Guest lifestyleinfo

NATURE OR DAMAGE- WHY ARE WE GAY?

Please give your thoughts to this question. It seems everybody in the straight world has an opinion that they are willing to voice, and it seems very little time is spent discussing this amongst ourselves, or at least I feel it's time I at least seek to answer this question for myself.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you spend a lot of time wondering why heterosexual people are heterosexual? Do you think we need to find a "cause" to waggle our fingers toward that will supposedly explain straight lifestyles? Do you similarly worry if heterosexuals might be the way they are only because someone "damaged" them?

If so, if you're the sort of person who wonders about absolutely everything under the sun . . . fine, but you might to clarify that so others won't misunderstand your views as insulting to them. If you think the above questions need answering for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals, I find that point-of-view dangerously close to homophobic, so you'll want to tread carefully starting now.

While I certainly can't speak to how your brain works or to the mental machinery of everyone else that will eventually read this, society-at-large typically only spends a lot of time fussing about the supposed etiological bases of behaviors it has labeled pathological or otherwise undesirable. If Very Average Joe doesn't have a personal problem with a particular behavior, he decides it just "is," and that's just fine and dandy. If Very Average Joe feels the need to overanalyze something or otherwise poke it with a stick (metaphorically speaking), that's usually predicated on his notion that he'd like it to go away, and that identification of a cause is the first step toward eliminating the thing he doesn't like. But if he doesn't have a personal problem with the thing in question, then he imagines it's "natural," it "just is."

Like all the various homosexual animals with whom we also share the planet. They just ARE, that is. People who spend a lot of time worrying about why homosexuals are the way they are usually fail to notice or intentionally leave out how nature (other than the parts involving homophobic humans) finds homosexuality entirely natural.

Share this post


Link to post

Quote
Do you think we need to find a "cause" to waggle our fingers toward that will supposedly explain straight lifestyles? Do you similarly worry if heterosexuals might be the way they are only because someone "damaged" them?

If you think the above questions need answering for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals, I find that point-of-view dangerously close to homophobic . . . "

HEAR, HEAR!

This reminds me of one lesbian's stand-up comic routine . . . I wish I could remember who and I'd credit her, but her name eludes me now. But she said several folks had asked her over the years if she was queer because she'd had some sort of bad sexual experience with a man, something so bad it "turned her gay."

Her response was, "As IF! Honey, if having bad sex with a man is all it would take to make a lady love the other ladies, lesbians wouldn't be 5-10% of the female population, we'd be more like 99%."

Obviously!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the kudos, Ramona. :)

I (another lesbotronic admin) just read this, and thought of some more responses, along the lines of but a bit different than what my partner said above.

Throughout most of written history, lesbians have existed. Personal expression based on how bigoted/homophobic a society is/was vs. how enlightened/progressive/intelligent has varied in various historical "places" over time. Based on that, different societies/places have had a greater or fewer number of lesbians that felt able to be "open" about who they were and express themselves publically, like the heterosexuals do, more or less. BUT, the lesbos have always been around and always will be around . . . as long as humans are around, that is.

So, why are the lesbian women gay?

Why do fingers exist? Why do trees exist? Why do little fluffy kittens exist?

Different people have different answers for the above . . . some evolutionary, some spiritual, some existential, but whatever you believe about the questions immediately above, THAT IS WHY lesbians also exist.

Call it "Mother Nature," if you like. There just ain't no universal cause above and beyond that, certainly not one universally invoking "damage," as the title to the post starting this thread implied as at least a possibility for many lesbians. It IS nature, lesbians are a part of "nature," no doubt, no controversy.

If you think otherwise, please go fantasize about that with Jerry Falwell and his demented minions on some right-wing nutbag site. That sort of nonsense won't be tolerated here.

Share this post


Link to post

I've dated both men and women. My last relationship was with a man. It didn't work out. Needless to say, no matter how often we try to do something normal, if it isn't normal for us, then it isn't going to work.

Damage or Nature? I don't think it is either. I can honestly be attracted to some men. But they are usually in drag, LOL. Or they are very feminine. Why is that? I sometimes think it is because I am open minded.

Maybe some of us have the capacity to see outside of gender to the core of a person and use what is inside to decide whether or not we want to get to know that person better or not.

I'm not so sure anymore. I know that I'm drawn to more feminine people whether they be male or female or somewhere in between. Some butch women are really attractive to me. I'm all over the place, I know.

