DVDizzy Forum

I just went ahead and deleted my last posts....yeah that was to controverisal sounds coming from myself....

Anyways Yeah...theres no choice if you want to be bi/straight/gay.

Okay, James, I hope you know that I am not trying to say that you are wrong for asking the question. I, too, am gay. I was saying I didn't understand the need for people to label everyone. That wasn't directed towards you, necessarily, but, to society.

However, your reply to the whole matter IS not necessary. There is no reason to use the curse words that you used in your reply, and I highly suggest that you edit your post, to remove those curse words. We are, after all, on a site that does have young visitors, who should not be subjected to that type of language.

Otherwise, I have no problem with your post. I think that we have many intelligent people who frequent these boards, and we can do so, without it turning ugly.

Ok James you need to watch the language, there is no reason to be cussing here, I really think this thread should be deleted before any major problems occur here, I also think that Luke should give you a warning or a banning for unappropriate language. There have been way to many fights on this web site because of this subject and if this thread stays open there probably will be more, so Luke or the moderators please delete it

Here's my 2 cents.

For those who want to say "How can people choose what they are attracted to?", people do this all the time. Let's face it, there are some VERY bizarre sexual fetishes out there and all of these people say they don't know why these things turn them on, just that they do. Are we to expect that all of these sexual fetishes are just simple genetics? I feel that homosexuality can be placed in the same category. It is a sexual fetish, people are not born that way.

In all of the gay propaganda written pre 1989 it always stated that being gay was a choice. After 1989 DNA was blamed because no one can argue with "I can't help it. I was born like this." However, if this really is a birth defect, it is the only birth defect that is celebrated. I've seen hysteria in the gay community when people have suggested gene therapy that could eliminate the so called gay gene. So, my question is if this really is a birth defect then why should it be celebrated?

Some people also object to my calling it "birth defect" but by definition that is what it would be in their logic. I rest my case there.

Furthermore, you always here the gay genetics people say there are gay animals but where is the proof? You never see footage or photos of gat animals. Now, some will say dogs are gay because they are known to hump male dogs but a dog will hump your leg if they are horny enough so I'd say that a dog will just hump whatever is there. You don't see same sex pet couples out there like you do male/female ones. And I'm excluding creatures that can fertalize their own eggs. I want to see some gay chimps out there. After all supposedly they're just like us.

Also, if being gay were genetic then it would be a trait that would die off since it couldn't be passed on yet today there seem to be more gay people than any other point in history. I have also noticed that pro gay people say that homosexuality is 10% of the population but when confronted with the actual numbers that are .03%-3.0% they say that the remaining total don't know they're gay yet or are in hiding. I think homosexuality is on the rise but I blame the fact that many sex ed classes now encourage sexual experimentation to discover if you are gay or not. I'm sure that this and the fact that the media is more accepting of it today has caused a surge in gayness. At any rate, how could 10% of the population inherit a fluke gay gene mutation? That seems silly to me.

And if you want to claim that being gay is a birth defect then you have to say that being a child molester is a birth defect too. After all, most of them claim they can't help it. Some people might say that comparing being gay to being a child molestor is not the same thing but, oh, it is. An adult being sexually attracted to a child is not normal. It's been proven time and time again that once released from jail most of these people resort to this behavior again. THey say they can't help it, just like gay supporters say. So if being gay is a birth defect then we must hold child molestors to the same rules And I"m no lover of child molestors. I feel that child molesters should get the death penalty no questions asked. The same goes for rapists. And there is another group who claims they can't help doing what they do. Either all forms of sexual deviancy are genetic or none are. You can't have it both ways.

Now, if anyone is offended by my comments I make no apology. I presented them in a clean and direct manner and have not resorted to foul language or hate. I speak merely with the mind of a scientist and if anyone wants to provide me evidence proving me wrong I'd gladly welcome it. I also ask the same respect by granted to me that I have given.

Theres a strong difference between being gay and being a child molester. I'll say about 90% of the time, people who are molesters are that way because they, themsleves were molested as a child. Its a strong psychological matter that does have its roots in a persons mind. Im not defending child molester by all means I can't stand there acts, but they cannot be blamed by doing those acts on free will. How could something like that possibly affect a male or female in being gay?

