NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe someone is born gay or do you think they turn gay...

Do you believe someone is born gay or do you think they turn gay...



Do they choose to have homosexual tendencies? I would say not. Do they choose to act on their tendencies? Yes.

TOO MANY THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT..... LALALALALALALALALA (aren't I very informed?)

you didn't actually make a poll,

I think it could be either.

I've said it twice before, but it's as true today as ever.

If you think it's a choice, then try to choose to jerk off to some gay porn. If you can't get off, it's obviously not a choice. If you can get off, congratulations, you're gay.

Yes, I often say to myself "I think I'll give up on the ladies and have myself some of that pretty young man over there."

Seriously, give up. Gay people aren't straight people acting up just in order to annoy you.

If you can get off, congratulations, you're gay.

Not necessarily, some of us can get off on a purely physical basis even in the presence of unpleasant mental stimuli.

- Yes, they turn gay at a point in their lives.
- No, they are born that way.
Neither option is appropriate.

Homosexuality is defined by a person in relationship to other people, and hence it can be both. People have the force of physical attraction working on them, but at the same time, they do not cease thinking --their brains as well as their bodies are at work. It is both a choice and a physical thing.

I know all my gay friends were really eager to get into all that prejudice and persecution.

Do you believe someone is born gay or do you think they turn gay...Do you believe lefties are born lefties or do you think they turn lefty...?

I know all my gay friends were really eager to get into all that prejudice and persecution.
I hear prejudice and persecution is almost as popular as S&M!

Do they choose to have homosexual tendencies? I would say not. Do they choose to act on their tendencies? Yes.

Precisely. Same with heterosexuals. Or same with sadomasochists. or same with paedophiles. Not that i equate the last two groups with the first two groups in any way, but - quite frankly - your sexual orientation, however "normal" or warped is not a choice, it's a complex mixture of nature, nurture, psychology and biology.

What you do with that orientation is.

I don't believe in either poll choice.

Somewhere along the lines of what Freud believed, I think homosexuality may very well be some sort of a psychological developmental disorder.

Although, this disorder could be related to some sort of genetic defect, similar to how some people are born hermaphroditic ..... homosexuality could possibly be similar in that the person's XX or XY chromosomes were not defined enough to provide for proper development

However, even as I write about the genetics of it, I still have to lean towards the Freud diagnosis of a psychological disorder (yes, yes, I know they took it off the DSM awhile ago, but that does not refute the possiblity [everyone knows how politics can get involved in everything])

Do you believe lefties are born lefties or do you think they turn lefty...?

Some interesting history on leftiness. They were also villified, more recently than you'd think, particularly in religious schools and were attempted to be retrained to be right hand dominant.

Some interesting history on leftiness. They were also villified, more recently than you'd think, particularly in religious schools and were attempted to be retrained to be right hand dominant.They got retrained in the former GDR too. As far as I can remember, Chancellor Schröder got retrained too, though he didn't grow up in the GDR...

Some interesting history on leftiness. They were also villified, more recently than you'd think, particularly in religious schools and were attempted to be retrained to be right hand dominant.

I was forced to write with my right hand, even though i was naturally left handed, and this is only 25 years ago, and in the UK.

Admittedly, deepest darkest South Wales, which was a bit behind the times, but still....

However, even as I write about the genetics of it, I still have to lean towards the Freud diagnosis of a psychological disorder (yes, yes, I know they took it off the DSM awhile ago, but that does not refute the possiblity [everyone knows how politics can get involved in everything])

Actually going back a bit further, when it was considered a severe mental disorder is where the politics really was at work.

I was forced to write with my right hand, even though i was naturally left handed, and this is only 25 years ago, and in the UK.

Admittedly, deepest darkest South Wales, which was a bit behind the times, but still....


If it wasn't for new age liberal politics you'd still be clumsily scrawling with your right hand you... you... HERETIC! *smirk*

Personally, I believe everyone is AT LEAST 60% gay, here is my reasoning:

Women and Men share a lot of Charactoristics
If these Charactoristics were seperated, and not shown together, you could only differentiate about 6 features (Including Naughty Bits)
If you were to take charactoristics from 50 Men, and arranged them to look like a woman, most "straight" men would consider that woman attractive.

It's a rather simple case of this: Man crafts in the vision of Man, because what Man finds attrative of others, are only what he finds attractive of himself.

Hell, I don't really know if I'm gay or not, I'm probably pretty close, because I know I find myself attractive and well, I'd do me! :p

Do they choose to have homosexual tendencies? I would say not. Do they choose to act on their tendencies? Yes.

What that is a round about way to say the choose that way.

Why don't you define what you mean by tendencies?

What's the difference when the bodies chemestry makes a guy look at a guys butt and think "Why hello there!" and when a guy looks at a womans butt and thinks "Why hello there!"

I don't believe in either poll choice.

Somewhere along the lines of what Freud believed, I think homosexuality may very well be some sort of a psychological developmental disorder.

Although, this disorder could be related to some sort of genetic defect, similar to how some people are born hermaphroditic ..... homosexuality could possibly be similar in that the person's XX or XY chromosomes were not defined enough to provide for proper development

However, even as I write about the genetics of it, I still have to lean towards the Freud diagnosis of a psychological disorder (yes, yes, I know they took it off the DSM awhile ago, but that does not refute the possiblity [everyone knows how politics can get involved in everything])

i pretty much completely agree with you, with the exception of your use of the word "disorder." abnormality does not necessarily mean inferiority. homosexuals (like myself) are capable of having happy, healthy, long-term relationships. pedophiles and nymphomaniacs would have more difficulty in that area. merriam-webster's defines a disorder as an abnormal mental or physical state, but it lists ailment as a synonym. they don't seem to understand the fact that there is no reason to be normal, particularly if it requires a great and consistent effort. i'd rather be lazy and weird.

who cares if its inborn or a choice? theres nothing wrong with it! if youre gay because you find the other gender to be unappealing or if you just feel like fucking someone of the same sex. GO FOR IT. what do i care what your reason is?

Somewhere along the lines of what Freud believed, I think homosexuality may very well be some sort of a psychological developmental disorder.

Although, this disorder could be related to some sort of genetic defect, similar to how some people are born hermaphroditic ..... homosexuality could possibly be similar in that the person's XX or XY chromosomes were not defined enough to provide for proper development

However, even as I write about the genetics of it, I still have to lean towards the Freud diagnosis of a psychological disorder (yes, yes, I know they took it off the DSM awhile ago, but that does not refute the possiblity [everyone knows how politics can get involved in everything])

Unfortunately for you, the majority of what Freud believes has been discredited a long time ago. May I suggest a book for you to read on it?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465091288/qid=1122501764/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-7018163-6499010?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

He's has no credibility what-so-ever.

Using my own personal credibility on the line, I did not choose to be gay. Therefore as far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is not a choice, for me. For my gay friends this is the same story. I'm putting a lot of personal credibility into this.

Homosexuality is no more a choice then heterosexuality.

Hmmmm, well I'm bisexual and a lefty and whilst I wouldn't choose to be any different, I certainly didn't get any say in the matter :)

Oh, and Fischerspooner - it's not just Wales. I was made to use scissors in my right hand - in London in the 80s. Tsk. Don't get me started on what they did to my lefty dad when he was a kid :rolleyes:

I personally think that it is a born trait. I have seen articles suggesting different brain patterns with gay men vs straight men. I also have a cousin that is gay. Ever since he was a small child the family knew that he was different. We talked alot about this issue. He even tried to go straight and date women. He said that he just couldnt do it. So he went for a gay life. He seems happy with it. Also think it is a part of nature to make some of the animals gay. I believe that there are gay animals other than humans. It is a natural process of evolution. Possible way to control over population naturally too.

I personally think that it is a born trait. I have seen articles suggesting different brain patterns with gay men vs straight men. I also have a cousin that is gay. Ever since he was a small child the family knew that he was different. We talked alot about this issue. He even tried to go straight and date women. He said that he just couldnt do it. So he went for a gay life. He seems happy with it. Also think it is a part of nature to make some of the animals gay. I believe that there are gay animals other than humans. It is a natural process of evolution. Possible way to control over population naturally too.

Yep... :) I even tried dating women.. it just didn't work because I was simply not attractd.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=47615

"A new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.

When homosexual men smelled the odour of male sweat - more specifically, a chemical in the male hormone testosterone - their brains responded similarly to those of women.

The findings published in the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that brain activity and sexual orientation are linked. It also supports an opinion held by most scientists, that people are born - not bred - gay."

Some interesting history on leftiness. They were also villified, more recently than you'd think, particularly in religious schools and were attempted to be retrained to be right hand dominant.



Can't say I blame the schools, I was always the person who got seated next to a lefty in elementary school, and the whole arm-bumping thing got old after a while :mad:

Personally, I believe everyone is AT LEAST 60% gay, here is my reasoning:

Women and Men share a lot of Charactoristics
If these Charactoristics were seperated, and not shown together, you could only differentiate about 6 features (Including Naughty Bits)
If you were to take charactoristics from 50 Men, and arranged them to look like a woman, most "straight" men would consider that woman attractive.

It's a rather simple case of this: Man crafts in the vision of Man, because what Man finds attrative of others, are only what he finds attractive of himself.

Hell, I don't really know if I'm gay or not, I'm probably pretty close, because I know I find myself attractive and well, I'd do me! :p




60%? The test (yes, there's a test lol) put me at 23%. The average person was around 36% when I took it.

What that is a round about way to say the choose that way.

Why don't you define what you mean by tendencies?

What's the difference when the bodies chemestry makes a guy look at a guys butt and think "Why hello there!" and when a guy looks at a womans butt and thinks "Why hello there!"



You must have misread what I said. I said that a homosexual attraction is not choice, but the homosexual act (like every other non-rape sex act) is not. It's pretty simple.

who cares if its inborn or a choice? theres nothing wrong with it! if youre gay because you find the other gender to be unappealing or if you just feel like fucking someone of the same sex. GO FOR IT. what do i care what your reason is?




But there is something wrong with it, if you don't want to bring up the homosexual debate again, then just keep on the topic of whether or not it is genetic instead of whether or not it is right.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of what Freud believes has been discredited a long time ago. May I suggest a book for you to read on it?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465091288/qid=1122501764/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-7018163-6499010?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

He's has no credibility what-so-ever.

Using my own personal credibility on the line, I did not choose to be gay. Therefore as far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is not a choice, for me. For my gay friends this is the same story. I'm putting a lot of personal credibility into this.

Homosexuality is no more a choice then heterosexuality.



He has some credibility lol, just not much.

You think five posts in a row is a tad bit too much?

He has some credibility lol, just not much.

Well nearly all of his studies were discredited in the 1970s. His credibility is just not existent in my eyes.

But there is something wrong with it

No there isn't.

You think five posts in a row is a tad bit too much?



Well nearly all of his studies were discredited in the 1970s. His credibility is just not existent in my eyes.



No there isn't.



Ok, I'll just let you have the last word this time since I don't wanna start another homosexuality debate again. Never ever again. Just..go on and say what you will, but I've had enough homosexuality debates for one lifetime.

people arent born gay. people turn gay later in thir lives, like in a jail for instance, people get it up the ass when they turn gay in prision.

people arent born gay. people turn gay later in thir lives, like in a jail for instance, people get it up the ass when they turn gay in prision.



I don't think that's entirely voluntary, it seems Big Bubba gets to make that decision for you :p

people arent born gay. people turn gay later in thir lives, like in a jail for instance, people get it up the ass when they turn gay in prision.

That's rape.

Also people are born gay and I will use myself as an example.

Neo, you don't want to risk being overpowered in a debate about homosexuality? Okay.. I can see why.. just can't face the reality I'm actually right about it. That's cool. :)

Being gay is not a choice. Having sex is always a choice, unless you're being raped.

I think the article about the brains of gay men versus those of straight men shows that being gay isn't a choice. The one problem that I do have with this article is that it says "When homosexual men smelled the odour of male sweat - more specifically, a chemical in the male hormone testosterone - their brains responded similarly to those of women." It should have said straight women there. This way the article assumes all women are straight, but I'm thrifting away from my point.

With this information, the discussion of the choice of being gay is closed and won in favour of the "No" side. All that's left is the choice of having sex, which is (when no one's being raped) always a choice, be you straight, gay, bi, transgender, no-gender, asexual or anything else. Seems pretty simple to me.

ya, but big bubba was the one that turned gay in prision.

That's rape.

Also people are born gay and I will use myself as an example.

Neo, you don't want to risk being overpowered in a debate about homosexuality? Okay.. I can see why.. just can't face the reality I'm actually right about it. That's cool. :)



No, we've just had several weeks worth of it not too long ago and, frankly, I'm pooped.

But there is something wrong with it, if you don't want to bring up the homosexual debate again, then just keep on the topic of whether or not it is genetic instead of whether or not it is right.
i find the common subtext of such questions disturbing. it implies that if one chooses it, its disgusting. but if one is driven to it by biology its fine.

you would, i assume, say that its wrong no matter if its biology or choice. i would say that its fine no matter why one does it. thus making the question for either you or me utterly irrelevant.

No, we've just had several weeks worth of it not too long ago and, frankly, I'm pooped.

Well, I don't find that answer good enough. Unfortunately for you, this debate is a hundred times more personal for me, then say one about global warming.

Well, I don't find that answer good enough. Unfortunately for you, this debate is a hundred times more personal for me, then say one about global warming.



Fine, you don't have to find it good enough. You can keep telling yourself that you would win, but I'm not getting into it again in this thread and that's final.

Poll: Do people choose to be gay?
No. Other people choose for them to be gay.
There is a small cabal of the most elite of the GLBT community behind the scenes. Their queer waves are so amazingly powerful that if a normal spends enough time in their present, they too will begin to lust after members of the same gender!

I only hope that one day I cpan aspire to this level of power and mastery over the power of Queer.

No. Other people choose for them to be gay.
There is a small cabal of the most elite of the GLBT community behind the scenes. Their queer waves are so amazingly powerful that if a normal spends enough time in their present, they too will begin to lust after members of the same gender!


Oh damn.. he's figured us out.. ;)

lol...

No. Other people choose for them to be gay.
There is a small cabal of the most elite of the GLBT community behind the scenes. Their queer waves are so amazingly powerful that if a normal spends enough time in their present, they too will begin to lust after members of the same gender!

I only hope that one day I cpan aspire to this level of power and mastery over the power of Queer.
Damn, I thought it was through touch they spread queerness. Now my plastic wrap suit won't work anymore :(

Okay, a lot of things to comment on here...

Firstly, I think it's important to remember that the notion of sexual orientation as divided into homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality is a construction made by man. There are many people who feel that these categories are irrelevant.

Secondly, a person who was sex with someone of the same gender is not necessarily a homosexual (or a bisexual for that matter). Male inmates having sex with other male inmates need not be gay.

I personally believe that this sort of thing is innate. Since I believe in God and in God's superiority I believe that God made me homosexual. Or, that he let it be decided by nature. Since God knew what nature was going to choose for me though, not changing that choice would be the same as choosing it Himself.

As a final note, I do not think that we need to find out why people are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or of any other category imaginable. More important in my opinion is to rid society and its people of the notion that homosexuality and bisexuality are unwanted. If I had a choice now I would not change a thing.

Damn, I thought it was through touch they spread queerness. Now my plastic wrap suit won't work anymore :(

We were talking about waves, were we not? Aluminium foil deflector beanies (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html) to the rescue!

i pretty much completely agree with you, with the exception of your use of the word "disorder." abnormality does not necessarily mean inferiority. homosexuals (like myself) are capable of having happy, healthy, long-term relationships. pedophiles and nymphomaniacs would have more difficulty in that area. merriam-webster's defines a disorder as an abnormal mental or physical state, but it lists ailment as a synonym. they don't seem to understand the fact that there is no reason to be normal, particularly if it requires a great and consistent effort. i'd rather be lazy and weird.

I didn't mean disorder as a bad thing ... I just said it was a disorder, because, you have to admit that it is somewhat of an "abnormal mental state" in comparison to the world's population. I didn't mean to offend anyone ... just trying to look at this objectively :)

I always liked this excerpt from a letter that Freud wrote in response to a mother whose son was apparently a homosexual:

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."

I always liked this excerpt from a letter that Freud wrote in response to a mother whose son was apparently a homosexual:

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."

Why is it so certain that homosexuality is not an advantage?

Why is it so certain that homosexuality is not an advantage?

Biologically speaking, it isn't, because that male will not perpetuate his DNA, which is the whole biological point of sexual intercourse.

Why is it so certain that homosexuality is not an advantage?
I think it is an advantage- you and your partner are equals (physically), so therefore no sexist remarks like ' a woman's place is in the bedroom or the kitchen'. I know my relationships would be a lot better if that was true for me. On a side note, due to my mothers insistance on keeping my sister sheltered from all things 'unnatural', i got to teach her tolerance before mother planted her evil seeds. She was straightening my hair and we were watching nypd blue on TNT when the commercial for the next episode of The Closer came on. It was a bit shocking when she started laughing and then (upon my question as to what she thought gay people are) she said, "ummm... people that are pregnant?" The question in my mind is if she fell asleep when she was watching The Truth About Jane with me.

I think it is an advantage- you and your partner are equals (physically), so therefore no sexist remarks like ' a woman's place is in the bedroom or the kitchen'. I know my relationships would be a lot better if that was true for me. On a side note, due to my mothers insistance on keeping my sister sheltered from all things 'unnatural', i got to teach her tolerance before mother planted her evil seeds. She was straightening my hair and we were watching nypd blue on TNT when the commercial for the next episode of The Closer came on. It was a bit shocking when she started laughing and then (upon my question as to what she thought gay people are) she said, "ummm... people that are pregnant?" The question in my mind is if she fell asleep when she was watching The Truth About Jane with me.
I somewhat agree, although no children, biologically, can be born, people are also equal in rights and speach. We "say" that women have all the rights as men, and as good as it would be, we're not quite there, so, we get this situation, not to offend anyone, but here we go:

If a man can't get an erection, he needs to go get special pills from the doctor.

If a woman can't get an orgasm, it's the man's fault for not trying hard enough.

I'm tired of it being my fault, at least in a gay relationship you are both on the same ground.

Biologically speaking, it isn't, because that male will not perpetuate his DNA, which is the whole biological point of sexual intercourse.

Homosexuality is not restricted to males.

At the moment I have no intention of perpetuating my DNA. People don't have sex just for biological reasons.

And gay men can reproduce. Have you never heard of surrogate mothers?

...... I said "biologically speaking"

Well, it can be biological. With a couple of drinks, anything can happen.

Why is it so certain that homosexuality is not an advantage?

Are you implying that homosexuals are better than heterosexuals? If so, I'd have to say that's bigoted. ;)

Homosexuality is not restricted to males.

At the moment I have no intention of perpetuating my DNA. People don't have sex just for biological reasons.

I hate to tell you, but women don't have sperm. Therefore, no sperm uniting with egg, and no baby to be created. Sperm donors haven't been around that long. Even then, it's not a merging of DNA from the two partners, it's the DNA of one partner and a random guy. Consequently, it is not an advantage in a pure biological sense.

I hate to tell you, but women don't have sperm. Therefore, no sperm uniting with egg, and no baby to be created. Sperm donors haven't been around that long. Even then, it's not a merging of DNA from the two partners, it's the DNA of one partner and a random guy. Consequently, it is not an advantage in a pure biological sense.

thank you

And gay men can reproduce. Have you never heard of surrogate mothers?

Yes, but if it is a genetic issue, the DNA from the homosexual man would be (I don't like this word, but it's the best one) diluted by the heterosexual DNA, moreso than if two homosexuals were able to reproduce. Besides, how many gay men actually take advantage of the surrogate mother? I don't think it's all that widespread a practice. Therefore, it's still not as advantageous to be gay if you desire to pass on your genes. The majority of heterosexual marriages will produce children. I'd doubt the same could be said for the homosexual community.

thank you

You're welcome

Right now, isn't there some legal barier barring gay men from being anonymous sperm donors? Some junk excuse that the FDA made up?

Biologically speaking, it isn't, because that male will not perpetuate his DNA, which is the whole biological point of sexual intercourse.
Poor show chap, using that logic any form of charity is counterproductive in a biological point of view. As is economics and the entire social structure we have.

Biologically speaking, it isn't, because that male will not perpetuate his DNA, which is the whole biological point of sexual intercourse.
How about the theory that it could result in a gene that promotes higher sexual activity in females that gets expressed in a male?

Surely that gene would have advantages for the human population if it 'sacrafices' the reproduction of a small number of males for more reproduction in females?

Or the benefits to a society that is overpopulated?

Poor show chap, using that logic any form of charity is counterproductive in a biological point of view. As is economics and the entire social structure we have.

Not necessarily. Charity is looked upon positively in social circles. Women marry "good" men, and that is one way to be viewed as a good person. If it makes you more attractive to the opposite sex, you're more likely to pass on your genes. I'm not sure where the economics idea comes from, since capitalism is an "I'm getting mine, so I can have a safe, comfortable environment to raise my offspring" idea. Social structure provides a support system for children. Children who have a social net (people to help bear the burden of raising a child) are more likely to survive to adulthood as a prime candidate for reproduction than one who is left to be cared for only by the parents. A society increases survivability.

How about the theory that it could result in a gene that promotes higher sexual activity in females that gets expressed in a male?

Surely that gene would have advantages for the human population if it 'sacrafices' the reproduction of a small number of males for more reproduction in females?

Or the benefits to a society that is overpopulated?

Think about it this way. When you make a soup, you need equal parts of all the ingredients to make it properly. The larger the amount of soup you're trying to make, the larger the amount of ingredients you need to add. There's only so much space in the kitchen, so to speak. If you've got all the space and resources to make ten-gallons of it, then it would indeed be an advantage. However, it is a rare case indeed. The usual result of such an attempt would be a watered-down mess. Do you see my point? I can explain further if I'm being oblique.

No, I can't see why anyone would want to experience the prejudice they do for being homosexual. Of course, I can't see how being able to choose their sexuality makes much of a difference, either. The fact is that if no coersion or nonconsent is involved, there really isn't a problem.

Yes, but if it is a genetic issue, the DNA from the homosexual man would be (I don't like this word, but it's the best one) diluted by the heterosexual DNA, moreso than if two homosexuals were able to reproduce. Besides, how many gay men actually take advantage of the surrogate mother? I don't think it's all that widespread a practice. Therefore, it's still not as advantageous to be gay if you desire to pass on your genes. The majority of heterosexual marriages will produce children. I'd doubt the same could be said for the homosexual community.

