[ALEXIS_DH]

So, I´ve wondering lately, and would like to hear from toshi the biological pov.

Gays defend their gay-ness (not that am against it or anything), as their choice. they like people of their same sex. thats cool with me.

on the other hand, people with chemical inbalances that affect their behavior, like bipolar folks, DO NOT get the chance to choose and say "am bipolar and its my choice to be maniac", but they get labeled as bipolar and according to the docs they have to take their pills to stop being bipolar.

the bipolar folk, within its chemical inbalance, can choose to stay maniac (by not taking pills), and the gay folk, within his/her right mind, can choose to stay or be gay (by not making any biochemical adjustment with pills like bipolars).
Yet the bipolar is called a pacient and the gay is called a free-choice.

why am i wrong comparing both of them?
isnt homosexual behavior caused by chemical inbalances???
OR
is it a choice among non-chemically inbalanced individuals???

if its a choice among non-chemical inbalanced folks... and lust is caused by certain hormones, and the reproductive instinct is caused by another, then how do you explain sexual feelings towards non-fertile beings????

i mean, isnt your reproductive instinct somewhat messed if it leads you to non-fertile beings????
or is gayness a choice made by people in their right chemical balances??, and if so, how can behavior like this be explained in a non-biochemical-imbalance way???

 

[Damn True]

......and that sound you are hearing is the can of worms being opened.

 

[Ciaran]

I don't know about the gay folks, but I can tell you that you do not get to choose to be manic, or depressed when you are bi-polar. You can choose whether or not to take your meds, but that's about it. Your moods have a mind of their own, so to speak.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

So, I´ve wondering lately, and would like to hear from toshi the biological pov.

Gays defend their gay-ness (not that am against it or anything), as their choice. they like people of their same sex. thats cool with me.

on the other hand, people with chemical inbalances that affect their behavior, like bipolar folks, DO NOT get the chance to choose and say "am bipolar and its my choice to be maniac", but they get labeled as bipolar and according to the docs they have to take their pills to stop being bipolar.

the bipolar folk, within its chemical inbalance, can choose to be maniac, and the gay folk, within its right mind, can choose to be gay.
Yet the bipolar is called a pacient and the gay is called a free-choice.

why am i wrong comparing both of them? isnt homosexual behavior caused by chemical inbalances???, is it a choice among non-chemically inbalanced individuals???

if its a choice among non-chemical inbalanced folks... and lust is caused by certain hormones, and the reproductive instinct is caused by another, then how do you explain sexual feelings towards non-fertile beings????

i mean, isnt your reproductive instinct somewhat messed if it leads you to non-fertile beings????
or is gayness a choice made by people in their right chemical balances??, and if so, how can behavior like this be explained in a non-biochemical-imbalance way???

All the gay people I know aren't making a choice.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I don't know about the gay folks, but I can tell you that you do not get to choose to be manic, or depressed when you are bi-polar. You can choose whether or not to take your meds, but that's about it. Your moods have a mind of their own, so to speak.

yeah i know, am bipolar.
but the choice is when you get a maniac episode, to not take anything and enjoy the ride.
or like when you are depressed and do depressing things, you choose (within your chemical inbalance of course) to not take anything and feel depressed.

but when you are gay, what?? you feel attracted to other guys, and then what??? choose to enjoy the ride...
i mean, if there are pills that change things as intimate as your mood, there have to be something that can change your sexual behavior as well (and if they dont exists, they probably will at some point)... so, for the sake of the argument, lets say they exist.... now, where is the difference?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

All the gay people I know aren't making a choice.

so its like the bipolar folk, who gets his maniac episode...

and within the mania, your only wish would be to obbey your mind and keep on it (cuz its a awesome feeling).... But doctors tell you you gotta munch your pills...

but the gay people, get their cravings like bipolars get their manias.... and no doctors tell them you gotta munch pills?....

i mean, either way, if you put it like its no choice, or if its a choice... somehow its contradictory with the treatment for other people with biochemical-disbalanced (the gays you say that dont make a choice) influenced behaviour....

 

[zod]

I'd have to say that a large amount of being gay is choice and socialization, not to say that there could not be biological factors as I am sure there are. I have often pondered the very thing you are talking about Alexis, as to why homosexuality is not treated as a chemical imbalance. Then again you are talking about a sexual imbalance....from a deviant standpoint they are not treated medically in general. For example, if pedophelia is a chemical imbalance why aren't offenders checked into "treatments" wards instead of prison or after their prison sentance?

