Evo Morales: Homosexuality is Caused by Eating Chicken

Curtis, we live in a world full of Yellow Journalism. Sensationalism sells. That is the honest to god truth. No matter how Latin American journalists spin his comments, they love to take comments out of context and create meaning to destroy the credibility of a candidate.

If he hates homosexuals so much then why would he support a constitution that gives them full recognition including marriage?

Obviously, you have an agenda, and it is well known on this site. You are on the far right and Evo is on the far left. So naturally you will latch onto comments that support your slander of Evo.

I agree with all your comments, the title of this article seems designed to get you to read it and not to represent or summarize what its really about.

agree... The comment was just in regard of the food but obviously we r not talking about the importance of food safety but just making a joke out something serious;D Propaganda it always work with us in the USA ...

I realize that. Since you know some drag queens take female hormones to grow breasts and other things. But keep in mind there is enzymes and hormones in everything we eat. But i do not think it would constitute for turning a person gay and or becoming a homosexual.

and how exactly do you know that?

Did you watch the video link I posted? Do you speak Spanish? Can you tell me his exact quote and translate that for me?

otherwise, look down the page. I posted the link to his speech and YES he said it. And YES that's what it meant.

He said:
1) Coca Cola is so bad for you plumbers use it to unstop toilets.
2) In 50 years we're all going to be bald because of the food we eat
3) the hormones in chicken will make men "desviarse" from "being men", which translated from Spanish, has an undeniable meaning of homosexuality, because "desviados" is a term used in Spanish to describe homosexuals, "hombres" are MEN, not humanity, not males (varones means males), so "desviados de ser hombres" implies that they would become gay.

You will note that the Spanish language news agencies all agree with the translation. It's only the left wing ideologues who DON'T speak Spanish who are convinced it's a problem with translation.

Jubal is more than fluent in Spanish, and he is totally familiar with the subject of homosexuality.

I am gay and I learned to speak both English and Spanish at the same time since I was a child. I understand the culture, too. Curtis needs to re read the quote and take the comment in the context of what was being discussed. Whey would Evo be talking about the health effects of food contamination and then suddenly switch to talk about hormones making people gay? There seems to be a disconnect in the interpretation of what he said. Has anyone asked him to clarify his statements? Does he have something against gays? That is what should be the next line of questioning rather than making wild assumptions about his meaning.

lol Epic

That term for fresh young men is still used? I wasn't sure, or I might have made a joke earlier..

The Thai 3 gender thing is a good idea . We should adopt that here .

rofl. +^

It's not a troll if he actually believes what he is saying though.

how do you know about the hampsters...that's supposed to be confidential.

you cant dispute if he said it that it goes to his state of mind on the issue. And hormone imbalances dont cause homosexuality.

some personal observations are best left personal

was just about to say the same. Well at least calling someone a communist has lost its staying power.

ha!

Cows are destroying the environment. More gays will help the environment as there will be less reproduction (not to mention more Puss to go around!)

You have a point there

I was kidding. Sorry.

p.s. ---not much into 'pus' though,...I associate it with infection.

He may even have a boil! He may even need to lance that boil to discharge the pus.
( Damn these medical threads)

Real men have a penis and testicles at birth and real women have a vagina and ovaries at birth. Real women produce eggs and real men produce sperm. What do you mean there is no such thing. Maybe you meant to say there is no such thing as straight or gay because these are merely social constructs.

inimate?

Wrong. Sexual orientations (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual) are innate characteristics, just like being left-handed or right handed.

They are NOT caused by "what we see and what is accepted".

This is just common sense- we have a culture that is highly discriminatory towards gays, yet gays exist. Gays exist at the same percentages all over the world, from Amsterdam to Iran, from San Francisco to Kansas City.

Many gay people did not even know there was such a thing as "being gay" when they first discovered their own sexuality. They had no knowledge homosexuality existed, much less if it was accepted or not.

