By defintion an *acquired taste* is something which first must be experienced.

So you are still begging the question...

Bennett: And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...

So I guess that would make me a modular connectionist.

I know homosexuals in my real life, but I see this as totaly irrelevant.

Homosexuality is interesting to me because it is something of a biological puzzle. But with that said, my interest is not remotely what I would consider to be an obsession. I am a curious person. I am curious about a lot of things. Religion, sexuality, politics, art, philosophy, truth, meaning, history, physics, and on and on and on. Homosexuality is just one of many topics that I ponder on a regular basis.

I am a thinker Bennett, and as such I am always asking *why?* questions. Many find this annoying or threatening (like homosexuality), but at the end of the day I can't help myself. I am who I am.

Granted, it was somewhat judgmental, but note that I specifically did not generalize to say "all homosexuals", but only that they "often appear" such a way. I know homosexuals who have maintained that, for them, everything (every act, every thought) is sexual! Everything being sexual?! Personally speaking, most of my waking thought is not preoccupied with sexually-related thoughts, and all of my hetero friends who I have such similar information over are also not so overly-occupied with sexual matters, so I infer that homosexuals appear to be overly preoccupied with their own sexual issues relative to heterosexuals. My other remarks have similar bases in reality and, specifically, in my actual dealings with, observations of, and conversations with homosexuals. On the plus side, homosexuals are often spirited people who are fun to be around, but their seeming excessive preoccupation with sex overshadows that.

Note that this is not homophobia on my part. It is a recognition that homosexuals appear to spend much more of their waking thought on sex than heterosexuals do, and an implicit disapproval of so much wasted thought when the human mind is capable of much loftier things.

I'm sympathetic towards connectionism, at least compared to (the failures of) AI, but am sceptical about modules because of the problems that arise when trying to precisely define them and assign functions to them. It seems we need a better concept than modules... like fuzzy modules or something between modules and a completely and uniformly distributed system.

My own view is that homosexual tendencies serve no function and are irrelevant within the bigger picture. Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society.

"who cares why?

I would expect much more from people who sound so smart otherwise.

I just came upon this forum after searching the net and just couldn't resist...I've have read this entire thread and find it quite interesting as to the many theories. I am not a scientist, but I am a fascinated by the mind which is how I came upon this website.

What is interesting is none of you are, or at least have admitted that you are homosexual so I figured it was time that someone did. I am a homosexual and while I am totally open to the many theories as to "why" we homos exist in the way that we do, my own philosophy says "who cares why?". If I try to argue my "right" to be homosexual with the genetic theory or behavioral or a mixture of all or something else - it doesn't matter to me because just as you have all proven - everyone will attach themselves to the theory that best fits them and their beliefs. In fact, I get really sick of hearing homosexuals say "It's genetic" in an attempt to make themselves feel better and prove to everyone that they are "natural" and therefore, should be accepted. By arguing the "why", it makes it important. You can't expect ten people in the same room to be alike in all ways let alone the over 6 billion people on the planet. People are going to be different whether by choice, by genes, by environment, whatever. That is natural, that is nature. It will always be that way

And while the "why" homos are homos, isn't important in my philosophy, just for giggles I will say that I know that homosexuality is sometimes caused by genes, sometimes environmental factors, sometimes choice. We can't put even us homos in one box....although someone has done it again with:

"Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society."

All I can say is who in heck do you know that is gay? This is truly limited thinking for someone who is part of a forum like this. What t.v. shows do you watch to get this idea? Homosexuals are a very diverse crowd my friend. We are everyone and everywhere including your kids, your parents, your teachers, your doctors, your government, your mechanic - everywhere and everyone.

Just like you can use scientific theories to try and determine what a fruit fly is up to and why, you can use sciencific theories to try and figure out what and why a homosexual is what it is. That is the beauty of theory based on scientific research. That part makes talking about the subject interesting and stimulating. However, this comment you expressed in the above quote has no science to back it up - just pure and blatant ingnorance. I would expect much more from people who sound so smart otherwise. It is not stimulating or creative in the least, it is regurgitated prejudice you learned on t.v., church or some other ignorant person.

And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...is it purely beliefs, genes, choice, environmental factors or a mixed bag? I say let's accept the diversity factor as part of nature and get on with something more important, but then again I'm a homo.

