NationStates Jolt Archive

If there are gay men, there are less opportunities for women to get boyfriends, husbands, or mere male lovers.

If there are lesbian women, there are somewhat less opportunities for men to get girlfriends, wives, or mere female lovers. Somewhat because there are slightly more women than men on earth since women generally live longer than men do.


In conclusion: For the sake of fairness and equality of opportunity for men and women to have love partners, there should only be lesbians! But not too many. Only the ugly gay chicks should live as lesbians.

</sarcasm>


Homophobic people should use that stance, I think it's far better than "homosexuality is wrong!" or "I don't like Gay pride parades!"




Edit: And just so I don't get bashed, since some of my meaning is lost in reading, this is a stance for those who are homophobic and wish to defend their position. I do not defend homophobia, but I suppose that if I ever had to, I'd use this stance. I do not feel that I am homophobic, at least not enough at all to feel weird about or want to change the ways of my gay, lesbian, and bi friends.

I don't like gay pride parades.

I also don't like "flamers."

And I'm not really interested in hearing about two guys going at it.

And I'm Gay

(Am I homophobic?)

While this could set up for some very good discussion, I think it was phrased in a way that could bring about some flaming.

KEEP IT CIVIL PEOPLE!

I don't like gay pride parades.

I also don't like "flamers."

And I'm not really interested in hearing about two guys going at it.

Or, and I'm Gay?

(Am I homophobic?)

Yeah. Most people are homophobic, and racist, and sexist, and most prople have fears and hatreds towards most things.

It's human nature.

Though, in society, since most people don't describe things by what they actually are, you are homophobic if you are actively against homosexuality or the prescense of homosexual people or media including homosexuality. Feeling weird or merely not liking such things doesn't count as homophobia according to the bulk of society.

So, yes by definition, no by what people actually care about.

Though, in society, since most people don't describe things by what they actually are, you are homophobic if you are actively against homosexuality or the prescense of homosexual people or media including homosexuality.
No, you are homophobic if you are afraid of things that are the same, such as twins and clones.
I have pointed this out already this month (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464872), and my war to cleanse that word for it's true users shall not rest. At least not until I find another dead horse I can flog.

Your simple logic assumes homosexuality is a choice...it isn't. Ergo, your logic is flawed.

No, you are homophobic if you are afraid of things that are the same, such as twins and clones.
I have pointed this out already this month (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464872), and my war to cleanse that word for it's true users shall not rest. At least not until I find another dead horse I can flog.

Again, homophobia means fear of the same, but society considers it fear of the same sex.


Edit: And to Europa Maxima

Though it isn't said, I am going to suppose that, for this argument to work well... there is no such thing as sexuality, there is only choice of sexual partners.

I'd say very few people are actually homophobic.

A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred of something. It's possible - common, infact, to fear or hate something without being phobic of it. I, for example, don't like spiders much - but I don't flip out like an arachnaphobic person does when a spider ruffles their tuffet.

The term "Homophobic" came into use to describe people who did not approve of the Gay lifestyle to any degree because it was common place to consider homosexually a mental illness not too many years ago. When this was mentioned, pro-Gay activists would reply with swift fingerpointing an an accusation of homophobia, and all of a sudden it's the other guy who's frantically trying to explain that he's not mentally ill.

How is homosexuality NOT a choice?

No, you are homophobic if you are afraid of things that are the same, such as twins and clones.
I have pointed this out already this month (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464872), and my war to cleanse that word for it's true users shall not rest. At least not until I find another dead horse I can flog.

Newsflash: Language is constantly evolving and changing. Most words we use mean or meant something completely different at some point in time, or they didn't exist at all. So get over it.

Also, there is homophobia and internalized homophobia.

Just as there are different types of discrimination, from overt to systemic.

How is homosexuality NOT a choice?
Lets see...guys turn me on, not girls. I am born that way. So should I do it with girls? Please, don't try and explain something you have no idea of.

Yeah. Most people are homophobic, and racist, and sexist, and most prople have fears and hatreds towards most things.

It's human nature.

Though, in society, since most people don't describe things by what they actually are, you are homophobic if you are actively against homosexuality or the prescense of homosexual people or media including homosexuality. Feeling weird or merely not liking such things doesn't count as homophobia according to the bulk of society.

So, yes by definition, no by what people actually care about.

"Most people are homophobic, and racist, and sexist"? I take pretty strong offense at that. Yes, I have read your definition of these things, and I still disagree. Most people I know don't feel that way. Yeah, I can guess what you'll say, "what, you and your liberal friends?", but I don't care. I just don't see these characteristics in most of the people I know.

Btw, sure maybe its human nature to be afraid of people / things / situations you don't understand or like, but we must have got over that at least some way by now? Otherwise, don't see how we can be called a civilised society.

Though it isn't said, I am going to suppose that, for this argument to work well... there is no such thing as sexuality, there is only choice of sexual partners.
Then make that assumption. Its no more than that though; an assumption.

Lets see...guys turn me on, not girls. I am born that way. So should I do it with girls? Please, don't try and explain something you have no idea of.
People can choose to be attracted to whatever they want. It happens all the time. I'm not going to site the more ridiculous examples, because I'll get flamed, but the fact remains that people can indeed choose what turns them on.

How is homosexuality NOT a choice?
I'm not sure how you would know that it is, short of choosing to be gay to try it out. Have you or do you plan to? Otherwise, I can't imagine how you'd know.

Not that it matters whether it's a choice or not.

People can choose to be attracted to whatever they want. It happens all the time. I'm not going to site the more ridiculous examples, because I'll get flamed, but the fact remains that people can indeed choose what turns them on.
So, either you are bi or you are one deluded straight person. Why? I have tried getting turned on to girls, when I was in denial. It DOES not work. You are more or less born attracted to a certain gender, or maybe both. There is no choice in the matter. Its not like getting used to spaghetti or something. Its far more complex. Its anything but a choice. So get yourself a clue :)

"Most people are homophobic, and racist, and sexist"? I take pretty strong offense at that. Yes, I have read your definition of these things, and I still disagree. Most people I know don't feel that way. Yeah, I can guess what you'll say, "what, you and your liberal friends?", but I don't care. I just don't see these characteristics in most of the people I know.

Btw, sure maybe its human nature to be afraid of people / things / situations you don't understand or like, but we must have got over that at least some way by now? Otherwise, don't see how we can be called a civilised society.

I am liberal, don't be silly. I just support scientific definitions and ideas to a fair degree over society's faux-science.


Pay more attention to society and you'll realize that without animalistic nature, we would not have society as we know it. The animalistic nature of people has created everything we know today. Think about it, how would we have an economy if people weren't trying to survive? Why would there still be wars every waking moment all around the world if we weren't violent, brutal creatures, at least in some way?

homophobia can also be fear of mankind,

also hearing people say that if u say homosexuality is wrong... and think its gross, that means u hate them and ure a homophobe this is not neccesarrily true....

well for the religious population, homosexuality is considered to be against god, so for nonfundamentalist wacko christians, we believe that What gays do, is bad, and is there for wrong. we in no way hate them, (unless ure just a dick) but we hope that they will turn from it.

as for the dude saying "what should i just turn away from guys anyway...," well that depends on ure moral viewpoint. to us christians the answer is easy....yes... god gives us all things we have to over come(keep in mind religious viewpoint) homosexuality just happens to be ures. it is possible to overcome and engage in relationships with women, i know people who have. it wasnt easy but they did it. but however, (and i might be wrong) u strike me as someone who doesnt believe in god, so in ure viewpoint nothings wrong with it, so to you what im saying doesnt im apply to you. Well to each his own and god bless u in ure endevors,

So, either you are bi or you are one deluded straight person. Why? I have tried getting turned on to girls, when I was in denial. It DOES not work. You are more or less born attracted to a certain gender, or maybe both. There is no choice in the matter. Its not like getting used to spaghetti or something. Its far more complex. Its anything but a choice. So get yourself a clue :)
Look, what I'm saying is, it's not physical (ie genetic). Maybe it's deep in the recesses of the phychological state of the brain, or something. Then again, everything is mental, so go figure.

Anyway, this isn't really a debate about whether it's right or wrong (yet), so I'll leave it there.

Look, what I'm saying is, it's not physical (ie genetic). Maybe it's deep in the recesses of the phychological state of the brain, or something. Then again, everything is mental, so go figure.

Anyway, this isn't really a debate about whether it's right or wrong (yet), so I'll leave it there.
Many mental/psychological traits come from genetics. Nevertheless, I'll accept the concession and end the debate here.

it is possible to overcome and engage in relationships with women, i know people who have.
Umm... So you think gay sex is wrong but indescriminate (as you seem to describe) hetero sex is right?

Look, what I'm saying is, it's not physical (ie genetic).
Wait up a minute, those two things aren't necessarily equivalent. There are non-genetic factors that are also not choices or upbringing. I mean, is all cancer genetic? No. But it's certainly not a choice, is it?
Maybe it's deep in the recesses of the phychological state of the brain, or something. Then again, everything is mental, so go figure.
Sure, that's also possible.

So, either you are bi or you are one deluded straight person. Why? I have tried getting turned on to girls, when I was in denial. It DOES not work. You are more or less born attracted to a certain gender, or maybe both. There is no choice in the matter. Its not like getting used to spaghetti or something. Its far more complex. Its anything but a choice. So get yourself a clue :)


You're right. However, while gay attraction is not a choice, the decision to act on it is. I think that's what most people mean when they say it's a choice. I myselfcould care less, I mean why do people worry about it so much? If you're gay, do your thing, and if you're not, do your own thing and don't try to change other people. (btw im not gay)

) homosexuality just happens to be ures. it is possible to overcome and engage in relationships with women, i know people who have. it wasnt easy but they did it.
Such gay people are usually confused bisexuals, who eventually decide to prefer women, or people who aren't at all sure of their sexuality. Any real homosexual will tell you that sleeping with a woman is not going to change him. This is a straight misconception. Its like thinking a true homosexual woman would become straight after being "saved" by a guy. Totally wrong. The other case is people repressing their true sexuality, for the sake of the relationship. I find this deplorable.

Was this post directed at me btw?

You're right. However, while gay attraction is not a choice, the decision to act on it is. I think that's what most people mean when they say it's a choice. I myselfcould care less, I mean why do people worry about it so much? If you're gay, do your thing, and if you're not, do your own thing and don't try to change other people. (btw im not gay)
True, but the asexual/ sexual repression alternatives are hardly good ones at all in my view. Anyway, good to see that you are so enlightened in your views.

There seems to be evidence that there are genetic and psychological factors to consider - a little nature, a little nurture if you will.

It's unlikely we'll ever get to know a great deal more than we do now, though - there's too much fear, a little from both sides.

There are support groups available where homosexuals who want to change confide in each other and many eventually end up happily married to members of the opposite sex.

Seems like good evidence, but the gay community snaps back like an angry rubber band and decides that they're brainwashed, or shamming.

