NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps he went too far in its application, but, according to statistics I've seen, male pedophiles generally prefer boys above girls.

Actually statistics I've seen show the overwhelming amount of male pedophiles are heterosexuals.

From http://www.reasoned.org/e_sex.htm



Pedophiles will usually prey on members of the opposite sex, but the incidence of homosexual encounters is considerably higher than that of the population in general1. Pedophiles are more likely to commit homosexual acts than is statistically normal, however the disorder has more to do with control and dominance than it does gender, and elements of sociopathy apply to pederasty as well. It is a desire for children in general, rather than a particular gender.

The rate of same-sex molestation is significantly higher when it involves the clergy. Although it is far too convenient to blame society for the aberrant behaviour of individuals, in this instance it is partially the fault of the religious subculture these persons belong to. It is very stressful for an adolescent who discovers that he/she has sexual desires different from others; it can be far worse for one who is part of a devoutly religious family. Such young people must not only deal with the social stigma attached to their sexual preferences, but the conflict with their own faith. For the deeply religious, sometimes being ordained appears to be the solution to their personal crisis; believing that by dedicating their life to God, the deity will give them the strength to resist their desires. Such a decision ultimately leads to psychological problems primarily because they do not possess the qualities that enable a person to fulfill such a role. Contrary to popular belief, a devotion to God does not make a good priest, it is a devotion to humanity that is essential. One must be a pillar of strength for those in need, and because your duty is to help others cope with their personal demons, a clergyman has to be relatively free of his own.

Constant repression of sexual desire can lead to serious mental problems, and for the pederast, entering the priesthood serves to delay the inevitable, and concentrates people with the disorder in the profession. Thus we have an inordinate rate of this kind of abuse in traditional religious organizations.

The sexual abuse of a child is as offensive to homosexuals as it is to everyone else. Groups such as NAMBLA, which promotes pederasty, encourage anti-homosexual sentiments. Political correctness permits NAMBLA to exist, and provides the organization with a public forum for their views. An association that openly counseled the molestation of little girls would soon find its members in prison, yet authorities tolerate NAMBLA, wrongly believing that to take action against these disturbed individuals is to offend homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and zero tolerance of such behaviour would eliminate the inference that sexual desire for children is connected to a homosexual lifestyle.

From http://www.reasoned.org/e_sex.htm



Pedophiles will usually prey on members of the opposite sex, but the incidence of homosexual encounters is considerably higher than that of the population in general1. Pedophiles are more likely to commit homosexual acts than is statistically normal, however the disorder has more to do with control and dominance than it does gender, and elements of sociopathy apply to pederasty as well. It is a desire for children in general, rather than a particular gender.

The rate of same-sex molestation is significantly higher when it involves the clergy. Although it is far too convenient to blame society for the aberrant behaviour of individuals, in this instance it is partially the fault of the religious subculture these persons belong to. It is very stressful for an adolescent who discovers that he/she has sexual desires different from others; it can be far worse for one who is part of a devoutly religious family. Such young people must not only deal with the social stigma attached to their sexual preferences, but the conflict with their own faith. For the deeply religious, sometimes being ordained appears to be the solution to their personal crisis; believing that by dedicating their life to God, the deity will give them the strength to resist their desires. Such a decision ultimately leads to psychological problems primarily because they do not possess the qualities that enable a person to fulfill such a role. Contrary to popular belief, a devotion to God does not make a good priest, it is a devotion to humanity that is essential. One must be a pillar of strength for those in need, and because your duty is to help others cope with their personal demons, a clergyman has to be relatively free of his own.

Constant repression of sexual desire can lead to serious mental problems, and for the pederast, entering the priesthood serves to delay the inevitable, and concentrates people with the disorder in the profession. Thus we have an inordinate rate of this kind of abuse in traditional religious organizations.

The sexual abuse of a child is as offensive to homosexuals as it is to everyone else. Groups such as NAMBLA, which promotes pederasty, encourage anti-homosexual sentiments. Political correctness permits NAMBLA to exist, and provides the organization with a public forum for their views. An association that openly counseled the molestation of little girls would soon find its members in prison, yet authorities tolerate NAMBLA, wrongly believing that to take action against these disturbed individuals is to offend homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and zero tolerance of such behaviour would eliminate the inference that sexual desire for children is connected to a homosexual lifestyle.

No offense but it looks like a third grader makes that site. And if you look at the amount of child abuse towards young girls (men going after young girls these days) using your logic you'd say that abuse by heterosexual men is way more frequent. How does this guy think that NAMBLA or Clergy are representative of a whole? The only reason he thinks it is more frequent, is because there is more media attention on it.

Reasoned spirtiuality? It is spirituality.. but it is far from being reasonable.

do i still look so bad, mesa? if you need a friend, i'm here.


and i'm only being partially sarcastic.

to the fundamentalist christians, i have this to say:

a christian isn't a follower of the bible, a christian is a follower of christ. as jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality, the terms christian and homosexual are hardly mutually exclusive. furthermore, jesus made a point of associating with sinners while refraining from judging them and telling them how to live their lives. the only sinners jesus targeted were corrupt authority figures and bigots like you.

the only thing you're accomplishing with your condemnation is creating more gay atheists. you insist that god will never accept us as we are. try as we might, we cannot change. i guarantee the reformed lesbians to whom you alluded were still burning with homosexual lust, even if they weren't acting on it. and according to you, that's just as bad. if god refuses to accept us, how can we be expected to accept him (and furthermore, what's the point?)

do i still look so bad, mesa? if you need a friend, i'm here.


and i'm only being partially sarcastic.

No thanks.

the only thing you're accomplishing with your condemnation is creating more gay atheists. you insist that god will never accept us as we are. try as we might, we cannot change. i guarantee the reformed lesbians to whom you alluded were still burning with homosexual lust, even if they weren't acting on it. and according to you, that's just as bad. if god refuses to accept us, how can we be expected to accept him (and furthermore, what's the point?)

There is nothing wrong with being atheist. This is how the divide grows even deeper between us.

[snip]
Well, I agree with your source in the explanation for homosexual pedestry: it is society's nonacceptance and intolerance and repressed sexuality which causes so many homosexuals to become pedophiles.

No offense but it looks like a third grader makes that site. And if you look at the amount of child abuse towards young girls (men going after young girls these days) using your logic you'd say that abuse by heterosexual men is way more frequent. How does this guy think that NAMBLA or Clergy are representative of a whole? The only reason he thinks it is more frequent, is because there is more media attention on it.

Reasoned spirtiuality? It is spirituality.. but it is far from being reasonable.
Actually, I agree with that extract. It basically says that some people associate homosexuality with pedestry, but the actual cause for pedestry in homosexual males is most likely homophobia and repressed sexuality. In my opinion, that makes perfect sense.

mesa, i'm an atheist too. i just thought they should know that their plan to save all us faggots is backfiring.

it isn't that difficult to hate me. you're trying too hard.

do i still look so bad, mesa? if you need a friend, i'm here.


and i'm only being partially sarcastic.

to the fundamentalist christians, i have this to say:

a christian isn't a follower of the bible, a christian is a follower of christ. as jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality, the terms christian and homosexual are hardly mutually exclusive. furthermore, jesus made a point of associating with sinners while refraining from judging them and telling them how to live their lives. the only sinners jesus targeted were corrupt authority figures and bigots like you.

the only thing you're accomplishing with your condemnation is creating more gay atheists. you insist that god will never accept us as we are. try as we might, we cannot change. i guarantee the reformed lesbians to whom you alluded were still burning with homosexual lust, even if they weren't acting on it. and according to you, that's just as bad. if god refuses to accept us, how can we be expected to accept him (and furthermore, what's the point?)



*dons her Truth Police badge and gets to work*

*ahem* Your first point was that Christians are followers of Christ and not the Bible. While the word "Christian" does denote a follower of Christ, part (well, all) of following Christ is adhering to his tenets as expressed by Himself and the apostles; Tenets which are recorded in the Bible. One cannot be a Christian without the Bible, as it contains the methods necessary to be a Christian.


Now then, your second point was that Christian and Homosexuality were not two mutually exclusive terms. This is simply not the case. Paul, who spoke with Christ's authority and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, clearly condemned the deplorable actions of "burning in their lust" for members of the same sex. Christ specifically stated to his disciples the following: Luke 10:16 He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." This is conclusive proof that the rejection of Christ's ministers amounts to the rejection of Christ Himself.


Your third point dealt with Christ associating with sinners. What you conveniently failed to mention was that He never once condoned their actions: rather, he refered to them as sinners in need of salvation.

Matthew 9:11-13 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."


John 8:9-11 9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."




Your fourth point was a false and hurtful ad hominem attack. I'll be a big girl and not report it to the mods this time.


Your fifth point is that you cannot change. This contradicts the evidence presented by innumerable celibates. Also remember, that the tendency towards homosexual attraction is not the sin, it is dwelling on your lusts and yielding to them that is.


Your last point stated that "If God refuses to accept us, how can we accept Him?" There is an undeniable difference between we mortals and God: He is the Perfect Judge. He will not accept those who refuse to capitulate to Him and deny themselves. He does not adjust to our whims, we adjust our desires to Him. You're equating us with God, which absurd. We are sinful, wicked creatures while He is free from evil. This, combined with His status as our Creator and His infinite wisdom, gives Him the authority to judge us according to our works.

mesa, i'm an atheist too. i just thought they should know that their plan to save all us faggots is backfiring.

it isn't that difficult to hate me. you're trying too hard.

Whatever dude.. if you want to be foul then go ahead. You are already a dividing factor in gay rights.

Well, I agree with your source in the explanation for homosexual pedestry: it is society's nonacceptance and intolerance and repressed sexuality which causes so many homosexuals to become pedophiles.


It is still not justified, we are not beasts and can control our base cravings. They chose to reject their personal responsibility in favor of indulging themselves in sin. They deserve the punishment they will get.

It is still not justified, we are not beasts and can control our base cravings. They chose to reject their personal responsibility in favor of indulging themselves in sin. They deserve the punishment they will get.

You are totally brainwashed. You will not compare me or any other good homosexual male to priests abusing boys or the sickos at NAMBLA. I didn't compare you to the overwhelming amount of child molestors who are heterosexual. Your generalizations make me sick.

It is still not justified, we are not beasts and can control our base cravings. They chose to reject their personal responsibility in favor of indulging themselves in sin. They deserve the punishment they will get.
:rolleyes: I never said it was justified.

:rolleyes: I never said it was justified.



Oh, sorry it just seemed implied to me.

You are totally brainwashed. You will not compare me or any other good homosexual male to priests abusing boys or the sickos at NAMBLA. I didn't compare you to the overwhelming amount of child molestors who are heterosexual. Your generalizations make me sick.
I do not think NR ever said that most homosexuals are pedophiles, but she does seem to believe that most pedophiles are homosexual.

All squares are rectangles, but does that mean all rectangles are squares? NO!

I think Neo was under the (in my opinion, false) impression that homosexuality is the cause of pedestry, therefore causing the large percentage of homosexual pedophiles, when it is most likely the repression of homosexual tendencies which causes this.

I think I just defended Neo Rogolia. WTF? :p

You are totally brainwashed. You will not compare me or any other good homosexual male to priests abusing boys or the sickos at NAMBLA. I didn't compare you to the overwhelming amount of child molestors who are heterosexual. Your generalizations make me sick.



2/3, while greater in number, is not "overwhelming." Also, she was theorizing why homosexual clergy seems to resort to pederasty, not lumping all homosexuals together with all pedophiles. Try looking at what people are really saying instead of what you want them to be saying.

It has been shown that there are anatomical differences in a homosexual male brain to a heterosexual male brain. Whether these changes make a person gay or not is not know, but there are slight differences.

I do not think NR ever said that most homosexuals are pedophiles, but she does seem to believe that most pedophiles are homosexual.

Of course that's false, as most pedophiles are heterosexual (the overwhelming majority are).

Oh, sorry it just seemed implied to me.
No, I implied that everyone has their reasons and motivations behind their actions; rather or not they are sufficient enough to justify these actions, well, that is up to our legal system. In this case, they are not.

2/3, while greater in number, is not "overwhelming." Also, she was theorizing why homosexual clergy seems to resort to pederasty, not lumping all homosexuals together with all pedophiles. Try looking at what people are really saying instead of what you want them to be saying.

No, it is much greater then 2/3rds.. way more greater then that. In fact you are buying too much into the media frenzy on the lesser amount of cases involving male pedophiles with young boys.

neo, do you realize that by proving that christianity is rife with homophobia you're only making me loathe it more? i highly doubt you'll convert anyone by telling them that god hates them. what do i have to gain by becoming a christian if god is going to hate me and reject me no matter what i do?

you likened god killing homosexuals to parents chastising their children. i was under the impression that the vast majority of parents who kill their children are deeply disturbed.

regarding celibacy: do celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual? do they cease to have lust for members of the opposite gender? obviously they dont. why would you expect anything different from homosexuals? your demands are impossible to fulfill. no sex, no masturbation, no wet dreams? you realize that's biologically impossible, do you not?

Of course that's false, as most pedophiles are heterosexual (the overwhelming majority are).



1. Estimates vary, but 90-99% of the population is heterosexual, according to most sources, so, even if you were right, it would follow the laws of proportion.

2. While doing research to support my position, most statistics estimated 1/3 of the victims of male pedophiles were boys. When 1-10% of a certain persuasion commit ~33% of the molestations, wouldn't you conclude that it is a disproportionate amount?

2. While doing research to support my position, most statistics estimated 1/3 of the victims of male pedophiles were boys. When 1-10% of a certain persuasion commit ~33% of the molestations, wouldn't you conclude that it is a disproportionate amount?

This is of course false, because more like 95% of male pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. You are skewing statistics.

neo, do you realize that by proving that christianity is rife with homophobia you're only making me loathe it more? i highly doubt you'll convert anyone by telling them that god hates them. what do i have to gain by becoming a christian if god is going to hate me and reject me no matter what i do?

you likened god killing homosexuals to parents chastising their children. i was under the impression that the vast majority of parents who kill their children are deeply disturbed.

regarding celibacy: do celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual? do they cease to have lust for members of the opposite gender? obviously they dont. why would you expect anything different from homosexuals? your demands are impossible to fulfill. no sex, no masturbation, no wet dreams? you realize that's biologically impossible, do you not?


In the end, it's up to you to choose whether or not to accept it. I'm not going to candy-coat the tenets of Christianity to get more followers, I'm going to give you the honest truth of it and let you choose to accept it or reject it at your discretion.


