Gentically gay?

[davser]

Not lifestyle at all it seems contrary to what some on this forum will have us believe. How will christians react to these findings now that they will have to accept that homoesexuals have no choice in their sexual preference?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
Womb environment 'makes men gay'

A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.
Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely down to biological rather than social factors.

The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either "biological" brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or "non-biological" brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.

The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.

'Maternal memory'

Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: "If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."

"But the question of mechanism remains."

Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, said: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."

[Ghoul Hunter]

Most likely. They said.

I still don't believe this, and will hold my stance.

[Chrysostom]

I always believed homosexuality was genetic.

[davser]

Most likely. They said.

I still don't believe this, and will hold my stance.

Most likely is how scientists would regard the theory of evolution, big bang etc.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

Yeah, even though I believe that it's true,


this really probably means nothing at all in the debate and is just a biased opinion.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

My uncle has 11 brothers including himself, and 3/11 are gay.

[spitfirejunky]

The evidence here is largely statistical. We'll have to wait for direct biological evidence before we can draw conclusions.

[kaos]

I think this is somewhat true. But what on the homosexuals with only one, or no older siblings? And where does that leave Bisexuals? I think its a mix on genitics, how the brain develops, and just sheer dumb chance.

[DBoons Ghost]

I would like to believe genetics plays a part in what makes up someone's gender and desire for such.

Think about it. Most of us who are heterosexual can only fathom that. Think real hard and even allow yourself to fantasize about being with someone in an intimate setting who is of the same sex.

Yea I know. Wretched! Horrible.. cringe.

Now, imagine feeling that way when you fantasize about women as a man. That's something else in itself. I know I've said this before and half the time ya'll dismiss it, but that's how it goes. I've had homosexual friends since childhood, and that's how they explain it to me.

It has to be something genetic.

[Spoonful of Shame]

I would like to believe genetics plays a part in what makes up someone's gender and desire for such.

Think about it. Most of us who are heterosexual can only fathom that. Think real hard and even allow yourself to fantasize about being with someone in an intimate setting who is of the same sex.

Yea I know. Wretched! Horrible.. cringe.

Now, imagine feeling that way when you fantasize about women as a man. That's something else in itself. I know I've said this before and half the time ya'll dismiss it, but that's how it goes. I've had homosexual friends since childhood, and that's how they explain it to me.

It has to be something genetic.

I agree. I don't think some kid wakes up one day and desides to be gay. I think it includes many factors and genetics is one of them.

[peeted]

its probibly a mixture of factors. eg people exposed to certain social circumstances and people exposed to certain biological factors will be more likley to turn out gay.

[griftadan]

i never really understood what difference it made if it was genetic or not.

[mcmurray]

Exactly.

I don't think it's all that important to find out why people are gay. Just accept that there are gay people and move on.

[kaos]

And even if it is, does it really matter why?

[Samuel]

i never really understood what difference it made if it was genetic or not.
So we can cure them with gene therapy duh

[Syncratic]

I've always thought it was choice above all.

[kaos]

So we can cure them with gene therapy duh

Dut homosexualty is not a desise, no more then hetrosexualty. That is very close to something Hitler would of said, because he tried a very similar thing.

Why can't we be happy with what people are. Homosexualty is NOT unnatural. Religion uis unnatural/

Oh and BTW, we won't even be ABLE to do gene therpy untill we get back on stim cell research, nad gene research.

[Amit]

My father had 7 brothers and none of them are gay.

Interesting.

India \m/

[Herbert]

*groans*
Not another one.

This thread will just consist of the homphobes vs gays again with the odd person making a post on topic that everyone will ignore and carry on arguing.

After a while the arguing will cease and we will reach the same conclusion that we do with every thread:

IT'S A BIT OF BOTH

/thread

[EinzingerIsGod]

Dut homosexualty is not a desise, no more then hetrosexualty. That is very close to something Hitler would of said, because he tried a very similar thing.

Why can't we be happy with what people are. Homosexualty is NOT unnatural. Religion uis unnatural/

Oh and BTW, we won't even be ABLE to do gene therpy untill we get back on stim cell research, nad gene research.

Please proofread... (And I think he was being sarcastic)

After doing alot of reading and discussing it with people I've come to the conclusion in my own mind that it is most likely mostly genetic. I have talked with a few friends of mine who happen to be gay and they say that it's not that they want to be, although they are perfectly happy with being gay, but it's just who they are.

