sexual orientation Page 3

Started by poopnoodle October 12th, 2010 8:02 PM
  • 4676 views
  • 81 replies

professor plum

Age 31
he/him/his
louisiana
Seen 4 Hours Ago
Posted 2 Days Ago
11,985 posts
17.9 Years
I don't personally believe you are born with ANY sexual preference. Granted your body is designed for a specific use, but that may or may not come into play. Really, all we are is the culmination of all of our experiences in life. A gay person's experiences lead him or her to be Gay. It wasn't a decision, and they weren't born that way.

Example: I've been exposed to far more yaoi than I would like lately, due to the anime that I'm watching, and all of the girls on deviantart drawing yuri one day and then after I deviantwatch them, they seem to draw nothing but yaoi. I'll admit, just because I'm exposed to it so much, I have a little nagging feeling inside that wants to try it. Now, I'm straight, and I'm going to stay straight, if I have anything to say about it, but this is the perfect example of how our experiences shape who we are.
Yes, but what about when children receive no exposure to homosexuality, yet it shows itself naturally.
Personal example, when I was in kindergarten (at a private school, nonetheless), while playing house, I would have a husband instead of a wife. I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time, it just seemed natural to me. I was told, later, that it wasn't right, but I never understood why until I was older.

I mean, I'm just saying: there are cases in which people have no exposure to homosexuality wind up homosexuals.
And...well, feeling inclined to try something doesn't mean you're gay or bisexual.
It just means you're curious.

0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X Asexual, Non-Sexual

It would probably grant you like a 0.5 on the Kinsey Scale :P

Anyway, throughout my childhood, I noticed other boys pursuing girls. And, I thought to myself, "Well, why am I not doing that? Geez, keep up with the times, loser!" So, I tried to like girls. I wound up trying to date girls, but I simply found myself not attracted to them beyond the "oh, hey, they're pretty." which I associate with admiration.

Boys, on the other hand, were on my mind. I was definitely attracted to them. Haha.

Regarding gay pride, I find no problem with it. Pride parades are fine, and as long as we remain discriminated against, there's nothing wrong with it.

I think the problem is, actually, that people aren't accepting of homosexuality; ergo, should they just accept it - not make a big deal about it - then basically wouldn't the whole problem go away? I mean, the reason we protest and whatnot is because we're not treated equally, and we want people to know it's NOT wrong to be gay. Once this is accomplished, and homosexuality is just..there and not even an issue to be discussed, then everything will be good ^-^;

However, as long as there is ignorance in the world, people will still say, "Oh my gosh, you're gay??!?! wtf!!!" which often, in turn, leads to "Yeah, I'm gay. I'm in your face, get over it!"..
(\__/)
(='.'=)
('')_('')
This Is Bunny. Copy And Paste Bunny Into
Your Signature To Help Him Gain World Domination!!!!

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I have a hard time believing gay people are born that way. Someone presented the argument that gay men have more feminine brains than straight men, and that is what makes them gay. I would disagree, because the large majority of the gay men I know are either as if not more masculine than most of the straight men I know. I still don't think being gay is a bad thing, born that way or not.

Also, if people are born with their sexual orientation, why aren't young children sexually interested in the opposite (or same) sex? In fact, many children go through the "opposite-sex has cooties" phase. I believe that sexuality is developed as children go through puberty.

Amai

やった! 私はあまい

Age 30
Male
東京
Seen November 13th, 2020
Posted December 13th, 2010
137 posts
12.6 Years
It is backed up greatly by many studies that there are certain characteristics that are more common in people with a certain sexuality, and recently a study has been done that when gay parents have kids, there is a higher chance that the child will be gay as well.

http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

The other link has some..innappropriate ads for a Pokemon forum, so.. I will put the article in a spoiler:

Spoiler:

If sexuality is determined in the womb by genetics, is it safe to say gay parents are more likely to drown their unborn children in amniotic fluid over-saturated with gayness? In an analysis of 26 studies focusing on the children of gay parents, a new research paper from Kansas State University's Walter Schumm finds "evidence [... that] suggests intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation can occur at statistically significant and substantial rates, especially for female parents or female children." Isn't that just what leading bigot Paul Cameron at the nauseously conservative Family Research Institute found?

Schumm was provoked to study the question closely after a researcher at the conservative Family Research Institute was vilified after publishing a study concluding that “parents' sexual inclinations influence their children's." That study concluded that about 30 percent of the children of gay parents identified themselves as homosexual.
That is near identical to the 28 percent figure that Schumm arrived at in his meta-analysis of the 26 previously published studies. The 28 percent figure only applied to children who were over the age of 17; the figure dropped to 20 percent when children younger than 17 were included in the data.