Granted, it was somewhat judgmental, but note that I specifically did not generalize to say "all homosexuals", but only that they "often appear" such a way. I know homosexuals who have maintained that, for them, everything (every act, every thought) is sexual! Everything being sexual?! Personally speaking, most of my waking thought is not preoccupied with sexually-related thoughts, and all of my hetero friends who I have such similar information over are also not so overly-occupied with sexual matters, so I infer that homosexuals appear to be overly preoccupied with their own sexual issues relative to heterosexuals. My other remarks have similar bases in reality and, specifically, in my actual dealings with, observations of, and conversations with homosexuals. On the plus side, homosexuals are often spirited people who are fun to be around, but their seeming excessive preoccupation with sex overshadows that.

Note that this is not homophobia on my part. It is a recognition that homosexuals appear to spend much more of their waking thought on sex than heterosexuals do, and an implicit disapproval of so much wasted thought when the human mind is capable of much loftier things.

Bennet thanks for the post, please do not measure the worth of this forum by one topic of heterosexuals talking about homosexuals. If you take the time to look back at the archives of this forum you will be pleased to find that this is probably the first thread on the matter. I agree however that the energy/time spent on topics such as these could be better spent elsewhere.

Bennet thanks for the post, please do not measure the worth of this forum by one topic of heterosexuals talking about homosexuals. If you take the time to look back at the archives of this forum you will be pleased to find that this is probably the first thread on the matter. I agree however that the energy/time spent on topics such as these could be better spent elsewhere.

uggghh. I'm sorry culture, but the political correctness drives me bonkers.

Is segregation off limits unless I'm black? Or how about female equality?

I don't think there's anything wrong with having dialog that revolves around these topics. Open exchanges usually lead to the uncovering of hidden bias and the betterment of perspectives. Keeping things hush hush is what created most of society's problems in the first place.

Hey culture, it is nice to meet you too.

I think that if everyone avoids the tendency to make this a values debate, then the dialog could serve a useful purpose.

I was actually having some interesting, even contradictory, thoughts on the subject of sexuality and nature vs nurture the other day thanks in part to my dialog with lucid. When I have a chance I am going to post them, but I will have to make sure that they are stated in a ....sensitive manner.

...sensitive manner.

Okay, earlier I posited that there were unified cognitive subsystems that produced sexual preference and that homosexuality was merely indicative of a weakening of the 1:1 correlation between preference and gender. But then I started to think about other sexual preferences such as bestiality and pedophilia. In both of these cases, preference could not be explained by a simple inversion of the preference/gender relationship. The parameters of preference itself were altered, and this effectively destroys my original hypothesis, or at least any chance of an elegant solution which utilizes the concept of preference/gender correspondence.

lucid_dream: My own view is that homosexual tendencies serve no function and are irrelevant within the bigger picture. Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society.

Rhymer: I feel the greatest sadness for homosexuals, those trapped in wheelchairs and alll the other 'innocent' humans who are afflicted in ways which I am certain Nature did not intend!

maximus242: Was Leonardo homosexual?

Technologist: Homosexuality may have sibling factor. Men have an increased chance of being gay if they have several older brothers from same mom, study says.

Bennet: We are everyone and everywhere including your kids, your parents, your teachers, your doctors, your government, your mechanic - everywhere and everyone.

Perhaps it has more to do with peoples sex drive than anything else.

I have found that people with a high sex drive tend to be quite intelligent, I have no evidence for this statement but will conduct a survey with some the gifted students I work with and see what correlation there is for this.

I think he probably was, again because of the neurotic/autistic behavior and his intelligence.

Get real. Intelligence, neuroticism, and autism have nothing to do with homosexuality. For you to think that Leonardo was gay because he was intelligent, neurotic and/or autistic is not just wrong, it's irresponsible.

I haven't read this thread post by post. What I am posting might have seen covered, and in that case accept my apologies.

Allan Pease (the guy who writes on Body Language) has authored a book Why men don't listen and women can't read maps?. It's an interesting book that explores the biological basis of difference between male and female behavior. As opposed to the psychological Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, Pease's book concentrates on the physical differences in the male-female brain and bases the psychological differences on the former. There's a whole chapter on Homosexuality. If you read the book, you would know that homosexuality is very much a biological phenomenon. It has something to do with the abnormal hormonal secretion.

I'll see if I can find any links/studies supporting the argument.

