Something I really don't get about homosexuals

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Browsing the Discrimination subcategory particulary and RevLeft as a whole I've come to understand that the general opinion about gay people is that they are ok ,since ''they are born this way and can't control their preferences''.

First of all,let me say that I don't believe or trust biological/genes determinism as in unbreakable genetic prophecies that are written in your DNA and cannot result in any other way.Yes genes play a role,sometimes a big one,but I believe that the enviroment affects a great deal people in their development.Basically one's genetic code just offers possibilities,some times great ones,but still possibilities that may or may not activate.Other than that I believe that many people are homosexual due to influence from their enviroment in many forms.Sometimes that might be even a conscious choice (as far as choice is relevant in a material analysis that crosses free will out of the game).After all how do the ''pro-genetic determinism'' peeps justify the existence of bisexuals?

What I don't get though,and the reason I made this thread is by what kind of logic homosexuality wouldn't be ok if people chose to become such and weren't forced to by biological factors as some people tend to suggest.Why the heck the community has any reasons to regulate with whom you have sex with??Under what justification it is wrong to choose something that affects your personal life and only your personal life:confused:

(P.S: Yay 42th post, 42 is my fav number :P)

[Muzk]

No, we wouldn't hate gays if they chose to be like that.
Honestly I don't care about the "why" of gays
And there is no reason other people should have any other opinion than that


and this thread makes no sense... seriously, you think the revleft "community" would have a reason to hate homosexuals when they chose to be whatever they are?

Can't you re-write your question in a single line? :(

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Who cares , why does it matter?

If someone likes who they like they like who they like and they shouldn't be treated as shit for it.

[scarletghoul]

Some people fall into the trap of trying to refute the reactionary idea that its 'not natural'. These people claim that it is natural, and therefore justified, when in fact whether it's 'natural' or not shouldn't be any indicator of whether something is right or wrong. (for example gingerbread men are not 'natural', but the plague is 'natural'. I know which one I prefer)

[Muzk]

Some people fall into the trap of trying to refute the reactionary idea that its 'not natural'. These people claim that it is natural, and therefore justified, when in fact whether it's 'natural' or not shouldn't be any indicator of whether something is right or wrong. (for example gingerbread men are not 'natural', but the plague is 'natural'. I know which one I prefer)

From a sociological point it is neutral, but when someone says it isn't - congrats, you have spotted an idiot, a common subspecies of the human race, close to the families of conservatives, liberals, and the very rare white nationalist

[Yehuda Stern]

I think you're quite right about this, and that is why I think the whole debate is of very minor importance - revolutionaries would be against any form of anti-LGBT discrimination even if it was a choice. It is interesting that the phenomenon actually does occur in nature, but it is time for left wingers to begin to argue for taking the state out of the bedroom rather than argue that homosexuality is natural.

[Dr Mindbender]

labels really arent helpful, the truth of the matter is we're probably all bisexual to a greater or lesser degree.

I dont believe in '100% straight' or '100% gay'.

[Holden Caulfield]

I think you're quite right about this, and that is why I think the whole debate is of very minor importance - revolutionaries would be against any form of anti-LGBT discrimination even if it was a choice. It is interesting that the phenomenon actually does occur in nature, but it is time for left wingers to begin to argue for taking the state out of the bedroom rather than argue that homosexuality is natural.

I agree with Yehuda

I've said it before, probs in one of the threads the OP was reading,

[Socialist Guy]

Black or white, gay, straight, bi or trans, what does it matter?

Haven't you ever wondered why we have the rainbow "peace" flag at demonstrations/protests?

[Mujer Libre]

I think the argument the OP describes comes about as a reaction to the homophobes' argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." Of course, we want to counter that- and that can result in an over-simplistic biological determinism on our part- much like when we try to counter the "abortion is baby killing" argument by arguing that foetuses aren't babies. Regardless of the status of foetuses, we believe that abortion is a woman's right, and similarly we believe that consenting people should be able to have sex with whomever they choose.

It's just that these complexities sometimes get lost in debate.

[spiltteeth]

Some people fall into the trap of trying to refute the reactionary idea that its 'not natural'. These people claim that it is natural, and therefore justified, when in fact whether it's 'natural' or not shouldn't be any indicator of whether something is right or wrong. (for example gingerbread men are not 'natural', but the plague is 'natural'. I know which one I prefer)

Wait - are you saying the ginger bread man is gay?