Cameron's study found,

Of 77 adult children of homosexual parents who volunteered for three different investigations, at least 23 (30%) were currently homosexual: twelve (55%) of 22 daughters and three (21%) of fourteen sons of lesbians; five (29%) of seventeen daughters and three (17%) of eighteen sons of gays; none of six sons with both a gay and a lesbian parent. At least 25 (32%) were currently heterosexual. Of the ten with transsexual parents, one of nine daughters was currently lesbian, one was currently heterosexual, and one was transsexual. The son's sexual preference was not reported. These findings suggest that parents' sexual inclinations influence their children's.

You might recognize Schumm's name: He testified during the 2008 Florida gay adoption trial that is finally — finally — on its last legs. Box Turtle Bulletin noted at the time,

Schumm is considerably more circumspect in how he uses Cameron’s research, but he did publish a 2000 article in Psychological Reports, Paul Cameron’s favorite publication outlet, defending Cameron’s research methods against Dr. Gregory Herek’s criticisms. Schumm is also listed as a member of Cameron’s “Editorial and Scientific Review Board” for the EJSSB.
In the trial, Schumm used data from his recent Psychological Reports article to claim that about 19 percent of children raised by gay parents are likely to become gay, compared with 4 percent of children with straight parents. Testifying for Frank Gill, the gay foster father, Susan D. Cochran, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at UCLA, accused Schumm of cooking his data.

(AOL News claims "Schumm's testimony actually ended up aiding the gay parents in the trial," having told the court, "Gay parents can be good foster parents" and "The decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis.")
Whether you think Schumm's findings are damaging is one thing. Whether you think he's motivated by animus is another. Says Schumm: "I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic." And isn't that quite the bias going into this. That, and his research is suspect, notes AOL:

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it's worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.
This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were "adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all." These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage's implication was that they were gay.
[...] In Schumm's study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that "option" was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to "try out women." But couldn't gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense," Schumm says.

There's so much "science" in here, the mind boggles!
My Shiny Pokemon
Recent Shiny
Munna
36 eggs hatched
Day 1

Currently Hunting
Tsutarja
600 eggs hatched
Day 8
Chobomaki
30 eggs hatched
Day 1

professor plum

Age 31
he/him/his
louisiana
Seen 4 Hours Ago
Posted 2 Days Ago
11,985 posts
17.9 Years
I have a hard time believing gay people are born that way. Someone presented the argument that gay men have more feminine brains than straight men, and that is what makes them gay. I would disagree, because the large majority of the gay men I know are either as if not more masculine than most of the straight men I know. I still don't think being gay is a bad thing, born that way or not.

Also, if people are born with their sexual orientation, why aren't young children sexually interested in the opposite (or same) sex? In fact, many children go through the "opposite-sex has cooties" phase. I believe that sexuality is developed as children go through puberty.
Because people don't go through sexual awakenings until they've hit puberty, no? I mean, people can be born with their sexual orientation, and it's just a matter of when they mature to feel an attraction beyond being friends. :p

@Studies Well, studies are good for a general population, but they should never be accepted as absolute fact because there is, in general, an exception to most of those studies. One of my friends has gay parents [believe it or not, a gay male and female (they were best friends) who wanted to have a family], and she's straight as can be :p
(\__/)
(='.'=)
('')_('')
This Is Bunny. Copy And Paste Bunny Into
Your Signature To Help Him Gain World Domination!!!!

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Because people don't go through sexual awakenings until they've hit puberty, no? I mean, people can be born with their sexual orientation, and it's just a matter of when they mature to feel an attraction beyond being friends. :p
I'm still open to possibility that people are born with their sexual orientation. My psychology professor presented the argument I previously mentioned, and I happen to have a good number of gay friends, almost all of them are so "straight-acting" that no one would question their sexuality unless they saw them in bed with their partners. If gay men's brains are more feminine, I really can't see the difference in behavior.

And I also know that many people, even straight people, experiment with the same-sex before coming to the conclusion on what their sexual orientation is. Perhaps they try the same-sex out and end up developing a liking to it.

Also, one study doesn't prove anything. Nothing is ever proven in science. There would have to be so many similar studies that it becomes generally accepted as scientific fact to be considered "proven".

