When Did You Choose To Be Straight?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think you can choose to be bi-sexual and that is more environmentally influenced. The majority of true homosexuals were homosexuals long before they even had a clue to what sex was. They saw themselves as normal in their own way and it was the environment that told them they were not.

My neighbor’s five years old is homosexual, and you may ask how do I know for he doesn’t. And the answer is because there is more to the pie than just the sexuality part of it all. For a bi-sexual it might just be the sexual part but for the homosexual it encompasses their whole life, every aspect of it.

Please tell me how a five year old can be a homosexual ?
Does that five year old have sex ? And is a five year old even old enough to know what is what yet >?

Now if you tell me that the five year old has feminine traits or vise versa ..then that is explainable ..they may have had too many hormones at birth (from one side or the other) ...............

My neighbor kid walks like a girl ...plays with barbies etc ..plays with the girls in the neighborhood (And imitates them which is why he started walking that way ) ......... ..Now his momma is bisexual (she told me that )...is married to a man but does women too ...so wouldnt it be more likely that he will be bisexual too because it is LEARNED BEHAVIOUR >..from his momma and from his girl friends etc ? ..Not because he was born that way ....but because thats what he sees as acceptable .............

I tried to be straight at age 16. My brother set me up with his girlfriend's best friend Kristy. We dated for a few months and we actually eventually had sex. The experience was shocking and uncomfortable.

It was akin to thinking of sex with a sibling and actually going through with it. The scents, emotions made me actually vomit afterwards. The breasts, vagina a woman's curves were very unattractive to me although most straight men would have loved the situation. She was actually very pretty.

It was not pleasurable, it was infact obscene and felt very wrong. She would make moves and initiate a kiss and I didn't enjoy kissing her. I tried to avoid this as it felt like trying to make out with a sister. I broke it off not long afterward because I could not live with this charade.

Some men do continue the charade and I feel that it will hurt the woman in the long run when the truth eventually comes out. It is downright unfair to them to spend years with her and not love her.

-----------------------------
Age 7 Realized I was different because I got the little kid crushes on little boys. I was caught holding hands with a boy that I called my boyfriend. He was 8 and was named Kevin. The teacher beat my hand with a ruler and called me nasty. I did not understand.

Knew I was different because I played with both boys and girls. I would play basketball and could play with Barbies with the girls. I wondered why I played with both when no other boy did. So I knew I was different, but not quite why.

Age8-15 My family went to a very strict religious church that were very anti-gay. They praised gay killings. The pastor even made bold statements that he would slit his own son's throat if he "turned out to be gay". My father was a deacon there and a Sunday School Teacher. My mom was over the daycare.

Age 12 I looked up in a book in the local library and realized I was one of the people this church hated. I was afraid and thought that if they found out they would kill me.

Age 14 Went to a Christian School. This was operated by the same church I went to. The other kids knew because I didn't flirt with the girls etc etc. I was beaten by some of the students which the school thought was perfectly acceptable because it would teach me to renounce my gay demons and learn to be straight. They told this to my parents and they believed this! Gum stuck in my hair, faggot signs taped to my back.

Age 15 Renounced Christian Faith. Quit the Church. Hated God for creating me like this amongst prayers of hopeful conversion. Became very rebellious.

Age 16 Nobody from school bothered me because of my transformation into a rebellious person. There were rumors that I was now a Satanist and I let them run with it because it kept me safe. Showed anger towards everyone. Listened to Heavy Metal, Drank, Smoked. Anything to be safe.

Dated a girl that my brother set me up with as a last ditch effort. If anything this will convert me. The phrase, "God only helps those whom help themselves" came to mind so I made this a big effort. I was very uncomfortable in the boyfriend role. Kissing was horrible, later the sex was horrible, any type of intimacy between us was a brick wall. It felt strange, odd. Broke up.

Age 17 Came out to my brother and my parents. My initial thought would be that they would hate me. I thought they would either beat me or throw me out. The actual event was far more easy than I thought it would be.

Age 17-18 Spent my senior year of High School in Public School. The local school bands were highly interested in the lyrics I had written. Most came from a hidden life of being gay but, they didn't know that (Angst, Rebellion, Sadness). So strangely enough I spent my senior year a gay guy hanging out with metal heads from the school.

Age 18 Father quits the church, has an alteration of beliefs. He becomes less of an overbearing guy. We become not only father and son but, also friends. Date my best friend whom was bisexual.