[kaos]

True, and Im the odd person making the little statements that everyone will ignore. Okay. And its not always Homophobics Vrs. Gays. Oddly we had this debate in school and alot of Striaghts were siding with the Gays and Bi's.

[Amit]

ffs guys it's a bit of both

[Herbert]

I mean that in a general sense, you get one or two extreme homophobes, one or two gays, and the straight people that go either way.

[Against Miik!]

I don't think its genetic. Think about all the girls you see that will get all over another girl just to get attention or just to have fun. Now they may not be an actual lesbian, but chances are they don't hate it, and they definitely aren't grossed out by it. It's just a choice they made.

[kaos]

Yeah, Its kinda funny. Usually the extreme homophobes have no idea what there doing.

But homosexualty and Bisexualty are not choices. You cannot chancge your sexual orentation. Sure you can act like your not gay, or straight, or whatever. But your what you are, no ammount of god, or religion, or therpy will change that, atleast for your sexualty.

[lfantwister]

What about those ex-gays? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay

[Herbert]

I don't think its genetic. Think about all the girls you see that will get all over another girl just to get attention or just to have fun. Now they may not be an actual lesbian, but chances are they don't hate it, and they definitely aren't grossed out by it. It's just a choice they made.
It may be a choice they made... but they do it just for kicks. It's just an action, with no attraction or feelings behind it. They are not naturally attracted to girls, and would never in a million years ever think of dating another girl or anything like that- it's just an action.

Funny, we were having this conversation this morning.

[kaos]

What about those ex-gays? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay

There lying to the mselves. They can be tricked into thinking there striaght, butthere still gay or bi, they've just repressed it and lied themselves into think there not.

[mcmurray]

You cannot chancge your sexual orentation.
Yes you can. I know someone who has.

[kaos]

Yes you can. I know someone who has.

Can they prove it? You cannot prove your sexual orentation to anyone but your self. You can tell everyone you know you went from gay to straight, but it can still just be a lie. Your just bull****ting your self when you try to change your sexual orintation.

[asdf]

What about those ex-gays? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay
If you read the artical, it's more like they are non practicing gays rather than "ex-gays." The artical states that people who claim to be "ex-gay" still feel homosexual feelings, but are celibate.

[mcmurray]

Can they prove it? You cannot prove your sexual orentation to anyone but your self. You can tell everyone you know you went from gay to straight, but it can still just be a lie. Your just bull****ting your self when you try to change your sexual orintation.
They went from straight to gay. Can you prove that they're lying? No, you can't. You can't tell what's going on in their mind. Leave it alone, you can't win this arguement.

[Samuel]

(And I think he was being sarcastic)


Winar.

Anyway, I think I'll stick with the standard explanation for most psychological phenomena. There's no cut and dried line between nature and nurture, and most issues have triggers in both.

[thedeadwalk!]

There's another experiment done on identical twins which found ~50% chance of one twin being gay if the other was.

I like this thread's article's thesis about the womb changing the males. The female body has a natural spermicide for right after the act, so why not a little defense in utero? And maybe this is why 1 in every 100 people deviate from the standard male/female genes, at least for the guys in the statistic.

[Herbert]

Yes you can. I know someone who has.
Well then they are lying.

[kaos]

Even if you cannot prove there lying, you still cannot prove there telling the truth. mcmurry, you can't win either. Because your jus using my argument reversed, and that won't work because you ran into the same wall you tried to run me into. You cannot prove that there telling the truth, or that there lying. But science has proven that there is "SOMETHING" that causes homosexualaty andit cannot be changed.

[neal_672]

ffs guys it's a bit of both

Atman ftw!

[PerpetualBurn]

Behaviour in animals is both innate and learned. It could be either or, much more likely, both.

The important thing is that it is NOT a "choice". Nobody sits and consciously chooses to be straight or gay, and since both parties in an adult relationship are informed and consenting, gay people should not be discriminated against.

Sadly, some people a f*cking stupid.

[Danger Bird]

You don't choose to be gay, and it's not genetic. It's a result of the shaping of your subconcious mind as a child.

[ihatemybass]

I too have always thought that being gay was genetic. For men of course.

