Homosexuality

[IzzyR]

As the thread has been slightly hijacked to the issue of gay “recruiting”, I’ll ask another question along those lines. Goboy is asserting that there is no gay agenda to recruit homosexuals. (This idea was lampooned quite effectively by the Onion). Let’s assume that this is true.

But what about individuals who may be pressured to become gay even if not as part of an agenda? Is this possible? Prevalent?

The examples that I have in mind concern teenagers, many of whom are confused about their sexuality. Also, I believe, it is normal for people who would ultimately develop into heterosexuals to go through a phase in which they feel a quasi-sexual attraction for a member of the same sex (usually a person older than themselves).

Is it therefore possible for such a person to develop a relationship with a gay person, who, feeling an attraction for the “gay” person will have an incentive to draw out thew gay feelings of that person, and subsequently, an incentive to keep the relationship alive?

Also could there be situations where a clique of gay kids take a liking to another kid and befreind him, not as part of a desire to promote a “gay agenda”, but because of a genuine liking for that kid, who they’d like to have as a member of their clique?

In such cases, if they indeed happen, it would seem possible for a person’s identity to become “cemented” as a gay person as a result of the intervention of others, even though without this intervention the same person might have become a heterosexual.

This is especially so in light of the fact, noted by many, that most people are not purely hetero or homosexual, but have a mixture of feelings. This suggests the possibility of having a person with the potential to be nudged in either direction.

I would appreciate comments by goboy, as well as any other posters who have knowledge of these issues.

[Polycarp]

Snark, since you’ve brought the issue up, I assume that comments are in order. I don’t know what motivated Esprix or Sqrl, but my own concern was quite different from what you ascribed to them. Quite simply, marrying Vanilla will not “make the gay desires go away” and suppressing them as “evil thoughts I shouldn’t have” would sour your marriage. Then, there’s the situation she has described from her past, which I don’t wish to resurrect on a public message board without her say-so, but which could make her either perfectly suited to help you deal with your SSA or embittered by knowing you had them at all. So I counseled being honest and frank with each other about feelings, and for you to accept that run of desires as a part of yourself that you believe it is sinful to act upon, just as a straight guy who sees a buxom 13-year-old ought not feel guilt at desiring her but certainly should not act on his desires. Given that, I thought you could deal with the whole nine yards very effectively. To be honest, the impact on your marriage of your other psychological/neurological problems (which I don’t want to bring out without your OK either) worried me much more.

Esprix, I think, was concerned that you were practicing denial, supposing that “marrying a woman will heal me of gayness” as many gay men used to do. And he did get on your case quite enthusiastically about that – which to my mind suggests that we all need to read before we type! And given his misunderstanding, I think you could view how his posts, read as to some anonymous third poster in your shoes, could be good advice. Am I right?

[gobear]

Also could there be situations where a clique of gay kids take a liking to another kid and befriend him, not as part of a desire to promote a “gay agenda”, but because of a genuine liking for that kid, who they’d like to
have as a member of their clique?
In such cases, if they indeed happen, it would seem possible for a person’s identity to become “cemented” as a gay person as a result of the intervention of others, even though without this intervention the same person might have become a heterosexual.

Wow, Izzy, you make us seem like vampires!
“Let me give you the kiss of eternal life, and you will shop at Ikea and think Madonna is fabulous forever! MWAHAHAHA!”

Uh, it doesn’t actually work like that. From what I understand from psych classes, your sexual orientation is fixed by the time you hit three or four. As children, we all go through the phase when you think the other gender is “icky,” and there might be same-sex experimentation. But by the time you hit adolescence, there is no way to change orientation. If you’re 100% hetero, being friends with gay kids isn’t going to convert you. If someone is primarily straight, but has some same-sex leanings, our societal homophobia will make sure he keeps it deep in the subconscious.
I have a private theory that a lot of guys who excel at sports are sublimating same-sex attraction; the fanny patting, the expression of violence, the bonding with other guys; plus it is really easy to get football players in the sack.

[IzzyR]

goboy:

From what I understand from psych classes, your sexual orientation is fixed by the time you hit three or four. As children, we all go through the phase when you think the other gender is “icky,” and there might be same-sex experimentation. But by the time you hit adolescence, there is no way to change orientation.

I wonder if you could find a cite for the “3 or 4” figure.