I think the main reason you won't see homosexuality becoming treated as some sort of chemical/mental disorder is that they are a BIG political group now with lots of funds and lots of swing. Nothing will happen to them that they deem as slowing down there acceptance.

 

[fluff]

This thread reeks of prejudice and misunderstanding of homosexuality. Perhaps bigotry is a chemical imbalance?

 

[DRB]

This thread reeks of prejudice and misunderstanding of homosexuality. Perhaps bigotry is a chemical imbalance?

Maybe bigotry is. Maybe kneejerk reactions are as well. Think about what he said.

If folks are born gay as are biopolar folks what's the difference. We treat bipolar folks as deviants (Burly gets in trouble for that word but an alternative is difficult) from the norm and seek to treat them in a variety of methods. If in fact hetrosexuality is the norm, why is homosexuality not viewed as a deviation to be treated in some manner or another?

If anything the line between bipolar and the so called norm seems much more gray then the line between hetro and homo.

Maybe turn this around, why do we view bipolar as something that needs to be treated? Why not just let folks be? I have a pretty good friend from high school that is bipolar and sometime ago he decided that his meds were ruining his life. As Alexis put it he has subsequently decided to ride his life. As a result he swings around like a wind chime in a tornado. Falling into deep depression, suffering from mania quite a bit and to a very few admittedly psychotic episodes (no lie his toaster talks to him if he gets rid of it the blender talks to him..... he likes his toaster better). However, he says he feels better than when he was "treated" as he is able to enjoy the "normal" times of his life. As time as passed I think that he has trained himself to better deal with who he is.

And before anyone goes on the "quit bashing gay folk" tirade, pull your hands away from the keyboard and listen.... I don't really care I'm just wondering how we as a society come to these decisions.

 

[Andyman_1970]

why am i wrong comparing both of them?
isnt homosexual behavior caused by chemical inbalances???
OR
is it a choice among non-chemically inbalanced individuals???

if its a choice among non-chemical inbalanced folks... and lust is caused by certain hormones, and the reproductive instinct is caused by another, then how do you explain sexual feelings towards non-fertile beings????

Excellent post Alexis

An interesting side not to this, the previous revsions of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (referred to as the "DSM" by mental health folks) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, not unlike say bipolar or a personality disorder. It wasn't changed until the last revision I believe, around the mid 90's.

 

[fluff]

Maybe bigotry is. Maybe kneejerk reactions are as well. Think about what he said.

If folks are born gay as are biopolar folks what's the difference. We treat bipolar folks as deviants (Burly gets in trouble for that word but an alternative is difficult) from the norm and seek to treat them in a variety of methods. If in fact hetrosexuality is the norm, why is homosexuality not viewed as a deviation to be treated in some manner or another?

If anything the line between bipolar and the so called norm seems much more gray then the line between hetro and homo.

Maybe turn this around, why do we view bipolar as something that needs to be treated? Why not just let folks be? I have a pretty good friend from high school that is bipolar and sometime ago he decided that his meds were ruining his life. As Alexis put it he has subsequently decided to ride his life. As a result he swings around like a wind chime in a tornado. Falling into deep depression, suffering from mania quite a bit and to a very few admittedly psychotic episodes (no lie his toaster talks to him if he gets rid of it the blender talks to him..... he likes his toaster better). However, he says he feels better than when he was "treated" as he is able to enjoy the "normal" times of his life. As time as passed I think that he has trained himself to better deal with who he is.

And before anyone goes on the "quit bashing gay folk" tirade, pull your hands away from the keyboard and listen.... I don't really care I'm just wondering how we as a society come to these decisions.

I often feel that classifying things which occur naturally as deviations is wrong. I would think that someone who is 'classified' as bipolar is only the same as the rest of us but more so. What I mean by that is that we all operate across a spectrum and fall on different parts of that spectrum and operate across wider or narrower breadths on it. I myself have some ups and downs in life, from being clinically depressed at one stage to being (probably though not diagnosed) hypomanic as a result of small but significant events that trigger a disproportionate response. Even knowing that does not change the emotional/mood response.

