Some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them (1 Viewer)

Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,493
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Can I also open the thread up to the possibility that heterosexuality is something that is in need of explanation, rather than treating it is the unmarked norm?

*flees in terror*
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Can I also open the thread up to the possibility that heterosexuality is something that is in need of explanation, rather than treating it is the unmarked norm?

*flees in terror*
Not an entirely bad idea, but one which seems relatively straightforward; the species must reproduce to survive, heterosexuality accomplishes this and evolution has furnished us a variety of positive incentives to reinforce the behaviour, e.g. the sex and nurturing hormones.

I think rather than setting out to explain heterosexuality, homosexuality or the blur in between that we should investigate both. To me the question of why isn't as interesting as how. How does biology/society create hetrosexuals? Imo in this respect researching one sexual orientation answers many questions about other sexual orietntations as I imagine that there is a common root cause(s) for all orientations.

You're right though that we should not accept hetrosexuality as a 'given' - but I don't really think we should accept anything as a given. Progress relies upon ongoing investigation of, and discourse regarding, everything.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
We dont need to win. As long as we go to a genuine effort to put it out there in a serious way, through the correct channels of the clergy ofc, we've done all we can. I myself count some of the homosexuals on this forum as my greatest friends and I would never seek to confront them in real life in a similar way in which I do in this fantasy world.

I would hope that they view my mysteries and friendship as cause to revise their position on God, but I would never be so crude to insist that they do so as a condition of associating with me...
 

kami

An iron homily
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
4,268
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Can I also open the thread up to the possibility that heterosexuality is something that is in need of explanation, rather than treating it is the unmarked norm?

*flees in terror*
That's an entirely valid approach but it still needs to be drawn up in opposition to theories explaining other orientations, if only because the drive to reproduce is an obvious explanation for opposite sex attraction, it's what does or does not come after that that requires explanation e.g why heterosexual and not bisexual or heterosexual in a situational fashion. I imagine that ultimately leads back to the fluid vs. fixed conversation, though approaching it from a different end.

You should speak up more, mr. BA (Adv.) (Sociology) (Hons)
 

Plodygon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
61
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
I think rather than setting out to explain heterosexuality, homosexuality or the blur in between that we should investigate both. To me the question of why isn't as interesting as how. How does biology/society create hetrosexuals? Imo in this respect researching one sexual orientation answers many questions about other sexual orietntations as I imagine that there is a common root cause(s) for all orientations.
Admittedly, I don't really know much about the biology of homosexuals and bisexuals. Although, it does sound like an interesting thing to learn about. But I always figured that the main two factors that contribute to any person's sexual orientation are:

1. Genes

2. Environment / Social situations

Would it be wrong to call homosexuality a mutation? Honestly, I don't mean it in a bad way, I just can't think of a better way of describing it. In terms of evolution, heterosexuality was essential for human development. But nowadays, there is far less need for reproduction. There is room, seemingly, for humans to enjoy themselves. Maybe that has something to do with homosexuality becoming more prominent in modern society. The planet is becoming more and more populated. Perhaps this is a natural response to safely regulate human reproduction? And also, these days homosexuality is generally widely accepted, so gays and lesbians are in a much more comfortable postition to 'come out'.

