# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  The Biological Research on Homosexuality

## Logan13

*The Biological Research on Homosexuality*
_From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center._
It is important to note that serious research on the biology, innateness, or genetic determinants of homosexuality has only just recently begun. Exactly opposite to what the public is being led to believe, the research that has been done thus far suggests that genetic factors account for, at most, but a small proportion of the risk. J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, two of the major researchers most widely cited as having demonstrated that "homosexuality is genetic," were forced to admit otherwise by the results of their own research. They themselves wrote: 

"These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.... Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins".{1} 
Neuroanatomic Research 

In 1991, newspapers primarily on both coasts trumpeted the discovery of a brain difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Although the research finding itself was reported fairly accurately, the accounts universally concluded that the discovery had social-policy implications. Commentators triumphantly claimed that the discovery would halt any remaining uncertainty that homosexuality was either a choice, or a consequence of factors in upbringing. Therefore, they claimed, to continue to support anything less than full acceptance of homosexual behavior would be proof positive of prejudicial hatred. 

What precipitated this outpouring? In August of 1991, a San Francisco neuroanatomist, Simon LeVay, published an article in the respected journal Science. It reported his finding that a localized cluster (a "nucleus") of cells in the brains of "homosexual" men was twice as large by volume on autopsy as in "heterosexual" men.{2} "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are in quotations here because in this particular study the definitions of each were extremely imprecise, nor was there any way of verifying sexual orientation, as the subjects were dead. 

But this was not the first such discovery. One year before a group reported in Brain Research that they had found a similar difference in both volume and number of cells in a different brain nucleus.{3} The media did not report this first study because Brain Research, unlike Science, is read only by neuroscientists. And in contrast to journalists, the neuroscientists themselves genuinely understood the research and its limitations, and saw no reason to make grand pronouncements. 

More recently, yet another difference in another part of the brain was reported, also in a prestigious publication, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. This study claimed that a difference between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was found in the anterior commissure, a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain. The authors found that the anterior commissure was larger in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual men. This was a group statistical difference, however: the size of the anterior commissure in 27 of the 30 homosexual men actually fell within the range of sizes found among the 30 heterosexual men. As did LeVay, these authors used brain samples obtained preponderantly from men who died of AIDS, introducing another uncontrolled variable into their work.{4} 

The only other study to examine morphological differences in the anterior commissure--published in 1988 and not mentioned by the press--found, in part, precisely the opposite. Namely it found that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.{5} 

The Brain's Structure Changes with Use 

Even if actually present, however, the discovery of brain differences per se is on a par with the discovery that athletes have bigger muscles than nonathletes. For though a genetic tendency toward larger muscles may make it easier to become an athlete, and therefore one will more likely become an athlete, becoming an athlete will also certainly give one bigger muscles. The layperson, encouraged by press accounts, is apt to assume that brain differences must be innate and unchangeable, especially differences in the number of cells as contrasted with the simple volume occupied by a collection of cells. We tend to think of mind as "software" and brain as "hardware," the former plastic and changeable, the latter fixed at birth. We have used this analogy already to good advantage. But the analogy breaks down at a certain point. Various processes go on throughout life: the selective death of brain cells in response to training or trauma, the establishment of new connections between cells, dramatic increases or decreases in the "thickness" of connections between cells as a result of learning, the loss of interneuronal connections through "pruning." Very unlike our modern computers, the brain's software is its hardware. We know from animal studies that early experience, and especially traumatic experience (this has special pertinence with respect to the childhood histories of male homosexuals as we will discuss later), alters the brain and body in measurable ways. Thus infant monkeys who are repeatedly and traumatically separated from their mothers suffer more or less permanent alterations in both blood chemistry and brain function.{6} A similar piece of research on homosexuals with a similarly indeterminate meaning is the recent finding of a protein--an Alpha1-Antitrypsin variant--in the blood of homosexual, but not heterosexual men. Again, we have no way of determining whether this is an innate or an acquired difference, or whether it is even replicable.{7} There is a major current theory about the developmental causes of depression and the interaction of genetics with development. It claims that under conditions of early trauma, a genetically based susceptibility to stress creates a greater vulnerability to intense stress-responses later in life.{8} Furthermore, this "vulnerability" is represented physiologically as measurable alterations in the brain. Because what constitutes "stress" depends on one's subjective interpretation of events, the brains in individuals with the same genetically determined biology may respond quite differently. One may demonstrate no brain changes; another may demonstrate very significant changes.{9} 

Some Lifestyle-Induced Brain Changes 

Likewise, in individuals who became blind as adults and then learned Braille, the part of the brain governing the right index finger became progressively enlarged. And just this year, researchers reported measurable increases in brain tissue associated with learned sexual activity in rats.{10} 

The editor of Nature commented on the LeVay research: 

Plainly, the neural correlates of genetically determined gender are plastic at a sufficiently early stage.... Plastic structures in the hypothalamus allowing the consequences of early sexual arousal to be made permanent might suit [those who claim an environmental origin to homosexuality] well.{11}
And of course all this presumes that the research itself was of high quality. Was it? Writing in Technology Review, published at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, two prominent geneticists commented on the quality of the LeVay research. Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith write: LeVay "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead."{12} His "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains."{13} LeVay's very method of defining homosexuality was very likely to "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups."{14} 

Firmer and more rigorous findings than these are nonetheless sure to be forthcoming because all aspects of human behavior are influenced by our genetic makeup...Almost all, however, tell us nothing about origins, nor of the range of freedom of expression we have apart from influencing factors. 

Thus we can guess that we probably will find genetic factors that correlate with homosexuality. But we should not even call such factors "an innate predisposition." In the proper and precise language of science, they are merely "risk factors." 

Higher Levels of Distress: The Result of Homophobia? 

Homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness, particularly depression and suicide, than do heterosexuals. Activists quickly explain that this connection implies neither a necessary psychological nor a necessary biological link between homosexuality and depression. They argue, rather, that suicidal depression is the unsurprising effect on otherwise healthy individuals who have to live a closeted existence in an abusive and hostile society. 

We have heard this kind of argument before. It has long been obvious that parental divorce is associated with both severe distress and later behavioral problems among children. Until recently, however, no scientific studies were available to "prove" this painfully obvious point. In the name of eliminating any harm to children, the divorce industry in the seventies put forth the "progressive" idea that the stigma attached to divorce caused the distress, not the divorce itself. If divorce was normalized, they claimed, the children would walk away unscathed. Actually, they said further, the children would be improved, for they would not suffer the trauma of being reared and cared for by un-self-actualized and less-than-totally-personally-fulfilled parents. 