As for the part where you described the biological probability of abstaining from all forms sexual activity, it is possible. When you see an attractive person and you begin to have lustful thoughts, turn your head and change the topic in your mind. It's not that difficult. Now, I'm not a specialist in all aspects of male sexuality (nor do I care to be when it comes to some things), but wet dreams are the result of abstaining from sex and masturbation, are they not? Sin involves malevolent use of one's free will. Dreams cannot be controlled. One is not responsible for one's dreams.

This is of course false, because more like 95% of male pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. You are skewing statistics.
*Sighs*

You both should realize that the percentage of homosexual individuals in any given group depend on one's definition of homosexuality, which obviously varies.

This is of course false, because more like 95% of male pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. You are skewing statistics.



Umm...no.


I checked at least 5 websites, and they all provided the 1/3 estimate. Do a search for "Gender preference in male pedophiles" on altavista.com and you will see the same results.

I'm going to come down hard on you people right now. I'm not going to stop myself from loving another guy. I have a boyfriend and there is nothing wrong with that. Neo, grow up and get with the times. For goodness sakes, what century are you living in?

Umm...no.


I checked at least 5 websites, and they all provided the 1/3 estimate. Do a search for "Gender preference in male pedophiles" on altavista.com and you will see the same results.

Actually studies I have seen show otherwise, that the 1/3 estimate is the working of forces that seek to paint a bad picture for homosexuals. Also, pedophilia is a compulsion, not a sexual orientation. It goes beyond sex and moreso into power.

So yes, it is more like 95%.

I'm going to come down hard on you people right now. I'm not going to stop myself from loving another guy. I have a boyfriend and there is nothing wrong with that. Neo, grow up and get with the times. For goodness sakes, what century are you living in?



I'm sorry, but God's final word is just that: final. It does not "change with the times." It is not part of the moral-relative zeitgeist. I don't base my beliefs on society's vacillations. I base them on God's eternal will. Yes, copulation with your boyfriend is wrong, you can choose to accept it or not, but, in the end, it is wrong.

When you see an attractive person and you begin to have lustful thoughts, turn your head and change the topic in your mind. It's not that difficult.

oh yeah, you're a woman.

Actually studies I have seen show otherwise, that the 1/3 estimate is the working of forces that seek to paint a bad picture for homosexuals. Also, pedophilia is a compulsion, not a sexual orientation. It goes beyond sex and moreso into power.

So yes, it is more like 95%.



I've conversed with an individual who confided in me that he had pedophilic desires. He said that it was a natural attraction and tried to abstain from such thoughts, but it wasn't about "power". Your statement is false. Also, your 95% statement is absurd! Provide citations.

I'm sorry, but God's final word is just that: final. It does not "change with the times." It is not part of the moral-relative zeitgeist. I don't base my beliefs on society's vacillations. I base them on God's eternal will. Yes, copulation with your boyfriend is wrong, you can choose to accept it or not, but, in the end, it is wrong.

You're full of it. Your god's word means nothing to me, anymore then zeus does, or mohammed, or buddha. It means nothing to me at all. You should get with the times. Your religion means nothing to reason and human rights. I will have my boyfriend and it is not wrong. In the end, you're wrong and in the end you'll be regretful you ever said such things.. oh wait.. you won't know because there isn't an afterlife.

oh yeah, you're a woman.


Perhaps, but I know plenty of males who say that it is possible to do so. It is, apparently, more difficult for men than it is for us, but they did say it was possible if you exhibited self-restraint.

I've conversed with an individual who confided in me that he had pedophilic desires. He said that it was a natural attraction and tried to abstain from such thoughts, but it wasn't about "power". Your statement is false. Also, your 95% statement is absurd! Provide citations.

No, your hideous 1/3rd statements are absurd. And you keep saying you did this, and you did that.. for all I know you are a liar. I could care less who you talked wtih, it doesn't change the reality that 95% of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. And relentless studies show that it is all about power, like rape (it is statutory rape afterall).

I'm sorry, but God's final word is just that: final. It does not "change with the times." It is not part of the moral-relative zeitgeist. I don't base my beliefs on society's vacillations. I base them on God's eternal will. Yes, copulation with your boyfriend is wrong, you can choose to accept it or not, but, in the end, it is wrong.

According to your god, not mine.

You're full of it. Your god's word means nothing to me, anymore then zeus does, or mohammed, or buddha. It means nothing to me at all. You should get with the times. Your religion means nothing to reason and human rights. I will have my boyfriend and it is not wrong. In the end, you're wrong and in the end you'll be regretful you ever said such things.. oh wait.. you won't know because there isn't an afterlife.



Now you've abandoned all fruitful debate and have degenerated into ad hominem statements. I guess, unless you want to change, that ends this thread? Unless some other pro-homosexual people (whom I've been waiting on to join in :mad: ) care to join in?

you know celibate men who never have sexual thoughts? i sincerely doubt it.

why is a good christian girl having such raunchy discussions with men? i think we ought to stone her.

Now you've abandoned all fruitful debate and have degenerated into ad hominem statements. I guess, unless you want to change, that ends this thread? Unless some other pro-homosexual people (whom I've been waiting on to join in :mad: ) care to join in?

You are the one who have degenerated into personal attacks, especially when you dare raised your insignificant opinion against my boyfriend and I. Don't you dare. I'm not changing anything. I can't change anything. This is the way I am. You should get with the times.

Now you've abandoned all fruitful debate and have degenerated into ad hominem statements. I guess, unless you want to change, that ends this thread? Unless some other pro-homosexual people (whom I've been waiting on to join in :mad: ) care to join in?
I've already debate with you many times on homosexuality, and whatever you cannot accept you often choose to ignore, so obviously I'm not rushing to start that all over again. ;)

You are the one who have degenerated into personal attacks, especially when you dare raised your insignificant opinion against my boyfriend and I. Don't you dare. I'm not changing anything. I can't change anything. This is the way I am. You should get with the times.
The times are still hateful in many parts of the world, Mesa.

The times are still hateful in many parts of the world, Mesa.

I'm talking about the 21st century western world.. where people accept GLBT people for who they are.. like in San Francisco.. Neo reminds me a lot of iranian fundamentalist ayatollahs.

You are the one who have degenerated into personal attacks, especially when you dare raised your insignificant opinion against my boyfriend and I. Don't you dare. I'm not changing anything. I can't change anything. This is the way I am. You should get with the times.
So buzz wordy I can’t stand it!
Ideas about homosexuality and all manor of morality have nothing to do with “the times.” They have everything to do with one’s upbringing, environment and culture.
I see you live in California. In your environment homosexuality is accepted. In others it is not. It has nothing to do with, “the times.”

So buzz wordy I can’t stand it!
Ideas about homosexuality and all manor of morality have nothing to do with “the times.” They have everything to do with one’s upbringing, environment and culture.
I see you live in California. In your environment homosexuality is accepted. In others it is not. It has nothing to do with, “the times.”

One's upbringing may be wrong. Especially if it is a fundamentalist christian upbringing.

mesa: how can a study prove that every single individual who is attracted to children has an obsession with power and dominance? i dont see how that's possible. while the power thing may be true in some case, or even in most cases, you can't possibly determine that it's true in every single case. i'll admit to having been attracted to people considerably younger than i am, not because i wanted to tie them up and torture them, but because i found them visually appealing. i choose not to act on such attractions as pedophilia is obviously psychologically damaging to the child and therefore immoral. i see no logical reason not to act on my attractions to men my own age.

no, neo. the bible is not a logical reason.

I'm talking about the 21st century western world.. where people accept GLBT people for who they are.. like in San Francisco.. Neo reminds me a lot of iranian fundamentalist ayatollahs.
Neo is actually from the same area as I am. I can tell you from personal experience that there is much hate in this world, and Neo represents only a small fraction of it. Remember that many people who are hateful to others are so because they simply know nothing else, or because it is easier for them to do so than to accept that those they wish to isolate they actually have a lot in common with.

You do yourself a disservice by allowing this to get to you, by returning hate with hate. If you wish to have the higher moral ground, then take it! Love those who hate you, find beauty in those who call you ugly!

mesa: how can a study prove that every single individual who is attracted to children has an obsession with power and dominance? i dont see how that's possible. while the power thing may be true in some case, or even in most cases, you can't possibly determine that it's true in every single case. i'll admit to having been attracted to people considerably younger than i am, not because i wanted to tie them up and torture them, but because i found them visually appealing. i choose not to act on such attractions as pedophilia is obviously psychologically damaging to the child and therefore immoral. i see no logical reason not to act on my attractions to men my own age.

no, neo. the bible is not a logical reason.

I said it often has to do with power, like with rape. It is psychological domination. I don't see it any other way. How old are you anyways? I do not have any attraction to young boys..

Statements you have made make me want to distance myself from you. Far from you.

It's not a birth thing and it's not a deliberate choice. It has to do with the way they're brought up. If they're male and don't have a strong male presence in the house they are basically raised a girl by the mother and aren't taught how to be men and want to fill that void so they go after another guy, thinking it's the male side of nurturing that they didn't receive. I wrote a paper on this for my psych dissertation.

It's not a birth thing and it's not a deliberate choice. It has to do with the way they're brought up. If they're male and don't have a strong male presence in the house they are basically raised a girl by the mother and aren't taught how to be men and want to fill that void so they go after another guy, thinking it's the male side of nurturing that they didn't receive. I wrote a paper on this for my psych dissertation.
Ha! Thanks, I needed that little pick-me-up.

It's not a birth thing and it's not a deliberate choice. It has to do with the way they're brought up. If they're male and don't have a strong male presence in the house they are basically raised a girl by the mother and aren't taught how to be men and want to fill that void so they go after another guy, thinking it's the male side of nurturing that they didn't receive. I wrote a paper on this for my psych dissertation.
And that explains how I turned out gay... how? My dad was always around, helping me, just as much as Mum was. How come I'm not straight?

You do yourself a disservice by allowing this to get to you, by returning hate with hate. If you wish to have the higher moral ground, then take it! Love those who hate you, find beauty in those who call you ugly!

This is called bad logic. Love people who would murder you. Would you love Osama bin Laden? I didn't think so. I will not do such a thing. I will stand for what I believe in.

Echelon of Christ:

If they're male and don't have a strong male presence in the house they are basically raised a girl by the mother and aren't taught how to be men and want to fill that void so they go after another guy, thinking it's the male side of nurturing that they didn't receive. I wrote a paper on this for my psych dissertation

False. There are many single working moms and homosexuality doesn't happen even sometimes in those cases. Homosexuality occurs even in households with both a mother and father (I'll cite my own family.. I have a dad and a mom.. don't have a lack of either). Your reasons are bad and faulty.. being without evidence. Your paper means nothing.

I said it often has to do with power, like with rape. It is psychological domination. I don't see it any other way. How old are you anyways? I do not have any attraction to young boys..

Statements you have made make me want to distance myself from you. Far from you.
Hint: you can put people on your Ignore List if they start to bug you so much you don't trust yourself not to go off on them. Just click on the tab under the NS logo thing that says "Profile" and then "Buddy/Ignore Lists" and then enter the country name of the person(s) you want to ignore.

This is called bad logic. Love people who would murder you. Would you love Osama bin Laden? I didn't think so. I will not do such a thing. I will stand for what I believe in.
You made an unfair assumption: That I would not love Osama bin Laden.

I love all living creatures, and I find beauty in all of them. I also stand for what I believe in, in my own passive-agressive way.

I don't know if this is relevent to the current issue but it is to the topic.

It has been argued through the ages, long before science was ever involved, that homosexuality is merely a choice. Many people state that gays only have homosexual relations because they choose to do so. Others profess that homosexuality is not a choice and due to the societal stigma which is associated with homosexuality very few would consciously choose a homosexual lifestyle and the discrimination that accompanies it.

Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined. He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies. Tahir does not believe that individuals could be helped if homosexuality were indeed genetic -- just as you would not be able to cure someone of his or her race or gender.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Tahir also points out in his article that the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs supported the idea of homosexuality as a choice. In a report distributed by them in 1981 they stated, "There are some homosexuals who would like to and probably could change their sexual orientation. Because some homosexual groups maintain contrary to the bulk of scientific evidence that preferential or exclusive homosexuality can never be changed, these people may be discouraged from seeking adequate psychiatric consultation. What is more deplorable is that this myth may also be accepted by some physicians... The physician who is not alert to the orientation of the homosexual patient may not challenge the belief in sexual irreversibility and arrange for appropriate referral." Once again, Tahir supports the decision that homosexuality is a choice and that with proper medical attention there can be a cure.

from http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html

Do people choose to be gay... All the gay people I know say no, they didn't, and all the people who say yes, they do choose to be gay wouldn't know. I'm going to go with not.

new poll: do people choose to be pedophiles?

i'm 17, so it isn't that creepy. but really mesa, you're an incredible hypocrite. whining whenever someone criticizes your sexual orientation and then bashing me for mine.

God007:

"He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies."

Actually this is false, you can check several sources I posted a few pages back on the failures of these "psychologists". They aren't leading. They are fringe kooks who have been condemned by the HRC, APA and AMA.

Also another thing, he cites the AMA said homosexuals could change. They had that opinion in 1981. They recently condemned these people who say they could change sexual orientaiton. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and cannot be changed.

new poll: do people choose to be pedophiles?

i'm 17, so it isn't that creepy. but really mesa, you're an incredible hypocrite. whining whenever someone criticizes your sexual orientation and then bashing me for mine.

I thought you were like 30 and going after 13 or 14 year old kids.

From examples of people I know, homosexuality is at least as much environmental as it is genetic. Does this make it a concious choice? Not really...

...anyway, who cares? The whole damn subject has been discussed ad nauseum, and I don't think one single person has ever switched their opinion due to what they've read here. ;)

No, your hideous 1/3rd statements are absurd. And you keep saying you did this, and you did that.. for all I know you are a liar. I could care less who you talked wtih, it doesn't change the reality that 95% of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. And relentless studies show that it is all about power, like rape (it is statutory rape afterall).




http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=7844

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.shtml

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696785/posts

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m166.htm

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

http://www.paulinefellowship.org/Experts/Foster_Ephebophilia.htm

One's upbringing may be wrong. Especially if it is a fundamentalist christian upbringing.
And who are you to decide such things? Because they don’t’ agree with you they must be wrong? They feel the same way about you, you know. Personally, I could care less about someone else’s sexual orientation. It is not something I would personally experiment with, though

http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=7844

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.shtml

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696785/posts

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m166.htm

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

http://www.paulinefellowship.org/Experts/Foster_Ephebophilia.htm

Wow... great number of religious sources there. Care to provide anything better then Orthodoxytoday? It doesn't fly by me, because a great deal of those sources tend to view media spotlight as an accurate representation.

