Homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs

[Bubonic Plague]

Recently, the Singapore government has started relaxing rules, one of which is the allowance of homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs.

And just today, i read in the Straits Times forum that some people disagree with this move.

The article can be found here:http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/story/0,4386,199754,00.html?

One of this person's reason is that "Gays are never born that way".

This brings up a few questions. Are gays really never born that way? Are there any scientific studies and related matter on this subject?

I'm interested in hearing some of your inputs.

 

[Iacchus32]

I think it's possible to have a genetic predispostion towards it (hormonal imbalance), but I think in a good majority of cases it's a psychological issue, for example of a young man being brought up by a domineering mother. Or, perhaps in young people who lack in self-esteem, or aren't particularly attractive, who seek out companionship of the same sex.

Then there's always the possibility of young children being molested as well, who get coerced into doing these things by means of a parent, a close member of the family, a teacher, a priest, etc. Or, if a child runs away from a broken home, and has to find a means by which to survive ... i.e., through child prostitution.

 

[Zero]

I think a lot of people confuse homosexuality with gender issues. Like, if a man is gay, he wants to be a woman.

 

[Mentat]

Iacchus is right that it is usually a psychological issue. However, there is also the fact that, when a mother's hypothalamus doesn't produce enough testosterone, while pregnant of a boy, the boy will have a tendency for homosexuality.

BTW, there was a recent study that I heard of, which said that boys with older brothers are more likely to be born gay, because the mother's immune system could have built up antibodies to male hormones. I don't know how credible this is, but it seemed reasonable.

 

[eNtRopY]

Whatever happened to the gay gene theory?
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

eNtRopY

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Whatever happened to the gay gene theory?
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

eNtRopY

"Gay gene theory"? If there's already a theory, then yes, this should be in the Other Sciences Forum. In fact, it might be a little more comfortable there anyway. Maybe Kerrie will move it.

 

[Kerrie]

i firmly believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with...i have known several people from the time they were children into adulthood that displayed behaviors as children that tend to make one think they might one day display homosexual behaviors as adults...if only those who are biased against them could see it...

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i firmly believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with...i have known several people from the time they were children into adulthood that displayed behaviors as children that tend to make one think they might one day display homosexual behaviors as adults...if only those who are biased against them could see it...

I would like to clearify on this post, perhaps not to Kerrie's original intent.

Children that are born with, what Iacchus32 has said, homosexual imbalances would be able to be 'cured' (crude, I know and for a literal meaning, perhaps, incorrect, as homosexuality may or may not be 'bad'; let's say veered from the homosexual path?) of homosexuality through psychological means, such as counceling.

If the child was born with the disposition to be homosexual, one would think that the wiring of the brain would be inherently different from that of a heterosexual mind. This, in turn, would lead, me -among others I hope-, to believe that this 'homosexual trait' would not be 'curable' through counceling.

Now, as stated in another thread, studies (recent) have shown that there has been much success in 'treating' homosexuals and assimilating them into heterosexual attraction.

 

[RageSk8]

I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice. Why would someone want to be hated, ridiculed, fired from their job because of their sexuality, or denied the right marry who they wished?

Now, as stated in another thread, studies (recent) have shown that there has been much success in 'treating' homosexuals and assimilating them into heterosexual attraction.

What thread? And especially what studies? And who did these studies?

 

[Bubonic Plague]

Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

Hm...looks like i made a bad call. I created the topic here because i was anticipating people like George Lim Heng Chye, who wrote the article, to start using religion to back up their stand.

So far, I've heard mostly beliefs. But are there more hard facts? Mind sharing 'em?

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice.

if it is not a chemical imbalance or choice, then what is it? my reasoning of why i believe people are born with it is because of my own experience of knowing 2 different people from the time they were children into adulthood as i explained in my above post...not to drag this off topic too much, but do animals display homosexual behaviors as well?

 

[quantumcarl]

Fact: I'm a male lesbian.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice. Why would someone want to be hated, ridiculed, fired from their job because of their sexuality, or denied the right marry who they wished?

You don't think that children are born with any sexual orientation at all? This is a highly "Nurture"-istic viewpoint, isn't it?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Fact: I'm a male lesbian.

That's impossible (it's an oxymoron, or self-contradiction).

 

[RageSk8]

You don't think that children are born with any sexual orientation at all? This is a highly "Nurture"-istic viewpoint, isn't it?