Also, may I just ask, is their a feminine version of 'homosexuality' to use for lesbians? It seems wrong using 'homo' (man) to describe them.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
527
Location
Blue Mountainsss.
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
my society and culture pip about homosexuality said:
on a recent episode of famous talk show oprah, it was in celebration of american national siblings day. Along with other guests such as conjoined twins and sextuplets was the huckaby’s – a family with eight siblings, five boys and three girls.
the huckaby siblings were raised in a devout catholic family in southern u.s.a. "all you had to do was walk in the house to know it. You saw statues of jesus and mary and joseph and a whole bunch of saints," brother jody says. Four of the five huckaby brothers shared a secret – they were all gay. Jason huckaby was the first to come out and he did so in 1985 by writing his family a letter, his brother jonathon says the parents were “not pleased”.
"even though it was very scary, i trusted that there was enough of a solid foundation there that it would eventually be a safe thing for me to do, to come out to my family," jason says. As jason’s brothers jody and jonathon grew up it became clear to them that they too were gay, "if only we had been able to talk about it. There were no parameters. We went to catholic school, and you certainly didn't talk about that with the nuns,” jody states. Seeing their parents reaction to jason’s coming out made jody and jonathon nervous about revealing their sexuality, but doing so was inevitable.
some of their fellow siblings found it difficult to accept the lifestyle their brothers had now entered. The only heterosexual male brother, jude first believed his siblings had chosen to be gay though, after the fourth brother coming out he realised there must be an element of nature in there “this can’t be a choice. This has to be… the way they were born,” he says. It took their sister jann more than a year to finally accept her brothers’ decision; at first, she did not want them around her children fearing they might “influence” them. She says she “started praying about it” and that she realized she “did not need to judge” she “needed to love.”
jody huckaby is now the executive director of parents, families and friends of lesbians and gays know as pflag. He believes this organization helped his mother to come to terms with the fact that she has four gay children. "for me, it's sort of a full-circle experience, because all these years later, i'm running this national organization, and it's for parents, it's for family members and friends and straight allies to deal with these issues," he says.
interesting, no?
 

Plodygon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
61
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Wow, being raised a catholic but born homosexual would be rough. I wonder if the four boys still carry their religious beliefs.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
527
Location
Blue Mountainsss.
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Interesting yes, but not really evidence for the nature case because they were all raised in the same environment it could still have been a 'nurture' factor of some kind...
True. Though, considering they were all raised in an "anti-homosexual" (if you will) household and taught that homosexuality is "wrong" - you'd think that kind of nurture would steer them clear of it. Then again, maybe it was like a subconscious rebellion to that nurture.
 

Nousiainen

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
45
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Why do some people like red, and others dislike red? Did they have it thrust upon them to like/dislike red? Or is it simply just an arbitrary reason - perhaps they just like red, end of story?
 

Alvik

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
176
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Homosexuality is a social construct.
It essentially defies the purpose of mankind - reproduction.
Whether you believe in God or not, you'll agree that the purpose of a human is to eat, excrete, sleep and reproduce. And primitively ululate every once in a while.
Yeh man. Just like the sterile and elderly defy the purpose of mankind. And we totally need to increase the world's population, coz you know, there isn't enoguh mass starvation throughout Africa and other areas.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,127
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Good thread idea. I havent done much reading on the biology of sexuality, I know there are many biological factors such as differences in the brain etc, but i do know alot about the psychology of gender, which is similiar and i believe a big part of your sexuality is because of how you were raised. Sexuality is a scale, 99% of people should be bisexual, but they repress what they see as "wrong" impulses because they were raised to believe being sexually attracted to the same gender is a bad thing.

In my mind, 99% of what constitutes appropriate behaviour for a male or female is because of how they were raised. For instance, theres no real reason why men overwhelmingly believe crying is emasculate, except that is how they were raised. Usually gender roles are studied from the perspective of women e.g why do they tend to be more emotional and compassionate? Perhaps when it comes to the effeminate type of gay man or the butch lesbian their gender roles were confused, or their parents raised them differently, or the type of brains they have made them reject this social conditioning.

This doesnt really explain the masculine gays, but i do find it interesting that women seem a lot more comfortable rejecting gender roles, comfortable in their sexuality and just being who they are where as males [gay and straight] constantly seem at war with who they are and the type of person they believe they should be acting as.
 

kami

An iron homily
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
4,268
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
This doesnt really explain the masculine gays, but i do find it interesting that women seem a lot more comfortable rejecting gender roles, comfortable in their sexuality and just being who they are where as males [gay and straight] constantly seem at war with who they are and the type of person they believe they should be acting as.
I actually think this is a relatively simple aspect, imo. The light in which the female 'role' is seen and has been seen over recorded history is typically less than that of the male ensuring that, while it may be more appropriate for women to take that role, the role is looked down upon regardless. The male role, however, does not carry the same burdens so while it is still not appropriate, so to speak, for a woman to act in a 'male' way and be authoritative it is not the role here which attracts the stigma but the transgression of traditional gender boundaries. Men, on the other hand, who take up a 'female role' not only are transgressing boundaries but they are taking up a role which has its own stigmas which would lead to that being seen much more negatively.