I'm talking about the 21st century western world.. where people accept GLBT people for who they are.. like in San Francisco.. Neo reminds me a lot of iranian fundamentalist ayatollahs.


Did you just compare my views to those of an Iranian Ayatollah? Now that is a strawman if I've ever seen one.

Wow... great number of religious sources there. Care to provide anything better then Orthodoxytoday? It doesn't fly by me, because a great deal of those sources tend to view media spotlight as an accurate representation.



Try the last three :rolleyes:

Did you just compare my views to those of an Iranian Ayatollah? Now that is a strawman if I've ever seen one.

You put up a bunch of religious sites, and one by this lunatic who claims to be backed by a PhD... can you do any better? Because I do find your views similiar to that of the Iranian Ayatollah, and his clerics.

Try the last three :rolleyes:

Again, one is a fellowship and the other is a kook.... and it isn't corroborated anyways. Not by any specific statistics.

http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=7844

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.shtml

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696785/posts

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m166.htm

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

http://www.paulinefellowship.org/Experts/Foster_Ephebophilia.htm
:rolleyes: All of these sources are painfully biased.

Neo is actually from the same area as I am. I can tell you from personal experience that there is much hate in this world, and Neo represents only a small fraction of it. Remember that many people who are hateful to others are so because they simply know nothing else, or because it is easier for them to do so than to accept that those they wish to isolate they actually have a lot in common with.

You do yourself a disservice by allowing this to get to you, by returning hate with hate. If you wish to have the higher moral ground, then take it! Love those who hate you, find beauty in those who call you ugly!



Hate? I'm not hateful. I even love Saddam Hussein and Fass. I pray for those who persecute me.


Edit: Before an enraged Swede reports me to a mod, I'm not comparing the two lol.

From examples of people I know, homosexuality is at least as much environmental as it is genetic. Does this make it a concious choice? Not really...

...anyway, who cares? The whole damn subject has been discussed ad nauseum, and I don't think one single person has ever switched their opinion due to what they've read here. ;)

Probably not. But the way that 21st Century Leftists have clearly embraced genetic determinism as a central doctrine of their ideology is really very amusing. It's a good reminder that the eugenics movement also began with the Left. ^_^

OTOH, the eagerness of so many people to regard themselves as automations without a will of their own makes me wonder a little about them. :(

You put up a bunch of religious sites, and one by this lunatic who claims to be backed by a PhD... can you do any better? Because I do find your views similiar to that of the Iranian Ayatollah, and his clerics.


Ok, so you've found one view I hold in common with him and that is my view that homosexuality is wrong. I'm sure I could find something you agree with him on too. You can't take one issue and categorize me based upon it, that's called a hasty generalization.

Hate? I'm not hateful. I even love Saddam Hussein and Fass. I pray for those who persecute me.

You are very hateful and very scary. Who persecute you? What a hypocrite. You've been doing far more persecuting around here by quoting religious sites and fellowships.. come on...

Hate? I'm not hateful. I even love Saddam Hussein and Fass. I pray for those who persecute me.
*Sighs.* You are what you appear to be. In this forum, you are easily perceived as hateful.

Hate? I'm not hateful. I even love Saddam Hussein and Fass. I pray for those who persecute me.
A lofty claim, and if true, commendable.
Someone needs to throw you a bone every now and then. ;)

Ok, so you've found one view I hold in common with him and that is my view that homosexuality is wrong. I'm sure I could find something you agree with him on too. You can't take one issue and categorize me based upon it, that's called a hasty generalization.

Dude, for one your sources don't have corroboration to them, therefore they are papers. I can refer you to dozens of papers on Nazis having underground camps in Antarctica on UFO websites.. so what? You should not believe everything you read on the internet unless you can have it verified.

You are very hateful and very scary. Who persecute you? What a hypocrite. You've been doing far more persecuting around here by quoting religious sites and fellowships.. come on...



I'm "persecuting" you by saying that your sexual lifestyle is a sin? THAT's persecution!?! All I have to say in response is: .....wow......


Oh, and, following your logic, if criticism of one's ways is "persecution", then that makes you Nero when compared to me. Many of your posts have included the epithets "ignorant", "brainwashed", and "bigot".

*sigh* Could you two continue your little spat in private so the adults can discuss the matter at hand? Thanks in advance. ;)

I'm "persecuting" you by saying that your sexual lifestyle is a sin? THAT's persecution!?! All I have to say in response is: .....wow......


Oh, and, following your logic, if criticism of one's ways is "persecution", then that makes you Nero when compared to me. Many of your posts have included the epithets "ignorant", "brainwashed", and "bigot".

Yes you are persecuting me, big time.

You aren't criticising me, you are persecuting and hating me. You are nothing more then a bigot.

*Sighs.* You are what you appear to be. In this forum, you are easily perceived as hateful.



That's because society has done a nice job as portraying those who don't accept sin as "hate-mongers". It's simply not true...and I resent it. It really hurts me when people call me a hater for standing up for what I believe in.

Yes you are persecuting me, big time.

You aren't criticising me, you are persecuting and hating me. You are nothing more then a bigot.




Please, at least put up a little resistance to my point. When you prove it for me, it just takes all the fun out of it :(

That's because society has done a nice job as portraying those who don't accept sin as "hate-mongers". It's simply not true...and I resent it. It really hurts me when people call me a hater for standing up for what I believe in.
Neo, you're wrong there. I perceive you as hateful because of your choice of words, amny of which are extremely loaded and have negative connotations.

That's because society has done a nice job as portraying those who don't accept sin as "hate-mongers". It's simply not true...and I resent it. It really hurts me when people call me a hater for standing up for what I believe in.

Oh it is true. And whose definiton of sin? Your view? Your view doesn't mean much to human rights.

Dude, for one your sources don't have corroboration to them, therefore they are papers. I can refer you to dozens of papers on Nazis having underground camps in Antarctica on UFO websites.. so what? You should not believe everything you read on the internet unless you can have it verified.



What if I brought up the statistics from the APA? Would you reject it then? Because I've gotten pretty close in my citations to them....

That's because society has done a nice job as portraying those who don't accept sin as "hate-mongers". It's simply not true...and I resent it. It really hurts me when people call me a hater for standing up for what I believe in.
It hurts others when you insist that what they feel is their natural orientation is a "sin", and that they deserve to be punished for it. It is perceived as "hate".

Yes you are persecuting me, big time.

You aren't criticising me, you are persecuting and hating me. You are nothing more then a bigot.
How is your obvious bigotry against fundamentalist Christianity any better than NR’s perceived bigotry against homosexuals?

Oh it is true. And whose definiton of sin? Your view? Your view doesn't mean much to human rights.



It's nice how you've moved the goalposts from homosexuality and Christianity to human rights.

What if I brought up the statistics from the APA? Would you reject it then? Because I've gotten pretty close in my citations to them....

Simply put, the statistics aren't on your side.

http://www.boomspeed.com/major_fubar/goodbye.jpg

It hurts others when you decide that what they feel is their natural orientation is a "sin", and that they deserve to be punished for it. It is perceived as "hate".



I never said the orientation is a sin. I said the act itself was. I would never condemn something that could not be resisted by one's own will.

Simply put, the statistics aren't on your side.



Would you please give me some citations to support your stance?

I never said the orientation is a sin. I said the act itself was. I would never condemn something that could not be resisted by one's own will.
They feel that it is their natural orientation, and to defy that would be to betray their own nature. Why not respect this, leave it alone, and allow your god to judge them when the time is right?

I never said the orientation is a sin. I said the act itself was. I would never condemn something that could not be resisted by one's own will.

I could care less what you consider a sin...

I could care less what you consider a sin...



Obviously not the case as you've spent a good deal of the night basically screaming "BIGOT!!!!" at me.

Obviously not the case as you've spent a good deal of the night basically screaming "BIGOT!!!!" at me.

I'm atheist.. so no I really don't care. I just think you are not treating people wtih respect around here. So you won't get any respect.

I never said the orientation is a sin. I said the act itself was. I would never condemn something that could not be resisted by one's own will.

So you're saying me making love to my boyfriend is a sin and should be punished.
Yep, sure feel the love there.

I never said the orientation is a sin. I said the act itself was. I would never condemn something that could not be resisted by one's own will.
So what happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged."?

So what happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged."?


Context happened to it.

Well, to be fair, if people have the right to love and have a relationship with whoever they want, religious people have the right to consider their lifestyle a sin or immoral. So long as they don't act on this, or use it as an excuse to pass legal legislation, then what's the problem? Here's a newsflash - some people will always find some arbitrary way to prejudge or dislike you that makes absolutely no sense to you, whether it's sexual preference, skin colour, social class, appearance or even what you eat for lunch...

Context happened to it.
A little Biblical knowledge would also help those who sight that as well. The fact that they don’t know you effectively mean they can’t invoke it without being hypocrites. People need to learn to read the whole chapter surrounding a verse, not just that verse, if they want to seem credible when they sight it.

So you're saying me making love to my boyfriend is a sin and should be punished.
Yep, sure feel the love there.



One definition of love is genuine concern for another's welfare. Do you think I want you to live in sin and be punished? If so, why would I spend so much time trying to show sinners the error of their ways? Wouldn't I try to keep them from knowing that they lived in sin just so I could sit back and watch them roast?


Revelation 3:19 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

Well, to be fair, if people have the right to love and have a relationship with whoever they, religious people have the right to consider their lifestyle a sin or immoral. So long as they don't act on this, or use it as an excuse to pass legal legislation, then what's the problem? Here's a newsflash - some people will always find some arbitrary way to prejudge or dislike you that makes absolutely no sense to you, whether it's sexual preference, skin colour, social class, appearance or even what you eat for lunch...
True dat. :fluffle:

Well, to be fair, if people have the right to love and have a relationship with whoever they, religious people have the right to consider their lifestyle a sin or immoral. So long as they don't act on this, or use it as an excuse to pass legal legislation, then what's the problem? Here's a newsflash - some people will always find some arbitrary way to prejudge or dislike you that makes absolutely no sense to you, whether it's sexual preference, skin colour, social class, appearance or even what you eat for lunch...
You deserve one of these, keep in mind that I rarely invoke the fluffle so you must have done something to deserve it.
:fluffle:

One definition of love is genuine concern for another's welfare. Do you think I want you to live in sin and be punished? If so, why would I spend so much time trying to show sinners the error of their ways? Wouldn't I try to keep them from knowing that they lived in sin just so I could sit back and watch them roast?


Revelation 3:19 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

Genuine concern for another's welfare? I don't think you really care. I'm not living a life of "sin" because what I'm doing is not wrong. It is very right and is very fullfilling. I'm very happy. I'm not going to push myself down to the gutter to follow your beliefs.

Genuine concern for another's welfare? I don't think you really care. I'm not living a life of "sin" because what I'm doing is not wrong. It is very right and is very fullfilling. I'm very happy. I'm not going to push myself down to the gutter to follow your beliefs.



Truth is not entirely subjective. You may believe it is not wrong, but it is.

One definition of love is genuine concern for another's welfare. Do you think I want you to live in sin and be punished? If so, why would I spend so much time trying to show sinners the error of their ways? Wouldn't I try to keep them from knowing that they lived in sin just so I could sit back and watch them roast?


Revelation 3:19 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.
Obviously, Mesa is aware of the opposite side of the arguement. He doesn't agree. If you are correct and your "god" does condemns homosexual acts, then he will burn in hell for all eternity. Why do you feel the need to emotionally wound him repeatedly?

Genuine concern for another's welfare? I don't think you really care. I'm not living a life of "sin" because what I'm doing is not wrong. It is very right and is very fullfilling. I'm very happy. I'm not going to push myself down to the gutter to follow your beliefs.



Truth is not entirely subjective. You may believe what you are doing is not wrong, but that doesn't make it so.

One definition of love is genuine concern for another's welfare. Do you think I want you to live in sin and be punished? If so, why would I spend so much time trying to show sinners the error of their ways? Wouldn't I try to keep them from knowing that they lived in sin just so I could sit back and watch them roast?


Revelation 3:19 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

Problem is, I don't accept your definition of sin.

Truth is not entirely subjective. You may believe it is not wrong, but it is.
That is your view. His differs. If and when there is a "Judgement Day", we will see what the Whatevers' views are. :p

Truth is not entirely subjective. You may believe it is not wrong, but it is.

You can't say you believe in truth because you can't prove your beliefs.

Truth is not entirely subjective. You may believe what you are doing is not wrong, but that doesn't make it so.

Off course, but neither does you saying it is wrong (or you claiming your invisible friend says so) make it so.

Obviously, Mesa is aware of the opposite side of the arguement. He doesn't agree. If you are correct and your "god" does condemns homosexual acts, then he will burn in hell for all eternity. Why do you feel the need to emotionally wound him repeatedly?



1. This debate is not about my trying to save his soul. We had enough of those threads several weeks ago and I certainly don't want to get into another gay marriage fiasco :rolleyes: This was about whether or not homosexuality is natural, then he turned it into a debate on whether or not it is right. Unless he concedes on his view that Christianity does not condemn homosexuality, this isn't about conversion.

2. Take a look throughout this thread and see who was using all the insults to "emotionally wound" the other person.

A little Biblical knowledge would also help those who sight that as well. The fact that they don’t know you effectively mean they can’t invoke it without being hypocrites. People need to learn to read the whole chapter surrounding a verse, not just that verse, if they want to seem credible when they sight it.
Fare enough. I've just had enough of certain people, more in real-life than in NS, who take a single verse and use it to condemn untold numbers of people, without considering context.

Off course, but neither does you saying it is wrong (or you claiming your invisible friend says so) make it so.


We'll see in the afterlife who was right then ;)

I'm only here to defend the Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality from those who aren't well-versed in the Bible and make false claims about it.

You can't say you believe in truth because you can't prove your beliefs.
And you can prove yours? All you have is the present opinion of the psychiatric community. It was not always the way it is today, and who knows what it will be tomorrow?

Take a look throughout this thread and see who was using all the insults to "emotionally wound" the other person..

Yeah you.

You can't say you believe in truth because you can't prove your beliefs.


Wow, one of the rare and elusive reverse-non sequiturs.

We'll see in the afterlife who was right then ;)

I suppose we will, but until then, let's keep it to ourselves ok?