Sure, children may be born with biological traits sympathetic to the creation of a sexual orientation, but I feel this says very little. The only way to make sense of "being biologically sympathetic or prone" is to have a full understanding of the cultural context of the individual with said biological traits. This is why I feel the whole nature/nurture distinction is useless.

 

[RageSk8]

my reasoning of why i believe people are born with it is because of my own experience of knowing 2 different people from the time they were children into adulthood as i explained in my above post...not to drag this off topic too much, but do animals display homosexual behaviors as well?

Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

 

[radagast]

Research I've run across, concerned at statistical larger number of homosexual males that were born, in England, during or shortly after the blitz. A more recent study, queried a number of mothers, of gay and straight males, about the emotional times during the late first trimester and early to mid second trimester of gestation. The initial results seemed to indicate that stress hormones were likely to be part of a cause in later male homosexuality. There was some specuation as to this trigger in combination with a homozygous recessive gene, was the cause.

While the correlations between prenatal stress and homosexuality of offspring were not high, the correlation between mothers of homosexual males having had stress during said pregnacy was high. This data does support the speculation, as to cause.

Similar to Mentat, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
That's impossible (it's an oxymoron, or self-contradiction).

"Not even nothing is impossible." Carl

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

If you believe they are a species then you would also believe fully that they have inherent chemical and biological homosexual traits, which you say you don't believe.

What thread? And especially what studies? And who did these studies?

Do a search of PF and find the thread yourself.

You have also contradicted yourself by first saying you don't believe people are born homosexual and then agreeing they can be born with homosexual traits, but writing this off by saying these traits have no bearing on homosexual adults. It's like being born with a social disorder and saying that the chemical imbalance has no bearing on your bashfulness as an adult.

At least this is what your stance, as of this post, would appear to be.

What animals show homosexual behavior?, long term, not just the occasional female dog humping another female dog; this is odd but hardly qualifies the female dogs to be considered homosexuals.

The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

This is partly true, there are cases when we can identify the homosexual outcome due to childhood experiences, but not in all cases can we recognise the entire outcome of society on sexuality. Your choice of words [enculturation] makes me think the homosexual child (now adult) was raised in a gay bar or something Homosexuality isn't the majority, to my knowledge, in any society, so there is no possible way a child could pick up homosexual behavior through the assimilation of a society's culture; I will protect myself by narrowing the scope of society to the parties involved, I trust the children were not raised in a predominantly homosexual society.

 

[RageSk8]

If you believe they are a species then you would also believe fully that they have inherent chemical and biological homosexual traits, which you say you don't believe.

I don't believe they are a species and either did Foucault. Foucault's volumes on the History of Sexuality detail the social creation of sexual categories, the implicit discourses that led to modern conceptions of sexuality. Before for Foucault the popular intelectual theory of sexuality was a "repressive hypothesis", that the gay movement and sexual promescuity were signs of peoples true sexual nature coming out finally after hundreds of years of repression. Foucault, to many, showed how these movements were nothing but continued discourses of old, socially created. Foucault, and other "good" social constructivists, do away with the idea of a human nature (a very good thing). This however does not mean they promote a purely "nurture" stance, our behavior always deals with biology. The difference is that the individuals behavior is always put in terms of both biology and society - biology is never given the role of a blueprint. The way I read Foucault (and many others) leads to the rejection of the nature/nurture distinction because no line can ever be drawn (biology doesn't do one thing and society another, they are completely intertwined and dependent on each other).

You have also contradicted yourself by first saying you don't believe people are born homosexual and then agreeing they can be born with homosexual traits, but writing this off by saying these traits have no bearing on homosexual adults. It's like being born with a social disorder and saying that the chemical imbalance has no bearing on your bashfulness as an adult.

Read above and and my reply to Mentat.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Sure, children may be born with biological traits sympathetic to the creation of a sexual orientation, but I feel this says very little. The only way to make sense of "being biologically sympathetic or prone" is to have a full understanding of the cultural context of the individual with said biological traits. This is why I feel the whole nature/nurture distinction is useless.

Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

 

[Zantra]

I personally lean towards the phsychological theory. Regardless of weather a baby is born with homosexual traits, it's the environmental influences that ultimately determine the sexual orientation. The studies on prenatal hormonal imbalance are interesting, but I think ultimately will prove to be false.

 

[RageSk8]

Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

Easily explained: The woman's hypothalamus didn't produce enough testosterone for both of them. No mystery here; you just have a woman whose hypothalamus wasn't prepared for more than one boy at a time.