Being gay however is not a choice because do you seriousley think any gay person in the begining is going to want to be gay? Knowing that the general world does not accept homosexuality? How families and friends would react to them? How personal religion plays a part in their lives? It isnt an easy life for them at first. I think openly proudful gay people are awesome for being happy with who they are.

Im going to guess you are a straight guy. Think of it this way. Your definitely not going to wake up one day and go "TODAY I FEEL LIKE BEING GAY!" Its just not going to happen is it? The same goes for gay people. They can't just wake up and decide "IM TIRED OF BEING GAY! ITS TOO MUCH TO STRUGGLE WITH, LETS JOIN THE STRAIGHT CROWD!" (thats coming from people who are struggling in the closet). It may not be a birth defect or a genetic gene, buts its definitely not a choice either.

And there is a root to all fetishes. Its all pyschological. All fetishes have there original root.

And by the way. There are actually gay animals. Years ago it was on the news that male penguines in a zoo actually started have intercourse, and when they tried putting more female penguins in with the males, the males imply ignored them.

As for what you say about mammals, have you ever seen two male dogs humping eachother? It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with homosexuality, but animals mate and most animals don't really care what they mate with as long as it is their species.

What does two dog sodomising each other have any thing to do with this topic? I was actually trying to think about it scientifically. I was talking about reproduction not intercourse; mammals can only reproduce when a male mates with a female. To do so otherwise is unnatural but the animal is actually dumb enough to do that but humans aren't. Thus, when a man wants to have intercourse with another man it's because they choose to do so. Nobody, on this planet is born with the longing of engaging in an intimate relationship with their same sex. They're push (probably from society because the pressure on homosexuals is being lifted more than ever) to act that way; there is no gene or no sequence in any of our DNA that simply says "your gay." YOU ARE NOT BORN GAY! PERIOD! If you want to believe that you were then fine; I don't really care but I do get tired of hearing these debates and I want to voice my opinion.

UncleEd wrote:

For those who want to say "How can people choose what they are attracted to?", people do this all the time. Let's face it, there are some VERY bizarre sexual fetishes out there and all of these people say they don't know why these things turn them on, just that they do. Are we to expect that all of these sexual fetishes are just simple genetics? I feel that homosexuality can be placed in the same category. It is a sexual fetish, people are not born that way.

Do you make a conscious decision to prefer apples to oranges? Or is it that your family had apples on the table more frequently than oranges and that is the taste that you grew acustomed to? Is your preference hereditary or enviornmental? I took a semester of psychology and we wen't over this alot. And that is a science, so don't try to tell me I'm not looking at this in a scientific manner. Fetishes are not hereditary. They are enviornmental. Ergo, fetishes are not birth defects. So what it really boils down to is this: is homosexuality heredity or enviornment? There are lots of conflicting data, such as differences in sizes of the hypothalimus of most gay males compared to that of most straight males. Or all of the identical twin studies (by the way, 90% of the time, if one identical twin is gay, so is the other). This could be enviornmental, it could be hereditary. And if it is hereditary, maybe you can get away with calling it a birth defect, but no matter which way you slice it, it isn't a conscious descision and it isn't something that can be helped. Millions have gone through rigorous counceling to try to "correct" their homosexuality. In most cases, it was not successful and in the few cases that showed a shift towards heterosexualty, they were miserable due to the repression of their feelings and they were mostly diagnosed with depression issues. Years down the road, they came out again. To quote Mr. Deeds, "I like feet. I don't know why."

However, if this really is a birth defect, it is the only birth defect that is celebrated.

I'm a little confused. In what ways is homosexuality celebrated??? It is tolerated. The media has become less stingy about it in a post-Elen Degeneres coming out era. That is all. It is still generally looked down upon throughout the U.S. You have your current shows like "The L Word" and "Gay, Straight, or Taken?", but that doesn't mean that society is accepting of it. Maybe moreso than 10 years ago, but I doubt someone could walk into a mall and yell "I'm gay" without many heads turning in disgust.

Some people also object to my calling it "birth defect" but by definition that is what it would be in their logic. I rest my case there.

Not if it's enviornmental. And it can be enviornmental and still be unfixable (I'm not saying anything needs to be fixed). Look at cases of classical conditioning in which subjects are never able to undo the conditioned response. Look at all of the irrational phobias that people are never able to get over. If homosexuality really isn't genetic and the smaller hypothalimus developes as a result of being gay, not the other way around, then it still isn't a choice and it is more than wrong to refer to it as a "birth defect."