In essense, people who are strongly in support of homosexuality will never accept that there might be factors that could change it - whether they decide they have the moral authority to declare that it shouldn't be changed, or that they simply disbeleive the available evidence that people will change.

Likewise, people who are strongly against homosexuality whill never accept that there might be no factors that could change it. I can't cite evidence for that because you can't prove a negative. When searching to disprove that all ravens are black, one must merely find one white raven - ravens which some rabidly declare are simply black ravens, bleached.

Though it isn't said, I am going to suppose that, for this argument to work well... there is no such thing as sexuality, there is only choice of sexual partners.

Somebody needs to take a few classes.

Ok let's hear your argument on that one.....

it is possible to overcome and engage in relationships with women, i know people who have.

I believe I will call you a liar until you prove that you, personally, have overcome your attraction to women and been in a homosexual relationship for no less than 6 months.

Ok, maybe liar is a bit harsh. I believe you may know people who *say* they've overcome and are still in the backroom of Mary's every friday night - far from the prying eyes of the Jesus Patrol.

However, they can no more overcome their sexuality than you can overcome yours. God knows that. Jesus knows that. Every freethinking, rational human being on the planet knows that. So what's the hold up with the rest of you?

If there are gay men, there are less opportunities for women to get boyfriends, husbands, or mere male lovers. *SNIP*


Translation: It serves no purpose as sex is for producing children. If they can't produce then humanity will die off.

Translation: It serves no purpose as sex is for producing children. If they can't produce then humanity will die off.
The constant ratio of homosexuality is 10% in males, 7% in females. As it is the world suffers from overpopulation. So I don't see how this argument is relevant.

homophobia can also be fear of mankind,

also hearing people say that if u say homosexuality is wrong... and think its gross, that means u hate them and ure a homophobe this is not neccesarrily true....

well for the religious population, homosexuality is considered to be against god, so for nonfundamentalist wacko christians, we believe that What gays do, is bad, and is there for wrong. we in no way hate them, (unless ure just a dick) but we hope that they will turn from it.

as for the dude saying "what should i just turn away from guys anyway...," well that depends on ure moral viewpoint. to us christians the answer is easy....yes... god gives us all things we have to over come(keep in mind religious viewpoint) homosexuality just happens to be ures. it is possible to overcome and engage in relationships with women, i know people who have. it wasnt easy but they did it. but however, (and i might be wrong) u strike me as someone who doesnt believe in god, so in ure viewpoint nothings wrong with it, so to you what im saying doesnt im apply to you. Well to each his own and god bless u in ure endevors,

Not all religions, at least, not the pagan traditions. (Note: Pagan traditions are all those which are not Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim)(unless it isn't muslim, I'm pretty sure it's muslim) Buudism, if I'm correct, doesn't care about your sexual preference, and I know that the Baha'i Faith doesn't care. Not sure about Hinduism, though.

And I've never heard of homo used as a fear of mankind, unless you mean fear of the genus homo, which would be fear of all people anyway since homo sapiens are the only ones left. Interesting take on words there, anyway.

The term "Homophobic" came into use to describe people who did not approve of the Gay lifestyle to any degree because it was common place to consider homosexually a mental illness not too many years ago. When this was mentioned, pro-Gay activists would reply with swift fingerpointing an an accusation of homophobia, and all of a sudden it's the other guy who's frantically trying to explain that he's not mentally ill.

Actually it's more then that.

Ever hear of the term "fag bashing?"

The fact that a group of homophobes will go out and look for gay men to assult suggests a phobia.

It does happen as I have some friends that have their own "gay pride" thing at home because another friend was nearly beaten to death by 3 homophobes at a gay pride parade......

Translation: It serves no purpose as sex is for producing children.

Eww. How bland. Your wife must hate you. :p

Sex is for pleasure. Children are merely a possible side-effect of unprotected vaginal heterosexual sex.

(My ... that sounds oddly familiar ...)

Note: This isn't directed at TBF, just to those with the above attitude.

How is homosexuality NOT a choice?

The fact that it exists in the wild.....

If there are gay men, there are less opportunities for women to get boyfriends, husbands, or mere male lovers.

If there are lesbian women, there are somewhat less opportunities for men to get girlfriends, wives, or mere female lovers. Somewhat because there are slightly more women than men on earth since women generally live longer than men do.


In conclusion: For the sake of fairness and equality of opportunity for men and women to have love partners, there should only be lesbians! But not too many. Only the ugly gay chicks should live as lesbians.

</sarcasm>


Homophobic people should use that stance, I think it's far better than "homosexuality is wrong!" or "I don't like Gay pride parades!"




Edit: And just so I don't get bashed, since some of my meaning is lost in reading, this is a stance for those who are homophobic and wish to defend their position. I do not defend homophobia, but I suppose that if I ever had to, I'd use this stance. I do not feel that I am homophobic, at least not enough at all to feel weird about or want to change the ways of my gay, lesbian, and bi friends.

Well, just looking at this stance as a heterosexual person there is an equal arguement for... Heterophobes... Which I'll say right off, I've never encountered, but are sure to show up somewheres.



If there a straight men, there's less of a chance for gay men to get boyfriends, civil partners in most U.S. states since Bush is prejudiced (give me some credit it's the weakest word I could use), and just plain lovers.

If there a straight women, there's less of a chance for lesbians to get girlfriends, civil partners in most U.S. states since Bush is prejudiced (give me some credit it's the weakest word I could use), and just plain lovers.

Your simple logic assumes homosexuality is a choice...it isn't. Ergo, your logic is flawed. Actually I choose to have sex with other men and women. So in my case it is.

The fact that it exists in the wild.....
Quite precisely. And in the same ratios as with humans.

Somebody needs to take a few classes.

Ok let's hear your argument on that one.....

Umm, I needed something to say.

Most of this topic was a joke anyway. I giggle at your apparent anger over my silly made up stance.


But seriously, an at least mildly scientific stance for homophobia is far more fun to argue against than "blah hatred."

Actually I choose to have sex with other men and women. So in my case it is.
Are you bisexual or omnisexual?

The constant ratio of homosexuality is 10% in males, 7% in females. As it is the world suffers from overpopulation. So I don't see how this argument is relevant.

I've seen figures to suggest that the numbers of exclusive homosexuals come out closer to 1.3% in men and 1% in women. You're not using the Kinsey report, are you?

People can choose to be attracted to whatever they want. It happens all the time. I'm not going to site the more ridiculous examples, because I'll get flamed, but the fact remains that people can indeed choose what turns them on.

Actually that is not true, there are traits that people don't think about which attracts them. A woman shape, her eyes,....

Few men think like "I am only going to be attracted to a 4' 9'' Redhead with blue eyes and long hair."

You can look at the girls I have dated and the one I married and there isn't a common characteristic amoung them except they were female, human and alive.

Are you bisexual or omnisexual?
Im not sure what omnisexual is, pls enlighten me. I think Im bi b/c I have more fun with men than women. for whatever its worth

"Most people are homophobic, and racist, and sexist"? I take pretty strong offense at that.

Awwwwwww, you're in deniel? Trust me, most people are homophobic...

well for the religious poulation, homosexuality is considered to be against god

...Like this guy! Using religion as an excuse for homophobic behavier really pisses me off.

it is possible to overcome and engage in relationships with women, i know people who have.

No, they haven't. It would be like, for example, me having sex with a man.
I could DO it, but I wouldn't enjoy it. At all.

but however, (and i might be wrong) u strike me as someone who doesn't belive in god.

*cough*intolerent!*cough*

Well to each his own and god bless u in ure endevors

He he. Not going to take THAT bait...

Umm, I needed something to say.

Most of this topic was a joke anyway. I giggle at your apparent anger over my silly made up stance.


But seriously, an at least mildly scientific stance for homophobia is far more fun to argue against than "blah hatred."

If you think I am angry you have much to learn grasshopper.

Usually your topic is by some silly ignorant Christian and it's fun poking holes in their arguements.

I've seen figures to suggest that the numbers of exclusive homosexuals come out closer to 1.3% in men and 1% in women. You're not using the Kinsey report, are you?
I think I saw the figures in a BBC Science article. It was a long time ago though.

Im not sure what omnisexual is, pls enlighten me. I think Im bi b/c I have more fun with men than women. for whatever its worth
Omnisexual means you will have sex with anyone, regardless of your true sexuality. I would guess you're bisexual too.

The constant ratio of homosexuality is 10% in males, 7% in females. As it is the world suffers from overpopulation. So I don't see how this argument is relevant.

It was an attempt to make fun of the original comment but hey I am a dismal writer it seems. ;)

The fact that it exists in the wild.....



Just one thing here, again, I actually agree with what you're saying, but I must point something out...


There is really not much difference between human and animal. There is no thick obvious line between them in reality, only a line juuust thick enough that we can't have successful children with any other animals. What this means is that there is no ridiculous superior human intellect. Animals have cultures, societies, throughts, and languages, though not as obvious as our own. Anyone with pets can tell you that they have personalities, moods, friends, enemies, and habits just like any human person. Quit feeling high and mighty about "not being an animal," because face it, you're an animal.
</endrant>


But anyway, I personally feel that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices. They are who you are, forcing someone who's gay to have partners of the opposite sex is degrading and extremely damaging emotionally. People should be aloud to have whatever kind of sex life they want.

But my made up stance still rules.

Just one thing here, again, I actually agree with what you're saying, but I must point something out...


There is really not much difference between human and animal. There is no thick obvious line between them in reality, only a line juuust thick enough that we can't have successful children with any other animals. What this means is that there is no ridiculous superior human intellect. Animals have cultures, societies, throughts, and languages, though not as obvious as our own. Anyone with pets can tell you that they have personalities, moods, friends, enemies, and habits just like any human person. Quit feeling high and mighty about "not being an animal," because face it, you're an animal.
</endrant>
Even so, the fact that there is a constant ratio both in animals and in humans suggests that it is not a choice at all.

Eww. How bland. Your wife must hate you. :p

Sex is for pleasure. Children are merely a possible side-effect of unprotected vaginal heterosexual sex.

(My ... that sounds oddly familiar ...)

Note: This isn't directed at TBF, just to those with the above attitude.

LIAR! I know you have been sneaking around my neighborhood! :p

My wife is Sicilian so it's rather hard to be bland! ;)

What definition of Homophobia are we using here, fear of gay people, hatred of gay people, fear of homoxesuality, hatred of homosexuallity, which one? Personally, I too would like to chip in something religious, but the definition we're using here is pretty important to that point. Literally speaking, phobia means 'fear', and Homo of course in this context means....homosexual, but literal meanings of words aren't often appreciated as much these days I understand :/.

Even so, the fact that there is a constant ratio both in animals and in humans suggests that it is not a choice at all.

But I... said that.... in that post... < <



Edit
And to Theorb: Use whatever definition you fancy. There was some debate on that topic in this thread, so I say make one up so we can argue about that too, it's more fun that way.