Science has finally caught up with years of experience and common sense. Numerous studies now confirm that divorce inflicts lifelong damage on children far greater than that caused by parental unhappiness. Even the divorce experts are beginning to recant their earlier claims.{15} 

The same social-stigma theory is not only used to explain why so many homosexuals are unhappy, it is even used to explain why so many homosexuals remain unhappy about being homosexual--gay liberation notwithstanding. They label that unhappiness as itself a "symptom," or in the more politically correct literature as "internalized homophobia:" 

... membership of [sic] a stigmatized minority sexuality may exacerbate causes of sexual dysfunction. The effects of discordant lifestyle and identity, homosexual identity formation, dyshphoria and internalized homophobia on sexual functioning are three examples of these factors of specific relevance to being homosexual in this culture. The effects of AIDS, difficulties arising from the mechanics of safer sex and the psychosexual effects of oppression on healthy sexual functioning all indicate how factors important to (but not caused by) minority sexual status may influence sexuality functioning.}16} 
The Prevalence of Sexual Abuse in the Childhoods of Homosexuals 

The self-serving explanation for homosexual distress, however, is undermined by what we now know about the terrible effects of childhood trauma on the emotional well-being of adults. Many studies demonstrate a sadly disproportionate extent of sexual abuse in the childhoods of homosexual men, suggesting at the least that both homosexual unhappiness and homosexuality itself derive from common causes, and that unhappiness is therefore an inherent accompaniment of homosexuality: 

From May 1989 through April 1990, 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics were interviewed regarding potentially abusive sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence. Thirty-seven percent of participants reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner; 94 percent occurred with men. Median age of the participant at first contact was 10; median age difference between partners was 11 years. Fifty-one percent involved use of force; 33 percent involved anal sex. Black and Hispanic men were more likely than white men to report such sexual contact. Using developmentally based criteria to define sexual abuse, 93 percent of participants reporting sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner were classified as sexually abused. Our data suggest the risk of sexual abuse may be high among some male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early identification and treatment.{17} 
The same is true for pedophiles: 
The association between perpetration of sexual abuse and the offender's own victimization as a child has been well documented in the literature. Various researchers have examined this relationship by assessing the exclusiveness of the sexual abuser's behavior, the gender of his victims and the gender of his own childhood abuser.... Subjects were 135 pedophiles ... who admitted to their offenses. A total of 42 percent of pedophiles ... reported being sexually victimized in their own childhoods .... [and] appear to choose their age-specific victims in accordance with the age of their own experience of sexual victimization. Although the cause of child molestation remains undetermined, these results support social-learning and modeling theories.{18} 
Is Social Disapproval the Cause of Distress Among Both Pedophiles and Homosexuals? 

In spite of its superficial appeal and the activists' repeated claims, no studies support the hypothesis that the social disapproval of homosexuality is the prime cause of the high levels of internal distress evident in homosexual populations even long before AIDS. (That social stigma would cause some distress, is of course the small kernel of truth upon which the exaggeration is built.) Such studies as the one cited immediately above suggest that both the high levels of emotional distress, as well as homosexuality itself, have at least one common root in painful childhood experiences, in the same way that other deviations from the sexual norm (such as pedophilia) likewise do. It makes just as much sense to claim that the high levels of psychological abnormality and personal distress found among pedophiles are due solely to the social disapproval of pedophilia.

----------


## Tock

> *The Biological Research on Homosexuality*
> _From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center._


Huh . . . Logan, did you copy that from the website at www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html ? It is the website for *NARTH* (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization that advocates something called *"Reparative Therapy"*  (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html 
and www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ) , a philosophy that has been disparaged by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as pseudoscience:


from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html 
_At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors. 

In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement: 

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient." 

"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction." 

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed." 

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors." 


In Summary In summary, scientific data are lacking to show that behavior modification techniques effectively change individuals' sexual orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. The relatively small number of attempts that have been adequately documented appear to have been largely unsuccessful. 
_



Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . . 
Sheesh . . .

----------


## Carlos_E

:LOL:

----------


## DSM4Life

> Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . . 
> Sheesh . . .


......  :Owned:

----------


## Chad B

> Huh . . . Logan, did you copy that from the website at www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html ? It is the website for *NARTH* (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization that advocates something called *"Reparative Therapy"*  (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html 
> and www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ) , a philosophy that has been disparaged by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as pseudoscience:
> 
> 
> from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html 
> _At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors. 
> 
> In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement: 
> 
> ...


I think youre opinion is pure, unadulterated 100% crap...
Sheesh...

----------


## Red Ketchup

> I think you’re opinion is pure, unadulterated 100% crap...
> Sheesh...
> 
> Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB


Huh?  :Hmmmm:  

I hope that was a poor attempt at humour? 

Red

----------


## Carlos_E

> Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB


You think this shit is funny? I will be the one laughing when you're banned. Your comment is OFFENSIVE and people have been banned for less! We have several gay members on this board me being one of them.

----------


## DSM4Life

> You think this shit is funny? I will be the one laughing when you're banned. Your comment is OFFENSIVE and people have been banned for less! We have several gay members on this board me being one of them.


Why even warn him ? For stuff like this just ban him and be done with it.

----------


## Chad B

> You think this shit is funny? I will be the one laughing when you're banned. Your comment is OFFENSIVE and people have been banned for less! We have several gay members on this board me being one of them.



I was joking. did you not notice I used the gay word and not the other ones people take offence too like. Also I used SOB rather that much worse words.

Don't get so offended, you can see it was not intentional.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass *you mentally sick SOB*


Where is the fucking humor here.



> Don't get so offended, you can see it was not intentional.


No, I don't see it. Your intentions are pretty damn clear.

----------


## DSM4Life

> I was joking. did you not notice I used the gay word and not the other ones people take offence too like. Also I used SOB rather that much worse words.
> 
> Don't get so offended, you can see it was not intentional.


Come on man. You know it as much as we do that you took it too far. 

Funny how some show their true colors and then try and hide from it.

----------


## Chad B

> Why even warn him ? For stuff like this just ban him and be done with it.


Ever heard of being forbearing or forgiving. Maybe thats why you jerk!

----------


## Chad B

> Where is the fucking humor here.
> 
> No, I don't see it. Your intentions are pretty damn clear.



Sorry bro, bad choice of words.

I love gay people  :Smilie:  and I am not bs'ing

----------


## DSM4Life

I know many close people that are gay and I get really offended when people say stuff like this. To you its a joke to others its much more.

----------


## Chad B

> Come on man. You know it as much as we do that you took it too far. 
> 
> Funny how some show their true colors and then try and hide from it.



DID YOU NOT SEE THE  :LOL:  

IT WAS A JOKE

SORRY IT WAS A BAD ONE

Your the one showing bad colors, no forgivness...

----------


## Chad B

> Where is the fucking humor here.
> 
> No, I don't see it. Your intentions are pretty damn clear.



Carlos I am sorry and I did not want to offend anybody.

It was a bad choice of words, a mistake. 

Do you forgive me  :Smilie:

----------


## Tock

> I think youre opinion is pure, unadulterated 100% crap...
> Sheesh...