Age 19 Go to a gay club for the first time. I was afraid from all the misconceptions that I had heard growing up. It was actually relaxing and almost like stepping into a make believe world because the views of those there was so much more different than what I had grown up with.

Age 20 Find that the majority of the men in mom's family were gay or bisexual. My mom had hidden this from us for many years. One of my brothers comes out as being bisexual. Find an uncle from New York that had been partnered for 30 years. He gives me lots of words of advice.

Age 21-23 Spend nights partying with lesbians on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays at the gay club.

Age 25 My brother goes through a nasty divorce where his ex-wife had a drug problem and fidelity problems. He was broke because of how she wasted money. I found myself raising children although I had an aversion to kids before this.

I considered the standard family thing to be lame and thought that was for straight people that wanted to make their lives seem important. For me to be raising children was absurd. I can even remember my brother trying get me to hold my nephew (newborn) and telling him, "I do not want to hold that thing, It smells like crap!"

Within a month though something changed. I felt a spark of being parental. I fell in love with his children. I happily changed diapers and the whole nine yards. I felt it was my responsibility to make sure they were always safe. I learned something else from years of knowing the perspective of women and men in that I knew what the children needed by combining the best of my mom and dad into one person.

I knew from the perspective of women how they loved their child and from the father's insticts as well. I knew when to be tough and went to just sit in the chair and hug them knowing they were growing up way too fast. I knew how to play with them as my niece did girl things which I could relate and my nephew. I understood the difference between their play types (boy vs girl) and could contribute to either. So yes when my niece got her make up set I was open to sitting there and playing make up with her and could play Tonka trucks with me nephew as well.

Age 26 Date a few people while still juggling parenting with work.

Age 28 Go to therapy for past religious abuse. Find that there were several other gay people from school/church. One killed himself after trying for years to be straight and married. Some were in therapy just as I. One was a recluse after being subjected to an ex-gay type program as a teenager where he was detained, raped and beaten while claiming he was the cause of it. He was told to cut or beat himself when he had gay thoughts. One is a hopeless drug addict. All were still gay.

Age 29-30 My brother gets himself together and moves but, I still visit and contribute to raising his children. I start dating a very sweet guy named Matt after considering just being solitary.

Age 31-35 Have a ceremony much like a wedding at the Church Of Wicca. Convert to Taoism. Finally receive all the balance that I was looking for. Stop therapy because I can deal with things from the past now. The rest is family.

Age 35 Discussing with a lesbian friend of possibly having children together. Not set in stone though because we haven't worked out all the details.


It astounds me that from a lot of posts people make up their own conclusions of why people are gay without consulting a gay person. Most have nothing to do with the actual events of any gay person I have ever met. All these choices that fly around and disbelief when one says, "This is me." All these stories of can't get a girlfriend so turns to guys are bogus. Many female friends have said they would like to date me because I took the time to listen to them.







[edit on 27/12/2008 by toochaos4u]

Originally posted by paperplanes
If the well-being of a species is improved by the presence of homosexuality, as scientists are currently discussing, then homosexuality is not abnormal or faulty. It may very well be good for the species, as I suggested toward the beginning of this thread. This is all I am trying to say--that there is a great possibility here.

In what way would nature see it as good for the species? At 5% of the population I wouldn't call it uncommon, but also I would not call it a norm. I can see your point in that maybe it allows males and females to fulfill reversed roles when needed.

A bunch of females in a group allows a male centric female to fill that hunter roll, and vice a versa in a male heavy society allows a male to fulfill a female roll of nurturing, but nature doesn’t work that way. With homosexuals nature sees the inability to procreate, and so it is something nature doesn’t want.

reply to post by Simplynoone


Seldom is it learned behaviour, if that were true then ever strait couple would only produce strait children. And if that were the case then homosexuality would not exist.

Now as for sissy-boys, gender non-conformity is the biggest predictor in future sexaulity, it's that way almost %100 of the time and only has rare exceptions. Gender non-conformity in girls, however, is completely different. The is almost no link between tomboy behaviour and future lesbianism. Scientists are still scratching their heads on that one.

The other thing is that some people have flexible sexualities that can be influenced a lot by the environment, but others have very very concrete and solid sexualities. It's all very dynamic and complicated.

Originally posted by Good Wolf

No, for one very simple reason. Nature doesn't "intend" squat. Nature is inanimate, it has no intentions.

I am not using the word "intend" in the human sense of a conscious act. I am using it to mean that homosexuality's presence in nature is something that, as a positive component to survival, has remained a part of the progressive functioning of a species. "As nature intended it" is a figure of speech, not meant to imply that nature is a thinking force but rather that an animal's behavior is as it should be and not occurring by any mistake.

