I guess the same rules apply. However heterosexuality is considered to be the default as it applies to 94% of the population. Personally I don't care but so much negativity is pointed at those who don't conform that establishing that choice is not an issue in the majority of cases, gay or straight, may be helpful to those that suffer discrimination.

I agree but this signifies a willingness in men to engage in sex "acts" in confinement rather than a pre-emptive desire for lasting emotional bonds with other men. How many straight men would engage in these acts if the circumstances were different and women were available?

Put it another way, of the two guys I sourced if left on a desert island with only women for company, the first would probably, eventualy give in to pressure to have sex whereas the second never would and may not even be physicaly capable.

That's why I said, that for some, homosexuality is a choice.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

Don't get me wrong I was agreeing with you. I just wanted to draw a distinction between a person's ability to have sex with a person of the same or (opposite) gender and their core sexuality.

I would define a bisexual as someone who can only find fullfilment in having relationships with both sexes.

While some gay men might have the capacity to have sex with females, if they can only find emotional and sexual fulfillment with other males I'd say they were not choosing to be gay they were choosing not to exersise the option of having heterosexual sex.

Equally a straight man who might have the capacity to engage in gay sex but doesn't isn't choosing to be straight either he's just choosing not to exersize a redundant capacity.

Really? I wouldn't.

Mind you, I've met a few people who call themselves bisexual and claim that this requires that they eschew monogamy, but I question if this is more about social conditioning rather than what they actually need for emotional and sexual fulfilment. I've never felt the need to spread myself across two genders, but I'm capable of forming an emotional attachment to either. I know other bisexually-identifying people who feel the same way.

Surveys based on these kinds of hypothetical situations are very often inaccurate. A lot of people (Probably most) would answer the way that is acceptable by society. For example, ask a homophobic person this question and of course they will tell you that they would never have sex with a man under any circumstances. Yet in reality it is often very different. People want to say they would do the "right" thing, but we often prove to be weaker than our imagination in reality.

If a group of men were left together with no female contact, I think eventually they would all "become" (I use this for lack of a better word) gay. I know I would. In this society it would of course become acceptable for men to have sex with other men because there are no women, and even the most homophobic would eventually give in once their old values begin to recede.

I think this is a social rather than genetic issue. If society were more accepting of homosexuality, more men and women would engage in it. Why not? Look for example at ancient Greek society. It is well known that homosexuality was quite common (some historians even believe that nearly every Greek man had engaged in homosexual sex at some time in their life). It is believed this is because ancients Greeks deemed it extremely unacceptable for women to have sex before marriage. For men, there was no such cultural restraints. But where to go if unmarried women for off-limits? I think your starting to get the idea. In this culture, it was acceptable for young unmarried men to engage in homoseuality, so it occured frequently.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

well i think homosexuality is legal,and a democracy should allow even marriage.....and that has nothing to do on my real opinion on the gay issue.a democracy allows it,so it mustn't be harmed,and an attempt to stop it,is a step towards the destruction of the democracy.
but my real opinion is that there are no gay people.people who are inflicted with media belive that they are homosexuals because they have feminin-side..........it's not natural,and there fore can't happend.the human is the creation of nature,and no other animal has this thing called gays........but,because man developed from nature,broke the rules of nature,and now the media and new opinions bring homosexuality....it's a fact that only in the last years of the human evolution,homosexuality took place.........even though i think homo-sexuality can't really accure,i do think people should be allowed to do anything that dosen't hurt the natural rights of any other human being....so gays should be allowed to marry.

__________________
To be free people,in our own land,the land of Zion and Jeruaslem

Actually homosexuality has been going on in human society for years, the best example of this is the Greeks. Also, homosexuality is far from just a human thing. Animals do it all the time. Male dogs, for example hump other male dogs to impress female dogs.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

Yeah, but that's not quite the same thing. I don't think gay men are not humping other men because they want to impress the ladies. I don't think there are any examples in the animal kingdom of animals engaging in gay sex because the prefer it.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

I supose that is a bad example but animals do engage in homosexual sex, it isn't just humans.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison