I’m just sticking my big queer psychologist head into the thread to say :rolleyes:.
Yummalicious lesbo kisses to **QtM ** and the rest of yez on the side of actual science.
I hate to use an emoticon, but… :dubious: .
I think there are some places where being gay is not particularly stigmatized, such as certain neighborhoods of large cities. These are probably the same neighborhoods where interracial couples also can get along without much trouble (I live in such a neighborhood…because it’s so socially liberal, we have a large homosexual community, and a lot of interracial couples, as well.)
Other places, if I were gay OR in an interracial relationship, I would get the heck out, and fast. I really don’t think that you can say that one of these is more stigmatized than the other. There are a lot of folks who aren’t particularly open-minded to either one.
I think that you may be right that some people “become” gay, rather than being born gay, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with being exposed to it in the media! There is no way something as profound as a person’s sexuality is changed by something they saw on TV.
Isn’t decapitating peers an ethics issue? 
Oh, for pity’s sake.
You haven’t heard of the many many famous people involuntarily outed for same sex dalliances? Ever hear of Ted Haggard? Minister who was in the news a few months ago? For have sex with male prostitutes and taking meth? Or Mark Foley, the congressman who resigned over sexual interactions with male congressional pages? Or state representative Bob Allen who was arrested for offering an undercover male policeman $20 for the privelege of sucking the cop’s cock? Ever hear of Exodus International, the Christian organization that claims to be able to cure homosexuality through prayer and turn gays into ex-gays? And the ex-ex-gays who were founders of Exodus international but left the group to become life partners?
You honestly have never heard of people who tried to hide their sexual preference? Really? You must not read the news, like, ever.
I’d like to know what kind of magic mushroom you’ve either been smoking or living under. Walk into any middle school or high school and look for a gay kid. He’ll be the kid with the black eyes and broken bones, and staples in his head where his skull was cracked by a rock. Or she’ll be the one who was gang-raped, to “show her what she really needs.” Or it might be the kid with the toe-tag who couldn’t take it any more.
Yeah, real glamorous.
And the reason why you “don’t know a single gay person that tries to hide their sexual preference” is that they are hiding their sexual preference, so you assume they’re straight. :rolleyes:
And as for Maerzie’s so-called theory: Apparently your “psychiatric” training skipped Psych 101, in which we learned that homosexuality is totally different from sexual identity, and has nothing whatsoever to do with sex hormones. Gay men have normal male hormones (I actually have a very high testosterone level, and a high sperm count) and lesbians have normal female hormones. Do you really think that you can identify ***any ***gay person with a blood test? In what century did you get your training?
I’ve never been anywhere that lacked a cohesive gay cultural group. There’s a lot of support that a gay person can turn to almost anywhere in the USA. You can “belong” almost anywhere in America, even if you’re gay. Sure, some people might hate you, but you’re not “stigmatized” in the way that some of the more outrageous posts here claim. Gay culture is stigmatized much less than any other minority group I can think of, and glorified more than most. More gays than ever are willing to come out, and there’s an encouraging, almost missionary-like atmosphere in the gay community.
Is it seriously so vile to suggest that sexual orientation can result from environmental pressures? I’m not talking about one kid watching the episode of Roseanne where she pretended to be a dude, but a whole lifetime of experiences where you feel unaccepted by most groups, but welcomed by gays. Add that to the fact that apparently lots of kids who grow up to be heterosexual adults will experiment homosexually as children, and that children are confused about sexuality to begin with.
To put it differently, does anyone honestly think that sexual denial only goes one way? Just as there are plenty of natural gays who can’t accept their sexuality because it would mean being ostracized from their social groups, I’m sure there are plenty of natural heteros who live a gay lifestyle because that’s the group they’ve chosen to identify with.
That’s a bit of a dramatization. My high school was nothing like that, and I’m doubting that anyone got gang raped at your high school for being a lesbian, either.