Societal acceptance does not cause homosexuality, it just makes gay people less afraid to come out, and less likely to kill themselves.

on a dna level..you are created by both man and woman..not by man and man or woman and woman

DILDO..rubber dolls

i dont think you comprehend what i was trying to say..we are born ready to fuck and love anything..however..what is decided on what is right and wrong is environment..

So how long have you been Bi-curious ? Does your Family know you have these desires? How often do you feel this way? Have ever thought about talking with a Psychiatrist? Do you take any Medications for any mental disorders.

I understood what you said completely.
I also understand the fact that you are wrong.

You did not understand what I wrote, which clearly states that you are wrong.

We are NOT all born ready to "fuck and love" anything.
Bisexuals are.
If you are Bisexual, fine, good for you, enjoy.
But realize that not everyone is bisexual.

That's a great way of putting it. I never would have thought of it that way

Are you seriously suggesting psychiatric medication simply because someone is Bi-curious?

Speak for yourself !

We may be created from both a man and a woman but we are all still one or the other. I guess I just don't understand what you mean when you say

"there is no such thing as a "real" man or a "real" woman"

I must be missing something.

Some are one AND the other - they are hermaphrodites.

Sorry to bust your bubble but true hermaphroditic humans do not exist, but pseudohermaphrodism does, where an individual has both male and female external genital organs, sometimes at the same time. Female embryos exposed to high levels of androgens (the male hormones) develop female internal reproductive organs but male external genitalia. Alternately, genetic defects cause children to be born with female external genital organs, which change at puberty, with the development of a penis and the closure of the false vagina.

Sorry to contradict you, but in fact true human hermaphrodites do exist and have both penis and vagina & uterus, both testicles and ovaries.

This condition is very rare. There are several ways in which this may occur.

* It can be caused by the division of one ovum, followed by fertilization of each haploid ovum and fusion of the two zygotes early in development.
* Alternately, an ovum can be fertilized by two sperm followed by trisomic rescue in one or more daughter cells.
* Two ova fertilized by two sperm will occasionally fuse to form a tetragametic chimera. If one male zygote and one female zygote fuse, a hermaphroditic individual may result.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news/review/archives/medrev_v3n2_0002.html

True hermaphrodism in a human.

A few more links for you with regard to true hermaphrodism:

http://medind.nic.in/jaq/t06/i4/jaqt06i4p350.pdf

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5109744/true-hermaphrodite/

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119695354/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETR...

http://chestofbooks.com/health/disease/Pathology-2/Hermaphroditism.html

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&Produk...

http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Citation/1952/11000/True_Hermaphroditism...

http://www.gender.org.uk/about/04embryo/43_herm.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/5qk252e5lwbumn1t/

Of course not.

You don't need to tell us what you play with. We don't care.

YOU HAVE TO APPLY BEFORE "Bi Serious". Once you "plug in " to the "game boy",.............. (done deal)

"We are NOT all born ready to "fuck and love" anything.
Bisexuals are."

no we're not

and genderqueer, and transgender

You are correct.

where the HELL did you find THAT? .......

It's just an old guy were do you think I got it ? why from the internet of course

You seem so surprised! Although it is fact that estrogen levels are being altered. Not that that makes you gay, though. But with the whole paint an Evo remark campaign plus the language who's to say that you aren't just reacting to some current users opinion, as opposed to an actual direct and intentional statement by the prez of Bolivs. That being said I have lived in Bolivia and there no, I mean not any love for gays out that way.

So, what you are saying is that you are bisexual.
And because you are bisexual, you think EVERYONE is bisexual.

That view is no different from heterosexuals who think everyone is heterosexual, and if gays just try hard enough they can become straight.

Yes, sexuality is a spectrum, with many shades of bisexuality in the middle. But there really ARE gay and straight people sitting on the ends of that spectrum.