The prejudice I perceived came in not from the bipolar or chemical imbalance statements but from the choice statements. The inclination to be gay is not a choice, acting upon it is. In the same way depression is not a choice, suicide (for example) would be.

If we are talking about psychotic episodes then I fail to see any valid comparison to homosexuality.

 

[MikeD]

Gays defend their gay-ness (not that am against it or anything), as their choice. they like people of their same sex. thats cool with me.

no, actually, in American mainstream politics, it's the opposite. Gays and most who support gay rights and equality say, "It's not my choice [ie, moral decision]. I am who I am and refuse to try and change it."

Those who see homosexuality as wrong, and perhaps don't want them to have a collective public voice, "It's your choice to be a pervert, and if you could choose to be normal, or at least try to be, with a) psychotherapy or b) prayer (or both!)."

In a sense, they're right. No one *makes* us do anything. You could, if you were attracted to men, live a celibite life or force yourself to have sex with/marry chicks. You could be condemned to be free, in a most Sartrian fashion.

However, that's kind of like telling me I have the choice to be a homosexual. Just ain't gonna happen...sorry, pal. And men have been trying to deny homosexual proclivities in our society for ages. Just doesn't happen. To some of us, this is a call for society to enlighten itself socially and accept people; to others, this acceptance is a descent into decadence for society.

Foucalt's position on homosexuality (ha, ha) was interesting, in that he claims the homosexual is a 'modern invention.' Not that dudes and chicks haven't been doing the nasty with their own kind since they discovered sex, but that in previous times, homosexual sex didn't define you as a separate class of person. You may have been a sodomite, condemned to death, but you were seen as a person who committed a crime or crime(s), defined by your actions rather than a separate class of person.

I think this is kind of BS, because you can see references in, say, Chaucer to homosexuals in general, through slang terms. ("I trust he was a gelding, or a mare") But it does beg the question...are you gay if you only think about banging dudes? I say yes. Some would say it's only your actions that define you. I suppose I'll define, very non-legalistically, thinking as an action in this case.

MD

 

[MikeD]

For example, if pedophelia is a chemical imbalance why aren't offenders checked into "treatments" wards instead of prison or after their prison sentance?

Isn't there somewhat of a debate about 'chemically neutering' some sex offenders who prey on children?

 

[Silver]

Why do bi-polar people get to marry?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Alexis, I agree 100% and have made a similar argument before.

 

[DRB]

The prejudice I perceived came in not from the bipolar or chemical imbalance statements but from the choice statements. The inclination to be gay is not a choice, acting upon it is. In the same way depression is not a choice, suicide (for example) would be.

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

Sure they can - but that's not gonna stop your more "natural" instinct of checking out what you're programmed to find attractive.
As Chris Rock would say (and forgive me if the quote is off) "Why is it that women can have sex with women in college and call it experimentation when they're older, but if a guy sucks one dick, just oooone dick, and he's a homosexual for life?"

experiment away if that's what shakes your cookies.

 

[zod]

Isn't there somewhat of a debate about 'chemically neutering' some sex offenders who prey on children?

I had not heard that.........I know there was a case in the US where a repeat offender was castrated, however it was at his own request.

 

[Silver]

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

A mental disorder brought on through biology or environment or upbringing seems to me to be the opposite of choice, no?

 

[Tenchiro]

All I know is that I did not choose to be straight, and that the thought of getting it on with a dude really is disgusting. I figure it is more or less the same way for gay people, whatever the cause may be. I could really care less what they do or who they do it with, as long as nobody is getting hurt.

 

[fluff]

Some mental disorders can be brought on by both biology and environment, can you honestly say that homosexuality couldn't as well. Could it not be that due to environment, upbringing or life experience someone would prefer to be gay?

I do not know the true reason why someone is inclined to be gay but I doubt that inclination is a choice.

Saying that someone makes a choice is not in and of itself prejudice.

I agree, what got my dander up (and I have been irritable today I admit) was the implication that Gay people make a choice, rather than have a desire to have sex with people of the same gender.

I may have over-reacted but I had read some other threads already...