Timbjerr

T-o-X-i-C

Age 36
Female
Texas
Seen May 30th, 2022
Posted January 28th, 2016
7,415 posts
19.7 Years
I've always believed it was something like 50/50 nature vs. nurture. We're definitely all born asexual and as we develop in puberty, we form associations between what gender we happen to be around at the moment and what degree of happiness our raging hormones make us feel. Of course, there are people with a higher genetic predisposition for homosexuality than others and vice-versa.

There are even people like me that, perhaps due to hormone deficiencies or certain social issues during those ever-important adolescent years, never really develop any sexuality and remain asexual for all intents and purposes throughout their life. :/

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Once this is accomplished, and homosexuality is just..there and not even an issue to be discussed, then everything will be good ^-^;
Sometimes I doubt we'll ever reach this point. I mean, I know there are people who don't even think in these terms because it's not an issue for them and they don't see a point in making an issue out of it, but it feels like even in the more accepting places there's a growing tendency to label and categorize everyone. Like, there are gay-specific bookstores and bars and cruises and probably anything you can think of. That's all good in that it gives people an atmosphere where they don't have to worry about bigots, but I worry that it's leading toward people being more insulated from anything that is different. I'd rather that gay and straight and queer and intersexed and everyone could enjoy and appreciate each others' presence.

Spinor

<i><font color="b1373f">The Lonely Physicist</font></i>

Age 27
Male
Seen February 13th, 2019
Posted October 4th, 2015
5,175 posts
17.3 Years
Naturally, and normally, it is Heterosexuality that is dominant. Doesn't take High school biology to learn that life is basically Exist, Reproduce, Die. That is the normal way of biology. We are all supposed to be fated to have children and nurture ourselves as animal species and die after we help our offspring grow.

Homosexuality is therefore a disruption to this natural cycle. Of course, there are many aspects of humanity that disrupt many other natural cycles. Civilization replaced our Primitive instincts. Fight for Survival became Fight for Happiness and Comfort. Competition against other species became Nuclear Weapons armed Soviet Russia against stick and stones Madagascar.

The difference with homosexuality, I believe, is that it may be too unnatural because all those other cycles were disrupted gradually. While homosexuality has of course existed for a long time it's only been technically "recently" since we have so much freedom of speech and civilization that it has spurted. Just like the racial discrimination that spurted when the Europeans found the Africans. Black skin = weirdos was in their mind. But today, that has a more significant decrease. We still have cultural pride but it's not like in the 1700's when you were in command of a black person or the 1970's when you had the urge to shoot every black person you saw. Children and Grandchildren will be exposed to more racial diversity and look back at ancestors and ask what was going through our minds.

Homosexuality is for now just like the Europeans with the Africans, strange and unacceptable to most. Because of civilization all people have really been able to do is promote their pride or promote their hate and discrimination. Of course there's the times violence may erupt. Not only is just the concept of homosexuality strange, but it's also unnatural, in the end.

As humanity, this will eventually wear out. Homosexuality will blend in and will become more accepted someday. But for today, all Heterosexuals as of the others is to not influence what we believe is correct. Of course, there is in reality no "correct" way of anything. It's just what we believe. It's just a mask for a sort of seconds religion. And no Christian would want their children influenced into Buddhism nor otherwise.

But now the question is why homosexuality? People debate it may be in thought since birth, a brain or genetic defect, or whatever you may call it. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature supports such things. People also debate that homosexuality is a choice. An effect of wanting to be different or because of a way of being raised or as a cause of a different way of thinking.

Why can't you people think that maybe both are possible? We have birth homosexuals and we have choice homosexuals. Maybe the difference may not be obvious, but it's still the same things.

Of course, there's also the why not. As has been said, it is clearly rare in nature. And the thought of intercourse with the same gender to someone who grew for a long time that it should only be a man and a woman will of course be outright revolting. And it's going to apply to people who get the concept of homosexuality when they're 9 or when they're 15 or maybe much later.

Now, time for me to clear up a line. There's the intercourse part of homosexuality and there's the "true love" part of homosexuality.

If it comes right down to emotion and the confidence that it's love, then I, as a full pledge heterosexual, do not see why that is wrong. If you believe you have a feeling of love between someone your same gender, that may as well be alright because that has more to do with choice and human emotion rather than natural aspects.

The intercourse part, being homosexual just for that. I'm not gonna lie, that's the exact and only reason why the most reasonable of people reject homosexuality.

