Enjoy an Additional 10% Off on All Sale Items - Use code: EXTRA10
March 4, 2010 @ 12:34 PM
young idiot

Post: 6150

Join Date: Oct 2008

Location: London

I was having an argument in Sociology about this the other day. The sum of it being that I thought, whatever sexuality you are, you were born that way. And if it turns out that at age 30 or whatever, you're a man who out of the blue starts fucking other men, then you were always gay.

The other side of the argument was that everyone is born straight, and either become gay or don't.

Thing is, it annoyed me because -- to me -- this is an objective truth. Like, indisputable. But maybe one of you can convince me otherwise.

Am I right or wrong?
March 4, 2010 @ 12:42 PM
AlphaTrion

Post: 418

Join Date: Apr 2008

Personally, I think whatever you are, you were born that way interms of genetics and hormones but enviromental influences can have an impact on how and when it manifests.
March 4, 2010 @ 12:46 PM
Mistadobalina

Post: 231

Join Date: Dec 2008

Personally, I think whatever you are, you were born that way interms of genetics and hormones but enviromental influences can have an impact on how and when it manifests.


i'd agree with this, it's a bit of both. i doubt the gene pool has changed that drastically from 2002-present to mirror this whole explosion of trendy gayness.
March 4, 2010 @ 01:08 PM
damnwitless2

suspended

Post: 7236

Join Date: Sep 2008

Location: Bucktown, USA

it's a chemical imbalance, the shit that straight *****s like sexually don't affect homos the same way, cuz they're homos. I think that's one thing niiggas don't be understanding, you're not defined as gay by actually fucking another man, you're gay if you even want to.

All I do is smoke weed, blow lines, and listen to MF DOOM. And rap. http://www.facebook.com/SpacemanNYC

March 4, 2010 @ 01:16 PM
Shoutbox

Post: 918

Join Date: Feb 2010

i dont believe people are born gay. to me it just seems like they are trying to make it more acceptable, natural. being gay is not natural, gay people cannot reproduce naturally, and thats really the purpose of humans. so if they cant produce naturally then as a "species" homosexuals cant survive. so IF it was in the genes, wouldn't it be considered a birth defect? i doubt they would like that. but idk like i said i dont think there is a gene.

plus i have seen too many promiscuos teens claim to be "gay" as a cry for attention, only to turn straight again a few years after highschool. which reaffirms me thoughts about the "nature of being gay".
March 4, 2010 @ 01:44 PM
DStyles

Post: 9512

Join Date: Mar 2007

Location: Brooklyn, NY

Fags should not be allowed in this world.


Fact: Did you know most gay people are Christians.

Last.fm - DStyles23 Xbox Live GT: DStyles23

March 4, 2010 @ 01:55 PM
Dray

Post: 2167

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: Bay Area

In the roman times homosexuality was normal. Religion made it frowmed upon but before then women were essentially only for babies. The romans had a "boyfriend" in battle because u wouldnt let your spouse die would you? My point is its natural and somewhere down the line society made it a sin.
March 4, 2010 @ 01:56 PM
GucciTarantino

Post: 863

Join Date: Jul 2009

Location: Atlanta

^correct, It is Natural
March 4, 2010 @ 01:57 PM
AlphaTrion

Post: 418

Join Date: Apr 2008

i'd agree with this, it's a bit of both. i doubt the gene pool has changed that drastically from 2002-present to mirror this whole explosion of trendy gayness.


There's no "explosion" of gayness. There has always been a huge number of gays in the world but it was never socially acceptable so most people stayed in the closet. Homosexuality was extremely common the ancient world. More so than now. It was a considered common and normal in ancient Greece and Rome and in fuedal Japan.

i dont believe people are born gay. to me it just seems like they are trying to make it more acceptable, natural. being gay is not natural, gay people cannot reproduce naturally, and thats really the purpose of humans. so if they cant produce naturally then as a "species" homosexuals cant survive. so IF it was in the genes, wouldn't it be considered a birth defect? i doubt they would like that. but idk like i said i dont think there is a gene.


You're right, it could be considered a mutation. It might not be "natural"in terms that it doesn't fulfill the purpose of procreation but that doesn't mean it can't happen genetically anyway.


plus i have seen too many promiscuos teens claim to be "gay" as a cry for attention, only to turn straight again a few years after highschool. which reaffirms me thoughts about the "nature of being gay"


That doesn't prove anything. It just means a few people used it as a cry for attention. It doesn't change the fact that thousands of people make the claim and are legitimately gay and stay that way their entire lives.
March 4, 2010 @ 01:58 PM
Dray

Post: 2167

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: Bay Area

Btw same sex animals fuck all the time
March 4, 2010 @ 01:59 PM
dirtyandypants

Post: 477

Join Date: Oct 2008

OP how are you so sure of your position?