 

[RageSk8]

Easily explained: The woman's hypothalamus didn't produce enough testosterone for both of them. No mystery here; you just have a woman whose hypothalamus wasn't prepared for more than one boy at a time.

Not necessarily. Just because hormone levels in pregnency coincide to sexuality does not mean there is a mapping. Yes a lack of testosterone can make a male child more likely to be gay, but most gay males still received plenty of testosterone. There is no single cause of homosexuality, there is a plethora of interactions. We have discovered a few of them, but not nearly all of them.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

 

[RageSk8]

Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

But organisms do many other things besides reproduce. All are caused by the interaction between their environment and their biology - I see no way to deviate one behavior caused by this interaction from another. We get inputs and shoot out outputs. Our outputs are determined by the contingency of our inputs.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
But organisms do many other things besides reproduce. All are caused by the interaction between their environment and their biology - I see no way to deviate one behavior caused by this interaction from another. We get inputs and shoot out outputs. Our outputs are determined by the contingency of our inputs.

You're still missing my point: If all things are "caused by the interaction between their environment", then homosexuals can only be considered as dead-ends in a biological process. It doesn't appear that it can be natural for biological processes to have such a dead-end.

 

[RageSk8]

You're still missing my point: If all things are "caused by the interaction between their environment", then homosexuals can only be considered as dead-ends in a biological process. It doesn't appear that it can be natural for biological processes to have such a dead-end.

You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by RageSk8
My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

Being gay doesn't make you impotent. People have often not been gay their entire lives. Also, some people marry members of the opposite sex to be more culturally-acceptable. Remember "The Birdcage"? Robin Williams's gay character had a son.

Originally posted by RageSk8
You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.

Good points. It is all too common a false belief that evolution has a purpose.

Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

How is a chemical imbalance an "unnatural" imbalance?
There is no "point" to sex, other than what an individual ascribes to it, and then that's only the point for that individual having sex. If the only "point" of sex was reproduction, then we'd either have an incredible reproduction rate or a lot less sex going on.

The only definition of what "natural" really means that I can come up with is "the way things have been for a long time." Homosexuality has been around for a LONG time, whether or not it was in the majority.

Finally, whether or not something is considered "unnatural" is irrelevant. That's just an arbitrary criterion for a value judgment.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zantra
I personally lean towards the phsychological theory. Regardless of weather a baby is born with homosexual traits, it's the environmental influences that ultimately determine the sexual orientation. The studies on prenatal hormonal imbalance are interesting, but I think ultimately will prove to be false.

IMO, a baby born with homosexual traits would be mutually exclusive with environmental influences determining sexual orientation. Whether that orientation was acted on, or even acknowledged by the individual in question would, most likely, be psycological, but if you state a baby has homosexual traits, then, almost by definition, that is defining their future orientation. The reason I say this is sexual orientation isn't detectable until after puberty starts (certainly not at birth), so by saying a baby was born with homosexual traits - this had to be inferred from later [observed] orientation.

On a different note -
Being the ideas of a domineering mother have been fairly well discounted [as a cause of homosexuality], and children raised of homosexual parents have no higher probability of being homosexual. I'm curious as to what leads you to believe environmental experiences would influence sexual orientation.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

This completely discounts two things -

1) is homosexuality could be, at least partially, carried as a recessive gene, so passing the genes on is quite possible. By your reasoning, there would be no sickle cell anemia, given homozygous SC patients all died before puberty (until the 20th century), thus unable to pass on their genes. A number of other recessive diseases, which kill before puberty (some prenatally) would also fall into this category. Beta Thallassemia Major comes to mind.


2) You assume homosexual individuals do not procreate. Until fairly recently, in many cultures most homosexuals were so perscuted that they would 'act straight' to survive. They would marry and have children, just to prevent persucution. That they were not as attracted, sexually, to their mate didn't prevent their sperm/egg from combining to form a new little human.

There has also been some research having to do with the possible beneficial aspects for the species, of lowering reproductive rates (therefore preventing the expenditure vital resources fruitlessly), during times of stress - which fits with the prenatal stress hormone research. If this seems not to make sense, think about prey-preditor communities. When normal predation is evident in deer, the community thrives (given no other pressures), if something [like man] severely reduces predation, the deer population explodes and mass starvation ensues. The population swings are greatly accentuated - leading to the greater possiblitity that the community could be wiped out, if a population trough hits simultaneously with a different stressor.

When rats are kept in extremely over-populated environments, their offspring show a much higher probability toward homosexual traits, once they reach puberty.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

Uhh, I hate to shot fish in a barrell, but...