I would like you to stop and think about the societal pressure to conform, and how society demands heterosexuality from everyone. Because of that, bisexuals can easily put aside a part of their sexuality, and live as straight.

Gay's cant. No amount of self-delusion or religious pressure can make a gay person attracted to the opposite sex.

Thus, gays are not bi. Being gay is NOT just a social construct; if it was, our society would have constructed us away a long time ago.

I do believe there are a LOT of bisexuals out there- perhaps half the population, perhaps more. But there really ARE gay people and straight people too.

You are much misguided.

I am not saying that I am bisexual, I am saying that I am sexual. I do not think that everyone is bisexual, I think that everyone is sexual--simply sexual. Because I believe sexual orientation is a social construct, I propose people should do whatever they want sexually without categorizing themselves into "homosexual" "bisexual" "heterosexual." If you must label, then label the acts and not the people, and especially not yourself. Explore your sexuality, wherever it takes you. Be open, be flexible. That is what I support.

I support this because I have failed at being open and flexible. I have been molded and have molded myself into a "homosexual," into having not just disinterest but disgust at the opposite sex. Society etched into me the black-and-white gay-and-straight categorization. I missed the opportunity to explore and properly develop my sexual identity. It is disconcerting that despite the occasional flash of heterosexual attraction, I cannot shake my discomfort with the opposite sex. I feel crippled. Perhaps I really am bisexual, but seeing as how the homosexual categorization has affected me, I would not settle any more for the bisexual one. (Note: I casually identify as gay, not bi, and love my male partner, and would not give him up for the world. I am not a bisexual pretending I don't have a gay side.)

It is my hope that by spreading awareness that sexual orientation is a social construct, that others will not fall into the same trap I did, and can experience what it feels like to follow their attractions without settling into "homosexual" "bisexual" "heterosexual." If they end up sticking to homosexual acts, so be it. If they end up sticking to heterosexual acts, so be it. But I desperately hope that no one resolves to limit themselves based upon what others tell them is the way sexuality works. I do so out of compassion and empathy. I also do so for what are perhaps selfish reasons; I have been rejected by other men because they are "straight," unwilling to bend even for experimentation, which is vital for developing their sexual identity--even if it is ultimately not with me, but with another man or on their own. Even worse, I see men afraid to have close friendships with other men out of the fear that they might be gay. The societal enforcement of the differences between the classifications is what segregates those who are classified. This is the damage done by the societal construct of sexual orientation.

I encourage you to look into academic research and discussion of sexual orientation as a societal construct. I am more than aware of your side of the issue; you could at least become familiar with mine before saying it is completely without merit.

Same-sex attraction and acts existed long before the notion of sexual orientation, and would exist long after. That is entirely the point: sexual orientation--the labels, the categorization, not the attraction or the acts--is what is "fake." People are just sexual. We do not need to and should not restrict them in categories. You can insist that the categories are real, but the reality is that there is no scientific consensus on sexual orientation.

Sexuality is like the colors of the spectrum.
While it is true that "red", "green" and "blue" are not solidly defined, that does not mean the colors don't exist.

This is the same argument that people who claim "race does not exist" use.

Races exist, sexual orientations exist, but no one said they were rock-solid boxes, they are simply group labels that define segments of a continuum.

I have a feeling you are quite a bit younger than I am, so as an older gay male, I can tell you your ideas of sexuality are nieve and idealistic.

As an older gay man, who grew up in the south, I know as a rock-solid certainty that no amount of social pressure or "openness" can make me sexually desire a woman.

I can appreciate the beauty of an attractive woman, just as I can appreciate the beauty of a dolphin, or a waterfall. I just feel absolutely no sexual desire for them.

If you feel you felt societal pressure to become homosexual, then that is just you, you don't speak for everyone, and your sexuality and your experiences are not the same as everyones.

I felt societal pressure to be straight, and only straight, to the point that I did not even know there was such a thing as a homosexual till high school.

THAT is not a social construct.