There is really not much difference between human and animal. There is no thick obvious line between them in reality, only a line juuust thick enough that we can't have successful children with any other animals. What this means is that there is no ridiculous superior human intellect. Animals have cultures, societies, throughts, and languages, though not as obvious as our own. Anyone with pets can tell you that they have personalities, moods, friends, enemies, and habits just like any human person. Quit feeling high and mighty about "not being an animal," because face it, you're an animal.
</endrant>


You are speaking to a lapsed Primatologist. ;) If you want an interesting read, take a look at Chimpanzee Politics by Franz De Waal.....

Omnisexual means you will have sex with anyone, regardless of your true sexuality. I would guess you're bisexual too.
thank you, can I be both bi and omni?

The constant ratio of homosexuality is 10% in males, 7% in females. As it is the world suffers from overpopulation. So I don't see how this argument is relevant.

yeah, but its probably alot higher since alot of people are just in denial.

You know what really irritates me? (I can only imagine that if I was gay I would be even more irritated and have beaten someone by now, but maybe not.)

Well, a couple things.

First, people who use 'gay' in it's original form as a insult, as in 'you fag' to someone who's sexuality isn't really in question. First off, calling someone gay is one of the stupidest insults ever. If they are gay, then you're just stating a fact. If they aren't that's just stupid. I suppose that if they're questioning their sexuality it may be disturbing.

Second, people who use gay as a general insult. Like, (get this) Math is Gay. What? Excuse me, what? :headbang: Even if gay were an insult, math is at best an inanimate object and at worst a concept. IT HAS NO SEXUAL IDENTITY!!!!!

Third, and finally, people who dislike homosexuals because, quote 'Their gay'. That was seriously the best reasoning they could come up with when I asked. I wonder what would have happened if I had asked about ethnic or religious minorities.

thank you, can I be both bi and omni?
It more or less implies that you are, so yeah. If you're heterosexual, and for some reason have sex with men, say just for the sake of pleasuring yourself, you're omnisexual. Omni= everything in Latin.

You know what really irritates me? (I can only imagine that if I was gay I would be even more irritated and have beaten someone by now, but maybe not.)

Well, a couple things.

First, people who use 'gay' in it's original form as a insult, as in 'you fag' to someone who's sexuality isn't really in question. First off, calling someone gay is one of the stupidest insults ever. If they are gay, then you're just stating a fact. If they aren't that's just stupid. I suppose that if they're questioning their sexuality it may be disturbing.

Second, people who use gay as a general insult. Like, (get this) Math is Gay. What? Excuse me, what? :headbang: Even if gay were an insult, math is at best an inanimate object and at worst a concept. IT HAS NO SEXUAL IDENTITY!!!!!

Third, and finally, people who dislike homosexuals because, quote 'Their gay'. That was seriously the best reasoning they could come up with when I asked. I wonder what would have happened if I had asked about ethnic or religious minorities.

Plus gay means happy and fag means bundle of sticks. Nobody uses those definitions anymore in anything but songs, poetry, and stories, from what I've seen at least. It's best to use them as they are actually used now to avoid confusion, despite their true meaning.

I think I saw the figures in a BBC Science article. It was a long time ago though.

Watch out for them articles. Jesus freaks like myself will use them to rip ya apart. The old 10% figure comes from the hilariously flawed 1940's Kinsey studies and has simply been frantically re-referenced since then.

Watch out for them articles. Jesus freaks like myself will use them to rip ya apart. The old 10% figure comes from the hilariously flawed 1940's Kinsey studies and has simply been frantically re-referenced since then.
10% sounds rather high, sadly. I would have to consult more recent academic work to see what the established ratio is, in both animals and man, but as far as I know its the same and its constant, set around 7-10% (not just according to the Kinsey reports...I'll look into it though).

Watch out for them articles. Jesus freaks like myself will use them to rip ya apart. The old 10% figure comes from the hilariously flawed 1940's Kinsey studies and has simply been frantically re-referenced since then.

Though the reports which say 1.0%-1.3% are probably even more ridiculous and fabricated.

It more or less implies that you are, so yeah. If you're heterosexual, and for some reason have sex with men, say just for the sake of pleasuring yourself, you're omnisexual. Omni= everything in Latin.
ok thanks, that makes sense. gay love is so hot right now.

Though the reports which say 1.0%-1.3% are probably even more ridiculous and fabricated.
I would think it to be around 5%. 10% is a tad exaggerated in my view, unless it includes bisexuals.

Actually it's more then that.

Ever hear of the term "fag bashing?"

The fact that a group of homophobes will go out and look for gay men to assult suggests a phobia.

It does happen as I have some friends that have their own "gay pride" thing at home because another friend was nearly beaten to death by 3 homophobes at a gay pride parade......

And how many people do you know who don't approve of homosexuality? Probably alot. I imagine they've been called homophobic many times.

And how many of them would actually get aggressive so randomly, like in your example? Very, very few. That's not to say it's not a problem - my point is that "Homophobe" has become the term that gay people and pro-gay supporters use when someone suggests Homosexuality is a mental illness. It reverses the roles and puts the accuser on the defensive.

For example, let's say were were arguing over Burger King and MacDonalds. You might suggest that you'd have to be CRAZY to like MacDonalds - at which point I stand up in my McFury and delcare you a McPhobe.

Shortly after, of course, people on these forums would accuse me of using the term McPhobe as something other than the phobia of celtic surnames, and I'd get flamed...

Interesting thread. I personally think that homosexuality is an inborn trait in a person that is activated with the onset of puberty, just as heterosexuality is. The fact that society at large has for millenia oppressed and villified the homosexual population is merely down to the prevelant growth rates of the day (as has been stated sex, or rather vaginal sexual intercourse, is designed primarily as the means of conception for the human speices) as gay sex doesn't fulfil this function it adversely affected the population growth. This meant that the speices was not competing as it should. This leads to a psychological conditioning that makes gay people 'bad'.

It is a load of horsesh*t. Be who you are. Don't let any brainwashed, hillbilly reversionist hick get on your back. I don't allow anyone to get me down over what they percieve to be my failings. Tough. I am my own person and quite happy. I don't infilct my moral viewpoint on others, not to say I don't have one mind you, and I expect the same in return thank you.

But at the end of the day, there will always be those who must conform to the base animal instinct and lash out against homosexuality, this is human nature. So homophobia, in the vernacular definition, is here to stay sadly. Me, I have a few gay and lesbian friends and I have to say, I wouldn't have as rich a life if I didn't.

Though the reports which say 1.0%-1.3% are probably even more ridiculous and fabricated.

You base this on... what.. the fact that you don't particularly like those figures?

Let's also be clear that these figures describe people who are exclusively homosexual - which, if I recall, means they were only attracted to members of the same sex for atleast three years. I think.

Actually it's more then that.

Ever hear of the term "fag bashing?"

The fact that a group of homophobes will go out and look for gay men to assult suggests a phobia.

It does happen as I have some friends that have their own "gay pride" thing at home because another friend was nearly beaten to death by 3 homophobes at a gay pride parade......
There have been studies done that show males who claim be hostile towards gays or homophobic were more turned on by gay porn than straight men who are accepting. So theres a good chance that a homophobic person is trying to cover up their own homosexual tendencies.

And how many people do you know who don't approve of homosexuality? Probably alot. I imagine they've been called homophobic many times.

And how many of them would actually get aggressive so randomly, like in your example? Very, very few. That's not to say it's not a problem - my point is that "Homophobe" has become the term that gay people and pro-gay supporters use when someone suggests Homosexuality is a mental illness. It reverses the roles and puts the accuser on the defensive.

For example, let's say were were arguing over Burger King and MacDonalds. You might suggest that you'd have to be CRAZY to like MacDonalds - at which point I stand up in my McFury and delcare you a McPhobe.

Shortly after, of course, people on these forums would accuse me of using the term McPhobe as something other than the phobia of celtic surnames, and I'd get flamed...

The fact they don't approve is not their concern. And the fact they suggest homosexuality is a mental illness shows they are homophobic.

How does the gay relationship hurt the gay couple? How does it hurt the the hetros? It doesn't. It is a small percentage of people and their goings on will not end humanity.

So if I don't approve of Jews what does that make me?

Finally, the fast food analogy is worthy of a :rolleyes:

The fact they don't approve is not their concern. And the fact they suggest homosexuality is a mental illness shows they are homophobic.

How does the gay relationship hurt the gay couple? How does it hurt the the hetros? It doesn't. It is a small percentage of people and their goings on will not end humanity.

So if I don't approve of Jews what does that make me?

Finally, the fast food analogy is worthy of a :rolleyes:

Whoa! You just did it! The thing I was talking about in my post. Redirecting. The whole "if you suggest homosexuality is a mental illness, you're a homophobe!" bit! It's like the whole... "You're a dork!" "No, YOU'RE a dork!" play!

No. I'm afraid I disagree. There's alot of people who beleive there might be something of a mental illness to homosexuality, and while you might think they are wrong, you'd be silly to think they were all literally insane.

So if I don't approve of Jews what does that make me?
I agree with you on most points, and I'll clarify this one. It makes you anti-semitic :p

Whoa! You just did it! The thing I was talking about in my post. Redirecting. The whole "if you suggest homosexuality is a mental illness, you're a homophobe!" bit! It's like the whole... "You're a dork!" "No, YOU'RE a dork!" play!

No. I'm afraid I disagree. There's alot of people who beleive there might be something of a mental illness to homosexuality, and while you might think they are wrong, you'd be silly to think they were all literally insane.

Well, to make a point, just because a bunch of people believe in something, doesn't necessarily mean that they're absolutely correct ;)

For example, I'm atheist. I'm not exactly going around saying that people that believe in god have a mental illness.

Well, to make a point, just because a bunch of people believe in something, doesn't necessarily mean that they're absolutely correct ;)

For example, I'm atheist. I'm not exactly going around saying that people that believe in god have a mental illness.

A valid point. I'm simply saying that, if there is evidence that it is a mental illness (and therefore perhaps treatable), it's worth looking into.

A valid point. I'm simply saying that, if there is evidence that it is a mental illness (and therefore perhaps treatable), it's worth looking into.
When, and IF, this is proven, then they may actually treat gay people as individuals suffering from such a disease. Until then its only their belief, and little more than that.

Whoa! You just did it! The thing I was talking about in my post. Redirecting. The whole "if you suggest homosexuality is a mental illness, you're a homophobe!" bit! It's like the whole... "You're a dork!" "No, YOU'RE a dork!" play!

No. I'm afraid I disagree. There's alot of people who beleive there might be something of a mental illness to homosexuality, and while you might think they are wrong, you'd be silly to think they were all literally insane.

Not at all. You avoid answering how you define it as a mental disease.

Such a claim says they have an emotional or behavioral problem that would either hurt themselves or others.

How is two men having sex hurting others or themselves?

If you don't like being a homophobe then justify your mental disease comment.

Not at all. You avoid answering how you define it as a mental disease.

Such a claim says they have an emotional or behavioral problem that would either hurt themselves or others.

How is two men having sex hurting others or themselves?

If you don't like being a homophobe then justify your mental disease comment.
I guess they view not having sex heterosexually as damaging to the growth of the population (even if global population is too high).