Homosexuals don't always reproduce, but they can reproduce and are quite capable of doing so. Until extremely recently, it was not uncommon for homosexuals to deny [often to themselves] that they were gay, in turn getting married and raising families.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

I disagree. Though I hate to argue such subjective terms as 'natural', I'll make the effort here. Before I do, I'll qualify 'natural' to a fairly specific meaning (one I assume you mean). Natural, used here, is to mean anything which will not seriously decrease a species ability to survive and continue it's genetic line.

There is some research that gives possible species benefits to a stress triggered increase in homosexual traits. [see previous post]

Eating, procreating, and motion are natural, but Bears have adapted to reduce them during seasons where food is scarce and the environment is more hostile (winter). Does that mean bears aren't natural? Spore forming bacilli have a similar response to environmental stress.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Eating, procreating, and motion are natural, but Bears have adapted to reduce them during seasons where food is scarce and the environment is more hostile (winter). Does that mean bears aren't natural? Spore forming bacilli have a similar response to environmental stress.

No, but it could mean it's "a-bear-rational." Hmm ... that sounds about right, because as I understand, a bear in the "spiritual sense" signifies "ignorance."

Which brings up a piece I wrote about called The Bear and the Garbage Can, which involves a man's ignorance -- both sexually and spiritually -- and his attempts to "sanitize" his relationship with his wife (i.e., so he doesn't wimp out and possibly become homosexual). The piece is fairly brief so I would recommend reading the whole chapter (also fairly brief), just to give you an idea of who this "Roy Masters" character is.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
People have often not been gay their entire lives.

While I agreed with most of what you said, the above seems to contradict common experience, assuming your using definitions where gay means a homosexual type sexual orientation. I've never heard of someone changing sexual orientation. In these discussions we need to clarify between 'One who has sex with same gendered partners' and those who are 'attracted to the same gender'.

In arguing with fundamentalists, it took me a while to realize they always meant the former, while most in common society nowadays, tend to mean the latter.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by RageSk8
You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.

No, I know all of this; my point is that species cannot continue existing, unless there is replication. Replication was the most glorious (from a human perspective) accident of Evolution. If replication doesn't occur, a species goes extinct (obviously). So, while it may be "natural" for one to be homosexual (as nature allows for anything, and cares not about the continuation of species), it is a biological dead-end, and is not something that is to be considered in anyway desirable to the species. IOW, while Nature doesn't care if species continue existing, the organisms in the species do, and they have devised ways of continuing their species' existence. Anything that challenges the arrangement invented by the species might as well not be part of the same species, and their own species should die off with them.

Also, while - if you take my (above) point to be correct - you can thus consider homosexuals to be another step in Evolution from Homo Sapiens Sapiens, separated by a mutation, they are still a species that, if left on their own, would die out quickly.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by radagast
Uhh, I hate to shot fish in a barrell, but...

Homosexuals don't always reproduce, but they can reproduce and are quite capable of doing so. Until extremely recently, it was not uncommon for homosexuals to deny [often to themselves] that they were gay, in turn getting married and raising families.

Please see my response to RageSk8, about the different species, that is incapable of reproducing without help from it's "ancestor species".

 

[Dissident Dan]

Homosexuals are not a different species. Species is a biological classification. It is a classification that says nothing about whether you choose to reproduce, only if you can. Ask any biologist.

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

eNtRopY

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Homosexuals are not a different species. Species is a biological classification. It is a classification that says nothing about whether you choose to reproduce, only if you can. Ask any biologist.

But that's my point. No matter whether you choose to reproduce or not, a homosexual is attracted to members of the same sex. So, if you let them go with how "nature" has made them, they will die off. They have to violate their own "nature" to continue their genetic line.

It'd be as though all humans died, except for one, and that human had to mate with a chimp (closest relative to humans). This humans would be going against his/her nature, just to continue his/her genetic line.

Do you see my reason for calling homosexuals a "different species".

Note: I don't have anything against homosexuals, as people. When I argue that it isn't natural, I'm doing so from a purely scientific standpoint, as I personally couldn't care less whether someone happens to be attracted to others of the same sex.

 

[Ejderha]

I believe -I don't know if it is smt to believe or not 'cause I remember reading an article on this long ago- homosexuality related with genetic profile of an individual. I know 3 gay people. Not much to talk about all may be, but one of them is really close to me since we were 15 and I don't remember him -ever- attracted to a woman. But I know they love each other 'cause they are the 'same' and they really don't have any differences when compared with heterosexual couples.

