Queer chemistry

Homosexuality (moral or immoral)
A visual of straight chemistry vs queer chemistry reduced to the level of atoms, wherein the logic of what is moral and immoral becomes confused, more often than not by religious fundamentalists.
In human chemistry, queer chemistry, or “LGBT (GLBT) chemistry”, gay chemistry, or homosexual chemistry, is the study of chemical interactions, neurochemical changes, human chemical reactions, and human chemical bonding dynamics between gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, pansexual, bicurious, or asexual, etc., individuals being viewed as human molecules. [1]

Statistically, approximately 3-4 percent of world’s population is of the homosexual or queer persuasion. [2]

In commentary on the nature of algorithmic matchings of same sex relationships, ScientificMatch.com founder Eric Holzle comments: [3]

“Chemical attraction is just as prevalent whether you’re gay or straight.”

The adjacent video is a humorous take "sexual chemistry", the title of the the video, between men using innuendo with chemistry metaphors. In particular, in commentary the individuals in the video, between 1:45-2:15, comment on the paradoxical difference between gravitational “attraction” and “attraction” between people, which they decide is a type of biochemical force or attraction, as in biogravity. The clip highlights the lack of understanding, in general science, of the nature of gravity in relation to human bonding.

Queer or homosexual chemistry is, in general, a nascent field of research. It is generally agreed, however, that the chemistry involved in qay relationships will differ than as compared to typical homosexual relationships. In a typical gay relationship, such as, for instance, in the human chemical bonding of two homosexual men:

M1 + M2 → M1≡M2

the neurochemical and hormonal changes will, invariably, be different than as compared to straight heterosexual bondings A≡B. As such, it is likely that factors, such as energy and entropy changes, will be different to describe, thermodynamically, than as compared to straight dynamics. Homosexual relationships, for instance, tend to be shorter-lived than homosexual relationships, hence reaction rates and chemical bonding dynamics will differ.

In his circa 2000 article “The Physics of Relationships”, American astrophysicist Christopher Hirata speculated on what type of molecular formulas would characterize the non-standard types of human sexual relationships. He notes that in his calculations he is neglecting “rare and non-traditional” products or compounds (human molecules) that may form such as “the gay molecule Y2", characterized the reaction:

Y + Y ↔ Y2

where he uses the symbol Y to represent a male human molecule, or "the lesbian molecule X2, and the middle-Eastern polygamous molecule X4Y.” [6]
In 2014, Libb Thims, during the two-month Beg-Thims dialogue (comment #26), probed Mirza Beg, with heated issue of homosexuality as physicochemical sociology sees things as compared to how the Quran sees things. The response was fumbled, to say the least.

A video of of "queer chemistry" themed subject matter.
Gay matching
A popular, albeit superficial, example of discussions on the current understanding on “gay chemistry” is the famous 2007 “Nope, Still Gay” ad campaign, by the dating/matching site Chemistry.com, who supposedly “chemically” matches gay individuals via the algorithms of American biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, who question why eHarmony.com rejects gays and lesbians. [4] In commentary on this, eHarmony founder Neil Warren stated that not enough research has been done on gay relationships to warrant the construction of a gay matching algorithm. In particular, Warren says “it calls for some very careful thinking [and] very careful research." [5]

1. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two), (section: LGBT/Queer chemistry, pgs. 622-28), (preview), (436-pgs). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. Buss, David M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.
3. Same Sex Matching – ScientificMatch.com
4. (a) Hudson, Zach. (2007). “Gay ‘Chemistry’ Lesson: Dating Website takes on eHarmony.com’s Gay Ban”, May 11, WashBlade.com.
(b) Franco, Carlos C. (2007). “Nope, Still Gay | Chemistry.com commercial”, NowPublic.com, May 01.
5. Kornblum, Janet. (2005). “eHarmony: Heart and Soul”, USA Today, March 18.
6. Hirata, Christopher M. (c. 2000). “The Physics of Relationships” (section: Fun), Tapir.Caltech.edu.

TDics icon ns

More pages