Could homosexuality be a form of natually occuring population control?

A lot of gay people have had straight sex before. That doesn't make them straight. The same is true of these prisoners. The fact that 22% of male prisoners have been raped does not mean that 22% of male prisoners are also rapists. Rape means the victim did not want to have sex. It may very well be that a small fraction of people are doing the raping.

 

Just did. I NEVER noticed the opposite sex in a sexual way. My first urges and thoughts were towards other boys. When my friends were talking about girls I was thinking about boys... but I obviously knew it wasn't something I would be wise to discuss with anyone else because it wasn't "normal" I thought.

I was about 15 when I had my first sexual experience, but I was fantasizing about the same-sex for a long time before that. I hadn't seen any pornography or anything before I started having feelings towards the other boys at school. When I did see some porn for the first time it was heterosexual, needless to say the male made me feel excited. The woman... nothing. Nada. Boobs? They just looked weird and alien to me

As I said before, it's highly unlikely.. well in actual fact impossible that the ancient Greeks who engaged in those practices were all gay. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone on to marry women and would have fully embraced adult homosexual relationships. You cannot compare my own case to what took place back then, that's just silly. I do not desire domination or subjugation.

As for morality... well it was subjective to them. They obviously believed in democracy, their religion and the rule of law and ran a very successful society. It was not their aim to "destroy morality" in the slightest, it's just how you view it through your own relative morals.

??? I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. If you think a person becomes gay because they feel passive and desire to be dominated by another man you are very mistaken. People sometimes grow into passive/dominate roles in gay society, but that is a social development not the initial cause. Many same-sex and opposite sex couples are on the other hand fairly equal and balanced both socially and sexually - there are no passive/dominant roles.

I've seen men whose wives wear the trousers in the relationship, yet they are comfortable with those roles and have no desire to seek same-sex partners. For that reason I'd say it has little or nothing to do with sexual orientation. We have transcended and evolved socially past our "natural" roles in many ways, a process that was started with the women's rights movement. Traditional gender roles are becoming more and more irrelevant.

It's not "normal" if you mean "not what most people are", but then neither is being ginger or having blue eyes. I would assume though you are using "normal" as in "natural" or "right"...

I would argue that there is significant evidence showing it is something influenced by biological factors (genes, mutations, exposure to hormones), that may be either a natural "mistake" or an intended form of population control. I don't agree with any of your explanations as to why homosexuality exists, although I do think environmental factors may have some influence. Whatever the cause, it's harmful to try and tell gay people they shouldn't be that way. A gay person can live a happy, healthy fulfilling life and their love for the same-sex harms no one. I can't understand why people care so much about who we love or why we're gay in the first place... It shouldn't matter!

Nope, I wasn't at all averse to female companionship. I had about 50-50 in terms of boy/girl friends. I didn't feel threatened by girls, nor did I consider myself less a "man" (well, I would have been a boy of course) than anyone else. You seem to be clutching at straws to find environmental reasons for my homosexuality. Why do you care why people are gay?

 

Well I tried it with a girl when I was about 16 in order to prove to myself I was indeed "gay" (as I didn't actually want to be back then because I saw how much crap gay people got).. and that felt unnatural to me. Needless to say it didn't go all the way. Yet my first experience with a boy was the polar opposite - completely natural feeling and enjoyable.

I even tried being turned on by heterosexual porn to "reprogram" myself. Never worked. The fact is... I never "settled" for being gay. I accepted myself as gay. Luckily my parents were okay with it (in the end) and I am now a very happy gay man. All this bull about gay people "being miserable because they know deep down it's wrong/unnatural" couldn't be further from the truth - for me at least. And for those poor kids who have taken their lives the blame rests on the shoulders of the bigots and bullies in society, not the world or reality itself. "It gets better"... that's the reality.

It's amusing you seem to think all gay men are effeminate. Look up Gareth Thomas (Rugby player), Orlando Cruz (Boxer), Anton Hysén (Footballer). I know a black gay couple who are both extremely muscly and masculine and both play rugby... and they are actually two of the "straightest" guys I know... on the other hand I know heterosexual men with girlfriends who you would swear blindly were gay.

Stereotypes lol.

 

Why don't you go ahead and submit that to some respected medical or science journals... to see what they have to say about your personal theories?

 

Your irrational animus is just plain disgusting.

 

It is hilarious and disheartening that you had to explain any of that here.

 

Interesting speculation. I have always suspected that homosexuality must be introduced into another person's life in order to spread homosexuality. Ergo it must be encouraged. The same way that heterosexuality is and must be encouraged.

Children are asexual, but become sexual from watching sexuality on tv and at the movies and between their moms and dads at home.

Therefore sexuality, either way, straight or same, is a learned behavior from the environment.

To children, at first, sexuality is repulsive and "yuckie." Then they learn to accept it. And submissiveness to a given situation teaches them to enjoy and adopt it.

So there is an element of apparent truth to your speculation about submissiveness. Question is what experiences will the society teach to the children, either way?

Ergo it is society that teaches heterosexuality or homosexuality, or so it would appear to anecdotal observers, most likely.

 

^It would appear that way if you disregard all the years of research suggesting there are biological factors involved in determining sexual orientation. From a perspective of survival it would be advantageous to a species if sexual orientation towards the opposite sex was instinct-based. And there is evidence for this.