There's no opinion involved . . . it's all fact.

Logan posted the contents of a page from an avowedly anti-gay website, but edited its source reference from:

This book is based on papers delivered at the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center. To order, call 1-888-773-6782. 

to:

From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center.


In essence, he's trying to make this BS sound like it originated from a respectable university conference, instead of merely something drawing from papers presented at a conference center. Not entirely honest . . .

Anyway, I'm sure Logan's seen the response to his post . . . I'd still like to know why he posted this unmitigated crap -- this completely unscientific BS  :Bs:  that's been dissed  :Nutkick:  by both the American Psychological Association AND the American Psychiatric Association. 

Sheesh . . .

----------


## Tock

> Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB ...


Not much humor there. I'll assume you meant it in a light spirited way, but since verbal humor often loses something when you put it in writing, and since you might not have discovered this yet, I'm not gonna get excised over it. Everyone's gotta learn this lesson sooner or later, and I'm sure you learned something today . . .

-Tock

----------


## Chad B

> Not much humor there. I'll assume you meant it in a light spirited way, but since verbal humor often loses something when you put it in writing, and since you might not have discovered this yet, I'm not gonna get excised over it. Everyone's gotta learn this lesson sooner or later, and I'm sure you learned something today . . .
> 
> -Tock


Thanks bro  :Smilie: 

We all mess up sometimes; it is the hypocrites that judge quickly not knowing the tru intentions of the heart. just pointing fingers like they are perfect...

DSMforlife should learn something from your longsuffering act of kindness...
.

----------


## DSM4Life

> Thanks bro 
> 
> We all mess up sometimes; it is the hypocrites that judge quickly not knowing the tru intentions of the heart. just pointing fingers like they are perfect...
> *You throw words around like they are nothing. Until you have a family member or best friend who is gay you will not understand where i am coming from and i don't feel like getting into this.*
> 
> DSMforlife should learn something from your longsuffering act of kindness...
> *You insult me personally and i should shake your hand ? Wake up man. The best thing you could have done was said sorry and walked away from your computer.*
> 
> .


....

----------


## Carlos_E

> The best thing you could have done was said sorry and walked away from your computer.


Agreed

----------


## Carlos_E

> Carlos I am sorry and I did not want to offend anybody.
> 
> It was a bad choice of words, a mistake. 
> 
> Do you forgive me


You're apologizing to the wrong person.

----------


## Tock

Nonetheless, I still would like to hear Logan's rationale for this:




> Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . . 
> Sheesh . . .


-Tock

----------


## Chad B

> You're apologizing to the wrong person.


No reason to apologize to somebody who shows no mercy.

----------


## Chadb

> You insult me personally and i should shake your hand ? Wake up man. The best thing you could have done was said sorry and walked away from your computer.



Yes you should shake my hand and give me a hug. It is called righteous forgiveness.

I guess youre just like everybody else in the world...

I did not insult you personally. Don't get your panties in a bunch...

----------


## Logan13

> Huh . . . Logan, did you copy that from the website at www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html ? It is the website for *NARTH* (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization that advocates something called *"Reparative Therapy"*  (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html 
> and www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ) , a philosophy that has been disparaged by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as pseudoscience:
> 
> 
> from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html 
> _At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors. 
> 
> In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement: 
> 
> ...


Because they posted it from the transcript of this conference. Don't hate the messenger, funny how you have no actual rebutle to this though..........

----------


## Chadb

> You're apologizing to the wrong person.


Were your compassion? 

It shows a lot about your character when you dont forgive.

----------


## Tock

> Because they posted it from the transcript of this conference. Don't hate the messenger, funny how you have no actual rebutle to this though..........


Uh-huh. No rebuttal except to show how the vast majority of actual scientists in the mental health field show how "reparative therapy" (also called "conversion therapy") is not only 100% pure unadulterated BS, but is harmful and dangerous to people who fall prey to its malevolent tentacles.

----------


## Logan13

> Nonetheless, I still would like to hear Logan's rationale for this:
> 
> -Tock


http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-.../dp/1890626236

The link above will take you to Amazon.com. The book here was the basis for the conference which was sponsored by the American Public Philosophy Institute. Narth had nothing to do with it, it was merely posted on their site. There are always other ways to look at things, especially when using science, and just because you do not like what they show does not make it wrong............
Care to respond to what they said now?  :No No:

----------


## Logan13

> Uh-huh. No rebuttal except to show how the vast majority of actual scientists in the mental health field show how "reparative therapy" (also called "conversion therapy") is not only 100% pure unadulterated BS, but is harmful and dangerous to people who fall prey to its malevolent tentacles.


You questioned the source, the source has now been validated. 
Rebut their claims than.........

----------


## Tock

> http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-.../dp/1890626236
> 
> The link above will take you to Amazon.com. The book here was the basis for the conference which was sponsored by the American Public Philosophy Institute. Narth had nothing to do with it, it was merely posted on their site. There are always other ways to look at things, especially when using science, and just because you do not like what they show does not make it wrong............
> Care to respond to what they said now?


I could respond, but there's no sense in doing so. You evidently don't fully appreciate or care about the psychological harm that reparative therapy does to people. You found some reason to post this anti-gay BS in this NEWS forum, which is more BS than NEWS. 

I don't know what's prompting you to post all this homophobic crap on this website. 

-Tock

----------


## Carlos_E

> Were your compassion? 
> 
> It shows a lot about your character when you dont forgive.


Chad. You are suspended. Signing up a new name is an automatic ban for life.

----------


## biglouie250

devils advocate question to any gay members, lets suppose that they could "cure" homosexuality like they isolated the gene or found whatever led inidividuals toward homosexuality and could neutralize it or whatever. would you be interested in getting it done?

----------


## Carlos_E

If they isolated the gene that caused heterosexuality would you have it done? Would you want to be anything but straight? I don't think so. So what makes you think I would be any different. The answer is no. Anyone who wants to change who they are has serious self hate going on.

----------


## biglouie250

> If they isolated the gene that caused heterosexuality would you have it done? Would you want to be anything but straight? I don't think so. So what makes you think I would be any different. The answer is no. Anyone who wants to change who they are has serious self hate going on.



just curious, i mean i think we have all heard of self hating homosexuals because of societal pressure. i was just wondering what the consensus of the board was. good insight tho.

----------


## Phreak101

> If they isolated the gene that caused heterosexuality would you have it done? Would you want to be anything but straight? I don't think so. So what makes you think I would be any different. The answer is no. Anyone who wants to change who they are has serious self hate going on.


You'd be thinking a lot differently if you wanted to conceive naturally....

----------


## DSM4Life

I know people who would want the straight pill simply because it would make their lives easier. Its sad but true.

----------


## Carlos_E

I think it's the same as asking a person if they want to change their race. They would have to be very unhappy with themselves to want such a thing.