Share this post


Link to post

Nurture vs Nature. Does it matter? One thing I know I'm not is damaged. My personal stance is I am because God is. And God knows what I like. 

Share this post


Link to post

Here are my thoughts...

While it doesn't matter in that we have a right to our sexuality no matter how it got here, it does matter in that if that sexuality is - even in part - the result of psychological trauma then knowing that would help us help each other.

Here are my beliefs...

I believe that sexuality exists on a continuum. Think of a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being so homosexual that you can't have friendships with people of the opposite sex, 5 being perfectly bi-sexual, and 10 being so heterosexual that you can't have friendships with people of the same sex.

I believe that everyone is born being a 5 - perfectly bi-sexual. And that our experiences in our pre-puberty years push us around on that continuum. Then during our adolescent and teenage years our sexualities solidify and become unchanging.

A mild push might come from sexual play with other children, reading sexual explicit books or watching naughty t.v./movies. A big push might come from molestation, rape, or witnessing a traumatic event involving sexuality.

Here's what you can know about me and my perspective...

I consider myself to be a 2 on the scale I mentioned before. Given what I've stated about my beliefs, you can extrapolate that I experienced some big pushes as a child and believe that they influenced my final, adult sexuality.

If I am correct in my thoughts and beliefs then anyone on the extreme ends of sexuality (homosexual or heterosexual) can be assumed to have also experienced some big pushes in childhood.

Since I also happen to believe that it's important to consider people's psychological make up when interacting with them, I would find this information to be very important to me in all interpersonal interactions.

In conclusion...

While I am not a scientist and therefore cannot actually prove that any of the above assertions are correct, I have found these assumptions to be very useful to me in my interpersonal interactions and have never found an instance in which they were determined incorrect.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

I think, that orientation(any orientation, i mean) is a result of genetics and psychology. I do not say, there is anything wrong with us. We really do know why different people have different colours of eyes or blood group, remember your biology lessons. We won't be angry if somebody asks us: why do you have mm... green eyes, will we?

Just have always wondered, why this simple question causes such emotional storm. It resembles me of fighting homophobs. We say: they fight because they are afraid. Ok, but what we are afraid of when we refuse to ask ourselves why are we gay? Maybe, we're afraid of that this is not normal? It seems,that social opinion has a power over us too. And if somebody asked the same about asexuals(insert anything)?

You say - we can see homosexuality in nature, and we are part of it. Of course, but why? And what was it made for? Man and woman is undestandable : children. But i can also ask what are children for, and of course,what are we,people,for. Homosexuality does not fit in the genetic program, but it exists. It is easier to say *we will never know why*. There can't be an answer for the whole humanity, but i'm searching for the answer for myself. A bit too active mind, eah.

Question *Why* is more the way of thinking. I'm a historian, i do live with this *why* and *what for*.

Ordinary heterosexual person does not have a reason to think about the origins of his\her sexuality, because is perfectly fitting in the main social model. When you are not fitting, your eyes open wider,that's all.

So, let's just stay ourselves and open our minds to the whole world.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally think it is nature (both gender identity and sexuality), just like being straight and idenifying as 100% male of female, its totally nature (not a sin or some horrible defect needing fixing). Mother Nature gets very creative before our births with out genitals and brain development. And these difference can be found throughout nature. Here is cool site talking about the science: http://drdrantz-sciencesexuality.blogspot.com/2010/12/video-myth-science-of-sexuality.html

Share this post


Link to post

actually, this reminds me of a lecture in freshman zoology. the professor said that the most important trait to have is to never be surprised by what you find in nature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Nature can be extremely wild. 

Share this post


Link to post

how does damage figure into the equation? just from a strictly biological view of the animal kingdom, the same range of sexual orientations also exists in other species. blue eyes are a deviation from brown eyes, does that mean that those with blue are damaged as well? variation is just that-variation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Here is what I wonder about straight people who think and talk about lesbians: Why are you thinking about two women having sex? Are you into porn? Or do you want to be a lesbian?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's genetic and that there are two genes, so the F2 generation - which always represents the population, as a whole - follows the same 1:2:1 ratio that the F2 generation always follows in cases where there are two genes. So, 1/4 of the population is homozygous for the heterosexual gene (straight), 1/4 is homozygous for the homosexual gene (gay), and the remaining 1/2 of the population is heterozygous - received one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene (bisexual). That accounts for why so many people seem to think it's a choice - because they actually biologically have one (well, that and people can be kind of self-referencing, unable to imagine that their experience is not universal.) Anyway, there's more to that theory; but that's the brass tax explanation.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like people talk about damage in regards to LGBTQ+ community because of the historical precedent of oppression and trauma. It can be damagING to live in a society and culture where you are not allowed to be your authentic self, but that damage comes from trying to fit into a specific narrative. Like many of the above people said, there have always been and always will be gender and sexuality diversity. what changes is general attitudes. 