[kaos]

I too have always thought that being gay was genetic. For men of course.
Then what is it for wemon?

[Saitoku]

It's a bit of nature, a bit of nurture.

Genetics determine potential, environment determines to what extent you live out that potential. It's just like intelligence. Let's pretend you're born with a genetic potential to have an IQ anywhere between 75 and 138. But, your parents never read to you, and force you to drink paint thinner for their entertainment. So, your IQ will probably be in the lower portion of that field. (Maybe lower due to the paint thinner.) By contrast, if your parents encourage you in school and nurture your intellect, you could wind up being very intelligent indeed, and with the very same genes.

Same thing goes with homosexuality. Genetics determine potential, environment determines outcome. It's not a choice for the individual, I think, but there are things that can be done to influence it.

[RNR]

Then what is it for wemon?

Fun?

Man, god is cool. He makes people gay so that he can send them to hell. That's so cut-throat.

[kaos]

Fun?

Man, god is cool. He makes people gay so that he can send them to hell. That's so cut-throat.

No, e makes people like YOU so the gay people can laugh while there in heavan and your beforced to do lapdances for satan.

[RNR]

No, e makes people like YOU so the gay people can laugh while there in heavan and your beforced to do lapdances for satan.

I know some rednecks who would call you stupid for many reasons. And they would be right to do so.

[kaos]

If you mean I didn't notic the scarscam, I did. I just make the statement anyway. I'm not good at spelling either.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I always believed it was genetic, but this article is so hypothetical it doesn't really prove it.


And for those who say it's a bit of both, I think you're either born gay or you're not. How much you "let it out" or suppress it is what depends on nurture and your own personality.

[ChickenStu]

Hahahaha, this is fantastic.

Are their big and little gay alleles? Gg GG?

Is it because gay people are procreating in secret, gay men and lesbian women, (not liking it of course) to create a bunch of genetically gay babies?

[Reaganista]

this of course has nothing to do with genetics

and it's also only a hypothetis

[Knifeboy]

Hahahaha, this is fantastic.

Are their big and little gay alleles? Gg GG?

Is it because gay people are procreating in secret, gay men and lesbian women, (not liking it of course) to create a bunch of genetically gay babies?

Did you even read the article?

[RockAndRoll]

this of course has nothing to do with genetics

:lol: I like how it took three pages for someone to actually realise this. (or point it out anyways)

[coheneran]

Checkit:

http://www.jonahweb.org/cms/e/

Like 'em or hate 'em, you can't deny one thing: The Jews are the best abbreviators on Earth.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Hahahaha, this is fantastic.

Are their big and little gay alleles? Gg GG?

Is it because gay people are procreating in secret, gay men and lesbian women, (not liking it of course) to create a bunch of genetically gay babies?

Genetic doesn't have to mean there's an allele for it. It just means that there's some sort of mutation that happens somewhere along the development process. It could also be a genetic marker.

There are plenty of diseases that cause people to be born infertile, but it doesn't mean that they're only still around because infertiles are off having babies.

[Baz Turd]

Hahahaha, this is fantastic.

Are their big and little gay alleles? Gg GG?

Is it because gay people are procreating in secret, gay men and lesbian women, (not liking it of course) to create a bunch of genetically gay babies?
You are stupid. Please leave.

It's a bit of nature, a bit of nurture.

Genetics determine potential, environment determines to what extent you live out that potential. It's just like intelligence. Let's pretend you're born with a genetic potential to have an IQ anywhere between 75 and 138. But, your parents never read to you, and force you to drink paint thinner for their entertainment. So, your IQ will probably be in the lower portion of that field. (Maybe lower due to the paint thinner.) By contrast, if your parents encourage you in school and nurture your intellect, you could wind up being very intelligent indeed, and with the very same genes.

Same thing goes with homosexuality. Genetics determine potential, environment determines outcome. It's not a choice for the individual, I think, but there are things that can be done to influence it.
You know what? I think you're right :thumb:

[PerpetualBurn]

Hahahaha, this is fantastic.

Are their big and little gay alleles? Gg GG?

Is it because gay people are procreating in secret, gay men and lesbian women, (not liking it of course) to create a bunch of genetically gay babies?

As all good biologists know, all traits are coded for by precisely one gene. Good work.