I suppose we will, but until then, let's keep it to ourselves ok?


I haven't said this since I was like 10 but: He started it!! :p

Yeah you.
Do you honestly not recognize that you, yourself, have also used hurtful language?

And you can prove yours? All you have is the present opinion of the psychiatric community. It was not always the way it is today, and who knows what it will be tomorrow?

I have the opinions of many prestigious organizations, including the APA, AMA. It will get better for homosexuals in the future.

Also, some people don't do eugenics anymore either (or at least I hope).

I haven't said this since I was like 10 but: He started it!! :p

Hit him with your bible. :P

Anyone interested in getting back to the original topic instead of arguing?

I have the opinions of many prestigious organizations, including the APA, AMA. It will get better for homosexuals in the future.

Also, we don't do eugenics anymore either (or at least I hope).


Really? Because I was just about to cite them lol. Once again, I'm begging you to provide citations. It's not fair that I spent 3/4 of an hour reading various sources and picking 7 or so of them, while you can just say something without providing sources :mad:

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.
A couple of misconceptions;
DNA being diluted is not really an issue. Genes are not passed on in parts when normal cell production occurs. The possible biological advantage that seems most 'popular' (i.e. that appears to enjoy the most widespread support from those in the related fields of inquiry), is the advantage of not having children, and instead channeling productive energies into the off-spring of close relatives who share genetic material.

Anyone interested in getting back to the original topic instead of arguing?



I think the original topic had already been discussed ad nauseum. Not like this hasn't, of course.

I have the opinions of many prestigious organizations, including the APA, AMA. It will get better for homosexuals in the future.
And you know this how?

Really? Because I was just about to cite them lol. Once again, I'm begging to provide citations. It's not fair that I spent 3/4 of an hour reading various sources and picking 7 or so of them, while you can just say something without providing sources :mad:

I actually provided sources from the APA and AMA declaring that homosexuality is not a mental illness and ex-gay ministries are a danger. Also your sources are mainly othrodox and religious websites. Not credible. People on here have sided with me. I provided plenty of sources. Look through the thread, please. You're too religious.

And you know this how?

Because I'm a damn optimist. You don't like it? Great.

1. This debate is not about my trying to save his soul. We had enough of those threads several weeks ago and I certainly don't want to get into another gay marriage fiasco :rolleyes: This was about whether or not homosexuality is natural, then he turned it into a debate on whether or not it is right. Unless he concedes on his view that Christianity does not condemn homosexuality, this isn't about conversion.

2. Take a look throughout this thread and see who was using all the insults to "emotionally wound" the other person.
1. I know what the subject of the thread was.
2. I see insults on both sides.

I actually provided sources from the APA and AMA declaring that homosexuality is not a mental illness and ex-gay ministries are a danger. Also your sources are mainly othrodox and religious websites. Not credible. People on here have sided with me. I provided plenty of sources. Look through the thread, please. You're too religious.



The issue was about the proportion of boys molested to girls molested, not about whether or not homosexuality was a mental illness. Look through the thread, please. Your last sentence does not follow the rest of the post.

Because I'm a damn optimist. You don't like it? Great.

I'm a manic optimistic myself. :D

I think the original topic had already been discussed ad nauseum. Not like this hasn't, of course.

I was trying to be nice, what I really meant was:

Why don't you both shut up and stop acting like children? You've derailed the thread into an area it was never meant to go into and you are violating the rules with your continued hijacking. This thread had nothing to do with religion or the morality of homosexuality it was only about whether being gay is a choice or not (and for some odd reason this was mixed with the unrelated question of whether you are born gay or you become gay).

Because I'm a damn optimist. You don't like it? Great.
I have too great a fear of this country’s unconstitutionally expanding government to be an optimist.

The issue was about the proportion of boys molested to girls molested, not about whether or not homosexuality was a mental illness. Look through the thread, please. Your last sentence does not follow the rest of the post.

Again 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual. Please understand that is based on official statistics, not religious organizations filled with people who love to use logical fallacies.

Again 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual. Please understand that is based on official statistics, not religious organizations filled with people who love to use logical fallacies.



Once again: Provide a link to your source that states 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual.


Edit: It's 2 a.m., I'm going to bed. I hope you have a citation tommorow.

I have to agree.. Neo has done a fine job hijacking this thread with disinformation and I'll will say we take it back where it should be. Neo has repeatably violated the rules.

I have to agree.. Neo has done a fine job hijacking this thread with disinformation and I'll will say we take it back where it should be. Neo has repeatably violated the rules.



Hello Mr. Pot. My name is Ms. Kettle. It's nice to meet you :)

Hello Mr. Pot. My name is Ms. Kettle. It's nice to meet you :)

Listen to yourself.

http://www.parentingpress.com/illus/iwi_c1.jpghttp://www.earlychildhoodbehavioralhealth.com/Images/Fighting.gifhttp://downloads.redjupiter.com/users/images/FuturePositiveManilaSitesCom/KidsFighting.gif

http://www.parentingpress.com/illus/iwi_c1.jpghttp://www.earlychildhoodbehavioralhealth.com/Images/Fighting.gifhttp://downloads.redjupiter.com/users/images/FuturePositiveManilaSitesCom/KidsFighting.gif

Lol!!!! :D

Lol!!!! :D

Here, here!

It does take one extreme to combat another. 一物治一物!

Neo the uber-Christian VS Mesa the uber-homosexual.

What a battle!

Goddammit New Fubaria! Add a paragraph, or a space or something!

I hate to agree with Mesa on this, but I don't think anyone would actually choose to be gay.
The stereotyping, the namecalling and abuse, the being excluded from stuff (still) etc etc

Just from the economics of it, why would anyone make that choice? What could give you that much utility to put up with the rest for the remainder of your life?

EDIT: GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!!! ARRGN! I voted for the wrong option. :rolleyes:

Goddammit New Fubaria! Add a paragraph, or a space or something!

I hate to agree with Mesa on this, but I don't think anyone would actually choose to be gay.
The stereotyping, the namecalling and abuse, the being excluded from stuff (still) etc etc

Just from the economics of it, why would anyone make that choice? What could give you that much utility to put up with the rest for the remainder of your life?

EDIT: GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!!! ARRGN! I voted for the wrong option. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with either option.

I don't agree with either option.
What do you agree with then?

What do you agree with then?
I think that people are born with the desire to have sex, but some people may be genetically more inclined to become homosexual. However, what brings people truly to homosexuality is their upbringing and personal experiences. They are neither born to be outright homosexual nor did they choose to become one. It is a subconscious process which can be stopped. It's hard to get out of after you become one, but during the process, help can be sought to bring one's mentality back to being a heterosexual.

That's what I think, anyway. Nobody has to agree with it (Mesa)

<snip>
It is a subconscious process which can be stopped. It's hard to get out of after you become one, but during the process, help can be sought to bring one's mentality back to being a heterosexual.
I'm curious. How can you bring someone 'back to being a heterosexual' when they never had sexual desire for the opposite sex in the first place? I'm talking about my own personal experience here. Intellectually, I've been attracted to women. But never sexually. Whereas I have had both intellectual attraction and sexual desire for men.

NB By 'intellectual attraction', I'm using a combination of friendship and understanding that the person could be seen as sexually attractive, if not by myself.

Yes its definitley achoice, I cant see babies born as homosexuals, thats just grose, babies are innocents, and know nothing of sexual matters, so how could they be born already favoured towards being hetero or homo.
Homosexuals dont so much as choose their own sex over the opposite as sexual partners, but reject the opposite sex, therefore creating a situation that needs to satisfy their sexual needs, which go ballistic in their teens. So for this they have sexual relations with their own sex.

After a few years of this they are firmly entrenched as homosexuals.
Its not choosing really, its rejecting.

Yes its definitley achoice, I cant see babies born as homosexuals, thats just grose, babies are innocents, and know nothing of sexual matters, so how could they be born already favoured towards being hetero or homo.
Homosexuals dont so much as choose their own sex over the opposite as sexual partners, but reject the opposite sex, therefore creating a situation that needs to satisfy their sexual needs, which go ballistic in their teens. So for this they have sexual relations with their own sex.

After a few years of this they are firmly entrenched as homosexuals.
Its not choosing really, its rejecting.
Um... I realised I liked boys when I was 10, and worked out I was gay when I was 11, well before having any sexual relations. How does this fit into your idea of finding an object of sexual desire in the teen years?

Yes its definitley achoice, I cant see babies born as homosexuals, thats just grose, babies are innocents, and know nothing of sexual matters, so how could they be born already favoured towards being hetero or homo.
Homosexuals dont so much as choose their own sex over the opposite as sexual partners, but reject the opposite sex, therefore creating a situation that needs to satisfy their sexual needs, which go ballistic in their teens. So for this they have sexual relations with their own sex.

After a few years of this they are firmly entrenched as homosexuals.
Its not choosing really, its rejecting.

Urm, I teach 5 year olds...you can tell if there gay or not sometimes...

Dragons Bay, what say we lot here cure you of your heterosexuality?

And Gessler, what about bisexuals? Who do they reject? Ah, wait, I think I know. You, right?

Um... I realised I liked boys when I was 10, and worked out I was gay when I was 11, well before having any sexual relations. How does this fit into your idea of finding an object of sexual desire in the teen years?

You were on the way to this, it seems here.

Urm, I teach 5 year olds...you can tell if there gay or not sometimes...

Really how? Do the boys bat their eyelashes at you?

And Gessler, what about bisexuals? Who do they reject? Ah, wait, I think I know. You, right?

No tragically they dont, I of course am not attracted to them like this.

Umm... what if homosexuality is neither a choice nor a natural phenomenon? I'm sure most of you know about Gay Polar Bears; what if both that and human homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance created by what we ingest? I mean, with all the chemicals shoved into our foodstuffs, it wouldn't be surprising to find an E-number that encourages production of a gender-preference hormone or something...

But meh. It's probably been suggested and refuted before.

No tragically they dont, I of course am not attracted to them like this.
What, so bisexuals are just people who either haven't gone far enough to be homosexual, and haven't been 'brought back' to heterosexuality? How's that work? Kinsey realised he was bisexual while doing his famous studies, and he was already well into middle age - well past the teenage hormonal rush you seem to be talking about.

I dont think there is much basis for saying that homosexuality is chosen. The arguments saying homosexuality is a choice are extremely weak and largely illogical.

However, there is a strong indication that nurture (the environment) plays an important part. Like other behaviors, it probably has to do with both genetics and the environment, not just one or the other.

To say it is a choice is ignorant, but to say it is entirely genetic is too. Both those who say it is a choice and those who say it is genetic are ignoring a large amount of research and the accumulated knowledge on the old nature vs nurture debate which has largely been answered in the psychiatric community.

Ok so here's the thing

The question is "do people choose to be gay"

My answer is No, however....

I don't believe homosexuality or heterosexuality are only genetic, but I believe that plays a role, but I also believe that hormone ratios in the pregnant mother and early childhood nurture (like say before the age of 3) have a lot to do with it.

I'm curious. How can you bring someone 'back to being a heterosexual' when they never had sexual desire for the opposite sex in the first place? I'm talking about my own personal experience here. Intellectually, I've been attracted to women. But never sexually. Whereas I have had both intellectual attraction and sexual desire for men.

NB By 'intellectual attraction', I'm using a combination of friendship and understanding that the person could be seen as sexually attractive, if not by myself.

I myself believe that true love begins not with the body, but with the emotion. If you truly romantically love a person you first love him/her because you like spending time with him/her. If you like the person that way, you will soon also like the body and contemplate sex.

I'm not saying two guys or two girls can't like each other emotionally, but I would view it as a "buddyship". Maybe some homosexuals just don't know what the difference between fraternity and romance is, I don't know. Maybe some.

Dragons Bay, what say we lot here cure you of your heterosexuality?

No, because I believe that heterosexuality is a given thing.

I think that the discussion of whether gaity or gayness is a choice, a genetic disposition, or whatever is not too productive. Brain scans have shown a marked difference between gays and straights. There was a study done long ago in the GDR, the results of which (if I remember correctly) indicated that homosexuality may be a natural phenomenon caused when the pregnant woman is 'in extremis,' i. e. in a situation that upsets her physical or psychological well-being, such as famine, rape, etc. This is not surprising since we know that many animals have more immediate ways of limiting their populations.

It would seem to me that the problem of homosexuality lies not with gay people but with their acceptance (or usually rejection) by families and by society in general. Personally, I am not at all interested in what people do behind closed doors as long as they do not damage each other. But I believe that we all lose if we reject from our ranks people who might make contributions to us all.

Re: the position of religion vs. homosexuality, it seems to me that many religious people forget their own doctrines; if gay people exist, then they were created by the same god that created everything else. It is hubris to believe that he/she made a mistake!

Re: the position of religion vs. homosexuality, it seems to me that many religious people forget their own doctrines; if gay people exist, then they were created by the same god that created everything else. It is hubris to believe that he/she made a mistake!

I'd be willing to debate this with you but that would mean hijacking the thread... :D

Yes its definitley achoice, I cant see babies born as homosexuals, thats just grose, babies are innocents, and know nothing of sexual matters, so how could they be born already favoured towards being hetero or homo.
Homosexuals dont so much as choose their own sex over the opposite as sexual partners, but reject the opposite sex, therefore creating a situation that needs to satisfy their sexual needs, which go ballistic in their teens. So for this they have sexual relations with their own sex.

After a few years of this they are firmly entrenched as homosexuals.
Its not choosing really, its rejecting.

That's the type of view that increases hatred in this world. How is it a choice exactly? You need to work on your grammar.. it is terrible. Furthermore, you don't know anything about being homosexual. We don't reject the opposite sex. We just aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Your reasoning is totally off but that's typical of someone with your views.

Dragons Bay:

I'm not saying two guys or two girls can't like each other emotionally, but I would view it as a "buddyship". Maybe some homosexuals just don't know what the difference between fraternity and romance is, I don't know. Maybe some.

No. A gay relationship can be just as loving as a heterosexual relationship. You have no right to tell that gay people don't know what love is nor can experience it. I certainly have. What I have is not a "buddyship"... it is romance.

Furthermore, love as regards with gay couples isn't up to you to determine.

Goddammit New Fubaria! Add a paragraph, or a space or something!
Goddamnit Leonstein, turn on images in your preferences! :p

I think that people are born with the desire to have sex, but some people may be genetically more inclined to become homosexual. However, what brings people truly to homosexuality is their upbringing and personal experiences. They are neither born to be outright homosexual nor did they choose to become one. It is a subconscious process which can be stopped. It's hard to get out of after you become one, but during the process, help can be sought to bring one's mentality back to being a heterosexual.