I agree with you on most points, and I'll clarify this one. It makes you anti-semitic :p

;)

;)
Trust me, even if you make this correlation, most homophobes will fail to see it.

Not at all. You avoid answering how you define it as a mental disease.

Such a claim says they have an emotional or behavioral problem that would either hurt themselves or others.

How is two men having sex hurting others or themselves?

If you don't like being a homophobe then justify your mental disease comment.

I beleive it might be classified as a mental illness because it's a deviation from both a natural selection veiw (In which genetic factors would have been bred out long ago) or a creationist veiw of the christian kind, to which I ascribe. Ultimately, it's the APA who decide what a "Mental illness" is technically, and it got shunted off the list in the.. seventies I think, for reasons I won't get into.

Ultimately though, this discussion has become pointless. It's likely I've been carefully catalogued as a homophobe, and any and all points I make from this point onward will be read in such a way that only the most offensive and ridiculous ideas that could possibly be wrought from the words I type will be heard, and shouted down.

It is extremely difficult to have this discussion with anyone who beleives an 'orientation' exists absolutely - they simply ignore, twist or reject the evidence against their position.

I beleive it might be classified as a mental illness because it's a deviation from both a natural selection veiw (In which genetic factors would have been bred out long ago) or a creationist veiw of the christian kind, to which I ascribe. Ultimately, it's the APA who decide what a "Mental illness" is technically, and it got shunted off the list in the.. seventies I think, for reasons I won't get into.
Not if the gene requires a combination of several genes to become active in the child. Then it would not be bred out.


Ultimately though, this discussion has become pointless. It's likely I've been carefully catalogued as a homophobe, and any and all points I make from this point onward will be read in such a way that only the most offensive and ridiculous ideas that could possibly be wrought from the words I type will be heard, and shouted down.

Hardly the case.

It is extremely difficult to have this discussion with anyone who beleives an 'orientation' exists absolutely - they simply ignore, twist or reject the evidence against their position.
How, exactly?

Not if the gene requires a combination of several genes to become active in the child. Then it would not be bred out.

Perhaps, but despite going over homosexual and heterosexual genetics with a fine toothed comb, we've yet to find any kind of gene-sequence to trigger homosexuality.

Hardly the case.
That remains to be seen.

How, exactly?
Simply an observation after many, many exhausting conversations trying to explain a veiwpoint.

Perhaps, but despite going over homosexual and heterosexual genetics with a fine toothed comb, we've yet to find any kind of gene-sequence to trigger homosexuality.
Precisely. We may still find such a sequence though. Genetics, while advanced, is still in its infancy. Not having found such a sequence yet though does not mean it does not exist. If it does, it will clearly invalidate the notion of being bred out.

Simply an observation after many, many exhausting conversations trying to explain a veiwpoint.
I mean how could one twist the non-existence of absolute orientation?

I beleive it might be classified as a mental illness because it's a deviation from both a natural selection veiw (In which genetic factors would have been bred out long ago) or a creationist veiw of the christian kind, to which I ascribe. Ultimately, it's the APA who decide what a "Mental illness" is technically, and it got shunted off the list in the.. seventies I think, for reasons I won't get into.


How you define it does not matter. The fact remains it does not hurt them or it does not hurt others. They don't require help as they are able to function just fine. So it fails the mental illness label.

It got shunted off for good reason. Homophobes declared it one as they felt it was icky.

Now as to genetics. You do realize you can't eliminate a genetic trait by simply breeding it away.


Ultimately though, this discussion has become pointless. It's likely I've been carefully catalogued as a homophobe, and any and all points I make from this point onward will be read in such a way that only the most offensive and ridiculous ideas that could possibly be wrought from the words I type will be heard, and shouted down.


Who is shouting you down? I am not. Just because you declare it a mental illness can't prove the claim?


It is extremely difficult to have this discussion with anyone who beleives an 'orientation' exists absolutely - they simply ignore, twist or reject the evidence against their position.

Just like it's difficult to have this discussion who says the bible says it's bad so people choose to be gay.

Show it is a mental illness or drop the claim.

Perhaps, but despite going over homosexual and heterosexual genetics with a fine toothed comb, we've yet to find any kind of gene-sequence to trigger homosexuality.


And we don't have the sequence that declares you to be hetro.

We have only mapped Genome. Knowing how it works is going to take awhile.


That remains to be seen.

Simply an observation after many, many exhausting conversations trying to explain a veiwpoint.

Ok show us how it is a mental illness?

I mean how could one twist the non-existence of absolute orientation?

Let me give an example.

There has been data collected involving homosexual men with identical twins, and the results were enlightening - The identical twin of a gay man has a 50% chance of being gay himself, according simply to the number.

Now, there are two very important things to note about this find.

Firstly, Fifty percent of homosexual men with an identical sibling find their sibling also to be homosexual. This suggest, rather strongly, that genetics ARE, despite many opinions, a significant factor in determining homosexuality. Reports like this make the gay community cheer, but there is rarely any kind of regard for the second point, which is...

Fifty percent of homosexual men with an identical sibling find their sibling to not be homosexual. This suggests, rather strongly, that genetics alone do not determine homosexuality - these men have IDENTICAL genetic material, and sometimes they are gay, and sometimes they are not.

This should be case closed. Match point. Game over. Regardless of the proportions, we should be forced to admit that there are genetic and outside factors that influence sexuality...

Except what I'm afraid I must term "fundamentalist homosexuals", who seem to beleive that if we can only prove somehow that homosexuality is entirely genetic, people will begin regarding it as a variation in the same way they do to people who are, say, left handed. And so the shouting, and the ranting, and the mudslinging begins - the same way it did back in the 70's when pro-homosexual supportors constantly disrupted the APA's gatherings, holding their peace to ransom until homosexuality was taken off 'The List'.

Let me give an example.

There has been data collected involving homosexual men with identical twins, and the results were enlightening - The identical twin of a gay man has a 50% chance of being gay himself, according simply to the number.

Now, there are two very important things to note about this find.

Firstly, Fifty percent of homosexual men with an identical sibling find their sibling also to be homosexual. This suggest, rather strongly, that genetics ARE, despite many opinions, a significant factor in determining homosexuality. Reports like this make the gay community cheer, but there is rarely any kind of regard for the second point, which is...

Fifty percent of homosexual men with an identical sibling find their sibling to not be homosexual. This suggests, rather strongly, that genetics alone do not determine homosexuality - these men have IDENTICAL genetic material, and sometimes they are gay, and sometimes they are not.

What if the genetic sequence only resulted in a 50% chance of either child being born gay? Our understanding of genetics is too limited to exclude this.

Let me give an example.


Ok and where did this study take place. Do include a link please.....

Except what I'm afraid I must term "fundamentalist homosexuals", who seem to beleive that if we can only prove somehow that homosexuality is entirely genetic, people will begin regarding it as a variation in the same way they do to people who are, say, left handed.


Is there a left-handed/right-handed set of genes? That'd be interesting.




And to the issue of my belief that there are more than 1-1.3% homosexual people in the human population, I know a lot of homosexual or bisexual people, and I have no doubts that some people who seem straight are trying desperately to put on an act so they aren't frowned upon by their peers. It might be that I live in Massachusetts, and that it might just be a lot of homosexuals living here due to a fairly good degree of social tolerance, but I don't know if that's the case. 1% just seems too small a number from what I've experienced.

Let me give an example.

There has been data collected involving homosexual men with identical twins, and the results were enlightening - The identical twin of a gay man has a 50% chance of being gay himself, according simply to the number.

Now, there are two very important things to note about this find.

Firstly, Fifty percent of homosexual men with an identical sibling find their sibling also to be homosexual. This suggest, rather strongly, that genetics ARE, despite many opinions, a significant factor in determining homosexuality. Reports like this make the gay community cheer, but there is rarely any kind of regard for the second point, which is...

Fifty percent of homosexual men with an identical sibling find their sibling to not be homosexual. This suggests, rather strongly, that genetics alone do not determine homosexuality - these men have IDENTICAL genetic material, and sometimes they are gay, and sometimes they are not.

This should be case closed. Match point. Game over. Regardless of the proportions, we should be forced to admit that there are genetic and outside factors that influence sexuality...

Except what I'm afraid I must term "fundamentalist homosexuals", who seem to beleive that if we can only prove somehow that homosexuality is entirely genetic, people will begin regarding it as a variation in the same way they do to people who are, say, left handed. And so the shouting, and the ranting, and the mudslinging begins - the same way it did back in the 70's when pro-homosexual supportors constantly disrupted the APA's gatherings, holding their peace to ransom until homosexuality was taken off 'The List'.
Keep in mind it is entirely possible that genes may only be giving someone a predisposition towards homosexuality.

Some twins come from families where there is chronic heart disease, or diabetese. One of the two might develop the condition, the other might not. Then again, the two may contract it, or neither of them.

While I do not like comparing homosexuality with a disease, I feel in this case the similarities warrant it. Someone might have a latent genetic disposition towards homosexuality, and it might never develop. Why? We have no idea. There's a lot of things we still don't understand in genetics. So, the answer is more complicated than just the existence (or lack thereof) of a "gay gene".

And, let us remember that whether or not homosexuality is genetic, it's neither a choice nor a mental illness. I'm rather surprised you'd challenge the medical community's expert opinion on the matter. It seems awfully arrogant to state that thousands of psychologists and doctors are in the wrong, and you're in the right.

I'd call a sexual attraction to say, furniture a mental illness, even though no one really gets hurt (splinters aside). I'm using the term 'mental illness' because, firstly, I beleive the deciding factor is mental, and secondly, I believe it is morally abberant - a point which I am not pushing here lest this become another Throw-These-Christians-To-The-Lions thread.

If you wish, I can call it, for your benifit, a mental abberation, a mental variation, a cognitive quirk, a cranial maladjustment, a brain-twist - give me a term you're comfortable with. What we're discussing here is not if it is overtly harmful or not - it's whether or not it is predetermined, or chosen.

Ok and where did this study take place. Do include a link please.....
I don't know anout his study, but I concur he's right about the possibility of identical twins having different sexual orientations. I personnally know two twins (very attractive guys, at that) and one of them is gay, while the other is straight.

Keep in mind it is entirely possible that genes may only be giving someone a predisposition towards homosexuality.

Some twins come from families where there is chronic heart disease, or diabetese. One of the two might develop the condition, the other might not. Then again, the two may contract it, or neither of them.

While I do not like comparing homosexuality with a disease, I feel in this case the similarities warrant it. Someone might have a latent genetic disposition towards homosexuality, and it might never develop. Why? We have no idea. There's a lot of things we still don't understand in genetics. So, the answer is more complicated than just the existence (or lack thereof) of a "gay gene".

Exactly. Genes don't always express themselves in the same way. Thus, its highly likely that while they share an identical gene pool, that does not imply that they should both be gay.

I'd call a sexual attraction to say, furniture a mental illness, even though no one really gets hurt (splinters aside). I'm using the term 'mental illness' because, firstly, I beleive the deciding factor is mental, and secondly, I believe it is morally abberant - a point which I am not pushing here lest this become another Throw-These-Christians-To-The-Lions thread.