Also, if being gay were genetic then it would be a trait that would die off since it couldn't be passed on yet today there seem to be more gay people than any other point in history.

Didn't you learn from high school biology about dormant genes? That people can be carriers and not actually posess the trait? It is a fact that their is a better chance for families with a homosexual member to have homosexual offspring down the line. For example, there are two brothers. One is gay, the other straight. The straight brother has three sons and one of them turns out to be gay. It happens all the time. So no, the gene wouldn't simply die off. It's just like any other gene in the history of mankind. It would reoccur. Also, a gay or lesbian who has a child isn't guaranteed a gay offspring. In fact, more often than not, the child ends up straight, even though it lives in a homosexual enviornment.

And if you want to claim that being gay is a birth defect then you have to say that being a child molester is a birth defect too. After all, most of them claim they can't help it. Some people might say that comparing being gay to being a child molestor is not the same thing but, oh, it is. An adult being sexually attracted to a child is not normal. It's been proven time and time again that once released from jail most of these people resort to this behavior again. THey say they can't help it, just like gay supporters say. So if being gay is a birth defect then we must hold child molestors to the same rules

Oh, no it isn't. Once again, enviornmental factors are what cause people to be child molesters. That is proven. Homosexuality is still a mystery to mankind, so until it is strictly proven that it is exclusively caused by enviornment, you can't even remotely begin to compare the two. See above for my explanation of why enviornmental choices really aren't a choice. Child molestation is the sickest thing anybody could ever do, but the truth is that most child molesters were themselves molested as children. I suppose next you will be saying that homosexuals are just like Hanibal Lecter!

To sum this up, there have been siginificant advances in studys of why homosexuals are homosexual, but science still has a long way to go. It is one of psychology's greatest mysteries. Wether it is heredity, enviornment, both, or some other catalyst that causes people to be attracted to the same sex, it is uncertain. However, it is very evident that it is not a conscious decision. It is not a choice. And it is not something that can be helped. Non-negative media attention hasn't caused more people to "become" gay. It has simply made people "hiding in the closet" to be less fearful. An increase in public support groups and clubs/bars also plays a factor. One thing is for certain, outside of the facts, nobody should claim anything that isn't/can't be proven. It may not be natural due to the fact that it isn't the way nature intended, but obviously it is happening and there is nothing you can do about it. Some psychologists have even theorized that their is a natural need for homosexuality. The more obvious and easier to see of the two main theories is for population control. Nature throwing a few steril and homosexual individuals into the mix should keep the population at a reasonable level. About 10% of the population should do the trick. The other theory is that homosexuals are more understanding of the way men and women think and they should be used in society as a type of intermediator between the two sexes (in fact, I read some where that some ancient cultures would make homosexual men village wise mens and shamens for this very reason). The joke for this theory was that all homosexuals should become marriage counselors.

Zoltack wrote: Thus, when a man wants to have intercourse with another man it's because they choose to do so. Nobody, on this planet is born with the longing of engaging in an intimate relationship with their same sex.

No, but most people eventually choose to have sex anyway regardless if they are gay or straight.

YOU ARE NOT BORN GAY! PERIOD! If you want to believe that you were then fine

okay that just shows that people with that thought dont understand the other side of the spectrum. But its understandable how could someone with one thought possibly understand a persons point of view from both sides?

Zoltack wrote:

What does two dog sodomising each other have any thing to do with this topic?

I deffinatley should have read what I wrote before I posted because I forgot where I was going with that. The point that I was trying to make was that homosexual behavior can be seen in almost any species. It isn't exclusive to humans. And for the record, I'm straight.

Anyways, I just remembered another study I read about when I was studying psychology. They did a blind test with pheramones (the scent that is linked to attraction attraction). Pheramones were removed from female urine and male sweat. Men were taken at random and they checked wether they were straight, gay, or bi on a survey. They were then presented with the two scents and asked which they prefered. In all cases, the straight men chose the female pheramones, the gay men chose the male pheramones, and the results for bi participants varied. Remember, they were not told which scent was which and pheramones don't necessarily smell distinctly feminine or masculine.