I personally believe that homosexuality has pretty much always existed since genders emerged. At such a time it would be a hindrance to our detriment, however the times have a-moved on. It seems now that homosexuality is actually utilised in the wild. It's a fault, it's not normal but it's not inherently wrong or useless, on the contrary in fact.

Asserting that homosexuality has "pretty much always existed" and now persists to the benefit of organisms, I fail to see how you might come to the conclusion that it is nevertheless an error in nature. Can you illuminate your feelings as to why is might be an error? I ask this out of interest, not out of any feelings of antagonism--I hope this is clear. My feeling is that homosexual behavior is likely maintained in nature because of benefits to the individual and the species. I do not believe that it is there as a detriment to the individual, a sort of "sacrifice" to the betterment of the community. I suspect that it plays a very important role in species sustainability and propagation, and has remained a part of animal behavior for ages because of this. Regarding it as a mistake suggests that it is not as nature intended it, which I would disagree with. This may however be a simple matter of semantics, hence my request for a bit of elaboration of your opinion.

Originally posted by Simplynoone

Please tell me how a five year old can be a homosexual ?
Does that five year old have sex ? And is a five year old even old enough to know what is what yet ?

Now if you tell me that the five year old has feminine traits or vise versa ..then that is explainable ..they may have had too many hormones at birth (from one side or the other) ...............

Well ya I guess you can't say sexual anything, but he has an extremely high chance of being homosexual. He is in a straight family but not only plays with everything a girl plays with but acts and wants to be a girl. He would only go to girl birthday parties because he can dress like a princess and they do the things he likes to do. His parents are understanding, but there is nothing they did on their part that opened up this door other than it is the way he is.

My neighbor kid walks like a girl ...plays with barbies etc ..plays with the girls in the neighborhood (And imitates them which is why he started walking that way ) ......... ..Now his momma is bisexual (she told me that )...is married to a man but does women too ...so wouldnt it be more likely that he will be bisexual too because it is LEARNED BEHAVIOUR >..from his momma and from his girl friends etc ? ..Not because he was born that way ....but because thats what he sees as acceptable .............

I don't know...I thought my prents were non-sexual until I was like 13 hehe.

I think you are really stretching it here to show something learned. Does his mom make out with women in front of him? Is his dad extremely feminine? Most kids see their parents in a totally different light and are grossed out even thinking about them sexually, whether it is gay or straight.

I can say that in all the gay couples with kids the percentage of those kids becoming gay too is right around the national average for gays. This means their parent’s sexuality had zero play into their own sexuality.

reply to post by mrwupy


I have to say, I just love your post and the way you love everything about a woman. Being a woman myself and reading that makes me smile like crazy. Thanks!

Originally posted by Xtrozero
In what way would nature see it as good for the species? At 5% of the population I wouldn't call it uncommon, but also I would not call it a norm. I can see your point in that maybe it allows males and females to fulfill reversed roles when needed.

A bunch of females in a group allows a male centric female to fill that hunter roll, and vice a versa in a male heavy society allows a male to fulfill a female roll of nurturing, but nature doesn’t work that way. With homosexuals nature sees the inability to procreate, and so it is something nature doesn’t want.

You've got an awfully short window of consideration there. As I suggested before, the idea that procreation is the only purpose for sexuality in nature is a very outdated opinion to hold, and lies contrary to what we presently understand. And furthermore, homosexuality is hardly seen as an inability to procreate in the wild. In most documented instances of homosexual behavior in nature, the individual engaging in the noted behavior was not shown to limit itself to strictly homosexual engagements. It is most common to find homosexual behavior among individuals who either successfully reproduce themselves or serve as "adoptive" parents (the latter occurring most frequently among birds).

Also, where is the 5% figure coming from? Is that concerning the human population or some other population? Any figure at this point in time would be pointless, as there is not sufficient documentation of sexuality of ANY species to provide an accurate figure.

Obviously, the majority of humanity did not "choose" to be straight for very apparent reasons (i.e. we have been reproducing for a while).

For our species to continue, we are straight.

If everyone became homosexual, we would eventually die out beyond an artificially constructed system of "forced" heterosexual reproduction - which, in theory would be perfectly viable.

It would just make reproduction a more systematic tradition than once based on "love" or "accidents". Reproduction would certainly never happen unplanned, lol. It would be a good way to save on abortions and foster children, haha.

Where there is a will, there is a way. I don't see anything wrong with being gay.