Well I don't want to have children, like many people today. This is a society where less children are needed. A more technologically advanced society. We do not need to have children for the sake of operating farms.

And let me enlighten everyone on this, I'm going to take this argument very, very personally and very seriously. I will not stand for half truths and lies being spread around here. I will stop at nothing to go after people who spread disinformation. This is a very, extremely personal debate to me and any other homosexual male or female in this forum.

Bellania, homosexuality can be something in the recessive traits, and shows up only in 10% of the population.

Think about it this way. When you make a soup, you need equal parts of all the ingredients to make it properly. The larger the amount of soup you're trying to make, the larger the amount of ingredients you need to add. There's only so much space in the kitchen, so to speak. If you've got all the space and resources to make ten-gallons of it, then it would indeed be an advantage. However, it is a rare case indeed. The usual result of such an attempt would be a watered-down mess. Do you see my point? I can explain further if I'm being oblique.
I see what you're trying to say, but I still think you are wrong.

In a population with overcrowding, is it not advantageous for there to be homosexuals so the population won't grow as fast?

And with that gene theory I posted, then 'sacraficing' a few males is all in the name of "the greater good".

Not necessarily. Charity is looked upon positively in social circles. Women marry "good" men, and that is one way to be viewed as a good person. If it makes you more attractive to the opposite sex, you're more likely to pass on your genes. I'm not sure where the economics idea comes from, since capitalism is an "I'm getting mine, so I can have a safe, comfortable environment to raise my offspring" idea. Social structure provides a support system for children. Children who have a social net (people to help bear the burden of raising a child) are more likely to survive to adulthood as a prime candidate for reproduction than one who is left to be cared for only by the parents. A society increases survivability.
You're touching on the point. Are there people who would live in a free for all? Yes. Would some people have more to gain in a free for all? Most certainly yes. They give up part of their reproductive ability (much as homosexuals do) for the greater good of mankind, the gene pool as a whole (relatedness is a factor here, but we're all related somehow. As long as we exist, we all 'win' from a darwinian view). Homosexuals are just an extention of that point ad absurdiam. They basically convert their entire lives, don't pass on their genes, to support their relatives and to bolster the chance that the relatives' DNA gets passed on. Altruism to the hilt.

Either the gain given to relatives from homosexuals supported them is so great that the individual homosexual gains more from the balance then attempting to join the great big race for women (or men), or the gene is just expressed far more then it is in regular men (or women). That's just one possible explanation.

I don't think that this thread is as cut and dry as "yes" or "no". I think some people are born with the preference while others make the choice to become gay later on in life for whatever reasons. (I also have a theory that everyone is inherently bisexual with varying degrees of denial, but I am sure that will meet with scathing remarks.)

I don't think that this thread is as cut and dry as "yes" or "no". I think some people are born with the preference while others make the choice to become gay later on in life for whatever reasons. (I also have a theory that everyone is inherently bisexual with varying degrees of denial, but I am sure that will meet with scathing remarks.)

Why would someone choose to be gay? Why would they choose to have the pain of coming out? Or having to hide it for the rest of their lives? I don't buy into any argument that one would choose to be gay.

Do you believe someone is born gay or do you think they turn gay...
I think there's more to this argument. I don't think people are born gay gay, but I think all are born to have sexual desires beyond the normal limit. How each person chooses to act upon these desires is up to everybody's consciousness. For example, one could be a heterosexual, but is unfaithful to one's spouse based on these desires.

Why would someone choose to be gay? Why would they choose to have the pain of coming out? Or having to hide it for the rest of their lives? I don't buy into any argument that one would choose to be gay.


Pain? Declaring oneself to be gay when one has a single bi/homosexual thought (remember, this is during the area of confusion, not true sexual orientation), seems to be the new form of teenage rebellion these days. Being gay has somehow been viewed as iconoclastic/subversive and we all know the attention those people get :rolleyes: Seriously, I've known people who pretend to be gay just to get attention, and I'm not kidding.

Why would someone choose to be gay? Why would they choose to have the pain of coming out? Or having to hide it for the rest of their lives? I don't buy into any argument that one would choose to be gay.

I know many people who have attempted to have hetero relationships only to meet with grief time and time again, thus, fed up with the opposite sex, turn to same sex relationships. Coming out isn't painful for everyone. It depends on how supportive their family and friends are as well as how much they care about what others think of them.

Pain? Declaring oneself to be gay when one has a single bi/homosexual thought (remember, this is during the area of confusion, not true sexual orientation), seems to be the new form of teenage rebellion these days. Being gay has somehow been viewed as iconoclastic/subversive and we all know the attention those people get :rolleyes: Seriously, I've known people who pretend to be gay just to get attention, and I'm not kidding.

I come from an overwhelmingly catholic family and sure my parents were all accepting, but some of my uncles and aunts who found out were not. It was very painful to hear that. Coming out refers to telling family and friends. I lost friends.. well people who I thought were my friends just because I was gay. Being gay is not a trend. Nor is it subversive. It is just the way I am. I'm not doing this to rebel against my parents or anything. For goodness sakes I love my parents. And I'm not trying to get attention. Furthermore, I think you are making these things up so you can bash homosexuals with your religious agenda.

I WILL SMASH EVERY ARGUMENT THAT HAS ANY BIAS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS. I will not stand for it.

I know many people who have attempted to have hetero relationships only to meet with grief time and time again, thus, fed up with the opposite sex, turn to same sex relationships. Coming out isn't painful for everyone. It depends on how supportive their family and friends are as well as how much they care about what others think of them.

Well that does not mean those people were heterosexual. It could simply mean they were bisexual and were suppressing their homosexual tendencies. Former Governor McGreevey anyone? He's a governor who had a homosexual relationship with one of his aides, and he has a wife and two kids.

I don't think that this thread is as cut and dry as "yes" or "no". I think some people are born with the preference while others make the choice to become gay later on in life for whatever reasons. (I also have a theory that everyone is inherently bisexual with varying degrees of denial, but I am sure that will meet with scathing remarks.)
That is sort of like my theory that almost everyone (90% of people) fit between a 1 and a 5 on the Kinsey scale. As for people pretending to be gay, I've yet to meet some of those. Bisexual, yes, but those were just a bunch of sad teenagers overly obsessed with Kurt Cobain.

Pain? Declaring oneself to be gay when one has a single bi/homosexual thought (remember, this is during the area of confusion, not true sexual orientation), seems to be the new form of teenage rebellion these days. Being gay has somehow been viewed as iconoclastic/subversive and we all know the attention those people get :rolleyes: Seriously, I've known people who pretend to be gay just to get attention, and I'm not kidding.

Really because what I saw was the gay kids getting picked on constantly in high school. Why would anyone want that type of attention?

Well that does not mean those people were heterosexual. It could simply mean they were bisexual and were suppressing their homosexual tendencies. Former Governor McGreevey anyone? He's a governor who had a homosexual relationship with one of his aides, and he has a wife and two kids.
Which goes back to my theory that everyone is inherently bi-sexual. :D

Well I don't want to have children, like many people today. This is a society where less children are needed. A more technologically advanced society. We do not need to have children for the sake of operating farms.

And let me enlighten everyone on this, I'm going to take this argument very, very personally and very seriously. I will not stand for half truths and lies being spread around here. I will stop at nothing to go after people who spread disinformation. This is a very, extremely personal debate to me and any other homosexual male or female in this forum.

Bellania, homosexuality can be something in the recessive traits, and shows up only in 10% of the population.

I could respond, but I don't want to hurt your feelings with my point of view. If you take this that seriously, that you can't debate without saying the other side is only using "half-truths and lies", then you shouldn't be on these forums. Only tears will result.

Oh, and btw, I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights and gay marriage.

I could respond, but I don't want to hurt your feelings with my point of view. If you take this that seriously, that you can't debate without saying the other side is only using "half-truths and lies", then you shouldn't be on these forums. Only tears will result.

Oh, and btw, I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights and gay marriage.

I take this personally, meaning I will put extra attention to my debate and extra interest in smashing the arguments of those who oppose gay rights and/or gay people as a whole. I will be on these forums and I see nearly 80% of the people who voted here do have a good head on their shoulders.

Really because what I saw was the gay kids getting picked on constantly in high school. Why would anyone want that type of attention?



I live in Alabama for Heaven's sake, and it's actually cool to be gay or a gay poser here in high school (or it was when I was in high school). ALABAMA!!!!!

I live in Alabama for Heaven's sake, and it's actually cool to be gay or a gay poser here in high school (or it was when I was in high school). ALABAMA!!!!!

Funny how I think that's a lie.

I've done research here in the high schools in Los Angeles (because I do work for local GLBT organizations) and found out.. even here.. GLBT kids face moderate to severe harassment.

It isn't cool to be gay in the eyes of the bigots at school and I feel you are probably misinterpreting the reality. No way in hell are schools in Alabama more accepting and tolerant then ones in California. And even the ones here I would not call great.

I take this personally, meaning I will put extra attention to my debate and extra interest in smashing the arguments of those who oppose gay rights and/or gay people as a whole. I will be on these forums and I see nearly 80% of the people who voted here do have a good head on their shoulders.



Well, as I said I'm not going to get into it for quite some time after the infamous "Gay Wars" of a few weeks ago, so you won't be "smashing" any of my arguments....at least, not for now....

Funny how I think that's a lie.

I've done research here in the high schools in Los Angeles (because I do work for local GLBT organizations) and found out.. even here.. GLBT kids face moderate to severe harassment.

It isn't cool to be gay in the eyes of the bigots at school and I feel you are probably misinterpreting the reality. No way in hell are schools in Alabama more accepting and tolerant then ones in California. And even the ones here I would not call great.



I kid you not...following your secular standards, wouldn't that place Alabama above California? Say it ain't so :p

Well, as I said I'm not going to get into it for quite some time after the infamous "Gay Wars" of a few weeks ago, so you won't be "smashing" any of my arguments....at least, not for now....

Then why continue posting in this thread if you aren't going to get into it?

I kid you not...following your secular standards, wouldn't that place Alabama above California? Say it ain't so :p

What the heck are you talking about? Alabama is severely below California, as is most of Southern states.

Then why continue posting in this thread if you aren't going to get into it?




I don't have the self-discipline required to stay out of the thread and the argument. Baby-steps, Mesa, baby-steps :D

What the heck are you talking about? Alabama is severely below California, as is most of Southern states.



Well, I guess this "smashes" your misconceptions and false generalizations. We're just as morally degraded as you it seems :D

I don't have the self-discipline required to stay out of the thread and the argument. Baby-steps, Mesa, baby-steps :D

Baby steps?

In my world. You have one step. Like in baseball. You get up to the plate and you hit the ball. There are no baby steps. You either step up, or you don't. :)

I kid you not...following your secular standards, wouldn't that place Alabama above California? Say it ain't so :p
Hun, I find that so hard to believe. I mean, there is no way Alabama is above both Cali and NY, two of the most gay-friendly states. Alabama for me is in the same league as Indiana (KKK, plannedparenthood record subpeonas) and Mississippi (the recent KKK murder trial- a conviction in Manslaughter- An OUTRAGE) and Wyoming (Matthew Shepard). Sorry if i'm being overly judgemental, but even Florida, one of the more democratic southern states, is still suffering the aftershocks of Anita Bryant.

Baby steps?

In my world. You have one step. Like in baseball. You get up to the plate and you hit the ball. There are no baby steps. You either step up, or you don't. :)

So you came out of your mother's womb running? ;)

Which goes back to my theory that everyone is inherently bi-sexual. :D

I think everybody is inherently looking for sex. Where you end up and how you end up is something else, and determined after birth.

What the heck are you talking about? Alabama is severely below California, as is most of Southern states.

Now who's biased against a portion of the population?

Hun, I find that so hard to believe. I mean, there is no way Alabama is above both Cali and NY, two of the most gay-friendly states. Alabama for me is in the same league as Indiana (KKK, plannedparenthood record subpeonas) and Mississippi (the recent KKK murder trial- a conviction in Manslaughter- An OUTRAGE) and Wyoming (Matthew Shepard). Sorry if i'm being overly judgemental, but even Florida, one of the more democratic southern states, is still suffering the aftershocks of Anita Bryant.



Nope, we're falling to the dark side of secularism too, slowly but surely :)

Now who's biased against a portion of the population?

I'm not biased. I"m just stating the facts. Alabama has a horrible record in civil rights. Period. Not as bad as Latin America. But that does not mean I hate the people there. I mean they just need to open their mind a bit.

I'm not biased. I"m just stating the facts. Alabama has a horrible record in civil rights. Period. Not as bad as Latin America. But that does not mean I hate the people there. I mean they just need to open their mind a bit.



Open-mindedness is giving equal consideration to all things, not accepting them.

Nope, we're falling to the dark side of secularism too, slowly but surely :)
Yea, the whole country is going down the drain. Soon Canada is going to have a large amount of immigrants- from the US.

Now who's biased against a portion of the population?

"I want equality for all GLBTs ..... but not for people who happen to live in Southern states, because they are obviously all KKK members ....." -Mesatecala

"I want equality for all GLBTs ..... but not for people who happen to live in Southern states, because they are obviously all KKK members ....." -Mesatecala

I never said. Don't ever, EVER misconstrue what I said, or put words in my mouth. Nobody speaks for me but myself. I know there are GLBT people who live in southern states, one of my gay friends is from Alabama.

Neo:

Open-mindedness is giving equal consideration to all things, not accepting them.

False. It is accepting them.

Nope, we're falling to the dark side of secularism too, slowly but surely :)

Wait so going with universal human rights instead of one groups moral codes is the dark side? Well if thats wrong I dont want to be right.

"I want equality for all GLBTs ..... but not for people who happen to live in Southern states, because they are obviously all KKK members ....." -Mesatecala
That's a delightful misuse of a quote. Also not permitted under the rules of this forum.

False. It is accepting them.

Actually Neo is right on the definition but I doubt she is open minded. You need to be willing to consider both sides in order to be but since God said its wrong I highly doubt she could take an objective look at homosexuality.

I never said. Don't ever, EVER misconstrue what I said, or put words in my mouth. Nobody speaks for me but myself. I know there are GLBT people who live in southern states, one of my gay friends is from Alabama.

Neo:



False. It is accepting them.



No, that's acceptance lol.

o·pen-mind·ed (pn-mndd)
adj

Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.


Receptiveness implies giving thought to things and making a judgement on them instead of just accepting them. You can either choose to accept or not accept after making an informed decision.

No, that's acceptance lol.

o·pen-mind·ed (pn-mndd)
adj

Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.


Receptiveness implies giving thought to things and making a judgement on them instead of just accepting them. You can either choose to accept or not accept after making an informed decision.

You will not drag me into your hateful games or Bill Clintonism (it depends on what the meaning of is "is"). You know what I said.

Actually Neo is right on the definition but I doubt she is open minded. You need to be willing to consider both sides in order to be but since God said its wrong I highly doubt she could take an objective look at homosexuality.



Hmm, Dem brought up the issue of a suspected mistranslation and I looked into it. From what I saw, the fact that homosexuality is frowned upon by God was still implied. I try to do what's right, which includes checking my sources :D

That's a delightful misuse of a quote. Also not permitted under the rules of this forum.

lol, i didn't realize sarcasm was against the law .... i apoligize

Hmm, Dem brought up the issue of a suspected mistranslation and I looked into it. From what I saw, the fact that homosexuality is frowned upon by God was still implied. I try to do what's right, which includes checking my sources :D

Homosexuality is frowned upon by some "christians" who misinterpret their own bible (christians are not supposed to be following the old testament by the way).

That's a delightful misuse of a quote. Also not permitted under the rules of this forum.



It is? Wow, Dempublicents does it to me all the time though....

Homosexuality is frowned upon by some "christians" who misinterpret their own bible (christians are not supposed to be following the old testament by the way).



Then I shall refer you to Romans 1 and....wait....YOU TRICKED ME!!!! I said I wasn't getting into this!! I'm leaving before this gets worse!

Hmm, Dem brought up the issue of a suspected mistranslation and I looked into it. From what I saw, the fact that homosexuality is frowned upon by God was still implied. I try to do what's right, which includes checking my sources :D
But could you honestly step outside your position and take an objective look at the issue from the otherside?

Homosexuality is frowned upon by some "christians" who misinterpret their own bible (christians are not supposed to be following the old testament by the way).

LOL they arent? ....... oh wait, what about that thing called the 10 commandments ... hmm interesting

Then I shall refer you to Romans 1 and....wait....YOU TRICKED ME!!!! I said I wasn't getting into this!! I'm leaving before this gets worse!

http://www.gaychristians.org/

Christianity doesn't have to be anti-gay. The bible is also heavily mistranslated, and misinterpreted.

LOL they arent? ....... oh wait, what about that thing called the 10 commandments ... hmm interesting
Are you wearing clothes made of more than one material? Have you ever had your hair trimmed?

If the answer to either is "yes", then congratulations, you have commited a sin that is, according to Leviticus, worse than homosexual activity.

That is, if we are going by the laws of the Old Testament.

I voted that it was a choice. I know many say... genetics has proven otherwise. Think again. For every one study touting one view there is usually so many others casting it into doubt and presenting other views as the truth. Also the tendency for misinterpretation is high among scientist and layperson alike.

An example of one genetic study :http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/throck_02_09_05_newsalert_gaygenestudy_print.htm

If you do some studies on the studies you will find out there is nothing conclusive yet. Everything is basically up for grabs. Lots of opinions and interpretations but that is all.

Besides saying one was born this or that makes people more likely to say but I can't help myself, I was born this way.. I don't like cop outs in general ...so this doesn't fliy with me.

By the voting atats I see others think differently.
To that I say viva diversity

Freud was a crackpot and the vast majority of professionals in psychiatry and psychology no longer take his findings very seriously.

Being gay isn't a 'choice,' and it isn't a 'disorder,' it's a trait. Like being left-handed, or tall, or AB+ blood-typed, or blond, or brown-eyed, or dark-skinned. And before anyone says "homosexuality is detrimental to the species and should not survive the process of evolution," if a genetic trait is recessive it can remain in the gene pool. If a recessive genetic trait manifests in a small enough portion of the population that it doesn't outstrip the population's ability to sustain itself, that trait can remain in the gene pool.

It isn't a choice. The only 'choice' involved in being gay is whether one is honest an 'out' about it, or whether they conceal their orientation, live a life resisting their natural desires, and maybe pass on the recessive gene to some kids.

I don't believe in either poll choice.

Somewhere along the lines of what Freud believed, I think homosexuality may very well be some sort of a psychological developmental disorder.

Although, this disorder could be related to some sort of genetic defect, similar to how some people are born hermaphroditic ..... homosexuality could possibly be similar in that the person's XX or XY chromosomes were not defined enough to provide for proper development

However, even as I write about the genetics of it, I still have to lean towards the Freud diagnosis of a psychological disorder (yes, yes, I know they took it off the DSM awhile ago, but that does not refute the possiblity [everyone knows how politics can get involved in everything])

I voted that it was a choice. I know many say... genetics has proven otherwise. Think again. For every one study touting one view there is usually so many others casting it into doubt and present other views as the truth. Also the tendency for misinterpretation is high among scientist and layperson alike.

False. It is not a choice based on many genetic studies. Genetics have in fact proven that homosexuality isn't a choice (especially based on the recent on how gay men smell each other). I cast doubt into your beliefs as I find it to be utterly false.

A real study:

Source: http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8678

Information:


"A new book is reinforcing claims that sexuality is defined in the womb, suggesting that lesbian and gay people are born as opposed to "made".

The research, which its authors hope will undercut claims of "nurture over nature", compiles studies into sexuality over the 15 years to create a case for official acceptance that it is defined at birth.

In an interview with the EducationGuardian website, Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sexual Orientation authors by Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London, and Glenn Wilson from the University of London, said they hoped the study would help redefine what people think of sexuality.

Rahman also disputed psychological reasoning for sexual diversity.

"There's the classical gay man with a smothering mother and distant father idea - which comes from Freud's oedipal complex theories," he told the website.

"For most of us scientific psychologists, Freud's theory is like astrology to a physicist," he added.

"In other words it's rubbish."

Rahman has previously been behind his own research project into sexuality.

Last year he studied the blink response of gay and straight men, reporting that the response was one of the most natural responses in humans.

His findings showed a clear difference depending on male sexuality, suggesting sexuality is defined naturally.

"These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation," he said at the time.

So let me ask you one thing.. if you think it is a choice, then why would people choose to be that way? People are born that way, and all the evidence and studies thus far shows it to be that way. There have been some substantial gains in the argument that people are born this way in the last few years alone.

I think you are committing plenty of cop outs. :)

TOO MANY THREADS ON THIS SUBJECT..... LALALALALALALALALA (aren't I very informed?)

Agreed.

Why do so many people feel the need to re-hash this so often? :headbang: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the 'cause' of homosexuality is. There have always been gay people, there will always be gay people and whether or not you or someone else agrees or disagrees on the 'cause' has no bearing on anything.

Even if the most intelligent person in the world came out and said they'd found the 'gay' gene and it was absolutely provable, people would still say being homosexual was a choice.

Doing polls once a week (or more often) and having the larger number in favour of 'born gay' isn't going to prove anything to anyone.

Everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them (unfortunately, sometimes). :rolleyes:

Leave it be.

Agreed.

Why do so many people feel the need to re-hash this so often? :headbang: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the 'cause' of homosexuality is. There have always been gay people, there will always be gay people and whether or not you or someone else agrees or disagrees on the 'cause' has no bearing on anything.

Even if the most intelligent person in the world came out and said they'd found the 'gay' gene and it was absolutely provable, people would still say being homosexual was a choice.

Doing polls once a week (or more often) and having the larger number in favour of 'born gay' isn't going to prove anything to anyone.

Everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them (unfortunately, sometimes). :rolleyes:

Leave it be.

I fully agree. People shouldn't care who I love. That's my own personal life.

Lets just drop this. There are one too many topics here.

Besides my fingers hurt typing all these rebutals..

False. It is not a choice based on many genetic studies. Genetics have in fact proven that homosexuality isn't a choice (especially based on the recent on how gay men smell each other). I cast doubt into your beliefs as I find it to be utterly false.

A real study:

Source: http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8678

Information:



So let me ask you one thing.. if you think it is a choice, then why would people choose to be that way? People are born that way, and all the evidence and studies thus far shows it to be that way. There have been some substantial gains in the argument that people are born this way in the last few years alone.