Personally, I'm sure I was born gay...I remember being attracted to males as a young kid, but never to females. I don't think anything about my environment had anything to do with it. I didn't have an overpowering mother or distant father or any other of those silly ideas. It's not like my parents encouraged me to be gay (or straight, for that matter), and if that's the case, that doesn't account for kids from hard core right wing families who end up being gay. It's just who they are. Likewise, I've had plenty of chances to be with a woman and I've never felt the need to do so. I personally think it's an obvious answer as far as I'm concerned.

James, if you ever do want to talk to someone, you can IM (I'm pretty much always signed on) or email me or whatever you want to do. I remember what it was like being a "young gay", as you say, and not knowing what the heck the deal was (heck, I'm about 20 and I still am figuring it all out, just like I think everyone does). Feel free to contact me if you do want to discuss anything.

Well, the way I see it my name is the only label I'll ever need. Now I can understand where James is coming from, I too am entering the gay scene in a year or two and I have no idea about anything. So James, feel free to PM me if you have a question or want to talk about anything. What's keeping so many young gays from "coming out" is their Dads, because they have to live up to the stereotype's associated with Men, all men only say nice things because they want to get in bed, all men care about is how hot a woman is, that all men are sports freaks etc. etc. Now I'm the total opposite of all those, losing viriginity not high priority for me right now, I think women need to start eating more (thats probably what turned me off of them), and sports, well I can play but only if I want to. Now again back to the terms, so far from what I've learned the only label you need is the guy's name that your talking to, I think of lot of those terms fairy etc. are just used by media and people who feel the need to label everyone. Now one thing I find interesting, Homo Sapien, I can't help but laugh at that word since Homo is used to desribe a gay male and is used in what Humans are called (it sounded better in my head oh well). So like I said, James I encourage you to PM me on this site if you have any questions or just want to talk, I know what your going through and maybe we can help each other find out what we need or want to know.

Either we're born gay or God chooses for us to be gay the second we have our first serious sexual impulse. And you have to actually be gay to understand that.

The reason I think there's so much confusion about this is the fact that for a long time, gay people weren't taken seriously. No one ever asked us. But you kind of have to if you want to understand. For a long time, people didn't want to understand it. It was seen as scary or disgusting... when it's just different.

So straight people just decided to let straight scientists try to find out what's going on. Scientists and psychologists who were biased when homosexuality was originally clinically-decided to be a mental disorder. They were pressured to deliver a result that would justify people's fears and revulsions.

But make no mistake about it. People are simply born gay or they're not. There is simply no other explanation.


As far as fetishes go... yes they are bizarre.

UncleEd wrote:
Now, if anyone is offended by my comments I make no apology. I presented them in a clean and direct manner and have not resorted to foul language or hate. I speak merely with the mind of a scientist and if anyone wants to provide me evidence proving me wrong I'd gladly welcome it. I also ask the same respect by granted to me that I have given.

Yes, I offer myself as proof. As a young child, I knew that I was different. I was not interested in girls, at all. I was not told that girls were bad, I had not had any kind of experience with girls (since I was a child), and I made no decision to not be interested in girls. I just was not. This is not something that a child decides. It is because I was born this way. I never ONCE made any decision to be gay. You speak as a scientist. Science is not always right. In fact, science can be very wrong, because science is all about what is observed. I speak from experience. The experience of who I am, and NOBODY can tell me that I made a decision to be gay. Gay people are not accepted by many in society. They suffer ridicule, and hate crimes. Why would anyone choose to be gay, when they face that kind of opposition? Think about it! Those who say that being gay is a choice, have NO idea what they are talking about. They do not speak from experience, they speak from ignorance.

Many a wise man has told me exactly what MM1 has surmised - "Science Is Not Always Right."

Take that to heart, Uncle Ed. Prove you have one.

Any man who says that being gay is a chioce, has to be bisexual. That means he gets an erection when being with men or women, and he can chose who he wants to be with. How can you chose women when you only get an erection with men? It's simple biology. Biology = genetics. Bisexuals can chose, heteros and gays cannot.

I really don't think UD is the best place to try to define potentially derogatory definitions of homosexuals. I can think of many things the members here would be able to define, but I fear that this will merely turn into a retread of all the past debates we've had. They're not all that different from the ones outside the forum and they always devolve into attacks of one another. I'll leave this open for now as it seems to have remained mostly civil, but the moment it turns ugly, it's going to get closed.