If genetic factors are involved, it will eventually wipe itself out as long as homosexual-surrogate births are as rare as they are. That should at least give solace to the anti-gays.

On top of that, gays provide the utilitarian function of adoption. Gay's don't raise gay children as much as straights don't raise gay children - if straights only raised straight children, then where in the hell do gays come from?

reply to post by paperplanes

I am not using the word "intend" in the human sense of a conscious act.

Well it isn't, is it? Nature is just the complete set of systems that motor existence.

Asserting that homosexuality has "pretty much always existed" and now persists to the benefit of organisms, I fail to see how you might come to the conclusion that it is nevertheless an error in nature. Can you illuminate your feelings as to why is might be an error? I ask this out of interest, not out of any feelings of antagonism--I hope this is clear.

The current theories on what causes or sets our orientations suggest that non-heterosexuality is a partial failure in the brain as it's forming. There is a great difference in the neurological 'wiring' between typical males and females. Brain scans show us that gay mens brains mimic typical female brains.

If there was an intended design, then it seems the homosexuality is a drift from that design.

But variation (which is good) in nature comes from mistakes (usually neutral) and every system in biology has it's limitations and cases of failure. Homosexuality seems to be the limitations in human gestation, one of the ways in which complications arise.

But we look at the animal kingdom, looking at chimps for instance, homosexual relationships are not uncommon at all, and if anything, it's utilised by the troop and it's society structure. In this way it's very useful.
You'll find similar utilisation of non-heterosexuality in humans back in ancient Greece, where the homosexual relationships between the men in the armies made them better wariors. Remember '300' and the Spartans?

It's a mistake but a useful mistake.


logician magician

If everyone became homosexual, we would eventually die out beyond an artificially constructed system of "forced" heterosexual reproduction - which, in theory would be perfectly viable.

That's never going to happen. I can think of no reason why homosexuality will drift above like 10% tops. It's not a threat to survivability, and never has been.

Where there is a will, there is a way. I don't see anything wrong with being gay.

Sounds like lyrics.

On top of that, gays provide the utilitarian function of adoption. Gay's don't raise gay children as much as straights don't raise gay children - if straights only raised straight children, then where in the hell do gays come from?

Indeed. Gay's also don't produce accidental or unwanted pregnancies. Any children they end up with (surrogate, adoption or what ever) will be wanted and loved.

[edit on 27/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by paperplanes

You've got an awfully short window of consideration there. As I suggested before, the idea that procreation is the only purpose for sexuality in nature is a very outdated opinion to hold, and lies contrary to what we presently understand. And furthermore, homosexuality is hardly seen as an inability to procreate in the wild.

Also, where is the 5% figure coming from?

5% of the population is about the best going, so use or don't use it I don't care, but do the non-bias research and that is what you get.

We are talking nature here right? Are you suggesting that a creature that is 100% homosexual will still fulfill heterosexual roles to procreate? Is there something you understand about nature (BTW is a lot more basic than what you think) that the rest of us don't?

No one said inability, but lack of desire might as well be inability.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to Good Wolf

Ah, okay--thank you for adding a few details. Understanding of one another's opinions through online communications is tricky at times.

Shall we simply shake hands and agree to disagree about this?

reply to post by paperplanes


Exactly! I have the ability to serve both roles of traditional men and women as far as how life is lived out. Perhaps in ancient history somewhere the gay people were thought of as versatile in their duties. When one is able to wield the cooking pot and the hammer life is balanced.

Why does every person have to be thought of as a procreation machine. Why can't some fulfill the role as village caretaker. As if all my abilities and accomplishments are naught if I don't sire a child. I would rather that not be my only purpose.

Sorry for the long post above. I wanted to make it clear and simple where exactly I came from. There was no molestation or watching gays kiss etc. Parents were religious etc etc...

Originally posted by Xtrozero
5% of the population is about the best going, so use or don't use it I don't care, but do the non-bias research and that is what you get.

Again, what population? Which species? I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. There is no way for me to put this in context otherwise.

We are talking nature here right? Are you suggesting that a creature that is 100% homosexual will still fulfill heterosexual roles to procreate?

What I'm saying is that the majority of animals enaging in homosexual behavior are either bisexual or homosexuals engaging in sexual behavior with both genders. Animals who only engage in homosexual behavior are quite rare. For the record, "100% homosexual" animals procreate all the time--look at your fellow humans. Homosexuality is not a promise of an abstention from reproduction; to suggest so is absurd.