----------


## Carlos_E

> You'd be thinking a lot differently if you wanted to conceive naturally....


You don't have to be straight to naturally conceive a child.

----------


## Phreak101

> I think it's the same as asking a person if they want to change their race. They would have to be very unhappy with themselves to want such a thing.


Married men who have families who have realized they are gay would argue...isolating the gene would allow these men to not ruin the lives of everyone they have effected...


Not saying it's the right thing to do, but if you're 50 and gay with a family, no good can come from you coming out...

----------


## Phreak101

> You don't have to be straight to naturally conceive a child.


But if it is natural for you to be homosexual, technically you do  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Carlos_E

> Married men who have families who have realized they are gay would argue...isolating the gene would allow these men to not ruin the lives of everyone they have effected...
> 
> 
> Not saying it's the right thing to do, but if you're 50 and gay with a family, *no good can come from you coming out...*


Umm.. No good can come from lying to his wife and family and cheating on her with a man either. He should not have gotten himself in the situation to begin with. It would not happen if people spent less time judging others and trying to force them to fit in neat little molds.

----------


## Phreak101

> Umm.. No good can come from lying to his wife and family and cheating on her with a man either. He should not have gotten himself in the situation to begin with. It would not happen if people spent less time judging others and trying to force them to fit in neat little molds.


You're missing my point. If this man could flip a switch and become hetero after all these years, why would he not do it?

----------


## DSM4Life

> Married men who have families who have realized they are gay would argue...isolating the gene would allow these men to not ruin the lives of everyone they have effected...
> 
> 
> Not saying it's the right thing to do, but if you're 50 and gay with a family, no good can come from you coming out...


So you are saying its better to just take a pill to hide your natural feelings  :Hmmmm:

----------


## Phreak101

> So you are saying its better to just take a pill to hide your natural feelings


You act like half the country isn't doing that already....

But of course not, I don't think that's best. Someone earlier had asked if there was a good reason to be able to just turn off the homo gene and become hetero, and Carlos said it was just self loathing to think like that. I'm giving explanations where people might, that's all.

----------


## Carlos_E

> You act like half the country isn't doing that already....
> 
> But of course not, I don't think that's best. Someone earlier had asked if there was a good reason to be able to just turn off the homo gene and become hetero, and Carlos said it was just self loathing to think like that. I'm giving explanations where people might, that's all.


No one asked if there was a good reason. He specially asked gay members if they would do it. I responded.

Yes it is self loathing. A gay man who marries a woman knowing he is gay has plenty of it going on.

Phreak101 if everyone else was gay would you want to change your sexuality?

----------


## DSM4Life

> You act like half the country isn't doing that already....


Just becuase most people are doing it doesn't make it right.

Just because most people aren't gay doesn't make it wrong.

----------


## Phreak101

> No one asked if there was a good reason. He specially asked gay members if they would do it. I responded.
> 
> Yes it is self loathing. A gay man who marries a woman knowing he is gay has plenty of it going on.
> 
> Phreak101 if everyone else was gay would you want to change your sexuality?


So you're saying there is no such thing as a sexual identity crisis? Especially from people who were raised thinking that homosexuality was a sickness? C'mon now, there are plenty of people who married thinking it was the right thing to do, only to realize later on in life they made a mistake, it's no one's fault. As for self-loathing, I wouldn't know.

WOuld I if everyone else is gay? I'd have to, no one would want to f*ck me  :LOL: . Seriously, I don't understand how your question is relevant to the topic. What difference does that make?

----------


## Phreak101

> Just becuase most people are doing it doesn't make it right.
> 
> Just because most people aren't gay doesn't make it wrong.


I'm sensing a lot of hyper-sensitivity to the issue here. Nowhere did I say that I am against homosexuality in anyway, that's Logan's dept. I'm just playing mental ping pong with y'all.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> So you're saying there is no such thing as a sexual identity crisis? Especially from people who were raised thinking that homosexuality was a sickness? C'mon now, there are plenty of people who married thinking it was the right thing to do, only to realize later on in life they made a mistake, it's no one's fault. As for self-loathing, I wouldn't know.
> 
> WOuld I if everyone else is gay? I'd have to, no one would want to f*ck me . Seriously, I don't understand how your question is relevant to the topic. What difference does that make?


phreak i understand what your getting at. I'm curious also. And if there was a magic pill, they wouldn't be hiding their natural feelings they wouldn't have those feelings anymore. If there was a so called cure.

No sense trying to explain it to Carlos. He is to closed mined to even try and understand where someone else is coming from

----------


## biglouie250

and the can of worms has been opened lol

----------


## gixxerboy1

> and the can of worms has been opened lol


i hate worms. yuck

----------


## biglouie250

> No sense trying to explain it to Carlos. He is to closed mined to even try and undwerstan where someone else is coming from


nah cmon i dont think he is closed minded at all. a gay bodybuilder of color who lives in NYC by definition cant be closed minded lol. he is cool, maybe he goes on the offensive too often? but if thats the case its warranted with what he must deal with.

----------


## JohnboyF

> phreak i understand what your getting at. I'm curious also. And if there was a magic pill, they wouldn't be hiding their natural feelings they wouldn't have those feelings anymore. If there was a so called cure.
> 
> No sense trying to explain it to Carlos. He is to closed mined to even try and understand where someone else is coming from


gixxer,

I think your digging yourself a hole you wont be able to come out of. with the last comment.

----------


## Carlos_E

> nah cmon i dont think he is closed minded at all. a gay bodybuilder of color who lives in NYC by definition cant be closed minded lol. he is cool, maybe he goes on the offensive too often? but if thats the case its warranted with what he must deal with.


I'm cool. Your question didn't bother me. What bothers me is people thinking all gay people are unhappy with who they are and want to change to be like everyone else. That is why I asked Phreak101 if everyone was gay would he want to change his sexuality to "fit in." But he didn't get the question.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> nah cmon i dont think he is closed minded at all. a gay bodybuilder of color who lives in NYC by definition cant be closed minded lol. he is cool, *maybe he goes on the offensive too often? but if thats the case its warranted with what he must deal with*.


Not an excuse to attack people that aren't doing anything to him. It must be hard like you said but that isn't an hall pass to not look at anything from anyone point of view. Not that he has to agree with there point but just to SEE other people look at things different. And there isn't always a right or wrong. 

And he doesn't do that.

There should be tolerance.

----------


## Phreak101

> phreak i understand what your getting at. I'm curious also. And if there was a magic pill, they wouldn't be hiding their natural feelings they wouldn't have those feelings anymore. If there was a so called cure.
> 
> No sense trying to explain it to Carlos. He is to closed mined to even try and understand where someone else is coming from


I don't think Carlos is closed minded (maybe a tad Nazi with the locking  :Wink/Grin: ), biglouie summed that up perfectly, but I don't like the fact asking questions about the nature/nurture of homosexuality immediately get's people on the offensive. Personally I don't care what people do behind closed doors, that's their business, nor do I care if I'm in a room full of gays and I'm the only straight person. There ARE situations that society has put on gays that can be extremly stressful, and no, I would not want gays to feel the pressure to "take a pill" just to conform. But maybe some would??