I also feel weird about looking for a cause/gene/whatever because then homophobic people will just try and control that. blah. 

Share this post


Link to post

@ Alexandra "I also feel weird about looking for a cause/gene/whatever because then homophobic people will just try and control that. blah."

I get an even creepier feeling that there's this urgency by some right-wing camps out there to figure out "why" so they can "fix" us...As-in, look for a way to genetically detect that elusive "gay-gene" in order to attempt to exterminate it.

History shows that there are a whole lot of sociopaths out there just champing at the bit in their desire to dehumanize others in order to abuse or destroy them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Well, first of all, I'm a right-winger; and those kind of assumptions are rude. Secondly, historically, the sort of eugenics you're referring to has been a goal of certain groups on the left, not the right. More to the point, it's obvious that sexual orientation is genetic; and having a scientific understanding of that shouldn't be any more threatening than having a scientific understanding of anything else. I strongly suspect that it's the sort of two gene scenario comparable with eye-color, curly or straight hair, or attached or unattached earlobes. Even if anyone wanted to eliminate one of the genes and the scientific community was willing to go along with that, it would be far too widely carried by the human population to successfully do so.

Share this post


Link to post

Sexual orientation might be, "obviously genetic" to you personally (as-in, "your opinion"), but if that were a certified fact, there wouldn't be any of the current storm surrounding nurture-vs-nature. Assumptions/opinions = interchangeable. Hitler thought gays/Jews were an atrocity, lesser-than. He used this "opinion" to eradicate tens of thousands of those he didn't agree with. Hitler was a "leftie"?

It's no use looking at "historical" anything, actually, re: fairly recent advances in LGBTI. Lincoln would currently never associate his GOP with what it is today.  Unless you're saying the socialist-Darwinists (mainly right-wing) are all lefties in the US? They might protest that.

Eugenics, as they stand now, hope to use science to it's best (eradicate Parkinsons, etc). Unfortunately, we have to deal with the minefield of sociopaths to get there.

I'll assume that any thinking, empathetic person would say to (eradication of) Parkinson's, "of course!", not knowing the slippery-slope involved. No one bats an eye at GMO food.

With regard to what I wrote previously, my point was that it most DEFINITELY is the right-wing, ultra-religious (not in actual practice) folks who wish to find a "cure" for/end of homosexuality. I won't take time here to list sources- I'm sure Google can help you there.

I agree to disagree.

Cheers

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. Okay, i'll try to respond in order, so that which point each response is to doesn't become convoluted. First, while whether the fact that sexual orientation being genetic is obvious could arguably be opinion, the truth of it being genetic is not. The propositional statement "Sexual orientation is genetic" has a truth value (of true) and is making a claim about the world, not perception of the world. Perhaps, I threw you off using the word "obvious". I did not anticipate anyone being stumped by semantics.
Yes, Hitler was a leftie. The proper name of his Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. He centralized the government, regulated everything from bedroom practices to religion, eradicated any semblance of individual liberty, even rounding up private citizens and imprisoning and murdering them. You don't get much more left wing than that.

I'm not sure why you would assume to know what Lincoln would think, at all, and certainly why you would assume that he would wish to disassociate himself from the contemporary Republican Party; so I can't address that, except to say that it makes no sense.

I'm not sure what a socialist-Darwinist is. Some right wingers are social Darwinists (which has nothing to do with Socialism). There are Socialists in the U.S. who are also Darwinists; but, yes, they would be on the left, not the right. Though, most Socialists in the U.S. have taken to calling themselves Progressives, because they understandably don't wish to be associated with the atrocities committed by Socialists in the last century, fyi.
I drew a distinction between the current hopes to use technology to spare people from inherited diseases (which do not work the same way the sort of two-gene possibility I was proposing works) and the use of eugenics that you were worried about, by saying "...the sort of eugenics you're referring to..." Perhaps, I should have been more specific. Being gay is not a disease. Any attempt to prevent it via genetic engineering would be in the Nazi eugenics camp, not the current scientific goal of preventing suffering from MS, Parkinson's, Huntington's, schizophrenia, etc.