That's false. You cannot seek help to change yourself. It isn't a process. It is just the way you are. And it has nothing to do with upbringing or personal experiences (again I'll use myself as an example). If it had to do with upbringing or personal experiences, then how come neither my brother or sister are gay? The argument that it has to do with upbringing or personal experiences is very weak. It has to do largely with genetics, and people are born gay. They discover who they are in their teen years, like heterosexuals. You cannot seek help to bring them back to being heterosexual.

Nobody is born Gay, its impossible.

Your way of growing up determines if you get confused about your sexual nature, influence from the outside can result in believing you are Gay, which would be the same as thinking you are Napoleon, only easier to believe since so many more are. But being gay is being questioned every day and since there are so many they are left alone, they don't do any harm, except influence others during their confusion(i mean puberty).

Nobody is born Gay, its impossible.

How is it impossible?

Your way of growing up determines if you get confused about your sexual nature, influence from the outside can result in believing you are Gay, which would be the same as thinking you are Napoleon, only easier to believe since so many more are. But being gay is being questioned every day and since there are so many they are left alone, they don't do any harm, except influence others during their confusion(i mean puberty).

No it doesn't. I had a normal childhood just like everyone else. Childhood does not determine sexual orientation. People can be born gay whether you like to admit or not. What confusion? I wasn't confused... I knew who I was attracted to. Thanks for that bogus argument.

No it doesn't. I had a normal childhood just like everyone else. Childhood does not determine sexual orientation. People can be born gay whether you like to admit or not. What confusion? I wasn't confused... I knew who I was attracted to. Thanks for that bogus argument.

Just a theoretical question, but I think early childhood influences (as in before the age of three) can play a large role in sexuality - I don't think you can completely claim people are "born gay", they may be, or they may completely influenced by their early childhood psychology (like how you recognise who your mother is) or it might be a combination of a biological and "early childhood psychological", but I agree that they definitely don't simply "choose" it.

Just showing that as regards "origin" it's not so clear cut, there's a lot of grey.

But there's definitely no conscious choice - does anyone think animals actively choose homosexuality?

Just a theoretical question, but I think early childhood influences (as in before the age of three) can play a large role in sexuality - I don't think you can completely claim people are "born gay", they may be, or they may completely influenced by their early childhood psychology (like how you recognise who your mother is) or it might be a combination of a biological and "early childhood psychological", but I agree that they definitely don't simply "choose" it.

I disagree. In fact childhood influences have next to nothing to do with it. I can claim that people are born gay, as people are also born heterosexual. They find out about it when they go through puberty. Find the psychological argument (the one regarding that it is gained by childhood influences to be totally weak and unsupported.

Why do I think this? Because the lack of having a father, or how you identify your mother argument is bogus. I know plenty of people who have grown up with only their mom and they are straight. It seems it just doesn't fly.

Well isn't this thread turning out nice?

I've reconsidered my former opinion. I now think sexuality is a choice. Some kids (during puberty) just get confused and end up preferring the opposite sex.
Hopefully intensive indoctrination will make them (us really) realise the error of our ways. If not, we can always send all hetero's & bi's off to concentration camps. A good gay can never get enough soap anyway.

Heterosexuality is icky, wrong, leads to pedophelia and rape, and it's a sin against Ongo Bongo, the benign and allmighty creater of everything-and-then-some.

Dips on marriage for Ongo Bongoism by the way.

No it doesn't. I had a normal childhood just like everyone else. Childhood does not determine sexual orientation. People can be born gay whether you like to admit or not. What confusion? I wasn't confused... I knew who I was attracted to. Thanks for that bogus argument.
I have to disagree - I think environment, early experiences, family life etc. all have an effect in determining sexual orientation, as well as any possible genetic causes. You simply cannot rule out the effect experience has on people, especially on a subconcious level.

I have to disagree - I think environment, early experiences, family life etc. all have an effect in determining sexual orientation, as well as any possible genetic causes. You simply cannot rule out the effect experience has on people, especially on a subconcious level.

Why don't you back it up for a change instead of saying that? You simply cannot say any of it, because the experience argument is baseless. What experience or environment, or family life did I have that was so different or wrong? Start naming these experiences. The family life and experience argument is BS, because I know plenty of people who have had a good mom and dad and they are gay.

So your argument is weak.

I disagree. In fact childhood influences have next to nothing to do with it. I can claim that people are born gay, as people are also born heterosexual. They find out about it when they go through puberty. Find the psychological argument (the one regarding that it is gained by childhood influences to be totally weak and unsupported.

Why do I think this? Because the lack of having a father, or how you identify your mother argument is bogus. I know plenty of people who have grown up with only their mom and they are straight. It seems it just doesn't fly.

I could be wrong but I think you may have mistook me - when I said "how you identify your mother - I meant as in how you recognise that the shape, smell, footsteps, voice intonation, etc - all mean "mother". This occurs when you're outside the womb for obvious reasons. I'm just as willing to believe that in this stage other cues can affect us just as profoundly.

I specifically didn't pose those two dominant mother absent father arguments as possible early psychological influences, because I also think they're far too simplistic, I'm sure there are many others that even weaker still, but I keep an open mind - I think what you take in in you early childhood is far subtler than those hammed-up theories. I think keeping an open mind is mainly what this is all about.

You can't categorically say people are only born gay, no more so than you can categorically say they aren't. There are no definites and anyone who says they have the one true answer is at best naive, how do you know what goes on in your early childhood - noone remembers more than the merest fragment, my first memories were from when I was four.

All I'm saying is keep an open mind

Why don't you back it up for a change instead of saying that? You simply cannot say any of it, because the experience argument is baseless. What experience or environment, or family life did I have that was so different or wrong? Start naming these experiences. The family life and experience argument is BS, because I know plenty of people who have had a good mom and dad and they are gay.

So your argument is weak.
Back up there bud. I never once said homoseuxality is wrong or bad - no need to jump on the defensive. I also never said that a "good" or "bad" parent is more likely to produce a gay child.

To be honest, I really don't have the time or inclination to go hunting for research that supports my views. If I did, I'd find 100 studies that agree with me, and another 100 that say it's purely genetic...but if you think that early experiences and upbringing have no effect on determining what a person develops into in later life (in all aspects, including sexually), you are deluding yourself. Note: I also said "as well as any genetic causes". Did you actually read my post, or just assume it's intent?

PS, I don't have to back up my opinion, because it is just that...an opinion. ;)

I could be wrong but I think you may have mistook me - when I said "how you identify your mother - I meant as in how you recognise that the shape, smell, footsteps, voice intonation, etc - all mean "mother". This occurs when you're outside the womb for obvious reasons. I'm just as willing to believe that in this stage other cues can affect us just as profoundly.

You still don't have any proof of this.

These are faulty arguments and are poorly backed up. They go back to Freud, who himself was a fraud. His arguments were disproven a long time ago.


You can't categorically say people are only born gay, no more so than you can categorically say they aren't. There are no definites and anyone who says they have the one true answer is at best naive, how do you know what goes on in your early childhood - noone remembers more than the merest fragment, my first memories were from when I was four.

All I'm saying is keep an open mind

I'm going to say gay people are born that way, like heterosexual people. It is something outside of your growing up experiences and has nothing to do with how you were raised. There are just too many counter examples to prove your argument. There are many thousands of people who are raised in single family homes.

You should keep an open mind.

Edit: Typo.

Back up there bud. I never once said homoseuxality is wrong or bad - no need to jump on the defensive. I also never said that a "good" or "bad" parent is more likely to produce a gay child.


My point is to everyone here... to every single person... homosexuality is no more or less a choice, is no more or less psychological, is no more or less genetics related... then heterosexuality!

That's my point.

You still don't have any proof of this.

These are faulty arguments and are poorly backed up. They go back to Freud, who himself was a fraud. His arguments were disproven a long time ago.



I do keep an open mind and I'm willing to believe it is purely genetic if that's what it is proven to be, but likewise I'm also willing to believe it is "early psychological". Because there isn't categorical proof - one way or the other. And we've barely scratched the iceberg - on both sides.

not to mention the fact that it could be a combination of both factors.

And yet you claim that people are "born that way" outside of their growing up experiences - well then - it is you who has the burden of proof, not me. Please do prove it to me with non-anecdotal evidence.

And as soon as you prove to me that it is purely pre-natal then that's fine. But until then please don't facetiously tell me to keep an open mind, I do.

Lastly I agree that however we and our sexuality is shaped, it is the same for heterosexuals and bisexuals and has nothing to do with choice, but I'm just trying to make you see that you shouldn't use sweeping generalisations - it discredits your argument, even if it the rest of what you are trying to say is very worthy.

I do keep an open mind and I'm willing to believe it is purely genetic if that's what it is proven to be, but likewise I'm also willing to believe it is "early psychological". Because there isn't categorical proof - one way or the other. And we've barely scratched the iceberg - on both sides.

I do not find the early psychological argument valid because there isn't proof nor good enough study for it. Let alone evidence. In fact a lot of counter-proof exists to disprove it.


And yet you claim that people are "born that way" outside of their growing up experiences - well then - it is you who has the burden of proof, not me. Please do prove it to me with non-anecdotal evidence.

I already provided evidence for my argument. You can go through this.. pretty extensive thread. I'm not going to go on google and do a search again.

Lastly I agree that however we and our sexuality is shaped, it is the same for heterosexuals and bisexuals and has nothing to do with choice, but I'm just trying to make you see that you shouldn't use sweeping generalisations - it discredits your argument, even if it the rest of what you are trying to say is very worthy.

You are the one discrediting your own argument. Man, I even provide most of the evidence.

I do keep an open mind and I'm willing to believe it is purely genetic if that's what it is proven to be, but likewise I'm also willing to believe it is "early psychological". Because there isn't categorical proof - one way or the other. And we've barely scratched the iceberg - on both sides.
<snip>
Oh hey, another person from the same region as I!

Off-topic question:
Is this idea of sexuality being determined by early psychological factors what you mean by or related to your motto of "Everyone is a blank page born"?
[/spamminess]

Keeping it slightly off topic, what makes people think one sexuality is better than another?
Is it because you think your religion says so, because it the majority of people has some opinion you think you have to follow, because it disgusts you or something else entirely?

Also, would the people who're disgusted by it care to share exactly why they feel that way (assuming you can explain it)?

I do not find the early psychological argument valid because there isn't proof nor good enough study for it. Let alone evidence. In fact a lot of counter-proof exists to disprove it.


Actually, there is plenty of proof. The nature vs nurture debate has largely been answered. The answer is both, not one or the other. Experts no longer debate whether it is nature or nurture that causes particular aspects of a person's personality, it is widely understood and accepted now that it is a mix of both nature and nurture. The debate among experts now focuses on how much is nature and how much is nurture. It would require you to ignore all of the accumulated scientific knowledge on this topic for you to go back to an older era where this debate had yet to be solved and continue supporting the outdated view that it is only nature and nurture plays no part.

When it comes to the gay issue you need look no further than studies of identical twins, which prove that although genetics does play a significant role the sexual prefference of the twins still does not match anywhere close to 100%, therefore there has to be some environmental influence as well.


I already provided evidence for my argument. You can go through this.. pretty extensive thread. I'm not going to go on google and do a search again.


Actually, you have not.


The debate is essentially over and it ended in a tie. The scientific community currently accepts the fact that it is neither nature nor nurture that defines our personality but rather a mixture of both. Come out of the dark ages, its time to accept the prevailing view that has repeatedly been shown to be correct. It is both nature and nurture that causes a person's personality.

As for your question about why arent your siblings gay. Well, thats simple. First of all, they may not be gay because they may not have the genetic predisposition to be gay that you do. Secondly, they may not be gay because they havent had the same life experiences that you have. Despite living under the same roof, you do not share the same experiences. You did not have the same friends they have. You didnt go to school with the same group of kids they went to school with. You didnt take the same classes at the same time with the same teachers. You didnt fall off the same bike they did and suffer the same injuries they did, etc. Living under the same roof does not mean you have the same experiences. Also, the way they are wired genetically, plus their choices, make them view things differently. Whereas your trip to disney land may have been one of the greatest experiences of your young life, to your brother Mickey might have been scary and he may have hated the heat, been afraid of the ride, and not enjoyed it. It is silly to think that because you live under the same roof, you share all of the same experiences as someone else.

Oh hey, another person from the same region as I!

Off-topic question:
Is this idea of sexuality being determined by early psychological factors what you mean by or related to your motto of "Everyone is a blank page born"?
[/spamminess]

Haha Howdy N-A,
Actually that's a quote from my fave novel "Calenture" by storm Constantine - who i coincidentally just posted about on another thread - and I nabbed it cause I liked the sound of it, not cause of any early psychological thing.

Ok back on topic I believe what we've reached with Mesatecala is an impasse, cause they claim that they've previously posted categorical evidence that makes me "defeat my own argument"??? (no I don't understand what they meant by this either considering I was arguing for open-mindedness as opposed to sweeping generalisation)

so I could trawl through the posts or I could go to Wikipedia - the haven of all things shiny!! (oh how I love thee wiki!)

And sure enough there's all the biological arguments there taken and dissected out and criticised from both sides with the eventual argument that noone knows!

here's a quote from the intro though
Similarly, many gay rights advocates seek scientific proof that homosexuality is determined by genetics or other innate means. However, many do not actually believe the cause(s) of homosexuality to be purely genetic, and instead believe a collection of various factors, including genetics, to be the cause. Most agree that homosexuality is innate.

and the link can be got here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_sexual_orientation

now is there another study they haven't covered there?

LazyHippies, that's nice and everything, but I have not seen any evidence for the nuture argument. I mean what the hell.. is heterosexuality not caused by nuture and nature by going by that logic? Does that mean all sexuality is caused by nuture and nature?

Secondly, they may not be gay because they havent had the same life experiences that you have. Despite living under the same roof, you do not share the same experiences. You did not have the same friends they have. You didnt go to school with the same group of kids they went to school with. You didnt take the same classes at the same time with the same teachers. You didnt fall off the same bike they did and suffer the same injuries they did, etc.

So, these experiences you name have made my gay? WTF? What about all the other people I hanged out with. I did not become gay by the faulty life experiences argument. Please get over it.

Mesatecala, you keep assuming that everyone who says life experiences are a contributing factor are saying it's a bad thing, when thats not what they are saying at all.

Also, your last sentence showed that you almost completely missed LazyHippies' point...