I think you are committing plenty of cop outs. :)




The study I posted was published in 2005. Also the "real study" you refer to sounds more like interpretation than facts. I would like to know the studies finding on correlation factors, which genes are supposebly involved in the study you cite, Inheritability, extraneous variables, what methods were used to control the studies data ect.
How about twin studies that don't show 100% correlation between identical twins.
Also in regards to why would some choose that lifestyle. Why does anyone choose a lifestyle. People choose unpopular things/lifestyles/paradigms every single day...every single moment. So I am not surprised by the fact that someone would pick something that is not popular/not accepted/ and in some countries criminal.
Until I see conclusive evidence, which your "real study" doesn't provide, and than that conclusive evidence is further validated by follow up studies, than and only than will I accept it. Until that day I am not going to stretch information to fit a popular notion.
I say it is a choice. Heck ... why is it so controversial to say some one made a choice?


I am by no mean perfect... far from it... but that doesn't excuse me either. I am equal opportunity as far aa that is concerned.

The study I posted was published in 2005. Also the "real study" you refer to sounds more like interpretation than facts. I would like to know the studies finding on correlation factors, which genes are supposebly involved in the study you cite, Inheritability, extraneous variables, what methods were used to control the studies data ect.
How about twin studies that don't show 100% correlation between identical twins.

The study I cited was published in June 2005, some time after yours. The scent one I posted was also published after yours if I remember correctly. I already showed how genetics is the primary factor behind sexuality. I will not accept the choice argument, as that is a slippery slope.

Also in regards to why would some choose that lifestyle. Why does anyone choose a lifestyle. People choose unpopular things/lifestyles/paradigms every single day...every single moment. So I am not surprised by the fact that someone would pick something that is not popular/not accepted/ and in some countries criminal.

Oh great.. you are saying I chose to be gay? Why would I do? Can you prove I chose to be gay? Can you? I did not choose to be gay, period. That's the fact. It isn't a lifestyle. I don't know why you must insist it is. Lifestyle is a misnomer to use in this term.

This isn't a choice, pal. And it has already been proven not to be a choice, so please get over it.

Until I see conclusive evidence, which your "real study" doesn't provide, and than that conclusive evidence is further validated by follow up studies, than and only than will I accept it. Until that day I am not going to stretch information to fit a popular notion.
I say it is a choice. Heck ... why is it so controversial to say some one made a choice?

I showed conclusive evidence including the one on how gay men smell each other. You have not shown any evidence to say it is a choice and your argument is built on false premises. I say it isn't a choice. Disprove me. You can't. Funny thing is I already have disproved you.

You aren't perfect. I'm not perfect. But you're pretty full of it to put it bluntly. :)

Do you believe someone is born gay or do you think they turn gay...
I suspect it may be just a tad more complex than that. :rolleyes:

I dislike this poll because it's very black and white thinking oriented.
I believe some people are born gay. i've heard stories of very young people knowing they liked people of the same sex. On the other hand, there are those who learn about it through experience, and there are those who enjoy both and are bisexual.
I think for some it's a choice, for others it's just the way they are. Either way, there's nothing wrong with it. :)

The study I cited was published in June 2005, some time after yours. The scent one I posted was also published after yours if I remember correctly. I already showed how genetics is the primary factor behind sexuality. I will not accept the choice argument, as that is a slippery slope.



Oh great.. you are saying I chose to be gay? Why would I do? Can you prove I chose to be gay? Can you? I did not choose to be gay, period. That's the fact. It isn't a lifestyle. I don't know why you must insist it is. Lifestyle is a misnomer to use in this term.

This isn't a choice, pal. And it has already been proven not to be a choice, so please get over it.



I showed conclusive evidence including the one on how gay men smell each other. You have not shown any evidence to say it is a choice and your argument is built on false premises. I say it isn't a choice. Disprove me. You can't. Funny thing is I already have disproved you.

You aren't perfect. I'm not perfect. But you're pretty full of it to put it bluntly. :)

In my opinion you did ... in your opinion you didn't... notice I say opinion for both. When I was taking genetics this topic came up. So I can say there are studies that suggest ... remember extraneous variables are tricky things... there maybe a genetic component... but that same information can be interpreted in other ways that would not even bring homosexuality into play. That is what I have been saying.
So rather than calling me full of myself .. sheesh... and that prove it to me. that I made a choice stuff....your kidding right.... notice I am writing a valid opinion... you are also writing a valid opinion... I gave guidelines for you ... if you even wanted ...to change my mind. That is all.

In my opinion you did ... in your opinion you didn't... notice I say opinion for both. When I was taking genetics this topic came up. So I can say there are studies that suggest ... remember extraneous variables are tricky things... there maybe a genetic component... but that same information can be interpreted in other ways that would not even bring homosexuality into play. That is what I have been saying.
So rather than calling me full of myself .. sheesh... and that prove it to me. that I made a choice stuff....your kidding right.... notice I am writing a valid opinion... you are also writing a valid opinion... I gave guidelines for you ... if you even wanted ...to change my mind. That is all.

In my opinion I did back up myself with the facts showing that sexuality is not a choice. Maybe I should open a thread asking "is heterosexuality a choice"? I bet you would say no because you are biased against homosexuals. I suggested several credible studies by several individuals from prestigious organizations. There is a genetic component (it isn't a maybe, we haven't pinpointed it yet but it exists based on evidence). I did prove it to you, in fact I provided more then enough evidence. I wonder if you will consider any of it?

But I guess not. I don't you're considerate enough to do that.

In my opinion I did back up myself with the facts showing that sexuality is not a choice. Maybe I should open a thread asking "is heterosexuality a choice"? I bet you would say no because you are biased against homosexuals. I suggested several credible studies by several individuals from prestigious organizations. There is a genetic component (it isn't a maybe, we haven't pinpointed it yet but it exists based on evidence). I did prove it to you, in fact I provided more then enough evidence. I wonder if you will consider any of it?

But I guess not. I don't you're considerate enough to do that.

I wanted the cold study not the interpretations..... I almost went into to genetic research for my career so I actually like to read that stuff. To give you an idea... I like to read the "Hastings report" for fun.

As far as hetero... I do think it is a choice. Also along with asexuality and anything else you can think of along those lines. I guess your assumption was wrong on how I would answer that.

I reiterate... Why is is so bad to be considered a choice? I understand some of the consequences may not be all that wonderful....but why would you rather say it is not a choice. It just doesnt' make sense to me... but that is me... I understand that.

Got to go So have a good day or night.

As far as hetero... I do think it is a choice. Also along with asexuality and anything else you can think of along those lines. I guess your assumption was wrong on how I would answer that.

You may think it is a choice, but that doesn't make it true. My assumption is not wrong.

I reiterate... Why is is so bad to be considered a choice? I understand some of the consequences may not be all that wonderful....but why would you rather say it is not a choice. It just doesnt' make sense to me... but that is me... I understand that.

Got to go So have a good day or night.

It is awful to consider it a choice. It gives bigots more firing power to accuse homosexuals of choosing wrong. It is not a choice. And it is that simple.

It is awful to consider it a choice. It gives bigots more firing power to accuse homosexuals of choosing wrong. It is not a choice. And it is that simple.

So just because you can't stand criticism you will believe it's natural? While I disagree with bigoted criticism, as you say, I hardly think it's the correct reason to think sexuality is determined on birth.

So just because you can't stand criticism you will believe it's natural? While I disagree with bigoted criticism, as you say, I hardly think it's the correct reason to think sexuality is determined on birth.

Oh I think it is, and guess what? You can't prove me wrong because I cited a lot of studies.

Oh I think it is, and guess what? You can't prove me wrong because I cited a lot of studies.

Studies go both ways. That's why whether sexuality is predetermined is still such a controversial topic.

Everybody here lives on the other side of the continent or ocean. I don't think I'll try to prove anybody right or wrong.

Studies go both ways. That's why whether sexuality is predetermined is still such a controversial topic.

Everybody here lives on the other side of the continent or ocean. I don't think I'll try to prove anybody right or wrong.

Studies that are more credible show it isn't a choice, and I will stand by those studies that I cited, especially the one about smell.

You must have misread what I said. I said that a homosexual attraction is not choice, but the homosexual act (like every other non-rape sex act) is not. It's pretty simple.


When will people understand that rape isn't sex, it's violence using genitalia as a weapon. :rolleyes:

Studies that are more credible show it isn't a choice, and I will stand by those studies that I cited, especially the one about smell.

Studies are not facts - and these studies still draw a lot of controversy. Don't take them uber-seriously, as yet.

Studies are not facts - and these studies still draw a lot of controversy. Don't take them uber-seriously, as yet.

Incorrect.

I take them seriously as they draw on facts and show facts.

These threads are getting old.

The reason that someone would claim homosexuality is a choice is so they can condemn it. Plain and simple.

And the whole idea of "you don't have to act on it!!!" is ludicrous. It gives one the appearance of being open minded while giving them a license to levy their prejudice.

Why don't you go marry someone you don't love and never will find attractive because you can choose who you marry. ...Right. No one asks that because people are accustomed to following their heart and going for whoever they fall in love. That sacred union wouldn't be so sacred if it were cold from a lack of attraction. That's how people were programmed. Stop being so scared of "icky" things.

Incorrect.

I take them seriously as they draw on facts and show facts.

We'll see. Not all facts come from studies and not all studies portray facts.

These threads are getting old.

As are all on the General forum.


The reason that someone would claim homosexuality is a choice is so they can condemn it. Plain and simple.
It can be alternatively argued that someone would claim homosexuality is natural so that they can continue with it.

And the whole idea of "you don't have to act on it!!!" is ludicrous. It gives one the appearance of being open minded while giving them a license to levy their prejudice.
Let's face it: we all have a tendancy to steal and lie and cheat. But not all of us act on it. Is that an appearance of being open minded while giving us a license to levy our prejudice?


For me, not only homosexuality is wrong, but also heterosexual relationships which are not proper. I'm not against homosexuality only, but all other kinds of other improper sexual behaviour, even if they are heterosexual.

We'll see. Not all facts come from studies and not all studies portray facts.

Nice cop-out.

For me, not only homosexuality is wrong, but also heterosexual relationships which are not proper. I'm not against homosexuality only, but all other kinds of other improper sexual behaviour, even if they are heterosexual.

Which are not proper? This is yet another cop-out. Why is it wrong? Why is the relationship I have with my boyfriend wrong?

I am disgusted by vagina.

Thank you.

Oh and scared of it. Always.

first of all, i think the nature vs. nurture argument is almost completely pointless. as important as it is to know everything as fact, this particular debate is unnecessarily divisive. for some reason (gay) people get REALLY upset when i suggest homosexuality is a psychological condition. this one guy stopped talking to me FOREVER because he was so convinced that it's genetic. my point being: let's not argue, unless we can do so without being divided. the important thing is to consistently argue against the bigots. it doesn't really matter if it's psychological or genetic, homosexuality obviously isn't chosen (at least to those of us whom it actually affects).

that being said, i'm going to argue against you, mesa. but i really hope you don't take it personally. i'm on your side. BUT. the scent thing sounds really flimsy to me. primarily because if scent was the only determining factor, and the scent we're referring to is produced universally by all men, then we would be attracted to all men, which certainly isn't the case for me. it would also be hard getting off on porn. i realized i was gay watching tv... there's probably a scientific argument to thwart that, so i have a backup (which is actually better than my primary argument). couldn't responses to scents be psychological? don't they say the sense of smell is most closely linked to memory? is it not possible that due to certain past experiences, gay men might be psychologically prone to be aroused by the smell of other men? i don't think you're born with a favorite food. you develop preferences throughout your life. and they tend to be somewhat fluid.

the scientific evidence for this argument at this point is pretty iffy. i don't think it's very smart to vehemently argue for one side or the other. but seriously, there's no evidence that could possible prove it's a choice. what do you people want, a polygraph test? the best you can do is prove it isn't genetic, which is far from proving it's chosen.

And I was about to go to bed too... hmm.. I shouldn't of drank that soda.

for some reason (gay) people get REALLY upset when i suggest homosexuality is a psychological condition. this one guy stopped talking to me FOREVER because he was so convinced that it's genetic. my point being: let's not argue, unless we can do so without being divided. the important thing is to consistently argue against the bigots. it doesn't really matter if it's psychological or genetic, homosexuality obviously isn't chosen (at least to those of us whom it actually affects).

Oh many gay people get upset because the psychological condition argument is totally bogus. And i'm going to stick by that statement. That is totally bogus. If you go by that notion, heterosexuality is also a psychological condition. I'm not going to stand for it. How is it a psychological condition when my brother (we have two loving parents, my mom and dad) is straight?

[the scent thing sounds really flimsy to me. primarily because if scent was the only determining factor, and the scent we're referring to is produced universally by all men, then we would be attracted to all men, which certainly isn't the case for me. it would also be hard getting off on porn. i realized i was gay watching tv... there's probably a scientific argument to thwart that, so i have a backup (which is actually better than my primary argument). couldn't responses to scents be psychological? don't they say the sense of smell is most closely linked to memory? is it not possible that due to certain past experiences, gay men might be psychologically prone to be aroused by the smell of other men? i don't think you're born with a favorite food. you develop preferences throughout your life. and they tend to be somewhat fluid.

Who made you argue against yourself (and the gay community)? You realize if you prove it is psychological, it'll make the bigots bash homosexuals much further then what they are doing now. Those who typically say it is psychological are out there to bash, bash and bash some more. I'm stunned. How could you come to such a assumption? You aren't reading it clearly enough.. obviously gay men can smell it, while straight men cannot. Due to certain past experiences? Tell me, I can't recall any past experiences that would make me turn "gay" (of course you can't turn gay, thus throwing the entire psychological argument in the trash). You aren't reading the study well enough and quite frankly you have no idea what it is about.

Oh but it isn't flimsy at all. It is a solid case study and based on solid facts. here is another link for it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

This has been done by quite a few prestigious scientists and guess what? I'll take their word over your word.

the scientific evidence for this argument at this point is pretty iffy. i don't think it's very smart to vehemently argue for one side or the other. but seriously, there's no evidence that could possible prove it's a choice. what do you people want, a polygraph test? the best you can do is prove it isn't genetic, which is far from proving it's chosen.

No it is not. In fact the scientific evidence is firmly in my argument. It is set very firmly. And you know what? I won't back off from that statement because I have and I will continue presenting solid evidence to debunk the people who say it is either psychological or a choice.

A gay person arguing against gay people... who'd figure? :rolleyes:

Oh many gay people get upset because the psychological condition argument is totally bogus. And i'm going to stick by that statement. That is totally bogus. If you go by that notion, heterosexuality is also a psychological condition. I'm not going to stand for it. How is it a psychological condition when my brother (we have two loving parents, my mom and dad) is straight?
So why is it genetic?


Who made you argue against yourself (and the gay community)? You realize if you prove it is psychological, it'll make the bigots bash homosexuals much further then what they are doing now. Those who typically say it is psychological are out there to bash, bash and bash some more. I'm stunned. How could you come to such a assumption?

You claim that homosexuality draws criticism from people who think the act is psychological. However, these are two independent events, not "one happens because of another".

You aren't reading it clearly enough.. obviously gay men can smell it, while straight men cannot. Due to certain past experiences? Tell me, I can't recall any past experiences that would make me turn "gay" (of course you can't turn gay, thus throwing the entire psychological argument in the trash). You aren't reading the study well enough and quite frankly you have no idea what it is about.
No, you may not wake up one day and decide that you're gay. If anything becoming homosexual is more like a long term process. For example, no random gun murder maniac out there didn't just pick up a gun one day and say: say what? i'll decide to kill today, even if I didn't have any symptoms yesterday.

Oh but it isn't flimsy at all. It is a solid case study and based on solid facts. here is another link for it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

This has been done by quite a few prestigious scientists and guess what? I'll take their word over your word.

You realise that you fall into the trap of only supporting those that support you. In a sense that becomes a non-argument.

No it is not. In fact the scientific evidence is firmly in my argument. It is set very firmly. And you know what? I won't back off from that statement because I have and I will continue presenting solid evidence to debunk the people who say it is either psychological or a choice.

A gay person arguing against gay people... who'd figure? :rolleyes:

Even proven facts are widely disputed. Some still insist that the Holocaust is a laughing joke.

I have nothing against gays. I refuse to see them as anything under than what I view other humans and myself. I just have a problem with the way you argue your point.

Do they choose to have homosexual tendencies? I would say not. Do they choose to act on their tendencies? Yes.
Yes, if your heterosexual you choose to act on that, similarly if you are homesexual, you also choose to act on that. The result, you live a natural and (hopefully) fulfilling life. It's the bigots who have the problem.

Some interesting history on leftiness. They were also villified, more recently than you'd think, particularly in religious schools and were attempted to be retrained to be right hand dominant.
Amen to That from a born Lefty. To paraphrase Kermit,'' It ain't easy being Lefthanded'''. I can still give the finger with both hands! ;)

Do you believe someone is born gay or do you think they turn gay...
*Sigh* When will frightened straight people stop asking questions to which they already know the answer?

And your question actually has a loophole in it. If "someone" is a bisexual person, then the answer to both questions can be "yes."

In my humble opinion: Homosexuality is not a choice, but it is not unwanted or disadvantageous in itself. Words like "normal" and "natural" are completely irrelevant.

The question of what makes us gay is a very dividing question. Do we actually need to know the answer? I don't think I want to find out once and for all why people are gay, because then it might become possible to prevent homosexuality, which I believe is a terrible notion/practice.

Another reason for finding out would be in order for someone/something to take the blame. This implies that homosexuality is inherently bad and unwanted. Which it isn't.

So instead of allocating energy to the question of why, let us rejoice and thank whatever made us the way we are.

Here's what happens.

They are born gay, they may deny it deny it and deny it some more. they may even be homophobic, but they feel the homosexuality.

What happened to me, I was majorly homophobic, but I just kept lookking at guys, and eventually, I decided to split and be bi, because I still wanted to like girls.

PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP CREATING GAY/STRAIGHT POLLS AND TOPICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYONE HAS DISCUSSED IT TO DEATH AND BY READING BACK A LITTLE U CAN FIND OUT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



god u ppl piss me off

u no wht pises me off iz whn ppl dnt tke the tme to wrte wrds crctly whn they r on msg brds IMO thy shdnt do it at all lol

So why is it genetic?

There is no answer for that. The evidence shows that it is in fact genetic, the question why is one that can't be answered at this time.

You claim that homosexuality draws criticism from people who think the act is psychological. However, these are two independent events, not "one happens because of another".

I don't buy into that weak argument. In fact you are running around in circles.

No, you may not wake up one day and decide that you're gay. If anything becoming homosexual is more like a long term process. For example, no random gun murder maniac out there didn't just pick up a gun one day and say: say what? i'll decide to kill today, even if I didn't have any symptoms yesterday.

It isn't a process nor did I become gay. I always was gay. And don't you dare compare me to a murdering maniac. Your argument is weak and so is your logic. You don't become gay. It isn't a choice, nor is it psychological. Your argument needs serious help.

You realise that you fall into the trap of only supporting those that support you. In a sense that becomes a non-argument.

That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I provide evidence for my beliefs, and you are spewing all this nonsense and you don't even bother providing anything. All you have is your word which doesn't mean much to me anyways.


Even proven facts are widely disputed. Some still insist that the Holocaust is a laughing joke.

I don't f--king think so. It is either a fact or not.

I have nothing against gays. I refuse to see them as anything under than what I view other humans and myself. I just have a problem with the way you argue your point.

Apparently you do, oh apparently you do. Seeing your ideas I think you have quite a bit against homosexuals. you have a problem with the way I argue my point? You have a problem with the solid facts? Great, many people do. You know what it is called? Denial.

what Is this gay? is It spreadable?

Technically nobody is born hetero or homosexual, or bisexual. People are born asexual.

I find the argument that people choose their sexuality to be absolutely absurd. Knowing what homosexuals face in society, why would anybody choose to be one?

For those who claim that people choose to be gay, why don't you try making yourself gay for a while? Proove that you're correct by making yourself be attracted to the opposite sex. I'll bet you that you won't be successful.

I don't buy into that weak argument. In fact you are running around in circles.

No. "Homosexuality being a psychological thing" and "bigotry against homosexuality" are two entire different concepts. Even attiributes that are proven solidly to be natural are discriminated against, i.e.: skin colour.



It isn't a process nor did I become gay. I always was gay. And don't you dare compare me to a murdering maniac. Your argument is weak and so is your logic. You don't become gay. It isn't a choice, nor is it psychological. Your argument needs serious help.
You may not consciously turn gay, but who knows what's in your subconscious mind, or something you didn't know about yourself? Who knows? I was making an analogy. I have no tendancy of comparing homosexuals with murderers. If it was offensive I do apologise.


That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. I provide evidence for my beliefs, and you are spewing all this nonsense and you don't even bother providing anything. All you have is your word which doesn't mean much to me anyways.
At this stage I feel that I don't need to provide anything. (And please don't post links. I hate clawing through pages and pages of tightly packed web content. If you want to cite something, you should at least make the effort to help the reader - general comment). What about studies that come with opposite conclusions? Are those facts too?[/quote]

I don't f--king think so. It is either a fact or not. Fact - says who? There are 6 billion individuals in this world, and fact to one may be myth to the other.


Apparently you do, oh apparently you do. Seeing your ideas I think you have quite a bit against homosexuals. you have a problem with the way I argue my point? You have a problem with the solid facts? Great, many people do. You know what it is called? Denial.

Well, to be honest, I think homosexuality is a sin - like every other sin I myself commit. But I'm not scared of homosexuals. I won't point and say - ew, homosexual and taunt. We all have a tendancy to sin. We are selfish beings, looking for the best return with the least effort. So what? Is that excuse to act on lust and not reason? I hardly think so.

You need to calm down. We are thousands of miles away from each other and even if I was bigot, I wouldn't affect you. I'm here to discuss and offer my two cents, not to change anybody's mind. If you don't like some peaceful discussion, hard luck.

No. "Homosexuality being a psychological thing" and "bigotry against homosexuality" are two entire different concepts. Even attiributes that are proven solidly to be natural are discriminated against, i.e.: skin colour.

Actually yes. Those who say homosexuality is a psychological thing are dead wrong. And those who say that are typically bigots who are out to bash homosexuality. These are not two different concepts. In fact they mix often.

