What do gays really want?

[dukeofbaja]

Calling homosexuality 'abnormal behavior', stating that homosexuality is 'an effect of the environment', and appealling to a 'sin against nature' type of argument is how you respond? You must not have brushed up on the entirety of social sciences or psychology in the last few decades...here's an excerpt


http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

 

[dukeofbaja]

This is not to say that all gays are tending to pair-bond. Some elect to have promiscuous, anonymous sex and don't want to be involved in relationships. Yet it's been my experience that this is usually the case with younger gay men, and often reflects a lack of emotional maturity. By the time such men are about thirty years of age, they begin to long for the emotional involvement and commitment that long term relationships offer. And they then look to settle into such relationships.
In terms of breadth of experience, it runs the gamut from mutual masturbation to anal and oral sex, petting, kissing and caressing, and such sex frequently involving fetishes. Homosexual behavior across the animal kingdom runs the gamut too. We don't know if there are any fetishes involved, since we can't ask, and most animals don't make tools, but we do know that every other sexual behavior engaged in by human homosexuals has been observed in homosexual animals, right up to and including the fabrication and use of sexual appliances. Among dolphins, use of the blowhole as a receptive orofice has even been observed!

Those abnormal fucking dolphins....

 

[dukeofbaja]

This one is for Rick, who thinks that animals who display homosexual behaviors are simly 'confused'....


The "Mistaken Identity" hypothesis. This one seeks to explain animal homosexuality by claiming that the same sex partner is 'confused' and unable to identify a member of the opposite sex.
The problem here is that in some animals, the difference between sexes are obvious. Vastly different body color, shape or size are an obvious clue, yet in these species, homosexual bonds still form, even when body shape precludes easy homosexual mounting. Another problem with this hypothesis is the fact that homosexual couples often engage in very different courtship rituals than do heterosexual couples. If it were a case of mistaken identity, how would this happen? In the case of bisexual animals, it has been seen that one set of courtship rituals are used by the same individual when courting homosexual versus heterosexual partners. This would not happen if the problem were a case of mistaken identity

 

[dukeofbaja]

And in case MissMeanWeed is too busy preaching at some gay person for being 'abnormal', another excerpt (it really is an interesting read)...


The "Gross Abnormalities of Behavior" hypothesis. The assumption here is that the behavior is a manifestation of a disease process.
Scientists looking into this hypothesis often examine animals for genital abnormalities, on the assumption that there is some kind of hormonal imbalance. The fact is that they rarely ever find abnormalities, never with enough frequency for it to be statistically meaningful. That's because of the mistaken assumption by some scientists that homosexuality is some sort of hermaphroditic condition. It's not, and that's why they never find what they're looking for.
If homosexuality were a manifestation of a disease process, why is homosexuality observed in roughly the same degree in captive populations versus wild populations, or in diverse wild populations? Whatever would be causing the disease cannot be equally present in all cases, both in the field and in the wild, so differences in occurrence should show up. But they rarely do. Why? The "population control" hypothesis. The problem with this one is that field observations directly counter it. It has been observed in ochre-bellied flycatchers and ruffed grouse populations among others, that even when opposite sex partners, territories and breeding grounds are all available, some individuals still form homosexual bonds, and the ratio by which they do rarely differs even when the population is under stress.

 

[Miss MeanWeed]

Calling homosexuality 'abnormal behavior', stating that homosexuality is 'an effect of the environment', and appealling to a 'sin against nature' type of argument is how you respond? You must not have brushed up on the entirety of social sciences or psychology in the last few decades...here's an excerpt


http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

I'd like to see where I said abnormal behaviour is limited to humans.

Let's try a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point about environmental effects. In this imaginary scenario, let's say we come into existence as only a living brain, no body, no senses, just a living brain floating in a void. After 30 years, this brain, with no stimulus whatsoever, has no personality, no traits, no anything, it's just a brain devoid of input floating in a void.

Is this brain happy? Sad? Genius? Gay?

Noone can say with any authority what this brain is like at all, let alone assume it is gay or has gay propensities.

This brain is nothing, a blank slate. It needs experiences from which to recall upon and to base future actions upon. Environment and experiences are needed to build a personality. Environment and experience are not only essential for the development of a personality, they are causative. Without experiences, within environments, the brain and thus ourselves, are basically empty void memory boxes. Environmental input is not only essential for development, it is the be-all and end-all of your personality. Claiming that environment had no effect on being homosexual is a self-evident logical fallacy, and obvious selective justification. Environments affect experiences, and experiences are the literal building blocks of your persona and conscious.