----------


## Phreak101

> I'm cool. Your question didn't bother me. What bothers me is people thinking all gay people are unhappy with who they are and want to change to be like everyone else. That is why I asked Phreak101 if everyone was gay would he want to change his sexuality to "fit in." But he didn't get the question.


I got the question, but it was totally irrelevant to the discussion. My point was a married man might take the pill to preserve something that is more important to him than his happiness as a born-again homosexual.

It had nothing to do with conforming to societal standards, so why ask that other than being hyper-sensitive?  :Hmmmm:

----------


## Carlos_E

> I got the question, but it was totally irrelevant to the discussion. My point was a married man might take the pill to preserve something that is more important to him than his happiness as a born-again homosexual.
> 
> It had nothing to do with *conforming to societal standards*, so why ask that other than being hyper-sensitive?


The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> I don't think Carlos is closed minded (maybe a tad Nazi with the locking ), biglouie summed that up perfectly, but I don't like the fact asking questions about the nature/nurture of homosexuality immediately get's people on the offensive. Personally I don't care what people do behind closed doors, that's their business, nor do I care if I'm in a room full of gays and I'm the only straight person. There ARE situations that society has put on gays that can be extremly stressful, and no, I would not want gays to feel the pressure to "take a pill" just to conform. But maybe some would??


All leave the Carlos part alone we all have different opinions.

As far as the pill. I don't think at has to be self hate or loathing. Some people could just be confused on what they want or bi and would like to just end the inner debate.
Also like you said an older person with a family. It would be alot easier on everyone then coming out. But i guess that also part of the debate of are you born gay or turn it, If you are born gay i guess you straight life with the family is a lie. If you turn gay i would think the pill would be a help

----------


## gixxerboy1

> The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.


The point your not getting is maybe everyone doesn't know they are gay when they got married. Just because you realise earlier an age doesn't mean every gay man does

----------


## Phreak101

> The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.


I'm getting the point Carlos, and I am disagreeing with you. I know of one such case where a guy married his wife because it was proper in his culture to do. He admitted that he did NOT know he was gay. What reason would he have to lie? The proper thing to do in his coutnry was get married and have children, so he did. So he married, had kids, then left his family of 25 years to become gay. He said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do but he was not happy. If he had the opportunity to preserve his family, way of life, etc., he MAY have a valid reason to "take a pill" to swap his sexual preference.

Sheesh, why are you so aggressive towards this issue. I don't appreciate you subtely labeling me as some homophobe simply because I don't agree with you're point of view on ONE issue of a massive topic.

----------


## Phreak101

> The point your not getting is maybe everyone doesn't know they are gay when they got married. Just because you realise earlier an age doesn't mean every gay man does


Exactly

----------


## Carlos_E

> ISheesh, why are you so aggressive towards this issue. *I don't appreciate you subtely labeling me as some homophobe*


Ummm... where did I do that? Please copy and paste because I said no such thing.  :LOL: 

Show me where.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> I'm getting the point Carlos, and I am disagreeing with you. I know of one such case where a guy married his wife because it was proper in his culture to do. He admitted that he did NOT know he was gay. What reason would he have to lie? The proper thing to do in his coutnry was get married and have children, so he did. So he married, had kids, then left his family of 25 years to become gay. He said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do but he was not happy. If he had the opportunity to preserve his family, way of life, etc., he MAY have a valid reason to "take a pill" to swap his sexual preference.
> 
> Sheesh, why are you so aggressive towards this issue. * I don't appreciate you subtely labeling me as some homophobe* simply because I don't agree with you're point of view on ONE issue of a massive topic.


I know your not a homophobe. Especially since you keep pm'ing me naked pictures of yourself :Bbblowme:

----------


## Phreak101

> Ummm... where did I do that? Please copy and paste because I said no such thing. 
> 
> Show me where.


Saying it without "saying it". Laymen's definition of the word "subtle". 

If I'm mistakingly reading you the wrong way, then good. But it feels like I'm being put on the defensive about a topic I should not have to defend myself about...




> I know your not a homophobe. Especially since you keep pm'ing me naked pictures of yourself


You mean I wasn't sending those to your fiance???!! DOH!

----------


## Carlos_E

> Saying it without "saying it". Laymen's definition of the word "subtle". 
> 
> If I'm mistakingly reading you the wrong way, then good..


You are mistaken. One thing you should know by now I am not subtle. If I thought so I would have no problem directly calling you one.  :LOL:

----------


## Carlos_E

> gixxer,
> 
> I think your digging yourself a hole you wont be able to come out of. with the last comment.


Gixxerboy1 go bye bye.

----------


## Phreak101

> You are mistaken. One thing you should know by now I am not subtle. If I thought so I would have no problem directly calling you one.


Yeah this is true, my bad.

----------


## DSM4Life

> I'm sensing a lot of hyper-sensitivity to the issue here. Nowhere did I say that I am against homosexuality in anyway, that's Logan's dept. I'm just playing mental ping pong with y'all.


That wasn't directed at your Phreak101. Now lets kiss and make it better  :Bbsmooch:

----------


## Phreak101

> That wasn't directed at your Phreak101. Now lets kiss and make it better


Sure, we can kiss, here... :Asskiss:   :LOL:   :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Carlos_E

You sure you two are straight?  :Don't know:

----------


## DSM4Life

> Sure, we can kiss, here...


You want to kiss ? Guess you forgot to take your straight pill this morning  :LOL:

----------


## Phreak101

> You want to kiss ? Guess you forgot to take your straight pill this morning


Yeah I popped my g/f's birth control pill, now I'm just really confused....

----------


## DSM4Life

> Yeah I popped my g/f's birth control pill, now I'm just really confused....


At least you wont get pregnant

----------


## Phreak101

> You sure you two are straight?


As straight as the line in those abs of your Carlos, looking good btw.

----------


## Mike Dura

This "biological research on homosexuality" is at variance with much of what I have read on the topic. It's another one of those politically hot topics where the people studying it clearly have ulterior motives and this is not in the spirit of detached science but it's beter understood in basic animal fear or conservatism. 

As this thread demonstrates, homophobia definately abounds and it's funny how it can even color "research." 

I too am homophobic but I believe in that principle outlined in the constitution that entitle people to pursue individual happiness. If your pursuit toward happiness is homosexual in nature, that's ok with me and I think you are entitled to the full benefits civil union (and marraige). On the other hand, I'm not very keen on homosexuals making advances on me in public places like Bally's. 