In most of the developed world througout the 60's and 70's boys born with micropenises were castrated at birth and raised as girls. Even before knowing the truth these people largely showed all the early signs of being attracted to what they would have perceived as other females, indicating that their sexual orientation was decided at birth...

 

"Determine"???? Would seem to be nothing more than an influence. Society probably has more influence than biology.

 

"involved in determining". Your reading comprehension really is getting bad.

 

Speculation is pointless without something solid to back it up. People may learn about sexuality and the social mores surrounding it from their environment, but I see no real evidence that attraction to one sex versus the other is learned or conditioned. So until someone can make a scientifically supported case showing that same-sex attraction is learned by the majority who identify as gay/lesbian, I will continue to consider that claim to be anti-gay propaganda BS.

 

"Determining"???? Would seem to be nothing more than an influence. Society probably has more influence than biology.

And your attraction to irrelevance is noted.

 

Societies such as the Sambia tribe where all men engage in homosexual activity would seem to back up the assertion. Or do you convince yourself they all must have been born gay.

 

By you and other homosexuals continually relying on the theory that you were born that way, takes all responsibility and culpability for your actions out of your sphere of influence over yourselves. Is it therefore logical for the larger society to distrust you and other homosexuals because of your exhibited propensity to blame other circumstances for your behavior? I say that such a result is correct. Whenever a person commits an act or a series of actions and then blames others, this is denial at best. At worst it is a pathological mindset that is common in sociopaths as well as psychopaths.
This also tells me that you and most other homosexuals have no real basis for your inclinations other than your own CHOICE. Unless you and others are willing to state that you are biological abnormalities, the "being born this way" do not stand true scrutiny.

 

You summed up my post. All behaviors are LEARNED so to state the homosexuality is not a result of teaching from home and society is completely off base as far as I am concerned. I even posted a study that investigated all of the theories as to why homosexuals exist last month and it came tot the same conclusion. Homosexuals are not born or natural, they are made homosexual due to many factors and they are all environmental (home/larger environment).

 

Are you just willfully ignorant? It would certainly seem that way... And your obsession with relatively minor grammatical nuances irrelevant of the main points of any given post is apparent to all.

What I said was that biology is clearly implicated in the complex process of determining sexual orientation. I did not say "biology alone determines sexual orientation". The consensus is clearly that there must be a mix of factors involved, including pre-adolescent environment.

 

No one is contending that. It is pretty much the same cultural phenomenon that existed in ancient Greece. If you actually believed that receiving the semen makes you a stronger warrior, and that is a goal you would do anything to achieve, you would happily guzzle that **** down. If you believed it was your sworn responsibility to feed young males your seed in order to make them stronger and create future warriors for your tribe, you would do it. No one is saying they are born gay - because just like in ancient Greece they go on to impregnate and marry women.

Actions are just actions, performed in this case for what they believe is the strength and continuation of their society.

 

We KNOW there are biological influences to sexuality, I'll preface my response by clarifying that. The research is rather "messy" at best but it does show across the board an undeniable link between sexual orientation and biology. Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

You could indeed say it would be helpful to our cause if homosexuality was shown to be entirely genetic/biological akin to race or gender, but that is NOT the reality. It IS agreed that environment must play a role (see identical twin studies). To what degree is not known. But generally speaking "environment" refers specifically to upbringing. It is believed that sexuality - much like many aspects of a someone's personality - are set in stone once you reach a certain age. So initial environmental factors are NOT proof that sexual orientation is mutable in adult life. The failure of "gay conversion therapy" in many reported incidents is strong evidence of this. You can teach someone to repress something like sexuality, but it will never truly go away...

So society is left with a simple choice. To either make this minority suffer legal consequences (death, imprisonment) for simply being who they are, or tolerate their existence to an extent but forsake their equality (marriage, legal protections), or allow them a place at the table realising they are entitled to love, happiness and the same benefits the vast majority of people enjoy without a second thought of appreciation... those are the options. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves this - why should anyone care who a small chunk of society love, and how they share and express that love with one another? They are both consensual parties so what's the harm? Obviously people have their religious beliefs, and that will always serve a barrier for the foreseeable future (at least somewhere in the world), but objectively speaking... why not simply live and let live?? Why the desire to control others and determine what's best for them?

 

Funny. You were the one who could only respond by pointing out me mistakenly quoting you saying "determined", when in fact you had said determining.

 

And attractions to the same sex are attractions to the same sex. A sense of obligation to the next generation doesn't sexually arouse a man

 

Actually the majority of the population is not married.

 

Physical stimulation of the nerves in a man's penis can lead to ejaculation without a visual stimulus. Masturbation to completion without fantasizing is absolutely possible.

 

I never said they were. But a majority do at some point in their lives - fact. And regardless of whether or not they choose to exercise that right, they at least have the option of marrying the person they love. Even elderly and infertile - identical in essence to same-sex couples. Who access 1000s of rights and privileges for no other reason than how they have sex, with no legal provision in place to even attempt to exclude them - no upper age limit or medical disclosure requirement. Unconstitutional law at its finest!

 

Sambia men can be sexually aroused by being shown pictures of the faces of young boys because they are sexually attracted to children of the same sex

 

Is that a fact or just your conjecture?