bUBBLE=This seems to be a common attitude among males. There must have been some research into it already, because it's a particularly odd kind of discrimination.]

 

This is a learned straight male behaviour. It's one of those things that men say to defend or strengthen their 'straight' status. Men have also learned to see things this way.

[Buddha]

[bUBBLE=I don't know about others, but with what little kinky sex that I have been involved in, I had a sense of mastery over the female(s) involved. They were there to serve ME. ]

 

On the contrary, a natural heterosexual is one who likes to be subordinated by females. He would love to be their servant, he would do anything to please them and win their favour. No wonder a heterosexual society tends to subdue men and masculinise women.

[Buddha]

Possibly' date=' but maybe not (how's that for a cop-out?). The first thing that springs to mind is ancient Greece. Even though they still didn't think homoseuxal sex was as "good" as heterosexual sex, there was a certain level of openness about it, especially in males. I'm not sure what the attitude towards female homosexuality was, though. Maybe ignoring it, maybe looking down on it. I don't really know history that well, so I'll leave that open for someone else.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Please get your history right.

In the Greek world there were no homosexuals. The only person closest to a homosexual was known as a catamite. A feminine character who exclusively sought passive anal intercourse as an assertion of his femaleness.

As far as sex between 'straight' men was considered, it was considered far more superior, masculine than sex between man and woman. In fact it was considered the purest form of love.

In fact male-female sex was restricted only to procreation. Greek men in fact resented that and believed that if only men could procreate, then there would be no need for women at all. Marriage was enforced on men only because they needed more children. Greek men typically married women only after they reached 30.

And why only the Greek society. Any ancient society in the past, particularly a warrior society thought that way.