You may not consciously turn gay, but who knows what's in your subconscious mind, or something you didn't know about yourself? Who knows? I was making an analogy. I have no tendancy of comparing homosexuals with murderers. If it was offensive I do apologise

I never turned gay, anymore then you turned straight. I know a lot more about myself then you do. Your analogies are awful. It was deeply offensive.

At this stage I feel that I don't need to provide anything. (And please don't post links. I hate clawing through pages and pages of tightly packed web content. If you want to cite something, you should at least make the effort to help the reader - general comment). What about studies that come with opposite conclusions? Are those facts too?[/quote]

You don't need provide anything because you simply don't have an argument. That's really sad. I've posted plenty of links to support my argument, while you have not. That doesn't surprise me really. Studies that come with opposite conclusions? You mean ones funded and backed by religious bigot organizations? Hahahah.

Fact - says who? There are 6 billion individuals in this world, and fact to one may be myth to the other.

Not at all. For something to be a fact it must have strong proof. If you deny it, you are in denial. That's really sad.

Well, to be honest, I think homosexuality is a sin - like every other sin I myself commit. But I'm not scared of homosexuals. I won't point and say - ew, homosexual and taunt. We all have a tendancy to sin. We are selfish beings, looking for the best return with the least effort. So what? Is that excuse to act on lust and not reason? I hardly think so.

I don't believe it is sin because sin is a religious concept and I'm not religious. Tendency to sin? I don't think so. Sin is a hideous concept made by a horrible religion. I'm not going to buy into it one bit. Additionally, I have a right to love... you have no right to tell me it is wrong. Selfish my rear end. At least I care about fellow gay people. What I'm doing is not lust, but it is love. Reason? What do you know about reason? As far as I'm concerned you've been very unreasonable in this debate. You've been denying all the facts casting them off for no reason what-so-ever.

You need to calm down. We are thousands of miles away from each other and even if I was bigot, I wouldn't affect you. I'm here to discuss and offer my two cents, not to change anybody's mind. If you don't like some peaceful discussion, hard luck.

You are the one who needs to calm down and yes I think you are a bigot. Your argument has no evidence, it is just conjectures.

Actually yes. Those who say homosexuality is a psychological thing are dead wrong. And those who say that are typically bigots who are out to bash homosexuality. These are not two different concepts. In fact they mix often.

They mix often, but they are independent concepts! As I said, discrimination on the natural race are also rampant, even if race IS completely natural.

I never turned gay, anymore then you turned straight. I know a lot more about myself then you do. Your analogies are awful. It was deeply offensive.



It was offensive. I am sorry.

You don't need provide anything because you simply don't have an argument. That's really sad. I've posted plenty of links to support my argument, while you have not. That doesn't surprise me really. Studies that come with opposite conclusions? You mean ones funded and backed by religious bigot organizations? Hahahah.
I said I hated links, therefore I won't post any links. And it's nearly 1a.m. I shouldn't be up this late anyway. I can't research for you now. And of course, everything you say is right and every link I post is going to beaten down by you as "religious bigot organisations". So what's the point?


Not at all. For something to be a fact it must have strong proof. If you deny it, you are in denial. That's really sad. Then you'll be amazed by how many people are living in denial.


I don't believe it is sin because sin is a religious concept and I'm not religious. Tendency to sin? I don't think so. Sin is a hideous concept made by a horrible religion. I'm not going to buy into it one bit. Additionally, I have a right to love... you have no right to tell me it is wrong. Selfish my rear end. At least I care about fellow gay people. What I'm doing is not lust, but it is love. Reason? What do you know about reason? As far as I'm concerned you've been very unreasonable in this debate. You've been denying all the facts casting them off for no reason what-so-ever.
Well, nobody asked you to believe it. I just expressed a viewpoint. You don't have to believe my viewpoint. So so you have the right to protect your own sexuality and strike down my religion as "horrible". Swell. I love the way you cry for equality and people to respect your attributes when you can't do the same for others.

You are the one who needs to calm down and yes I think you are a bigot. Your argument has no evidence, it is just conjectures.
Oh, I'm very calm, trust me. If you think I'm a bigot, you will be introduced to far worse people. Open your eyes! I'm one of the most centrist people around here - I hope - except for issues concerning China...lol...

Don't worry, hey. Come on. Let's be decent people just discussing and no name calling. I'm very seriously interested in getting to know more of your viewpoint - very seriously. So when I come back from my beauty sleep I wish we could be nicer to each other. Really sorry about the offensive analogy. It wasn't called for. Good night! :)

They mix often, but they are independent concepts! As I said, discrimination on the natural race are also rampant, even if race IS completely natural.

Not if they support each other. It is like racism and nazi beliefs.. the two are intertwined.



Then you'll be amazed by how many people are living in denial.

Not my problem.

I love the way you cry for equality and people to respect your attributes when you can't do the same for others.

Why should I respect people who can't respect me?

Attributes?

I'm very calm, trust me. If you think I'm a bigot, you will be introduced to far worse people. Open your eyes! I'm one of the most centrist people around here - I hope - except for issues concerning China...lol...

Oh I've been introduced to far worse people. I think you are a bigot.. yes.. but one who tries to sugarcoat their statements. You open your own eyes and get over it. You are not a centerist.

Don't worry, hey. Come on. Let's be decent people just discussing and no name calling. I'm very seriously interested in getting to know more of your viewpoint - very seriously. So when I come back from my beauty sleep I wish we could be nicer to each other. Really sorry about the offensive analogy. It wasn't called for. Good night! :)

I don't think I will talk to you anymore on this topic because you are highly unreasonable. Good night.

Fact - says who? There are 6 billion individuals in this world, and fact to one may be myth to the other.

Whether or not people regard a fact as fact does not change whether it is fact. For instance, the heliocentric nature of our solar system is a fact, and it was fact even when the majority of humans believed it was myth. Human sexuality is not 100% choice (nor is it 100% genetic), and that is simply fact...if some people choose to believe otherwise then that's their choice, but it will not change the truth of the reality.


Well, to be honest, I think homosexuality is a sin - like every other sin I myself commit.

Wow, how sad. When I believe something is a "sin" I choose not to do it. It takes a special kind of personal weakness to continually live in a state of shame and regret, and to continually act in ways you know are "sinful." How you can possibly presume to opine on the "sins" of others is beyond me.


But I'm not scared of homosexuals. I won't point and say - ew, homosexual and taunt.

What do you want, a cookie? You don't get Heaven Points for simple courtesy.


We all have a tendancy to sin.

Speak for yourself. I myself have no tendency to commit what I believe are "sins." I am totally uninterested in doing harm to myself or others. If you find yourself continually driven to do harm to yourself or others then I would urge you to seek help from a professional...and you probably should try a non-religious one, since apparently your religious guidance isn't helping.


We are selfish beings, looking for the best return with the least effort.

You are? Wow, that's just plain sad. I would ask that you not generalize your personal failings onto the rest of us, however, since I don't share your vice in this case.

Also, the latter part of your sentence seem to confuse efficiency with selfishness; looking for the most direct and energy-saving means to a given end is not selfish, it's practical. Selfishness may or may not coexist with efficiency, but the two certainly are not as bound as you suggest. Indeed, by definition one could not be maximally selfless unless one was also maximally efficient at being selfless.


So what? Is that excuse to act on lust and not reason? I hardly think so.

Since when are lust and reason mutually exclusive? That mindset is just an outgrowth of the sex=shame crappola that has been peddled for centuries...don't buy the hype.


You need to calm down. We are thousands of miles away from each other and even if I was bigot, I wouldn't affect you. I'm here to discuss and offer my two cents, not to change anybody's mind. If you don't like some peaceful discussion, hard luck.
You both need to get over it. Some people like to be passionate, and that doesn't necessarily reduce their ability to argue well and thoroughly. Emotion and passion are not natural enemies to productive discussion. Other people like to be "cold" when they debate/discuss, because that is what they feel most comfortable with. If you want to discuss and share ideas then don't waste your time ordering people to follow your personal rules of conversation...you've been around NS long enough to know that it's not going to get you anywhere.

It is my opinion that:
1. People can choose to appear to be gay, straight, or bi, depending on what they think other people in their area will best accept them as.
2. People can be convinced that they are of a certain sexuality that they are not.
3. People are born biologically homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. I have my own skepticism about asexuality. ;)

It is my opinion that:
1. People can choose to appear to be gay, straight, or bi, depending on what they think other people in their area will best accept them as.
2. People can be convinced that they are of a certain sexuality that they are not.
3. People are born biologically homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. I have my own skepticism about asexuality. ;)
1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Disagree. Current evidence in psychology, neurology, and human physiology is combining with evidence on primate sexual behavior to draw a much more interesting picture.

If human sexuality is like the sexuality of our closest animal relatives (with whom we share about 98% of our genes), virtually all of us are "genetically" bisexual, in that we are predisposed to become sexual but not to seek out exclusively one gender or the other. Research on human sexuality in several fields currently supports this model. Environmental factors are what may tip the balance toward one end of the sexuality spectrum or the other. Social factors are likely a major part of this, but there are plenty of organic elements that could come in to play as well.

In other words, humans are "programmed" with the mere basics of sexuality. The instinctive reproductive mechanics (like the neurological foundations of physical arousal and sexual pleasure) are ingrained in us much as they are in all sexually reproducing organisms. But perpetuating the species is actually far more complex than simply making babies...sexuality also influences our ability to see that offspring survive to reproduce themselves, by impacting our nurturing, our interpersonal relationships, our family bonds, our love-bonds, and our broad social structure.

Additionally, anthropology and psychology have long since established that the making of babies is only one of the functions of human sexuality. Sure, it's a very important function, but it's only one of many, and it may not even be the most important. If you ever catch somebody trying to reduce human sexuality to the making of babies, your BS-o-meter should start bleeping like mad.

The upshot of all of this is that our biology is smarter than we are. Our biology knows better than to try to totally program something as complex as human sexuality, because that would be silly and counterproductive. We don't need to be programmed to only have sex with the opposite sex, because that's not always the best choice in evolutionary terms. Likewise, we don't need to be programmed to only have sex with the same sex, because there are plenty of cases where that would result in our genes dying out. Our biology has been selected to take a very practical minimalist approach, and lets our environmental cues help shape the expression of our sexuality so that we are most likely to be successful in whatever path we take.

This doesn't mean that sexuality is pure choice, let me be really clear about that. Just because sexuality isn't programmed in your genes doesn't mean it's pure choice, either. I was not genetically predetermined to get chicken pox at age 12, nor was I genetically programmed to end up with a scar from one of the chicken pox, but that scar is still on my arm...I was irreversibly changed by cues from my environment, even though I never made any choice about getting the chicken pox or the scar.

This post is too long, so I'm stopping now.

I think a better question is, are people born "straight" or is it a "choice"? And if sexuality is in fact a choice, then I'd like every straight person on this thread to tell me when they decided to become straight. Thank you. :confused:

Of course it's not a choice... bah!

[snip]
You're saying sexuality is enviromental? Out of curiousity, what envioroments do you think support specific sexualities?

You're saying sexuality is enviromental? Out of curiousity, what envioroments do you think support specific sexualities?
No, I'm saying that the complex structure of human sexuality is built on a very simple biological saffolding. There are some basic limitations to our sexuality that are imposed by our genetics and our biological makeup, but the expression of human sexuality as a whole is not something that could be coded in a genetic code ten times the size of the human genome.

It's not about a given environment supporting a given sexuality; that's far too simplistic. That would be like claiming that a given environment supports a given preference of ice cream flavor. Sure, there may be some broad trends (like people from a given area tending to like chocolate more than vanilla, compared to people from another region who tend to prefer strawberry) but you will always find a significant number of people who don't fit the trend.

This is because "environment" encompasses everything from the large culture you live in, to your individual family, to your personal and unique interactions with each member of your family, to even tinier details.

Studies of idential twins have proven that individuals with identical genes who live in the same home with the same people at the same time and attend the same school and the same activities at the same time will STILL end up having different sexual orientations in about 30% of cases. This is because there are more variables in our environments than we can possibly identify, let alone measure.

Bottle, I want to say you put up a mighty fine post. We do not agree about that the environment influences sexuality, but I do think you did make two good posts there.

You are right about my argument style. I'm very cold and heartless when it comes to debate. I do not spare any weaknesses. I will strike relentless until the person understands my position. I do not play a mutual game. I put as much weight into my own position as I can.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/evolution1.gif

It just seemed to fit the topic lol

This is a difficult subject. My mother once new a gay guy named Casey in her late teens. He knew he was gay from the time he was in elementary school. He hated being gay, and eventually died of AIDS.

If someone chose to be gay, why would they hate it so much and always wish they were straight?

This is a difficult subject. My mother once new a gay guy named Casey in his late teens. He knew he was gay from the time he was in elementary school. He hated being gay, and eventually died of AIDS.

If someone chose to be gay, why would they hate it so much and always wish they were straight?
1. You said "her". Unless Casey was trangendered, he was still a man.
2. You are making generalizations about a group you evidently know very little about.

This is a difficult subject. My mother once new a gay guy named Casey in her late teens. He knew he was gay from the time he was in elementary school. He hated being gay, and eventually died of AIDS.

If someone chose to be gay, why would they hate it so much and always wish they were straight?

Massive generalization. Most gay people these day I know are proud of who they are, and they don't end up with AIDS.

I have a theory that being gay is caused by massive bombardments with neutrinos.

We are all constantly being bombarded with neutrinos. But I suspect that the more neutrinos you are bombarded with, the gayer you become.

Anybody willing to research this theory for me?

I left my neutrinos in my other pants. :p

1. You said "her". Unless Casey was trangendered, he was still a man.
I think that he meant that his mother knew the guy while his mother was in her teens.

I think that he meant that his mother knew the guy while his mother was in her teens.
*Sighs* That's what I get for not reading the post thoroughly enough.

EDIT: And that's what I get for not editing my post throroughly enough. :rolleyes:

*Sighs* That's what I get for not reading the post thoroughtly enough.

Neither did I.

Is it so difficult to make a poll that presents all possible options? If the poll had just had a yes and a no option it wouldve been correct, but as it is it asks two unrelated questions. The poll asks whether people choose to be gay but the available responses have nothing to do with the question. Whether you were born gay or became gay has nothing to do with whether you choose it or not.

Is it so difficult to make a poll that presents all possible options? If the poll had just had a yes and a no option it wouldve been correct, but as it is it asks two unrelated questions. The poll asks whether people choose to be gay but the available responses have nothing to do with the question. Whether you were born gay or became gay has nothing to do with whether you choose it or not.
Not when I make the poll! For I, when I run out of space, include an "Other" option, usually. :D

whereas: bottle makes a more eloquent argument than i do

whereas: he doesn't seem to offend you so, mesa

conclusion: i would like to see you actually try to disprove his points instead of just saying "we disagree."

obviously considering sexuality to be a psychological condition does not imply bigotry. freud and i are clearly not homophobes. and i'm sorry to say, i don't expect proof of sexuality being biological to dramatically reduce the number of bigots. and if a gay gene is found, i wouldn't be surprised if gay babies started being aborted like mongoloids. why exactly is psychology a weaker pro-gay argument than biology? they seem to be similarly semi-permanent. if it is encoded in the genes, i'm sure they'll develop some radiation therapy to straighten out the few of us who aren't aborted.

mesa: any chance that your name is michael and you have a goatee?

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

i'm afraid you can't use the religious zealot argument against this one. the commentary on that page sounds pretty pro-gay to me.

those statistics prove, definitively, that homosexuality is not completely genetic. it does suggest, however, that genetics are a factor, as the closer two brothers are genetically the more likely they are to both be gay. however, if it were completely genetic, identical twins would both be gay 100% of the time. i'm still going to remain skeptical of the genetic component, because identical twins have different experiences and a different level of closeness than most brothers or even fraternal twins, which could account for the higher probability of double gay-ness.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

i'm afraid you can't use the religious zealot argument against this one. the commentary on that page sounds pretty pro-gay to me.

those statistics prove, definitively, that homosexuality is not completely genetic. it does suggest, however, that genetics are a factor, as the closer two brothers are genetically the more likely they are to both be gay. however, if it were completely genetic, identical twins would both be gay 100% of the time. i'm still going to remain skeptical of the genetic component, because identical twins have different experiences and a different level of closeness than most brothers or even fraternal twins, which could account for the higher probability of double gay-ness.
I wouldn't personally suggest that homosexuality is 100% genetic, but I do think there is some factor, perhaps one not known to the scientific world as of yet, that is present from birth, or at least the age of 3 or 4 years old, that determines one's sexuality.

I wouldn't personally suggest that homosexuality is 100% genetic, but I do think there is some factor, perhaps one not known to the scientific world as of yet, that is present from birth, or at least the age of 3 or 4 years old, that determines one's sexuality.
"Some factor"? There's a reason why science couldn't "know" about such a thing...it's too bloody vague. Be more specific and I will tell you what science has to say about it :).

"Some factor"? There's a reason why science couldn't "know" about such a thing...it's too bloody vague. Be more specific and I will tell you what science has to say about it :).
Hey, don't be mean! :p


But seriously, I used the word "biological": I simply meant something that made scientific sense and was present from the birth or early childhood of a person. Perhaps something in one's brain chemistry? I can only imagine, as I honestly am not a very scientifically knowledgeable person-I only have up to an 8th grade (American term, not sure what the British equivalent is) understanding of science!

As I understand it, many of those who identify as GLBT say they saw early signs manifest at as young as 3 or 4... coincidently, this is the time scientists say much of a child's personality is developed, I think, though I can't seem to find a link to something that would support that... I wonder, though, could one's sexuality be a part of, tied into, or extremely similar to one's personality? If so, does that mean that it could change with age, enviroment, etc?

I guess I'm just thinking e-aquietally. (Thinking e-aquietally: similar to thinking aloud except with use of a computer rather than one's own mouth.)

One of my strongest arguments for why being gay is not a choice would be "Because gay people tell me so." I mean, I haven't had the experiences that they have. I'd listen to a swimmer who says "I swim because it's fun", and I'll listen to a gay person who says "I'm gay because I'm attracted to guys and just never been attracted to girls." That's fine.
But then I now see Mesa come up with a different pro-gay stance. S/He seems to be saying "I'll say it's not a choice, otherwise we will be bashed"

Mesa: you offend my pro-gay sentiments when your argument for why it's not a choice seems to be "If we admit it's a choice, then there will be more gay-bashing."
That sounds very much like me saying "Sorry, mum, I didn't mean to spill the milk" while thinking "If I tell her I spilt it on purpose, I'll be punished."

Like Origami Tigers, and others since, I believe that everyone is bisexual to some degree. I can't *possibly* understand, from my understanding of biology and knowledge-systems, how something as complicated as a hetro-guy looking at a girls legs and finding himself sexually attracted, how can that be programmed into our genes? Well, it can be. But, how can we program the guy to look at the girls legs, and find them attractive, but look at the guys legs and find them unattractive? And program the girls to find guys legs attractive, and girls legs unattractive?
It just doesn't work like that. We have clues, our bodies say "legs are attractive, but hairy legs aren't attractive to guys." We've got a simple clue, which makes guys attracted to girls. Wonderful.

But, if that's the clue our brains are using to tell us which legs we're attracted to, then what about guys who shave their legs? Is it reasonable for a straight guy to find another guys legs attractive if they are shaven?
Well, probably not. Why not? He probably has other clues that the brain also uses, like the build, the square jaw. Some of these clues will be genetic (such as finding certain builds attractive. Most guys aren't attracted to girls, female as they are, with broad shoulders built like a wrestler). Some of the clues will NOT be genetic. I bet straight girls, way back in the day, weren't as attracted to guys with long hair as they are now. When males used to keep their hair trimmed short, that was a "clue" that we learn which applies to "males"

I find it very hard to believe that I have all these biological urges that make me find females attractive, and *NONE* of them will get passed onto my daught, if I have one. Or that my mother has biological urges that make her find males attractive, and NONE of them are passed onto me. Or that, with my urges that find females attractive, my brain can't interpret some of the signals which it looks for, even if it sees them in a male, and find them attractive? Surely when I saw leonardo de caprio lying next to a girl, all "naughty bits" covered, other than his face his skin, build, leg shape, shoulder musculature...that was all the same. If I find the girl attractive (and I did), and his body looks VERY similar, despite being straight, how can I say that his body wasn't also attractive to me? It was.
I didn't think "mmmm, want to have sex with him", though. I knew he was a guy, my brain filled in the gaps, and modified my sexual desire. But if their faces were covered, and I couldn't instantly tell he was a guy, yes, I would have had sexual desire. That's just, to my understanding, how our brains work when deciding how much sexual desire we feel for something.

I also firmly believe it can be trained. There are certain outfits which I find attractive, certain ones which I don't. My opinions on these have changed over time. I used to entirely not see the appeal of the "nurses outfit" or "french maid" costumes. At least with the nurses outfit, probably because my father is a doctor, so I never viewed nurses as something sexual. Now that I don't see them as much, and see the "nurses outfit" on the cover of mens magazines, and other areas where it's displayed in a sexual manner, I find it much more attractive. I see the appeal. It's a learnt response.

So...to conclude my (as usual) lengthy post.
I believe we're born with the POTENTIAL to find both sexes attractive. I believe that some of us have stronger genetic cues that will make us more or less able to find certain individuals attractive. I believe we can learn to bypass or learn new cues.

This still doesn't address the topic of *why* some people become gay and others don't. I think that's a combination of genetic predisposition for what cues you will find attractive, combined with how you are raised, for what cues you learn to find attractive.

Which means...for some people, effectively, they have no choice. If their cues are so strong that they cannot find members of the opposite sex attractive. Just as I cannot find a hairy man attractive (too many seuxal cues saying "not for you"), some people can't find fat/too thin women attractive, some people can't find overly muscled guys attractive, some people can't find arrogant people attractive.
Others have enough cues both ways, either genetic or learnt, that they can find something attractive about both sexes (although they will likely to be biased towards one or the other) and learn to ignore the cues that make that gender seem unattractive (or find a partner who doesn't display those cues). I think these people do have a choice, even if they didn't conciously make it. I don't *care* if they have a choice, whatever will make them happiest is what they *should* do. If you find someone who you love, and who loves you back, that's not something that should be thrown away.

My proof? Well, it's very non-scientific (although my opinion is based on scientific studies), but...
Throughout history there have been periods where homosexuals were persecuted and even killed. There have been periods where no sane person would admit to being homosexual, and despite the risks, despite needing to keep it hidden, there were still homosexual people. That tells me that it's not a choice, if that was happening to skateboarders, trust me, people would stop skateboarding. There would be a FEW rebels, but I doubt many. I doubt it would keep recurring.