Even if homosexuality was to be found as something not largely attributed to genetics (unlikely, because it's understood to be a combination of the environment which triggers or fails to trigger the expression of genes) it would not invalidate homosexuality. So homophobes (and you know who you are) ----chill out and just go on living your heterosexual lifestyles and leave those alternative lifestyle people alone. Homophobes, it's time for a little self-examination! 





> *The Biological Research on Homosexuality*
> _From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center._

----------


## Carlos_E

> As straight as the line in those abs of your Carlos, looking good btw.


Thanks, I'm 5 days out. The last week is the hardest. Not quite sure what I'm feeling right now. Excited, nervous, eager. I'm ready to rock n roll!!!

----------


## RA

> The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.


 
I run into plenty of people who you know are gay but they are married. Im just not sure how their wives have no clue. 

Like a guy I work with was married and had three kids...hes more fem than my wife.... 

His ex must have a broke gaydar :LOL:

----------


## Teabagger

Watch it Roid! I don't think "gaydar" is a politcally correct approved term. The suspensions and bannings and homophobe labels have been flying faster in this thread than a pair of rims off a bentley at a Puff Daddy concert.

Everybody on here needs to be reported for being offensive, unless of course there are protected types of people on here :Wink/Grin:  , which of course we all know there is not :LOL:  

Don't step out of line again Roid...

----------


## Snrf

haha, I like the way carlos said "if everyone else was gay would you want to be?" if everyone else was gay I'd be the only straight guy in the world, I'd be gettin so much pussy..thatd be awesome

----------


## RA

> Watch it Roid! I don't think "gaydar" is a politcally correct approved term. The suspensions and bannings and homophobe labels have been flying faster in this *thread than a pair of rims off a bentley at a Puff Daddy concert.*
> 
> Everybody on here needs to be reported for being offensive, unless of course there are protected types of people on here , which of course we all know there is not 
> 
> Don't step out of line again Roid...


 

 :LOL:  




Point taken. Ill choose my words more carefully :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Logan13

> I could respond, but there's no sense in doing so. You evidently don't fully appreciate or care about the psychological harm that reparative therapy does to people. You found some reason to post this anti-gay BS in this NEWS forum, which is more BS than NEWS. 
> 
> I don't know what's prompting you to post all this homophobic crap on this website. 
> 
> -Tock


Let's cut to the chase, I will explain my position to clear up any miscommunications. I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. I do not think that homosexuals need "reparitive therapy", as I do not think that people become gay because they have some mental illness. Most people in this country could not give a shit about what anyone does behind closed doors, nor do these same people have a problem with gays/lesbians having the legal rights that heterosexual have in regards to tax right offs and property inheritance. I believe that under the equal treatment under the law, everyone should be treated the same. Civil unions are the appropriate venue for this in my mind. This is where you loose the vast majority of people. It all comes down to tradition, when any group messes with a tradition they will have a fight on their hands as well as weaken their support for everything else, (i.e. become marginalized). You have to give a little and heteros need to give a little, but if you demand everything, you will get nothing. Homosexuality has been rammed down our throats for the last 8-10 years, and frankly people are tired of it. You must concede somethings to get what really matters to your cause.

----------


## RA

> haha, I like the way carlos said "if everyone else was gay would you want to be?" if everyone else was gay I'd be the only straight guy in the world, I'd be gettin so much pussy..thatd be awesome


 
Yeah but you would have an Arkansas family tree, no branches

----------


## givemethejuice

> phreak i understand what your getting at. I'm curious also. And if there was a magic pill, they wouldn't be hiding their natural feelings they wouldn't have those feelings anymore. If there was a so called cure.
> 
> No sense trying to explain it to Carlos. He is to closed mined to even try and understand where someone else is coming from



Lol, he got suspended for this comment! :Hmmmm:  I have seen much worse comments made about or too other people and nothing has happened to them. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  I hope I don't get suspended for drawing attention to this post.

----------


## givemethejuice

> Watch it Roid! I don't think "gaydar" is a politcally correct approved term. The suspensions and bannings and homophobe labels have been flying faster in this thread than a pair of rims off a bentley at a Puff Daddy concert.
> 
> Everybody on here needs to be reported for being offensive, unless of course there are protected types of people on here , which of course we all know there is not 
> 
> Don't step out of line again Roid...



Lol. awesome post teabagger. That shit was funny.

----------


## Tock

> just curious, i mean i think we have all heard of self hating homosexuals because of societal pressure. i was just wondering what the consensus of the board was. good insight tho.


Problem for me is that I think I'd hate myself if I knew that I had given in to outside pressure to change what I was, just so I could have the approval of other people. That would prove to me that I was a wuss.

So, it's tough either way. 

-Tock

----------


## Teabagger

> Lol, he got suspended for this comment! I have seen much worse comments made about or too other people and nothing has happened to them. I hope I don't get suspended for drawing attention to this post.


Be very carerful young grasshopper...in the past those who have questioned authority have just disappeared in the night...poof! gone...banished forever to that cold ether where neither light, dark, cold or hot reign...

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Carlos_E
The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.




> The point your not getting is maybe everyone doesn't know they are gay when they got married. Just because you realise earlier an age doesn't mean every gay man does


I think both of you have it right.

I knew a chaplain in the USAF who was gay (noticably so), and he always knew he was, but he got married and had a child primarily so he could have a job in the military as a chaplain. And yes, he fooled around a lot on his wife, too. 

On the other hand, back when I was 20, I had plans to marry a girl and then go through a seminary to become a minister. Thank goodness, someone suggested I do 4 years in the USAF and then get out and collect education benefits. 
When I enlisted, I was so out of it, that I didn't even know what the word gay meant. I was aware of my feelings, which I kept suppressed because I thought every guy had the same feelings but just never did anything about them. Well, once I got away from home, I discovered that communities of gay people existed, and that gay sex was indeed a possibility. 

So, yeah, some people get married so they can cover up what they know they are doing, and others get married because they just don't know any better. 
I've known some men who figured out they were gay well into their 50's, but decided not to do anything to destabilize their home until their kids were all finished with college. After that, well, they seperated from their wives, stayed best friends (kept in close touch), but pursued a relationship with another man, and everyone lived happily ever after -- after an initial period of "huh?" 

Just goes to show that there is no end to the variations possible to the human story. Keeps things interesting . . .

----------


## DSM4Life

> Originally Posted by Carlos_E
> The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.
> 
> 
> 
> I think both of you have it right.
> 
> I knew a chaplain in the USAF who was gay (noticably so), and he always knew he was, but he got married and had a child primarily so he could have a job in the military as a chaplain. And yes, he fooled around a lot on his wife, too. 
> 
> ...


Thats why I am happy I grew up in this time. The tables are just starting to get turned to where as people are more accepting of different life styles. Another reason why I love living close to the city (Phila), while walking around downtown its so cool to see how different everyone is. If everyone was the same life would be so boring!

----------


## Carlos_E

> Lol, he got suspended for this comment! I have seen much worse comments made about or too other people and nothing has happened to them. I hope I don't get suspended for drawing attention to this post.