But in the end, it's convenient to stop and think homosexuality for the emotion is not exactly the worst possible thing on earth. Love is the business between two people, and that can't be changed.


Basically, I want to rephrase, love each other as you will and disregard gender if you wish to have it disregarded. But it's always the concept of such intercourse being passed on that's worrisome. If there could be a way for homosexuality to be represented as another kind of love instead of an unnatural intercourse like it's in 99% of people's minds, then my children might live for the day that humanity is a bit more united.

Kura

twitter.com/puccarts

Age 33
Female
London, UK (orig. Toronto, Canada)
Seen August 30th, 2021
Posted August 24th, 2021
10,993 posts
18.7 Years
Hey Advanced, I took what you read and it just sparked a thought in me.

If people say they are BORN homosexual, but homosexuality is a disruption of our natural genes geared to reproduction.. then perhaps it's for a reason.

In the past homosexuals were basically forced into marriages and so they reproduced, carrying that gene forward.
Now with overpopulation, homosexual couples WONT be having more children.. which will lead to less stress on the Earth and a balance of people and the environment.

If Christians are so bent hardcore wanting to believe that homosexuality is wrong and will be punished, then the best way to do that is just to let them be together. If my theory is true, then the "gay gene" will die off/ discontinue. (And if people are like "no way, my dad wasn't gay so there's no such thing" just realize that not EVERYONE in your family has a genetic trait like diabetes.. it sometimes skips generations.)

Who knows?
I'm not saying I agree entirely with this.. but it was just sorta a thought/ theory about homosexuality in general. Thought I'd throw it out there.
~Yuugiou Fan~
~Kamen Rider Fan~
♡(´・ω・`)LOVE! ☆

Spinor

<i><font color="b1373f">The Lonely Physicist</font></i>

Age 27
Male
Seen February 13th, 2019
Posted October 4th, 2015
5,175 posts
17.3 Years
If that were the case about 100 years ago, then your theory would be possible. But you are forgetting that with current technology we can go from implanting embryos and sperm donation all the way to gender change. I don't see a decrease in homosexual people even if the genetics theory was the sole and only case.

Kura

twitter.com/puccarts

Age 33
Female
London, UK (orig. Toronto, Canada)
Seen August 30th, 2021
Posted August 24th, 2021
10,993 posts
18.7 Years
If that were the case about 100 years ago, then your theory would be possible. But you are forgetting that with current technology we can go from implanting embryos and sperm donation all the way to gender change. I don't see a decrease in homosexual people even if the genetics theory was the sole and only case.
True.. but how could nature forsee human technological advances? I think it kinda goes hand in hand with the fact that nature could forsee a large population increase with the increase of medical advancements, though.. living longer gives the Earth more babies?

But even still.. even if a man had a gender change and decided he wanted to give birth to a baby.. it wouldn't ever happen because of the way there are SO many things that need to be balanced in the body in order to deliver a healthy baby. Plus invetro-fertilization costs a LOT of money to do. Not everyone's going to be able to do it for financial, emotional, AND physical reasons.

Are we going into a recession from the baby boom? Who knows? But like I said.. it was just a random thought I wanted to throw out there!


Edit: But 100 years ago.. isn't that when homosexuality was just starting to become acceptable?..... Hmm....
~Yuugiou Fan~
~Kamen Rider Fan~
♡(´・ω・`)LOVE! ☆

Cherrim

Age 34
she / her
Toronto
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted 20 Hours Ago
33,052 posts
20.4 Years
I kind of have to agree that if homosexuality is something you're born with, it'll eventually die off in the grand scheme of genetics. Yes, there are homosexual couples who can pass their genes down through various ways of reproducing/in vitro fertilization/whatever, but those are few and far between I would argue and aren't widespread enough to really support a proper percentage of the population being homosexual. Unless it's not in the genes anywhere and is part of the basic DNA structure (does biology even work this way? lmao i never took it), it doesn't really make sense that it'd keep getting passed on.

:s I identify as bi and I still have no idea if I believe people are born homosexual or not. I don't think it's a choice but I feel it could definitely be nurture, or a combination of nature and nurture. I look back on my life and I can identify times in my early and late childhood that could have influenced my attraction to both sexes and maybe it was even a subconscious choice I made somewhere along the line. And even if it was a choice, that's my choice to make and I wouldn't want to be judged for it.