If you wish, I can call it, for your benifit, a mental abberation, a mental variation, a cognitive quirk, a cranial maladjustment, a brain-twist - give me a term you're comfortable with. What we're discussing here is not if it is overtly harmful or not - it's whether or not it is predetermined, or chosen.

What is your favorite color?

Some twins come from families where there is chronic heart disease, or diabetese. One of the two might develop the condition, the other might not. Then again, the two may contract it, or neither of them.

He means identical twins, who have the same DNA.

I'd call a sexual attraction to say, furniture a mental illness, even though no one really gets hurt (splinters aside). I'm using the term 'mental illness' because, firstly, I beleive the deciding factor is mental, and secondly, I believe it is morally abberant - a point which I am not pushing here lest this become another Throw-These-Christians-To-The-Lions thread.

If you wish, I can call it, for your benifit, a mental abberation, a mental variation, a cognitive quirk, a cranial maladjustment, a brain-twist - give me a term you're comfortable with. What we're discussing here is not if it is overtly harmful or not - it's whether or not it is predetermined, or chosen.
Variation on its own will do just fine.

What is your favorite color?

From what I've seen, most people don't actually know a definite answer to that question.

He means identical twins, who have the same DNA.
So did I. Identical twins don't just suffer simultaneous heart attack, or develop diabetese in the same year just because they have the same genes. Genes are not a program running our body: they're a factor that determines some of our caracteristics, but not all of them.

Besides, identical twins share a lot of genetic material, but never all of it. They're not clones.

So did I. Identical twins don't just suffer simultaneous heart attack, or develop diabetese in the same year just because they have the same genes. Genes are not a program running our body: they're a factor that determines some of our caracteristics, but not all of them.

Besides, identical twins share a lot of genetic material, but never all of it. They're not clones.

You just contradicted yourself twice, oddly enough, in the post I quoted, you said that twins aren't always the same, in this post, you said they are the same, then they aren't the same again...


I know what you're trying to say, but I feel confused by how you're saying it *tear*

I don't know anout his study, but I concur he's right about the possibility of identical twins having different sexual orientations. I personnally know two twins (very attractive guys, at that) and one of them is gay, while the other is straight.


I wasn't suggesting he was wrong. I just want to know where his "data" is comming from. I would give more leverage to a study say by the Mayo clinic versus a Christian group.

As you know there is more to genetics then simple numbers.

There is more to the simple matter of the nature versus nuture argument. For example a pretty good arguement for nature is :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060192119/sr=1-1/qid=1138159696/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1187971-6184824?%5Fencoding=UTF8

What if the genetic sequence only resulted in a 50% chance of either child being born gay? Our understanding of genetics is too limited to exclude this.

Because gene sequences don't give chances - they give attributes. What the genes might give is, as Skaladora says, "a predisposition towards homosexuality". This seems the most logical to me. It also suggests that genetics alone do not determine orientation - there is something that happens during a person's upbringing, or something that doesn't, to add to this.

Ok and where did this study take place. Do include a link please.....

Holmes, B., 1994. Gay gene test ‘inaccurate and immoral’. New Scientist, 141 (1915):9.

Variation on its own will do just fine.

Variation it is.



By the way, this is what I mean when I say I suspect I'll be "Shouted down" -there is a rapidly increasing number of you and only one of me, I will soon not be able to keep up with the number of answers you're asking of me.

Besides, identical twins share a lot of genetic material, but never all of it. They're not clones.

Damn you beat me to the punch! :)

There's an even simpler defense: free speech. People can be homophobic if they want to be.

Because gene sequences don't give chances - they give attributes. What the genes might give is, as Skaladora says, "a predisposition towards homosexuality". This seems the most logical to me. It also suggests that genetics alone do not determine orientation - there is something that happens during a person's upbringing, or something that doesn't, to add to this.
Perhaps a combination of these genes and varying hormonal secretions in the mother's foetus then? Could this not result into one person being born homosexual, and the other not?

You just contradicted yourself twice, oddly enough, in the post I quoted, you said that twins aren't always the same, in this post, you said they are the same, then they aren't the same again...


I know what you're trying to say, but I feel confused by how you're saying it *tear*
Alright, then let me try to get this clearly :-p

Identical twins are *not* TOTALLY identical. It's just the language we use. Technically speaking, their DNA, while it is very similar, is not a carbon copy. They could both have the same "gay gene" or "diabetese gene", or they might not.

But further than that, even if they did both have the genes, it doesn't mean they both will be gay, or that they'll both be diabetic: it's called a recessive gene. It has chances of going off, and chances of not doing so.

Genetics is complex, and I admit I'm not the best one out there to vulgarize it. I wish my female friend , who studies in genetics, was here :-p

There's an even simpler defense: free speech. People can be homophobic if they want to be.


I meant more of a philisophical defense.


It's perfectly legal, just not considered very highly.

Alright, then let me try to get this clearly :-p

Identical twins are *not* TOTALLY identical. It's just the language we use. Technically speaking, their DNA, while it is very similar, is not a carbon copy. They could both have the same "gay gene" or "diabetese gene", or they might not.

But further than that, even if they did both have the genes, it doesn't mean they both will be gay, or that they'll both be diabetic: it's called a recessive gene. It has chances of going off, and chances of not doing so.

Genetics is complex, and I admit I'm not the best one out there to vulgarize it. I wish my female friend , who studies in genetics, was here :-p
How exactly do recessive genes work? And if a single homosexual recessive gene existed, why would it be so difficult to be found?

I also don't like "flamers."I don't like it if people use that as an act in the attempt to flaunt sexuality. However, if that's how someone really is, you're going to begrudge people for being how they really are?

Nice to know.

Because gene sequences don't give chances - they give attributes.

I'm afraid you're a bit off the mark on this. Recessive genes have the possibility of being "awakened", but don't systematically do so. We don't understand why they work that way; either they're pretty random, or we just don't get what affacts them. Either way, gene sequences do give chances.

That doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality is systematically caused by genes and genes alone, but it really doesn't matter in my opinion.

When I asked you earlier what your favorite color was, I was trying to make a point. If your fav color is, say, green, and mine would be yellow,would you say it was:

a) Because you are genetically predisposed to like green
b) Because you consciously chose to like green
c) Because you're mentally ill(or I am)

Obviously none of the above really makes sense. I find sexual orientation to be much the same. Different people like different things, and it also applies to sexuality.

Some persons are gay.
Others a straight.
Some like skinny women with bi breasts.
Some like brunettes, other blondes.
Some get turned on by men with long hair.
Other like men with a 2-day stubble.

There's no need to look further than that. Genetics don't determine that, and there's certainly no mental illness involved. It's a question of tastes, and whether or not tastes are acquired or innate doesn't matter.

I realize you don't actually take that stance, but if someone were to, I would say that, even if it was possible to choose your sexual orientation (which it isn't, of course), I find it extremely unlikely that people, selfish as they usually are, would generally care about the *very* slight effect they would have on the heterosexual dating pool more than they would their own happiness (if choosing to be gay made them happy). In other words, "Cry me a river, straight people." (or at least that's how I'd feel)

Plus, I could turn that around and say that all these heterosexuals are limiting the dating pool for gays! And to a much greater degree, at that!

Perhaps a combination of these genes and varying hormonal secretions in the mother's foetus then? Could this not result into one person being born homosexual, and the other not?

Identical twins would, vastly more often than not, receive the same dosage of hormones from their mother. What you're describing, if even possible, is a very specific instance which is unlikely to account for a 50% variation.

Identical twins are *not* TOTALLY identical. It's just the language we use. Technically speaking, their DNA, while it is very similar, is not a carbon copy. They could both have the same "gay gene" or "diabetese gene", or they might not.

But they ARE totally identical! In the womb, they are literally the same person - the egg is fertalized and the DNA is determined, and then the egg divides, giving rise to two identical children.

As for recessive genes, they'd both have it if one did - and it would have the same effect under the same circumstances.

Recessive genes are funny, but I'll whip up a short genetics explanation to clear them up.

Let's suppose we're deciding the genes for hair colour - Black is B, and blonde is b.

A black haired man has a hair code, in this case, of BB, and a blonde haired woman of bb. When they mate, each contributes one gene to the mix, giving four possible combinations - all of them, in this scenario, Bb. Because this black haired gene (B) is dominant, it manifests over the recessive blonde gene (b).

But suppose a black haired man and a black haired woman, both who had recessive blonde genes hiding, had children, there would be four possible ourcomes - the (Bb) dad and the (Bb) mom would produce kids they were either BB, Bb, bB (which is, essentially, the same as Bb) and bb.

All of a sudden, they have a little bb baby and they're shocked as to how they could have a blonde baby - that's how recessive genes work.

However, identical babies have the same genes - they will both have the same hair and eye colour, for example.. no matter what recessive or dominant dish they got.

I'm afraid you're a bit off the mark on this. Recessive genes have the possibility of being "awakened", but don't systematically do so. We don't understand why they work that way; either they're pretty random, or we just don't get what affacts them. Either way, gene sequences do give chances.

That doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality is systematically caused by genes and genes alone, but it really doesn't matter in my opinion.

Yet it could lend some credibility to the fact that homosexuality may be entirely genetic, or even a combination of genes and hormones.

If there are gay men, there are less opportunities for women to get boyfriends, husbands, or mere male lovers.

If there are lesbian women, there are somewhat less opportunities for men to get girlfriends, wives, or mere female lovers. Somewhat because there are slightly more women than men on earth since women generally live longer than men do.


In conclusion: For the sake of fairness and equality of opportunity for men and women to have love partners, there should only be lesbians! But not too many. Only the ugly gay chicks should live as lesbians.

</sarcasm>

Homophobic people should use that stance, I think it's far better than "homosexuality is wrong!" or "I don't like Gay pride parades!"




Edit: And just so I don't get bashed, since some of my meaning is lost in reading, this is a stance for those who are homophobic and wish to defend their position. I do not defend homophobia, but I suppose that if I ever had to, I'd use this stance. I do not feel that I am homophobic, at least not enough at all to feel weird about or want to change the ways of my gay, lesbian, and bi friends.
By the same token, you could say:

If there are heterosexual women, there are less opportunities for men to get boyfriends, husbands, or mere male lovers.

If there are heterosexual men, there are somewhat less opportunities for women to get girlfriends, wives, or mere female lovers.

These are statements of fact for sure, but there is no value judgement assigned to them. It's not a stance. Taking a stand would involve stating that one group or another should have more opportunity to find a mate.

Personally, I know many people that shouldn't be allowed in the gene pool even if they are wearing water wings and they would be doing the world a tremendous favor if they were gay.

How exactly do recessive genes work? And if a single homosexual recessive gene existed, why would it be so difficult to be found?
I don't think a single gene might control the possible homosexuality of someone.

There is no single gene for blue eyes, or for blond hair. They're always determined by a sequence of many different genes, and it's more the combinations rather than the genes themselves that affects the results.