Secondly, in prison where there is no access to females, there is a culture where "straight" males get their partners to act as feminine as possible, grow their hair etc. - they choose the most lightly built people as preferred partners, stuff like that. That implies to me that they are preferring people who display the cues that they are attracted to, and as best as they are able ignoring the cues that they aren't attracted to. The fact that their "punks" are usually asked to grow their hair long tells me something. There is nothing *innately* feminine about long hair, it's something that we've learnt that girls often have. Therefore it's something that our (hetro) male brains are often attracted to.

Hopefully this made sense. If anyone requests it I can clarify or back up my opinions in more detail.

Hey, don't be mean! :p

Sorry, wasn't meaning to sound nasty...I am a cranky old lady in training, so I tend to come off as more hostile than I really am.


But seriously, I used the word "biological": I simply meant something that made scientific sense and was present from the birth or early childhood of a person. Perhaps something in one's brain chemistry? I can only imagine, as I honestly am not a very scientifically knowledgeable person-I only have up to an 8th grade (American term, not sure what the British equivalent is) understanding of science!

As far as we can tell, there is no "magic bullet" that makes people gay. There's not one factor, or even a small number of factors, that can be labeled as the source of gayness (or straightness). Given what we know about human sexuality, it's unlikely that one exists.

That said, there are many individual factors that may contribute to determining adult sexuality, though none of them is going to always give the same result. Everything from womb environment to your parents' jobs can contribute. Your religion, your education, your friends, your enemies, the color of your first bike...anything and everything can contribute, because every person finds different significance in their own life.

For instance, my brother reports that one of the most powerful memories of his childhood was our family trip to Yellowstone; I was also on that trip, and spent the whole time with him, but it just wasn't a big deal to me. Same environment, different people, different significance.


As I understand it, many of those who identify as GLBT say they saw early signs manifest at as young as 3 or 4

Untrue. The majority of gay people, like the majority of straight people, report that their sexuality didn't manefest until around puberty. Some gay people, like some straight people, feel they "knew" when they were much younger, but there has been no statistically significant difference found between gay and straight populations.


... coincidently, this is the time scientists say much of a child's personality is developed, I think, though I can't seem to find a link to something that would support that...

Depends on how you define "personality," but I have to say I think that's pretty much untrue as well. The vast majority of who you are as an individual is determined by areas of your brain that don't mature until you are at least 15 or 16, so I don't think it is possible for your personality to be formed by the time you are 3.


I wonder, though, could one's sexuality be a part of, tied into, or extremely similar to one's personality? If so, does that mean that it could change with age, enviroment, etc?

I'd say it's a sure thing that sexuality and personality are intertwined, but that doesn't mean the stereotypes will rule. For instance, the notion that females and male homosexuals are "sensitive" and "nurturing" while dykes and straight boys are "tough" and "aggressive" is just plain stupid, and isn't founded on anything more than boring gender roles imposed by traditionalists. You aren't going to find any clear and clean trends, I think.


I guess I'm just thinking e-aquietally. (Thinking e-aquietally: similar to thinking aloud except with use of a computer rather than one's own mouth.)
Oooooh, good word! I'm gonna use that one!

[snip]
Oooooh, good word! I'm gonna use that one!
Yes, please do. Use it on other boards and allow it to become a cyberplague, spreading throughout the internet and eventually being considered a real world! It shall be the digital "frindle"! (For those who have no clue what I'm talking about, there is a book called Frindle in which a child has to make up a new word for school. It ends up in Webster's dictionary! Cute book my teacher read to me when I was in third grade, I think.)

i think this whole question is colored by our strong societal prohibition on gay sex. it is considered so WRONG that only those who feel utterly driven to it participate in it. this would be more true in countries like iran where you can be killed for having gay sex and less true in a more open country like... sweden?...where people are more accepting of alternate sexualities.

im thinking specifically about ancient greece where, in some segments of society at least, virutally every man participated in gay sex. they also tended to be married and have children. with that kind of participation level i cant possibly believe that it wasnt more "choice" that "genetics". surely the gene pool wasnt so different back then.

so im suggesting that were our society more open to such things we would find much more gay sex freely chosen by those who would otherwise only choose straight sex. that there is a segment of the population who are born gay and virtually all the rest who could choose it if they found the right circumstance.

Just a couple things to support why I feel that everyone is inherently bi:

I have heard (prove me wrong if I am) that we all start out with two X chromosones in our fetal stage. It isn't until later on during a pregnancy that a Y chromosone may or may not change the gender. In other words we all start out as females.

I also believe (again prove me wrong if possible) that every person has both male and female genitalia, only in women the penis never fully develops and in men the vagina never fully develops.

You may think I am a crackpot and that's ok too because everyone's entitled to their opinions. :D

1. You said "her". Unless Casey was trangendered, he was still a man.
2. You are making generalizations about a group you evidently know very little about.

When my mom was in her late teens. He was a bit older. I am not making generizations- he just happening to be gay from the start, at least, that's the way he saw/felt it. He didn't like it for some reason; probably because it wasn't as acceptable back then (77-78).

When my mom was in her late teens. He was a bit older. I am not making generizations- he just happening to be gay from the start, at least, that's the way he saw/felt it. He didn't like it for some reason; probably because it wasn't as acceptable back then (77-78).
I apologize. I didn't read what you said closely enough.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

i'm afraid you can't use the religious zealot argument against this one. the commentary on that page sounds pretty pro-gay to me.

those statistics prove, definitively, that homosexuality is not completely genetic. it does suggest, however, that genetics are a factor, as the closer two brothers are genetically the more likely they are to both be gay. however, if it were completely genetic, identical twins would both be gay 100% of the time. i'm still going to remain skeptical of the genetic component, because identical twins have different experiences and a different level of closeness than most brothers or even fraternal twins, which could account for the higher probability of double gay-ness.

Dude you are not changing my mind. You argue against gay people, even when you are gay. That's just strange.

whereas: bottle makes a more eloquent argument than i do

whereas: he doesn't seem to offend you so, mesa

conclusion: i would like to see you actually try to disprove his points instead of just saying "we disagree."

I simply don't want to argue with more and more people. I found your argument inadequate so I picked at it. I also think you need to stop trampling on me and what I think.

obviously considering sexuality to be a psychological condition does not imply bigotry. freud and i are clearly not homophobes. and i'm sorry to say, i don't expect proof of sexuality being biological to dramatically reduce the number of bigots. and if a gay gene is found, i wouldn't be surprised if gay babies started being aborted like mongoloids. why exactly is psychology a weaker pro-gay argument than biology? they seem to be similarly semi-permanent. if it is encoded in the genes, i'm sure they'll develop some radiation therapy to straighten out the few of us who aren't aborted.

Freud is full of shit. I'm sorry but I already showed sources and a book on why he was just down-right wrong. Don't quote him. He was in fact a bigot. I think that if you go by the Freud argument, you could easily use your own argument and say that the APA and AMA should reinstate homosexuality as a mental illness.

mesa: any chance that your name is michael and you have a goatee?

No. My name is giancarlo. Don't you dare.

Dude you are not changing my mind. You argue against gay people, even when you are gay. That's just strange.

Argue AGAINST gay people? Just because he says that it might not be genetic?
You're assuming that all gay people want to have been born that way, and don't want to feel like environmental factors had any impact?

Sheesh. Why can't we accept (socially) that being gay is fine. Or not accept that. Either way....

why can't we scientifically discuss the possible causes of someone to "turn" gay, without needing to decide that any one "cause" is FOR or AGAINST them.

I like skiing, whether it's because I naturally enjoy the adrenalin, or because I was taught to enjoy it. (it's probably a combination of both). Discussing WHY I like skiing isn't saying anything FOR or AGAINST skiing as a sport.

Let's face it, your opinion of what is better or worse for the gay community won't change the scientific or social reasons behind why people choose that lifestyle. If it's genetic, then there's something in our genes, no matter what makes you more "comfortable". If it's not genetic, then it's still not necessarily a concious choice that was ever made.

Stop thinking everything is about picking sides.

Argue AGAINST gay people? Just because he says that it might not be genetic?
You're assuming that all gay people want to have been born that way, and don't want to feel like environmental factors had any impact?

Sheesh. Why can't we accept (socially) that being gay is fine. Or not accept that. Either way....

why can't we scientifically discuss the possible causes of someone to "turn" gay, without needing to decide that any one "cause" is FOR or AGAINST them.

Nobody turns gay. I'm sorry, but that's just BS. Sexuality is caused by purely genetics and that's what I believe in.

Let's face it, your opinion of what is better or worse for the gay community won't change the scientific or social reasons behind why people choose that lifestyle. If it's genetic, then there's something in our genes, no matter what makes you more "comfortable". If it's not genetic, then it's still not necessarily a concious choice that was ever made.

Stop thinking everything is about picking sides.

People don't choose anything with regards to sexuality. I don't see people making arguments that people chose to be straight. I'm really tired of the same old argument and the same old sugar coating. Now get over it.

Nobody turns gay. I'm sorry, but that's just BS. Sexuality is caused by purely genetics and that's what I believe in.
That might be true. But while arguing that someone "turns" gay may be incorrect that does not mean that they are arguing AGAINST gays.

People don't choose anything with regards to sexuality. I don't see people making arguments that people chose to be straight. I'm really tired of the same old argument and the same old sugar coating. Now get over it.

I'd say that is only partially true. It might not be a concious choice, but what you are exposed to DOES have an impact on your sexuality.
When I first saw anime, I wasn't the least bit attracted to the characters, with their freakishly long legs, and pointy noses. They didn't even look human to me. Now that I've watched it a lot, and am comfortable with how they are drawn, there are some anime drawings that I find quite pleasant, even sexually attractive.

It's not necessarily a *choice* but it is a learnt reaction. I wasn't genetically programmed to be attracted to anime girls. There probably *is* something genetic happening, since I'm attracted to anime girls and not anime guys. But I think it's more complex than just "you're born that way, full stop"

Now, sugar coating? What sugar coating are you talking about? That still seems to assume that there is either something good or bad about it being genetic rather than environmental, or a choice.

I'm all in favour of people being gay. It honestly doesn't affect me. I made a choice (yes, a CHOICE) to be straight. I considered my options, considered (as a whole) which gender I'm more attracted to, whether I would actually be comfortable being romantically involved with someone of the same gender as me, whether I'd be comfortable being sexually involved with someone of the same gender as me, why I felt that way. Then I decided for myself that, while there are aspects of males that I find attractive, it wasn't enough for me to consider myself gay, nor was it enough for me to want to sexually engage with another male. So, I chose to be straight. I made that choice based on environmental and (I'm sure) genetic reasons, but I still made the choice.

The reason we don't talk about making a choice to be straight is the same reason we don't talk about making a choice to drive a car. It's accepted in our current society as the "normal" thing to do, and it's assumed that you will do that when the time comes. Which is why some people may "make the choice" to not drive a car (because they think it's bad for the environment), or some people may "make the choice" to be gay (potentially! I had the offer of a *very* rich boyfriend, who would have spent a LOT of money on me. I could have dated him if I chose, despite not having the same attraction to him that I'd have to a girl. Despite not being "genetically" gay).

Now, some people do NOT make the choice to not drive a car. They might not have enough money to afford one, or anywhere they'd be able to park it. They might not have a choice in the matter.
And, some people, perhaps, do NOT have a choice in being gay. I firmly believe this to be true, that there are many gay individuals who do not have any choice in the matter. I could NOT help but be attracted to girls, even if I tried to convince myself otherwise. I'm sure in the same way there are many people who can't help but be attracted to their own gender.
Why this is, well that's the question. I don't think it's either good or bad to say they are like that because of genetics, nor do I think it's either good or bad to say they are like that because of their environment. Or both.

I'd say that is only partially true. It might not be a concious choice, but what you are exposed to DOES have an impact on your sexuality.
When I first saw anime, I wasn't the least bit attracted to the characters, with their freakishly long legs, and pointy noses. They didn't even look human to me. Now that I've watched it a lot, and am comfortable with how they are drawn, there are some anime drawings that I find quite pleasant, even sexually attractive.

I'm wondering.. how do you come to this conclusion when you aren't even gay yourself? How the hell do you know? It isn't a learnt reaction. It most certainly isn't. And your comparsions to skiing and anime is disgusting. I don't think I have anything else to say to you.

Now, sugar coating? What sugar coating are you talking about? That still seems to assume that there is either something good or bad about it being genetic rather than environmental, or a choice.

Sugar coat your own hatred.

I'm all in favour of people being gay. It honestly doesn't affect me. I made a choice (yes, a CHOICE) to be straight. I considered my options, considered (as a whole) which gender I'm more attracted to, whether I would actually be comfortable being romantically involved with someone of the same gender as me, whether I'd be comfortable being sexually involved with someone of the same gender as me, why I felt that way. Then I decided for myself that, while there are aspects of males that I find attractive, it wasn't enough for me to consider myself gay, nor was it enough for me to want to sexually engage with another male. So, I chose to be straight. I made that choice based on environmental and (I'm sure) genetic reasons, but I still made the choice.

You are just flat out wrong. I did not make a choice to being gay, and I cannot stop. I'm sorry. I'm attracted to members of the same sex. Period. There is nothing you can do about that, nor is there anything you can say. I did not choose to be gay. Yes acting on these attractions is not a choice, but I think i should live my life fully.

The reason we don't talk about making a choice to be straight is the same reason we don't talk about making a choice to drive a car. It's accepted in our current society as the "normal" thing to do, and it's assumed that you will do that when the time comes. -snip-

Your comparsions again are cruel and inaccurate. I'm tired of talking with people as yourself. Well let me tell you something, you don't choose your sexuality. I did not make a choice to be gay.

I firmly believe this to be true, that there are many gay individuals who do not have any choice in the matter. I could NOT help but be attracted to girls, even if I tried to convince myself otherwise. I'm sure in the same way there are many people who can't help but be attracted to their own gender.

Now you are contradicting yourself, what will it be?

Mesatecala: I've obviously upset you, and for that I apologize. I have absolutely NOTHING against you, nor anyone else on this message board. I also have no problem with anyone being gay. I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights.

I'm wondering.. how do you come to this conclusion when you aren't even gay yourself? How the hell do you know? It isn't a learnt reaction. It most certainly isn't. And your comparsions to skiing and anime is disgusting. I don't think I have anything else to say to you.

I apologize that comparing sexuality to anime or skiing is disgusting. I was trying to seperate the discussion from the emotions around the gay stigma, and the sexual stigma.

Anime was an example of learnt sexuality.

As for how I came to the conclusion? Well, you keep asking why we don't consider hetrosexuality a choice. I answered that. And pointed out that I DO consider my hetrosexuality a choice, just a choice based on my genetically-motivated feelings.
THAT is what makes me qualified to address these issues.

I can't say what made YOU gay. I could discuss things that could potentially make ME gay. I don't think there is anything wrong with your sexuality, and I hope you're happy with who you are.


Sugar coat your own hatred.

What hatred is this? Please quote me saying something anti-gay. Just because I might dispute the cause of something does not mean I am against the action itself.
I might have an argument against how best to build a chair. That does not mean I hate chairs.


You are just flat out wrong. I did not make a choice to being gay, and I cannot stop. I'm sorry. I'm attracted to members of the same sex. Period. There is nothing you can do about that, nor is there anything you can say. I did not choose to be gay. Yes acting on these attractions is not a choice, but I think i should live my life fully.

I'm glad that you know who you are attracted to. I'm glad there's nothing I can do about that, because it's something that I really feel nobody should decide but yourself.

I never said that every person who became gay CHOSE it. In fact, I said that for some people they probably do not feel there is a choice at all!
You seem to fall into this category, as you say you had no choice. I entirely believe that to be true.

I did point out that for SOME people, some bisexuals, for example, there MAY be a choice. NOT for ALL people, just for SOME. I offer myself as an example, as I think with the right stimulus, if I wanted to try it out, I could probably convince myself to find certain males attractive. I might need some time to become comfortable with the idea, but I think it could be done.

Acting on your attractions is a choice. I'm glad you chose to act on them, as I suspect this will lead to you living a happier life.


Your comparsions again are cruel and inaccurate. I'm tired of talking with people as yourself. Well let me tell you something, you don't choose your sexuality. I did not make a choice to be gay.
I apologize for any cruelty in my comparisons. I assure you none was intended. As for the innacuracies, can you please spell them out for me, as I was not being intentionally misleading.

I believe that YOU did not choose your sexuality, nor, probably, did most of the gay community. That does not mean it can't be done.
I also don't believe that sexuality being influenced by the environment implies that you choose your sexuality. Someone made the example of chicken pox, that was influenced by the environment, yet they never chose to have it. I don't want to imply that being gay is a disease or aberration, as I don't believe it is harmful or negative.

Now you are contradicting yourself, what will it be?
I don't believe I'm contradicting myself. My opinion, which hasn't changed, was that your sexuality (whether hetro, bi, or gay) is based on genetic predispositions, combined with environmental and social influences.
As such, some people are more swayed by the genetic predisposition, others are more swayed by the environmental factors, and yet others are more swayed by the social factors.

There is nothing hateful in saying that a humans sexuality is influenced by a lot of different factors.

Mesatecala, you are obviously very agitated whenever somebody speaks out against homosexuality. You seem to think that every piece of criticism is "hate speak" and anybody who disagrees with your own viewpoint ought to rot in hell.

If you lift that attitude and place it upon other social groups other forms of radicalism would appear. I'm sure the huge majority of General forum-goers and thread posters, including myself, doesn't give a damn about who you like to have sex with. I am here to express my opinion. I'm not sorry that my opinion differs from yours, because I am me and you are you. If you find it too hard to tolerate any other sidetrack of opinion, this is not the place for you.

I do hope that all of us can just talk and express our own opinions without calling other people names.

Mesatecala: I've obviously upset you, and for that I apologize. I have absolutely NOTHING against you, nor anyone else on this message board. I also have no problem with anyone being gay. I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights.

No, apparently you don't know who you are debating with.. I deal with debate opponents in a very cold, harsh manner. I'm not upset by over what someone says on the internet. It isn't worth the time.


Anime was an example of learnt sexuality.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is not a learn sexuality.


I can't say what made YOU gay. I could discuss things that could potentially make ME gay. I don't think there is anything wrong with your sexuality, and I hope you're happy with who you are.

Nothing made me gay. I am gay. I didn't become gay during my life. Things don't make you gay. You either are, or you aren't.

What hatred is this? Please quote me saying something anti-gay. Just because I might dispute the cause of something does not mean I am against the action itself.

Stating that people can be made to become gay. I find it a little inaccurate. People are either gay or they aren't. People don't change from heterosexuality to homosexuality...

I might have an argument against how best to build a chair. That does not mean I hate chairs.

Here we go with more horrible statements... what the heck does a chair have to do with any of this, or do you like bringing up irrelevance?


because it's something that I really feel nobody should decide but yourself.

Decide? Who the hell said I made a decision about which gender I'm attracted to?

In fact, I said that for some people they probably do not feel there is a choice at all!
You seem to fall into this category, as you say you had no choice. I entirely believe that to be true.

For some people? How about for all people? I do not think sexuality is a choice for anyone.

I did point out that for SOME people, some bisexuals, for example, there MAY be a choice.

How the hell is it a choice? Bisexuals are attracted to both genders.. there is NOTHING they can choose except who they want to date. But the attraction to a specific gender is not a choice (or to both). Maybe you are not understanding me well enough.. I have made it clear that what I'm talking about is attraction to a specific gender, and not a specific person. I'm not attracted to some guys... but i only swing towards guys I am attracted to. As matter as which gender I go for.. well that is not a choice and not something I chose.

Acting on your attractions is a choice. I'm glad you chose to act on them, as I suspect this will lead to you living a happier life.

But you don't get it do you? Having these attractions is not a choice. I can't help being attracted to only guys.

That does not mean it can't be done.

I don't agree.

I also don't believe that sexuality being influenced by the environment implies that you choose your sexuality. Someone made the example of chicken pox, that was influenced by the environment, yet they never chose to have it. I don't want to imply that being gay is a disease or aberration, as I don't believe it is harmful or negative.

Here you go with your damn comparsions again.. this is getting very old very fast.

My opinion, which hasn't changed, was that your sexuality (whether hetro, bi, or gay) is based on genetic predispositions, combined with environmental and social influences.

My sexuality is not bsaed on social or environmental influences, so I respectfully disagree in those regards.

There is nothing hateful in saying that a humans sexuality is influenced by a lot of different factors.

I think human sexuality is primarily and mainly influenced by genetics. I do not believe social conditions has anything to do with it (if that is the case, why are there homosexuals throughout the world?).

Whether or not people regard a fact as fact does not change whether it is fact. For instance, the heliocentric nature of our solar system is a fact, and it was fact even when the majority of humans believed it was myth. Human sexuality is not 100% choice (nor is it 100% genetic), and that is simply fact...if some people choose to believe otherwise then that's their choice, but it will not change the truth of the reality.
I agree. I don't think you are born straight out homosexual nor that you wake up one day and become homosexual. But there are thousands of other viewpoints. To determine the truth you are not supposed to stick on your viewpoint, but also understand others.

Wow, how sad. When I believe something is a "sin" I choose not to do it. It takes a special kind of personal weakness to continually live in a state of shame and regret, and to continually act in ways you know are "sinful." How you can possibly presume to opine on the "sins" of others is beyond me.
I said: "for myself". Which means, FOR MYSELF.


What do you want, a cookie? You don't get Heaven Points for simple courtesy.
You do. It isn't easy to be completely courteous.

Speak for yourself. I myself have no tendency to commit what I believe are "sins." I am totally uninterested in doing harm to myself or others. If you find yourself continually driven to do harm to yourself or others then I would urge you to seek help from a professional...and you probably should try a non-religious one, since apparently your religious guidance isn't helping.

TERMINOLOGY ALERT!What you are talking about are crime. Crime hurts people. Sins do not involve others. Sins are moral battles within yourself.


You are? Wow, that's just plain sad. I would ask that you not generalize your personal failings onto the rest of us, however, since I don't share your vice in this case.

Shall I have to put in front of every of my post: THIS IS MY OWN OPINION. I HAVE NO ******* INTEREST IN CONVERTING ANYBODY. This is a public forum, not a brainwash session. Feel free to disagree. I'm glad to hear your opinion.

