Misconceptions about Homosexuality

[Eilonnwy]

Why do some homosexuals have an accent that seems to be a solely homosexual accent? If the behavior is not learned, where did they pick up the accent?

What gay accent? There is no such thing.

Why is homosexuality revered in the modern society, and not treated as a choice, a deviant sexual behavior

Where the fuck have you been living? Homosexuality is not revered in the least. Too many people think as you do. Too many people hate gays and try to take away their basic civil rights. Gays are constantly put down and hated. Do you think gays would choose to be a hated minority? You think they would choose to get thrown out by their parents when they come out, or choose to have their religions telling them they are going to hell? Come on, Pippy? Are you fucking kidding me?

The gay rights movement has struggled tirelessly to get rid of notions like "It's a choice", but even still many people today insist it's a choice and discriminate against it. Tell me, Pippy, when did you choose to be straight? Hmm?

or at the very least something that is not selected for in evolution? If there is one thing that evolution abhors (although it has no real opinion) it's strict homosexuality. You don't make babies. If your parents were strictly homosexual, you would not exist. It doesn't seem like a moral positive in that light.

Oh, the classic, homosexuality cannot be naturally occurring because it's not evolutionary advantageous. I've already tackled this before, so I'm going to copy pasta from an old thread:

First, to address the comment that homosexuality is natural. Natural has many definitions, just look at dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural But the first and most relevant definition is "existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. " So essentially, if it's found in nature and not "artificial" it's natural. Since animals besides humans have been shown display homosexuality, it is safe to say homosexuality is natural. It's as simple as that.

However, I'm sure the people are more concerned with natural as being "born with" and "evolutionary advantageous". It's fallacious to think in those terms. You could argue that our personalities are natural and yet there is no specific genetic component. It's argued that personality is genetic or that personality is a result of upbringing, or a blend of the two. But at the end of the day, I would say most of us agree that our personality is intrinsic and not subject to change without changing a sense of "self"

Homosexuality is intrinsic to the nature of the person, whether it's genetic or not. There is a quote in the Iowa court decision that legalized gay marriage that talks about that: "Sexual orientation is someone’s identity and is not subject to change without changing a sense of self" This is the basic argument for why homosexuals should have equal rights, whether it's genetic or not.

It has not been definitively pinpointed to a specific gene, but there is evidence to suggest there is a genetic component. It's important to remember that traits physical or not, are not always pinpointed to a single gene. There have also been studies into prenatal care, environment, etc... For instances, if a woman who is pregnant with a female has high levels of testosterone, it's been found that the child will be more likely to be gay. It's also been studied that female relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children that woman with heterosexual relatives which may suggest there is something in the x-chromosome that promotes fertility and could contribute to homosexuality.

For more information on the biology of homosexuality, this page has a decent summery of various studies and the findings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and...rientation

The biggest thing to take away from this is that it is not specifically known what causes homosexuality (It's certainly not explained away as a chemical imbalance in the brain) but without knowing the specific cause we do know that is intrinsic to the nature of the person and to try and change that would change one's sense of self. No one should ever have to do that to live by their basic civil right of "pursuit of happiness". Hence, denying gay marriage or segregating it to "civil unions" is fundamentally wrong.

Now, to discuss the whole evolutionary aspect. It's very simplistic to think there has to be an evolutionary advantage for something to have evolved. Evolution does not have a "goal". It simple means change over time and what we have today as plants and animals are the changes that have produced these plants and animals, and that doesn't mean all the evolutionary traits animals and plants have are "good" or "advantageous" Natural selection is not perfect and does not only select "good traits".

Example: Almost every other animal has a gene that can produce Vitamin C. Human's and great apes have a Vitamin C deficiency. It's theorized that genetic mutations continued over time that eventually prevented our ability to create Vitamin C. If I remember correctly, the gene is in our genetic makeup, but it's essentially "broken" for lack of a better word. Why would this trait evolve? It's not very advantageous to no longer produce our own Vitamin C, yet here we are. Simply put, it evolved because we were eating fruits with high Vitamin C, so when the inability to produce Vitamin C came about it didn't get "selected" away. It was countered by our diet.

So, yes, men and women can have children. Gays cannot, but it's doesn't prevent the race from continuing if a substantial amount of the species are still breeding. Thinking of evolution in terms of what is "best" for the race is highly fallacious.

Personally, I know that even if I lived a heterosexual life I would still have attraction to women and vice versa. I could never change that about myself. So for me, it's natural. If people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, that's fine.

I am very accepting of individuals, and have friends who happen to be gay. Fuck, I may as well be gay myself, that's how much it doesn't matter on a personal level. I will never be mean to someone because they are gay. But I have a problem pandering to and worshiping the lifestyle choices that represent gayness. I will tolerate it, try to accept it, but will not congratulate it.

Is gayness genetic? I know the whole "I have no choice" and "I have to be who I really am" arguments, I wonder if homosexual tendency is genetic. I would vote learned behavior, but I may be wrong.

Those are my misconceptions with gayness. MY buddy at work once insisted that his gayness was not genetic, but chromosomal, which made me laugh very, very hard. He also thinks 12% of the world is fully gay, and I thought it was more like 2%, like left handed people.

Ah sex with other men,
-Pip

No one is asking you to pander to gays. They just want to exist and love in the same capacity that straight people can. It's about equality. Gay people are treated terribly socially and politically, for no good reason other than religious, or people just finding it gross. If you think that people should be able to love and live with whomever they choose, why must this be dependent on gender? Why is it only okay if they're the opposite sex? We're not bothering you we just want to live their own damn lives, the same way you get to live yours. We want children not to kill themselves for realizing they're gay, not able to withstand the pressure, the torment, what their parents think... We want people to get married to whom they love, regardless of gender. We want equal opportunities at work, to get adoptions, etc... What is so wrong with that?

It doesn't matter how many gay people exist, it simply matters that we do exist, it's not a choice, and you clearly don't understand the first thing about gay people.

You might want to read my post again about heterosexual privilege. Here, I've linked it for you.