I di not see any diference between your views, and the views of right-wing Christians who run conversion therapy camps. In both cases you falsely believe that sexuality is completely fluid and open to be altered through training.

Again- FALSELY believe.

And I suggest that you STOP looking at academic research that only suports your views, and look at real people, in their real lives, and how they disprove those assumptions.

UtopianSky, I've seen you around on Current; you are a cool guy and I respect you... but I do not care about your "old, experienced gay man" shit. You cannot tell me my ideas are naive and idealistic simply because I am young and have an opposing perspective. I have had my own experiences and come to my own conclusions. I do not need you to validate them, and especially if you cannot even adequately argue against them.

I am well aware of the other side of the argument. There are two sides to the debate: Essentialists and Consructivists.

Essentialists hold the belief that there are at least two clear-cut categories, or sexual orientations: homosexuality and heterosexuality. Most will also accept a third orientation, bisexuality. Not all essentialists do believe in bisexuality, however (I can elaborate on this if you wish). Essentialists believe that everyone fits into one of these boxes: you are either gay, straight or bi (or lying). Most people, such as yourself, are essentialists.

Constructivists propose that sexual orientation, like gender, is a social construct. This field of academia, referred to as "Queer Theory," is based largely on the writings of Henry Foucault, but there are several arguments supporting sexual orientation as a societal construct within queer theory.

First, there is the historical argument: what is the precedence of sexual orientation? Foucault argues that 200 years ago, there was not a linguistic category for what is the modern gay male. "Homosexual" was coined in the 19th century by sex pioneers, not scientists, and was soon adopted by psychiatrists as a label for the sinful lifestyle, which they quickly made out to be a disorder. Eventually it evolved from being a disorder to being a separate "sexual orientation." But looking back before the coining, invention and construction of "homosexuality," there is little to no historical evidence to support that there was such a separate sexual "species" like the modern homosexual. People did not identity or even conceive the notion that they were only attracted to a specific sex. Sexuality was considered by the acts, such as acts of sodomy, not by modern notions of sexual orientation. This is why you cannot call the Greeks gay, or even bi. Bisexualiy did not exist. The only term we have which you could apply to them would be MSM-- men who have sex with men... and even then, the majority, if not all, of MSM in ancient Greece also had sex with women.

Then there are scientific arguments.

You cannot claim that homosexuality physically exists unless you can find its cause. The reality is that the exact cause of the essentialist sexual orientations has not been found. The general consensus is that sexual orientation is the result of a variety of factors ranging from genes to hormones to nurture. But in this there is no exact formula; one man's homosexuality can be and is completely different in cause than any other man's homosexuality.

Then, there is the issue that "same sex attraction" is too vague. How do you measure it? What one man finds attractive in the same sex can be completely different from what another man does. If you wrap the wire around their dick and show them a random gay porno and they don't get erect, does that mean they're straight? What if the porno simply didn't have their fetish? We can see that the essentialist sexual orientations are too broad and that the reality is that a variety of *fetishes* for same-sex features or sexual acts are clumped together into the category of homosexuality. So one man's homosexuality is not only completely different in cause than any other man's homosexuality, it is also completely different in *nature* than any other man's homosexuality.

Furthermore, the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation can evolve, or change or switch or whatever have you, over time. This in and of itself opposes essentialist notions of set, fixed or innate sexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association itself has said, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime" and "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..." The Center for Addiction and Mental Health has suggested that *some* individuals' sexual orientation may be continuous and fixed throughout their lifetime, but they also admit that there is "essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span." The final blow to essentialism: a man's homosexuality is not even fixed or innate and his unique sexual interests can change over his life time.

Does this mean that it is so fluid that it can be manipulated, or that it is healthy to try to forcefully change it? NO! So please do not put words in my mouth. The American Psychiatric Association has said, "Efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm." What's interesting is that they have also said, "the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek [sexual orientation change efforts] involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients' active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome." Even the APA argues that people should explore their sexuality without setting on a specific sexual orientation identity, and they're essentialists!