Also, the latter part of your sentence seem to confuse efficiency with selfishness; looking for the most direct and energy-saving means to a given end is not selfish, it's practical. Selfishness may or may not coexist with efficiency, but the two certainly are not as bound as you suggest. Indeed, by definition one could not be maximally selfless unless one was also maximally efficient at being selfless.
It's practical - it's selfish. We aren't naturally willing to take a step further even if it makes other people benefit. We aren't interested in that, because we are only interested in ourselves. Being "practical", sometimes means being "selfish". It's not a bad thing, as it forms our current functioning system, but we are selfish.


Since when are lust and reason mutually exclusive? That mindset is just an outgrowth of the sex=shame crappola that has been peddled for centuries...don't buy the hype.
Well yes. Lust and reason are not always mutually exclusive. Please forgive me. And sex =/= shame. Sex equals joy and commitment.


You both need to get over it. Some people like to be passionate, and that doesn't necessarily reduce their ability to argue well and thoroughly. Emotion and passion are not natural enemies to productive discussion. Other people like to be "cold" when they debate/discuss, because that is what they feel most comfortable with. If you want to discuss and share ideas then don't waste your time ordering people to follow your personal rules of conversation...you've been around NS long enough to know that it's not going to get you anywhere.

It was past midnight and I have been recovering from a devastating cold, so I guess I was a little on the edge. So I do apologise. No hard feelings? :fluffle:

Your statements are off, dragon bay. Let me explain.

Mesatecala, you are obviously very agitated whenever somebody speaks out against homosexuality. You seem to think that every piece of criticism is "hate speak" and anybody who disagrees with your own viewpoint ought to rot in hell.

Personally, I'm not getting agitated. I just made previous statements I would go after people and call them up on the facts. If they cannot respond properly like a lot of people in this thread, they will get criticism. If you cannot take the heat, leave the kitchen.

YOU WILL NOT, I REPEAT WILL NOT TELL ME HOW I WILL POST.

Nor will I tell you how to post.

If you lift that attitude and place it upon other social groups other forms of radicalism would appear. I'm sure the huge majority of General forum-goers and thread posters, including myself, doesn't give a damn about who you like to have sex with. I am here to express my opinion. I'm not sorry that my opinion differs from yours, because I am me and you are you. If you find it too hard to tolerate any other sidetrack of opinion, this is not the place for you.

Some people have sided with me saying that you don't have a right to tell me how to post and how to have my attitude. You aren't in charge of this thread. I'm sure plenty of more people can agree with me. Also, get real. When did I bring up who I have sex with? I was debating homosexuality, and I only brought up my own experiences. I did not bring up sex. Now please, go take your misinterpretations elsewhere. If you can't stand the heat leave the kitchen.

Your statements are off, dragon bay. Let me explain.

Personally, I'm not getting agitated. I just made previous statements I would go after people and call them up on the facts. If they cannot respond properly like a lot of people in this thread, they will get criticism. If you cannot take the heat, leave the kitchen.

YOU WILL NOT, I REPEAT WILL NOT TELL ME HOW I WILL POST.

Nor will I tell you how to post.


Some people have sided with me saying that you don't have a right to tell me how to post and how to have my attitude. You aren't in charge of this thread. I'm sure plenty of more people can agree with me. Also, get real. When did I bring up who I have sex with? I was debating homosexuality, and I only brought up my own experiences. I did not bring up sex. Now please, go take your misinterpretations elsewhere. If you can't stand the heat leave the kitchen.

Cool. Remember we are only expressing opinions - nothing more. Respect will have to go both ways.

I have nothing against you personally - I hardly even know you!! But we've got off the wrong foot. I sincerely apologise if I was rude or offensive of any degree. Shall we try again?

Cool. Remember we are only expressing opinions - nothing more. Respect will have to go both ways.

I have nothing against you personally - I hardly even know you!! But we've got off the wrong foot. I sincerely apologise if I was rude or offensive of any degree. Shall we try again?

Do what you want. Personally I cannot control you. but I'm not starting over, or trying again. I stated my position and that is all.

Do what you want. Personally I cannot control you. but I'm not starting over, or trying again. I stated my position and that is all.
That's fine. :)

hey mesa, remember that time i posted statistics that proved you wrong?

hey mesa, remember that time i posted statistics that proved you wrong?

You didn't prove me wrong, in fact your statistics were for the most part based on unsubstantiated conjectures. You can post any kind of statistics.. statistics is one of the most hokey subjects in math. Very easily skewed.

When I was a second trimester fetus, Jesus appeared to me and asked me if I wanted to be gay. I said "no thank you, Jesus".

And Jesus smiled and gave me a big hug.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is not a learn sexuality.

That is a claim that is unsupported by current research. Virtually all human sexual behaviors, including the features we classify as expressions of sexual orientation, appear to be influenced by learned elements. This is not to say they are 100% learned (far from it), but learning is a factor.

Hell, the very fact that you identify "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" is learned! Defining "sexual orientation," and distinguishing between lovers based on what sort of genitals they have, is learned...note that we do not distinguish "want-to-have-a-baby-osexuals" from "want-to-be-romantic-osexuals" and "just-want-to-get-busy-osexuals" the way we distinguish "want-sex-with-same-gender-osexuals" from "want-sex-with-opposite-sex-osexuals." We put this really weird emphasis on the genitals of our lovers, while not emphasizing the importance of other traits that might be far more important in terms of long-term reproductive success.

What science is beginning to indicate is that the very notion of being exclusively gay or straight is not something that humans carry innately. It's not an adaptive trait for social primates, and there's been no evidence to suggest that humans alone just so happen to carry such a trait.


Nothing made me gay. I am gay. I didn't become gay during my life. Things don't make you gay. You either are, or you aren't.

Something "made" you a sexual being...it's called nature. Your biology and the experiences (both conscious and subconscious) that you have had throughout your existence have shaped the way in which you express yourself sexually. Sexuality doesn't simply poof into existence, it is a natural and practical part of being a sexually reproducing form of life with a brain large enough to handle complex social interactions.

Also, saying that "you either are, or you aren't" gay is totally factually incorrect. I am both gay and not gay, for instance.


Stating that people can be made to become gay. I find it a little inaccurate. People are either gay or they aren't. People don't change from heterosexuality to homosexuality...

You're having the same trouble with definitions that I see many people having. You seem to think "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are mutually exclusive, because you view them as finished, immutable, mutually exclusive qualities. They're none of those things. Evidence currently suggests that humans are innately a sort of sexual tabula rasa, without any hard and fast setting to GAY or STRAIGHT. Various biological or environmental cues can tip the balance to one end or the other, and for a minority of people this may even happen during very very early development, but most of us have our sexuality shaped in far more subtle and gradual ways.

Every person who is gay was "made gay" by a combination of innate, internal, and external forces, just as every straight person was "made straight" by these forces. It is idiotic to claim that we, as humans, can direct the future of another human's sexuality, because there are simply too many variables to account for, but just because we can't do it doesn't mean it's not done at all. Although, in a way, we DO control each others' sexuality, but we do it en mass and without knowing we are doing it...we influence each other in a miriad of tiny ways, and the sum of all those teenie tiny things will combine with a person's innate qualities to make up their complete sexuality.


Decide? Who the hell said I made a decision about which gender I'm attracted to?

I should take this opportunity to once again clarify what I'm saying, to remind everybody that just because sexuality isn't set in stone at birth DOES NOT mean that it is a choice. Just because your sexuality is influenced by gazillions of tiny experiences and factors throughout your entire life does not mean sexuality is "controllable" or that we can "make" somebody gay or straight. It doesn't mean that your sexuality is any less real, any less powerful, or any less significant.


For some people? How about for all people? I do not think sexuality is a choice for anyone.

Depends on what you mean by "sexuality." I can choose to be "gay" or "straight" as I please. I happen to choose "straight" more often than not simply because I get along best with males and feel happiest in romantic partnerships with males, but that's purely a personality thing...every so often I find a female who suits me, and I don't let her lack of a penis stop me from pursuing an interesting relationship.


How the hell is it a choice? Bisexuals are attracted to both genders.. there is NOTHING they can choose except who they want to date.

Isn't that really the most important choice, though? I mean, I have felt physically attracted to people who were serious a-hole in terms of personality, and the fact that I could choose to override my innate attraction to them was very very important. I've also ended up in romantic relationships with individuals to whom I was not physically attracted at the outset, but who had personalities and minds that were really "hot" to me. Our power to choose how we act on our sexual feelings is probably the most important part of human sexuality, and is what separates human sex from animal mating.

Some people aren't attracted to men. Some people aren't attracted to women. Some people aren't attracted to blondes. Some people aren't attracted to large noses. None of these qualities is any more or less important or valid than the others. It is silly to claim that being picky about genital type is any more important than being picky about boob size or firmness of buttocks, particularly in a day and age when there are so many different ways to build a family.


But the attraction to a specific gender is not a choice (or to both). Maybe you are not understanding me well enough.. I have made it clear that what I'm talking about is attraction to a specific gender, and not a specific person. I'm not attracted to some guys... but i only swing towards guys I am attracted to. As matter as which gender I go for.. well that is not a choice and not something I chose.

Agreed, just as I do not choose to find extremely tall people unattractive...I just can't make myself find them hot. And why should I? Why should you? Even if it were possible to MAKE me find tall people attractive, why should I bother? Why should anybody bother to find a way to MAKE you be attracted to women?


My sexuality is not bsaed on social or environmental influences, so I respectfully disagree in those regards.

No offense, but that's impossible. Like all humans, your sexuality HAS been influenced by social and environmental influences...that's one of the reasons it's not a choice for you. Your sexual self has been shaped by everything you are and everything you have experienced in your life, and there's no way for anybody to point to one specific thing and say, "There! That was what made you gay! We'll just fix that, and then you'll be all nice and hetero!"


I think human sexuality is primarily and mainly influenced by genetics.

Human sexuality may be influenced by genetics, but identical twin studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is much more to the story. If sexuality were pure biology, all pairs of identical twins would have the same sexual orientation...they don't.


I do not believe social conditions has anything to do with it (if that is the case, why are there homosexuals throughout the world?).
The same reason why identical twins reared in exactly the same home may not have the same sexual orientation...one set of social conditions will not have the same impact on two different people. An experience that might influence me to become "more gay" might influence another person to become "more straight." You're painting far too simple a picture of a very complex phenomenon.

No, apparently you don't know who you are debating with.. I deal with debate opponents in a very cold, harsh manner. I'm not upset by over what someone says on the internet. It isn't worth the time.
If you are not upset, then I respectfully ask you to be respectful to me in turn. You may deal with your debate opponents in as cold and harsh a manner as you like, that is your perogative, however I politely request that you maintain some common bounds of politeness.

Like not accusing me of being filled with hate without any cause (that I can see) beyond me disagreeing with you.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is not a learn sexuality.

That may be true. In a different discussion I'd probably accept your word on it as final.
As the current discussion is more along the lines of "Is homosexuality and hetrosexuality a learnt sexuality?" I don't think it's valid to answer with "Homosexuality and hetrosexuality is not a learnt sexuality." and refuse to entertain any discussion on the topic.
Please, post any reasons you have to believe this, and I will either refute them if I think they are unsubstantiated, consider them if I feel they have validity, or change my beliefs if I feel they are coherent and correct.
I'll start you off.
1) Your personal experiences. I feel that is strong evidence. That goes a long way towards convincing me that sexuality is genetic. It is tempered by other gay individuals not knowing for certain if it was genetic. That leads me to think that either it's not always intuitively clear what the causes were, even if you are gay yourself.
2) The study about brain reactions in gay and straight men. Personally, I don't feel that study shows anything meaningful, as I will have a different brain chemical reaction to the sound of my name. Learnt experiences, especially ones with sexual content have a strong "thumbprint" in our brains, and smells are very good at recalling memories. I'd like to see this exact same study on a group of people who haven't yet decided their sexuality, and then see which people from that group become gay. If this same difference is noticed THEN I will accept it as valid. Note: I am NOT saying that the study is wrong, just saying that it's not conclusive.
3) Some people have been gay in extremely trying situations, such as in countries where they would (and have been) killed for it. That is strong evidence to my mind that (for those people at least) being gay is not a choice. This doesn't give me any clue as to what the cause of their sexuality was, just that it wasn't a choice.


Nothing made me gay. I am gay. I didn't become gay during my life. Things don't make you gay. You either are, or you aren't.
I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. When I say the "cause" of being gay, or what made someone "become" gay, I don't necessarily mean a specific event in their life. I can accept that the "cause" that makes someone "become" gay is just that their genetics makes them predisposed towards it. In that case the "cause" was their genes, and they "became" gay while forming in the womb.

I am scientific, to my mind EVERYTHING has a cause. "You either are, or you aren't" might be true, but there was still a cause, either genetic, environmental, social, or something else. You claim genetic.


Stating that people can be made to become gay. I find it a little inaccurate. People are either gay or they aren't. People don't change from heterosexuality to homosexuality...
Ah, so now my comment was "inaccurate". Am I no longer "hate filled"? Innacurate I can handle, that's why I'm participating in this discussion. I'd like to hear reasons why my views are inaccurate, and evidence to convince me to change them.


Here we go with more horrible statements... what the heck does a chair have to do with any of this, or do you like bringing up irrelevance?
The chair was an example of how you can discuss the cause of something without hating the thing in question. I can have differing views of what makes someone gay without being hate-filled or disliking gays.

Again, it was me trying to find a non-emotional example to display my point. If I keep strictly to the point, and only discuss homosexual individualds, you claim that you have more experience than me and I can't talk on the topic. If I abstract the discussion to a non-emotive example you claim it's irrelevant. Please, set down the rules for debate, and I'll stick to them, but I do need to know them first.


Decide? Who the hell said I made a decision about which gender I'm attracted to?
I didn't.
In fact I specifically said I believe that for a lot of people it is NOT a choice. They did NOT get to decide.
You argue that for EVERYONE they did not get to decide, but we're splitting hairs about an irrelevant side-argument here.
I never said you made a decision about which gender you're attracted to. If I did I meant it more in the sense that you examined your feelings and understood which gender you were attracted to.


For some people? How about for all people? I do not think sexuality is a choice for anyone.

And I think that certain areas of your sexuality can be trained and learnt, and change over time. This does not mean that it is a choice.
My example was anime girls, where, over time, I learnt to find them attractive. That was an example of my sexuality changing over time due to social influences. That was never a choice for me, but it also wasn't hard-coded into my genes.

Again, notice how I'm NOT saying it's a CHOICE. I only saying that it was INFLUENCED by non-genetic factors.


How the hell is it a choice? Bisexuals are attracted to both genders.. there is NOTHING they can choose except who they want to date. But the attraction to a specific gender is not a choice (or to both). Maybe you are not understanding me well enough.. I have made it clear that what I'm talking about is attraction to a specific gender, and not a specific person. I'm not attracted to some guys... but i only swing towards guys I am attracted to. As matter as which gender I go for.. well that is not a choice and not something I chose.

Alright. This seems to be the major point of contention. You seem to believe that sexuality is fixed in stone (from your genetics) and I believe that sexuality is based on your genetics, but is also modified by the environment and social experiences.

I believe that SOME people, such as yourself, have so much genetic bias that they are only capable of finding one gender attractive.

I believe that all people are naturally bisexual, but are most likely biased towards one or the other gender. In most cases I suspect they are biased towards the opposite gender. With this in mind, for the words "homosexual" and "hetrosexual" to have any meaning, we need to define them as "only feeling significant sexual desire towards one gender".

I think we have social influences that make many people who would otherwise consider themselves to be bisexual to instead consider themselves to be hetrosexual. This might be by "kidding themselves" or it might be by training themselves to not find their own gender sexually interesting. That CAN be done. I have a psychologist as a housemate, and we've had many discussions on this topic. People can repress sexual desire until they don't feel it nor have any response from sexual contact. I believe that if our society openly accepted homosexual and bisexual individuals without any stigma that we'd have more people accepting themselves as homosexuals, and more people would feel sexual desire for their own gender. I think that would be a good thing.
My example for this would be ancient greece, where it was normal for most men in certain sections of society to engage in bisexual activities. It was considered unusual for people to NOT be attracted to others of their own gender. I don't think genetics have changed that much in only a few thousand years.

So...I've come to the conclusion that YOU ARE RIGHT and it is genetics that influence our sexuality. And that AS WELL as the genetics, social influences also affect it. Possibly ENVIRONMENTAL influences, such as the hormones that a fetus is exposed to during the stages of sexual development, could also have an influence (as these hormones are different for male and female children).

This STILL does not make it A CHOICE. It only says that there were other possible influences.


But you don't get it do you? Having these attractions is not a choice. I can't help being attracted to only guys.

I do get that. I accepted that right from the start.


Here you go with your damn comparsions again.. this is getting very old very fast.

You don't seem to be understanding the points I'm attempting to make with my comparisons. Each and every one exists to illustrate a point that I previously made.


My sexuality is not bsaed on social or environmental influences, so I respectfully disagree in those regards.

How do you know? An example of an environmental influence would be the hormones that you were exposed to in your mothers womb while you were undergoing sexual development before birth. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that those hormones did not make a difference to your sexual development?


I think human sexuality is primarily and mainly influenced by genetics. I do not believe social conditions has anything to do with it (if that is the case, why are there homosexuals throughout the world?).

Primarily and mainly influenced by genetics? Woo!
I agree! Totally!
Primarily and mainly meaning that genetics play a big (the biggest!) part in forming the persons sexual identity, but other factors also play SOME part.
That's what I've said right from the start.

I do believe that social conditioning has something to do with it IN SOME CASES, but for most cases, I agree, social conditioning isn't enough to change someones sexuality.

Why are there homosexuals throughout the world? Because it's natural for some members of the human population to be homosexual. It's a natural, wonderful thing. Whether the cause is genetic/environmental/social, it's still NATURAL, and still occurs in EVERY human civilization. And because many (all?) of the homosexuals DIDN'T have a choice, despite social conditioning.

Seriously, I think we agree on most points.
1)We're both pro-gay
2)both believe that for you and many other gay people it was never a choice 3)both believe that gay people are born genetically predisposed towards it.
4)both believe that the members of the gay community had NO CHOICE in the matter of what gender they were attracted to.

We disagree on very minor points, in the grand scheme of this argument.
1)We disagree on whether sexuality can change and be influenced by environmental and social influences. I claim it can, and offer my attraction to anime girls as an example. You claim it can't.
2)We disagree on whether social influences can have any impact (no matter how minor) on the gender preference of an individual. This is really an extension of the above disagreement. I offer the example of the greeks considering it normal to be bisexual, yet in our current society we consider it unusual to be bisexual.
3)We disagree as to whether there is any choice in the matter of sexuality. I understand that you have probably spent years defending your sexuality, and I'm sorry that was ever necessary. I understand that you had no choice in the matter. I still feel that it's possible there are people who are only attracted to one gender who could be trained into finding the other gender attractive as well (although why anyone would bother is beyond me!). I feel that these people, potentially, could have a choice in the matter. I do accept it when you say that all gay people didn't have a choice. As has been pointed out, who in their right mind would choose to be gay in our current society. It seems likely that the people who potentially could make a choice either choose to be hetrosexual, or else never really considered that they had a choice, and just assumed they are hetrosexual. I feel that I fall into this category, although I don't have any sexual desires towads males, I'm not repulsed by the idea. I could probably "train" myself to find them attractive, just as I "trained" myself to find anime girls attractive. Why I would do this, of course, is beyond me. I accept that the number of people who fall into this category is probably extremely small, and probably almost exclusively chooses to be hetrosexual, if they even realize there is a choice. I offer the example of people who have gone through trauma and cut themselves off from their sexuality as an example. These people have trained themselves to not feel sexual desire towards the gender they were previously attracted to. They can be rehabilitated through therapy. As I believe that everyone is, to some extent, bisexual, I believe that most people could be taught to find their own gender attractive. I know this concept is controversial, and I don't expect you to agree with me.
again, let me repeat, I do NOT believe that the individuals in the gay community had ANY CHOICE in the matter of what gender they were attracted to.

Cheers!

*stuff*

Thank you, Bottle.

Especially for explaining better than I could what I meant by some people having a choice. Without meaning to say that gay people necessarily had a choice in the matter.

Even if sexuality was something we could control ourselves, why would it matter?

Assuming I could choose not to be attracted to guys, it must mean I can also choose to not be attracted to women.

Does this lend legitimacy to heterosexuality? Does it make any choice better than another?

Anyway, I know deep down that sexuality just is. I doubt it's genetic, but that doesn't mean it's a choice. I'm not genetically predisposed to feel more alive and active at around 20 degrees than I am at 10 or 30. But that's what I feel like regardless. I fail to see how sexuality is any different.

But then, I don't believe in satan, santa, god or bloody pointy-eared elves, so I have no reason to think lesser of people because of whom they like to screw.

I suggest a poll on whether people should mind their own business and keep their invisible friends out of public space would be rather more appropriate.

Frankly, I'm sick of the "I don't mind gays at all, but they'll suffer for all eternity, they shouldn't hold hands in public, it's my business who they bang, and they're second class citizens who shouldn't be allowed to marry!" bullshit.

If I said that about upper-middle class, white, religious, overweight yanks, I'd called racist and anti american.

Actually Neo is right on the definition but I doubt she is open minded. You need to be willing to consider both sides in order to be but since God said its wrong I highly doubt she could take an objective look at homosexuality.

i must be deaf

if god is 'all that is', 'universal', 'all encompassing' then how could he be broken into right and wrong?

i'm not saying i agree with what you might think god is. i don't know for myself. but if my reasoning above is right (please correct me) then everything must be in alignment with his will. right and wrong then are our personal and limited judgements on aspects of him.

i think the most important thing each of us is able to do is to live in accordance with our own conscience, and not try to persuade others that they must accept some judgement we impose on them.

that to me is a cop out. saying 'they're wrong, and i'm right' is easier than admitting that i might have to re-evaluate my ideas.

Alternatively, if you're saying that 'right is gods will', 'wrong is against gods will', and 'gay people are sucessfully acting against gods will'. Then you may as well be saying 'gay people are superior to god'.

