Thursday, May 19, 2005


I recently read a fantastic article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Time magazine also has a great overview of the article. In this study, Swedish scientists exposed human subjects to male and female pheromones. They used Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography to determine how the brain responds when the subject is exposed to these sexual hormones. They found that the hypothalamus of gay men showed significant activity when exposed to male pheromones. Females responded similarly. The hypothalamus of heterosexual men demonstrated no such activity when exposed to male pheromones. They conclude that there is a different neurological response in gay and straight men when exposed to these pheromones. Furthermore, they suggest that there may be a neurological basis for sexual differences between homosexual and heterosexual men.

This has me thinking. Is homosexuality hardwired in human beings? Note -- in this study, no conclusions were drawn about the role embryonic and social development plays in determining how the brain responds to pheromones. Is it possible that people are simply born gay?

What do you think? Is homosexuality an issue of biological design? If so, can anyone really claim that homosexuals are making a choice in their sexual orientation? Extending farther, considering all of this, should we really create a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?


Blogger RT said...

Good Post! And another one of those subjects that I just Love to talk about.

I'm one of those weird Republicans that think gay marriages should be legalized. After all, people will have relationships with whomever they please, a marriage license is more or less just a document for the govt. Why shouldn't everyone be allowed the same marital benefits? It kills me that these dorighters think that they can change the world, just by making a law. All they're doing is giving the govt. more power to intrude into our lives. What's next for the chopping block? Interracial marriages? Mixed religion marriages? Marriages where the age difference is just a little too much? Come on, I realize that some people will have their prejudices no matter what, but do we really have to cater to them?

As far as homosexuality being hardwired into the brain? I can't help but to think that is, indeed, the case. I believe the social aspects play only a role with those that may be curious about their sexuality. Regardless of what people tell you is right or wrong, you just can't deny who you're attracted to.

5:12 PM  
Blogger thc said...

I don't have an opinion whether people are "born gay" but a friend told me, just before we moved to CA,that if I lived in SF too long I'd turn gay. You and I *have* gotten pretty tight, Vavoom.

6:50 PM  
Blogger Anandi said...

Wow, you definitely pick the controversial topics! I love it.

I definitely agree with rt. There was a West Wing episode recently talking about gay marriage (or maybe it was a rerun, they all blur together) and how if we couldn't legalize that, maybe the govt should get out of the business of legalizing marriages altogether. I thought it was crazy at first, but it really does make sense...

I think homosexuality *is* hardwired into the brain, just like me being attracted to guys is. Given all the social pressure and discrimination, if it was *purely* a rational choice, I'm not sure many people would choose it. Just like we don't necessarily choose *who* we are attracted to (I'm certainly not attracted to every member of the male gender, thank god.)

6:52 PM  
Blogger somewaterytart said...

Hi- found you through a post on the disgruntled chemist. Nice blog.

I'm with you guys- I don't remember ever choosing to be attracted to all those idiots I've been attracted to. If it's a rational choice, maybe my brian is broken.

6:55 PM  
Blogger Moose said...

I have a friend who tried dating guys in high school. She was misirable until she got to college and figured out she liked women. She has been much happier since then. So I would have to say that's it's hardwired. Also, I typically fall on the more conservative side of issues, but I don't think the government has any place in this topic. If a church choses to marry you, then Uncle Sam should have no problem with it.

7:16 PM  
Blogger Raine said...

LOL, thc.

Yes, I think it has a psychological component and I support gay civil unions.

7:21 PM  
Blogger dreadcow said...

Think about it: homosexuality has been found to be cross cultural and it's rate don't change. It's accepted in 2/3rds of the world. It's common in the animal kingdom. It's determined young in life and getting people to change barely ever works. Of course homosexuality is natural!

I have a lot of gay friends in Civilian World. They're also some of the coolest people I've ever met in my life.

As far as gay marriage goes... the way I look at it, marriage is about two people. It's not up to the government to decide who can do what with their lives.

I, for one, am perfectly content with gay people doing their gay things. The public is just gunna have to suck it up and drive on.

Being in the Army and having those opinions makes for some interesting discussion, lemme tell ya.