Keeping it slightly off topic, what makes people think one sexuality is better than another?
Being gay is better than being straight because you can have loads of sex without worrying about pregnancy.
;)

Mesatecala, you keep assuming that everyone who says life experiences are a contributing factor are saying it's a bad thing, when thats not what they are saying at all.

Also, your last sentence showed that you almost completely missed LazyHippies' point...

No, I'm saying the life experiences argument is actually quite.. stupid. I had the same experiences as any straight guy.. but really life experiences don't impact anything.

I didn't miss a damn thing. You people need to get over yourselves. The life experiences nonsense suggests there is something my parents could of done differently.

LazyHippies, that's nice and everything, but I have not seen any evidence for the nuture argument. I mean what the hell.. is heterosexuality not caused by nuture and nature by going by that logic? Does that mean all sexuality is caused by nuture and nature?
That would be a resounding YES!
So, these experiences you name have made my gay? WTF? What about all the other people I hanged out with. I did not become gay by the faulty life experiences argument. Please get over it.
To answer your question: Probably.
But we'll never agree, so let's just agree to disagree, eh?

To answer your question: Probably.
But we'll never agree, so let's just agree to disagree, eh?

No. I won't back off. I'm telling you that's false reasoning. I had all the same parenting as anyone else with two parents, and two loving parents.. and a lot of friends. I was the popular kid in high school. I was no loner.

LazyHippies, that's nice and everything, but I have not seen any evidence for the nuture argument. I mean what the hell.. is heterosexuality not caused by nuture and nature by going by that logic? Does that mean all sexuality is caused by nuture and nature?


Bingo! you got it. It is genetics + environment that mold a person's personality. Not only are heterosexuals heterosexual because of genetics and environment but all other non-sexual parts of a person's personality are the same. A person who is naive has both genetics and their upbringing to blame, a person who is intelligent has both genetics and their upbringing to blame, a person who is extroverted has both genetics and their upbringing to blame, a person who is introverted has both genetics and their upbringing to blame. The list goes on. You got it, thats exactly what I was saying and exactly what the prevailing view in the scientific community is. Both nature and nurture play a part in molding who you are.


So, these experiences you name have made my gay? WTF? What about all the other people I hanged out with. I did not become gay by the faulty life experiences argument. Please get over it.

No one said anything about faulty experiences. But you did become who you are (not just your sexuality but all parts of your personality) because of both the way you were wired genetically and the environment in which you grew up. Even more interesting than that is the fact that the molding of your personality will never cease. As you continue to grow it will continue to be molded by your continued experiences. If people constantly let you down you may eventually begin to become introverted or to dislike people. If people ridicule you you may lose self esteem. If you continue to achieve, you may gain self esteem or pride (maybe even too much). Environment will continue to mold you until you die. Its just a fact of life. Sexual orientation is nothing special, it is just another aspect of your personality that is affected by both nature and nurture.

Here is an article on the topic written in laymen's terms:

http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm

No, I'm saying the life experiences argument is actually quite.. stupid. I had the same experiences as any straight guy.. but really life experiences don't impact anything.

I didn't miss a damn thing. You people need to get over yourselves. The life experiences nonsense suggests there is something my parents could of done differently.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Never mind. Your mind is obviously set in stone that experience/nurture is not a factor, and everyone else is wrong. You're entitled to that opinion, just as we are entitled to ours. ;)

Bingo! you got it. It is genetics + environment that mold a person's personality. Not only are heterosexuals heterosexual because of genetics and environment but all other non-sexual parts of a person's personality are the same. A person who is naive has both genetics and their upbringing to blame, a person who is intelligent has both genetics and their upbringing to blame, a person who is extroverted has both genetics and their upbringing to blame, a person who is introverted has both genetics and their upbringing to blame. The list goes on. You got it, thats exactly what I was saying and exactly what the prevailing view in the scientific community is. Both nature and nurture play a part in molding who you are.

I'm tired of this. I'm not going to get your argument as it has no evidence. I have provided evidence for my own arguments. Start naming something valid that caused me to gay from my childhood or experiences. Start naming these things right now. the scientific community seems to support my views. I have provided evidence for my views and you have simply not.

But you did become who you are (not just your sexuality but all parts of your personality) because of both the way you were wired genetically and the environment in which you grew up.

Maybe genetically.. but sexuality is not impacted by environment. It suggests my parents could of done something differently and that's not simply true.

As you continue to grow it will continue to be molded by your continued experiences. If people constantly let you down you may eventually begin to become introverted or to dislike people. If people ridicule you you may lose self esteem. If you continue to achieve, you may gain self esteem or pride (maybe even too much). Environment will continue to mold you until you die. Its just a fact of life. Sexual orientation is nothing special, it is just another aspect of your personality that is affected by both nature and nurture.

Funny how sexual orientation is not part of personality. It doesn't get impacted by nuture. Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, not your personality. My personality is a seperate entity. No wonder.. you're full of it. Your argument is poor and so is your debate method.

The nuture argument is really B.S.

No. I won't back off. I'm telling you that's false reasoning. I had all the same parenting as anyone else with two parents, and two loving parents.. and a lot of friends. I was the popular kid in high school. I was no loner.
I think YOU are the person who thinks there is something wrong with being homosexual...no one else but you has mentioned NEGATIVE life experiences contibuting to someone being gay. You seem to think we consider it a failing of your parents, or that you had a poor social life, when none of us have said anything of the kind...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Never mind. Your mind is obviously set in stone that experience/nurture is not a factor, and everyone else is wrong. You're entitled to that opinion, just as we are entitled to ours. ;)

If you weren't so ignorant, you would realize that many in the scientific community and in this world agree with me. It isn't me versus everyone.

I think YOU are the person who thinks there is something wrong with being homosexual...no one else but you has mentioned NEGATIVE life experiences contibuting to someone being gay. You seem to think we consider it a failing of your parents, or that you had a poor social life, when none of us have said anything of the kind...

No I didn't. In fact I like being homosexual. I can't imagine being attracted to the opposite sex. I think I'll take what Glinde Nessroe said.. quite simply put.. I like cock. And there is nothing in my life that'll change that. The notion that life experiences had anything to do with it, is a very weak one.

No, I'm saying the life experiences argument is actually quite.. stupid. I had the same experiences as any straight guy.. but really life experiences don't impact anything.

I didn't miss a damn thing. You people need to get over yourselves. The life experiences nonsense suggests there is something my parents could of done differently.
No. You did miss the point. While plenty of people share similar experiences and even whole lives, they aren't identical. Even if the exact same thing happens to someone else in a paralel dimension, your experience will still be different, because you're not the same person. Your thoughts and interpretations of any given thing will never be exactly the same.

The nurture argument is quite good in other situations. It's why we have the concept of social inheritance. People don't form their basic opinions and attitudes consiously. It's much more subtle than that.

Whatever your parents did or didn't do may not have anything to do with your sexuality at all. Whether you're straight or bent. Humans aren't simple machines, who only act on a set of commands. We're complex beings. And while we may occationally do things by command or suggestion, most of the time, we act according to our personal interpretation of the world.

Consious choices has nothing to do with this, and upbringing is most likely not a major influence (seeing as about 10% of us aren't hetero's).

I'm tired of this. I'm not going to get your argument as it has no evidence. I have provided evidence for my own arguments. Start naming something valid that caused me to gay from my childhood or experiences. Start naming these things right now. the scientific community seems to support my views. I have provided evidence for my views and you have simply not.

Maybe genetically.. but sexuality is not impacted by environment. It suggests my parents could of done something differently and that's not simply true.

The nuture argument is really B.S.

Mesa - did you read my last post - go click on the link and tell me about these biological theories you have that are infallible!

Here's the nature vs. nurture argument for you to compound the issue
and read this paragraph:

"How to compare the effects of nature and nurture, and why this is difficult"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

and then if it's not too much trouble could you stop making sweeping statements

No. You did miss the point. While plenty of people share similar experiences and even whole lives, they aren't identical. Even if the exact same thing happens to someone else in a paralel dimension, your experience will still be different, because you're not the same person. Your thoughts and interpretations of any given thing will never be exactly the same.

I didn't say they were identical. I just said I had the same experiences as straight guys. I don't miss points, ever. So get a real argument. You can't prove that my growing up had anything to do with my seuxal orientation.

The nurture argument is quite good in other situations. It's why we have the concept of social inheritance. People don't form their basic opinions and attitudes consiously. It's much more subtle than that.

The nuture argument is as bad as it comes, it is faulty and lacks evidence.

Whether you're straight or bent. Humans aren't simple machines, who only act on a set of commands. We're complex beings. And while we may occationally do things by command or suggestion, most of the time, we act according to our personal interpretation of the world.

Bent? WTF?

I'm saying it had to do with genetics and that's my opinion.

I'm tired of this. I'm not going to get your argument as it has no evidence. I have provided evidence for my own arguments. Start naming something valid that caused me to gay from my childhood or experiences. Start naming these things right now. the scientific community seems to support my views. I have provided evidence for my views and you have simply not.


I dont need to provide evidence, it is the prevailing view in the scientific community and doing a simple search on "nature vs nurture" will reveal a wealth of information. I did point you to an article written in simple terms which pretty much summarizes where we stand today in this age old argument. The question has essentially been solved.


Maybe genetically.. but sexuality is not impacted by environment. It suggests my parents could of done something differently and that's not simply true.


It isnt just things your parents did. As much as parents would love to be able to, it is impossible to fully control the environment your children grow up in.


Funny how sexual orientation is not part of personality. It doesn't get impacted by nuture. Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, not your personality. My personality is a seperate entity. No wonder.. you're full of it. Your argument is poor and so is your debate method.


It is part of your personality. This is almost undeniable. Are you saying that being gay is not part of who you are? If that is what you are saying, then you just joined the "homosexuality is a choice" camp. Either homosexuality is a part of who you are (it is part of your personality), or it is a choice. Did you just switch to the homosexuality is a choice camp?

I dont need to provide evidence, it is the prevailing view in the scientific community and doing a simple search on "nature vs nurture" will reveal a wealth of information. I did point you to an article written in simple terms which pretty much summarizes where we stand today in this age old argument. The question has essentially been solved.

You don't need to provide evidence as you have none and no it is not the prevailing view of the scentific community. The scientific community sides with me in this debate. And I have posted plenty of links and evidence to back myself up.

It is part of your personality. This is almost undeniable. Are you saying that being gay is not part of who you are? If that is what you are saying, then you just joined the "homosexuality is a choice" camp. Either homosexuality is a part of who you are (it is part of your personality), or it is a choice. Did you just switch to the homosexuality is a choice camp?

No it isn't. It isn't part of my personality. It is my sexual orientation which is seperate. Being gay is about who I like. It is not my personality. You are full of crap. I'm sorry but I never said anything of the sort. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is who you are attracted to. It is not part of my personality as my personality is something you can change.. homosexuality is not something you can change.

Edit: Rewording.

...since you seem so hung up on sources, here's a few samples.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer.

http://people.bu.edu/charris/homosexuality.html
There is compelling evidence that choice does play a role in some expression of homosexuality. The choice may be conscious, as in situational homosexuality (becoming lovers in a single-sex environment, such as an all-girl or all-boy school,or in prison). Or the "choice" may be unconscious, as happens when girls/women who have abused by men find themselves being more happy with female friends, and then find themselves falling in love with a girlfriend.

http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/Science-and-Health/July-99/NATURE-VS-NURTURE.htm
Most Americans (68%) think people's behavior is shaped both by genetic makeup and by life experiences and they reject arguments that either factor alone determines a person's destiny, according to the poll. When asked how much people's behaviors are determined by heredity and genes, 3% of Americans said completely, 16% mostly, 10% not at all, but 68% said behavior is somewhat determined by heredity and genes.

http://hometown.aol.com/Graceeaca/chapter5.html
The best answer is that probably both nature and nurture are true.

http://www.queervisions.com/arch/2005/03/nature_nurture.html
No one is born with romantic feelings, much less engaging in sexual conduct. That comes later. Whether it comes as a result of genetics, or early environment, or watching too many episodes of Wonder Woman is a separate question that can't be settled by simple introspection.

http://www.coolnurse.com/homosexuality.htm
You may ask yourself "why am I gay", but no one really knows the answer to this question. There are many theories as to why some individuals are orientated towards homosexuality rather than heterosexuality but they are only speculations at this point in time.

You don't need to provide evidence as you have none and no it is not the prevailing view of the scentific community. The scientific community sides with me in this debate. And I have posted plenty of links and evidence to back myself up.


Not at all. The scientific community has essentially answered the nurture vs nature argument, and I provided a link for you to look at. Many more are available if you do a search on nature vs nurture.


No it isn't. It isn't part of my personality. It is my sexual orientation which is seperate. Being gay is about who I like. It is not my personality. You are full of crap. I'm sorry but I never said anything of the sort. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is who you are attracted to. It is not part of my personality as my personality is something you can change.. homosexuality is not something you can change.

Edit: Rewording.


Yes, who you are attracted to is part of who you are. Who you are is reffered to as your personality. Denying that it is part of your personality is the same as denying that it is part of who you are which is the same as saying it is a choice. Yes, sexuality can change over time just like all other parts of a person's personality.

The classic example of a change in personality related to sexual orientation is the prison example. A heterosexual who finds himself in prison with no access to people of the other sex will slowly begin to settle for sex with people of his own sex. Over time, they will learn to enjoy sex with people of their same sex and will learn that there are more and less attractive people of the same sex. Eventually different characteristics of people of the same sex as them will appeal to them and they will find themselves attracted to one type of person or another. This phenomenon has been observed in prisons, boarding schools, ships, and other places where people of the same sex are separated from people of the opposite sex for extended periods.

Not at all. The scientific community has essentially answered the nurture vs nature argument, and I provided a link for you to look at. Many more are available if you do a search on nature vs nurture.

Wrong again. The scientific community has backed me up based on the links I provided, especially with regards to the APA and AMA.




Yes, who you are attracted to is part of who you are. Who you are is reffered to as your personality. Denying that it is part of your personality is the same as denying that it is part of who you are which is the same as saying it is a choice. Yes, sexuality can change over time just like all other parts of a person's personality.

No it isn't. Sexuality cannot be changed. I'm not going to change from being gay to straight, or anything else. You are the one who is saying it is a choice, in essence your argument is horrible.