> Be very carerful young grasshopper...in the past those who have questioned authority have just disappeared in the night...poof! gone...banished forever to that cold ether where neither light, dark, cold or hot reign...


He was supended for comments made in another thread.

----------


## Phreak101

> Originally Posted by Carlos_E
> The point you're not getting is gay men who marry knowing they are gay do it to *conforming to societal standards*.
> 
> 
> 
> I think both of you have it right.
> 
> I knew a chaplain in the USAF who was gay (noticably so), and he always knew he was, but he got married and had a child primarily so he could have a job in the military as a chaplain. And yes, he fooled around a lot on his wife, too. 
> 
> ...


Well said Tock. It must be scary for a man/boy who is told by EVERY media, including his parents and peers, that he is "supposed" to like women, but then does not understand why he doesn't. Good thing they have people like Carlos to enlist some gay psychology  :LOL:

----------


## Carlos_E

> Thats why I am happy I grew up in this time. The tables are just starting to get turned to where as people are more accepting of different life styles. Another reason why I love living close to the city (Phila), while walking around downtown its so cool to see how different everyone is. If everyone was the same life would be so boring!


I agree with you. Times are better. When I told my parents I was gay their reaction was "OK. How are your grades?"

----------


## BigLittleTim

> I agree with you. Times are better. When I told my parents I was gay their reaction was "OK. How are your grades?"



When I told my parents I like boys instead of girls they said: "Oh, thank goodness! We thought you didn't know."

-BigLittleTim

----------


## RA

> When I told my parents I like boys instead of girls they said: "Oh, thank goodness! We thought you didn't know."
> 
> -BigLittleTim


 
 :LOL:   :LOL:   :LOL:

----------


## DSM4Life

> When I told my parents I like boys instead of girls they said: "Oh, thank goodness! We thought you didn't know."
> 
> -BigLittleTim


LMAO  :AaGreen22:

----------


## givemethejuice

> He was supended for comments made in another thread.



Oh, Sorry. I thought getting suspended for those comments was pretty rediculous.

----------


## Logan13

> nah cmon i dont think he is closed minded at all. a gay bodybuilder of color who lives in NYC by definition cant be closed minded lol. he is cool, maybe he goes on the offensive too often? but if thats the case its warranted with what he must deal with.


A person with a minority view can be as closed minded as anyone. No one can _make_ us act in any way, unless we allow them to.

----------


## Mike Dura

On the other hand, much of what influences behavior is not detected by the persuadees. If so, tacticians and big companies are "telling you what to do" by influencing actions that you think are self-determined. It's not an issue of "what we allow" as much as it's an issue of what we detect or what we are aware of. Why else would big biz put millions into their marketing? Dupes abound! 




> A person with a minority view can be as closed minded as anyone. No one can _make_ us act in any way, unless we allow them to.

----------


## Superhuman

> The point your not getting is maybe everyone doesn't know they are gay when they got married. Just because you realise earlier an age doesn't mean every gay man does


yes you are right... my grandfather didn't know he was gay until he was in his 50s and then after my grandmother killed herself he started to date men and now he has a "partner". I know that he didn't want to be gay and he fought those feelings. He loved my grandmother but he found himself drawn to men. If he could have taken a pill to get rid of the homosexual feelings I know he would have. He didn't want to be gay. 

I know this is going to seem bad, but what about pedophiles? Why are they attracted to little kids? Is it perhaps a genetic disorder like some people say homosexuality is or are they both acquired personality traits from your environment growing up?

----------


## Carlos_E

> I thought getting suspended for those comments was pretty rediculous.


And if he was that is for the admin to decide. Not you.

----------


## Chamadali*8*vag

Jean Simmons thinks im cute!

----------


## Teabagger

> And if he was that is for the admin to decide. Not you.


I'm trying to tell ya young grasshopper...your type of mature attitude, and your need to express simple opinions are not tolerated...You did note the verbal slapping you got from Carlos right?? Need to learn your place....and quick. :No No:

----------


## DSM4Life

> yes you are right... my grandfather didn't know he was gay until he was in his 50s and then after my grandmother killed herself he started to date men and now he has a "partner". I know that he didn't want to be gay and he fought those feelings. He loved my grandmother but he found himself drawn to men. If he could have taken a pill to get rid of the homosexual feelings I know he would have. He didn't want to be gay. 
> 
> I know this is going to seem bad, but what about pedophiles? Why are they attracted to little kids? Is it perhaps a genetic disorder like some people say homosexuality is or are they both acquired personality traits from your environment growing up?


I don't think genetics is to blame. I honestly think its just a personality trait. Some like the same sex, some opposite, and some even dabble in both depending on what that specific person likes.

----------


## Logan13

> On the other hand, much of what influences behavior is not detected by the persuadees. If so, tacticians and big companies are "telling you what to do" by influencing actions that you think are self-determined. It's not an issue of "what we allow" as much as it's an issue of what we detect or what we are aware of. Why else would big biz put millions into their marketing? Dupes abound!


Please come in from left field............

----------


## Phreak101

> yes you are right... my grandfather didn't know he was gay until he was in his 50s and then after my grandmother killed herself he started to date men and now he has a "partner". I know that he didn't want to be gay and he fought those feelings. He loved my grandmother but he found himself drawn to men. *If he could have taken a pill to get rid of the homosexual feelings I know he would have. He didn't want to be gay.* 
> 
> I know this is going to seem bad, but what about pedophiles? Why are they attracted to little kids? Is it perhaps a genetic disorder like some people say homosexuality is or are they both acquired personality traits from your environment growing up?


EXACTLY my point....

----------


## Mike Dura

Either I'm in left field or you're failing to understand. Hmmmmm. I wonder which?

Maybe this will help. Let's review.

(1) You say no one can make us act in any way unless you let them. 

Although my point is beside the general topic you guys were talking about, I responded to this specific statement by saying, I think you're wrong because 

(2) people can and do in fact influence your behavior and you have little control of the matter.

That may sound far-fetched to you right? I gave the example of marketing. On tv, for example, a bulk of people are exposed to an image linked to a product. They are half paying attention to that commercial but than one day they go out looking for, say aspirin. They choose "Bayer (the same commercial they last saw). The reason big companies put millions and millions into marketing is because it works. Do you think the people influenced are aware that they have been persuaded or influenced by an advertisement? In fact, most are not. 

Here's another example. Try this little experiment on someone. 

Tell a person the following: Say this word.....S....H....O....P (tell them each individual letter without spelling out the word). When they say the word "shop" immediately ask them, "what happens when you come to a green light?" They will probably say "stop" (but that's not really what you do at a red light - in fact, you stop). 

The point of this excersize is that you can indeed influence people to do things and it's not that these people "let" you influenced them. These people just failed to detect the stimulus that influenced them (i.e., the phonetic sound pattern of "SHOP"...). In other words, the influencing stimuli "flies beneath the radar" and that's how it succeeds in influencing the target. 