 

[Toshi]

So, I´ve wondering lately, and would like to hear from toshi the biological pov.

have no time right now, but here's an old post in a similar thread from the past: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=368881&highlight=ama#post368881

will expand more later

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I don't know if it's a choice or not. I didn't chose to like boys, but I do, and the thought of being with a woman is repulsive to me - but, I also firmly believe that there can be a miss-perception to people born "straight" but are perhaps quite insecure, that they might have more "fun" or something if they were gay - which gets to the "experimentation" side...and that's a choice.
I think the level and type of choice probably varies, but in answer to Alexis' first question, bi-polar folks don't "have" to take the pills - you can "choose" to ride the wave, same for folks with turetz, same for folks who are depressed, or sleepy or whatever. My impression is that it's become socially acceptable for homosexuals (whatever the reason they are this way) to not "fight" their inclination but "ride the wave" and enjoy life as they see fit. It's also become socially acceptable to take drugs or whatever for any psychosis someone can invent for you.

Take your pick - it's all about love and happiness anyways

 

[Ridemonkey]

LOL! Bipolar disorder effects peoples ability to function normally in life. Hence treatment. Gay people are not doing anything wrong other than pissing off the religious right.

 

[Joss DeWaele]

Comparing homosexuality with bipolar disorder is a conceit. Homosexuality was taken out of phsychiatrist diagnostic guides in the 1960's because there is no cure for it.

As for the "it-ain't-natural" argument that so many bigots are fond of throwing out there, you are relying on a Darwinian definition of "natural," since it's basis rests in reproduction. However, according to Darwin, if it is here, on earth, then it is natural, since existence is the only true verification of fitness. Thus, in a "survival of the fittest" paradigm, homosexual behavior is no less "fit" than heterosexuality since it exists.

If you want to argue that humans are exempt from the "survival of the fittest" paradigm since we have separated ourselves from nature, go ahead. But don't come crying to me when you can't get clean drinking water.

 

[BurlyShirley]

LOL! Bipolar disorder effects peoples ability to function normally in life.

Explain 'Function Normally' because to me, the point of sex by law of nature is reproduction. How are homosexuals functioning normally?

 

[valve bouncer]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe for some people it is a choice for others it's their natural state. It doesn't seem an "either or" question to me.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

LOL! Bipolar disorder effects peoples ability to function normally in life. Hence treatment. Gay people are not doing anything wrong other than pissing off the religious right.

i wonder this as well.
i used bipolar as an example, but use any other behaviour based on a chemical inbalance.

like, a cold and cancer. of course the cancer affects your ability to function, and a cold not so much, yet both are called illnesses.

and you know, if you dont even have a concious or un-concious drive to mate with fertile beings, isnt that affecting your function in the born-eat-breath-mate-die living scheme??????

and i kinda think foucault definition in homosexuality as a sincere insight.

I´m all for gay marriage, and gay people. I dont have any problem with that.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe for some people it is a choice for others it's their natural state. It doesn't seem an "either or" question to me.

I agree with that. I think studies have shown that kids from single parent households (mom only) are more likely to be gay. I think watching The Wiggles will also make gay numbers higher in the future.

 

[valve bouncer]

. I think watching The Wiggles will also make gay numbers higher in the future.

Well that's a given Shirl.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Explain 'Function Normally' because to me, the point of sex by law of nature is reproduction. How are homosexuals functioning normally?

They have jobs, pay taxes, and take care of themselves without being a burden on the system. What they do beyond that is none of your business.

 

[valve bouncer]

They have jobs, pay taxes, and take care of themselves without being a burden on the system. What they do beyond that is none of your business.

Agreed. Are hetero couples who are able, but choose not, to spit out rugrats abnormal?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

This thread reeks of prejudice and misunderstanding of homosexuality. Perhaps bigotry is a chemical imbalance?

wait. from all the prejudices i have, against gays is not one of them.
maybe misunderstanding.
I got nothing against gay people, at all. i wonder about it roots, thus i might seem a bigot because i dig in the establishment, but i think you are a bigt because you think anybody who digs the establishment is a bigot!


anyway, my point is about whether gays choose so or not.
so far most people say they dont choose.

then its a craving they have for people of the same sex, just like I dig redheads and long legs and to stay maniac whenever i can.

the problem is, doctors call me a "pacient" whenever i want to stay within my mania (not so hard that affects my life deeply, but hard enough to be sweeeeet), because they say my choice is compromised by my initial chemical inbalance.