I also don't really believe it matters all that much, whether it's a choice, something ingrained at birth, or something subconsciously instilled while growing up. I think people have the right to choose how they want to live, what gender they want to identify as, and all that jazz. Just because it's different from the norm right now means NOTHING to me and morals aren't black and white so I think it's silly to judge anyone for their choices. (That said, judge away if it floats your boat but the moment it crosses the line from silent disapproval to spoken harassment or otherwise, then I lose respect for you.)


paired with professor plum.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Assuming homosexuality were stickly a genetic thing (as in no amount of nurture or choice could influence it - not saying it is or isn't, just following that train of thought) then wouldn't there be straight people carrying the genes for it around? Two people with brown hair and brown eyes can have a kid with red hair and green eyes because the parents can still carry the genetic codes for it even if they themselves don't have those genes turned 'on'.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Assuming homosexuality were stickly a genetic thing (as in no amount of nurture or choice could influence it - not saying it is or isn't, just following that train of thought) then wouldn't there be straight people carrying the genes for it around? Two people with brown hair and brown eyes can have a kid with red hair and green eyes because the parents can still carry the genetic codes for it even if they themselves don't have those genes turned 'on'.
Yes. People who do not have a genetic trait can still be carriers of said gene, and pass it on to their offspring. I still don't believe that homosexuality genetic, though.

Timbjerr

T-o-X-i-C

Age 36
Female
Texas
Seen May 30th, 2022
Posted January 28th, 2016
7,415 posts
19.7 Years
You also have to remember that as recently as 50 years ago, homosexuality was fairly taboo and nobody was open about it. Homosexuals often had heterosexual relations and took an opposite-gendered spouse to "fit in"...babies were eventually made and raised and all that.

The gay gene, if there really is one, could very will still be in circulation even if the gay pride movement has slowed down how often homosexuals and heterosexuals have sexual contact, and it could eventually wither the homosexual population down to a fraction of it's usual percentage. :/

I still buy into the theory that upbringing and experiences have just as much to do with it than genetics.

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
You do know, I already said I was a bigot towards bigots. I really don't see the point in you saying that after other people already have, including myself.
Problem. The people you're accusing of being bigots are not in fact bigots. Yet, you're still intolerant towards them.


How should they be treated differently?
I have no real opinion on that, though I would say it is an important question. There may be very little things they should be treated differently on. That's not something I have put much work into thinking out.

Here's an example I'm pulling out of my ear:

Health / Education. Different orientations would need to be informed about different things regarding intercourse. Yes?

Black people are not the same as white people, but that doesn't mean they should be treated any differently. Sexual preference has about as much of an impact as skin colour when it comes to how one should perceive another. Treating someone differently (either for better, or worse), or being requested to be treated differently, merely because someone possesses such a trivial trait, is stupid.
See, the difference between a black person and a white person is so incredibly small that there really is no reason to treat them different. This is actually very rare for the differences to be that incredibly small, which is why we don't treat birds like turtles. However, contrary to what you said sexual preference is a significantly bigger difference. I'm not one to say exactly how different they should be treated, but I don't think it would be appropriate to treat them exactly the same as if they were not different. It would just cause problems that can be avoided.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends

Rich Boy Rob

"Fezzes are cool." The Doctor

Age 29
Male
Seen March 15th, 2016
Posted August 15th, 2015
1,051 posts
14.9 Years


Health / Education. Different orientations would need to be informed about different things regarding intercourse. Yes?

Do they really though? Would it not make more sense for all orientations to be taught everything? Considering the number of people who while still at school age will not have come out and the number that will "experiment" I think the best idea would be to work under the assumption that they are all bisexual than dividing classes.



See, the difference between a black person and a white person is so incredibly small that there really is no reason to treat them different. This is actually very rare for the differences to be that incredibly small, which is why we don't treat birds like turtles. However, contrary to what you said sexual preference is a significantly bigger difference. I'm not one to say exactly how different they should be treated, but I don't think it would be appropriate to treat them exactly the same as if they were not different. It would just cause problems that can be avoided.
Out of curiosity, what differences do you think there are between sexualities? I mean sure, you can have butch women and flamboyant men, but that can be true of heterosexuals aswell.
I've always been confused by military forces that don't employ gay people. What does sexual orientation have to do with one's willingness to fight?
In my pants!

Nick

Seen 4 Weeks Ago
Posted July 28th, 2021
17,572 posts
18.6 Years
I think it's ridiculous to associate butchness in women and flamboyment in men with homosexuality. Those shouldn't relate to physical attraction.

I've always thought that sexual orientation was pre-determined before birth while the time the sex is determined in the womb, specifically due to hormonal balances. I don't think people choose to be gay.