[ihatemybass]

I think it's genetic. How do you explain the *extra feminine* gay men? Do you think one day they just started being that way? It's there from the start.

[PerpetualBurn]

Godammit that's just not a good argument.

[ihatemybass]

Godammit that's just not a good argument.
I know. It really isn't an aurgument. It's more of a question.

[Amit]

It's a terrible question too.

[kaos]

I think it's genetic. How do you explain the *extra feminine* gay men? Do you think one day they just started being that way? It's there from the start.

And how do you explaine the ones that arn't? (Like me, even though Im bi.)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

How do you explain that not every straight man is a macho pimp who hits on every girl he meets? It's the same type of question.

There's a natural degree of variation in any type of person.

[coheneran]

I think it's very important not to discuss this subject, because if anybody ever reaches a definitive conclusion, someone is going to do something stupid like try to cure it. That'll be sad.

[PerpetualBurn]

Discovering more about the human condition and increasing the choices that are available to us is never a bad thing. And to avoid discussing anything is bad.

[Sun Ray™]

My uncle has 11 brothers including himself, and 3/11 are gay.

Well, statistically, about that many are bound to be anyway.

[Knifeboy]

Nah.. Statisticly one out of 15 are gay.. or something like that

[Sun Ray™]

Oh, well.

That still means that there's a medium-good chance of at least one of them being.

Maybe it's just his family.

[Dried Muffin Remnants]

I believe the brother thing.

[Mr. Ron]

I think it's both. Genetic and social. But 95% genetic.


(pulls random statistic out of butt)

[Dried Muffin Remnants]

I think it's very important not to discuss this subject, because if anybody ever reaches a definitive conclusion, someone is going to do something stupid like try to cure it. That'll be sad.

I agree. In the case of most subjects, it's healthy to discuss topics to hear all sides, but in this case it could just perpetuate homophobia. Being gay isn't a threat to us, so why even discuss this?

[coheneran]

I agree. In the case of most subjects, it's healthy to discuss topics to hear all sides, but in this case it could just perpetuate homophobia. Being gay isn't a threat to us, so why even discuss this?

Because it's FUN to poke sleeping bears.

I changed my mind now, I think not discussing it is very impractical. What we should do is castrate all the homophobes so their dirty genes don't pollute the human gene pool.

"I don't have sex, and there will be no sequel
Because heterosexual relationships are inherently unequal.
I'll just keep on moshing, to Anti-Flag and Crass,
Until there are no differences in gender, race or class.
All you other breeders you just haven't got a clue,
I'm a better anarchist than you!"

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think it's very important not to discuss this subject, because if anybody ever reaches a definitive conclusion, someone is going to do something stupid like try to cure it. That'll be sad.

Fortunately, those people will be soundly ignored :).


It's sort of like saying we shouldn't let women have ultrasounds because people from certain cultures will try to have abortions if they learn they're having a girl.

[sketchyjoe]

I read an article the other day suggesting that increasing levels of homosexuality were nature's method of population control.

[kaiser]

homosexuality is gay

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I read an article the other day suggesting that increasing levels of homosexuality were nature's method of population control.

If you look at other animals, most of the time the same couple of males mate with all the females. Unless one of the alpha males of a tribe was gay (in which case he wouldn't fight for females), being gay wouldn't do squat for population control.


It probably has something to do with needing less-aggressive males to fulfill a role. Maybe taking care of children or sticking around during hunting trips to help/defend the women.

[coheneran]

homosexuality is gay

You have no idea how much we hear that in the punk forum. They're always:

Homophobia is ghey.
Homos are ghey.
Against Me! are ghey.
Anti-Flag are ghey.
Nick is ghey.
Semen-slurpers are ghey.

[coheneran]

If you look at other animals, most of the time the same couple of males mate with all the females. Unless one of the alpha males of a tribe was gay (in which case he wouldn't fight for females), being gay wouldn't do squat for population control.

But how many times has it happened when a certain species' over-population was killing the planet?

[kaiser]

punk is gay too

[Futue te Ipsum]

Semen-slurpersRofl.

[ChickenStu]

I changed my mind now, I think not discussing it is very impractical. What we should do is castrate all the homophobes so their dirty genes don't pollute the human gene pool.



So we are supposed to be intolerant of those who are intolerant of something?

[coheneran]

It's better than being intolerant of people who are tolerant. But I was joking anyway.