But gays, is they have this craving for same-sex people, and doctors consider they can make the choice about staying in this state (means, they assume they are making the free choice with their minds not compromised like bipolars), but this contradicts the idea that i heard so far, that gays are gay not by choice, but because their bodies ask them so....

thus again, my question.... why is the choice of staying gay considered a choice made in the right chemical balance, while according to gays themselves (they do not choose to be gay in the 1st place), it isnt????

i find it easier to explain with foucaults position. easy as, gay people get their kicks with same sex people, just like i get my kicks with long-legged chicks.

 

[BurlyShirley]

They have jobs, pay taxes, and take care of themselves without being a burden on the system. What they do beyond that is none of your business.

Whether or not its my business is not even an issue. The issue is whether it is normal, which of course, it is not. By your standards, all one has to do is have a job and pay taxes to be normal. That's fine by me. I dont condemn people for being gay, cause I really dont care, so long as it doesnt affect me. Buy biologically speaking, it is abnormal.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Comparing homosexuality with bipolar disorder is a conceit. Homosexuality was taken out of phsychiatrist diagnostic guides in the 1960's because there is no cure for it.

As for the "it-ain't-natural" argument that so many bigots are fond of throwing out there, you are relying on a Darwinian definition of "natural," since it's basis rests in reproduction. However, according to Darwin, if it is here, on earth, then it is natural, since existence is the only true verification of fitness. Thus, in a "survival of the fittest" paradigm, homosexual behavior is no less "fit" than heterosexuality since it exists.

If you want to argue that humans are exempt from the "survival of the fittest" paradigm since we have separated ourselves from nature, go ahead. But don't come crying to me when you can't get clean drinking water.

your argument was good, until you touched darwin.

I mean, homosexual sex, is doomed by darwinism. because it does not breed anymore.
and the biological-darwinism success of an species is to rule the earth by sheer number!.

you argue gay sex is no less fit than hetero sex. that doesnt make any sense!!! if all animals from a species were 100% homosexual (not bi), then that species would be doomed to extinction in one single generation, since nobody would breed....

and extinction is THE failure under the theory of survival of the fittest.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Whether or not its my business is not even an issue. The issue is whether it is normal, which of course, it is not. By your standards, all one has to do is have a job and pay taxes to be normal. That's fine by me. I dont condemn people for being gay, cause I really dont care, so long as it doesnt affect me. Buy biologically speaking, it is abnormal.

The central question of the thread was whether homosexuality was a treatable condition. It is the idea that it is a condition that needs treatment that I am answering with the statement "how about folks mind their own business". After all - we could also speculate that hate and bigotry are conditions that could be treated.....

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Agreed. Are hetero couples who are able, but choose not, to spit out rugrats abnormal?

you know, I´ve been wondering that lately.

By evolutionism standards, the darwinism-success of an species is linked to the number of offspring they have.
so, when people decide to have no kids, or like me, decide to have only 1...

aren´t we going also against the biological code of every animal of breeding as much as you can to preserve your species??????

of course its because we can no longer afford many kids and stuff...
but I think my point is there...

 

[BurlyShirley]

The central question of the thread was whether homosexuality was a treatable condition. It is the idea that it is a condition that needs treatment that I am answering with the statement "how about folks mind their own business". After all - we could also speculate that hate and bigotry are conditions that could be treated.....

I really dont think "mind your own business" clearly answers the question. Lets say we replace homophelia with balding. Doesnt need to be cured does it? Do bald people function in society? Sure. But some of them would like not to be bald. SCIENCE's job is to find out FACTS just like "can your cure people of being gay?"
Why is it not a valid question, is, i guess, all Im asking...

 

[Ridemonkey]

I really dont think "mind your own business" clearly answers the question. Lets say we replace homophelia with balding. Doesnt need to be cured does it? Do bald people function in society? Sure. But some of them would like not to be bald. SCIENCE's job is to find out FACTS just like "can your cure people of being gay?"
Why is it not a valid question, is, i guess, all Im asking...

Well I'm wondering if religion is a condition that can be cured. Seriously.

 

[Silver]

I really dont think "mind your own business" clearly answers the question. Lets say we replace homophelia with balding. Doesnt need to be cured does it? Do bald people function in society? Sure. But some of them would like not to be bald. SCIENCE's job is to find out FACTS just like "can your cure people of being gay?"
Why is it not a valid question, is, i guess, all Im asking...

It's pretty much a stupid question, since homosexual behavior has been observed a lot in animals. So in that sense, it is "natural."