Furthermore, James, you gotta stop with the profanity. It may slip out in speech, but in print, you have plenty of time to think, edit, and use words that actually mean something. I've warned you in the past about it. Consider this a final warning. Next time I see a new post of yours with swearing in it, you'll be suspended. There are so many alternatives to use (as in, network broadcast-able words, not asterisk-hangman replacements) that there's no reason to bring down forum discussions to such a base level.

Luke wrote:I really don't think UD is the best place to try to define potentially derogatory definitions of homosexuals.

That reminds me...

Try searching google for : Gay Dictionary. Those things were a big hit in the '90s. I'm sure they still have them around. Especially since now Vh1 does the same thing on all their fashion shows.

wow is it that time of the month again already?

anyway, this forum isn't the place to learn about terms used in the gay community, there's loads of tv shows for this. go get some dvd season sets from Will & Grace, fun to watch and all the stereotypical stuff is in there for good laughs.

Homesexual, gay, bi, and lesbian. Any other change of term or word...such as homo, lesbo, fairy, butch, etc is seen as an insult to them. And using the phrase "That's so gay." is also seen as an insult to many.

For me, gay isn't MADE. Its not LEARNED. Its not INFLUENCED. Its born.

For example...let's say John finds blonde women sexy. More then brunettes or red heads. He simply likes blondes. He rather be with a blonde then a brunette. Its not that he doesn't think brunettes are pretty, he is simply MORE attracted to blondes. His mother is a brunette. He is a brunette. He can't explain WHY he likes blondes more, he just does.

I know I don't like your stereotypical well muscled Vin Diesals. I like teddy bears. The lead singer of Smashmouth...I find him hot. Yes, hotter then Vin. I have my exceptions, like Johnny Depp and James Marsters, due to their intellect before their looks even. But looks ALONE, I rather have a fat guy over a trim guy. I have ALWAYS felt that way. I have been with muscular men and bean poles, they simply don't turn me on as much as my "teddy bear men". Why? I don't know. I like who I like.

The thing is, we are PRE-PROGRAMED to find a mate and a mate of a specific type. We see it in nature ALL THE TIME.
For instance, lionesses prefer male lions with BLACK manes over brown/blonde. So in actuallity, the Sarabi would have chosen Scar over Mufasa due to his black mane. So why do the female lionesses choose black maned males? Because black maned males are thought to be more powerful and better fighters. Blonder and thinner manes males are often the result of losing a fight or two. So the lionesses are preprogramed by nature to be attracted to black maned males.

Homosexuality is also seen in nature in "higher animals". Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) and dolphins have exhibitted homosexual tendancies and relationships.

Humans aren't all that different in the laws of attraction. Some black males like white females. And vice versa. I have a friend who is a black male and he obsesses over white females...including me He was raised in a full African American family. He is full blooded African American (as far to his knowledge) and the only one in his family to like white females. So he wasn't RAISED to be that way. He simple IS.

The reason why people have a problem about homosexuality is because of a few OUTDATED holy books. Look, they are outdated. Face it. All of them. Homosexuality SHOULD be more accepted now because they are NOT a second class citizen. We throw out all kinds of other sins/laws/rules in those holy books....like sacrifcing animals, keeping slaves, and selling your daughter for a few goats. I'm not Christian and nothing anyone says about what book and what god will sway me into believing anything else but that being gay is 110% NATURAL. I'm straight. I'm happy. I love men. I have no problems with gays. I think if less people JUDGED, maybe more people would be HAPPY.



FYI....if you WANT to have a MATURE discussion, then GET MATURE. Using the F word every 5 words on a board for DISNEY FANS (where younger minds are likely to see) isn't just immature, its downright stupid.

James wrote:Anyone who actually wants to intelligently discuss the question at hand, for those who don't, goodbye and good riddance.

Perhaps if you wanted to discuss the topic rationally, you wouldn't have used an offensive term in the subject heading of this topic. The way you phrased the original question was also somewhat simplistic and borderline offensive in the stereotypical way you referred to the homosexual community.

I'm not saying that you hold these beliefs personally, but when breaching a topic such as this, it might be worthwhile choosing your words carefully to avoid confusion and arguments. I knew what you meant, but even I found the terminology used to be a little bit offensive.

Anyhoo, carry on. Not going to weigh in on the debate, but just a friendly reminder to be respectful in both your language, behaviour and phrasing.