The problem is that people *are* setting on a specific orientation. They feel compelled to classify themselves as either "gay" "bi" or "straight"--or even worse, "gay" or "straight." The internalization of orientation has opened a huge can of worms, and it's just not worth it--because as we can see from the points above, all it is is a classification, a shortcut for categorizing people. The reality is that people have unique sexualities, and shoving themselves into the boxes of essentialist sexual orientation causes serious social problems--such as the decline of friendship between men, because now in America, anything *between men* is increasingly considered "gay" (e.g., no homo). In other parts of the world, where they do not hold the concept of sexual orientation, the majority of men share relationships where in America, only the gay minority experiences--because in America, intimacy between men is classified as "gay." That is not all; gay men in America are molded by the stereotypes of the boxes they've been shoved into, into believing that since they're gay, they have to "act gay," and if they don't then they're "acting straight"--such a horribly ridiculous notion. Heteronormativity, stereotypes, "no homo", all these problems are the result of society embracing a construct.

My views are not assumptions. I am a real person and I do have a real life. Like I said, I casually identify as gay, I am seemingly only attracted to men, I have only ever had sex with men, and I am in a same-sex relationship about to hit the 4-year mark. Yet, I still reject being labeled a "homosexual," NOT BECAUSE I AM ASHAMED TO BE ATTRACTED TO MEN OR BECAUSE I WANT TO FIT IN, but because I do not want my unique sexual identity to be generalized, I do not want to be shoved in a box, I do not want to be segregated, and I do not want my relationships limited because others are in the boxes.

I am not proud of being "gay." I am proud of liking a hot piece of man ass, of fantasizing about riding a huge cock, of taking in a man's musky odor, of gripping a man's firm muscles, of simply enjoying another man's presence, whether we be playing, conversing or laying together, of having my own unique sexual identity. I hope others are proud of their individual sexual interests as well, and do not end their journey once they come to a flimsy cardboard box in the middle of the path.

I am not saying your ideas are nieve and idealistic simply because you are young, or have a different perspective.
Yes, you have your own experiences and came to your own conclusions- the problem is, you extrapolated your own life experiences to be EVERYONES.
If your sexuality is fluid, fine- you are what I call "bisexual".
My sexuality is NOT fluid.
And for you to insist that if I just try harder I can change my sexuality is down-right insulting, especially after all of the crap my generation went through over that exact same concept.

And BTW- I have studied human sexuality, and none of your arguments are new. They are all based on illogical assumptions.

No, I did NOT say there are clear-cut categories, I did NOT say there are boxes. I said there is an entire spectrum, and some people are in the middle of the spectrum, and some are on the ends. There are no boxes for anything in life, but there are degrees of variation.

The existence of a word or not is meaningless. the planet Neptune existed long before anyone knew about it. VIruses and bacteria existed long before people knew what they were. DNA existed long before it was defined.

Labels are meaningless, realities are important, and you are hung up on the labels. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a gay man by any other name is still a gay man.

Your belief that all Greek pederasts all had sex with women is just your belief- there is absolutely no way you can know such a thing- and it would be irrelevant anyway. Sexual orientation is not a physical act, it is a desire. Because people in the past did not recognize the distinction, that does not make the distinction non-existant. There are MANY gay men who get married to women, and have children, just because society tells them to. They have no desire for women, they are just doing as they are told.

Your statement "You cannot claim that homosexuality physically exists unless you can find its cause" is false. We knew eye color physically existed long before we knew DNA existed. We KNOW homosexuality physically exists because of the simple existence of gay people, no mater what their social or cultural upbringing. Even to this day- there are gay people in Iran. IRAN. Now think about it- this is just basic logic.

If sexuality is based on societal pressures and is not an innate characteristic, then there should be NO gay people in Iran.