It's got several other layers to it but that's one of the key points: misogynistic undertones and left overs from a society that has a very rigid view of who is what.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I actually think this is a relatively simple aspect, imo. The light in which the female 'role' is seen and has been seen over recorded history is typically less than that of the male ensuring that, while it may be more appropriate for women to take that role, the role is looked down upon regardless. The male role, however, does not carry the same burdens so while it is still not appropriate, so to speak, for a woman to act in a 'male' way and be authoritative it is not the role here which attracts the stigma but the transgression of traditional gender boundaries. Men, on the other hand, who take up a 'female role' not only are transgressing boundaries but they are taking up a role which has its own stigmas which would lead to that being seen much more negatively.

It's got several other layers to it but that's one of the key points: misogynistic undertones and left overs from a society that has a very rigid view of who is what.
Or a society that knew what it was... The assumption of your critique is that power is a good thing - the greatest thing - that everybody wants and should have access too. You, like all postmodernists, totally ignore the existance and fullness of love as the chief motivating force for good in the world. It is not through some crude form of misogynistic and arbitrary oppression that the woman nurtures her children and maintains her home - it is a supreme and pure form of love for human life, which you totally misunderstand.

Authority and the weight of the crown is hardly a 'lesser burden' than the female role. They are divinely compatible and both share some form of personal sacrifice for the maintenance of a thriving society with vitality and respect for the dignity of man. For God so loved the world that He gave His only son; for man so loved woman that he spends time away to provide for her, for woman so loved man that she keeps their home and nurtures their children, rather than throwing her life away on grasping for power and neglecting real life
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
523
Location
My World
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Or a society that knew what it was... The assumption of your critique is that power is a good thing - the greatest thing - that everybody wants and should have access too. You, like all postmodernists, totally ignore the existance and fullness of love as the chief motivating force for good in the world. It is not through some crude form of misogynistic and arbitrary oppression that the woman nurtures her children and maintains her home - it is a supreme and pure form of love for human life, which you totally misunderstand.

Authority and the weight of the crown is hardly a 'lesser burden' than the female role. They are divinely compatible and both share some form of personal sacrifice for the maintenance of a thriving society with vitality and respect for the dignity of man. For God so loved the world that He gave His only son; for man so loved woman that he spends time away to provide for her, for woman so loved man that she keeps their home and nurtures their children, rather than throwing her life away on grasping for power and neglecting real life
Hardly anything in this world is done out of love. I hold that power is not the greatest thing, that love is what we should all strive for, but without any power at all nothing is possible.
If love is so good than why is it a problem with who loves who?
With womens and mens roles in society, even from a young age, females are viewed as normal and accepted to being close, holding hands and the like. Males have to act masculine, not feel any emotion, not cry, for fear of being bullied, which usually beats any feeling out of them.
Why does any of this matter today? In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to live as they want as long as they dont hurt anyone else, and yet it is not so because people dont believe that an ideal world is possible. If they did believe that is is possible then maybe things would be different.

Back to the concept of power, what is the richest organisation in the world?
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I hear what youre saying, but it is God who is love and it is we who must love Him first and, in light of that, love all of mankind. If you try to love mankind on any meaningful level without loving God, the futility of the excercise soon becomes apparent.
There is no such thing as an 'ideal' world of any persuasion. Your conviction that all that is required is public belief in utopia is the seed of justification for every major atrocity ever committed.

Also, money isnt power. It is a means to an end. Our end is love.
 

aussie-boy

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
610
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Firstly, not all Catholics share Iron/the pope's POV; many happily accept homosexuality without hesitation

Secondly, I am quite sure being gay is not genetic.

I like guys, however I can still feel the instinctual urge to get with girls. Its extremely difficult to describe... but it's like there is an underlying default setting in my brain that has been eroded over time. I would put this down to a dominant mother and slightly feeble father who never engaged me in masculine pursuits like sport, toy guns etc - it feels like I need another guy to fulfil the "gaps" in me and I feel like im not man enough to provide the same thing to chicks, and really feel no sexual attraction (though will still happily hook up with them)

I think sexuality is a big confused messy scale that is completely malleable depending on environmental factors
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Oh? Not all Catholics share the Catholic POV? Since when my sexually confused fren?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top