7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage is a religious and social institution between a man and a woman for mutual benefit and procreation. Our society has gotten too permissive if we are even discussing other possiblities. We grant people freedom, but there's no reason that we can't be critical when people choose to exercise that freedom in gross and deviant ways. That people have a right to do what they want is absolutely right, but that we shouldn't ostracize them for poor choices is completely wrong.

This study proves nothing further than responses to stimuli are hardwired. We knew that already. Trained responses are going to be hardwired too.

7:56 PM  
Anonymous FNPhd said...

The question whether this is a voluntary choice and a trained response to stimuli or a congenital condition seems to be 800 pound gorilla lurking in the shadows.

This study is a cheap way to make headlines. Imagine if they showed that Jews had a different reaction to a picture of hitler than folks from Tanzania? Would we care? Why is this study more meaningful?

8:01 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

This study is much more than showing somebody a picture, FNPhD. You know better than that. It demonstrates a neurophysiological response based on a chemical stimulus that is different in heterosexual and homosexual men. You act as though such a study is worthless. In that study they draw no conclusions beyond what they could and nor did I. I ask the question -- is homosexuality biologically designed? Should a constitutional ban on gay marriage be enacted? Did you answer those questions?
anonymous: You claim that we should ostracize homosexuals for "poor choices." Do you actually believe sexual orientation is a choice? Do you actually think gay people can be retrained to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex? If so, can you be trained to be sexually attracted to members of your own gender?

8:17 PM  
Blogger Mentally Challenged said...

"Should a constitutional ban on gay marriage be enacted?"

vavoom: which consitutional ban
are you referring to? There are some
that think there is a constitutional ban coming that will in fact be inacted.

8:47 PM  
Blogger mindful said...

Mentally Challenged: Vavoom is referring to the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Anonymous: You say that "marriage is a religious and social institution between a man and a woman for mutual benefit and procreation". Let's think about this. Certainly the government shouldn't be getting involved in religion, so forget the religious bit. Furthermore, many married couples lack children, and there are in fact sets of people (such as first cousins) whose marriage rights are contingent on being infertile. So clearly the purpose of marriage is not procreation. What's left? "Marriage is a ... social institution between a man and a woman for mutual benefit". If the purpose is just social integration and mutual benefit, why not extend the right to gay couples? Nobody's forcing you to associate with them if you don't want to.

I agree with you that people should have the freedom to do what they want, and that other people clearly have the freedom to ostracise them. But the government should not be in the business of ostracising anybody. That was supposed to have ended when we abolished slavery and gave women the vote.

9:33 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Mentally: There's been plenty of talk about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Bush administration supports such an amendment. Take a look:

9:35 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

mindful: You are so good.

9:36 PM  
Blogger RT said...

Anonymous, you say that a
"marriage is a religious and social institution between a man and a woman for mutual benefit and procreation."

I'm curious, are you referring to a marriage by today's view, or are you trying to quote something from the Bible? As I recall, the Bible talks of a man taking many wives (you just can't "take" someone else's wife.) Are you suggesting that we should go back to that, also? If not, why sit in judgment of further change?

Or is this just one of those things that you find "gross and deviant" and you're trying to impose your system of values on everyone else?

9:37 PM  
Blogger RT said...

Annnnd Mindful got the jump on me... I hate it when that happens :p

9:41 PM  
Blogger Meow said...

LOL you wrote about this and well Um take a look at my latest blog.
We're both a little fruity this week.

9:44 PM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Vavoom: This study uses a chemical stimulus, but all it does is show that the chemical can be recognized and is associated with certain emotions. This study wouldn't be interesting if it weren't for the political baggage. For example, a dog lover might show a different response to wet dog fur than might a someone who dislikes dogs. Similarly for a perfume or cigatette smoke or the smell of whiskey.

As for your other questions, I am far from convinced that homosexuality is any more congenital than the acts of burgulars, rapists or democrats. (Ok, that last one was there just for you...) I definitely support legislation saying that insurance companies, tax structures, and other states need not recognize marriages between people other than a man and a woman. (I have no problem with people choosing who may visit them in the hospital as next of kin.) I don't think this merits a constitutional amendment; that's not the proper way to proceed.

As I see it, there are plenty of choices in life, all with consequences. People have the freedom to choose, but choice does not imply that there aren't costs and risks.

