?

Log in

Why I'm Gay...

« previous entry | next entry »
Sep. 14th, 2006 | 02:28 am
location: A fucked up place
mood: apatheticapathetic
music: Imogen Heap - Useless

Because it's practical.

Shall I expound? Great.

Let's suppose for a second that there is no "gay gene." I will tell you for a fact that homosexuality is still biological. Freud himself was a neurobiologist and believed that neuroses developed from a biological predisposition and were not automatically built into one's genes. Therefore, it is caused by the outside nurturance of those genetic characteristics that causes neurosis. Likewise, research has shown that people are born with a pre-determined chance for developing cancer, and only with outside influences (i.e. smoking) can that chance increase. One person could be born with a high chance, lead a pure, clean life and develop cancer in their 20's, and another can be the filthiest chain smoker and not develop cancer until their 60's. Am I trying to say that Homosexuality is a disease then. Absolutely not. Look at personality. Everyone is born with a certain chance of having particular personality characteristics. Of course, whether those strong predispositions come through or not depends on nurturance. By adulthood, a person's personality is deeply embedded within them and cannot change. It still remains that the biology is still there. I would bet my life that homosexuality works in the same way. Even still, back to personality, I think it develops in congrunece with homosexual expression. For me, my introversion and intuition were passed down from my mother's side and nurtured, while my thinking and judging were passed down from my father's side. My introversion and thinking have developed strongly and my intuition and judging have developed fairly moderately. So let's use me as an example: with my high introversion, I'm essentially already openly defiant towards the foundation of our society. I'm adverse to social situations, and I do my own thing in the background. My intuition allows me fair conceptualization skills, in which I perceive things in broader, more abstract terms. This absolutely applies to my choice in a partner. I do not pay attention to the details (i.e. - I don't dwell on the fact that the person I've chosen has a penis, but that their qualities are BASICALLY what I'm looking for). Mix that with high rationality, in which my decisions are very thorough and well thought out in favor of what is best for me. And lastly, add in the fact that I have a tendency to judge, which encompasses both being highly critical of what I see in others as well as sticking to my own determined path in life. This growth in my personality has facilitated the outward expression of my inherent homosexual tendencies. It's in radical personalities that people are more free. Homosexual freedom is greatly influenced by this. Those who have had more repressive personalities nurtured during their childhood and adolescent years are more prone to homophobia, a diagnosable, clinical disorder characterized by a strong hatred toward members of the gay community initiated by an irrational fear that they themselves might be gay.

Let us also suppose that humans are social creatures. The human species is one that evolved and surpassed all other species on the hierarchical food chain not because they were physically built tougher and stronger then, say, lions, tigers and bears (if you don't already know, we're not), but because they were built tougher and stronger socially. Our development of social communication networks has led to technology and innovation that puts our species ahead of all others. We thrive on social mobility, social change, social justification. But now that we have fully developed as social beings, there comes stagnation. We're caught in a war between social progression and social deterrance. I focus here on the social deterrance, which I will from here on out refer to simply as religion. Religion is a regressive school of thought for humanity most simply because it relies on primitive justifications for its perceived "righteous" way of life. I focus specifically on their justifications for ostracizing homosexuality. The argument is that humans have a natural instinct to pass on their genes by means of procreation. This argument is primitive as it appeals to our animalistic instincts that lie within us from an earlier evolutionary era. However, Freud once again gets it right in his basic idea of the 'ego,' a structural component of the human psyche designated to suppress animalistic instincts. This suppression is necessary to maintain the existence of the human race as it inherently drives us towards social acceptability. Without this ego, humans would squat and defecate on the streets along with many other socially innapropriate actions. In fact, the human species is growing at an alarming rate that will inevitably lead to its destruction because they've already fed into this religious nonsense for too long. It used to be that people needed to have many offspring to better ensure the survival of at least one as illness and other natural causes wiped out many children before puberty. Religion perpetuates this routine still today when it is in fact a detriment to society to have such an abundance of life. Social progression is hindered as a result. Not only is homosexuality biological, but it is part of our social evolution to control this mess. We, as humans, should not be having children for the sake of spreading our seed anymore. As a socially driven species, we should only have children for the luxury of having children. The socially reciprocating relationship between parent and child is what really drives us to have kids this far into the evolutionary process. You want to share your LIFE, not your genes. You take care of your children so that they in turn will take care of you one day. We are not mechanical, baby-popping machines and it's foolish for anyone to believe so. Everyone should thank homosexuals for prolonging (as best we can) the extinction of this species.