If god had a plan, and life is his plan in action, everything we do must be in accordance with his will. Gays straights paedophiles rapists murderers terrorists dancers painters bootmakers shopfitters. Who is anyone to disagree, or prescribe 'rightness' and 'wrongness'?

choose for yourself, but not for others

in relation to the poll.

i think everyones different and everyone implements that in different ways.

everyone has different motivations, reasons, beiefs, feelings, experiences, intentions e.t.c.

i also think that everyone experiences their sexualiy differently. straight or gay.

it might be worth considering the question:

do people choose to be 'straight'?

I see that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue, and are willing to contribute insightful arguments either for/against/on the fence. If anyone does wish to take this further, see the 'Rival Think Tank' thread and you can sign up. Homosexuality - and the role government plays within it - is an issue we will almost undoubtedly discuss.

mesa: i'm the only one here with scientific evidence. you all suck!
homo: here's some evidence. it's biased in your favor, but it still proves you wrong.
mesa: any evidence that doesn't support my bigotry must be wrong, for the same reason that i can use inconclusive studies to support my beliefs.
homo: ok. ::backs away slowly::

As I have a very important dinner I have to attend (with about 100 people, and my sister and her husband), I'll have to make this shorter then usual...

If you are not upset, then I respectfully ask you to be respectful to me in turn. You may deal with your debate opponents in as cold and harsh a manner as you like, that is your perogative, however I politely request that you maintain some common bounds of politeness.

I'm direct and clear-cut in my argument style. It is just the way I am. I don't typically spare opponents criticism...


As the current discussion is more along the lines of "Is homosexuality and hetrosexuality a learnt sexuality?" I don't think it's valid to answer with "Homosexuality and hetrosexuality is not a learnt sexuality." and refuse to entertain any discussion on the topic.

I'm already stating what is what. If it is a learnt sexuality, then why is my brother not gay? We both had the same parents, the same upbringing and everything.. that's why the answer "well homosexuality could be caused by social causes" is pretty faulty.


1) Your personal experiences. I feel that is strong evidence. That goes a long way towards convincing me that sexuality is genetic. It is tempered by other gay individuals not knowing for certain if it was genetic. That leads me to think that either it's not always intuitively clear what the causes were, even if you are gay yourself.

My personal experiences? What personal experiences? If that is the case, then why isn't any of my siblings gay? My boyfriend has several brothers and they are all straight. They pretty much had the same upbringing as he did. Personal experiences is a weak argument and always will remain so.

Personally, I don't feel that study shows anything meaningful, as I will have a different brain chemical reaction to the sound of my name. Learnt experiences, especially ones with sexual content have a strong "thumbprint" in our brains, and smells are very good at recalling memories. I'd like to see this exact same study on a group of people who haven't yet decided their sexuality, and then see which people from that group become gay. If this same difference is noticed THEN I will accept it as valid. Note: I am NOT saying that the study is wrong, just saying that it's not conclusive.

I'm saying it is pretty conclusive because it clearly showed these differences amongst heterosexual and homosexual men. You aren't considering the evidence too well. Additionally, prove that learnt experiences caused homosexuality. Take my own childhood... I had two loving parents, and I went through the same experiences as any other kid. Except I was gay. That's something I did not learn.

People don't decide their sexuality.. like the flipping of a light switch (another area where I think your argument is very faulty and very bad).

3) Some people have been gay in extremely trying situations, such as in countries where they would (and have been) killed for it. That is strong evidence to my mind that (for those people at least) being gay is not a choice. This doesn't give me any clue as to what the cause of their sexuality was, just that it wasn't a choice.

That argument was also a key piece of evidence to back up the statement "if it was caused by society, then why does homosexuality occur say in Iran where two gay teenagers just have been executed for it?"

I am scientific, to my mind EVERYTHING has a cause. "You either are, or you aren't" might be true, but there was still a cause, either genetic, environmental, social, or something else. You claim genetic.

Social or environmental arguments are pretty damn weak from as far as I see it. All the arguments I've seen compiled for it have little basis. For example, often some people say that gay people have been abused (quoting Freud, who was a fraud).. when that is not the case.


The chair was an example of how you can discuss the cause of something without hating the thing in question. I can have differing views of what makes someone gay without being hate-filled or disliking gays.

A totally irrelevant example that has no place in this argument. Personally I don't like my sexuality being compared to that of rapists, murderers, chairs, anime, or anything else.


you claim that you have more experience than me and I can't talk on the topic. If I abstract the discussion to a non-emotive example you claim it's irrelevant. Please, set down the rules for debate, and I'll stick to them, but I do need to know them first.

That's exactly my point. I do know what it is like to be gay. Do you? Do you even understand? I highly doubt it. So that is why you have to bring up irrelevant examples.


In fact I specifically said I believe that for a lot of people it is NOT a choice. They did NOT get to decide.
You argue that for EVERYONE they did not get to decide, but we're splitting hairs about an irrelevant side-argument here.
I never said you made a decision about which gender you're attracted to. If I did I meant it more in the sense that you examined your feelings and understood which gender you were attracted to.

And guess what? I'll stick by my statement that everyone does not decide. They either are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. It isn't a choice. They can cover it up or say they are confused all they like but when it comes down to it, they either are or aren't.

And I think that certain areas of your sexuality can be trained and learnt, and change over time. This does not mean that it is a choice.
My example was anime girls, where, over time, I learnt to find them attractive. That was an example of my sexuality changing over time due to social influences. That was never a choice for me, but it also wasn't hard-coded into my genes.

Irrelevant when this entire argument is about gender, not a specific type of person (whether fictional or not). I do not believe sexual attraction is trained or learnt. Your example is irrelevant to this argument.


I believe that all people are naturally bisexual, but are most likely biased towards one or the other gender. In most cases I suspect they are biased towards the opposite gender. With this in mind, for the words "homosexual" and "hetrosexual" to have any meaning, we need to define them as "only feeling significant sexual desire towards one gender".

I do not believe that at all. Most people are heterosexual. Some are bisexual and some are homosexual. It typically breaks off into: 10% gay/bisexual and 90% heterosexual.

This might be by "kidding themselves" or it might be by training themselves to not find their own gender sexually interesting. That CAN be done.

No it can't. You are starting to elude to those ex-gay ministries who have tried turning bisexual people straight. No, there have been studies to refute such actions.

People can repress sexual desire until they don't feel it nor have any response from sexual contact. I believe that if our society openly accepted homosexual and bisexual individuals without any stigma that we'd have more people accepting themselves as homosexuals, and more people would feel sexual desire for their own gender.

You aren't understanding me at all. They may repress all the hell they want, it still does not change who they are. And it does not change they are in fact attracted to both genders.


So...I've come to the conclusion that YOU ARE RIGHT and it is genetics that influence our sexuality. And that AS WELL as the genetics, social influences also affect it. Possibly ENVIRONMENTAL influences, such as the hormones that a fetus is exposed to during the stages of sexual development, could also have an influence (as these hormones are different for male and female children).

I'm not defending any environmental or social arguments as they are pretty baseless in my own perspective.

You don't seem to be understanding the points I'm attempting to make with my comparisons. Each and every one exists to illustrate a point that I previously made.

Your examples are irrelevant.

How do you know? An example of an environmental influence would be the hormones that you were exposed to in your mothers womb while you were undergoing sexual development before birth. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that those hormones did not make a difference to your sexual development?

Prove it.


I do believe that social conditioning has something to do with it IN SOME CASES, but for most cases, I agree, social conditioning isn't enough to change someones sexuality.

Social conditioning has to be the weakest, and most lamest argument in this whole discussion. Your environmental argument makes some good points, but the social argument does not.

1)We disagree on whether sexuality can change and be influenced by environmental and social influences. I claim it can, and offer my attraction to anime girls as an example. You claim it can't.

Anime girls are still female right? Well I'm discussing gender, not any specific attraction to a specific type. I'm attracted to skaters and latino guys.

I offer the example of the greeks considering it normal to be bisexual, yet in our current society we consider it unusual to be bisexual.

Do we? At least for females, many heterosexual guys love it when two females are making out.

I still feel that it's possible there are people who are only attracted to one gender who could be trained into finding the other gender attractive as well (although why anyone would bother is beyond me!). I feel that these people, potentially, could have a choice in the matter.

I feel that is the weakest argument you have ever put up in this entire thread thus far. You are citing some of the most dangerous things one could do. Take ex-gay ministries.. they have tried that and they only end up with failure and even suicide. You cannot train anyone to be attracted to a gender they never WERE ATTRACTED TO BEGIN WITH! If you want studies on this one, I will provide them!

Homovox: I don't have any bigotry here. So please stop misstating my views. The only people I may dislike are fundamentalist christians. You are the type who seeks to divide the GLBT community.. no wonder why we can't ever get our message across, and no wonder a lot of states enacted gay marriage bans. People as yourself who divided us.

As I have a very important dinner I have to attend (with about 100 people, and my sister and her husband), I'll have to make this shorter then usual...
<Snip>
Have fun. Don't eat anything I wouldn't :D

Anyway, I don't think you, me or anyone else can say anything useful based on our own lives. And I very much doubt anyone else can either.
Humans, human societies and human interaction is much too complex for statements like that. You can't give a truthful and complete account of what may or may not have influenced your sexuality anymore than I can.

That said, I'm not at all rejecting the possibility that it's genetic. But all the info I've read about that so far (which isn't a lot by the way), have either been inconclusive or highly biased in one way or another.

Still, I do not see why it's an issue? I mean, sure it would be fun to know, but what difference would it make?

Also, I know this isn't related (so please refrain from tearing my head off), but I think there are certain similarities.
Why do some people grow mohawks or ride Harleys? They're a tiny minority. They don't win any popularity contests at all. In fact, they make life a lot more difficult for themselves.
Sure, some join a much-hated subculture as a fashion statement or because of an identity crisis, but a fair number of people don't. They do it because they can't help it. And they never get assimilated back into normal society.

Are such people also genetically predisposed for becomming rockers or punkers etc?

I think people just have different experiences and personalities. All people experience things differently and are affected differently by their experiences. It doesn't mean they have any control over their sexuality or their taste in music. It just means humanity is diverse.

But of course, I hope sexuality isn't a physical trait. Because undoubtedly it would mean some evil lunatics would try to alter us misfits through surgery, hormone treatments, genetherapy or whatever. And personally, I'm quite fine with being me. I don't need some hairbrained fuck making laws about who I can love.

As long as it's not a physical condition, there'll never be a real argument for which sexual preference is the right one.

Edit: I forgot to mention... I hate this poll. People choose or they are born X? I vote neither. I think sexuality is something we develop after we're born. Some one way, some in another.
And I think people calling it a choice are retarded. Who the hell wouldn't want to be hetero?! I mean, with the amount of bullshit homo's & bi's have to put up with?! A 'choice'! Hahaha... Idiocy.

gee, mesa. your innumerable errors in grammar and spelling make it impossible to argue against you.

please recall that from the beginning i made it very clear that i had no desire to make you my enemy, and that we're politically identical in regard to sexuality. you're the one who initiated hostility. you're the one who sent me telegrams proclaiming me to be your enemy and describing me as disgusting.

you still haven't made any effort to refute the statistics i posted, other than by saying "all statistics are wrong." you also haven't attempted to explain why it would be so much better for the LGBT community to definitively prove that sexuality is genetic rather than psychological. furthermore, you shouldn't be asking "what would make the strongest case for gay rights?" you ought to be pursuing actual scientific truth. because if you keep bullshitting with the genetics argument the homophobes WILL find out. we need actual scientific proof, which i believe i provided. you have failed to produce any conclusive evidence or compelling argument of any kind.

a bigot isn't necessarily someone who is prejudiced against a group of people. it could be, as it is in your case, someone who is prejudiced against an idea. despite the overwhelming evidence against you, you have failed to give any consideration to the arguments made by other people on this forum. i wonder if you've even read them. before this forum, i was under the impression that sexuality was completely psychological. after analyzing various arguments and scientific data presented here i've concluded that biology is probably a factor, but definitely not the only one.

more criticisms of you: your concept of there only being three rigid sexualities is just ignorant. even if you only define sexuality with regard to gender, you have failed to explain people who are attracted to transgenders, transsexuals, genderqueers, androgynes, and hermaphrodytes. every individual has his/her own unique set of preferences. some people only like a specific body type, without regard to sex or race. some people only like a certain race, without regard to sex or body type. etc etc. these are extremes, of course, but i'm trying to illustrate that sexuality has more dimensions than you're acknowledging.

more criticisms of you, vol. 2: you repeatedly bring up your brothers as proof that personal experience and one's upbringing cannot have any influence on sexuality. you do realize that you share most of your genes with your brothers, do you not? in all likelihood, you share more genetic similarities than psychological ones. furthermore, bottle already explained how individual experience is in fact individual, and how two people can experience something very differently. maybe you didn't read it.

i think we all know that the de-gayification camps are morally deplorable as well as pointless. regardless, i have no idea how effective they are. i would assume they must have SOME success stories or no one would go there. so yes, i would like to see the statistics.

I see that I'm not the only one who has a problem with Mesa's argument style. Sure, you can be direct, but I feel you've stepped too much and have become flamboyant. I suggest you actually read etiquette in the General Forum. It's posted as sticky. Until then, it is very very difficult to discuss/debate with you. You're not making your point.

gee, mesa. your innumerable errors in grammar and spelling make it impossible to argue against you.

Hey, I was in a hurry and had to get to that party. I did not have the time to go through everything. I do not make innumerable errors in grammar and spelling usually. Sometimes, when I'm in a hurry I cannot make my posts perfect.

Impossible? i don't f--king think so.

please recall that from the beginning i made it very clear that i had no desire to make you my enemy, and that we're politically identical in regard to sexuality. you're the one who initiated hostility. you're the one who sent me telegrams proclaiming me to be your enemy and describing me as disgusting.

You have done a fantastic job in alienating me. One very fantastic job. Congratulations.. you just qualified to the level of Howard Dean. I hope you are happy.

you still haven't made any effort to refute the statistics i posted, other than by saying "all statistics are wrong." you also haven't attempted to explain why it would be so much better for the LGBT community to definitively prove that sexuality is genetic rather than psychological. furthermore, you shouldn't be asking "what would make the strongest case for gay rights?" you ought to be pursuing actual scientific truth. because if you keep bullshitting with the genetics argument the homophobes WILL find out. we need actual scientific proof, which i believe i provided. you have failed to produce any conclusive evidence or compelling argument of any kind.

You haven't proved that sexuality is psychological. I showed several studies that do in fact back up my notion that sexuality is genetic. I'm making the strongest case for gay rights, whereas you are not. I'm suggesting facts of scientific truth, not statistical misrepresentations and false conjectures. It isn't my fault that you want to avoid the scientific truth and would rather believe unsubstantiated figures. That's your own doing. I'm not at fault for your own actions. I provided plenty of conclusive evidence and a very compelling argument. WTF? I provided several studies that back up my case. You need to start considering all the facts.

it could be, as it is in your case, someone who is prejudiced against an idea. despite the overwhelming evidence against you, you have failed to give any consideration to the arguments made by other people on this forum. i wonder if you've even read them. before this forum, i was under the impression that sexuality was completely psychological. after analyzing various arguments and scientific data presented here i've concluded that biology is probably a factor, but definitely not the only one.

Then doesn't that qualify you as a bigot as you are going against overwhelming evidence? You are failing to consider any of my view points, and when I provide evidence you don't consider any of it. I'm sick of it. Genetics is the biggest factor in sexuality. Who convinced you that it was completely genetic? You? Or others? Let me ask another thing.. are you open about your sexuality? I would assume not based on your attitude.

your concept of there only being three rigid sexualities is just ignorant. even if you only define sexuality with regard to gender, you have failed to explain people who are attracted to transgenders, transsexuals, genderqueers, androgynes, and hermaphrodytes. every individual has his/her own unique set of preferences. some people only like a specific body type, without regard to sex or race. some people only like a certain race, without regard to sex or body type. etc etc. these are extremes, of course, but i'm trying to illustrate that sexuality has more dimensions than you're acknowledging.

I'm not ignorant. I know there are more then three, but in regards to my argument I only named three.

more criticisms of you, vol. 2: you repeatedly bring up your brothers as proof that personal experience and one's upbringing cannot have any influence on sexuality. you do realize that you share most of your genes with your brothers, do you not? in all likelihood, you share more genetic similarities than psychological ones. furthermore, bottle already explained how individual experience is in fact individual, and how two people can experience something very differently. maybe you didn't read it.

I'm bringing that up because I believe the psychological case has no basis, and is full of holes. It is not my fault you have the inherent inability in providing evidence for your own case. Genetic similiarities? Sure, but I have different traits that my brother does not have.

i think we all know that the de-gayification camps are morally deplorable as well as pointless. regardless, i have no idea how effective they are. i would assume they must have SOME success stories or no one would go there. so yes, i would like to see the statistics.

I think your case is the same one that is used by "ex-gay" ministries.

Dragons bay, you better start reading the rules yourself. You are not following them and you are the one who is not making your case.

Stop accusing me of things I just didn't do.

Especially with regards to spelling errors and grammar. That's a real cheap attack.

well i'm glad you finally provided those statistics (on degayification camps).

and just so you know, i am open about my sexuality. i'm a militant fucking radical gay rights activist. it would be wonderful (to an extent) if sexuality were genetic, as the "people choose to be gay" argument would be completely demolished. the reason i say to an extent is because (as it has been said before) the psychological degayification camps would be replaced with hormone and radiation treatments, and gay fetuses would be aborted by the dozen. even so, i would love to believe sexuality is an inherent, irreversible biological trait. sadly, the scientific evidence you provided is not particularly compelling. i'm not the type to believe something simply because it would make my life easier. that's what religion is. as scientific evidence at this point is inconclusive, i am choosing not to take a firm stance. intelligent people seem to agree that biology is a definite factor in sexuality, but it's also strongly influenced by environment, society, etc.

in regard to the statistics i posted, please explain to me how and why they are skewed. because it seems to me the only reason you're denying their validity is that they disprove your point (to an extent). i think it's a really nice study, actually, because it admits truth in both of our arguments. it would be a nice way to decrease the intensity and emotionality of this debate.

I see that I'm not the only one who has a problem with Mesa's argument style. Sure, you can be direct, but I feel you've stepped too much and have become flamboyant. I suggest you actually read etiquette in the General Forum. It's posted as sticky. Until then, it is very very difficult to discuss/debate with you. You're not making your point.
That is something which has already been suggested at least once before in another thread.

Sexual orientation (and human behavior in general) is too complex to be broken down to two or even three dimensions. There is clear evidence that there is a biological difference between some homosexuals brains compared to heterosexuals. Some does not equal all.

There is also the muddy period when a person is confused about their orientation - which can last a considerable period.

What we do know is that among the mentally ill there is a higher occurrence of homosexual behavior. (and visa-versa) This is not to describe homosexuality AS a mental illness. It simply means they are more likely to suffer from issues such as depression, manic-depression, schizophrenia, and other cognitive disorders.

There are few conclusions one could draw from this, but one is that either homosexuals have a higher incidence of mental illness, or the mentally ill have a propensity to exhibit homosexual behavior. Nature vs choice.

I am of the opinion that a weak (but simple) illustration could be drawn between homosexual tendencies and hair color. Some people are just born blond. Some choose to be blond. Some become blond due to environmental conditions (sun exposure for example) and others were blond at one time, but then changed (grey, bald, hair color change at puberty, etc) Some are even more blonde than others.

Humans are far too complex for their behavior to be labeled solely as a result of their chromosomes.

Bozzy, the point is people don't choose to be gay. This isn't hair color we are talking about. I'm sorry.

"What we do know is that among the mentally ill there is a higher occurrence of homosexual behavior."

Quoted for nonsense.

You haven't proved that. As far as I'm concerned you are spewing hot air. It isn't a choice and you have no evidence to back up that assertion.

Oops, sorry for the late reply...



and just so you know, i am open about my sexuality. i'm a militant fucking radical gay rights activist. it would be wonderful (to an extent) if sexuality were genetic, as the "people choose to be gay" argument would be completely demolished.

Your argument seems to suggest you are not open about it and you are a repressed individual. I'm a gay rights activist but in a proper degree.

sadly, the scientific evidence you provided is not particularly compelling.

It is a lot more compelling then the unsubstantiated statements you post in this thread.

as scientific evidence at this point is inconclusive, i am choosing not to take a firm stance. intelligent people seem to agree that biology is a definite factor in sexuality, but it's also strongly influenced by environment, society, etc.

But the scentific evidence isn't inconclusive, your arguments are. And as far as I'm concerned, you have proved nothing... your stance has been very weak as of right now. It is not influenced by environment or society (and I already explained why).

in regard to the statistics i posted, please explain to me how and why they are skewed. because it seems to me the only reason you're denying their validity is that they disprove your point (to an extent). i think it's a really nice study, actually, because it admits truth in both of our arguments. it would be a nice way to decrease the intensity and emotionality of this debate.

Those statistics do not have any corroboration to them. They are just a bunch of numbers. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in this world today can skew statistics. I also have the tendency of questioning things I find on the internet because of the large BS factor involved with many websites.

I'm not backing off from my standpoints.. whether it be from Bozzy's horrifically bad statements that somehow tie homosexuality to the occurrance of mental illnesses (which he hasn't f--king backed up), or your statements that it is somehow tied to society or environment... I have yet to see anything worthy from the opposing view point here.

Bozzy, the point is people don't choose to be gay. This isn't hair color we are talking about. I'm sorry.

"What we do know is that among the mentally ill there is a higher occurrence of homosexual behavior."

Quoted for nonsense.

You haven't proved that. As far as I'm concerned you are spewing hot air. It isn't a choice and you have no evidence to back up that assertion.

Oops, sorry for the late reply...



Your argument seems to suggest you are not open about it and you are a repressed individual. I'm a gay rights activist but in a proper degree.



It is a lot more compelling then the unsubstantiated statements you post in this thread.



But the scentific evidence isn't inconclusive, your arguments are. And as far as I'm concerned, you have proved nothing... your stance has been very weak as of right now. It is not influenced by environment or society (and I already explained why).



Those statistics do not have any corroboration to them. They are just a bunch of numbers. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in this world today can skew statistics. I also have the tendency of questioning things I find on the internet because of the large BS factor involved with many websites.

I'm not backing off from my standpoints.. whether it be from Bozzy's horrifically bad statements that somehow tie homosexuality to the occurrance of mental illnesses (which he hasn't f--king backed up), or your statements that it is somehow tied to society or environment... I have yet to see anything worthy from the opposing view point here.



Good news, Mesa! I brought home a bunch of Leviticus/Romans commentaries and the original Greek translations for whenever I feel like getting into the biblical-take-on-homosexuality debate again!

