There is no such thing as gay. There is only normal human sexual expression.

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

 

OK, you obviously need this broken down into simple steps.

 

Step 1: Your genes define who you are biologically. Sex is hereditary. If your parents did not have it then neither will you.

 

Step 2: Your genes do not define who you are sociologically. The idea that there are gay genes is a political idea. It is born not of any fact but rather from those who have the specific agenda that gay is identical to black or Asian or whatever. Because of this theory, if one is gay, then one deserves to have rights which are at least as powerful as those who can't think of a reason why they should have more rights than others.

 

Step 3: Your genes tell you that having orgasms is a good idea. Past that, the idea that there are genes for liking men's butt holes makes about as much sense as there being genes for liking blow jobs and genes for compulsive beating off.

 

Step 4: There is no such thing as “gay”. There is such a thing as normal human sexual expression. Some people like some things. Other people like other things. Still other people think that something else is hot.

 

Step 5: if there is any genetic aspect that is relevant, it will be that we all like to have orgasms. Cumming is fun. Most of us like to cum and those who don't tend to not reproduce.

 

Step 6: Some people are into MOTSS. Other people are into MOTOS. There is, in point of fact a continuum of normal sexual expression. If someone is 90% straight, then the odds of their getting it on with the same sex are minimal. The same but opposite would be true for someone who is 90% gay.

 

Step 6a: You are not locked into a place on the continuum at birth. There are plenty of people out there who have large families and decide later in life that they want to do people who are the same sex. If they find someone else they can work with, then I am happy for them.

 

Having gone this far, I will now tell you where I stand on gay marriage.

 

Let them get married.

 

The usual argument seems to be about families. Well, my family is not so fragile that two dudes a thousand miles away have any bearing on what I have going on. If my family was that fragile, it would reflect on me and not on the two guys next door.

 

Then the next argument tends to go into the idea of the “rights and privileges of marriages”.

 

Every time that I hear that one, I am like “huh? What?”

 

Sure, there are tax credits and shared medical insurance that go with marriage. Those are financial things and not relevant to human sexual expression.

 

I suppose that a gay couple could get with a lesbian couple and have two marriages. After that, anyone can fuck whomever they want to and they all get the tax credits. Granted, that would be a kind of separate but equal thing. We all know that that is balls stupid but it is a trivial way to manipulate the system.

 

Where this really matters is not about the rights and privileges. It is about the consequences. I fail to see how a gay relationship cannot go sour as easily as a straight one.

 

If two dudes want to hook up and not get married, well, then they get to have some fun. Ten years later, they have to figure out who gets custody of the french poolde and tell their respective insurance companies what the deal is (well that could happen if insurance companies were not behaving like financial leeches).

 

On the other hand, if the same two dudes got married, then when the deal goes bad, they still have to do the same stuff. The difference is that the paperwork is pretty much the same. If stuff is the same, then how is it different?

 

If the deal is that same sex marriage is all about the stuff and never about the costs, then I would have a problem. Shall we create a concept of a civil union? Sure, if that floats the boat for someone who wants it. Just don't make it all about what is good to have and never about the costs. That would be the same as carving out a special section of the law, which is not what I am hearing the gays asking for.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

sexual expression

I really respect your writing on human sexuality ( there is no such thing as gay...). I have always thought and felt this way. Even  as a small child it seemed rediculous that people should try to box themselves up so needlessly. I find it very frustrating how people act as though these absurd ideas about sexuality are rational or scientific.

Anyway, thanks for the awesome article. It is always comforting to hear someone say something that is actually reasonable.

EXC's picture

Do you have any scientific

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up all the claims?

Because I think the evidence show there are genes that predispose people to sexual attraction to members of their own sex.

 

As for marriage, why do support laws that make single people second class? And to expend them to let same sex couples have special rights over single people?

Marriage is a holdover from when having sex meant having children. Society wanted to force people (especially men) into families to take care of their offspring. A crude attempt a solving the problem of abonded children. Today we have birth control, the state should regulate that you must use it and who can be allowed to have children based on a person or couples social responsibility and ability to take care of a child. Marriage is another institution like religion that needs to go on the ash heap of history in order for society to advance and eliminate scourges like war, crime and poverty.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

 OK exc, I am not clear on

 OK exc, I am not clear on what you are on about. Do you have evidence that there is a gene that codes for non-reproductive behavior? That would not seem to me to be a really successful gene.