Anyway, natural or not has nothing to do with it.
Someone may be born liking sex with kids. So?

If one person is not hurting another, or coercing them in any way, what's the problem?

[Il Medico]

I think the argument the OP describes comes about as a reaction to the homophobes' argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." Of course, we want to counter that- and that can result in an over-simplistic biological determinism on our part- much like when we try to counter the "abortion is baby killing" argument by arguing that foetuses aren't babies. Regardless of the status of foetuses, we believe that abortion is a woman's right, and similarly we believe that consenting people should be able to have sex with whomever they choose.

It's just that these complexities sometimes get lost in debate.
This is spot on. It really doesn't matter from a progressive prospective, however, we often get dragged down into having to debate morality with self-righteous zealots if we say its a choice. However, the biology argument isn't just us not wanting to debate morality with idiots. The research on the subject thus far suggest that the cause is biological. Plus as a bisexual I know I didn't choose to be attracted to both sexes, I just am. It would be a lot easier for me in the area I live if I could choose to think only women looked good with no top on, but it is not so. Now while biology is most likely the cause, environment plays a major role. You are much more likely to come out as being homo/bi/trans/whatever if you live in an accepting (relatively) society then if you live in a place that it is criminalized or in some other way detrimental to you.

[blake 3:17]

(for example gingerbread men are not 'natural', but the plague is 'natural'. I know which one I prefer)

If I ever get it tattoo I think thats what it should say. Awesome!

[ellipsis]

Wow, this is far less entertaining then I hoped it to be based on the title.

[Red Isa]

Some people fall into the trap of trying to refute the reactionary idea that its 'not natural'. These people claim that it is natural, and therefore justified, when in fact whether it's 'natural' or not shouldn't be any indicator of whether something is right or wrong. (for example gingerbread men are not 'natural', but the plague is 'natural'. I know which one I prefer)

Hahaha I love...ADORE the last sentence. :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

The only reason homophobia exists, at least on a wide scale, is the church.

[Pogue]

The only 'justification' people ever give to homophobic arguments are either 'its unnatural' or 'its disgusting', yes you can prove the first one wrong by citing the fact it is actually natural, or you could refute both by simply asking why it matters, what negative impact it has on the world, etc.

[CELMX]

down with religion

it is this poison that causes people to label, harrass, gays for who they choose to love.
being homosexual is not natural or unnatural...it just happens. and it's their personal life.

btw...are there any reasons other than religion about why the hell people care so much about homosexuality???

[Cheung Mo]

The only 'justification' people ever give to homophobic arguments are either 'its unnatural' or 'its disgusting', yes you can prove the first one wrong by citing the fact it is actually natural, or you could refute both by simply asking why it matters, what negative impact it has on the world, etc.

I'm sure Stalinists are able to fabricate other pitiful "justifications".

[h0m0revolutionary]

I'm sure Stalinists are able to fabricate other pitiful "justifications".

And Trotskyists.

Comrades in the UK might remember Militant and the Grantites, who labelled homosexuality as a 'bourgeoise deviancy'.

Apparently we working class folk don't have time to indulge in such deviancy.

[h0m0revolutionary]

btw...are there any reasons other than religion about why the hell people care so much about homosexuality???

Religion isn't a single cause of homophobia. I'd argue the day-to-day enforcement of gender division, categorisation and labelling is as much as part of preputating homophobia.

Homophobia exists, in a most reductionist form, percisely because we betray what is "normal" for our presupposed gender role. By loving someone of the same sex, we go against heteronormaitve ideals instilled into people.

This is accomplished in a myriad of ways; from very innocent phenomina such as gendered labelling of toys, to much more sinister attempts to normalise the otherwise very unreal and absract gender binary, with such things as marriage, promotion of the nuclear family and restrictions of sexual freedom (against polygamy for example).

That's why, god forbid I say it.. we should fuck gender off altogether. ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A lot of good points have been made, specifically by Scarletghoul and our dear forum mod Mujer Libre. And I also think that the OP has a good point. Nurture is an important factor imo. Recent research appears to have made significant headway into the factors of our sexual orientation, but it has resulted in some pro-gay rights acivists fiercely defending the natural causes of sexual preference. It's totally unecessary.