Compare that to some of the most popular recent TV shows and music. Gay people are expected to dance better and be more fun to go out with. A whole plot line of Friends is about how the two most psychologically stable long-term characters on the show are a lesbian couple raising a boy. There’s no doubt that homosexuality is embraced by American society.
I see your “On this TV show, there’s two minor gay characters, and they’re not idiots” and raise you the things I said in my post up above. I’m not even sure i’d agree with your opinion on Carol and Susan, who seem just as neurotic/insane as the main cast.
If that were the case, we’d be able to buy experience gift cards to try out the opposite sexual orientation for a weekend - you know, like those hot air balloon or white water rafting rides people buy for their spouse’s 40th birthday.
Or we can get back to the original topic, which is “can environmental factors influence one’s sexuality?”. If America’s next top model, Will and Grace, rave culture, and Techno music can’t convince you that gays have a major place in mainstream society, I don’t think anything can.
For the record, I think “gay” is a pretty common negative descriptive word, but not “fag”. Fag is something that hateful people say meaning “homosexual”, and gay is something regular people say to mean “negative” without any sort of sexual context. You might not like it, but you can just file it under words like “dumb” and “fucking”, which don’t necessarily always mean anything close to their original definitions.
America’s next top model I haven’t watched; are there many gay people on it? But I don’t think you can count rave culture and techno music as proving gay culture’s place in the mainstream. Actually, the original topic was discussing Maerzie’s ideas on homosexuality, one of which included the idea that* most* gay people were actually straight. A point you seem to have bypassed by seemingly arguing against people saying the influence of society has no effect - a position noone has taken.
Actually, I would agree with you on this point. Not on the fag one, which does seem pretty common to me (And i’m young! So my opinion counts more! 
) People who call someone else “gay” might not literally be saying “You like people of your own gender, and that’s bad”. It started off as that when it began as an insult, but now is more of a general type. The problem is that that still isn’t really all that good. It still suggests there’s a stigma attached to being gay - the word for it is synonymous with being generally bad for some people.
I’d be interested in hearing what controversy over gay marriage and adoption, belief that gay people are unsuitable as moral leaders to children, a refusal to have openly gay people in the military, and quite open condemnation of homosexuals and gay sex from religious people mean if not that there is a considerable stigma attached to being gay. With all due respect, I think these national and worldwide issues are pretty more indicative than two relatively minor characters in a TV show aimed at certain demographics, another TV show (which I admittedly haven’t watched) and types of music. And if you aren’t convinced by, you know, actual real life important trends, then I guess nothing will convince you.
The actual real life important trends are toward more political tolerance toward gay people, not less. There are openly gay congressmen and senators, and gay marriage was made legal in at least one place I can think of. Openly gay people are allowed in the military. There are major religious “crises” which threaten to damage or destroy the foundations of some churches because of a growing religious tolerance toward gays. Isn’t it the episcopals that ordained a gay priest amidst major controversy? Anyway, the religious nutters don’t represent America as nearly as accurately as MTV does, and even the religious nutters are trending toward more tolerance to homosexuals, albeit more slowly than the rest of us.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy you’re so upset about was just another trend toward tolerance. You can’t expect for an oppressed minority to go from 0 to 100% acceptance with one whoosh of a pen, and the policy Clinton endorsed for the military was a way to meet the crazies halfway, instead of being stuck at 0. Now there is no provision I am aware of for excluding gays from military service based on their sexual orientation.
So yeah, I’m sticking to my position that gays are not seriously stigmatized in American culture. They might be lagging behind other minorities legally, but as a matter of everyday social acceptance? I don’t buy it.
Exaggerate much? :rolleyes: Any middle school or high school? Any?
And little Hans eats Ivy!
What about those of us who are fifteen years past puberty and still aren’t done self-diagnosing?
Except that discharges of gays from the military increased under DADT.
So I take it then that you HAVEN’T heard the news stories I referenced?