A heterosexual who finds himself in prison with no access to people of the other sex will slowly begin to settle for sex with people of his own sex. Over time, they will learn to enjoy sex with people of their same sex and will learn that there are more and less attractive people of the same sex. Eventually different characteristics of people of the same sex as them will appeal to them and they will find themselves attracted to one type of person or another. This phenomenon has been observed in prisons, boarding schools, ships, and other places where people of the same sex are separated from people of the opposite sex for extended periods.

What an ignorant response. That's more about power. It isn't about attraction. IT is about rape. If you think that example cuts it, you're wrong. That's such a horrible immature response and I've heard it too many times. It is about rape and power, not sexuality.

...since you seem so hung up on sources, here's a few samples.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html


http://people.bu.edu/charris/homosexuality.html


http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/Science-and-Health/July-99/NATURE-VS-NURTURE.htm


http://hometown.aol.com/Graceeaca/chapter5.html


http://www.queervisions.com/arch/2005/03/nature_nurture.html


http://www.coolnurse.com/homosexuality.htm

That still doesn't prove anything, and even some of those prove my argument. I never said people are born with sexual attraction. They develop these during puberty based on their sexual orientation which they are born with. You are nothing more then a religious bigot. So what do I expect from you? I stand by my sources strongly.

...well, I suggest we give up arguing with him. He seems to prefer namecalling and sticking his head in the sand saying "I'm right, you're wrong, LALALALALA" to actual debate...he also keep blatantly missing our points and responding on a tangent. Either he genuinely doesn't understand what we are saying, or is deliberately ignoring it.

And with that, farewell. :)

...well, I suggest we give up arguing with him. He seems to prefer namecalling and sticking his head in the sand saying "I'm right, you're wrong, LALALALALA" to actual debate...he also keep blatantly missing our points and responding on a tangent. Either he genuinely doesn't understand what we are saying, or is deliberately ignoring it.

And with that, farewell. :)

I'm not f--king missing any points. I already provided my counter-points to your weak anti-gay arguments. I understand you. I know what you people are about.

That still doesn't prove anything, and even some of those prove my argument. I never said people are born with sexual attraction. They develop these during puberty based on their sexual orientation which they are born with. You are nothing more then a religious bigot. So what do I expect from you? I stand by my sources strongly.
OK, just before I go, since you seem to like childish namecalling, let me set you straight on a few points.

#1 - NONE of my arguments have been that homoseuxality is wrong or unnatural. Get that through your thick head.

#2 - NONE of my arguments have been religious. I'm an atheist you fuckwit!

So I am not a religious bigot on either point you stupid asshole. ;)

At this point, having seen the type of responses we can expect from him, I think it is safe to say that Mesatecala has some maturing to do before he will be ready to engage in this conversation in an intelligent and civilized manner. I will refrain from runnnig in circles by not responding to anything else he posts unless it is actually new and not just the same circular logic. But if anyone else has something additional to add, I dont mind continuing the debate as long as it isnt circular.

Ok I'll post it one more time but if you don't comment on it this time and continue to say

The scientific community has backed me up based on the links I provided, especially with regards to the APA and AMA.

well then I guess you're not open to reasonable argument then, but here's a quote from the COMPREHENSIVE listing of all scientific studies on whether or not being gay is nature/nurture or both

The genetic factors influencing sexual orientation are controversial, and research in this area is ongoing. Currently there is a type of nature versus nurture debate with evidence suggesting that determinants of sexual orientation are partly genetic and partly environmental. Determining the extent of each is complex. Some of the most prominent empirical investigations into this question include brain structure studies, twin studies, and chromosome studies.

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of a collection of factors, some of which may be genetic.

that's from this link ...again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_sexual_orientation

and here's the environmental side to counter it - really these lists are comprehensive and if you choose to further ignore them well then we can really all agree you're not approaching this with an open mind at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment%2C_choice%2C_and_sexual_orientation

Stupid asshole? What the fuck? At least I got an argument that is valid and based on evidence and not one based on arbitrary ridiculous conjectures.

At this point, having seen the type of responses we can expect from him, I think it is safe to say that Mesatecala has some maturing to do before he will be ready to engage in this conversation in an intelligent and civilized manner. I will refrain from runnnig in circles by not responding to anything else he posts unless it is actually new and not just the same circular logic. But if anyone else has something additional to add, I dont mind continuing the debate as long as it isnt circular.

Actually I would say the same of you. You have an inherent inability in having a conversation in a intelligent and civilized manner. Then you make this personal by attacking my personal experiences. You are the one who does not seem to provide a valid argument. You people need to grow up.

<cut>

Here is an article on the topic written in laymen's terms:

http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm

You know, that quote led me to this article (http://alum.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html), which states the following:

In 1991 a small, three page preliminary study published by Simon LeVay from the Salk institute caused mass hysteria by hypothesizing, with supporting data, that gay men have a smaller INAH 3 nucleus of the hypothalamus than heterosexual. From a total of 41 subjects, 19 homosexual men who died of complications due to the HIV virus (AIDS), 16 men presumed heterosexual of which 6 died from AIDS complications, and 6 women dead of various causes were drawn. When sectioned and traced blind (the researcher did not know which subject the sample was from), the homosexual men turned out to have an INAH 3 nuclei the same size as those of women, heterosexual men having larger.
You know, I don't really care whether it's nurture or nature, as long as the choice argument is left alone. I do find that the results quoted above point in the nature direction pretty strongly though, unless nurture is proven to have an effect on the size of the INAH 3 nucleus.

Maybe he lost his glasses? Maybe he forgot his medication? Who knows...

You know, that quote led me to this article (http://alum.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html), which states the following:


You know, I don't really care whether it's nurture or nature, as long as the choice argument is left alone. I do find that the results quoted above point in the nature direction pretty strongly though, unless nurture is proven to have an effect on the size of the INAH 3 nucleus.


LeVay concluded in his 1991 paper that his results suggested that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate", but later urged against over-interpretation of his results. He stated, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ...Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later." [1] In addition to this, of the men LeVay used in his studies, the sexual histories the "heterosexual" men were unknown.

that's in the wikipedia article I've been trying to get mesa to read which criticise both nature and nurture arguments but don't bother arguing with him - he's not open to reason

I think YOU are the person who thinks there is something wrong with being homosexual...no one else but you has mentioned NEGATIVE life experiences contibuting to someone being gay. You seem to think we consider it a failing of your parents, or that you had a poor social life, when none of us have said anything of the kind...

Actually, you may be on to something. Presuming that it is ALWAYS an irrefutable fact of nature and that therapy ALWAYS ends in failure - it would give some finality to the situation and remove a certain amount of otherwise troubling cognition for some people.

If, however, sexuality were not preordained, even sometimes, then there is a potential for change. At that point someone who is unhappy - and perceives their sexuality as the cause - would bear a perceived 'responsibility' for their lifestyle. They are no longer a victim of circumstance, but instead bearing the concenquences of their choices - including the confusion of why they pursue an identity which they credit with their unhappiness.

It would be quite discomforting to bear the thought that their unhappiness is the result of their own decisions rather than an unchangeable reality - that is, if they were unhappy with their lifestyle to begin with. In other words - there is comfort for a person who would otherwise be unhappy with their sexual orientation in believing that they have no choice in the matter. Burying their head in the sand of that concept.

It could easily explain both the rabid defensiveness exhibited by a few of the posters here as well as the open-mindedness of others who share the same lifestyle. Some are happy with their lifestyle - others are not.

that's in the wikipedia article I've been trying to get mesa to read which criticise both nature and nurture arguments but don't bother arguing with him - he's not open to reason

The wikipedia source is garbage. Find something else. I looked over it.. it is obviously slanted and biased with an anti-gay slant. You are the one who is not open to reason.

If, however, sexuality were not preordained, even sometimes, then there is a potential for change. At that point someone who is unhappy - and perceives their sexuality as the cause - would bear a responsibility for their lifestyle. They are no longer a victim of circumstance, but instead bearing the concenquences of their choices - including the confusion of why they pursue an identity which they credit with their unhappiness.

I already posted sources on how you cannot change sexual orientation and those who try to say they can have been condemned by the medical community. What lifestyle? Lifestyle is a misnomer. Bear responsibility for what? What unhappiness?

It could easily explain both the rabid defensiveness exhibited by a few of the posters here as well as the open-mindedness of others who share the same lifestyle. Some are happy with their lifestyle - others are not.

You are the one who is not open minded. You actually claim it is changeable. Lifestyle? What fucking lifestyle?

The wikipedia source is garbage. Find something else. I looked over it.. it is obviously slanted and biased with an anti-gay slant. You are the one who is not open to reason.

I rest my case,
good night folks it's been fun

#1 - Any source that doesn't agree with you is wrong. but be sure to keep insisting that you be shown a source - just so you can decry it. :p

#2 - Consistently miss the point people are making, or completely misunderstand entire posts. It will make them so frustrated they stop debating with you. ;)

#3 - Assume that everyone is attacking you and your life, even when they are not. Your outrage lends credibility to your debate. :)

#1 - Any source that doesn't agree with you is wrong. but be sure to keep insisting that you be shown a source - just so you can decry it. :p

So I can go through it and make a judgement.

#2 - Consistently miss the point people are making, or completely misunderstand entire posts. It will make them so frustrated they stop debating with you. ;)

Nope. I don't ever misunderstand anything when it comes to this topic.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/061605genetic.htm

You know, that quote led me to this article (http://alum.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html), which states the following:


You know, I don't really care whether it's nurture or nature, as long as the choice argument is left alone. I do find that the results quoted above point in the nature direction pretty strongly though, unless nurture is proven to have an effect on the size of the INAH 3 nucleus.

That particular study has been thoroughly discredited. But I wont get into the reasons because it is not important. Lets pretend for the purposes of this discussion that the study had not been discredited and that it was, in fact, accurate.

Few people who are actually knowledgeable about genetics and the way in which it applies to personality deny that there are genetic differences that influence a person's personality. If, the findings of this study were, in fact, accurate then all you have done is identified exactly what genetic component gives a predisposition to homosexuality. But it is only a predisposition. Meaning that a person with that predisposition is more likely to become gay than someone without it. This is why it is widely accepted that there is both a genetic and an environmental component. Again, the twin studies prove this. Yes identical twins separated at birth have a higher chance of sharing homosexuality, but that chance is in the 50% range, not anywhere close to 100%. If it was purely genetic the chance would hover in the 90% range (you have to account for those who live in denial of their sexuality or simply lie to researchers). Obviously, genetics plays a part, but it doesnt determine it on its own, it predisposes someone to become homosexual, but it does not predetermine it.

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

All I know is that the genitals are indifferent.

LeVay concluded in his 1991 paper that his results suggested that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate", but later urged against over-interpretation of his results. He stated, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ...Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later." [1] In addition to this, of the men LeVay used in his studies, the sexual histories the "heterosexual" men were unknown.

that's in the wikipedia article I've been trying to get mesa to read which criticise both nature and nurture arguments
Well, that wikipedia article seems way more unbiased than what I've been reading then. :) Will look it up...

Anyway, even if it is 100% nurture, that still doesn't mean that we know what causes it. What is it exactly that would nurture anyone gay? No one knows and I don't think that we would ever find out. So there is still nothing anyone can do about it. Thus we come to the conclusion that choice has nothing to do with being gay.
but don't bother arguing with him - he's not open to reason
If you're talking about the guy you were having a discussion with, then I don't think it's very decent to post to me that he's not open to reason, eventhough he might not be. Like Harry Potter, I think I can decide who I want to hang out with for my self. ;)

If you're talking about the guy you were having a discussion with, then I don't think it's very decent to post to me that he's not open to reason, eventhough he might not be. Like Harry Potter, I think I can decide who I want to hang out with for my self. ;)

Thank you for that consideration..

That particular study has been thoroughly discredited. But I wont get into the reasons because it is not important. Lets pretend for the purposes of this discussion that the study had not been discredited and that it was, in fact, accurate.

Few people who are actually knowledgeable about genetics and the way in which it applies to personality deny that there are genetic differences that influence a person's personality. If, the findings of this study were, in fact, accurate then all you have done is identified exactly what genetic component gives a predisposition to homosexuality. But it is only a predisposition. Meaning that a person with that predisposition is more likely to become gay than someone without it. This is why it is widely accepted that there is both a genetic and an environmental component. Again, the twin studies prove this. Yes identical twins separated at birth have a higher chance of sharing homosexuality, but that chance is in the 50% range, not anywhere close to 100%. If it was purely genetic the chance would hover in the 90% range (you have to account for those who live in denial of their sexuality or simply lie to researchers). Obviously, genetics plays a part, but it doesnt determine it on its own, it predisposes someone to become homosexual, but it does not predetermine it.
So then your saying that (still, if this research were acurate of which I am currently not so convinced anymore, see my previous post), then we somehow affect the size of certain parts of our brains by nurture? Or are you saying that eventhough some peoples INAH 3 nucleus is not the size it should be according to their sex, they do not necassarily have to be gay?

Thank you for that consideration..
You're welcome. I understand where you're coming from, you know. This whole thread feels like an accusation, it does to me too. I know however that these people do not mean to accuse homosexuals, their parents or others in their environment of anything, they're merely trying to explain a phenomenal phenomenon. ;)

You're welcome. I understand where you're coming from, you know. This whole thread feels like an accusation, it does to me too. I know however that these people do not mean to accuse homosexuals, their parents or others in their environment of anything, they're merely trying to explain a phenomenal phenomenon. ;)

Well nonetheless, I would like to apologize to those I did get angry at. This is a very personal topic for me and other people, and I did get upset. I also don't like being suggested that I'm a freak of nature or anything.

I rest my case,
good night folks it's been fun


LOL!


"Showmanship, George. When you hit that high note, you say goodnight and
walk off."

http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym/Scripts/TheBurning.html



.

So then your saying that (still, if this research were acurate of which I am currently not so convinced anymore, see my previous post), then we somehow affect the size of certain parts of our brains by nurture? Or are you saying that eventhough some peoples INAH 3 nucleus is not the size it should be according to their sex, they do not necassarily have to be gay?


That is part of the reason why this study cannot be taken as evidence that there is a genetic link, because it does not settle the question of whether people were born with the enlarged INAH 3 nucleus or whether it grew during their life. What I was saying was the latter. There most likely is not a gene that causes you to be gay, there is a gene that makes it more likely you will be gay.

Lets use a physical example. Suppose you are born with genetics perfectly suited to being an athlete. You are born genetically superior from a physical standpoint, with the capacity for great strength, an excellent metabolism, superior hand eye coordination, a natural ability at sprinting and running long distances, etc. This means that you are more likely to be an athlete that someone born with inferior genetics from an athletic standpoint. However, this does not mean you will be an athlete. Perhaps because of the environment you were raised in, you simply do not like sports or athletics and will never realize your potential in that area.