Science and psychologists have been looking at things like this for years without a conclusive answer between nature vs nurture.

How is it that you automatically know what you think is the "right" answer?
March 4, 2010 @ 02:01 PM
neato torpedo

Post: 720

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: hella, California

Youre in a sociology class, you shouldve already gotten your answer..
March 4, 2010 @ 02:15 PM
young idiot

Post: 6150

Join Date: Oct 2008

Location: London

OP how are you so sure of your position?

Science and psychologists have been looking at things like this for years without a conclusive answer between nature vs nurture.

How is it that you automatically know what you think is the "right" answer?


I don't like changing my mind about something unless the answer is really obvious and I just didn't see it. I fucking hate being neutral. I'd rather say nothing or have something decisive to say.

With this, though, I dunno. When someone brought up the evolutionary aspect of it -- that being gay has no biological... purpose -- then I kinda started to doubt my position on the debate. But maybe it's just what I wanna believe. It's hard to say, which I hate.

Youre in a sociology class, you shouldve already gotten your answer..


I see what you did there. >sad
March 4, 2010 @ 02:19 PM
imtheman

Post: 1759

Join Date: May 2008

i dont believe people are born gay. to me it just seems like they are trying to make it more acceptable, natural. being gay is not natural, gay people cannot reproduce naturally, and thats really the purpose of humans. so if they cant produce naturally then as a "species" homosexuals cant survive. so IF it was in the genes, wouldn't it be considered a birth defect? i doubt they would like that. but idk like i said i dont think there is a gene.


Without taking any kind of religious views on any this, your statement sounds right to me.
Naturally, all forms of life need to reproduce someway-somehow to avoid becoming extinct. So if genetically two forms of life cant reproduce, then being "gay" and unable to reproduce cant be seen as a natural life cycle.


In the roman times homosexuality was normal. Religion made it frowmed upon but before then women were essentially only for babies. The romans had a "boyfriend" in battle because u wouldnt let your spouse die would you? My point is its natural and somewhere down the line society made it a sin.


That sounds more like a society belief and acceptance than a normality if only the Romans did it at that time... or maybe a few more cultures, but to say its "normal", it cant be. I could understand if humans from day zero were gay, but it wasnt like that. Like CAKEEATER said, humans are supposed to reproduce and if everybody was gay and it was natural, then one day the world could be taken over by gay individuals and eventually become extinct!
I think it depends on the enviroment & lifestyle the individual experieinces that cause changes, views, or certain life altering events that can make them fear/dislike/etc, the opposite sex (ex: women raped by men or vice-versa), maybe a boy raised by all women their whole life, or whatever else may set that "gay trigger" off?!!
March 4, 2010 @ 02:23 PM
SK1

Post: 1139

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: mA$$

I don't think there is a "gay" gene, and until they discover it, I won't believe it.

What I think is that everyone is born with a "clean state." The existentialist argument so to speak, that no one is born being anything.

I think being gay is a psychological development, something that happens as a result of experiences during the early developmental periods. This homosexual development can probably be explained by some sort of psychological event during the oedipal stages, it probably occurs as a result of a social experience, perhaps in the family. I also think that the sexual preference could be a result of some type of trauma experienced with the opposite sex. Therefore, I think most homosexual cases are not chosen and develop in the early years, but I also don't rule out the possibility that this preference can develop later on in life.

Point being, every human being in the world has a desire for pleasure and sex. Each human being also has a drive to produce offspring. For these factors, it is probably more likely that the natural inclination is toward heterosexuality, and that homosexuality results as some sort of psychological development with the drive for sexual pleasure.
March 4, 2010 @ 02:23 PM
AlphaTrion

Post: 418

Join Date: Apr 2008

You're confusing "natural" for a species and "natural" as in "naturally occuring." That's two different arguments.

There are genetic markers that can occur in an individual organism that goes against what is "natural" for that species but that does not mean that the genetic marker didn't "naturally occur".
March 4, 2010 @ 02:27 PM
young idiot

Post: 6150

Join Date: Oct 2008

Location: London

But I just thought of something else. If people are born gay -- and this is another argument the opposing side brought up -- then why do gay people have straight children and vice versa? And why hasn't the gene been identified?