I believe the only reason people think they do is because some openly out gay people say that if they had the chance to change who they were and be straight they wouldn't do it, while others say they would. That to me is a matter of how much they accept themselves. Those who are more accepting of who they are and the quirks they have are more accepting of their sexual orientation while those who have trouble accepting who they are would choose to change their sexual orientation and be more accepted in society standards.

You also don't choose who you fall in love with.

Kura

twitter.com/puccarts

Age 33
Female
London, UK (orig. Toronto, Canada)
Seen August 30th, 2021
Posted August 24th, 2021
10,993 posts
18.7 Years
I think it's ridiculous to associate butchness in women and flamboyment in men with homosexuality. Those shouldn't relate to physical attraction.

I've always thought that sexual orientation was pre-determined before birth while the time the sex is determined in the womb, specifically due to hormonal balances. I don't think people choose to be gay.

I believe the only reason people think they do is because some openly out gay people say that if they had the chance to change who they were and be straight they wouldn't do it, while others say they would. That to me is a matter of how much they accept themselves. Those who are more accepting of who they are and the quirks they have are more accepting of their sexual orientation while those who have trouble accepting who they are would choose to change their sexual orientation and be more accepted in society standards.

You also don't choose who you fall in love with.
I actually disagree with that last statement..
In a way, you do choose who you fall in love with.. Falling in love with someone and being naturally attracted to someone are two different things. It depends on what sorts of things you value, and I believe that to have real love for someone there has to have that deeper level of understanding with each other. How can you love someone if you only know them superficially? And then you find out they love.. oh, I don't know.. let's say.. they pick their nose ALL the time.. and then suddenly you find you're not "in love" anymore.
You could CHOOSE to overlook things that you don't find attractive or appealing in your significant other..

It's the reason sometimes couples get divorced over issues like "He is a lazy bum and never DOES anything" but others claim "I'll never leave him no matter what because even though he's lazy he is very loving."
:/ We choose who we want to be with. I rather be with no-one than a druggie, personally. I also, because I'm straight, rather be with no-one than a woman because I wouldn't be able to love her in a romantic way and it'd be infair to her.

So I think we DO choose who we love.. but things like what we find naturally physically attractive (long hair, a great smile, a penis, large breasts) is the thing we can't really change, but rather.. might be able to overlook. And I say this because if you loved your spouse, and they magically had their genitals disappear on them.. would you still want to be with them, or is sex an important aspect of life for you?
And that's a question that's individual to EVERYONE and no one can decide for you what is the right choice.

And that's also why I both DO and DON'T think that homosexuality is entirely choice either. It's a bit of both. (I just gave that gay-gene theory earlier to just throw and idea out there.)
And perhaps we're all born with a gay-gene.. but some people have it nurtured more than others?

Who knows! :3
~Yuugiou Fan~
~Kamen Rider Fan~
♡(´・ω・`)LOVE! ☆

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I think it's ridiculous to associate butchness in women and flamboyment in men with homosexuality. Those shouldn't relate to physical attraction.

I've always thought that sexual orientation was pre-determined before birth while the time the sex is determined in the womb, specifically due to hormonal balances. I don't think people choose to be gay.

I believe the only reason people think they do is because some openly out gay people say that if they had the chance to change who they were and be straight they wouldn't do it, while others say they would. That to me is a matter of how much they accept themselves. Those who are more accepting of who they are and the quirks they have are more accepting of their sexual orientation while those who have trouble accepting who they are would choose to change their sexual orientation and be more accepted in society standards.

You also don't choose who you fall in love with.
Well, I don't think that homosexuals just say to themseleves "Hey, I guess I'll be gay from now on!" I'm still open to the possibility that some level of choice is involved, or some level or nature, or nurture. There is no solid evidence that is generally accepted in the scientific community to prove what causes homosexuality. Sure, there are a few studies out there, but a few studies is not enought to constituted general acceptance by the scientific community.
Seen January 4th, 2013
Posted October 21st, 2011
1,804 posts
13.8 Years
I tend to keep things pretty simple, each to their own.

As far as sexuality and all that is concerned, people shouldn't be judged unless of course it's something inherently wrong like paedophilia or something along these lines.
how is pedophilia wrong? as i said in the thread concerning a book about pedophilia- pedophilia is not an act, it is a natural and uncontrollable attraction. until a child is touched in an unfavorable way, no harm has been done- and a lot of pedophiles who live with that urge control it.