Never heard anything about them?
OK, yes, let’s get back to that topic. Even if your examples of rave culture and techno music prove that gays have a major place in mainstream society, you still haven’t shown how those things could possibly turn a straight person gay. We all live in this society with those influences. You do see more portrayals of gays in the mainstream culture than you used to, but you’ve shown no evidence that the percentage of the population that is gay has increased.
To begin with, the original argument of this thread is nothing but an updated version of the “gay vampires recruiting confused young people”, myth, dressed up with pseudo-scientific “theories” and some bull crap about hormones and blood.
But even when you gild a turd it still smells like shit, and when you cover this theory up in scientific jargon it still smells like bigotry.
First of all, you should note that I and every other gay person over 50 grew up with NOTHING BUT straight influences. From Ricky and Lucy to Ozzie and Harriet to any other program on TV, in every movie we saw, heterosexuality was not only the norm, it was the only sexuyality permissible or mentioned.
If homosexuality WAS mentioned, it was in a context such as the 1950s movie “Advise and Consent” in which a US Senator has had a gay experience in his past and is trying to hide it from his wife and daughter.
He ends up killing himself, of course, but not before a scene in which he actually goes into a gay bar to try to speak to his former lover. The bar is located down a stairway, and the young Senator gazes down in horror like Dante looking down into Hell.
So gay culture is “hyped”? What does that mean, anyhow? Sure, there is Will and Grace, but there is also Seinfeld, Freinds, Sex in the City, Two and a half men etc. etc… For every “gay” show you can probably point to 10 or 20 where being straight is the main theme.
The only reason you think gay culture is “hyped” (hyper meaning “over” as in “over-exposed”) is that for centuries and well into living memory it was 100% blacked out.
So what is your solution to “saving” America’s youth from falling into this “trap” of thinking they are gay when they are not because of exposure to media. . . . .
Excuse me, but if you don’t mind I will simply close off this posting without further comment. Because I have just read the above sentence and realized that what is being proposed is sooooooo stupid and improbable that I can hardly take it seriously enough to keep writing.
I’ll give this another go. Yes, I agree. There’s more tolerance of gay people than in the past. Just because things are* better* does not mean that they are fine, however.
There are people who would never vote for a gay congressman/woman. And saying “gay marriage was made legal in at least one place” also means that it *isn’t legal * in at most all places minus one.
No, they aren’t. Are you confused about the term “openly”? A gay person who hides their sexuality would be allowed in. But once they say “Hey - i’m gay” they’re out on their ear. Often before that, when the policy fails (which of course is a minority of cases, but still apparent).
Again, evidence that tolerance towards gays is increasing. But look; there are fucking crisis!. If everyone in that church was gay-friendly, there’d be no problem. If a minority were, there would be no problem. But that this is a crisis that threatens to cause schisms - doesn’t that suggest to you that quite a large amount of people in that church are pretty set on keeping their anti-gay policies?
Total balls. Show me proof - give me the MTV regular ratings and give me church membership of those religions which are intolerant of gays. I’m sure you have such stats to hand, as you are so certain.
Again, sure. But they’re not there yet.
Good thing I said being “openly gay” then. Yes, certainly, it’s a trend towards tolerance, as i’ve been saying and you’ve been either ignoring or totally missing. But guess what? Better does not mean best. For pete’s sake, you’ve even said right there that it’s a policy halfway between “oppressed minority” and “100% acceptance”. You’ve said that they have to meet the crazies - **Why ** do they have to meet the crazies, compromise with the crazies, deal with the crazies, if the crazies are such a tiny, noninfluential, pathetic group?
Pretty much all of your arguments actually prove that they are. So yeah, i’m going to believe a lot of the points you’ve raised and say that while tolerance grows, they’re still seriously stigmatized.
I think it is more accurate to say “gay people are allowed in the military.” It is the “openly” part that presents the problem for the services.