I think I've switched sides now. Before I was on the other side because it seemed more liberal. But now it just doesn't make sense to me, and I can't have that.
March 4, 2010 @ 02:31 PM
SK1

Post: 1139

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: mA$$

In the roman times homosexuality was normal. Religion made it frowmed upon but before then women were essentially only for babies. The romans had a "boyfriend" in battle because u wouldnt let your spouse die would you? My point is its natural and somewhere down the line society made it a sin.


This isn't true, Romans used both men and women for sex and pleasure, and not every Roman was gay or believed in having sex with men. There were many writers in Rome who condemned homosexual practices, and in the early days of the Republic it was outright banned.
March 4, 2010 @ 02:33 PM
SK1

Post: 1139

Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: mA$$

You're confusing "natural" for a species and "natural" as in "naturally occuring." That's two different arguments.

There are genetic markers that can occur in an individual organism that goes against what is "natural" for that species but that does not mean that the genetic marker didn't "naturally occur".


Was this directed toward my post? just wonderin...
March 4, 2010 @ 02:33 PM
C.Dante

Post: 4366

Join Date: Nov 2008

Location: NNNNJJJJJ

i've heard of du's that turn gay if they get hurt by multiple women...but im guessing that they can be converted back to straightness?
March 4, 2010 @ 02:35 PM
Dray

Post: 2167

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: Bay Area

This isn't true, Romans used both men and women for sex and pleasure, and not every Roman was gay or believed in having sex with men. There were many writers in Rome who condemned homosexual practices, and in the early days of the Republic it was outright banned.


Dunno man i was taught it wasnt taboo but then.
March 4, 2010 @ 02:52 PM
kilogram

Post: 1540

Join Date: Aug 2009

Location: Gaza

homosexual tendencies have been observed in nearly 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms
March 4, 2010 @ 02:54 PM
Constellations

Post: 3053

Join Date: Jan 2010

Location: LeBroward County, Fl...

But I just thought of something else. If people are born gay -- and this is another argument the opposing side brought up -- then why do gay people have straight children and vice versa? And why hasn't the gene been identified?

I think I've switched sides now. Before I was on the other side because it seemed more liberal. But now it just doesn't make sense to me, and I can't have that.

genes skip generations all the time. For example, my parents both have brown eyes, but i have green, which i probably got from my grandfather, who is also green eyed.

IMO, homosexuality is partly genetic, partly environmental

\X/

March 4, 2010 @ 02:54 PM
AlphaTrion

Post: 418

Join Date: Apr 2008

Was this directed toward my post? just wonderin...


I was referring to Perroh's.

In response to yours, you bring up some good points and I find the clean slate idea a pretty good argument.
March 4, 2010 @ 02:57 PM
faust

Post: 4737

Join Date: Jan 2009

Location: ny bang bang skeet s...

i dont believe people are born gay. to me it just seems like they are trying to make it more acceptable, natural. being gay is not natural, gay people cannot reproduce naturally, and thats really the purpose of humans. so if they cant produce naturally then as a "species" homosexuals cant survive. so IF it was in the genes, wouldn't it be considered a birth defect? i doubt they would like that. but idk like i said i dont think there is a gene.

plus i have seen too many promiscuos teens claim to be "gay" as a cry for attention, only to turn straight again a few years after highschool. which reaffirms me thoughts about the "nature of being gay".


this.
March 4, 2010 @ 02:58 PM
ᴊᴜᴀɴ

Post: 6244

Join Date: Jun 2007

Location: Lurking

I don't believe that there's a "Gay Gene" or that your born gay. I think it's a conscious decision made in life. People decide whether or not they wanna be gay. I mean shit females especially seem to "Go Gay" or have lesbian tendencies because or break ups with guys or something in a relationship with a man going wrong. Btw When Animals have same sex its more of a dominating type of thing.
March 4, 2010 @ 03:08 PM
aintgotnowerk

Post: 543

Join Date: Jul 2009

yep. the greeks were mad homo, and their DNA can't be that different than ours.
March 4, 2010 @ 03:10 PM
ClydeFrazier

Post: 6407

Join Date: Feb 2009

it's natural, period.

Melo Gang All Day

March 4, 2010 @ 03:13 PM
young idiot

Post: 6150

Join Date: Oct 2008

Location: London

^ You don't wanna back that up? No homo, lol.
March 4, 2010 @ 03:14 PM
Envme83

Post: 165

Join Date: Jan 2007

Location: In the Middle of Now...

I say nature, because as a heterosexual woman there is not a damn thing on the face of this earth that will make me want to play with any other coochie but my own.

Please login first to reply.
Back To Top