Good news, Mesa! I brought home a bunch of Leviticus/Romans commentaries and the original Greek translations for whenever I feel like getting into the biblical-take-on-homosexuality debate again!

Good news: I don't care about the bible as it is irrelevant and horrid writing. I'm also atheist, so it isn't really relevant. I could care less about the bible, let alone your fundamentalist christianity.

Take ex-gay ministries.. they have tried that and they only end up with failure and even suicide. You cannot train anyone to be attracted to a gender they never WERE ATTRACTED TO BEGIN WITH! If you want studies on this one, I will provide them!

i've asked you twice now. where are the studies?

in regard to my skewed statistics: if they're skewed at all, it's in your favor.

"I could make the argument that the planet would be a little healthier if we had more same-sex couples and fewer heterosexual couples busy pursuing their reproductive potential."

"Still, Bailey worries that the survey methods—he and Pillard advertised for participants through gay newspapers—may have produced slightly inflated results. That is, people who read advocacy newspapers, who choose to respond to a publicly advertised survey, who enjoy the scrutiny, who like to call attention to their lifestyle whatever it may be, may not reliably represent the entire community. That was one reason why he turned to the broader-based Australian study—and was reassured by the similar results."

How can you choose to be something you've always been?

I think most of you will follow what I'm saying (I didn't have the patience to read through the entire thread).

i've asked you twice now. where are the studies?

The supposed gay rights activist is defending the ex-gay ministries again. :rolleyes:

Here are some links on the failure of ex-gay ministries:

http://www.mabenterprises.com/gaychristians/religious_text/failures5.htm

http://www.csufresno.edu/StudentOrgs/usp/resources/flyers/missionimpossible.htm

http://www.whosoever.org/exgay/pflag.html

"In fact, the efficacy of a "cure" has been called into question by many gays who have gone through the Exodus program. Perhaps the most famous "former ex-gays" are Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, who were instrumental in establishing Exodus International in 1976. Ironically, the more they worked together, the more they found themselves falling in love. They realized that the ministry was damaging more people than it was helping. With many people who had gone through the ministry either attempting suicide or becoming clinically depressed, Bussee and Cooper realized they had to speak out about the "ex-gay" ministries."

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/exodus.htm

http://www.truluck.com/html/sexual_orientation_and_the__ex.html

well i'm glad you finally provided those statistics (on degayification camps).

and just so you know, i am open about my sexuality. i'm a militant fucking radical gay rights activist. it would be wonderful (to an extent) if sexuality were genetic, as the "people choose to be gay" argument would be completely demolished. the reason i say to an extent is because (as it has been said before) the psychological degayification camps would be replaced with hormone and radiation treatments, and gay fetuses would be aborted by the dozen. even so, i would love to believe sexuality is an inherent, irreversible biological trait. sadly, the scientific evidence you provided is not particularly compelling. i'm not the type to believe something simply because it would make my life easier. that's what religion is. as scientific evidence at this point is inconclusive, i am choosing not to take a firm stance. intelligent people seem to agree that biology is a definite factor in sexuality, but it's also strongly influenced by environment, society, etc.

in regard to the statistics i posted, please explain to me how and why they are skewed. because it seems to me the only reason you're denying their validity is that they disprove your point (to an extent). i think it's a really nice study, actually, because it admits truth in both of our arguments. it would be a nice way to decrease the intensity and emotionality of this debate.

Actually I think defining it as genetic may end up being detrimental.... Not that it would but ...some could say it was a genetic defect and that it needed to be treated. Some may like this idea... others would not. As you said some may abort their babies... I do not know how realistic either of the scenarios are but they open up some very scary possibilities.

i think we all know that the de-gayification camps are morally deplorable as well as pointless.

The supposed gay rights activist is defending the ex-gay ministries again. :rolleyes:

your tactic of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of homophobia is neither intelligent nor effective, especially when you use it against other gays.

thank you, anyway, for providing some facts. if i wasn't lazy, i'd research some opposing viewpoints for a less biased understanding of the situation, but from the multiple sources you provided it would seem that the ex-gay ministries are completely ineffective. which could mean that homosexuality isn't completely psychological. but it could also mean they were going about it the wrong way. it certainly does suggest, however, that no amount of willpower can reverse homosexuality. that's the important thing. our biology vs. psychology squabble is completely pointless. our mutual goal is to prove that we genuinely are who we are, it isn't our fault, and there's nothing we can do about it.

your tactic of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of homophobia is neither intelligent nor effective, especially when you use it against other gays.

Okay let me get into a little story.. I was on a different forum before.. and I noticed some people claimed they were gay but at the same time promoted ex-gay ministries and said they were changing.

but it could also mean they were going about it the wrong way. it certainly does suggest, however, that no amount of willpower can reverse homosexuality. that's the important thing. our biology vs. psychology squabble is completely pointless. our mutual goal is to prove that we genuinely are who we are, it isn't our fault, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness, nor is it a psychological condition. It is not something you can change. I'm not going to side with you at all, and I'm not going to proclaim any alliance with you. The enemy of my enemy in this case is not my friend.

Good news: I don't care about the bible as it is irrelevant and horrid writing. I'm also atheist, so it isn't really relevant. I could care less about the bible, let alone your fundamentalist christianity.



From an earlier post, you made the claim that Christians misinterpret the Bible when it condemns homosexuality. You do care, admit it ;)

From an earlier post, you made the claim that Christians misinterpret the Bible when it condemns homosexuality. You do care, admit it ;)

Actually I don't care because I'm atheist. It was just a point for gay christians and I posted links to gay christian websites debunking people like you.

Actually I don't care because I'm atheist. It was just a point for gay christians and I posted links to gay christian websites debunking people like you.




Debunking? They challenge two millenia of Christian scholasticism while having very little evidence in support of their claims and you jump to the conclusion that they "debunked" us? Don't jump to conclusions if you're going to select certain instances of dubious evidence over the mounds of evidence to the contrary. At least don't deceive our fellow NS'ers who aren't as knowledgeable in Christian theology.

Debunking? They challenge two millenia of Christian scholasticism while having very little evidence in support of their claims and you jump to the conclusion that they "debunked" us? Don't jump to conclusions if you're going to select certain instances of dubious evidence over the mounds of evidence to the contrary. At least don't deceive our fellow NS'ers who aren't as knowledgeable in Christian theology.

Christian what? You guys are the one with very little evidence in your rantings. Check out this site:

http://www.gaychristians.org

Get with the times. You don't live in the middle ages anymore.

Christian what? You guys are the one with very little evidence in your rantings. Check out this site:

http://www.gaychristians.org

Get with the times. You don't live in the middle ages anymore.




Shows what you know. The New Testament is the final Word of God, we can't simply create new scriptures that corroborate with our capricious whims. Try reading it before you make such absurd statements.


Edit: Btw, that site is more of a lampoon against true Christians than it is informative. You'll have to do better.

Shows what you know. The New Testament is the final Word of God, we can't simply create new scriptures that corroborate with our capricious whims. Try reading it before you make such absurd statements.

Why don't you actually read some of the studies on that website instead of going on with your obsolete, barbaric 16th century thinking?

Why don't you actually read some of the studies on that website instead of going on with your obsolete, barbaric 16th century thinking?



I have. They mainly claim Paul was biased so his teachings cannot be trusted...which amounts to a rejection of Christ, who ordained him with His authority. The next thing they will say is that men are fallible. What they fail to realize is, men who are possessed by the Holy Spirit are not speaking for themselves (as evidenced by Acts 4:8-13): an infallible Being is speaking through them. Thus, they are not subject to the errors of man.

I have. They mainly claim Paul was biased so his teachings cannot be trusted...which amounts to a rejection of Christ, who ordained him with His authority. The next thing they will say is that men are fallible. What they fail to realize is, men who are possessed by the Holy Spirit are not speaking for themselves (as evidenced by Acts 4:8-13): an infallible Being is speaking through them. Thus, they are not subject to the errors of man.

These are your own interpretations, or should I say misinterpretations.

In the twentieth verse of Romans 1, the apostle speaks of the heathen as "without excuse" (yes, you have no excuse, quit trying to make one up). These words describe the condition of those who have wilfully rejected light. They do not, indeed, describe their condition from their own standpoint or from the standpoint of men generally. From their own standpoint men are seldom "without excuse". No matter how gross or glaring the offense is, the offender usually has some excuse to offer (as evidenced by that website).

Adam and Eve had their excuses ready when God said "What is this that thou hast done?" Saul had his excuse ready when he returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites without having fully carried out the commandment of the Lord, when Samuel ask him, "What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and this lowing of the oxen which I hear?" It might be taken as on the whole a fair description of the human race to say, "They all with one consent began to make excuse." However slow we are to excuse others, we are always remarkably ready to excuse ourselves. But these words describe the condition of those who reject light from the standpoint of Him who is the great Searcher of hearts. He makes no mistakes. He makes no uncharitable judgements.

In His sight those to whom He has given light, and who have chosen to reject it, are "without excuse" (I'm sure you're starting to get the picture). They are inexcusable. They have no valid reason for their ignorance about the way of salvation and the path of duty if God has given them light about both. This is the condition described by Christ in that parable where he represents the king as coming to one of the guests at the marriage-feast and saying to him, "Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment?" And the Saviour tells us, "And he was speechless." He knew that he was without excuse. He did not try to fabricate one in an attempt to justify his actions. He knew the laws of the feast; he knew that the wedding-garment was provided, and he neglected to put it on. So shall it be in the great day of judgement with all those who had the opportunity to know God's will, but who neglected to do it. May we be enabled, in considering the inexcusableness of the heathen, to think of this solemn subject with reverence and with fairness.

From http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1302

Q. What is homosexuality?

Homosexuality is the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex or the erotic activity with a member of the same sex. (The Greek word homos means the same). A lesbian is a female homosexual. More recently the term "gay" has come into popular use to refer to both sexes who are homosexuals.

Q. How does one determine if the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong?

That depends upon who is answering the question. The Christian point of view is based solely upon the Bible, the divinely inspired Word of God. A truly Christian standard of ethics is the conduct of divine revelation, not of statistical research nor of public opinion. For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behaviour.

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is ya?da`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. You said that sexua1 intercourse outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. How do you explain marriage ceremonies in which two persons of the same sex are united by an officiating clergyman or justice of the peace?

There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk's office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively. The two men are reported to have "married" in a private ceremony.

However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a "marriage" is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't.

Q. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977), "There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible." How does a church leader arrive at such a conclusion?

This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behaviour in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.

However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term "The New Morality," which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as "a kind of holy communion." This modern concept of Christian ethics rejects totally the precepts laid down by God in His Word. It is blasphemous and atheistic.

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, "Gay and Christian." But the two terms, "gay" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous.

Representing the women at that retreat, Nancy Krody a lesbian, spoke on "The Lesbian Christian Experience." Here again is a misnomer. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian. Calling one's self a Christian does not make one a Christian.

Malcolm Boyd speaks about "The Gay Male Christian Experience." Boyd, a protestant clergyman, says he has been a homosexual secretly for years. Only recently he made a public announcement of his homosexuality. He claims that his public announcement of his homosexuality has brought him back to the church. Boyd does not tell us what he means by the "church"!

Following is one point on which the speakers at Kirkbridge agreed: "A monogamous homosexual relationship characterized by fidelity, honesty and love is possible, desirable, and honoring to God."

Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it. A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God's revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns. "If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him" (I John 2:29). "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (II Timothy 2:19). Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.

Q. Why do homosexuals refer to themselves as "gay"?

The word "gay" means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word "gay" by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts.

Q. You made reference to First Corinthians 6:9-11. What is the meaning of the word "effeminate" in verse 9?

There are certain words in every language that can be used in a good or bad sense. In the context of this verse the use of "effeminate" is obviously in a bad sense. It is listed among other evils which are condemned. It describes feminine qualities inappropriate to a man. It is normal and natural for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man; it is abnormal and unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to another man. Many male homosexuals are effeminate, but not all. Nor are all lesbians unduly masculine.

Q. Are there other Scriptures in the New Testament which deal with homosexuality?

Yes. Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of "the truth of God" (1:25). They refused "to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul's day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God's commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God's Word with one's own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God's orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan's big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God's truth, his mind becomes "reprobate," meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God's truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a "vile affection" (1:26). The Greek word translated "vile" (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word "affection" in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The "vile affection" is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Q. There are those persons who say that homosexuality, even though a perverted form of the normal, God-ordained practice of sex, is a genetic problem, constitutionally inherited. Is there evidence to support this view?

I read in a periodical that in June, 1963 a panel of specialists in medicine, psychiatry, law, sociology and theology participated in a conference on homosexuality called by the Swiss Evangelical Church Union. That group reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not constitutionally inherited, it is not a part of one's genetic makeup. The ill-founded and unverifiable myth that homosexuality results from genetic causes is gradually fading away.

There are possibly a number of different ways in which homosexual practices could begin. When boys and girls reach puberty and the genital organs develop, it is not uncommon for boys to experiment with boys, and girls with girls. In prisons where men and women are denied access to persons of the opposite sex for long periods of time, some are introduced to homosexuality for the first time.

A young Christian woman came to our office in Detroit for counseling. She became involved in lesbianism when her marriage began to fail. She was introduced to her first homosexual experience by a divorcee who was her neighbor. After six months of practicing lesbianism she was convicted of her sin and sought help. We were able to show her from the Bible that she was sinning and that God stood ready and willing to forgive and cleanse her. She confessed and forsook her sin, and continues to this day to live a happy, normal Christian life.

Homosexuality must be accepted for what God says it is-- sin. Some homosexuals will attempt to circumvent the plain teaching of the Bible with the insipid reply that they are the way God made them. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in Scripture to support this false concept. God never created man with a so-called "homosexual need." No baby is born a homosexual. Every baby is born male or female. In every place the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The practicing homosexual is guilty of "leaving the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:27), meaning that his behaviour is "against nature" as in the case of the lesbian (Romans 1:26). Inasmuch as homosexuality is opposed to the regular law and order of nature, the genetic concept must be ruled out completely. If homosexuality were a genetic problem, there would be little hope for the homosexual simply because there is no way that the genes in a person can be changed.

Q. Are there contributing factors to homosexuality for which a homosexual might not be responsible?

Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy's contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy.

Lesbianism has been known to follow this same pattern. Some mother-daughter relationships are not conducive to a normal social and sexual development. One young woman came to her pastor seeking help. She had gotten involved with a lesbian in the community where she lived, a woman twenty-one years her senior. The girl's parents had a defective marriage which ended in divorce when the daughter was ten years old. Her mother became bitter and resentful against all men. She convinced her daughter that men were not to be trusted, and that man's one goal was to exploit women sexually. The daughter grew up with a fear of men, a fear totally unwarranted. She was an easy victim of the seductive older lesbian. The good and wise pastor showed the counselee from the Bible that homosexuality was sinful and that God condemned it. She confessed her sin to God and received Jesus Christ as her Savior and Lord. Today she is happily married to a fine Christian man.

Q. Do you believe that the homosexual controversy is causing problems for the churches of America?

Evil in any form is a problem in the church. It always has been. The greater problem, however, is the church's failure to discipline evil when it arises. Karl Menninger's book, Whatever Became of Sin?, deals directly with that point. There are ministers, priests, and rabbis who never talk about sin. There was a time when the minister of God's Word preached the whole counsel of God. Today many pulpits are silent on the sin question. Sin has become fashionable and therefore acceptable. When sin gets its victim into serious difficulty, the psychiatrist and psychologist tell him he is sick. The church must face the fact of sin squarely.

Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?

In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God's attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death. Now God loved His people Israel dearly, and it was from His great heart of love that He chastened them. The Epistle to the Hebrews says, "For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth" (Hebrews 12:7). When God issued His law forbidding homosexuality, and the punishment for those persons who violated that law, He did so in order to prevent them from sinning. However, when anyone broke the law, the offender paid the penalty due him. God is a holy God who hates and judges sin. Parents who love their children will not refrain from warning them of prevailing evils, nor will they fail to chasten them when they disobey. The church today not only tolerates sin but in some instances condones it. God does neither.

In the New Testament the principle of discipline was applied with apostolic authority. In the church at Corinth the young man who was committing fornication with his step-mother was excommunicated. Paul instructed the church to take that action "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . and with the power (i.e. the authority) of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 5:1-8). In Romans 1:21-32 where Paul shows the Gentile world in its downward plunge into sin, including the sin of homosexuality, verse 32 concludes with the words, "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death . . . " Worthy of death, yes. But today we are not under law but under grace. People used to hear and heed the Gospel-truth, the message that God is holy, man is a sinner, and that through faith in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, sinful people can be born again and thereby delivered from the guilt and penalty and practice of their sins.

Q. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the church?

Nothing is more foundationally essential for the church and the world than a return to the truth. Recently I read where someone said we are suffering from a famine of the worst kind, "a truth-famine." Our modern culture is in a degenerating, deteriorating stage caused by a departure from the truth. And I must say unequivocally that truth does not exist independently of God, and His written Word the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth is in no sense of man's imagination or contrivance. Man in his fallen state does not know truth, and that is why he continues to go on sinning. A civilization without the truth is doomed to oblivion. Every ancient civilization that ignored God and His laws has crumbled. Our present civilization is well on the road to doom. We cannot survive independently of God and His Word.

The Church must return to the truth, the whole truth, the sum total of truth founded and grounded upon Him Who said, "I am the truth" (John 14:6). In our Lord's high priestly prayer for His own He prayed, "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth" (John 17:17). There must be in our churches the clear exposition of the Scriptures and a continuing exaltation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ if our civilization is to be saved from the disasters that overcame past civilizations. Any civilization with a philosophy or a doctrine which denies the real truth cannot survive.

Q. Do you see any prophetic significance in the recent homosexual upsurge?

Yes, I do. However, I would suggest caution on this point. It is not uncommon for preachers to attach a prophetic meaning to every earthquake, riot, war, moral scandal or political disaster, labeling all such events as "signs of the times."

The modern homosexual upsweep is one phase of a declining trend in morals. When the disciples asked our Lord, "What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?" He told them that "iniquity shall abound" (Matthew 24:3, 12). There is today a permissiveness and a promiscuity in sexual behaviour unprecedented in the history of America. There is little restraint upon the widespread of material containing pictures and writing depicting erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement. This would be included in our Lord's prophecy about abounding iniquity.

There is also a prophetic statement in Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy which has some bearing upon the subject we are discussing. Paul said, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection . . . " (II Timothy 3:1-3). Homosexuality is an unnatural affection, practiced by persons "that defile themselves with mankind" (I Timothy 1:10), translated in the New American Standard Version "homosexuals," and in the New International Version, "perverts." I conclude, in the light of these Scriptures, that the rise of homosexuality is very definitely a trend which indicates the approaching end of the age.

Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?

Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. One man of wealth was reportedly married and divorced six times. Most of his wives were young enough to be his daughters. The two homosexual men who applied for a marriage license in the Maricopa County Clerk's Office in Arizona were 39 and 21 years old, quite a variation in ages.

Q. Do you attach any significance to the age factor you mentioned?

Yes, I do. I see a potential threat to young people who are exposed to homosexuals. Older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth.

Q. Do you care to make any comments on the Anita Bryant crusade in Dade County, Florida?

In my judgment Anita Bryant was justified in the action she pursued. She did not want her children exposed to the influence of a practicing homosexual in the public school classroom. Inasmuch as homosexuality is classified in the Bible as an evil, to insist that children be exposed to homosexual teachers in the public schools would be an infringement upon the rights of parents and their children. Under no condition would I permit my children to be subjected to the influence of a sex pervert. As an American citizen I consider that choice to be my right. Anita Bryant laid her career on the line in the bold and courageous stand she took. She should not have to fight the battle alone. Christians should support her.

Q. What should be the Christian's attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God's love. The Bible says, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God's love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Q. How can we help Christians who get involved in the practice of homosexuality?

We can help them by seeking to draw their attention to what God says in His Word. In a kind and loving spirit we can show them that they are wrong. However, the homosexual must admit to the fact that he is living in sin and that he has the desire to be made free from it. Without a genuine conviction of God's displeasure and a strong desire to do God's will, there is no hope. A truly born again person cannot continue to practice sin without reaping the results of miserable unhappiness brought on by loss of fellowship with God, the fear of retribution and the anxiety produced by guilt. The homosexual must ask himself, "Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?"

You didn't really refute anything I said. You just presented another interpretation.

You also need to get out of the 16th century for the last time.

NR, we may not agree on much, but at least we agree on something. Homosexuality is a sin.

NR, we may not agree on much, but at least we agree on something. Homosexuality is a sin.

Homosexuality is not wrong. You fundamentalist christians need to get your head out of the sand.. and get with reality.

That bible.org site is nothing but fundamentalist dribble.

Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?

Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. One man of wealth was reportedly married and divorced six times. Most of his wives were young enough to be his daughters. The two homosexual men who applied for a marriage license in the Maricopa County Clerk's Office in Arizona were 39 and 21 years old, quite a variation in ages.

Yea this part seems like a generalization and really hurts this guys credibility.

You didn't really refute anything I said. You just presented another interpretation.

You also need to get out of the 16th century for the last time.




:headbang: If you deny all evidence I present because of its age, then why not just admit you believe yourself to be infallible (and, according to Dempublicents, that only applies to me :rolleyes: ) and let's get on with our lives? I'm not going to convince you if you keep your head in the sand :mad:

Homosexuality is not wrong. You fundamentalist christians need to get your head out of the sand.. and get with reality.

That bible.org site is nothing but fundamentalist dribble.



Umm...Undelia is anything but fundamentalist....

:headbang: If you deny all evidence I present because of its age, then why not just admit you believe yourself to be infallible (and, according to Dempublicents, that only applies to me :rolleyes: ) and let's get on with our lives? I'm not going to convince you if you keep your head in the sand :mad:

Would you go around accusing people of being witches? That's what your kind of thinking invokes. Also look at what Economic Associates quoted... your source tries to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.. which is a load of crap because most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Yea this part seems like a generalization and really hurts this guys credibility.


Perhaps he went too far in its application, but, according to statistics I've seen, male pedophiles generally prefer boys above girls.

Would you go around accusing people of being witches? That's what your kind of thinking invokes. Also look at what Economic Associates quoted... your source tries to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.. which is a load of crap because most pedophiles are heterosexual.



False. Pederasty is more common than its antithesis (I'm getting deja vu, I know I've said this before....).