Recessive genes just exist in our DNA and either activate, or don't. A well-known example of this would be hemophilia: some poeple are hemophiles, and have children. Their children bear the genes responsible for it, but never develop the condition. Then, a generation or two later, a person with the same recessive hemophilia gene develops the condition. We really don't know much about why they activate or not.

Identical twins would, vastly more often than not, receive the same dosage of hormones from their mother. What you're describing, if even possible, is a very specific instance which is unlikely to account for a 50% variation.

Unlikely, yet it may well be the reason why. Unlikelihood is not the same as something being impossible.

Unlikely, yet it may well be the reason why. Unlikelihood is not the same as something being impossible.

Yes, but in the face of unlikelyhood we must use Occum's razor. Perhaps homosexuality is cause by a specific pheramonal secretion of mice living in the same house as the pregnant woman - this is unlikely, and so we should give creedance to more likely explanations first.

But they ARE totally identical! In the womb, they are literally the same person - the egg is fertalized and the DNA is determined, and then the egg divides, giving rise to two identical children.

*snip*

However, identical babies have the same genes - they will both have the same hair and eye colour, for example.. no matter what recessive or dominant dish they got.

No they're not, you're off the mark on that one. If one out of a pair of twins commits a crime and the police gets a DNA test done, they do know which of the two commited the crime.

If a mother wants to know which of two twins is father to her child, a DNA test does give the right answer.

Twins have gene pools that are much more similar than is usually seen in human beings, but they DO have differences in their genetic pool. At the risk of repeating myself: identical twins are *not* clones, as any geneticist worth his diploma will tell you.

Yet it could lend some credibility to the fact that homosexuality may be entirely genetic, or even a combination of genes and hormones.
Even if it wasn't, I still don't see any reason it would be different from, say, someone's favorite color or the type of movies he enjoy.

I personnally neither subscribe to the genetic nor the constructivist theories about homosexuality's origins. I believe it's more of a combination of the two.

Even if it wasn't, I still don't see any reason it would be different from, say, someone's favorite color or the type of movies he enjoy.

I personnally neither subscribe to the genetic nor the constructivist theories about homosexuality's origins. I believe it's more of a combination of the two.
I would be willing to believe that its a combination, yet personally I still think its more genetic than anything else. Although its possible that other factors might influence it, yet little is proven yet.

No they're not, you're off the mark on that one. If one out of a pair of twins commits a crime and the police gets a DNA test done, they do know which of the two commited the crime.

If a mother wants to know which of two twins is father to her child, a DNA test does give the right answer.

Twins have gene pools that are much more similar than is usually seen in human beings, but they DO have differences in their genetic pool. At the risk of repeating myself: identical twins are *not* clones, as any geneticist worth his diploma will tell you.

Oh, yes - there are variations... But not at birth.

DNA changes in you as you grow. Let's say we have two identical twins. One looks after his body and the other doesn't. They reach the age of 40, and both get clones. The fat brother will have a fat clone, and the buff brother will have a buff clone. Your genetic material is not the same now as it was when you were born because of outside factors. This is the reason that the cloned Dolly had a genetic meltdown - they bred a baby with the genes of a full grown sheep, so it aged horrifically and died and awful death.

Yes, two identical twins will have slight variations in DNA - caused by thier dietary intake, how they live, and many other factors. But purely on the DNA they were given, they are identical to start - save the chance of a mutation in divide, but I'm not about to go and call homosexuals mutants.

Why is it so difficult to stomach even the possibility that there could be factors of nurture in this issue?

Yes, two identical twins will have slight variations in DNA - caused by thier dietary intake, how they live, and many other factors. But purely on the DNA they were given, they are identical to start - save the chance of a mutation in divide, but I'm not about to go and call homosexuals mutants.

Why is it so difficult to stomach even the possibility that there could be factors of nurture in this issue?
Mutation is not necessarily malignant. Its not a negative term.

Why is it so difficult to stomach that our understanding of genetics is by no means absolute?

Why is it so difficult to stomach even the possibility that there could be factors of nurture in this issue?

I have no problems with that notion. As I stated above, I believe it is a combination of both genetics and a person's construction of his/her own identity that affects sexual orientation.

And, I reiterate that a different sexual orientation is no more a mental illness nor immoral than someone whose favorite color is, say, brown. Which in my opinion is as ugly as a color can get. I still don't feel the need to ridicule or belittle those who like brown as a color, as long as those brown-colored-shirt-wearing-hippies respect my right to prefer silver over it :p

How is homosexuality NOT a choice?

How is it not a choice you ask? Is your hetrosexuality a choice? Do you wake up every morning and say, "Hmm I think I am going to be attracted to the opposite sex today." Or do you have a choice who you fall in love with?

If you can answer yes to all of those then I guess you would be right in saying that homosexuality is a choice.

Mutation is not necessarily malignant. Its not a negative term.

Why is it so difficult to stomach that our understanding of genetics is by no means absolute?

I'm not saying our understanding of genetics is absolute. Infact, I commend you for conceding atleast the possibility of nurture as a contributor here. But just look at some of the previous posts on this thread - people saying, with no evidence, how preposterous it is that gays might choose their lifestyle, how it's so CLEARLY genetic, and unless you've been gay you can't possibly understand (as if homosexuality granted a degree in molecular biology).

What I'm saying is that the pro-homosexual community as a hole is longing, desperate even, for any shred of evidence that this variation was something forced upon them... and they tend to ignore, twist or reject examples like the twins study I've just cited.

I'm not saying our understanding of genetics is absolute. Infact, I commend you for conceding atleast the possibility of nurture as a contributor here. But just look at some of the previous posts on this thread - people saying, with no evidence, how preposterous it is that gays might choose their lifestyle, how it's so CLEARLY genetic, and unless you've been gay you can't possibly understand (as if homosexuality granted a degree in molecular biology).

What I'm saying is that the pro-homosexual community as a hole is longing, desperate even, for any shred of evidence that this variation was something forced upon them... and they tend to ignore, twist or reject examples like the twins study I've just cited.
I accept the possibility of nurture, as well as even hormones, as a contributing factor, even though I believe genetics to be the main cause. I will await further evidence to see which way my "vote" swings. Whatever the factors though, being gay is hardly my own choice.

I have no problems with that notion. As I stated above, I believe it is a combination of both genetics and a person's construction of his/her own identity that affects sexual orientation.

And, I reiterate that a different sexual orientation is no more a mental illness nor immoral than someone whose favorite color is, say, brown. Which in my opinion is as ugly as a color can get. I still don't feel the need to ridicule or belittle those who like brown as a color, as long as those brown-colored-shirt-wearing-hippies respect my right to prefer silver over it :p

Silver? Puh-LEEZE. Metalics are SO late 80's, early 90's. Look at your iPod - Solid white. That's the ticket, baby.

Silver? Puh-LEEZE. Metalics are SO late 80's, early 90's. Look at your iPod - Solid white. That's the ticket, baby.
Yep, white is the way of the future :p

I accept the possibility of nurture, as well as even hormones, as a contributing factor, even though I believe genetics to be the main cause. I will await further evidence to see which way my "vote" swings. Whatever the factors though, being gay is hardly my own choice.

It's not as though we're saying you wake up every morning and decide to like members of the same sex. It's most likely that your first "choice" is made for you. What we suggest is that it's possible to change - to choose differently, in the same way that someone can control and eventually remove an urge to gamble, for example.

And in regards to the "There's no reason to change it" bit... I've two responses.

First is the fact that, like all controversial issues, this has a theological root. If it's true, then yes, that's enough reason to change - though naturally no one would force you into it.

Secondly, religion aside, some people don't like the size of their breasts, and have that altered... or the shape of their nose, or the fact that they need glasses. Speaking from outside a moral perspective, if the OPTION to change can be made available, it should. If I wasn't in the theological place I was, I'd be 'learning' to be bisexual. Why not?

I'm not saying our understanding of genetics is absolute. Infact, I commend you for conceding atleast the possibility of nurture as a contributor here. But just look at some of the previous posts on this thread - people saying, with no evidence, how preposterous it is that gays might choose their lifestyle, how it's so CLEARLY genetic, and unless you've been gay you can't possibly understand (as if homosexuality granted a degree in molecular biology).

First: that factors other than genetics influence sexual orientation does not mean there is any notion of "choice" involved in sexual preferences. I never took any decisions regarding my favorite color or movie, and I most certainly did not take any decision towards the things that would sexually arouse me in life.

If you say that you made conscious decisions regarding your attractions and/or tastes, then I'm afraid I'll have to call you a liar.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice and not a preference comes essentially from poeple who are too close minded to accept the fact that not everyone shares their preferences. That, or a sort of perceived superiority of their own sexual orientation(heterosexuality, in this case).

The fact is: nobody ever choses who they're attracted to. The only thing they can chose is whether they'll live happily and openly their sexuality, or whether they'll hide it and be unhappy trying to pretend they're someone different. I always encourage the first option.


What I'm saying is that the pro-homosexual community as a hole is longing, desperate even, for any shred of evidence that this variation was something forced upon them... and they tend to ignore, twist or reject examples like the twins study I've just cited.
Well, then the pro-homosexual community where you live is quite different from the one in my locality. I have never heard anyone saying homosexuality was "forced upon them". That it's not a conscious choice isn't a way for them to defend themselves or justify their sexuality, because tastes, acquired or not, require no discussing.

It's not as though we're saying you wake up every morning and decide to like members of the same sex. It's most likely that your first "choice" is made for you. What we suggest is that it's possible to change - to choose differently, in the same way that someone can control and eventually remove an urge to gamble, for example.

And in regards to the "There's no reason to change it" bit... I've two responses.

I am sorry, but here I'll disagree. No matter how much I tried, even if I wanted to, I could not possibly be attracted to a woman sexually. Been there, tried it, doesn't work. So forget it.

Yep, white is the way of the future :p

Damn straight.



....Pun intended.

*snip*
Agreed.

Speaking as a lesbian, I'd have to agree with the defenders here. As far as homophobia goes, I haven't had much better a time than most gay men, despite what one might think. The idea of lesbians is cool to most men, but only in the context of "They're not really gay, they'll still have a threesome with me." There's still a lot of inexplicable hate out there for us, but we have a better time of it than men, I believe.

About the genetics--it's impossible to say WHERE it comes from. It can't be solely genetics because there are twins who don't both exhibit it. It can't be solely nurture because there are children who come out of all types of homes queer. Whatever it is, it isn't a choice. I would never choose to be teased and put through hell just to hold hands with someone I love. It would be SO much easier just to be straight. It's not worth wasting your worries on.

Does anyone else find it completely ridiculous when people say, "Why isn't there a heterosexual pride day?" That just sends me over the edge. XD

I am sorry, but here I'll disagree. No matter how much I tried, even if I wanted to, I could not possibly be attracted to a woman sexually. Been there, tried it, doesn't work. So forget it.

Maybe. Maybe there's just techniques you don't know about and havn't tried.