[h0m0revolutionary]

A lot of good points have been made, specifically by Scarletghoul and our dear forum mod Mujer Libre. And I also think that the OP has a good point. Nurture is an important factor imo. Recent research appears to have made significant headway into the factors of our sexual orientation, but it has resulted in some pro-gay rights acivists fiercely defending the natural causes of sexual preference. It's totally unecessary.


While I think you're right to conclude it doesn't matter a bit if there is a gay gene, if your mum "makes you gay" or whatever else. I think this recent research you speak of isn't as linear as you allude to.

What has recently emerged from Canada, building on earlier research, is that those with older brothers have a increased likelihood to be LGB (or otherwise inclined - as opposed to exclusive heterosexuality). This goes someway to supporting what you say, but I take it with a pinch of salt. The margins they're talking about is an increase of 1-3%. It's minimal and if you ask me, accounted for by rouge data in the collection of statistics.

Edit - story here:
http://www.edgemiami.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=97447

[The Holy Fonz]

flying is not natural but christians do it:)

[johhy one two]

The OP is a blatant Homophobe. I say to him try and go visit your nearest Gay Night club,
You never know you might like what you see honey.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What has recently emerged from Canada, building on earlier research, is that those with older brothers have a increased likelihood to be LGB (or otherwise inclined - as opposed to exclusive heterosexuality). This goes someway to supporting what you say, but I take it with a pinch of salt. The margins they're talking about is an increase of 1-3%. It's minimal and if you ask me, accounted for by rouge data in the collection of statistics.

This doesn't exactly support what I said.
I believe that both nurture and nature are likely factors. I said that it's unecessary to defend the "nature" theory so dogmatically as it sometimes is.
Your example supports the nature theory. It's also a very weak and limited theory, since we all know that many gay men are not younger brothers and many younger brothers are straight. I have an older brother and yet I've never shagged a dude. There must be another factor involved here.

[h0m0revolutionary]

This doesn't exactly support what I said.
I believe that both nurture and nature are likely factors. I said that it's unecessary to defend the "nature" theory so dogmatically as it sometimes is.
Your example supports the nature theory. It's also a very weak and limited theory, since we all know that many gay men are not younger brothers and many younger brothers are straight. I have an older brother and yet I've never shagged a dude. There must be another factor involved here.

No, not really.

If you believe nurture is a cause, then the burden is on you to provide evidnece for this. What causes homosexuality then? Is it how much mummy loved you? how many female/male friends you had as a child?

And at what age is your sexuality likely to be fully developed?

What you're saying is all 'ifs' and 'maybes' with no evidence. Yes, it wouldn't matter if homosexuality were an active choice, but there is nothing to support homosexuality being a choice, other than 'political lesbianism' to be quite frank, I think thses political lesbians are nothing of the sort, and moreover alledging homosexuality is a choice, is, for very good reason, very dangerous territory.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, not really.

Yes, there must be other factors. They may be natural or environmental factors, but the siblinghood argument alone doesn't hold water.


If you believe nurture is a cause, then the burden is on you to provide evidnece for this. What causes homosexuality then? Is it how much mummy loved you? how many female/male friends you had as a child?

I don't have any evidence
I'm just throwing hypotheses around
you got a problem?


Yes, it wouldn't matter if homosexuality were an active choice, but there is nothing to support homosexuality being a choice, other than 'political lesbianism' to be quite frank, I think thses political lesbians are nothing of the sort, and moreover alledging homosexuality is a choice, is, for very good reason, very dangerous territory.

I'm not saying it's a choice. I'm saying I think it's the result of environmental and biological factors together. "Nurture" doesn't mean it's a choice. Stress is caused by environmental factors but that doesn't mean people choose to suffer from stress.

[Yehuda Stern]

Due to conversations I've had with homosexuals and lesbians that I have known personally, I've start to develop an idea that different people LGBT for different reasons: some people seem to have been born LGBT while others seem to have become LGBT due to some experience (often traumatic) that they've had with the opposite sex. I'm not really sure about this, and would like to hear what people have to say about it.

I hope this idea doesn't offend anyone; as I've made clear before, whatever the cause, the ISL fully supports and fights for the rights of LGBT people.