No one said inability, but lack of desire might as well be inability.

Hardly. Have you ever seen, for instance, a lioness mating with a lion? Does it look like a "Honey, I would, but I just don't swing that way." would deter him? There is no inability in her lack of desire. Desire is not a necessary component to mating, though it helps. In many human situations, the same can be said. How many times do we hear of a lesbian or gay man who married and started a family, only to later decide they couldn't stand it any longer?

[edit on 27/12/08 by paperplanes]

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Thanks. But people born with both sex organs are more than an anomaly. People who are hermathadites usually have to choose what sex they want to be. In saying that it leads me to the conclusion that some people are born gay. Not all but some.

reply to post by paperplanes

Shall we simply shake hands and agree to disagree about this?

Righto. Can I ask what points we don't agree on?

toochaos4u

Sorry for the long post above. I wanted to make it clear and simple where exactly I came from. There was no molestation or watching gays kiss etc. Parents were religious etc etc...

No way man, I'm glad you posted it. I've only just come out (bi) recently and have for the first time wanted to understand all this stuff. I only really accepted it in myself a few months ago.

[edit on 27/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by toochaos4u
Why does every person have to be thought of as a procreation machine. Why can't some fulfill the role as village caretaker. As if all my abilities and accomplishments are naught if I don't sire a child. I would rather that not be my only purpose.

The consensus is shifting in science, to be certain. We are moving out of the dark ages of the "sex is just for procreation" traditionalist view, a view that is untenable in the face of present knowledge of societal structures and group interaction in nature. It is a complex issue with many discoveries left to be made, but it seems certain that sex serves a variety of purposes apart from reproduction.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Righto. Can I ask what points we don't agree on?

Absolutely! I think it was the part about homosexuality being a mistake/error or not. That was the trouble.

I want to thank you for addressing the "bisexuals are just horny" post a few pages back. I considered doing it myself for a mere second, before deciding that I didn't have the will or energy to do so. That was yet another in a string of "bisexuals are just oversexed" assertions I've seen lately, from gay and straight individuals alike.

A friend of mine once said that bisexuals "get it from both sides, and in more than one way", alluding to the criticisms received from both homosexuals and heterosexuals, usually of the bisexuals-are-equal-opportunity-sluts variety.

I find this to be an awkward position to occupy at times, though I'm in no way persuaded to limit my attraction to a single gender.

you word this backwards like being heterosexual is not the norm and
being homosexual is....WRONG
the original design by GOD is heterosexuality
and homosexuality is a choice, a distortion, an abomination
i didnt choose to be straight, i was born straight and was taught
to not distort the designed order of things, people who claim to be gay
has made a choice, to disreguard GODs plan that HE set forth for
the system of how the universe is to operate

Originally posted by paperplanes
Again, what population? Which species? I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. There is no way for me to put this in context otherwise.

Sorry, 5% of the human population. I thought we were mainly talking about humans so when I say population I meant human...my bad

What I'm saying is that the majority of animals enaging in homosexual behavior are either bisexual or homosexuals engaging in sexual behavior with both genders. Animals who only engage in homosexual behavior are quite rare. For the record, "100% homosexual" animals procreate all the time--look at your fellow humans. Homosexuality is not a promise of an abstention from reproduction; to suggest so is absurd.

Well then they are bi-sexual, which is totally different than homosexual. Nature produces desires to have sex since it wants to procreate, and when the desire is skewed, procreation doesn't happen even though the desire and sex still does. I being straight, have zero desire to be with another man. All my gay friends have zero desires to be with a woman, and if they wanted kids they would rather squirt in a cup then to do it the natural way. Outside of humans, animals have basic sex drives that nature uses only for procreation, if procreation doesn't happen then it is not nature's intent. We humans have intelligence to control and drive ours many ways, animals doe not.

Hardly. Have you ever seen, for instance, a lioness mating with a lion? Does it look like a "Honey, I would, but I just don't swing that way." would deter him? There is no inability in her lack of desire. Desire is not a necessary component to mating, though it helps. In many human situations, the same can be said. How many times do we hear of a lesbian or gay man who married and started a family, only to later decide they couldn't stand it any longer?
[edit on 27/12/08 by paperplanes]

If the male lion is gay then he has a lack of desire. Desire to some extent is needed in a male to get an erection and ejaculation.

Anyway you look at it, if the human population all became gay we would have a massive population reduction, and this is not in natures best interest, so it is hard to argue this is as nature intended.

It is like arguing that someone with poor vision has it because nature wanted it that way.