A Slippery Slope is a fallacy, which invalidates an argument (that you were making), so I'm not sure why you're invoking it, as it would invalidate your own argument.

Many people have deep concerns about GMO foods.

There are deeply religious people on both sides of the isle - that is not a right wing phenomena - but the "left" and "right" are terms that refer specifically to political philosophy and economic theory, neither of which have a thing to do with either religion or sexual orientation.

Agree to disagree, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's just my opinion, not right or wrong just my views.

Since all humans start off as 100% female for the first 8 weeks of their devellopment, maybe that first 8 weeks is what determines a persons real sexual orientation.

So if you were ment to love girls, and body turns out to be male, you get the label hetro.

if you were ment to love girls and body stays as a girl then your Lesbo

and same for guys, if you were ment to love guys but your body ends up being male instead of staying female, then your homo.

And if in that first 8 weeks whatever it is that decides which gender you love can't make it's mind up then you end up bi no matter which gender you become.

It really could just be that simple.

All this other crap all us humans like to put on each other could simply be because we just have no comprehension of how simple yet perfect mother nature can really work, so we go looking for all sorts of complicated solutions to problems we think exist but doesnt.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, we do know that gender is supposed to be determined by sex chromosomes. Eggs all contain an X chromosome. Sperm can contain either an X or a Y. The Y chromosome is the smallest and most fragile of all human chromosomes and carries no other genetic information except the command for the in utero sex change you mentioned. If the command fails, the fetus continues to develop as a female, but that's fairly rare. Absent a Y chromosome, the sex change does not occur. That's why women have XX chromosomes and men have XY chromosomes (I've wondered if transgenderedism is the result of either the brain or the rest of the body not following the gender command that is supposed to correlate to the sex chromosome pairing; since the brain is the seat of consciousness, brain development, rather than a male or female physique, determines gender identity - that's my theory, anyhow). It doesn't follow that gender and sexual orientation have anything to do with one another. I think they're separate traits determined by entirely unrelated gene combinations sitting on different alleles (in other words, unrelated gene combinations.) Sex chromosomes determine gender (when they work correctly). I think sexual orientation is determined irrespective of gender; that nature found a way to control for population by programming some of the species to be compelled to engage in sexual activity that would lead to procreation while others of the species are compelled toward sexual activity that would not lead to offspring and a third group has the option of either behavior, so that if a drought or plague reduced numbers in a community, that third group could aid the first group in repopulating, but if a community faced numbers that their resources couldn't provide for, the third group could refrain from sexual activity that would add to overpopulation. If this is correct, then our attempt at moral reasoning regarding sexual orientation has been self-defeating - nature is smarter than we are.

Share this post


Link to post

Dani28, we appear to be ships in the night...not quite getting what the other is saying no matter how clearly (we think) we're stating things...but that'll have to do.

I just wanted to add that this, something you wrote from another post that just struck me funny:

"My great endeavors, at present, are finishing my book while paying the bills writing resumes, and crossing my fingers that the summer heat won't wilt my pumpkin patch so that I can dork out Martha Stewart like, come fall." If you're not a creative writer, you should be.

:)

Share this post


Link to post

Geekomatic said:

Dani28, we appear to be ships in the night...not quite getting what the other is saying no matter how clearly (we think) we're stating things...but that'll have to do.

I just wanted to add that this, something you wrote from another post that just struck me funny:

"My great endeavors, at present, are finishing my book while paying the bills writing resumes, and crossing my fingers that the summer heat won't wilt my pumpkin patch so that I can dork out Martha Stewart like, come fall." If you're not a creative writer, you should be.

:)

No, I understood you; we just don't agree.
Great profile pic, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Well now, then I bow to your superior knowledge of what I think & understand! You're amazing!

;)

PS: that profile pic was taken with an iMac I managed to resurrect for one of my pensioner's...She was happy & I did a pro-bono on it...

Thanks for the kudos!

:)

Share this post


Link to post

and I am nonplussed by your sense of irony.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now