I'm not saying to go out and change yourself - I'm a firm beleive that if God wants you to change something, he lets you know about it, starting with the most important issues and working down. So don't think I'm trying to convince you to straighten up - I'm just saying that other people can. Other people HAVE - and delcaring, as Skaladora seems to, that these changes are probably people who just 'hide it and be unhappy trying to pretend they're someone different' is, well, silly.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice and not a preference comes essentially from poeple who are too close minded to accept the fact that not everyone shares their preferences. That, or a sort of perceived superiority of their own sexual orientation(heterosexuality, in this case).

The fact is: nobody ever choses who they're attracted to. The only thing they can chose is whether they'll live happily and openly their sexuality, or whether they'll hide it and be unhappy trying to pretend they're someone different. I always encourage the first option.

Well, then the pro-homosexual community where you live is quite different from the one in my locality. I have never heard anyone saying homosexuality was "forced upon them". That it's not a conscious choice isn't a way for them to defend themselves or justify their sexuality, because tastes, acquired or not, require no discussing.

You're sporting a philosophical point of veiw now, Skaladora - that Homosexuality is not something that has any kind of moral weight. While you're entitled to beleive that naturally, your sweeping statements seem to suggest that I should, for some reason, accept your philosophy over mine. I believe it's worth discussing - you believe it's not. That's cool. I'll go on discussing it though.

But what you're doing now is the normal thing that pro-homosexuals do in these discussion: You've come to a point where you've decided that I am, for holding a different opinion, somehow closed minded. Please don't think that - I've been doing my best to answer every question you offer me in a clear, and concise manner. I have not bludgeoned you with a King James, as you might have anticipated.

Maybe. Maybe there's just techniques you don't know about and havn't tried.

I'm not saying to go out and change yourself - I'm a firm beleive that if God wants you to change something, he lets you know about it, starting with the most important issues and working down. So don't think I'm trying to convince you to straighten up - I'm just saying that other people can. Other people HAVE - and delcaring, as Skaladora seems to, that these changes are probably people who just 'hide it and be unhappy trying to pretend they're someone different'.

Oh, you mean like hypnotherapy? Where your mind is tricked into believing something? This may work for real mental problems, but in this case it could actually end up creating them. In any case, I believe, as I stated before, that most of these people who "change" are bisexuals who opt to act straight, or rather, people who end up repressing their true sexuality.

Speaking as a lesbian, I'd have to agree with the defenders here. As far as homophobia goes, I haven't had much better a time than most gay men, despite what one might think. The idea of lesbians is cool to most men, but only in the context of "They're not really gay, they'll still have a threesome with me." There's still a lot of inexplicable hate out there for us, but we have a better time of it than men, I believe.

About the genetics--it's impossible to say WHERE it comes from. It can't be solely genetics because there are twins who don't both exhibit it. It can't be solely nurture because there are children who come out of all types of homes queer. Whatever it is, it isn't a choice. I would never choose to be teased and put through hell just to hold hands with someone I love. It would be SO much easier just to be straight. It's not worth wasting your worries on.

Does anyone else find it completely ridiculous when people say, "Why isn't there a heterosexual pride day?" That just sends me over the edge. XD



From what I've heard from a lot of my friends, you get more verbal abuse from girls if you're lesbian than gay guys get from other guys, oddly enough. The amount of abuse is still plenty signifigant in both cases, just, yeah, you know.

This sort of reminds me of Spike TV. They can't call it ME (Men's Entertainment) because a lot of feminists would get pissed off about it even though there's WE... or something like that. No clue why though.

"Oooh, lesbians, 3some?!!!11"
"No."
"Ommggggg!1 To the stake with ye!!1"

One thing:

We're here, we don't like what queers do, get used to it.

Call us homophobes or Godfearing Christians (or any other religion that believes that heterosexuality is what God or many gods intended). It doesn't change our attitude, and no amount of self-proclaimed social philanthropizers will hijack my views by saying it is hatred. It is disagreeing with how people act. If people were born with an inclination to kill other people, I am sure that you would not question others' rights to disagree with them acting on such an inclination.

One thing:

We're here, we don't like what queers do, get used to it.

Call us homophobes or Godfearing Christians (or any other religion that believes that heterosexuality is what God or many gods intended). It doesn't change our attitude, and no amount of self-proclaimed social philanthropizers will hijack my views by saying it is hatred. It is disagreeing with how people act. If people were born with an inclination to kill other people, I am sure that you would not question others' rights to disagree with them acting on such an inclination.
With the difference that killing actually removes another person's life.

Oh, you mean like hypnotherapy? Where your mind is tricked into believing something? This may work for real mental problems, but in this case it could actually end up creating them. In any case, I believe, as I stated before, that most of these people who "change" are bisexuals who opt to act straight, or rather, people who end up repressing their true sexuality.

I'm talking about people who were exclusively attracted to members of the same sex for a number of years and then, though various coaching techniques, ALTER their sexual attraction. It happens, but very few people on the gay side will beleive that.

Anyway, I could just as easilly say that most gay people are bi sexuals who are suppressing their heterosexual urges, and are repressing their true sexuality.

I'm talking about people who were exclusively attracted to members of the same sex for a number of years and then, though various coaching techniques, ALTER their sexual attraction. It happens, but very few people on the gay side will beleive that.

Anyway, I could just as easilly say that most gay people are bi sexuals who are suppressing their heterosexual urges, and are repressing their true sexuality.
Hmm, if we're not attracted to women at all, how are we suppressing them? Suppression refers to not acting on known sexual preferences.

BTW, do you believe that, through using these techniques, you could become attracted to men?

Homophobia is sooooooo gay.

I'm talking about people who were exclusively attracted to members of the same sex for a number of years and then, though various coaching techniques, ALTER their sexual attraction. It happens, but very few people on the gay side will beleive that.

Anyway, I could just as easilly say that most gay people are bi sexuals who are suppressing their heterosexual urges, and are repressing their true sexuality.


Look at any of the shit gay people go through, and you'd see that if that were true, they'd just go straight.

Look at any of the shit gay people go through, and you'd see that if that were true, they'd just go straight.
Agreed.

Hmm, if we're not attracted to women at all, how are we suppressing them? Suppression refers to not acting on known sexual preferences.

I don't know. I know as much about how your head works as you do about the 'repentant homosexuals' who you've decided must simply be dizzy bisexuals or shammers. My point was that I too can make broad, insubstantiable remarks - they don't help either of us though.

I don't know. I know as much about how your head works as you do about the 'repentant homosexuals' who you've decided must simply be dizzy bisexuals or shammers. My point was that I too can make broad, insubstantiable remarks - they don't help either of us though.
They do if it turns out most of those people who "altered" their sexuality are instead suppressing it, or rather, are bisexual. Do you think these techniques could make you like men?

They do if it turns out most of those people who "altered" their sexuality are instead suppressing it, or rather, are bisexual. Do you think these techniques could make you like men?

I am certain they could.

I am certain they could.
At least you are then :p

Holmes, B., 1994. Gay gene test ‘inaccurate and immoral’. New Scientist, 141 (1915):9.


Well for some reason my login is not working. Will have to wait until they respond.

However, I do recall that Dr. Jones was raising the ethical question of searching for a gay gene.

So if he is declaring it immoral; is not your declaration of homosexuality being a mental disease immoral?

Oh and the Hamner data was declared invalid I think in 1997. Nobody could reproduce it and he never followed through with it so the gay gene remains ellusive.....

Can we talk about colours again now? I liked agreeing with you.

White power!

...Wait... That came out wrong...

Well for some reason my login is not working. Will have to wait until they respond.

However, I do recall that Dr. Jones was raising the ethical question of searching for a gay gene.

So if he is declaring it immoral; is not your declaration of homosexuality being a mental disease immoral?

Oh and the Hamner data was declared invalid I think in 1997. Nobody could reproduce it and he never followed through with it so the gay gene remains ellusive.....

That depends on whether or not there are moral absolutes or not. You may, if you wish, consider what I declare 'immoral'. That's your right.


Silver still sucks...

That depends on whether or not there are moral absolutes or not. You may, if you wish, consider what I declare 'immoral'. That's your right.


Silver still sucks...
Moral absolutes are iffy at best.

Depends on who's wearing it...

I don't like it if people use that as an act in the attempt to flaunt sexuality. However, if that's how someone really is, you're going to begrudge people for being how they really are?

Nice to know.

So what's the differnce between a flamer and a guy bragging to other guys about the chick he nailed last night?

Moral absolutes are iffy at best.

Depends on who's wearing it...

Moral absolutes are iffy? Isn't that an oxymoron?

As for who's wearing it...No one, because no one wears silver these days.

Except medieval recreationists.

Moral absolutes are iffy? Isn't that an oxymoron?

As for who's wearing it...No one, because no one wears silver these days.

Except medieval recreationists.
Not really. I don't believe there is such a thing as a moral absolute.

www.alexandermcqueen.com If you check there, you'll find silver outfits.

Not really. I don't believe there is such a thing as a moral absolute.

www.alexandermcqueen.com If you check there, you'll find silver outfits.

And I do beleive there are moral absolutes. Of course, neither of us can decide if there are moral absolutes; that's for God (or a lack thereof) to decide.

Re: Silver.

Hmm...Swanky. I'm not yet convinced.

Secondly, religion aside, some people don't like the size of their breasts, and have that altered... or the shape of their nose, or the fact that they need glasses. Speaking from outside a moral perspective, if the OPTION to change can be made available, it should. If I wasn't in the theological place I was, I'd be 'learning' to be bisexual. Why not?

No it should not.

Christians would be "impressing" on gays to take the "correction."

It is a question of ethics. Why is it that homosexuals are bad and yet ginger people are not?

*brownie points for spotting the reference ;) *

One thing:

We're here, we don't like what queers do, get used to it.

Call us homophobes or Godfearing Christians (or any other religion that believes that heterosexuality is what God or many gods intended). It doesn't change our attitude, and no amount of self-proclaimed social philanthropizers will hijack my views by saying it is hatred. It is disagreeing with how people act. If people were born with an inclination to kill other people, I am sure that you would not question others' rights to disagree with them acting on such an inclination.

Nice strawman there troll.

No it should not.

Christians would be "impressing" on gays to take the "correction."

It is a question of ethics. Why is it that homosexuals are bad and yet ginger people are not?

*brownie points for spotting the reference ;) *

Christians are already pressuring that.

And Promosexuals would support heterosexuals getting Bi-ified. So what? If I like large breasted women I don't arm myself with a backpack of saline implants, a scalpel and prowl the streets looking for victims. Sometimes women choose that change - and they are entitled to, as gay men should be, to change their preference.

Okay, very few people see that gay men are still normal men. Seeing these posts, I can tell that the level of prejudice toward gays is extremely high, which is discomforting, being extremely pro-choice. Why does it matter who someone marries? So what if there's Male-Female relationships due to homosexuality? As long as people live life as they see fit, everything is fine. For most of you, have you ever been angered by a racist remark or racial unfairness? If so, why should gays have to sit and put up with sexist remarks and sexual unfairness?