In any event, I’m not referring to getting a person to “change” what they are, as much as getting a person to emphasize one part of their personality over another. I take as a given the view, widely held on this board and shared by myself, that many or most people have some degree of same and opposite gender sexual attraction.

I’m not sure if societal homophobia is as powerful as you suggest. In any event, if this is the case, what would you think if there was no societal homophobia?

[pldennison]

Izzy:

Could what you theorize, if true, also account for the acculturation process that causes only 10% or so of the population to describe themselves as exclusively homosexual? The rest have had a portion of their sexual identity cemented by, for lack of a better phrase, the “heterosexual clique”? As a sword that cuts both ways, it seems like a pretty useful idea.

[Snark]

goboy wrote:

I was around for that whole mess, and while Esprix should have kept his big bazoo shut on the issue, he wasn’t trying to keep you ‘homo’. He was worried that trying to use marriage as a cure for homosexuality was a bad idea; again, it was none of his business. Whatever arrangement you and Vanilla come up with is your business, and nobody has the right to tell you what you ought to feel.

Maybe in my anger I misread him, then, because it seemed to me like I was trying to get my hot-air balloon to fly and he was trying to hold it down on the ground.

Kimstu wrote:

I’m sure you’ll be rebuked for this much more competently than I can manage; but I will just point out that warning somebody about the potential problems involved in the marriage of a homosexual or bisexual man to a heterosexual woman, though it may be intrusive or inappropriate or inaccurate, is not the same as “recruiting for gaydom.” And characterizing it as a case of “misery loves company” is bound to be extremely offensive to many if not all of the homosexuals here, who are not at all miserable about their sexual orientation, thank you very much.

Well, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But then, truth doesn’t care whom it offends. And yes, I agree it’s true that Esprix’s “warnings” (read: attacks) may be arguably not the same as “recruitment.” But it sure seems, in retrospect, like he was trying to juxtapose his sexuality onto me and cram it down my throat.

Polycarp wrote:

Quite simply, marrying Vanilla will not “make the gay desires go away” and suppressing them as “evil thoughts I shouldn’t have” would sour your marriage.

I disagree. I believe that a long time with Vanilla will heal me considerably. And I do intend to suppress evil thoughts, whether or not others call them “evil” in their worldview.

Esprix, I think, was concerned that you were practicing denial, supposing that “marrying a woman will heal me of gayness” as many gay men used to do.

Denial to one man is hope to another.

[Polycarp]

Snark, I sincerely wish you luck, and I know what the ongoing grace of God and the love of a good woman can do to heal troubled hearts of all sorts. But the evidence I’ve seen suggests that the changing of orientation from gay or bi to straight is a very long and difficult process when it is possible at all. The last thing I want is to lead you into sin, even in your own estimation, but I want to encourage you to be gentle with yourself in this regard. Practice a healthy self-discipline on what you wish to weed out of your life, certainly, but be as forgiving of yourself, as necessary, as you would be of another person undertaking what you are doing.

And, just to clarify in case you misunderstood, I was using “denial” in the psychological sense, of someone refusing to admit something about themselves that they do not want to know or accept. As in the country song about the woman who is just coming to her senses about what a rotten SOB her man is, and says, “Just call me Cleopatra, because I’m the queen of denial.” I think I know you better than to suggest you are not (sometimes brutally) honest with yourself, but IMHO Esprix had more-or-less good motives though inability to recognize that you were doing something faith-based that you understood the gravity of, and truly loved and desired Vanilla, where he was thinking in terms of you trying to deny your SSA because in his thinking you were refusing to admit it. (I hope that make sense to you rephrased; if not, please accept my apologies and let’s drop it.)

[vanilla]

Poly, Hi! Shoot! I was hoping to be under snark(soon enough)
Actually, from what I know, personally, having been there in person, Snark is attracted to me phycially.
I didn’t order him to be, he just is.
It happens.
I don’t think he’s trying so hard to be straight, it just happens. Not all at once, but he can’t deny the evidence.
Also, from what he has said, he has been attracted to male bodies but is not attracted to the thought of sex with men, which to snark and I and many others, is unnatural, wrong what have you.
I have known mnay homsexuals, and all of them wanted to actually have sex with other men. Its kindof what homosexuality IS.
Anyway, thanks for all the advice, we love ya all, and we’ll be happily congugating soon.

