Quote:
Originally posted by GotSkill
No, I mean Rome. Look it up.
Thats exactly what I'm saying. The fact that they were attracted to men didnt meant they were gay. It was a societal push based on the genetics already in then.
again, you're proving my point. Its a combination of societal pressures and genetics. If it was 100% genetics then all identical twins would be either both straight or both gay. Obviously, this isn't the case. And yes, I am very familiar with these studies BTW
Actually, this is completely wrong. Studies dating back to the 1960's indicate that most gay men, if given the opportunity to be straight, would still choose to be gay. People like the born this way argument because it makes it seem like they're gay because theres nothing they can do about it.
I don't know if I'm gay, bi, or whatever. Yeah, I like guys. Yeah, I like girls, and yes I like people of all races. I don't think i need to define myself as anything to find peace. And I feel genuinely sad for those that do.
Please tell me what my agenda is though  |
"Romans" is not a term historians use for people from ancient Rome!
If you're familiar with those studies then you should be able to understand them better.
Social acceptance won't change the number of gay people. It'll change the number of people who are honest and open about it. And yes, a man being attracted to men means he's gay/bi. That's what being gay is. It's not the social identity aspect.
That relates to the agenda you're trying to push. You're trying to make it seem like we're all attracted to both the same sex and the opposite sex and societal influences pushes us towards one or both. That's not the case and none of those studies support that conclusion. Many people do not have any attraction towned a a sex and for others it's minimal. O think you're trying to push that idea because you want to "bi" and you want your attraction to men to be temporary so you can move onto to only women later. Am I wrong? Many gay men try this route.
Your interpration of the study using brothers is competely problematic! Twins are ALMOST the same genetically, but not totally so they're not exactly alike. What the studies showed was that there was a clear genetic component in being gay since brothers with more genetic similarities are more likely to be both gay and brothers with less and less genetic similarity and less and less likely to be both gay. It was very rare to find adopted brothers who were raised together to be both gay. This is so because they are not genetically related.
Your interpretation of the surveys of gay men asking if they want to be gay is off base too. Who do you think these gay men asked are? Theyre OUT gay men. Why do you think they're out? They've accepted that they're gay and want to be. Not all gay men are like this. Most gay men are self loathing and in the closet. In fact, most sex studies today "MSM" [men who have sex with men] instead of gay because they don't want to call themselves gay.
FYI the born this way argument isn't just pushed by gays who want to say they can't change it [which is a fact anyway]. It's accepted in the conclusions of the brothers study we discussed so it's becoming universal except for people who don't want to believe it. Haven't you heard of the ex-gay man who created a program to cure homosexuality, but finally gave up after decades because it just doesn't work?
P.S. I'm all for labels not being important, but people who avoid them tend to be the ones avoiding the truth! People know who they are deep down even if they're denying it or don't want to define it to others. I think you're intelligent, but you're trying to twist real info to rationalize your wishes and push that agenda when we should just be honest.