Intelligence is also a good example. You could be born with the capacity to be incredibly intelligent, but if during those critical first years of life you are neglected rather than allowed to explore the world, learn from your surroundings, and excercise your brain, you may still grow up to be dumb. Likewise if you were born with a limited intellectual capacity but your intelligence was cultivated from birth, you will overcome your genetic predisposition for stupidity.

See, a genetic predisposition does not carve anything in stone. It simply predisposes you to certain things. This is very good news for many people because there have been genetic predispositions found for things such as violence and alcholoism. When it comes to sexuality, however, people preffer to believe that the environment played no role for whatever reason.

That is part of the reason why this study cannot be taken as evidence that there is a genetic link, because it does not settle the question of whether people were born with the enlarged INAH 3 nucleus or whether it grew during their life. What I was saying was the latter. There most likely is not a gene that causes you to be gay, there is a gene that makes it more likely you will be gay.

Lets use a physical example. Suppose you are born with genetics perfectly suited to being an athlete. You are born genetically superior from a physical standpoint, with the capacity for great strength, an excellent metabolism, superior hand eye coordination, a natural ability at sprinting and running long distances, etc. This means that you are more likely to be an athlete that someone born with inferior genetics from an athletic standpoint. However, this does not mean you will be an athlete. Perhaps because of the environment you were raised in, you simply do not like sports or athletics and will never realize your potential in that area.

Intelligence is also a good example. You could be born with the capacity to be incredibly intelligent, but if during those critical first years of life you are neglected rather than allowed to explore the world, learn from your surroundings, and excercise your brain, you may still grow up to be dumb. Likewise if you were born with a limited intellectual capacity but your intelligence was cultivated from birth, you will overcome your genetic predisposition for stupidity.

See, a genetic predisposition does not carve anything in stone. It simply predisposes you to certain things. This is very good news for many people because there have been genetic predispositions found for things such as violence and alcholoism. When it comes to sexuality, however, people preffer to believe that the environment played no role for whatever reason.
What I'd then like to know, is how this specific genetic predisposition to homosexuality is triggered. In your example of the athlete it is pretty clear: most children sport in school --> the genetically superiour athlete gets compliments --> the athlete is then motivated to go on with sports and become a professional athlete. But my parents didn't, nore anyone else, say anything at all about homosexuals, on the contrary: I remember my father always speaking to me about my "future girlfriend" instead of boyfriend. Even people in societies where there is a death penalty on homosexuality develope it. Even when homosexuality was still spoken of as the "forbidden love" in England people developed it. Is there anyone who has the slightest idea on what supposedly triggers the genetic predisposition to homosexuality?

What I'd then like to know, is how this specific genetic predisposition to homosexuality is triggered. In your example of the athlete it is pretty clear: most children sport in school --> the genetically superiour athlete gets compliments --> the athlete is then motivated to go on with sports and become a professional athlete. But my parents didn't, nore anyone else, say anything at all about homosexuals, on the contrary: I remember my father always speaking to me about my "future girlfriend" instead of boyfriend. Even people in societies where there is a death penalty on homosexuality develope it. Even when homosexuality was still spoken of as the "forbidden love" in England people developed it. Is there anyone who has the slightest idea on what supposedly triggers the genetic predisposition to homosexuality?

Thats the million dollar question isnt it? No, no one knows. There have been theories, but ultimately all the theories have had holes in them. This is a lot like trying to pinpoint what causes people to develop into emotional vs logical people or vice versa. There is a genetic link, but the environmental factors that go into such a complex area of your personality are so numerous that you cannot pinpoint just one thing or one group of things. It is impossible to pinpoint things like why you are a logical person rather than an emotional one or why you developed a taste for chocolate but not for hard candy. It is the sum of everything you have experienced that has made you who you are. It is not any individual thing but all of them put together and combined with your choices and your genetics. There are undoubtably things that moved you towards that direction, but pinpointing what those things were is an extremely difficult task, and frankly not one worth undertaking because ultimately, who cares? what difference will it make if you know? Also, keep in mind that the things that moved you in that direction do not have to come from late childhood or adolescence, they could be things that date back to your first months or years of life.

What I'd then like to know, is how this specific genetic predisposition to homosexuality is triggered. In your example of the athlete it is pretty clear: most children sport in school --> the genetically superiour athlete gets compliments --> the athlete is then motivated to go on with sports and become a professional athlete. But my parents didn't, nore anyone else, say anything at all about homosexuals, on the contrary: I remember my father always speaking to me about my "future girlfriend" instead of boyfriend. Even people in societies where there is a death penalty on homosexuality develope it. Even when homosexuality was still spoken of as the "forbidden love" in England people developed it. Is there anyone who has the slightest idea on what supposedly triggers the genetic predisposition to homosexuality?
There is also a genetic predisposition for left-handedness, violence, alcoholism, depression, schitzophrenia and other very obvious conditions. Not everyone who has those traits experiences them - nor does everyone who experiences them have those traits.

There is no quest for the engaging stimuli that 'triggers' those things because it is likely non-existant - if not a sum-total of experiences.
http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/4health/mind/mhi_distress.html

Human behavior is not yet so easily understood as to be readily attrubitable to specific genetic codes or environmental stimulus. It may never be.

There is also a genetic predisposition for left-handedness, violence, alcoholism, depression, schitzophrenia and other very obvious conditions. Not everyone who has those traits experiences them - nor does everyone who experiences them have those traits.


We are talking about sexual orientation, not violence or alcoholism (don't make illogical comparsions).

Another swing and a miss by Mesatecala :p

Honestly, not to be rude, but is English your primary language?

We are talking about sexual orientation, not violence or alcoholism (don't make illogical comparsions).

Gee, and I thought we were talking about congenital biological effects on human behavior. Well, if you want to make the case that there is no biological basis for homosexual behavior...

Another swing and a miss by Mesatecala :p

Honestly, not to be rude, but is English your primary language?

You don't have a damn clue.

You should be the one who should learn english.

English is my primary language.

Well then, your education or intellect is lacking, because you are consistently missing the points people are making, and also leaping to wild and inaccurate assumptions about what people have posted.

While most of us are discussing the topic of "Is sexuality determined by genetics, environment or a combination of the two", you seems to be reading "We hate homosexuals, especially Mesatecala". :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'll withdraw now, before another 6 pages of this thread are lost in usless bickering, like you and Neo Rogolia did earlier. Bye. :)

Thats the million dollar question isnt it? No, no one knows. There have been theories, but ultimately all the theories have had holes in them. This is a lot like trying to pinpoint what causes people to develop into emotional vs logical people or vice versa. There is a genetic link, but the environmental factors that go into such a complex area of your personality are so numerous that you cannot pinpoint just one thing or one group of things. It is impossible to pinpoint things like why you are a logical person rather than an emotional one or why you developed a taste for chocolate but not for hard candy. It is the sum of everything you have experienced that has made you who you are. It is not any individual thing but all of them put together and combined with your choices and your genetics. There are undoubtably things that moved you towards that direction, but pinpointing what those things were is an extremely difficult task, and frankly not one worth undertaking because ultimately, who cares? what difference will it make if you know? Also, keep in mind that the things that moved you in that direction do not have to come from late childhood or adolescence, they could be things that date back to your first months or years of life.

Well, I think I have found a possible answer myself. Have you ever heard of the "Exotic becomes Erotic" theory? There's a great article about it I am reading right now (hence my late response). Read it here (http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html).

Well then, your education or intellect is lacking, because you are consistently missing the points people are making, and also leaping to wild and inaccurate assumptions about what people have posted.

Nope, my education is very good and is not lacking.. nor is my intellect. In fact your intelligence is lacking in this matter. You cannot grasp the facts nor the reality of what I'm trying to say.

...

LOL - so essesntially your whole argument is thumbing your nose and saying "I'm right, you're wrong!"...OK, best of luck with that.

No silly, it's "I'm right and my sources are the only valid ones. not only is everyone else, their sources, any anyone who questions the bias or methodology of my sources wrong, they are all gay-bashing homophobic religious zealots who lack basic English skills or functional intellect."

Nope, my education is very good and is not lacking.. nor is my intellect. In fact your intelligence is lacking in this matter. You cannot grasp the facts nor the reality of what I'm trying to say.
*sigh* Let's see if I grasp what you're saying: That in your own opinion, supported by a couple of websources, sexuality is determined 100% genetically and upbringing/environment/nurture has nothing to do with it? Is that correct?

Do you grasp that what some of the rest of us is saying is this: That in our opinion, supported by the websources we listed, sexuality is determined by upbringing/environment/nurture AND genetic factors.

*sigh* Let's see if I grasp what you're saying: That in your own opinion, supported by a couple of websources, sexuality is determined 100% genetically and upbringing/environment/nurture has nothing to do with it? Is that correct?

Do you grasp that what some of the rest of us is saying is this: That in our opinion, supported by the websources we listed, sexuality is determined by upbringing/environment/nurture AND genetic factors.

A wonder the two opposing arguments have to be made this clear.

*sigh* Let's see if I grasp what you're saying: That in your own opinion, supported by a couple of websources, sexuality is determined 100% genetically and upbringing/environment/nurture has nothing to do with it? Is that correct?

I said it is solidly based on genetics... I do not believe the upbringing or the nuture argument. That's my opinion and it is back by more then a couple of websources.

Do you grasp that what some of the rest of us is saying is this: That in our opinion, supported by the websources we listed, sexuality is determined by upbringing/environment/nurture AND genetic factors.

I don't agree with half of what you are saying.

I don't see how my upbringing had anything to do with my sexual orientation at all.

*sigh* Let's see if I grasp what you're saying: That in your own opinion, supported by a couple of websources, sexuality is determined 100% genetically and upbringing/environment/nurture has nothing to do with it? Is that correct?

Do you grasp that what some of the rest of us is saying is this: That in our opinion, supported by the websources we listed, sexuality is determined by upbringing/environment/nurture AND genetic factors.

But your sources are all from biased homophobic sources like Wikipedia! :lol:

I said it is solidly based on genetics... I do not believe the upbringing or the nuture argument. That's my opinion and it is back by more then a couple of websources.



A few pages ago when I attempted to discuss other behaviors which also exhibit a biological predisposition you were all against there being any similarity to homosexual tendencies. So, according to you, it is biological - but only when convenient?

But your sources are all from biased homophobic sources like Wikipedia! :lol:

I never said wikipedia was homophobic. Bozzy, you were the one who I defeated some pages back... you tried to claim homosexuality was a choice. I did away with that argument so you had to find a different ground.

I have issues with wikipedia:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66210,00.html

"Any member of the Wikipedia community can write an entry, which then can be edited by other members. Entries are never finished, given that anyone can make edits to any of them. But that also means there is no final authority who signs off on the accuracy of entries; veracity is assumed to come from the self-policing nature of the community.

Yet that lack of official vetting is central to many of the questions facing Wikipedia today. To academics like Danah Boyd, a graduate student and instructor at the University of California at Berkeley, that is precisely the problem: Wikipedia, for all its breadth of coverage, cannot claim that each and every one of its entries meets any bottom-line standard for accuracy."

Kaboom.

I cannot use Wikipedia for any of my papers for university. It isn't considered a valid source because of questionable articles that get through.

A few pages ago when I attempted to discuss other behaviors which also exhibit a biological predisposition you were all against there being any similarity to homosexual tendancies. So it is biological - but only when convenient?

Homosexuality like heterosexuality is a orientation.. it isn't like being drunk or getting angry.. or committing murders.

Mesa: Since the other thread got locked, here's my response to your list of supposed contradictions: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html


and



http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html

Mesa: Since the other thread got locked, here's my response to your list of supposed contradictions: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html

Not the thread for it because this is about people choosing to be gay or not... not about biblical contradictions. Stop thread hijacking.

I said it is solidly based on genetics... I do not believe the upbringing or the nuture argument. That's my opinion and it is back by more then a couple of websources.
But what if I say your sources are bogus and biased, as you've said about every source that goes against your personal opinion?
I don't agree with half of what you are saying.

I don't see how my upbringing had anything to do with my sexual orientation at all.
And that's the crux of the matter - you disagree with my opinion. I disagree with yours. I'm afarid that there is no concrete scientific evidence one way or another - for every single source that your provide that supports your own opinion, there is another that supports mine. The overall prevailing scientific opinion is that there is currently no proof one way or the other. So it comes back to a matter of opinions.

And regardless of what you may believe, I do not think homosexulaity is wrong. I don't think it's bad. I don't think that it's the result of negative life experiences or bad upbringing. But I do firmly believe that, on a largely subconcious level, upbringing, evironment, experience, nurture or whatever else you care to call it has a huge effect on nearly all aspects of our lives, including our sexuality and sexual orientation.

It's my opinion, and it's as right to me as yours is to you. ;)

Mesa: Since the other thread got locked, here's my response to your list of supposed contradictions: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html


and



http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
So the other thread got locked and you replied here why?

(Specially cause this thread topic is not about biblical contradictions)

I think it'll be appropriate if I extend my apologies to everyone. I should of brought up issues with wikipedia before, instead of acting in anger.

But what if I say your sources are bogus and biased, as you've said about every source that goes against your personal opinion?

I already showed a site showing that wikipedia has huge credibility issues. Anyone can publish an article and they don't need to have credentials. That's why I couldn't use wikipedia in any of my papers. My professors would of flunked me on that.


And regardless of what you may believe, I do not think homosexulaity is wrong. I don't think it's bad. I don't think that it's the result of negative life experiences or bad upbringing. But I do firmly believe that, on a largely subconcious level, upbringing, evironment, experience, nurture or whatever else you care to call it has a huge effect on nearly all aspects of our lives, including our sexuality and sexual orientation.

I don't believe that but I'm not going to change my mind either. I think the biggest cause for sexuality is genetic. And that's my own view. Want to agree to disagree with me? Fine.

I don't believe that but I'm not going to change my mind either. I think the biggest cause for sexuality is genetic. And that's my own view. Want to agree to disagree with me? Fine.
Well, that's the level some of us were at hours ago - agree to disagree on opinions. :)

Anyway, I apologise for any harsh words earlier, but it really inflamed me when you called me a religious bigot. I am neither of those things, and I despise bigotry.

Anyway, I apologise for any harsh words earlier, but it really inflamed me when you called me a religious bigot. I am neither of those things, and I despise bigotry.

Well I shouldn't of called anyone a religious bigot (except for neo)... I'm truly sorry to you.