[IzzyR]

pldennison:

Could what you theorize, if true, also account for the acculturation process that causes only 10% or so of the population to describe themselves as exclusively homosexual? The rest have had a portion of their sexual identity cemented by, for lack of a better phrase, the “heterosexual clique”? As a sword that cuts both ways, it seems like a pretty useful idea.

Of course. In fact, I would agree with goboy to the extent that it is more likely, in our society, for a person who could “go either way” to ultimately become defined as a heterosexual than a homosexual.

BTW, I think it’s more like 3%.

[beakerxf]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**This is especially so in light of the fact, noted by many, that most people are not purely hetero or homosexual, but have a mixture of feelings. This suggests the possibility of having a person with the potential to be nudged in either direction.
**

Actually, some have updated the Kinsey theory to state that most are exclusively heterosexual in orientation and small percentages are homosexual/bisexual or asexual.

**
I’m not sure if societal homophobia is as powerful as you suggest. In any event, if this is the case, what would you think if there was no societal homophobia?

**

I don’t think societal homophobia can be underestimated. When you have gays filled with self-loathing and trying to change something very fundamental about themselves, you have to ask why. Most psychologists look at societal pressures.

Though, I think that with or without societal pressures, a person will have the same sex feelings. However, those pressures will affect how they adjust to the feelings.

**
BTW, I think it’s more like 3%.

**

You know, I have never the source of any of these numbers. I know the 10% comes from Kinsey, but I understand his methods in coming up with the numbers was faulty. However, the religious gay are fond of the 1%. Others, like yourself, feel it’s the 3% figure, and yet others claim it’s 5-6%.

Where are these numbers coming from?

[IzzyR]

beakerxf:

Actually, some have updated the Kinsey theory to state that most are exclusively heterosexual in orientation and small percentages are homosexual/bisexual or asexual

I’m not sure if we are referring to the same thing. A person may be defined as exclusively heterosesxual in that they have become established in their identity as heterosexual. As a practical matter they will act and feel only in accordance with this orientation. But this does not necessarily mean that they are not potentialy subject to homosexual feelings as well. I would define a pure heterosexual for purposes of this discussion as someone who could not under any circumstances feel any erotic thoughts about anything concerning a member of their own gender.

Though, I think that with or without societal pressures, a person will have the same sex feelings. However, those pressures will affect how they adjust to the feelings

There are many parts of people’s personalities that can be supressed even in their own minds. This does not just apply to sexual identity.

Others, like yourself, feel it’s the 3% figure

Frankly, I myself have no idea. I happen to have read this in the NY Times a few years back. They said that Kinsey himself never really meant 10% of the population are gay at a given time… He was referring to the percentage of people who have at some point in their lives have some sort of homosexual encounter or relationship.

To throw another log into the fire, I have heard several times that homosexuals are, on average, more sexualy active than heterosexuals. Feel free to correct me if this is incorrect. But if it indeed true, my theory is that this is due to the fact that a person with a stronger sex drive is less likely to supress his dominant sexual orientation than a person with a weaker one.

[gobear]

The APA sez:

[quote]

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have
proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during early
childhood. However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through
complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.
[/quot]
The " three or four" I remember from a psych class textbook. I’m still looking for a citation.

[quote]

To throw another log into the fire, I have heard several times that homosexuals are, on average, more sexualy
active than heterosexuals. Feel free to correct me if this is incorrect. But if it indeed true, my theory is that this is due to the fact that a person with a stronger sex drive is less likely to supress his dominant sexual orientation than a person with a weaker one.

[quote]

No, it’s because men are horndogs by nature, and gay men do what straight men would if they could.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

Snark

Homosexuals do not recruit. That thing about getting a toaster on The Ellen Show – Well, that was just a joke. Nobody wants to recruit you. I think you misinterpreted Esprix’s well intentioned, though perhaps over zealous, warning that your road ahead may be rougher than you realize and you should proceed with caution. I agree with him. Also I don’t want you to share in my misery. I am not miserable. One day you will realize that homosexuality is not the source of your misery. That day is not today.

I don’t think recruitment is off-topic. In order to support the ludicrous position that “Homosexuality is the active promotion of human extinction.” I think you must support it with the equally ludicrous premise that we can and do convert.

Also, it makes us sound like cartoon villains. The Forces of Decency and Light must defeat the dark forces that want to destroy all of mankind.