[Baz Turd]

I think it's very important not to discuss this subject, because if anybody ever reaches a definitive conclusion, someone is going to do something stupid like try to cure it. That'll be sad.
Yeah. The closer humans come to finding out why stuff happens, the more they try to control it.

[RockAndRoll]

No seriously that's a terrible idea. Limiting ourknowledge is not a good thing.

[Baz Turd]

Why?

[RockAndRoll]

Because the facts are never wrong. Having more knowledge helps us to form better opinions, helps us understand the world better, helps us make progress etc...

There's no use in standing in the way of knowledge.

[Baz Turd]

Because the facts are never wrong. Having more knowledge helps us to form better opinions, helps us understand the world better, helps us make progress etc...

There's no use in standing in the way of knowledge.
So you'd say that our world, earth, has just got better and better over the years as we've learned more about it?

I disagree.

We learn about things so we can control it. Ignorance is bliss.

[RockAndRoll]

So you'd say that our world, earth, has just got better and better over the years as we've learned more about it?

I disagree.

We learn about things so we can control it. Ignorance is bliss.
Really you disagree?

So you prefered it when?
I hate to break it to you but I think you've got a pretty distorted view of history if you think that.

I guess you must of thought it was great in the dark ages though, when people were being killed for being heretics, when the crusades were going on, oh and feudal systems, man were those times sweet! Ya, back when there was no literacy and there was a tyrranical monopoly on knowledge life sure was great.

[Dried Muffin Remnants]

Because the facts are never wrong. Having more knowledge helps us to form better opinions, helps us understand the world better, helps us make progress etc...

There's no use in standing in the way of knowledge.

99% of the time, I would agree with you. But honestly, who cares what make gay people gay? It doesn't matter. Especially when the truth could really hurt.

[Baz Turd]

Really you disagree?

So you prefered it when?
I hate to break it to you but I think you've got a pretty distorted view of history if you think that.

I guess you must of thought it was great in the dark ages though, when people were being killed for being heretics, when the crusades were going on, oh and feudal systems, man were those times sweet! Ya, back when there was no literacy and there was a tyrranical monopoly on knowledge life sure was great.
But the things we can do these days, the stuff we are capable.... some of it is just not morally right (IMO). Like someone said before, if we find the root of homosexuality, then there will be people there that will try to cure it.

[RockAndRoll]

99% of the time, I would agree with you. But honestly, who cares what make gay people gay? It doesn't matter.
I don't think it's any less important than many other things we've been studying.

But the things we can do these days, the stuff we are capable.... some of it is just not morally right (IMO). Like someone said before, if we find the root of homosexuality, then there will be people there that will try to cure it.
We're capable of doing stuff with our own two hands that isn't morally right.

[Baz Turd]

I don't think it's any less important than many other things we've been studying.


We're capable of doing stuff with our own two hands that isn't morally right.
We wouldn't be able to do it without knowledge of how to do it though.

[RockAndRoll]

We wouldn't be able to do it without knowledge of how to do it though.
So you propose what? That we become stupid to the point of being in a vegetable state?

[Baz Turd]

So you propose what? That we become stupid to the point of being in a vegetable state?
Hey hey calm down. But you have to admit- the world would be a much happier place if we were all as stupid as vegetables.

[RockAndRoll]

Hey hey calm down. But you have to admit- the world would be a much happier place if we were all as stupid as vegetables.
I'm actually completely calm, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Nor would we be happier if we were all as stupid as vegetables. In fact we'd be dead, not happy.

[Baz Turd]

I'm actually completely calm, I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Nor would we be happier if we were all as stupid as vegetables. In fact we'd be dead, not happy.
There was an angry tone in your post.

Vegetables are not dead. The more we learn, the more we control. The world would be better if we didn't know how to make nukes right?

Knowledge leads to power. The lust for power leads to conflict. The world would be happier and the organisms in it would be happier if we didn't know some of the stuff that we know.

[RockAndRoll]

There was an angry tone in your post.
Nope

Vegetables are not dead.
Vegetables however do not have brains, are neither happy nor sad and reproduce quite effectively in their state. Humans on the other hand would certainly be extinct were it not for our intelligence.