Now suppose you do the same experiment but first forewarn the to-be-"persuaded" target beforehand that you are going to say a word that primes them to say the wrong answer to a follow-up question. In that case, the trick is less likely to work because he or she is more likely going to detect the "shop-stop" error because they are now more vigilant (i.e., he or she is looking for it). 

In summary, people can indeed make you do something without you letting them because they are in control of the persuasive stimuli and the persuadee is caught unaware. The example of marketing (and the example I gave above) demonstrate that point. Do you understand now? The difference between what I said before and what I'm saying now is that I work out my point in more detail. 

Check this idea out Logan. When you feel a person is in "left field," you may want to consider the possibility that you are failing to get the point they are making. You can just ask, "what do you mean?" or what are you talking about? 

Not all points are going to be black and white. Some will be more subtle and nuanced and may require less black and white thinking, less quick confidence answers, greater concentration, greater patience and perhaps a good re-reading before you conclude that it's "in left-field." So, you can always choose to suspend judgement and just re-read or ask the person to clarify and you just never know.....maybe it will make sense. Or, maybe not. It's more noble to try to understand rather than reflexively dismiss. 




> Please come in from left field............

----------


## Logan13

> Either I'm in left field or you're failing to understand. Hmmmmm. I wonder which?
> 
> Maybe this will help. Let's review.
> 
> (1) You say no one can make us act in any way unless you let them. 
> 
> Although my point is beside the general topic you guys were talking about, I responded to this specific statement by saying, I think you're wrong because 
> 
> (2) people can and do in fact influence your behavior and you have little control of the matter.
> ...


Or perhaps this person is simply in left field........

----------


## Phreak101

> Here's another example. Try this little experiment on someone. 
> 
> Tell a person the following: Say this word.....S....H....O....P (tell them each individual letter without spelling out the word). When they say the word "shop" immediately ask them, "what happens when you come to a green light?" They will probably say "stop" (but that's not really what you do at a red light - in fact, you stop).


I confoosed  :Hmmmm:

----------


## Logan13

> I confoosed


Mike tends to do that to people...........

----------


## givemethejuice

> I'm trying to tell ya young grasshopper...your type of mature attitude, and your need to express simple opinions are not tolerated...You did note the verbal slapping you got from Carlos right?? Need to learn your place....and quick.



I know this place is getting out of hand. I even said I was sorry and he still had to retort with a smart ass comment. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  Why? Like I don't know it is for the admin's to decide. I was just stating an opinion. I have been on and off this site for the last couple of years and can't beleive the stuff that is going on around here. But i am going to leave that alone. 
Carlos, I admire you for your hard work and dedication and I can't imagine the things you have had to put up with in your life being a strong willed gay black man but please chill out a little and get off the defensive some time. You have to learn to relax and enjoy things a little. Like you said, things are getting better now! Also, good luck on the show, I see first place in your future judging by your avy.

----------


## Carlos_E

> I have been on and off this site for the last couple of years and can't beleive the stuff that is going on around here. But i am going to leave that alone.


You need to spend more time reading. There is a rule DO NOT ASK OR QUESTION WHY SOMEONE IS SUSPENED OR BANNED! You asked, hence my reply.

----------


## Mike Dura

I can appreciate that you are trying to the best of your capacities to grasp the world around you. How can you be faulted for that? 




> Or perhaps this person is simply in left field........

----------


## Mike Dura

I was a bit off topic by adressing a single sentence from Logan. I was in the mood to "split hairs" hairs that day. 




> I confoosed

----------


## Logan13

> I was a bit off topic by adressing a single sentence from Logan. I was in the mood to "split hairs" hairs that day.


You give yourself too much credit. The world is not as hard to figure out as you make it. Damn, it must be hell to get an actual decision out of you in a timely fashion. You kind of remind me of Cliff Clavin from that sitcom Cheers, although you replace worthless trivia with worthless, open-ended rants. I find you amusing.
Example of a conversation with Mike:
Logan13: "I am thinking of painting my living room this color red, what do you think Mike?"
Mike: Well, what is red really. Who is to say that the red that you see is the same red that I see?
Logan13: What? It is the red that is on this swatch here in front of you.
Mike: All that I am saying is that my interpretation of red may be different than yours.
Logan13: So do you like it or not?
Mike: I do not think that I can give you a definitive answer at this time, nor can anyone else for that matter.
Logan13: Get the **** out........

 :7up:

----------


## Mike Dura

Lol. That's funny! Although there's a grain of truth to what you are saying, I think there is a value to open-ended discusion when it comes to certain topics. An open-ended inquiry means that one is suspending judgement. This way tends to raise questions and gives room for others to enter new space and make further inquiry. On the other hand, one has to take action and so you have to make a decision and act. 

But there's no doubt that some favor answers and some prefer questions. You and I are opposites in that way. And as it turns out, on the whole, conservatives and progressives are opposites in that way as well. 




> You give yourself too much credit. The world is not as hard to figure out as you make it. Damn, it must be hell to get an actual decision out of you in a timely fashion. You kind of remind me of Cliff Clavin from that sitcom Cheers, although you replace worthless trivia with worthless, open-ended rants. I find you amusing.
> Example of a conversation with Mike:
> Logan13: "I am thinking of painting my living room this color red, what do you think Mike?"
> Mike: Well, what is red really. Who is to say that the red that you see is the same red that I see?
> Logan13: What? It is the red that is on this swatch here in front of you.
> Mike: All that I am saying is that my interpretation of red may be different than yours.
> Logan13: So do you like it or not?
> Mike: I do not think that I can give you a definitive answer at this time, nor can anyone else for that matter.
> Logan13: Get the **** out........

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Logan13: "I am thinking of painting my living room this color red, what do you think Mike?"
> Mike: Well, what is red really. Who is to say that the red that you see is the same red that I see?
> Logan13: What? It is the red that is on this swatch here in front of you.
> Mike: All that I am saying is that my interpretation of red may be different than yours.
> Logan13: So do you like it or not?
> Mike: I do not think that I can give you a definitive answer at this time, nor can anyone else for that matter.
> Logan13: Get the **** out........


 :LOL:   :LOL:

----------


## Logan13

> Lol. That's funny! Although there's a grain of truth to what you are saying, I think there is a value to open-ended discusion when it comes to certain topics. An open-ended inquiry means that one is suspending judgement. This way tends to raise questions and gives room for others to enter new space and make further inquiry. On the other hand, one has to take action and so you have to make a decision and act. 
> 
> But there's no doubt that some favor answers and some prefer questions. You and I are opposites in that way. And as it turns out, on the whole, conservatives and progressives are opposites in that way as well.


Being at the opposite ends of the spectrum, I am sure that at some point we may broaden one-another's views. That's probably why we keep responding to each other.

----------

