Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember having this debate some time ago in a social science class. Gay people argue that they do not choose to be gay, yet being gay or having an attraction to the same species is clearly not a behaviour intended by nature in a species that is suppose to reproduce using a male and a female. So if gays do not choose to be gay, and it is not the way nature intended most people to use their bodies, otherwise we would all be hermaprodites, then is gay a disease, hormonal imbalance, or something else. I lean towards Hormonal imbalance or mild disease of the mind but am want to hear other views.
First of all, 'Gay' is only a label. Plenty of cultures exist on the planet today where men get busy with men as a matter of course....but they are too primitive to have language to describe it.... frequently, their religions forbid it, but they do it all the time, somehow, anyway, while condemning and killing homosexuals, even though they had engaged in homosexual acts only hours before. The governments of these hellholes frequently declare that they 'have no homosexuals'. These creatures just fail to label their own homosexual activities as being gay. Generally, these populations have average IQs below 90.
And homosexual activity is very much in evidence in nature. Some theorize that it serves to facilitate social cohesion. Personally (considering the desirable brain and growth chemicals that sexual activity releases), I think that it keeps individuals sexually and physically viable, until such time as their heterosexual participation may be appropriate. And considering group dynamics for survival, it is often critical for a pack or herd to be of a certain size. While the alphas do the breeding, the others, the non-breeders, still serve to keep the group strong enough to fend off attacks. Their homosexual activity helps keep their motors tuned.
Value of non-breeders certainly has been the case with human groups. A British Homosexual broke the German Submarine Code, during WWII; possibly winning the war. A Norwegian drag queen quite successfully carried on anti-Nazi espionage during that same war. Leonardo DaVinci invented important war implements.
Some of Rome's greatest emperors were homosexuals. And look what George Washington was able to do for us.
And Gay employees and specialists have certainly enhanced my wealth and standing. I've had frank discussions with some of them, that have led me to disbelieve in any SINGLE CAUSE THEORY. Most men are potentially bisexual. But what pushes them to totally be incapable of attraction to females can be any of a number of things.
But here's one cause, for one man: "When I was growing up, I was made to feel that I was undesirable and unacceptable, because I was 'like a girl'. So, to me, 'like a girl' is undesirable."
I understand his viewpoint, because I find being a girl to be awfully limiting and rather unacceptable, and so am enthralled by men and ONLY men. Lucky for me, I found a really big, really strong, really hairy one to marry. And NO he'd better not have his back waxed, and YES he looks good with a full beard. And so NO, I have no problem understanding why some men are turned on by men.
First of all, 'Gay' is only a label. Plenty of cultures exist on the planet today where men get busy with men as a matter of course....but they are too primitive to have language to describe it.... frequently, their religions forbid it, but they do it all the time, somehow, anyway, while condemning and killing homosexuals, even though they had engaged in homosexual acts only hours before. The governments of these hellholes frequently declare that they 'have no homosexuals'. These creatures just fail to label their own homosexual activities as being gay. Generally, these populations have average IQs below 90.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but where are you getting this stuff? And to whom are you referring?
I'm not saying this is wrong, but where are you getting this stuff? And to whom are you referring?
A month or so ago, I stumbled upon a youtube video on homosexuality in nature. But there's also a book out, called something like 'Biological Exuberance', totally devoted to the subject.
Found out about the Norwegian drag queen spy at a cocktail party for our Swedish American Chamber of Commerce. The guy I was quoting is a professional who does ad work for me. The other stuff was just lodged in my brain. The group viability theory is mine, although the empirical base for it is scattered bits of information that I've retained. Sorry. I remember things. I still use my uncle's explanation of Freudian psychology, that he gave me when I was six, to explain Freud to friends. I'm an information sponge.
But it's pretty easy, I'm sure, to google the homoerotic aspect of the lives of King David, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hadrian, DaVinci, George Washington...even Abraham Lincoln...
I don't think there's much solid for George Washington being gay. In fact this is the first I've heard of it and I find virtually nothing valid online.
Now I found something, but at this point almost every figure in human history has been claimed to be gay by someone. Mostly all I find are blogs and people who say "maybe."
I don't think there's much solid for George Washington being gay. In fact this is the first I've heard of it and I find virtually nothing valid online.
Now I found something, but at this point almost every figure in human history has been claimed to be gay by someone. Mostly all I find are blogs and people who say "maybe."
There's no solid evidence for any of these silly assertions.
There are people who will claim that George Washington, for instance, was gay. Then they'll say, "Prove that he WASN'T!"
They just go down the line, point out individuals in history and claim they were gay, then act as though YOU are supposed to prove that the person was NOT gay.
It's ridiculous, really.
It is also ridiculous to assume that two men cannot be very close friends, love each other dearly, yet not be gay. I have one such friend. We are both professionals in a similar line of work, and have been very close friends for many years. Either of us would do absolutely anything to help the other. Shoot, we even had a dingy waitress at a coffee shop assume we were gay. But we're both happily married - he has 3 grandkids, I have two sons getting married soon. We're as heterosexual as the day is long.
So to assume that two men cannot be very close friends and love each other dearly, without being gay, is absurd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