10:33 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

FNPhD: This study only recognizes differential brain activity. Emotions? Huh? Take another look at the paper, please. There is mounting evidence that sexual orientation may have genetic roots. The satori mutation in fruit flies changes sexual orientation. You may not want to fence with me over genetics...
Why would you compare the actions of homosexuals to rapists and burglars? Why demonize an entire group of people merely over their sexual orientation? Might you be a bit prejudiced?

10:45 PM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Vavoom: Funtional MRI has linked brain activity to emotions/memories/etc. This isn't far removed.

Also, despite what may happen in drosophila, I think we can agree that humans are more complex. Do you know of any reputable genetic study (even population genetics) that suggests it is an inherited trait?

10:54 PM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

To refute my own argument, there is interesting data suggesting that abnormal hormone levels in the womb may be linked to homosexuality.... Reputable, probably not. Interesting, certainly.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

FNPhD: Actually, drosophila is an ideal model system and a littany of genetics experiments in that organism have had a one to one correspondence with human genetics. I can list off many examples, if you'd like. Genetically, we are actually very similar to lower level organisms such as drosophila. Moreover, many of the post-translational modifications made to gene products in drosophila are similar to those mane in human beings. To discount results from genetic studies in drosophila and claim they are not relevant to human beings is a really bad idea.

The paper mentions nothing about emotions, so let's drop that. fMRI is indicative of emotional responses in some cases, but not all. To make that assumption here is also a bad idea.

Check out the paper by Camperio-Ciani in the Royal Society Proceedings: Biological Sciences. It is a human genetics study of homosexual heredity.

I'll ask again and hopefully you'll respond: Why would you compare the actions of homosexuals to rapists and burglars? Why demonize an entire group of people merely over their sexual orientation? Might you be a bit prejudiced?

11:25 PM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Vavoom: I think your assertion that nature vs. nurture can be answered with drosophila is very tenuous. Nurture is just not a viable option in drosophila.

I think the fMRI point is still quite valid. fMRI can show learned responses. This is no way says that homosexuality is not a conditioned response. Do you disagree?

I make the comparison simply to illustrate that society holds people responsible for their choices. We have no reason to believe the sexual acts chosen by homosexuals are not choices, no more than we can forgive sexual acts committed by other groups.

11:31 PM  
Blogger RT said...

FNPhD, if you don't mind me interjecting here, where are these learned responses coming from? Gay couples having children is a relatively new concept, and there have been gay people around for centuries. Certainly, straight couples don't teach their children to be gay, do they?

So where is the learned response?

11:39 PM  
Blogger RT said...

PS: Your comment "I make the comparison simply to illustrate that society holds people responsible for their choices. We have no reason to believe the sexual acts chosen by homosexuals are not choices, no more than we can forgive sexual acts committed by other groups." leaves me wondering, where is deviate sexual act if it's between two consenting adults?

11:44 PM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

RT: You make a good point. Let's look at influences in children's lives: Parents, teachers, TV, movies, newpapers, etc. Let's even set aside the youngest generation who grew up with Will & Grace, Gov. McGreevey, Ellen DeGeneres, etc. If you look at the 25-30 crowd, everyone understood the "not that there's anything wrong with that" joke on Seinfeld because we all grew up being told that it was ok.

When there's one way to do things, it's reasonable to be very careful. When whatever you do works, anything goes and people try all sorts of things. We are dealing with a very emotional topic and there are a lot of influences and imprints. I think our culture has become very permissive such that telling someone something is ok is tantamount to encouraging them to make that choice. Of course, not everyone does, we are only dealing with a small slice of the population....

11:47 PM  
Blogger lionsgraphics said...

I think homosexuality is mostly sociological phenomenon. However, I would not be surprised if it is in fact a combination of genes and society.
The thing is that it seems homos and heteros grow up completely asexual until they're 12 or so. Then heteros start to pull on girls' ponytails cause they like them, and homos look at those boys and think of pulling their hair.
Then there are a lot of people who just grow up in homosexual (republican, nude, bad examples I know) environment, and since humans are highly social creatures, they just become gay (republican, nudist).
I don’t think gay marriage should be banned.

11:52 PM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

FNPhD: To claim that anything about emotions is concluded in this study using fMRI would be specious at best. I'll stick to my guns on this one.