The more we learn, the more we control. The world would be better if we didn't know how to make nukes right?
Honestly probably not really. Nukes have only so far been used in one instance, and while some people debate it many people believe the use of Nukes actually saved lives. As has equally been pointed out in that same war more devestation was done through other means than was done through nukes. Furthermore without that knowledge we would not understand how to create nuclear power, we would have far less grasp on chemistry and physics, and would never have made the progress we have today.

Is it unfortunate and deeply saddening that some wish to use our knowledge to hurt and kill others? Yes. Is the knowledge which led to the incention of nukes actually overall hurtful to humanity? No.

Knowledge leads to power. The lust for power leads to conflict. The world would be happier and the organisms in it would be happier if we didn't know some of the stuff that we know.
Why is power such a bad thing? Look at all the great things we've done.
What knowledge would we be happier without? The same knowledge that can be used against us is being used to much greater effect for us. I think if you actually take a look at history you'll realise how ridiculous it is to pretend that knowledge is actually harmful to us.

[halfdeadhippo]

From what I've seen/read, the human race has been hateful, hurtful, and powerhungry all throughout history, regardless of how much knowledge it had at the time.

[RockAndRoll]

From what I've seen/read, the human race has been hateful, hurtful, and powerhungry all throughout history, regardless of how much knowledge it had at the time.
It certainly isn't true that a lack of knowledge made people any more peaceful or happy.

[halfdeadhippo]

It certainly isn't true that a lack of knowledge made people any more peaceful or happy.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. :)

[RockAndRoll]

Indeed :thumb:

[Anti-Prefix]

I believe people that are homosexual are born that way, however, environmental influence is very possible. I have a theory that it is all just a scale of bisexuality, some people are more than others in either direction with either gender.

[Baz Turd]

Power is not bad. It's the lust for power that is bad.

Stupid people are not happier that intelligent people and intelligent people are not happier than stupid people. In this situation however, I believe that if we learn where homosexuality comes from, people will try to prevent it. And that is wrong.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think the world would be a better place if we didn't want to be all-knowning, and you think differently.

/argument

[RockAndRoll]

I don't know why you would chose to stop arguing now. I can't force you to continue the discussion if you really don't want to but I see no reason why it shouldn't continue, afterall that is what this forum is for.

[Baz Turd]

No I mean the end of my argument :p Otherwise I would have said /thread.

[RockAndRoll]

So, did I.... :lol:

[Baz Turd]

Eh? Oh I'm confused.

I just find that when I argue in here I spiral off and get mad at people. So I like to stop myself.

[halfdeadhippo]

I'd say that letting these people think that they can try to "cure" homosexuality is probably better than letting them think that it's a choice and that it's therefore ok to discriminate against homosexuals.

edit: agree/disagree?

[Baz Turd]

I'm not sure I follow :-/

[Joey Hoser]

I'd say that letting these people think that they can try to "cure" homosexuality is probably better than letting them think that it's a choice and that it's therefore ok to discriminate against homosexuals.

edit: agree/disagree?


They will discriminate just the same, just the motives will change.

[CRONITOR]

I've always beleived that being gay was nothing more than a life choice

[Steerpike]

In this situation however, I believe that if we learn where homosexuality comes from, people will try to prevent it. And that is wrong.

They're trying to "cure" it now, and they're a joke among everyone but the religious right. There's always someone who is going to abuse knowledge, but we can't cut off our own scientific advancement as some sort of hokey hypothetical protection system. It's the intellectual equivalent of expelling elementary school children who play James Bond on the playground because they might hypothetically be the next Columbine wackos.

Anyway, this hypothesis is rather intriguing. I'm curious to see what the research shows in the near future.

[Baz Turd]

Well obviously they are already trying to 'cure' it, but if they learn where homosexuality stems from- then they might be ABLE to 'cure' it.

I've always beleived that being gay was nothing more than a life choice
No- it's not a choice.

[PerpetualBurn]

I've always beleived that being gay was nothing more than a life choice

The period of time for which you've been an idiot adds no strength to the notion.

[coheneran]

I've always beleived that being gay was nothing more than a life choice

It's not a choice because the attraction to men is just there, it is not something a person suddenly decides on.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's monumentally stupid. I can't believe anyone thinks that they could just get up one morning and decide to be sexually attracted to men rather than women.