Let us now suppose that I'm a fairly logical person. I know and understand myself pretty well. I neither overestimate nor underestimate myself or my potential. This is why I set simple goals, engage in simple things and speak very simply. Without overanalyzing my life, I know that I want someone. I don't know who yet, and that doesn't matter to me right now. What I know is that, very simply, a person seeks someone with similar qualities, but at the same time is very different in a way that is actually complementary. Over the course of my life (to this point) I have determined that I could never find someone like me in terms of personality, outlook, and general attitude/affectivity. So what is there really in someone else that I can relate to? Being born as a man, growing up as a man, having the hormonal balance of a man, is all I could possibly have in common with someone. It's simply the experience of being a man that I want to share with that someone else. That by no means implies that men are better than women, but it does imply that men are better FOR ME than women. The rest of that certain someone (if and when I find him) I accept as my complimentary opposite. And when someone else can feel the same towards me, that's love and it's right. Religion has tainted morality. Religion equates homosexuality to bestiality and child molestation, but it is the farthest from either because there is mutuality. Anyone who disagrees (a social "deterrant" if you will) is not as evolved and, frankly, just not as fucking edgy as me. So let them go make babies 'til the death of them and I will stay right here, just me.

Betch. That is all.

- James

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {8}

whampcansee

(no subject)

from: whampcansee
date: Sep. 14th, 2006 07:01 am (UTC)
Link

i dont know why the fuck you aren't in bed. homosexuality could be a evolutionary adaptation. ok, big deal. religion is a vistigial social construction. ok, big deal. the gay personality thing... i dont see it.

either way, you're still only getting 4/5 hours of sleep. and THAT'S not so adaptive.

Reply | Thread

James

(no subject)

from: atrophied
date: Sep. 14th, 2006 03:11 pm (UTC)
Link

I realize that my point about personality didn't connect as well as I had originally intended, and it was in fact the last part I had written in, and I was not as mentally there as when I started, so I made just a few minor revisions to my point. And evolutionary adaptation and religious social construction weren't even my main points, and I think that what I have to say is a big deal. Hence staying up so late to explain it on my livejournal, which I so seldom use. By the way, you were obviously up even later, and you actually missed Sex Diff today...I think my 4-5 hours of sleep is adaptive so long as i can still be productive. That is my adaptation.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: electricprotest
date: Sep. 14th, 2006 04:57 pm (UTC)
Link

yikes. ok, big deal? well, obvs it's a big deal to him. and issues like the social construction of sexuality are pretty important, i think. that comment was pretty mean. also, where are you?? you missed sex diff and physio...

meanwhile, james i've thought some of those things before, it's cool you typed them all out so they actually made sense. i thought it was interesting. yay!

Reply | Parent | Thread

whampcansee

(no subject)

from: whampcansee
date: Sep. 14th, 2006 09:34 pm (UTC)
Link

ok, well lets not misinterpret my acceptance and understanding of what you said as not acknowledging the significance of it. I do agree with most of what you said, and like you Tina, have thought about these issues in length. I suppose my retort was more focused on that i was unable to make the connections between your three original points, especially your personality to homosexuality point.

and class... bleh, i dont have to go to sex diff, though it would have been amusing to hear your rants about the dissolution of freud. :) and as for physio... im not going to waste my opinion on that class. i was not sad at missing those jokes.

i am hoping to continue this discussion... in person would facilitate greater concourse!!

Reply | Parent | Thread

James

(no subject)

from: atrophied
date: Sep. 15th, 2006 12:35 am (UTC)
Link

Ever heard of stream of conscious? This is by no means a peer-reviewed journal submission. It makes sense to me and it's what I had to say. I don't tailor to your interests...

Reply | Parent | Thread

mo

(no subject)

from: momo444
date: Sep. 15th, 2006 12:22 am (UTC)
Link

one question...where did this stem from

Reply | Thread

James

(no subject)

from: atrophied
date: Sep. 15th, 2006 12:37 am (UTC)
Link

It's just something I start thinking about every once in a while. I have to keep rejustifying to myself that it's not wrong to be gay. But rationalizing IS a defense mechanism, so it's probably all in vain.

Reply | Parent | Thread

mo

(no subject)

from: momo444
date: Sep. 15th, 2006 01:19 am (UTC)
Link

hahaha ur actually crazy

Reply | Parent | Thread