The old adage about being the sum total of all your experiences is a literal truth.

 

[Miss MeanWeed]

And in case MissMeanWeed is too busy preaching at some gay person for being 'abnormal', another excerpt (it really is an interesting read)...


The "Gross Abnormalities of Behavior" hypothesis. The assumption here is that the behavior is a manifestation of a disease process.
Scientists looking into this hypothesis often examine animals for genital abnormalities, on the assumption that there is some kind of hormonal imbalance. The fact is that they rarely ever find abnormalities, never with enough frequency for it to be statistically meaningful. That's because of the mistaken assumption by some scientists that homosexuality is some sort of hermaphroditic condition. It's not, and that's why they never find what they're looking for.
If homosexuality were a manifestation of a disease process, why is homosexuality observed in roughly the same degree in captive populations versus wild populations, or in diverse wild populations? Whatever would be causing the disease cannot be equally present in all cases, both in the field and in the wild, so differences in occurrence should show up. But they rarely do. Why? The "population control" hypothesis. The problem with this one is that field observations directly counter it. It has been observed in ochre-bellied flycatchers and ruffed grouse populations among others, that even when opposite sex partners, territories and breeding grounds are all available, some individuals still form homosexual bonds, and the ratio by which they do rarely differs even when the population is under stress.

So that you can be seen as being fair and non-selective, is it also reasonable to assume animal attributes must necessarily equate to normality in humans?

Like lions, should we attack and kill the young of other races to preserve our resources? It is not abnormal behavior in Lions, so is it suggested that such behavior in humans is normal?

What about cannabilistic animals? Is this considered normal human behavior?

 

[Rob Roy]

The truth is nobody can say 100% what causes homosexuality. I happen to believe some are predisposed to it. In fact I'm certain of it. I have 3 sons, one is a gay. His mother and I "knew" this almost from the time he was an infant. His role models were me and his two older brothers. We offered sufficient male role models for him to emulate, without being stupidly macho. When the kids were little there was the "normal" boy stuff always present, baseball gloves, trucks, toy guns, fishing poles and mud puddles to jump in and forts in the woods to build. He received lots of love and attention, no major trauma or event happened to make him gay. We, his family, love him, and he loves us, THAT'S what matters.

When I was a teenager, gays often got a beating or severe ridicule for no reason. I never understood that. A friend of mine who was gay (I'm not) suffered enough that he ended up killing himself in high school. I bet he's not the only one that ever did that either.

The idea that we can or should change someone's orientation is rooted in the desire to control others. I say, let it go, and accept that there are some things that can't be changed.

 

[upnorth2505]

The truth is nobody can say 100% what causes homosexuality. I happen to believe some are predisposed to it. In fact I'm certain of it. I have 3 sons, one is a gay. His mother and I "knew" this almost from the time he was an infant. His role models were me and his two older brothers. We offered sufficient male role models for him to emulate, without being stupidly macho. When the kids were little there was the "normal" boy stuff always present, baseball gloves, trucks, toy guns, fishing poles and mud puddles to jump in and forts in the woods to build. He received lots of love and attention, no major trauma or event happened to make him gay. We, his family, love him, and he loves us, THAT'S what matters.

When I was a teenager, gays often got a beating or severe ridicule for no reason. I never understood that. A friend of mine who was gay (I'm not) suffered enough that he ended up killing himself in high school. I bet he's not the only one that ever did that either.

The idea that we can or should change someone's orientation is rooted in the desire to control others. I say, let it go, and accept that there are some things that can't be changed.

Rob, thanks for providing a real life example anyone can relate to.

The lack of a male role model as THE cause of being gay has been disproven time-and-time again. Could it be a factor in some cases? Maybe, but i doubt it.

I think the fact is that it is not possible to "prevent" a child from being gay. Provide a good male role model. That is all you can do.

If a boy wants to play dress up, wear makeup or something (what I did when I was a boy), he should not be punished. That teaches him to hate who he is. (this message is for others Rob)

I bet you are a great father, and I hope you boy is doing great. Peace.

 

[fdd2blk]

having a dick in your mouth makes you gay.

it's pretty easy.

don't open your mouth.