If you're disgusted with homosexuality, why should a gay man be disgusted by being forced to be with a woman, whom he has no attraction for? If you don't like it, ignore it, let them do what they want. As for people who see it "immoral" because of religion, why does it matter if they are going against your beliefs? It's their choice, you have to live with the fact that you CAN NOT always get your way. In conclusion, homosexuality should not be descriminated, just as certain races should not be descriminated for who they are.

Moral absolutes are iffy? Isn't that an oxymoron?


Well "morals" happen to fit people at that point in time.

It was once moral to own slaves.

It was once moral to keep women from voting.

Some would tell you it's perfectly moral to kill an abortion doctor.

One man's morality can be another man obscinity.

But we are digressing from the topic at hand.....

Christians are already pressuring that.

And Promosexuals would support heterosexuals getting Bi-ified. So what?


You are rather judgemental aren't you?

Prohomosexuals? Why not call them homosexuals?

I have no issues over homosexuality and will argue against any that would force their morality on others. So I guess that makes me pro-homosexual.

And yet I have never heard of pro bisexualise people.


If I like large breasted women I don't arm myself with a backpack of saline implants, a scalpel and prowl the streets looking for victims. Sometimes women choose that change - and they are entitled to, as gay men should be, to change their preference.

As long as they aren't pressued by you "Christians" then yes they can have that right if they wanted it.

Okay, very few people see that gay men are still normal men. Seeing these posts, I can tell that the level of prejudice toward gays is extremely high, which is discomforting, being extremely pro-choice. Why does it matter who someone marries? So what if there's Male-Female relationships due to homosexuality? As long as people live life as they see fit, everything is fine. For most of you, have you ever been angered by a racist remark or racial unfairness? If so, why should gays have to sit and put up with sexist remarks and sexual unfairness?

If you're disgusted with homosexuality, why should a gay man be disgusted by being forced to be with a woman, whom he has no attraction for? If you don't like it, ignore it, let them do what they want. As for people who see it "immoral" because of religion, why does it matter if they are going against your beliefs? It's their choice, you have to live with the fact that you CAN NOT always get your way. In conclusion, homosexuality should not be descriminated, just as certain races should not be descriminated for who they are.

Longcat, I'm not sure who's posts you're reading... But no one here is advocating that we 'force' gay men to have sex with women. This whole debate has revolved around the question of homosexuality as a concrete or malleable facet of a person's life. I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but I feel your zeal is a little unwarrented at this particular moment.

No it should not.

Christians would be "impressing" on gays to take the "correction."

It is a question of ethics. Why is it that homosexuals are bad and yet ginger people are not?

*brownie points for spotting the reference ;) *

Err...... daywalkers?

Err...... daywalkers?

South Park! :p

Longcat, I'm not sure who's posts you're reading... But no one here is advocating that we 'force' gay men to have sex with women. This whole debate has revolved around the question of homosexuality as a concrete or malleable facet of a person's life. I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but I feel your zeal is a little unwarrented at this particular moment.

Yet you label them as mental ill and are ok with correcting their "flaw."

Well "morals" happen to fit people at that point in time.

It was once moral to own slaves.

It was once moral to keep women from voting.

Some would tell you it's perfectly moral to kill an abortion doctor.

One man's morality can be another man obscinity.

But we are digressing from the topic at hand.....

Yeah, that's what happens with moral relativity. Gets out of hand like that.

I don't consider myself judgemental. You can, if you want, begin doling out the "anti-christian" language. Closed minded, judgemental... Go on, go all out. Call me an 'extremist' or a 'nazi'.

And I just invented the term Promosexual there; I decided it was unfair to say that "Homosexuals are doing this" and "Homosexuals support that" when most of the people making the arguements of this and that are simply pro-homosexual heterosexuals. It's not a bad thing or a derogatory term; it's just saving me from typing more words than I need to.

I must say, I'm rather surprised that you think that, if it's possible to change one's sexual identity, the option shouldn't be there. That's kind of harsh...

Almost all of us have attractions, fantasies, usually physical contact (hugging, etc.) as well, with members of both sexes. At the same time, most of us show strong preferences for people of one or the other sex. I'm not going to get into why this is, because I don't know--but I do know that it isn't a result of conscious choice.

I agree with the people who are saying it's a matter of taste. And, like other tastes, it is fluid. Sexual orientation is not an attribute that remains fixed in stone throughout our lives; it is a shorthand description for the activities of the passions in us, which surprise our conscious minds continually.

Over the course of the lifetime, people will find themselves shifting up and down along the Kinsey scale--which is itself an oversimplification for the complex phenomena that are sexual orientation; and while most people will retain the same general orientation throughout their lifetimes, I don't think it unreasonable to think that there might be a few people who are gay when young but straight when older. (This would be something that they realized, of course, not something that they decided.)

That said, the coercion, hypocrisy, and exploitation involved in the "ex-gay" movement as a political movement of anti-gay bigots has nothing to do with an honest change in taste.

Yet you label them as mental ill and are ok with correcting their "flaw."

"Label", huh? Here I was thinkin' I was entitled to a different opinion. Turns out I'm a judgemental, closed minded, labeling "Christian".

This is what I mean when I say shouted down. I'm suggesting an alternate veiwpoint and you're going out of your way to try to take offence to my words. I beleive that homosexuality is immoral and that it is a mental "variation". Go on. Hate me for it.

Yeah, that's what happens with moral relativity. Gets out of hand like that.

I don't consider myself judgemental. You can, if you want, begin doling out the "anti-christian" language. Closed minded, judgemental... Go on, go all out. Call me an 'extremist' or a 'nazi'.


Ahh here we go the vicitm defense. Sorry, you are the one labeling people mentally ill so what is that compassion?


And I just invented the term Promosexual there; I decided it was unfair to say that "Homosexuals are doing this" and "Homosexuals support that" when most of the people making the arguements of this and that are simply pro-homosexual heterosexuals. It's not a bad thing or a derogatory term; it's just saving me from typing more words than I need to.


Ahhh ok. Didn't understand where you were going.


I must say, I'm rather surprised that you think that, if it's possible to change one's sexual identity, the option shouldn't be there. That's kind of harsh...

Again it's a question of ethics. Even your reference questioned the ehtics and morality of seeking a gay gene.

What is harsh is the fact people like you would pressue people to be "corrected."

"Label", huh? Here I was thinkin' I was entitled to a different opinion. Turns out I'm a judgemental, closed minded, labeling "Christian".


Differnce of opinion?

Ok then people who call black people niggers are only expressing an opinion?

People who seek to belittle and segregate others are only expressing an opinion?

People pressuring others to accept a "correction" are only expressing an opinion?


This is what I mean when I say shouted down. I'm suggesting an alternate veiwpoint and you're going out of your way to try to take offence to my words. I beleive that homosexuality is immoral and that it is a mental "variation". Go on. Hate me for it.

Sorry but for claiming to be a christian you have some very unchristian attitudes.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't hate you. How could I? I don't know you.

Ahh here we go the vicitm defense. Sorry, you are the one labeling people mentally ill so what is that compassion?



Ahhh ok. Didn't understand where you were going.



Again it's a question of ethics. Even your reference questioned the ehtics and morality of seeking a gay gene.

What is harsh is the fact people like you would pressue people to be "corrected."

Is that what people like me would do? I'd do what I do now - I'd mention to someone who was struggling with homosexual attraction that you don't need to just throw in the towel and decide "this is the way I just am"; that there are groups out there that approach this in a different manner, and that choice is there. As I said earlier, I don't tell people to change things because I don't like them (Unless they're immediately harmful, like smoking) but, when it's tasteful to say so, I will highlight my beleif that they are immoral behaviours. I have friends who have 'alternative' sexualities - I don't spend all my time with them trying to goad them into support groups, but I have mentioned it when the time was right.

I'm not -actually- a bad guy, Forrest; I'm just one of the few on the Right who feels compelled to discuss this in a calm and open forum then the opportunity arises.

Differnce of opinion?

Ok then people who call black people niggers are only expressing an opinion?

People who seek to belittle and segregate others are only expressing an opinion?

People pressuring others to accept a "correction" are only expressing an opinion?



Sorry but for claiming to be a christian you have some very unchristian attitudes.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't hate you. How could I? I don't know you.

Is that what my attitudes are? Huh. Was wondering.

Seems we've come to a point where we're both comfortable to leave this behind.

Hmm...

Wanna go filibuster the U.N?

Is that what people like me would do? I'd do what I do now - I'd mention to someone who was struggling with homosexual attraction that you don't need to just throw in the towel and decide "this is the way I just am"; that there are groups out there that approach this in a different manner, and that choice is there.


A person who decides that on HIS own. Sure. Pressure from others and family? Nope.

As I said earlier, I don't tell people to change things because I don't like them (Unless they're immediately harmful, like smoking) but, when it's tasteful to say so, I will highlight my beleif that they are immoral behaviours. I have friends who have 'alternative' sexualities - I don't spend all my time with them trying to goad them into support groups, but I have mentioned it when the time was right.


Well that is something I don't do. You view homosexuality as a bad thing. I don't as such I don't suggest they correct it. The only time I give advice is when I am asked and when I feel people are hurting others or themselves(as you suggested smoking).


I'm not -actually- a bad guy, Forrest; I'm just one of the few on the Right who feels compelled to discuss this in a calm and open forum then the opportunity arises.

No worries. I am one who will combat such talk as the need arises. I will not deny Christians to be Christians. I will not deny homosexuals to be homosexuals. When one starts moving on the other, then I take sides.

Is that what my attitudes are? Huh. Was wondering.

You overlook the meaning.

Everybody has opinions. That does not make them always right or justified.

A person who decides that on HIS own. Sure. Pressure from others and family? Nope.



Well that is something I don't do. You view homosexuality as a bad thing. I don't as such I don't suggest they correct it. The only time I give advice is when I am asked and when I feel people are hurting others or themselves(as you suggested smoking).



No worries. I am one who will combat such talk as the need arises. I will not deny Christians to be Christians. I will not deny homosexuals to be homosexuals. When one starts moving on the other, then I take sides.

Right now, I'm not sure what we are arguing over... It's not over how we conduct our friendships, as we both still have friends so we're doing something right.

Allow me to make my position clear. I don't think we should make homosexuality illegal, or force homosexuals into rehabilitation programs - I just think that option should be there, and it shouldn't be covered up or discounted as some kind of scam. Leopards should be allowed to try to change their spots if they want to - and the need for the availiability of that option, I think, is greater than the chance that people will feel 'pressured' into them.

How is homosexuality NOT a choice?

Although the attraction is not a choice, the activity is.

As a rational person, I made the choice to have a relationship with a wonderful man. I could have chosen a celebate lifestyle as well. That's where the choice lies.

I don't know anout his study, but I concur he's right about the possibility of identical twins having different sexual orientations. I personnally know two twins (very attractive guys, at that) and one of them is gay, while the other is straight.

twins aren't completely identicall either...not even a clone would be