As I wrote in my original post. I don't claim that social factors aren't important. Drosophila is a perfect model system genetically. Also, drosophila do exhibit social behavior. That social behavior clearly changes with mutations to particular loci. Remember, genes contributing to alcoholism were first discovered in drosophila. (interestingly enough one gene was named cheapdate!)

I'll be socratic when answering your question: If homosexuality is a conditioned response, do you believe that a homosexual can be reconditioned? Again, I never claimed the study concluded anything about whether or not it is a conditioned response. Do you completely deny that there may be biological differences between gay and "straight" individuals?

When does a homosexual person choose to be gay? When did you choose to be heterosexual? These aren't choices people make.

Why would you compare the behavior of a gay or lesbian person to a rapist? Rapists commit horrible crimes against other people. Homosexuals in consenting relationships are committing no such acts. Why did rapist come to mind when considering homosexuality? It really does sound like you are prejudiced against homosexuals.

11:54 PM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Vavoom: As for your prejudice suggestion, I certainly have opinions. I know many wonderful and amazing people who are homosexual. That's fine with me, and I view them in a very positive light. However, I disagree with their lifestyle, and I don't want a society that says that that lifestyle is equal to all others.

11:55 PM  
Blogger RT said...

Oooo I disagree. Telling someone that something is OK only allows them to explore the option. It doesn't mean that they will adapt to a different lifestyle just because they can.

Also, am I understanding this correctly? TV may have played a big part in my friends homosexuality? I mean, he did watch a lot of musicals while growing up. But then, I had to endure a lot of John Wayne flicks (yep, we're of the 30+ group)... Should I be a lesbian?

12:04 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Vavoom: Let me be clear on your point about fMRI. I will concede that this article gives absolutely reason to believe that homosexuality is a conditioned response but that it also gives absolutely no evidence that it is not. I brought up my point about emotional conditioning only as a counter example to those posters who took this as evidence for a hereditary basis for homosexuality.

Social behavior in drosophila is, to the best of my knowledge and correct me if I'm wrong, understood to be controlled by genetics. Is it a fair assumption to say then that all social behavior in humans is genetic? Why is it any more fair to say that homosexuality is genetic based on this evidence. Nature vs nurture can't be argued for a species that doesn't nurture. Your example is misplaced.

I completely support the statement that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I don't see this as evidence for any nature vs. nurture argument. There are biological differences between smokers and non-smokers, and depressed people and happy ones... These are not genetic traits.

I can't answer your questions about when people may choose or be conditioned to choose. I'm not the right person to ask about that, I'm afraid.

I make the comparison to rapists only because that is the most evil sexual crime for which we hold people accountable, and no one will argue that it is not a choice. Perhaps I should have chosen a less distasteful example, but someone would have countered that this other sexual act is or should be acceptable.

12:07 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

RT: Exploring options, even just asserting that they are options, opens the door. Emotional attachment soon follows, and many people associate this with relationships and so it all goes. Many others do not, but I'm not trying to suggest an explanation for the norm, just a small percentage.

John Wayne movies? How does seeing a strong male role model with women promote lesbianism? I would suggest that if you were to take anything from this movie, you might find yourself looking for a masculine cowboy riding in on a horse. ...or at least find that a romantic notion.

12:10 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

FNPhD: Consider alcoholism. Nobody believed there was a genetic basis for it. In fact, many believed it was purely a result of social conditioning and circumstance. Yet genes have been discovered in Drosophila to prove that there is a genetic basis for alcoholic tendencies. Analogs to those genes have been found in human beings.
Actually there *are* genes that contribute to depression in human beings. Genetics do play a role in social interaction in human beings, much like you asserted that they do in Drosophila. Your comparison between smoking and sexual orientation is laughable (sorry, but it really is).

Read my post again. The study demonstrates biological differences -- it went no further. To deny the possibility of a genetic role would be to repeat the same mistake others have made time and time again in the scientific community.

Again, consider why you quickly associate homosexuals with criminals. They are not criminals and they certainly deserve equal treatment by law.

12:23 AM  
Blogger Lady of the House said...

I've only read one post and I'm already hooked! I've always debated this issue even before reading the articles. Can't wait to see what you write next.

12:26 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

To assert that biological difference implies that it is not a choice is just as unsubstantiated. That study has no bearing on this discussion of rights and choices...