 

[RickWhite]

The truth is nobody can say 100% what causes homosexuality. I happen to believe some are predisposed to it. In fact I'm certain of it. I have 3 sons, one is a gay. His mother and I "knew" this almost from the time he was an infant. His role models were me and his two older brothers. We offered sufficient male role models for him to emulate, without being stupidly macho. When the kids were little there was the "normal" boy stuff always present, baseball gloves, trucks, toy guns, fishing poles and mud puddles to jump in and forts in the woods to build. He received lots of love and attention, no major trauma or event happened to make him gay. We, his family, love him, and he loves us, THAT'S what matters.

When I was a teenager, gays often got a beating or severe ridicule for no reason. I never understood that. A friend of mine who was gay (I'm not) suffered enough that he ended up killing himself in high school. I bet he's not the only one that ever did that either.

The idea that we can or should change someone's orientation is rooted in the desire to control others. I say, let it go, and accept that there are some things that can't be changed.

John Locke wrote extensively about the notion that the mind is a blank slate and that our experiences paint a picture of who we are upon it.

To describe how experiences affect the mind, he used the example of a still pond into which a pebble is tossed. Just as the pebble creates endless ripples upon the still water, so too does our experiences.

In all cases where something happened in a child's life that influenced their development, the parents will claim otherwise. The truth is, people involved in a situation are typically the worst judges of their reality.

 

[Rob Roy]

having a dick in your mouth makes you gay.

it's pretty easy.

don't open your mouth.

I'll make sure I tell my dog to stop licking "down there". I won't forget to tell my lesbian friends they're no longer gay too.

 

[RickWhite]

Calling homosexuality 'abnormal behavior', stating that homosexuality is 'an effect of the environment', and appealling to a 'sin against nature' type of argument is how you respond? You must not have brushed up on the entirety of social sciences or psychology in the last few decades...here's an excerpt


http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

See, this is why your "logic" fails.

Do you see what you have done above? You have taken two perfectly logical positions and falsely equated them with a religious appeal.

Nobody except you said that something that is unnatural or an effect of environment is a "sin against nature." You and only you are the one making this statement of equivalence.

Why is it that in your mind something that is unnatural is bad? For that matter, why do you assume something natural is good? Murder and rape are both natural acts - that doesn't make them good. In fact, the argument could be made that much of humanity and civility is an effort to overcome our nature.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that appeal to nature is a fallacy?

How about this. Let us assume being attracted to the same sex was natural. How would this explain the need of some to act in a strong flamboyant way? How would this explain the bull dyke who dresses and acts hyper-masculine in an obvious attempt at over compensation?

Even if it were true that attraction to the same sex was 100% natural, one would still be in need of an explanation for the sexual exaggeration and over compensation exhibited by man Gays - is this genetic too?

 

[Rob Roy]

John Locke wrote extensively about the notion that the mind is a blank slate and that our experiences paint a picture of who we are upon it.

To describe how experiences affect the mind, he used the example of a still pond into which a pebble is tossed. Just as the pebble creates endless ripples upon the still water, so too does our experiences.

In all cases where something happened in a child's life that influenced their development, the parents will claim otherwise. The truth is, people involved in a situation are typically the worst judges of their reality.

Undeniably experiences shape our understanding and view point. But a frog in Lockes pond can hang out with turtles all day and he's still gonna be a frog at the end of the day.

So are you saying my son is gay because I'm in denial? I don't agree. He's gay because he was born that way. Lucky for him, both of his parents
love him.

Regardless of WHY someone is gay, to try to change them is really a reflection upon the person who can't just let them be. Know anybody like that?

 

[upnorth2505]

Undeniably experiences shape our understanding and view point. But a frog in Lockes pond can hang out with turtles all day and he's still gonna be a frog at the end of the day.

So are you saying my son is gay because I'm in denial? I don't agree. He's gay because he was born that way. Lucky for him, both of his parents
love him.

Regardless of WHY someone is gay, to try to change them is really a reflection upon the person who can't just let them be. Know anybody like that?

From an article in TimesOnline:

Scientists in Canada have discovered that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has, when these brothers are born of the same mother.
While the link between having older brothers and homosexuality has long been established, the new findings indicate that it is conditions within the womb before birth, and not the subsequent family environment, which are responsible for the effect.