Master Plan:[ol][li]Recruit all heterosexuals.[]Destroy all mankind.[]BWAAHAHAHAHA Accessorize.[/ol]Yup, that’s the plan. :rolleyes:[/li]

*Originally posted by ***IzzyR **
I’m not sure if societal homophobia is as powerful as you suggest. In any event, if this is the case, what would you think if there was no societal homophobia?

The percentage of homosexuals may increase a little, but then it wouldn’t matter, would it?

[beakerxf]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**

I said:
Though, I think that with or without societal pressures, a person will have the same sex feelings. However, those pressures will affect how they adjust to the feelings

IzzyR responded:
There are many parts of people’s personalities that can be supressed even in their own minds. This does not just apply to sexual identity.

I know. However, why do people repress parts of themselves? Every example I can think of involves outside pressure that communicates to a person that a certain trait is undesireable.

To throw another log into the fire, I have heard several times that homosexuals are, on average, more sexualy active than heterosexuals. Feel free to correct me if this is incorrect. But if it indeed true, my theory is that this is due to the fact that a person with a stronger sex drive is less likely to supress his dominant sexual orientation than a person with a weaker one. **

Pretty tame log. Actually, I have heard the same thing, but have heard some pretty reasonable theories for it. Gays are more sexually liberated. They are already engaged in a “perversion” that falls outside of societal norms. Once outside of those norms, why should you hold to social conventions of sex within marriage or whatever?

Also, I’m curious as to what segments of the population, gays are being compared? If this is the population at large, then those at the opposite extreme (strictly religious/sexually conservative) will skew the results. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

However, if gays are being compared to sexually liberated heterosexuals, the difference in sexual activity may not be as vast.

Also, you have to take into account the gender of the gays. Nothing I have seen has ever indicated that lesbians have as many partners as a gay man will have. So is it just the homosexuality that’s a factor? Or is it the gender, as goboy has pointed out?

[Snark]

Polycarp, thanks for the clarification. I’ve been on vacation and just got down the mountains from a camping trip with my family, which is why I didn’t reply sooner. I feel that I’ve hashed and re-hashed this subject over and over so much on this board that people probably cringe when they see my name in a homosexuality thread, so I’ll let it go at that. Thanks for your sound and friendly advice.

[vanilla]

Bill, Missed your e mail. I am online now. Get in touch.

[Lemur866]

I would suggest that it is logically impossible for a species to overpopulate itself to extinction. More and more and more people means more people, not less, right?

I would also strongly disagree with theories that homosexuals serve a “function” in society by caring for relatives, or preventing overpopulation. That’s not how reproductive biology works. Individuals do not exist to serve the purpose of society, they exist to serve themselves.

It is true that homosexuality isn’t nearly as harmful to overall reproductive success as many people would assume. Lots and lots of gays have children, lots have relatives. Homosexuality doesn’t drop your fitness to zero. Even if everyone were homosexual, humanity would survive since lots of people would create children on purpose. Lets face it, 90% of children out there are created by accident. Yes our population would drop, but not to extinction levels.

And even if homosexuals never had kids, there’s no sign that everyone will become gay, for crying out loud! So how could it lead to extinction?

[beakerxf]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**I would suggest that it is logically impossible for a species to overpopulate itself to extinction. More and more and more people means more people, not less, right?

[/quote**

The concern is of some is that “more people” means less food/resources/etc. for everyone. So if someone says we will breed ourselves into extinction, that’s what they mean.

**
I would also strongly disagree with theories that homosexuals serve a “function” in society by caring for relatives, or preventing overpopulation. That’s not how reproductive biology works. Individuals do not exist to serve the purpose of society, they exist to serve themselves.

**

There is this assumption that everything has a “purpose” in biology. So when people theorize about gays having a function in society, they are trying to explain homosexuality on a Darwinian model. Personally, I think there is just a certain amount of diversity to biology and not everything has nor needs a clearly defined purpose.

[Polycarp]

Oh, c’mon, DrMatrix. 'Sprix said that his toaster oven had burnt out, and the Secret Committee told him that if he kept Snark from, uh, straightening out his life, they’d give him a new one that color-coordinated with his kitchen!

Note to the sarcasm impaired: The above is a witticism, and not to be confused with anything that actually happened.

[vanilla]

Yes, but once he has sex with me, I get a new ice cooler!