Homosexuals deserve and are given equal protection under the law. They do not get the benefits of marriage, financial or otherwise. Much like those without children can not get the tax credits for having children. They aren't being discriminated against.

I do agree with you that genes do give some a predisposition to alcoholism or depression. However, it is only a predisposition. There is still choice.

So explain to me why my smoking analogy is worse than your alcoholism one again? Both addictions... I admit there is more work done on the genetics of alcoholism; however, in my mind that makes is LESS like homosexuality not more like it...

12:29 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

LOH: So what's your view? RT, Vavoom and I are using all the bandwith. Come on in. The water's great.

12:30 AM  
Blogger RT said...

Hunny, I would take any man right now, it's been way too long!

But, that wasn't my point. You cited TV, radio and newspapers as being a part of the problem, if that's so, then why are we not all effected?

Also, I still don't understand why you're so against exploring options. Why is it such a bad thing? As one who opposed to homosexuality, I would think that you would rather find out what causes it and maybe try to find a "cure" for it from there, rather than merely trying to sweep it under the rug...

OK guys, as much as I'm enjoying and learning from this conversation, I gotta go to bed! Goodnight All!

12:32 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Homosexuals are not equal if they are not given equal opportunities to marry. Please. The government has *no* right to tell people who they can and cannot marry. The government also shouldn't tell people they can't buy a gun, or have an abortion.

When did you choose to enjoy the company of women?

12:34 AM  
Blogger RT said...

Sorry, I'm not typing (or reading... One or the other) as fast as you guys, lol.

12:37 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

RT: There are many influences, and many heterosexual ones as well. I think we are all products of our influences, but your question is like asking why all the lava doesn't flow in the same direction....

Vavoom: Equal protection is very different than equal opportunity. It is the government's role to promote responsible lifestyles by encouraging home ownership, college education, heterosexual lifestyles, etc. Never will I say they don't have a right to do what they do. Anything consensual should be legal in my mind so long as it doesn't harm others or have a public cost. Similarly, I feel that most gun control schemes should be found unconstitutional, and I feel abortion should be legal (though abhorrent) for anyone above the age of legal consent.

I was raised to honor women, and to appreciate them. At some point that made them an object of affection, so to speak. Whether I "enjoy company" or not is a more private manner, and I was raised not to discuss such things in public.

12:41 AM  
Blogger RT said...

Exactly! Why doesn't all the lava flow in one direction? And who's to say that their own flow is the only proper flow?

OK, I really am going to bed this time.

12:47 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Give me a break, FNPhD. On one hand, you claim homosexuality and subsequent union is a choice. A bad one, at that. Owning a gun is a choice. Having an abortion is a choice. Those choices you uphold, claiming the government shouldn't play a role. Why not give people the choice to marry their partner? You're being horribly inconsistent here.

Also, how is a "homosexual lifestyle" irresponsible? Is it really any different from a "heterosexual lifestyle." Again, the prejudice meter is going off.

12:50 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Vavoom: They can call themselves married, and they can write wills to ensure proper flow of estates. My point is that the government shouldn't encourage it with tax breaks or other benefits reserved for married couples.

I would allow for civil unions, but I would say that we must also extend those same union priviledges to heterosexual couples choosing not to marry, but to be united. Consider the ramifications on insurance and immigration....

Guns are different than abortions or sexuality. They are enshrined with freedom of religion, speech, press, a speedy trial, and soldiers not being quartered in our homes. Social issues such as abortion and marriage pale by comparison.

A homosexual lifestyle is no more or less irresponsible than sex before marriage or bestiality, etc. etc. I don't condone it, and I don't condemn. ...but I don't want to see my government encourage it.

12:57 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

Ok, Vavoom, I have answered many of your questions. Now, let me ask a few:

You keep saying that I am prejudiced. What do you mean by this? Supposing for a moment, that you allow that this (or any other lifestyle) is a choice, would my judging a person based on that choice be wrong?

If you allow that people are accountable for their choices, is your argument for my prejudice any stronger than your argument that homosexuality is NOT a choice? Scientifically, I agree there is some (though little) evidence for that conclusion and some (though little) against. Do you feel the book is shut on this issue?