The simple fact that there are, also shows that your assumptions about ancient Greece are equally invalid.

You say "one man's homosexuality can be and is completely different in cause than any other man's homosexuality."

Do you realize that statement makes my point?

You say your sexuality is fluid, and you claim EVERYONE'S sexuality is fluid.
I say mine is not, but if yours is fine, whatever- but make no assumptions about ME from your lack of knowledge of ME.

Your belief that there is no such thing as a homosexual is false, and your arguments against it have nothing to do with simple realities:

Men exist.
Women exist.
Some men desire women.
Some men desire men.
Some men desire both, and their tastes can change.
Some women desire men.
Some women desire women.
Some women desire both, and their tastes can change.

Just because some people have tastes that change, that does NOT mean everyone has tastes that change.

Your complaints seem to me to be mostly socio-political, NOT about the reality of sexuality.

You don't like "gay" as a label of a sub-culture, or a "lifestyle".
I agree completely.
"Gay" should not mean people who live like the characters on "Queer as Folk".

gay men are simply men who are attracted to men, and not women.
Fetishes and wires are all irrelevant to that distinction.

Beautiful writing and sentiments Pawper.

It is a little weird that you call me bisexual just because I claim to have a unique, fluid sexuality. I suppose this just demonstrates my point that people feel compelled to label others. You have every right to do so, but I have every right to question why.

I never insisted that you could change your sexuality, so if you feel insulted, then look no further than yourself. Saying sexuality is fluid is not the same as saying you can change it. Sexual interests change, BUT sexual interests cannot be changed. Do you understand the distinction? We cannot act upon sexual interests. We'd be driving blind. It is like trying to control the weather; there are simply too many factors, including biology which would be dangerous if not impossible to change. That is my firm belief. I do not believe people can or should try to change their sexual interests, I only think that they should keep an open mind and follow their sexuality where it takes them.

Saying we know homosexuality exists because of the existence of gay people is like saying we know Atlantis exists because... well, we have the word "Atlantis." *People* call people "gay," it is not something we have adequately scientifically measured, or possibly even can measure, unlike eye color. Genetics can have an influence on sexual interests, but we do not know what that influence is. Sexual orientation is not written into the genes. It is a *concept* created to *categorize* people who have different sexual interests.

You say you don't think there are boxes, but your points indicate the contrary. The basic, binary spectrum is flawed. Again, sexual interest cannot be reduced to just the sex of the person one is attracted to, in part because physical sex itself can be reduced. Are you attracted to a penis? Or muscles? Or the specific act of a male penetrating another male's anus? Sexual interests are far more complicated than "male" or "female." The concepts of gender and sex themselves are not even universally agreed upon. A man is not "straight" just because he does not get an erection while watching generic gay porn, or does get an erection watching generic straight porn.

That is what Constructionists do: they *deconstruct*, and break things down.

Essentialists / Constructionists
*People are attracted to males, females or both / People are attracted to specific features or behavior, which may be mostly but not necessarily or universally associated with men or women
*Sexual attraction can be measured / Understanding of sexual attraction is incomplete; we can only measure certain symptoms
*Sexual attraction exists in a spectrum; people can be more or less gay or straight / Sexual attraction can be broken down into the presence of specific attractions, which may exist in varying degrees
*Biological factors determine or reflect if one is gay or straight / Biological factors contribute to the existence of specific attractions (e.g., pheromones)

You seem to have the idea that my ideas are dangerous. You want to know what is more dangerous? Essentialists who think a person's sexuality comes down to a gene, a gene that can be switched before they're born, just so they're not this thing called "gay," or that a group, "homosexuals," are different from the normal people and can be singled out for elimination. My side of the debate may challenge the security of the gay community and identity, but your side makes a target. Heteronormativity and homophobia are the result of essentialism; you only need look beyond our society, to cultures where the concept of sexual orientation is not known, to see that this is true.