 

Here is where my thinking lies:

 

A gene codes for a specific protein. That protein may have an enzymatic role in the assembly of a hormone. That hormone may well play a role in human reproduction. However, the whole gay thing is to some large degree a social construct.

 

Seriously, the genes that could possibly produce a twink are not likely to be the same genes that produce a bear. Both groups are gay but the genes that could have resulted in “gay” for each group are not likely to be the same.

 

I will grant that it is at least possible that there are a number of genes that might tend to result in some percentage bias towards gay.

 

Just to hinge this discussion, let me posit that there are 100 genes which each contribute 1% to gay. If one person ends up with lots of gay genes, then they are very likely to be gay. This is still not the same matter as the social construct.

 

So what do we know with some reasonable confidence:

 

Well, we know that there are so called “gay cures” out there. I really doubt that they would have much impact on someone who happens to be 98% gay. That would seem to be about the same odds as the chance of getting someone who is 98% straight to like gay sex.

 

Here I am not talking about people getting drunk and doing stuff that they might not do otherwise. All bets are off in such a case.

 

On the other hand, if someone happens to be in the 45% to 55% range of gay and they have only ever done gay stuff, then it is. at the very least, possible to consider that social pressure might drive them into a “gay cure” scenario. In such a case, it is also possible that they might decide to spend some time being straight.

 

In that case, they would still be bisexual but really, they were bisexual before the supposed cure was given to them. They would still be bisexual after the supposed cure was given to them. They are whom they are. The fact that they had only had gay sex before that time seems to be not on point. If they never have gay sex again, then they are still bisexual. They just are not doing gay stuff.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Kapkao's picture

So... why do gays like my ma

So... why do gays like my ma have their own magazines, watering holes, and activism? Why was it ever called "Gay pride"?

I think your take on the genetics issue is bass-ackwards because most religious intolerance of homosexuals is (heavily) supported by the lie that it's a "choice" that "sinners" make... A bisexual might 'choose' a "preference", but then that's why it's called "in the closet".

Most gays (not the ones on TV) would rather choose to be like everyone else than be rejected by family, admonished by friends, and risk losing their job... but they can't. They can't choose their own chemistry.

Answers wrote:
Do you have evidence that there is a gene that codes for non-reproductive behavior?

Kinda. Instincts are determined (indirectly) by genes. Biological impulses are developed from genes.

 

Quote:
However, the whole gay thing is to some large degree a social construct.

Granted. Nobody gave a rat's ass before the Late 1800s.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

 So Kap,  Your mom is gay.

 So Kap,

 

Your mom is gay. I hope that she is having fun with that.

 

Does that tell us anything that can add to the discussion? Well unless you happen to be the product of rape, then it tells us that there is no such thing as the gene for no reproduction. But we knew that already.

 

The case that I am asserting is not that gay does not exist (even though it is possible to misinterpret me so). Gay exists. It is a fools errand to assert that people are not attracted to other people. Sometimes some people will be attracted to those who are of the same sex.

 

Actually, I think that you might be closer to where I am at than you might think. What I am trying to get to is that it is not doing oneself a great favor by putting oneself in some box. Especially one that does not even describe the deal that one is personally into.

 

Theists have this stupid idea that we all have a choice about whom we like. Really we don't. Even among straight people this is just not true. Really, some dudes are chubby chasers. That kind of thing is gross by my standards but for those who are into it I hope that they are as happy as your mom.

 

My point here is that most of us like to get laid. What that means is different to each of us but we all like the idea of getting laid.

 

I am into what I am into.

 

You are what you are into.

 

Your mom is into whomever she is into.

 

Your next door neighbor is into whatever he or she is into.

 

If all four of us can find other people who are into what each of us have going on, then all four of us are getting laid.

 

However, putting people into some artificial box that is called gay is not part of human sexual expression.

 

Theists (more often than not) have this idea that there are limits to what one may be into before it crosses the barrier into sin. So you are into Asian chicks? Well then you are into chicks. You are into tubby chicks, well you are into chicks.

 

You are into dude's butt hole? We (theists) have a problem here.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

smartypants's picture

First of all, gay people are

First of all, gay people are HIGHLY predisposed to have siblings who are also gay. I didn't need to see the statistics and reports on this, which have been published. I've met too many gay people with gay siblings to be surprised.

Secondly, the gene for homosexuality in men has been linked to a gene that makes women more fertile. So there is an evolutionary preference for that gene.

Gayness is a political and sociological construct, you're right about that. What you fail to recognize is that the need to conform is hardwired into us as a species that has for thousands of generations depended on social groups for its survival. That's exactly why people who are predisposed to be attracted to the same sex commit themselves to loveless unions and have lots of children, and in fact, sometimes an exceptional amount of children, to prove their conformity in the interests of social survival. That's not just a bunch of Neanderthals living in a cave, either, we still rely upon that social conformity for our financial survival, which you touched upon.

You've always struck me as a particularly astute thinker around here. Please be careful that you're not masking bigotry in pseudo-intellectual double-speak. It's akin to misogyny glossed over with "well, chix gots uteruses, so gad made em fer mekkin baybeez n gittin me my beer."

R

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

 Well, smartypants, you

 Well, smartypants, you were not around when I started this thread. So you are probably missing the context where you might see what I have in mind.

 

In all honesty, I have lost to exact original context myself but my memory is that of someone who was talking about a “gay cure”. I have a bunch of problems with that.

 

A fairly major point here being that gay is a social construct. The deal changes as culture changes.

 

So there is no such thing as gay on that point.

 

Really, if gay is a medical thing, then gay a century or so ago is the same as gay today. Since that is demonstrably not the case, then whatever gay means clearly calls for some other defining factor.

 

Provisionally, let me suggest that humans enjoy pleasurable things. That last sentence is a cop-out but it took me like ten minutes to come up with that much. Still. We all like that which we happen to like. As long as the sex is consensual, I don't see harm in the deal.

 

Past that, let me go with the idea that there is a biological basis for gay. Well, what would that even mean? In the future, will there be a pill that can make gay people straight? If we have that as a tool, then why not have a similar pill that can make straight people gay?

 

Here we get to another problem that I see. Why is there a need to define gay as a medical condition?

 

We do not force people to have medical treatment for any other issue they may be facing. If there happens to be a medical deal behind being gay, well, so fucking what? Umm, if a medical procedure to make a gay person straight existed and a gay person asked for it, then I don't see a problem.  

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

 The elephant in the room

 The elephant in the room is- 'Why is 'being gay' less preferable to 'being straight'.

 

I feel that gay activists have spent so much time fighting evangelists that they fail to see the weakness of the argument they adopt. That is "I can't HELP being gay, so you are wrong to criticise me for  something I can't control."

I don't like this argument, as the implication, as one respondent basically said, is that if you COULD control it, you would. And you'd turn straight, which is obviously preferable.

Am I the ONLY person that sees the problem with that way of thinking?

It is basically making 'gayness' into a DISABILITY. But I don't think it is. It IS a choice, but only if you are able to perceive as a choice. The best choice is not always going to be going with someone the opposite sex, that is ONLY a better choice if you want to make babies, which many people don't.

Saying sexuality is a choice is controversial, as it places me amongst the evangelicals. However, I do not say there is a right or wrong choice, unlike them. Most people will not experience sexuality as a choice because they are so locked into the way of thinking that says who you screw defines who you are, the Evangelicals more than ANYONE. That's why most of them will fail- they actually believe more strongly in gender preference as identity than most gay activists.

Needs better explanation

 I agree with the premise behind what you're saying.  Please clarify this (from "step 2&quotEye-wink: ..."if one is gay, then one deserves to have rights which are at least as powerful as those who can't think of a reason why they should have more rights than others."  Um...wait, ok what the fuck huh?  I think I know what you're saying, but Christ that was a wierd way of saying something.