1:05 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

Equal rights, FNPhD. Equal rights. As mindful so duly pointed out, we once lived in a country where women couldn't vote, because they were considered an inferior gender. African Americans were enslaved because they were believed to be inferior to whites. Prejudice, FNPhd. All of it is a consequence of prejudice. Yes, you are prejudiced. In this discussion, you compared homosexuals to rapists. You claimed that their lifestyle is irresponsible. You also believe that they should not be given equal rights soley based on their sexual orientation. Now you are comparing sex between two concenting homosexual adults to beastiality. Accept it -- you are prejudiced. That line that "I know many wonderful and amazing people who are homosexual..." is one often used by prejudiced individuals.

It is not the government's job to discourage the sexual behavior of consenting adults. Methinks you are trying to push your belief system on others.

For someone that advocates the government's willingness to give others the freedom to choose, I find it preposterous that you are against gay marriage.

The scientific book is not shut on this issue. On that point we are in agreement. However, evidence does exist.

Also, I do not claim that homosexuality is a choice. That's *your* claim. You think government shouldn't tell people how to live their lives with respect to abortions and yet they can tell people who they can and can't marry? That's just silly.

Alas, we'll have to agree to disagree agreeably. I believe that the government should not be allowed to dictate who people can marry. I believe that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, giving room for social influence. You believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and the government should be allowed to interfere. It's that simple.

Let's take a rest from our back and forth banter and let some other voices get in here. I'd like to hear what others think about this issue.

1:31 AM  
Anonymous FNPhD said...

I ask again:

Supposing it does turn out to be a choice, would holding people accountable for that choice be wrong?

Now, I leave you and those who agree with you to "debate" amongst yourselves.

1:45 AM  
Blogger Vavoom said...

FNPhD: Claiming someone should be "held accountable" for their sexual orientation is preposterous. I only wish you could see that.

If you want the last word. I'll give it to you. The floor is yours.

1:51 AM  
Blogger dahvid said...

don't mind if i chip in my 2 cents.

re: "Supposing it (homosexuality) does turn out to be a choice, would holding people accountable for that choice be wrong?"

first, we need to get back to the 'basics' by asking these critical questions:

1) how are the terms "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" defined?

2) who decides on these terms?

secondly, i would say that one's sexuality COULD be determined by both genetics and the social surrounding. (i need to consult God to be exactly sure).

side note: and i think in 'intellectual discourses' such as this, we should all try to avoid the offensive 'you-should-get-your-facts-right-or,-what-bullshit!-markers' (*NO FINGERS BEING POINTED HERE!!) because they can cause relational conflicts. there are many ways of imparting our ideas, without having to resort to agressive means of 'language-warfare'...after all, we're all learning, aren't we? so...lets try to teach one another in a patient and courteous way :) alright, back to the debate!

3:42 AM  
Blogger Mentally Challenged said...

mindful and vavoom:

Thank you for clarifying through
what you said, and your links,
that it is the Proposed American constitutional ban that you are referring to.

I had wondered at first, if it had been a another constitutional ban
that I am aware of that was being discussed.

Why do so few want to discuss in an

, movies?

10:21 AM  
Blogger dreadcow said...

Gay rights = women's suffrage of the 21st century

10:27 AM  
Blogger Megan said...

I saw this research and thought well duh. I cannot remember waking up one morning and saying, you know what I think I'll be heterosexual. Homosexuals have been treated so poorly I can't imagine anyone choosing it as a lifestyle. So yeah, I think its hardwired in. I don't know why...
I tend to believe in the nature over nurture argument here, because not all homosexuals have some kind of horrible childhood story, or even feelings of repression from childhood. I don't think you can do anything to make your kid be gay or straight. Its biochemistry pure and simple.

11:17 AM  
Blogger lionsgraphics said...

Going a little offtopic. I saw this movie recently called 24th day that deals with homosexuality a little. I thought it was pretty good, mostly because of thought-provoking dialog.

Dan: It's not the act that's wrong. In fact, that's natural. What's wrong is how society makes you feel about it because nobody can admit that people aren't completely gay or completely straight.
Dan: Putting people in boxes, you're straight or you're gay, it's nonsense. Human beings are to complex.
Dan: Being with a man or wanting to be with a man doesn't make you gay. It's totally messed up.

I think it is true what character says in some way. What about a woman who tried lesbian sex once and decided she didn't like it. Is she gay/straight/bisexual?

11:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home