[Steerpike]

Well obviously they are already trying to 'cure' it, but if they learn where homosexuality stems from- then they might be ABLE to 'cure' it.

I stand by my previous analogy. You're using paranoia to justify cutting off the progress of science. By your own logic, we should hault all research in the development of metalurgy and rocketry, because someone will use those discoveries to make better missiles, which they will use ot hurt innocent people.

You can't stop insane people from doing bad things with the very things we've discovered through science. We can however fight back when they try.

Right now, many of the "psychotherapists" who claim to be able to de-gay-ify homosexual men have actually been kicked out of academic circles and are operating through loopholes in the system.

If the biological root of homosexuality was discovered, any person claiming to offer a medicinal cure for homosexuality would be cast out of all professional and academic associations and in many cases would have their licenses revoked. The Christian Right would of course sponsor them, but no self-respecting gay man would go anywhere near one of these psychopaths.

The gay community is not stupid. The only ones who even attempted to go through anti-homo therapy are mentally unstable and terrified of their own desires because of an exceptionally vocal portion of society that hates and discriminates against them.

I do not know of any self-respecting gay man who would stand for such a "cure." And when you get people angry enough, you can put down almost anything.

[PerpetualBurn]

If we found a way to make gay people straight without harming the individual I don't see why it would be a bad thing. It would make homsexuality a choice. Freedom of choice is a good thing.

[Steerpike]

If we found a way to make gay people straight without harming the individual I don't see why it would be a bad thing. It would make homsexuality a choice. Freedom of choice is a good thing.

It would probably be one of the most uncommon procedures in the world, if you think about it.

There would also have to legislation saying that this is not something a parent or guardian can decide to do to their child. If such a cure is found, there would need to be steps taken to minimize abuse by selfish individuals, but the same can be said of most new technology.

Abuse of such a discovery is inevitable, but we can keep it to a minimum and deal out justice to those who seek unscrupulous ends with it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Abuse of anything is inevitable. The choice it would provide to consenting adults is a good thing.

[Steerpike]

Here's another thing I wish I'd thought of before.

It's highly unlikely the right wing nuts who oppose homosexuality the loudest would ever try to develop a "cure" for gays. Why? Because that would be playing God. It would venture into the realm of genetic science and genetic engineering, a subject that they are more terrified of than their own god.

[RockAndRoll]

The period of time for which you've been an idiot adds no strength to the notion.
:lol: that actually made me laugh.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Maybe I'm a bit confused but what is homosexuality?

I mean if it's about who you are attracted to then...? People find certain features attractive in people, whether it be man or woman.

Then if it's love...then well it's a choice because you do have a choice in who you love.

[RockAndRoll]

Being homosexual is finding members of the same gender sexually attractive.

[Baz Turd]

I stand by my previous analogy. You're using paranoia to justify cutting off the progress of science. By your own logic, we should hault all research in the development of metalurgy and rocketry, because someone will use those discoveries to make better missiles, which they will use ot hurt innocent people.

You can't stop insane people from doing bad things with the very things we've discovered through science. We can however fight back when they try.

Right now, many of the "psychotherapists" who claim to be able to de-gay-ify homosexual men have actually been kicked out of academic circles and are operating through loopholes in the system.

If the biological root of homosexuality was discovered, any person claiming to offer a medicinal cure for homosexuality would be cast out of all professional and academic associations and in many cases would have their licenses revoked. The Christian Right would of course sponsor them, but no self-respecting gay man would go anywhere near one of these psychopaths.

The gay community is not stupid. The only ones who even attempted to go through anti-homo therapy are mentally unstable and terrified of their own desires because of an exceptionally vocal portion of society that hates and discriminates against them.

I do not know of any self-respecting gay man who would stand for such a "cure." And when you get people angry enough, you can put down almost anything.
Yeah I guess you're right- I'm just thinking of the extreme. Sometimes I think some things are better left alone. Thinking realistically, there is no real problem finding the roots of homosexuality- buit I believe it doesn't need to be found. But that's just my opinion.

If we found a way to make gay people straight without harming the individual I don't see why it would be a bad thing. It would make homsexuality a choice. Freedom of choice is a good thing.
This argument went on for pages and pages last time. I disagree with you and that's all I'm saying.

Maybe I'm a bit confused but what is homosexuality?

I mean if it's about who you are attracted to then...? People find certain features attractive in people, whether it be man or woman.