The mechanism by which having older biological brothers affects male sexuality remains unknown, but the most popular theory among scientists is that it reflects the way a mother’s immune system reacts to carrying male foetuses.
As males have a Y chromosome and females do not, a mother’s body may be more likely to recognise a male foetus than a female one as foreign, and to generate a strong immune response.
Other research has shown that this response can strengthen with each subsequent male pregnancy. This may affect the way the brain develops sexually. Sisters have no impact, and there is no effect on girls, as female foetuses do not provoke the same reaction.
"If this immune theory were correct, then the link between the mother’s immune reaction and the child’s future sexual orientation would probably be some effect of maternal anti-male antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain," Dr Bogaert said.
It is also possible that successive male pregnancies changes the way that foetuses are exposed to the male hormone testosterone in the womb. This, however, would also be expected to influence female sexuality, on which having older brothers appears to have no effect.

 

[RickWhite]

Undeniably experiences shape our understanding and view point. But a frog in Lockes pond can hang out with turtles all day and he's still gonna be a frog at the end of the day.

So are you saying my son is gay because I'm in denial? I don't agree. He's gay because he was born that way. Lucky for him, both of his parents
love him.

Regardless of WHY someone is gay, to try to change them is really a reflection upon the person who can't just let them be. Know anybody like that?

That isn't what I said at all.

What I'm saying is that you are understandably unaware of why your son is gay. Perhaps you son exhibited certain traits that you equated with being gay and you treated his as such, thus creating a self fulfilling prophesy. There is no way to know what the cause was. I'm sure to you it seems he was born that way - that doesn't make it so.

 

[upnorth2505]

That isn't what I said at all.

What I'm saying is that you are understandably unaware of why your son is gay. Perhaps you son exhibited certain traits that you equated with being gay and you treated his as such, thus creating a self fulfilling prophesy. There is no way to know what the cause was. I'm sure to you it seems he was born that way - that doesn't make it so.

Rick what you say doesn't really pass muster based on what Rob has said, and undeniable medical findings. For example the younger brothers study.

You simple do not want it to be so since it makes your distain for gay folks morally probelmatic.

 

[RickWhite]

Rick what you say doesn't really pass muster based on what Rob has said, and undeniable medical findings. For example the younger brothers study.

You simple do not want it to be so since it makes your distain for gay folks morally probelmatic.

WTF?

Are you joking? "Undeniable medical findings"? What is the source of this study and where was it published? You are calling it undeniable on what grounds?

What do you mean "doesn't pass muster"? And why must you make false personal attacks claiming I have a disdain for Gays? Really, has the fallacious and weak nature of these insidious tactics not been pointed out sufficiently.

Lots of people have issues, it doesn't mean I hate them, just that I believe we should know who we are dealing with.

 

[upnorth2505]

WTF?

Are you joking? "Undeniable medical findings"? What is the source of this study and where was it published? You are calling it undeniable on what grounds?

What do you mean "doesn't pass muster"? And why must you make false personal attacks claiming I have a disdain for Gays? Really, has the fallacious and weak nature of these insidious tactics not been pointed out sufficiently.

Lots of people have issues, it doesn't mean I hate them, just that I believe we should know who we are dealing with.

I made no "false personal attack" I only made an observation that despite compeling evidence to the contrary, why would you continue to believe that is the parents fault or someone elses fault or the person themselves fault that they are gay.

I am just a gay guy with personal experience that to me, refutes what you say. I do not understand why you get so angry when I state my opinion. Perhaps someone (not me) would be willing to make the argument that you are violently repulsed by me.

Also, why is your opinion any more valid then Rob, his wife, or his family? This passes the logical test more so then some obscure thought experiment.

Essentially, you are saying Rob and his wife are too ignorant to know why their son is gay. There is no reason whatsoever to think this is true.

As far as the study goes, there are more than one. Just google "younger son gay" and start there.

 

[fdd2blk]

I made no "false personal attack" I only made an observation that despite compeling evidence to the contrary, would continue to believe that is the parents fault or someone elses fault or the person themselves fault that they are gay.

I am just a gay guy with personal experience that to me, refutes what you say. I do not understand why you get so angry when I state my opinion. Perhaps someone (not me) would be willing to make the argument that you are violently repulsed by me.

Also, why is you opinion any more valid then Rob, his wife, or his family? This passes the logical test more so then some obscure thinking experiment.

Essentially, you are saying Rob and his wife are too ignorant to know why their son is gay. There is no reason whatsoever to think this is true.

As far as the study goes, there are more than one. Just google "younger son gay" and start there.

"angry" "violently repulsed"?

you are trippin'.

i see none of that.

 

[fdd2blk]

NOBODY knows why their son is gay.

who's to say THEY didn't encourage it by THINKING they saw gay behavior(?).


come on, at least try to understand.