Is it natural or unnatural?

Evolution does not have a goal. It consists of chain mutations. So to claim there is something natural or unnatural in it, would be wrong I guess. It is about the human rules. Law, social, moral, religious...culture. But people in even harsh cultures and environments also stand for their sexual tendencies... No matter what the law or the accepted religion say...
They should have the very same rights as any other people... Including raising children...

 

[nevagil]

peer and culture pressure

I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

Actually you bring up a good point. I've heard that before. Something about us all being innately bisexual, or at least curious. Of course if genetics is a factor, that means we're all born bisexual (or asexual) and change according to societal norms. Kind of a scary thought

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by radagast
While I agreed with most of what you said, the above seems to contradict common experience, assuming your using definitions where gay means a homosexual type sexual orientation. I've never heard of someone changing sexual orientation. In these discussions we need to clarify between 'One who has sex with same gendered partners' and those who are 'attracted to the same gender'.

In arguing with fundamentalists, it took me a while to realize they always meant the former, while most in common society nowadays, tend to mean the latter.

I'll put forth a theory that it is indeed BOTH genetics and environment that can play a part. Thusfar everyone has drawn lines across the board and picked a side. But it's quite possible that under certain conditions, a mental choice can be made, and under others there is a disposition towards it. At times it could be due to both disposition and experiences/environment.

Certainly from the evidence we have, the suggestion is there that both could cause it. I know of people leading the typical "pefect life" who have chosen this lifestyle, and I also know of some witth questionable lives (mental health problems, family issues, traumatic experiences) who have become gay. Since there is no clear cut evidence that one or the other is key, they both must be a factor, logically.

Then there is the theory of everyone being innately bisexual and chooing a preference. Social ramifications lead us to make the easier lifestyle choice, but left unchecked would a larger percentage of the population choosee both if not influenced by social acceptance and population of the species? As gay,lesbian and bisexuality gain more and more social acceptance, we will eventually see the outcome of that freedom, and perhaps it will amount to 60 percent of the population becoming bisexual, while still maintaining population growth? Then of course triple couples would emerge as a norm. It does sound extreme, but I'm speaking from a logical scientific perspective that this is a possibility, given our current continual progression of sexual freedoms and expression. in time, say over 500 years, that could be an eventuality.

 

[Ejderha]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

I exactly agree with you nevagil! I will go further and say, it will be the most common thing in the far future.

Ejderha

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please see my response to RageSk8, about the different species, that is incapable of reproducing without help from it's "ancestor species".

I could redefine men and women as different species, as well, making reproduction impossible without help from outside the species, but this is a bizzarre definition of 'species'.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think about 60% of our population could be bisexual if it were socially exceptable.
Society, peer pressure, religion, etc push us all in certain directions.

This completely clouds the discussion. I, and I think many others, were working under the presumption that the term homosexuality, used here, referred to those with a primary sexual attraction to those of their own gender, vs heterosexual, which refers to primary attaction to other gender.

Bisexuals still have this primary attraction, only they have learned sexual experiences can be enjoyable, even in the absence of their optimal gender type. The bisexuality definition goes back to the old definitions based on sexual practices of an individual, not sexual orientation.

When discussing sexual orientation, there is homosexual and heterosexual. Until I read of individuals with primary sexual attractions (or orientations) toward both sexes, I will consider bisexuals to be homo or heterosexual, depending on their primary hormonal motivations.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
This completely clouds the discussion. I, and I think many others, were working under the presumption that the term homosexuality, used here, referred to those with a primary sexual attraction to those of their own gender, vs heterosexual, which refers to primary attaction to other gender.

Bisexuals still have this primary attraction, only they have learned sexual experiences can be enjoyable, even in the absence of their optimal gender type. The bisexuality definition goes back to the old definitions based on sexual practices of an individual, not sexual orientation.

When discussing sexual orientation, there is homosexual and heterosexual. Until I read of individuals with primary sexual attractions (or orientations) toward both sexes, I will consider bisexuals to be homo or heterosexual, depending on their primary hormonal motivations.

And yet everybody is bisexual to the degree that we have both a male and female side, which is probably why it doesn't take more than a little "nudge" to set the inertia going in either direction. Especially since as children we tend to develop bonds towards children of the same sex, and don't develop an attraction towards the opposite sex until after puberty. While some of us may not be prepared to "take the plunge" so to speak, and fall back on our former bonds, which may ultimately develop into a homosexual relationship. Indeed, there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty (and pressure) that goes along with being an adolescent.