I'd highly recommend that book to anyone interested in learning more about Mars/Venus/Homosexual issues.

How does one reconcile the existence of homosexual tendencies with a naturalistic framework?

After I hear from a few of this forum's participants I will provide my perspective - along with why I think this issue reveals something of great significance.


quid pro quo

even if it exists in some species that lack "culture", that doesn't imply that human homosexuality is not, in part, determined by culture. It's like arguing that echolocation exists in some species that lack culture, therefore humans echolocate. That's the problem with specious cross-species comparisons!

Looking at the issue of human homosexuality, and speaking with homosexuals, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that there are cultural and environmental factors at work, which doesn't necessarily rule out a genetic component, but only underscores the premise that not everything is black or white and that often there are complex interactions involved which defy attempts at over-simplification.

Homosexuality occurs widely in the animal kingdom ...

I think that if everyone avoids the tendency to make this a values debate, then the dialog could serve a useful purpose.

Get real. Intelligence, neuroticism, and autism have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Heterosexuality leads to propagation of the species and hence fits into the big picture. Homosexuality does not, and only produces sexual gratification for a select few "homosexuals".

Most posts on this forum seem to be fairly unbiases, yet I swear this topic has more value-laden comments than any other I've read. What is it about homosexuality that makes it so taboo? I really am curious why this subject strikes such a strong chord with so many people.

Possibly because we all are still pondering over lost potential opportunities in love.

That's not exactly true. It does occur, but it's certainly not widespread.

But if without jokes the homosexuality is an interesting subject and if people wish we can pass to case studies.

I have a good scheme. Imagine that you and David Backham, accidentally got trapped into underground secret penthouse of Pentagon prepared for the national elite in case of nuclear war, so you have there everything to live for many decades, even Jacuzzi. It will take about 7 year for diggers to dig a shaft and liberate David and you. The question is: is there chances that besides of learning how to play football you may have sexual relations with David? In case if we replace David by Justin Timberlake will the chances of sexual relations increase? Then in your imagination you can replace David and Justin by different people and I guess that possibly some will find the very person with high probability of "success".

Thus we will be able to study influence of the Environment on development of homosexuality in adults.

Interesting scheme is not it?

Stop it Enki! You're gonna kill me, man!!! Oh my god! somebody call an ambulance!!! Who needs the comedy channel when I got Enki!!! LMAO!!!

homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species

BTW have you imagined somebody?

I grew up in the ghetto, Enki. So I've always have to watch my back, if that's what you mean. But, from my perspective, you're either a homo or you're not. And I just can't fathem my self being a homo. How can you trade for such beautiful gift from the gods such as I consider women to be (the pretty ones, that is)? They are the perfect compliment for man. At least for me. David Bechem or whoever, they're just competition to me. I don't see them in any other way. I don't even know why you mention names, as they are just guys to me. Competition, that's all.

What about you?

You see, you immediately entered into defense mode. And then passed to counterattack mode.
Few magic words and the mechanism automatically triggers in the brain.
Where is the Freedom of Will, hehehehehehehe.

Ohhh. I love all human beings. Jesus told me. You know.

If you're implying that I'm a homo, then you know something that I don't. I've considered the thought many times in the past, especially since I was a victim of child abuse at a very early age. But I just never went down that road. It doesn't appeal to me. But I must point out that I don't hold any resentment or hatred towards a certain kind of human beings just from my life experiences. Every bump on the road has made me stronger as a person.

I think that it is linguistically possible to transpose a homosexual into a heterosexual and vice versa. I understand that it is very brave declaration, but I think that it is possible.

Code buttons, I am really sorry.

I grew up in the ghetto, Enki. So I've always have to watch my back, if that's what you mean.

..yes they always turn them round!

For what? I'm not, Enki. I enjoy everyone of your posts. And I'm glad with can exchange ideas and opinions. I'd be interested in your answers to Casey's questions, though, as I too find your phychoanalitical angles off the beaten path, and intriguing as well.

I'm confused. Does this mean you can pursuade the person to redefine the terms so that they can be classified as either? Or does it mean you can use language to pursuade them to change orientation?

I'm guessing you meant the former, but I just wanted to be sure. Because the latter opens up a new can of worms.

Oh yeah, and what kind of private practice do you have? I'm just curious.
Interesting idea nonetheless.

..yes they always turn them round!