Then if it's love...then well it's a choice because you do have a choice in who you love.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Well you don't tend to choose who you fall in love with. You don't choose to be gay and you don't choose to be straight. There's choice to a point- but you don't choose what gender. It's just instinct. No one wakes up and thinks 'Hey, I feel like being gay today'.

[WhoDidTheElf]

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Well you don't tend to choose who you fall in love with. You don't choose to be gay and you don't choose to be straight. There's choice to a point- but you don't choose what gender. It's just instinct. No one wakes up and thinks 'Hey, I feel like being gay today'.

You'd be supprised.

But anyways, my question is why chose men over women? Is it their looks? Their personality? The fact they have a penis?

If it's their looks, then well...as stated earlier in this thread, were all bi just to different degrees. I mean I would personally screw a couple guys just cause I think they look hawt. Make me gay?

If it's personality then you do have some choice.

I mean gays just do chose to be gay cause they wanna **** some one with a penis right?

[Otherside]

You'd be supprised.

But anyways, my question is why chose men over women? Is it their looks? Their personality? The fact they have a penis?

If it's their looks, then well...as stated earlier in this thread, were all bi just to different degrees. I mean I would personally screw a couple guys just cause I think they look hawt. Make me gay?

If it's personality then you do have some choice.

I mean gays just do chose to be gay cause they wanna **** some one with a penis right?

I think it has to do with the gay in question not being able to get a hard-on from women but only from men.

[Steerpike]

You'd be supprised.

But anyways, my question is why chose men over women? Is it their looks? Their personality? The fact they have a penis?

If it's their looks, then well...as stated earlier in this thread, were all bi just to different degrees. I mean I would personally screw a couple guys just cause I think they look hawt. Make me gay?

If it's personality then you do have some choice.

I mean gays just do chose to be gay cause they wanna **** some one with a penis right?

These are the sort of questions a small child would ask.

Your attraction cues are not a choice. They're programmed into you by evolution. You don't look at attractive women and decide to be attracted to them. You either find them attractive or you don't. It's not a matter of choice.

[Saitoku]

I've always beleived that being gay was nothing more than a life choice
Which is why shock therapy worked so well, and continues to work (in China), at curing homosexuality.

"We'll just burn the gay out of you!"

Wait, that sounds familiar...

[WhoDidTheElf]

These are the sort of questions a small child would ask.

Your attraction cues are not a choice. They're programmed into you by evolution. You don't look at attractive women and decide to be attracted to them. You either find them attractive or you don't. It's not a matter of choice.


I don't believe I ever said there was a choice in who you thought was attractive look wise...

[Steerpike]

I don't believe I ever said there was a choice in who you thought was attractive look wise...

You honestly believe attraction is based only on looks? That's very naive.

[coheneran]

Physical attraction is based, to my knowledge, on looks and pheremones.

[Steerpike]

Physical attraction is based, to my knowledge, on looks and pheremones.

Will you deny that attraction, not just physical but overall, is not a choice we human have control over?

[Linkinbassist]

This would make sense...I always had a feeling that Sexuality was genetic.

[coheneran]

Of course we have no choice. I can't choose who gives me a stiffy, and I can't choose who I fall in love with. Big whoop.

[Steerpike]

Of course we have no choice. I can't choose who gives me a stiffy, and I can't choose who I fall in love with. Big whoop.

Just wanted to be clear on what your stance was.

[WhoDidTheElf]

You honestly believe attraction is based only on looks? That's very naive.


No, I don't. But that's not quite the point either.

I'm asking what is gay, the physical or the emotional attraction?

[I Am a Hat]

No, I don't. But that's not quite the point either.

I'm asking what is gay, the physical or the emotional attraction?
you know how some guys fall in love with girls? and they marry them and want to spend their lives with them?


being gay is when a dude feels that way about another dude.

its not that complicated.

[Steerpike]

No, I don't. But that's not quite the point either.

I'm asking what is gay, the physical or the emotional attraction?

Is there any particular reason it can't be both? It's not a complicated issue. Why must it be one or other, and why must one be a choice and the other not?

[RockAndRoll]

Homosexual means being sexually attracted to the same sex.

As fate would have it we don't generally settle down or marry people we're not sexually attracted to though. It's not that tough.